Arizona State Airports System Plan 2008 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE: AIR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM VISION, GOALS, AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1-1 STUDY OVERVIEW........................................................................................................................ 1-1 Study Process ........................................................................................................................... 1-2 Project Advisory Committee..................................................................................................... 1-3 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES ................................................................................................. 1-4 National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS)............................................................. 1-4 State Planning – SASP, CASPP, and SANS ............................................................................. 1-5 Special Studies......................................................................................................................... 1-6 Airport Small Community Economic Development & Transportation Program (ASCET)... 1-6 Rural Air Service Study – 1999 and 2006 .......................................................................... 1-7 Arizona Airport Pavement Management System ................................................................ 1-7 The Economic Impact of Aviation in Arizona ....................................................................... 1-8 Automatic Weather Observation System (AWOS) Network Study...................................... 1-8 Governor’s Advisory Council on Aviation Final Report ........................................................ 1-8 Regional Airports System Plans (RASP) .................................................................................. 1-9 Pima Association of Governments (PAG)............................................................................. 1-9 Maricopa Association of Governments..............................................................................1-10 ADOT AERONAUTICS DIVISION DUTIES ....................................................................................1-13 EXISTING AIRPORT SYSTEM ORGANIZATION ...........................................................................1-14 IDENTIFICATION OF AVIATION ISSUES......................................................................................1-17 ACA ..........................................................................................................................................1-17 Land Use..............................................................................................................................1-17 Capacity ...............................................................................................................................1-17 Funding Needs ....................................................................................................................1-18 National Issues.......................................................................................................................1-18 Fuel Prices ...........................................................................................................................1-18 Airline Bankruptcies, Mergers, and Acquisitions ..............................................................1-18 Loss of Airports ...................................................................................................................1-19 Fees .....................................................................................................................................1-19 New Technology ..................................................................................................................1-19 Maintaining Airport Pavements..........................................................................................1-20 Sustainability.......................................................................................................................1-20 State Airport Issues................................................................................................................1-20 Regional Airport Issues ..........................................................................................................1-21 ESTABLISMENT OF SYSTEM VISION, GOALS & PERFORMANCE MEASURES ........................1-21 System Plan Vision.................................................................................................................1-21 System Plan Goals & Goal Categories ..................................................................................1-22 System Plan Performance Measures....................................................................................1-22 SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................1-24 i 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER TWO: INVENTORY OF CURRENT POLICY INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 2-1 REVIEW OF CURRENT POLICIES ................................................................................................. 2-1 Arizona Revised Statures Title 20 – Chapter 25 Aviation ..................................................... 2-1 Arizona State Transportation Board Aviation Policies............................................................ 2-5 Five-Year Airport Capital Improvement Program Guidelines ................................................. 2-9 IMPACT OF POLICIES .................................................................................................................2-10 ARS – Title 28, Chapter 25....................................................................................................2-10 Article 1, 28-8202, State aviation fund; report.................................................................2-10 Article 1, 28-8205, Construction of new airports; definitions..........................................2-11 Article 6, 28-8413, Acceptance by state, cities, towns or counties of federal or other aid ........................................................................................................................................2-11 Article 7, 28-8485, Airport influence areas; notice ..........................................................2-11 Arizona STB Aviation Policies ................................................................................................2-12 Five-Year ACIP Guidelines......................................................................................................2-13 SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................2-13 CHAPTER THREE: IDENTIFICATION OF AVIATION/AIRPORT ASSETS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 3-1 DATA COLLECTION METHODS..................................................................................................... 3-1 Native American Airport Review .............................................................................................. 3-4 Inventoried Airports Removed from Further SASP Analysis .................................................. 3-4 SASP Airports............................................................................................................................ 3-5 EXISTING AIRSIDE FACILITIES..................................................................................................... 3-7 Runway Summary .................................................................................................................... 3-7 Airport Reference Code Summary........................................................................................... 3-7 Taxiway Summary..................................................................................................................... 3-9 Visual Aids Summary................................................................................................................ 3-9 EXISTING LANDSIDE FACILITIES ...............................................................................................3-14 Aircraft Parking/Storage Summary .......................................................................................3-14 Fuel Summary ........................................................................................................................3-14 Terminal Summary .................................................................................................................3-14 Existing Services.....................................................................................................................3-18 AIRPORT ACTIVITY......................................................................................................................3-21 Based Aircraft .........................................................................................................................3-21 Aircraft Operations .................................................................................................................3-25 AIRSPACE ...................................................................................................................................3-28 Controlled Airspace ................................................................................................................3-28 Special Use Airspace..............................................................................................................2-30 Other Arizona Airspace...........................................................................................................3-31 NAVIGATIONAL AIDS AND APPROACH TYPES...........................................................................3-34 Instrument Approach Procedures .........................................................................................3-34 Non-Precision Approaches.....................................................................................................3-36 Near-Precision Approaches ...................................................................................................3-36 Precision Approaches ............................................................................................................3-37 Approach Visibility Minimums ...............................................................................................3-37 Approach Lighting Systems ...................................................................................................3-38 Automated Weather Reporting Facilities ..............................................................................3-38 AIRPORT PLANNING DOCUMENTATION ...................................................................................3-47 ii 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – TABLE OF CONTENTS AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS .................................................................................3-50 BUSINESS SURVEY RESULTS....................................................................................................3-54 Scheduled Commercial Airline Service .................................................................................3-54 General Aviation Usage..........................................................................................................3-54 Air Cargo..................................................................................................................................3-55 Important Factors for Businesses .........................................................................................3-55 PILOT SURVEY RESULTS ...........................................................................................................3-56 Pilot Information.....................................................................................................................3-56 Aircraft.....................................................................................................................................3-58 Airports....................................................................................................................................3-58 CHAPTER FOUR: FORECASTS OF AVIATION ACTIVITY INTRODUCTION & APPROACH..................................................................................................... 4-1 TRENDS IMPACTING AVIATION ................................................................................................... 4-2 National Scheduled Commercial Service Trends ................................................................... 4-3 Jet Fuel Prices ....................................................................................................................... 4-3 High Breakeven Load Factors Reflect Low Fares and High Costs ..................................... 4-4 Airline Mergers & Acquisitions ............................................................................................. 4-5 FAA Commercial Aviation Forecasts .................................................................................... 4-6 Air Cargo Trends ....................................................................................................................... 4-7 Overview & Demand for Air Cargo Services ........................................................................ 4-7 Air Cargo Service Options ..................................................................................................... 4-7 All Cargo Carriers ............................................................................................................... 4-7 Integrated Express Operators ........................................................................................... 4-8 Scheduled Commercial Airlines ........................................................................................ 4-8 Freight Forwarders............................................................................................................. 4-8 Ad-Hoc/On-Demand Carriers ............................................................................................ 4-8 Air Cargo Industry Trends ..................................................................................................... 4-9 Global Air Cargo Trends..................................................................................................... 4-9 U.S. Air Cargo Trends.......................................................................................................4-10 Vertical Integration ..........................................................................................................4-12 Modal Shift .......................................................................................................................4-12 Declining Availability of Belly Space on Domestic Carriers ...........................................4-12 U.S. Postal Service (USPS) Mail Volume Continues to Decline.....................................4-12 National General Aviation Trends..........................................................................................4-13 FAA General Aviation Forecasts .........................................................................................4-14 Technology Trends .................................................................................................................4-16 Very Light Jets .....................................................................................................................4-16 Wide Area Augmentation System.......................................................................................4-18 STATE TRENDS IMPACTING AVIATION ......................................................................................4-20 Arizona’s Historic and Current Scheduled Commercial Service..........................................4-20 Air Tours...............................................................................................................................4-21 Scheduled Historic Service Trends ....................................................................................4-21 Scheduled Commercial Service Destinations ...................................................................4-23 Enplanement Trends at Arizona Airports...........................................................................4-25 Domestic Origin and Destination (O&D) Trends................................................................4-26 The Essential Air Service (EAS) Program in Arizona..........................................................4-27 Air Cargo in Arizona ................................................................................................................4-28 Overview of Air Cargo in Arizona ........................................................................................4-28 Facilities Supporting Scheduled and Unscheduled Air Cargo Operations ...................4-28 iii 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – TABLE OF CONTENTS General Aviation in Arizona....................................................................................................4-30 Based Aircraft......................................................................................................................4-31 General Aviation Operations ..............................................................................................4-31 Registered Aircraft in Arizona.............................................................................................4-32 Regional Demographics.........................................................................................................4-34 Population ...........................................................................................................................4-34 Population Location.........................................................................................................4-37 Employment ........................................................................................................................4-41 Unemployment.................................................................................................................4-41 Industries .........................................................................................................................4-42 Mean Household Income ...................................................................................................4-46 Travel and Tourism .............................................................................................................4-47 FORECASTS OF AVIATION ACTIVITY ..........................................................................................4-48 Commercial Service Forecasts ..............................................................................................4-48 Scheduled Commercial Service Forecasts........................................................................4-48 Forecast Assumptions .....................................................................................................4-50 Forecast Methodology .....................................................................................................4-51 Commercial Service Air Tour Projections...........................................................................4-53 SASP Commercial Service Projections Versus Other Projections ....................................4-53 Air Cargo Projections..............................................................................................................4-55 General Aviation Projections .................................................................................................4-56 Based Aircraft......................................................................................................................4-57 Low: Socioeconomic-Population Projections in 30-Minute Market Areas ...................4-57 Medium: Historic Based Aircraft Growth and Industry Trends......................................4-58 High: County Population Forecasts and Industry Trends ..............................................4-58 Preferred Based Aircraft Forecast ..................................................................................4-59 Fleet Mix ...........................................................................................................................4-64 General Aviation Operation Forecasts ...............................................................................4-66 Low: Operations Per Based Aircraft................................................................................4-66 Medium: Historic Operations Growth and Industry Trends ...........................................4-69 High: County Population Forecasts and Industry Trends ..............................................4-69 Preferred Operations Forecasts......................................................................................4-70 Local/Itinerant Split.........................................................................................................4-74 Projections of Military Activity at Civilian Airports ................................................................4-77 Operational Mix ......................................................................................................................4-78 Possible Impacts of Economic Conditions on Arizona’s Aviation Activity ...........................4-82 Operations and Based Aircraft at NPIAS and Non-NPIAS Airports ......................................4-83 System Plan Forecast vs. FAA TAF and Airport Master Plans..............................................4-84 Based Aircraft......................................................................................................................4-84 General Aviation Operations ..............................................................................................4-88 CHAPTER FIVE: ESTABLISH EXISTING AIRPORT ROLES INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 5-1 FAA’s National Airport Classifications & Previous State Airport Classification..................... 5-1 SANS 2000 Classifications...................................................................................................... 5-2 Review of Other State Classifications ..................................................................................... 5-2 AIRPORT ROLE CONSIDERATIONS.............................................................................................. 5-3 ROLE EVALUATION....................................................................................................................... 5-4 Factors in Determining Airport Roles ...................................................................................... 5-5 Development ......................................................................................................................... 5-6 iv 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – TABLE OF CONTENTS Economic Support................................................................................................................. 5-7 Safety and Security ............................................................................................................... 5-8 Environmental Sensitivity and Stewardship........................................................................ 5-8 Ranking of System Airports ..................................................................................................... 5-9 Results of Evaluation ............................................................................................................... 5-9 Airport Role Definitions ..........................................................................................................5-10 FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................5-14 FAA’s Airport Reference Code (ARC) System ........................................................................5-14 SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................5-18 CHAPTER SIX: CURRENT AIR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PERFORMANCE INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 6-1 GOAL CATEGORY: DEVELOPMENT.............................................................................................. 6-2 Percent of statewide population within a 30-minute drive time of each airport, by role category .................................................................................................................................... 6-3 Percent of communities in the state with a population greater than 5,000 within a 60-minute drive time of a Commercial Service Airport or 90-minutes of Phoenix-Sky Harbor International and Tucson International....................................................................6-12 Percent of communities in the state with a population greater than 1,000 within a 30-minute drive time of a general aviation airport ..............................................................6-14 Percent of statewide population within a 30-minute drive time of a public use airport ...6-14 Percent of statewide population within a 30-minute drive time of a NPIAS Airport ..........6-14 Percent of statewide population within a 30-minute drive time of an airport and the number of airports with an instrument approach ................................................................6-18 Percent of airports within a 30-minute drive time of an alternate airport with an Instrument Landing System (ILS) or LPV (300’, 1 mile) ......................................................6-18 Percent of licensed pilots within a 30-minute drive time of a system airport....................6-18 Percent of airports capable of supporting emergency/physician/medical supply Transport aircraft....................................................................................................................6-22 Percent of communities in the state with a population greater than 15,000 within a 30-minute drive time of a general aviation airport that can accommodate large general Aviation aircraft and has Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) capability .............6-25 Percent of airports with on-site weather reporting and percent of statewide area within 30 nautical miles of an airport with on-site weather reporting ...........................................6-27 Percent of population and area within 30 minutes of an all weather runway ...................6-29 Percent of airports meeting aviation fuel goals ...................................................................6-31 Percent of airports with 24/7 fuel .....................................................................................6-31 Percent of airports with jet fuel..........................................................................................6-31 Percent of airports meeting capacity goals ..........................................................................6-32 Percent of airports with sufficient operational capacity in 2007 ....................................6-35 Percent of airports projected to have sufficient operational capacity in 2030 ..............6-36 Number of airports experiencing delay to aircraft operations: the maximum and average delay in minutes an aircraft experiences due to airside congestion.................6-37 Percent of population and employment centers that are within a 30-minute drive time of a system airport exceeding 60 percent demand/capacity, current and 2030 ....................................................................................................................................6-37 Airports with a current master plan ......................................................................................6-39 Percent of airports with zoning and land use controls ........................................................6-42 Percent of airports with surrounding municipalities that have adopted “disclosure areas” ..................................................................................................................................6-43 v 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – TABLE OF CONTENTS Percent of airports with surrounding municipalities that have adopted controls/zoning to make land use in the airport environs compatible with airport operations and development .......................................................................................................................6-45 Percent of airports that are compliant with Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77.................................................................................................................................6-45 Percent of airports meeting local and regional planning goals...........................................6-45 Percent of airports included in regional transportation plans .........................................6-46 Percent of airports that are recognized in local comprehensive plan.............................6-46 GOAL CATEGORY: ECONOMIC SUPPORT..................................................................................6-47 Dollars of economic impact on the state from aviation.......................................................6-47 Number of major recreational areas in the state within a 30-minute drive time of a system airport.........................................................................................................................6-51 Percent of businesses with the propensity to use aviation within a 30-minute drive of a system airport.........................................................................................................................6-53 Percent of statewide population within a 30-minute drive time of a system airport meeting business user needs ...............................................................................................6-55 Number of airports having adequate utilities.......................................................................6-59 Percent of airports with a PCI of 70 or greater.....................................................................6-60 Percent of airports meeting minimum facility and service objectives ................................6-65 GOAL CATEGORY: SAFETY AND STANDARDS...........................................................................6-68 Percent of airports with clear approaches to primary runway ends ...................................6-68 Percent of airports with adopted Safety and Security Planning..........................................6-69 Percent of airports that have a written emergency response plan..................................6-69 Percent of airports with adopted Security Plans...............................................................6-70 Percent of airports with adopted Wildlife Management Plans.........................................6-70 Airports controlling Runway Protection Zones (RPZs) on their primary runways ...............6-71 Percent of airports that meet runway/taxiway separation criteria for their current ARC..........................................................................................................................................6-71 Percent of airports that have Runway Safety Areas (RSAs) on their primary runway that meet standards for their current ARC...................................................................................6-72 Percent of airports that have procedures in place to conduct self-inspections on a regular basis ...........................................................................................................................6-73 Percent of hospitals in the state within a 30-minute drive time of an airport with Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) capability, on-site weather reporting, and jet fuel availability ..................................................................................................................6-79 Percent of airports that support emergency operations......................................................6-81 Percent of airports that support search and rescue operations......................................6-83 Percent of airports that support aerial fire fighting operations .......................................6-83 GOAL CATEGORY: ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVIY AND STEWARDSHIP ..................................6-84 Percent of system airports that have Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) ...6-84 Percent of system airports supporting flight training...........................................................6-85 Percent of the statewide population within a 30-minute drive time of a system airport with a full-time flight school/flight instructor ....................................................................6-86 Percent of the statewide population within a 30-minute drive time of a system airport with a part-time flight school/flight instructor...................................................................6-86 Percent of system airports supporting Airframe and Powerplant (A&P) programs.........6-88 Percent of system airports that have aviation maintenance and repair ............................6-88 Percent of system airports that have educational programs that are affiliated with local elementary/secondary schools, community colleges, or technical/vocational schools ...6-89 SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................6-91 Change Since the SANS 2000...............................................................................................6-91 vi 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary of Other Performance Measures..........................................................................6-93 CHAPTER SEVEN: FUTURE AIR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PERFORMANCE INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 7-1 ROLE OF PRIVATE AIRPORTS ...................................................................................................... 7-2 OUTSIDE INFLUENCES ................................................................................................................ 7-3 Extensive Population Growth................................................................................................... 7-3 Major Employment Growth ...................................................................................................... 7-8 High-Technology and Aerospace Industry Growth................................................................7-11 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Activity.............................................................................7-12 Tourism ...................................................................................................................................7-13 Retirement/Seasonal Residency ..........................................................................................7-14 Major Surface Transportation Improvements ......................................................................7-14 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................7-17 GOAL CATEGORY: DEVELOPMENT............................................................................................7-18 Percent of population within a 30-minute drive time of each airport, by role category ....7-19 Planned New/Replacement Airports .................................................................................7-19 Coverage for High Growth Corridors ..................................................................................7-22 Percent of communities in the state with a population greater than 5,000 within a 60minute drive time of a commercial service airport or 90 minutes of Phoenix-Sky Harbor International and Tucson International ................................................................................7-24 Percent of communities in the state with a population greater than 1,000 within a 30minute drive time of a general aviation airport....................................................................7-26 New Airports ........................................................................................................................7-26 Percent of population within a 30-minute drive time of a public use airport.....................7-28 Percent of population within a 30-minute drive time of a NPIAS Airport............................7-28 Percent of population within a 30-minute drive time of an airport and the number of airports with an instrument approach ..................................................................................7-29 Percent of airports within a 30-minute drive time of an alternate airport with an Instrument Landing System (ILS) or LPV ..............................................................................7-31 Percent of licensed pilots within a 30-minute drive time of a system airport....................7-31 Percent of airports with on-site weather reporting and percent of statewide area within 25 nautical miles of an airport with on-site weather reporting ...........................................7-33 Percent of airports capable of supporting emergency/physician/medical transport aircraft.....................................................................................................................................7-35 Percent of communities in the state with a population greater than 15,000 within a 30minute drive time of a general aviation airport that can accommodate large general aviation aircraft and has Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) capability .............7-38 Percent of population within a 30-minute drive time of an all weather runway ................7-38 Percent of airports meeting aviation fuel goals ...................................................................7-41 Percent of airports with 24/7 fuel .....................................................................................7-41 Percent of airports with jet fuel..........................................................................................7-41 Percent of airports meeting capacity goals ..........................................................................7-41 Airports with a current (past 5 years) master plan ..............................................................7-45 Percent of airports meeting zoning and land use control goals..........................................7-46 Percent of airports with surrounding municipalities that have adopted “disclosure areas” ..................................................................................................................................7-46 Percent of airports with surrounding municipalities that have adopted controls/zoning to make land use in the airport environs compatible with airport operations and development .......................................................................................................................7-46 vii 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – TABLE OF CONTENTS Percent of airports that are compliant with Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77.................................................................................................................................7-46 Percent of airports meeting local and regional planning goals...........................................7-48 Percent of airports included in regional transportation plans .........................................7-48 Percent of airports that are recognized in local comprehensive plan.............................7-48 GOAL CATEGORY: ECONOMIC SUPPORT..................................................................................7-50 Dollars of economic impact on the state from aviation.......................................................7-50 Number of major recreational areas in the state within a 30-minute drive time of a system airport.........................................................................................................................7-50 Percent of businesses with the propensity to use aviation within a 30-minute drive of a system airport.........................................................................................................................7-50 Percent of population and area within a 30-minute drive time of a system airport meeting business user needs ...............................................................................................7-51 Number of airports having adequate utilities.......................................................................7-53 Percent of airports with a PCI of 70 or greater.....................................................................7-53 Percent of airports meeting minimum facility and service objectives ................................7-53 GOAL CATEGORY: SAFETY AND STANDARDS...........................................................................7-57 Percent of airports with clear approaches to primary runway ends ...................................7-57 Percent of Airports with Adopted Safety and Security Planning..........................................7-59 Percent of airports that have a written emergency response plan..................................7-59 Percent of airports with adopted security plans ...............................................................7-59 Percent of airports with adopted Wildlife Management Plans.........................................7-61 Airports controlling Runway Protection Zones (RPZs) on their primary runway .................7-61 Percent of airports that meet runway/taxiway separation criteria for their objective ARC..........................................................................................................................................7-62 Percent of airports that have Runway Safety Areas (RSAs) on their primary runway that meet the standards for their objective ARC .........................................................................7-63 Percent of airports that have procedures in place to conduct self-inspections on a regular basis ...........................................................................................................................7-66 Percent of hospitals in the state within a 30-minute drive time of an airport with Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) capability, on-site weather reporting, and jet fuel availability ..................................................................................................................7-66 Percent of airports that support emergency operations......................................................7-67 Percent of airports that support search and rescue operations......................................7-67 Percent of airports that support aerial fire fighting operations .......................................7-67 GOAL CATEGORY: ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY AND STEWARDSHIP ................................7-68 Percent of system airports that have Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) ...7-68 Percent of the population that are within a 30-minute drive time of a system airport with a flight school/flight instructor ......................................................................................7-68 Percent of system airports supporting Airframe and Powerplant (A&P) programs............7-69 Percent of system airports that have aviation maintenance and repair ............................7-69 Percent of system airports that have educational programs that are affiliated with local elementary/secondary schools, community colleges, or technical/vocational schools ...7-69 SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................7-70 CHAPTER EIGHT: SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT COSTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 8-1 METHODOLOGY/PROCESS ......................................................................................................... 8-1 SYSTEM PLAN COST SUMMARY BY GOAL OBJECTIVE............................................................... 8-3 System Costs by Goal Category: Development....................................................................... 8-4 viii 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – TABLE OF CONTENTS System Costs by Goal Category: Economic Support .............................................................. 8-4 System Costs by Goal Category: Safety & Standards ............................................................ 8-7 System Costs by Goal Category: Environmental Sensitivity and Stewardship ..................... 8-7 System Plan costs Summary by Goal Category ...................................................................... 8-9 SYSTEM PLAN COST SUMMARY BY AIRPORT ROLE .................................................................. 8-9 ADDITIONAL SYSTEM COSTS ....................................................................................................8-10 New Airports ...........................................................................................................................8-10 AWOS Data Center .................................................................................................................8-10 State Continuous Planning ....................................................................................................8-10 CIP AND MASTER PLAN COST SUMMARY NOT INCLUDED IN SASP DEVELOPMENT COSTS.........................................................................................................................................8-11 TOTAL FUTURE DEVELOPMENT FUNDING NEEDS...................................................................8-12 FUNDING SOURCES...................................................................................................................8-13 Federal Funding Sources .......................................................................................................8-13 Commercial Service Entitlement Funding for Arizona ......................................................8-13 State Apportionment & Non-Primary Entitlement Funding for Arizona ...........................8-14 Federal Discretionary Funding for Arizona ........................................................................8-14 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 ............................................8-15 Summary .............................................................................................................................8-15 State Funding .........................................................................................................................8-15 Federal/State/Local and State/Local Grant Programs....................................................8-17 Airport Pavement Management System (APMS)...............................................................8-17 Airport Loan Program..........................................................................................................8-17 Summary .............................................................................................................................8-18 Local Funding .........................................................................................................................8-18 General Fund Revenues .....................................................................................................8-18 Bond Issues.........................................................................................................................8-19 Airport-Generated Revenues ..............................................................................................8-19 Private Funds ......................................................................................................................8-19 Funding Summary ..................................................................................................................8-20 RETURN ON INVESTMENT.........................................................................................................8-21 Role of the Airport in Economic Development......................................................................8-22 SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................8-22 CHAPTER NINE: RECOMMENDED PLAN & POLICIES INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 9-1 SUMMARY OF SASP PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................ 9-2 FUTURE NPIAS CONSIDERATIONS.............................................................................................. 9-3 FUTURE RELIEVER CONSIDERATIONS........................................................................................ 9-4 IMPLEMENTATION OF SASP RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................... 9-5 ASM Database Coordination ................................................................................................... 9-5 Continuous Planning ................................................................................................................ 9-6 Monitoring System Performance ......................................................................................... 9-6 Special Studies ..................................................................................................................... 9-7 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................... 9-9 Arizona Revised Statues Title 28 – Chapter 25 Aviation....................................................... 9-9 Grand Canyon National Park Airport.................................................................................... 9-9 Compatible Land Use Planning ............................................................................................ 9-9 Tribal Airport Funding Eligibility..........................................................................................9-10 Arizona STB Aviation Policies ................................................................................................9-10 ix 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – TABLE OF CONTENTS Planning Guidelines ............................................................................................................9-11 Priority Rating System.........................................................................................................9-11 Resource Allocation ............................................................................................................9-12 Small Community Air Service Pilot Program......................................................................9-13 Five-Year ACIP Guidelines......................................................................................................9-13 CONSIDERATION FOR ADDITIONAL PROGRAM FUNDING .......................................................9-14 SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................9-14 APPENDIX A: AIRPORT CODE REFERENCE TABLES APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE AIRSIDE FACILITIES......................................................................................................................B-1 Airport Reference Code (ARC) .................................................................................................B-3 Runway Length .........................................................................................................................B-7 Runway Width.........................................................................................................................B-11 Primary Runway Surface........................................................................................................B-14 Taxiway....................................................................................................................................B-17 Approach.................................................................................................................................B-20 Visual Aids...............................................................................................................................B-24 Lighting ...................................................................................................................................B-27 Approach Lighting Systems ...................................................................................................B-30 LANDSIDE FACILITIES AND SERVICES......................................................................................B-32 Airport Fencing .......................................................................................................................B-32 Services ..................................................................................................................................B-36 Facilities..................................................................................................................................B-41 APPENDIX C: NPIAS CANDIDATE NPIAS AIRPORTS IN ARIZONA ..................................................................................................... C-1 NPIAS ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA ....................................................................................................... C-3 Benefit/Cost Analysis............................................................................................................... C-4 ARIZONA NPIAS-CANDIDATE AIRPORTS ..................................................................................... C-5 San Luis – Rolle Airfield ........................................................................................................... C-5 Maricopa (Proposed)................................................................................................................ C-7 Superior (Proposed) ................................................................................................................. C-8 APPENDIX D: RELIEVER AIRPORT ANALYSIS NPIAS RELIEVER CRITERIA..........................................................................................................D-1 EXISTING RELIEVERS ..................................................................................................................D-2 POSSIBLE NEW RELIEVERS ........................................................................................................D-3 Buckeye Municipal Airport .......................................................................................................D-4 Proposed Maricopa Airport ......................................................................................................D-5 GLOSSARY BIBLIOGRAPHY x 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES CHAPTER ONE: AIR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM VISION, GOALS, AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Figure 1-1: Arizona Airports System Plan Study Process .......................................................... 1-2 Figure 1-2: 2004-2012 APMS Projected Pavement Maintenance Costs ................................ 1-8 Figure 1-3: Comparison of ADOT Aeronautics Division Duties/Programs with Other Western U.S. States ...............................................................................................1-14 Figure 1-4: Primary and Secondary Airport System.................................................................1-15 Figure 1-5: Primary and Secondary Arizona Airport System ...................................................1-16 Figure 1-6: Goal Categories and Performance Measures for the 2008 Arizona State Airports System Plan..............................................................................................1-23 CHAPTER TWO: INVENTORY OF CURRENT POLICY Figure 2-1: Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 28 – Chapter 25, Aviation.................................... 2-2 CHAPTER THREE: IDENTIFICATION OF AVIATION/AIRPORT ASSETS Figure 3-1: Airports Visited During Inventory Effort................................................................... 3-2 Figure 3-2: Arizona Airports Considered in SASP Inventory Effort............................................ 3-3 Figure 3-3: Airports Removed from Further SASP Analysis ...................................................... 3-5 Figure 3-4: Airports Included in AZ SASP ................................................................................... 3-6 Figure 3-5: Arizona System Airports by Primary Runway Length and ARC Category ............... 3-8 Figure 3-6: FAA-Recognized Taxiway Types ............................................................................... 3-9 Figure 3-7: Existing Airside Facilities and Visual Aids .............................................................3-10 Figure 3-8: Existing Landside Facilities....................................................................................3-15 Figure 3-9: Aircraft Operation and Maintenance Services Available......................................3-19 Figure 3-10: Passenger Services Available..............................................................................3-20 Figure 3-11: Arizona Based Aircraft by Type, 2008.................................................................3-21 Figure 3-12: 2007 Based Aircraft ............................................................................................3-22 Figure 3-13: Aircraft Operations ...............................................................................................3-26 Figure 3-14: Arizona Airports with Class D Airspace ...............................................................3-29 Figure 3-15: National Airspace System....................................................................................3-30 Figure 3-16: Military Operations Areas within Arizona ............................................................3-31 Figure 3-17: Special Use Airspace within Arizona ...................................................................3-33 Figure 3-18: Approaches at Arizona System Airports..............................................................3-35 Figure 3-19: Navigational Aids and Approach Types...............................................................3-39 Figure 3-20: Summary of Airport Master Plans and Airport Layout Plans .............................3-47 Figure 3-21: Airport Master Plans and Airport Layout Plans ..................................................3-48 Figure 3-22: Airport Development Constraints........................................................................3-51 Figure 3-23: Airport Development Constraints at Arizona System Airports...........................3-53 Figure 3-24: Important Factors for Businesses Considering Expansion or Relocation ........3-55 Figure 3-25: Pilot Survey Respondents by Zip Code in Arizona..............................................3-57 xi 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER FOUR: FORECASTS OF AVIATION ACTIVITY Figure 4-1: Domestic Enplanements, 2000-2007 .................................................................... 4-3 Figure 4-2: Average Prices: Crude Oil vs. Jet Fuel, 1990-2008................................................ 4-4 Figure 4-3: Passenger Load Factors and Breakeven Points – Legacy Carriers, 1997-2007............................................................................................................... 4-5 Figure 4-4: U.S. Commercial Air Carriers, Historical and Forecast Domestic and International Passengers ........................................................................................ 4-6 Figure 4-5: World Air Cargo demand Changes, 2000-2007...................................................4-10 Figure 4-6: U.S. Commercial Air Carriers Cargo Demand Changes, 2000-2007 ..................4-11 Figure 4-7: Forecasts of U.S. Commercial Air Carriers Cargo Revenue Ton Miles, 2007-2025.............................................................................................................4-11 Figure 4-8: U.S. General Aviation Fleet Mix, 2007 ..................................................................4-14 Figure 4-9: Active General Aviation and Air Taxi Aircraft.........................................................4-15 Figure 4-10: U. S. Active General Aviation aircraft, Actual and Forecast ...............................4-15 Figure 4-11: Commercial and General Aviation Operations at Airports with FAA or Contract Towers, 200-2007 .................................................................................................4-16 Figure 4-12: Examples of VLJ Aircraft ......................................................................................4-17 Figure 4-13: Instrument Approach Types.................................................................................4-19 Figure 4-14: Arizona’s Commercial Service Airports by Category, 2008 ...............................4-20 Figure 4-15: Unscheduled Airlines Providing Northern Arizona Air Tours, 2007 ..................4-21 Figure 4-16: Summary of Scheduled Commercial Aviation Activity at Arizona Airports Summer 2003 vs. Summer 2008 ........................................................................4-22 Figure 4-17: Scheduled Nonstop Destinations from Arizona Airports ...................................4-23 Figure 4-18: Scheduled Nonstop Commercial Service Destinations from Arizona Airports, Summer 2008........................................................................................................4-24 Figure 4-19: Historic Commercial Service Enplanements at Arizona Airport, 1997-2007...4-26 Figure 4-20: Domestic Outbound O&D Passengers, All Arizona Airport and All U.S. Airports, 1997-2007.............................................................................................................4-27 Figure 4-21: Mainline Hub Network Serving PHX and TUS, 2007 .........................................4-29 Figure 4-22: Feeder Network – Integrated Express and All-Cargo Carriers, 2007 ...............4-30 Figure 4-23: Based Aircraft in Arizona, 1998 & 2007 ............................................................4-31 Figure 4-24: General Aviation Operations in Arizona, 1998 & 2007.....................................4-32 Figure 4-25: Registered Aircraft in Arizona by County, 2007 .................................................4-33 Figure 4-26: Registered Aircraft in the United States and Arizona by Type, 2007 ...............4-33 Figure 4-27: Historical and Projected Population, 1970 to 2030 .........................................4-35 Figure 4-28: Percent of the Population by Age Group, 2006 and 2030................................4-36 Figure 4-29: Population and Population Growth Rates by County, 2000-2030 ...................4-37 Figure 4-30: Population Density by Census Tract ...................................................................4-38 Figure 4-31: Percent of Land Area Controlled by Federal Agencies in Arizona .....................4-39 Figure 4-32: Location of Federal Lands in Arizona..................................................................4-40 Figure 4-33: Historical and Projected Employment, 1970-2030...........................................4-41 Figure 4-34: Arizona Unemployment Rate, 1997-2007 .........................................................4-42 Figure 4-35: Arizona Employment and Employment Growth Rates by Industry, 2000-2030.............................................................................................................4-43 Figure 4-36: Arizona Employment and Employment Growth Rates by Country, 2000-2030.............................................................................................................4-44 Figure 4-37: Projected Change in Employment Density, 2006-2030....................................4-45 Figure 4-38: Arizona Historic and Projected Mean Household Income, 1970-2030 ...........4-46 Figure 4-39: Mean Household Income and Mean Household Income Growth Rates 2000-2030.............................................................................................................4-47 xii 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – TABLE OF CONTENTS Figure 4-40: Monthly Departing Seats at Arizona Scheduled Commercial Service Airports, October 2006 – October 2008 .............................................................................4-49 Figure 4-41: Arizona Scheduled Commercial Service Airport Enplanements and Operations, 2007 and 2008 .....................................................................................................4-50 Figure 4-42: Enplanement Projections for Arizona’s Commercial Service Airports ..............4-52 Figure 4-43: Commercial Service Operations Projections for Arizona’s Airports ..................4-52 Figure 4-44: Enplanement Projections for Air Tour Service....................................................4-53 Figure 4-45: Commercial Operations Projections for Air Tour Service...................................4-53 Figure 4-46: Commercial Enplanement Forecasts vs. FAA TAF, Airport Master Plan, and Regional Forecasts ................................................................................................4-54 Figure 4-47: Air Cargo Tonnage Forecasts, 2007-2030.........................................................4-55 Figure 4-48: Statewide Summary of Based Aircraft at Arizona Airports, 2007-2030...........4-57 Figure 4-49: Categories of Growth in the Medium Based Aircraft Forecast..........................4-58 Figure 4-50: Categories of Growth in the High Based Aircraft Forecast ................................4-59 Figure 4-51: Comparison of SASP Based Aircraft Forecasts to the Arizona State Aviation Needs Study 2000 Forecasts ...............................................................................4-59 Figure 4-52: Individual Airport Based Aircraft Forecasts ........................................................4-61 Figure 4-53: Based Aircraft Fleet Mix at Arizona Airports, 2007............................................4-64 Figure 4-54: Statewide Fleet Mix Forecast, 2007 to 2030 ....................................................4-65 Figure 4-55: Projected Based Aircraft Fleet Mix at Arizona Airports, 2030...........................4-65 Figure 4-56: Summary of General Aviation Operations Forecasts .........................................4-66 Figure 4-57: Operations Per Based Aircraft Ratio at Arizona Airports, 2000-2030..............4-67 Figure 4-58: Categories of Growth in the Medium Operations Forecast ...............................4-69 Figure 4-59: Categories of Growth in the High Operations Forecast .....................................4-69 Figure 4-60: Comparison of SASP General Aviation Operations Forecasts to the SANS 2000 Forecasts......................................................................................................4-70 Figure 4-61: Projections of General Aviation Operations at Individual Airports, 2007-2030.............................................................................................................4-71 Figure 4-62: Local/Itinerant Split of General Aviation Operations .........................................4-75 Figure 4-63: Military Operations at Arizona Airports, 2007-2030 .........................................4-77 Figure 4-64: Operational Mix at Arizona Airports, 2007-2030...............................................4-79 Figure 4-65: Impact of Economic Conditions on Preferred Based Aircraft Projections ........4-82 Figure 4-66: Impact of Economic Conditions on Preferred General Aviation Operations Projections..............................................................................................................4-83 Figure 4-67: Forecasted Based Aircraft and General Aviation Operations at NPIAS and Non-NPIAS Airports ................................................................................................4-83 Figure 4-68: Comparison of Preferred Based Aircraft Forecast with FAA TAF and Airport Master Plans ..........................................................................................................4-85 Figure 4-69: Comparison of Preferred General Aviation Operations Forecast with FAA TAF and Airport Master Plans.......................................................................................4-89 CHAPTER FIVE: ESTABLISH EXISTING AIRPORT ROLES Figure 5-1: Role Evaluation Process .......................................................................................... 5-4 Figure 5-2: Role Evaluation – Development ............................................................................5-19 Figure 5-3: Role Evaluation – Economic Support....................................................................5-21 Figure 5-4: Role Evaluation – Safety and Security ..................................................................5-23 Figure 5-5: Role Evaluation – Environmental Sensitivity and Stewardship...........................5-25 Figure 5-6: Initial Airport Role Summary ..................................................................................5-11 Figure 5-7: Arizona Airport Roles ..............................................................................................5-13 Figure 5-8: Aircraft Classification Standards ...........................................................................5-15 xiii 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – TABLE OF CONTENTS Figure 5-9: Initial Airport Role Summary ..................................................................................5-16 CHAPTER SIX: CURRENT AIR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PERFORMANCE Figure 6-1: Percent of Statewide Population within a 30-Minute Drive Time of System Airports, by Role Category ....................................................................................... 6-3 Figure 6-2: 30-Minute Drive Times of System Airports, by Role ............................................... 6-4 Figure 6-3: 30-Minute Drive Times of Commercial Service Airports ........................................ 6-5 Figure 6-4: 30-Minute Drive Times of Reliever Airports ............................................................ 6-6 Figure 6-5: 30-Minute drive Times of GA-Community Airports ................................................. 6-7 Figure 6-6: 30-Minute Drive Times of GA-Rural Airports........................................................... 6-8 Figure 6-7: 30-Minute Drive Times of GA-Basic Airports........................................................... 6-9 Figure 6-8: Percent of Statewide Population by County Not Covered by the 30-Minute Drive Time of System Airports ...............................................................................6-10 Figure 6-9: Land Ownership Types and Percentage of State Total ........................................6-10 Figure 6-10: Land Ownership in Arizona..................................................................................6-11 Figure 6-11: Communities in the State with a Population Greater than 5,000 within a 60Minute Drive Time of a Commercial Service Airport or 90-Minute Drive Time of Phoenix Sky Harbor International and Tucson International ..............................6-13 Figure 6-12: Communities in the State with a Population greater than 1,000 within a 30Minute Drive Time of a General Aviation Airport..................................................6-15 Figure 6-13: 30-Minute Drive Times of Public Use Airports in Arizona ..................................6-16 Figure 6-14: 30-Minute Drive Times of NPIAS Airports in Arizona .........................................6-17 Figure 6-15: 30-Minute Drive Times of System Airports with an Instrument Approach .......6-19 Figure 6-16: 30-Minute Drive Times of System Airports with an ILS or LPV..........................6-20 Figure 6-17: Licensed Pilots within a 30-Minute Drive Time of System Airports ..................6-21 Figure 6-18: Percent of Airports by Role with Medical Activity ...............................................6-22 Figure 6-19: Types of Aircraft used for Medical Flights at SASP Airports ..............................6-23 Figure 6-20: Air Ambulance Operators at SASP Airports.........................................................6-23 Figure 6-21: Percent of Airports by Role Able to Support Emergency Medical Fixed Wing Aircraft ....................................................................................................................6-24 Figure 6-22: Communities in the State with a Population Greater than 15,000 within 30Minute Drive Time of a System Airport that can Accommodate Large General Aviation Aircraft and has Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) Capability ................................................................................................................6-26 Figure 6-23: Percent of Airport by Role with On-Site Weather Reporting ..............................6-27 Figure 6-24: 30-Minute Drive Times of a System Airport with On-Site Weather Reporting ................................................................................................................6-28 Figure 6-25: 30-Minute Drive Times of System Airports with an All-Weather Runway .........6-30 Figure 6-26: Percent of Airports by Role with 24/7 or Jet Fuel ..............................................6-31 Figure 6-27: Airport Operational Demand/Capacity ...............................................................6-33 Figure 6-28: Airports with Sufficient Operating Capacity, 2007.............................................6-35 Figure 6-29: Airports Operating Above 60% Demand Capacity Ratio in 1998 and 2007....6-36 Figure 6-30: Airports with Sufficient Operating Capacity, 2030.............................................6-37 Figure 6-31: Employment Centers that are within a 30-Minute Drive Time of a System Airport Exceeding 60 Percent Demand/Capacity, Current and 2030................6-38 Figure 6-32: Airports by Role with Current Master Plans and ALPs and FAA Approval Dates.......................................................................................................................6-40 Figure 6-33: Percent of Airports by Role with Current Master Plans and/or Airport Layout Plans .......................................................................................................................6-42 Figure 6-34: Percent of Airports by Role with Airport Zoning and Land Use Controls...........6-43 xiv 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – TABLE OF CONTENTS Figure 6-35: Example of an Airport Disclosure Map ...............................................................6-44 Figure 6-36: Percent of Airports by Role Included in Local Comprehensive and Regional Transportation Plans..............................................................................................6-46 Figure 6-37: Total Jobs, Payroll, and Economic Output Associated with System Airport......6-49 Figure 6-38: Comparison of Total Economic Activity at Arizona Airports, 1998 and 2002 .......................................................................................................................6-51 Figure 6-39: Recreational Areas in the State within a 30-Minute Drive Time of a System Airport .....................................................................................................................6-52 Figure 6-40: Percent of Businesses with the Propensity to Use Aviation within a 30Minute Drive Time of a System Airport .................................................................6-54 Figure 6-41: Airport Compliance to Meeting Business User Needs .......................................6-56 Figure 6-42: 30-Minute Drive Times of a System Airports Meeting Business User Needs ..6-58 Figure 6-43: Percent of Airports by Role Having Adequate Airport Utilities ...........................6-60 Figure 6-44: PCI Ratings at Individual Airports........................................................................6-62 Figure 6-45: Percent of Airports Meeting PCI Compliance and Reasons for Unavailability of Pavement Condition ..........................................................................................6-64 Figure 6-46: Summary of Facility and Service Objectives Compliance..................................6-66 Figure 6-47: Percent of Airports by Role Meeting Optimal Approach Slopes on their Primary Runways .................................................................................................................6-69 Figure 6-48: Percent of Airports by Role Having Safety and Security Planning.....................6-70 Figure 6-49: Percent of Airports by Role Having Complete Control of Both Primary Runway Protection Zones ....................................................................................................6-71 Figure 6-50: Percent of Airports by Role that Meet Runway/Taxiway Separation Criteria for their Current ARC..............................................................................................6-72 Figure 6-51: Percent of Airports by Role that Meet FAA RSA Standards ...............................6-73 Figure 6-52: Percent of Airports by Role Having Procedures for Regular Self-Inspections ..6-74 Figure 6-53: Details of RPZ, Runway/Taxiway Separation, RSA, and Self-Inspection Performance Measures .........................................................................................6-75 Figure 6-54: Hospitals in the State within 30-Minute Drive Time of a System Airport with Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) Capability, On-Site Weather Reporting, and Jet Fuel Availability .......................................................................6-80 Figure 6-55: Percent of Airports by Role Category Supporting Emergency Operations ........6-81 Figure 6-56: Percent of Airports Supporting Search and Rescue and Aerial Firefighting Operations ..............................................................................................................6-82 Figure 6-57: Percent of Airports by Role Having Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans .......................................................................................................................6-85 Figure 5-58: Percent of Airports by Role Supporting Flight Instruction and AviationRelated Education..................................................................................................6-86 Figure 6-59: 30-Minute Drive Times of System Airports with a Full-Time or Part-Time Flight School/Flight Instructor...............................................................................6-87 Figure 6-60: Percent of Airports by Role with Aviation maintenance and Repair Services ..................................................................................................................6-89 Figure 6-61: Percent of Airports by Role with Programs Affiliated with Local Educational Institutions..............................................................................................................6-90 Figure 6-62: Summary Comparison of SASP, SANS 2000 and SANS 1995 .........................6-92 Figure 6-63: Summary of Performance Measures not Included in the SANS 2000.............6-94 xv 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER SEVEN: FUTURE AIR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PERFORMANCE Figure 7-1: Population Projections and Number of Sun Corridor Airports ............................... 7-5 Figure 7-2: SASP Airports Located Within Sun Corridor Counties ............................................ 7-7 Figure 7-3: Sun Corridor Counties and Land Ownership .......................................................... 7-9 Figure 7-4: Sun Corridor Counties and Developable Land in Arizona ....................................7-10 Figure 7-5: Proposed Major Roadway Improvements .............................................................7-15 Figure 7-6: Performance Measures in the Development Goal Category ...............................7-18 Figure 7-7: Current and Target Coverage of Each Airport Role Category...............................7-19 Figure 7-8: Locations of Proposed New/Replacement Airports in Relation to Existing Airport System ........................................................................................................7-21 Figure 7-9: Forecasted Population Growth in Arizona, 2000-2050 .......................................7-23 Figure 7-10: Percent of Communities in the State with a Population Greater than 5,000 Within a 60-Minute Drive Time of a Commercial Service Airport or 90 minutes of Phoenix-Sky Harbor International and Tucson International, excluding Kingman, Page, Prescott, and Show Low.............................................................7-25 Figure 7-11: Communities in the State with a Population Greater than 1,000 within a 30Minute Drive Time of a General Aviation Airport, Additional Coverage Provided By Out-of-State Airports, and Potential Coverage by New System Airports........7-27 Figure 7-12: Airports Needing an Instrument Approach to Meet Target................................7-29 Figure 7-13: Potential Coverage of Airports Able to Support an Instrument Approach ........7-30 Figure 7-14: Potential Additional Coverage of Airports within 30 Minutes of an Alternate Airport with an ILS or LPV ......................................................................................7-32 Figure 7-15: Airports Recommended by the ADOT AWOS Network Study to Install an AWOS ......................................................................................................................7-33 Figure 7-16: Potential Additional Land Area Coverage Provided by On-Site Weather Reporting ................................................................................................................7-34 Figure 7-17: Airports Needing Projects to Ideally Support Medical Aircraft Operations .......7-36 Figure 7-18: Potential Additional Airports Capable of Supporting Emergency/Physician/ Medical Transport Aircraft .....................................................................................7-37 Figure 7-19: Airport Projects Needed to Meet the All-Weather Runway Performance Measure Target ......................................................................................................7-39 Figure 7-20: Potential Coverage of Airports with an All Weather Runway .............................7-40 Figure 7-21: Commercial Service and Reliever Airports Needing 24/7 Fuel to Meet Target......................................................................................................................7-41 Figure 7-22: SASP Airports with Capacity Concerns above the 60% Demand/Capacity Ratio, 2007 and 2030 ..........................................................................................7-43 Figure 7-23: Airports Recommended to Develop a Current Master Plan ..............................7-45 Figure 7-24: Airports Recommended to Meet Zoning and Land Use Control Performance Measures................................................................................................................7-47 Figure 7-25: Airports Recommended for Inclusion in Regional Transportation or Local Comprehensive Plans ............................................................................................7-49 Figure 7-26: Performance Measures in the Economic Support Goal Category.....................7-50 Figure 7-27: Potential Coverage Provided by Airports Meeting Business User Needs .........7-52 Figure 7-28: Airports Recommended to Improve either a Primary Runway or Average PCI Rating to at Least 70.......................................................................................7-53 Figure 7-29: Target Facility and Service Objective Compliance .............................................7-55 Figure 7-30: Performance Measures in the Safety and Standards Goal Category ...............7-57 Figure 7-31: Airports with Obstructions Listed in FAA Form 5010, Airport Master Record ....................................................................................................................7-58 Figure 7-32: Airports Recommended to Develop a Security Plan ..........................................7-60 xvi 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – TABLE OF CONTENTS Figure 7-33: Airports Recommended to Gain Full Control of Primary Runway RPZs ............7-62 Figure 7-34: RSA and Runway-Taxiway Separation Standards ..............................................7-64 Figure 7-35: Airports Recommended to Development of Self-Inspection Procedures .........7-66 Figure 7-36: Airports Recommended to Develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan .........................................................................................................................7-68 Figure 7-37: Current and Target Performance of the Arizona Airport System.......................7-70 CHAPTER EIGHT: SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT COSTS Figure 8-1: Development Goal Category Project Costs 2010-2030 ........................................ 8-5 Figure 8-2: Economic Support Goal Category Project Costs 2010-2030 ................................ 8-6 Figure 8-3: Safety and Standards Goal Category Project Costs 2010-2030........................... 8-8 Figure 8-4: Environmental Sensitivity and Stewardship Goal Category Project Costs 2010-2030............................................................................................................... 8-8 Figure 8-5: Summary of SASP Costs, by Goal Category 2010-2030........................................ 8-9 Figure 8-6: Summary of System Costs, by SASP Role 2010-2030 ........................................8-10 Figure 8-7: Other Future Airport Costs .....................................................................................8-11 Figure 8-8: Total Airport Development Costs 2010-2030 ......................................................8-12 Figure 8-9: All U.S. Historical AAIP Funding .............................................................................8-13 Figure 8-10: Arizona Aviation Fund Sources FY 2008 - $25.5 million...................................8-16 Figure 8-11: Arizona Airport Historic Funding FY2004-2009E...............................................8-20 CHAPTER NINE: RECOMMENDED PLAN & POLICIES Figure 9-1: Estimate of Funding Shortfall 2010-2030 ...........................................................9-14 APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE Figure B-1: Airside Facility Compliance Summary .....................................................................B-2 Figure B-2: Percentage of Airports by Role Meeting ARC Objectives .......................................B-4 Figure B-3: ARC Compliance by Airport ......................................................................................B-5 Figure B-4: Percentage of Airports by Role Meeting Primary Runway Length Objectives.......B-8 Figure B-5: Primary Runway Length Compliance by Airport......................................................B-9 Figure B-6: Percentage of Airports by Role Meeting Primary Runway Width Objectives.......B-11 Figure B-7: Primary Runway Width Compliance by Airport .....................................................B-12 Figure B-8: Percentage of Airports by Role Meeting Primary Runway Surface Objectives ...B-14 Figure B-9: Primary Runway Surface Compliance by Airport ..................................................B-15 Figure B-10: Percentage of Airports by Role Meeting Taxiway Objectives.............................B-17 Figure B-11: Taxiway Type and Width Compliance by Airport.................................................B-18 Figure B-12: Percentage of Airports by Role Meeting Approach Type Objectives .................B-21 Figure B-13: Approach Type Compliance by Airport ................................................................B-22 Figure B-14: Percentage of Airports by Role Meeting Visual Aid Objectives..........................B-24 Figure B-15: Visual Air Compliance by Airport .........................................................................B-25 Figure B-16: Percentage of Airports by Role Meeting Runway and Taxiway Lighting Objectives ...............................................................................................................B-27 Figure B-17: Runway and Taxiway Lighting Compliance by Airport........................................B-28 Figure B-18: Percentage of Airports by Role Meeting ALS Objectives....................................B-30 Figure B-19: Approach Lighting System Compliance by Airport .............................................B-31 Figure B-20: Percentage of Airports by Role Meeting Airport Fencing Objectives.................B-33 Figure B-21: Airport Fencing Compliance by Airport ...............................................................B-34 Figure B-22: Percentage of Airports by Role Meeting Service Objectives..............................B-37 xvii 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – TABLE OF CONTENTS Figure B-23: Airport Services compliance by Airport ...............................................................B-38 Figure B-24: Percentage of Airports by Role Meeting Landside Facility Objectives..............B-42 Figure B-25: Airport Facilities Compliance by Airport..............................................................B-43 APPENDIX C: NPIAS CANDIDATE Figure C-1: Arizona FAA airport Classification............................................................................ C-2 Figure C-2: NPIAS Candidate Airport Data and Entry Criteria – Rolle Airfield.......................... C-6 APPENDIX D: RELIEVER AIRPORT ANALYSIS Figure D-1: Location of Existing Reliever Airports in Phoenix Metro Area................................D-3 Figure D-2: Based Aircraft and Activity at Phoenix Metro Area Reliever Airports and Driving Time/Distance to Phoenix Sky Harbor....................................................................D-3 Figure D-3: Current and Proposed Reliever Airports in Phoenix Metro Area ...........................D-4 xviii 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER ONE CHAPTER ONE: AIR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM VISION, GOALS, AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES INTRODUCTION This chapter represents the first in a series of technical chapters that document the Arizona State Airports System Plan (SASP). This chapter provides an overview of the study; background information on previous state and regional studies, state duties, and the existing state airport system; identifies aviation issues impacting the state and its airports; and establishes the study vision, goals, and performance measures. STUDY OVERVIEW The Arizona Department of Transportation- Aeronautics Division (ADOT or Aeronautics) has long recognized the importance of planning as a proactive approach to ensuring aviation continues its role in the statewide transportation system. The State Airports System Plan for Arizona was developed in 1978. Aeronautics has been diligent in updating various components of the system plan over the last 30 years, conducting various elements of a Continuous Airport System Planning Process (CASPP). These components include State Aviation Needs Study (SANS), Economic Impact studies, Rural Air Service studies, Navigational Aids and Services studies, Recreational Airport studies, and other special studies. The 2008 Arizona State Airports System Plan is a comprehensive update to the 1978 study. This study provides direction for state aviation system planning for years to come. The purpose of this plan is to provide a framework for the integrated planning, operation, and development of Arizona’s aviation assets. This plan updates the 2000 Arizona State Aviation Needs Study (SANS 2000), which looked at the current and future performance of the state airport system. The state airport system will again be analyzed to determine the impact of historic, current, and pending changes in the aviation industry. This plan provides Aeronautics with an important planning tool that enables them to remain current with industry trends and to determine how Arizona’s airports should be positioned to respond to future needs and challenges. In addition to a SANS update, the 2008 Arizona State Airports System Plan also analyzes several other nontraditional system planning items. These items include: • A review of the effectiveness of current state policies and statutes and suggestions on possible modifications to these policies and statutes or the development of new policies based on findings from the plan. • An evaluation of Aeronautics’ Priority Rating System regarding which airport development projects take precedence over other projects and the development of a priority list for implementing recommended projects. • A DVD promoting the importance of aviation in the state. There are nine tasks included in the 2008 Arizona State Airports System Plan. Each of these tasks is described below. 1-1 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER ONE Study Process The nine tasks being undertaken to develop the Arizona State Airports System Plan are graphically depicted in Figure 1-1. Figure 1-1: Arizona Airports System Plan Study Process Vision, Goals, & Measures Airport Roles Airport Assets Current Transportation System Performance Forecasts Future Transportation System Performance Inventory of Current Policy System Development Costs Recommended Plan A brief description of each of the plan’s tasks is as follows: 1. Air Transportation System Vision, Goals, and Performance Measures: The first task outlines the purpose of and sets the stage for the entire SASP. This element provides a backdrop of historic information and current conditions that have the ability to impact the findings of the study. The task also establishes of a system vision, goals, and performance measures. In order to analyze the airport system’s needs, a system vision and system goals are translated into goal categories. Performance measures specific to each goal category will provide the foundation for a “report card” that will be used to determine how well the Arizona airport system is performing. 2. Inventory of Current Policy: The task reviews policies and statutes that currently govern Aeronautics and impact aviation in the state, including Arizona Revised Statutes, Arizona State Transportation Board Policies, and Five-Year Airport Capital Improvement Program guidelines. Suggestions for changes to these items are developed in Task Nine in order to best support the future needs of the airport system. 3. Aviation/Airport Assets (Inventory): One of the first steps in developing Arizona’s plan for its airport system is the collection of current facility and activity data for all system airports. A business survey and pilot survey are also conducted to collect important information from users of the airports around the state. 4. Forecasts: It is important to have a general understanding of which airports in the airport system are likely to experience the most notable growth for the 5, 10, and 20-year forecast milestones. This task provides projections through 2030 of key commercial and general aviation demand indicators. 5. Airport Roles: As part of the 2008 SASP, an extensive analysis is undertaken to assign all system airports to functional roles. These roles are valuable in determining the level of recommended development needed since not all airports in the state should be treated the same. 1-2 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER ONE 6. Current Air Transportation System Performance: Goal categories and measures developed in Task One form the framework for an updated report card for the Arizona system of airports. This report card identifies adequacies and deficiencies in the system, as well as possible duplications. This task is the cornerstone of the system plan. Results from this analysis are the primary input for developing recommendations for the airport system. 7. Future Air Transportation System Performance: As part of this task, targets for future system performance are set. Actions needed to raise the bar for the overall performance of the Arizona airport system are the primary output of this task. This task considers if there is a need for additional airports to supplement the existing system and provides information on how Arizona’s airport system can be protected. 8. System Development Costs: Cost estimates for improving the system to meet established targets are identified in this task. This task also recommends appropriate ADOT funding levels and takes the best return on investment into consideration. 9. Recommended Plan: The final task of the Plan provides actions needed to implement study recommendations and policy or legislative changes suggested to enhance the system. Project Advisory Committee A Project Advisory Committee (PAC) was assembled by Aeronautics to provide input and direction for the study. The PAC is comprised of volunteer members with a broad base of airport/aviation and statewide knowledge and responsibilities. The PAC includes representatives from the following: • Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) • Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) • Arizona Department of Commerce • Regional Associations of Governments • League of Arizona Cities and Towns • Arizona Airports Association (AzAA) • Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) • Arizona Pilots Association • Arizona Business Aviation Association • U.S. Military • Boeing • Several Arizona airport directors This committee provides Aeronautics with outside input into the system planning process and provides the Consultant Team with first-hand knowledge of the key factors impacting aviation demand and needs throughout the state. Six PAC meetings were held at key junctures of the study to help guide the development of the system plan. 1-3 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER ONE REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES The Arizona State Airports System Plan is only the latest aviation study in Arizona. The Aeronautics Division of ADOT, regional planning agencies, municipalities, and airport sponsors have also conducted numerous studies related to airports and aviation. These studies provide valuable information on current and historical conditions within the Arizona aviation environment. The following sections summarize recent planning efforts that have the potential to influence the information and recommendations developed in the SASP. Not all data found in existing plans is applicable to the SASP. The information may no longer be current, or may be too specific to be applicable. However, local plans provide a level of detail and insight that would not be cost-effective to duplicate. As a result, information presented in previous studies is used, except in cases where more current or more relevant data is available. National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) The FAA updates its National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) every other year. State system plans, such as this, are used to develop NPIAS recommendations. The FAA draws money for eligible airport development projects from the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). AIP funding is derived from the Aviation Trust Fund; the source for this trust fund is a dedicated stream that is derived from taxes on the aviation fuel and commercial airline tickets. Airports must be included in the NPIAS for their projects to be eligible for AIP funding. While there are a variety of criteria that are considered for an airport to be included in the NPIAS, generally speaking, to be in the NPIAS, an airport must: • Be more than 30 miles from the closest NPIAS airport • Have at least 10 based aircraft • Have a willing public sponsor Recommendations from this SASP will be coordinated with both the NPIAS as well as individual airport master plans. The FAA assigns each airport a ‘service level’, depending on the level of activity accommodated and services provided. Each service level has a congressionally established funding category associated with it. The service levels are: • Primary Service (PR) – Primary service airports are public use airports receiving scheduled airline passenger service which enplane 10,000 or more passengers per year. • Commercial Service (CM) – Commercial service airports are public use airports receiving scheduled airline passenger service which enplane 2,500 or more passengers per year. • General Aviation (GA) – General aviation airports are either publicly or privately owned public use airports that serve general aviation users. • Reliever (RL) – Reliever airports are general aviation airports that are capable of providing relief to Primary Service airports in the event that the airport becomes unavailable due to congestion or other causes. They also provide general aviation and minor commercial operators alternative access to communities already served by Commercial Service airports. Reliever airports often receive higher priority for funding assistance than other general aviation airports. 1-4 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER ONE State Planning – SASP, CASPP, and SANS The first State Airports System Plan (SASP) was completed in 1973, and updated in 1978. In 1988, it was replaced by the Continuous Aviation System Planning Process (CASPP). In 1995, the first State Aviation Needs Study (SANS) was conducted. The SANS was updated in 2000. The 2000 SANS set four developmental goals: adequate facilities, system maintenance, economic development, and consistency with surface transportation and land-use plans. These goals are developed into a set of nine specific objectives that are as follows: 1. Facilitate commercial air service in both urban and rural areas throughout Arizona. 2. Ensure conformance with physical development standards established by federal, state, and local agencies. 3. Provide a system of aviation facilities within reasonable access to all system users. 4. Promote the use of aviation facilities for the delivery of emergency and rural health care services. 5. Encourage economic development opportunities through the utilization of an effective aviation system. 6. Maintain compatibility with local land use patterns and plans. 7. Raise the efficiency of the aviation system. 8. Maximize the return on investment for aviation dollars. 9. Foster input from potentially impacted parties through a variety of means including public forums and questionnaires. The methodology of the SANS 2000 was to: 1. Identify quantifiable measures to define system performance. 2. Determine the status, condition, and performance of the existing system. 3. Forecast future system demands and future funding. 4. Develop multiple scenarios of aviation development. 5. Analyze all scenarios on a performance basis and choose one accordingly. Three scenarios were developed: ‘A’- Existing Funding; ‘B’- Existing Performance; and ‘C’Increased. The ‘A’ scenario resulted in dramatic decreases in system performance. The ‘B’ scenario maintained the existing performance of the system at 10-year cost of $1.04 billion. Scenario ‘C’ increased the performance of the system at a 10-year cost of $1.9 billion. In both scenarios ‘B’ and ‘C’ approximately 40 percent of funds were allocated to commercial service airports. The 10-year total for expected revenue was $760 million: $592 million federal, $129 million state, and $39 million local/private. An additional $276 million in 10-year revenue was determined to be necessary to maintain the current system and $1.12 billion to improve all airports to meet SANS 2000 recommendations. Investment since the 1995 SANS has allowed larger, more active airports to keep up with demand, resulting in an increase in the total economic impact from $4.1 billion to $6.3 billion. However, the report also identified a decline in performance in some aspects of the system. Between the development of the 1995 SANS and the 2000 SANS, more airports experienced community noise concerns and fewer communities were served by business aircraft. Fewer airports complied with the recommended planning measures. The decline in airports meeting planning standards may be a result of changes in the standards or changes in which standards are applied to specific airports. 1-5 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER ONE The number of communities with scheduled commercial aviation also decreased. The loss of commercial air service was the result of several factors, including the emergence of Phoenix Sky Harbor as a major hub for discount carriers Southwest and America West. This caused airfares at Phoenix Sky Harbor to decline, and made flying from Phoenix even more costefficient. The cost of average annual aircraft delay also increased substantially. The increase in delay is a result of aviation activity growing faster then capacity and the concentration of activity at a few airports. The majority of aircraft delay is experienced at high growth airports in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Special Studies In addition to performing statewide system planning, ADOT has also produced a number of special studies dedicated to specific topics. The following studies were developed by ADOT previous to the 2000 SANS: • Feasibility Study and Environmental Review for a Regional Rescue and Firefighter Training Facility (ARFF) – 1995 • The Economic Impact of Aviation in Arizona – 1998 • Navigational Aids and Aviation Services Special Study – 1998 The following studies were developed by ADOT subsequent to the 2000 SANS: • Airport Small Community Economic Development & Transportation Program (ASCET)– 1999 • Rural Air Service Study – 1999 and 2006 • Arizona Airport Pavement Management System – 2003 • The Economic Impact of Aviation in Arizona – 2004 • Automatic Weather Observation System (AWOS) Network Study – 2007 • Governor’s Advisory Council on Aviation Final Report – 2007 Airport Small Community Economic Development & Transportation Program (ASCET) The ASCET sought to provide economic development through aviation improvements. Noting that the lack of sufficient airport facilities is often enough to preclude greater economic development in rural Arizona communities, the program surveyed all Arizona communities, and focused on those with populations of more then 10,000 that were more then 50 miles from a major metropolitan location. These communities were classified according to the primary use of aviation in the community. It identified seven communities as focused on tourism (three ‘national’ and four ‘regional’) and 10 on business/corporate (two ‘major’, four ‘intermediate’, and four ‘emerging’). The ASCET suggested a series of improvements applicable to each group and noted the importance of ‘soft’ efforts such as marketing in economic development efforts. The opportunities for, and challenges to, further industrial and business development at each location were reviewed, and an exhaustive review of potential funding sources and their limitations performed. This showed that funding was not available for all projects. A process for prioritizing and sequencing projects was devised which emphasized economic development benefits, stated level of need, the availability of matching funds, and the degree of local support. On a whole, the ASCET emphasis was on using specific market or local industry attractions to attract and retain jobs in rural Arizona communities. 1-6 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER ONE Rural Air Service Study – 1999 and 2006 This study reported that airline deregulation caused a general decline in scheduled commercial service to rural areas, which had strong negative economic impacts due to the dependence of rural communities on income from tourism. Rural airports were also impacted by the commercial shift to jet aircraft and larger aircraft. This forced smaller airports to compete more often with airports offering more nonstop flights that were located within a one to two hour drive. The number of commercial enplanements at rural airports was also declining, as passengers chose to drive to larger airports to begin their flights. Another complication was many airports were beyond the effective stage length of the turboprop aircraft, which was in predominant use at the time of the study. It was noted that assuring commercial service might require municipalities (or groups of municipalities working together) to follow Show Low’s example in acquiring their own aircraft to ensure service. In 2003, ADOT initiated an update of the 1999 Rural Air Service Study. Air service conditions in Arizona and nationwide had changed drastically, with even further erosion of service and passengers in the small markets. The study was directed at the small communities, with individual reports prepared for each community as opposed to a statewide-only report which was prepared in 1999. The focus of the study was to provide action items, not just an analysis of needs and demand in each of the communities. Community-specific public meetings were conducted on three separate occasions to get the local buy-in needed for air service enhancements to be realized, recognizing that the state can only serve as the facilitator of change that must be activated at the local level. In addition to the study, ADOT participated in development of Small Community Air Service Development Pilot Program (SCASDPP) grants on behalf of the airports. A $1.5 million grant from the USDOT was received for the Arizona Rural Consortium of Airports (ARCA) that included Kingman, Page, Prescott, Show Low, and Sierra Vista. ADOT served as the sponsor for this grant and worked closely with the airports and USDOT to implement the program. Arizona Airport Pavement Management System Grant assurances for projects funded under the FAA Airport Improvement Program (AIP), require a pavement maintenance system be utilized. To meet this requirement and ensure that the limited pavement maintenance funds are spent in the most cost effective manner, ADOT developed the Airport Pavement Management System (APMS). The APMS is a database of pavement condition at 51 Arizona airports, comprising a total of 16,294,345 square yards of pavement. The APMS identified the area-weighted average age of the pavement was 13 years, with an area-weighted Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of 79. The system prioritizes ‘preventative maintenance’ projects that have historically proven to have the greatest benefit for pavement dollar expended. The system also identifies all pavement sections whose PCI has fallen below the level where they are unable to be maintained, and instead require rehabilitation. The annual pavement maintenance costs identified by the pavement management system are presented in Figure 1-2. 1-7 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER ONE Figure 1-2: 2004–2012 APMS Projected Pavement Maintenance Costs Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Projected Annual Cost $5,549,517 $5,681,098 $1,436,081 $1,814,326 $2,200,600 $2,331,967 $1,940,303 $2,962,384 $1,606,559 Source: Arizona Airport Pavement Management System, 2003 The Economic Impact of Aviation in Arizona Aviation plays a key role in Arizona’s economic performance. Because of this, ADOT commissioned The Economic Impact of Aviation in Arizona study, and several updates, to quantify the impacts aviation has on the state’s economy. The 2002 study indicated the state’s dry climate and wide open spaces help create an environment for aviation-related activity and development to thrive. Aviation activities supporting the state’s economy include pilot training, aerospace engineering and manufacturing, airpark development, and aerial sightseeing tours. In 2002 aviation activity in Arizona generated $38.5 billion in primary and induced economic activity. This is an increase from the 1998 study which noted $28.2 billion in total economic activity. Total jobs increased from 420,000 in 1998 to over 470,700 in the 2002 study. Automatic Weather Observation System (AWOS) Network Study The purpose of the AWOS Network Study was to explore methods to link with federal data networks in an effort to provide near real-time aviation weather data to Arizona airports and their users. It identified 26 Arizona airports that would benefit from the presence of an AWOS. The study estimated an AWOS system could be established for $2.3 million with an additional $0.3 million in annual maintenance costs. The study was an update of the 1998 “Navigational Aids and Aviation Services Special Study.” Governor’s Advisory Council on Aviation Final Report Governor Janet Napolitano established the Governor’s Advisory Council on Aviation (ACA) through Executive Order 2004-22 on September 21, 2004. The ACA was tasked to study and issue consensus findings and recommendations that specifically addressed the following issues: • Airspace utilization and airport capacity • Land use compatibility • Federal funding for aviation in Arizona • Criteria for evaluating aviation facility and system needs • Future aviation needs assessments and funding strategies These five issues were combined into three categories for further study; Land Use, Capacity and Funding Needs. The ACA met 19 times in various capacities beginning January 31, 2005 through January 31, 2007 in locations throughout the state (Phoenix, Tucson, Flagstaff, and 1-8 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER ONE Yuma). In those meetings the ACA consulted with, or took testimony from, as many aviation interests as possible. Those interests consisted of stakeholders in commercial, military, and general aviation, including representatives from the Federal Aviation Administration, Arizona Department of Transportation – Aeronautics Division, Maricopa Association of Governments, Pima County Association of Governments, Arizona State Land Department, Arizona Department of Real Estate, Southern Arizona Leadership Council, airport operators, Governor’s Office on the Governor’s Growth Initiative, ADOT’s Multi-modal Transportation Study and Arizona Airports Association (AzAA), Arizona Pilots Association, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), and the Aviation Safety Advisory Group of Arizona. The meetings, consultations, and testimonies contributed to ensure all necessary information could be gathered, the issues identified and thoroughly studied, and meaningful and achievable recommendations developed. Further discussion of the ACA and its findings and recommendations is provided later in this chapter. Regional Airport System Plans (RASP) In addition to system plans developed by ADOT, regional system plans have been completed by county-level organizations. Cochise County developed a RASP in 1982 and 1994. The Pima Association of Governments (PAG) completed its initial RASP in 1985, with subsequent updates in 1995 and 2002. The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) completed its initial RASP in 1993, followed by an update in 2005. Results of the RASPs completed since 2000 are summarized below. Pima Association of Governments (PAG) The 2002 RASP included the following elements: • System Performance Criteria • Inventory • Intermodal System Trends and Issues • Aviation Industry Trends • Forecasts of Demand • System Airport Roles and Facility & Service Objectives • System Evaluation • System Recommendations • Implementation Plans The following airports were included in the 2002 PAG RASP: Ajo Municipal, Benson Municipal, Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, La Cholla Airpark, Marana Northwest Regional, Pinal Airpark, Ryan Airfield, Sells Airport, and Tucson International Airport. Benson Municipal Airport was added since the previous RASP. Downtown Tucson remains the primary intermodal link, despite the decentralization of public transportation within the county and growing inter-county linkages. A future passenger rail system offered potential for an intermodal link between downtown Tucson and the airport. The study suggested that the limited airport freight activity is partially due to the lack of rail connections to the airport. Puerto Nuevo was identified as the location of a potential regional and national transportation hub, but lacked access to other regional transportation infrastructure. 1-9 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER ONE The study noted the dependency of business on air travel to increase productivity, as well as the lack of any practical alternative to air travel. The RASP also identified the increase in fractional ownership programs for general aviation business class aircraft which has lowered the cost of utilizing this form of air travel. As a result, businesses in the region increased usage of general aviation aircraft. The percent of the aviation fleet comprised of single-engine aircraft was expected to decline. The proportion of jet aircraft in the 2002 study area was higher than the national average and was projected to continue increasing. The study suggested that capacity based analysis of airports is no longer sufficient. Metrics included in PAG’s development of roles included the size of the access roads, the area of the airport, the population within a 30-minute drive time, ownership, facilities, and services. The airports were then classified as Level I or Level II. Level I airports were to support all commercial aviation activities and the Level II were dedicated to single-engine aircraft, with limited jet usage. Based on system plan calculations, Tucson International Airport and potentially Ryan Field were expected to exceed operational capacity during the 20 year forecast period. It should be noted that Tucson International has planned for improved operational capacity during this forecast period. Scheduled commercial service at Tucson International had improved, despite the then-recent events of September 11, 2001. System wide, there was a need for more auto parking and more hangar space. For security purposes, it was suggested that auto parking no longer be co-located with airplanes. Airports within the PAG region had no serious obstruction or airspace issues, but still needed to take action relevant to height-based zoning. The majority of airports had taken steps to make themselves compliant with ADOT guidelines for preparing an AIA and Disclosure map. However, not all airports had implemented Part 77 zoning or developed current noise contours. While a large portion of employers were located near existing airports, the population was much more decentralized, with only eight percent within a 30-minute drive of an airport with a 5,000-foot long runway. While the suggested improvements are too extensive to be detailed here, the PAG recommended the highest dollar amounts of improvements occur at Marana Northwest Regional, followed by Tucson International. Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) In 2000, the Maricopa Association of Governments initiated an update of its RASP. The purpose of the Plan was to analyze the long-range air transportation needs of Maricopa County and the immediate environs, and to meet these needs in a safe and efficient manner. This plan concluded in 2005 with an acceptance of the analysis by the MAG Policy Committee. In addition to study goals and objectives, specific assumptions were noted upon which the study should be based. These study assumptions provided an understanding of the approach to the MAG RASP Update and were used to provide direction to the consultant for the project. Principal assumptions included: • The study area for the RASP was defined as Maricopa County along with a portion of Pinal County and Yavapai County to reflect the growth of cities within Maricopa County into neighboring counties. 1-10 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER ONE • • • • • The study time frame extended to 2025, with 1999 serving as the base year. Luke Air Force Bases (AFB) was assumed to remain open during the planning period. The RASP recognized and respected the right of Luke to carry out its military mission; and did not make recommendations that impaired the ability of the base to carry out its mission. It was assumed that the existing public use airport facilities in the region would remain open. Future development options recognized the functions of existing airports and made every effort to avoid infringement on their ability to exist. The Intergovernmental Agreement between Phoenix and Tempe and the east bound jet departure procedure known as 4 DME was assumed to continue throughout the planning period. The MAG RASP Update will seek to accommodate projected demand. Based on these assumptions and the goals and objectives stated for the study, technical analysis was prepared to evaluate the MAG regional airport system through six working papers. The RASP provided an overview of the existing system, projected demand for aviation, determined future needs, evaluated alternatives to meet future needs, and developed a selected alternative. This selected alternative identifies those projects that have the potential to help the system meet its goals, but will require more detailed airspace review and analysis, including the potential impact to Luke Air Force Base’s mission, in order to determine its implementation feasibility. The selected alternative is actually a hybrid of several of the alternatives. While the Status Quo alternative was not included as a whole, this and the other alternatives including the Improved Technology, Maximized Airport Development, and New Airport Development alternatives, each had projects that were included in the selected alternative. After analysis of each alternative for each of 10 evaluation criteria, the following projects were noted to have the most potential for development as part of the Maximized Airport Development alternative and are included in the selected alternative: • Buckeye Municipal – runway extension • Chandler Municipal – runway extension, precision approach • Glendale Municipal – taxiway extension • Memorial – airport facility restoration • Mesa Falcon Field – precision approach • Phoenix-Deer Valley – parallel runway and precision approach from the east • Phoenix-Goodyear – parallel runway and precision approach from the east • Phoenix-Sky Harbor International – 4th runway, runway extension, precision approaches (4th runway and 25R), additional terminal building space • Scottsdale – precision approach, additional terminal building space • Williams Gateway – additional terminal building space1 These projects would enhance the region’s ability to meet long-term air transportation needs by improving the capacity of the airport system and providing additional facilities and approaches. While improving the capacity of the system, even with these enhancements, further capacity increases could be needed to meet the projected level of demand for 2025. Development of a new general aviation airport was recommended for further analysis as the cursory review revealed two potential areas where the impacts are considered moderate. The The development of curved instrument approaches at Williams Gateway is also included in the selected alternative. 1 1-11 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER ONE New East Valley and New South Valley sites present opportunities where the region’s capacity could be increased through development of new runway facilities at either site. This would help to fulfill the study’s goal of meeting the long-term air transportation needs, however the extent of the impact to congestion, the environment, and airspace are not sufficiently detailed. The analysis also showed that, both in the Maximized Airport Development alternative and the New Airport Development alternative that a supplemental Williams Gateway commercial airport has significant potential to address several of this study’s goals. This New Airport Development alternative for commercial activity appears to have the highest potential for implementation. The following are policy considerations that have been identified in the evaluation of recommendations for the MAG RASP: • Airspace analysis: The RASP included development of additional runways and improved instrument approach capabilities that will enhance the ability of the system to accommodate future demand in the selected alternative. All of these changes will dictate analysis of airspace requirements, including how to integrate these improvements into the existing airspace structure. Significant analysis of potential impacts to Luke AFB’s existing airspace needs and Phoenix-Sky Harbor International was conducted, however, a systemwide analysis of how implementing all of these projects would impact the airspace was not prepared. In addition, it is assumed that as technology improvements are made, airspace impacts may be reduced, although the extent is not known at this time. While a single project can be accommodated within the existing airspace environs based on current technology, when combined, the total impact of the recommendations will require more detailed analysis, including computer-aided airspace modeling wherein these improvements are analyzed together as a “single improvement” versus individual projects. Airspace modeling may also afford the opportunity to examine how the new technological advances related to approach procedures may impact the airspace requirements. It was the recommendation of the MAG RASP Technical Advisory Committee to the MAG RASP Policy Committee that a detailed airspace analysis be conducted, possibly by the FAA for whom airspace is a responsibility. • Environmental impacts: The RASP primarily evaluated noise impacts as a result of the alternatives. The noise impact analysis was based on existing available noise contours, supplementing these contours with development of estimated noise impact areas where identified. Prior to implementation of projects, additional environmental review would be required, including noise and other environmental categories such as air quality. • Land use: As part of the noise evaluation in the alternatives analysis, the impacts to incompatible land uses near airports were identified. This cursory analysis also reviewed the state’s policies regarding airport land use compatibility. Arizona has several statutes in place that were developed to reflect the importance of addressing airport noise including Airport Influence Area, Military Airport Registry, Military Airport Disclosure, and Public Airport Disclosure. Many of the airports have implemented Public Airport Disclosure and Luke has complied with Military Airport Registry and Disclosure, but none of the MAG airports have implemented Airport Influence Area which serves as a notification that properties located in the vicinity of an airport may be impacted by noise levels of aircraft overflights. Consideration of this statute and its ability to impact future airport development should be part of follow-on planning 1-12 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER ONE efforts for the MAG airports. In addition to noise issues, the location of other incompatible uses, such as the gas storage facility that was planned near Luke Air Force Base, should also be considered for the long-term preservation of the region’s airport system. The land uses and zoning around airports should consider the need for potential airport expansion to accommodate growth projected for airports in the region. As part of a feasibility study for a new airport, land uses would be a significant evaluation factor in determining the viability of constructing a new general aviation airport in the region. ADOT AERONAUTICS DIVISION DUTIES The following section identifies the duties and role the Aeronautics Division plays in maintaining and developing Arizona’s airport system. The duties discussed are those that are pertinent to the development of the state’s airport system, and have been defined by the Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) Title 28, Chapter 25, Article 2 28-8242 Powers and duties, and the NASAO State Aviation Funding and Organizational Data Report FY 2007. Additionally, the duties of aeronautical organizations within other states are compared with those of ADOT Aeronautics. The following duties relate directly to the development of the state’s airport system and are identified in the ARS: • • • • • • • • Cooperate with local, state, and federal organizations to encourage and advance the safe and orderly development of aviation in this state. Assemble and distribute to the public information relating to aviation, landing fields, navigational aids and other matters pertaining to aviation. Accept, in the name of this state, federal monies made available for the advancement of aviation. Represent the state on issues of routing structures and rate schedules concerning commercial airline traffic (developed prior to Airline Deregulation Act of 1978). Accept and receive federal and other public or private monies for the acquisition, construction, enlargement, improvement, maintenance, equipment, or operation of airports and other air navigation facilities and sites for air navigation facilities or for any other purpose authorized by this section. Contract for the operation of state owned airports. In conjunction with local authorities, plan, build, and develop airports, airport terminals and other related navigational facilities. Operate and maintain the Grand Canyon National Park Airport. The NASAO State Aviation Funding and Organizational Data Report notes the following generalized duties of the ADOT Aeronautics Division: • Aircraft registration • State funding (FAA matching only) • Airfield pavement management program • State loans (to airports from Aviation Fund) • Air service assistance program • Operate state-owned airports • State funding (state-only grants) • Airfield maintenance project funding • Aviation education • NAVAID project funding • State aeronautical chart • Hangar construction funding (loans only) Figure 1-3 compares these duties with those performed by other state aeronautical organization in the western United States. 1-13 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER ONE Figure 1-3: Comparison of ADOT Aeronautics Division Duties/Programs with Other Western U.S. States (where available) State Duty Block grant state Channeling state Aviation education Pilot registration Aircraft registration License airports Airfield pavement management program Air service assistance program Airport preservation program Search and rescue program Own and operate state aircraft State funding (FAA matching only) State funding (state-only grants) State-only loans Operate state-owned airports Hangar construction funding NAVAID project funding Airfield maintenance project funding Airport directory Aeronautical chart AZ CA X X CO NV NM X X UT WA X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X WY X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Source: NASAO State Aviation Funding and Organizational Data Report FY 2007 EXISTING AIRPORT SYSTEM ORGANIZATION Airport classifications or roles are defined differently from national, state, and local perspectives. Historically, Arizona has used a classification system developed by the ADOT Aeronautics Division to define each airport’s role in the system. Airports in Arizona have been grouped into two main categories: Primary and Secondary Airports. Arizona system airports were categorized into one of these two groups based on the size and level of activity occurring at each airport. All airports in the Primary category are public-use and meet one or more of the following criteria: • Ten or more based aircraft • 2,000 or more annual operations • Scheduled commercial air carrier service • Projected to meet any of the above criteria within 10 years Airports in the Secondary category are generally located in rural areas and are designed to accommodate single-engine and light twin-engine aircraft. Secondary airports do not provide facilities or services necessary to serve larger business class or commercial aircraft. Secondary airports are generally defined as airports that have been recognized by the FAA through inclusion in their 5010 database and are open for public-use. Arizona’s airport system was defined by ADOT Planning Division and contained a total of 91 airports. Sixty-six of the airports were classified as Primary and 25 were classified as Secondary. In addition to the Primary and Secondary classifications, each system airport was also grouped into one of several sub-classifications based primarily on airport ownership and activity. Four of the categories: Primary Service, Commercial Service, Reliever, and General 1-14 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER ONE Aviation, are identical to the NPIAS designations defined earlier in the chapter, while the remaining designations are based on the ownership of the airport. Figure 1-4 identifies the number of airports included in each category. Figure 1-5 graphically depicts the airports included in Arizona’s Primary and Secondary airport system. A reference table containing the airport codes, airport name, and associated city name can be found in Appendix A. Figure 1-4: Primary and Secondary Airport System Classification Primary Secondary Total Primary Service Commercial Service Reliever General Aviation - Public Use Native American General Aviation - Public Use Native American Government General Aviation - Private Use Number of Airports 9 3 8 37 9 6 12 2 5 91 Source: ADOT Planning Division Primary and Secondary Airport System Maps 1-15 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER ONE Figure 1-5: Primary and Secondary Arizona Airport System Source: ADOT Planning Division Primary and Secondary Airport System Maps, 2008 Note: A reference table containing airport codes, airport names, and associated city can be found in Appendix A 1-16 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER ONE IDENTIFICATION OF AVIATION ISSUES Issues that affect the aviation system range from national in scope to local issues, with the impacts affecting airports in different ways. To address specific issues facing Arizona’s airports, Governor Janet Napolitano established the Governor’s Advisory Council on Aviation (ACA) in 2004. ACA The ACA was tasked to study and report its consensus findings and recommendations regarding the following issues: • Land use compatibility • Airspace utilization and airport capacity • Federal funding for aviation in Arizona • Criteria for evaluating aviation facilities and system needs • Future aviation needs assessments and funding strategies These five key issues were combined by the ACA into the following three categories for analysis during the two-year Advisory Committee process: • Land use • Capacity • Funding needs A brief summary of these issues and the findings of the ACA are presented below. Land Use The land use analysis conducted by the ACA identified “formidable challenges” that are facing the development of Arizona’s airport system. Coordination between airport planning and general planning, cross-jurisdictional concerns, and the lack of a state or federal policy to protect airports were identified as the most significant barriers that exist in the promulgation of compatible land use for airports. Capacity Capacity was identified as an issue facing Arizona’s airports in terms of airfield capacity, terminal/hangar capacity, airspace capacity, and ground access capacity. While there are many airports in Arizona’s system, only a third were identified as planning for future capacity improvements. The ACA also included Grand Canyon National Park Airport and its funding situation as a capacity impact. Additional capacity issues included military airspace, mobile aircraft rescue fire fighting training unit, outlying system plan development, additional funding for airport pavement maintenance management program, need for an adopt-anairport program, and creation of a statewide AWOS inspection and maintenance program. 1-17 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER ONE Funding Needs Funding for airport projects comes from a variety of sources depending upon the airport. Some airports are eligible for federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding, state airport funding, and local monies. The federal AIP is a critical element of Arizona’s airport funding. The current reauthorization of the legislation to fund the AIP expired in 2007 and significant changes are proposed for the funding mechanism and distribution to airports. In addition, the state’s aviation funding which is intended to supplement federal allocations and provide opportunities for “smaller non-commercial publicly owned and operated airports” has been insufficient to meet the growing demand for infrastructure development. The state’s Aviation Fund is also subject to the appropriations process and has experienced a diversion of the funds. Protection of the state’s Aviation Fund is recommended by the ACA. In addition to these significant issues identified as impacting Arizona’s aviation system, other issues that are more national and regional in scope also have the potential to impact the future development of airports. These issues are discussed below. National Issues On the national level, some of the same Arizona-specific issues are being faced by other states and agencies. These include land use compatibility, funding for airport projects, and airport capacity. The impact of these issues on the national aviation environment is similar to what has been described in Arizona. Other issues that are raised at the national level by the FAA, national interest groups such as the Airport Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and National Business Aviation Association (NBAA), and airport groups such as American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) and Airports Council International (ACI) include fuel prices, loss of airports, fees, new technology, and maintaining airport pavements. A brief description of these issues and their potential impact on Arizona is provided below. Fuel Prices The price of aviation fuel impacts both commercial airlines and the general aviation community. Commercial service airlines are taking drastic measures to cut expenses in other areas to account for increased fuel prices, changing their business models, and increasing prices. The decline in the level of service provided by the commercial airlines has caused some businesses to utilize general aviation to a higher degree. Within the general aviation community, higher fuel prices have resulted in less activity especially by discretionary flyers that are flying for personal and not business reasons. Airline Bankruptcies, Mergers, and Acquisitions Airline bankruptcies, mergers, and acquisitions have altered the landscape of the U.S. commercial airline industry. Commercial service airports in Arizona have not been able to avoid the air service changes that have accompanied airline restructuring. Airline bankruptcies were prevalent following the events of September 11, 2001. Several of the largest U.S. airlines, including Trans World, US Airways, United, Delta, and Northwest, declared bankruptcy. While United, Delta, and Northwest did emerge, American purchased Trans World in 2001 and America West acquired US Airways in 2005. 1-18 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER ONE Fueled largely by exorbitant fuel prices and an excess of capacity, a new wave of bankruptcies and mergers is emerging and once again has the potential to impact future air service in Arizona, The impact of Frontier’s recent entry in bankruptcy, the Delta-Northwest merger, and additional airline restructurings will be monitored during this study. Loss of Airports Additional development occurring near airports has encroached upon airports’ ability to expand and operate efficiently. In some areas, the rising value of land in some areas has resulted in the development of non-aviation uses on and around airports. The loss of airports is most critical in major metropolitan areas but is also occurring throughout the country where sponsors cannot afford to maintain airports due to cost. Fees Funding for the FAA’s Airport Improvement Program has been generated primarily from a tax imposed on passengers flying on commercial airlines. With the lapsing of the current funding source in 2008, a new system of user fees was proposed by federal legislators to fund the future development of US airports. A component of the proposed funding system is a user fee for general aviation aircraft. Presently, general aviation pays fees via a fuel tax but pays no distinct or separate fee for the use of air traffic control services. As of April 2008, a final decision has not been made regarding future funding mechanisms for the aviation system. The existing funding mechanisms have been extended by a series of congressional continuing resolutions. New Technology New technologies including the very light jet (VLJ) and satellite-based navigation have created substantial change within the aviation community. VLJ technology utilizes new fuel efficient engines and lower cost manufacturing processes to lower the operating and acquisition costs of these aircraft. These lower-cost jet aircraft provide an opportunity for more individuals and corporations, that have otherwise relied on commercial service aircraft or typical business jets, to purchase or utilize general aviation aircraft. The increased utilization of VLJ aircraft creates an opportunity for growth at general aviation airports. These aircraft can operate at smaller airports throughout the US, requiring runway lengths as low as 2,500 feet. In the future as utilization of these aircraft increases, smaller airports may need to provide additional services and instrument approaches. The implementation of global positioning systems (GPS) in the late 1990s and development of wide area augmentation system and local area augmentation system (WAAS and LAAS) technology will allow for precision approach capabilities, with near instrument landing system (ILS) descent and visibility minimums. These new instrument approaches are referred to as Approach Procedures with Vertical Guidance (APV) and are derived from the WAAS technology. Lateral Precision with Vertical Guidance (LPV) approaches rely on space-based satellite signals rather than land-based facilities, precluding terrain interference. APV/LPV approaches currently provide approach descent minimums to 250 feet above the runway elevation, with lower descent minimums expected to be published in the near future. GPS satellite data in concert with a ground-based transmitter can provide the three-dimensional guidance for a GPS near-precision approach. 1-19 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER ONE Maintaining Airport Pavements Significant investment has been made by the FAA, states, and individual airport sponsors in airport pavements, one of the most critical elements of any airport. While pavements can be developed for long-term use, their maintenance must be provided to maximize the investment. Similar to other airport needs, airport pavements require monitoring and evaluation to ensure the safety of the airport users. While many sponsors monitor and evaluate their pavements, the cost of even routine maintenance must be justified in the sponsor’s budget, whether it is a city-owned, county-owned, or privately owned facility. Because of this and the increasing cost of pavement projects, many airport pavements are falling further into disrepair and beyond the curve of “preventative maintenance.” At a certain point, the pavement requires rehabilitation, a costly project for any airport sponsor. Sustainability The concept of sustainability has historically been used in reference to environmental concerns but has, more recently, taken on a larger definition in relation to airport development and maintenance. Sustainability in terms of airports has been defined by the concept of what is in place that is sustainable and worth sustaining and how we can better develop airports that are sustainable long-term and more cost-effective and balanced in terms of actual cost and environmental impact. This is challenging in an environment of costcutting by airlines and increased costs for airport improvements, as the process of sustainability typically requires spending more up-front on projects to create longer sustaining infrastructure. While many can justify the long-term cost savings that may be realized, the higher up-front costs mean that fewer projects will be funded, leading to more delay in airport development. All of these issues contribute to the current environment in which the aviation system operates and the issues expected to affect Arizona’s airports in the future. State Airport Issues As previously noted, the Governor’s Advisory Council on Aviation was created to address aviation issues specific to Arizona. The three issues evaluated through the ACA process included: • Land use • Capacity • Funding needs Somewhat unique to Arizona is the ownership of one of the state’s primary airports by the state, Grand Canyon National Park Airport. While other states own and sometimes operate airports, these airports are typically small in nature and do not receive the high level of activity that exists at Grand Canyon. Other state issues raised during the ACA process are similar to those experienced at the national level including capacity, land use, and military airspace interactions. 1-20 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER ONE Regional Airport Issues There are two major metropolitan areas within Arizona, Phoenix and Tucson. While each of these metropolitan areas operate independently, the aviation issues faced by both regions are very similar. Regional aviation system plans have been prepared in each of these regions in the past five years. Both of the plans addressed the following issues: • Capacity • Military activity • Expanding population base These issues mirror those identified at the national level, with the exception of the expanding population base. Unlike other metropolitan areas, Phoenix and Tucson continue to experience growth beyond the average, with many new residents and businesses locating in the state to take advantage of the area’s many positive aspects. The growth experienced in population has caused expansion of the development limits in many directions. The growth in development limits has meant new aviation demand in areas that previously had limited or no demand. Airports such as Buckeye near Phoenix and Marana near Tucson have experienced significant growth associated with new population and business development. These airports are examining ways to accommodate the projected continued increase in demand. ESTABLISMENT OF SYSTEM VISION, GOALS & PERFORMANCE MEASURES The Arizona SASP is being conducted in a series of separate, but related, technical steps. The first step in the analysis of the airport system’s needs is to establish a system vision and system goals, then translate them into goal categories. System goal categories are subsequently used to evaluate the adequacy of Arizona’s airport system. To facilitate the evaluation process, performance measures specific to each goal category are employed to provide the foundation for a “report card” that will ultimately be used in the SASP to determine how well the Arizona airport system is performing. The remainder of this chapter is devoted to describing the plan vision, goal categories, and performance measures for the Arizona SASP. System Plan Vision The vision for the 2008 Arizona State Airports System Plan is to: Provide an airport system that accommodates demand, supports economic and transportation needs, and maximizes funding resources This vision requires that the process used to develop the SASP include input from a variety of sources. The process brings together representatives of airports and other public agencies to work with ADOT and the consultant team to ensure that a comprehensive evaluation of the airport system is conducted. States, as well as individual communities within those states, continue to recognize the importance of an airport system to their statewide and local economic and transportation infrastructures, and to that end, development of a SASP that can be supported on all levels is the primary vision. 1-21 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER ONE System Plan Goals & Goal Categories Establishment of this overall vision for the plan led to the development of the following goals, which were established for the airport system that serves Arizona: • Arizona should provide an airport system that is adequately maintained to meet current and projected demand and is easily accessible from both the ground and the air. • Arizona should advance a system of airports that is supportive of Arizona’s economy, ensuring that the airport system is matched to Arizona’s socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. • Arizona should provide for a safe airport system, as measured by compliance with applicable safety and security standards, as well as supports health, welfare and safety-related services and activities. • Arizona should promote a system of airports that is considerate of the environment and supports aviation programs and outreach opportunities in Arizona. These four goals for the system are translated into the following goal categories: • Development • Economic Support • Safety and Standards • Environmental Sensitivity and Stewardship When developing the goal categories, Title 28, Chapter 2, Article 7 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) was reviewed to determine its applicability to the Arizona SASP. The ARS provides guidelines for performance-based transportation planning in the state. Much of the terminology and items noted in the ARS were directly related to planning for highways. ARS did outline performance measures and factors that can be broadly applied to aviation. These items were considered in the development of the goal categories for this plan. The SANS 2000 outlined three categories similar to the goal categories developed for this system plan. These categories were Economic, Facility, and Service Levels. Each of these categories was evaluated using several performance measures. The categories from the SANS 2000 have not been used in this system plan. However, most of the performance measures analyzed in the SANS 2000 will also be performance measures in the 2008 Arizona SASP. This will allow the plan to measure how the system has changed since the SANS 2000. The performance measures included in the SANS 2000 and the 2008 plan are noted below. System Plan Performance Measures In developing a “report card” for Arizona’s airport performance, the Arizona airport system will be evaluated or graded on the four goal categories. Performance measures for each of the goal categories are the “tests” that are applied to determine how well the system is currently performing. Figure 1-6 provides a summary of the goal categories and their associated performance measures that will be used in this update to the Arizona SASP. Some performance measures were chosen based on inclusion in the SANS 2000. Other measures were selected by ADOT Aeronautics for their relevance and importance to the Arizona airport system. Some of the performance measures used to evaluate the Arizona aviation system are action-oriented, 1-22 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER ONE while others are more informational in nature. Many of the measures are performance based and have the ability to be tracked in the future. The performance measures included from the SANS 2000 are noted in parentheses. The information presented in Figure 1-6 is integral to the remainder of this study. Figure 1-6: Goal Categories and Performance Measures for the 2008 Arizona State Airports System Plan GOAL CATEGORY: DEVELOPMENT • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Percent of communities in the state with a population greater than 5,000 within 60 minutes driving time of a commercial service airport (SANS 2000) Percent of communities in the state with a population greater than 1,000 within 30 minutes driving time of a general aviation airport(SANS 2000) Population within 60 minutes of commercial service airports served by one airline Percent of population within 30 minutes of a public use airport Percent of population within 30 minutes of a NPIAS Airport Percent of population within a 30 minutes of each airport, by role category Percent of population within 30 minutes of an airport and the number of airports with an instrument approach Percent of licensed pilots within 30 minutes of an airport Percent of airports capable of supporting physician/medical transport aircraft Percent of communities in the state with a population greater than 15,000 within 30 minutes driving time of a general aviation airport that can accommodate large general aviation aircraft (ARC B-II) and has Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) capability (SANS 2000) Percent of airports within 30 minutes of an alternate airport with an ILS or LPV (300’, 1 mile) Percent of population within 30 minutes of an all weather runway (paved, instrument approach, AWOS) Percent of population within 30 minutes of an airport with on-site weather reporting Percent of airports with 24/7 fuel Percent of airports with jet fuel The number of airports with an annual demand less than 60 percent of runway annual service volume (SANS 2000) Percent of airports currently operating below FAA target demand/capacity ratio Percent of airports projected to be operating below FAA target demand/capacity ratio in 2028 Number of airports experiencing delay to aircraft operations: the maximum and average delay in minutes an aircraft experiences due to airside congestion (SANS 2000) Percent of population and employment centers that are within a 30-minute drive time of a system airport exceeding 60 percent demand/capacity, current and 2020 Airports with a current (past 5 years) master plan Percent of airports that are compliant with FAR Part 77 (height zoning) Percent of airports with surrounding municipalities that have adopted controls/ zoning to make land use in the airport environs compatible with airport operations and development Percent of airports with surrounding municipalities that have adopted “disclosure areas” Percent of airports that are recognized in local comprehensive plan Percent of airports included in regional transportation plans 1-23 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER ONE Figure 1-6: Goal Categories and Performance Measures for the 2008 Arizona State Airports System Plan (continued) GOAL CATEGORY: ECONOMIC SUPPORT • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Dollars of direct and indirect economic impact on the state from aviation (SANS 2000) Number of major recreational areas in the state within 30 minutes driving time of a general aviation airport (SANS 2000) Percent of total employment that is within 30 minutes of an airport Percent of businesses with the propensity to use aviation within a 30-minute drive of a system airport Percent of population within 30 minutes of a system airport meeting business user needs Number of airports without adequate utilities (electricity, telephone, water, sewer, and gas) (SANS 2000) Percent of airports with a PCI of 70 or greater Percent of airports meeting minimum facility and service objectives GOAL CATEGORY: SAFETY AND STANDARDS Percent of airports with clear approaches to primary runway ends Percent of airports with adopted Wildlife Management Plans Percent of airports with adopted Security Plans Airports controlling all runway end RPZs Percent of airports that have active programs (including vegetation management plans) to clear obstructions from their approaches Percent of airports that meet runway/taxiway separation criteria for their current ARC Percent of airports that have RSAs on their primary runway that meet the standards for their current ARC Percent of airports that have a written emergency response plan Percent of airports that have procedures in place to conduct self-inspections on a regular basis Percent of hospitals in the state within 30 minutes driving time of an airport with Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) capability, on-site weather reporting, and jet fuel availability (SANS 2000) Percent of airports that support search and rescue operations Percent of airports that support aerial fire fighting operations GOAL CATEGORY: ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY AND STEWARDHIP Number of airports that have Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Percent of system airports supporting flight training Percent of the population that are within 30 minutes of a system airport with a full-time flight school/flight instructor. Percent of system airports supporting A&P programs Percent of system airports that have aviation maintenance and repair. Percent of system airports that have educational programs that are affiliated with local elementary/secondary schools, community colleges, or technical/vocational schools. SUMMARY The groundwork established in this phase of the study is used to guide the remainder of the system plan. This chapter of the Arizona State Airports System Plan provides a foundation for subsequent analysis. Information presented in this chapter is used to: • • • • Guide the collection of data and information at system airports during the inventory phase of the study. Determine how well Arizona’s system of public use airports is currently performing. Identify where Arizona’s airport system is currently adequate, as well as where it is presently deficient, or where overlaps may be present. Identify the need for change in the airport system and Aeronautics’ policies to meet Arizona’s future aviation needs. 1-24 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER TWO CHAPTER TWO: INVENTORY OF CURRENT POLICY INTRODUCTION Arizona has a legacy of policies that have been created based on historical conditions. Many of these policies have not been evaluated for their effectiveness and appropriateness based on current and projected conditions in Arizona and in the aviation industry. The purpose of this chapter is to review and summarize existing policies pertaining to airports including the Arizona Revised Statutes, Arizona State Transportation Board (STB) Aviation Policies, and Five-Year Airport Capital Improvement Program guidelines. This chapter reviews the existing policies to set the stage for evaluating the effectiveness and appropriateness of the policies in Chapter Nine. The existing policies are subsequently evaluated to determine the need for clarification, definition, or modification to increase the effectiveness of each policy. REVIEW OF CURRENT POLICIES Each of the following policies are reviewed and analyzed to determine how the policies affect the state’s aviation system and how the policy is serving or not serving its purpose: • Arizona Revised Statutes Title 28 – Chapter 25 Aviation • State Transportation Board Aviation Policies • Five-Year Airport Capital Improvement Program (ACIP) Guidelines Arizona Revised Statutes Title 28 – Chapter 25 Aviation The current Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) have been updated with the 48th Legislature, 1st Regular Session information and contain the version of the statutes effective January 1, 2008. The ARS are the laws established by Arizona; the current ARS has more than 49 titles including Title 28 which addresses transportation. Among other requirements, the statutes under Chapter 25 establish the guidance and requirements for the Aeronautics Division and the Director of Aviation to follow in order to encourage and advance the safe and orderly development of aviation in the state. The Director uses the statutes along with the STB policies to develop programs and procedures to fulfill the mandates and directs staff to implement and maintain the programs. Figure 2-1 presents Chapter 25 and the articles it covers. As shown, there are eight articles included in Chapter 25. These eight articles deal with issues ranging from the operation of the Aeronautics Division to aircraft operation, aircraft registration and taxation, aircraft dealers, airports, airport zoning and regulation, and joint powers airport authorities. 2-1 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER TWO Figure 2-1: Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 28 - Chapter 25, Aviation Article 1 28-8201 28-8202 28-8204 28-8205 28-8206 28-8207 28-8208 28-8209 Article 2 28-8241 28-8242 28-8243 28-8244 Article 3 28-8271 28-8272 28-8273 28-8274 28-8275 28-8276 28-8277 28-8278 28-8279 28-8280 28-8281 28-8282 28-8283 28-8284 28-8285 28-8286 28-8287 28-8288 28-8289 28-8290 28-8291 28-8292 Article 4 28-8321 28-8322 28-8323 28-8324 28-8325 28-8326 28-8327 28-8328 28-8329 28-8330 28-8331 28-8332 General Provisions Definitions State aviation fund; report State owned airports; fees Construction of new airports; definitions Sovereignty Ownership Crimes, torts and other wrongs; governing law Legal relationships while in flight Aeronautics Division Aeronautics division; assistant director Powers and duties Abandoned aircraft; definition Hearing; appeal Aircraft Operation Federal license; violation Federal regulation; licensing and registration; violation Damage responsibility Aircraft collisions; liability Insurance coverage disclosure; civil penalty Violations; classification Low altitude flying prohibited Landing prohibition; liability Trick or acrobatic flying; low level flying; dropping objects Careless or reckless aircraft operation; classification Killing birds or animals; classification Prohibited operation; under the influence; incapacitation Implied consent; immunity Violation; classification Alcohol abuse screening session Alternative sentencing Second offense Third or subsequent offense Political subdivision; immunity Employment permitted Prior convictions allowed Waiver of fine, surcharge or assessment Aircraft Registration and Taxation Definition of resident Registration; exceptions Government and dealer aircraft registration; fees Registration; license tax; proration; fee Registration fee; certificate; decal; duplicate Aircraft dealers; registration application; penalty Exemption claim Failure to register; assessment procedure Late registration; penalty; abatement Lien Seized aircraft sale Registration; transfer or assignment 2-2 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER TWO Figure 2-1: Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 28 - Chapter 25, Aviation (Continued) Article 4 (con't) 28-8334 28-8335 28-8336 28-8337 28-8338 28-8339 28-8340 28-8341 28-8342 28-8343 28-8344 28-8345 28-8346 28-8347 Article 5 28-8381 28-8382 28-8383 28-8384 28-8385 28-8386 Article 6 28-8411 28-8412 28-8413 28-8414 28-8415 28-8416 28-8417 28-8418 28-8419 28-8420 28-8421 28-8422 28-8423 28-8424 28-8425 28-8426 28-8427 28-8428 Article 7 28-8461 28-8462 28-8463 28-8464 28-8465 28-8466 28-8467 28-8468 Aircraft Registration and Taxation Aircraft loss or destruction License tax; tax rate Nonresident; license tax rate Stored or repaired aircraft; license tax rate Salvage aircraft; license tax rate; definition Special aircraft; license tax rate; definitions Manufacturer's aircraft; definition Maintenance aircraft; license tax rate; definition Fair market value determination Aircraft total loss; violation; classification Aviation fuel tax; rate; definition Registration fees; penalties; taxes; distribution Filing by mail; date of filing Civil penalties Aircraft Dealers Definition of aircraft dealer License requirement; application; renewal; license tax; liability Aircraft dealer duties Bond or cash deposit Records Violation; classification Airports in General Authority of cities, towns and counties; limitation Airports; public purpose Acceptance by state, cities, towns or counties of federal or other aid City and town airport disposal Real property interests; airport purposes Private property acquisition; airport purposes Payment for real property; bonds Airport construction and operation; charge Airport rules, fees and charges; limitation Agreements; joint airport operations Joint exercise of powers Adjoining state monies for airports Airport land lease; nonprofit corporation Nonprofit corporation lessees; status; authority; exemptions Lease authority; airport or air terminal purposes Airport police; powers; qualifications Police aides Liability; airport police and aides Airport Zoning and Regulation Definitions Airport hazard; public nuisance; prevention and elimination Acquisition of facilities or nonconforming property; exception Political subdivisions; airport zoning regulations Joint airport zoning board Zoning regulations; relationships Airport zoning regulations; procedure; airport zoning commission Airport zoning regulations; criteria; limitations 2-3 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER TWO Figure 2-1: Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 28 - Chapter 25, Aviation (Continued) Article 7 (con't) 28-8469 28-8470 28-8471 28-8472 28-8473 28-8474 28-8475 28-8476 28-8477 28-8478 28-8479 28-8480 28-8481 28-8482 28-8483 28-8484 28-8485 28-8486 Article 8 28-8521 28-8522 28-8523 28-8524 28-8525 28-8526 28-8527 28-8529 28-8530 28-8531 28-8532 28-8533 28-8534 28-8535 28-8536 Airport Zoning and Regulation Airport zoning regulations; administrative agency; duties Permit Variance Permit; variance; condition; hazard indicators Airport zoning regulations; board of adjustment; powers;proceedings Board of adjustment; appeals Appeals; superior court Violation; classification Remedies Resolutions; ordinances; vehicle operations in airports Regulation; limitation Military airport continuation; land acquisition Planning and zoning; military airport and ancillary military facility's operation compatibility; compliance review; penalty; definitions Incorporation of sound attenuation standards in building codes Registry of military airport flight operations; public inspection Military airport disclosure; residential property Airport influence areas; notice Public airport disclosure; definitions Joint Powers Airport Authority Joint powers airport authority; agreement; board of directors Joint powers airport authority classification Annual operating budget Allocation of monies; sources; public hearing; reuse, development and capital improvement plans Joint powers airport authority; withdrawal Joint powers airport authority; admission Joint powers airport authority; powers Financing authority Revenue bonds; fees and charges Refunding bonds Bond terms Bond validity Bonds; legal investments Federal income tax considerations Bond proceeds; application Source: Arizona State Legislature 2-4 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER TWO As stated in ARS 28-8242 Powers and Duties, the Aeronautics Division “shall cooperate with all state, local, and federal organizations to encourage and advance the safe and orderly development of aviation in this state.” This parallels the Arizona State Transportation Board Aviation Policies and the Five-Year Airport Capital Improvement Program Guidelines. In addition, it recommends the division “accept, in the name of this state, federal monies made available for the advancement of aviation” and deposit these monies in the state aviation fund, which is supported by the ACIP and the associated FAA grants. It also permits the department to loan monies from the state aviation fund to the operating entity for a public airport. ARS 28-8242 also says the Director will “adopt rules to promote public safety and the best interests of aviation in this state.” The Director is also supposed to work with local authorities to plan, build, and develop airports, airport terminals, and other related navigational facilities. Finally, the Director is directed to operate and maintain the Grand Canyon National Park Airport. Other articles and statutes within Title 28, Chapter 25 Aviation are applicable to aircraft and airport operators, and several focus specifically on Grand Canyon National Park Airport. As noted in the previous task, the Division of Aeronautics performs many functions that contribute to the public safety and best interests of aviation and the statutes support these functions. A review of the effectiveness and appropriateness of this policy will be conducted in a Chapter Nine. An example of this evaluation analysis may be the provision in Title 28, Chapter 25 Aviation directing the Division of Aeronautics to operate and maintain the Grand Canyon National Park Airport. Does this directive “promote public safety” and is it in the “best interests of aviation in this state”? Could another entity operate and maintain the airport to established state standards more efficiently and cost-effectively. Aspects of these policies will be evaluated and determined if the need for clarification, definition, or modification would increase the effectiveness of each policy. Arizona State Transportation Board Aviation Policies While the ARS establish the laws that govern the state, Arizona’s State Transportation Board is responsible for developing rules to administer the ARS and create statewide transportation policies. There are six STB policies applicable to the State Airports System, which were adopted as current policy on October 18, 2002 (Fiscal Year 2003). The purpose of the policies is to maximize funding resources and advance the safe and orderly development of the airport system. The intended purpose is to update STB policies on a regular basis to address specific issues facing ADOT and aviation that are within the statutory authority of the division. Prior to describing the specific policies, the Fiscal Year 2003 STB Aviation Policies presents a definition of the State Aviation System. This definition is important as it describes the division of airports into two systems for planning and administrative purposes. It also describes airport categories within the two systems. As the 2008 SASP progresses, any changes to the airport system and airport category definitions will require changes to the STB Aviation Policies. 2-5 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER TWO The six current policies are described below: 1. Loan Program: A program created by the State Transportation Board using available cash balance funds in the State Aviation Fund. Dollars are loaned to eligible system airports for revenue generating and airport economic development projects that are ineligible under state and federal grant programs. In addition, the loan program provides eligible airports with a means to borrow matching funds for federal grants. For an airport to be considered eligible, four basic conditions must be met: it is an eligible agency with an eligible project; has statewide interest; has financial need; and the project is considered feasible. An eligible agency is a town, city, county, airport authority, or other political subdivision of the state, which owns, operates, or controls an airport, open to the public on a nondiscriminatory basis. Eligible projects are ones that are not eligible for funding under other programs and are designed to improve airport self-sufficiency. The project has statewide interest if it contains factors such as protecting airport facilities from damage, enhancing air safety, protecting natural resources from loss or waste, improving air service, maintaining the state-wide system, etc. Financial need is determined if an agency applying for an airport assistance loan demonstrates that it has attempted to obtain funds on reasonable terms from other sources. Finally, the agency must demonstrate that the proposed project meets certain conditions of engineering feasibility, economic justification, and financial feasibility. A project feasibility report must accompany the application for a loan and must contain sufficient information to justify the project. This loan program appears to serve its purpose of maximizing federal funding by providing eligible airport sponsors with loans for the local matching share and also supporting revenue generating projects to provide airport sponsors additional opportunities to be more financially self sufficient and have the ability to pay the local share of grants that would otherwise not be available. This policy supports ADOT’s mission to “encourage and advance the safe…development of aviation” in Arizona. It will be evaluated in a subsequent chapter and determined if clarification or a modification would increase its effectiveness. 2. Airport Pavement Management Program (APMP): Public Law 103-305 requires that airports requesting Federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding for pavement rehabilitation or reconstruction have an effective pavement maintenance management system. The Aeronautics Division has completed and is maintaining an Airport Pavement Management System (APMS) which, coupled with monthly pavement evaluations by the airport sponsors, fulfills this requirement. The APMS consists of visual inspections of all airport pavements and uses the Army Corps of Engineers' “Micropaver” program as a basis for generating a Five-Year Airport Pavement Preservation Program (APPP). The program generates a pavement condition index (PCI) of all eligible system airports. Airports that are eligible include all public-use airports in Arizona. The APMP also recommends projects, in priority order, for pavement preservation work. The APMP is a program that helps preserve airport infrastructure, protects the initial investment used to fund critical aircraft pavement projects and extends to the maximum amount the useful life of the airport system's pavement. This policy supports ADOT’s mission to “encourage and advance the safe…development of aviation” in Arizona. In addition, this policy satisfies ARS 28-504 Transportation System Performance Measures; Data Collection and Reporting; Methodologies by supporting the need for “system 2-6 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER TWO preservation and maintenance.” This program will be evaluated to determine if additional clarification or a modification to the policy would increase its effectiveness of achieving the state’s goals. 3. Planning Guidelines: Guidelines were established by the State Transportation Board in order for the Aeronautics Division to accurately assess the limitations and deficiencies of airports in the state’s Primary and Secondary Airport systems. These guidelines apply to airports in the Primary and Secondary system and are evaluated periodically to determine the estimated statewide capital improvement costs required to bring the airports into compliance with the planning guidelines. The planning guidelines provide the Aeronautics Division with definitive criteria to steer airports toward developing capital improvement programs that achieve these minimum standards/safety improvement goals. This policy clearly encourages and advances the safe and orderly development of airports in the state. In addition, this policy satisfies ARS 28-503 Performance Based Planning and Programming by supporting the need “to monitor and evaluate the performance outcomes of transportation planning and programming decisions.” This program will be evaluated to determine if additional clarification or a modification to the policy would increase its effectiveness of encouraging and advancing “the safe and orderly development of aviation in this state.” 4. Priority Rating System: A rating system utilized to numerically score individual airport development projects requested by system eligible airports. This numerical rating system is designed to assist the Aeronautics Division in recommending the allocation of funds to the highest priority airport development projects within the statewide airport system. The purpose of the Priority Rating System is to objectively evaluate projects based upon the airport’s activity level and the type of project being proposed. This system provides the Aeronautics Division with objective measurements of various factors, including the importance of the proposed project to the airport, the importance of the airport to the people of Arizona, and the considerations specified in ARS 28-6951. The priority rating formula is intended to provide systematic information to guide decision-making for the limited funding resources available annually. Criteria for rating projects in the Five-Year Airport Development Program are based on whether the airport is classified as a Primary or a Secondary Airport. The Primary Airport System includes all public use airports in Arizona categorized as: • Commercial Service, Reliever, and/or General Aviation Airports • Airports that have 10 or more based aircraft • Airports with 2,000 or more annual aircraft operations • Airports projected to meet any of the above criteria within 10 years The airports in the Secondary Airport System are the state’s public use airports/heliports that do not qualify for inclusion in the Primary Airport System. Proposed changes and projects must be included in the approved airport layout plan prior to consideration for possible funding. 2-7 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER TWO This policy supports the Division’s mission statement to encourage and advance the safe and orderly development of airports in the state and ARS 28-505 Transportation System Performance Factors; weights by demonstrating how the “system is moving people, goods and services in relation to the cost.” This policy will be evaluated in a subsequent chapter and determined if a clarification or modification would increase its effectiveness and benefit state aviation better. 5. Resource Allocation: Guidelines established by the State Transportation Board to allocate State Aviation Fund dollars in an equitable, efficient, and effective manner and utilized by the Aeronautics Division in the development of the annual five-year Airport Development Program. The construction and development of airports in Arizona are accomplished through a variety of funding efforts involving federal, state, and local governments. The state program is a separately established program that derives funds from taxes on aviation goods and services. Flight property taxes, aircraft lieu tax, registration fees and aviation fuel tax are the primary sources of revenue for the State Aviation Fund, All public use airports/heliports sponsored by a political subdivision of the state are eligible to participate in the Airport Development Grant Program. The allocation formulas are designed to provide the largest dollars to the airports with the largest amount of aviation activity (passenger enplanements, based aircraft and operations) while ensuring that all eligible airports will have an opportunity to participate in the annual allocation of state aviation funds. The allocation percentages are based upon the percentage of based aircraft and annual operations at the commercial service and reliever airports compared with based aircraft and annual operations levels at other airports. These funding resources are allocated in the following approximate percentages: • Commercial Service and Reliever Airports - 80% • Other Primary Airports - 18% • Secondary Airports – 2% This policy supports aeronautics’ mission statement to encourage and advance the development of airports in the state and ARS 28-504 Transportation System Performance Measures; data collection and reporting; methodologies through “identify the appropriate units of measurement and the processes for determining and reporting the performance measures.“ This program will be evaluated to determine if additional clarification or a modification to the policy would increase its effectiveness of encouraging and advancing “the safe and orderly development of aviation in this state.” 6. Small Community Air Service Pilot Program: This pilot program is funded through a grantin-aid from the STB to supplement a related federal grant from the USDOT. It is designed to help smaller communities enhance their air service through public-private partnership projects. Funding to support this program is obtained from the Arizona Department of Transportation funds collected pursuant to ARS 35-146 and 147 and placed in a special account to be established by the Department of Transportation. The Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21) gives priority to those communities where: (1) average air fares are higher than the air fares for all communities; (2) a portion of the cost of the project is provided from local, non-airport revenue sources; (3) a public- 2-8 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER TWO private partnership has or will be established to facilitate air carrier service to the public; (4) improved service will bring material benefits to a broad section of the traveling public. This policy encourages state, local, and federal organizations to cooperate and advance the development of aviation and air service in the state. However, the effectiveness and appropriateness of this policy and its elements will be reviewed in part by comparing what other states are doing and identifying the benefits and any unintended consequences. Five-Year Airport Capital Improvement Program Guidelines With the STB Aviation Policies in place, the ADOT Aeronautics Five-Year Airport Capital Improvement Program (ACIP) Guidelines are developed to ensure the policies are implemented through project planning. The purpose of the ADOT Aeronautics Five-Year ACIP is to maximize the effective use of state dollars for airport development, while maximizing FAA funding for Arizona airports. ADOT Aeronautics develops the five-year ACIP program and it is reviewed and approved annually by the State Transportation Board in conjunction with the STB Aviation Policies. The ACIP allocates funds for eligible projects from the State Aviation Fund and distributes these funds across three major funding categories: the Airport Development Grants Program; Airport Loan Program; and the Airport Preventative Maintenance Services. Currently, the Airport Development Grants Program requires the local sponsor to provide a matching share of five percent on most federal/state/local projects. Most local sponsors can request a matching grant from the state and both the sponsor and the state will provide 2.5 percent share of the total grant. Exceptions to this include Phoenix Sky Harbor International and Tucson International. The local share of federal projects for Phoenix Sky Harbor is 25 percent and the local share for Tucson International is nine percent, making the state share 12.5 and 4.47 percent, respectively. On state/local projects, the Primary Airport sponsors must provide 10 percent of the funds and a five percent match is needed for Secondary Airports. Even with a matching share of only 2.5 to 10 percent, many smaller communities find it difficult to meet this requirement, given the size and extent of the projects necessary to adequately address the needs of their local airport. Thus the Airport Loan Program was developed to help airports become more financially self-sufficient and generate revenue to help pay the local share. The Airport Loan Program provides low-interest loans for projects that are not eligible for grant assistance. The Aeronautics Division has developed an Airport Pavement Management System that includes all paved airports in the Primary and Secondary airport systems. A set-aside for the Pavement Maintenance Program is calculated annually based upon the system project costs needed to fund identified projects, approximately $3 million annually. The Five-Year Airport Capital Improvement Program serves its stated purpose of maximizing the effective use of funding based on the three successful, stable funding programs ADOT Aeronautics administers. Nearly 1,000 airport improvement projects are submitted annually to ADOT, however, only a small number actual receive funding. These projects have helped advance the safe and orderly development of the airport system in Arizona. 2-9 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER TWO IMPACT OF POLICIES The current ARS, STB, and Five-Year ACIP policies and guidelines have been in place over many years. Each of these policies has had varying levels of impact on the development of Arizona’s aviation system. Specific impacts of the three groups of policies are discussed below. ARS – Title 28, Chapter 25 The Title 28, Chapter 25 of the ARS sets forth specific statutes or laws regarding all matters related to aviation. Many of these do not impact the operation or activities of the Aeronautics Division or the airports specifically, but instead focus on issues such as general provisions, aircraft operation, and aircraft dealers. These articles within the chapter will continue to be modified as necessary to meet safety and regulatory needs. A few of the statutes that have the most significant impact on Arizona’s aviation system, as relevant to this study, are as follows: Article 1, 28-8202, State aviation fund; report This statute provides for the establishment and administration of the State Aviation Fund. The creation of this statute was critical to the funding now in place to assist with the development of Arizona’s airports. The fund is comprised of money from aviation fuel taxes or motor vehicle fuel taxes, monies from the sale of abandoned or seized aircraft, flight property tax revenue, registration fees, license taxes, and penalties, monies from the operation of airports (Grand Canyon National Park), and monies earned from investment of the fund. This statute allows for administering monies that are appropriated from the legislature out of the fund, as approved by the STB. The STB is directed to distribute the monies according to the needs of publicly owned and operated airports. The statute indicates that no more than 10 percent of the average fund revenue for the past three years may be awarded to any one airport in any fiscal year. The State Aviation Fund has enjoyed significant growth as Arizona’s aviation environment has expanded. With additional airlines generating flight property tax revenue, pilots purchasing additional fuel due to growth in population, and increased registration fees from higher numbers of registered aircraft, the State Aviation Fund had nearly $30 million dollars at the start of Fiscal Year 2007. This growth in the fund provides an opportunity for more investment in Arizona’s aviation system, even though the cost of projects has increased substantially with the economic environment of 2008. The limitation of an annual award of no more than 10 percent of the average fund revenue for the past three years has meant that more airports have been provided with grants, as opposed to large grants being awarded to single airports. For some airports seeking projects that exceed this amount, they must obtain funding from other sources to ensure completion of these projects. The deposit of funding from the operation of the Grand Canyon National Park Airport has meant that the money generated by the airport is not necessarily available for its use for maintenance and development. This airport is the only one in the state operated by ADOT and funded strictly through the State Aviation Fund. Article 28-8204, State owned airports; fees sets the framework for the types of fess that can be charged at the airport. While not noted, because of the inclusion of this airport’s funding in the State Aviation Fund, it is also 2-10 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER TWO subject to the appropriations and other regulatory processes associated with state government. Article 1, 28-8205, Construction of new airports; definitions This statute identifies limitations associated with developing new airports. It notes that “new airports within the boundaries of an urbanized area or within 24 statute miles of the exterior boundary of an urbanized area” shall not be constructed without approval of the STB. This statute would impact the development of new airports in the state, but would not prevent such development. There are currently no policing mechanisms in place to locate and identify new airports being developed within 24 statute miles of the exterior boundary of an urbanized area. Also, there are no penalties imposed on the developer of such an airport if that airport was not approved by the STB. Article 6, 28-8413, Acceptance by state, cities, towns or counties of federal or other aid This statute allows the state or a county, city, or town to accept federal and other monies for airport improvement. It also allows that ADOT can be designated as the agent to accept and receive federal monies. This statute would allow ADOT to consider participation in the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) Block Grant or Channeling programs if so desired or warranted. Article 7, 28-8485, Airport influence areas; notice This statute provides for the option of the state or the governing body of a political subdivision to establish an airport influence area. The statute identifies property in the vicinity of the airport “that is currently exposed to aircraft noise and overflight and that either has a day-night average sound level of 65 decibels or higher or is within such geographical distance from an existing runway that exposes the area to aircraft noise and overflights as determined by the airport owner or operator” as potentially included in the airport influence area. After notification and conducting a hearing, the political entity that has established an airport influence area must file a record of the area in the office of the county recorder in each county that contains property in the airport influence area. As part of the record, owners or potential purchasers of property in the airport influence area will receive notification that property in the area is currently subject to aircraft noise and aircraft overflights. This statute provides a means for airports to educate those in their environs of the potential noise and overflight issues associated with airports. There are separate statutes that address military airports and their disclosure and these have been widely implemented. While many airports may have airport influence areas, less than 30 have taken the next step in implementing public disclosure through the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE). Article 7, 28-8486. Public airport disclosure; definitions denotes that the ADRE “shall have and make available to the public on request a map showing the exterior boundaries of each territory in the vicinity of a public airport.” The ADRE is to work with each public airport and affected local government “as necessary to develop a map that is visually useful in determining whether property is located in or outside of a territory in the vicinity of a public airport.” 2-11 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER TWO While these two statutes provide for some airport zoning and regulation, there are no requirements and no penalties for not implementing airport influence areas or public airport disclosure. Because of this, encroachment is worsening around airports, limiting expansion potential and creating additional impacted areas. Arizona STB Aviation Policies The STB Aviation Policies are updated regularly to reflect current aviation needs and changes in the aviation environment. Through the SASP, an update of the STB Aviation Policies will be suggested to reflect changes recommended as part of the plan. While changes to all policies may not be proposed, the impact of the policies on the state aviation system and its future will be considered throughout the study’s process. As the 2008 SASP progresses, any changes to the airport system and airport category definitions will require changes to the STB Aviation Policies. Other potential impacts for the six current policies are outlined below: 1. Loan Program: The current Loan Program is limited to certain airports and projects designed to generate revenue, improve economic development, and provide a match for grants. The eligibility of airports and projects will be considered in subsequent elements of the study once the analysis has determined where Arizona’s airports are in need of improvement. 2. Airport Pavement Management Program: While not part of the SASP, the APMP serves to preserve airport infrastructure investment by extending the useful life of pavements. Through review of the PCI for Arizona’s airports and how the PCI has changed with the implementation of a long-standing APMP, the SASP will provide information that can be used to determine if changes to the APMP would enhance the state aviation system. 3. Planning Guidelines: The current STB policies contain guidelines related to the development of airports within the Primary and Secondary Airport system. If the SASP determines that different airport categories will be established, these planning guidelines may require modification to be consistent with the SASP’s recommendations. As part of the SASP, updated estimates of statewide capital improvement costs required to bring the airports into compliance with the new planning guidelines will be prepared. 4. Priority Rating System: Use of the current rating system has impacted Arizona’s development of the state aviation system through the priorities established in the system. The factors used in the rating system as well as the high priority placed on certain types of projects have resulted in some projects being funded and others still remaining on the list of needs. Based on the analysis of the state’s future aviation needs as determined during the SASP, it is possible that changes to the rating system will be proposed. It is important that any proposed changes to the rating system continue to provide ADOT with an objective and sustainable process for selecting projects that improve the state aviation system’s performance. 5. Resource Allocation: The allocation formulas currently in place have resulted in the most significant development focused on commercial service and reliever airports (who are allocated 80 percent of the funding), while other Primary and Secondary Airports receive approximately 20 percent of the funding. These allocation guidelines allow for participation by all eligible airports but more funding at larger airports. The eligibility of 2-12 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER TWO airports, allocation formulas, and factors used to allocate will be considered as part of the SASP. 6. Small Community Air Service Pilot Program: This STB policy was created to address air service throughout Arizona and to maximize funding that may be provided through the USDOT. Based on grants that were provided by the USDOT to several of Arizona’s smaller commercial service airports, this policy allowed for matching funds to be dedicated to air service improvement. The continued importance and need for this policy will be evaluated as the other policies are considered. Five-Year ACIP Guidelines The Five-Year ACIP allocates funds for eligible projects from the State Aviation Fund and distributes these funds across three major funding categories: the Airport Development Grants Program; Airport Loan Program; and the APMS. The guidelines used to distribute the funds in each of these categories have resulted in Arizona’s current aviation system development. Once the system has been analyzed, a review of how the Five-Year ACIP Guidelines can be modified to address the performance of the system will be performed. Modifications will be proposed that promote improvement in the areas of the system most in need to promote a balanced, integrated system of airports to serve Arizona’s aviation needs. SUMMARY This chapter has identified the existing policies impacting Arizona’s aviation environment. These existing policies have been implemented over time, and will continue to see changes. A subsequent task analyzes the effectiveness of these policies based on the evaluation of the system’s performance. Changes to the existing policies will be considered after the evaluation of the system. 2-13 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE CHAPTER THREE: IDENTIFICATION OF AVIATION/AIRPORT ASSETS INTRODUCTION The purpose of this chapter is to depict existing conditions at Arizona’s airports using tables, charts, and graphics. An accurate and thorough inventory of existing airport and aviation assets is necessary to ensure the results of the State Airports System Plan (SASP) are factual and implementable. The inventory portion of the SASP serves as the primary source of data for analysis throughout the study. Business and pilot surveys were also used to gather information from the users of the airport system. The data presented in this chapter is organized as follows: • Data Collection Methods • Existing Airside Facilities • Existing Landside Facilities • Airport Planning Documents • Airport Activity • Airspace • Navigational Aids and Approach Types • Airport Development Constraints • Business Survey Results • Pilot Survey Results DATA COLLECTION METHODS The ADOT Aeronautics Division maintains a database of aviation facilities in Arizona. The data is based on information provided by airport managers, as provided to ADOT through various means. This database was used as the initial resource for the collection of airport inventory data in this analysis. This data was confirmed or revised using other sources. Data for this study was also obtained through an inventory survey and on-site visits to each study airport. Prior to visiting each of the study airports, a partially completed inventory survey was sent to each airport manager/sponsor. Data included in the survey was compiled from ADOT’s database. During the on-site visit, a member of the consulting team reviewed each of the inventory surveys with the airport representative, typically the airport manager and/or sponsor, reviewing each question for accuracy and completing any unanswered questions. In addition to the inventory survey and on-site visits, other sources including Federal Aviation Administration FAA databases, and previous Aeronautics Division and individual airport studies, provided additional information regarding Arizona’s airport system. The following specific sources of information were used, where necessary, to supplement data gathered during the inventory process: • FAA Terminal Area Forecasts (TAF) • FAA 5010 forms for individual airports • Airport Master Plans • Airport Layout Plans (ALP) • FAA’s Air Traffic Activity Data System (ATADS) 3-1 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE The following data was collected where applicable from the airports through the inventory survey, on-site visits, and follow-up: • Airport information (sponsor name, contact, phone number, hours attended) • Aeronautical activity (based aircraft, operational mix, design\critical aircraft, recreational aircraft) • Aeronautical services • Scheduled airline activity • Air cargo activity • Activities (business, training, sport and recreational) • Airside facilities • Landside facilities and ground access • Landing aids • Weather/communications • Approach minima and protection standards • Ordinances (enacted locally) • Land use/regulatory • Airspace/obstructions (constraints and design standards) • Ownership/management • Capital improvements • Operations/maintenance • Emergency services • Special aviation uses (such as military, pilot training, firefighting support, skydiving operations, glider operations, etc.) • Major airport users • Security measures Based on discussions with ADOT, 93 airports were included in the inventory effort and were visited in order to gather additional information for the system plan. Data collection efforts also included a limited number of privately owned-private use airports. The airports inventoried as part of this study are presented in Figure 3-1. The airports are summarized by FAA NPIAS category. These categories were defined in Chapter One. Figure 3-1: Airports Visited During Inventory Effort NPIAS Category Primary Commercial Service Commercial Service Reliever General Aviation Non-NPIAS General Aviation Total Number of Airports Visited 9 3 8 39 34 93 Source: Wilbur Smith Associates The airports visited as part of the inventory effort, all Native American airports, and military airports are depicted in Figure 3-2. A reference table containing the airport codes, airport name, and associated city name can also be found in Appendix A. 3-2 Utah L41 PRIVATE USE AIRPORTS Associated City Airport Carefree Sky Ranch At Carefree Nogales Nogales Intl Tucson La Cholla Airpark Mobile Mobile Maricopa Estrella Sailport Queen Creek Pegasus Airpark Chandler Stellar Airpark Roosevelt Grapevine Peoria Pleasant Valley Aguila Eagle Roost Airpark Bullhead City Eagle Airpark Peach Springs Grand Canyon Caverns Whitmore Grand Canyon Bar Ten Airstrip Tuweep Tuweep Grand Canyon Valle Cordes Cordes Rimrock Rim Rock Nevada ! !" U30 " % ! ! % ! " 45AZ ! ! ! !% FLG A09 ! INW ! P14 SEZ P52 ! PRC E51 48AZ ! SJN ! ! TYL % ! 00AZ " California SOW PAN P20 " Z95 E25 " % % !! % ! !! ! ! "" % ! ! "! % %% ! ""! ! ! ! ! ! % ! !! % ! ! !! ! " E24 18AZ P48 DVT 51AZ SDL LUF GEU BXK GYR P18 PHX FFZ P13 IWA P19 CHD 34AZ 5AZ3 41AZA39 E63 GBN ! NYL E67 CGZ CFT P08 SAD E60 20AZ ! 44A 4AZ7 E81 1AZ0E68 LGF ! D68 % ! 27AZ RQE CMR A20 ! " 85V ! P23 HII " 40G 3AZ5 L37 IGM P10 E77 MZJ P01 AVQ 57AZ P33 RYN E95 Mexico E78 Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Miles 0 DMA TUS 50 100 I ! FHU ! OLS " NATIVE AMERICAN - CLOSED Associated City Airport Chinle Chinle Lukachukai Lukachukai Pine Springs Pine Springs Pinon Pinon Rock Point Rock Point San Carlos San Carlos Rocky Ridge Rocky Ridge Shonto Shonto Ganado Ganado GCN ! 04AZ E91 46AZ 50AZ " FAA ID 04AZ 39AZ 45AZ 46AZ 49AZ 4AZ7 50AZ 53AZ 85V ! % 1G4 " " " " " " T03 " TRIBAL AIRPORTS - OPEN Associated City Airport Parker Avi Suquilla Cibecue Cibecue Peach Springs Grand Canyon West Hualapai Hualapai Kayenta Kayenta Chandler Gila River Memorial Airport Polacca Polacca Globe San Carlos Apache Sells Sells Tuba City Tuba City Whiteriver Whiteriver Window Rock Window Rock L50 " FAA ID P20 Z95 1G4 3AZ5 0V7 34AZ P10 P13 E78 T03 E24 RQE " 39AZ L25 Airport Davis-Monthan AFB Laguna AAF Luke AFB Gila Bend-AF Aux. Papago AAF MILITARY - JOINT USE FAA ID Associated City Airport NYL Yuma Yuma International FHU Sierra Vista Sierra Vista Municipal 49AZ %% 1Z1 MILITARY Associated City Tucson Yuma Litchfield Park Gila Bend Scottsdale " " New Mexico " 0V7 53AZ IFP FAA ID DMA LGF LUF GBN P18 PGA " FAA ID 18AZ OLS 57AZ 1AZ0 E68 5AZ3 P19 51AZ P48 27AZ A09 L37 1Z1 L50 40G 00AZ 48AZ " PUBLIC USE AIRPORTS Associated City Airport Picacho EDS Field Maricopa Ak-Chin San Luis Rolle Airfield Wickenburg Forepaugh San Carlos San Carlos Bullhead City Sun Valley Phoenix Phoenix Regional Marana Marana Regional Colorado City Colorado City Municipal Buckeye Buckeye Municipal Clifton/Morenci Greenlee County Casa Grande Casa Grande Municipal Chandler Chandler Municipal Williams H.A. Clark Memorial Field Springerville Springerville Municipal Douglas Douglas Municipal Douglas Bisbee Bisbee Douglas International Phoenix Phoenix Deer Valley Wickenburg Wickenburg Municipal Bagdad Bagdad Eloy Eloy Municipal Gila Bend Gila Bend Municipal Kearny Kearny San Manuel San Manuel Superior Superior Municipal Chinle Chinle Municipal Benson Benson Municipal Mesa Falcon Field Flagstaff Flagstaff Pulliam Grand Canyon Grand Canyon National Park Glendale Glendale Municipal Goodyear Phoenix Goodyear Lake Havasu City Lake Havasu City Bullhead City Laughlin/Bullhead International Kingman Kingman Winslow Winslow-Lindbergh Regional Mesa Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Meadview Pearce Ferry Marble Canyon Marble Canyon Marana Pinal Airpark Ajo Eric Marcus Municipal Douglas Cochise College Bisbee Bisbee Municipal Coolidge Coolidge Municipal Holbrook Holbrook Municipal Seligman Seligman Tombstone Tombstone Municipal Willcox Cochise County Cottonwood Cottonwood Payson Payson Page Page Municipal Phoenix Phoenix Sky Harbor International Prescott Ernest A. Love Field Tucson Ryan Field Safford Safford Regional Scottsdale Scottsdale Sedona Sedona St Johns St Johns Industrial Show Low Show Low Regional Tucson Tucson Intl Taylor Taylor Temple Bar Temple Bar %! AZC " FAA ID 20AZ 41AZ 44A 44E 4AZ7 A20 A39 AVQ AZC BXK CFT CGZ CHD CMR D68 DGL DUG DVT E25 E51 E60 E63 E67 E77 E81 E91 E95 FFZ FLG GCN GEU GYR HII IFP IGM INW IWA L25 L41 MZJ P01 P03 P04 P08 P14 P23 P29 P33 P52 PAN PGA PHX PRC RYN SAD SDL SEZ SJN SOW TUS TYL U30 ! ! ! ! !! P29 DUG P04 P03 DGL " " Tribal - Closed ! % Public-Use " " Figure 3-2: Arizona Airports Considered in the SASP Inventory Effort ! Tribal - Open Private-Use Military Joint Use 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE Native American Airport Review As part of the SASP, a detailed review of airports located on Native American tribal lands was conducted. Arizona is home to 21 federally-recognized Native American Tribes. Tribal property and reservations occupy over 25 percent of Arizona’s land. A review of FAA 5010 data indicates there are 24 airfields on tribal land. These airports are denoted in Figure 3-2. This list of airports was compared to available information from the FAA and ADOT. Through this process, over nine different tribes were identified along with several private owners. Through further research, it was determined that only 14 of those airports were open and available for public use, and would be included in future SASP analysis. These airports are: • Avi Suquilla • Chinle Municipal • Cibecue • Grand Canyon West • Hualapai • Kayenta • Memorial Airfield • Phoenix Regional • Polacca • San Carlos Apache • Sells • Tuba City • Whiteriver • Window Rock Through conversations with representatives of the tribal communities, confirmation of closed airports was made, including Ganado which has been included in the NPIAS. Review of the current condition of the Native American airports was conducted to determine how these airports contribute and relate to other airports in the statewide system. The needs of these airports will be evaluated as part of this study. While these airports are not currently eligible for state funding, they are part of the overall system and their analysis is a necessary part of the SASP. Inventoried Airports Removed from Further SASP Analysis After conducting the extensive inventory effort, which included contact with and visits to 93 airports, it was determined that 10 of the airports should be removed from further analysis in the SASP. Figure 3-3 lists the airports removed from further analysis in the SASP. Among the 10 airports removed, six are currently closed and are unlikely to reopen in the foreseeable future. The remaining four are privately owned, are operated for private use only, and were not interested in participating in the study. These airports still play an important role in the system and accommodate key aviation users. Future inclusion of these airports in the airport system may be considered if the analysis in this plan unveils a hole or gap in the system that may be filled by one of these airports. 3-4 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE Figure 3-3: Airports Removed from Further SASP Analysis Associated City Bullhead City Airport Name Eagle Airpark 00AZ Cordes Cordes 85V Ganado Ganado Land owned by Navajo Tribe; closed 41AZ Maricopa AK Chin Community Airfield Owned by Ak Chin Farms for agricultural spraying; not interested in becoming public use facility Private Use Only 1AZ0 Mobile Mobile 20AZ Picacho EDS Field 5AZ3 Queen Creek Pegasus Airpark 51AZ Roosevelt Grapevine L50 Tuweep Tuweep Private Use Only Closed Indefinitely Private Use Only Closed Indefinitely Closed Indefinitely 44E Wickenburg Forepaugh Used for commercial airline training; not interested in operating as public use facility Located on BLM land and previously used for crop dusting; BLM has no intention of re-opening Privately used by residents of airpark only; not interesting in participating in SASP Located on U.S. Forest Service land; closed for several years; no plans to reopen or rehabilitate this site Located on State Trust Land and closed since 2004; runway in poor condition; limited road access Owned and controlled by Bureau of Land Management; does not have reason or resources to open, operate, or maintain airport Code A09 Status Manager not interested in participating in state study since ineligible for funding Permanently closed and no interest in selling or using land as future airport site Reason for Removal Private Use Only Closed Indefinitely Closed Indefinitely Closed Indefinitely Source: Wilbur Smith Associates SASP Airports Figure 3-4 presents all airports included in the Arizona SASP. The airports are grouped by their current NPIAS service level. Within each category the airports are listed in alphabetical order by their associated city. The Arizona SASP contains nine Primary Commercial Service airports, three Commercial Service airports, eight Reliever airports, thirty-eight General Aviation airports, and twenty-four non-NPIAS airports. The usage of each airport, either public or private, is also presented in this figure. 3-5 Figure 3-4: Airports Included in AZ SASP NPIAS - PRIMARY COMMERCIAL SERVICE FAA ID Associated City Airport FAA ID Associated City Airport 1G4 Peach Springs Grand Canyon West IGM Kingman Kingman FLG Flagstaff Flagstaff Pulliam PRC Prescott Ernest A. Love Field GCN Grand Canyon Grand Canyon National Park SOW Show Low Show Low Regional IFP Bullhead City Laughlin/Bullhead International IWA Mesa Phoenix-Mesa Gateway NYL Yuma Yuma International FAA ID Associated City Airport PGA Page Page Municipal AVQ Marana Marana Regional PHX Phoenix Phoenix Sky Harbor International CHD Chandler Chandler Municipal TUS Tucson Tucson International DVT Phoenix Phoenix Deer Valley FFZ Mesa Falcon Field NPIAS - GENERAL AVIATION Utah NPIAS - COMMERCIAL SERVICE AZC 0V7 Glendale Glendale Municipal Goodyear Phoenix Goodyear FAA ID Associated City Airport GYR 0V7 Kayenta Kayenta RYN Tucson Ryan Field AZC Colorado City Colorado City Municipal SDL Scottsdale Scottsdale BXK Buckeye Buckeye Municipal CFT Clifton/Morenci Greenlee County CGZ Casa Grande Casa Grande Municipal FAA ID Associated City Airport CMR Williams H.A. Clark Memorial Field 18AZ Carefree Sky Ranch at Carefree D68 Springerville Springerville Municipal 1Z1 Whitmore Grand Canyon Bar Ten Airstrip DUG Douglas Bisbee Bisbee Douglas International 27AZ Aguila Eagle Roost E24 Whiteriver Whiteriver 34AZ Chandler Memorial Airfield 1Z1 U30 Wickenburg Wickenburg Municipal 3AZ5 Hualapai Hualapai E51 Bagdad Bagdad 40G Grand Canyon Grand Canyon Valle E60 Eloy Eloy Municipal 44A San Luis Rolle Airfield E63 Gila Bend Gila Bend Municipal 48AZ Rimrock Rimrock E77 San Manuel San Manuel/Ray/Blair 57AZ Tucson La Cholla Airpark E91 Chinle Chinle Municipal A20 Bullhead City Sun Valley E95 Benson Benson Municipal A39 Phoenix Phoenix Regional FHU Sierra Vista Sierra Vista Municipal DGL Douglas Douglas Municipal HII Lake Havasu Lake Havasu City E67 Kearny Kearny INW Winslow Winslow-Lindbergh Regional E68 Maricopa Estrella Sailport MZJ Marana Pinal Airpark E78 Sells Sells OLS Nogales Nogales International E81 Superior Superior Municipal P01 Ajo Eric Marcus Municipal L25 Meadview Pearce Ferry P04 Bisbee Bisbee Municipal L37 Peach Springs Grand Canyon Caverns P08 Coolidge Coolidge Municipal L41 Marble Canyon Marble Canyon P10 Polacca Polacca P03 Douglas Cochise College P13 Globe San Carlos Apache P19 Chandler Stellar Airpark P14 Holbrook Holbrook Municipal P23 Seligman Seligman P20 Parker Avi Suquilla P29 Tombstone Tombstone Municipal P33 Willcox Cochise County P48 Peoria Pleasant Valley P52 Cottonwood Cottonwood U30 Temple Bar Temple Bar PAN Payson Payson RQE Window Rock Window Rock SAD Safford Safford Regional SEZ Sedona Sedona SJN St Johns St Johns Industrial Air Park T03 Tuba City Tuba City TYL Taylor Taylor Z95 Cibecue Cibecue L25 1G4 PRIMARY COMMERCIAL SERVICE E91 T03 GCN 3AZ5 MOHAVE P10 RQE COCONINO 40G L37 P23 IGM APACHE NAVAJO IFP NON-NPIAS GENERAL AVIATION E25 A R I Z O N A Nevada NPIAS - RELIEVER GEU PGA L41 RELIEVER AIRPORTS CMR FLG A20 GENERAL AVIATION INW YAVAPAI COMMERCIAL SERVICE P14 SEZ P52 PRC E51 HII NON-NPIAS TYL 48AZ SJN California SOW PAN P20 D68 27AZ 18AZ P48 E25 Z95 DVT LA PAZ GILA E24 SDL GEU New Mexico FFZ BXK GYR PHX P19 MARICOPA CHD P13 IWA GREENLEE E81 34AZ E68 NYL A39 E63 YUMA E67 CGZ GRAHAM P08 SAD PINAL E60 CFT MZJ E77 44A P01 AV AVQ Q 57AZ P33 Source: Wilbur Smith Associates PIMA Mexico RYN TUS E95 COCHISE E78 SANTA CRUZ P29 DUG FHU Miles 0 50 100 OLS P04 P03 DGL Mexico 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE EXISTING AIRSIDE FACILITIES The SASP inventory effort included the identification of airside facilities at system airports. Airside facilities include runways, taxiways, lighting, and visual approach aids. Runway Summary Of the airports included in the SASP, there are five airports with runways over 10,000’ long. They are: Phoenix-Mesa Gateway, Phoenix Sky Harbor, Tucson International, Sierra Vista Municipal, and Yuma International. There are 55 runways over 5,000’ long, one of which is gravel, and the rest asphalt or concrete. Yuma has the longest runway, at 13,300’. Rimrock has the shortest paved runway at 2,184’. Estrella has the shortest of all runways, a 1,000’ dirt runway. Among the inventoried airports, there are 29 with more than one runway. However, 24 of the second runways are paved. FAA standards recognize three standard types of runway lighting: High, Medium, and Low Intensity Runway Lights; these are referred to as HIRL, MIRL, and LIRL. Airport Reference Code Summary The Airport Reference Code (ARC) is a coding system that relates airport design criteria to the operational and physical characteristics of the airplanes that are intended to operate at an airport. An ARC is a composite designation based on the Aircraft Category and Airplane Design Group of the critical aircraft. The Aircraft Categories, designated by a letter (A through E), refer to the aircraft’s approach speed. Airplane Design Groups are designated by a Roman numeral (I through VI), and refer to the wingspan of the aircraft. Even though a runway may be designated as a certain ARC, it does not prohibit larger aircraft from operating at the airport. Figure 3-5 graphically depicts the system airports by primary runway length category and primary runway ARC. 3-7 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE Figure 3-5: Arizona System Airports by Primary Runway Length and ARC Category Sources: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008, Wilbur Smith Associates 3-8 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE Taxiway Summary The FAA recognizes four different types of taxiways: stub, turn-around, partial parallel, and full parallel. These four types are depicted in Figure 3-6. Of the airports included in the SASP, sixty-nine had some type of taxiway. Forty-eight had full parallel taxiways and another ten had partial parallel taxiways. The remaining eleven airports had either a turn-around or stub. Figure 3-6: FAA-Recognized Taxiway Types Source: Federal Aviation Administration, Wilbur Smith Associates Similar to runway lighting, FAA standards recognize three standard types of taxiway lighting: High (HITL), Medium (MITL), and Low Intensity Taxiway Lights (LITL). Visual Aids Summary A Visual Glide Slope Indicator (VGSI) is a system of lights on the side of the runway threshold near the touchdown zone. VGSIs help to ensure that any obstructions in the approach area are cleared by indicating if the aircraft is higher than or lower than the appropriate glide slope angle. The two most common types of VGSI systems found at Arizona system airports are: PAPI and VASI. Each is further divided into additional categories depending on the lighting configurations and location. • Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPIs) • P2L – Two Light PAPI on Left Side of Runway • P2R - Two Light PAPI on Right Side of Runway • P4L – Four Light PAPI of Left Side of Runway • P4R - Four Light PAPI on Right Side of Runway • Visual Approach Slope Indicators (VASIs) • V2L – Two Box VASI on Left Side of Runway • V4L – Four Box VASI on Left Side of Runway Runway End Identification Lights (REILs) are an airport lighting facility located at the runway threshold that consists of one white high intensity strobe light installed at each corner of a runway end, enabling the pilot to quickly identify the runway threshold. Figure 3-7 summarizes the runway orientation, runway length and runway width, as well as the FAA Airport Reference Code (ARC) for each system airport. Also presented are the type of runway lighting, VGSI, the presence of REILs, the taxiway type, and taxiway lighting. 3-9 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE Figure 3-7: Existing Airside Facilities and Visual Aids Associated City Airport Primary Commercial Service Bullhead City Laughlin/Bullhead Intl. Flagstaff Flagstaff Pulliam Grand Canyon Grand Canyon National Park Mesa Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Page Page Peach Springs Phoenix Grand Canyon West Phoenix Sky Harbor Intl. Tucson Tucson International Yuma Yuma International Commercial Service Kingman Kingman Prescott Ernest A. Love Field Show Low Show Low Regional Reliever Chandler Chandler Municipal Glendale Goodyear Glendale Municipal Phoenix Goodyear Runway Orientation Length (feet) Width (feet) 16/34 03/21 03/21 12R/30L 12C/30C 12L/30R 15/33 07/25 17/35 08/26 07L/25R 07R/25L 11L/29R 11R/29L 03/21 03L/21R 03R/21L 08/26 17/35 7,520 8,800 9,000 10,401 10,201 9,301 5,950 2,200 5,058 11,489 10,300 7,800 10,996 8,408 6,000 13,300 9,239 6,145 5,710 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 75 60 150 150 150 150 75 150 200 150 150 150 03/21 17/35 03R/21L 03L/21R 12/30 06/24 03/21 6,831 6,725 7,616 4,862 4,408 7,200 3,937 150 75 150 60 75 100 60 04R/22L 04L/22R 01/19 03/21 4,850 4,401 7,150 8,500 75 75 100 150 ARC C-III C-III C-III D-V B-II B-II D-V D-IV E-VI C-III C-III C-III B-II B-II D-IV Runway Lighting Visual Glide Slope Indicator REIL Taxiway Type Taxiway Lighting MIRL HIRL MIRL MIRL MIRL HIRL MIRL None None HIRL HIRL HIRL HIRL MIRL MIRL HIRL HIRL HIRL HIRL PAPI/PAPI PAPI/PAPI None/VASI None/None PAPI/PAPI PAPI/PAPI VASI/VASI None/None None/None PAPI/PAPI PAPI/PAPI PAPI/PAPI PAPI/PAPI PAPI/None None/VASI PAPI/PAPI PAPI/PAPI None/None VASI/None Y/Y N/N N/Y N/N N/N Y/Y Y/Y N/N N/N N/Y N/Y N/N N/Y N/Y N/Y N/N N/N N/N N/Y Full Parallel Full Parallel Full Parallel Partial Parallel Stub Stub/Turnaround Full Parallel None Stub Full Parallel Full Parallel Full Parallel Full Parallel Full Parallel Full Parallel Full Parallel Partial Parallel Full Parallel Partial Parallel MITL MITL MITL MITL MITL MITL MITL None None MITL MITL MITL MITL MITL MITL MITL MITL MITL MITL MIRL MIRL MIRL MIRL MIRL MIRL None PAPI/PAPI PAPI/PAPI PAPI/PAPI PAPI/PAPI PAPI/PAPI PAPI/PAPI None/None Y/Y N/N Y/Y N/N Y/Y Y/Y N/N Full Parallel Partial Parallel Full Parallel Partial Parallel Full Parallel Full Parallel Full Parallel MITL MITL MITL MITL MITL/Reflectors MITL Reflectors MIRL MIRL MIRL MIRL PAPI/PAPI PAPI/PAPI PAPI/PAPI PAPI/PAPI Y/Y N/N Y/Y Y/Y Full Parallel Full Parallel Full Parallel Full Parallel MITL MITL MITL MITL 3-10 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE Figure 3-7: Existing Airside Facilities and Visual Aids (Continued) Associated City Marana Airport Marana Regional Mesa Falcon Field Phoenix Phoenix Deer Valley Scottsdale Tucson Scottsdale Ryan Field General Aviation Ajo Bagdad Benson Bisbee Eric Marcus Municipal Bagdad Benson Municipal Bisbee Municipal Buckeye Casa Grande Chinle Cibecue Clifton/Morenci Colorado City Buckeye Municipal Casa Grande Municipal Chinle Municipal Cibecue Greenlee County Colorado City Municipal Coolidge Coolidge Municipal Cottonwood Douglas Bisbee Cottonwood Bisbee Douglas International Eloy Gila Bend Globe Holbrook Eloy Municipal Gila Bend Municipal San Carlos Apache Holbrook Municipal Runway Orientation 12/30 03/21 04R/22L 04L/22R 07R/25L 07L/25R 03/21 06R/24L 06L/24R 15/33 Length (feet) 6,901 3,893 5,102 3,801 8,208 4,500 8,249 5,500 4,900 4,000 Width (feet) 100 75 100 75 100 75 100 75 75 75 12/30 05/23 10/28 17/35 02/20 17/35 05/23 18/36 07/25 07/25 11/29 02/20 05/23 17/35 14/32 17/35 08/26 02/20 04/22 09/27 03/21 11/29 3,800 4,552 4,000 5,929 2,650 5,500 5,200 6,149 4,200 4,970 6,300 5,100 5,528 3,861 4,250 7,311 5,000 3,900 5,200 6,500 6,698 3,200 60 60 75 75 110 75 100 60 100 75 75 60 150 75 75 100 75 75 75 100 75 120 ARC C-II B-II C-II D-II B-II B-I B-I B-I B-I B-II B-II B-I B-II B-II B-II C-II B-I C-I B-II B-II C-II B-I Runway Lighting MIRL MIRL MIRL MIRL MIRL MIRL MIRL MIRL None None Visual Glide Slope Indicator PAPI/PAPI PAPI/PAPI PAPI/PAPI PAPI/PAPI PAPI/PAPI PAPI/PAPI PAPI/PAPI None/VASI PAPI/PAPI None/None REIL Y/Y N/N Y/Y N/N Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y Y/N N/N N/N Taxiway Type Full Parallel Full Parallel Full Parallel Full Parallel Full Parallel Full Parallel Full Parallel Full Parallel Full Parallel Full Parallel Taxiway Lighting MITL MITL MITL MITL MITL MITL MITL MITL None None LIRL None MIRL MIRL None MIRL MIRL MIRL None MIRL MIRL MIRL MIRL None MIRL MIRL MIRL MIRL MIRL HIRL MIRL None PAPI/PAPI None/None PAPI/PAPI Inoperable None/None PAPI/PAPI VASI/PAPI PAPI/PAPI None/None PAPI/PAPI PAPI/PAPI None/None PAPI/PAPI None/None None/PAPI VASI/VASI None/None Inoperable PAPI/PAPI PAPI/PAPI PAPI/PAPI None/None N/N N/N Y/Y N/N N/N N/N N/N Y/Y N/N N/N Y/Y N/N N/N N/N N/Y Y/Y N/N N/N N/N Y/Y Y/Y N/N Stub None Full Parallel Full Parallel None Full Parallel Full Parallel Turnaround None Full Parallel Partial Parallel Partial Parallel Stub Full Parallel Full Parallel Partial Parallel Stub Full Parallel Full Parallel Full Parallel Full Parallel None None None MITL MITL None MITL MITL MITL None Reflectors Reflectors Reflectors MITL MITL None MITL MITL None MITL None MITL None/None 3-11 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE Figure 3-7: Existing Airside Facilities and Visual Aids (Continued) Associated City Kayenta Lake Havasu Marana Nogales Parker Payson Polacca Safford Airport Kayenta Lake Havasu City Pinal Airpark Nogales International Avi Suquilla Payson Polacca Safford Regional San Manuel Sedona Sierra Vista San Manuel/Ray/Blair Sedona Sierra Vista Municipal/Libby Army Airfield Springerville Springerville Municipal St Johns St Johns Industrial Air Park Taylor Tuba City Whiteriver Wickenburg Willcox Williams Window Rock Winslow Taylor Tuba City Whiteriver Wickenburg Municipal Cochise County H.A. Clark Memorial Field Window Rock Winslow-Lindbergh Regional Non-NPIAS General Aviation Aguila Eagle Roost Bullhead City Sun Valley Carefree Sky Ranch at Carefree Chandler Memorial Airfield Runway Orientation 05/23 14/32 12/30 03/21 01/19 06/24 04/22 12/30 08/26 11/29 03/21 08/26 12/30 03/21 03/21 11/29 14/32 03/21 03/21 15/33 01/19 05/23 03/21 18/36 02/20 04/22 11/29 Length (feet) 7,100 8,000 6,850 7,199 6,750 5,500 4,200 6,015 4,800 4,200 5,132 12,001 5,366 4,285 8,417 4,589 5,322 3,400 7,200 6,230 6,350 6,100 6,095 6,000 7,000 7,499 7,100 Width (feet) 75 100 150 90 100 75 50 100 75 75 100 150 100 75 75 60 75 60 75 75 75 75 75 100 75 150 150 17/35 18/36 06/24 12/30 03/21 3,400 3,700 4,037 8,530 5,200 40 42 50 300 200 ARC B-II C-III D-V C-II C-II B-II A-I B-II B-I B-I D-IV B-II B-II B-II B-II B-II B-II B-II B-II B-II C-II A-I A-I B-I D-IV Runway Lighting MIRL MIRL MIRL MIRL MIRL MIRL LIRL MIRL MIRL None MIRL HIRL MIRL MIRL MIRL MIRL MIRL None MIRL MIRL MIRL MIRL MIRL MIRL MIRL MIRL MIRL Visual Glide Slope Indicator None/VASI PAPI/PAPI None/None PAPI/PAPI PAPI/PAPI N/PAPI None/None VASI/VASI PAPI/PAPI None/None PAPI/PAPI PAPI/PAPI PAPI/PAPI None/None PAPI/PAPI None/None PAPI/PAPI None/None PAPI/PAPI PAPI/PAPI PAPI/None PAPI/PAPI None/None PAPI/PAPI PAPI/None None/VASI VASI/None REIL N/N Y/Y N/N N/N Y/Y N/N N/N N/N N/N N/N Y/Y N/N N/N N/N N/N N/N N/Y N/N Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y Y/Y N/N Y/Y Y/N N/Y Y/N Taxiway Type None Full Parallel Full Parallel Full Parallel Partial Parallel Full Parallel None Full Parallel Full parallel Partial Parallel Partial Parallel Full Parallel Partial Parallel Partial Parallel Full Parallel Partial Parallel Full Parallel None Partial Parallel None Partial Parallel Full Parallel Full Parallel Full Parallel None Full Parallel Full Parallel Taxiway Lighting None MITL Reflectors MITL MITL Reflectors None/None MITL MITL None MITL MITL MITL Reflectors Reflectors None Reflectors None Reflectors None None MITL Reflectors None None None None LIRL LIRL LIRL None None None/None None/None PLASI/PLASI None/None None/None N/N N/N Y/Y N/N N/N Turnaround Full Parallel Full Parallel Full Parallel None None None None None None 3-12 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE Figure 3-7: Existing Airside Facilities and Visual Aids (Continued) Associated City Chandler Douglas Douglas Airport Stellar Airpark Cochise College Douglas Municipal Grand Canyon Kearny Marble Canyon Maricopa Grand Canyon Valle Kearny Marble Canyon Estrella Sailport Meadview Peach Springs Peach Springs Peoria Pearce Ferry Grand Canyon Caverns Hualapai Pleasant Valley Phoenix Rimrock San Luis Seligman Sells Superior Temple Bar Tombstone Tucson Whitmore Phoenix Regional Rimrock Rolle Airfield Seligman Sells Superior Municipal Temple Bar Tombstone Municipal La Cholla Airpark Grand Canyon Bar Ten Airstrip Runway Orientation 17/35 05/23 03/21 18/36 01/19 08/26 03/21 6R/24L 07/25 06C/24C 06L/24R 01/19 05/23 07/25 05C/23C 05L/23R 05R/23L 14/32 03/21 05/23 17/35 04/22 04/22 04/22 18/36 06/24 01/19 16/34 Length (feet) 3,913 5,303 5,760 4,095 4,199 3,400 3,715 2,520 1,000 1,995 1,910 2,810 5,300 4,790 4,200 4,200 4,200 2,400 4,000 2,184 2,800 4,800 5,830 3,250 3,500 4,610 4,500 4,300 Width (feet) 60 72 75 100 45 60 35 30 20 25 25 90 45 30 100 100 100 100 50 75 60 75 48 75 50 65 44 33 ARC B-I B-I B-II A-I A-I A-I A-I A-I A-I A-I A-II B-I A-I B-I B-I A-I B-II A-I A-I B-I A-I Runway Lighting MIRL LIRL MIRL None MIRL None None None None NA NA None None None None None None NA None LIRL None MIRL None None None None LIRL None Visual Glide Slope Indicator VASI/None PAPI/PAPI PAPI/PAPI None/None VASI/VASI None/None None/None None/None None/None None/None None/None None/None None/None None/None None/None None/None None/None None/None None/None VASI/None None/None PAPI/PAPI None/None None/None None/None VASI/None VASI/None None/None REIL N/N N/N N/N N/N Y/Y N/N N/N N/N N/N N/N N/N N/N N/N N/N N/N N/N N/N N/N N/N Y/N N/N Y/Y N/N N/N N/N N/N N/N N/N Taxiway Type Full Parallel Full Parallel Partial Parallel None Stub Turnarounds Stub None None NA NA None Partial Parallel NA None None None NA Full Parallel None Turnaround Full Parallel Turnaround None Turnarounds None Full Parallel None Taxiway Lighting Reflectors LITL MITL None None None None None None None None None None NA None None None None None None None MITL None None None None Reflectors None Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 3-13 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE EXISTING LANDSIDE FACILITIES Landside facilities presented in this section include the number of hangars and tie-down spaces available, types of fuel sold, and the presence of a general aviation and or commercial service terminal. Aircraft Parking/Storage Summary Data from the SASP airport inventory survey identified a total of 4,342 hangars in the Arizona airport system, of which 3,074 are T-hangars, 1,158 are conventional hangars, and 110 are hangars of other types. Additionally, there are an estimated 5,754 paved and unpaved apron tie-down parking spaces. Reliever airports tended to have many more hangars than other airports in the system. The Phoenix-Deer Valley Airport had the largest number of hangars within the system with a total of 779 hangars. Airports in the general aviation category with more than 55 hangars include the Lake Havasu City and Sedona airports. Of the non-NPIAS general aviation airports, private airparks had the largest number of hangars, because of private hangar-home development. Public use nonNPIAS airports within Arizona had very few hangars, with the Pleasant Valley Airport having the most with a total of 14 hangars. Fuel Summary With the exception of Grand Canyon West (1G4), which only maintains on-site fuel for specific charter companies, all commercial service airports have both AvGas and Jet-A fuel available to the public. There are 20 NPIAS general aviation airports with both Avgas and jet fuel, and six with only AvGas. There are 12 NPIAS general aviation airports with no fuel available. Of the non-NPIAS general aviation airports, four have both jet fuel and AvGas, and four have AvGas only. Seventeen airports have no fuel available. Terminal Summary For the purpose of this plan, an airport was considered to have a commercial service terminal if the terminal is equipped to serve scheduled airline passengers, including security screening. A general aviation terminal was defined as some sort of building open to the flying public that may or may not have restrooms, a pilot lounge, a public phone, or other amenities. A general aviation terminal can be maintained by the airport owner or a fixed base operator (FBO). Figure 3-8 presents the existing landside facilities of the airports included in the SASP. Grand Canyon West is the only airport in the Primary Commercial Service category without a commercial service terminal, although it does have a general aviation terminal. There are several general aviation airports in Arizona with commercial service terminals, including Sierra Vista Lake Havasu City, and Sedona, all of which previously had commercial service. None of the airports in the Reliever category have commercial service terminals, but all have general aviation terminals. 3-14 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE Figure 3-8: Existing Landside Facilities Associated City Airport Primary Commercial Service Bullhead City Laughlin/Bullhead Intl. Flagstaff Flagstaff Pulliam Grand Canyon Grand Canyon National Park Mesa Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Page Page Peach Springs Grand Canyon West Phoenix Phoenix Sky Harbor Intl. Tucson Tucson Intl. Yuma Yuma Intl. Commercial Service Kingman Kingman Prescott Ernest A. Love Field Show Low Show Low Regional Reliever Chandler Chandler Municipal Glendale Glendale Municipal Goodyear Phoenix Goodyear Marana Marana Regional Mesa Falcon Field Phoenix Phoenix Deer Valley Scottsdale Scottsdale Tucson Ryan Field General Aviation Ajo Eric Marcus Municipal Bagdad Bagdad Benson Benson Municipal Bisbee Bisbee Municipal Buckeye Buckeye Municipal Casa Grande Casa Grande Municipal Chinle Chinle Municipal Total Hangars Apron Capacity (spaces) Fuel Commercial Service Terminal General Aviation Terminal 34 61 4 73 60 0 54 246 47 68 47 72 98 107 0 50 411 180 AvGas, Jet-A AvGas, Jet-A AvGas, Jet-A AvGas, Jet-A, MoGas AvGas, Jet-A None AvGas, Jet-A, MoGas AvGas, Jet-A AvGas, Jet-A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes-FBO Yes Yes-FBO Yes-FBO Yes Yes-FBO Yes Yes-FBO 50 197 71 214 252 96 AvGas, Jet-A AvGas, Jet-A AvGas, Jet-A Yes Yes Yes Yes-FBO Yes No 238 275 147 251 538 779 80 187 263 302 52 158 422 368 263 224 AvGas, Jet-A AvGas, Jet-A AvGas, Jet-A AvGas, Jet-A AvGas, Jet-A AvGas, Jet-A AvGas, Jet-A AvGas, Jet-A No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes-FBO Yes Yes Yes Yes 8 0 14 4 46 54 0 13 13 52 30 61 196 11 No No AvGas, Jet-A AvGas AvGas, Jet-A AvGas, Jet-A No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No 3-15 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE Figure 3-8: Existing Landside Facilities (Continued) Associated City General Aviation Cibecue Clifton/Morenci Colorado City Coolidge Cottonwood Douglas Bisbee Eloy Gila Bend Globe Holbrook Kayenta Lake Havasu Marana Nogales Parker Payson Polacca Safford San Manuel Sedona Sierra Vista Springerville St Johns Taylor Tuba City Whiteriver Wickenburg Willcox Williams Window Rock Airport Cibecue Greenlee County Colorado City Municipal Coolidge Municipal Cottonwood Bisbee Douglas International Eloy Municipal Gila Bend Municipal San Carlos Apache Holbrook Municipal Kayenta Lake Havasu City Pinal Airpark Nogales International Avi Suquilla Payson Polacca Safford Regional San Manuel/Ray/Blair Sedona Sierra Vista Municipal/LAA Springerville Municipal St Johns Industrial Air Park Taylor Tuba City Whiteriver Wickenburg Municipal Cochise County H.A. Clark Memorial Field Window Rock Total Hangars Apron Capacity (spaces) 0 2 9 19 25 4 16 2 2 3 0 79 3 19 21 20 0 25 28 85 62 2 9 13 0 0 55 16 6 3 0 21 16 6 71 50 28 25 80 43 6 264 20 28 61 85 3 45 50 90 36 48 30 23 6 17 22 26 18 10 Fuel Commercial Service Terminal General Aviation Terminal No No AvGas, Jet-A AvGas, Jet-A AvGas AvGas, Jet-A AvGas, Jet-A No No AvGas No AvGas, Jet-A AvGas, Jet-A AvGas, Jet-A AvGas, Jet-A AvGas, Jet-A No AvGas, Jet-A AvGas AvGas, Jet-A AvGas, Jet-A AvGas, Jet-A AvGas, Jet-A AvGas No No AvGas, Jet-A AvGas, Jet-A AvGas No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes-FBO No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes 3-16 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE Figure 3-8: Existing Landside Facilities (Continued) Associated City General Aviation Winslow Airport Winslow-Lindbergh Regional Non-NPIAS General Aviation Aguila Eagle Roost Bullhead City Sun Valley Carefree Sky Ranch at Carefree Chandler Memorial Airfield Chandler Stellar Airpark Douglas Douglas Municipal Douglas Cochise College Grand Canyon Grand Canyon Valle Kearny Kearny Marble Canyon Marble Canyon Maricopa Estrella Sailport Meadview Pearce Ferry Peach Springs Grand Canyon Caverns Peach Springs Hualapai Peoria Pleasant Valley Phoenix Phoenix Regional Rimrock Rimrock San Luis Rolle Airfield Seligman Seligman Sells Sells Superior Superior Municipal Temple Bar Temple Bar Tombstone Tombstone Municipal Tucson La Cholla Airpark Whitmore Grand Canyon Bar Ten Airstrip Total Hangars Apron Capacity (spaces) Fuel Commercial Service Terminal General Aviation Terminal 3 80 AvGas, Jet-A No Yes 82 3 119 1 127 11 1 11 4 0 1 0 1 NA 14 1 16 0 0 0 0 0 3 25 0 0 12 19 0 35 41 42 51 7 12 56 0 4 NA 100 7 4 0 15 0 0 8 3 42 0 No AvGas AvGas, Jet-A No AvGas, Jet-A AvGas, Jet-A Av-Gas AvGas, Jet-A No No No No No NA AvGas No No No No No No No No AvGas No No No No No No No No No No No No No No NA No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No NA Yes No No No No No No No No No No Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 3-17 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE Within the survey airports, all airports without hangars are also without fuel. Among airports included in the NPIAS, there is a strong correlation between providing fuel and having a terminal. Eloy Municipal and Pinal Airpark are the only NPIAS airports without terminals that have fuel available. Existing Services The level of services available at an airport has an impact on both the number and type of operations that typically occur. Airports with better services tend to attract greater numbers of transient or visiting aircraft. Airport services are traditionally provided by a Fixed Base Operator (FBO). At a minimum, these services include fuel and over-night storage rental. Many FBOs provide either a loaner car or a courtesy car to provide local transportation for GA aircraft users. Some FBOs also provide concierge-style services, including restaurant, hotel, and car reservations. Figure 3-9 identifies services available at system airports related to the operation and maintenance of GA aircraft. Figure 3-10 identifies services available for GA and commercial aircraft passengers at system airports. 3-18 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE Figure 3-9: Aircraft Operation and Maintenance Services Available Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 3-19 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE Figure 3-10: Passenger Services Available Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 3-20 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE AIRPORT ACTIVITY The number of annual aircraft operations and based aircraft are two of the best measures of the level of activity occurring at an airport. The number of annual operations and based aircraft for each system airport were obtained from the ADOT Airport System Manager (ASM) database and updated during the inventory process. When possible, operations data provided by Air Traffic Control Towers (ATCTs) was used. For some airports, the best available operations data came from estimates made by airport sponsors. Based Aircraft A based aircraft is considered to be an aircraft that is operational or air worthy and was based at the airport a majority of the year. For each system airport the total number of based aircraft was identified in addition to the type of aircraft based at each airport. A total of 8,041 aircraft are based at system airports within Arizona, excluding military aircraft. Figure 3-11 presents the types of aircraft based at system airports and the percentage of total system based aircraft they comprise. Not surprisingly, 79 percent of the based aircraft in Arizona are single engine. The number of based aircraft identified at each system airport is presented in Figure 3-12. The total number of based aircraft is presented in addition to the total number of based aircraft by type. Figure 3-11: Arizona Based Aircraft by Type, 2008 Aircraft Type Single Engine Multi-Engine Jets Helicopters Gliders Ultralights/Other ARIZONA TOTAL Number of Aircraft 6,353 861 358 317 53 101 8,043 Percent of Total 79.0% 10.7% 4.5% 3.9% 0.7% 1.2% 100.0% Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 Note: Excludes military aircraft 3-21 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE Figure 3-12: 2007 Based Aircraft Associated City Airport Name Primary Commercial Service Bullhead City Laughlin/Bullhead International Flagstaff Flagstaff Pulliam Grand Canyon Grand Canyon National Park Mesa Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Page Page Peach Springs Grand Canyon West Phoenix Phoenix Sky Harbor International Tucson Tucson International Yuma Yuma International Airport Commercial Service Kingman Kingman Prescott Ernest A. Love Field Show Low Show Low Regional Relievers Chandler Chandler Municipal Glendale Glendale Municipal Goodyear Phoenix Goodyear Marana Marana Regional Mesa Falcon Field Phoenix Phoenix Deer Valley Scottsdale Scottsdale Tucson Ryan Field General Aviation Ajo Eric Marcus Municipal Bagdad Bagdad Benson Benson Municipal Bisbee Bisbee Municipal Buckeye Buckeye Municipal Casa Grande Casa Grande Municipal Chinle Chinle Municipal Cibecue Cibecue Single Engine MultiEngine Jets Helicopters Gliders Ultralights/ Other Military Total Based Aircraft 21 115 8 60 60 0 27 188 119 4 15 3 10 11 0 41 24 47 2 0 0 25 0 0 36 62 1 3 2 37 8 5 2 10 34 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 8 68 90 30 133 48 103 76 2 122 376 268 156 284 57 95 25 8 17 8 0 5 17 1 1 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 278 336 66 453 331 234 220 846 1,090 254 276 26 27 18 69 40 143 50 24 2 2 24 10 5 15 126 1 15 22 0 4 56 20 17 3 0 0 0 3 0 6 0 0 3 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 499 413 276 306 947 1,277 447 304 8 5 32 32 50 85 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 5 42 34 62 91 4 0 3-22 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE Figure 3-12: 2007 Based Aircraft, Continued Associated City Airport Name General Aviation Clifton/Morenci Colorado City Coolidge Cottonwood Douglas Bisbee Eloy Gila Bend Globe Holbrook Kayenta Lake Havasu City Marana Nogales Parker Payson Polacca Safford San Manuel Sedona Sierra Vista Springerville St Johns Taylor Tuba City Whiteriver Wickenburg Willcox Williams Window Rock Greenlee County Colorado City Municipal Coolidge Municipal Cottonwood Bisbee Douglas International Eloy Municipal Gila Bend Municipal San Carlos Apache Holbrook Municipal Kayenta Lake Havasu City Pinal Airpark Nogales International Avi Suquilla Payson Polacca Safford Regional San Manuel/Ray/Blair Sedona Sierra Vista Municipal/LAA Springerville Municipal St Johns Industrial Air Park Taylor Tuba City Whiteriver Wickenburg Municipal Cochise County H.A. Clark Memorial Field Window Rock Single Engine MultiEngine Jets Helicopters Gliders Ultralights/ Other Military Total Based Aircraft 2 4 20 41 12 29 3 40 14 0 169 0 27 40 80 0 23 50 91 72 17 15 13 0 0 37 26 15 1 0 1 8 7 1 12 0 7 1 0 43 0 6 1 2 0 17 0 7 4 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 2 3 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 5 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 7 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 34 49 18 41 3 47 20 0 229 0 35 42 86 0 41 57 104 82 19 15 14 0 0 47 27 18 4 3-23 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE Figure 3-12: 2007 Based Aircraft (Continued) Associated City Airport Name General Aviation Winslow Winslow-Lindbergh Regional Non-NPIAS General Aviation Aguila Eagle Roost Bullhead City Sun Valley Carefree Sky Ranch at Carefree Chandler Memorial Airfield Chandler Stellar Airpark Douglas Douglas Municipal Douglas Cochise College Grand Canyon Grand Canyon Valle Kearny Kearny Marble Canyon Marble Canyon Maricopa Estrella Sailport Meadview Pearce Ferry Peach Springs Grand Canyon Caverns Peach Springs Hualapai Peoria Pleasant Valley Phoenix Phoenix Regional Rimrock Rimrock San Luis Rolle Airfield Seligman Seligman Sells Sells Superior Superior Municipal Temple Bar Temple Bar Tombstone Tombstone Municipal Tucson La Cholla Airpark Whitmore Grand Canyon Bar Ten Airstrip Single Engine MultiEngine Jets Helicopters Gliders Ultralights/ Other Military Total Based Aircraft 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 9 42 30 91 0 133 22 14 4 4 1 3 0 0 0 20 11 27 0 0 0 0 0 2 90 0 3 1 19 0 10 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 33 115 0 152 27 15 5 5 1 28 0 0 0 35 11 36 0 0 1 0 0 2 97 0 Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 3-24 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE Aircraft Operations An aircraft operation is defined as a takeoff or a landing. If an aircraft takes off and lands, this accounts for two operations. The number of annual operations identified at each system airport is displayed in Figure 3-13. Operations numbers were derived from the FAA for airports with an air traffic control tower. Operation numbers for airports without control towers are estimates provided by the airport managers during the inventory effort. Operations estimates are for calendar year 2007 and are divided into four categories: commercial service, general aviation local, general aviation itinerant, and military. System-wide, a total of over 4.7 million operations were identified. Of that total, 12.6 percent were conducted by commercial service operators, 42.8 percent general aviation local, 37.9 percent general aviation itinerant, and 6.8 percent military. Commercial service operations include operations by scheduled commercial carriers and air tours operators. Air taxi and air cargo operations are included in general aviation operations for the purpose of this plan. 3-25 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE Figure 3-13: 2007 Aircraft Operations Associated City Airport Primary Commercial Service Bullhead City Laughlin/Bullhead International Flagstaff Flagstaff Pulliam Grand Canyon Grand Canyon National Park Mesa Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Page Page Peach Springs Grand Canyon West Phoenix Phoenix Sky Harbor Intl Tucson Tucson International Yuma Yuma International Airport Commercial Service Kingman Kingman Prescott Ernest A. Love Field Show Low Show Low Regional Reliever Chandler Chandler Municipal Glendale Glendale Municipal Goodyear Phoenix Goodyear Marana Marana Regional Mesa Falcon Field Phoenix Phoenix Deer Valley Scottsdale Scottsdale Tucson Ryan Field General Aviation Ajo Eric Marcus Municipal Bagdad Bagdad Benson Benson Municipal Bisbee Bisbee Municipal Buckeye Buckeye Municipal Casa Grande Casa Grande Municipal Chinle Chinle Municipal Cibecue Cibecue Clifton/Morenci Greenlee County Colorado City Colorado City Municipal Coolidge Coolidge Municipal Cottonwood Cottonwood Douglas Bisbee Bisbee Douglas International Eloy Eloy Municipal Gila Bend Gila Bend Municipal Globe San Carlos Apache Holbrook Holbrook Municipal Kayenta Kayenta Lake Havasu City Lake Havasu City Marana Pinal Airpark Nogales Nogales International Parker Avi Suquilla Payson Payson Polacca Polacca Safford Safford Regional Total Commercial Service GA Local GA Itinerant Military Total 900 4,200 95,184 2,500 31,280 10,700 473,300 41,400 10,500 4,738 7,403 859 188,334 600 0 9,379 80,684 36,425 17,198 32,005 3,701 97,000 21,282 109,328 118,184 102,828 44,519 325 1,172 1,172 9,380 60 0 3,007 31,526 109,502 23,161 44,780 100,916 297,214 53,222 120,028 603,870 256,438 200,946 1,200 2,630 1,400 33,880 141,525 13,312 23,557 81,279 16,366 240 1,917 200 58,877 227,351 31,278 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 175,147 102,384 91,480 75,000 170,026 236,472 58,129 171,410 89,379 43,753 87,416 35,000 141,665 141,224 133,374 75,028 686 71 9,029 2,000 2,418 653 479 2,978 265,212 146,208 187,925 112,000 314,109 378,349 191,982 249,416 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 5,000 1,772 3,156 19,137 52,400 800 415 1,460 1,000 160 9,000 3,000 15,000 8,000 12,000 1,000 20 26,000 7,025 22,000 2,000 25,000 100 3,650 300 9,000 5,428 1,352 9,425 11,580 1,600 1,000 7,300 2,025 5,800 10,400 800 8,000 3,000 4,000 3,900 4,504 25,514 271 15,300 12,520 17,250 900 13,600 100 0 1,000 4 100 0 0 0 0 25 40 10 1,500 100 10 200 0 0 140 3,332 2,800 0 250 0 1,500 600 14,000 8,200 4,512 28,662 63,980 2,400 1,415 8,760 3,050 6,000 19,410 5,300 23,100 11,010 16,200 4,900 4,524 51,654 10,628 40,100 14,520 42,500 1,000 18,750 3-26 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE Figure 3-13: 2007 Aircraft Operations (Continued) Associated City Airport General Aviation San Manuel San Manuel/Ray/Blair Sedona Sedona Sierra Vista Sierra Vista Municipal/LAA Springerville Springerville Municipal St Johns St Johns Industrial Air Park Taylor Taylor Tuba City Tuba City Whiteriver Whiteriver Wickenburg Wickenburg Municipal Willcox Cochise County Williams H.A. Clark Memorial Field Window Rock Window Rock Winslow Winslow-Lindbergh Regional Non-NPIAS General Aviation Aguila Eagle Roost Bullhead City Sun Valley Carefree Sky Ranch at Carefree Chandler Memorial Airfield Chandler Stellar Airpark Douglas Douglas Municipal Douglas Cochise College Grand Canyon Grand Canyon Valle Kearny Kearny Marble Canyon Marble Canyon Maricopa Estrella Sailport Meadview Pearce Ferry Peach Springs Grand Canyon Caverns Peach Springs Hualapai Peoria Pleasant Valley Phoenix Phoenix Regional Rimrock Rimrock San Luis Rolle Airfield Seligman Seligman Sells Sells Superior Superior Municipal Temple Bar Temple Bar Tombstone Tombstone Municipal Tucson La Cholla Airpark Whitmore Grand Canyon Bar Ten Airstrip Total Commercial Service GA Local GA Itinerant Military Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 10,000 31,526 820 3,000 3,000 45 850 9,800 510 360 1,500 4,000 7,080 35,000 7,461 3,180 11,000 1,810 865 2,590 7,700 6,800 3,290 5,500 18,650 1,000 5,000 116,850 100 1,000 0 0 0 500 550 0 0 5,000 13,080 50,000 155,837 4,100 15,000 4,810 910 3,440 18,000 7,860 3,650 7,000 27,650 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,500 1,000 3,392 20,000 35,000 2,500 480 200 3,000 125 16,000 0 0 100 60,000 10,950 500 2,900 500 0 0 0 0 4,000 0 0 0 180 5,000 10,100 8,500 51,700 600 1,200 2,460 500 1,100 1,350 100 0 3,650 100 0 600 1,200 200 1,800 300 0 1,275 0 0 1 500 0 100 3,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 3,500 1,000 3,573 25,500 45,100 11,100 55,180 800 4,200 2,585 16,500 1,100 1,350 200 60,000 14,600 600 4,900 1,100 1,210 200 1,800 300 4,000 1,275 Sources: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008, FAA ATADS 3-27 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE AIRSPACE The primary purpose of airspace class designations is to prevent mid-air collisions. This is accomplished by establishing rules that apply in each airspace class for keeping aircraft separated. In general, aircraft operate under one of two sets of rules – visual flight rules (VFR) or instrument flight rules (IFR) and each set of rules uses a different methodology to separate aircraft. Under VFR, pilots rely on the “see-and-avoid” methodology to prevent mid-air collisions. Under this methodology, aviators are expected to maintain a visual lookout for other aircraft and alter course accordingly to avoid collisions and near misses. Different classes of airspace require different visibility and cloud ceiling requirements in order to ensure adequate visibility and safe VFR flight. Generally, as airspace becomes more crowded, visibility and cloud ceiling requirements increase to allow air crews more time and opportunity to see and avoid other aircraft. Additionally, more complex airspace requires more equipment, more communication, and higher pilot qualifications. Under IFR, air traffic control provides separation between IFR flights through the use of radar and radio communications. When conditions allow IFR and VFR flights to mix, the “see-andavoid” methodology is still required of both IFR and VFR flights to keep IFR and VFR aircraft separated. The FAA ensures that the see-and-avoid concept works by designating different classes of airspace, each of which has its own requirements. The two broad categories of airspace, controlled and uncontrolled, are explained below. Controlled Airspace Controlled airspace is a generic term that covers the different classifications of airspace (A, B, C, D and E) as defined by the FAA in the 1993 redesignation of our nation’s airspace. The following sections define the controlled airspace classifications and operating requirements. Class A – Airspace at or above 18,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) and up to 60,000 feet MSL, unless otherwise designated, is considered Class A. All aircraft within Class A airspace must operate under IFR, and are under positive control of air traffic control (ATC). All aircraft operating in Class A airspace must have a radio and a transponder, a device that helps identify the aircraft on radar and informs air traffic control of the aircraft’s altitude. Class B – Class B airspace typically extends from the ground level to 10,000 feet MSL at the nation's busiest commercial airports. The configuration of each Class B airspace area is tailored to the individual airport and consists of a surface area and two or more layers intended to protect approach and departure paths used by commercial airlines. Like Class A airspace, all aircraft in Class B airspace must have a radio and a transponder. Air traffic control clearance is required for all aircraft to enter Class B airspace. Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport is the only airport in Arizona with Class B airspace. Class C – Class C airspace generally surrounds airports which have an operating control tower, are serviced by a radar approach control, and that have a certain number of IFR operations or passenger enplanements, but are less busy than airports surrounded by Class B airspace. Class C airspace typically extends from the ground level to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation (above ground level, AGL). Aircraft in Class C airspace must have a radio 3-28 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE and transponder. Pilots are required to establish two-way radio communication with air traffic control prior to entering Class C airspace. Tucson International Airport and Davis Monthan Air Force Base are the only airports in Arizona with Class C airspace. Class D – Class D airspace exists around those airports that have an air traffic control tower, but have less traffic than airports in Class C airspace. Class D airspace typically extends from the ground level to 2,500 feet AGL. Pilots must establish two-way radio communication with the air traffic control tower, before entering this classification of airspace so that air traffic control can sequence the aircraft for landing. During periods when the control tower is not in operation, Class D airspace reverts to the underlying airspace, typically class E or G. Figure 314 presents the airports in Arizona that currently have Class D airspace. Figure 3-14: Arizona Airports with Class D Airspace Associated City Bullhead City Chandler Flagstaff Gila Bend Glendale Glendale Goodyear Grand Canyon Mesa Mesa Phoenix Prescott Scottsdale Sedona Sierra Vista Yuma Tucson Airport Name Laughlin/Bullhead International Chandler Municipal Flagstaff Pulliam Gila Bend Air Force Auxiliary Field Luke AFB Glendale Municipal Phoenix Goodyear Grand Canyon National Park Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Falcon Field Phoenix Deer Valley Ernest A. Love Field Scottsdale Sedona Sierra Vista Municipal/Libby Army Airfield Yuma MCAS/Yuma International Ryan Field Airport Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Class E – Most controlled airspace that is not Class A, B, C or D, is designated as Class E airspace. In most places, Class E airspace starts at 1,200 feet AGL (but no lower than 14,500 feet MSL) and goes up to the boundary of the next class of airspace, which is usually Class A at 18,000 feet. Around airports with instrument approaches and instrument approach corridors, a cylinder of Class E airspace starts at 700 feet AGL and continues up to the next class of airspace. At certain airports, the Class E airspace starts at the surface and continues upward to the next class of airspace, in order to provide the more restrictive visibility and cloud clearance requirements of Class E airspace all the way to the surface of the airport. A basic depiction of the types of airspace found in the national airspace system is shown in Figure 3-15. 3-29 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE Figure 3-15: National Airspace System Source: Federal Aviation Administration Uncontrolled Airspace – Uncontrolled airspace is designated Class G airspace and consists of all the airspace that is not classified as Class A, B, C, D or E airspace. It is generally found beneath Class E airspace. Visibility and cloud clearance limitations are not as strict as controlled airspace since IFR traffic is not expected to operate in this airspace. Special Use Airspace Special use airspace consists of that airspace where activities must be confined because of their nature or where limitations are imposed upon aircraft that are not part of those activities. Much of the airspace with a special use designation is related to military activities. There are three kinds of special use airspace found in Arizona – Restricted Areas, Military Operations Areas (MOA) and Alert Areas. Restricted Areas – There are a number of restricted areas in Arizona located in the south and southwest portion of the state. Restricted areas are established, pursuant to FAR Part 73, to restrict (not prohibit) flight, to permit the user large blocks of unimpeded airspace for their operations. Restricted Areas are usually military related or have tethered radar balloons and related equipment. When active, Restricted Areas are closed to over-flight up to specified flight levels. Non-military access to restricted areas in Arizona, when active, is gained through the controlling agency, and can be designated for VFR and IFR use. Military Operations Areas (MOAs) – There are 22 MOAs in Arizona. The MOAs occupy large areas of airspace. All are located in the central and southern portions of the state with the exception of the Sunny MOA which is located northeast of Flagstaff. MOAs are airspace areas assigned to segregate certain military activities from IFR traffic, to identify VFR traffic to the user and to make non-participating aircraft aware of these operations. Unlike restricted areas, civilian flights are not prohibited from flying into MOAs when active. Scheduling, coordination, and flight procedures for MOAs are established by letters of agreement between local military authorities and concerned air traffic control facilities. MOAs are 3-30 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE intermittently used. They are scheduled by the designated military scheduling point and are activated by ATC. They are frequently subdivided for better utilization of the airspace. Figure 3-16 lists the MOAs within Arizona. Figure 3-16: Military Operations Areas within Arizona MOA Name Abel Bravo Abel North South Abel East Bagdad 1 Cato MOA Dome Fuzzy Gladden 1 Jackal Low Jackal Morenci MOA Name Outlaw Quail Reserve Ruby 1 Sells 1 Sells Low Sunny Tombstone A Tombstone B Tombstone C Turtle Source: Phoenix Sectional Aeronautical Chart, 79th edition Alert Areas – An Alert Area is airspace which may contain a high volume of pilot training activities or an unusual type of aerial activity, neither of which is hazardous to aircraft. There is one Alert Area in Arizona, A-231. This is the area where pilots at Luke Air Force Base complete much of their jet training and is in operation from 500 AGL to 6500 feet all the time. This area is depicted for the information of non-participating pilots. Other Arizona Airspace In addition to special use airspace, there are other specialized airspace areas within Arizona. These are discussed below. Military Training Routes (MTRs) – MTRs are air corridors of defined lateral dimensions established for the conduct of military training at speeds in excess of 250 knots. These routes are designated IR or VR to indicate visual flight rules (VFR) or instrument flight rule (IFR) use. IR routes are usable either in VFR or IFR conditions; VR routes are usable only during VFR. MTRs may be bi-directional or unidirectional. Similar to MOAs, the routes are scheduled by the using military unit via flight plans. Since these routes are below the radar coverage of ATC, the user is responsible to see and avoid other traffic. Entry to the route and exit is reported to the Flight Service Station (FSS) as an advisory to other VFR traffic and for purposes of flight following. Each MTR is plotted on aeronautical charts and is designated to indicate whether the route is above or below 1,500 feet AGL. Most of Arizona’s MTRs are located in the southern and western parts of the state. National Parks, National Forests, and Wildlife Areas – Arizona is home to numerous National Parks, National Forests, and wildlife areas. Because the government regards these areas as noise sensitive, many boundaries of National Park Service areas, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service areas, and U.S. Forest Service Wilderness and Primitive areas are marked on aeronautical charts. Pilots are requested to maintain a minimum altitude of 2,000 feet above ground level when over these areas. In addition to these areas, Federal Aviation Regulation SFAR No. 50-2 “Special Flight Rules In The Vicinity Of The Grand Canyon National Park, AZ.” has been established to restrict flight over the Grand Canyon National Park. The regulation is even more restrictive than the operating rules over other national parks, and prohibits the 3-31 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE operation of aircraft inside the boundary of the restricted airspace with some exceptions. The exceptions allow for transition of the restricted airspace along specified flight corridors and permit commercial air tour operators to conduct site seeing flights within specified areas of the restricted airspace. Figure 3-17 presents the locations of Special Use Airspace within Arizona. 3-32 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE Figure 3-17: Special Use Airspace within Arizona Source: Wilbur Smith Associates 3-33 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE NAVIGATIONAL AIDS AND APPROACH TYPES Initially, navigational aids were only used to provide directional information suitable for navigation from place to place. But with the proliferation of navigational aids and improvements in technology, it became possible to use navigational aids to obtain a ‘fix’ representing a fixed physical location. In effect, a fix is a radio-generated landmark. As a result, pilots could use a series of fixes to follow a specific course. This made it possible for approaching aircraft to align with the runway without the need to first circle and obtain visual confirmation of the runway. A series of fixes could also be used to regulate an aircraft’s rate of descent, with pilots descending to a lower altitude when reaching a certain point. The series of procedures dictating route, direction, and rate of descent is known as an ‘approach’. In modern times, the precision of the course guidance provided by navigational aids has improved to such a degree that it is possible to execute an approach within a few hundred feet of the ground. Instrument Approach Procedures The use of radio-provided positional and elevation information when making a landing is known as an ‘Instrument Approach’. The procedures for executing an approach vary with the equipment providing the pilot with the information. There are three categories of instrument approach procedures: Precision, Non-precision, and Near-precision. The following paragraphs describe the various types of instrument approaches, approach lighting systems, and automated weather reporting systems available at Arizona’s airports. The most sophisticated approach located at each of the system airports is depicted in Figure 3-18. 3-34 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE Figure 3-18: Approaches at Arizona System Airports Source: Wilbur Smith Associates 3-35 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE Non-Precision Approaches Older navigation aids were primarily designed to provide guidance to an airport and so provide only limited guidance when flying a specific approach. These were referred to as nonprecision approach procedures wherein no electronic glide slope information is provided. Non-precision approach procedures can be enhanced to provide more “exact” guidance through the provision of runway lighting and visual glide slope indicators (VGSI). The following are types of non-precisions approaches: • • • • Non-Directional Beacon (NDB) – An NDB is a low or medium frequency groundbased radio navigation aid that broadcasts a continuous wave signal with a Morse Code identifier on an assigned frequency signal. NDBs are used by pilots to determine the aircraft’s bearing to the ground station. Some state and locally owned NDB frequencies are also used to provide weather information to pilots. Very High Frequency Omni-directional Range (VOR) – A VOR is a ground-based very high frequency (VHF) radio navigation aid that provides directional bearing relative to the VOR. The Morse-code identified bearings are known as radials and establish the direction of an aircraft relative to a VOR. VOR approaches typically use the intersection of two VOR radials to regulate approach descent rates. Some locally owned or operated VORs also provide weather information. VOR + Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) – DME is a ground-based Ultra High Frequency (UHF) navigation aid that responds to aircraft DME avionics, thereby enabling the avionics to determine the slant range distance between the aircraft and the ground station. On a VOR/DME approach, the VOR provides directional guidance while the DME provides distance guidance. Tactical Area Navigation (TACAN) – TACAN is the military equivalent of the VOR/DME system, and provides both distance and direction guidance. It is more accurate than a VOR approach, but typically provides course guidance from restricted airspace. When a VOR and TACAN are co-located, the resulting set-up is known as a VORTAC, with the TACAN providing DME guidance to civilian aircraft. Near-Precision Approaches Near-precision approaches are made possible through the use of the Global Positioning System (GPS), a network of orbiting satellites that broadcasts a signal to a ground based receivers. GPS receivers can process the signals to determine a user’s three-dimensional position (i.e., latitude, longitude, and altitude), velocity (if applicable), and the precise time of day. Due to inherent limits in transmissions, there are limits to the precision of the location that can be provided. The precision that can be provided by GPS can be augmented by a Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS), a national system of ground-based reference stations designed to improve the reliability, availability, and precision of GPS coordinates. It is possible to implement a near-precision approach with only minimal new equipment costs, while the precision approaches remain very expensive. However, according to FAA projections, only those airports serving commercial air carriers (certificated under FAA Part 139) and public use airports with runways longer then 5,000 feet will have published GPS/WAAS instrument approaches before 2010. GPS/WAAS procedures for the remaining public airports with paved runways of less than 5,000 feet will be developed after 2010. The following are types of near-precisions approaches: 3-36 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE • • • Lateral Navigation (LNAV) – An approach that uses GPS and/or WAAS for horizontal course guidance. On an LNAV approach, the pilot flies the final approach with lateral course, but does not receive vertical guidance for a controlled descent to the runway. Instead, when the aircraft reaches the final approach fix, the pilot descends to a minimum descent altitude using the barometric altimeter. Typically, LNAV procedures achieve a minimum descent altitude (MDA) of 400 feet height above the runway. Lateral Navigation/Vertical Navigation (LNAV/VNAV) – An approach using lateral guidance from a GPS and/or WAAS and vertical guidance provided by either the barometric altimeter or WAAS. Aircraft that don’t use WAAS for the vertical guidance portion must have VNAV-capable altimeters, which are typically part of a flight management system (FMS). FMS avionics are more expensive than WAAS receivers. The decision altitudes on these approaches are usually 350 feet above the runway. Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance (LPV) – An approach similar to LNAV/VNAV except it is much more precise. It enables descent to 200-250 feet above the runway, and requires a WAAS receiver. LPV approaches are operationally equivalent to the legacy instrument landing systems (ILS) but are more economical because no navigation infrastructure has to be installed at the runway. There are over 675 LPV approaches in use today and the FAA is publishing 300 new LPV approaches per year. Precision Approaches Today’s precision approach uses ground-based radio navigational aids to provide very precise vertical and horizontal course guidance, allowing approaches and landings to occur during conditions of very low visibility and cloud ceilings. The only currently available precision approach is an instrument landing system (ILS). An ILS approach is a precision approach that uses ground-based radio navigation aids to provide exact vertical and horizontal course guidance using both a localizer and a glide-slope indicator. Aircraft following an ILS approach typically follow a three degree continuous descent path provided by the glide slope portion of the ILS. This guides an aircraft directly to the touchdown zone of a runway. There are three categories of ILS approaches, and Cat-3 ILS approaches has three sub-categories—I, II, and III. Each category has different requirements for visibility minima, aircraft equipment, and pilot certifications. Approach Visibility Minimums Before a pilot is allowed to make an approach and attempt to land, they must have ‘visual confirmation’ of a runway. The ‘approach visibility minima’ defines how close a pilot can get to the runway before visual contact with the runway environment must be achieved. Approach visibility minimums vary among airports and by approach types. Approach minimums are determined by individual airport and runway facilities, as well as topography and terrain characteristics of the approach and characteristics of the area surrounding the airport. Visibility minimums of one mile can be supported with visual runway markings and low intensity runway lights (LIRL) for nighttime operations. Medium intensity runway lights (MIRL) and precision or non-precision runway markings are required to reduce visibility minima to ¾ mile. To establish half mile-visibility minimums, the additional equipment requirements are precision runway markings, medium intensity runway lights (MIRL) for nighttime operations, and an approved approach lighting system. 3-37 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE Approach Lighting Systems An Approach Lighting System is a series of marker lights designed to improve the ability of pilots to obtain visual contact of the runway environment during an instrument approach. Approach lighting systems found within the Arizona system of airports include the following: • Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System (MALS) • Medium Intensity Approach Lighting with Runway Alignment Indicator Lights (MALSR) Automated Weather Reporting Facilities Before an instrument approach is executed, current weather conditions including a local altimeter setting must be obtained. At airports without Air Traffic Control Towers (ATCTs) this information is most commonly provided by an Automated Weather Reporting system. The following describes the weather reporting systems in place at system airports in Arizona. • • • • • • Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) – AWOS equipment automatically gathers weather data from various locations on and around an airport and transmits the information directly to pilots by means of computer generated voice messages over a discreet radio frequency. Automated Surface Observation System (ASOS) – The ASOS provides continuous minute-by-minute weather data observations and generates necessary aviation weather information via a discrete radio frequency by means of a computer generated voice message. Low Level Wind Shear Alert System (LLWAS) – Provides the air traffic control tower with information on wind conditions near the runway. It consists of an array of anemometers that read wind velocity and direction around the airport and signal sudden changes that indicate wind shear. Limited Aviation Weather Reporting Station (LAWRS) – This system can be supplemental to an existing ASOS or AWOS system to provide additional weather data. Super Unicom – The Super Unicom is FAA certified for altimeter settings and other weather data required for instrument approach implementation. Information is broadcast via the airport traffic advisory frequency by a computer generated voice. Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR) – TDWR systems detect and report hazardous weather in and around airport terminal approach and departure zones. The TDWR identifies and warns air traffic controllers of low altitude wind shear hazards caused by microbursts and gust fronts, in addition to reporting on precipitation intensities and providing advanced warning of wind shifts. Figure 3-19 presents data on approach visibility minimums, approach types for each runway end, and weather reporting capabilities at Arizona system airports. 3-38 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE Figure 3-19: Navigational Aids and Approach Types Associated City Airport Primary Commercial Service Bullhead City Laughlin/Bullhead International Flagstaff Flagstaff Pulliam Grand Canyon Grand Canyon National Park Mesa Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Page Page Peach Springs Grand Canyon West Phoenix Phoenix Sky Harbor International Tucson Tucson International Runway End Instrument Approach Approach Minimums (Decision Height\Visibility*) Approach Light System Automated Weather 16 34 03 21 03 21 12R 30L 12C 30C 12L 30R 15 33 07 25 17 35 08 26 07L 25R 07R 25L 11L 29R 11R 29L 03 21 GPS GPS, VOR GPS GPS, ILS, VOR GPS, ILS, VOR NA GPS GPS GPS GPS, ILS, VOR NA NA GPS GPS NA NA NA NA GPS, ILS GPS, ILS GPS, ILS GPS GPS, ILS GPS, ILS GPS, VOR GPS, LOC, VOR GPS,ILS GPS GPS GPS 1,200’ \ 1 1/4 1,000’ \ 1 1/4 400’ \ 1 300’ \ 1/2 200’ \ 3/4 NA 400’ \ 1 400’ \ 1 300’ \ 1 200’ \ 3/4 NA NA 300’ \ 11/4 300’ \ 1 NA NA NA NA 300’ \ 1 300’ \ 3/4 200’ \ 3/4 400’ \ 1 300’ \ 3/4 200’ \ 1/2 300’ \ 1/2 300’ \ 1 200’ \ 1/2 400’ \ 1 1/2 600’ \ 1 500’ \ 1 3/4 N N Y Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N Y N Y Y Y N N N N N ATCT ATCT ATCT ATCT ASOS None ATCT ATCT 3-39 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE Figure 3-19: Navigational Aids and Approach Types (Continued) Associated City Airport Primary Commercial Service Yuma Yuma International Airport Commercial Service Kingman Kingman Prescott Ernest A. Love Field Show Low Show Low Regional Reliever Chandler Chandler Municipal Glendale Glendale Municipal Goodyear Phoenix Goodyear Runway End Instrument Approach Approach Minimums (Decision Height\Visibility*) Approach Light System Automated Weather 03L 21R 03R 21L 08 26 17 35 TACAN GPS, ILS, TACAN NA NA NA NA GPS, VOR, VOR\DME NA 400’ \ 1 200’ \ 1/2 NA NA NA NA 500’ \ 1 NA N Y N N N N N N ATCT 03 21 17 35 03R 21L 03L 21R 500’ \ 1 400’ \ 1 NA NA NA 200’ \ 1/2 NA NA 400’ \ 1 NA 1,200’ \ 1 1/4 500’ \ 1 N N N N N Y N N N N N N N N ASOS 12 30 06 24 03 21 GPS VOR/DME, GPS NA NA NA GPS, ILS NA NA GPS, VOR NA NDB-A (Circling) GPS NA NA 04R 22L 04L 22R 01 19 03 21 GPS, VOR, NDB NA NA NA GPS GPS GPS NA 500’ \ 1 NA NA NA 400’ \ 1 1/4 300’ \ 1 600’ \ 1 NA N N N N N N N N ATCT AWOS ATCT ATCT ATCT 3-40 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE Figure 3-19: Navigational Aids and Approach Types (Continued) Associated City Reliever Marana Airport Mesa Falcon Field Phoenix Phoenix Deer Valley Scottsdale Scottsdale Tucson Ryan Field General Aviation Ajo Eric Marcus Municipal Bagdad Bagdad Benson Benson Municipal Bisbee Bisbee Municipal Marana Regional Runway End Instrument Approach Approach Minimums (Decision Height\Visibility*) Approach Light System Automated Weather 12 30 03 21 04R 22L 04L 22R 07R 25L 07L 25R 03 21 06R 24L 06L 24R 15 33 GPS, NDB NA GPS GPS GPS NA NA NA GPS GPS NA NA GPS (Circling) VOR (Circling) GPS ,NDB, ILS NA NA NA NA NA 500’ \ 1 NA 500’ \ 1 700’ \ 1 500’ \ 1 NA NA NA 600’ \ 1 400’ \ 1 1/4 NA NA 600’ \ 1 900’ \ 2 1/2 200’ \ 3/4 NA NA NA NA NA N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N AWOS 12 30 05 23 10 28 17 35 02 20 NA NA NA NA NA NA GPS, VOR NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 300’ \ 1 NA NA NA N N N N N N N N N N None ATCT ATCT ATCT AWOS None None ASOS 3-41 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE Figure 3-19: Navigational Aids and Approach Types (Continued) Associated City General Aviation Buckeye Airport Buckeye Municipal Casa Grande Casa Grande Municipal Chinle Chinle Municipal Cibecue Cibecue Clifton/Morenci Greenlee County Colorado City Colorado City Municipal Coolidge Coolidge Municipal Cottonwood Cottonwood Douglas Bisbee Bisbee Douglas International Eloy Eloy Municipal Gila Bend Gila Bend Municipal Globe San Carlos Apache Runway End 17 35 05 23 18 36 07 25 07 25 11 29 02 20 05 23 17 35 14 32 17 35 08 26 02 20 04 22 09 27 Instrument Approach Approach Minimums (Decision Height\Visibility*) Approach Light System Automated Weather NA NA ILS, VOR GPS NA NA NA NA NA NA GPS, NDB (Circling) NA NA NA VOR/DME GPS NA NA NA NA VOR, GPS NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA GPS NA NA 300’ \ 1/2 400’ \ 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA 900’ \ 1 NA NA NA 500’ \ 1 500’ \ 1 NA NA NA NA 300’ \ 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 600’ \ 1 N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N AWOS2008 AWOS None None AWOS AWOS None None None ASOS None None AWOS 3-42 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE Figure 3-19: Navigational Aids and Approach Types (Continued) Associated City General Aviation Holbrook Airport Kayenta Kayenta Lake Havasu Lake Havasu City Marana Pinal Airpark Nogales Nogales International Parker Avi Suquilla Payson Payson Polacca Polacca Safford Safford Regional San Manuel San Manuel/Ray/Blair Sedona Sedona Sierra Vista Sierra Vista Municipal/LAA Holbrook Municipal Runway End Instrument Approach Approach Minimums (Decision Height\Visibility*) Approach Light System Automated Weather 03 21 11 29 05 23 14 32 12 30 03 21 01 19 06 24 04 22 12 30 08 26 11 29 03 21 08 26 12 30 03 21 NA NA NA NA NA NA VOR/DME, GPS (Circling) NA NA NA VOR/DME, GPS (Circling) NA VOR/DME, GPS (Circling) NA GPS (Circling) NA NA NA GPS GPS NA NA NA NA GPS NA GPS VOR, GPS, ILS, NDB NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1,100’ \ 1 1/4 NA NA NA 1,300’ \ 1 1/4 NA 1,500’ \ 1 1/4 NA 600’ \ 1 NA NA NA 400’ \ 1 400’ \ 1 NA NA NA NA 1,400’ \ 1 1/2 NA 700’ \ 1 200’ \ 3/4 NA NA NA NA N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N AWOS None AWOS2008 AWOS2008 ASOS AWOS2008 AWOS ASOS None AWOS ASOS 3-43 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE Figure 3-19: Navigational Aids and Approach Types (Continued) Associated City General Aviation Springerville Airport Springerville Municipal St Johns St Johns Industrial Air Park Taylor Taylor Tuba City Tuba City Whiteriver Whiteriver Wickenburg Wickenburg Municipal Willcox Cochise County Williams H.A. Clark Memorial Field Window Rock Window Rock Winslow Winslow-Lindbergh Regional Non-NPIAS General Aviation Aguila Eagle Roost Bullhead City Sun Valley Runway End Instrument Approach Approach Minimums (Decision Height\Visibility*) Approach Light System Automated Weather 03 21 11 29 14 32 03 21 03 21 15 33 01 19 05 23 03 21 18 36 02 20 04 22 11 29 NA GPS NA NA GPS GPS VOR/DME (Circling) NA GPS NA NA NA NA NA NA NA GPS (Circling) GPS NA NA GPS GPS, VOR/DME (Circling) NA NA GPS, VOR NA NA 400’ \ 1 NA NA 500’ \ 1 500’ \ 1 1/2 600’ \ 1 NA 500’ \ 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 500’ \ 1 400’ \ 1 NA NA 800’ \ 1 1,000’ \ 1 1/4 NA NA 400’ \ 1 NA N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ASOS 17 35 18 36 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA N N N N ASOS AWOS None None AWOS None AWOS ASOS ASOS None None 3-44 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE Figure 3-19: Navigational Aids and Approach Types (Continued) Associated City Airport Non-NPIAS General Aviation Carefree Sky Ranch at Carefree Chandler Memorial Airfield Chandler Memorial Airfield Chandler Stellar Airpark Douglas Douglas Municipal Douglas Cochise College Grand Canyon Grand Canyon Valle Kearny Kearny Marble Canyon Marble Canyon Maricopa Estrella Sailport Meadview Pearce Ferry Peach Springs Grand Canyon Caverns Runway End Instrument Approach Approach Minimums (Decision Height\Visibility*) Approach Light System Automated Weather 06 24 12 30 03 21 17 35 03 21 18 36 05 23 01 19 08 26 03 21 6R 24L 07 25 06C 24C 06L 24R 01 19 05 23 NA NA NA NA NA NA GPS, VOR (Circling) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA GPS GPS, VOR/DME NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 500’ \ 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 500’ \ 1 500’ \ 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA N N N N N N N N N N N N N N None None N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None 3-45 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE Figure 3-19: Navigational Aids and Approach Types (Continued) Associated City Airport Non-NPIAS General Aviation Peach Springs Hualapai Peoria Pleasant Valley Phoenix Phoenix Regional Rimrock Rimrock San Luis Rolle Airfield Seligman Seligman Sells Sells Superior Superior Municipal Temple Bar Temple Bar Tombstone Tombstone Municipal Tucson La Cholla Airpark Whitmore Grand Canyon Bar Ten Airstrip Runway End Instrument Approach Approach Minimums (Decision Height\Visibility*) Approach Light System Automated Weather 07 25 05C 23C 05L 23R 05R 23L 14 33 03 21 05 23 17 35 04 22 04 22 04 22 18 36 06 24 01 19 16 34 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None Sources: FAA Terminal Instrument Procedures, SW-4 05 JUN 2008 to 03 JUL 2008, Wilbur Smith Associates Note: *Figures represent the best approach minimums where multiple instrument approach procedures are available. 3-46 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE AIRPORT PLANNING DOCUMENTATION Each of the system airports was surveyed regarding the dates of their most recent master plan and airport layout plan (ALP). In order to be eligible for federal and state funding, airports must have an airport master plan or airport layout plan approved and on file with the FAA and ADOT. Projects are not eligible for FAA or ADOT funds if they are not identified in an airport master plan and shown on an approved airport layout plan. FAA grant assurances require that the airport sponsor keep ALPs updated at all times. It is recommended that airports complete a full ALP update at least every 10 years. Airports with ALPs less than 10 years old with significant airport expansion or development plans not shown on the current ALP should prepare a full ALP update. Minor development projects may only require certain ALP sheets to be updated to meet FAA requirements. Figure 3-20 summarizes the completion dates of master plans and ALPs at Arizona system airports. The FAA approval date of the ALPs is also presented. In the last five years, 43 airports have completed master plans and 47 have completed airport layout plans or are currently underway. However, just 21 of the ALPs have been approved by the FAA since 2004. Another 13 master plans and 15 layout plans have been completed since 1999. The FAA approved 32 ALPs between 1999 and 2003. Several airports have master plans and ALPs on file that are more than 10 years old. Seven airports have no ALPs officially approved by the FAA, even though plans were submitted at one time. Nearly one-quarter of system airports have neither of these plans and these airports are not required to have plans on file since they do not receive state or FAA funding for projects. Figure 3-20: Summary of Airport Master Plans and Airport Layout Plans 17 18 No Plan/Not Applicable ALP- Year Approved by FAA 18 ALP - Year Completed 7 None approved Master Plan- Year Completed 6 3 1998 and older 9 32 15 1999-2003 13 21 47 2004-2009 43 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Number of Airports 35 40 45 50 Source: ADOT Aeronautics Division, Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 Master plan and ALP completion dates by Arizona system airport are detailed in Figure 3-21. 3-47 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE Figure 3-21: Airport Master Plans and Airport Layout Plans Associated City Primary Commercial Service Bullhead City Flagstaff Grand Canyon Mesa Page Peach Springs Phoenix Tucson Yuma Commercial Service Kingman Prescott Show Low Reliever Chandler Glendale Goodyear Marana Mesa Phoenix Scottsdale Tucson General Aviation Ajo Bagdad Benson Bisbee Buckeye Casa Grande Chinle Cibecue Clifton/Morenci Colorado City Coolidge Cottonwood Douglas Bisbee Eloy Gila Bend Globe Holbrook Kayenta Lake Havasu City Marana Nogales Parker Airport Name FAA ID Master Plan ALP FAA ALP Approval Date Laughlin/Bullhead International Flagstaff Pulliam Grand Canyon National Park Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Page Grand Canyon West Phoenix Sky Harbor International Tucson International Yuma International Airport IFP FLG GCN IWA PGA 1G4 PHX TUS NYL 2009 2007 2006 2008 2007 2007 1997 2004 2009 2007 2007 2006 2008 2007 2007 2008 2004 2007 2007 2002 2006 2005 2001 2007 2008 2004 2001 Kingman Ernest A. Love Field Show Low Regional IGM PRC SOW 2006 2008 2003 2006 2008 2005 2006 2000 2005 Chandler Municipal Glendale Municipal Phoenix Goodyear Marana Regional Falcon Field Phoenix Deer Valley Scottsdale Ryan Field CHD GEU GYR AVQ FFZ DVT SDL RYN 2007 2008 2008 2008 2008 2007 2009 2008 2007 2008 2008 2007 2008 2008 2009 2008 2000 1998 1999 2007 2007 2002 2002 2001 Eric Marcus Municipal Bagdad Benson Municipal Bisbee Municipal Buckeye Municipal Casa Grande Municipal Chinle Municipal Cibecue Greenlee County Colorado City Municipal Coolidge Municipal Cottonwood Bisbee Douglas International Eloy Municipal Gila Bend Municipal San Carlos Apache Holbrook Municipal Kayenta Lake Havasu City Pinal Airpark Nogales International Avi Suquilla P01 E51 E95 P04 BXK CGZ E91 Z95 CFT AZC P08 P52 DUG E60 E63 P13 P14 0V7 HII MZJ OLS P20 1999 2000 2007 2001 2007 2008 NA NA 2008 2008 2009 2007 1997 2001 2009 2007 2000 2005 2008 2004 2006 2008 1999 2008 2007 2001 2007 2008 1992 2006 2008 2008 2009 2007 2002 2001 2009 2000 2000 2005 2008 2004 2002 2008 1999 2000 2000 2001 2007 2001 1992 2006 2003 2000 2001 2006 1998 2001 2000 2007 2000 2006 2003 2000 1993 2001 3-48 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE Figure 3-21: Airport Master Plans and Airport Layout Plans (Continued) Associated City General Aviation Payson Polacca Safford San Manuel Sedona Sierra Vista Springerville St Johns Taylor Tuba City Whiteriver Wickenburg Willcox Williams Window Rock Winslow Non-NPIAS General Aviation Aguila Bullhead City Carefree Chandler Chandler Douglas Douglas Grand Canyon Kearny Marble Canyon Maricopa Meadview Peach Springs Peach Springs Peoria Phoenix Rimrock San Luis Seligman Sells Superior Temple Bar Tombstone Tucson Whitmore Airport Name FAA ID Master Plan ALP FAA ALP Approval Date 2001 None 2001 2007 2001 2000 2007 1999 2005 2001 2007 2005 1999 2008 2001 2002 Payson Polacca Safford Regional San Manuel/Ray/Blair Sedona Sierra Vista Municipal/LAA Springerville Municipal St Johns Industrial Air Park Taylor Tuba City Whiteriver Wickenburg Municipal Cochise County H.A. Clark Memorial Field Window Rock Winslow-Lindbergh Regional PAN P10 SAD E77 SEZ FHU D68 SJN TYL T03 E24 E25 P33 CMR RQE INW 2008 1997 2008 2003 2000 2003 2008 1998 2005 2005 1998 2003 1997 2008 1998 2008 2008 NA 2008 2007 2006 2000 2007 2008 2005 2005 2003 2000 1997 2007 1998 2002 Eagle Roost Sun Valley Sky Ranch at Carefree Memorial Airfield Stellar Airpark Douglas Municipal Cochise College Grand Canyon Valle Kearny Marble Canyon AK Chin Community Airfield Pearce Ferry Grand Canyon Caverns Hualapai Pleasant Valley Phoenix Regional Rimrock Rolle Airfield Seligman Sells Superior Municipal Temple Bar Tombstone Municipal La Cholla Airpark Grand Canyon Bar Ten Airstrip 27AZ A20 18AZ 34AZ P19 DGL P03 40G E67 L41 E68 L25 L37 3AZ5 P48 A39 48AZ 44A P23 E78 E81 U30 P29 57AZ 1Z1 NA NA NA 2005 1981 1994 2001 NA 2006 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2001 2005 NA 2002 NA 1999 NA NA NA NA NA 2005 NA 2003 2001 NA 2006 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2003 2006 NA 2001 NA 1999 NA NA 1984 None None None None None 1999 Source: ADOT Aeronautics Division, Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 Note: NA= Not applicable 3-49 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS Assessing the needs of the airports within the Arizona system is accomplished within the SASP through a top-down approach. This method looks at factors such as population and employment served by each airport within the system to help determine system airport needs. However, local land use issues and development constraints must also be taken into consideration. Identification of airport development constraints at each system airport was obtained during the SASP inventory process. Each airport sponsor was asked to indicate what factors might limit or restrict the future growth or development of their airport. Future airport development constraint factors identified and their definitions are as follows: • • • • Man-made Factors: Airport development constrained due to man-made development in the vicinity of the airport such as roads, utilities, housing, or other structures. Environmental Factors: Airport development constrained due to environmental factors. These factors typically include wetlands, endangered species, and noise impacts. Community Relations: Political or community opposition to airport development or expansion. Financial Shortfalls: Lack of financial resources within the community or airport to fund airport development or expansion. Among the 83 airports surveyed, ‘Financial Shortfalls’ was the most common constraint identified, with 65 airports reporting this factor. ‘Community Relations’ was the least common, with only 18 airports reporting this factor. Development constraints related to ‘Man-made’ and ‘Environmental Factors’ were reported by an almost equal number of airports. ‘Man-made’ was identified as a constraint by 33 airports and ‘Environmental Factors’ was identified as a constraint by 30 airports. Figure 3-22 presents the constraints identified by each system airport. These constraints were based on information provided by airport managers or sponsors. The constraints are graphically depicted in Figure 3-23. 3-50 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE Figure 3-22: Airport Development Constraints Associated City Airport Name Primary Commercial Service Bullhead City Laughlin/Bullhead International Flagstaff Flagstaff Pulliam Grand Canyon Grand Canyon National Park Mesa Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Page Page Peach Springs Grand Canyon West Phoenix Phoenix Sky Harbor International Tucson Tucson International Yuma Yuma International Airport Commercial Service Kingman Kingman Prescott Ernest A. Love Field Show Low Show Low Regional Reliever Chandler Chandler Municipal Glendale Glendale Municipal Goodyear Phoenix Goodyear Marana Marana Regional Mesa Falcon Field Phoenix Phoenix Deer Valley Scottsdale Scottsdale Tucson Ryan Field General Aviation Ajo Bagdad Benson Bisbee Buckeye Casa Grande Chinle Cibecue Clifton/Morenci Colorado City Coolidge Cottonwood Douglas Bisbee Eloy Gila Bend Globe Holbrook Kayenta Lake Havasu City Marana Nogales Parker Payson Eric Marcus Municipal Bagdad Benson Municipal Bisbee Municipal Buckeye Municipal Casa Grande Municipal Chinle Municipal Cibecue Greenlee County Colorado City Municipal Coolidge Municipal Cottonwood Bisbee Douglas International Eloy Municipal Gila Bend Municipal San Carlos Apache Holbrook Municipal Kayenta Lake Havasu City Pinal Airpark Nogales International Avi Suquilla Payson Man-made Environmental Community R R R R R R R R R R Financial R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R 3-51 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE Figure 3-22: Airport Development Constraints (Continued) Associated City Airport Name General Aviation Polacca Polacca Safford Safford Regional San Manuel San Manuel/Ray/Blair Sedona Sedona Sierra Vista Sierra Vista Municipal/LAA Springerville Springerville Municipal St Johns St Johns Industrial Air Park Taylor Taylor Tuba City Tuba City Whiteriver Whiteriver Wickenburg Wickenburg Municipal Willcox Cochise County Williams H.A. Clark Memorial Field Window Rock Window Rock Winslow Winslow-Lindbergh Regional Non-NPIAS General Aviation Aguila Eagle Roost Bullhead City Sun Valley Carefree Sky Ranch at Carefree Chandler Memorial Airfield Chandler Stellar Airpark Douglas Douglas Municipal Douglas Cochise College Grand Canyon Grand Canyon Valle Kearny Kearny Marble Canyon Marble Canyon Maricopa Estrella Sailport Meadview Pearce Ferry Peach Springs Grand Canyon Caverns Peach Springs Hualapai Peoria Pleasant Valley Phoenix Phoenix Regional Rimrock Rimrock San Luis Rolle Airfield Seligman Seligman Sells Sells Superior Superior Municipal Temple Bar Temple Bar Tombstone Tombstone Municipal Tucson La Cholla Airpark Whitmore Grand Canyon Bar Ten Airstrip Man-made Environmental Community R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R Financial R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R  R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 3-52 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE Figure 3-23: Airport Development Constraints at Arizona System Airports Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 3-53 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE BUSINESS SURVEY RESULTS In May 2008, over 2,500 Arizona businesses were mailed a survey to obtain input on the state’s airport system and business use of aviation. The 2,500 businesses were selected based on their higher propensity to use aviation. This includes a minimum employee size and certain industries. In addition to the mail survey, a web-based survey was developed and the Internet address was included in the letter transmitting the survey to provide another option to survey respondents. Over 220 businesses responded to the survey request. Businesses responding to the survey were from a variety of industries including manufacturing, health care, civil engineering and consulting, construction, and architecture. The primary locations of the respondents were from the Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas; however responses were received from businesses throughout the state. These businesses employ 57,519 full-time employees and 5,679 part-time employees, and were estimated to take 22,420 commercial airline trips each year. Businesses were also asked to estimate the percentage of their activity that depends on the availability of aviation. The commercial service and general aviation dependence responses both ranged from 0-100 percent. Where there is dependence noted by the business respondents, the average percentages for dependence on commercial service and general aviation is 44 percent and 25 percent, respectively. Scheduled Commercial Airline Service Businesses were asked about their commercial service travel. Seventy-nine percent responded that their employees take 10 or more trips per year and 45 percent take 50 or more trips per year. Some of the top destinations noted by the business respondents included Las Vegas, Denver, and Albuquerque. Seventy-two percent of businesses identified Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport as their most commonly used departure airport. Eighteen percent of businesses reported that Tucson International Airport is their main departure airport. Businesses were asked if their clients or vendors depended on the availability of commercial airline service to conduct business-related activity. Seventy-two percent responded that their clients and vendors do rely on commercial airline service. The number of trips per year ranged between one to 1,500 trips per year by clients or vendors, with an average of 55 trips per year. The top locations that clients and vendors are traveling from consist of California (including Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego), Illinois (including Chicago and Peoria), and New York. General Aviation Usage Businesses were asked if their clients or vendors depended on general aviation to conduct business-related activity. Eighty-seven percent responded that none of their clients or vendors used general aviation. Of the 26 businesses that responded that their clients and vendors do use general aviation, they average 60 trips per year, with a range from two to 300 trips. The top three locations the clients and vendors are traveling from are Phoenix, Denver, and Show Low. Businesses were asked about general aviation usage within their company, including ownership or lease of general aviation aircraft or the use of general aviation charters or air taxis. Twelve percent of businesses reported that they own general aviation aircraft and three 3-54 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE percent stated that they lease aircraft. Only one business out of 186 respondents to the question reported fractional ownership of an aircraft. Six percent of businesses stated that they use general aircraft aviation charters or air taxis. Air Cargo Businesses were asked about their use of air cargo, including shipping of parcels, documents, and freight. Thirty-four percent of businesses reported that they use no air cargo service. Fifty-three percent of businesses responded that they use parcel service. Parcel and document services are used by over 50 percent of businesses. Freight air cargo is only used by 23 percent of businesses. Important Factors for Businesses When a company is looking to expand or relocate, there are many factors that affect their decision-making process. Businesses were asked, on a scale of 1 to 5, to rank the importance of the following factors when considering expansion or relocation (see Figure 324). A score of five represents the most important factor, while one represents the least important factor in their decision-making process. Figure 3-24: Important Factors for Businesses Considering Expansion or Relocation Factor Convenient highway access Availability of trained workforce Cost of living A commercial service airport Tax incentives Proximity of suppliers An urban business district Academic or cultural centers Universities or R&D centers Airport with international flights A general aviation airport Historic location of business Raw materials/natural resources Rail transportation facilities Average Score 4.25 3.98 3.87 3.67 3.45 3.03 3.00 2.96 2.95 2.65 2.41 2.39 2.34 2.19 Source: Arizona Business Air Travel Survey 2008 Out of the 14 factors listed, businesses chose convenient highway access as the most important in considering expansion or relocation of their business. Location of a commercial service airport ranked fourth, while proximity to a general aviation airport ranked 11th. Also interesting to note from the respondents is the importance of the location of an airport with international flights, which ranked 10th out of the 14 factors. 3-55 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE PILOT SURVEY RESULTS In May 2008, over 4,000 Arizona pilots were mailed a survey to obtain input on the state’s airport system and their use of aviation. In addition to the mail survey, a web-based survey was developed and the Internet address was included in the letter transmitting the survey to provide another option to survey respondents. A link to the survey was provided through both the Arizona Pilots Association (APA) and the Arizona chapter of Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA). To ensure a wide response throughout Arizona, the survey population for the mail-out survey was targeted. If there were less than 1,000 pilots from a county, then all pilots in that county were mailed the survey. Counties with over 1,000 pilots (Maricopa, Pima, and Yavapai) had proportional numbers of surveys distributed. In total, 1,105 surveys were returned either via U.S. mail or through the Internet website. Pilots in Maricopa County had the highest number of respondents at 346 or 31 percent of the total respondents. The second highest number of respondents by county was Pima, with 13 percent of the responding pilots. Figure 3-25 maps the number of respondent pilots by zip codes in Arizona. Large concentrations of registered pilots can be seen around the Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan regions. Significant numbers of respondent pilots also appear in the Prescott and Sierra Vista regions. Much like population density in the state, registered pilots are largely concentrated in a few heavily urbanized areas. Pilot Information Pilots were asked their employment status. Seventy-five percent of the respondents stated that they were not employed as pilots. Sixteen percent of pilots responded that they were fulltime pilots, while two percent (27 pilots) identified that they were employed in both a fulltime and part-time position. The survey inquired about the pilots’ certifications. Sixty-five percent of pilots have singleengine ratings and 47 percent stated they have an instrument rating. Fifty-four percent of pilots responded that they are private pilots, while 36 percent were classified as commercial pilots. Survey respondents were asked to indicate which aviation groups they participated in. The largest group was Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), with 83 percent of respondents (811 pilots) identifying themselves as members. The second largest group was Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), with 33 percent of pilots indicating they are members. Other groups with more than 50 members include APA, Civil Air Patrol (CAP), and pilots serving on local airport advisory boards. 3-56 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE Figure 3-25: Pilot Survey Respondents by Zip Code in Arizona Source: 2008 Arizona SASP Pilot Surveys 3-57 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE Aircraft Pilots were asked if they or their company owned any general aviation aircraft. If yes, they were also asked more questions about their aircraft, including the make and model, the aircraft’s base airport, and how the aircraft was stored. Fifty-six percent of pilots stated that they owned an aircraft. Eight percent of pilots answered that they did not own an aircraft, yet listed information about the aircraft, including its make and model. The most frequently noted type of aircraft was a single-engine model, with 79 percent of the respondents identifying specific single-engine aircraft types. Over 8 percent of the respondents identified a multiengine piston aircraft was their primary aircraft. Pilots were asked if their aircraft was equipped with a global positioning system (GPS) unit. Eighty-six percent responded yes, while 18 percent responded both yes and no. If the aircraft was equipped with GPS, the pilots were asked if it was capable of being utilized for IFR approaches. Seventy-three percent of pilots stated yes. Airports Pilots were requested to identify information on the airport where they base their aircraft. Responding pilots identified 67 airports where they base aircraft, with the highest number of respondents indicating the following airports as their base airport: • 9.8% Falcon Field • 8.3% Deer Valley • 7.4% Yuma • 5.9% Chandler • 5.9% Prescott • 4.9% Scottsdale • 4.4% Stellar Airpark • 3.9% Tucson The average number of years for aircraft to be based at one airport is eight years. Sixty-one percent of pilots responded that they stored their aircraft in hangars, while 26 percent stated they use tie-downs. For pilots that do not currently have a hangar, 65 percent of them stated they would use one if it became available at the airport’s current rates. Pilots were asked to rate their airports on their facilities. The rankings were good, fair, and poor. Hangars and FBO services were tied for the highest number of poor rankings, with 166 each. Length of runway(s) received the highest number of good rankings with 748 pilots ranking these facilities as good at the airport where they base their primary aircraft. Overall, the average ranking for all facilities was above fair, with length of runway ranking the highest and hangars ranking the lowest. Pilots were asked the distance they travel to their home base airport from both home and work. Thirty-two percent of pilots reside within zero to five miles of their airport. Forty-one percent of pilots work within zero to five miles of their airport. Eighty-five percent of pilots live within 20 miles of their airport and over 89 percent work within 30 miles of their airport. Rising fuel costs has become a concern of many in the industry. However, 30 percent of pilots stated that fuel prices have had no effect on the number of hours they have flown in the past year. Thirty percent of pilots said that fuel costs have affected their number of flying 3-58 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER THREE hours by 10 to 15 percent, while only 13 percent report that fuel costs have reduced their hours by 50 to 100 percent. Pilots were asked their primary purpose for flying in the past 12 months. Fifty-eight percent reported that they flew on personal business, while 18 percent stated they flew for business. Instructional, search and rescue, and commercial flights were also in the top five reasons for recent flying. Pilots were asked to identify the top three reasons why they fly out of their most common airport. Place of employment was the top reason, with 63 percent of pilots marking that as one of their top three reasons. Proximity to home was second with 61 percent of pilots responding this as a top reason for choosing their airport. Fifty-nine percent stated that cost of services was in their top three reasons. Pilots were also asked to suggest which improvements their most used airport needed. Hangars were the top choice with 51 percent of pilots identifying this need. Thirty percent stated that FBO services at their airport needed to be improved. Airport services were also in the top three for improvement with 21 percent of pilots responding that additional services were needed. 3-59 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR CHAPTER FOUR: FORECASTS OF AVIATION ACTIVITY This chapter provides forecasts of aviation activity at each airport included in the Arizona State Airports System Plan. This chapter includes an overview of national and statewide trends which have the potential to impact future aviation activity in the state. These trends include such factors as historic aviation growth, the rising cost of fuel, technological advances, and socioeconomic trends in Arizona, among others. The forecasts of aviation activity in Arizona follow the summary of aviation trends. INTRODUCTION & APPROACH The primary objective of a forecasting effort is to define the magnitude of change that can be expected over time. Because of the cyclical nature of the economy, it is virtually impossible to predict with certainty year-to-year fluctuations in activity when looking 20 years into the future. This is especially true today, as fuel prices have reached record highs and all sectors of aviation have felt the impact. Near-term projections are especially difficult under the current operating environment. However, a trend and range of projections can be established that characterizes long-term growth potential in aviation activity. The development of aviation activity projections for Arizona’s system of airports is a necessary step in assessing the need for and phasing of future airport development. The activity projections presented in this chapter are used in part to determine the role of airports within the Arizona system, evaluate the ability of the existing system to accommodate projected aviation demand, and plan future airside and landside facilities for the system. In this chapter, aviation activity forecasts were developed for the following indicators: • Commercial Service Enplanements and Operations • Air Cargo Tonnage • Based Aircraft • General Aviation Operations • Military Operations To ensure reasonable results, forecasts for each aviation indicator were developed using several different forecasting methodologies. These methodologies include both “top down” and “bottom up” approaches. A “top down” approach projects aviation activity for the entire Arizona airport system, then relates the projections back to each individual airport based on the current share of statewide activity. The “bottom up” approach relates local factors including historic based aircraft trends and projected population and employment growth to future aviation activity at individual airports. The “bottom up” approach adds each individual airport’s forecasts together to arrive at the system-wide total. Preferred methodologies for each aviation activity indicator were selected based on historic and projected demographic trends, FAA projections, and the possible impacts of industry trends. The projections of aviation demand are then compared to the FAA’s Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) and airport master plans, where available, to ensure a reasonableness check of the SASP preferred forecasts. 4-1 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR TRENDS IMPACTING AVIATION Recent trends, both national and statewide, are important considerations in the development of aviation activity projections. At the national level, fluctuating trends regarding aviation usage and economic swings resulting from the nation’s business cycle and record high oil prices have all impacted aviation demand. At the state level, demographic and economic growth experienced in Arizona has impacted aviation demand. This chapter examines commercial service, air cargo and general aviation trends, and the numerous factors that have influenced those trends in the U.S. and the state of Arizona. Nationally, demand for commercial air service and general aviation has remained strong and returned aviation activity to pre-September 11, 2001 levels. However, the domestic commercial airline industry continues to struggle with high operational costs in an environment of intense pricing competition. In both the commercial and general aviation sectors, accelerating fuel prices have rapidly escalated the cost of flying. In 2008, it is projected that both aviation sectors will experience declines in activity. This section reviews some of the most important national trends in aviation that have and will continue to impact aviation in Arizona. Among the most important factors influencing aviation demand in Arizona today, and in the near future, are the following: • • • • • • • • Increased competition for market share between network and low cost carriers On-going financial difficulties of the legacy carriers, especially those that operate hub and spoke networks A restructuring of regional jet service and regional airlines precipitated by legacy carrier bankruptcies and reorganization Higher operating requirements of regional jet aircraft on smaller communities that can currently only accommodate turboprop aircraft Further declines in air service to the smallest communities as the carriers focus on the highest density point-to-point markets Replacement of aircraft in favor of more fuel efficient models both on the commercial side and in general aviation Introduction of twin engine micro jets or very light jets and increased national capability to provide on-demand business travel Reductions in recreational (discretionary) flying of general aviation aircraft because of high fuel costs 4-2 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR National Scheduled Commercial Service Trends Fourteen of the 83 SASP airports offer commercial service. Commercial service includes all scheduled passenger flights, including air tours. Following September 11, 2001, aviation forecasters anticipated that it would take some time for commercial demand to return to levels seen in 2000. By 2005, most commercial airports exceeded 2000 activity levels. Figure 4-1 shows the trend in total domestic enplanements since 2000. In 2007, approximately 689 million passengers enplaned commercial service flights in the U.S. Figure 4-1: Domestic Enplanements, 2000-2007 7 0 0 .0 6 8 0 .0 6 8 9 .4 Enplanements (millions) 6 6 0 .0 6 4 0 .0 6 6 9 .4 6 68 .4 2005 2006 6 4 1 .2 6 2 0 .0 6 2 5 .8 6 2 8 .5 6 0 0 .0 5 8 0 .0 5 8 7 .8 5 7 5 .1 5 6 0 .0 5 4 0 .0 5 2 0 .0 5 0 0 .0 2 00 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2007E Y ear Source: FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2008-2025 Jet Fuel Prices Despite a continuing increase in passenger demand, the escalating cost of fuel continues to disrupt the financial recovery of the commercial airlines. Figure 4-2 shows the pricing trends of spot crude oil and jet fuel since 1990. In the last 30 years, there have been three pricing spikes. In 1973-74, the Oil Embargo caused the price of oil to spike from $3 per barrel to over $11 per barrel. In the 1980s, the price of crude oil moved into the $20 range. In the 1990s, the price fluctuated between $20 and $30 per barrel until mid-2003. In the last four years, the price of crude oil has more than quadrupled; and in 2008, crude oil has increased to $140 per barrel (as of early July 2008). In addition, the difference between crude and jet fuel cost per barrel, known as the “crack spread” has increased as well, from a historical average of $5 to over $20 since Hurricane Katrina. 4-3 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-2: Average Prices ($/Barrel): Crude Oil vs. Jet Fuel, 1990-2008 Peaks in Crack Spread Sources: U.S. Energy Information Administration and Air Transport Association High Breakeven Load Factors Reflect Low Fares and High Costs A way to look at the cost and revenue components of commercial air service is to compare actual passenger load factors with breakeven load factors. Figure 4-3 compares passenger load factors and breakeven load factors for the major carriers. This figure clearly demonstrates how the airlines are challenged to stay profitable when fares remain low, demand is high, and costs continue to escalate. Starting back in 1995 through 2000, carrier load factors exceeded breakeven points. Breakeven points hovered in the mid-60 percent range while actual load factors averaged 70 percent. However, in the last six years, breakeven points averaged in the mid-80 percent range, well above actual load factors. Typically when airlines are operating at 80 percent or higher load factors, they must either turn away passengers or schedule additional flights. This is why the airlines are eager to reduce operating costs, raise airfares, and lower the number of passengers needed to break even. 4-4 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-3: Passenger Load Factors and Breakeven Points - Legacy Carriers (Majors & Nationals), 1997-2007 90% Actual Passenger Load Factor - Majors & Nationals Breakeven 85% 84% 81% 80% 82% 81% 80% 82% 79% 77% 75% 74% 70% 65% 71% 71% 65% 72% 71% 75% 72% 69% 70% 66% 65% 60% 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006E Source: FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2008-2025 Airline Mergers & Acquisitions At the time this chapter was written in 2008, five of the country's six major airlines were engaged in merger talks and Delta Air Lines and Northwest Airlines have agreed to merge and await a ruling from the U.S. Justice Department. United Airlines was in talks with Continental and then US Airways regarding a merger, but has recently called off talks. Airline mergers are being considered again due to high fuel costs and the weak domestic economy. Several airlines have shutdown in the past six months and one filed for bankruptcy: Shut Down U.S. Airline MAXjet Big Sky Aloha ATA Skybus EOS Champion Air Last Day Dec. 25, 2007 Jan. 7, 2008 Mar. 31, 2008 April 2, 2008 April 5, 2008 April 27, 2008 May 31, 2008 Bankrupted Airline Frontier Ch. 11 Filing April 11, 2008 To survive, some airlines are considering merging in the hope that by joining forces, they can save money on rising fuel costs and gain cost savings from combining international and domestic routes. Airlines hope to create efficient carriers that can effectively compete and win in the global marketplace. If the Delta-Northwest merger is approved it could spark further consolidation according to equity analysts. The worry is that consolidation increases 4-5 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR the likelihood for service cuts to small communities and higher fares. Consumer advocates believe that airlines are attempting to become "mega-airlines” and that consumers have become reliant on air travel since it is the only rapid form of transportation for an over 400mile trip in the U.S. FAA Commercial Aviation Forecasts Each year the FAA prepares a 12-year forecast for commercial aviation as part of the FAA Aerospace Forecasts. The forecasts are presented in March each year. The most recent forecasts reflect the following average annual growth rates for 2008-2025: • Domestic enplanements – 2.72 percent per year • International enplanements – 4.79 percent per year • Load factors up to 82 percent • Available Seat Miles (ASMs) – 4.1 percent per year • Revenue Passenger Miles (RPMs) – 4.2 percent per year The FAA anticipates that international travel will be the fastest growing segment of scheduled air service. In 2007, international ASMs represented approximately 27 percent of the system. By 2025, international ASMs are expected to represent 34 percent of total ASMs. Regional carrier growth will slow to 1.3 percent per year after annual increases in the 12 percent range between 2000 and 2006. Passenger yields are projected to improve at an average annual growth rate of 1.7 percent. Figure 4-4 shows the most recent FAA forecasts for both domestic and international passengers. Figure 4-4: U.S. Commercial Air Carriers, Historical and Forecast Domestic and International Passengers (2000-2025) 1, 400 Projected International Projected Domestic 1, 200 174.7 Historic International Passengers (Millions) Historic Domestic 142.5 1,118.2 1, 000 114.1 800 600 89.8 56.4 56.7 641.2 625.8 51.2 575.1 53.3 587.8 60.5 628.5 67.4 71.6 669.4 668.4 75.3 984.0 859.0 746.2 689.4 400 200 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007E 2010 2015 2020 2025 Year Source: FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2008-2025 It is worth noting that the FAA projections do not take into account the recent surge in fuel costs and ongoing difficulties experienced by U.S. carriers. Based on recent events, it appears that the FAA’s near-term domestic projections may be overstated. 4-6 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Air Cargo Trends This section will provide an overview of the air cargo industry, a summary of world and U.S. cargo trends. Six of the 83 airports included in the SASP have regularly scheduled air cargo operations. Overview & Demand for Air Cargo Services Air cargo demand is generated when there is a need for transportation of material or goods between two points in an expeditious manner. In the business world, logistics managers must justify the use of air cargo as their preferred mode of transport. Shipping by air is greater in cost than shipping via truck, rail, or water. Several factors are involved in the logistics process when it comes to deciding if it is appropriate to move material via air cargo. These factors include: • Cost of transporting the material • Level of service commitment to the customer or end user • Value of the material • Magnitude of the time-sensitivity of the material Products that benefit from increased speed of distribution or better stock availability that can be gained through air cargo shipping include those such as automotive; computers; and perishable items such as flowers, vegetables, and fish. All of these are high value, relatively light weight, and time critical. The types of commodities that typically rely on air cargo are as follows: • Aerospace - Equipment & Parts • Automotive - Equipment & Parts • Pharmaceuticals • Computers & Computer Components • Diagnostic Equipment • Medical Devices and Equipment • Software • Textiles - Garments • Consumer Electronics • Perishables - Flowers, Fruit, Vegetable & Seafood • Economically Perishable Materials - Printed Material • Telecommunications Equipment - Cell Phones, Blackberries, etc. • Photographic Film Air Cargo Service Options There are five primary distribution channels for air freight: all cargo carriers, integrated express operators, commercial airlines, freight forwarders, and ad-hoc carriers. A brief description of each is provided in the following subsections. All Cargo Carriers All cargo carriers operate airport-to-airport air cargo and freight services for their customers but do not offer passenger service. All cargo carriers include Polar Air Cargo, Atlas Air, and Kalitta Air Cargo, to name a few. Northwest Airlines operates a dozen or so cargo-only Boeing 747s. Northwest is the only U.S. based passenger carrier to provide this type of all air cargo service. Japan Airlines and Korean are also passenger airlines with their own fleet of freighter 4-7 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR aircraft. All cargo carriers offer scheduled service to major markets throughout the world using wide body and/or containerized cargo aircraft. Integrated Express Operators Integrated express operators move the customer’s goods door-to-door, providing shipment collection, transport via air or truck, and delivery. Integrated express operators include FedEx Express1, UPS, and DHL. Express companies provide next day and deferred, time-definite delivery of documents and small packages (two to 70 pounds). Increasingly, however, express operators are transporting “heavy” freight, identified as more than 70 pounds. Integrated express carriers operate using hub and spoke systems similar to the passenger airline systems. The hub is the backbone of integrated express carrier since it provides connections to each market in the integrator’s system. Each day of operation, flights from around the U.S. arrive at the hub. Once at the hub, packages are unloaded, sorted to the appropriate destination market, and then loaded back onto the appropriate outbound aircraft. Scheduled Commercial Airlines Air cargo services provided by commercial airlines vary in scope and size from airline to airline. This is true because of differences in aircraft operating fleets. A regional airline, with a fleet of turboprop and regional jets, cannot accommodate large, bulky cargo or freight shipments. Airlines operating wide-body aircraft have containerized lower decks (which allow speed in loading and offloading) and generally are capable of handling large, bulky shipments. Commercial airlines generally provide airport-to-airport service. Freight must be dropped off at the airport by the shipper or the shipper’s freight forwarder. Air cargo/freight must be picked up at the destination airport by the customer or the customer’s freight forwarder. While there is likely to be a continued market for commercial airline “belly” cargo, the integrated carriers have been very successful in expanding their market to capture freight that formerly was the exclusive domain of the heavy or all cargo carriers. Freight Forwarders An air freight forwarder is a company that accepts small packages from shippers and consolidates them into container loads. These loads are then transferred to the nonintegrated carrier or a passenger airline to deliver to an agent or subsidiary at another airport. BAX Global operates as a multi-modal forwarder, but utilizes its own aircraft fleet and a hub and spoke system to support its air freight operations. Freight forwarders also rely heavily on lift provided by commercial passenger carriers. Freight forwarders have their leading gateways near major hub airports such as Los Angeles International and New York’s John F. Kennedy International. Ad-Hoc/On-Demand Carriers Ad hoc air cargo operations are unscheduled charter flights carrying freight or mail. FedEx has several product types that utilize the FedEx brand name in some form. FedEx Express is the integrated express arm of the company. They provide the “overnight service” synonymous with the brand while FedEx Ground is the trucking division; they operate similar to UPS trucking. FedEx LTL is the Less Than Truckload branch, and FedEx Custom Critical is a truck charter service. 1 4-8 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Air Cargo Industry Trends This discussion provides insight into global air cargo trends and the air cargo industry in the United States. This discussion is useful to set a context for future air cargo potential for Arizona. This overview also provides a brief description of the type of services carriers and airports utilize. The following specific topics are discussed: • Global Air Cargo Trends • U.S. Air Cargo Trends Global Air Cargo Trends Air cargo is big business from the standpoint of the economic value it helps to support. It is estimated by the International Air Cargo Association that the air cargo industry transports 40 percent of world trade by value, but a mere two percent by weight. In 2007, the U.S. domestic air freight and express market activity was valued at $34 billion, whereas the international air freight/express market was valued at $69 billion. When combined, the worldwide air cargo industry was valued at $103 billion in 2007. Cargo’s share of total passenger airline revenue varies widely, but it is estimated that: • Five percent of revenue for U.S. major carriers comes from cargo • 15 percent of revenue for European major commercial carriers comes from cargo • More than 20 percent of revenue for Asian major commercial carriers comes from cargo Boeing indicates in their biannual air cargo forecast that freight traffic worldwide will grow six to seven percent per year; this indicates the air cargo market will double in size approximately every 12 years. Approximately 50 percent of all air cargo shipped worldwide is carried in the lower deck of passenger aircraft, with the remaining 50 percent being shipped by freighter aircraft operators such as Atlas and Polar Air Cargo or by integrated express carriers such as DHL, FedEx Express, and UPS. The FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2008-2025 indicates worldwide air cargo demand growth rebounded in 2006 after slow growth in 2005 as shown in Figure 4-5. Worldwide cargo growth for 2007 was estimated at 3.5 percent. 4-9 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-5: World Air Cargo Demand Changes, 2000-2007 12.0% 10.0% 10.2% Annual Percent Growth in RTMs 8.0% 8.5% 7.2% 6.0% 4.0% 5.5% 4.7% 3.5% 2.0% 2.5% 0.0% -2.0% -4.0% -6.5% -6.0% -8.0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Source: FAA Aerospace Forecast, Fiscal Years 2008-2025 U.S. Air Cargo Trends Over the last 10 years, air freight has been the fastest growing segment of the U.S. cargo industry according to a report by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Air freight has grown rapidly as U.S. businesses sought timely delivery of valuable goods. This growth has also created greater demand for truck and intermodal services, since most air shipments begin and end their journeys by truck. The FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2008-2025 provides insight into recent U.S. trends in the air cargo sector of aviation. Growth in the U.S. cargo market continues, but not nearly at the rates seen in the past few years. This slower growth is a result of a maturing U.S. market. Figure 4-6 shows the degree to which growth in the U.S. air cargo market has slowed since 2003. 4-10 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-6: U.S. Commercial Air Carriers Cargo Demand Changes, 2000-2007 Annual Percent Growth in RTMs 20.5% 8.7% 7.1% 7.7% 1.3% 1.0% 2006 2007 -2.1% -5.6% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Source: FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2008-2025 The FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2008-2025 also provides forecasts of revenue ton miles of air cargo activity. Figure 4-7 summarizes the FAA forecasts from 2007 to 2025. These forecasts project revenue ton miles (RTMs) for all-cargo carriers to increase at an annual rate of 3.2 percent though 2025, to a future value of over 22 million RTMs. Passenger carrier ton miles are projected to increase at an annual rate of 1.8 percent through 2025, from three million in 2007 to over four million in 2025. Total domestic cargo revenue ton miles are projected by the FAA to increase at an annual rate of three percent, from a 2007 number of nearly 16 million to over 26 million in 2025. Figure 4-7: Forecasts of U.S. Commercial Air Carriers Cargo Revenue Ton Miles, 2007-2025 Year 2007 2010 2015 2025 CAGR 2007-2025 All-Cargo Carriers 12,792,718,000 14,357,340,102 16,972,232,042 22,556,598,907 3.2% Passenger Carriers 3,028,643,000 3,280,669,851 3,625,136,941 4,169,229,182 1.8% Total 15,821,361,000 17,638,009,953 20,597,368,983 26,725,828,089 3.0% Source: FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2008-2025 Note: CAGR=Compound Average Annual Growth Rate The increase in fuel prices has slowed demand for air cargo somewhat. In addition, other factors in the U.S. air cargo industry have resulted in a more mature market that is not expected to sustain the high growth rates seen in previous years. A mature air cargo market implies that air cargo facilities such as hub-and-spoke air networks are not expanding and that integrated express carriers are not expanding their fleets significantly for domestic operations. For example, when UPS air cargo network needed to increase capacity in the US 4-11 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR in 2005 they chose to expand existing facilities and not build new hubs and facilities. Three primary factors contributing to industry maturity are discussed below. Vertical Integration As the air cargo industry has matured, the double digit growth of the 1980s and 1990s has moderated; many companies are looking at vertical integration for opportunities. UPS started as a trucking company and expanded into air cargo, while FedEx began as an integrated express company that is now expanding into trucking through the acquisition of several companies, including RPS and American Freightways. In response to the needs of supplychain managers, many suppliers of overnight package delivery now offer time-definite cargo services in the form of two- or three-day delivery. Modal Shift The shift in focus from integrated express to time-definite service, coupled with financial and cost-saving measures, has led to the increasing use of trucks on longer routes that were traditionally served by aircraft. This modal shift is particularly pronounced within the integrated express carrier community. Less-than-truckload (LTL) companies have become major competitors to air freight. These companies enjoy a significant cost advantage over air cargo carriers because of lower capital costs for equipment and lower wage scales. To compete effectively in this segment, FedEx Express has recently formed its own LTL subsidiary, FedEx LTL. Other larger LTL companies competing for time-definite shipments include ABF Freight System, Inc, Yellow Freight System, and Con-Way. The United States Postal Service (USPS) has also increased the use of trucks to transport mail, finding that mail can be transported by truck for 20 percent less than air transportation costs. Declining Availability of Belly Space on Domestic Carriers While 50 percent of international air cargo is transported on passenger aircraft, a small percentage of air cargo is carried on domestic passenger aircraft in the U.S. This is because fewer wide-body aircraft are in use on domestic routes in North America. The increased use of regional jets offers limited cargo capacity. Higher load factors, which mean more passenger baggage, further reduce belly cargo capacity. New security rules are anticipated to impact air cargo carried on domestic air carriers when 100 percent screening takes effect in 2010. U.S. Postal Service (USPS) Mail Volume Continues to Decline A number of factors have resulted in changes to the way mail is transported. First, reduced capacity offered by regional jets has resulted in the USPS relying more heavily on trucks than aircraft. Historically, mail traveling more than 500 miles made use of aircraft, but with the proliferation of regional jets reducing air cargo capacity, the threshold for the use of trucking for mail has shifted to up to 800 miles. Second, in the 1990’s, the USPS realized the efficiencies that could be gained by contracting the air portion of the mail transport instead of flying it themselves. USPS formed several business alliances and capacity agreements with multiple all-cargo carriers, blurring the distinction between postal and private delivery. However, in August 2001, FedEx Express and the USPS initiated an exclusive strategic alliance. Through a business agreement, the USPS allows FedEx Express to locate FedEx overnight service collection boxes at post offices nationwide. FedEx Express, in return, provides space on FedEx Express airplanes for the transportation of USPS Express Mail, Priority Mail, First-Class Mail, and some International Mail. This deal yielded FedEx Express approximately 3.5 million pounds of additional mail each day, enough to fill 30 DC-10-30 freighters. Lastly, the increased use of email and overnight delivery services like DHL has decreased the amount of mail carried on passenger aircraft by the USPS. 4-12 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR National General Aviation Trends General aviation includes all aviation except scheduled passenger or air cargo operations. It includes personal transportation, business and corporate flights, air taxi, and helicopter operations. In Arizona, general aviation aircraft are flown for a wide variety of uses including: business travel, agricultural spraying, flight instruction, emergency airlift, fire fighting, and recreation. In 2007, more than 6,500 registered aircraft were based in Arizona with 17,986 licensed pilots. These aircraft included home built/experimental, glider, agricultural, military surplus, antique and classic/warbirds, ultra-light airplanes, helicopters, single and multiengine aircraft, and corporate and private jets. Each year, the FAA and the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) review the outlook for the general aviation industry. The FAA’s particular areas of interest are the workload at airports with FAA air traffic control towers and contract towers, airspace congestion, and changes in the U.S. fleet mix. GAMA keeps track of aircraft billings and shipments. The following describes general aviation activity2 in the U.S. in order to provide a comparison for based aircraft and general aviation activity in Arizona: • • • • • • • • 2 There are 224,000 general aviation aircraft based in the U.S.; approximately 6,500 are registered in Arizona. General aviation aircraft fly over 27 million hours in the U.S. and carry 166 million passengers each year. Nearly two-thirds of the hours flown on general aviation aircraft are for business purposes. In Arizona, agricultural spraying also accounts for a large number of aircraft operations and hours flown. Fractional ownership of aircraft is on the rise. In 2006, 984 aircraft were operated in fractional ownership programs. This is a growing, but relatively small portion of the U.S. fleet. Single-engine aircraft are the most popular and numerous aircraft in the United States. In 2007, 2,174 single-engine aircraft were manufactured and shipped worldwide. Turboprop airplanes are a much smaller segment of the market. In 2007, 459 units were manufactured and shipped worldwide. Business jets are a growing segment of the market in terms of units shipped. In 2007, 1,138 units were manufactured and shipped worldwide. The FAA now identifies twin engine micro jets as part of their annual forecasts. These aircraft have the highest potential for growth. Domestic shipments of new aircraft reached a near-term high of 3,279 in 2007, representing a 53 percent change since 2003. GAMA Annual Industry Review & 2008 Market Outlook Briefing 4-13 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-8 shows the most recent fleet mix of general aviation aircraft in the U.S. Figure 4-8: U.S. General Aviation Fleet Mix, 2007 Sport, 1.0% Other, 3.0% Experimental, 11.0% Helicopter, 4.0% Jet, 5.0% Turboprop, 4.0% Multi-Engine, 8.0% Single-Engine, 64.0% Source: FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2008-2025 FAA General Aviation Forecasts As part of its forecasting effort, the FAA prepares national forecasts of active general aviation aircraft, fleet mix, and general aircraft operations. The active aircraft forecast is presented in Figure 4-9, and the fleet mix forecast is presented in Figure 4-10. Overall, general aviation aircraft are projected to grow at an average annual rate of 1.4 percent for the next 13 years. However, there is variation both with respect to the mix of aircraft and the growth rate within each category. Starting in 2005, the FAA added “light sport” aircraft as a registration category. FAA is expecting registration of over 9,000 aircraft in this category in the next 10 years. Other growth areas are the twin-engine micro jets and piston helicopters. Single-engine piston aircraft are expected to grow relatively slowly at an average annual rate of 0.5 percent while twin engine piston aircraft are expected to decline at 0.9 percent annually. 4-14 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4- 9: Active General Aviation and Air Taxi Aircraft 3 5 0 ,00 0 2 8 6 ,5 0 0 2 68 ,9 40 2 5 2 ,2 8 5 2 34 ,5 50 2 25 ,0 07 2 2 1,9 4 2 2 2 4,2 6 2 2 1 9 ,3 1 9 2 1 1 ,4 4 6 1 5 0 ,00 0 2 0 9 ,6 0 6 2 0 0 ,00 0 2 1 1 ,2 4 4 2 5 0 ,00 0 2 1 7 ,5 3 3 Based Aircraft 3 0 0 ,00 0 1 0 0 ,00 0 5 0 ,00 0 25 20 20 20 15 20 10 20 E 20 07 06 20 20 05 04 20 03 20 02 01 20 20 20 00 0 Source: FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2008-2025 Figure 4-10: U.S. Active General Aviation Aircraft, Actual and Forecast Fixed Wing Piston Turbine Rotorcraft SingleEngine MultiEngine Turbo Prop Turbo Jet Piston Turbine Experimental Sport Other Total Fleet 2000 2005 2007E 149,422 148,101 144,580 21,091 19,412 18,555 5,762 7,942 8,190 7,001 9,823 10,997 2,680 3,039 3,610 4,470 5,689 6,075 20,407 23,627 23,920 NA 170 2,700 6,700 6,459 6,380 217,533 224,262 225,007 2010 2015 2020 2025 144,015 145,620 150,035 157,400 18,055 17,245 16,455 15,650 8,565 9,310 10,110 10,820 14,220 19,845 24,900 29,515 4,725 6,255 7,295 8,295 6,575 7,290 7,915 8,560 26,285 29,760 32,625 35,200 5,600 10,500 13,200 14,700 6,510 6,460 6,405 6,360 234,550 252,285 268,940 286,500 CAGR 0.5% -0.9% 1.6% 5.6% 4.7% 1.9% 2.2% 9.9% 0.0% 1.4% Year Source: FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2008-2025 Notes: E=estimate, CAGR=Compound Average Growth Rate Figure 4-11 shows forecasted operations at airports with either an FAA or contract air traffic control tower. Commercial and air taxi/commuter operations are projected to grow 2.3 and 2.7 percent annually, respectively. General aviation operations are projected to grow 1.3 percent per year and military operations are expected to stay flat. 4-15 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-11: Commercial and General Aviation Operations at Airports with FAA or Contract Towers, 2000-2007 90, 000 2,706 Op eration s 80, 000 2,706 70, 000 2,870 60, 000 39,879 2,706 2,864 34,161 50, 000 2,720 33,135 2,706 41,852 38,802 36,258 34,515 40, 000 30, 000 14,453 16,664 18,796 20, 000 10,761 12,552 11,667 12,200 15,159 13,612 14,483 18,512 13,532 16,430 20,655 10, 000 2000 2005 2007E 2010 Year 2015 2020 2025 0 Historic Air Carrier Historic Air Taxi/Commuter Historic General Aviation Historic Military Projected Air Carrier Projected Air Taxi/Commuter Projected General Aviation Projected Military Source: FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2008-2025 Technology Trends This section discusses the trends in new technology that have the largest potential to impact the future of aviation. Very Light Jets Other new, growing segments of the business aircraft fleet mix include business liners and very light jets (VLJ). Business liners are large business jets, such as the Boeing Business Jet and Airbus ACJ that are reconfigured versions of passenger aircraft flown by large commercial airlines. VLJs are a relatively new category of aircraft that includes aircraft like the Eclipse 500, HondaJet, and Cessna Mustang. These are small, single pilot, six-seat jets that cost substantially less than typical business jet aircraft and have been labeled as “personal jets.” VLJs represent a significant departure from the cost of previously available jet aircraft. The basic Cessna Citation Mustang is estimated to cost around $2.4 million. Figure 4-12 depicts some examples of VLJ aircraft and their general design concept. As of October 2006, the Eclipse 500, Citation Mustang and Adam A-500 became the first VLJs to receive full Type Certification by the FAA. The first Eclipse 500 was delivered in January 2007 and Cessna Mustang deliveries are expected to begin in mid-2008. In addition to being one of the world’s first certified VLJ, the Eclipse 500 was qualified by the FAA to noise levels below Stage 4 limits. Stage 4 noise limits are the most stringent in the industry, making the Eclipse 500 the quietest of the jets. 4-16 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-12: Examples of VLJ Aircraft Sources: Cessna Aircraft Company, Eclipse Aviation, Embraer Press Room, and Honda Business aviation is projected to experience substantial additional growth in the future. The Honeywell Aerospace 2007 Business Aviation Outlook projects that more than 7,600 new business aircraft will be delivered by 2012, excluding business liners and VLJs. It is important to note that, since the writing of this chapter (July 2008) and the publishing of this report (July 2009), Eclipse Aviation went out of business in February 2009 due to lack of funding and was only able to deliver 260 Eclipse 500 aircraft. Several companies have tried on-demand jet service using VLJs to serve business travelers that are tired of the air carrier “hassle factor” at a reasonable cost. According to several ondemand operators of VLJ aircraft, four key features make airports attractive to on-demand operators and their clients: • Fixed base operators that provide fuel and other supplies to aircraft operators. • Availability of ground transportation such as taxi cab operators and rental cars. • Close proximity to customer populations. • Runways at least 4,000 feet long (with some exceptions based on airport elevation) with precise navigation and landing guidance. With the demise of Eclipse, one of the largest VLJ on-demand operators, DayJet, also went out of business in early 2009. DayJet provided on-demand service to cities throughout Florida. Other on-demand operators have plans to initiate VLJ service in the future. Although there have been several missteps, the future of the VLJ segment of the business aircraft market appears extremely promising. More than 13 percent of the traditional corporate flight departments knowledgeable about VLJs expressed a strong probability of purchasing these aircraft for their corporate fleets. The respondents indicated that VLJ 4-17 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR purchases would be used by approximately 40 percent of the flight departments to replace turboprops, 20 percent to replace very light and light jets, and the remainder would represent additions to the corporate fleet. Wide Area Augmentation System The Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are developing the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) for use in precision flight approaches. Currently, the Global Positioning System (GPS) alone does not meet the FAA's navigation requirements for accuracy, integrity, and availability. WAAS corrects for GPS signal errors caused by ionospheric disturbances, timing, and satellite orbit errors, and it provides vital integrity information regarding the health of each GPS satellite. WAAS consists of approximately 25 ground reference stations positioned across the United States that monitor GPS satellite data. Two master stations, located on either coast, collect data from the reference stations and create a GPS correction message. This correction accounts for GPS satellite orbit and clock drift plus signal delays caused by the atmosphere and ionosphere. The corrected differential message is then broadcast through one of two geostationary satellites, or satellites with a fixed position over the equator. The information is compatible with the basic GPS signal structure, which means any WAAS-enabled GPS receiver can read the signal. GPS NPA (LNAV) refers to a Non-Precision Approach (NPA) procedure which uses GPS and/or WAAS for Lateral Navigation (LNAV). On an LNAV approach, the pilot flies the final approach lateral course, but does not receive vertical guidance for a controlled descent to the runway. Instead, when the aircraft reaches the final approach fix, the pilot descends to a minimum descent altitude using the barometric altimeter. LNAV approaches are less precise and therefore usually do not allow the pilot to descend to as low an altitude above the runway. Typically, LNAV procedures achieve a minimum descent altitude (MDA) of 400 feet height above the runway. LNAV/VNAV (Lateral Navigation/Vertical Navigation) approaches use lateral guidance from GPS and/or WAAS and vertical guidance provided by either the barometric altimeter or WAAS. Aircraft that don’t use WAAS for the vertical guidance portion must have VNAV-capable altimeters, which are typically part of a flight management system (FMS). FMS avionics are more expensive than WAAS receivers. When the pilot flies an LNAV/VNAV approach lateral and vertical guidance is provided to fly a controlled descent, a safer maneuver, to the runway. The decision altitudes on these approaches are usually 350 feet above the runway. LPV (Localizer Performance with Vertical guidance) is similar to LNAV/VNAV except it is much more precise, enables descent to 200-250 feet above the runway, and can only be flown with a WAAS receiver. LPV approaches are operationally equivalent to the legacy instrument landing systems (ILS) but are more economical because no navigation infrastructure has to be installed at the runway. Figure 4-13 summaries the various approaches and their associated minimums. 4-18 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-13: Instrument Approach Types Source: Federal Aviation Administration Notes: *GPS (Global Position Satellites), SBAS (Satellite Based Approach Systems), GBAS (Ground Based Approach Systems) 4-19 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR These WAAS approaches should be considered the same as conventional precision approaches from an airport infrastructure perspective. There were over 675 LPV approaches in use as of May 2007 and the FAA is publishing 300 new LPV approaches per year. It is the intent of the FAA to put LPV approaches with 200-foot decision altitudes and as low as ½ statute miles visibility where the airport infrastructure and environment can accommodate it. The next steps in the LPV evolution are summarized below: • Current: • CAT I ILS is limited to 200’ HAT (height above threshold) and ½ mile visibility • LPV is limited to 250’ HAT and ¾ mile visibility • Next Steps: • If airport’s ILS has 200’ and ½ mile minimums, and • Has RNAV (GPS) of 250’ and ¾ mile visibility, then • The airport is a candidate for LPV to 200’ and ½ miles minimums. STATE TRENDS IMPACTING AVIATION Arizona’s Historic and Current Scheduled Commercial Service The FAA classifies 12 airports in Arizona as Primary Commercial Service or Commercial Service airports. As noted in Chapter Three, “Primary Commercial Service Airports” enplane over 10,000 passengers per year while “Commercial Service Airports” enplane at least 2,500 passengers per year. The airports in Arizona support a variety of commercial service passengers and offer different levels and types of commercial service beyond the FAA classifications. In the Arizona Rural Air Service Study Update 2005, the airports in Arizona were classified into the categories based on the size of the community they serve. Figure 414 presents the commercial service airports in Arizona by FAA and System Plan category. Figure 4-14: Arizona’s Commercial Service Airports by Category, 2008 Category Airport Large Community Airports (3) Phoenix Sky Harbor International Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport Tucson International Airport Small Community Airports (3) Flagstaff Pulliam Airport Laughlin/Bullhead City International Airport Yuma International Airport Rural/Essential Air Service Airports (4) Ernest A. Love Field Kingman Airport Page Municipal Airport Show Low Regional Airport Air Tour-Only Airports (2) Grand Canyon National Park Airport Grand Canyon West Airport FAA Primary Commercial Service FAA Commercial Service X X X X X X X X X X X X Sources: FAA National Plan of Integrated Airport System, 2005 Arizona Rural Air Service Study Update, Wilbur Smith Associates 4-20 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Air Tours Grand Canyon National Park and Grand Canyon West airports serve an important role in supporting tourism in the state. There are several tour operators that fly both fixed wing aircraft and rotorcraft out of these airports, as well as Page Municipal Airport. Only Scenic Airlines, which serves Grand Canyon National Park and Grand Canyon West airports, reports a limited number of its flights to the Official Airline Guide that are considered “scheduled operations.” Figure 4-15 summarizes air tour operators that serve Grand Canyon National Park, Grand Canyon West, and Page Municipal airports. It was also noted in the inventory effort that Grand Canyon Commercial Outfitters uses Grand Canyon Bar Ten Airport as a drop for Colorado River rafting expeditions on a limited basis. Figure 4-15: Unscheduled Airlines Providing Northern Arizona Air Tours, 2007 Grand Canyon National Park Air Grand Canyon Allegiant Air Grand Canyon Airlines Grand Canyon Helicopters Maverick Air Star Papillon Helicopters Scenic Vision Westwind Grand Canyon West Scenic/Grand Canyon Airlines Vision Sundance Papillon Helicopters Page Municipal American Grand Canyon Airlines Westwind Source: Airport Management Records Scheduled Historic Service Trends Figure 4-16 details the level of scheduled commercial airline service provided at airports in Arizona. Between the summers of 2003 and 2008, four airports in Arizona lost scheduled commercial service. Service between Sierra Vista and Phoenix Sky Harbor ended February 2007 and America West Express carrier, Air Midwest, pulled service at Lake Havasu City to Phoenix Sky Harbor in May 2007. In May 2008, Air Midwest also ceased operations at Prescott and Kingman. However, these two airports are guaranteed scheduled commercial service as part of the U.S. DOT’s Essential Air Service program. Great Lakes Airlines has been chosen to replace Air Midwest and has announced that service will begin at Prescott in September 2008. Horizon Air also plans to begin service at Prescott in September 2008 with daily service to Los Angeles. Great Lakes service to Kingman has not been announced, as of the writing of this chapter. New scheduled commercial service began at Phoenix Mesa Gateway in 2007. Allegiant Airlines announced that the airport would be a new focus city. Allegiant provides several weekly flights to destinations in the Midwest U.S. 4-21 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-16: Summary of Scheduled Commercial Aviation Activity at Arizona Airports Summer 2003 vs. Summer 2008 Category Airport No. of Carriers Destin. Served Nonstop Weekly Scheduled Departures Weekly Scheduled Seats Avg. Seats Per Flight 2003 2008 2003 2008 2003 2008 2003 2008 2003 2008 23 25 105 103 4,816 4,193 574,061 525,606 119 125 Large Community Phoenix-Sky Harbor Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Tucson International 0 1 0 8** 0 16** 0 2,400 NA 150 12 15 17 26 484 551 47,871 54,558 99 99 1 2 1 2 32 53 1,184 2,440 37 46 Small Community Flagstaff-Pulliam Laughlin/Bullhead City 1 1 4 4 4 4 720 648 180 162 Yuma International 2 3 2 3 54 77 1,851 2,814 34 37 Ernest A. Love Field 1 0 2 0 36 0 684 0 19 NA Kingman 1 0 1 0 18 0 342 0 19 NA Page Municipal 1 1 2 1 26 21 494 399 19 19 Show Low Regional 1 1 1 2 14 26 126 494 9 19 Lake Havasu City 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 24 11 0 0 456 99 0 0 19 9 NA NA Grand Canyon National Park 1 1 1 1 5 5 45 45 9 9 Grand Canyon West* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rural/EAS Sierra Vista Municipal/LAA Air Tour Only Airports TOTAL 25 30 112 120 5,524 4,946 627,933 589,404 114 119 Source: Official Airline Guide Notes: *Scenic Airlines only provided scheduled service at Grand Canyon West between October 2007 and June 2008; **In November 2008, Phoenix-Mesa Gateway had nonstop service to 15 destinations and an average of 34 to 42 weekly scheduled departures; Non-scheduled carrier service at Grand Canyon National Park, Grand Canyon West, and Page Municipal is not included in table. Between 2003 and 2008, airports in Arizona gained service from five new air carriers, to a total of 30. Phoenix Sky Harbor offers service from 25 of these carriers, and Tucson offers service from 15. As of 2008, airports in Arizona offered nonstop service to 120 destinations in the United States, Canada, Central America, and Europe, an increase from 112 in 2003. Phoenix Sky Harbor offers nonstop service to 103 of these destinations. Both weekly scheduled departures and weekly scheduled seats have decreased for the state as a whole. From 2003 to 2008, scheduled departures decreased from 5,524 to 4,946, a loss of 10.5 percent. Weekly scheduled seats decreased from 627,933 to 589,404, a loss of 6.1 percent over the five-year period. Most of this loss in departures and capacity occurred between 2007 and 2008. Phoenix Sky Harbor and Tucson International account for the vast majority of scheduled departures and seats in the state, with Sky Harbor accounting for 87 percent of departures and 91 percent of seats, and Tucson accounting for an additional nine percent of departures and eight percent of seats. Average seats per flight increased slightly from 114 to 119, as service was discontinued at several markets utilizing smaller turboprop aircraft and airlines overall shifting from smaller regional jets to larger ones. 4-22 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Scheduled Commercial Service Destinations Figure 4-17 displays nonstop scheduled commercial service destinations departing from airports in Arizona as of summer 2008. In total, there are 110 out-of-state destinations available to passengers departing from Arizona. Sixteen of these destinations are international, including four destinations in Canada, 10 in Mexico, and one each in Costa Rica and Great Britain. The vast majority of nonstop destinations are from Phoenix Sky Harbor and Tucson International. Yuma International, Flagstaff Pulliam, Show Low Regional, and Page Municipal airports all connect directly to Phoenix, making these further destinations readily accessible to these passengers. Figure 4-17: Scheduled Nonstop Destinations from Arizona Airports Source: Official Airline Guide Figure 4-18 lists these scheduled nonstop destinations in detail. 4-23 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-18: Scheduled Nonstop Commercial Service Destinations from Arizona Airports, Summer 2008 Code Airport Name St/Ctry Code PHOENIX SKY HARBOR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ABQ Albuquerque NM GYM ACA Acapulco Mexico HMO ANC Anchorage AK HNL ATL Atlanta GA HOU AUS Austin TX IAD BDL Hartford- Bradley CT IAH BFL Bakersfield CA ICT BHM Birmingham AL IND BNA Nashville TN JFK BOI Boise ID KOA BOS Boston MA LAS BUF Buffalo NY LAX BUR Burbank CA LGB BWI Baltimore MD LHR CLE Cleveland OH LIH CLT Charlotte NC LIT CMH Columbus OH MCI COS Colorado Springs CO MCO CUN Cancun Mexico MDW CVG Cincinnati OH MEM DCA Washington-Reagan DC MEX DEN Denver CO MFR DFW Dallas/Ft. Worth TX MHT DRO Durango CO MIA DSM Des Moines IA MKE DTW Detroit MI MRY ELP El Paso TX MSP EUG Eugene OR MSY EWR Newark NY MZT FAT Fresno CA OAK FLG Flagstaff AZ OGG FLL Ft. Lauderdale FL OKC GDL Guadalajara Mexico OMA GEG Spokane WA ONT GJT Grand Junction CO TUCSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SAT San Antonio TX IAH ABQ Albuquerque NM LAS ATL Atlanta GA LAX AUS Austin TX MCI CLT Charlotte NC MDW DEN Denver CO MSP DFW Dallas/Ft. Worth TX OAK EWR Newark NY OMA HMO Hermosillo Mexico ONT PHOENIX MESA GATEWAY BIL Billings MT FAR BLI Bellingham WA FSD CID Cedar Rapids IA MSO Airport Name St/Ctry Code Airport Name St/Ctry Guymas Hermosillo Honolulu Houston- Hobby Washington- Dulles Houston- Bush Wichita Indianapolis New York- JFK Kona Las Vegas Los Angeles Long Beach London-Heathrow Lihue Little Rock Kansas City Orlando Chicago- Midway Memphis Mexico City Medford Manchester, NH Miami Milwaukee Monterey Minneapolis/St. Paul New Orleans Mazatlan Oakland Kahului Oklahoma City Omaha Ontario Mexico Mexico HI TX DC TX KS IN NY HI NV CA CA England HI AR MO FL IL TN Mexico OR NH FL WI CA MN LA Mexico CA HI OK NE CA ORD PDX PGA PHL PIT PSP PVD PVR RDU RNO SAN SAT SBA SBP SDF SEA SFO SJC SJD SJO SLC SMF SNA SOW STL TPA TUL TUS YEG NYL YVR YYC YYZ ZIH Chicago-O'Hare Portland Page Philadelphia Pittsburgh Palm Springs Providence Puerto Vallarta Raleigh- Durham Reno San Diego San Antonio Santa Barbara San Luis Obispo Louisville Seattle San Francisco San Jose Los Cabos San Jose Salt Lake City Sacramento Orange County Show Low St. Louis Tampa Tulsa Tucson Edmonton Yuma Vancouver Calgary Toronto Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo Houston- Bush Las Vegas Los Angeles Kansas City Chicago- Midway Minneapolis/St. Paul Oakland Omaha Ontario TX NV CA MO IL MN CA NE CA ORD PHX RNO SAN SEA SFO SLC SMF Chicago-O'Hare Phoenix Reno San Diego Seattle San Francisco Salt Lake City Sacramento IL AZ NV CA WA CA UT CA Fargo Sioux Falls Missoula ND SD MT RAP RFD Rapid City Rockford SD IL IL OR AZ PA PA CA RI Mexico NC NV CA TX CA CA KY WA CA CA Mexico Costa Rica UT CA CA AZ MO FL OK AZ Canada AZ Canada Canada Canada Mexico 4-24 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-18: Scheduled Nonstop Commercial Service Destinations from Arizona Airports, Summer 2008 (Continued) Code Airport Name St/Ctry Code Airport Name St/Ctry Code Airport Name St/Ctry LAUGHLIN-BULLHEAD CITY YUMA INTERNATIONAL FLAGSTAFF-PULLIAM GRB Green Bay WI LAX Los Angeles CA LAX Los Angeles CA RST Rochester MN PHX Phoenix AZ PHX Phoenix AZ TUL Tulsa OK SLC Salt Lake City UT XNA Fayetteville AR SHOW LOW REGIONAL ERNEST A. LOVE FIELD* KINGMAN* PHX Phoenix AZ LAX Los Angeles CA ONT Ontario CA DEN Denver CO PHX Phoenix AZ PAGE MUNICIPAL GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK PHX Phoenix PHX BLD Boulder City NV Source: Official Airline Guide Note: *Ernest A. Love Field and Kingman did not have scheduled air service in Summer 2008. Horizon introduced service Prescott and Los Angeles and Great Lakes began service to Ontario and Phoenix in September 2008. Great Lakes reintroduced service to Kingman in April 2009. Enplanement Trends at Arizona Airports The 2005 Arizona Rural Air Service Study Update provides historic enplanements at Arizona airports for years 1997 and 2002. Enplanements for 2007 and monthly data for 2008 were collected from the airports as part of this study. As shown in Figure 4-19, over the 10- year period, scheduled commercial service enplanements in Arizona grew at an average annual rate of 2.1 percent. Phoenix Sky Harbor, with a growth rate of 2.4 percent per year, gained nearly four million additional enplanements from 1997 to 2007. Enplanements at Tucson International grew at an average annual rate of 0.7 percent and gained over 100,000 enplanements over the 10-year period. In 1997, Phoenix Sky Harbor accounted for 85 percent of the total statewide enplanements. That share grew over the 10-year period to 90 percent of the statewide total. The enplanement share of Tucson International dropped from 10 percent to nearly nine percent. The statewide growth rate over the 10-year period was below the national growth rate of 2.5 percent annually. 4-25 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-19: Historic Commercial Service Enplanements at Arizona Airports, 1997-2007 Category Airport Large Community Phoenix Sky Harbor International Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Tucson International Small Community Laughlin/Bullhead International Flagstaff Pulliam Yuma International Airport Rural/EAS Sierra Vista Municipal/LAA Kingman Lake Havasu City Page* Ernest A. Love Field Show Low Regional SCHEDULED SERVICE TOTAL Air Tour Only Grand Canyon National Park Grand Canyon West Page Municipal AIR TOUR TOTAL ARIZONA GRAND TOTAL UNITED STATES TOTAL 1997 2002 2007 CAGR 1997-2007 15,404,953 0 1,769,476 17,613,420 0 1,761,058 19,551,148 2,817 1,890,195 2.4% NA 0.7% 64,064 47,059 76,969 90,510 38,455 52,680 106,347 38,600 63,426 5.2% -2.0% -1.9% 11,836 1,559 11,854 3,801 10,043 1,300 17,402,914 2,087 2,432 7,361 3,758 6,377 2,418 19,580,556 2,400 2,602 9,234 5,298 7,889 6,433 21,686,389 -14.8% 5.3% -2.5% 3.4% -2.4% 17.3% 2.2% 533,567 0 7,897 541,464 17,944,378 595,300,000 330,980 16,570 9,748 357,298 19,937,854 626,300,000 240,651 21,337 24,378 286,366 21,972,755 764,700,000 -7.7% NA 11.9% -6.2% 2.1% 2.5% Source: Arizona Rural Air Service Study Update 2005, Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 Notes: *Includes enplanements on scheduled flights only; Airports with 1997 and 2002 enplanements noted as “NA” are new service since 2002; CAGR=Compound Annual Growth Rate Domestic Origin and Destination (O&D) Trends Domestic Origin and Destination (O&D) activity refers to passenger enplanements originating from an airport, and does include connecting passengers. Figure 4-20 displays Arizona’s share of national passenger traffic. Arizona’s share has fluctuated around 3 percent of the national total. During the last 10 years, O&D passengers at Arizona airports grew 2.04 percent per year on average, while all passengers at airports nationwide grew at a slightly higher average annual rate of 2.32 percent. Most of this growth occurred from 2002 to 2007, nearly five percent annually both in Arizona and nationally, while Arizona and national O&D traffic experienced a decline in passengers from 1997 to 2002 following the economic downturn and events of September 11, 2001. In 2007, O&D passenger traffic was the highest in both Arizona and the U.S. than it had been from 1997 to 2007. 4-26 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-20: Domestic Outbound O&D Passengers, All Arizona Airports and All U.S. Airports, 1997-2007 Arizona Total 11,707,680 11,569,950 11,998,390 12,455,660 11,695,380 11,397,190 12,122,180 13,068,690 13,717,970 14,148,530 14,333,770 Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Compound Annual Growth Rate 1997-2002 -0.54% 2002-2007 4.69% 1997-2007 2.04% U.S. Total 378,470,830 380,740,210 397,030,970 413,064,780 384,670,650 373,840,910 398,742,200 434,868,840 458,524,610 461,580,390 475,869,320 AZ as % of U.S. Total 3.09% 3.04% 3.02% 3.02% 3.04% 3.05% 3.04% 3.01% 2.99% 3.07% 3.01% -0.25% 4.94% 2.32% Source: U.S. DOT, O&D Survey The Essential Air Service (EAS) Program in Arizona Several Arizona airports participate in the federal government’s Essential Air Service (EAS) program which supports air service in smaller markets. In an effort to ensure that small communities would not bear an unfair burden from the Airline Deregulation Act, the U.S. government established the EAS program. The program was established to keep small communities connected to the nationwide air transportation network. The US DOT, which oversees the EAS program, determines the level of air service required in terms of a minimum number of round trips and available seats that must be provided to that hub, characteristics of the aircraft to be used, and the maximum permissible number of intermediate stops to the hub. Market dynamics for small communities are such that extra financial incentives are sometimes required in order to secure scheduled air service. The US DOT provides this incentive in the form of subsidy funding to commercial air carriers through the EAS program. Once selected, carriers serving an EAS community are typically authorized to receive subsidy funding for two years. The EAS eligibility requirements are as follows: • • • Airports must have received scheduled commercial passenger service as of October 1978 Airports may not be closer than 70 miles to a medium- or large-hub airport (Phoenix Sky Harbor, Las Vegas McCarran). Subsidy requirements per passenger enplaned must be less than $200 unless the airport is more than 210 highway miles from the nearest medium- or largehub airport. Carriers serving Kingman, Page Municipal, Prescott- Ernest A. Love, and Show Low Regional currently receive EAS subsidies. It is important to note that Show Low Regional did not have 4-27 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR air service prior to 1978 and was granted special permission to enter the program in 1990s when the community agreed to pay 50 percent compensation for service. The compensation requirement was lifted in 1999 and the US DOT now pays the entire subsidy amount. Great Lakes Airlines serves all four Arizona communities under the EAS program using the 19-seat Beechcraft 1900D aircraft. Total annual subsidy for all four communities is $4.28 million. Air Cargo in Arizona Overview of Air Cargo in Arizona This section presents an overview of air cargo activity at Arizona airports. As discussed previously in this chapter, air cargo services are provided by several types of carriers that are differentiated by the services they offer for a wide range of customer demands. Airports in Arizona provide the five segments of the air cargo industry discussed previously: • Integrated express operators • All-cargo carriers • Commercial service passenger airlines • Freight forwarders • On-demand/Ad-hoc cargo charter carriers Facilities Supporting Scheduled and Unscheduled Air Cargo Operations Eight Arizona airports supported scheduled air cargo operations for integrated express and all-cargo carriers in 2007. These airports act as local market stations, serving their respective surrounding market areas, or as consolidation points for feeder aircraft and trucks. Arizona’s scheduled service air cargo airports include: • Ernest A. Love Field (PRC) • Flagstaff Pulliam Airport (FLG) • Lake Havasu City Municipal Airport (HII) • Sierra Vista Municipal Airport/Libby Army Airfield (FHU) • Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX) • Tucson International Airport (TUS) • Show Low Regional (SOW) • Yuma International Airport (NYL) Two Arizona airports support air cargo activity via scheduled commercial passenger service only. Page Municipal Airport (PGA) and Bullhead City Airport (IFP) do not have scheduled integrated express, all-cargo, or ad-hoc cargo activity. The 10 Arizona commercial service airports supporting air cargo activity via scheduled passenger operations are: • Ernest A. Love Field (PRC) • Flagstaff Pulliam Airport (FLG) • Kingman Airport (IGM) • Lake Havasu City Municipal Airport (HII) • Bullhead City Airport (IFP) • Page Municipal Airport (PGA) • Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX) • Tucson International Airport (TUS) • Show Low Regional (SOW) • Yuma International Airport (NYL) 4-28 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-21 details the scheduled mainline or hub routes serving Phoenix Sky Harbor International and Tucson International for both the integrated express carriers and scheduled all-cargo carriers. Figure 4-21: Mainline Hub Network Serving PHX and TUS, 2007 Source: Arizona Multimodal Freight Analysis Study, 2007 Figure 4-22 details the Arizona feeder routes serving both intrastate and interstate markets. Note that all of the feeder aircraft flying for the integrated express carriers are contract carriers. Though they fly scheduled routes for FedEx, UPS, and DHL, they are often listed as charter flights because they are not owned or operated by the respective integrated express carrier for which they are flying. 4-29 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-22: Feeder Network - Integrated Express and All-Cargo Carriers, 2007 Source: Arizona Multimodal Freight Analysis Study, 2007 General Aviation in Arizona Information on current and historic general aviation based aircraft/registered aircraft and general aviation operations in Arizona are presented in the following section. Airport activity data provides a good indication of not only the total amounts of activity occurring, but also recent increases or declines in activity levels. General aviation is not subject to as stringent federal reporting requirements as is commercial aviation. General aviation data and statistics are therefore not as widely available as commercial service data. Airports with air traffic control towers keep constant counts on all general aviation activity. For Arizona’s system of airports, historic based aircraft and general aviation operations levels were obtained from the Arizona State Aviation Needs Study 2000 conducted by the Arizona Department of Transportation. Current based aircraft and operations were obtained through the 2008 Airport Inventory and Data Survey conducted as part of this plan. Airport managers were provided with inventory surveys and were asked to fill them out prior to on-site visits. For the fourteen Arizona airports with air traffic control towers, operations levels were obtained through FAA records. The FAA also tracks registered aircraft and these data were used as a resource for the analysis. 4-30 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Based Aircraft Figure 4-23 presents historic and current based aircraft for Arizona’s airport system. Based aircraft are general aviation aircraft that are permanently stored at an airport either in hangars or on tie-down spaces. Based aircraft numbers frequently fluctuate based on a number of factors including seasonality, pilot preferences, on-airport aviation services, and the availability of storage units. Total based aircraft in Arizona’s airport system were recorded as 6,602 in 1998 Arizona State Aviation Needs Study 2000. From 1998 to 2007, this number grew to 8,043, as reported by the airports in the inventory effort of this study. This represents a total increase of 22 percent. The compound annual growth rate of this growth is 1.99 percent. Figure 4-23: Based Aircraft in Arizona, 1998 & 2007 9,000 8,000 8,043 Based Aircraft 7,000 6,000 6,602 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 1998 2007 Year Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008, Arizona State Aviation Needs Study 2000 Note: Does not include military aircraft General Aviation Operations Aircraft operations represent landings and takeoffs at individual airports. Historic general aviation operations data for Arizona’s system airports are shown in Figure 4-24. Total general aircraft operations at system airports in 1998 were approximately 3.81 million. From 1998 to 2007 this increased to over 3.84 million, a total gain of 0.7 percent, and a compound annual growth rate of 0.08 percent. By comparison, from 2000 to 2007, total general aviation operations nationwide declined by a total of 11.2 percent, an annual average of -1.7 percent. This emphasizes how general aviation in Arizona has shown more growth than the country as a whole. Cargo operations and air taxi operations (non-air tours) are included in the general aviation category for the purpose of this system plan. 4-31 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-24: General Aviation Operations in Arizona, 1998 & 2007 4 ,5 0 0 ,0 0 0 4 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 3 ,5 0 0 ,0 0 0 3 ,8 1 5 ,7 0 4 3 ,8 4 2 ,5 3 6 1998 2007 Operations 3 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 2 ,5 0 0 ,0 0 0 2 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 1 ,5 0 0 ,0 0 0 1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 Y ear Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008, Arizona State Aviation Needs Study 2000, ATADS 2008 Registered Aircraft in Arizona For the Arizona State Airports System Plan, 2007 based aircraft figures were derived from the airports during the inventory effort. This data differs from the active registered aircraft data compiled by the Arizona DOT Aeronautics Division as well as that compiled by the FAA. These differences may be due to a variety of reasons, including the definition of “active aircraft,” the address of the registered aircraft owner versus where aircraft is based, as well as other reasons. FAA and ADOT data is presented here for comparison purposes only. Figure 4-25 presents a compilation of System Plan, ADOT, and FAA data by county for the based aircraft data. 4-32 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-25: Registered Aircraft in Arizona by County, 2007 Base County SASP Based Aircraft % of Total ADOT Active Aircraft % of Total FAA Registered Aircraft % of Total Maricopa 4,499 56.2% 3,619 51.8% 5,314 53.8% Pima 1,024 12.8% 946 13.6% 1,391 14.1% Yavapai 530 6.6% 548 7.9% 738 7.5% Mohave 578 7.2% 366 5.2% 569 5.8% Pinal 267 3.3% 280 4.0% 377 3.8% Cochise 247 3.1% 235 3.4% 307 3.1% Yuma 178 2.2% 195 2.8% 276 2.8% Coconino 280 3.5% 191 2.7% 271 2.7% Navajo 109 1.4% 130 1.9% 187 1.9% Gila 133 1.7% 89 1.3% 130 1.3% La Paz 42 0.5% 87 1.2% 139 1.4% Apache 42 0.5% 37 0.5% 57 0.6% Graham 41 0.5% 36 0.5% 61 0.6% Santa Cruz 35 0.4% 21 0.3% 45 0.5% Greenlee 2 0.0% 2 0.0% 7 0.1% Unknown - 0.0% 198 2.8% - 0.0% 8,043 100.0% 6,980 100.0% 9,869 100.0% TOTAL Sources: FAA AIRPAC, ADOT ASM database Note: Does not include military aircraft Figure 4-26 presents registered aircraft by type in Arizona and the U.S. as a whole according to FAA records. In the U.S., there were 353,232 total registered aircraft in 2007. Arizona had a total of 9,869 registered aircraft, representing 2.8 percent of total U.S. registered aircraft. Each aircraft type represents a similar share of the fleet in Arizona as it does in the U.S. as a whole. Some, such as piston twin aircraft or balloons, are a slightly higher percentage in Arizona, and turboprop aircraft are a smaller percentage in Arizona than nationally, but the fleet mix is overall very comparable. Figure 4-26: Registered Aircraft in the United States and Arizona by Type, 2007 Aircraft Type Single Engine Other Piston Twin Balloon Business Jet Piston Helicopter Glider Turbo Prop Turbine Helicopter Commercial TOTAL United States 224,040 48,980 17,856 9,203 12,209 6,150 6,293 15,321 6,361 6,819 353,232 Arizona 6,408 1,404 687 380 194 200 213 163 123 97 9,869 % of U.S. Total 2.86% 2.87% 3.85% 4.13% 1.59% 3.25% 3.38% 1.06% 1.93% 1.42% 2.79% Source: FAA AIRPAC 4-33 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Regional Demographics Aviation activity is directly related to the size and economics of an area. On a county, state, or national level, there is a positive relationship between factors such as population, personal income, and employment and aviation activity. As these socioeconomic factors increase, aviation activity generally increases as well. Likewise, if the same socioeconomic factors experience negative growth, it is probable that aviation activity will also decrease. Aviation activity is not only dependant upon these economic factors, it also influences them. Making an area more accessible by air can boost tourism and promote new businesses which can lead to increased employment, population, and personal income. This demographic profile focuses on the state of Arizona, and its 15 counties, and identifies existing socioeconomic conditions, along with historical trends and future projections. The following section discusses the current socioeconomic conditions in Arizona and what is projected for the future in the following categories: • Population • Employment • Mean Household Income Population The most recent estimate provided by the U.S. Census Bureau indicates Arizona had a population of 6,166,318 in 2006. Arizona has had continuous steady population growth since 1970. Population projections by Arizona Department of Commerce show that this population growth will continue, with the total population of Arizona reaching over 10 million by 2030. Figure 4-27 presents historic and projected population for Arizona between the years 1970 and 2030. 4-34 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-27: Historical and Projected Population, 1970 to 2030 12 Estimated Projected 10 10.35 Population (Millions) 9.59 8.78 8 7.92 7.00 6 5.95 5.17 4 4.43 3.68 2.74 2 3.18 2.29 1.80 0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Source: Woods and Pool Inc, 2008, 2006-2055 Arizona Department of Commerce Population Projections The demographics of Arizona have changed drastically over the last few decades and will continue to change into the future. Because of its warm climate and relative low cost of living, Arizona is a popular retirement destination. This influx of retirees is swelling the populations of non-urban or semi-urban counties throughout Arizona, especially those near recreational opportunities. As a result, the percentage of the population made up of older residents is projected to increase. In 2030 the percentage of the total population age 65 to 69 is projected to be larger then the total population of residents age 60 to 64 as a result of in-migration by retirees. Figure 4-28 shows the percentage of total population each age group made up in 2006 and projections for 2030. 4-35 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-28: Percent of the Population by Age Group, 2006 and 2030 8. 0 2006 7. 0 Percent of Population 2030 6. 0 5. 0 4. 0 3. 0 2. 0 85+ 80 to 84 75 to 79 70 to 74 65 to 69 60 to 64 55 to 59 50 to 54 45 to 49 40 to 44 35 to 39 30 to 34 25 to 29 20 to 24 15 to 19 10 to 14 5 to 9 U nd e r 5 1. 0 Age Groups Source: Woods and Poole Inc, 2008 Figure 4-29 shows population figures and related compound annual growth rates (CAGR) for each Arizona county for the years 2000 and 2030. For comparison purposes, data for the state of Arizona and the United States is also presented. 4-36 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-29: Population and Population Growth Rates by County, 2000-2030 (in thousands) County Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma & La Paz ARIZONA United States Population (in thousands) Actual Actual Projected 2000 2006 2030 69 75 93 118 135 188 117 133 174 51 55 70 33 36 45 9 8 8 3,097 3,764 6,208 156 195 331 98 113 166 849 981 1,442 181 270 852 39 45 71 169 213 355 180 217 344 5,167 6,239 10,348 282,217 299,398 378,317 Compound Annual Growth Rates 20002006200620062006 2013 2020 2030 1.3% 1.1% 1.1% 0.9% 2.2% 1.9% 1.7% 1.4% 2.2% 1.5% 1.3% 1.1% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1.0% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% -0.5% -0.2% -0.1% 0.0% 3.3% 2.7% 2.4% 2.1% 3.8% 3.0% 2.7% 2.2% 2.4% 2.2% 1.9% 1.6% 2.4% 2.1% 1.9% 1.6% 6.9% 7.1% 6.0% 4.9% 2.7% 2.5% 2.2% 1.9% 3.9% 3.0% 2.6% 2.2% 3.1% 2.6% 2.3% 1.9% 3.2% 2.8% 2.5% 2.1% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2055, Arizona Department of Commerce From 2000 to 2006, Pinal County was by far the fastest growing county in Arizona, growing at a compound average rate of 6.9 percent per year. This is over twice the statewide growth rate of 3.2 percent. Maricopa, Mohave, Yavapai, and Yuma counties also experienced strong population growth, adding over 3.0 percent to their populations annually. Greenlee County was the only county to experience a decline in population, down 0.5 percent annually. Pinal County is expected to experience continued steady growth in the future, with a projected population growth rate of 7.1 percent between 2006 and 2013. Maricopa and Mohave counties, while still posting strong growth, are not projected to grow as fast as Pinal County. In general, all counties (with the noted exception of Pinal) are expected to grow at a slower rate between 2006 and 2013 than between 2000 and 2006. This lower population growth rate is expected to continue until 2030. Despite this, the population of Maricopa County (and the state as a whole) is estimated to roughly double by 2030. Population Location Historically, Arizona’s population has been heavily concentrated, with the majority of the population living in a relatively limited area. In 2006, 61 percent of the state’s total population lived in Maricopa County alone, with another 15 percent residing in Pima County. These two counties also contain Arizona’s two largest metropolitan areas: Tucson (Pima), and Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale (Maricopa). As Figure 4-30 shows, much of Arizona’s population is concentrated in limited areas around major cities. 4-37 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-30: Population Density by Census Tract Source: Census 2000 SF-1 4-38 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Arizona’s concentration of population is partially due to the large amount of land controlled by the Federal government. Almost 70 percent of the land in Arizona is owned or managed by a Federal agency. Figure 4-31 identifies the percentage of land controlled by Federal agencies in Arizona. The Bureau of Indian Affairs controls the largest percentage of land with 27 percent, followed by the Bureau of Land Management with 17 percent. Figure 4-32 shows the location of Federal lands in Arizona and identifies the controlling Federal agency. Figure 4-31: Percent of Land Area Controlled by Federal Agencies in Arizona Federal Agency Bureau of Indian Affairs Bureau of Land Management Forest Service Department of Defense National Park Service Fish and Wildlife Service Total % of Total State Land Area 27.0% 17.0% 16.1% 3.9% 3.5% 2.4% 69.9% Sources: Wilbur Smith Associates, ESRI Data, ArcGIS 9.2 4-39 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-32: Location of Federal Lands in Arizona Source: Wilbur Smith Associates, ESRI Data, ArcGIS 9.2 4-40 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Employment Arizona was estimated to have 3,326,643 jobs in 2006, and is projected to have 5,482,594 jobs in 2030. Like population, Arizona’s employment has shown steady growth since 1970. This steady growth is projected to continue in the future as shown in Figure 4-33. Figure 4-33: Historical and Projected Employment, 1970-2030 6.00 Estimated Projected 5.48 Employment (Millions) 5.00 5.03 4.58 4.00 4.13 3.68 3.24 3.00 2.82 2.28 2.00 1.91 1.63 1.28 1.00 0.75 0.94 0.00 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Source: Woods and Poole Inc, 2008 Unemployment According to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Arizona unemployment rate has been trending downward over the last five years, after spiking during the 2001-2002 recession. Recently, it has spiked again, rising a full percentage point between summer 2007 and winter 2007. The recent increase in the state’s unemployment rate is likely the result of declining employment in the construction and other related industries. These include real estate and mortgage brokers, title companies, architects, engineers, landscaping, and other home improvement trades. Industries providing building materials to the home construction industry such as lumber, crushed rock, and other aggregates are also likely to be affected. Figure 4-34 displays Arizona’s historical unemployment rate between 1997 and 2007. 4-41 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-34: Arizona Unemployment Rate, 1997-2007 6 .5 6 Percent Unem ployed 5 .5 5 4 .5 4 3 .5 3 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Source: BLS, Series ID LASST04000003 for Arizona (Statewide) Industries Employment estimates by industry indicate that that the major growth industries for Arizona from 2000 to 2006 were construction, finance/insurance/real estate, services, and farm employment. Each grew by over 3 percent annually. In the near-term (2006 to 2013), no industry is predicted to grow as quickly as in recent years. The only industries expected to grow faster than the state average between 2006 and 2013 are services, transport/communications/public utilities and state and local government. The only industry expected to grow faster than the state average between 2006 and 2030 is the services sector. Figure 4-35 presents Arizona employment projections by industry. 4-42 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-35: Arizona Employment and Employment Growth Rates by Industry, 2000-2030 (in thousands) Employment (in thousands) Industry Farm Employment Agri. Service, Others Mining Construction Manufacturing Transport, Comm., Public Utilities Wholesale Trade Retail Trade Finance, Insurance, Real Estate Services Federal Civilian Gov. Federal Military Gov. State and Local Gov. TOTAL- All Industries 2000 20 47 13 200 226 125 123 484 282 912 48 33 308 2,819 2006 24 42 11 250 204 144 133 577 372 1,126 52 34 357 3,327 2030 21 69 12 345 260 240 217 882 588 2,137 66 36 610 5,483 Compound Annual Growth Rate 2000- 2006- 200620062006 2013 2020 2030 3.2% -0.5% -0.5% -0.9% -1.9% 2.5% 2.3% 3.6% -2.7% 0.6% 0.5% 0.9% 3.8% 1.5% 1.4% 2.3% -1.7% 1.1% 1.1% 1.8% 2.4% 2.6% 2.4% 3.7% 1.5% 2.4% 2.2% 3.5% 3.0% 2.1% 1.9% 3.1% 4.7% 2.3% 2.1% 3.3% 3.6% 3.4% 3.0% 4.7% 1.4% 1.0% 1.0% 1.6% 0.5% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 2.5% 2.7% 2.5% 3.9% 2.8% 2.5% 2.3% 3.6% Source: Woods and Poole Inc, 2008 In 2000, the state of Arizona had almost three million jobs. Maricopa County had the largest share of jobs, with almost two-thirds of the state’s total employment. The next largest county, Pima, had only a quarter as many jobs, with 444,000. With the exception of Maricopa and Pima counties, no other county in the state had over 100,000 jobs in 2000. This indicates a strong concentration of jobs within a limited portion of the state. Between 2000 and 2006 employment grew in all counties except Greenlee. Mohave County posted the strongest rate of job growth between 2000 and 2006, with 4.7 percent. Four other counties (Maricopa, Pinal, Yavapai, and Yuma/La Paz) grew by more than three percent. However the overall rate of growth in employment is projected to moderate on the statewide level, falling slowly over the next 20 years. Some counties will buck the trend, including Coconino, Gila, Maricopa, Mohave, and Yavapai, which are all expected to grow faster than the state average. Employment in Arizona grew at almost three times the national rate from 2000 to 2006, and is projected to keep growing faster than the nation until 2030. Figure 4-36 shows employment projections and related compound annual growth rates for each Arizona county. 4-43 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-36: Arizona Employment (in thousands) and Employment Growth Rates by County, 2000-2030 Employment (in thousands) County 2000 2006 2030 Compound Annual Growth Rate 20002006- 200620062006 2013 2020 2030 Apache 25 27 40 1.3% 1.9% 1.8% 1.7% Cochise 51 59 84 2.6% 1.7% 1.6% 1.5% 70 21 11 5 1,892 55 34 444 50 16 70 76 2,819 82 23 11 5 2,252 72 39 497 61 18 88 93 3,327 138 39 17 7 3,791 125 61 768 96 24 149 143 5,483 2.6% 1.5% 0.3% -1.5% 3.0% 4.7% 2.5% 1.9% 3.4% 1.8% 3.7% 3.4% 2.8% 2.6% 2.9% 2.3% 1.8% 2.6% 2.8% 2.2% 2.1% 2.2% 1.3% 2.7% 1.8% 2.5% 2.4% 2.6% 2.2% 1.7% 2.4% 2.6% 2.0% 2.0% 2.1% 1.3% 2.5% 1.8% 2.3% 2.2% 2.4% 2.0% 1.6% 2.2% 2.3% 1.8% 1.8% 1.9% 1.3% 2.2% 1.8% 2.1% 166,759 176,970 246,949 1.0% 1.6% 1.5% 1.4% Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma & La Paz ARIZONA United States Source: Woods and Poole Inc, 2008 Despite a higher rate of employment growth in Mohave, Yavapai, and Gila counties, a larger number of new employees will still be located in Maricopa and Pima counties. Figure 4-37 shows the projected change in employment per square mile between 2006 and 2030. 4-44 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-37: Projected Change in Employment Density, 2006 -2030 Source: Woods and Poole Inc, 2008, Wilbur Smith Associates 4-45 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Mean Household Income Mean income is an important factor in the support of general aviation, with higher mean incomes correlating to higher general aviation use, both through total and fractional plane ownership. Because it is an average of the income of all the households in a county, the very high incomes of a limited number of households tends to make mean household income higher than that of the ‘average’ household. While Arizona’s mean household income is projected to continue to increase, it will not increase as steadily as either population or total income. In the 1980s and early 1990s, it increased very little. However, between 1995 and 2000 it rose rapidly. Figure 4-38 shows historic and projected mean household income from 1970 to 2030. Between 2005 and 2030 Arizona’s mean household income is expected to grow at an average annual rate of 1.27 percent, compared to 1.32 percent average annual growth from 1980 to 2005. Figure 4-38: Arizona Historic and Projected Mean Household Income, 1970-2030 120 Mean Household Income (Thousands) E s t i m at ed P roj ec t ed 100 104. 8 97. 0 90. 3 80 84. 6 73. 7 60 59. 9 50. 2 50. 8 60. 1 76. 5 79. 9 62. 5 55. 1 40 20 0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Source: Woods and Poole Inc, 2008 Y Between 2000 and 2006, every county in Arizona, except Pinal, saw an increase in mean household income. In the near future (2006 to 2013), mean income is projected to increase in all counties, with the greatest increase projected to occur in Pinal County. Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Maricopa, and Mohave counties are all expected to see mean income grow faster than the Arizona average. Arizona mean household income is projected to increase at a faster rate than that for the rest of the United States. Between 2006 and 2020, Arizona’s increase in mean income will track with the rest of the United States, but is projected to pull ahead by 2030. Within that long-term horizon (2006 to 2030), Gila, Graham, and Pinal counties are projected to see the largest growth in mean income, increasing by 1.5 percent a 4-46 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR year. Figure 4-39 presents mean household income for the year 2000, 2006, and 2030 projections for each county in Arizona. Also presented are compound average growth rates projected for mean household income for each county. Figure 4-39: Mean Household Income and Mean Household Income Growth Rates 2000-2030 Income (in 2004 dollars) County Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee Maricopa Mohave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma & La Paz ARIZONA UNITED STATES 2000 $50,427 $55,075 $69,395 $51,446 $46,777 $59,684 $84,214 $49,396 $49,957 $65,097 $52,273 $59,015 $53,693 $49,936 $73,726 $84,324 2006 $67,199 $65,950 $75,630 $63,131 $55,240 $70,635 $86,522 $51,075 $57,579 $68,534 $50,361 $63,034 $55,758 $58,610 $76,970 $86,778 2030 $78,476 $82,387 $96,230 $90,872 $79,010 $95,289 $119,278 $68,330 $73,401 $90,913 $72,841 $84,493 $76,610 $71,606 $104,783 $115,723 Compound Annual Growth Rates 20002006200620062006 2013 2020 2030 4.9% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 3.0% 0.6% 0.8% 0.9% 1.4% 0.7% 0.9% 1.0% 3.5% 1.3% 1.4% 1.5% 2.8% 1.3% 1.4% 1.5% 2.8% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% 0.5% 1.1% 1.2% 1.3% 0.6% 0.9% 1.0% 1.2% 2.4% 0.7% 0.8% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 1.0% 1.2% -0.6% 1.4% 1.4% 1.5% 1.1% 0.9% 1.1% 1.2% 0.6% 0.9% 1.1% 1.3% 2.7% 0.3% 0.6% 0.8% 0.7% 1.0% 1.1% 1.3% 0.5% 0.9% 1.1% 1.2% Source: Woods and Poole Inc, 2008 Travel and Tourism Travel is an important and growing part of the Arizona economy, of which air transportation forms an important part. The Arizona 2006 Tourism Facts brochure estimates that 49.3 percent of travel volumes in Arizona are non-resident leisure trips and another 13.8 percent are non-resident business trips. As a result, 78 percent of travel expenditures come from visitors outside Arizona. The report also notes that the number of U.S. resident visitor enplanements has grown by 0.6 percent, while the number of international visitors has slightly declined. Although the rising cost of fuel is making aviation more expensive, the falling value of the dollar should make the United States and Arizona a cheaper and thus more attractive vacation destination for international visitors in the near future. There were an estimated 4.4 million visitors to Grand Canyon National Park in 2006. The Grand Canyon National Park’s airport saw a drop in the number of aircraft operations, due to a decline in the number of helicopter tours, but still had over 240,000 enplanements in 2007. According to Arizona Travel Impacts 1998-2006 visitors to the state of Arizona spent $1.4 billion on air travel in 2006. This represents 8.1 percent of all visitor travel spending. It is estimated that this spending supports 11,300 aviation and aviation related jobs. 4-47 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR FORECASTS OF AVIATION ACTIVITY Commercial Service Forecasts This section projects passenger enplanements and scheduled commercial aircraft operations at Arizona airports. It is important to note that this type of activity for Grand Canyon National Park, Grand Canyon West, and Page Municipal was separated from the other, more traditional commercial service activity because of its nature. For Grand Canyon National Park and Grand Canyon West airports, the passenger and operational activity is related strictly to tour operators. Because of this, they are impacted differently than the other airports by the changes in the typical airline industry as it relates to legacy carriers and regional service providers. A separate forecast for air tour operations and enplanements is developed following the scheduled forecast projections. Scheduled Commercial Service Forecasts Due to recent service cutbacks in the airline industry in 2008, for the purpose of this plan, an estimate of 2008 enplanements and commercial service operations has been developed using actual data from the airports for the first six months and anticipated changes in the airline capacity through the remainder of the year. Forecasts were performed using a base year of 2008, with projections for 2012 and 2017, and an out-year of 2030. The FAA projects that U.S. enplanements will increase at an average annual rate of 2.7 percent between 2007 and 2010. However, several significant events have impacted and will continue to impact the realization of the FAA’s near-term commercial service projections. These events include the following: • • • • Fuel Prices. Crude oil prices reached $135 per barrel on May 22, 2008. Most of the domestic carriers’ breakeven level for oil prices is $80 to $90 per barrel. The airlines are spending four times what they spent in 2000 on jet fuel. This equates to the airlines losing approximately $60 on each round-trip ticket. JP Morgan Chase estimates that the airlines will lose $7.2 billion in 2008 based on current trends; if fuel prices remain near current levels, they estimate a loss of an additional $8 billion in 2009. The carriers with older gas-guzzling fleets may be the hardest hit. This will be devastating for many of the cash-strapped airlines and many are looking for ways to further consolidate or liquidate. Airline Bankruptcies and Shutdowns. The rise in fuel prices and the economic downturn of the entire U.S. has put a lot of pressure on carriers’ abilities to make a profit. Several carriers have already succumbed to the economic pressure including ATA, Aloha, and Skybus. Airline Capacity Cuts and Shifts. If fuel prices remain high, experts believe that for the U.S. industry to shrink to a size that would allow the surviving carriers to earn a profit will require significant fare hikes and a 20 to 25 percent cut in seat capacity. This will mean even fewer routes and fewer flights. These cuts in capacity have already begun at Phoenix Sky Harbor and Tucson International. Airline Mergers. In addition to the proposed Delta-Northwest merger, further airline consolidation is likely. The Delta-Northwest proposal has limited potential to impact many of the commercial service airports in Arizona. However, other airline consolidation, including a potential US Airways merger may have more of a dramatic impact on service in Arizona as carriers ground planes, eliminate routes, and cut staff. 4-48 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Aviation experts believe that the current crisis has the potential to drastically reshape the industry in coming years. That means not only fewer carriers, but forcing all other carriers to reconsider how they operate, from ticket pricing to the routes they serve. Carriers have added fees and surcharges and may need to push through additional fare hikes to increase revenue. There is fine line between what the flying public, especially one during an economic downturn, will bear in terms of fare increases and additional fees. The changes in scheduled capacity (departing seats) at commercial service airports in Arizona from October 2006 to October 2008 are presented in Figure 4-40. As shown, statewide scheduled departing seats declined 10.8 percent from 2007 to 2008. Phoenix Sky Harbor is experiencing an 11.0 percent decline and Tucson International’s capacity will be down 14.2 percent in October 2008 compared to October 2006. Some of the smaller airports in the state actually experienced an increase from 2007. New service in 2007/2008 includes Phoenix Mesa Gateway service on Allegiant, Yuma International service to Salt Lake City on Delta Connection, Show Low service to Denver by Great Lakes, and Flagstaff-Pulliam and Prescott service to Los Angeles on Horizon Airlines. It is worth noting that Delta recently announced the discontinuation of Yuma service to Salt Lake City in August 2008. Figure 4-40: Monthly Departing Seats at Arizona Scheduled Commercial Service Airports, October 2006 - October 2008 Sch e dul e d Mo nthl y De pa r ti ng Se a ts 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 2006 2007 2008 All Other 32,268 36,306 39,108 TUS 226,161 249,693 214,227 PHX 2,447,744 2,390,932 2,127,238 Source: Official Airline Guide Even though statewide capacity in October 2008 is down nearly 11 percent from 2007, it is estimated that annual statewide enplanements will decline by just 2.2 percent in 2008 from 2007 levels. This shows that the demand for air service is still relatively strong, despite larger capacity cuts by the airlines and higher load factors on flights leaving the state. Actual 2007 numbers and estimates for 2008 of commercial service enplanements and operations are presented in Figure 4-41. The 2008 estimates were determined by examining published 4-49 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR airline schedules through the remainder of the year and assuming a slightly higher load factor at several airports based on the availability of fewer seats. Figure 4-41: Arizona Scheduled Commercial Service Airport Enplanements and Operations, 2007 and 2008 Enplanements Airport Name Laughlin/Bullhead International Flagstaff Pulliam Kingman Page Municipal Phoenix Sky Harbor International Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Ernest A. Love Field Show Low Regional Tucson International Yuma International Airport ARIZONA TOTAL 2007 106,347 38,600 2,602 5,298 20,943,933 2,817 7,889 6,433 2,223,008 63,426 21,686,389 2008E 83,000 66,400 2,000 5,500 20,321,000 155,600 7,100 7,700 2,181,000 91,300 23,269,400 Operations 2007 1,417 5,844 1,812 2,058 408,641 1,962 2,630 832 42,666 7,886 475,748 2008E 900 4,200 1,200 2,200 473,300 2,500 2,400 1,400 41,400 10,500 634,600 Sources Official Airline Guide, airport management records, Wilbur Smith Associates Note: E=estimate This section forecasts passenger enplanements and commercial aircraft operations at Arizona airports. Forecasts were performed using a base year of 2008, with forecasts for 2012, 2017, and an out-year of 2030. Forecast Assumptions The following is a list of general assumptions that were applied to Arizona airports while conducting commercial service forecasts: • • • • • • • It is assumed that, during the forecast period, the economy will experience typical business cycles. These cycles will result in fluctuations in air service demand. It is assumed that the high cost of fuel will continue and the airlines will continue to make adjustments in the near term for both ticket prices and capacity to minimize the effects of the fuel crisis. It is assumed that in the mid to long term, the industry will once again experience growth. Near term projections were developed that are slightly lower than longer term projections based on the current cutbacks in the industry. Enplanements will grow at a faster rate than operations. As demand increases, the airlines will first accept higher load factors and then deploy larger aircraft, if available, before adding frequencies. All short term projections should continue to be monitored based on unanticipated changes in the airline industry which experts note may change the entire commercial service landscape over the next few years. The existing service patterns and types of service at the airports will remain the same in the future. The growth of airports’ use will be reflective on the growth of the market area. Commercial service forecasts are unconstrained with respect to facilities. This means that for “normal” growth, there should be sufficient airfield, terminal, and landside facilities to accommodate the level of activity anticipated at the airports during the forecast period. The forecasts assume that mainline or legacy carriers will continue to operate their hubs in a manner consistent with current operations. 4-50 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR • • • No specific expansion of Southwest Airlines (or other low cost carrier) and no additional entry of low cost carriers is built into the forecasts. For the Essential Air Service (EAS) communities of Page, Show Low, Kingman, and Prescott, the forecasts assume airport activity will continue at present levels as long as these communities continue to qualify for EAS subsidy and the subsidy remains sufficient. The forecasts also assume that aircraft will be available to serve these communities. It is assumed that Phoenix Mesa Gateway will continue to emerge as a commercial service airport complement to Phoenix Sky Harbor over the forecast period. Forecast Methodology Since Arizona airports are very different, each commercial service airport was examined individually to determine which factors have contributed to recent changes in air service levels. Historic passenger trends were examined and compared to regional and national trends. A review of FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2008-2025, SANS 2000, regional system plans, and individual master plans was undertaken. Nearly all Arizona counties are projected to experience population growth greater than that projected for the U.S. overall. This growth must also be considered as projections are developed. Assumptions were tested and the results were evaluated. The assumptions and considerations for each of the airports are summarized below: • • • • • • • Laughlin/Bullhead City International: It is assumed that the casinos in Laughlin will continue to work with Sun Country to provide similar levels of service throughout the forecast period. Flagstaff Pulliam: An estimate of 2009 operations was developed based on the new service started by Horizon to Los Angeles on 74-seat Q400 aircraft in June 2008. Hence the near term projections are much higher than longer term projections. It was assumed that Mesa will continue to also add larger regional jets to replace the Dash8 aircraft over time. Kingman: As an EAS airport, the schedule for Kingman is dictated by the EAS contract between the carrier and the US DOT. Commercial service operations are projected to be unchanged through the forecast period and enplanements are projected to grow slightly. Page: As an EAS airport, the schedule for Page is dictated by the EAS contract between the carrier and the US DOT. Commercial service operations are projected to be unchanged through the forecast period and load factors and enplanements are projected to continue to grow. Phoenix Sky Harbor International: The airport develops its own short term projections of enplanements. This rate of 2.16 percent per year was applied to develop the 2012 SASP projection. The FAA’s projected rate of growth for all U.S. enplanements (2.7 percent per year) was applied to derive mid- and long-term projections. Higher load factors were assumed in the near term to forecast operations. Phoenix-Mesa Gateway: The role of the airport as a complement to commercial service at Phoenix Sky Harbor is projected to continue throughout the forecast period. It is projected that more service will be added at the airport by existing and new carriers. Ernest A. Love Field: An estimate of 2009 operations was developed based on the new service started by Horizon to Los Angeles on 74-seat Q400 aircraft in September 2008 and service to Ontario and Phoenix Sky Harbor on Great Lakes also starting in September 2008. Hence the near term projections are much higher than longer term projections. 4-51 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR • • • Show Low Regional: As an EAS airport, the schedule for Show Low Regional is dictated by the EAS contract between the carrier and the US DOT. Commercial service operations are projected to be unchanged through the forecast period and load factors and enplanements are projected to continue to grow. The new service to Denver, which began in July 2008 is projected to continue. Tucson International: Considering TAF and PAG RASP projections, Tucson International will experience considerable growth in enplanements and operations. Yuma international: SkyWest service to Salt Lake City will be discontinued in August 2008. Near term projections of enplanements and operations will be impacted by this loss. Figure 4-42 presents the projections of enplanements and Figure 4-43 summarizes the commercial operations forecasts. These forecasts are considered to be conservative based on overall industry trends and projections. It is expected that master plan projections will be much higher than the projections presented in the SASP. Figure 4-42: Enplanement Projections for Arizona’s Commercial Service Airports Airport Name Laughlin/Bullhead Intl Flagstaff Pulliam Kingman Page Phoenix Sky Harbor Intl Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Ernest A. Love Field Show Low Regional Tucson International Yuma International ARIZONA TOTAL Base Year 2008E 83,000 66,400 2,300 5,500 20,321,000 155,600 11,700 7,700 2,181,000 91,300 22,925,500 Forecasts 2012 86,700 138,600 2,400 5,800 22,134,400 168,400 39,900 8,000 2,360,800 95,200 25,040,300 2017 96,700 154,400 2,500 6,600 25,313,000 219,100 45,200 8,800 2,671,000 105,600 28,622,900 2030 128,300 204,000 3,000 9,400 35,880,500 434,100 62,300 11,200 3,682,000 138,400 40,553,200 CAGR 2008E2012 1.1% 20.2% 1.1% 1.3% 2.2% 2.0% 35.9% 1.0% 2.0% 1.1% 2.2% CAGR 20122030 2.2% 2.2% 1.2% 2.7% 2.7% 5.4% 2.5% 1.9% 2.5% 2.1% 2.7% CAGR 2008E2030 2.0% 5.2% 1.2% 2.5% 2.6% 4.8% 7.9% 1.7% 2.4% 1.9% 2.6% Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Notes: E=estimate; CAGR= compound annual growth rate; enplanements may not sum to totals due to rounding Figure 4-43: Commercial Service Operations Projections for Arizona’s Airports Airport Name Laughlin/Bullhead Intl Flagstaff Pulliam Kingman Page Phoenix Sky Harbor Intl Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Ernest A. Love Field Show Low Regional Tucson International Yuma International ARIZONA TOTAL Base Year 2008E 900 4,200 1,200 2,200 473,300 2,500 2,800 1,400 41,400 10,500 540,400 Forecasts 2012 900 6,300 1,500 2,200 495,900 2,700 5,700 1,400 44,100 10,700 571,400 2017 1,000 6,900 1,500 2,200 556,800 3,300 6,300 1,400 48,600 11,800 639,700 2030 1,400 8,500 1,500 2,200 752,500 5,600 8,300 1,400 62,400 15,000 858,800 CAGR 2008E2012 0.0% 10.7% 5.7% 0.0% 1.2% 1.9% 19.4% 0.0% 1.6% 0.5% 1.4% CAGR 20122030 2.5% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 4.1% 2.1% 0.0% 1.9% 1.9% 2.3% CAGR 2008E2030 2.0% 3.3% 1.0% 0.0% 2.1% 3.7% 5.1% 0.0% 1.9% 1.6% 2.1% Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Notes: E=estimate; CAGR= compound annual growth rate; operations may not sum to totals due to rounding 4-52 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Commercial Service Air Tour Projections The commercial service activity at Grand Canyon National Park, Grand Canyon West, and Page Municipal airports is influenced by trends different than those that impact the projections for scheduled commercial service activity as noted above. The air tour industry has been impacted and will continue to be impacted by the price of fuel, tourism to Las Vegas, the financial viability of tour operators, and the limitation of over-flights of the Grand Canyon. Commercial activity indicators for the two Grand Canyon airports and Page Municipal (air tours portion only) were derived from a review of historical information and consideration of the FAA’s Terminal Area Forecast (TAF). Projections of air tour enplanements and operations are presented in Figure 4-44 and Figure 4-45. Figure 4-44: Enplanement Projections for Air Tour Service Airport Name Grand Canyon National Park Grand Canyon West Page Municipal ARIZONA TOTAL Base Year 2007 240,600 21,337 24,378 286,315 Forecasts 2012 271,705 24,190 28,710 324,605 2017 304,750 27,735 34,047 366,532 2030 427,900 37,950 47,040 512,890 CAGR 20072030 2.5% 2.5% 2.9% 2.6% Source: FAA Terminal Area Forecasts, Airport Management Records, Wilbur Smith Associates Note: CAGR= compound annual growth rate; enplanements may not sum to totals due to rounding Figure 4-45: Commercial Operations Projections for Air Tour Service Airport Name Grand Canyon National Park Grand Canyon West Page Municipal ARIZONA TOTAL Base Year 2007 95,184 10,700 29,080 134,964 Forecasts 2012 104,600 11,800 31,900 148,300 2017 114,900 12,900 35,100 162,900 2030 146,700 16,500 44,800 208,000 CAGR 2007-2030 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% Source: FAA Terminal Area Forecasts, Airport Management Records, Wilbur Smith Associates Note: CAGR= compound annual growth rate; operations may not sum to totals due to rounding SASP Commercial Service Projections versus Other Projections Commercial service activity projections have also been developed by airports, regional governments, and the FAA. Figure 4-46 compares enplanement forecasts produced in this plan for scheduled commercial service and air tour airports to those produced in the FAA Terminal Area Forecasts, airport master plans, and other plans. The most recent growth rates from these forecasts were applied to base years used in this plan so that an out-year percentage difference could be calculated. Of the twelve commercial service and air tour airports, nine have recent master plans with current forecasts. When growth rates in these forecasts were applied to the SASP base year, the resulting forecasts were typically much larger than SASP results. Enplanement forecasts at Phoenix Sky Harbor and Phoenix-Mesa Gateway were also compared to those conducted by the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG). MAG conducted two scenarios for Sky Harbor. The first shows 2030 enplanements 17.5 percent 4-53 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR under SASP forecasts, and the second 8.7 percent higher. MAG forecasts for Phoenix-Mesa Gateway show enplanements over 2.6 million in 2030. The Pima Association of Governments (PAG) conducted two scenario enplanement forecasts for Tucson International Airport. The “high” forecast growth rate, when applied to SASP base year enplanements, results in an enplanement level only 4.9 percent higher than SASP results. The “average” forecast showed a result 22 percent below the SASP number. Figure 4-46: Commercial Enplanement Forecasts Vs. FAA TAF, Airport Master Plan, and Regional Forecasts Commercial Service/Air Tours Airport Laughlin/Bullhead International SASP Enplanement Forecast Terminal Area Forecast Airport Master Plan Flagstaff Pulliam SASP Enplanement Forecast Terminal Area Forecast Airport Master Plan Grand Canyon National Park SASP Enplanement Forecast Terminal Area Forecast Airport Master Plan Kingman SASP Enplanement Forecast Terminal Area Forecast Airport Master Plan Page SASP Enplanement Forecast Terminal Area Forecast Airport Master Plan Grand Canyon West SASP Enplanement Forecast Terminal Area Forecast Phoenix Sky Harbor International SASP Enplanement Forecast Terminal Area Forecast Airport Master Plan Maricopa Assoc of Govts Scenario 1 Forecast Maricopa Assoc of Govts Scenario 2 Forecast Phoenix-Mesa Gateway SASP Enplanement Forecast Terminal Area Forecast Airport** Maricopa Assoc of Govts Scenario 1 Forecast Base Year 2008E* CAGR 2008-2030 Forecast 2030 % Difference From SASP 83,000 83,000 83,000 2.00% 2.65% 6.14% 128,292 147,548 308,158 NA 15.0% 140.2% 66,400 66,400 66,400 5.24% 2.17% 8.68% 204,049 106,553 414,088 NA -47.8% 102.9% 240,600 240,600 240,600 2.53% 3.10% 3.90% 427,900 471,409 558,658 NA 10.2% 30.6% 2,300 2,300 2,300 1.24% 0.00% 9.80% 3,014 2,300 17,982 NA -23.7% 496.7% 29,878 29,878 29,878 2.90% 2.45% 5.66% 47,040 50,921 100,301 NA 8.2% 113.2% 21,337 21,337 2.54% 0.00% 37,950 21,337 NA -43.8% 20,321,000 20,321,000 20,321,000 2.62% 3.24% 2.16% 35,880,526 41,020,891 32,488,806 NA 14.3% -9.5% 20,321,000 1.73% 29,607,607 -17.5% 20,321,000 3.01% 39,010,768 8.7% 155,600 155,600 155,600 4.77% 0.00% 13.04% 434,052 155,600 2,306,374 NA -64.2% 431.4% 155,600 13.83% 2,687,784 519.2% 4-54 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-46: Commercial Enplanement Forecasts Vs. FAA TAF, Airport Master Plan, and Regional Forecasts (Continued) Commercial Service/Air Tours Airport Ernest A. Love Field SASP Enplanement Forecast Terminal Area Forecast Airport Master Plan Show Low Regional SASP Enplanement Forecast Terminal Area Forecast Airport Master Plan Tucson International SASP Enplanement Forecast Terminal Area Forecast Airport Master Plan Pima Assoc. Govts High Forecast Pima Assoc. Govts Avg. Forecast Yuma International Airport SASP Enplanement Forecast Terminal Area Forecast Base Year 2008E* CAGR 2008-2030 Forecast 2030 % Difference From SASP 11,700 11,700 11,700 7.90% 0.38% 11.40% 62,276 12,716 125,792 NA -79.6% 102.0% 7,700 7,700 7,700 1.73% 0.00% 10.19% 11,222 7,700 65,072 NA -31.4% 479.9% 2,181,000 2,181,000 2,181,000 2,181,000 2,181,000 2.41% 1.74% 2.60% 2.63% 1.25% 3,682,018 3,185,123 3,836,168 3,863,709 2,863,816 NA -13.5% 4.2% 4.9% -22.2% 91,300 91,300 1.91% 0.61% 138,382 104,449 NA -24.5% Sources: FAA Terminal Area Forecasts, Airport Management Records, Wilbur Smith Associates, Maricopa Association of Governments, Pima Association of Governments Notes: *Base year enplanements are 2008 estimates except for air tour enplanements, which are 2007. **Forecasts for Phoenix Sky Harbor International were derived from airport website; E=estimate, CAGR=compound annual growth rate. Air Cargo Projections The following presents forecasts of air cargo tonnage carried at Arizona’s airports. Like forecasts of commercial service activity, these forecasts use the base year 2007, project for 2012, 2017, and use the out-year 2030. As shown in Figure 4-47, 170,470 tons of air cargo was flown from Arizona airports in 2007. During 2007, Phoenix Sky Harbor accounted for over 150,000 tons, or 89 percent of the statewide total. Tucson International followed with just under 10 percent. Figure 4-47: Air Cargo Tonnage Forecasts, 2007-2030 Airport Name Laughlin/Bullhead International Flagstaff Pulliam Lake Havasu City Phoenix Sky Harbor International Tucson International Yuma International ARIZONA TOTAL Base Year 2007 195 482 342 152,158 16,519 774 170,470 Forecasts 2012 210 530 370 166,800 18,100 850 186,800 2017 250 610 430 193,300 21,000 980 216,600 2030 360 900 640 283,900 30,800 1,440 318,100 CAGR 20072012 1.85% 1.85% 1.85% 1.85% 1.85% 1.85% 1.85% CAGR 20122030 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% Sources: Arizona Multimodal Freight Analysis Study 2007, Boeing Air Cargo Forecasts, Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport Note: CAGR= compound annual growth rate 4-55 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR As noted previously, the FAA is projecting U.S. air cargo revenue ton miles to grow at 3.7 percent per year on average through 2010 and then grow at 3.0 percent per year through 2025. Boeing also produces annual air cargo growth rates in their World Air Cargo Forecasts. In their most recent edition, 2006-2007, three annual growth rates were given for national air cargo tonnage: low (3.3 percent), base (3.8 percent), and high (4.2 percent). Phoenix Sky Harbor International developed projections of air cargo tonnage through 2015, using 2005 as the base year. The compound average annual growth rate of this forecast was 2.7 percent. In the first six months of 2008, according to the International Air Transport Association, worldwide cargo was up only 1.3 percent. This compares to the 4.9 percent growth projected by the FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2008-2025 for worldwide air cargo revenue ton miles. Due to the changes in the airline and air cargo industries since these projections were completed, the plan has estimated a lower rate of growth in the short term for air cargo tonnage flown. In addition, a 100 percent air cargo screening mandate will be in place by 2010. This will require all airports to have appropriate infrastructure, equipment, and personnel in place to screen all air cargo. Industry experts have noted that this mandate will adversely impact the levels of air cargo flown in the near term as airports meet this deadline. Between 2007 and 2012, air cargo tonnage at Arizona airports is projected to grow at 1.85 percent per year, or one-half the near term FAA growth rate. Between 2012 and 2030, it is projected that Arizona air cargo tonnage will grow at 3.0 percent per year, on average. Using these growth rates, Arizona air cargo tonnage is projected to reach 186,800 tons in 2012, 216,600 tons in 2017, and 318,100 tons in 2030. General Aviation Projections General aviation forecasts are an important step in evaluating the need for and phasing of future development. The forecasts are used to identify potential shortfalls in the system, to accommodate future demand and to identify airports that may now or in the future function in a different role within the state system. Due to increases in fuel costs and insurance, the cost of flying is becoming increasingly less affordable. Also a cause for concern is the increasing cost of flight instruction. Total pilot registrations are remaining constant, but the number of new registrations is falling. As a result, the number of pilots is not increasing at the same rate as the population. Within Arizona, the proliferation of second homes and vacation communities populated by wealthy part-time residents should continue to create increased demand for general aviation facilities and services. Many of these communities are adjacent to golf courses, and other recreation opportunities, or are located in rural area with limited access to commercial service airports. This combined with the suitability of the Arizona climate for flying, suggests that the demand for general aviation facilities and services in Arizona will remain strong. Even though they are not considered in the SASP, it is recognized that airport-specific growth and demand is driven by many additional factors including the influence of airport management efforts, pilot/tenant relationships, aircraft storage accommodation, overall customer service and even willingness to support the airport through airport activities towards on and off airport users. These factors must be considered when developing detailed projections as part of master planning efforts. 4-56 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR As with other forecast indicators, the timeline for general aviation forecasting is 2007 to 2030, with forecasts given at the interim five and ten year periods as well. The following are the main components of the Arizona general aviation forecasts: • • • Based Aircraft: the total number of active general aviation aircraft that are either stored in hangars or tied down at an Arizona airport on a regular basis. Aircraft Fleet Mix: the types of aircraft that are based at an airport. Operations: the number of individual takeoffs and landings. An aircraft which takes off and lands performs two operations. Based Aircraft The based aircraft forecasts in this chapter were produced using three different methodologies. These forecasts were developed based on population projections, nationwide aviation trends, and historic growth of based aircraft at Arizona’s system airports, and provide low, medium, and high results. The low, medium, and high results refer to combined state forecasted based aircraft. Based aircraft at individual airports may not reflect this same level of low, medium, and high forecasts. Figure 4-48 summarizes the results of each forecasting method on a statewide basis. For each methodology utilized, individual airport based aircraft forecasts were also produced. The following sections describe the process and detailed results of each methodology. Figure 4-48: Statewide Summary of Based Aircraft at Arizona Airports, 2007-2030 Base Year 2007 Low: Socioeconomic - Population Projections in 30-Minute Market Areas Medium: Historic Based Aircraft Growth and Industry Trends High: County Population Projections and Industry Trends 2012 Forecast 2017 2030 2007-2030 CAGR 8,043 8,601 9,194 11,040 1.39% 8,043 8,758 9,524 11,894 1.71% 8,043 9,119 10,326 14,325 2.54% Sources: Wilbur Smith Associates, Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008, Arizona Department of Commerce, FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2008-2025 Note: CAGR= compound annual growth rate Based military aircraft were not included in these forecasts. Similar to military operations, the numbers of based military aircraft are difficult to project as data is not readily available. Some airports may not wish to divulge this information, or may not have authority to do so. Because of these reasons, based military aircraft were not included in statewide based aircraft forecasts and discussions of fleet mix. For airports recording zero based aircraft for the 2007 base year, it is assumed that they will have two based aircraft by 2030, the end of the study period. This represents a compound annual growth rate of 3.2 percent for these airports (from one based aircraft in 2008). This rate of growth and out-year based aircraft number will remain constant for the three methodologies at these airports. Low: Socioeconomic- Population Projections in 30-Minute Market Areas This forecasting methodology used a socioeconomic approach, projecting based aircraft using population forecasts. The Arizona Department of Commerce forecasts population in counties and populated places through the year 2050. For each airport in the Arizona State Airports System Plan, a market area was created of towns and cities located within a 30minute drive of the airport. The projected total population of each 30-minute market area 4-57 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR was calculated so that a compound annual growth rate could be determined for each market area. These growth rates were applied to the 2007 based aircraft estimate in a linear fashion over the study period of 2007 to 2030. For airports without market area data or a growth rate of zero percent, the projected population growth rate of the airport’s county within each is located was used. Statewide, this forecast methodology projects 2030 Arizona based aircraft to be 11,040, with a statewide average annual growth rate of 1.39 percent. Medium: Historic Based Aircraft Growth and Industry Trends This methodology used a top-down approach and adapted it with the historic growth of based aircraft at each Arizona system airport. The FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 20082025 include projections of U.S. active aircraft. For the period of 2008-2025, U.S. active aircraft are projected to grow at an annual rate of 1.35 percent. This growth rate was adapted for each system airport using historic based aircraft growth. Each system airport was placed into a category based on their historic based aircraft growth, using these categories to adjust the FAA’s projected average annual growth rate of 1.35 percent, as presented in Figure 4-49. Figure 4-49: Categories of Growth in the Medium Based Aircraft Forecast Historic CAGR 1998-2008 ≤0% 0% to >3% 3% to >10% ≥10% Percentage of Industry Rate 50% 100% 150% 200% Adjusted CAGR 0.68% 1.35% 2.03% 2.70% Sources: Arizona State Aviation Needs Study 2000, FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2008-2025 Note: CAGR=Compound Average Annual Growth Rate If historic data was not available, the industry rate was applied to current based aircraft. Linear growth was applied to all airports using these growth rates. This forecast methodology projects statewide based aircraft to reach 11,894 in 2030, with a compound average annual growth rate of 1.71 percent. High: County Population Forecasts and Industry Trends Much like the previous forecast, this methodology uses an adapted top-down approach. It also starts with the FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2008-2025 annual growth rate of U.S. active aircraft of 1.35 percent, but is adapted for individual airports using the projected population growth for the county within which they are located (as presented in Figure 4-30). Also similar to the previous forecast, airports were placed into categories based on the level of population growth they are projected to experience. Figure 4-50 shows how the FAA’s projected rate of growth for U.S. active aircraft was adjusted based on the forecasted growth of population in Arizona counties. Airports located in Pinal County showed the most significant growth of based aircraft in this forecast, as that county is projected to experience population growth at 4.9 percent annually. 4-58 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-50: Categories of Growth in the High Based Aircraft Forecast Projected County Population Growth Rate 0% >0% to 1.5% >1.5% to 2% >2% to 2.5% 4.9% (Pinal County) Percentage of Industry Rate 50% 100% 150% 200% 300% Adjusted CAGR 0.68% 1.35% 2.03% 2.70% 4.05% Sources: Arizona Department of Commerce, FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2008-2025 Note: CAGR=Compound average annual growth rate Linear growth was applied to all airports using these growth rates. This forecast methodology projects Arizona based aircraft to be 14,325 in 2030, a statewide growth rate of 2.54 percent. Preferred Based Aircraft Forecast As summarized in Figure 4-48, these three forecasting methodologies present low, medium, and high results of forecasted based aircraft at Arizona airports. Figure 4-51 graphically compares these forecasts to those presented in the Arizona State Aviation Needs Study 2000. The SANS 2000 forecasts were low below the 2008 actual based aircraft numbers and below all three forecast methodologies presented in this plan. Figure 4-51: Comparison of SASP Based Aircraft Forecasts to the Arizona State Aviation Needs Study 2000 Forecasts 15,000 14,325 Low Forecast 14,000 Medium Forecast (Preferred) 13,000 High Forecast SANS 2000 Forecast Bas ed Airc raf t 12,000 11,894 11,040 11,000 10,000 9,000 8,043 8,874 8,000 7,000 7,352 6,694 6,000 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 5,000 Sources: Wilbur Smith Associates, Arizona State Aviation Needs Study 2000, Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008, Arizona Department of Commerce, FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2008-2025 The medium forecast, based on historic based aircraft growth and FAA industry forecasts, has been chosen as the preferred based aircraft forecast. The low forecast is viewed as being too low for a state experiencing such rapid growth as Arizona, particularly in aviation. 4-59 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR The high forecast is seen as being too far above the FAA-forecasted rate of growth, based on the recent industry trends and large increases in fuel prices. The medium forecast, however, is viewed as a balance between the two, and the most likely reflection of how based aircraft will grow at Arizona airports, especially over the long term. The statewide projected average annual growth rate of 1.71 percent through 2030 is higher than the FAA rate of 1.35 percent annually (through 2025). This forecast of based aircraft encompasses the historic growth of based aircraft at Arizona airports, which is also a reflection of the rapid growth of population. Figure 4-52 details the results of the three SASP methodologies for each airport included the Arizona State Airports System Plan. 4-60 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-52: Individual Airport Based Aircraft Forecasts Base Year 2007 2012 Low 2017 Medium High Low Medium 2030 High Low 2007-2030 CAGR Associated City Airport Name Medium High Low Medium High Aguila Eagle Roost Ajo Eric Marcus Municipal Bagdad Bagdad 5 6 5 6 6 5 7 8 6 9 2.20% 0.68% 2.70% Benson Benson Municipal 42 42 46 45 43 51 48 44 67 57 0.22% 2.03% 1.35% Bisbee Bisbee Municipal 34 35 39 36 37 44 39 40 63 46 0.76% 2.70% 1.35% 2.70% 48 53 51 55 59 55 63 77 65 89 2.10% 1.35% 2.70% 8 9 9 9 9 10 10 12 13 13 1.60% 2.03% 2.03% Buckeye Buckeye Municipal 62 80 64 71 104 66 81 204 72 114 5.31% 0.68% Bullhead City Laughlin/Bullhead 30 32 31 34 34 32 39 40 35 55 1.22% 0.68% 2.70% Bullhead City Sun Valley 33 35 35 38 38 38 43 45 45 61 1.40% 1.35% 2.70% Carefree Sky Ranch at Carefree 115 119 119 131 122 123 150 133 134 212 0.62% 0.68% 2.70% Casa Grande Casa Grande Municipal 91 111 101 111 136 111 135 229 144 227 4.10% 2.03% 4.05% 499 517 552 570 535 610 651 585 792 921 0.69% 2.03% 2.70% 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3.20% 3.20% 3.20% 152 160 163 174 167 174 198 190 207 281 0.97% 1.35% 2.70% Chandler Chandler Municipal Chandler Memorial Airfield Chandler Stellar Airpark Chinle Chinle Municipal 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 6 5 0.44% 2.03% 1.35% Cibecue Cibecue 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3.20% 0.00% 3.20% Clifton/Morenci Greenlee County 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.03% 0.68% 0.68% Colorado City Colorado City Municipal Coolidge Coolidge Municipal 6 7 6 7 7 6 8 9 7 11 1.71% 0.68% 2.70% 34 41 39 41 50 44 51 82 63 85 3.92% 2.70% 4.05% Cottonwood Cottonwood 49 53 54 56 57 60 64 69 78 90 1.47% 2.03% 2.70% Douglas Cochise College 15 16 16 16 17 17 17 21 20 20 1.47% 1.35% 1.35% Douglas Douglas Municipal 27 29 28 29 31 29 31 37 32 37 1.40% 0.68% 1.35% Douglas Bisbee Bisbee Douglas 18 19 19 19 21 19 21 25 21 25 1.40% 0.68% 1.35% Eloy Eloy Municipal 41 50 45 50 61 50 61 103 65 102 4.10% 2.03% 4.05% Flagstaff Flagstaff Pulliam 132 139 141 141 145 151 151 165 180 180 0.98% 1.35% 1.35% Gila Bend Gila Bend Municipal Glendale Glendale Municipal 3 4 3 3 5 4 4 10 5 6 5.36% 2.03% 2.70% 413 448 457 472 486 505 539 600 655 762 1.63% 2.03% 2.70% Globe San Carlos Apache 47 48 52 50 50 57 54 54 75 64 0.61% 2.03% 1.35% Goodyear Phoenix Goodyear 276 304 305 315 336 337 360 433 438 509 1.97% 2.03% 2.70% Grand Canyon Grand Canyon NP 48 51 50 51 54 51 55 62 56 65 1.10% 0.68% 1.35% Grand Canyon Grand Canyon Valle 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 1.10% 1.35% 1.35% 4-61 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-52: Individual Airport Based Aircraft Forecasts (Continued) Base Year Associated City Airport Name 2007 2012 Low 2017 Medium High Low Medium 2030 High Low 2007-2030 CAGR Medium High Low Medium High Holbrook Holbrook Municipal 20 21 22 22 22 24 24 25 32 32 1.05% 2.03% 2.03% Kayenta Kayenta 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3.20% 3.20% 3.20% Kearny Kearny 5 6 6 6 6 6 7 8 8 12 2.12% 2.03% 4.05% Kingman Kingman 278 299 307 318 322 340 363 388 441 513 1.47% 2.03% 2.70% Lake Havasu City Lake Havasu City 229 251 245 262 276 262 299 351 312 423 1.88% 1.35% 2.70% Marana Marana Regional 306 320 338 338 335 374 374 377 485 485 0.91% 2.03% 2.03% Marana Pinal Airpark 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3.20% 3.20% 3.20% Marble Canyon Marble Canyon 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.10% 1.35% 1.35% 4.05% Maricopa Estrella Sailport 28 37 30 34 48 32 42 98 38 70 5.60% 1.35% Meadview Pearce Ferry 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3.20% 3.20% 3.20% Mesa Falcon Field 947 985 1,013 1,082 1,024 1,083 1,236 1,134 1,290 1,748 0.79% 1.35% 2.70% Mesa Phoenix-Mesa Gateway 103 108 114 118 114 126 134 129 163 190 0.98% 2.03% 2.70% Nogales Nogales International 35 38 39 39 41 43 43 50 56 56 1.53% 2.03% 2.03% Page Page 76 80 84 81 84 93 87 95 121 103 0.99% 2.03% 1.35% Parker Avi Suquilla 42 44 46 46 46 51 51 53 67 67 1.00% 2.03% 2.03% Payson Payson 86 91 89 92 97 92 98 113 100 117 1.18% 0.68% 1.35% Peach Springs Grand Canyon Caverns 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3.20% 3.20% 3.20% Peach Springs Grand Canyon West 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 2.20% 1.35% 2.70% Peach Springs Hualapai 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3.20% 3.20% 4.05% Peoria Pleasant Valley Phoenix Phoenix Deer Valley Phoenix Phoenix Regional Phoenix Phoenix Sky Harbor Polacca Polacca 35 37 36 40 40 37 46 47 41 65 1.29% 0.68% 2.70% 1,274 1,361 1,408 1,456 1,454 1,557 1,663 1,727 2,021 2,351 1.33% 2.03% 2.70% 11 13 12 13 16 13 16 27 15 27 3.98% 1.35% 4.05% 114 121 118 130 127 122 149 147 133 210 1.12% 0.68% 2.70% 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3.20% 3.20% 3.20% 2.70% Prescott Ernest A. Love Field 336 370 359 384 407 384 439 522 458 620 1.93% 1.35% Rimrock Rimrock 36 39 38 41 42 41 47 50 49 66 1.45% 1.35% 2.70% Safford Safford Regional 41 42 45 44 44 50 47 48 65 56 0.66% 2.03% 1.35% San Luis Rolle Airfield San Manuel San Manuel/Ray/Blair Scottsdale Sedona 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3.20% 3.20% 3.20% 57 60 65 70 64 74 85 74 105 142 1.11% 2.70% 4.05% Scottsdale 447 468 478 511 491 511 583 554 609 825 0.94% 1.35% 2.70% Sedona 104 110 111 119 116 119 136 134 142 192 1.12% 1.35% 2.70% 4-62 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-52: Individual Airport Based Aircraft Forecasts (Continued) Base Year Associated City Airport Name 2007 2012 Low 2017 Medium High Low Medium 2030 High Low 2007-2030 CAGR Medium High Low Medium High Seligman Seligman 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3.20% 3.20% 3.20% Sells Sells 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1.60% 1.35% 2.03% Sierra Vista Sierra Vista Municipal/ LAA 82 87 91 88 93 100 94 108 130 112 1.22% 2.03% 1.35% Show Low Show Low Regional 66 72 73 73 79 81 81 101 105 105 1.87% 2.03% 2.03% Springerville Springerville Municipal 19 20 20 20 21 22 22 23 26 26 0.91% 1.35% 1.35% St Johns St Johns Industrial 15 16 17 16 18 18 17 22 24 20 1.58% 2.03% 1.35% Superior Superior Municipal 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3.20% 3.20% 4.05% Taylor Taylor 14 15 14 15 16 15 17 20 16 22 1.54% 0.68% 2.03% Temple Bar Temple Bar 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3.20% 3.20% 3.20% Tombstone Tombstone Municipal 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 0.69% 1.35% 1.35% Tuba City Tuba City Tucson La Cholla Airpark 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3.20% 3.20% 3.20% 97 102 104 107 106 111 119 120 132 154 0.93% 1.35% 2.03% Tucson Ryan Field 304 315 336 336 326 372 371 356 482 482 0.69% 2.03% 2.03% Tucson Tucson International 308 325 319 340 344 329 376 396 360 488 1.10% 0.68% 2.03% Whiteriver Whiteriver 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3.20% 3.20% 3.20% Whitmore Grand Canyon Bar Ten 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3.20% 3.20% 3.20% Wickenburg Wickenburg Municipal 47 52 50 54 57 54 61 73 64 87 1.94% 1.35% 2.70% Willcox Cochise County 27 28 30 29 29 33 31 32 43 37 0.74% 2.03% 1.35% Williams H.A. Clark Memorial 18 19 20 19 20 22 21 23 29 25 1.06% 2.03% 1.35% Window Rock Window Rock 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 5 5 0.12% 0.68% 1.35% Winslow Winslow-Lindbergh 9 9 9 10 9 10 11 10 11 14 0.41% 0.68% 2.03% Yuma Yuma International 178 195 203 197 214 232 218 272 329 282 1.86% 2.70% 2.03% ARIZONA TOTAL 8,043 8,601 8,758 9,119 9,194 9,524 10,326 11,040 Sources: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008, Arizona Department of Commerce, FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2008-2025 Note: CAGR= compound annual growth rate 11,894 14,325 1.39% 1.72% 2.54% 4-63 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Fleet Mix An airport’s fleet mix is one indication of its operational role and facility needs. Figure 4-53 shows the 2007 general aviation fleet mix in Arizona. Single-engine aircraft account for the majority of all based aircraft, 76 percent of the statewide total. Multi-engine aircraft follow with 11 percent. Helicopters and jet aircraft account for four percent each of the state total. Figure 4-53: Based Aircraft Fleet Mix at Arizona Airports, 2007 Jets 4% Helicopters 4% Gliders 1% Ultralights/Other 1% M ulti-Engine 11% Single Engine 79% Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 A statewide forecast of the based aircraft fleet mix was conducted based on total statewide based aircraft in the preferred forecast, as well as growth rates provided in the FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2008-2025. For this forecast, it was assumed that different types of aircraft would grow at different rates. The FAA projects that jet aircraft will grow at a much faster rate than single- and multi-engine aircraft. Helicopters are also projected to grow at a substantially higher rate, particularly in Arizona due to the volume of helicopter flight training and aerial tours. Figure 4-54 presents the projected based aircraft fleet mix in Arizona. Single-engine aircraft, the largest share of the statewide fleet, are projected to grow at an annual rate of 1.05 percent, reaching over 8,000 aircraft by 2030. Multi-engine aircraft are only projected to grow at a rate of 0.4 percent annually, to a 2030 total of 944 aircraft. Helicopters are projected to increase by nearly five percent each year in the forecast period, to a total of over 900 aircraft. Aircraft seeing the most significant gains are jets, gliders, and ultralight/other aircraft, all with annual forecasted growth rates over six percent for jets and over 5 percent for gliders and ultralight/other. The increased availability of very light jet (VLJ) aircraft is a major factor in jet aircraft being forecasted so high by the FAA. 4-64 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-54: Statewide Fleet Mix Forecast, 2007 to 2030 Aircraft Type Single Engine Multi-Engine Jets Helicopters Gliders Ultralights/Other ARIZONA TOTAL Base Year 2007 6,353 861 358 317 53 101 8,043 2012 6,735 892 487 441 88 112 8,755 Forecasts 2017 2030 7,105 8,078 912 944 645 1,382 558 930 139 193 162 367 9,521 11,894 CAGR 2007-2030 1.05% 0.40% 6.05% 4.80% 5.77% 5.77% 1.72% Sources: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008, FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2008-2025 Note: CAGR= compound annual growth rate Due to different growth rates being applied to different types of aircraft, shares of the statewide total are expected to be different in 2030 than they were in 2007. Figure 4-55 shows the percentage of total Arizona based aircraft for each type in 2030. Single-engine aircraft while still the largest portion, will decrease to 67 percent of the statewide total. Multiengine aircraft will also decrease their share, falling to 8 percent of the total. Jet aircraft are projected to pass up multi-engine aircraft, accounting for 12 percent of the total in 2030. The statewide percentage for helicopters, gliders, and ultralight/other aircraft are also expected to increase over the forecast period. Figure 4-55: Projected Based Aircraft Fleet Mix at Arizona Airports, 2030 Gliders 2% Helicopters 8% Ultralights/Other 3% Jets 12% M ulti-Engine 8% Single Engine 67% Sources: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008, FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2008-2025 4-65 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR General Aviation Aircraft Operation Forecasts Forecasting general aviation aircraft operations (landings and takeoffs) helps to determine whether existing capacity is sufficient to handle future demand. Operations included in these forecasts include air taxi operations and both local and itinerant general aviation operations, but not military or air cargo operations. The general aviation operations forecasts presented in this chapter were produced using three different methodologies, producing low, medium, and high results. Figure 4-56 presents a summary of these three methodologies. Individual airport forecasts were also produced, which are presented later with the selection of a preferred operations forecast methodology. As with based aircraft forecasts, the low, medium, and high forecast results refer to combined state forecasted operations. Operations at individual airports may not reflect these same levels of low, medium, and high forecasts. In the base year of 2007, over 3.8 million general aviation operations were recorded at system airports. Figure 4-56: Summary of General Aviation Operations Forecasts 2007 Base Year Low: Operations Per Based Aircraft Medium: Historic Operations Growth and Industry Trends High: County Population Projections and Industry Trends 2012 Forecast 2017 2030 2007-2030 CAGR 3,842,736 4,166,500 4,520,800 5,661,200 1.70% 3,842,736 4,213,900 4,626,300 5,929,000 1.90% 3,842,736 4,333,200 4,889,400 6,711,900 2.45% Sources: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008, Arizona Department of Commerce, FAA ATAD, FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2008-2025 Notes: Operations may not sum to totals due to rounding;; CAGR= compound annual growth rate Low: Operations Per Based Aircraft The first projection of general aviation operations uses the current ratio of annual noncommercial and non-military operations per based aircraft (OPBA). This is a standard forecasting methodology used by the FAA. This ratio is multiplied by the projected number of based aircraft at each airport (from the preferred based aircraft forecast). This forecast assumes that this ratio of operations per based aircraft will remain constant over the forecast period. Because airports with zero based aircraft were projected to gain them, this forecast also assumes that these airports have one based aircraft in order to create a ratio that can be used to forecast general aviation operations. Figure 4-57 details the OPBA ratio at system airports. The average OPBA ratio at Arizona system airports is one based aircraft to 1,936 operations. Grand Canyon West Airport, with 54,664 OPBA, represents the highest ratio, while Rimrock, with only 17 OPBA, is the lowest. This methodology results in over 5.6 million annual general aviation operations at all system airports by 2030. This represents an annual average growth of 1.70 percent between 2007 and 2030. 4-66 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-57: Operations Per Based Aircraft (OPBA) Ratio at System Airports, 2007-2030 Associated City Aguila Ajo Bagdad Benson Bisbee Buckeye Bullhead City Bullhead City Carefree Casa Grande Chandler Chandler Chandler Chinle Cibecue Clifton/Morenci Colorado City Coolidge Cottonwood Douglas Douglas Douglas Bisbee Eloy Flagstaff Ganado Gila Bend Glendale Globe Goodyear Grand Canyon Grand Canyon Holbrook Kayenta Kearny Kingman Lake Havasu City Marana Marana Marble Canyon Maricopa Meadview Mesa Mesa Nogales Page Parker Payson Peach Springs Airport Name Eagle Roost Eric Marcus Municipal Bagdad Benson Municipal Bisbee Municipal Buckeye Municipal Laughlin/Bullhead International Sun Valley Sky Ranch at Carefree Casa Grande Municipal Chandler Municipal Memorial Airfield Stellar Airpark Chinle Municipal Cibecue Greenlee County Colorado City Municipal Coolidge Municipal Cottonwood Cochise College Douglas Municipal Bisbee Douglas International Eloy Municipal Flagstaff Pulliam Ganado Gila Bend Municipal Glendale Municipal San Carlos Apache Phoenix Goodyear Grand Canyon National Park Grand Canyon Valle Holbrook Municipal Kayenta Kearny Kingman Lake Havasu City Marana Regional Pinal Airpark Marble Canyon Estrella Sailport Pearce Ferry Falcon Field Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Nogales International Page Avi Suquilla Payson Grand Canyon Caverns OPBA 73 63 2,800 171 133 461 731 30 31 703 530 25,000 297 600 1,415 4,380 504 175 396 3,479 407 211 561 299 3,667 354 340 648 95 160 245 4,524 840 207 225 359 7,296 2,585 589 1,100 329 2,770 1,066 288 346 491 1,350 73 4-67 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-57: Operations Per Based Aircraft (OPBA) Ratio at Arizona Airports, 2007-2030 (Continued) Associated City Peach Springs Peach Springs Peoria Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Polacca Prescott Rimrock Safford San Luis San Manuel Scottsdale Sedona Seligman Sells Show Low Sierra Vista Springerville St Johns Superior Taylor Temple Bar Tombstone Tuba City Tucson Tucson Tucson Whiteriver Whitmore Wickenburg Willcox Williams Window Rock Winslow Yuma Airport Name Grand Canyon West Hualapai Pleasant Valley Phoenix Deer Valley Phoenix Regional Phoenix Sky Harbor International Polacca Ernest A. Love Field Rimrock Safford Regional Rolle Airfield San Manuel/Ray/Blair Scottsdale Sedona Seligman Sells Show Low Regional Sierra Vista Municipal/Libby Army Airfield Springerville Municipal St Johns Industrial Air Park Superior Municipal Taylor Temple Bar Tombstone Municipal Tuba City La Cholla Airpark Ryan Field Tucson International Whiteriver Grand Canyon Bar Ten Airstrip Wickenburg Municipal Cochise County H.A. Clark Memorial Field Window Rock Winslow-Lindbergh Regional Yuma International OPBA 54,664 200 1,714 296 1,327 1,119 1,000 663 17 421 2,900 212 428 433 1,100 1,200 450 475 211 933 200 344 1,800 150 910 41 811 596 3,440 1,275 372 271 203 1,750 2,517 455 Sources: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008, FAA ATADs 4-68 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Medium: Historic Operations Growth and Industry Trends This methodology, similar to the preferred based aircraft forecast methodology, uses historic trends to adjust the FAA-forecasted rate of growth for operations nationally. As noted in Figure 4-24, historic general aviation operations at Arizona system airports grew at an average annual rate of 0.37 percent between 1998 and 2007. The FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2008-2025 projects general aviation operations to grow at an annual average rate of 1.31 percent nationwide from 2007 to 2025. Figure 4-58 details how the FAA rate was adjusted for airports in Arizona based on each airport’s historic growth in general aviation operations. These adjusted growth rates were applied to the base year data (2007) in a linear fashion to arrive at forecasted general aviation operations. Statewide, this forecast methodology yields nearly six million general aviation operations by 2030, representing an average annual growth rate of 1.90 percent. Airports for which historic data were not available were grown at the industry rate of 1.31 percent annually.3 Figure 4-58: Categories of Growth in the Medium Operations Forecast Historic Growth Rate ≤-1% -1% to <0.5% 0.5% to <5% 5% to <10% ≥10% Percentage of Industry Rate 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% Adjusted CAGR 0.65% 1.31% 1.96% 2.61% 3.27% Sources: Arizona State Aviation Needs Study 2000, FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2008-2025 Note: CAGR= compound annual growth rate High: County Population Forecasts and Industry Trends This forecast methodology is similar to the high based aircraft methodology It uses projected growth in county population developed by the Arizona Department of Commerce to adjust the FAA’s projected rate of growth for general aviation operations. The FAA Aerospace Forecast growth rate of 1.31 percent is adjusted based on each airport’s projected county population (Figure 4-30). The adjusted growth rates shown in Figure 4-59 were applied to 2007 general aviation operations at a linear rate. Statewide, this methodology has a compound average annual growth rate of 2.45 percent, resulting in a total statewide operations number of over 6.7 million by 2030. Figure 4-59: Categories of Growth in the High Operations Forecast Forecasted County Population Growth Rate ≤0% >0% to 1.5% >1.5% to 2% >2% to 2.5% 4.9% (Pinal County) Percentage of Industry Rate 50% 100% 150% 200% 300% Adjusted CAGR 0.65% 1.31% 1.96% 2.61% 3.92% Sources: Arizona Department of Commerce, FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2008-2025 Note: CAGR= compound annual growth rate Historic data were not available for Grand Canyon West Airport; however, operations were grown at 150% of the industry rate due to rapid growth of the airport and nearby tourist attractions. 3 4-69 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Preferred Operations Forecast As summarized in Figure 4-55, these three forecast methodologies present low, medium, and high results of projected general aviation operations at system airports. Figure 4-60 compares these forecasts to those presented in the SANS 2000. The SANS 2000 projection of general aviation operations was higher than actual 2008 general aviation operations. Figure 4-60: Comparison of SASP General Aviation Operations Forecasts to the SANS 2000 Forecasts (operations in thousands) G en eral Avi at i on O perat i on s ( i n t h ou s an ds ) 7,000 Low Forecast 6,712 Medium Forecast (Preferred) 6,500 High Forecast SANS 2000 Forecast 6,000 5,929 5,661 5,500 5,342 5,000 4,500 4,259 4,000 3,888 3,843 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 3,500 Sources: Wilbur Smith Associates, Arizona State Aviation Needs Study 2000, Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008, Arizona Department of Commerce, FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2008-2025 The forecast showing a medium range of results, based on the historic growth of operations and the FAA-forecasted industry trends, is the preferred long-term forecast. The low forecast, which used a constant OPBA ratio applied to the preferred based aircraft forecast, is viewed as being low, as general aviation operations are likely to grow at a higher rate than based aircraft in a state such as Arizona that accommodates a high level of training activity. The high forecast, having a statewide average annual growth rate of 2.45 percent, is seen as being too high based on current industry trends. Factors such as rising fuel costs will likely prevent general aviation operations levels from reaching this level by 2030. The growth produced by the medium forecast methodology (1.90 percent) is higher than both the FAAforecasted rate (1.31 percent) and the preferred based aircraft forecast. This forecast acknowledges that general aviation operations in Arizona will grow at a slightly more rapid rate than based aircraft and at a faster rate than general aviation operations nationally. Figure 4-61 details the results of each of the methodologies for each airport included in the Arizona State Airports System Plan. 4-70 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-61: Projections of General Aviation Operations at Individual Airports, 2007-2030 Associated City Airport Name Aguila Eagle Roost Ajo Eric Marcus Municipal Bagdad Bagdad Benson Bisbee Buckeye Bullhead City Base Year 2007 Low 2012 Medium High Low 2017 Medium High Low 2030 Medium High Low 2007-2030 CAGR Medium High 3,500 3,700 3,700 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,500 4,800 4,700 6,300 1.35% 1.31% 500 600 500 600 600 500 600 800 600 800 2.03% 0.65% 2.61% 1.96% 14,000 14,500 14,900 15,900 15,000 15,900 18,100 16,300 18,900 25,300 0.68% 1.31% 2.61% Benson Municipal 7,200 8,000 8,500 7,700 8,800 9,900 8,200 11,400 15,100 9,700 2.03% 3.27% 1.31% Bisbee Municipal 4,508 5,200 5,300 4,800 5,900 6,200 5,100 8,300 9,400 6,100 2.70% 3.27% 1.31% Buckeye Municipal 28,562 29,500 32,500 32,500 30,600 37,000 37,000 33,300 51,700 51,700 0.68% 2.61% 2.61% Laughlin/Bullhead Int. 21,936 22,700 22,700 25,000 23,500 23,400 28,400 25,600 25,500 39,700 0.68% 0.65% 2.61% 2.61% Bullhead City Sun Valley 1,000 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,600 1,800 1.35% 1.96% Carefree Sky Ranch at Carefree 3,572 3,700 3,700 4,100 3,800 3,800 4,600 4,200 4,100 6,500 0.68% 0.65% 2.61% Casa Grande Casa Grande Municipal 63,980 70,700 68,300 77,500 78,200 72,800 94,000 101,500 86,200 154,900 2.03% 1.31% 3.92% Chandler Chandler Municipal 264,526 292,400 300,900 300,900 323,300 342,300 342,300 419,700 478,700 478,700 2.03% 2.61% 2.61% Chandler Memorial Airfield 25,000 25,000 26,700 28,400 25,000 28,500 32,400 50,000 33,700 45,200 3.20% 1.31% 2.61% Chandler Stellar Airpark 45,100 48,200 49,700 51,300 51,600 54,800 58,400 61,400 70,500 81,600 1.35% 1.96% 2.61% Chinle Chinle Municipal 2,400 2,700 2,800 2,600 2,900 3,300 2,700 3,800 5,000 3,200 2.03% 3.27% 1.31% Cibecue Cibecue 1,415 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,400 1,600 1,700 2,800 1,900 2,200 3.20% 1.31% 1.96% Clifton/Morenci Greenlee County 8,760 9,100 9,700 9,000 9,400 10,600 9,300 10,200 13,700 10,200 0.68% 1.96% 0.65% Colorado City Colorado City Municipal 3,025 3,100 3,100 3,400 3,200 3,200 3,900 3,500 3,500 5,500 0.68% 0.65% 2.61% Coolidge Coolidge Municipal 5,960 6,800 6,200 7,200 7,800 6,400 8,800 11,000 6,900 14,400 2.70% 0.65% 3.92% Cottonwood Cottonwood 19,400 21,400 20,700 22,100 23,700 22,100 25,100 30,800 26,100 35,100 2.03% 1.31% 2.61% Douglas Cochise College 52,180 55,800 57,500 55,700 59,700 63,400 59,400 71,100 81,500 70,300 1.35% 1.96% 1.31% Douglas Douglas Municipal 11,000 11,400 11,700 11,700 11,800 12,500 12,500 12,800 14,800 14,800 0.68% 1.31% 1.31% Douglas Bisbee Bisbee Douglas Int. 3,800 3,900 3,900 4,100 4,100 4,100 4,300 4,400 4,400 5,100 0.68% 0.65% 1.31% Eloy Eloy Municipal 23,000 25,400 24,500 27,900 28,100 26,200 33,800 36,500 31,000 55,700 2.03% 1.31% 3.92% Flagstaff Flagstaff Pulliam 39,408 42,100 40,700 42,000 45,100 42,100 44,900 53,700 45,800 53,100 1.35% 0.65% 1.31% Gila Bend Gila Bend Municipal 11,000 12,200 12,900 12,500 13,400 15,200 14,200 17,500 23,000 19,900 2.03% 3.27% 2.61% Glendale Glendale Municipal 146,137 161,600 155,900 166,200 178,600 166,400 189,100 231,800 197,000 264,400 2.03% 1.31% 2.61% Globe San Carlos Apache 16,000 17,700 17,100 17,100 19,600 18,200 18,200 25,400 21,600 21,600 2.03% 1.31% 1.31% Goodyear Phoenix Goodyear 178,896 197,800 197,100 203,500 218,700 217,200 231,500 283,800 279,500 323,700 2.03% 1.96% 2.61% Grand Canyon Grand Canyon NP 4,560 4,700 4,700 4,900 4,900 4,900 5,200 5,300 5,300 6,100 0.68% 0.65% 1.31% Grand Canyon Grand Canyon Valle 800 900 900 900 900 900 900 1,100 1,100 1,100 1.35% 1.31% 1.31% Holbrook Holbrook Municipal 4,900 5,400 5,200 5,400 6,000 5,600 5,900 7,800 6,600 7,700 2.03% 1.31% 1.96% Kayenta Kayenta 4,524 4,500 4,800 5,000 4,500 5,200 5,500 9,000 6,100 7,100 3.20% 1.31% 1.96% 4-71 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-61: Projections of General Aviation Operations at Individual Airports, 2007-2030 (Continued) Associated City Airport Name Kearny Kearny Kingman Kingman Base Year 2007 Low 2012 Medium High Low 2017 Medium High Low 2030 Medium High Low 2007-2030 CAGR Medium High 4,200 4,600 4,500 5,100 5,100 4,800 6,200 6,700 5,700 10,200 2.03% 1.31% 3.92% 57,437 63,500 65,300 65,300 70,200 74,300 74,300 91,100 103,900 103,900 2.03% 2.61% 2.61% Lake Havasu City Lake Havasu City 51,514 55,100 55,000 58,600 58,900 58,700 66,700 70,100 69,400 93,200 1.35% 1.31% 2.61% Marana Marana Regional 110,000 121,600 121,200 121,200 134,400 133,600 133,600 174,500 171,900 171,900 2.03% 1.96% 1.96% Marana Pinal Airpark 7,296 7,300 7,500 8,800 7,300 7,800 10,700 14,600 8,500 17,700 3.20% 0.65% 3.92% Marble Canyon Marble Canyon 2,585 2,800 2,800 2,800 3,000 3,100 2,900 3,500 4,000 3,500 1.35% 1.96% 1.31% Maricopa Estrella Sailport 16,500 17,600 17,600 20,000 18,900 18,800 24,200 22,500 22,200 39,900 1.35% 1.31% 3.92% Meadview Pearce Ferry 1,100 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,100 1,300 1,400 2,200 1,500 2,000 3.20% 1.31% 2.61% Mesa Falcon Field 311,691 333,300 343,400 354,600 356,500 378,400 403,400 424,400 487,000 564,000 1.35% 1.96% 2.61% Mesa Phoenix-Mesa Gateway 285,334 315,400 324,600 324,600 348,700 369,300 369,300 452,700 516,300 516,300 2.03% 2.61% 2.61% Nogales Nogales International 37,300 41,200 42,400 41,100 45,600 48,300 45,300 59,200 67,500 58,300 2.03% 2.61% 1.96% Page Page 21,882 24,200 22,600 23,300 26,700 23,400 24,900 34,700 25,400 29,500 2.03% 0.65% 1.31% Parker Avi Suquilla 14,520 16,100 15,500 16,000 17,700 16,500 17,600 23,000 19,600 22,700 2.03% 1.31% 1.96% Payson Payson 42,250 43,700 48,100 45,100 45,200 54,700 48,100 49,300 76,500 56,900 0.68% 2.61% 1.31% Peach Springs Grand Canyon Caverns Peach Springs Grand Canyon West Peach Springs Hualapai Peoria Pleasant Valley Phoenix Phoenix Deer Valley Phoenix Phoenix Regional Phoenix Phoenix Sky Harbor Int. Polacca Polacca Prescott Ernest A. Love Field Rimrock Rimrock Safford Safford Regional San Luis Rolle Airfield San Manuel San Manuel/Ray/Blair Scottsdale Scottsdale 1,350 1,400 1,500 1,400 1,400 1,700 1,500 2,700 2,400 1,800 3.20% 2.61% 1.31% 109,328 116,900 120,500 124,400 125,000 132,700 141,500 148,900 170,800 197,800 1.35% 1.96% 2.61% 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 400 200 300 3.20% 0.65% 1.31% 60,000 62,100 66,100 68,300 64,200 72,800 77,600 70,100 93,700 108,600 0.68% 1.96% 2.61% 377,696 417,600 416,200 429,700 461,600 458,600 488,800 599,200 590,100 683,500 2.03% 1.96% 2.61% 14,600 15,600 15,600 17,700 16,700 16,600 21,400 19,900 19,700 35,300 1.35% 1.31% 3.92% 127,563 131,900 131,800 145,100 136,400 136,100 165,100 148,900 148,200 230,800 0.68% 0.65% 2.61% 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,100 1,000 1,100 1,200 2,000 1,200 1,600 3.20% 0.65% 1.96% 222,804 238,300 230,200 253,500 254,800 237,800 288,300 303,400 258,800 403,200 1.35% 0.65% 2.61% 2.61% 600 600 600 700 700 700 800 800 800 1,100 1.35% 1.31% 17,250 19,100 19,000 18,400 21,100 20,900 19,600 27,400 27,000 23,200 2.03% 1.96% 1.31% 2,900 2,900 3,000 3,200 2,900 3,100 3,500 5,800 3,400 4,500 3.20% 0.65% 1.96% 12,080 13,800 14,200 14,600 15,800 16,700 17,700 22,300 25,300 29,200 2.70% 3.27% 3.92% 191,503 204,800 211,000 217,900 219,000 232,500 247,800 260,800 299,200 346,500 1.35% 1.96% 2.61% 2.61% Sedona Sedona 45,000 48,100 49,600 51,200 51,500 54,600 58,200 61,300 70,300 81,400 1.35% 1.96% Seligman Seligman 1,100 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,100 1,300 1,400 2,200 1,500 2,000 3.20% 1.31% 2.61% Sells Sells 1,200 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,400 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,600 1,900 1.35% 1.31% 1.96% Show Low Show Low Regional 40,060 44,300 44,100 44,100 49,000 48,600 48,600 63,600 62,600 62,600 2.03% 1.96% 1.96% Sierra Vista Sierra Vista Municipal/LAA 38,987 43,100 44,400 41,600 47,700 50,500 44,400 61,900 70,500 52,500 2.03% 2.61% 1.31% Springerville Springerville Municipal 4,000 4,300 4,100 4,300 4,600 4,300 4,600 5,400 4,600 5,400 1.35% 0.65% 1.31% 4-72 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-61: Projections of General Aviation Operations at Individual Airports, 2007-2030 (Continued) Base Year Superior Superior Municipal 200 200 200 200 200 200 300 400 200 500 3.20% 0.65% 3.92% Taylor Taylor 4,810 5,000 5,100 5,300 5,100 5,500 5,800 5,600 6,500 7,500 0.68% 1.31% 1.96% Temple Bar Temple Bar 1,800 1,800 1,900 2,000 1,800 2,000 2,300 3,600 2,400 3,300 3.20% 1.31% 2.61% Tombstone Tombstone Municipal 300 300 300 300 300 400 300 400 500 400 1.35% 1.96% 1.31% Tuba City Tuba City 910 900 900 1,000 900 1,000 1,000 1,800 1,100 1,200 3.20% 0.65% 1.31% Tucson La Cholla Airpark 4,000 4,300 4,300 4,400 4,600 4,600 4,900 5,400 5,400 6,200 1.35% 1.31% 1.96% Tucson Ryan Field 246,438 272,400 280,400 271,500 301,200 318,900 299,200 391,000 445,900 385,000 2.03% 2.61% 1.96% Tucson Tucson International 183,512 189,800 189,600 202,200 196,300 195,900 222,800 214,300 213,100 286,700 0.68% 0.65% 1.96% Whiteriver Whiteriver 3,440 3,400 3,600 3,800 3,400 3,700 4,200 6,900 4,000 5,400 3.20% 0.65% 1.96% Whitmore Grand Canyon Bar Ten 1,275 1,300 1,300 1,500 1,300 1,400 1,700 2,600 1,500 2,300 3.20% 0.65% 2.61% Wickenburg Wickenburg Municipal 17,500 18,700 20,500 19,900 20,000 24,100 22,600 23,800 36,600 31,700 1.35% 3.27% 2.61% Willcox Cochise County 7,310 8,100 7,800 7,800 8,900 8,300 8,300 11,600 9,900 9,900 2.03% 1.31% 1.31% Williams H.A. Clark Memorial 3,650 4,000 3,900 3,900 4,500 4,200 4,200 5,800 4,900 4,900 2.03% 1.31% 1.31% Window Rock Window Rock 7,000 7,200 8,200 7,500 7,500 9,700 8,000 8,200 14,700 9,400 0.68% 3.27% 1.31% Winslow Winslow-Lindbergh 22,650 23,400 23,400 25,000 24,200 24,200 27,500 26,400 26,300 35,400 0.68% 0.65% 1.96% Yuma Yuma International 80,944 92,500 92,100 89,200 105,700 104,800 98,300 149,500 146,500 126,500 2.70% 2.61% 1.96% 3,842,736 4,166,500 4,213,900 4,333,200 4,520,800 4,626,300 4,889,400 5,661,200 5,929,000 6,711,900 1.70% 1.90% 2.45% 14,900 High 14,900 Low Medium 17,100 15,900 High Low 15,900 22,200 Medium 2007-2030 CAGR St Johns Industrial 15,500 Medium 2030 St Johns 14,000 Low 2017 Airport Name ARIZONA TOTAL 2007 2012 Associated City 18,900 High 18,900 Low 2.03% Medium 1.31% Sources: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008, Arizona Department of Commerce, FAA ATAD, FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2008-2025 Note: Operations may not sum to totals due to rounding 4-73 High 1.31% 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Local/Itinerant Split The FAA defines local general aviation operations as those performed by aircraft that: • Operate in the local traffic pattern or within sight of an airport, • Are known to be departing for or arriving from flight in local practice areas within a 20-mile radium of the airport, or • Are executing practice instrument approaches. All other operations are considered itinerant. A split of local and iterant operations was obtained from air traffic control towers and the Airport Inventory and Data Survey. It is assumed that the split between local and itinerant operations will remain constant for each airport throughout the study period. Statewide, approximately 53 percent of all general aviation operations are considered local, while the remaining 47 percent are itinerant. Figure 4-62 details the 2007 local/itinerant split of general aviation operations for each system airport, and a projection of general aviation operations. 4-74 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-62: Local/Itinerant Split of General Aviation Operations 2007 Associated City Aguila Ajo Bagdad Benson Bisbee Buckeye Bullhead City Bullhead City Carefree Casa Grande Chandler Chandler Chandler Chinle Cibecue Clifton/Morenci Colorado City Coolidge Cottonwood Douglas Douglas Douglas Bisbee Eloy Flagstaff Gila Bend Glendale Globe Goodyear Grand Canyon Grand Canyon Holbrook Kayenta Kearny Kingman Lake Havasu City Marana Marana Marble Canyon Maricopa Meadview Mesa Mesa Nogales Page Parker Payson Airport Name Eagle Roost Eric Marcus Municipal Bagdad Benson Municipal Bisbee Municipal Buckeye Municipal Laughlin/Bullhead International Sun Valley Sky Ranch at Carefree Casa Grande Municipal Chandler Municipal Memorial Airfield Stellar Airpark Chinle Municipal Cibecue Greenlee County Colorado City Municipal Coolidge Municipal Cottonwood Cochise College Douglas Municipal Bisbee Douglas International Eloy Municipal Flagstaff Pulliam Gila Bend Municipal Glendale Municipal San Carlos Apache Phoenix Goodyear Grand Canyon National Park Grand Canyon Valle Holbrook Municipal Kayenta Kearny Kingman Lake Havasu City Marana Regional Pinal Airpark Marble Canyon Estrella Sailport Pearce Ferry Falcon Field Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Nogales International Page Avi Suquilla Payson 2007 Total 3,500 500 14,000 7,200 4,508 28,562 21,936 1,000 3,572 63,980 264,526 25,000 45,100 2,400 1,415 8,760 3,025 5,960 19,400 52,180 11,000 3,800 23,000 39,408 11,000 146,137 16,000 178,896 4,560 800 4,900 4,524 4,200 57,437 51,514 110,000 7,296 2,585 16,500 1,100 311,691 285,334 37,300 21,882 14,520 42,250 Local 3,500 200 5,000 1,772 3,156 19,137 4,738 1,000 3,392 52,400 175,147 20,000 35,000 800 415 1,460 1,000 160 9,000 480 2,500 3,000 15,000 7,403 8,000 102,384 12,000 91,480 859 200 1,000 20 3,000 33,880 26,000 75,000 7,025 125 16,000 0 170,026 188,334 22,000 600 2,000 25,000 Split Itinerant 0 300 9,000 5,428 1,352 9,425 17,198 0 180 11,580 89,379 5,000 10,100 1,600 1,000 7,300 2,025 5,800 10,400 51,700 8,500 800 8,000 32,005 3,000 43,753 4,000 87,416 3,701 600 3,900 4,504 1,200 23,557 25,514 35,000 271 2,460 500 1,100 141,665 97,000 15,300 21,282 12,520 17,250 Local Share 100.0% 40.0% 35.7% 24.6% 70.0% 67.0% 21.6% 100.0% 95.0% 81.9% 66.2% 80.0% 77.6% 33.3% 29.3% 16.7% 33.1% 2.7% 46.4% 0.9% 22.7% 78.9% 65.2% 18.8% 72.7% 70.1% 75.0% 51.1% 18.8% 25.0% 20.4% 0.4% 71.4% 59.0% 50.5% 68.2% 96.3% 4.8% 97.0% 0.0% 54.5% 66.0% 59.0% 2.7% 13.8% 59.2% Itinerant Share 0.0% 60.0% 64.3% 75.4% 30.0% 33.0% 78.4% 0.0% 5.0% 18.1% 33.8% 20.0% 22.4% 66.7% 70.7% 83.3% 66.9% 97.3% 53.6% 99.1% 77.3% 21.1% 34.8% 81.2% 27.3% 29.9% 25.0% 48.9% 81.2% 75.0% 79.6% 99.6% 28.6% 41.0% 49.5% 31.8% 3.7% 95.2% 3.0% 100.0% 45.5% 34.0% 41.0% 97.3% 86.2% 40.8% 2012 Local 3,700 200 5,300 2,100 3,700 21,800 4,900 1,100 3,500 55,900 199,200 21,300 38,600 900 400 1,600 1,000 200 9,600 500 2,700 3,100 16,000 7,600 9,400 109,200 12,800 100,800 900 200 1,100 20 3,200 38,500 27,700 82,600 7,300 100 17,100 0 187,300 214,300 25,000 600 2,100 28,400 2017 Itinerant 0 300 9,600 6,400 1,600 10,700 17,800 0 200 12,400 101,700 5,300 11,100 1,900 1,100 8,000 2,100 6,000 11,100 57,000 9,100 800 8,500 33,100 3,500 46,700 4,300 96,300 3,800 600 4,200 4,800 1,300 26,800 27,200 38,600 300 2,700 500 1,200 156,100 110,300 17,400 22,000 13,400 19,600 Local 4,000 200 5,700 2,400 4,400 24,800 5,100 1,200 3,600 59,700 226,700 22,800 42,500 1,100 500 1,800 1,100 200 10,200 600 2,800 3,200 17,100 7,900 11,000 116,600 13,700 111,100 900 200 1,100 20 3,400 43,800 29,600 91,100 7,500 200 18,200 0 206,400 243,700 28,500 600 2,300 32,400 2030 Itinerant 0 300 10,200 7,500 1,900 12,200 18,400 0 200 13,200 115,700 5,700 12,300 2,200 1,100 8,900 2,200 6,200 11,800 62,800 9,700 900 9,100 34,200 4,100 49,800 4,600 106,100 3,900 700 4,400 5,100 1,400 30,500 29,000 42,500 300 3,000 600 1,300 172,000 125,500 19,800 22,700 14,300 22,300 Local 4,700 200 6,700 3,700 6,600 34,600 5,500 1,600 3,900 70,600 316,900 27,000 54,700 1,700 600 2,300 1,200 200 12,100 700 3,400 3,500 20,200 8,600 16,800 138,000 16,200 142,900 1,000 300 1,300 30 4,000 61,300 35,000 117,200 8,200 200 21,600 0 265,700 340,800 39,800 700 2,700 45,200 Itinerant 0 300 12,100 11,400 2,800 17,100 20,000 0 200 15,600 161,700 6,700 15,800 3,400 1,300 11,400 2,400 6,700 14,000 80,800 11,500 900 10,800 37,200 6,300 59,000 5,400 136,600 4,300 800 5,300 6,100 1,600 42,600 34,400 54,700 300 3,800 700 1,500 221,300 175,500 27,700 24,700 16,900 31,200 4-75 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-62: Local/Itinerant Split of General Aviation Operations (Continued) 2007 Associated City Peach Springs Peach Springs Peach Springs Peoria Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Polacca Prescott Rimrock Safford San Luis San Manuel Scottsdale Sedona Seligman Sells Show Low Sierra Vista Springerville St Johns Superior Taylor Temple Bar Tombstone Tuba City Tucson Tucson Tucson Whiteriver Whitmore Wickenburg Willcox Williams Window Rock Winslow Yuma ARIZONA TOTAL Airport Name Grand Canyon Caverns Grand Canyon West Hualapai Pleasant Valley Phoenix Deer Valley Phoenix Regional Phoenix Sky Harbor International Polacca Ernest A. Love Field Rimrock Safford Regional Rolle Airfield San Manuel/Ray/Blair Scottsdale Sedona Seligman Sells Show Low Regional Sierra Vista Municipal/LAA Springerville Municipal St Johns Industrial Air Park Superior Municipal Taylor Temple Bar Tombstone Municipal Tuba City La Cholla Airpark Ryan Field Tucson International Whiteriver Grand Canyon Bar Ten Airstrip Wickenburg Municipal Cochise County H.A. Clark Memorial Field Window Rock Winslow-Lindbergh Regional Yuma International Airport 2007 Total 1,350 109,328 200 60,000 377,696 14,600 127,563 1,000 222,804 600 17,250 2,900 12,080 191,503 45,000 1,100 1,200 40,060 38,987 4,000 14,000 200 4,810 1,800 300 910 4,000 246,438 183,512 3,440 1,275 17,500 7,310 3,650 7,000 22,650 80,944 0 0 100 60,000 236,472 10,950 9,379 100 141,525 500 3,650 2,900 5,000 58,129 10,000 500 0 7,000 31,526 820 3,000 0 3,000 0 0 45 4,000 171,410 80,684 850 0 9,800 510 360 1,500 4,000 36,425 3,842,736 2,051,040 Local Split Itinerant 1,350 109,328 100 0 141,224 3,650 118,184 900 81,279 100 13,600 0 7,080 133,374 35,000 600 1,200 33,060 7,461 3,180 11,000 200 1,810 1,800 300 865 0 75,028 102,828 2,590 1,275 7,700 6,800 3,290 5,500 18,650 44,519 1,791,696 2012 Local Share 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0% 62.6% 75.0% 7.4% 10.0% 63.5% 83.3% 21.2% 100.0% 41.4% 30.4% 22.2% 45.5% 0.0% 17.5% 80.9% 20.5% 21.4% 0.0% 62.4% 0.0% 0.0% 4.9% 100.0% 69.6% 44.0% 24.7% 0.0% 56.0% 7.0% 9.9% 21.4% 17.7% 45.0% Itinerant Share 100.0% 100.0% 50.0% 0.0% 37.4% 25.0% 92.6% 90.0% 36.5% 16.7% 78.8% 0.0% 58.6% 69.6% 77.8% 54.5% 100.0% 82.5% 19.1% 79.5% 78.6% 100.0% 37.6% 100.0% 100.0% 95.1% 0.0% 30.4% 56.0% 75.3% 100.0% 44.0% 93.0% 90.1% 78.6% 82.3% 55.0% 53.4% 46.6% Local 2017 Local 2030 0 0 100 66,100 260,600 11,700 9,700 100 146,200 500 4,000 3,000 5,900 64,100 11,000 500 0 7,700 35,900 800 3,200 0 3,200 0 0 50 4,300 195,000 83,400 900 0 11,500 500 400 1,800 4,100 41,400 Itinerant 1,500 120,500 100 0 155,600 3,900 122,100 900 84,000 100 15,000 0 8,300 147,000 38,600 600 1,300 36,400 8,500 3,300 11,700 200 1,900 1,900 300 900 0 85,400 106,200 2,700 1,300 9,000 7,300 3,500 6,500 19,300 50,600 0 0 100 72,800 287,100 12,500 10,000 100 151,000 600 4,400 3,100 6,900 70,600 12,100 600 0 8,500 40,800 900 3,400 0 3,400 0 0 50 4,600 221,800 86,100 900 0 13,500 600 400 2,100 4,300 47,100 Itinerant 1,700 132,700 100 0 171,500 4,200 126,100 1,000 86,700 100 16,500 0 9,800 161,900 42,500 700 1,400 40,100 9,700 3,400 12,500 200 2,100 2,000 400 900 0 97,100 109,700 2,800 1,400 10,600 7,700 3,700 7,600 19,900 57,600 Local 0 0 100 93,700 369,500 14,800 10,900 100 164,400 700 5,700 3,400 10,500 90,800 15,600 700 0 10,900 57,000 1,000 4,000 0 4,000 0 0 50 5,400 310,200 93,700 1,000 0 20,500 700 500 3,100 4,600 65,900 Itinerant 2,400 170,800 100 0 220,700 4,900 137,300 1,000 94,400 100 21,200 0 14,800 208,400 54,700 800 1,600 51,700 13,500 3,700 14,800 200 2,400 2,400 500 1,000 0 135,800 119,400 3,000 1,500 16,100 9,200 4,400 11,500 21,700 80,600 2,249,200 1,964,800 2,469,300 2,157,100 3,164,600 2,764,400 Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008, Arizona Department of Commerce, FAA ATAD, FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2008-2025 Note: Operations may not sum to totals due to rounding 4-76 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Projections of Military Activity at Civilian Airports During the base year of 2007, 47 Arizona civilian airports recorded military operations (Figure 4-63). The two Arizona military joint use airports account for the majority of military aviation activity. During 2007, Sierra Vista Municipal recorded 116,850 military operations, and Yuma International recorded 109,502. Together these two airports account for approximately 70 percent of all military aviation activity at civilian airports in the state. The airport with the next largest number of military operations in 2007 is Tucson International, recording 31,526 military operations. For the purpose of this study, it is assumed that military operations recorded in 2007 will remain constant throughout the study period. Therefore, operations in the out-year of 2030 will be the same as that during 2007. Figure 4-63: Military Operations at Arizona Airports, 2007-2030 Associated City Ajo Benson Buckeye Bullhead City Chandler Chandler Colorado City Coolidge Cottonwood Douglas Douglas Douglas Bisbee Eloy Flagstaff Gila Bend Glendale Globe Goodyear Grand Canyon Kingman Lake Havasu City Marana Marana Mesa Mesa Nogales Page Payson Phoenix Phoenix Prescott Safford San Luis San Manuel Scottsdale Airport Name Eric Marcus Municipal Benson Municipal Buckeye Municipal Laughlin/Bullhead International Chandler Municipal Memorial Airfield Colorado City Municipal Coolidge Municipal Cottonwood Cochise College Douglas Municipal Bisbee Douglas International Eloy Municipal Flagstaff Pulliam Gila Bend Municipal Glendale Municipal San Carlos Apache Phoenix Goodyear Grand Canyon National Park Kingman Lake Havasu City Marana Regional Pinal Airpark Falcon Field Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Nogales International Page Payson Phoenix Deer Valley Phoenix Sky Harbor International Ernest A. Love Field Safford Regional Rolle Airfield San Manuel/Ray/Blair Scottsdale Annual Military Operations (Constant 2007 to 2030) 100 1,000 100 325 686 500 25 40 10 3,000 100 1,500 100 1,172 10 71 200 9,029 1,172 240 140 2,000 3,332 2,418 2,800 60 250 653 3,007 9,380 1,917 1,500 2,000 1,000 479 4-77 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-63: Military Operations at Arizona Airports, 2007-2030 (Continued) Associated City Sedona Sells Show Low Sierra Vista Springerville St Johns Tucson Tucson Wickenburg Willcox Winslow Yuma Arizona Total Airport Name Sedona Sells Show Low Regional Sierra Vista Municipal/Libby Army Airfield Springerville Municipal St Johns Industrial Air Park Ryan Field Tucson International Wickenburg Municipal Cochise County Winslow-Lindbergh Regional Yuma International Annual Military Operations (Constant 2007 to 2030) 5,000 10 300 116,850 100 1,000 2,978 31,526 500 550 5,000 109,502 323,632 Sources: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008, FAA ATADS Operational Mix An operational mix looks at how each airport’s aviation operations are spread between types of aviation activity. In this study, three main types of operations were forecasted to the year 2030: commercial service, general aviation, and military. Cargo operations and air taxi operations are included in general aviation in this operational mix. Figure 4-64 details the 2007 and forecasted 2030 operational mix for each airport. Thirty-three of Arizona’s system airports report only general aviation operations, leading to general aviation operations accounting for 81 percent of the state total. Commercial operations (both scheduled and unscheduled air tour) account for 13 percent and military operations the remaining seven percent. In 2030, general aviation operations are projected to maintain 81 percent of the state total operations. Commercial service operations are forecasted to increase to 15 percent of the total, while military operations drop to four percent. 4-78 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-64: Operational Mix at Arizona Airports, 2007-2030 Base Year 2007 Associated City Airport Name Aguila Ajo Bagdad Benson Bisbee Buckeye Bullhead City Bullhead City Carefree Casa Grande Chandler Chandler Chandler Chinle Cibecue Clifton/Morenci Colorado City Coolidge Cottonwood Douglas Douglas Douglas Bisbee Eloy Flagstaff Gila Bend Glendale Globe Goodyear Grand Canyon Grand Canyon Holbrook Kayenta Kearny Kingman Lake Havasu City Marana Eagle Roost Eric Marcus Municipal Bagdad Benson Municipal Bisbee Municipal Buckeye Municipal Laughlin/Bullhead International Sun Valley Sky Ranch at Carefree Casa Grande Municipal Chandler Municipal Memorial Airfield Stellar Airpark Chinle Municipal Cibecue Greenlee County Colorado City Municipal Coolidge Municipal Cottonwood Cochise College Douglas Municipal Bisbee Douglas International Eloy Municipal Flagstaff Pulliam Gila Bend Municipal Glendale Municipal San Carlos Apache Phoenix Goodyear Grand Canyon National Park Grand Canyon Valle Holbrook Municipal Kayenta Kearny Kingman Lake Havasu City Marana Regional Commercial Service General Aviation 0 0 0 0 0 0 900 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,200 0 0 0 0 95,184 0 0 0 0 1,200 0 0 3,500 500 14,000 7,200 4,508 28,562 21,936 1,000 3,572 63,980 264,526 25,000 45,100 2,400 1,415 8,760 3,025 5,960 19,400 52,180 11,000 3,800 23,000 39,408 11,000 146,137 16,000 178,896 4,560 800 4,900 4,524 4,200 57,437 51,514 110,000 Forecast Year 2030 Military Total Airport Operations Commercial Service General Aviation Military Total Airport Operations 0 100 0 1,000 4 100 325 0 1 0 686 500 0 0 0 0 25 40 10 3,000 100 1,500 100 1,172 10 71 200 9,029 1,172 0 0 0 0 240 140 2,000 3,500 600 14,000 8,200 4,512 28,662 23,161 1,000 3,573 63,980 265,212 25,500 45,100 2,400 1,415 8,760 3,050 6,000 19,410 55,180 11,100 5,300 23,100 44,780 11,010 146,208 16,200 187,925 100,916 800 4,900 4,524 4,200 58,877 51,654 112,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,500 0 0 0 0 146,700 0 0 0 0 1,500 0 0 4,717 581 18,869 15,076 9,439 51,685 25,479 1,562 4,149 86,231 478,680 33,694 70,466 5,025 1,907 13,687 3,514 6,923 26,147 81,528 14,826 4,414 30,999 45,772 23,032 196,960 21,564 279,514 5,296 1,078 6,604 6,097 5,661 103,937 69,429 171,868 0 100 0 1,000 4 100 325 0 1 0 686 500 0 0 0 0 25 40 10 3,000 100 1,500 100 1,172 10 71 200 9,029 1,172 0 0 0 0 240 140 2,000 4,717 681 18,869 16,076 9,443 51,785 27,204 1,562 4,150 86,231 479,366 34,194 70,466 5,025 1,907 13,687 3,539 6,963 26,157 84,528 14,926 5,914 31,099 55,444 23,042 197,031 21,764 288,543 153,168 1,078 6,604 6,097 5,661 105,677 69,569 173,868 4-79 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-64: Operational Mix at Arizona Airports, 2007-2030 (Continued) Base Year 2007 Associated City Airport Name Marana Marble Canyon Maricopa Meadview Mesa Mesa Nogales Page Parker Payson Peach Springs Peach Springs Peach Springs Peoria Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Polacca Prescott Rimrock Safford San Luis San Manuel Scottsdale Sedona Seligman Sells Show Low Sierra Vista Springerville St Johns Superior Taylor Temple Bar Tombstone Pinal Airpark Marble Canyon Estrella Sailport Pearce Ferry Falcon Field Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Nogales International Page Avi Suquilla Payson Grand Canyon Caverns Grand Canyon West Hualapai Pleasant Valley Phoenix Deer Valley Phoenix Regional Phoenix Sky Harbor International Polacca Ernest A. Love Field Rimrock Safford Regional Rolle Airfield San Manuel/Ray/Blair Scottsdale Sedona Seligman Sells Show Low Regional Sierra Vista Municipal/LAA Springerville Municipal St Johns Industrial Air Park Superior Municipal Taylor Temple Bar Tombstone Municipal Commercial Service General Aviation 0 0 0 0 0 2,500 0 31,280 0 0 0 10,700 0 0 0 0 473,300 0 2,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,296 2,585 16,500 1,100 311,691 285,334 37,300 21,882 14,520 42,250 1,350 109,328 200 60,000 377,696 14,600 127,563 1,000 222,804 600 17,250 2,900 12,080 191,503 45,000 1,100 1,200 29,678 38,987 4,000 14,000 200 4,810 1,800 300 Forecast Year 2030 Military Total Airport Operations Commercial Service General Aviation Military Total Airport Operations 3,332 0 0 0 2,418 9,380 2,800 60 0 250 0 0 0 0 653 0 3,007 0 1,917 0 1,500 2,000 1,000 479 5,000 0 10 200 116,850 100 1,000 0 0 0 0 10,628 2,585 16,500 1,100 314,109 297,214 40,100 53,222 14,520 42,500 1,350 120,028 200 60,000 378,349 14,600 603,870 1,000 227,521 600 18,750 4,900 13,080 191,982 50,000 1,100 1,210 31,278 155,837 4,100 15,000 200 4,810 1,800 300 0 0 0 0 0 5,600 0 47,000 0 0 0 16,500 0 0 0 0 752,500 0 8,300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,474 4,039 22,238 1,483 486,997 516,333 67,497 25,416 19,570 76,455 2,443 170,818 232 93,746 590,126 19,678 148,165 1,162 258,787 809 26,952 3,368 25,294 299,211 70,310 1,483 1,617 46,370 70,550 4,646 18,869 232 6,483 2,426 469 3,332 0 0 0 2,418 9,380 2,800 60 0 250 0 0 0 0 653 0 3,007 0 1,917 0 1,500 2,000 1,000 479 5,000 0 10 200 116,850 100 1,000 0 0 0 0 11,806 4,039 22,238 1,483 489,415 531,313 70,297 72,476 19,570 76,705 2,443 187,318 232 93,746 590,779 19,678 903,672 1,162 269,004 809 28,452 5,368 26,294 299,690 75,310 1,483 1,627 47,970 187,400 4,746 19,869 232 6,483 2,426 469 4-80 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-64: Operational Mix at Arizona Airports, 2007-2030 (Continued) Base Year 2007 Military Commercial Service General Aviation Military Total Airport Operations 0 0 2,978 31,526 0 0 500 550 0 0 5,000 109,502 910 4,000 249,416 256,438 3,440 1,275 18,000 7,860 3,650 7,000 27,650 200,946 0 0 0 62,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,000 1,057 5,391 445,948 213,149 3,996 1,481 36,642 9,852 4,919 14,657 26,308 146,474 0 0 2,978 31,526 0 0 500 550 0 0 5,000 109,502 1,057 5,391 448,926 307,075 3,996 1,481 37,142 10,402 4,919 14,657 31,308 270,976 ARIZONA TOTAL 675,364 3,842,736 323,537 4,841,637 1,066,800 Sources: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008, Arizona Department of Commerce, FAA ATAD, FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2008-2025 5,929,031 323,537 7,319,368 Airport Name Tuba City Tucson Tucson Tucson Whiteriver Whitmore Wickenburg Willcox Williams Window Rock Winslow Yuma Tuba City La Cholla Airpark Ryan Field Tucson International Whiteriver Grand Canyon Bar Ten Airstrip Wickenburg Municipal Cochise County H.A. Clark Memorial Field Window Rock Winslow-Lindbergh Regional Yuma International Airport General Aviation 0 0 0 41,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,500 910 4,000 246,438 183,512 3,440 1,275 17,500 7,310 3,650 7,000 22,650 80,944 Forecast Year 2030 Total Airport Operations Associated City Commercial Service 4-81 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Possible Impacts of Economic Conditions on Arizona’s Aviation Activity It is unknown what short and longer term effects the current economic downturn may have on aviation activity and the number of based aircraft in Arizona as well as throughout the U.S. Based on this uncertainty, the impact of a 10, 20, and 30 percent variance in the growth of statewide based aircraft and general aviation operations was developed. This analysis provides some insight on a range of activity if Arizona continues to feel the impact of the economic downturn. It is not possible to predict the impact of the economic downturn on each individual airport for the purposes of this study. As shown in Figure 4-65, the 2030 projections of based aircraft in the state could range from a low of 11,140 if 30 percent less growth occurred to 11,613 based aircraft if 10 percent less growth occurred. This compares to 11,849 based aircraft in 2030 developed under the preferred aircraft scenario. Figure 4-65: Impact of Economic Conditions on Preferred Based Aircraft Projections 12,000 11,500 Preferred Based Aircraft Projections 10% variance 11,000 20% variance 10,500 B a se d Ai r cr a ft 11,892 11,655 11,465 11,181 30% variance 10,000 9,500 9,000 8,500 8,000 2030 2029 2028 2027 2026 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 7,500 Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Figure 4-66 presents the similar possible impact on general aviation operations. If the growth was 10 percent less than the preferred general aviation projections developed in this chapter, general aviation operations would reach just 5.81 million by 2030 compared to 5.93 million. If the projection of growth was 30 percent compromised by the economic downturn, general aviation operations could reach just 5.55 million per year by 2030. 4-82 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-66: Impact of Economic Conditions on Preferred General Aviation Operations Projections Ge ne r a l A vi a ti o n Ope r a ti o ns (i n mi l l i o ns) 6.5 Preferred GA Operations Projections 6.0 5.93 5.8 5.67 5.54 10% variance 20% variance 5.5 30% variance 5.0 4.5 4.0 2030 2029 2028 2027 2026 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 3.5 Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Operations and Based Aircraft at NPIAS and Non-NPIAS Airports Fifty-seven of the 83 airports included in the SASP are included in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). Figure 4-67 presents the share of projected general aviation operations and based aircraft for which NPIAS airports and non-NPIAS airports account. In 2030, NPIAS airports account for 92 percent of both based aircraft and general aviation operations, while Non-NPIAS airports account for the remaining eight percent. Figure 4-67: Forecasted Based Aircraft and General Aviation Operations at NPIAS and Non-NPIAS Airports 2030 Based Aircraft 2030 Operations 8% 8% 92% 92% Source: Wilbur Smith Associates 4-83 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR System Plan Forecasts vs. FAA TAF and Airport Master Plans The forecasts developed in this chapter are not the only projections created for Arizona’s airports. Many of the airports included in the Arizona State Airports System Plan conduct master plans which include projections of activity and based aircraft. Forecasts in master plans were only included if the master plan was written since 2003. The FAA, as part of the Terminal Area Forecasts (TAF), also develops projections of activity and based aircraft for many individual airports, some of which are included in the NPIAS. A total of 59 airports included in the system plan also have operations and based aircraft forecasted developed by the FAA in the TAF. Many of these forecasts show zero growth. If an airport has no air traffic control tower or has data that is not completely reliable, the FAA will forecast no growth in activity and based aircraft. The following sections discuss the difference between system plan, individual airport master plans, and the FAA TAF projections. In most of the individual airport master plans the out-year time horizon was before 2030. Therefore, the projected average annual growth rate in these plans was used to extrapolate the out-year horizon numbers to 2030. Based Aircraft Figure 4-68 details differences between the SASP preferred forecast of based aircraft and projections in the TAF and airport master plans. Of the 59 system airports included in the FAA TAF, 44 are projected to show no increase in their based aircraft through 2026 due to the unavailability of data and the FAA’s limited confidence in their ability to project based aircraft at these airports. Of these, differences between the preferred forecast and the TAF vary greatly. Year 2030 results for some are very similar, such as only a two percent difference in 2030 based aircraft at Flagstaff-Pulliam or only a four percent difference at Laughlin/Bullhead International. Others showed a much larger variance. In the FAA TAF, based aircraft at Phoenix Sky Harbor are expected to reach 176 by 2030, 75 percent higher than the preferred forecast in this plan. In all, the TAF based aircraft forecasts for seven airports showed at least a 10 percent difference from the preferred forecast. Thirty-seven system plan airports also have master plans completed or in draft since 2003 that include forecasts of based aircraft. The majority of master plan projections showed results far higher than the SASP preferred based aircraft forecast. Only 2030 based aircraft in the Flagstaff-Pulliam, Cottonwood, Ryan Field, and Chandler Municipal master plans were within 10 percent of the preferred forecast. Several master plans showed 2030 based aircraft numbers more than 100 percent different than the preferred forecast. Buckeye, with a difference of 409 percent, and Casa Grande, with a difference of 347 percent, were the two airports with the highest variation. Greenlee County Airport also showed a large variance. 4-84 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-68: Comparison of Preferred Based Aircraft Forecast with FAA TAF and Airport Master Plans Associated City Aguila Ajo Bagdad Benson Bisbee Buckeye Bullhead City Bullhead City Carefree Casa Grande Chandler Chandler Chandler Chinle Cibecue Clifton/Morenci Colorado City Coolidge Cottonwood Douglas Douglas Douglas Bisbee Eloy Flagstaff Gila Bend Glendale Globe Goodyear Grand Canyon Grand Canyon Holbrook Airport Name Eagle Roost Eric Marcus Municipal Bagdad Benson Municipal Bisbee Municipal Buckeye Municipal Laughlin/Bullhead International Sun Valley Sky Ranch at Carefree Casa Grande Municipal Chandler Municipal Memorial Airfield Stellar Airpark Chinle Municipal Cibecue Greenlee County Colorado City Municipal Coolidge Municipal Cottonwood Cochise College Douglas Municipal Bisbee Douglas International Eloy Municipal Flagstaff Pulliam Gila Bend Municipal Glendale Municipal San Carlos Apache Phoenix Goodyear Grand Canyon National Park Grand Canyon Valle Holbrook Municipal Actual 2007 48 8 5 42 34 62 30 33 115 91 499 1 152 4 1 2 6 34 49 15 27 18 41 132 3 413 47 276 48 5 20 Preferred Forecast CAGR 2030 1.35% 65 2.03% 13 0.68% 6 2.03% 67 2.70% 63 0.68% 72 0.68% 35 1.35% 45 0.68% 134 2.03% 144 2.03% 792 3.20% 2 1.35% 207 2.03% 6 0.00% 2 0.68% 2 0.68% 7 2.70% 63 2.03% 78 1.35% 20 0.68% 32 0.68% 21 2.03% 65 1.35% 180 2.03% 5 2.03% 655 2.03% 75 2.03% 438 0.68% 56 1.35% 7 2.03% 32 FAA Terminal Area Forecast CAGR 2030 Difference NA NA NA 0.00% 8 -37% 0.00% 5 -14% 0.00% 42 -37% 0.00% 34 -46% 0.00% 62 -14% 0.84% 36 4% NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.00% 91 -37% 2.44% 870 10% NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.00% 4 -37% 0.00% 1 -50% 0.00% 2 -14% 0.00% 6 -14% 0.00% 34 -46% 0.00% 49 -37% NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.00% 18 -14% 0.00% 41 -37% 1.45% 184 2% 0.00% 3 -37% 0.87% 504 -23% 0.00% 47 -37% 1.52% 391 -11% 1.74% 71 27% NA NA NA 0.00% 20 -37% Airport Master Plan CAGR 2030 Difference NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5.99% 160 140% NA NA NA 8.06% 369 409% 6.42% 125 258% NA NA NA NA NA NA 8.89% 646 347% 2.44% 869 10% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2.05% 2 -20% 12.25% 29 1121% 2.73% 11 59% NA NA NA 2.23% 81 5% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.24% 175 -3% 4.33% 8 67% 3.12% 838 28% 5.65% 166 123% 5.31% 906 107% 1.22% 63 13% NA NA NA NA NA NA 4-85 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-68: Comparison of Preferred Based Aircraft Forecast with FAA TAF and Airport Master Plans (Continued) Associated City Kayenta Kearny Kingman Lake Havasu City Marana Marana Marble Canyon Maricopa Meadview Mesa Mesa Nogales Page Parker Payson Peach Springs Peach Springs Peach Springs Peoria Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Polacca Prescott Rimrock Safford San Luis San Manuel Scottsdale Sedona Seligman Sells Airport Name Kayenta Kearny Kingman Lake Havasu City Marana Regional Pinal Airpark Marble Canyon Estrella Sailport Pearce Ferry Falcon Field Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Nogales International Page Avi Suquilla Payson Grand Canyon Caverns Grand Canyon West Hualapai Pleasant Valley Phoenix Deer Valley Phoenix Regional Phoenix Sky Harbor International Polacca Ernest A. Love Field Rimrock Safford Regional Rolle Airfield San Manuel/Ray/Blair Scottsdale Sedona Seligman Sells Actual 2007 1 5 278 229 306 1 1 28 1 947 103 35 76 42 86 1 2 1 35 1,274 11 114 1 336 36 41 1 57 447 104 1 1 Preferred Forecast CAGR 2030 3.20% 2 2.03% 8 2.03% 441 1.35% 312 2.03% 485 3.20% 2 1.35% 1 1.35% 38 3.20% 2 1.35% 1,290 2.03% 163 2.03% 56 2.03% 121 2.03% 67 0.68% 100 3.20% 2 1.35% 3 3.20% 2 0.68% 41 2.03% 2,021 1.35% 15 0.68% 133 3.20% 2 1.35% 458 1.35% 49 2.03% 65 3.20% 2 2.70% 105 1.35% 609 1.35% 142 3.20% 2 1.35% 1 FAA Terminal Area Forecast CAGR 2030 Difference 0.00% 1 -50% NA NA NA 0.00% 278 -37% 0.00% 229 -27% 1.96% 478 -1% 0.00% 1 -50% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.42% 1,309 1% 2.15% 168 3% 0.00% 35 -37% 0.00% 76 -37% 0.00% 42 -37% 0.00% 86 -14% NA NA NA 0.00% 2 -27% 0.00% 1 -50% NA NA NA 1.50% 1,796 -11% NA NA NA 3.15% 233 75% 0.00% 1 -50% 1.16% 439 -4% NA NA NA 0.00% 41 -37% NA NA NA 0.00% 57 -46% 1.49% 628 3% 0.00% 104 -27% NA NA NA NA NA NA Airport Master Plan CAGR 2030 Difference 9.37% 8 293% 4.25% 13 64% 6.67% 1,229 179% 2.75% 427 37% 2.54% 545 12% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2.36% 1,620 26% 5.44% 349 113% 2.79% 66 19% 3.14% 155 28% NA NA NA 2.13% 140 39% NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.00% NA NA NA NA NA 2.69% 2,344 16% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2.29% 566 24% NA NA NA 3.09% 83 27% NA NA NA 0.92% 70 -33% NA NA NA NA NA NA 2.81% 2 -5% NA NA NA 4-86 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-68: Comparison of Preferred Based Aircraft Forecast with FAA TAF and Airport Master Plans (Continued) Associated City Show Low Sierra Vista Springerville St Johns Superior Taylor Temple Bar Tombstone Tuba City Tucson Tucson Tucson Whiteriver Whitmore Wickenburg Willcox Williams Window Rock Winslow Yuma Airport Name Show Low Regional Sierra Vista Municipal/LAA Springerville Municipal St Johns Industrial Air Park Superior Municipal Taylor Temple Bar Tombstone Municipal Tuba City La Cholla Airpark Ryan Field Tucson International Whiteriver Grand Canyon Bar Ten Airstrip Wickenburg Municipal Cochise County H.A. Clark Memorial Field Window Rock Winslow-Lindbergh Regional Yuma International Airport Actual 2007 66 82 19 15 1 14 1 2 1 97 304 308 1 1 47 27 18 4 9 178 Preferred Forecast CAGR 2030 2.03% 105 2.03% 130 1.35% 26 2.03% 24 3.20% 2 0.68% 16 3.20% 2 1.35% 3 3.20% 2 1.35% 132 2.03% 482 0.68% 360 3.20% 2 3.20% 2 1.35% 64 2.03% 43 2.03% 29 0.68% 5 0.68% 11 2.70% 329 FAA Terminal Area Forecast CAGR 2030 Difference 0.00% 66 -37% 0.00% 82 -37% 0.00% 19 -27% 0.00% 15 -37% NA NA NA 0.00% 14 -14% NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.00% 1 -50% NA NA NA 2.18% 499 3% 1.33% 417 16% 0.00% 1 -50% NA NA NA 0.00% 47 -27% 0.00% 27 -37% 0.00% 18 -37% 0.00% 4 -14% 0.00% 9 -14% 0.00% 178 -46% Airport Master Plan CAGR 2030 Difference 2.78% 124 18% 4.95% 249 92% 2.59% 34 32% NA NA NA NA NA NA 2.69% 26 58% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2.26% 508 5% 0.44% 340 -5% NA NA NA NA NA NA 2.76% 88 37% NA NA NA 3.53% 40 40% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sources: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008, Arizona Department of Commerce, FAA ATAD, FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2008-2025, FAA Terminal Area Forecasts, Individual Airport Master Plans Notes: CAGR=Compound Annual Growth Rate; N/A= not available; airports having zero based aircraft in 2007 were shown with one to make comparisons with master plans and the TAF possible. 4-87 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR General Aviation Operations Figure 4-69 details differences between the preferred general aviation operations forecast and those in the FAA TAF and airport master plans. Of the 59 system plan airports included in the FAA TAF, 44 are projected to show zero increase in their general aviation operations. Of these, differences between the preferred forecast and the TAF vary greatly. Marana Regional in Tucson shows less than one percent difference between the two. Laughlin/Bullhead International and Chandler Municipal have TAF operations forecasts within four percent (above or below) of the preferred forecast for 2030. Others showed a much larger variance. Like based aircraft forecasts, differences between this plan and the FAA TAF vary greatest at Phoenix Sky Harbor, with a 76 percent difference in 2030 operations. In all, the TAF operations forecasts for ten airports showed at least a 10 percent difference from the preferred forecast. Thirty-eight system plan airports also have master plans completed or in draft since 2003 that include forecasts of general aviation operations. Like the master plan based aircraft forecasts, the majority of these showed results far higher than the preferred operations forecast. Only projected based aircraft in the Chandler Municipal, Payson, Phoenix-Mesa Gateway, Ryan Field, and Mesa-Falcon Field master plans were within 10 percent of the preferred forecast in 2030. Several master plans projected general aviation operations more than 100 percent higher than the preferred SASP forecast. Greenlee County, with a difference of 811 percent, and San Carlos Apache, with a difference of 731 percent, were the most varied. 4-88 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-69: Comparison of Preferred General Aviation Operations Forecast with FAA TAF and Airport Master Plans Associated City Airport Name Aguila Eagle Roost Ajo Eric Marcus Municipal Bagdad Bagdad Benson Benson Municipal Bisbee Bisbee Municipal Buckeye Buckeye Municipal Bullhead City Laughlin/Bullhead International Bullhead City Sun Valley Carefree Sky Ranch at Carefree Casa Grande Casa Grande Municipal Chandler Chandler Municipal Chandler Memorial Airfield Chandler Stellar Airpark Chinle Chinle Municipal Cibecue Cibecue Clifton/Morenci Greenlee County Colorado City Colorado City Municipal Coolidge Coolidge Municipal Cottonwood Cottonwood Douglas Cochise College Douglas Douglas Municipal Douglas Bisbee Bisbee Douglas International Eloy Eloy Municipal Flagstaff Flagstaff Pulliam Gila Bend Gila Bend Municipal Glendale Glendale Municipal Globe San Carlos Apache Goodyear Phoenix Goodyear Grand Canyon Grand Canyon National Park Grand Canyon Grand Canyon Valle Actual 2007 3,500 500 14,000 7,200 4,508 28,562 21,936 1,000 3,572 63,980 264,526 25,000 45,100 2,400 1,415 8,760 3,025 5,960 19,400 52,180 11,000 3,800 23,000 39,408 11,000 146,137 16,000 178,896 4,560 800 Preferred Forecast CAGR 2030 1.31% 0.65% 1.31% 3.27% 3.27% 2.61% 0.65% 1.96% 0.65% 1.31% 2.61% 1.31% 1.96% 3.27% 1.31% 1.96% 0.65% 0.65% 1.31% 1.96% 1.31% 0.65% 1.31% 0.65% 3.27% 1.31% 1.31% 1.96% 0.65% 1.31% 4,700 600 18,900 15,100 9,400 51,700 25,500 1,600 4,100 86,200 478,700 33,700 70,500 5,000 1,900 13,700 3,500 6,900 26,100 81,500 14,800 4,400 31,000 45,800 23,000 197,000 21,600 279,500 5,300 1,100 FAA Terminal Area Forecast CAGR 2030 Difference NA 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.84% NA NA 0.00% 2.44% NA NA 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% NA NA 0.00% 0.00% 1.45% 0.00% 0.87% 0.00% 1.52% 1.74% NA NA 500 14,000 7,200 4,508 28,562 26,563 NA NA 63,980 461,006 NA NA 2,400 1,415 8,760 3,025 5,960 19,400 NA NA 3,800 23,000 54,850 11,000 178,274 16,000 253,324 6,781 NA NA -17% -26% -52% -52% -45% 4% NA NA -26% -4% NA NA -52% -26% -36% -14% -14% -26% NA NA -14% -26% 20% -52% -10% -26% -9% 28% NA CAGR NA NA NA 8.94% NA 7.97% 4.83% NA NA 6.15% 2.70% NA NA NA 2.34% 12.25% 2.73% NA 2.34% NA NA NA NA 2.14% 2.42% 2.72% 11.08% 6.39% 3.40% NA Airport Master Plan 2030 Difference NA NA NA 51,649 NA 166,467 64,975 NA NA 252,263 488,227 NA NA NA 2,408 124,868 5,624 NA 32,995 NA NA NA NA 64,193 19,065 271,118 179,431 743,289 9,843 NA NA NA NA 242% NA 222% 155% NA NA 193% 2% NA NA NA 27% 811% 61% NA 26% NA NA NA NA 40% -17% 38% 731% 166% 86% NA 4-89 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-69: Comparison of Preferred Operations Forecast with FAA TAF and Airport Master Plans (Continued) Associated City Holbrook Kayenta Kearny Kingman Lake Havasu City Airport Name Holbrook Municipal Kayenta Kearny Kingman Lake Havasu City Marana Marana Marble Canyon Maricopa Meadview Mesa Mesa Nogales Page Parker Payson Peach Springs Peach Springs Peach Springs Peoria Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Polacca Prescott Rimrock Safford San Luis San Manuel Scottsdale Sedona Seligman Sells Marana Regional Pinal Airpark Marble Canyon Estrella Sailport Pearce Ferry Falcon Field Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Nogales International Page Avi Suquilla Payson Grand Canyon Caverns Grand Canyon West Hualapai Pleasant Valley Phoenix Deer Valley Phoenix Regional Phoenix Sky Harbor International Polacca Ernest A. Love Field Rimrock Safford Regional Rolle Airfield San Manuel/Ray/Blair Scottsdale Sedona Seligman Sells Actual 2007 4,900 4,524 4,200 57,437 51,514 110,000 7,296 2,585 16,500 1,100 311,691 285,334 37,300 21,882 14,520 42,250 1,350 109,328 200 60,000 377,696 14,600 127,563 1,000 222,804 600 17,250 2,900 12,080 191,503 45,000 1,100 1,200 Preferred Forecast CAGR 2030 FAA Terminal Area Forecast CAGR 2030 Difference CAGR 1.31% 1.31% 1.31% 2.61% 1.31% 1.96% 0.65% 1.96% 1.31% 1.31% 1.96% 2.61% 2.61% 0.65% 1.31% 2.61% 2.61% 1.96% 0.65% 1.96% 1.96% 1.31% 0.65% 0.65% 0.65% 1.31% 1.96% 0.65% 3.27% 1.96% 1.96% 1.31% 1.31% 0.00% 0.00% NA 0.00% 0.00% 1.96% 0.00% NA NA NA 1.42% 2.15% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% NA 0.00% 0.00% NA 1.50% NA 3.15% 0.00% 1.16% NA 0.00% NA 0.00% 1.49% 0.00% NA NA NA 4.40% 4.71% 3.24% 3.05% 4.90% NA NA NA NA 1.82% 2.99% 3.98% 4.29% NA 2.46% NA NA 0.00% NA 2.96% NA NA NA 1.78% NA 3.80% NA 5.14% NA NA 5.99% NA 6,600 6,100 5,700 103,900 69,400 171,900 8,500 4,000 22,200 1,500 487,000 516,300 67,500 25,400 19,600 76,500 2,400 170,800 200 93,700 590,100 19,700 148,200 1,200 258,800 800 27,000 3,400 25,300 299,200 70,300 1,500 1,600 4,900 4,524 NA 57,437 51,514 171,973 7,296 NA NA NA 430,748 465,933 37,300 21,882 14,520 42,250 NA 109,328 200 NA 532,489 NA 260,605 1,000 290,782 NA 17,250 NA 12,080 268,878 45,000 NA NA -26% -26% NA -45% -26% 0% -14% NA NA NA -12% -10% -45% -14% -26% -45% NA -36% 0% NA -10% NA 76% -17% 12% NA -36% NA -52% -10% -36% NA NA Airport Master Plan 2030 Difference NA 12,191 12,104 119,460 102,790 330,674 NA NA NA NA 472,412 562,123 91,474 57,449 NA 73,966 NA NA NA NA 738,560 NA NA NA 334,106 NA 40,702 NA 38,244 NA NA 4,196 NA NA 100% 112% 15% 48% 92% NA NA NA NA -3% 9% 36% 126% NA -3% NA NA NA NA 25% NA NA NA 29% NA 51% NA 51% NA NA 180% NA 4-90 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4-69: Comparison of Preferred Operations Forecast with FAA TAF and Airport Master Plans (Continued) Associated City Show Low Sierra Vista Airport Name Show Low Regional Sierra Vista Municipal/Libby Army Airfield Springerville Springerville Municipal St Johns St Johns Industrial Air Park Superior Superior Municipal Taylor Taylor Temple Bar Temple Bar Tombstone Tombstone Municipal Tuba City Tuba City Tucson La Cholla Airpark Tucson Ryan Field Tucson Tucson International Whiteriver Whiteriver Whitmore Grand Canyon Bar Ten Airstrip Wickenburg Wickenburg Municipal Willcox Cochise County Williams H.A. Clark Memorial Field Window Rock Window Rock Winslow Winslow-Lindbergh Regional Preferred Forecast FAA Terminal Area Forecast Actual 2007 CAGR 2030 CAGR 2030 40,060 1.96% 62,600 0.00% 40,060 38,987 4,000 14,000 200 4,810 1,800 300 910 4,000 246,438 183,512 3,440 1,275 17,500 7,310 3,650 7,000 22,650 2.61% 0.65% 1.31% 0.65% 1.31% 1.31% 1.96% 0.65% 1.31% 2.61% 0.65% 0.65% 0.65% 3.27% 1.31% 1.31% 3.27% 0.65% 70,500 4,600 18,900 230 6,500 2,400 500 1,100 5,400 445,900 213,100 4,000 1,500 36,600 9,900 4,900 14,700 26,300 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% NA 0.00% NA NA 0.00% NA 2.18% 1.33% 0.00% NA 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 38,987 4,000 14,000 NA 4,810 NA NA 910 NA 404,502 248,521 3,440 NA 17,500 7,310 3,650 7,000 22,650 Difference Airport Master Plan CAGR 2030 -36% 3.63% 91,051 Difference 45% -45% -13% -26% NA -26% NA NA -17% NA -9% 17% -14% NA -52% -26% -26% -52% -14% 1.96% 3.37% NA NA 9.81% NA NA NA NA 2.64% 1.30% NA NA 4.49% NA 4.33% NA NA 60,872 8,576 NA NA 41,418 NA NA NA NA 448,654 246,991 NA NA 48,083 NA 9,671 NA NA -14% 86% NA NA 537% NA NA NA NA 1% 16% NA NA 31% NA 97% NA NA 80,944 2.61% 146,500 0.00% 80,944 -45% NA NA Yuma Yuma International Airport Sources: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008, Arizona Department of Commerce, FAA ATAD, FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2008-2025, FAA Terminal Area Forecasts, Individual Airport Master Plan Notes: CAGR=Compound Annual Growth Rate; N/A= not available; 2030 operations have been rounded to the nearest 100. NA 4-91 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FIVE CHAPTER FIVE: ESTABLISH EXISTING AIRPORT ROLES This chapter establishes the measures that will aid in the identification of each airport’s initial functional role based on a variety of factors. After additional analysis is performed and presented in subsequent chapters, these initial roles will be reviewed to determine if changes may be needed in order for Arizona’s airport system to meet future transportation, economic, and access needs. INTRODUCTION Airport roles are defined differently from a national, state, and local perspective. Prior to determining current roles for the SASP or analyzing the future system’s needs, it is essential to review the historic role classifications. This review looked at SANS 2000, ADOT Aeronautics Division classifications, and other state’s classification systems. Historically, Arizona has used service levels established by the FAA in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) as a baseline to define each Arizona system airport’s role. FAA’s National Airport Classifications & Previous State Airport Classification As a national plan, the NPIAS is used by the FAA to identify aviation facilities of significance to the national air transportation network. The NPIAS defines an airport's role by its service level, and the airport’s service level reflects the type of service the airport provides to the nation, state, and local community. The service level also reflects the funding categories established by Congress to assist in airport development. As noted in Chapter One, the service levels used by the NPIAS include the following: • • • • Primary Service (PR) - Primary Service airports are public use airports receiving scheduled airline passenger service, enplaning 10,000 or more passengers per year. Commercial Service (CM) - Commercial Service airports are public use airports which receive scheduled airline passenger service and which enplane 2,500 or more passengers annually. Reliever (RL) - Reliever airports are general aviation or commercial service airports which serve to relieve congestion for a Primary Service airport by providing general aviation and non-airline commercial operators with alternative access to the community. General Aviation (GA) - General Aviation airports are either publicly or privately owned public use airports that primarily serve general aviation users. The NPIAS for years 2008-2012 includes 59 of the 83 airports in the Arizona State Airports System Plan. The service level classification of these 59 airports includes nine Primary Service, three Commercial Service, eight Reliever, and 38 General Aviation airports. The NPIAS service level for each Arizona airport was presented in the previous chapter. It is important to note that one general aviation airport, Ganado, was identified as a closed airport by its sponsor during the inventory site visits. Therefore, the list of NPIAS airports has been reduced to 37 General Aviation airports (58 total) for the purpose of the SASP. While these service levels are useful to the FAA in making funding decisions, they do not adequately describe the function or role of each airport in the Arizona airport system, especially those in the General Aviation category. The 37 General Aviation NPIAS airports in 5-1 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FIVE Arizona do not serve the same function or role, nor should they be designed to do so. In addition to these 37 general aviation airports, there are an additional 24 non-NPIAS airports included in the Arizona SASP that also require analysis of their function or role in the system. These airports have varying levels of activity, facilities, and services and meet a wide variety of needs. Some general aviation airports are used extensively by large business-class aircraft, others are used primarily by small aircraft for recreational purposes, and others are used for emergency medical air transport. The FAA’s NPIAS service levels do not relate to the manner in which airports function within the state system. Inclusion in NPIAS simply means that an airport has some national significance and is eligible to receive FAA Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants. The NPIAS service level classification provides little guidance on the types of facilities that should be developed and/or maintained to meet other functions. Both federal and state funding for airport improvements is extremely limited; therefore, it is essential that airports in Arizona be developed to the extent necessary to perform their identified roles, and state funding be applied in a manner to support these roles. SANS 2000 Classifications The SANS 2000 developed airport classifications and subsequent airport planning guidelines based on: 1. NPIAS category 2. Current airport ARC 3. State Primary and Secondary categories 4. Old FAA airport categories (GA Community, GA Rural, and GA Emergency) The SANS 2000 “airport planning guidelines,” are similar to the “facility and service objectives” used in this system plan and defined later in the chapters. The airport planning guidelines used in the previous plan, however, were based strictly on the airport’s current ARC, not airport role, as proposed here. Review of Other State Classifications This review evaluated several statewide airport system plans to provide background on other airport role or classification systems. These state system plans are: • Arkansas State Airport System Plan Update (2006) • California Aviation System Plan (2002) • Maryland State Aviation System Plan (2008) • Minnesota Aviation System Plan Update (2006) • Missouri State Airport System Plan (2006) • Iowa Aviation System Plan (2005) • Colorado Aviation System Plan Update (2006) • Utah Continuous Airport System Plan (2007) • Wisconsin Airport Classification Review and Update (2008) These system plans were included due to their recent completion date and/or the use of factors applied to the systems. All airport systems share commonalities between them while at the same time being able to fine-tune various factors that are important to the specific needs and goals of the state. As discussed previously, the FAA role classification of general aviation airports is relatively generic. When systems are further defined by states, the roles 5-2 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FIVE are more clearly defined with nomenclature that is specific to each state and easy to comprehend by both the aviation and non-aviation public. The review identified a similarity of role classifications, nomenclature, and quantity adopted by states in recent airport system plans. A few of the particulars identified in the review of other state systems include: • • • Not all systems use the same number of roles or the same nomenclature. Some systems, such as the Minnesota system, have roles directly tied to legislative law. Others, such as the Iowa system, are more flexible in nature and not tied to statutes. AIRPORT ROLE CONSIDERATIONS Typically, state-specific roles are developed through consideration of many different factors including geography, demographic characteristics, economic development potential, and the demand for aviation services. The combination of these factors determines the role that each airport plays within a defined system, such as the Arizona airport system. The Arizonaspecific roles developed in this chapter are tools for use by ADOT and airport sponsors for long-term planning and evaluation of the performance of Arizona’s airport system. These roles supplement rather than replace the FAA NPIAS service levels and provide a broader opportunity to view the state’s airport system in its full context. In order to identify each airport’s initial/current functional role in the system, a detailed analysis of the specific factors that impact an airport’s function was conducted. By analyzing each system airport in relation to the specific factors selected for this analysis, the demand for aviation that each airport supports within the system is identified. Based on this analysis, airports in the existing system are classified in different roles based on the current types and levels of activity occurring at the facility or in the community. Demand for aviation services is influenced by factors that are related to aviation as well as factors that are unrelated. It was determined that both aviation and non-aviation factors should be considered to achieve a balance in evaluating airport needs throughout the state. These factors were then further defined into the following four general system performance criteria/goal categories that were previously established: • Development • Economic Support • Safety and Security • Environmental Sensitivity and Stewardship Data was evaluated for its availability and reliability to provide sufficient detail to support comparison of the various factors for each airport. Once roles are defined, the facility and service attributes associated with each role classification are identified. These facility and service attributes provide a baseline for evaluating how well each airport’s facilities and services are serving the needs of the state system based on each airport’s initial role. 5-3 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FIVE ROLE EVALUATION Through extensive discussion with ADOT staff, review of other comparable statewide airport systems, analysis of available data, and input from the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) members, specific measurable factors were selected to evaluate the role of each airport in the Arizona airport system. These measurable factors were chosen because they are the most significant determinants in establishing the role or function of an airport within the system. By using factors that are measurable, the determination of roles becomes a quantitative process rather than a subjective, qualitative process. The process used to evaluate Arizona’s airport classifications is depicted graphically in Figure 5-1. Figure 5-1: Role Evaluation Process Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Prepared: July 2008 5-4 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FIVE Factors in Determining Airport Roles The following summarizes the factors used to determine each airport’s role, by system performance category: • Development • Total based aircraft • Based turbine aircraft • Registered pilots served • Airside facilities/infrastructure • Landside facilities/infrastructure • Airport approach type • Expansion potential • Commercial service • Design aircraft • Economic Support • Aviation services provided • Military or other special tenant organizations • Businesses served • Population served • Industry groups served/economic development • Retail sales • Accommodations within a 30 minute drive • Safety and Security • Emergency use • RPZ development controls • Height zoning • Environmental Sensitivity and Stewardship • Community support • Community outreach efforts In general terms, each airport was scored separately for each factor. The maximum score for each airport for each measurable factor was 10, with the scores for each airport stratified based on the range of data identified for each factor. For example, in some cases data were numeric and a statistical method could be used to assign scores. This is true for based aircraft. For other factors, the data were limited to only several choices. For example, the type of approach to the runway was defined as visual, non-precision, or precision. Therefore, each measurable factor was analyzed separately to determine the appropriate scoring process. The scoring process and data analyzed for each factor is discussed below. It is important to note that for purposes of the 30-minute service area evaluations, Geographic Information System (GIS) analyses were completed to determine the drive time, or service area, for each system airport. A service area of 30 minutes was chosen to correspond to the FAA’s use of 30-minute drive times in its determination of eligibility for airports in the NPIAS. A base map of Arizona’s road system was obtained from Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) Data and Maps 2007 for use in the GIS analysis. The quantity and quality of the roads leading to each airport was considered in the GIS analysis, and associated speed limits were assigned based on the type of road (primary highway, secondary or connecting 5-5 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FIVE road, or local/rural road). Based on the posted speed limits and road network, a 30-minute service area was developed for each of Arizona’s airports. The factors within each goal category are discussed below. Development Airports were evaluated based on the types of aviation activity currently occurring at each facility and their physical attributes. In general, an airport’s total number of based aircraft and the number of aircraft that are twin-engine aircraft or larger provides an indication of the role that the airport plays. Additionally, higher concentrations of pilots usually signal higher demand levels and greater rates of airport utilization. Airports that have longer runways and more precise approach capabilities, precision or non-precision, tend to play more essential roles within the airport system. The data was gathered from the Airport Inventory and Data Survey which was completed during on-site visits to each study airport in May 2008 unless otherwise noted. The nine factors analyzed under Development include the following: • • • • • • • • • Total based aircraft – Higher numbers of based aircraft reflect the role the airport is playing in meeting air transportation and economic needs of the market area it serves. Airports were rated based on the total number of permanently based aircraft data that was gathered from the Airport Inventory and Data Survey 2008. Based turbine aircraft – Airports were rated based on the number of permanently based turbine and jet aircraft. Registered pilots served – Airports were rated based on the estimated number of pilots within a 30-minute drive time of each Arizona airport. Data on registered pilots was obtained from FAA records. Airside facilities/infrastructure – The quality of airside facilities provided by an airport typically increases the usage of that facility and its corresponding role within that system. Airports were evaluated based on the length of their primary runway length, type of taxiway, and on-site weather capabilities. Landside facilities/infrastructure – Similar to airside facilities, the quality of an airport’s landside facilities plays an important role in the activity of the airport. Airports were evaluated on the presence of a terminal building and the total number of hangar spaces as determined by the aircraft that could be stored in hangars. Airport approach type – Airports were evaluated based on the type of the most demanding approach available/published. The approach classifications of precision, near-precision, non-precision, and visual were used for this evaluation. Data was gathered from FAA US Terminal Procedures. Expansion potential – An airport’s ability to expand both its landside and airside facilities contributes to its role. Each airport’s expansion potential was determined by the relationship of the airport to its host and neighboring communities, physical/topographical constraints, environmental issues, manmade constraints, and financial limitations. Airports were rated based on this ranking. Airports were asked to rank their expansion potential on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the greatest potential, on the Airport Inventory and Data Survey 2008. Commercial service – Airports were rated on whether or not they provided commercial airline service. Data was gathered from FAA records and Airport Inventory and Data Survey 2008. Design aircraft – Airports were analyzed based on the airport reference code (ARC) for each airport’s design aircraft. 5-6 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FIVE Economic Support As a result of the important role that airports in Arizona have in supporting and leading economic growth, it is important to examine factors that could help establish the role that each airport has in supporting the state’s economy. The following seven factors were considered: • • • • • • • Aviation services provided – Services provided at system airports are key to attracting both locally based and visiting aviation demand. Specific services that bear upon an airport’s role within a particular system include the presence of a fixed base operator (FBO) and fuel availability. Aviation services were identified in the Airport Inventory and Data Survey 2008 that was conducted as part of the inventory process. Military or other special tenant organizations – The presence of military units or other special tenant organizations on an airport mirror the importance of the airport’s role on the community and economy. Airports that support a high level of pilot training through accommodating these flights were also considered to be important to the Arizona airport system. Airports were rated based the presence of these types of tenants and activities at each of the study airports. Data was gathered from the Airport Inventory and Data Survey 2008. Businesses served – Airports were rated based on the total number of businesses located within a 30-minute drive time of each Arizona airport. Data was gathered from Woods and Poole Economics, Inc 2006. Population served – Airports were rated based on block group data of total population within a 30-minute drive time of each Arizona airport. Data was gathered from Arizona Department of Commerce. Industry groups served/economic potential – The number of businesses and overall employment are indicators of the economic viability of an area. Businesses that have 20 or more employees are more likely to utilize commercial service and business aviation airports, than are smaller businesses employing fewer people. Using GIS, the number of businesses that have the propensity to use aviation services were located for each airport’s service area. Data was gathered from InfoUSA. Retail sales – Retail sales reflect the level of overall economic activity in an area, and spending provides a general representation of the tourism demand in an area. Since the combined service areas of the airports only cover a portion of the entire state, only that data in those service areas was considered. As such, this factor was used as a tool to compare the relative economic strength of each airport’s service area with that of the other airports’ service areas. Retail sales data was collected from Woods and Poole Economics, Inc. for the year 2006. Accommodations within a 30 minute drive – The number of hotel and motel accommodations are an indicator of the economic state within a community. Accommodations can be directly tied to the business travel and tourism industries. Data was gathered from the Arizona Department of Commerce. 5-7 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FIVE Safety and Security One of the most important characteristics of a good aviation system is the system’s ability to provide a safe and secure operating environment that is commensurate with needs and potential risks. Airports that meet applicable safety and security standards, as well as support health, welfare, and safety-related services and activities are vital in today’s environment. The three factors considered under the Safety and Security performance category include the following: • • • Emergency use – Airports that support emergency use activity provide their surrounding communities and the state important quality of life benefits. Emergency use activity includes patient transfer, medical evacuation, air ambulance, etc. Airports were evaluated on the frequency of emergency use at their facilities. Data was gathered from the Airport Inventory and Data Survey 2008. Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) development controls – RPZ compatibility initiatives were identified as the second key subset of this performance category. The compatible use of land within the trapezoidal RPZ (as defined in FAA AC 150/530013, change 13, Airport Design) area off the ends of runways includes open space, agricultural, or low-intensity recreational uses. The FAA discourages such uses as residential development, retail commercial, or places of public congregation, including schools, churches, hospitals, or sports stadiums. Airports were evaluated based on the level of control they maintain over their RPZs. Data was gathered from the Airport Inventory and Data Survey 2008. Height zoning – Height restriction zoning is a land use initiative that can be implemented by each community that will protect the airport’s airspace from incompatible encroachment, as well as protecting the community from aeronautical activities. Airports were evaluated on whether or not height zoning has been adopted by surrounding communities. Data was gathered from the Airport Inventory and Data Survey 2008. Environmental Sensitivity and Stewardship With an ever increasing awareness, the environmental movement is at the forefront of every day actions. Airports are quickly becoming active stewards of the environment by being considerate of the environment and supporting aviation programs and outreach opportunities. The two factors analyzed under Environmental Sensitivity and Stewardship include the following: • • Community support – Airports are valuable assets to the communities they reside in and go beyond providing just a transportation link to the rest of the state and nation. Airports often serve as a catalyst for economic growth, an access point for quality of life components such as life flight or forest fire fighting, and an educational forum. The more support an airport receives from its surrounding communities, the more successful that airport will be, in turn providing the community with an invaluable resource. Data was gathered from the Airport Inventory and Data Survey 2008. Community outreach efforts – An airport’s outreach efforts in support of the airport are key factors in determining the degree of airport acceptance by the local community. Outreach efforts can include fly-ins, air shows, educational programs, or tours of the airport. Data was gathered from the Airport Inventory and Data Survey 2008. 5-8 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FIVE Ranking of System Airports The purpose of the system classification process is to identify the “relative” role that each airport in Arizona’s airport system is currently filling. Establishing a current role for each airport in the system is the first step in identifying adequacies and deficiencies that characterize the existing airport system. Identifying current roles for all system airports is essential to determining the future role for all airports. To identify current system roles, 21 different factors which are indicative of the role that airports are currently playing were identified, as previously described. In most cases, each of these 21 factors can be linked to a numeric value. For each of the 21 factors, airports were assigned a numeric score that was related to a more relative score ranging from low to high. For each factor, the airport with the highest numeric value was assigned to “high” to start the scoring process. In this process, “high” represents those airports that currently best meet or fulfill the factor being scored. For example, the number of accommodations within a 30minute drive of a system airport varied from zero at Polacca to nearly 51,600 at Phoenix Sky Harbor. All airports were assigned a number one through 10 based on the statistical breaks in the data. So for the purpose of this factor, Polacca received a zero and Phoenix Sky Harbor received a 10. The current system classification/role assignment, based on the 21 factors, considers only the sum of raw scores assigned to each airport for its ability to satisfy each factor. Figures 52 through 5-5 show the relative scores assigned to each of the airports. Note: Figures 5-2 through 5-5 can be found at the end of this chapter. Results of Evaluation The factor scores for each performance category were summed to determine each airport’s initial score, prior to weighting. The sum of the four category scores for each airport, including the weight, produced the results of the role evaluation. The final scores for all airports were evaluated to determine where natural breaks in the scoring process occurred. These natural breaks were used to separate the airports into categories for role assignment. With the airports scored based on the performance categories and factors, the number of roles for the Arizona airport system was considered next. Roles are needed to determine the facility and service objectives that should be used to evaluate the adequacy of Arizona’s airport system and how the system is functioning to meet its objectives. As previously noted, the FAA no longer uses a standard classification system other than the delineation between commercial airports and general aviation airports. To further classify airports, especially as they relate to design, the FAA groups airports based on the type of aircraft that regularly operate at the airport. This classification system is referred to as Airport Reference Codes (ARCs). This system is discussed in more detail in a subsequent section. To develop a role for each airport, based on the results of the analysis, the airport scores were reviewed. Airports were separated into five categories based on the number of standard deviations above or below their respective scores relative to the average score. Definitions for the five role categories were developed based on a review of the previous system plan, other state system plans, and the FAA system. These roles serve as the baseline for analysis of the Arizona system’s effectiveness, with possible refinement as the evaluation of the system is conducted in later tasks. The five roles are identified in the following section. 5-9 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FIVE Airport Role Definitions Based on a review of the previous system plan, and other state aviation and FAA classifications, as well as the roles the airports play in Arizona’s airport system, five airport roles were developed. The five airport roles are defined as follows: • • • • • Commercial Service Airports: Publicly owned airports which enplane 2,500 or more passengers annually and receive scheduled passenger air service. Reliever Airports: FAA-designated airports that relieve congestion at a commercial service airport. GA-Community Airports: Airports that serve regional economies1, connecting to state and national economies, and serve all types of general aviation aircraft. GA-Rural Airports: Airports that serve a supplemental role in local economies2, primarily serving smaller business, recreational, and personal flying. GA-Basic Airports: Airports that serve a limited role in the local economy, primarily serving recreational and personal flying. Figure 5-6 lists airports alphabetically by the name of the associated city and classifies each into one of the five roles listed above. Figure 5-7 presents the information graphically with the five roles for Arizona’s aviation system. This represents the initial airport roles that will be used as a baseline for analysis of the system. 1 For the purpose of this report, a regional economy is defined as the economic activity of an area that encompasses multiple communities or political jurisdictions 2 For the purpose of this report, a local economy is defined as the economic activity of a single community or a largely rural area. 5-10 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FIVE Figure 5-6: Initial Airport Role Summary Airport Code 27AZ P01 E51 E95 P04 BXK IFP A20 18AZ CGZ CHD 34AZ P19 E91 Z95 CFT AZC P08 P52 P03 DGL DUG E60 FLG E63 GEU P13 GYR GCN 40G P14 0V7 E67 IGM HII AVQ MZJ L41 E68 L25 FFZ IWA OLS PGA P20 PAN L37 1G4 Associated City Aguila Ajo Bagdad Benson Bisbee Buckeye Bullhead City Bullhead City Carefree Casa Grande Chandler Chandler Chandler Chinle Cibecue Clifton/Morenci Colorado City Coolidge Cottonwood Douglas Douglas Douglas Bisbee Eloy Flagstaff Gila Bend Glendale Globe Goodyear Grand Canyon Grand Canyon Holbrook Kayenta Kearny Kingman Lake Havasu City Marana Marana Marble Canyon Maricopa Meadview Mesa Mesa Nogales Page Parker Payson Peach Springs Peach Springs Airport Name Eagle Roost Eric Marcus Municipal Bagdad Benson Municipal Bisbee Municipal Buckeye Municipal Laughlin/Bullhead International Sun Valley Sky Ranch at Carefree Casa Grande Municipal Chandler Municipal Memorial Airfield Stellar Airpark Chinle Municipal Cibecue Greenlee County Colorado City Municipal Coolidge Municipal Cottonwood Cochise College Douglas Municipal Bisbee Douglas International Eloy Municipal Flagstaff Pulliam Gila Bend Municipal Glendale Municipal San Carlos Apache Phoenix Goodyear Grand Canyon National Park Valle Holbrook Municipal Kayenta Kearny Kingman Lake Havasu City Marana Regional Pinal Airpark Marble Canyon Estrella Sailport Pearce Ferry Falcon Field Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Nogales International Page Municipal Avi Suquilla Payson Grand Canyon Caverns Grand Canyon West Role GA-Basic GA-Rural GA-Basic GA-Community GA-Rural GA-Community Commercial Service GA-Rural GA-Community GA-Community Reliever GA-Community GA-Community GA-Rural GA-Basic GA-Rural GA-Community GA-Community GA-Community GA-Rural GA-Community GA-Rural GA-Community Commercial Service GA-Rural Reliever GA-Rural Reliever Commercial Service GA-Community GA-Community GA-Rural GA-Rural Commercial Service GA-Community Reliever GA-Community GA-Rural GA-Rural GA-Basic Reliever Commercial Service GA-Community Commercial Service GA-Community GA-Community GA-Rural GA-Rural 5-11 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FIVE Figure 5-6: Initial Airport Role Summary (Continued) Airport Code Associated City 3AZ5 Peach Springs P48 Peoria DVT Phoenix A39 Phoenix PHX Phoenix P10 Polacca PRC Prescott 48AZ Rimrock SAD Safford 44A San Luis E77 San Manuel SDL Scottsdale SEZ Sedona P23 Seligman E78 Sells SOW Show Low FHU Sierra Vista D68 Springerville SJN St Johns E81 Superior TYL Taylor U30 Temple Bar P29 Tombstone T03 Tuba City 57AZ Tucson RYN Tucson TUS Tucson E24 Whiteriver 1Z1 Whitmore E25 Wickenburg P33 Willcox CMR Williams RQE Window Rock INW Winslow NYL Yuma Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Prepared: July 2008 Airport Name Hualapai Pleasant Valley Phoenix Deer Valley Phoenix Regional Phoenix Sky Harbor International Polacca Ernest A. Love Field Rimrock Safford Regional Rolle Airfield San Manuel Scottsdale Sedona Seligman Sells Show Low Regional Sierra Vista Municipal- Libby AAF Springerville Municipal St Johns Industrial Air Park Superior Municipal Taylor Temple Bar Tombstone Municipal Tuba City La Cholla Airpark Ryan Field Tucson International Whiteriver Grand Canyon Bar Ten Airstrip Wickenburg Municipal Cochise County H.A. Clark Memorial Field Window Rock Winslow-Lindbergh Regional Yuma Marine Corps Air St ti /Y I t ti l Role GA-Basic GA-Community Reliever GA-Rural Commercial Service GA-Rural Commercial Service GA-Basic GA-Community GA-Rural GA-Rural Reliever GA-Community GA-Rural GA-Basic Commercial Service GA-Community GA-Community GA-Community GA-Basic GA-Community GA-Rural GA-Basic GA-Rural GA-Rural Reliever Commercial Service GA-Rural GA-Basic GA-Community GA-Community GA-Community GA-Rural GA-Community Commercial Service 5-12 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FIVE Figure 5-7: Arizona Airport Roles Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Note: A reference table containing airport codes, airport names, and associated city can be found in Appendix A Prepared: July 2008 5-13 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FIVE In subsequent analysis, each airport is evaluated to determine its future role within the Arizona airport system. This includes identification of airports in close proximity to other airports that provide duplicate services or areas of the state where services are insufficient to meet demand. The identification of airports within a region where aviation services are duplicated may dictate moving an airport to a different role. This subsequent process also evaluates if more advanced aviation services are needed to serve an area. This may indicate that a more demanding role is needed for a particular airport. An underserved area of the state could indicate the need for a different category of airport, or possibly development of a new airport. It is important to note this role analysis is based on a “snapshot in time” of present conditions and is only a starting point in Arizona’s system planning process. Based on analyses that are conducted in subsequent steps, some airports may be identified to serve a greater role in the future for the system to function at its highest level. FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVES With system airports assigned to a role, it is desirable to identify facilities and services that should be available at airports assigned to one of the five roles. Facility and service objectives delineated in this section are just that, objectives; they are not standards or requirements. It is possible that airports included in, or recommended for, an elevated role may be unable to achieve certain facility and service objectives. An airport’s inability to meet all facility and service objectives for its role does not necessarily preclude that airport from filling its recommended role within the system. The objectives present the minimum level of development that the airport should have to meet its recommended system role. It is possible that some airports may have facilities or services that are in excess of those attached to its functional role. Reduction or removal of facilities and services was not considered in this analysis. FAA’s Airport Reference Code (ARC) System In the ARC system, the FAA relates airport design criteria to the operational and physical characteristics of the most demanding aircraft, or design aircraft, intended to regularly operate at an airport. The ARC has two components related to the airport design aircraft. The first component, depicted by a letter, is the aircraft approach category; it is related to the aircraft approach speed. The second component, depicted by a Roman numeral, is the airplane design group; it relates to the airplane wingspan. Generally, the size and characteristics of an airport’s runway and other facilities are related to aircraft approach speed, airplane wingspan, and designated or planned instrument approach visibility minimums. Figure 5-8 provides a list of common airplanes with their approach category and design group as specified by FAA standards. 5-14 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FIVE Figure 5-8: Aircraft Classification Standards Source: Federal Aviation Administration Prepared: July 2008 5-15 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FIVE Figure 5-9 identifies facility and service objectives for each of the five role categories. A subsequent chapter of this report compares current facilities and services at system airports to the objectives presented in the following tables. From this comparison, enhancements for system airports will subsequently be developed. Figure 5-9: Initial Airport Role Summary Airport Criteria ARC Runway Length Commercial Service Airports Minimum Objectives Consistent with Master Plan Consistent with Master Plan Runway Width To Meet ARC Taxiway Surface Approach Capability Visual Aids Lighting Approach Lighting System Consistent with Master Plan Asphalt/Paved Precision Desired; Near Precision (minimum) Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone/Segmented Circle, REILs, VGSI HIRL/HITL Desired; MIRL/MITL (minimum) ALS Fencing Perimeter Fencing and Controlled Access Services Full Service FBO/Maintenance/On-Site Rental Car/Phone/Restroom/ 24-7 Fuel (Jet and AvGas) Facilities Consistent with Master Plan Airport Criteria ARC Runway Length Runway Width Taxiway Surface Approach Capability Visual Aids Lighting Approach Lighting System Reliever Airports Minimum Objectives C-III Accommodate 75% of large aircraft at 90% useful load To Meet ARC Full Parallel; width per ARC Asphalt/Paved Near-Precision Desired; Non-Precision (minimum) Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone/Segmented Circle, REILs, VGSI MIRL/MITL ALS Desired Fencing Perimeter Fencing and Controlled Access Services Facilities Full Service FBO/Maintenance/On-Site Rental Car/Phone/Restroom/ 24-7 Fuel (Jet and AvGas) Terminal with Pilots' Lounge Hangars: 75% of based fleet and 25% overnight Apron: 25% of based fleet and 75% for transient Auto Parking: 75% of based fleet 5-16 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FIVE Figure 5-9: Initial Airport Role Summary ((Continued) Airport Criteria ARC Runway Length Runway Width Taxiway Surface Approach Capability Visual Aids Lighting Approach Lighting System Fencing Services Facilities Airport Criteria ARC Runway Length Runway Width Taxiway Surface Approach Capability Visual Aids Lighting Approach Lighting System Fencing Services Facilities Airport Criteria ARC Runway Length Runway Width Taxiway Surface Approach Capability Visual Aids Lighting Approach Lighting System Fencing Services Facilities GA-Community Airports Minimum Objectives B-II Accommodate 75% of large aircraft at 60% useful load To Meet ARC Full or Partial Parallel; width per ARC Asphalt/Paved Non-Precision Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone/Segmented Circle, REILs, VGSI MIRL/MITL None Perimeter Fencing Limited Service FBO/Limited Maintenance/On-Site Ground Transportation/Phone/Restroom/Fuel (Jet and AvGas) Terminal with appropriate facilities Hangars: 60% of based fleet and 25% overnight Apron: 40% of based fleet and 50% for transient Auto Parking: 33% of based fleet GA-Rural Airports Minimum Objectives B-I Accommodate 75% of small airplanes To Meet ARC Full or Partial Parallel, Connectors, or Turnarounds; width per ARC Asphalt Desired; Unpaved Non-Precision or Circling Rotating Beacon, Wind Cone/Segmented Circle, VGSI MIRL/MITL None Perimeter Fencing Phone/Restroom/Fuel (AvGas)/Ground Transportation Hangars: 50% of based fleet and 25% for overnight Apron: 50% of based fleet and 25% for transient Auto Parking: Equal to # of based fleet GA-Basic Airports Minimum Objectives A-I Maintain existing To Meet ARC None Gravel/Dirt None Rotating Beacon, Wind Sock LIRL or Reflectors None Perimeter Fencing Desired Phone and Restroom Desired None Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Prepared: July 2008 5-17 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY This chapter has set forth the initial role classification system that will be used in subsequent analyses to evaluate the adequacy of Arizona’s airport system. With the initial airport roles and the facility and service minimum objectives identified, the ability of the system to meet the goals and objectives now and in the future will be analyzed in the next step of the system plan. 5-18 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FIVE L L L M M M M M H M H M H L L M M M M M M M M M M H L H M M M L M M M H M M M L H M M M M M M M Design Aircraft L L L M M M H M M M H M M L L M M M M M M M M H M H M H H L H L L H H H M L L L H H H H M M M L Commercial Service L L L L L H L L H H H H H L L L L L M L L L M M L H L H L L L L L M H H H L M L H H L L L L L L Expansion Potential L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L M M M L L L L L L L L L L L L Airport Approach Type L L L L L L L L M L H L M L L L L L L L L L L M L H L H L L L L L H M H L L L L H L L L L L L L Airside Facilities/Infrastructure Landside Facilities/Infrastructure Registered Pilots Airport Name Eagle Roost Eric Marcus Municipal Bagdad Benson Municipal Bisbee Municipal Buckeye Municipal Laughlin/Bullhead International Sun Valley Sky Ranch at Carefree Casa Grande Municipal Chandler Municipal Memorial Airfield Stellar Airpark Chinle Municipal Cibecue Greenlee County Colorado City Municipal Coolidge Municipal Cottonwood Cochise College Douglas Municipal Bisbee Douglas International Eloy Municipal Flagstaff Pulliam Gila Bend Municipal Glendale Municipal San Carlos Apache Phoenix Goodyear Grand Canyon National Park Valle Holbrook Municipal Kayenta Kearny Kingman Lake Havasu City Marana Regional Pinal Airpark Marble Canyon Estrella Sailport Pearce Ferry Falcon Field Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Nogales International Page Municipal Avi Suquilla Payson Grand Canyon Caverns Grand Canyon West Based Turbine Aircraft Associated City Aguila Ajo Bagdad Benson Bisbee Buckeye Bullhead City Bullhead City Carefree Casa Grande Chandler Chandler Chandler Chinle Cibecue Clifton/Morenci Colorado City Coolidge Cottonwood Douglas Douglas Douglas Bisbee Eloy Flagstaff Gila Bend Glendale Globe Goodyear Grand Canyon Grand Canyon Holbrook Kayenta Kearny Kingman Lake Havasu City Marana Marana Marble Canyon Maricopa Meadview Mesa Mesa Nogales Page Parker Payson Peach Springs Peach Springs Total Based Aircraft Figure 5-2: Role Evaluation - Development L L L L L L M L L L M L M L L L M M L L L M L H L M M M H M L L L M M M L L L L M H M M M M L L L M M H M H M L L H H H M M H M M H M M H H M H M H H H H H H H M H H H M H H L L H H H H H L M L L L L L L H L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L H L L L L L L L L L H L L L L L L L H L H L L L L L L L L L M M L L M M H L L M M M M L L M L M M M M H M L M M L M M H M L L L M H L M M M M L M Figure 5-2: Role Evaluation - Development (Continued) 5-19 M H M M L H L L L M M M M L M M M M L M L L L L H H L L M M M M M M Design Aircraft L H M H L H L M L M H M M L H H M M L M L L L M H H M L M M M M M H Commercial Service H H M H L L M L M L H M L L L H L L L L L L L H H H L L L L L L L H Expansion Potential L H L L L L L L L L H L L L L L L L L L L L L L L M L L L L L L L L Airport Approach Type Registered Pilots L H L L L H L L L L H L L L L L L L L L L L L L H H L L L L L L L H Airside Facilities/Infrastructure Landside Facilities/Infrastructure Based Turbine Aircraft Associated City Airport Name Peoria Pleasant Valley Phoenix Phoenix Deer Valley Phoenix Phoenix Regional Phoenix Phoenix Sky Harbor International Polacca Polacca Prescott Ernest A. Love Field Rimrock Rimrock Safford Safford Regional San Luis Rolle Airfield San Manuel San Manuel Scottsdale Scottsdale Sedona Sedona Seligman Seligman Sells Sells Show Low Show Low Regional Sierra Vista Sierra Vista Municipal- Libby AAF Springerville Springerville Municipal St Johns St Johns Industrial Air Park Superior Superior Municipal Taylor Taylor Temple Bar Temple Bar Tombstone Tombstone Municipal Tuba City Tuba City Tucson La Cholla Airpark Tucson Ryan Field Tucson Tucson International Whiteriver Whiteriver Whitmore Grand Canyon Bar Ten Airstrip Wickenburg Wickenburg Municipal Willcox Cochise County Williams H.A. Clark Memorial Field Window Rock Window Rock Winslow Winslow-Lindbergh Regional Yuma Yuma MCAS/Yuma International Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Prepared: July 2008 Total Based Aircraft 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FIVE L M L H L H L M L L M M L L M H M M L M L L L L H H L L L M L M M H H H H H M H M H H H L L L L H L H M M H L M M L H H L H H H H M H L L L L H L H L L L L L L L L H L L L L L L L L L L H L L L L L L L H L M L H M L M L M M M L L M H M M M L M L L M L M H M L M M M M M H 5-20 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FIVE Population Served Industry Groups Served/Economic Potential Retail Sales Accommodations within a 30 Minute Drive L L L H L H H H M H H L H L L L H H H L H M H H L H L M H H H L L H H H H L L L H H H H H H L Businesses Served Airport Name Eagle Roost Eric Marcus Municipal Bagdad Benson Municipal Bisbee Municipal Buckeye Municipal Laughlin/Bullhead International Sun Valley Sky Ranch at Carefree Casa Grande Municipal Chandler Municipal Memorial Airfield Stellar Airpark Chinle Municipal Cibecue Greenlee County Colorado City Municipal Coolidge Municipal Cottonwood Cochise College Douglas Municipal Bisbee Douglas International Eloy Municipal Flagstaff Pulliam Gila Bend Municipal Glendale Municipal San Carlos Apache Phoenix Goodyear Grand Canyon National Park Valle Holbrook Municipal Kayenta Kearny Kingman Lake Havasu City Marana Regional Pinal Airpark Marble Canyon Estrella Sailport Pearce Ferry Falcon Field Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Nogales International Page Municipal Avi Suquilla Payson Grand Canyon Caverns Military or Other Special Tenant Organizations Associated City Aguila Ajo Bagdad Benson Bisbee Buckeye Bullhead City Bullhead City Carefree Casa Grande Chandler Chandler Chandler Chinle Cibecue Clifton/Morenci Colorado City Coolidge Cottonwood Douglas Douglas Douglas Bisbee Eloy Flagstaff Gila Bend Glendale Globe Goodyear Grand Canyon Grand Canyon Holbrook Kayenta Kearny Kingman Lake Havasu City Marana Marana Marble Canyon Maricopa Meadview Mesa Mesa Nogales Page Parker Payson Peach Springs Aviation Services Provided Figure 5-3: Role Evaluation – Economic Support L M L M L M L L L M M L L M L L L M L M L M M L L M L M L L M M M M M M L L M L M M L L L L L L L L L L L L L H L H H H L L L L L L L L L L L L H L H L L L L L L M L L L L M H H L L L L L L L L L L M L L M L H H H L L L L L L L L L L L L H L H L L L L L L M M L L L L H H L L L L L M H M M M H M M H H H H H H M M L M M L L M M M M H L H M M M L M M M H H L H H H H M L M M M L L L L L L L L L L L L H L L L L L L L L L L L L M L M L L L L L L M M L L L L M H L L L L L L L L L L L L L M L L L M L L L L L L L L L L L L M L M L L L L L L M L L L L L L M L L L L L 5-21 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FIVE Businesses Served Population Served Industry Groups Served/Economic Potential Retail Sales Accommodations within a 30 Minute Drive L H H L H L H L H L H H H L L H H H H L H L L L L H H L L H H H L H H Military or Other Special Tenant Organizations Associated City Airport Name Peach Springs Grand Canyon West Peoria Pleasant Valley Phoenix Phoenix Deer Valley Phoenix Phoenix Regional Phoenix Phoenix Sky Harbor International Polacca Polacca Prescott Ernest A. Love Field Rimrock Rimrock Safford Safford Regional San Luis Rolle Airfield San Manuel San Manuel Scottsdale Scottsdale Sedona Sedona Seligman Seligman Sells Sells Show Low Show Low Regional Sierra Vista Sierra Vista Municipal- Libby AAF Springerville Springerville Municipal St Johns St Johns Industrial Air Park Superior Superior Municipal Taylor Taylor Temple Bar Temple Bar Tombstone Tombstone Municipal Tuba City Tuba City Tucson La Cholla Airpark Tucson Ryan Field Tucson Tucson International Whiteriver Whiteriver Whitmore Grand Canyon Bar Ten Airstrip Wickenburg Wickenburg Municipal Willcox Cochise County Williams H.A. Clark Memorial Field Window Rock Window Rock Winslow Winslow-Lindbergh Regional Yuma Yuma MCAS/Yuma International Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Prepared: July 2008 Aviation Services Provided Figure 5-3: Role Evaluation – Economic Support (Continued) L M M M H M M L L M L L L L L L M M L L L L L M L M M M L L M L L M H L H H H H L L L L L L H L L L L L L L L L M L L L L L L L L L L L L L L M H L H L L L L L L H L L L L L L L L L L L L M M H L L L L L L L L M H H H H M M L M M M H M M L M L L L M M H M H H H H M M M M M H L M L L H L H L L L L L L H L L L L L L L L L L L L M M M L L L L L L L L L L H L H L L L L L L H L L L L L L L L L L L L M L M L L L L L L L L 5-22 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FIVE Figure 5-4: Role Evaluation – Safety and Security Associated City Aguila Ajo Bagdad Benson Bisbee Buckeye Bullhead City Bullhead City Carefree Casa Grande Chandler Chandler Chandler Chinle Cibecue Clifton/Morenci Colorado City Coolidge Cottonwood Douglas Douglas Douglas Bisbee Eloy Flagstaff Gila Bend Glendale Globe Goodyear Grand Canyon Grand Canyon Holbrook Kayenta Kearny Kingman Lake Havasu City Marana Marana Marble Canyon Maricopa Meadview Mesa Mesa Nogales Page Parker Payson Peach Springs Peach Springs Airport Name Eagle Roost Eric Marcus Municipal Bagdad Benson Municipal Bisbee Municipal Buckeye Municipal Laughlin/Bullhead International Sun Valley Sky Ranch at Carefree Casa Grande Municipal Chandler Municipal Memorial Airfield Stellar Airpark Chinle Municipal Cibecue Greenlee County Colorado City Municipal Coolidge Municipal Cottonwood Cochise College Douglas Municipal Bisbee Douglas International Eloy Municipal Flagstaff Pulliam Gila Bend Municipal Glendale Municipal San Carlos Apache Phoenix Goodyear Grand Canyon National Park Valle Holbrook Municipal Kayenta Kearny Kingman Lake Havasu City Marana Regional Pinal Airpark Marble Canyon Estrella Sailport Pearce Ferry Falcon Field Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Nogales International Page Municipal Avi Suquilla Payson Grand Canyon Caverns Grand Canyon West Emergency Use L M L M L M H L M H M L L H L M M L M M H L L H L H H M L M M H L H M H M M L L M H M H H H L M Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Development Controls H H H H L H H L H H H H L H H H H L H L L L L H H H H H H H L H L H H L H L L H H H H H H H H H Adopted Height Zoning L L L H L L H H H L H L L L L L H H H L H H H H H L H H L H H L L L L L L H L L H H H H L H L L 5-23 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FIVE Figure 5-4: Role Evaluation – Safety and Security (Continued) Associated City Airport Name Peoria Pleasant Valley Phoenix Phoenix Deer Valley Phoenix Phoenix Regional Phoenix Phoenix Sky Harbor International Polacca Polacca Prescott Ernest A. Love Field Rimrock Rimrock Safford Safford Regional San Luis Rolle Airfield San Manuel San Manuel Scottsdale Scottsdale Sedona Sedona Seligman Seligman Sells Sells Show Low Show Low Regional Sierra Vista Sierra Vista Municipal- Libby AAF Springerville Springerville Municipal St Johns St Johns Industrial Air Park Superior Superior Municipal Taylor Taylor Temple Bar Temple Bar Tombstone Tombstone Municipal Tuba City Tuba City Tucson La Cholla Airpark Tucson Ryan Field Tucson Tucson International Whiteriver Whiteriver Whitmore Grand Canyon Bar Ten Airstrip Wickenburg Wickenburg Municipal Willcox Cochise County Williams H.A. Clark Memorial Field Window Rock Window Rock Winslow Winslow-Lindbergh Regional Yuma Yuma MCAS/Yuma International Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Prepared: July 2008 Emergency Use L H L H H H L H L M H M M L H H H M L M L L H L M M M L M M L H H H Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Development Controls L H L H H H L H H H L H H L H H L H L H H L H L L L H H L H H H H H Adopted Height Zoning L H L H L L L H L L H L L L H H H H L H L L L H H H L L H H H L H H 5-24 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FIVE Figure 5-5: Role Evaluation – Environmental Sensitivity and Stewardship Associated City Aguila Ajo Bagdad Benson Bisbee Buckeye Bullhead City Bullhead City Carefree Casa Grande Chandler Chandler Chandler Chinle Cibecue Clifton/Morenci Colorado City Coolidge Cottonwood Douglas Douglas Douglas Bisbee Eloy Flagstaff Gila Bend Glendale Globe Goodyear Grand Canyon Grand Canyon Holbrook Kayenta Kearny Kingman Lake Havasu City Marana Marana Marble Canyon Maricopa Meadview Mesa Mesa Nogales Page Parker Payson Peach Springs Peach Springs Airport Name Eagle Roost Eric Marcus Municipal Bagdad Benson Municipal Bisbee Municipal Buckeye Municipal Laughlin/Bullhead International Sun Valley Sky Ranch at Carefree Casa Grande Municipal Chandler Municipal Memorial Airfield Stellar Airpark Chinle Municipal Cibecue Greenlee County Colorado City Municipal Coolidge Municipal Cottonwood Cochise College Douglas Municipal Bisbee Douglas International Eloy Municipal Flagstaff Pulliam Gila Bend Municipal Glendale Municipal San Carlos Apache Phoenix Goodyear Grand Canyon National Park Valle Holbrook Municipal Kayenta Kearny Kingman Lake Havasu City Marana Regional Pinal Airpark Marble Canyon Estrella Sailport Pearce Ferry Falcon Field Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Nogales International Page Municipal Avi Suquilla Payson Grand Canyon Caverns Grand Canyon West Community Support M H M H H H H H M H M M H H H M H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H M H H H M H H H H H H H H M H H Community Outreach Efforts L L L L L H L L H L H L L L L L L L L H H L L H L H L L L L H L L H L H L L L L H L L L L H L L 5-25 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER FIVE Figure 5-5: Role Evaluation – Environmental Sensitivity and Stewardship (Continued) Associated City Airport Name Peoria Pleasant Valley Phoenix Phoenix Deer Valley Phoenix Phoenix Regional Phoenix Phoenix Sky Harbor International Polacca Polacca Prescott Ernest A. Love Field Rimrock Rimrock Safford Safford Regional San Luis Rolle Airfield San Manuel San Manuel Scottsdale Scottsdale Sedona Sedona Seligman Seligman Sells Sells Show Low Show Low Regional Sierra Vista Sierra Vista Municipal- Libby AAF Springerville Springerville Municipal St Johns St Johns Industrial Air Park Superior Superior Municipal Taylor Taylor Temple Bar Temple Bar Tombstone Tombstone Municipal Tuba City Tuba City Tucson La Cholla Airpark Tucson Ryan Field Tucson Tucson International Whiteriver Whiteriver Whitmore Grand Canyon Bar Ten Airstrip Wickenburg Wickenburg Municipal Willcox Cochise County Williams H.A. Clark Memorial Field Window Rock Window Rock Winslow Winslow-Lindbergh Regional Yuma Yuma MCAS/Yuma International Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Prepared: July 2008 Community Support M H H H H H H M H H H M H H H H H H H H H L H H H H M L H H H H H H Community Outreach Efforts H H L H L H L L L L H H L L H H H L L L L L L L H H L L L L L L L L 5-26 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX CHAPTER SIX: CURRENT AIR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PERFORMANCE INTRODUCTION Chapter Five, Establish Airport Roles, of the 2008 Arizona State Airports System Plan described the process used to identify roles for each airport in the Arizona airport system. Following the role classification of the state’s airports, facility and service objectives were established for each airport role that allow each airport to function in its role in the entire statewide aviation system. The five airport role classifications are: Commercial Service, Reliever, GA-Community, GA-Rural, and GA-Basic. Classification of the airports into functional roles within the Arizona airport system provides a baseline for evaluating the performance of Arizona’s existing airport system. Measures are used to evaluate the system to determine its current level of performance. This evaluation provides information in three main areas: 1) where the current airport system is adequate to meet Arizona’s near and long-term aviation needs; 2) where specific airport or system deficiencies exist within the state; and 3) where surpluses or duplications of service exist within the system. The adequacies, deficiencies, surpluses, and duplications will be explored future in Chapter Seven where targets for future performance will be discussed. This evaluation also provides the foundation for subsequent recommendations for the Arizona airport system, as well as for individual study airports. This chapter provides an analysis of the existing airport system’s adequacy with respect to the four general system goal categories described in Chapter One. The four goal categories established to evaluate the system include the following: • • • • Development – Provide a system of airports with adequate facilities and services to serve the existing and projected levels of aviation activity or demand. Provide facilities that are accessible from the ground and air to meet the demands of users. Economic Support – Ability of the airport system to support economic development to regional and local businesses by developing airports that allow sufficient access to the national air transportation system. Safety and Standards – Ability of the airport system to meet all federal safety and security requirements, providing safety to passengers, surrounding communities, and wildlife alike. Ability of the airport system to provide adequate accessibility to emergency health services. Environmental Sensitivity and Stewardship – Provide a system of airports meeting federal environmental standards, providing adequate flight training and aircraft maintenance, and providing educational programs to communities and schools. The following sections of this chapter portray the existing performance of each of the goal categories according to the established measures for the Arizona airport system. These analyses are based on conditions as of May 2008, unless otherwise noted. Where applicable, measures that were evaluated in the Arizona State Aviation Needs Study 2000 (SANS 2000) are included in this analysis to show the change in performance over time. 6-1 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX GOAL CATEGORY: DEVELOPMENT Given that Arizona has distinctly varied geographic characteristics and widely distributed population, sufficient access to airports is critical. For an airport system to adequately serve a state, it should provide the level of facilities necessary to accommodate demand from both current and future users. These users include the traveling public as well as individual aircraft operators. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) system planning guidelines recommend that general aviation airports be located within 30 minutes of users. ArcGIS 9, a Geographic Information System (GIS), was used to determine the ground coverage of airports and their proximity to existing and future users. Applying the 30-minute rule of thumb to Arizona’s system airports using GIS, coverage or “market” areas for each airport in the Arizona airport system were developed. GIS uses map-based systems to develop drive times to and from airports based on the types of roads and posted speed limits. When the 30-minute drive times for each airport are calculated and applied to mapping that includes data such as population, the ability of Arizona’s airport system to serve the state and its population can be determined. Aircraft accessibility is also an important factor in measuring system performance. It is influenced by factors such as the type of approach available (in terms of accuracy such as precision, near-precision, non-precision, or visual), airport lighting, and the presence, or lack thereof, of on-site weather reporting equipment to support the ability of aircraft to land in all weather conditions. Performance measures used to evaluate the system’s ability to accommodate aviation development are as follows and discussed in detail below: • Percent of population within a 30-minute drive time of each airport, by role category • Percent of communities in the state with a population greater than 5,000 within a 60-minute drive time of a commercial service airport • Percent of communities in the state with a population greater than 1,000 within a 30-minute drive time of a general aviation airport • Percent of population within a 30-minute drive time of a public use airport • Percent of population within a 30-minute drive time of a National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) airport • Percent of population within a 30-minute drive time of an airport and the number of airports with an instrument approach • Percent of licensed pilots within a 30-minute drive time of an airport • Percent of airports capable of supporting emergency medical transport aircraft • Percent of communities in the state with a population greater than 15,000 within a 30-minute drive time of a general aviation airport that can accommodate large general aviation aircraft (Airport Reference Code (ARC) B-II) and has Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) capability • Percent of airports within a 30-minute drive time of an alternate airport with an Instrument Landing System (ILS) or Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance (LPV) with visibility minima of 300 feet and one mile • Percent of airports with on-site weather reporting and percent of statewide area within 30 nautical miles of an airport with on-site weather reporting • Percent of population within a 30-minute drive time of an all weather runway (paved, instrument approach, AWOS) • Percent of airports with 24/7 fuel • Percent of airports with jet fuel 6-2 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX • • • • • • • • • • Percent of airports with sufficient operational capacity in 2008 Percent of airports projected to have sufficient operational capacity in 2030 Number of airports experiencing delay to aircraft operations: the maximum and average delay in minutes an aircraft experiences due to airside congestion Percent of state population and employment centers that are within a 30-minute drive time of a system airport exceeding 60 percent demand/capacity, current and 2030 Airports with a current (past 5 years) master plan Percent of airports that are compliant with Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 Percent of airports with surrounding municipalities that have adopted controls/ zoning to make land use in the airport environs compatible with airport operations and development Percent of airports with surrounding municipalities that have adopted “disclosure areas” Percent of airports that are recognized in local comprehensive plan Percent of airports included in regional transportation plans Percent of statewide population within a 30-minute drive time of each airport, by role category GIS analysis presented in the exhibits below shows that when all 83 system airports are considered, over 86 percent of Arizona’s population is within a 30-minute drive of at least one and, in some cases, multiple system airports. The GIS analysis was then conducted for the airports in each of the five role categories to determine the percentage of the statewide population within a 30-minute drive time of the different airport roles. Figure 6-1 shows the percentage of Arizona population that is located within a 30-minute drive time of any airport in each system role. Figure 6-1: Percent of Statewide Population within a 30-Minute Drive Time of System Airports, by Role Category Airport Role All System Airports Commercial Service Reliever GA-Community GA-Rural GA-Basic % of Total Population 86% 68% 62% 58% 9% 1% Source: Wilbur Smith Associates GIS Analysis Figure 6-2 graphically depicts the 30-minute drive time coverage for all system airports. Figures 6-3 through 6-7 map this information for the individual airport role categories. Sixtyeight percent of the total population is within a 30-minute drive time of a Commercial Service airport, followed by 62 percent for Reliever, and 58 percent for GA-Community airports. As shown in the maps, there is significant overlap of these drive-time areas for population coverage, particularly in the state’s metropolitan areas and along major highways. 6-3 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-2: 30-Minute Drive Times of System Airports, by Role Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Note: A reference table containing airport codes, airport names, and associated city can be found in Appendix A. 6-4 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-3: 30-Minute Drive Times of Commercial Service Airports Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Note: A reference table containing airport codes, airport names, and associated city can be found in Appendix A. 6-5 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-4: 30-Minute Drive Times of Reliever Airports Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Note: A reference table containing airport codes, airport names, and associated city can be found in Appendix A. 6-6 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-5: 30-Minute Drive Times of GA-Community Airports Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Note: A reference table containing airport codes, airport names, and associated city can be found in Appendix A. 6-7 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-6: 30-Minute Drive Times of GA-Rural Airports Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Note: A reference table containing airport codes, airport names, and associated city can be found in Appendix A. 6-8 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-7: 30-Minute Drive Times of GA-Basic Airports Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Note: A reference table containing airport codes, airport names, and associated city can be found in Appendix A. 6-9 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-8 presents where the remaining 14 percent of the population that is not accounted for in the drive time analysis is located throughout each Arizona county. Figure 6-8: Percent of Statewide Population by County Not Covered by the 30-Minute Drive Time of System Airports % of Statewide Population Not Included in Analysis County % of Statewide Population Not Included in Analysis Apache 0.8% Mohave 1.0% Cochise 0.6% Navajo 1.0% Coconino 0.7% Pima 3.5% Gila 0.3% Pinal 1.1% Graham 0.3% Santa Cruz 0.3% Greenlee 0.1% Yavapai 1.1% County La Paz 0.3% Yuma Maricopa 2.9% Grand Total 0.9% 14.4% Source: Wilbur Smith Associates GIS Analysis As shown on the maps above, these 30-minute drive time areas cover a small percentage of Arizona’s vast land area. In total, the 30-minute drive time areas of all 83 airports included in the SASP only cover 29 percent of the state’s total area. Land ownership in Arizona is split between several categories, shown in Figure 6-9 with the percentage of total statewide land attributable to each. Figure 6-9: Land Ownership Types and Percentage of State Total Land Ownership % of State Private 17% State Trust 13% Bureau of Land Management 17% Tribal 27% Public Forest, Park, or Monument 22% Military 4% Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS) Figure 6-10 visually depicts this information. Private land accounts for only 17 percent of the total land area in Arizona, but encompasses 82 percent of the state population. This indicates that the remaining 83 percent of the land area is owned by other entities, yet only 18 percent of the population lives within this large, expansive area. It is important to note that much of the land not covered by a SASP airport’s 30-minute drive time area is within other areas of low population density and ownership that is other than private. Land owned under State Trust and by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has the potential to be developed for new airports. Together, State Trust and BLM land comprise only 30 percent of Arizona’s total land area. Tribal governments may also choose to develop their land for aviation purposes. Much of the uncovered land in the northeast corner of the Arizona could be accessible by air if the governments choose to build new airports. 6-10 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-10: Land Ownership in Arizona Source: Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS) Note: A reference table containing airport codes, airport names, and associated city can be found in Appendix A. 6-11 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Percent of communities in the state with a population greater than 5,000 within a 60minute drive time of a Commercial Service Airport or 90 minutes of Phoenix-Sky Harbor International and Tucson International Access to an airport with commercial air service is essential to Arizona residents, visitors, and businesses. According to the FAA definition, there are presently 12 Commercial Service airports in Arizona. Although Grand Canyon National Park and Grand Canyon West serve only air tour operators, they are included in this performance measure. Figure 6-11 maps communities in Arizona with populations of 5,000 or more as well as the 60-minute drive times of a Commercial Service airport and a 90-minute drive time of the major metropolitan airports in the state (Phoenix Sky Harbor International and Tucson International). Because their 60-minute drive time market areas go into Arizona, Las Vegas McCarran International and St. George Municipal airports were included in the GIS analysis of access to commercial service airports. However, these two airports do not provide additional coverage to Arizona communities with a population of 5,000 or greater. The two commercial airports in Grand Canyon National Park also do not provide any additional coverage of communities. Currently, 82 percent of communities (71 of 85 communities) with a population of 5,000 or greater are within a 60-minute drive time of a Commercial Service Airport. The cities that are not located in these areas are listed below: • Thatcher • Lake Havasu City • Bisbee • Tuba City • Payson • Chinle • Whiteriver • Safford • Douglas • Winslow • Sierra Vista • Globe • Sierra Vista Southeast • Holbrook It is worth noting that several of the communities appear to be just outside of a 60-minute drive time of a commercial service airport, including Whiteriver and Winslow. Someone may actually be able to drive to several of these towns in less than 60 minutes. For consistency purposes, this analysis uses the drive times derived by GIS. However, it will be noted in Chapter Seven, which communities are just outside the drive times and that the coverage of these towns is adequate. In the SANS 2000, 94 percent of communities having a population of 5,000 or greater were within these drive times of Commercial Service Airports (or 48 of 51 communities). The reason for the loss of coverage is twofold. First, four airports no longer have scheduled commercial service including Lake Havasu City, Sierra Vista Municipal, Nogales International, and Sedona. Second, the population throughout the state has grown rapidly in many areas. At the time the SANS 2000 was completed, Arizona had only 51 cities with a population of at least 5,000. As of May 2008, there are 85 cities with at least that many residents. The three communities that were located outside of the Commercial Service Airport drive time coverage areas in the SANS 2000 were Douglas, Safford, and Winslow. These communities continue to be located outside the drive times of commercial service airports. 6-12 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-11: Communities in the State with a Population Greater than 5,000 within a 60-Minute Drive Time of a Commercial Service Airport or 90-Minute Drive Time of Phoenix Sky Harbor International and Tucson International Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Note: A reference table containing airport codes, airport names, and associated city can be found in Appendix A. 6-13 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Percent of communities in the state with a population greater than 1,000 within a 30minute drive time of a general aviation airport Reasonable access to general aviation airports is a fundamental feature of an adequate state airport system. The population and land coverage within a 30-minute drive time of Arizona general aviation airports is mapped in Figure 6-12. Throughout the state, 87 percent of all cities with a population of at least 1,000 (159 of 182) are located within a 30-minute drive time of an airport supporting general aviation. The towns with a population of 1,000 or more that fall outside the 30-minute drive time of an airport supporting general aviation are: • Strawberry • Paulden • Ganado • Cordes Lake • Tanque Verde • Pinon • Heber-Overgaard • Dilkon • Teec Nos Pos • Quartzsite • Dewey-Humboldt • Houck • Tsaile • Rio Verde • Kaibito • Dolan Springs • Wellton • Salome • Lukachukai • Ehrenberg • Spring Valley • Mayer • Fredonia Similar to the commercial service analysis above, several of the communities are just outside of a 30-minute drive time of a system airport according to the GIS analysis, including Strawberry, Paulden, and Mayer. It will be noted in Chapter Seven, which communities are just outside the drive times and that the coverage of theses towns is adequate. Sixteen of the 23 communities located outside of the drive time market areas have a population of less than 2,000. The largest of these is the Census-designated place Tanque Verde, with a population of over 16,000 and located just outside of Tucson International’s 30-minute drive time, according to the GIS analysis. In the SANS 2000, all Arizona communities with a population of 1,000 or more were found to be located within a 30-minute drive time of a general aviation airport. Similar to the commercial service analysis above, there are far more communities included in this analysis than the SANS 2000; 80 communities in the SANS 2000 compared to the 182 included in this study. Percent of statewide population within a 30-minute drive time of a public use airport Access to public use airports, both commercial service and general aviation, is a crucial aspect of a successful aviation system. Figure 6-13 presents the public use airports included in the SASP and 30minute drive time areas associated with each of these airports. Eighty-five percent of the statewide population falls within the 30-minute coverage of these public use airports. Private-use airports included in the SASP add only an additional one percent coverage of the total Arizona population. Percent of statewide population within a 30-minute drive time of a NPIAS Airport The National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) is developed and maintained by the FAA to identify airports which are significant and essential to the national system, assess the development and condition of these airports, and to provide federal funding where most necessary. Of the 83 airports included in the SASP, 58 are included in the NPIAS. Figure 6-14 maps these airports and their 30-minute drive time market areas. Eighty-three percent of the total statewide population is located within these areas. 6-14 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-12: Communities in the State with a Population Greater than 1,000 within a 30-Minute Drive Time of a General Aviation Airport Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Note: A reference table containing airport codes, airport names, and associated city can be found in Appendix A. 6-15 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-13: 30-Minute Drive Times of Public Use Airports in Arizona Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Note: A reference table containing airport codes, airport names, and associated city can be found in Appendix A. 6-16 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-14: 30-Minute Drive Times of NPIAS Airports in Arizona Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Note: A reference table containing airport codes, airport names, and associated city can be found in Appendix A. 6-17 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Percent of statewide population within a 30-minute drive time of an airport and the number of airports with an instrument approach All types of instrument approaches, both precision and non-precision, provide safe access to airports during instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). The type of instrument approach found at each system airport, if available, was presented in Chapter Three, Figure 3-19. Figure 6-15 maps the 30-minute drive time of airports with an instrument approach. Thirtynine of the 83 SASP airports have some form of instrument approach and are within a 30minute drive time of 80 percent of the statewide population. Percent of airports within a 30-minute drive time of an alternate airport with an Instrument Landing System (ILS) or LPV (300’, 1 mile) Precision approaches, provided by an instrument landing system (ILS), or near precision approaches, provided by lateral precision with vertical guidance (LPV), enable a pilot to fly to a lower height above the ground with lower forward visibility requirements, and with a higher accuracy than a non-precision approach. Thus, it is more likely a pilot may be able to land in IMC at an airport with precision instrument approach capabilities. Access to an alternate airport having an ILS or LPV may be important when a pilot needs to make an emergency landing during poor weather. Figure 6-16 maps 30-minute drive time areas around Arizona airports having an ILS or LPV. As shown, 14 Arizona airports have a LPV or an ILS approach. Thirty-one percent of SASP airports (26 of 83 total airports) either have an ILS or LPV or are located within a 30-minute drive of one of these 14 airports. In other words, of the 69 airports not having an ILS or LPV, 17 percent are located within a 30-minute drive time of an airport with one of these approaches. Percent of licensed pilots within a 30-minute drive time of a system airport It is reasonable to assume that identifying the location of the state’s registered pilots provides an indicator of the demand for aviation activity. Additionally, it is possible to see if there are pilots that are not located near an existing system airport. In order to perform this task, addresses were obtained for each pilot in the state holding a current FAA Medical Certificate. The data was obtained from AIRPAC Inc. and contained over 18,500 pilots in Arizona. Figure 6-17 maps the licensed pilots with current medicals in Arizona and overlays 30minute drive times for all SASP airports. The map differentiates between student pilots, those with instrument ratings, and all other pilots. In total, 94 percent of licensed pilots in Arizona live within a 30-minute drive of a system airport. Just six percent of pilots are located outside the 30-minute drive time boundaries and are spread throughout the rural, less-populated portions of the state. 6-18 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-15: 30-Minute Drive Times of System Airports with an Instrument Approach Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Note: A reference table containing airport codes, airport names, and associated city can be found in Appendix A. 6-19 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-16: 30-Minute Drive Times of System Airports with an ILS or LPV (300’, 1 mile) Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Note: A reference table containing airport codes, airport names, and associated city can be found in Appendix A. 6-20 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-17: Licensed Pilots within a 30-Minute Drive Time of System Airports Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Note: A reference table containing airport codes, airport names, and associated city can be found in Appendix A. 6-21 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Percent of airports capable of supporting emergency/physician/medical supply transport aircraft Emergency and specialized medical care is often not available in the remote areas of Arizona, making the transport of patients, physicians, and medical supplies imperative. Medical emergency aircraft, or air ambulances, often carry modern medical equipment and professional medical staff in order to care for all types of emergencies en-route to a hospital, saving precious travel time. During the survey effort for this study, airport managers were asked if their airports supported three types of medical activity: emergency medical evacuation or air ambulance, physician and medical transport, and medical shipments or patient transfers. Figure 6-18 shows the percentage of each airport role category that had these three types of medical flight activities. Statewide, 83 percent of SASP airports provide medical evacuation/air ambulance activity, 60 percent provide physician and medical transport, and 58 percent support medical shipments and patient transfer. Figure 6-18: Percent of Airports by Role with Medical Activity 58% Arizona Total 60% 83% 83% Commercial Service 83% 100% 75% Reliever 88% 100% 62% GA-Community 69% 90% 46% GA-Rural 42% 75% 30% GA-Basic Medical Shipments/Patient Transfer 30% Physician/Medical Transport Emergency Medical Evacuation/Air Ambulance 50% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 By category, 100 percent of both Commercial Service and Reliever airports support evacuation and air ambulance activities, as well as 90 percent of GA-Community and 75 percent of GA-Rural airports. Eighty-three percent of Commercial Service, 88 percent of Reliever, and 69 percent of GA-Community airports support physician and medical transfer flights. Eighty-three percent of Commercial Service airports also provide medical shipment and patient transfer flights, as do 75 percent of Relievers, and 62 percent of GA-Community facilities. 6-22 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Managers were asked to report the types of aircraft used for air ambulance flights at their airports. Figure 6-19 details the types of aircraft reported. Helicopters were most common, reported to be used at 67 percent of all SASP airports, followed by King Air utilized at 43 percent of airports. Another 12 percent of SASP airports reported Lear Jet 35 aircraft flying for air ambulance activity at their airport. Figure 6-19: Types of Aircraft used for Medical Flights at SASP Airports Number of Supporting Airports % of State Total Helicopter 56 67% King Air 36 43% Lear Jet 35 10 12% Aircraft Pilatus PC-12 7 8% Cessna Twins 4 5% Other 4 5% Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 In addition to the types of aircraft used, airport managers were asked to identify the air ambulance operators that operate from their airports. Figure 6-20 shows that 14 operators used at least two SASP airports. Air Evac/Lifeteam was the most common, operating at 15 SASP airports, followed by Native Air at 13, and Guardian at 12 airports. Several airports reported regional hospitals or companies that offer air ambulance activity in their region. Figure 6-20: Air Ambulance Operators at SASP Airports Air Ambulance Operator Name Aircraft Type Supporting Airports Air Evac/Lifeteam Native American Air Ambulance Guardian Air LifeNet Aerocare Medical Transport Tri-State Care Flight Eagle Air Medical PHI Air Medical Mercy Air Classic Lifeguard Air Ambulance Medical Express International Arizona Lifeline Indian Health Services Critical Air Life Flight Rotorcraft, Lear Jet 35A, Cessna 441 Pilatus PC-12, AS 350 B2s/B3s King Air, Pilatus PC12, Bell 407 Rotorcraft, Cessna Twins Cessna Citation 501, Cessna 421C Cessna 500, Rotorcraft, Beech 200 King Air C-90B Rotorcraft, King Air, Cessna Conquest Rotorcraft Rotorcraft Rotorcraft, Cessna 421, Lear Jet 35A Rotorcraft Rotorcraft Rotorcraft Rotorcraft 15 13 12 8 6 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 An important goal of this system plan and specific performance measure is evaluating coverage provided by airports which can fully accommodate air ambulance aircraft. Many operators utilize helicopters for emergency medical transport, but their limited range, payload and operating environments render them less practical in many circumstances than the other aircraft identified in Figure 6-19. Emergency medical flight providers in Arizona including Guardian Air and Air Evac were contacted to gather information and obtain input into the airport facilities needed to operate fixed-wing aircraft safely throughout Arizona. The operators noted that the King Air and 6-23 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Pilatus PC-12 are most the most frequently used fixed-wing aircraft used to service the rural airports in the state. The air ambulance operators identified the following airport facilities as important for safe emergency aircraft operations. These facilities are not necessarily required for actual operations. • Runway length of 4,000 feet or greater (King Air or smaller fixed-wing aircraft) • Well-maintained pavement on runways • On-site weather reporting • Instrument approach procedure • Rotating beacon • Medium or high intensity runway lighting • Full perimeter fencing (desired) • Approach landing system (ALS) (desired) Figure 6-21 presents a summary of Arizona airports by role category that have the ability to accommodate King Air or smaller emergency medical aircraft based on the facility objectives noted above. Although the larger Lear Jet 35 is often used for out-of-state medical transport, the King Air is the most common aircraft used for air ambulance activities throughout the state. Forty percent of all SASP airports fit these requirements. By role, 83 percent of Commercial Service and 88 percent of Reliever airports fulfill requirements for medical aircraft. Zero GA-Basic airports meet all requirements for medical fixed-wing aircraft needs as identified by the operators. Figure 6-21: Percent of Airports by Role Able to Support Emergency Medical Fixed Wing Aircraft 40% Arizona Total 83% Commercial Service 88% Reliever 45% GA-Community 13% GA-Rural GA-Basic Full Capacity for Medical Aircraft 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 6-24 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Both full perimeter fencing and approach landing systems are considered “desired” airport facilities for emergency medical aircraft operations. With full perimeter fencing taken out as an objective, the system-wide compliance with this performance measure increases from 33 percent to 40 percent of all system airports. With approach landing systems removed, compliance increases to 39 percent. When both are removed as facility objectives for this performance measure, current compliance reaches 45 percent Percent of communities in the state with a population greater than 15,000 within a 30minute drive time of a general aviation airport that can accommodate large general aviation aircraft (Airport Reference Code (ARC) B-II) and has Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) capability Communities with a population of at least 15,000 people are more likely to demand aviation activity with more sophisticated facility needs. As portrayed in Figure 6-22, there are 37 communities that have a population of 15,000 people or more in Arizona. Of these areas, only the Census-designated place of Tanque Verde in Pima County is located outside of a 30minute drive time of an airport capable of supporting large general aviation aircraft (ARC of at least B-II and IMC capability). Tanque Verde itself is located just outside of the 30-minute market area for Tucson International Airport. In total, 97 percent of communities with a population of at least 15,000 people are located within a 30-minute drive time of a general aviation airport capable of supporting large aircraft. An additional 17 communities were included in this analysis compared to the SANS 2000 measurement. In the SANS 2000, 20 communities were listed with a population of at least 15,000. Of these 20 communities, 90 percent met this measure in 2000. Two fell outside of 30-minute drive times of an airport that can accommodate large general aviation aircraft and has IMC capabilities: Lake Havasu City and Globe/Miami/Central Heights. Airports within a 30-minute drive time of these two cities have since upgraded to qualify for this measure. 6-25 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-22: Communities in the State with a Population Greater than 15,000 Within 30-Minute Drive Time of a System Airport that can Accommodate Large General Aviation Aircraft (Airport Reference Code (ARC) B-II) and has Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) Capability Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Note: A reference table containing airport codes, airport names, and associated city can be found in Appendix A. 6-26 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Percent of airports with on-site weather reporting and percent of statewide area within 30 nautical miles of an airport with on-site weather reporting Figure 6-23 details airports in the Arizona system having on-site weather reporting by either an AWOS or ASOS system. Statewide, 47 percent of airports in the system have either an AWOS or ASOS that reports weather conditions. By role, 83 percent of Commercial Service, 88 percent of Reliever, 62 percent of GA-Community, and 17 percent of GA-Rural airports have these systems. Zero airports in the GA-Basic role have on-site weather reporting. Figure 6-23: Percent of Airports by Role With On-Site Weather Reporting Arizona Total 47% Commercial Service 83% Reliever 88% GA-Community 62% GA-Rural GA-Basic 17% 0% 0% Weather Reporting 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Source: ADOT AWOS Network Study 2007 Figure 6-24 depicts airports which have these on-site weather reporting capabilities. Also shown are areas of 25 nautical miles around each airport, which is a standard air area of coverage for an AWOS or ASOS. Fifty-seven percent of Arizona’s total land area falls within these areas. 6-27 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-24: 30-Minute Drive Times of a System Airport with On-Site Weather Reporting Source: ADOT AWOS Network Study 2007, Wilbur Smith Associates Note: A reference table containing airport codes, airport names, and associated city can be found in Appendix A. 6-28 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Percent of population and area within 30 minutes of an all weather runway (paved, instrument approach, AWOS) Airports that are able to accommodate aircraft in all weather situations are particularly important to an aviation system. An all weather runway is defined as being paved, having an instrument approach, and having a weather-reporting system. Figure 6-25 (next page) shows the percent of population and land area within a 30-minute drive time of airports having an all weather runway as defined for this performance measure. Only 14 percent of Arizona’s total land area is covered within a 30-minute drive time. However, due to the state’s population being concentrated in certain areas, 77 percent of the total population is within a 30-minute drive time of an airport having an all weather runway. 6-29 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-25: 30-Minute Drive Times of System Airports with an All-Weather Runway (paved, instrument approach, AWOS) Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Note: A reference table containing airport codes, airport names, and associated city can be found in Appendix A. 6-30 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Percent of airports meeting aviation fuel goals The widespread availability of fuel at Arizona airports is important to operators of based and transient aircraft. Figure 6-26 shows Arizona system airports by role category and percentages of airports having any type of fuel available to the public 24 hours per day/7 days per week and those which provide jet fuel in addition to AvGas. Figure 6-26: Percent of Airports by Role with 24/7 or Jet Fuel 46% Arizona Total 52% 67% Commercial Service 92% 88% Reliever 100% 72% GA-Community GA-Rural GA-Basic 79% 8% 4% 0% 24/7 Fuel 0% Jet Fuel 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 Percent of airports with 24/7 fuel The availability of fuel 24 hours a day, 7 days a week is important to general aviation pilots flying at non peak hours or those needing emergency fuel. This 24/7 fuel may be either AvGas or Jet A fuel, and the method of distribution, such as self-serve or 24-hour FBO-fueling, does not matter. A SASP airport fulfills this measure as long as it has any type of aviation fuel available at any time. Figure 6-26 displays airports with fuel available 24/7 (either 100LL or jet fuel) by system role category. In total, 46 percent of Arizona system airports have fuel available to the public 24/7. Reliever airports had the highest percentage offering 24/7 fuel, with 88 percent of their total. Sixty-seven percent of Commercial Service and 72 percent of GA-Community airports had 24/7 fuel available. Percent of airports with jet fuel Jet fuel is important not only to commercial aviation, but to corporate, charter, and many other types of general aviation operators. Jet aircraft operators, agricultural sprayers, rotary wing operators, and many other aircraft operators require Jet A fuel. In Arizona, it is especially crucial to the large number of charter jets flying to recreational areas such as the Grand Canyon. Figure 6-26 provides the percentages of airports having jet fuel available to 6-31 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX the public by airport system role. Overall, 52 percent of Arizona system airports offer jet fuel. Ninety-two percent of Commercial Service1, 100 percent of Reliever, and 79 percent of GACommunity airports offer jet fuel. Percent of airports meeting capacity goals The capability of Arizona’s airport system to provide sufficient operational capacity to accommodate current and future activity levels is important. The system is evaluated based upon the relationship between annual operational demand and annual operational capacity. This relationship is the demand/capacity ratio. In this analysis, the demand/capacity ratio is derived by comparing each individual airport’s current and projected annual operational activity with its calculated Annual Service Volume (ASV). ASV is a measure of an airport’s ability to efficiently process annual operational activity, expressed as a percentage. ASVs are calculated based upon airfield configuration, fleet mix, and instrument approach facilities. Airports approaching and/or exceeding annual capacity will likely experience delays. The following performance measures identify those Arizona airports operating below FAA targets for capacity: • Percent of airports with sufficient operational capacity in 2007 • Percent of airports projected to have sufficient operational capacity in 2030 • Percent of state population and employment centers that are within a 30-minute drive time of a system airport exceeding 60 percent demand/capacity, current and 2030 • Number of airports experiencing delay to aircraft operations: the maximum and average delay in minutes an aircraft experiences due to airside congestion For long-range planning purposes, the FAA recommends that airports should begin planning for capacity enhancing projects when operational demand reaches 60 percent of annual operating capacity. When demand approaches 80 percent of airport capacity, plans to address capacity issues should be implemented. For this analysis, each airport’s ASV was either calculated or obtained from a recent airportspecific planning document such as a master plan. Figure 6-27 presents current and projected operational demand, current ASV, current and projected demand/capacity ratios by system airport, and current and projected average aircraft delay per operation. 1 Grand Canyon West Airport does not offer fuel to the public; fuel is only available to charter and air tour companies that operate at the airport. 6-32 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-27: Airport Operational Demand/Capacity Demand/ Capacity Ratio Demand Code Associated City Airport Name 2007 2030 ASV 2007 2030 Avg. Aircraft Delay/Op (minutes) 2007 2030 Commercial Service IFP Bullhead City Laughlin/Bullhead Intl 23,678 27,200 170,000 14% 16% 0.1 0.1 FLG Flagstaff Flagstaff Pulliam 46,424 55,500 230,000 20% 24% 0.1 0.1 100,936 162,100 210,000 48% 77% 0.3 0.9 59,489 105,600 195,500 30% 54% 0.1 0.4 296,676 531,300 524,000 57% 101% 0.4 2.4 0.1 GCN Grand Canyon Grand Canyon National Park IGM Kingman Kingman IWA Mesa Phoenix-Mesa Gateway PGA Page Page Municipal 24,000 72,500 200,000 12% 36% 0.1 1G4 Peach Springs Grand Canyon West 138,408 187,300 131,625 105% 142% 3.2 5+ PHX Phoenix Phoenix Sky Harbor Intl 539,211 903,700 685,000 79% 132% 1.4 7+ PRC Prescott Ernest A. Love Field 227,351 269,000 355,000 64% 76% 0.5 0.8 SOW Show Low Show Low Regional 41,192 64,300 195,500 21% 33% 0.1 0.1 TUS Tucson Tucson International 257,704 307,000 318,000 81% 97% 1.0 1.9 NYL Yuma Yuma MCAS/Yuma Intl 198,332 271,000 299,000 66% 91% 0.6 1.4 Reliever CHD Chandler Chandler Municipal 265,212 479,400 456,000 58% 105% 0.1 1.2 GEU Glendale Glendale Municipal 146,208 197,100 299,000 49% 66% 0.1 0.2 GYR Goodyear Phoenix Goodyear 188,015 288,500 206,000 91% 140% 0.6 2+ AVQ Marana Marana Regional 112,000 173,900 188,000 60% 93% 0.1 0.6 FFZ Mesa Falcon Field 314,129 489,400 472,000 67% 104% 0.2 1.7 DVT Phoenix Phoenix Deer Valley 378,370 590,800 645,000 59% 92% 0.1 0.6 SDL Scottsdale Scottsdale 191,982 299,700 218,500 88% 137% 0.6 2+ RYN Tucson Ryan Field 249,425 448,900 379,000 66% 118% 0.2 2.0 GA-Community E95 Benson Benson Municipal 8,200 16,100 184,000 4% 9% 0.0 0.0 BXK Buckeye Buckeye Municipal 28,662 51,800 236,000 12% 22% 0.0 0.0 18AZ Carefree Sky Ranch at Carefree 3,573 4,100 172,500 2% 2% 0.0 0.0 CGZ Casa Grande Casa Grande Municipal 63,980 86,200 187,000 34% 46% 0.1 0.1 P19 Chandler Stellar Airpark 45,100 70,500 195,500 23% 36% 0.0 0.1 34AZ Chandler Memorial Airfield 25,500 34,200 184,000 14% 19% 0.0 0.0 AZC Colorado City Colorado City Municipal 3,050 3,500 184,000 2% 2% 0.0 0.0 P08 Coolidge Coolidge Municipal 6,000 6,900 184,000 3% 4% 0.0 0.0 P52 Cottonwood Cottonwood 19,410 26,100 184,000 11% 14% 0.0 0.0 DGL Douglas Douglas Municipal 11,100 14,900 165,625 7% 9% 0.0 0.0 E60 Eloy Eloy Municipal 23,100 31,100 184,000 13% 17% 0.0 0.0 40G Grand Canyon Valle P14 Holbrook Holbrook Municipal HII Lake Havasu City MZJ Marana OLS P20 800 1,100 184,000 0% 1% 0.0 0.0 4,900 6,600 184,000 3% 4% 0.0 0.0 Lake Havasu City 51,654 69,500 230,000 22% 30% 0.0 0.0 Pinal Airpark 10,628 11,800 153,900 7% 8% 0.0 0.0 Nogales Nogales International 40,100 70,300 195,500 21% 36% 0.0 0.1 Parker Avi Suquilla 14,520 19,600 195,500 7% 10% 0.0 0.0 0.1 PAN Payson Payson 42,500 76,800 195,500 22% 39% 0.0 P48 Peoria Pleasant Valley 60,000 93,700 126,500 47% 74% 0.1 0.2 SAD Safford Safford Regional 18,750 28,500 195,500 10% 15% 0.0 0.0 SEZ Sedona Sedona 50,000 75,300 195,500 26% 39% 0.0 0.1 FHU Sierra Vista Sierra Vista Municipal- LAA 156,237 187,400 215,000 73% 87% 0.2 0.6 6-33 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-27: Airport Operational Demand/Capacity (Continued) Demand/ Capacity Ratio Demand Avg. Aircraft Delay/Op (minutes) Code Associated City Airport Name 2007 2030 ASV 2007 2030 2007 D68 Springerville Springerville Municipal 4,100 4,700 195,500 2% 2% 0.0 2030 0.0 SJN St Johns St Johns Industrial Air Park 15,000 19,900 195,500 8% 10% 0.0 0.0 TYL Taylor Taylor 4,810 6,500 195,500 2% 3% 0.0 0.0 E25 Wickenburg Wickenburg Municipal P33 Willcox Cochise County CMR Williams H.A. Clark Memorial Field INW Winslow Winslow-Lindbergh Regional P01 Ajo Eric Marcus Municipal P04 Bisbee A20 Bullhead City E91 Chinle Chinle Municipal CFT Clifton/Morenci Greenlee County 8,760 13,700 161,000 5% 9% 0.0 0.0 P03 Douglas Cochise College 55,180 84,500 184,000 30% 46% 0.0 0.1 DUG Douglas Bisbee Bisbee Douglas International 5,300 5,900 184,000 3% 3% 0.0 0.0 E63 Gila Bend Gila Bend Municipal 11,010 23,000 184,000 6% 13% 0.0 0.0 P13 Globe San Carlos Apache 16,200 21,800 195,500 8% 11% 0.0 0.0 0V7 Kayenta Kayenta 4,524 6,100 155,250 3% 4% 0.0 0.0 E67 Kearny Kearny 4,200 5,700 184,000 2% 3% 0.0 0.0 L41 Marble Canyon Marble Canyon 2,585 4,000 149,500 2% 3% 0.0 0.0 E68 Maricopa Estrella Sailport 16,500 22,200 213,000 8% 10% 0.0 0.0 L37 Peach Springs Grand Canyon Caverns 1,350 2,400 126,500 1% 2% 0.0 0.0 A39 Phoenix Phoenix Regional 14,600 19,700 184,000 8% 11% 0.0 0.0 P10 Polacca Polacca 1,000 1,200 149,500 1% 1% 0.0 0.0 44A San Luis Rolle Airfield 4,900 5,400 161,000 3% 3% 0.0 0.0 E77 San Manuel San Manuel 13,080 26,300 210,000 6% 13% 0.0 0.0 P23 Seligman Seligman 1,100 1,500 184,000 1% 1% 0.0 0.0 U30 Temple Bar Temple Bar 1,800 2,400 161,000 1% 1% 0.0 0.0 T03 Tuba City Tuba City 910 1,100 155,250 1% 1% 0.0 0.0 57AZ Tucson La Cholla Airpark 4,000 5,400 184,000 2% 3% 0.0 0.0 18,000 37,100 184,000 10% 20% 0.0 0.0 7,860 10,500 195,500 4% 5% 0.0 0.0 3,650 4,900 184,000 2% 3% 0.0 0.0 27,650 31,300 195,500 14% 16% 0.0 0.0 600 700 161,000 0% 0% 0.0 0.0 Bisbee Municipal 4,512 9,400 184,000 2% 5% 0.0 0.0 Sun Valley 1,000 1,600 161,000 1% 1% 0.0 0.0 2,400 5,000 161,000 1% 3% 0.0 0.0 GA-Rural E24 Whiteriver Whiteriver 3,440 4,000 172,500 2% 2% 0.0 0.0 RQE Window Rock Window Rock 7,000 14,700 166,750 4% 9% 0.0 0.0 GA-Basic 27AZ Aguila Eagle Roost 3,500 4,700 172,500 2% 3% 0.0 0.0 E51 Bagdad Bagdad 14,000 18,900 161,000 9% 12% 0.0 0.0 Z95 Cibecue Cibecue 1,415 1,900 132,250 1% 1% 0.0 0.0 L25 Meadview Pearce Ferry 1,100 1,500 132,250 1% 1% 0.0 0.0 3AZ5 Peach Springs Hualapai 0 0 155,250 0% 0% 0.0 0.0 48AZ Rimrock Rimrock 600 800 149,500 0% 1% 0.0 0.0 E78 Sells Sells 1,210 1,600 149,500 1% 1% 0.0 0.0 E81 Superior Superior Municipal 200 200 138,000 0% 0% 0.0 0.0 P29 Tombstone Tombstone Municipal 300 500 155,250 0% 0% 0.0 0.0 1,275 1,500 126,500 1% 1% 0.0 0.0 1Z1 Whitmore Grand Canyon Bar Ten Airstrip Sources: Airport Records, Wilbur Smith Associates, September 2008 6-34 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Percent of airports with sufficient operational capacity in 2007 Figure 6-28 presents Arizona system airports currently operating below target demand/capacity levels. Thirteen percent of all system airports (12 airports) in Arizona operated above 60 percent capacity in 2007 and five percent of the airports (five airports) operated above 80 percent capacity. In 2007, 58 percent of Commercial Service airports and 50 percent of Reliever airports operated below 60 percent capacity. Seventeen percent of Commercial Service Airports and 25 percent of Reliever Airports operated above 80 percent capacity in 2007. One airport, Grand Canyon West, currently is above 100 percent capacity, based on reported levels of activity and an estimated annual ASV. Just two (seven percent) GA-Community Airports operated above 60 percent capacity. All GA-Rural and GABasic airports operated below 60 percent of operational capacity. The next chapter of this analysis addresses potential ways to address capacity shortfalls. Figure 6-28: Airports with Sufficient Operating Capacity, 2007 Grand Total 8% 87% Commercial Service 25% 58% Reliever 50% 17% 25% 25% GA-Community 3% 97% GA-Rural 100% GA-Basic 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Airports Operating Below 60% Capacity Airports Operating at Greater Than 80% Capacity 5% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Airports Operating Between 60%-80% Capacity Sources: Wilbur Smith Associates, airport records The SANS 2000 also calculated ASVs and demand/capacity ratios for 1998. According to the SANS 2000, six airports exceeded the 60 percent FAA demand/capacity threshold. These airports were Grand Canyon National Park, Phoenix Sky Harbor, Ernest A. Love Field, Tucson International, Phoenix Deer Valley, and Scottsdale. Figure 6-29 presents the airports that exceeded 60 percent threshold in 1998, the base year used for the SANS 2000, and which airports currently exceed the 60 percent threshold. Phoenix Sky Harbor completed the construction of a third runway to improve operational capacity. Grand Canyon National Park and Phoenix Deer Valley have actually declined due to adjustments in ASV calculations. The decline in the ratio for Ernest A. Love Field is due to declines in operational levels. Tucson International and Scottsdale have continued to see an increase in their operational capacity ratios. Airports that are currently operating above the 6-35 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX 60 percent FAA threshold that were below the threshold in 1998 include Grand Canyon West (recorded zero (0) operations in 1998), Yuma International, Phoenix Goodyear, Marana Regional, Falcon Field, Ryan Field, and Sierra Vista Municipal. Figure 6-29: Airports Operating Above 60% Demand Capacity Ratio in 1998 and 2007 Demand/Capacity Ratios Code Associated City Airport Name 1998 2007 105% 48% 0% 105% Commercial Service GCN Grand Canyon Grand Canyon National Park 1G4 Peach Springs Grand Canyon West PHX Phoenix Phoenix Sky Harbor Intl 113% 79% PRC Prescott Ernest A. Love Field 108% 64% TUS Tucson Tucson International 70% 81% NYL Yuma Yuma MCAS/Yuma Intl 50% 66% Reliever GYR Goodyear Phoenix Goodyear 57% 91% AVQ Marana Marana Regional 31% 60% 67% FFZ Mesa Falcon Field 58% DVT Phoenix Phoenix Deer Valley 84% 59% SDL Scottsdale Scottsdale 62% 88% RYN Tucson Ryan Field 44% 66% Sierra Vista Sierra Vista Municipal- LAA 14% 73% Other FHU Sources: SANS 2000; Wilbur Smith Associates Percent of airports projected to have sufficient operational capacity in 2030 Figure 6-30 presents projected demand/capacity information for the 2030 forecast year using data from the SASP. In 2030, it is projected that 42 percent of Commercial Service Airports, zero percent of Reliever Airports, 93 percent of GA-Community and 100 percent of GA-Rural and GA-Basic Airports will have sufficient operational capacity. Eighty percent of all Arizona system airports are projected to be operating below 60 percent demand/capacity. Five percent are projected to be operating between 60 and 80 percent of capacity. Thirteen system airports (16 percent) are projected to surpass 80 percent of their operational capacity by 2030. Eight airports are projected to exceed 100 percent capacity by 2030. 6-36 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-30: Airports with Sufficient Operating Capacity, 2030 80% Arizona Total 42% Commercial Service 5% 17% 13% Reliever 16% 42% 88% 3% 3% 93% GA-Community GA-Rural 100% GA-Basic 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Airports Operating Below 60% Capacity 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Airports Operating Between 60%-80% Capacity Airports Operating at Greater Than 80% Capacity Sources: Wilbur Smith Associates, airport records Number of airports experiencing delay to aircraft operations: the maximum and average delay in minutes an aircraft experiences due to airside congestion Similar to the measurement from the SANS 2000, average aircraft delay was calculated using FAA Advisory Circular 150/5060-5, Airport Capacity and Delay to determine the number of airports experiencing delay to aircraft operations. As shown in Figure 6-27, 23 system airports experience some level of delay. Statewide average delay for these 23 airports was 0.49 minutes per aircraft operation. The SANS 2000 also noted that 23 airports experienced some level of delay. The statewide average when the analysis was completed was 0.50 minutes per operation. By 2030, 28 system airports are projected to experience delay. The average delay of these airports is projected to be 0.72 minutes by 2030. The SANS 2000 did not determine delay based on projected operational activity. Percent of population and employment centers that are within a 30-minute drive time of a system airport exceeding 60 percent demand/capacity, current and 2030 Figure 6-31 presents the 30-minute drive times of Arizona airports which currently or are projected to exceed 60 percent of their operational capacity. Seventy-two percent of the Arizona population is within a 30-minute drive time of one of the airports that currently experiences or is projected to experience operational delays. Forty percent of the state’s employment centers are also within a 30-minute drive time of system airports currently experiencing or projected to experience delay. Employment centers were defined as communities with greater than $10 million in net taxable sales. There are 163 employment centers in Arizona based on this definition. 6-37 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-31: Employment Centers that are within a 30-Minute Drive Time of a System Airport Exceeding 60 Percent Demand/Capacity, Current and 2030 Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Note: A reference table containing airport codes, airport names, and associated city can be found in Appendix A. 6-38 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Airports with a current (past 5 years) master plan A key component in the success of a system airport is ensuring that it can respond to near and long-term development needs. An airport with a current master plan has increased likelihood of cooperation from the local community and mitigation of environmental concerns during periods of growth and development. A current airport master plan is important for eligibility for federal and state funding for capital improvement projects. Current master plans, as well as airport layout plans (ALPs), help Arizona’s airports document current and future facilities and requirements, determine priority for potential development projects, and identify compatible land uses for areas near the airport. An airport’s master plan should be updated regularly as increased demand necessitates, as conditions at the airport or community change, or as changes in federal planning and design standards warrant. For the purpose of this analysis, a master plan is considered current if completed or underway in the last five years, 2003 or later. Only publicly-owned airports in the SASP are included in this analysis. Figure 6-32 details the currency of master plans at Arizona SASP airports as obtained from airport, FAA, and ADOT records. It is important to note that even though an airport may have a recently completed master plan, the plan may not necessarily be approved by the FAA or ADOT. In order to receive federal or state funding for projects included in the master plan, the projects must be approved. Although an ALP is not a required part of this performance measure, Figure 6-32 also shows the most recent approval dates for ALPs as provided by the FAA. As shown, the number of ALPs approved by the FAA in the last five years dwarfs the number of ALPs or master plans that have been completed. Only two-thirds of the Commercial Service Airports, one-quarter of the Reliever Airports and applicable GA-Community Airports have had an ALP approved by the FAA in the last five years. 6-39 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-32: Airports by Role with Current Master Plans and ALPs and FAA Approval Dates Associated City Commercial Service Bullhead City Flagstaff Grand Canyon Kingman Mesa Page Peach Springs Phoenix Prescott Show Low Tucson Yuma Reliever Chandler Glendale Goodyear Marana Mesa Phoenix Scottsdale Tucson GA-Community Benson Buckeye Carefree Casa Grande Chandler Chandler Colorado City Coolidge Cottonwood Douglas Eloy Grand Canyon Holbrook Lake Havasu City Marana Nogales Parker Payson Peoria Safford Sedona Sierra Vista Airport Name Master Plan Date Current Master Plan ALP Date FAA Approved ALP Date FAA Approval in Last 5 Years 2007 2002 2006 2006 2005 2001 2007 2008 2000 2005 2004 2001 Yes Laughlin/Bullhead Intl Flagstaff Pulliam Grand Canyon National Park Kingman Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Page Grand Canyon West Phoenix Sky Harbor Intl Ernest A. Love Field Show Low Regional Tucson International Yuma International 2009 2007 2006 2006 2008 2007 2007 1997 2008 2003 2004 2009 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2007 2007 2006 2006 2008 2007 2007 2008 2008 2005 2004 2007 Chandler Municipal Glendale Municipal Phoenix Goodyear Marana Regional Falcon Field Phoenix Deer Valley Scottsdale Ryan Field 2007 2008 2008 2008 2008 2007 2009 2008 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2007 2008 2008 2007 2008 2008 2009 2008 2000 1998 1992 2007 2007 2002 2002 2001 Benson Municipal Buckeye Municipal Sky Ranch at Carefree Casa Grande Municipal Memorial Airfield Stellar Airpark Colorado City Municipal Coolidge Municipal Cottonwood Douglas Municipal Eloy Municipal Grand Canyon Valle Holbrook Municipal Lake Havasu City Pinal Airpark Nogales International Avi Suquilla Payson Pleasant Valley Safford Regional Sedona Sierra Vista Municipal/LAA 2007 2007 Private 2008 2005 Private 2008 2009 2007 1994 2001 Private 2000 2008 2004 2006 2008 2008 Private 2008 1999 2003 Yes Yes NA Yes Yes NA Yes Yes Yes 2007 2007 NA 2008 2005 NA 2008 2009 2007 2003 2001 NA 2000 2008 2004 2002 2008 2008 NA 2008 2006 2000 2000 2007 NA 2001 1984 NA 2000 2001 2006 NA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA Yes Yes 2001 NA 2000 2003 2000 1993 2001 2001 NA 2001 2001 2000 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA NA Yes NA Yes NA 6-40 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-32: Airports by Role with Current Master Plans and ALPs and FAA Approval Dates (Continued) Associated City GA-Community Springerville St Johns Taylor Wickenburg Willcox Williams Winslow GA-Rural Ajo Bisbee Bullhead City Chinle Clifton/Morenci Douglas Douglas Bisbee Gila Bend Globe Kayenta Kearny Marble Canyon Maricopa Peach Springs Phoenix Polacca San Luis San Manuel Seligman Temple Bar Tuba City Tucson Whiteriver Window Rock GA-Basic Aguila Bagdad Cibecue Meadview Peach Springs Rimrock Sells Superior Tombstone Whitmore Airport Name Master Plan Date Springerville Municipal St Johns Industrial Air Park Taylor Wickenburg Municipal Cochise County H.A. Clark Memorial Field Winslow-Lindbergh Regional 2008 1998 2005 2003 1997 2008 2008 Eric Marcus Municipal Bisbee Municipal Sun Valley Chinle Municipal Greenlee County Cochise College Bisbee Douglas International Gila Bend Municipal San Carlos Apache Kayenta Kearny Marble Canyon Estrella Sailport Grand Canyon Caverns Phoenix Regional Polacca Rolle Airfield San Manuel/Ray/Blair Seligman Temple Bar Tuba City La Cholla Airpark Whiteriver Window Rock 1999 2001 None None 2008 2001 1997 2009 2007 2005 2006 Private Private Private None 1997 2001 2003 2005 None 2005 Private 1998 1998 Eagle Roost Bagdad Cibecue Pearce Ferry Hualapai Rimrock Sells Superior Municipal Tombstone Municipal Grand Canyon Bar Ten Airstrip Private 2000 None None None Private None 2002 1999 Private Current Master Plan Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA NA NA Yes Yes Yes NA NA NA NA ALP Date FAA Approved ALP Date FAA Approval in Last 5 Years 2007 2008 2005 2000 1997 2007 2002 2007 1999 2005 2005 1999 2008 2002 Yes 1999 2002 NA 1992 2008 2001 2002 2009 2007 2005 2006 NA NA NA NA NA 2003 2007 2006 NA 2005 NA 2003 1998 1999 2001 NA 1992 2003 Yes 1998 2000 2007 2006 Yes Yes NA 2008 2006 NA NA NA NA 2001 1999 NA NA 2000 2006 NA NA NA NA Yes Yes Yes NA NA NA 2007 NA 2001 NA 2007 2001 1999 NA Yes NA Yes NA Yes NA NA Sources: ADOT Aeronautics Division, Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008, FAA Note: NA=not applicable 6-41 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-33 provides a summary of current master plans (by completion date, not FAA approval date) by system role. This measure does not apply to 13 percent of the airports in the system because they are owned privately and do not receive state or FAA funding for projects, in most cases. Throughout the system, 55 percent of the airports have a current master plan. When privately owned airports are removed from the analysis, 64 percent of all system airports are considered to have current plans. All airports in the Commercial Service and Reliever role categories other than Phoenix Sky Harbor International have a current (or in progress) master plan. In addition, 66 percent of GA-Community airports have a current master plan. Figure 6-33: Percent of Airports by Role with Current Master Plans and/or Airport Layout Plans Grand Total 30% 55% Commercial Service 13% 92% Reliever 8% 100% GA-Community 66% GA-Rural 33% 17% 50% GA-Basic 0% 0% 30% 70% 10% 20% 14% 21% 30% 40% Current Master Plan 50% 60% Not Current 70% 80% 90% 100% Private/NA Sources: ADOT Aeronautics Division, Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 Percent of airports with zoning and land use controls The FAA recognizes and stresses the importance of planning to increase the long-term flexibility of the nation’s airport system. Proactive land use planning provides one mechanism for minimizing adverse airport-related impacts in the airport environs, thereby increasing long-term flexibility. Airports that are protected from the encroachment of activities or land use which are not compatible with their day-to-day operations and activities generally have a greater potential for future expansion to meet identified needs. In addition to airport master plans and airport layout plans, performance measures were set for an airport’s inclusion in or use of Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77-related height zoning, airport-compatible local zoning and controls, and state-defined airport disclosure areas. Figure 6-34 shows the percentages of airports by role category that meets these performance measures. 6-42 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-34: Percent of Airports by Role with Airport Zoning and Land Use Controls 35% Arizona Total 60% 46% 67% Commercial Service 67% 58% 100% Reliever 100% 75% 31% GA-Community 72% 69% 8% GA-Rural 46% 21% Disclosure Areas 20% GA-Basic Airport-Compatible Controls/Zoning 20% Zoning in Part 77 Surfaces 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 Percent of airports with surrounding municipalities that have adopted “disclosure areas” Measures which alert prospective property buyers to the existence of overflight impacts are highly appropriate to minimize airport noise complaints. Recognizing the importance of providing communities with information regarding the proximity of local airports, the state of Arizona enacted A.R.S. §28-8485 and 8486 in 1999 to allow the governing body of a political subdivision to establish an airport influence area. These statutes are discussed in detail in Chapter Two. In addition, the statute states that the Arizona Department of Real Estate should have “airport disclosure” maps available to the public that outline boundaries of each territory in the vicinity of a public airport. This is defined as the property that is within the FAA’s “traffic pattern airspace” which is the area where traffic converges as it approaches and departs an airport. It includes property that experiences a day-night average sound level above the following levels: • • In counties with a population of more than 500,000 persons, 60 decibels or higher at airports where such an average sound level has been identified in either the airport master plan for the 20- year planning period or in a noise study prepared in accordance with airport noise compatibility planning, 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 150. In counties with a population of 500,000 persons or less, 65 decibels or higher at airports where such an average sound level has been identified in the airport master plan for the 20- year planning period. 6-43 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Several system airports have provided the state with traffic pattern airspace and noise contour drawings in order to meet this statute. An example of an airport disclosure map is presented in Figure 6-35. Figure 6-35: Example of an Airport Disclosure Map Local municipalities have worked closely with current and prospective property owners to provide disclosure through defined noise “disclosure areas.” Figure 6-34 reveals that 31 percent of Arizona system airports (26 of 83) have supplied the Department of Real Estate with information regarding “disclosure areas.” This low number is largely a result of Arizona’s many rural airports which have limited surrounding community or local opposition to the requirement of disclosure areas due to concerns for decreased property values. By role category, 67 percent of Commercial Service, 100 percent of Reliever, and 31 percent of GA6-44 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Community airports have surrounding municipalities with disclosure areas. As noted in Chapter Two, there are no requirements and to implement airport influence areas or public airport disclosure, and thus no penalties for failure to implement. Because of this, encroachment is worsening around airports, limiting expansion potential and creating additional impacted areas. Percent of airports with surrounding municipalities that have adopted controls/zoning to make land use in the airport environs compatible with airport operations and development The long-term viability of airports in many communities may be threatened by encroachment from land uses or activities which are incompatible with airport operations. It is important for municipalities to adopt land use zoning ordinances to protect airports and the surrounding areas of potential impact from incompatible land uses. Areas in the vicinity of an airport most likely to be impacted by airport operations are often confined to the flight patterns of aircraft operating at the airport, which likely extend beyond airport property. Figure 6-34 shows that 60 percent of all Arizona system airports are located in communities with airport-compatible land use controls and zoning according to data provided by airport managers through the SASP planning process. By role category, 67 percent of Commercial Service, 100 percent of Reliever, and 72 percent of GA-Community airports have surrounding municipalities that have implemented these types of controls and zoning. Percent of airports that are compliant with Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 (height zoning) FAR Part 77 provides standards for the airspace surrounding airports and their operational areas. It describes conceptual airspace surfaces surrounding each airport relative to the runways and each runway end. These surfaces generally begin at a height 150 feet above the runway elevation and extend up and out from and around the runway ends. The dimensions of the conceptual surfaces vary, and are based upon each airport’s ARC, approach and departure procedures, and FAA guidance. Figure 6-34 reveals that 46 percent of all system airports have worked with local municipalities to enact height zoning in the affected areas. Fifty-eight percent of Commercial Service, 75 percent of Reliever, and 69 percent of GA-Community airports have adopted height zoning. It should be noted that privately-owned system airports do not receive state or federal funding, thus are not required to comply with FAR Part 77. Percent of airports meeting local and regional planning goals Local comprehensive and regional transportation plans are a good indication of a host community’s support and compatibility with its respective airport. If the airport is identified and approved in these plans, this tends to increase the airport’s long-term viability and potential to meet future needs. Figure 6-36 shows airports by role category that are included in regional transportation and local comprehensive plans. 6-45 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-36: Percent of Airports by Role Included in Local Comprehensive and Regional Transportation Plans 47% Arizona Total 64% 67% Commercial Service 83% 100% Reliever 100% 48% GA-Community 69% 33% GA-Rural Included in Regional Transportation Plan 50% 10% Recognized in Local Comprehensive Plan GA-Basic 30% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 Percent of airports included in regional transportation plans Figure 6-36 shows that 47 percent of system airports are included in a regional transportation plan as indicated through the results of the surveys conducted as part of the SASP. By role category, 67 percent of Commercial Service, 100 percent of Reliever, and 48 percent of GA-Community airports are included in these plans. Less GA-Rural and GA-Basic airports are included in transportation plans than in comprehensive plans, only 33 percent and 10 percent, respectively. Percent of airports that are recognized in local comprehensive plan Figure 6-36 shows that 64 percent of Arizona system airports are included in the local comprehensive plan of their community or region. Eighty-three percent of Commercial Service, 100 percent of Reliever, and 69 percent of GA-Community airports are included in local comprehensive plans. Fifty percent of GA-Rural and 30 percent of GA-Basic airports are also included in local comprehensive plans. 6-46 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX GOAL CATEGORY: ECONOMIC SUPPORT Airports play a key role in supporting and promoting economic activity in Arizona. Employers nationwide consider the existence and efficiency of air transportation facilities when expanding or developing in a given geographic area. In business surveys conducted throughout the U.S. and as part of this study, employers were asked to rank the importance of commercial service and general aviation airports to other factors in selecting a new site. The following 14 factors were included in the survey: • Raw materials, natural resources • Convenient highway access • Proximity to universities or R&D centers • Commercial service • Proximity to academic or cultural centers • International flights • Tax incentives • General aviation • Availability of a trained workforce • Cost of living in the area • Proximity of suppliers • Rail transportation • Historic location of the business • Urban business district nearby In the survey administered as part of this study to Arizona businesses, the proximity to a commercial service airport ranked 4th and the proximity to a general aviation airport ranked 11th among all 14 factors considered. Many top national firms use general aviation aircraft in their business to transport employees and also have customers and suppliers who visit via general aviation airports. The presence and utility of airports lends assistance in economic growth and diversification. In addition to adequate airport facilities, market areas that airports serve must possess other characteristics that make them candidates for the attraction and retention of various economic development activities. For this goal category, the relationship between the economic activity of the region and the demand for aviation services was examined through the following performance measures: • Dollars of economic impact on the state from aviation • Number of major recreational areas in the state within a 30-minute drive time of a system airport • Percent of businesses with the propensity to use aviation within a 30-minute drive of a system airport • Percent of population within a 30-minute drive time of a system airport meeting business user needs • Number of airports having adequate utilities (electricity, telephone, water, sewer, and gas) • Percent of airports with a pavement condition index (PCI) of 70 or greater • Percent of airports meeting minimum facility and service objectives Dollars of economic impact on the state from aviation The economic impact of an airport is a measure of the fiscal contribution of airport operations and its users to the surrounding region and the state. Air transport and tourism, commercial aviation, general aviation, and aerospace manufacturing are all important parts of the Arizona economy. Data utilized in the analysis of this measure was obtained from The Economic Impacts of Aviation in Arizona, completed by SH&E, with Economic Development Research Group and Arizona State University College of Business in 2004. 6-47 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Primary economic impacts are the statewide economic activities, employment, and payrolls that can be attributed directly and indirectly to the operation of system airports. They describe the importance of aviation as an industry. Direct impacts are the consequence of economic activities carried out at system airports by airlines, airport management, fixed base operators, and other aviation dependant industries. Direct impacts represent economic activities that would not have occurred in the absence of an airport system. Indirect impacts are additional off-site economic activities that occur in response to investments in the airport system. Existing firms expand their economic activity in order to meet the additional demand for services that results from the airport. These activities include services provided by travel agencies, hotels, restaurants, and retail establishments. As the money from the primary economic impacts circulates in the local economy, it creates additional taxable economic activity. The combination of primary and induced economic impact measures the total economic impact of aviation. Figure 6-37 presents the total jobs, payroll, and economic output (primary plus induced impacts) for the airports included in the Arizona system for 2002. Several private and tribal airports were not included in the analysis, so it is not inclusive of all system or SASP airports. In addition, there were several airports included in the analysis that are now closed or not included in the SASP. A statewide economic impact study of aviation in Arizona was also completed in 1998. Between 1998 and 2002 (the year the data for 2003 was based on), total statewide economic activity increased 24 percent, jumping from $31.1 billion in 1998 (measured in constant 2002 dollars) to $38.5 billion in 2002. The change is presented in Figure 6-38. 6-48 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-37: Total Jobs, Payroll, and Economic Output Associated with System Airports Associated City Commercial Service Bullhead City Flagstaff Grand Canyon Kingman Mesa Page Peach Springs Phoenix Prescott Show Low Tucson Yuma Reliever Chandler Glendale Goodyear Marana Mesa Phoenix Scottsdale Tucson GA-Community Benson Buckeye Carefree Casa Grande Chandler Chandler Colorado City Coolidge Cottonwood Douglas Eloy Grand Canyon Holbrook Lake Havasu City Marana Nogales Parker Payson Peoria Safford Sedona Sierra Vista Springerville St Johns Taylor Wickenburg Willcox Airport Name Laughlin/Bullhead Intl Flagstaff Pulliam Grand Canyon National Park Kingman Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Page Grand Canyon West Phoenix Sky Harbor Intl Ernest A. Love Field Show Low Regional Tucson International Yuma International COMMERCIAL SERVICE TOTAL Chandler Municipal Glendale Municipal Phoenix Goodyear Marana Regional Falcon Field Phoenix Deer Valley Scottsdale Ryan Field RELIEVER TOTAL Benson Municipal Buckeye Municipal Sky Ranch at Carefree Casa Grande Municipal Memorial Airfield Stellar Airpark Colorado City Municipal Coolidge Municipal Cottonwood Douglas Municipal Eloy Municipal Grand Canyon Valle Holbrook Municipal Lake Havasu City Pinal Airpark Nogales International Avi Suquilla Payson Pleasant Valley Safford Regional Sedona Sierra Vista Municipal Springerville Municipal St Johns Industrial Air Park Taylor Wickenburg Municipal Cochise County Total Impacts (including Multiplier Effects) Employment Payroll Sales 1,508 1,411 6,315 346 1,975 465 406 281,018 1,156 140 68,164 1,238 364,142 $40,878,676 $40,520,453 $165,351,532 $9,661,718 $71,107,408 $13,060,568 $10,889,062 $8,053,735,485 $32,260,417 $4,137,202 $2,220,159,564 $32,540,210 $10,694,302,295 $102,513,550 $117,515,084 $401,161,888 $24,502,344 $180,363,677 $31,377,270 $26,456,699 $23,548,812,548 $76,212,998 $9,730,978 $5,632,986,525 $79,423,209 $30,231,056,770 778 516 2,493 257 17,602 2,035 1,909 497 26,087 $22,445,580 $15,452,764 $108,447,852 $8,376,199 $701,000,967 $54,742,600 $57,733,925 $15,513,721 $983,713,608 $53,877,443 $36,717,702 $393,011,393 $19,369,711 $2,013,412,392 $124,787,460 $140,131,205 $35,769,729 $2,817,077,035 20 236 N/A 399 N/A 27 18 66 157 29 398 152 28 361 21 127 59 211 645 59 327 283 49 99 32 123 26 $501,392 $7,204,437 N/A $9,915,806 N/A $687,975 $530,855 $1,712,148 $3,661,321 $792,707 $12,915,935 $4,148,201 $722,499 $10,049,239 $618,836 $3,606,859 $1,491,126 $5,889,433 $20,448,738 $1,542,496 $8,614,310 $10,366,030 $1,464,896 $2,829,473 $937,682 $3,401,620 $720,216 $1,142,492 $19,283,538 N/A $23,934,485 N/A $1,613,529 $1,345,823 $3,911,998 $8,905,532 $1,745,768 $30,184,006 $9,840,798 $1,658,266 $25,427,667 $1,339,987 $4,818,337 $3,716,842 $14,531,561 $49,925,968 $3,654,714 $21,178,718 $21,935,138 $3,121,707 $6,375,268 $2,146,367 $7,979,235 $1,644,554 6-49 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-37: Total Jobs, Payroll, and Economic Output Associated with SASP Airports (Continued) Associated City Williams Winslow GA-Rural Ajo Bisbee Bullhead City Chinle Clifton/Morenci Douglas Douglas Bisbee Gila Bend Globe Kayenta Kearny Marble Canyon Maricopa Peach Springs Phoenix Polacca San Luis San Manuel Seligman Temple Bar Tuba City Tucson Whiteriver Window Rock GA-Basic Aguila Bagdad Cibecue Meadview Peach Springs Rimrock Sells Superior Tombstone Whitmore ARIZONA TOTAL Airport Name H.A. Clark Memorial Field Winslow-Lindbergh Regional GA- COMMUNITY TOTAL Eric Marcus Municipal Bisbee Municipal Sun Valley Chinle Municipal Greenlee County Cochise College Bisbee Douglas International Gila Bend Municipal San Carlos Apache Kayenta Kearny Marble Canyon Estrella Sailport Grand Canyon Caverns Phoenix Regional Polacca Rolle Airfield San Manuel/Ray/Blair Seligman Temple Bar Tuba City La Cholla Airpark Whiteriver Window Rock GA- RURAL TOTAL Eagle Roost Bagdad Cibecue Pearce Ferry Hualapai Rimrock Sells Superior Municipal Tombstone Municipal Grand Canyon Bar Ten Airstrip GA- BASIC TOTAL Total Impacts (including Multiplier Effects) Employment Payroll Sales 102 $2,976,218 $6,954,110 88 $2,217,750 $544,581 4,142 $119,968,198 $278,860,989 7 21 3 46 26 25 23 62 41 16 2 20 38 5 23 N/A 8 25 208 13 14 N/A 54 10 739 $102,235 $602,302 $14,102 $1,220,763 $684,419 $730,833 $681,066 $166,149 $1,129,505 $452,953 $80,596 $520,034 $1,281,918 $158,801 $601,032 N/A $280,643 $674,218 $5,283,974 $350,169 $375,275 N/A $1,406,862 $251,179 $18,513,924 $227,523 $1,365,779 $76,359 $2,694,210 $1,582,391 $1,667,825 $1,500,342 $3,977,488 $2,750,630 $1,014,172 $197,784 $1,219,060 $2,901,494 $373,202 $1,397,500 N/A $740,941 $1,489,456 $12,785,626 $836,118 $872,041 N/A $3,200,752 $554,228 $46,546,628 85 29 8 9 N/A N/A 11 1 3 14 160 395,221 $2,736,838 $755,945 $195,315 $211,340 N/A N/A $264,350 $48,765 $95,401 $377,133 $4,685,087 $11,819,718,216 $6,433,986 $1,786,853 $446,311 $511,203 N/A N/A $599,121 $110,585 $219,320 $911,469 $11,018,848 $33,381,438,563 Source: SH&E, Economic Development Research Group, and Arizona State University College of Business Note: N/A= not included in 2002 study 6-50 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-38: Comparison of Total Economic Activity at Arizona Airports, 1998 and 2002 $18.2 2002 $16.7 1998 $0 $5 $10 $ 3 8 .5 B TOTAL $20.3 $ 3 1 .1 B TOTAL $14.4 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40 $45 Econom ic Sales (in billions of 2 0 0 2 dollars) Primary Induced Sources: ADOT, SH&E, Economic Development Research Group, and Arizona State University College of Business Note: Includes several airports that are now closed or not part of this system plan Number of major recreational areas in the state within a 30-minute drive time of a system airport Recreational tourism plays a significant role in the overall economic health of Arizona. With over four million visitors annually, Grand Canyon National Park is one of the most visited recreational locations in the nation, and other attractions such as Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Meteor Crater, and Coronado National Forest attract millions more. A list of the most highly visited parks, monuments, and recreation areas in Arizona was obtained by the Arizona Office of Tourism. Figure 6-39 presents the proximity of the recreational areas to system airports. Of the 37 attractions noted by the Office of Tourism, 32 are within a 30-minute drive time of an Arizona system airport, accounting for 87 percent of the total. The following recreational areas fell outside of an existing airport’s 30-minute drive time: • Hubbell Trading Post National Historic Site • Navajo National Monument • The Nature Conservatory Ramsey Canyon • Sabino Canyon Recreation Area Preserve • Wupatki National Monument This performance measure involving the proximity of recreational areas to airports was also included in the SANS 2000 study. With only 29 sites included in the previous analysis, the SANS 2000 did not include as many parks and recreational areas as this analysis. Of the 29 in the SANS 2000, it noted that 28 were within a 30-minute drive time of a general aviation airport, or 97 percent of the total. Just one area, Alamo Lake State Park in La Paz County was not within a 30-minute drive time. Recreational areas included in this study are not necessarily consistent with those in the SANS 2000. The 31 sites included in this study were specifically noted by the Office of Tourism as being the most-visited state recreation areas in the state. 6-51 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-39: Recreational Areas in the State within a 30-Mnute Drive Time of a System Airport Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Note: A reference table containing airport codes, airport names, and associated city can be found in Appendix A 6-52 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Percent of businesses with the propensity to use aviation within a 30-minute drive of a system airport In order to assess business-related demand on Arizona’s airport system, employers or businesses within the state with a propensity to utilize aviation were identified. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes of businesses utilizing aviation services were identified through thousands of business survey responses gathered by Wilbur Smith Associates while conducting airport economic impact or air service studies throughout the U.S. Businesses in these NAICS codes were obtained for Arizona to determine their locations relative to system airports. Limiting this analysis to businesses having a minimum number of employees helps to identify businesses that are most likely to place measurable demand on Arizona’s system of airports. Over 2,600 businesses within the following NAICS codes that employ at least 20 employees were identified for inclusion in this analysis: • Business Services • Mining • Health Services (General Medical and • Heavy Construction Specialty) • Manufacturing • Legal Services • Transportation (Motor Freight) • Education (Colleges) • Wholesale • Engineering Figure 6-40 depicts the location of these 2,600 businesses in relation to Arizona’s airports. Thirty-minute drive time market areas for the airports are also shown. As would be expected the majority of these businesses are located in the major urban areas of Arizona, including the metropolitan regions of Phoenix and Tucson. Other clusters of these businesses are located in Prescott, Flagstaff, Kingman, and Yuma. Out of these 2,600 businesses, only 17 are located outside of these 30-minute drive time areas. This accounts for less than one percent of Arizona businesses which have the propensity to use aviation. 6-53 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-40: Percent of Businesses with the Propensity to Use Aviation within a 30-Minute Drive Time of a System Airport Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Note: A reference table containing airport codes, airport names, and associated city can be found in Appendix A 6-54 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Percent of statewide population within a 30-minute drive time of a system airport meeting business user needs Businesses which have the propensity to use aviation must not only have reasonable access to airports, but those airports must also meet the specific needs that business aviation presents. For the purpose of this study, the following business user requirements are used: • 5,000’ runway • Instrument approach • Jet fuel • Terminal • Ground Transportation Figure 6-41 presents Arizona airports that have each of the characteristics to meet the business user needs objective. Figure 6-42 maps airports that meet the specific needs of business aviation, and their 30-minute drive time market areas. These areas cover 79 percent of the total statewide population. 6-55 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-41: Airport Compliance to Meeting Business User Needs Associated City Commercial Service Bullhead City Flagstaff Grand Canyon Kingman Mesa Page Peach Springs Phoenix Prescott Show Low Tucson Yuma Reliever Chandler Glendale Goodyear Marana Mesa Phoenix Scottsdale Tucson GA-Community Benson Buckeye Carefree Casa Grande Chandler Chandler Colorado City Coolidge Cottonwood Douglas Eloy Grand Canyon Holbrook Lake Havasu City Marana Nogales Parker Payson Peoria Safford Sedona Sierra Vista Springerville >5.000' Runway Instrument Approach Jet Fuel Laughlin/Bullhead Intl Flagstaff Pulliam Grand Canyon National Park Kingman Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Page Grand Canyon West Phoenix Sky Harbor Intl Ernest A. Love Field Show Low Regional Tucson International Yuma International X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Chandler Municipal Glendale Municipal Phoenix Goodyear Marana Regional Falcon Field Phoenix Deer Valley Scottsdale Ryan Field X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Airport Name Benson Municipal Buckeye Municipal Sky Ranch at Carefree Casa Grande Municipal Memorial Airfield Stellar Airpark Colorado City Municipal Coolidge Municipal Cottonwood Douglas Municipal Eloy Municipal Grand Canyon Valle Holbrook Municipal Lake Havasu City Pinal Airpark Nogales International Avi Suquilla Payson Pleasant Valley Safford Regional Sedona Sierra Vista Municipal Springerville Municipal X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Ground Transportation Compliant X X Yes Yes X X X Yes Yes Yes X X X X X Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes X X X X X X Terminal X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Yes X X Yes X X X X X X Yes X Yes X X X X Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 6-56 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-41: Airport Compliance to Meeting Business User Needs (Continued) Associated City GA-Community St Johns Taylor Wickenburg Willcox Williams Winslow GA-Rural Airport Name St Johns Industrial Air Park Taylor Wickenburg Municipal Cochise County H.A. Clark Memorial Field Winslow-Lindbergh Regional Ajo Eric Marcus Municipal Bisbee Bullhead City Chinle Clifton/Morenci Douglas Douglas Bisbee Gila Bend Globe Kayenta Kearny Marble Canyon Maricopa Peach Springs Phoenix Polacca San Luis San Manuel Seligman Temple Bar Tuba City Tucson Whiteriver Window Rock Bisbee Municipal Sun Valley Chinle Municipal Greenlee County Cochise College Bisbee Douglas Intl Gila Bend Municipal San Carlos Apache Kayenta Kearny Marble Canyon Estrella Sailport Grand Canyon Caverns Phoenix Regional Polacca Rolle Airfield San Manuel/Ray/Blair Seligman Temple Bar Tuba City La Cholla Airpark Whiteriver Window Rock GA-Basic Aguila Bagdad Cibecue Meadview Peach Springs Rimrock Sells Superior Tombstone Whitmore Eagle Roost Bagdad Cibecue Pearce Ferry Hualapai Rimrock Sells Superior Municipal Tombstone Municipal Grand Canyon Bar Ten Airstrip >5.000' Runway Instrument Approach Jet Fuel X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Terminal Ground Transportation Compliant X X X X X X X X X X Yes Yes X Yes X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 6-57 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-42: 30-Minute Drive Times of System Airports Meeting Business User Needs Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Note: A reference table containing airport codes, airport names, and associated city can be found in Appendix A 6-58 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Number of airports having adequate utilities (electricity, telephone, water, sewer, and natural gas) Having adequate utilities at an airport is important for several reasons. Commercial service and general aviation passengers rely on utilities for comfort and convenience while waiting for flights. Utilities can be a large determining factor for businesses deciding on which airport to locate. Adequate available utilities can also be a determining factor for pilots when choosing an airport at which to base their aircraft. In the Airport Inventory and Data Survey 2008, managers were asked the availability of five utilities at their airports: electricity, sewer (or septic), telephone, natural gas, and water. Figure 6-43 shows the availability of these utilities at Arizona airports by role category, and also the percentage of each role that has all five utilities. With the exception of gas, all Commercial Service airports have all five of these utilities. All airports in the Commercial Service, Reliever, and GA-Community categories have water, telephone, and electricity. Statewide, 49 percent of system airports have all five of these utilities. Eighty-eight percent have electricity, 81 percent have water, 81 percent also have telephone, 71 percent have sewer, and 52 percent have natural gas. In the SANS 2000, utilities were only shown for secondary airports. The SANS listed 29 secondary airports that did not have adequate utilities. By making the assumption that the three non-Reliever GA roles are “secondary” airports, the SASP concludes that 27 airports are without adequate utilities. However, five airports that were without adequate utilities in the SANS now meet all SASP requirements for airport utilities. These airports are Grand Canyon West, Pleasant Valley in Peoria, San Manuel/Ray/Blair, Sedona, and H.A. Clark Memorial Field in Williams. 6-59 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-43: Percent of Airports by Role Having Adequate Airport Utilities 81% 52% 81% Arizona Total 71% 88% 49% 100% 83% 100% 100% 100% Commercial Service 83% 100% 75% 100% Reliever 88% 100% 63% 100% 66% 100% GA-Community 93% 100% 62% 63% 29% 67% GA-Rural 46% 88% 29% 30% 10% 20% 20% GA-Basic All Five Utilities Sewer Natural Gas 30% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Electricity Telephone Water 80% 90% 100% Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 Percent of airports with a PCI of 70 or greater The development and maintenance of paved surfaces at all system airports requires significant and continual investment. ADOT has determined that maintaining runway pavements to a certain standard helps to prevent major costly runway reconstruction projects. In 2000, ADOT underwent an effort to improve and maintain aviation pavement infrastructure throughout the state. A study conducted by Applied Pavement Technology, Inc. resulted in the Arizona Airport Pavement Management System (APMS) and the on-going Arizona Pavement Preservation Program (APPP). The APMS program is designed to provide ADOT with cost-effective procedures for setting priorities and schedules, allocating resources, and providing specific recommendations to maintain acceptable pavement conditions in the airport system. The ADOT Aeronautics Division uses the APMS each year to identify necessary pavement upgrades and repairs within the airport system. 6-60 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX In Arizona, a pavement condition index (PCI) is available for primary runways and all pavement averages (including all runways, taxiways, and apron areas). The measure set is that runways should have a PCI grade of 70 or greater. Pavement condition indexes were available for 52 SASP airports. Five airports had unpaved runways, and thus, no PCI. Of the remaining, 10 are privately-owned airports and 13 are owned by Native American tribes. Figure 6-44 details the availability and ratings of PCIs at SASP airports. If a PCI index was not available at an airport, ownership or runway type was included in the columns. Some other airports have their own pavement management programs and therefore a PCI was not available for this study. 6-61 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-44: PCI Ratings at Individual Airports ID Average 2006 PCI Primary Runway PCI Average PCI Compliance Primary Runway PCI Compliance Laughlin/Bullhead International Flagstaff Pulliam Grand Canyon National Park Kingman Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Page Grand Canyon West Phoenix Sky Harbor International Ernest A. Love Field Show Low Regional Tucson International Yuma International IFP FLG GCN IGM IWA PGA 1G4 PHX PRC SOW TUS NYL 77 89 94 77 87 80 Native 87 89 84 NA 77 57 99 94 82 83 72 Native 97 97 92 NA NA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA Yes Yes Yes Yes* Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA Yes Yes Yes Yes* Yes* Chandler Chandler Municipal CHD 92 82 Yes Yes Glendale Goodyear Marana Mesa Phoenix Scottsdale Tucson GA-Community Benson Buckeye Carefree Casa Grande Chandler Chandler Colorado City Coolidge Cottonwood Douglas Eloy Grand Canyon Holbrook Lake Havasu City Marana Nogales Parker Payson Peoria Safford Sedona Glendale Municipal Phoenix Goodyear Marana Regional Falcon Field Phoenix Deer Valley Scottsdale Ryan Field GEU GYR AVQ FFZ DVT SDL RYN 81 76 82 81 78 93 75 96 85 85 82 94 72 84 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Benson Municipal Buckeye Municipal Sky Ranch at Carefree Casa Grande Municipal Memorial Airfield Stellar Airpark Colorado City Municipal Coolidge Municipal Cottonwood Douglas Municipal Eloy Municipal Grand Canyon Valle Holbrook Municipal Lake Havasu City Pinal Airpark Nogales International Avi Suquilla Payson Pleasant Valley Safford Regional Sedona E95 BXK 18AZ CGZ 34AZ P19 AZC P08 P52 DGL E60 40G P14 HII MZJ OLS P20 PAN P48 SAD SEZ 98 79 Private 82 Private Private 80 74 80 87 91 Private 86 80 58 83 Native 88 Unpaved 86 81 94 90 Private 64 Private Private 62 77 90 74 100 Private 86 80 59 100 Native 97 Unpaved 74 99 Yes Yes NA Yes NA NA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA Yes Yes No Yes NA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA No NA NA No Yes Yes Yes Yes NA Yes Yes No Yes NA Yes Yes Yes Associated City Airport Name Commercial Service Bullhead City Flagstaff Grand Canyon Kingman Mesa Page Peach Springs Phoenix Prescott Show Low Tucson Yuma Reliever 6-62 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-44: PCI Ratings at Individual Airports (Continued) Associated City Sierra Vista Springerville St Johns Taylor Wickenburg Willcox Williams Winslow GA-Rural Ajo Bisbee Bullhead City Chinle Clifton/Morenci Douglas Douglas Bisbee Gila Bend Globe Kayenta Kearny Marble Canyon Maricopa Peach Springs Phoenix Polacca San Luis San Manuel Seligman Temple Bar Tuba City Tucson Whiteriver Window Rock GA-Basic Aguila Bagdad Cibecue Meadview Peach Springs Rimrock Sells Superior Tombstone Whitmore Primary Runway PCI NA 65 96 82 79 78 92 67 Average PCI Compliance Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Primary Runway PCI Compliance NA No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Airport Name Sierra Vista Municipal Springerville Municipal St Johns Industrial Air Park Taylor Wickenburg Municipal Cochise County H.A. Clark Memorial Field Winslow-Lindbergh Regional ID FHU D68 SJN TYL E25 P33 CMR INW Average 2006 PCI 97 77 70 86 85 62 81 69 Eric Marcus Municipal Bisbee Municipal Sun Valley Chinle Municipal Greenlee County Cochise College Bisbee Douglas International Gila Bend Municipal San Carlos Apache Kayenta Kearny Marble Canyon Estrella Sailport Grand Canyon Caverns Phoenix Regional Polacca Rolle Airfield San Manuel/Ray/Blair Seligman Temple Bar Tuba City La Cholla Airpark Whiteriver Window Rock P01 P04 A20 E91 CFT P03 DUG E63 P13 0V7 E67 L41 E68 L37 A39 P10 44A E77 P23 U30 T03 57AZ E24 RQE 79 75 Native Native 72 59 55 87 Native Native 75 Private Private Unpaved Native Native 77 90 85 NA Native Private Native Native 85 71 Native Native 83 70 100 73 Native Native 71 Private Private Unpaved Native Native 67 82 86 NA Native Private Native Native Yes Yes NA NA Yes No No Yes NA NA Yes NA NA NA NA Yes Yes Yes NA NA NA NA NA Yes Yes NA NA Yes Yes Yes Yes NA NA Yes NA NA NA NA No Yes Yes NA NA NA NA NA Eagle Roost Bagdad Cibecue Pearce Ferry Hualapai Rimrock Sells Superior Municipal Tombstone Municipal Grand Canyon Bar Ten Airstrip 27AZ E51 Z95 L25 3AZ5 48AZ E78 E81 P29 1Z1 Private 78 Unpaved Unpaved Native Private Native Unpaved 87 Private Private 99 Unpaved Unpaved Native Private Native Unpaved 100 Private NA Yes NA NA NA Yes NA NA Yes NA NA NA Yes NA Sources: Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, Tucson International Airport Notes: NA=not available. *Exact PCIs for Tucson International pavements and Yuma International primary runway pavement were not available. However, it was confirmed with these airports that PCIs were greater than 70. 6-63 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-45 summarizes all pavement average and primary runway PCI status and availability at all SASP airports. Fifty-four airports had an available average pavement PCI. Of these, 49 had a PCI of at least 70. Of all SASP airports, six percent of all pavement averages were listed as unpaved, 12 percent were privately-owned, 16 percent owned by Native American communities, and one percent unavailable for other reasons. Of the 52 airports for which a primary runway PCI was available, 45 had an index of at least 70. Of all SASP airports, six percent of primary runways were unpaved, 12 percent were privately-owned, 16 percent were unavailable due to being Native-owned, and four percent were unavailable for other reasons. Figure 6-45: Percent of Airports Meeting PCI Compliance and Reasons for Unavailability of Pavement Condition Average PCI Compliance Arizona Total 1% 16% 12% 6% 59% Commercial Service 0% 8% 6% 92% Reliever 100% GA-Community 3% GA-Rural 4% GA-Basic 14% 3% 69% 38% 13% 20% 0% 10% 10% 4% 33% 30% 20% 30% 8% 30% 40 % 50% 60% 20% 70% 8 0% 90% 100% Primary Runway PCI Compliance Arizona Total 4% Commercial Service 8% 16% 12% 6% 54% 8% 75% Reliever GA-Community GA-Rural 8% 8% 100% 4% 4% 14% 4% GA-Basic 3% 59% 38% 13% 20% 0% 10% 17% 4% 38% 30% 20% 30% Not Available 30% 40% Native Private 50% Unpaved 60% Compliant 4% 20% 70% 80% 90 % 10 0 % Not Compliant Source: Arizona Department of Transportation 6-64 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Percent of airports meeting minimum facility and service objectives The evaluation of airports meeting minimum facility and service objectives measures the ability of each airport and airport role to satisfy the objectives determined in Chapter Five. In order for airports to completely fulfill their respective roles in the system, the established facility and service objectives should be met at a minimum but can be exceeded. The specific facilities and services needed at each airport depend on the role that the airport plays, with more extensive facilities needed at airports that serve larger, more sophisticated aircraft. It is important to note that the purpose of the SASP is to provide ADOT Aeronautics Division with a clear assessment of airport needs in the state. Facility and service deficiencies identified in this analysis do not necessarily indicate that an airport should or must meet that objective during or beyond the planning period. From an FAA or state funding standpoint, projects must be included and justified in an airport-specific study in order to be eligible for FAA and state participation. Projects must be identified on an ALP and appropriate environmental analyses must be prepared prior to consideration for funding. While the SASP analysis is considered in the overall context of FAA review, justification for airport-specific projects must be provided to gain FAA and state funding approval. Figure 6-46 summarizes the current compliance within each role category for facility and service objectives as well as the overall system. In the instance where no specific objective has been established for a role category, the corresponding data has been left blank. A complete, detailed analysis has been performed and is included in Appendix B. In some cases airports in a given role may not currently meet their objectives. These facility and service objectives serve as guidelines for the airport system as a whole to strive for when the means for compliance exists. 6-65 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-46: Summary of Facility and Service Objectives Compliance 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% ARC Primary Runway Length Primary Runway Width Runway Surface 76% 71% 86% 99% 81% 100% 100% 92% 100% 100% Reliever 50% 13% 75% 100% 50% GA-Community 69% 45% 97% 97% 79% GA-Rural 71% 96% 75% 100% 75% GA-Basic 100% 100% 80% 100% Arizona Total Commercial Service Taxiway 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Arizona Total Approach Visual Aids Lighting ALS 55% 34% 47% 30% 75% 42% 92% 50% 100% 88% 100% 0% GA-Community 55% 28% 45% GA-Rural 13% 33% 21% 0% 20% Commercial Service Reliever GA-Basic 6-66 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-46: Summary of Facility and Service Objectives Compliance (Continued) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% FBO Maintenance Ground Transportation Phone Arizona Total 82% 86% 48% 62% 76% 64% Commercial Service 83% 92% 75% 83% 100% 83% Reliever 63% 100% 75% 100% 100% 100% GA-Community 86% 79% 45% 86% 93% 79% GA-Rural 100% 100% 29% 33% 63% 25% GA-Basic 100% 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% Restroom Fuel 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Airport Fencing Terminal Hangar Spaces Apron Spaces Arizona Total 67% 100% 41% 86% Auto Parking Spaces 73% Commercial Service 50% 100% 100% 100% 100% Reliever 50% 100% 13% 75% 50% GA-Community 76% 100% 34% 79% 72% GA-Rural 75% 100% 29% 92% 67% GA-Basic 60% Sources: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008, Arizona Department of Transportation, Wilbur Smith Associates 6-67 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX GOAL CATEGORY: SAFETY AND STANDARDS One of the most important characteristics of a good airport system is the system’s ability to meet applicable design and safety standards. Generally speaking, when airports in any system comply with such standards, this helps to promote a system of safe and efficient airports. While each airport’s ability to meet standards is primarily a master planning issue, it is important for the SASP to provide at least a general overview of the system’s ability to conform to appropriate standards. The following performance measures are used to evaluate the system: • Percent of airports with clear approaches to primary runway ends • Percent of airports that have a written emergency response plan • Percent of airports with adopted Security Plans • Percent of airports with adopted Wildlife Management Plans • Airports controlling runway end Runway Protection Zones (RPZs) on their primary runway • Percent of airports that meet runway/taxiway separation criteria for their current ARC • Percent of airports that have procedures in place to conduct self-inspections on a regular basis • Percent of hospitals in the state within a 30-minute drive time of an airport with Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) capability, on-site weather reporting, and jet fuel availability • Percent of airports that support search and rescue operations • Percent of airports that support aerial fire fighting operations • Percent of airports that support life flight activities The results of the system evaluation for these performance measures related to the standards/safety performance measure are discussed in the following sections. Percent of airports with clear approaches to primary runway ends FAA Form 5010, the Airport Master Record, maintains records of approach slopes and obstructions at airports throughout the country. An optimal and actual glide slope is given, as well as details on existing obstructions. Figure 6-47 displays the percent of airports by role category that meet their optimal approach slope as defined in Form 5010. In total, 46 percent of all SASP airports meet optimal approaches and are free of obstructions. By role, 50 percent of Commercial Service, 75 percent of Reliever, 48 percent of GA-Community, 46 percent of GA-Rural, and 10 percent of GA-Basic meet their optimal approach slope. This data was not available for 11 percent of SASP airports, and in the GA-Basic category alone it was not available for 40 percent. Chapter Seven will provide more detail concerning the obstructions at specific airports, and which airports may be capable of reaching the optimal approach slope identified for the airports. One way airports can ensure that their runway approaches remain clear is by creating programs or plans designed to remove or keep vegetation and other obstructions from becoming a problem in the runway approach. Airspace is defined and delineated by a set of geometric surfaces referred to as “imaginary surfaces.” These surfaces extend outward and upward from airport runways. Imaginary surfaces identify the maximum acceptable height of objects beneath and within surface boundaries. While manmade and terrain obstructions cannot always be removed, obstructions in runway approaches related to vegetation (particularly trees) can usually be resolved if the airport has and adheres to a vegetation management plan. Airport managers were asked if their airport had adopted a vegetation 6-68 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX management plan or any other obstruction removal plan. Fourteen percent of airports in the system reported an active obstruction or vegetation management plan. Figure 6-47: Percent of Airports by Role Meeting Optimal Approach Slopes on their Primary Runways Arizona Total 51% Commercial Service 50% 10% 40% 0% 50% 25% 75% Reliever 0% 10% 20% 50% 30% GA-Basic 13% 42% 46% GA-Rural 10% 34% 55% GA-Community 20% 30% Compliant 40% 50% Not Compliant 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Data Not Available Source: FAA Form 5010, Airport Master Record Percent of airports with adopted Safety and Security Planning Figure 6-48 displays the percentages of airports in each role category that have adopted security plans, wildlife management plans, and emergency response plans. The following sections discuss each plan in more detail. Percent of airports that have a written emergency response plan An emergency response plan at an airport is developed to facilitate the efficient and appropriate response to natural or man-made emergencies occurring on or near an airport. Each plan lists potential emergencies at specific airports, and creates response scenarios for each. Figure 6-48 shows the percentage of airports by role category that has adopted an emergency response plan. Statewide, 47 percent of SASP airports have an emergency response plan. All Commercial Service, 75 percent of Reliever, and 48 percent of GACommunity airports have adopted an emergency response plan. 6-69 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-48: Percent of Airports by Role Having Safety and Security Planning 47% Arizona Total 31% 18% 100% Commercial Service 100% 50% 75% Reliever 50% 25% 48% GA-Community 21% 21% 25% GA-Rural 17% 4% Emergency Response Plan 10% GA-Basic Security Plan 0% Wildlife Management Plan 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 Percent of airports with adopted Security Plans An airport security plan is an important document in maintaining security for the airport, the surrounding community, as well as the region, state, and world. A security plan organizes communication between airport tenants and managers, and local law enforcement. The plan also creates a list of suspicious activities that should be reported, and increases awareness of security issues at individual airports. In the entire system, 31 percent of airports have an adopted security plan. All Commercial Service airports reported having a security plan, as did 50 percent of Relievers. Less than 25 percent in each general aviation role category (nonReliever) reported having an adopted security plan in place. Percent of airports with adopted Wildlife Management Plans Various animals can often appear on an active airport runway, endangering aircraft, their occupants, and the wildlife. Given the rural nature of many of Arizona’s airports, this is a frequent concern. An airport wildlife management plan focuses on assessing the risks that local wildlife may present to the airport, and vice versa, as well as creating a plan to mitigate these risks. Statewide, only 18 percent of airports included in the SASP have a wildlife management plan. Fifty percent of Commercial Service airports, 25 percent of Relievers, and 21 percent of GA-Community airports have an adopted wildlife management plan. 6-70 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Airports controlling Runway Protection Zones (RPZs) on their primary runways The FAA defines the RPZ as a trapezoidal area that is centered on the extended runway centerline. The function of the RPZ is to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground. Having control of the RPZ is critical to ensuring inappropriate development does not take place in the runway approaches. Airport managers were asked if they controlled their airport RPZs through either fee simple (ownership) or by means of an avigation easement. Having either of these control mechanisms at all runway ends fulfills this performance measure. Figure 6-49 presents SASP airports by role categories that have complete control of the RPZs on both ends of their primary runway as identified by the airports. If an airport controls 100 percent of the RPZ through either fee simple or easement, it is considered complete control. Statewide, 60 percent of SASP airports control both ends by either fee simple or easement. Seventy-five percent of Commercial Service airports have complete control of their primary RPZs. Only 38 percent of Reliever airports have complete control, whereas 59 percent of GACommunity and 71 percent of GA-Rural airports have complete control of their RPZs. Figure 6-49: Percent of Airports by Role Having Complete Control of Both Primary Runway Protection Zones Arizona Total Complete Control of Both Primary RPZs 60% Commercial Service 75% Reliever 38% GA-Community 59% GA-Rural 71% GA-Basic 40% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 Percent of airports that meet runway/taxiway separation criteria for their current ARC Airports in the NPIAS are encouraged by the FAA to meet all applicable design and development standards. In its advisory circulars, the FAA provides specific guidance on which standards are applicable to each airport. The most demanding aircraft that operates at the airport on a regular basis (500 operations per year) determines each airport’s individual design. This aircraft is known as the airport’s critical aircraft. 6-71 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Once an airport’s critical aircraft is established during the development of an airport master plan or ALP, applicable design standards are identified. Each airport’s design standards are related to the approach speed and wingspan of its critical aircraft. Within FAA’s planning guidelines, these two parameters are used to determine each airport’s reference code (ARC). Each system airport’s ARC was presented in Chapter Three, Figure 3-7. Figure 6-50 summarizes airports by role category that meet runway/taxiway separation criteria for their current ARC. These compliance percentages include only the 62 SASP airports which have at least a partial parallel taxiway. Of these, 79 percent of the airports have adequate runway to taxiway separation. By role, this includes 92 percent of Commercial Service, 75 percent of Reliever, 82 percent of GA-Community, and 69 percent of GA-Rural airports. Figure 6-50: Percent of Airports by Role that Meet Runway/Taxiway Separation Criteria for their Current ARC Grand Total 79% Commercial Service 92% Reliever 75% GA-Community 82% GA-Rural GA-Basic 69% Adequate Separation 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 Percent of airports that have Runway Safety Areas (RSAs) on their primary runway that meet standards for their current ARC As with the separation from runway to taxiway centerline, the dimensions for the runway safety area (RSA) are determined by each airport’s ARC. The RSA is the area off each runway end that, in accordance with FAA standards, should be free and clear of any obstructions. The RSA should also be graded. The dimensions of the RSA vary based on applicable design standards. The RSA is designed to promote and increase airport safety. As with all FAA planning standards and guidelines, only federally eligible airports are required to meet FAA standards, however the guidance provided by FAA is considered to be applicable to all airports to promote safety. RSA information for this performance measure was not available for the 13 privately-owned system airports and 10 publicly-owned non-NPIAS and Native 6-72 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX American system airports. Therefore, this performance measure was applicable to only 60 system airports. As shown in Figure 6-51, 59 percent of the applicable system airports meet RSA standards. By role, 92 percent of Commercial Service, 50 percent of Reliever, 69 percent of GACommunity, 46 percent of GA-Rural, and 30 percent of GA-Basic meet FAA-defined RSA safety area standards. Figure 6-51: Percent of Airports by Role that Meet FAA RSA Standards Arizona Total 59% Commercial Service 92% Reliever 50% GA-Community 69% GA-Rural 46% GA-Basic 30% 0% 10% 20% 30% Full RSA Compliance 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 Percent of airports that have procedures in place to conduct self-inspections on a regular basis For airports to operate in a safe and efficient manner, it is recommended that they have set and regular routines of self-inspection. By so doing, airports can identify any circumstances or conditions that could jeopardize the safety of aircraft operations. In its advisory circular on inspections, the FAA provides guidance on how to conduct these inspections. In the Airport Inventory and Data Survey managers were asked if their airports had procedures in place to conduct self-inspections on a regular basis. Figure 6-52 shows that 72 percent of all SASP airports answered “Yes” to this question. By role, 100 percent of both Commercial Service and Reliever Airports conduct self-inspections on a regular basis, as do 69 percent of GA-Community, 67 percent of GA-Rural airports, and 40 percent of GA-Basic. 6-73 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-52: Percent of Airports by Role Having Procedures for Regular Self-Inspections Arizona Total 72% Commercial Service 100% Reliever 100% GA-Community 69% GA-Rural 67% GA-Basic 40% Procedures for Regular Self Inspections 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 Figure 6-53 details these last four performance measures by individual airports. 6-74 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-53: Details of RPZ, Runway/Taxiway Separation, RSA, and Self-Inspection Performance Measures Runway/Taxiway Separation Runway Protection Zones Associated City Airport Name Commercial Service Bullhead City Laughlin/Bullhead International Flagstaff Flagstaff Pulliam Grand Canyon Grand Canyon National Park Kingman Kingman Mesa Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Page Page Peach Springs Grand Canyon West Phoenix Phoenix Sky Harbor International Prescott Ernest A. Love Field Show Low Show Low Regional Tucson Tucson International Yuma Yuma International Reliever Chandler Chandler Municipal Glendale Glendale Municipal Goodyear Phoenix Goodyear Marana Marana Regional Mesa Falcon Field Phoenix Phoenix Deer Valley Scottsdale Scottsdale Tucson Ryan Field GA-Community Benson Benson Municipal Buckeye Buckeye Municipal Carefree Sky Ranch at Carefree Casa Grande Casa Grande Municipal RWY End Control RWY End 16 3 3 3 12R 15 17 8 12 6 11L 35 BLM Easement FAA-Controlled None F.S. F.S. F.S. F.S. Easement F.S. F.S. F.S. 4L 1 3 12 4R 25L 3 6R 10 17 6 23 ARC Separation Compliance RSA Meets ARC Regular SelfInspections N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y C-III C-III C-III C-III D-V B-II B-II D-V C-III C-III D-IV E-VI Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y F.S. None Partial F.S. Partial F.S. F.S. F.S. & Easement F.S. F.S. N N N N Y Y N Y B-II C-II D-IV C-III B-II C-II B-II B-II Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y F.S. F.S. Displ.Threshold F.S. Y Y Y N B-I B-II B-I B-II Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Control RPZ Compliance 34 21 21 21 30L 33 35 26 30 24 29R 17 BLM Easement FAA-Controlled F.S. F.S. F.S. F.S. F.S. F.S. None F.S. F.S. Partial F.S. F.S. F.S. Partial F.S. F.S. F.S. Partial F.S. F.S. 4R 19 21 30 4L 7R 21 24L F.S. F.S. F.S. None 28 35 24 5 6-75 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-53: Details of RPZ, Runway/Taxiway Separation, RSA, and Self-Inspection Performance Measures (Continued) Runway/Taxiway Separation Runway Protection Zones Associated City GA-Community Chandler Chandler Colorado City Coolidge Cottonwood Douglas Eloy Grand Canyon Holbrook Lake Havasu City Marana Nogales Parker Payson Peoria Safford Sedona Sierra Vista Springerville St Johns Taylor Wickenburg Willcox Williams Winslow Airport Name RWY End Memorial Airfield Stellar Airpark Colorado City Municipal Coolidge Municipal Cottonwood Douglas Municipal Eloy Municipal Grand Canyon Valle Holbrook Municipal Lake Havasu City Pinal Airpark Nogales International Avi Suquilla Payson Pleasant Valley Safford Regional Sedona Sierra Vista Municipal Springerville Municipal St Johns Industrial Air Park Taylor Wickenburg Municipal Cochise County H.A. Clark Memorial Field Winslow-Lindbergh Regional 12 17 11 5 14 21 2 19 3 32 12 3 1 24 05C 8 3 8 21 32 3 5 3 36 4 Control RWY End F.S. None F.S. Partial F.S. F.S. F.S. F.S. & Easement Easement F.S. F.S. F.S. F.S. Easement Easement None F.S. None Easement Partial F.S. F.S. None None F.S. F.S. Partial F.S. 30 35 29 23 32 3 20 1 21 14 30 21 19 6 23C 26 21 26 3 14 21 23 21 18 22 Control RPZ Compliance F.S. None F.S. Partial F.S. F.S. Partial F.S. F.S. & Easement Easement None F.S. F.S. F.S. & Easement F.S. Easement None Perpetual ROW None Easement F.S. Easement F.S. None Partial F.S. F.S. Easement Y N Y N Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y N Y N N N Y N ARC Separation Compliance RSA Meets ARC Regular SelfInspections D-IV B-I B-II C-II B-I B-II B-II A-I B-II C-III D-V C-II C-II B-II A-II B-II B-II D-IV B-II B-II B-II B-II B-II B-II C-II Y N Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y N NA Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y N Y N Y N Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N N Y N N Y Y Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y 6-76 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-53: Details of RPZ, Runway/Taxiway Separation, RSA, and Self-Inspection Performance Measures (Continued) Runway/Taxiway Separation Runway Protection Zones Associated City GA-Rural Ajo Bisbee Bullhead City Chinle Clifton/Morenci Douglas Douglas Bisbee Gila Bend Globe Kayenta Kearny Marble Canyon Maricopa Peach Springs Phoenix Polacca San Luis San Manuel Seligman Temple Bar Tuba City Tucson Whiteriver Window Rock Airport Name Eric Marcus Municipal Bisbee Municipal Sun Valley Chinle Municipal Greenlee County Cochise College Bisbee Douglas International Gila Bend Municipal San Carlos Apache Kayenta Kearny Marble Canyon Estrella Sailport Grand Canyon Caverns Phoenix Regional Polacca Rolle Airfield San Manuel/Ray/Blair Seligman Temple Bar Tuba City La Cholla Airpark Whiteriver Window Rock RWY End 5 35 18 18 7 5 17 4 9 5 26 3 6R 5 3 4 17 11 4 18 15 1 1 2 Control RWY End F.S. Partial F.S. F.S. Easement Easement Partial F.S. F.S. F.S. & Easement Easement Easement Partial F.S. None Partial F.S. F.S. None Easement F.S. F.S. F.S. & Easement F.S. Easement None Easement Easement 32 17 36 36 25 23 35 22 27 23 8 21 24L 23 21 22 35 29 22 36 33 19 19 20 Control RPZ Compliance F.S. Easement F.S. Easement F.S. None F.S. F.S. & Easement Easement Easement Partial F.S. None Partial F.S. F.S. None Easement F.S. F.S. F.S. & Easement F.S. Easement None Easement Easement Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y ARC Separation Compliance RSA Meets ARC Regular SelfInspections B-I B-I A-I B-I B-II B-I B-I B-II C-II B-II A-I A-I A-I A-I B-I A-I B-I B-II B-I A-I B-II B-I B-II B-II NA Y N NA Y Y Y Y Y NA NA N NA NA Y NA NA Y Y NA NA N N NA Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N N N N Y N Y N N N Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y N N N N Y 6-77 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-53: Details of RPZ, Runway/Taxiway Separation, RSA, and Self-Inspection Performance Measures (Continued) Runway/Taxiway Separation Runway Protection Zones Associated City GA-Basic Aguila Bagdad Cibecue Meadview Peach Springs Rimrock Sells Superior Tombstone Whitmore Airport Name Eagle Roost Bagdad Cibecue Pearce Ferry Hualapai Rimrock Sells Superior Municipal Tombstone Municipal Grand Canyon Bar Ten Airstrip RWY End 17 5 7 1 7 5 4 22 24 16 Control RWY End Easement F.S. Easement F.S. F.S. None None Partial F.S. Partial F.S. None 35 23 25 19 25 23 22 4 6 34 Control RPZ Compliance Easement Easement Easement F.S. F.S. None None Partial F.S. Partial F.S. None Y Y Y N Y N N N N N RSA Regular ARC Separation Compliance Meets ARC SelfInspections A-I B-I B-II A-I A-I A-I A-I A-I A-I A-I NA NA NA NA NA N NA NA NA NA N Y N N N N N Y Y N N Y N N N N N Y Y N Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 Note: NA=not applicable 6-78 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Percent of hospitals in the state within a 30-minute drive time of an airport with Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) capability, on-site weather reporting, and jet fuel availability As stated previously, emergency and specialized medical care is sparse in the less densely populated areas of Arizona. It is important for emergency medical flights coming from these airports to easily access a hospital. Figure 6-54 shows airports that have IMC capability, onsite weather reporting, and the availability of jet fuel, factors considered important to medical aircraft. Statewide, 85 percent of all hospitals fall within a 30-minute drive time of at least one airport that meets these criteria. The following hospitals do not fall within a 30-minue drive of a system airport meeting this performance measure: • Sage Memorial Hospital • Benson Hospital • Tuba City Indian Medical Facility • Cobre Valley Community Hospital • Verde Valley Medical Center • Copper Queen Community Hospital • Wickenburg Regional Medical Center • Fort Defiance Indian Hospital • Yuma Regional Medical Center • Fort Yuma Indian Hospital • Northern Cochise Community College This measure was also included in the SANS 2000. In that analysis, it was stated that 82 percent of hospitals were located within a 30-minute drive time of an airport having IMC capability, on-site weather reporting, and jet fuel availability. Therefore, the performance of this measure has declined just slightly since 2000. 6-79 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-54: Hospitals in the State within 30-Minute Drive Time of a System Airport with Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) Capability, On-Site Weather Reporting, and Jet Fuel Availability Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Note: A reference table containing airport codes, airport names, and associated city can be found in Appendix A 6-80 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Percent of airports that support emergency operations Airports in Arizona play an important role in supporting emergency operations. Because of the sprawling rural character of much of the state, these aviation activities are crucial to the state’s population and environment alike. In the Airport Inventory and Data Survey effort, airport managers were asked if their airports supported regular or occasional search and rescue or aerial firefighting. Figure 6-55 details the percentage of each system role that supports these activities on at least an occasional basis. A description of the specific performance in each of these areas is provided below. Figure 6-56 depicts system airports supporting these activities. Figure 6-55: Percent of Airports by Role Category Supporting Emergency Operations 57% Arizona Total 64% 58% Commercial Service 92% 75% Reliever 100% 76% GA-Community 72% 42% GA-Rural 46% 20% Fire Fighting Operations 20% Search and Rescue Operations GA-Basic 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 6-81 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-56: Percent of Airports Supporting Search and Rescue and Aerial Firefighting Operations Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 Note: A reference table containing airport codes, airport names, and associated city can be found in Appendix A 6-82 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Percent of airports that support search and rescue operations In Arizona’s vast deserts or recreational areas such as Grand Canyon National Park, search and rescue operations are often necessary. Figure 6-55 reveals that, statewide, 64 percent of SASP airports accommodate frequent or occasional search and rescue activities. By role, 82 percent of Commercial Service, 100 percent of Reliever, and 72 percent of GACommunity airports support search and rescue operations. Percent of airports that support aerial fire fighting operations Because of Arizona’s arid climate and the wide separation of firefighting facilities, aerial firefighting in Arizona is crucial to the safety of Arizona’s six National Forests and many rangeland areas, and to protect remote communities. Thus, forest and rangeland firefighting is another emergency operation that airports in Arizona must be ready to accommodate. As depicted in Figure 6-55, 57 percent of SASP airports support aerial firefighting operations. By role, aerial firefighting takes place at 58 percent of Commercial Service, 75 percent of Reliever, and 78 percent of GA-Community airports. 6-83 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX GOAL CATEGORY: ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY AND STEWARDSHIP As expressed in the economic section of this chapter, airports in Arizona are important resources for many reasons. Because of this, and the nature of airports in general, it is important for airports in Arizona to be compatible with both the human and natural environment. Noise, water, and air pollution are all possible environmental issues arising from airport operations. Working toward continued environmental sensitivity helps to sustain the aviation industry. Aviation stewardship is also extremely important to maintaining the future viability of the aviation industry in Arizona. System airports can be valuable learning resources and centers, as there are many careers in the aviation industry. Traditional education programs and curricula typically do not prepare students for the wide variety of careers that exist in the field of aviation. Arizona recognized that its system airports also act as aviation classrooms. As more people learn about and understand airports and aviation, as well as the role that each plays in the state’s transportation and economic infrastructures, the more equipped these individuals will be to understand the development and expansion needs of airports throughout the state. The following performance measures deal with the ability of Arizona’s airport system to maintain both environmental sensitivity and aviation outreach and stewardship: • Percent of system airports that have Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) • Percent of the population within a 30-minute drive time of a system airport with a fulltime flight school/flight instructor • Percent of system airports supporting airframe and power plant (A&P) programs • Percent of system airports that have aviation maintenance and repair • Percent of system airports that have educational programs that are affiliated with local elementary/secondary schools, community colleges, or technical/vocational schools Percent of system airports that have Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is an important part of an airport’s environmental sensitivity. The plan identifies controls used by the airport to minimize the amount of runoff pollution, sediment runoff, and erosion. While not required specifically by the FAA, FAA requires that airports comply with federal and state environmental regulations that address stormwater issues. One way of addressing these issues is through the development of a SWPPP. Airport managers were asked to report whether or not their airport had an adopted SWPPP. Figure 6-57 reveals that, statewide, 45 percent of SASP airports have an adopted SWPPP. Eighty-three percent of Commercial Service, 100 percent of Reliever, and 52 percent of GA-Community airports have active plans to deal with storm water pollution. 6-84 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-57: Percent of Airports by Role Having Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans Arizona Total 45% Commercial Service 83% Reliever 100% GA-Community 52% GA-Rural 13% GA-Basic 10% Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 Percent of system airports supporting flight training Airports that provide or accommodate flight instruction help to add pilots to the aviation system. They also provide outlets for people who are interested in aviation. Flight instructors are always willing to discuss flight principles with those who are interested. Another way that flight instruction is beneficial is through introductory flights (that are often free) to those attracted to aviation. Figure 6-58 shows the percentage of each airport role that supports flight training with a fulltime or part-time flight instructor or school, and/or an A&P program. In total, 38 percent of SASP airports have full-time or part-time flight instruction based at their airport. The following performance measures detail each of these types of aviation education. Figure 6-59 depicts the availability of flight instruction at SASP airports throughout the state as noted in early 2008. Eighty percent of Arizona’s population is within a 30-minute drive time of an airport with a full-time or part-time flight school or instructor. 6-85 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-58: Percent of Airports by Role Supporting Flight Instruction and Aviation-Related Education 22% Arizona Total 16% 63% 42% Commercial Service 17% 42% 88% Reliever 14% GA-Community 34% 52% 8% GA-Rural 12% 92% 100% GA-Basic 0% 10% 20% 30% Full-Time School/Instruction 40% 50% 60% Part-Time School/Instruction 70% 80% 90% 100% No On-Airport Flight Instruction Arizona Total 4% 17% Commercial Service Reliever 0% GA-Community 0% GA-Rural 4% GA-Basic 0% 0% A&P Program 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 Percent of the statewide population within a 30-minute drive time of a system airport with a fulltime flight school/flight instructor Figure 6-58 reveals that 22 percent of SASP airports have a full-time flight school or instructor. The 17 airports include 42 percent of Commercial Service, 88 percent of Reliever, 14 percent of GA-Community, and 8 percent of GA-Rural. Percent of the statewide population within a 30-minute drive time of a system airport with a parttime flight school/flight instructor Figure 6-58 shows that an additional 16 percent of SASP airports have part-time flight instruction. By role, this includes 17 percent of Commercial Service, 13 percent of Reliever, and 36 percent of Reliever. Airports with only a part-time flight school or instructor cover approximately 30 percent of the total state population. 6-86 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-59: 30-Minute Drive Times of System Airports with a Full-Time or Part-Time Flight School/Flight Instructor Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Note: A reference table containing airport codes, airport names, and associated city can be found in Appendix A 6-87 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Percent of system airports supporting Airframe and Powerplant (A&P) programs On-the-job training is one means by which airports in Arizona can support aviation-related education and employment. An Airframe and Powerplant (A&P) program is a type of on-thejob training associated with aviation maintenance. Many airports in Arizona have on-airport businesses that provide some type of maintenance and/or repair service, but only three system airports (four percent of the total) have a dedicated A&P program: • Phoenix-Mesa Gateway/Chandler-Gilbert Community College (Commercial Service Role) • Tucson International/Pima County Community College (Commercial Service Role) • Cochise College (GA-Rural Role) Percent of system airports that have aviation maintenance and repair Airport managers were asked of the availability of three types of aviation maintenance and repair at their airports: airframe repairs, powerplant repairs, and avionics repairs. Figure 6-60 reveals that statewide, 55 percent of all SASP airports have at least one of these maintenance services. Fifty-four percent have powerplant repairs, 53 percent airframe repairs, and 20 percent of all SASP airports offer avionics repairs. By role, 92 percent of Commercial Service airports offer some sort of maintenance and repair, as do 100 percent of Relievers and 79 percent of GA-Community airports. No aviation maintenance or repair services are offered at any GA-Basic airports. 6-88 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-60: Percent of Airports by Role with Aviation Maintenance and Repair Services 55% 20% Arizona Total 54% 53% 92% 33% Commercial Service 92% 83% 100% 75% Reliever 100% 100% 79% 24% GA-Community 76% 76% 17% GA-Rural 0% 17% 17% GA-Basic Any Maintenance and Repair 0% Avionics Repairs 0% Powerplant Repair 0% Airframe Repair 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 Percent of system airports that have educational programs that are affiliated with local elementary/secondary schools, community colleges, or technical/vocational schools Airports can be important educational and training centers. There are many aviation-related careers, and around the country, there are numerous examples of colleges and technical schools that have partnered with airports to provide aviation-related curricula. Because of this, stewardship programs are important for airports to emphasize. These programs often attract young people to the aviation industry, and also create awareness of the importance of aviation and local airports to their communities and regions as a whole. In the Airport Inventory and Data Survey 2008, Arizona airport managers were asked if their airports had educational outreach programs affiliated with local schools, community colleges, or technical/vocational schools. Figure 6-61 displays the percentage of airports by system role which have these programs. In total, 35 percent of SASP airports have these programs. By role, 58 percent of Commercial Service, 63 percent of Reliever, and 48 percent of GA-Community airports have programs affiliated with local education institutions. Results of the inventory effort reveal several types of programs at these airports, such as school tours, Young Eagles programs, and airport representatives that participate in high school career days. 6-89 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-61: Percent of Airports by Role with Programs Affiliated with Local Educational Institutions Arizona Total 35% Commercial Service 58% Reliever 63% GA-Community 48% GA-Rural GA-Basic 13% 0% Educational/Outreach Programs 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 6-90 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX SUMMARY This chapter has examined the current performance of Arizona’s airport system according to the airport roles and performance categories set in previous chapters. Current performance is summarized below. The next chapter will analyze where the airport system can improve and recommendations on how this can be done. Change Since the SANS 2000 It is important to chart Arizona airport system performance at regular intervals in order to quantify how the system has changed. The SANS 2000 provided a summary that showed how measures changed since the 1995 study. Figure 6-62 does the same, comparing the results of the SASP performance measures to the same performance measures in the SANS 2000 and SANS 1995. This helps to show specific areas where performance has improved or where it has declined. Eight performance measures detailed in this chapter were also included in the SANS 2000, and seven of these were included in the SANS 1995. Since 2000, five measures have declined in performance. Geographic and population coverage for commercial service and general aviation airports have both decreased by over 10 percentage points since the SANS 2000 study. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, the number of communities with a population over 5,000 has drastically increased. This, in combination with fewer Commercial Service airports, led to the lower coverage by Arizona’s Commercial Service airports. In addition, the increased number of communities with a population of at least 1,000 is the primary reason that the percentage of these communities lying within a 30-minute drive time of a general aviation airport has decreased. The performance of some other measures can also be attributed to the rapid growth in Arizona’s population. Since 2000, the number of airports operating below target demandcapacity ratios has decreased by five percentage points. As stated previously, the difference in coverage of recreational sites is largely due to the number of recreational sites that were included in the SANS 2000 versus in the SASP. The sites in the SASP were provided directly by the Office of Tourism. The decrease in airports having adequate utilities is also likely due to a difference in the studies. In the SANS 2000, only water, telephone, and electricity were accounted for. In this study, electricity, sewer, telephone, gas, and water were included. Several performance measures have shown improvement since the SANS 2000. The number of communities with a population of at least 15,000 which are within 30 minutes of an airport capable of accommodating B-II aircraft and IMC conditions increased by seven percentage points to 97 percent. Since 1995, 30-minute drive time coverage by airports with IMC capability, on-site weather reporting, and jet fuel has increased from 80 percent to 85 percent of hospitals in the state. The number of airports experiencing delay to operations remained unchanged at 23 airports from the SANS 2000 to now. 6-91 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-62: Summary Comparison of SASP, SANS 2000 and SANS1995 Current Compliance 2008 SANS 2000 SANS 1995 Change 2000-2007 Change 1995-2007 82% 94% 98% -12% -15% 87% 100% 100% -13% -13% 97% 87% 90% 92% 90% 92% +7% -5% +7% -5% 23 23 NA 0% NA Number of major recreational areas in the state within a 30-minute drive time of a system airport 84% 97% 97% -13% -13% Number of airports having adequate utilities (electricity, telephone, water, sewer, and gas) 49% 64% 65% -15% -16% 85% 82% 80% 3% +5% Performance Measure Goal Category: Development Percent of communities in the State with a population greater than 5,000 within a 60-minute drive time of a commercial service airport Percent of communities in the State with a population greater than 1,000 within a 30-minute drive time of a general aviation airport Percent of communities in the State with a population greater than 15,000 within a 30-minute drive time of a general aviation airport that can accommodate large general aviation aircraft (Airport Reference Code (ARC) B-II) and has Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) capability Percent of airports with sufficient operational capacity Number of airports experiencing delay to aircraft operations: the maximum and average delay in minutes an aircraft experiences due to airside congestion Goal Category: Economic Support Goal Category: Safety and Standards Percent of hospitals in the state within a 30-minute drive time of an airport with Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) capability, onsite weather reporting, and jet fuel availability Sources: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008, Arizona State Aviation Needs Study 2000 6-92 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Summary of Other Performance Measures The remaining performance measures are new and were not part of the SANS 2000. These are summarized for all airports in Figure 6-63. Several new performance measures address population within 30 minutes of airports in several categories: public use, NPIAS, all SASP airports, or airports having certain capabilities such as on-site weather reporting or an instrument landing system. In general, population coverage was very good, generally between 70 and 85 percent of the total state population. In addition, 94 percent of licensed Arizona pilots live within a 30-minute drive time of a system airport. How the airports themselves are performing is often less successful than geographic coverage. For example, only 36 percent of system airports have the ideal conditions for medical aircraft to operate based on the conditions noted specifically by the operators. Just over half of the airports have available jet fuel, and less than half have any aviation fuel available 24/7. Compliance with planning and zoning performance measures are also inconsistent. Less than half of system airports are noted that they have implemented height zoning to address FAR Part 77, have airport disclosure areas with surrounding communities, have security plans, have a current emergency response plan, or have a stormwater pollution prevention plan. In addition, less than 20 percent have obstruction removal or wildlife management plans. Increasing all of these percentages is strongly urged for the continued success of Arizona’s airport system. 6-93 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-63: Summary of Performance Measures not Included in the SANS 2000 Performance Measure Current Compliance Goal Category: Development Percent of population within a 30-minute drive time of each airport, by role category Percent of population within a 30-minute drive time of a public use airport 86% 85% Percent of population within a 30-minute drive time of a National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) airport 83% Percent of population within a 30-minute drive time of an airport and the number of airports with an instrument approach Percent of airports within a 30-minute drive time of an airport with ILS or LPV Percent of licensed pilots within a 30-minute drive time of an airport Percent of airports capable of supporting emergency medical transport aircraft Percent of statewide land area within 25 nautical miles of an airport with on-site weather reporting Percent of population within a 30 minute drive time of an all weather runway (paved, instrument approach, AWOS) Percent of airports with jet fuel Percent of airports with 24/7 fuel Percent of airports projected to have sufficient operational capacity in 2030 Percent of population and employment centers that are within a 30-minute drive time of a system airport exceeding 60 percent demand/capacity, current and 2020 Airports with a current (past 5 years) master plan and/or ALP Percent of airports with surrounding municipalities that have adopted “disclosure areas” Percent of airports with surrounding municipalities that have adopted controls/ zoning to make land use in the airport environs compatible with airport operations and development Percent of airports that are compliant with Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 Percent of airports that are recognized in local comprehensive plan Percent of airports included in regional transportation plans Goal Category: Economic Support Percent of businesses with the propensity to use aviation within a 30-minute drive of a system airport 80% 31% 94% 40% 47% of airports 57% of land area 77% 52% 45% 80% 72% Population 40% Employment 55% 35% 60% 46% 64% 47% 99% Percent of population and area within a 30-minute drive time of a system airport meeting business user needs Percent of airports with a primary runway pavement condition index (PCI) of 70 or greater Percent of airports with an average pavement condition index (PCI) of 70 or greater 54% 59% Goal Category: Safety and Standards Percent of airports with clear approaches to all runway ends Percent of airports with adopted Wildlife Management Plans Percent of airports with adopted Security Plans Percent of airports that have a written emergency response plan Airports controlling all runway end Runway Protection Zones (RPZs) Percent of airports that meet runway/taxiway separation criteria for their current ARC 51% 18% 31% 47% 60% 79% Percent of airports that have RSAs on their primary runway that meet the standards for their current ARC 59% Percent of airports that have procedures in place to conduct self-inspections on a regular basis 72% 79% 6-94 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SIX Figure 6-63: Summary of Performance Measures not Included in the SANS 2000 (Continued) Performance Measure Goal Category: Safety and Standards Percent of airports that support search and rescue operations Percent of airports that support aerial fire fighting operations Goal Category: Environmental Sensitivity and Stewardship Percent of system airports that have Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Percent of the population that are within a 30-minute drive time of a system airport with a flight school/flight instructor Current Compliance 64% 57% 45% Percent of system airports with a flight school/instructor Percent of system airports supporting A&P programs Percent of system airports that have aviation maintenance and repair 74% 38% 4% 55% Percent of system airports that have educational programs that are affiliated with local elementary/secondary schools, community colleges, or technical/vocational schools 35% 6-95 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN CHAPTER SEVEN: FUTURE AIR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PERFORMANCE INTRODUCTION Previous chapters of the Arizona State Airports System Plan (SASP) analyzed performance measures selected specifically for Arizona to determine how well the state’s system of airports is currently performing. Based on an assessment of the current system’s adequacies, deficiencies, and overlaps, each performance measure was analyzed individually to determine potential or warranted future system performance. This chapter identifies actions that are desirable to raise the overall level of system performance. Targeted actions will enhance the overall performance of the airport system in Arizona and will enable system airports to better fulfill their identified SASP roles. In addition to reviewing current performance, the potential impact of outside influences that could affect the future airport system’s needs is identified. These outside influences are reviewed for their potential impact prior to analyzing the future system needs. Certain performance measures provide information while others offer the opportunity for action to improve the performance. For example, an airport can install a fuel farm thereby increasing the number of airports who provide fuel services, increasing this performance measure. However, the performance measure that analyzed the percent of airports that support search and rescue operations does not have a specific project associated with changing the performance and is considered informational. By monitoring the ability of the Arizona airport system to satisfy or meet each of the performance measures, ADOT can compare and monitor current, target, and future system performance. As subsequent federal, state, and local investments are made at airports in Arizona, it will be possible to determine how this investment will raise the overall performance of the system. The responsibility for implementing projects and taking actions identified in the system plan remains with local airport owners and sponsors in coordination with ADOT and the FAA. It is possible that local constraints (financial, man-made, political, or environmental) may make it impossible for individual airports to meet all targets outlined in this portion of the system plan. Final recommendations in the SASP will be a blend of airport initiatives and system plan recommendations. 7-1 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN ROLE OF PRIVATE AIRPORTS There are 11 privately owned airports included in the SASP. These 11 airports were identified at the outset of the study as playing a role in the system and ADOT was interested in obtaining more information regarding the airports and their activities. Therefore, the 11 airports have been included in previous tasks of the SASP, including the airport role analysis. Based on the role analysis, the 11 private airports and their corresponding roles in the system as noted in previous tasks are as follows: • Sky Ranch at Carefree GA-Community • Stellar Airpark GA-Community • Grand Canyon Valle GA-Community • Pleasant Valley GA-Community • Marble Canyon GA-Rural • Estrella Sailport GA-Rural • Grand Canyon Caverns GA-Rural • La Cholla Airpark GA-Rural • Eagle Roost GA-Basic • Rimrock GA-Basic • Grand Canyon Bar Ten Airstrip GA-Basic While these 11 airports have been included as part of the analysis, it is important to recognize that these airports are the owners’ personal property. The airports are operated for personal or other reasons. In most circumstances, these airports do not receive any funding from state or federal sources. Therefore, unlike publicly owned airports, there is no contractual obligation to abide by FAA or state airport regulations or even remain open to the public. While all of these private airports play important roles in the system, especially those in metropolitan areas where they serve a wide range of users, ADOT has limited input into the future development of the private airports. The SASP has recognized the role that privately owned airports play in supporting the airport system. However, developing future targets and a list of recommended projects for privately owned airports based on their SASP airport role is not appropriate in this document. For the purpose of this study, it is recommended that all private airports be developed to meet the facility and service objectives for the GA-Basic role at a minimum. The recommendations for airports in this role category are minimal and pertain mainly to maintaining existing airside and landside facilities. When developing targets for future performance in this chapter, the four GA-Community and four GA-Rural airports noted above will be included in the GA-Basic role category. 7-2 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN OUTSIDE INFLUENCES There are several factors that may influence aviation activity which are independent of the state airport system. For this reason, they are identified as outside influences. It is worthwhile to review outside influences to determine how they may impact future system performance. These non-aviation factors include: • Extensive Population Growth • Major Employment Growth • High-Technology and Aerospace Industry Growth • Tourism • Retirement/Seasonal Residency • Major Surface Transportation Improvements The purpose of this section is to provide a “big picture overview” of what might alter demand and associated needs of Arizona’s state airport system. This information should help the aviation community recognize these influences and be better prepared to respond to changes that may occur. Recognizing these factors today enables the state to fundamentally remain aware and closely monitor them. With funding constraints making it more challenging to maintain and improve the airport system for peak performance, the airport system may need to respond to external factors by shifting priorities and/or redirecting dollars to keep the airport system at the best possible performance level. The current reality is, with the downturn in the economy, there are few major employers moving into Arizona today, no surge of small business upstarts, and no boom in real estate. However, there is immediate opportunity to invest in and guide Arizona to its ultimate potential—a quality state symbolizing diverse and progressive industry supported by an educated work force, a healthy transportation infrastructure, and an inviting tourist and retirement destination. This downturn is a prime time to take inventory of what the state has, what they envision, and how they will attain these goals. This is the time to document the lessons learned from flawed development so more thoughtful, innovative, and integrated planning may guide good development plans to become exceptional. Extensive Population Growth Extensive population growth can potentially place a lot of demand on an airport system. Consequently, population growth is always an important factor to review. With respect to land mass, Arizona is the sixth largest state after Alaska, Texas, California, Montana, and New Mexico. Although Arizona is ranked 14th by population size, it has the second fastest growing population in the nation. Arizona’s two largest populated counties are Maricopa and Pima counties, which include Phoenix and Tucson, respectively. Arizona is also home to 22 American Indian Reservations. The Navajo Indian Reservation in Arizona is the largest by population in America. Arizona’s ranking as the second fastest growing state is based on its 2.8 percent growth in 2007, and its 2.3 percent growth rate in 2008. Nevada and Utah ranked first in 2007 and 2008, respectively. Prior to the recent economic downturn, strong growth was projected to continue for Arizona in the future with the majority of the population increase along the Sun Corridor. It is uncertain at this time how the downturn may impact future growth. The Sun Corridor is the name given to Arizona’s megapolitan area that spans six of the 15 counties in the state. The Sun Corridor derived its name and boundaries from a study prepared by the Morrison 7-3 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Institute for Public Policy, ASU, May 2008. While the Sun Corridor generally runs from the middle of Yavapai County to western Cochise County and down to the border with Mexico, the study simply included the whole of all six counties for planning purposes. The term “megapolitan area” has been used for many years, but its current criteria and terms are defined by the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) as a “…cluster of networks of American cities whose population exceeds or will exceed 10 million by the year 2040.” Virginia Tech has identified 20 megapolitan areas, including Arizona’s, with the greatest growth potential in the nation. Before the designation of the Sun Corridor, Virginia Tech referred to Arizona’s megapolitan area as the “Valley of the Sun,” but the boundaries generally encompassed the Phoenix-Tucson corridor, spanning Maricopa, Pinal, and Pima counties. In its early development and for many years, the Phoenix-Tucson corridor was referred to as the Golden Corridor. Today, the Sun Corridor spans six counties with approximately 20 percent of Arizona’s land mass, but 80 percent of its population. With a population of over 10 million in Arizona expected by 2030, eight million will reside within the Sun Corridor. Also within the Sun Corridor are a total of 45 of the SASP’s airports, which is an estimated half of all SASP airports. Figure 7-1 lists all 15 Arizona counties from largest to smallest baseline population and their projected population increase through 2030. These projections were developed prior to the recent economic downturn. The six Sun Corridor counties are in bold with their associated number of SASP airports. 7-4 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Figure 7-1: Population Projections and Number of Sun Corridor Airports County Arizona Baseline Population (2006) * 6,239,482 Projected Population 2030 10,347,513 Population Change 4,108,061 Percent Change 66% Maricopa Pima Pinal Yavapai Yuma Mohave Cochise Coconino Navajo Apache Gila Santa Cruz Graham La Paz Greenlee 3,764,446 980,977 269,892 212,722 195,499 194,920 134,789 132,826 112,672 74,691 55,102 45,303 35,873 21,489 8,281 6,207,980 1,442,420 852,463 355,462 316,158 330,581 187,725 173,829 165,647 93,447 69,879 71,033 44,556 28,074 8,289 2,443,534 461,443 582,571 142,740 120,659 135,661 52,936 41,003 52,975 18,756 14,777 25,730 8,683 6,585 8 65% 47% 216% 67% 62% 70% 39% 31% 47% 25% 27% 57% 24% 31% 0% Number of Sun Corridor Airports** 15 6 9 6 8 1 Source: AZ Depart of Economic Security Population Projections 2006-2030 Notes: *U.S. Census estimates that 1996 population for AZ was 6,166,318. **Sun Corridor Airports include SASP airports inside the six counties included in the Sun Corridor. Airports are also located in other counties but the focus of this is on the Sun Corridor.The following lists the system airports within the Sun Corridor by county. 15 Maricopa County airports: • Phoenix-Sky Harbor • Phoenix-Goodyear • Phoenix-Deer Valley • Falcon Field • Chandler Municipal • Phoenix-Mesa Gateway • Glendale Municipal • Scottsdale Municipal • • • • • • • Buckeye Municipal Sky Ranch at Carefree Stellar Airpark Memorial Airfield Pleasant Valley Wickenburg Municipal Eagle Roost Nine Pinal County airports: • Pinal Airpark • San Manuel • Coolidge Municipal • Superior • Phoenix Regional • • • • Casa Grande Municipal Eloy Municipal Kearny Municipal Estrella Sailport Six Pima County airports: • Tucson International • Ryan Field • Marana Regional • Cholla Airpark • Eric Marcus Municipal • Sells Six Yavapai County airports: • Prescott Municipal • Sedona • Seligman • Bagdad • Rimrock • Cottonwood One Santa Cruz County airport: 7-5 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN • Nogales International Eight Cochise County airports: • Bisbee Municipal • Douglas Municipal • Bisbee-Douglas International • Sierra Vista Municipal • • • • Benson Municipal Cochise County Cochise College Tombstone Municipal Figure 7-2 depicts the location of these airports within the six Sun Corridor counties. The Sun Corridor airports are noted because recent studies call attention to the area as holding the greatest potential for substantial population growth. Following recovery from the current economic downturn, there is speculation that the Sun Corridor could potentially experience extensive population growth associated with major economic development efforts under way. The Sun Corridor is one of 20 areas in the U.S. that is projected to experience the greatest growth in the next two decades according to data from the Morrison Institute for Public Policy, ASU. 7-6 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Figure 7-2: SASP Airports Located Within Sun Corridor Counties Sources: Airport Planning West, Wilbur Smith Associates Note: A reference table containing airport codes, airport names, and associated city can be found in Appendix A. 7-7 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Major Employment Growth New or expanding major employment centers can also impact aviation demand. Employment growth and projections generally track population growth and projections, but the recent economic downturn has resulted in a drop in employment. Nevertheless, Arizona has been working to attract new and more diversified industry for several years so the eventual economic recovery will benefit from these efforts. In October 2008, the Arizona Department of Commerce, Research Administration provided a brief forecast update on employment, projecting that non-farm job loss will reach more than 47,000 in the state before recovery begins. The Research Administration projects that recovery for Arizona will begin in late 2009. Further, many economists suggest that the recovery will take an estimated two to three years before returning to economic activity levels prior to the downturn. For airports, this suggests an interim slowdown or decrease in aviation demand after many were formerly experiencing steady growth. However, the state’s efforts to diversify and attract new employers and industry are expected to help the state return to a less vulnerable economy as the national and global economies turn around. New employers and industry will help return aviation demand to its forecast levels. This return to strong employment growth in Arizona under a more diversified economy would translate to an additional two million jobs by 2030, primarily within the Sun Corridor, according to a study by Morrison Institute for Public Policy, ASU, May 2008. This means that jobs in the Sun Corridor will increase 84.3 percent by 2030 over baseline year 2000 figures. This is greater than the 82.5 percent Sun Corridor population increase projected. Growing population and employment, limited land resources, and the concept of sustainability may drive the need to build up and not out. The Morrison Institute for Public Policy’s study on megapolitans states that density is simply the best option for more people. The study defines a megapolitan as two or more metropolitan areas with anchor principal cities between 50 and 200 miles apart. The study supports the idea that megapolitans, like the Sun Corridor, will see large growth because concentrating economic power and opportunity is the future. While megapolitans are expected to see more growth, there will still be spillover to more rural communities. Better understanding and consideration of airport issues, land use protection, and interdependent planning will be key to a healthy state airport system that meets the needs of its users. Near-sighted planning will hinder smart growth in the future so airports and communities in a region must recognize their long-term interdependency. This does not suggest that communities and airports no longer compete for economic development opportunities, but rather strategically complement each other for the better of all. Many tout the Sun Corridor as offering more developable land for economic growth compared to major corridors in other states, but factors such as tribal and public lands, location of infrastructure, water rights and policies, and community opinion reveal that it is more densely utilized than most think. Figure 7-3 provides a breakdown of land ownership in the six Sun Corridor counties. As shown, significant portions of land are tribal and public lands. 7-8 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Figure 7-3: Sun Corridor Counties and Land Ownership County Maricopa Pima Pinal Yavapai Cochise Santa Cruz Total Square Miles 9,222 9,184 5,374 8,125 6,219 1,236 Individual or Corporate 29% 14% 22% 25% 40% 38% Forest Service/BLM 39% 12% 14% 50% 22% 55% Ownership State Land 11% 15% 35% 25% 35% 8% Tribal Land 5% 42% 23% < 0.5% - Other Publicly Owned 16% 17% 6% <0.5% 4% - Source: AZ Depart of Commerce County Profiles Note: Figures are rounded Figure 7-4 (on the following page) maps the Sun Corridor in relation to where developable land exists in Arizona. Smaller economic development regions where other general aviation airports exist may still be opportune. The diversification that is underway in Arizona’s economy is expected to produce more environmentally sensitive jobs in the future. According to the Greater Phoenix Economic Council, an economic development group, “…a growth in green companies, especially solar, is among the best ways to diversify the state's economy and reduce its reliance on housing construction.” In light of previous high fuel costs in 2008, the nation has turned to focus more on green (environmentally sensitive) economic development programs to address mass transit and more energy efficient vehicles. Recent news reports have discussed the possibility of Arizona creating more green jobs in the fields of building retrofitting, more efficient electrical grids, wind power, solar power, and advanced biofuels. While the traditional green job reference has often brought to mind the field of recycling and wastewater treatment, there are substantial economic growth opportunities for existing fields to turn “green” such as architects learning to design more energy-efficient buildings. Carpenters and plumbers could be trained to install solar systems and weatherize homes. This shift in the economy is expected to support the projected employment in the Sun Corridor. Further, the state’s recognition for various business-attractive traits will encourage growth. Arizona recently ranked #17 in the nation based on its state tax score, which is a consideration for entrepreneurs and small businesses interested in locating in Arizona. Four cities in Arizona made Money’s list of the top 100 small cities to live in 2008. These cities included: Gilbert (#28), Chandler (#30), Scottsdale (#47), and Peoria (#55). 7-9 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Figure 7-4: Sun Corridor Counties and Developable Land in Arizona Sources: Airport Planning West, Arizona Land Resource Information System (ALRIS), Wilbur Smith Associates Note: A reference table containing airport codes, airport names, and associated city can be found in Appendix A. 7-10 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Also, six companies headquartered in Arizona made the current Fortune 500 list announced in April 2008, which is up from four companies that made the list in 2007. According to the Phoenix Business Journal, the six Arizona companies on the Fortune 500 list include: • Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. (nearly $18 billion in annual revenue last year, #140) • Avnet Inc. electronics distributor (more than $15 billion in revenue,#163) • Tempe-based US Airways Group Inc. ($11.7 billion in revenue, #216) • Phoenix-based Allied Waste Industries Inc. ($6.1 billion in revenue, #400) • Tempe's Insight Enterprises Inc., an electronics and office equipment wholesaler ($4.8 billion in revenue, # 477) • Phoenix-based PetSmart Inc. (nearly $4.7 billion, #489). Several other large Fortune 500 companies have locations in Arizona including, AT&T Inc., Bank of America, Boeing, Morgan Stanley, Johnson Controls, Merck, Motorola, and Wells Fargo. Honeywell’s Aerospace division is headquartered in Phoenix, and the valley hosts many of its avionics and mechanical facilities. Intel has one of its largest sites in the city, employing about 10,000 employees. As part of Arizona’s efforts to diversify the economy, the state has been striving to ensure that high quality employment and educational opportunities are provided. In the past, Arizona has faced low income, high poverty rates, and low educational attainment compared to national averages. High quality employment and better paying jobs requires an educated workforce. Statistically, just over one-third of college bound students from low income families ever complete a college degree because affordability has long been an issue. To address this issue, Surprise, Arizona, will be home to Arizona’s first “communiversity”, or a campus that hosts both community colleges and universities with programs aligned to simplify a student’s transition from the more cost-effective community college associate degree to continue into a bachelor and master’s degree with minimal transfer credit loss. A similar concept in New Jersey has enhanced college education opportunities for students. The intent is to help increase the number of college graduates around the state. Making this more attractive is the fact that the campus will offer onsite and online courses, professors can teach through one or both of these methods and the partnerships between the community colleges and universities will ensure more credits are transferrable. This is not only good news for high school graduates looking for a more affordable and accessible college education, but also for many of the recently unemployed midcareer adults needing more education to pursue and compete for new jobs. Arizona recognizes that a better educated workforce will attract better paying employment. Combined, this will enhance the quality of life for Arizonans and, consequently, have a positive impact on aviation demand around the state. High-Technology and Aerospace Industry Growth High-technology growth is mentioned separately from employment growth here since certain high-tech industries have a more significant impact and/or relationship with aviation. Despite the trend of outsourcing, the past few years did bring some new high-tech companies to Arizona. Existing high-tech companies also expanded their operations in the state, some of which are in the microelectronics industry. This is important because growth in this time-sensitive, high-value industry is often tied to aviation demand. Intel’s growing presence in the Phoenix Valley since the 1980s and their late 2007 opening of another 7-11 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN semiconductor plant has contributed to Arizona ranking as the fourth largest semiconductor manufacturing employment center in the U.S. Further, Arizona State University (ASU) and the University of Arizona (UA) have been serving as incubators for emerging technologies and boosting high-tech industry growth in the state. Skysong, located in Scottsdale and considered a high-tech development area, has 1.2 million square feet of research, office, and retail space. Skysong is located between downtown Scottsdale and Tempe’s ASU campus. According to an article in Business Facilities in late 2007, there are several high-tech international firms that have located at Skysong such as “…FScreen Sci-Tech Co. (a solar technology firm from China), Aurigin Technology (a biomedical technology firm from Singapore), Sebit (an e-learning company from Turkey), and Ubidyne (a wireless technology developer from Germany).” The aerospace industry has also been attracted to the state, which can be attributed to the state’s accommodating weather, prominent higher education institutions, and reasonable operating costs. Honeywell, Boeing, and General Dynamics are among the nearly 300 aerospace companies in Arizona. In fact, Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport has been developing into an international aerospace center. Some of the more than 20 tenant organizations there include Boeing, Ratts Air Service, Fighter Combat International, L3 Communications, U.S. Positioning, Chandler-Gilbert Community College, and ASU Polytechnic. Other examples of high-tech and aerospace development include General Dynamics’ “Factory of the Future” in Gilbert, which is a modern satellite manufacturing facility, and the Chandler-based Orbital Science Corporation. Orbital Science works with Orion, which is the next-generation space-exploration vehicle that will replace the Space Shuttle. Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Activity Another high-tech aerospace industry segment that deserves special attention with respect to the airport system is unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) activity. UAV technology has been fast evolving in recent years and becoming a part of military, civil, and commercial aviation. Although the UAV’s role and benefits may vary among these three aviation segments, all uses will have some level of impact on the National Airspace System (NAS). The potential cost savings as well as the advances in automation and sensor technologies have increased the demand for UAVs so consideration of airspace impacts is gaining attention. In 2005, MITRE's Center for Advanced Aviation Development (CAASD) in McLean, Virginia, identified examples of the many possible uses for UAVs by 2020, some of which are being tested and applied today including the following: • High-Altitude Imagery • Border Patrol • Maritime Surveillance • Environmental Sensing • Media and Traffic Reporting • Tactical Law Enforcement • Stratospheric Telecommunications Airship Currently, there is regular UAV activity in southeastern Arizona. Cochise County's Unmanned Aerial System Runway is located north of Highway 82, east of Whetstone, Arizona. The site is located within Sierra Vista airspace on Arizona state land that is leased by Cochise County and privately operated by Unmanned Vehicles International, Inc. 7-12 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN As early as 2004, Homeland Security published a fact sheet about Arizona and the Mexico border stating that there were reports of over 477 flight hours by UAVs to assist in rescues, apprehensions, and drug-related detections along the border. The continued issues with security and illegal persons entering the US will likely mean higher rates of UAV utilization in the future. Since UAVs have a wide range of physical and performance characteristics that are unlike any current aircraft, it is evident that there will be impacts to Arizona’s airport and airspace system. However, the NAS is projected to change significantly over the next decade as new technologies and procedures address capacity and inefficiencies. These advancements will likely facilitate the routine and safe entry of UAV operations into civil airspace, but a comprehensive look at what the integration of UAV activity means to aviation is just beginning and not available for review as part of the SASP. Tourism Tourism has long been an aviation demand factor. Arizona Office of Tourism reports that tourism is the second highest contributor to the state’s economy, behind only microelectronics. The Office of Tourism estimates that tourism provides 7.2 percent of all state and local tax revenue. An increase or decrease in tourism is often mirrored in aviation demand throughout Arizona. It is estimated that annual Arizona visitors travelling by air reached 13.1 million before a recent decline of an estimated 10 to 15 percent. However, it’s anticipated that this decline will begin a turnaround in 2010. The Arizona Office of Tourism has seen significant declines in Arizona tourism for 2008, so far, but this follows a record year for tourism for Arizona in 2007. Following recovery from the economic downturn, tourism figures are expected to return to former levels, some of which are described here. In the past, total Arizona visitation according to the Arizona Bureau of Tourism reached 34 million with many of international origin. Data on specific international origins is not available only for Arizona, but was reviewed for the U.S. as a whole. While Canadian visitors to the U.S. increased 17 percent from 2002 to 2006, international tourists from France, UK, Germany, Italy, and Japan were down in 2006, with Asian countries picking up tourism market share. Visitors to Arizona’s National Parks reportedly increased 2.8 percent from 2006 to 2007 for a total of nearly 11.9 million visitors. Arizona State Park visitors increased 2.6 percent for the same period for a total of nearly 2.6 million visitors. The top five National Park destinations in Arizona for 2007 included Grand Canyon National Park, Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Canyon de Chelly National Monument, and Saguaro National Park. The top five State Park destinations in Arizona for 2007 included Lake Havasu, Slide Rock, Patagonia Lake, Kartchner Caverns, and Catalina. There are no new recreational areas under development at this time. However, the BLM is preparing a Recreation Plan for the Table Mesa area. The Table Mesa area is located northeast of Lake Pleasant, between New River and Black Canyon City, west of I-17. Public meetings planned for November 2008 will address possible recreational uses for the area. In the vicinity of metropolitan Phoenix and Tucson, the Cactus League’s spring training brings in a large number of visitors from around the state and the nation to 11 stadiums in nine cities. Recent reports have stated that the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation is working to bring a 7-13 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN new baseball stadium and training facility to the area. The site is south of AZ Highway 87, near Fountain Hills. The stadium, at an estimated cost of $80 million, would serve as a spring training facility to two Cactus League teams. The Yavapai Nation also plans to renovate its old Fort McDowell Casino, which has been highly prosperous. The role of tribal communities in the growth and development of Arizona has been increasing in recent years and is expected to play a significant role in the future. There are seven reservation communities within the Sun Corridor. Retirement/Seasonal Residency Traditional retirement destinations in the past have included Arizona, Nevada, and Florida for many reasons including climate. The fact that these states have offered active adult living communities and other retirement facilities to cater to this market has also played a role. In fact, an estimated 13.1 percent of Arizona population is currently over 65 years of age. The large number of baby boomers retiring will increase demand for retirement amenities nationwide. The question remains as to what this means to Arizona in the future and more specifically, how this growth impacts the airport system. Retirees in Arizona become permanent or seasonal residents and have varying impacts based on their residency. News reports over the last year have addressed how the economic downturn is guiding the choices for those nearing retirement. Many retirees, once planning to retire within two years, have postponed retirement to help weather the economic downturn. Others see the downturn as an opportunity to move to their retirement destination and buy a home at a price that is 25 percent lower than what they would have paid during the housing boom. A Del Webb survey reported that an estimated 50 percent of people surveyed about retirement expected to live in a different state upon retiring. However, the New York Times reported that, statistically, 90 percent of retirees are currently choosing to remain in their pre-retirement location to be near family, friends, and other established ties. This would mean that a growing economy that is attracting a large population would inherently keep most of that population once they retired. This translates to a broader span of airport users as state residents continue to span all age groups. While Arizona is expected to remain a larger player in the retiree/second home market, the cost of relocating or choosing to purchase a second home may slow the influx of new retirees/vacation home residents into the state for now until the economy recovers. In a U.S. News and World Report article in September 2007, Prescott, Arizona was listed in the top 10 places to retire. Typically, this recognition spurs population growth. However, recognition of cities in this manner can often make the city more expensive because of its sudden popularity. Major Surface Transportation Improvements Major surface transportation improvements can have an impact on aviation. According to ADOT, there are numerous active roadway improvement projects around the state and several proposed improvements for the future. The majority of improvements are in the Sun Corridor. Figure 7-5 shows the location of proposed major roadway improvements and the airports in close proximity to these roadway improvements. These major improvements are discussed below. 7-14 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Figure 7-5: Proposed Major Roadway Improvements Sources: Airport Planning West, Wilbur Smith Associates Note: A reference table containing airport codes, airport names, and associated city can be found in Appendix A 7-15 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Interstate 17: ADOT and the Federal Highway Administration are currently conducting studies to develop a long-range plan for Interstate 17 (I-17) improvements. The study area covers the I-17 corridor between the State Route 179 traffic interchange (Sedona turnoff) and the Interstate 40 traffic interchange in Flagstaff. Improvements will increase capacity and ensure smooth operations for the projected traffic volumes over the next 20 to 30 years. Interstate 10 by-pass for Tucson: State officials have been discussing the possibility of an I10 by-pass west of Tucson. Although Pima County has already passed a resolution approving the bypass, an extensive study regarding the location would be required and is likely more than a decade away. If constructed, this project could improve capacity around metropolitan Tucson. Metropolitan Phoenix Area: Major freeway/highway improvements proposed will help address increasing traffic congestion and expanding urban development around the metropolitan Phoenix area. These improvements include Loop 202, Loop 303, I-17, I-10, Loop 101, and U.S. Highway 60. The Loop 202 improvements consist of the construction of its final segment, which is proposed to continue west from its current I-10 location, go west along the Gila River Indian Community, then north aligned with 55th Avenue, and then connect with I-10 in west Phoenix. Loop 303 improvements includes construction of an interim four-lane divided roadway from Happy Valley Road to I-17 and an upgrade of the current interim roadway between I-10 and Grand Avenue to a six-lane freeway. New general purpose lanes and HOV lanes are proposed for portions of I-17, I-10, Loop 202, Loop 101, and U.S. Highway 60. All of these improvements will increase efficiency of the Phoenix metro area’s roadway network. These improvements provide more efficient access to airports around the Valley, too. State Route 85: SR 85 is primarily a four-lane divided roadway running north-south between Interstate 10 in Buckeye and Interstate 8 in Gila Bend. There are plans to turn this rural highway into a freeway through several phases to address anticipated traffic projections within the next 20 years. U.S. Highway 93 (U.S. 93): U.S. 93 has been designated a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) route, but restrictions at the Hoover Dam along with several switchbacks has caused significant congestion. Consequently, a Hoover Dam Bypass project was needed. This project, currently underway, is a 3.5-mile corridor that begins in Clark County, Nevada, crosses the Colorado River approximately 1,500 feet downstream of the Hoover Dam, and ends in Mohave County, Arizona on U.S. 93. This by-pass will alleviate the heavy traffic congestion near the Dam today. There is also a four-lane divided highway under construction south of the dam. Other improvement projects are under way along U.S. 93 south of Interstate 40. State Route 801: This proposed roadway is under study and would serve as an east-west I10 reliever since I-10 is frequently congested. It is proposed to connect SR 85 to Loop 202 and interchange at Loop 303. This roadway, which is currently only funded within Maricopa County, would be designed and constructed sometime after 2015. State Route 802: SR 802 is a proposed freeway in the Southeast Valley that would connect the Santan Freeway segment of Loop 202 near Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport to US 60 in western Pinal County. This roadway would be completed after 2015, with design completed and initial construction likely beginning prior to 2015. 7-16 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Ongoing Studies: According to the Arizona State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for Fiscal Years 2009-2012, there are 25 studies under way for Arizona roadway improvements. The majority of these studies will be completed by 2011. Consequently, recommendations will be made for additional roadway improvements in the future. Conclusions ADOT Aeronautics and the state’s airport system are facing and will continue to face numerous outside influences that have the ability to affect future aviation needs. By recognizing and monitoring these changes the state will be able to respond to the impacts associated with the airport system. More specifically, these impacts may mean that there are airport needs that are greater than those outlined in the SASP, particularly the needs of the Sun Corridor airports, or possibly the types of airports needed to serve demand in the future. While factors such as population, employment, and tourism trends may intermittently be stagnant in the economy, this offers a pause to take a closer look at the airport system before the economy builds momentum again. 7-17 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN GOAL CATEGORY: DEVELOPMENT Figure 7-6 restates the performance measures included under the Development goal category, noting each measure as either action- or information-oriented. Figure 7-6: Performance Measures in the Development Goal Category Performance Measure Percent of population within a 30-minute drive time of each airport, by role category Informational/ Action Informational Percent of communities in the state with a population greater than 5,000 within a 60-minute drive time of a commercial service airport Informational Percent of communities in the state with a population greater than 1,000 within a 30-minute drive time of a general aviation airport Informational Percent of population within a 30-minute drive time of a public use airport Informational Percent of population within a 30-minute drive time of a National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) airport Informational Percent of population within a 30-minute drive time of an airport and the number of airports with an instrument approach Action Percent of airports within a 30-minute drive time of an airport with ILS or LPV Percent of licensed pilots within a 30-minute drive time of an airport Percent of airports capable of supporting emergency medical transport aircraft: Percent of communities in the state with a population greater than 15,000 within a 30-minute drive time of a general aviation airport that can accommodate large general aviation aircraft (Airport Reference Code (ARC) B-II) and has Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) capability Percent of airports with on-site weather reporting and percent of statewide area within 25 nautical miles of an airport with on-site weather reporting Percent of population and area within a 30-minute drive time of an all weather runway (paved, instrument approach, AWOS) Action Informational Action Informational Action Action Percent of airports with 24/7 fuel Percent of airports with jet fuel Percent of airports with sufficient operational capacity Percent of airports projected to have sufficient operational capacity in 2030 Action Action Informational Informational Number of airports experiencing delay to aircraft operations: the maximum and average delay in minutes an aircraft experiences due to airside congestion Informational Percent of population and employment centers that are within a 30-minute drive time of a system airport exceeding 60 percent demand/capacity, current and 2030 Informational Airports with current (past 5 years) master plans Percent of airports with surrounding municipalities that have adopted “disclosure areas” Percent of airports with surrounding municipalities that have adopted controls/zoning to make land use in the airport environs compatible with airport operations and development Percent of airports that are compliant with Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 Percent of airports included in regional transportation plans Percent of airports that are recognized in local comprehensive plan Action Action Action Action Action Action Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Each of these measures is discussed in the subsequent sections with regard to future system performance. 7-18 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Percent of population within a 30-minute drive time of each airport, by role category It is essential for Arizona to have a strategy that provides the state with a system of airports that supports current as well as long-term air transportation and economic needs, including providing reasonably convenient access. The foundation of such a strategy includes the identification of the system of airports that is needed to best serve Arizona’s anticipated population and economic growth. As part of the SASP, airports were initially placed into one of five roles: Commercial Service, Reliever, GA-Community, GA-Rural, and GA-Basic (see Chapter Five for the full role analysis). An in-depth quantitative process used many factors to place each airport into one of these five roles. When these airport roles were identified, it was noted that the current roles would be evaluated to determine if changes were needed in the future in order for the state system to function more effectively. To better evaluate the coverage provided by the various airport role categories, the coverage provided by each category was reviewed independently, as well as an “additive” process wherein the additional coverage provided by the various roles were added to the coverage from the previous roles (see Figure 7-7). For example, the Commercial Service airports provide coverage to 68 percent of Arizona’s population, but when the additional coverage provided by Reliever airports is combined with the Commercial Service coverage, 74 percent of the population is within reasonable access to airports in one of these two categories. Commercial Service, Reliever, and GA-Community airports provide coverage to 82 percent of Arizona’s population. By adding in the GA-Rural and GA-Basic airports, an additional four percent of the population is provided with access, providing a total of 86 percent coverage to all of Arizona’s residents by the existing airport system. Figure 7-7: Current and Target Coverage of Each Airport Role Category All System Airports Commercial Service Reliever GA-Community GA-Rural GA-Basic Current CoverageCombined Roles 86% 68% 74% 82% 85% 86% Current CoverageIndividual Role Category 86% 68% 62% 58% 9% 1% Future Target 86% 68% 62% 58% 9% 1% Based on a review of the current roles for system airport, completed with the assistance of ADOT Aeronautics staff, it was determined that no changes in current airport roles appear to be warranted at this time. Therefore, the future target for population coverage by system airports will remain unchanged and this measure is considered informational only. There are several things that may impact the future coverage including the construction of new airports/closure of existing airports and demographic growth throughout the state. Planned New/Replacement Airports There are several proposed new or replacement general aviation airports being considered throughout Arizona. These airports and their 30-minute drive times are depicted on Figure 78. Approximately one percent additional population coverage would be provided by all seven new airports combined if and/or when these facilities were constructed. This is due to the fact that they are either planned to be developed on existing airport sites or there are very 7-19 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN few people living in the remote areas such as the Native American communities where airports are being considered. The new general aviation airports being planned by public sponsors include a replacement airport for Superior Municipal Airport and a new airport in the city of Maricopa in Pinal County. The new Superior Airport is a replacement to the existing airport and a needs analysis and site selection must still be completed. The need for a new airport in Superior is being driven largely by a large business user nearby. The site selection study for the new Maricopa airport was completed in 2008 and noted that the best site for the new airport is at the existing Estrella Sailport site. The development of Maricopa Airport is driven largely by the explosive demographic and socioeconomic growth that occurred and is projected to occur for the city of Maricopa and Pinal County. Master plan/site selection studies are underway for two tribal airports: Polacca (Hopi Tribe) and Cibecue (White Mountain Apache Tribe). A new site for the Cibecue replacement airport has been identified two miles from the existing airport. The airport design is underway and the White Mountain Apache Tribe is currently applying for funding for the new airport. While the Polacca Airport Master Plan identified the need for a replacement airport, a site selection study has not been completed. The Navajo Nation is also in the early planning stages to add three new airports that will provide additional access and coverage to several of the communities identified as being without adequate coverage. The Nation noted that they plan to rebuild Ganado Airport on the existing airport site. The second proposed new airport is in Pinon in Navajo County. The third new proposed airport is in the northeast corner of Arizona, and would serve Lukachukai, Tsaile, Rock Point, and Teec Nos Pos. The Navajo DOT is currently identifying potential sites for these last two new airports. 7-20 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Figure 7-8: Locations of Proposed New/Replacement Airports in Relation to Existing Airport System Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Note: A reference table containing airport codes, airport names, and associated city can be found in Appendix A. 7-21 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Coverage for High Growth Corridors As discussed in detail above, most of the accelerated socioeconomic and demographic growth in the state is projected to occur in the six counties that comprise the Sun Corridor. The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) has mapped the growth of population clusters in the state through 2050. The projected population growth as of 2000 is presented in Figure 7-9. As shown, much of the growth is projected to occur as outgrowths of current population centers along the major roadways. Both the Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas are projected to get larger and Pinal County, between the two metro areas will also grow rapidly. Other major growth corridors in the state include Wickenburg, Prescott, and along I-40, especially along the eastern half of the highway in the state and near Winslow and Holbrook. The role analysis conducted as part of the SASP indicates that there are airports in the top three roles that are located in these high growth areas, however, analysis has indicated that not all of the airports meet the facility and service objectives associated with their roles. It is important that the airports in these high growth areas are well-equipped to handle the additional demands on the system that may result from the projected high growth. If existing airports in these regions cannot be expanded to meet demand from larger aircraft and on a more frequent basis, new airports should be considered to meet this demand and provide ample population coverage in the future. New airports beyond those that are already under consideration are not proposed as part of the SASP to meet demand, but ADOT is supportive of assisting communities that experience high growth in determining the true need for aviation facilities in the future. 7-22 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Figure 7-9: Forecasted Population Growth in Arizona, 2000-2050 Sources: Maricopa Association of Governments, Wilbur Smith Associates 7-23 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Percent of communities in the state with a population greater than 5,000 within a 60minute drive time of a commercial service airport or 90 minutes of Phoenix-Sky Harbor International and Tucson International It is generally desirable for most, if not all, of a state’s population to be within a reasonable drive of a commercial service airport. The previous chapter of the SASP identified that 83 percent of Arizona communities having a population of at least 5,000 lie within a 90-minute drive time of Phoenix Sky Harbor International or Tucson International, or within a 60-minute drive time of one of the state’s other 10 commercial service airports. The majority of the population that is not included within these areas is located in communities that have had commercial air service in the past including Lake Havasu City, which had commercial air service as recently as 2006, and Bisbee-Douglas and Holbrook, although this service was not provided in the recent past. Changing airline service patterns, aircraft types serving the communities, and airline financial needs have impacted the ability of airports in small communities to successfully support airline service without some form of subsidy. Four of Arizona’s commercial service airports are part of the Essential Air Service (EAS) program. These four airports are Page, Kingman, Show Low, and Prescott. Without their participation in this program and the federal subsidy that is associated with the program, even these airports are at risk of losing airline service, further impacting the level of population and number of communities with more than 5,000 persons that is within a reasonable drive time of a commercial service airport. If these four airports were to no longer have commercial airline service, coverage of the communities with a population of 5,000 or greater would drop from 82 percent to 74 percent. Figure 7-10 depicts this information on a map, showing the drive time areas of Arizona’s commercial service network without its current EAS airports. The commercial airline industry is ever-changing. It is the airlines, not the state or local communities that typically make decisions regarding the level of airline service. Due to the state’s limited ability to impact commercial service levels, this performance measure is considered to be informational, not action-oriented. No recommendation is made to increase commercial service coverage of Arizona population centers. 7-24 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Figure 7-10: Percent of Communities in the State with a Population Greater than 5,000 Within a 60-Minute Drive Time of a Commercial Service Airport or 90 minutes of Phoenix-Sky Harbor International and Tucson International, excluding Kingman, Page, Prescott, and Show Low Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Note: A reference table containing airport codes, airport names, and associated city can be found in Appendix A 7-25 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Percent of communities in the state with a population greater than 1,000 within a 30minute drive time of a general aviation airport Currently, 87 percent of Arizona communities having a population of at least 1,000 are within a 30-minute drive of any system airport. To more accurately depict the availability of airport access for Arizona’s residents, it is necessary to also look at out-of-state airports which may serve Arizona communities. Figure 7-11 shows all Arizona communities with a population of 1,000, existing system airports and 30-minute drive time areas, and out-ofstate public use airports within a 30-minute drive time of Arizona. The following communities are served by out-of-state airports only: • Ehrenberg • Fredonia • Quartzsite • Houck As part of this evaluation, a more detailed review of communities identified as having a population of 1,000 that are located just outside of general aviation airport 30-minute drive time areas was also conducted. While the GIS analysis provided 30-minute drive times based on average road speeds and conditions, in some cases, additional analysis showed that several of the identified communities are within 30 to 40 minutes and, for the purposes of the SASP, are close enough to existing airports to be considered to have adequate coverage. The following communities and statistical areas identified as having at least 1,000 in population are considered to have adequate airport coverage: • Wellton • Tanque Verde • Paulden • Strawberry • Mayer • Spring Valley • Cordes Lake This is an informational performance measure. While there are 12 communities with a population of at least 1,000 which lie beyond a reasonable drive time that are considered to have inadequate access to aviation services within the existing Arizona system, there is no action associated with improving performance. Several of these communities are located within Navajo and Apache Counties. • Lukachukai • Dewey-Humboldt • Pinon • Dilkon • Rio Verde • Dolan Springs • Salome • Ganado • Teec Nos Pos • Heber-Overgaard • Tsaile • Kaibito New Airports As discussed above, there are several new airports in various stages of planning that are proposed in Arizona. These airports, located in or near the towns of Maricopa, Superior, Cibecue, Polacca, Pinon, Ganado, and Lukachukai, are also mapped in Figure 7-11. As shown, the airports would provide coverage for four additional communities with a population of at least 1,000 residents located on the Navajo Indian Reservation: Lukachukai, Tsaile, Pinon, and Ganado. 7-26 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Figure 7-11: Communities in the State with a Population Greater than 1,000 within a 30-Minute Drive Time of a General Aviation Airport, Additional Coverage Provided by Out-of-State Airports, and Potential Coverage by New System Airports. Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Note: A reference table containing airport codes, airport names, and associated city can be found in Appendix A 7-27 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Percent of population within a 30-minute drive time of a public use airport This information-oriented performance measure revealed that 85 percent of Arizona’s population falls within a 30-minute drive time of a public use airport. While this coverage is considered adequate, the development of the proposed new airports would increase this coverage just one percentage point to 86 percent. ADOT is supportive of increasing the coverage provided by public use airports and has participated in new airport studies throughout the state for many years. However, the coverage currently provided is considered adequate and, at this time, no new airports are proposed as part of the SASP for the purpose of increasing public-use airport accessibility and coverage. As the population of the state continues to grow and expands from current populated areas, future SASP updates will continue to examine coverage provided by public use airports and the need for additional public use facilities. Percent of population within a 30-minute drive time of a NPIAS Airport The results from Chapter Six for this informational performance measure showed that 83 percent of Arizona’s population is located within a 30-minute drive time of an airport included in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). An analysis was completed to evaluate other airports’ eligibility for inclusion in the NPIAS. This analysis is presented in its entirety as Appendix C. Several airports were analyzed for inclusion in the NPIAS based on these standard eligibility criteria: • Facilities: runway length and width, surface, and approach • Activity: operations and based aircraft • Former inclusion in the NPIAS • Proximity to nearest NPIAS airport; airports which serve isolated communities • Reliever status • Airports which serve the U.S. Postal Service • Airports with a national defense role • Airports included in the SASP • Positive results of a benefit-cost analysis At the current time, Rolle Airfield does not meet the eligibility to be considered for NPIAS inclusion due to a low number of current and projected based aircraft. However, the military plans continued growth at Yuma International Airport in the next 10 years. As Yuma International looks for options to relieve congestion in the future, Rolle Airfield may play a larger role in the region, especially for recreational users. Rolle Airport is currently owned by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and is leased to the Yuma Airport Authority. The Authority has stated that it hopes to re-sign a 25-year lease with the bureau, with the current lease expiring in 2011. After the 25-year period, the authority hopes to double its current size to approximately 1,280 acres and purchase the airport. Rolle Airfield should be monitored for possible future inclusion in the NPIAS as the airport grows. A new airport at Maricopa, and replacement airports at Superior, Cibecue, Polacca, and others on the Navajo Indian Reservation are expected to be included in the NPIAS when operational. The addition of these airports would increase population coverage by NPIAS airports to 84 percent of the state total. 7-28 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Percent of population within a 30-minute drive time of an airport and the number of airports with an instrument approach Currently, 80 percent of Arizona’s population is located within a 30-minute drive time of an airport with an instrument approach. Instrument approaches not only help during periods of poor weather, they also help expedite traffic into and out of the congested Phoenix and Tucson metro areas. This performance measure is action-oriented. Facility and service objectives indicate that all airports in the Commercial Service, GA-Reliever, GA-Community, and GA-Rural roles are recommended to have some sort of instrument approach. It appears that all recommended airports can currently accommodate an instrument approach but more detailed analysis will be needed to determine the exact approach. These airports are listed in Figure 7-12. If these airports are successful in installing an instrument approach, system performance would increase to 85 percent coverage of the total statewide population. Figure 7-12: Airports Needing an Instrument Approach to Meet Target Associated City Airport Name Commercial Service: Objective – Near-Precision LPV Peach Springs Grand Canyon West GA-Community: Objective – Non-Precision Benson Benson Municipal Buckeye Buckeye Municipal Chandler Memorial Airfield Cottonwood Cottonwood Douglas Douglas Municipal Eloy Eloy Municipal Holbrook Holbrook Municipal Marana Pinal Airpark Wickenburg Wickenburg Municipal Williams H.A. Clark Memorial Field Associated City Airport Name GA-Rural: Objective – Non-Precision Ajo Eric Marcus Municipal Bisbee Bisbee Municipal Bullhead City Sun Valley Chinle Chinle Municipal Clifton/Morenci Greenlee County Douglas Cochise College Gila Bend Gila Bend Municipal Kayenta Kayenta Kearny Kearny Phoenix Phoenix Regional Polacca Polacca San Luis Rolle Airfield San Manuel San Manuel/Ray/Blair Seligman Seligman Temple Bar Temple Bar Tuba City Tuba City Whiteriver Whiteriver Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Figure 7-13 depicts the enhanced coverage that would be available if instrument approach capabilities are available at all Commercial Service, GA-Reliever, GA-Community, and GARural airports. If all airports meet this performance measure target, the number of system airports that have an instrument approach would increase from 39 to 67. 7-29 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Figure 7-13: Potential Coverage of Airports Able to Support an Instrument Approach Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Note: A reference table containing airport codes, airport names, and associated city can be found in Appendix A 7-30 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Percent of airports within a 30-minute drive time of an alternate airport with an Instrument Landing System (ILS) or LPV (300’, 1 mile) Use of Localizer Performance with Vertical guidance (LPV) approach systems is growing rapidly. An LPV approach provides near-precision approach capabilities and is operationally similar to an ILS. LPVs are less expensive than ILS approaches because no navigation infrastructure needs to be installed at airport runways.1 There are currently over 675 LPV approaches in use, and the FAA has plans to install another 300 each year. This has been made feasible largely due to expansion of the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) network, which was upgraded and completed in late 2008. This performance measure is action-oriented and several system airports are recommended to install an LPV approach to improve performance. Currently, 31 percent of SASP airports are located within a 30-minute drive time of an alternate airport having an ILS or LPV. Facility and service objectives, as well as a preliminary feasibility analysis, revealed that nearly all airports in the Commercial Service and Reliever categories appear capable of upgrading their approach to an LPV. Based on SASP analysis, the following six Commercial Service and Reliever airports should be evaluated for an upgrade to an LPV approach in order to meet the targets: • Kingman • Phoenix Goodyear • Grand Canyon West • Falcon Field • Show Low Regional • Marana Regional Based on a preliminary analysis, it appears that two GA-Relievers, Chandler Municipal and Scottsdale, are incapable of supporting an LPV approaches with the near-precision minima (300 feet, 1 mile) desired for this performance measure. Scottsdale has immovable objects in its primary surface and Chandler Municipal can not meet the appropriate design standards for its runway/taxiway separation. These airports support GPS non-precision approaches. It should be noted that these two airports are both within a 30-minute drive time of an alternate airport with an ILS or LPV approach. Figure 7-14 depicts the additional coverage provided by the six airports if LPV approaches are installed. This would improve coverage to 35 percent of system airports. Percent of licensed pilots within a 30-minute drive time of a system airport Analysis in the previous chapter revealed that 94 percent of Arizona’s registered pilots are located within a 30-minute drive time of an existing system airport. This excellent level of coverage is likely to improve over time as new pilots are most likely to reside in areas of existing airport coverage or in areas where new airports are proposed. As previously noted, new airports are proposed at five locations throughout Arizona. These airports would provide additional coverage to existing and future licensed pilots. This is an informational performance measure, and therefore no additional action is required. 1 WAAS Status and LPV Q&As, Federal Aviation Administration 7-31 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Figure 7-14: Potential Additional Coverage of Airports within 30 Minutes of an Alternate Airport with an ILS or LPV Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Note: A reference table containing airport codes, airport names, and associated city can be found in Appendix A 7-32 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Percent of airports with on-site weather reporting and percent of statewide area within 25 nautical miles of an airport with on-site weather reporting Although a large portion of Arizona experiences mild weather conditions for much of the year, there are times and locations where weather reporting is extremely valuable for safe aircraft operations. Currently, 46 percent of Arizona’s airport system has on-site weather reporting provided by an AWOS or ASOS. Fifty percent of Arizona’s land area is within 25 nautical miles of a system airport with on-site weather reporting. Completed in 2007, the Arizona AWOS Network Study reviewed individual airport AWOS requirements. The study identified an AWOS network consisting of 30 existing AWOS/ASOS units and recommended 26 new AWOS units for inclusion in the network. Planned AWOS units were dispersed around the state to offer the most weather-reporting coverage with the fewest units. AWOS units were not recommended at airports covered within 25 nautical miles of an airport with on-site weather reporting, as weather reporting at these airports can be handled by nearby AWOS or ASOS unit. The recommendations in the AWOS Network Study have been adopted for the purpose of the SASP for this action-oriented performance measure. Since completion of the study in 2007, AWOS units have been installed at Laughlin-Bullhead International, Benson, San Carlos Apache, Springerville Municipal, Wickenburg, Buckeye, Greenlee County, and Avi Suquilla. Figure 7-15 presents the additional airports recommended for installation of new AWOS units as noted in the AWOS Network Study. Figure 7-15: Airports Recommended by the ADOT AWOS Network Study to Install an AWOS Associated City Commercial Service Airport Name Associated City GA-Rural Airport Name Peach Springs Yuma Grand Canyon West Yuma International Kearny Polacca Kearny Polacca GA-Community San Manuel San Manuel/Ray/Blair Coolidge Coolidge Municipal Seligman Seligman Sedona Willcox Sedona Cochise County Temple Bar Tuba City Temple Bar Tuba City Whiteriver Whiteriver GA-Rural Ajo Eric Marcus Municipal GA-Basic Chinle Chinle Municipal Bagdad Bagdad Gila Bend Kayenta Gila Bend Municipal Kayenta Sells Whitmore Sells Grand Canyon Bar Ten Airstrip Source: ADOT AWOS Network Study 2007 Figure 7-16 depicts potential increased weather reporting facility coverage should they be installed at all airports recommended in the AWOS Network Study. With the recommendations implemented, the percent of SASP airports with on-site weather reporting will be 67 percent and land area coverage of on-site weather reporting increases to 75 percent of the state total. As depicted, the coverage provided would be extensive for Arizona. 7-33 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Figure 7-16: Potential Additional Land Area Coverage Provided by On-Site Weather Reporting Sources: ADOT AWOS Network Study 2007, Wilbur Smith Associates Note: A reference table containing airport codes, airport names, and associated city can be found in Appendix A 7-34 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN There are 22 airports in the system that are considered to have adequate coverage because they are within the 25 nautical mile coverage area of another system airport with on-site weather reporting. There is one airport which is not covered by the optimal AWOS network: Cibecue. Cibecue is very close to the 25 nautical mile areas of several airports. Percent of airports capable of supporting emergency/physician/medical transport aircraft As detailed in Chapter Six, emergency medical operators have specific facilities that they desire when operating at an airport. The following facilities represent the ideal airport conditions for these operators: • Runway length of 4,000 feet or greater • Well-maintained pavement on runways • On-site weather reporting • Instrument approach procedure • Rotating beacon • Medium or high intensity runway lighting • Full perimeter fencing (desired) • Approach landing system (ALS) (desired) Currently, 40 percent of airports included in the SASP meet the minimum conditions for this performance measure. Target performance of this measure is based on whether or not the airport met the facility and service objectives, as well as the recommendations from the AWOS Network Study completed in 2007. Although full perimeter airport fencing and an approach lighting system are desired facilities for this performance measure, they are not required or mandated by the operators and therefore are not included as a condition to meet the target performance. Inclusion in the AWOS network qualifies an airport for this performance measure. For this action-oriented performance measure, future target system-wide performance is 72 percent of all airports based on the analysis of facility and service objectives and the AWOS network recommendations. Figure 7-17 details which airports should add projects to meet this performance measure. The table also details whether an airport is recommended by the AWOS Network Study to install an AWOS or will be covered by the existing AWOS network and therefore considered compliant with the weather reporting element of this performance measure. Figure 7-18 depicts the geographic distribution of the airports throughout Arizona that currently meet the measure and those that have the potential to meet the target. It is important for these airports that meet the conditions to have widespread coverage to provide access to more remote areas. Distribution throughout the state is generally even, but there are areas with fewer airports meeting these requirements, such as in the southwest and northeast. The map also depicts which airports meet the full conditions and which ones are located within the AWOS network but do not have on-site weather reporting. 7-35 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Figure 7-17: Airports Needing Projects to Ideally Support Medical Aircraft Operations Associated City Airport Name Commercial Service Peach Springs Grand Canyon West Yuma Yuma International Reliever Goodyear Phoenix Goodyear GA-Community Benson Benson Municipal Buckeye Buckeye Municipal Chandler Memorial Airfield Coolidge Cottonwood Coolidge Municipal Cottonwood Douglas Douglas Municipal Runway Length On-Site Weather Reporting Instrument Approach Rotating Beacon HIRL/ MIRL - Install New AWOS Install New AWOS Install - Install - Install - - Served by Glendale - - - - Served by PHX/ Chandler Install New AWOS Served by Sedona/ Prescott Served by BisbeeDouglas Served by Casa Grande Served by Marana Install New AWOS - Install Install - - Install Install Install Install - - Install - - Install - - Install Install Install Install - - Install Install Install - - Install - Install Install Install - - Install Install Install Install Install Install Install Install Install Install - Install Install - - Eloy Eloy Municipal Holbrook Marana Wickenburg Willcox Williams GA-Rural Holbrook Municipal Pinal Airpark Wickenburg Municipal Cochise County H.A. Clark Memorial Field - Bisbee Chinle Clifton/Morenci Douglas Bisbee Municipal Chinle Municipal Greenlee County Cochise College - Gila Bend Kayenta Phoenix Polacca San Manuel Seligman Tuba City Whiteriver Gila Bend Municipal Kayenta Phoenix Regional Polacca San Manuel/Ray/Blair Seligman Tuba City Whiteriver +100’ - Served by BisbeeDouglas Install New AWOS Served by BisbeeDouglas Install New AWOS Install New AWOS Served by Casa Grande/Chandler Install New AWOS Install New AWOS Install New AWOS Install New AWOS Install New AWOS Source: Wilbur Smith Associates 7-36 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Figure 7-18: Potential Additional Airports Capable of Supporting Emergency/Physician/Medical Transport Aircraft Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Note: A reference table containing airport codes, airport names, and associated city can be found in Appendix A 7-37 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Percent of communities in the state with a population greater than 15,000 within a 30minute drive time of a general aviation airport that can accommodate large general aviation aircraft (Airport Reference Code (ARC) B-II) and has Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) capability Of Arizona’s communities with at least 15,000 residents, only the Census-designated place of Tanque Verde falls outside a 30-minute drive time market area of airports meeting these requirements. As previously stated in this chapter, Tanque Verde’s proximity to Tucson International provides the area with adequate coverage, as it rests on the very edge of the market area. This is an informational performance measure and therefore no further action is required. Percent of population within a 30-minute drive time of an all weather runway (paved, instrument approach, AWOS) Poor weather conditions do not frequently impact much of Arizona. However, it is important that the system can accommodate those instances of poor weather, especially in the northern and eastern portions of the state. Target performance for this measure was developed based on which airports can meet the facility and service objectives for paved runways and approaches, and which airports are recommended for AWOS installation in the AWOS Network Study. Thirty-one system airports currently have an all weather runway, covering 77 percent of the state’s total population. Figure 7-19 details projects needed at 33 system airports to meet this action-oriented performance measure target. All of the airports already meet the paved runway element of this measure. The AWOS Network Study did not recommend an AWOS at 10 of the airports since they are located within 25 nautical miles of an airport that has (or plans to have) an onsite AWOS or ASOS. For the purpose of this measure, these airports meet the AWOS element since their weather reporting coverage is deemed adequate. Figure 7-20 maps the enhanced coverage that would be provided if all airports recommended in this performance measure have a paved runway, an instrument approach, and weather reporting. The resulting target population coverage if all airports make the recommended improvements is 84 percent of the state total. 7-38 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Figure 7-19: Airport Projects Needed to Meet the All-Weather Runway Performance Measure Target Associated City Airport Name Commercial Service Peach Springs Grand Canyon West Yuma Yuma International Reliever Goodyear Phoenix Goodyear GA-Community Benson Benson Municipal Buckeye Buckeye Municipal ID Weather Reporting Runway Surface Instrument Approach 1G4 NYL Install AWOS Install AWOS - Install - GYR Served by Glendale - - E95 BXK Served by PHX/ Chandler Install AWOS Served by Sedona/ Prescott Served by BisbeeDouglas Served by Casa Grande Served by Marana Install AWOS - - Install Install - Install - - Install - Install Install Install Install Install Install - Install - Install - Install Install Install - Install Install Install Install - Install Install Install Install - Install Install Install Install Chandler Memorial Airfield Coolidge Coolidge Municipal Cottonwood Cottonwood Douglas Douglas Municipal Eloy Holbrook Marana Wickenburg Willcox Williams Eloy Municipal Holbrook Municipal Pinal Airpark Wickenburg Municipal Cochise County H.A. Clark Memorial Field DGL E60 P14 MZJ E25 P33 CMR GA-Rural Ajo Eric Marcus Municipal P01 Bisbee Bisbee Municipal Bullhead City Sun Valley Chinle Clifton/Morenci Chinle Municipal Greenlee County Douglas Cochise College Gila Bend Kayenta Kearny Gila Bend Municipal Kayenta Kearny Phoenix Phoenix Regional Polacca San Luis San Manuel Polacca Rolle Airfield San Manuel/Ray/Blair Seligman Seligman Temple Bar Tuba City Whiteriver Temple Bar Tuba City Whiteriver 34AZ P08 P52 A39 P10 44A E77 Install AWOS Served by Douglas BisbeeServed by Laughlin/ Bullhead Install AWOS Served by Douglas BisbeeInstall AWOS Install AWOS Install AWOS Served by Casa Grande/Chandler Install AWOS Served by Yuma Install AWOS P23 U30 T03 E24 Install AWOS Install AWOS Install AWOS Install AWOS P04 A20 E91 CFT P03 E63 0V7 E67 Sources: ADOT AWOS Network Study 2007, Wilbur Smith Associates 7-39 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Figure 7-20: Potential Coverage of Airports with an All Weather Runway Sources: ADOT AWOS Network Study 2007, Wilbur Smith Associates Note: A reference table containing airport codes, airport names, and associated city can be found in Appendix A 7-40 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Percent of airports meeting aviation fuel goals Percent of airports with 24/7 fuel Currently, 46 percent of SASP airports provide either Jet A or AvGas 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This can be accomplished with a credit card reader pump or full-service FBO. Facility and service objectives established in a previous chapter recommend that Commercial Service and Reliever airports should provide both Jet A and AvGas on a 24/7 basis. As shown in Figure 7-21, six of the 20 airports comprising the Commercial Service and Reliever categories currently do not have AvGas and Jet A available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. One airport, Chandler Municipal, has only AvGas available 24/7. Therefore the recommended action is that service be upgraded to 24-hour availability for these airports. This will increase full system performance to 52 percent of all airports. Figure 7-21: Commercial Service and Reliever Airports Needing 24/7 Fuel to Meet Target Associated City Airport Name Commercial Service Bullhead City Laughlin/Bullhead International Grand Canyon Grand Canyon National Park Peach Springs Grand Canyon West Prescott Ernest A. Love Field Reliever Chandler Chandler Municipal Goodyear Phoenix Goodyear AvGas 24/7 Jet A 24/7 Recommendation N N N N N N N N Add 24/7 AvGas and Jet A Add 24/7 AvGas and Jet A Add 24/7 AvGas and Jet A Add 24/7 AvGas and Jet A Y N N N Add 24/7 Jet A Add 24/7 AvGas and Jet A Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 Percent of airports with jet fuel Fifty-two percent of all SASP airports currently have jet fuel available to the public. Facility and service objectives previously established noted that Commercial Service, Reliever, and GA-Community airports should provide jet fuel. Of the 49 airports which make up these three role categories, 42 currently offer Jet A fuel to the public. One of the seven remaining airports, Pleasant Valley, is private, and therefore has no recommended upgrade. The recommended action is adding jet fuel service at the six remaining airports in these roles will improve full system performance to 59 percent of the total. The following six airports should add jet fuel service: • Grand Canyon West • Chandler – Memorial Airfield • Cottonwood • Holbrook • Taylor • Williams – H.A. Clark Memorial Field Percent of airports meeting capacity goals Sufficient operational capacity at airports in Arizona, especially in the Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas, has been an ongoing concern in the aviation community over the last decade. Although airports can operate safely above the FAA’s 60 and 80 percent 7-41 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN demand/capacity triggers, aircraft may experience operational delays at peak intervals of demand. In the SANS 2000, six airports were above the 60 percent demand/capacity ratio. Phoenix Sky Harbor, Ernest A. Love Field, and Grand Canyon National Park were above 100 percent capacity. Scottsdale, Phoenix Deer Valley, and Tucson International were between 60 and 100 percent in their ratio of demand to capacity. Since the SANS 2000 was completed, several of the airport ASVs have been recalculated and updated. A few airports have completed projects to improve capacity. These airports include: • • • • Phoenix Sky Harbor International: A third runway at Phoenix Sky Harbor was completed in October 2000. This improved operating capacity at the airport. Tucson International: Construction is currently underway that will allow for parallel takeoffs and landings and will improve operational capacity. Grand Canyon National Park: A FAA-operated air traffic control tower was constructed at the airport and completed in May 2003. Phoenix Deer Valley: Several small taxiway projects were completed in 2004. It is worth noting that although improvements have been made, each of these airports may again exceed operational capacity in the SASP forecast period. As part of the SASP, there are four performance measures that are capacity-related. Through the study’s analysis, an evaluation of each airport’s annual operating capacity was conducted. This level of analysis only identifies potential capacity issues on a surface level; more detailed analysis is needed to determine if capacity is truly an issue at many airports. The following summarizes the results of these performance measures from Chapter Six: • Percent of airports with sufficient operational capacity: 87 percent • Percent of airports projected to have sufficient operational capacity in 2030: 80 percent • Number of airports experiencing possible delay to aircraft operation • 2007: 23 airports • 2030: 28 airports • Percent of population and employment centers within a 30-minute drive time of a system airport projected to not have sufficient capacity in 2030: • Population: 72 percent • Employment centers: 40 percent According to the analysis presented in Chapter Six, the SASP airports presented in Figure 722 have current and/or future capacity levels that are at or above FAA demand/capacity triggers of 60 percent. As shown, four airports in the Phoenix Metro Area are currently above the FAA triggers, while nearly all (nine) Phoenix Metro airports are projected to exceed 60 percent demand/capacity ratios by 2030. Three airports in the Tucson Metro Area have demand capacity ratios that are above the FAA trigger of 60 percent. Several other airports in the state are also currently and/or are projected to operate above 60 percent demand/capacity, including Grand Canyon National Park, Grand Canyon West, Ernest A. Love Field, Yuma International, and Sierra Vista Municipal. 7-42 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Figure 7-22: SASP Airports with Capacity Concerns above the 60% Demand/Capacity Ratio, 2007 and 2030 Associated City Airport Name Phoenix Metro Airports Mesa Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Phoenix Phoenix Sky Harbor Intl Chandler Chandler Municipal Glendale Glendale Municipal Goodyear Phoenix Goodyear Mesa Falcon Field Phoenix Phoenix Deer Valley Scottsdale Scottsdale Peoria Pleasant Valley Tucson Metro Airports Tucson Tucson International Marana Marana Regional Tucson Ryan Field Other Grand Canyon National Grand Canyon Peach Springs Grand Canyon West Prescott Ernest A. Love Field Yuma Yuma MCAS/Yuma Intl Sierra Vista Sierra Vista Municipal- LAA SASP Role Commercial Service Commercial Service Reliever Reliever Reliever Reliever Reliever Reliever GA-Community 2007 79% 91% 67% 88% 2030 101% 132% 105% 66% 140% 104% 92% 137% 74% Commercial Service Reliever Reliever 81% 60% 66% 97% 93% 118% Commercial Service Commercial Service Commercial Service Commercial Service GA-Community 105% 64% 66% 73% 77% 142% 76% 91% 87% Sources: Airport Records, Wilbur Smith Associates, September 2008 Several of the airports noted in the table above have capacity-enhancing projects underway or planned. The projects include: • Phoenix-Mesa Gateway: The master plan noted several improvements to the taxiway system to increase capacity including additional parallel taxiways, numerous highspeed taxiway exits, and additional terminal area taxilanes. • Phoenix Sky Harbor: Construction of two new taxiways on the west side of the airport has been approved. These projects will have a minimal impact on operational capacity. • Chandler Municipal: The airport’s master plan included several taxiway projects that will improve safety and efficient operations. • Glendale Municipal: Glendale Municipal’s master plan included limited capacity enhancing projects including a runway extension (now complete) and taxiway system expansion. • Falcon Field: Limited capacity enhancing projects were noted in the 2008/2009 master plan including high speed taxiway exits to existing runways and a new parallel taxiway with high speed exit taxiways. • Phoenix Deer Valley: Several small capacity enhancing projects are included in the airport’s 2007 master plan. These projects include a taxiway extension and bypass taxiway to Runway 7R and additional high speed taxiway exits to Runway 7L-25R. • Phoenix Goodyear: The construction of an additional 4,300-foot long runway is identified in the airport’s 2007 master plan. An additional parallel taxiway and high speed taxiway exits are also planned for the existing runway. • Tucson International: Tucson is studying alternatives for improving capacity through the relocation and/or upgrade of 11R/29L; a preferred alternative should be identified by December of 2009. • Ryan Field: Although the master plan update is still under development, the plan envisions construction of a third runway and the extension and upgrade of the existing runway/taxiway system in the long term. 7-43 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN • • • Marana Regional: Included in the 2006 Master Plan Update is the construction of a new parallel runway 12R-30L and adjacent taxiways and taxiway exits. Additional taxiway improvements to existing runways and the construction of an air traffic control tower are also planned to help improve operational capacity. Construction of the control tower is subject to approval and must meet the requirements of the FAA. Grand Canyon National Park: In recognition of potential operational capacity concerns, the master plan’s long range development plan (20+ years) includes the development of a parallel runway. Grand Canyon West: The airport is currently relocating the runway, widening the runway, constructing a new parallel taxiway and associated taxiway connectors, and installing runway lights, PAPIs, and a rotating beacon to allow for additional capacity. The FAA has analyzed future operational capacity limitations at Tucson International Airport and in the Phoenix Metro Area as well as throughout the entire country. The FAA completed Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System, an Analysis of Airport and Metropolitan Area Demand and Operational Capacity in the Future (FACT 1) in 2004 and updated the analysis in 2007 (FACT 2). According to their findings, FACT 1 noted that Tucson International will experience operational constraints by 2015 if capacity enhancing projects are not undertaken. As noted above, Tucson International has a runway relocation project already underway to address this. FACT 2 identified that Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport will be in need of additional capacity to grow as forecasted. Although the city of Phoenix noted it is working with Phoenix-Mesa Gateway to increase the commercial service usage there, this effort alone will not offset the increased operational demand that is projected at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport and in the entire Phoenix Metro Area. Currently, no major capacity enhancing projects are under consideration at Phoenix Sky Harbor International. As part of the Phoenix Regional Aviation System Plan (RASP), Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) also noted major operational capacity concerns for the region. Four alternatives were developed to improve the system. The final plan recommended development of at least one new general aviation airport in addition to expanding the existing airports as much as possible to accommodate additional operational demand. Significant boosts in capacity can usually be provided by either building new runways or by introducing additional airports into the system. A review of system airports approaching the FAA demand/capacity triggers indicates that most of these airports do not appear to be capable of easily and readily supporting the development of additional runways. Three airports noted in Figure 7-22 are planning to construct new runways: Phoenix Goodyear, Ryan Airfield, and Marana Regional. The congestion in the Phoenix Metro Area has and will continue to impact outlying airports as well. Airports such as Casa Grande, Eloy, and Buckeye have seen a great deal of growth in recent years as Phoenix-area recreational pilots look for less congested airports to fly into and out of. In addition, a lot of the training activity by Phoenix area flight schools is moving to these airports since they are less congested, but still nearby. There is also one new general aviation airport planned for the city of Maricopa in western Pinal County at the current site of Estrella Sailport. This airport will help support the rapid socioeconomic and aviation growth of Pinal County but will provide a limited amount of relief to the congestion in the Phoenix Metro Area. Due to the level of analysis and the need for individual airports to determine if they are willing to increase capacity, the SASP does not contain any additional capacity-enhancement 7-44 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN projects such as parallel taxiways, new runway entrances/exits, an air traffic control tower, and/or a parallel runway. It is recommended that capacity-enhancing projects included in airport master plans be implemented. Air traffic delays in the metropolitan areas of Phoenix and Tucson should be monitored. Further investigation of developing new system airports is warranted as operational delays continue to increase. Airports with a current (past 5 years) master plan Chapter Six revealed that 55 percent of the airport system, or 58 percent of the applicable airport system (46 of 72 airports) have a current master plan completed in the past five years or one currently underway. It is important to note that, although 64 percent of applicable system airports have a recently completed master plan, only 32 percent of applicable system airports have their master plan forecasts and airport layout plans (ALPs) approved by the FAA in the last five years. FAA approval of forecast and ALPs is typically necessary to begin projects detailed in airport master plans. Target performance for this action-oriented measure is that all publicly owned and Nativeowned airports have a current master plan. Figure 7-23 details which airports should seek to develop a current master plan in the near term. Periodic updates of current master plans will be included as part of capital project development for the study. In addition, all applicable airports should work closely with the FAA to obtain approval shortly following master plan completion. Figure 7-23: Airports Recommended to Develop a Current Master Plan Associated City Commercial Service Phoenix GA-Community Douglas Eloy Grand Canyon Sedona St Johns Willcox GA-Rural Ajo Bisbee Bullhead City Chinle Douglas Douglas Bisbee Airport Name Phoenix Sky Harbor Intl Douglas Municipal Eloy Municipal Grand Canyon National Park Sedona St Johns Industrial Air Park Cochise County Eric Marcus Municipal Bisbee Municipal Sun Valley Chinle Municipal Cochise College Bisbee Douglas International Associated City GA-Rural Phoenix Polacca San Luis Temple Bar Whiteriver Window Rock GA-Basic Bagdad Cibecue Meadview Peach Springs Sells Superior Tombstone Airport Name Phoenix Regional Polacca Rolle Airfield Temple Bar Whiteriver Window Rock Bagdad Cibecue Pearce Ferry Hualapai Sells Superior Municipal Tombstone Municipal Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 Note: The SASP airports not included in the table either have finalized a master plan in the last five years, have a master plan underway, or have the funding in place to begin a master plan 7-45 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Percent of airports meeting zoning and land use control goals Figure 7-24 details airports that should implement the types of zoning and land use controls specified by the three related performance measures. Disclosure areas, airport-compatible zoning and controls, and height zoning to address FAR Part 77 issues are all required of publicly owned airports within the Arizona system. These three performance measures each have a specific action associated with them to meet SASP targets. Percent of airports with surrounding municipalities that have adopted “disclosure areas” Thirty-five percent of airports in Arizona’s system have adopted disclosure areas as defined in Arizona statutes. The target for this performance measure includes all public- and Nativeowned airports, as well as any privately owned airports that already have an adopted disclosure area. If these airports develop and adopt disclosure areas, performance will increase to 89 percent of all SASP airports. Figure 7-24 shows which airports are recommended to implement them. Airports marked as private ownership are not required to implement disclosure areas, however, Sky Ranch at Carefree and Rimrock have both published disclosure areas. Percent of airports with surrounding municipalities that have adopted controls/zoning to make land use in the airport environs compatible with airport operations and development As with the last performance measure, applicable airports for this measure are considered all public and Native-owned airports. Some municipalities near privately-owned airports have also adopted some type of controls to protect airport environs. The target for this performance measure is that these airports (all public owned and Native-owned as well as private owned that already have controls in place) should have airport-compatible controls and zoning in their surrounding municipalities. Currently, 60 percent of all SASP airports meet this performance measure. By including privately owned airports already meeting this measure, performance will increase to 94 percent if the target is met. Figure 7-24 shows which airports are recommended to implement compatible zoning and controls. Airports designated as having private ownership are not required to meet this performance measure; however, six privately owned airports have surrounding municipalities that have adopted airport-compatible controls and zoning including Sky Ranch at Carefree, Grand Canyon Valle, Marble Canyon, Estrella Sailport, La Cholla Airpark, and Rimrock. Percent of airports that are compliant with Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 (height zoning) Currently, 46 percent of airports included in the SASP have height zoning that addresses FAR Part 77 regulations. FAR Part 77 states that any airport of public ownership must comply with these regulations. When including private airports which are also compliant with Part 77, this brings target performance to 87 percent of the airport system. Figure 7-24 shows airports which are recommended to adopt Part 77 zoning. Airports that are not required to comply with FAR Part 77 height zoning are marked as being privately owned. The following privately owned system airports have already adopted height zoning to address Part 77 issues: Sky Ranch at Carefree, Grand Canyon Valle, and Marble Canyon. 7-46 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Figure 7-24: Airports Recommended to Meet Zoning and Land Use Control Performance Measures Associated City Airport Name Commercial Service Bullhead City Laughlin/Bullhead Intll Grand Canyon Kingman Page Peach Springs Prescott Show Low Yuma Grand Canyon National Park Kingman Page Grand Canyon West Ernest A. Love Field Show Low Regional Yuma International Disclosure Areas Controls/Zoning Part 77 Yes Implement Yes Implement Yes Implement Implement Yes Yes Implement Implement Yes Yes Implement Yes Implement Yes Implement Implement Yes Implement Implement Yes Implement Reliever Glendale Glendale Municipal Yes Yes Implement Marana Marana Regional Yes Yes Implement Benson Municipal Buckeye Municipal Casa Grande Municipal Memorial Airfield Colorado City Municipal Coolidge Municipal Eloy Municipal Holbrook Municipal Lake Havasu City Pinal Airpark Nogales International Avi Suquilla Payson Safford Regional Sedona Springerville Municipal St Johns Industrial Air Park Cochise County H.A. Clark Memorial Field Winslow-Lindbergh Regional Implement Yes Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Yes Implement Yes Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Implement Yes Yes Implement Implement Yes Implement Implement Yes Implement Yes Yes Yes Implement Implement Implement Yes Yes Yes Yes Implement Implement Yes Implement Yes Yes Implement Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Eric Marcus Municipal Bisbee Municipal Sun Valley Chinle Municipal Greenlee County Cochise College Bisbee Douglas International Gila Bend Municipal San Carlos Apache Kayenta Kearny Implement Yes Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Yes Implement Yes Yes Implement Implement Implement Yes Yes Implement Yes Implement Implement Yes Implement Implement Implement Yes Yes Yes Implement Implement GA-Community Benson Buckeye Casa Grande Chandler Colorado City Coolidge Eloy Holbrook Lake Havasu City Marana Nogales Parker Payson Safford Sedona Springerville St Johns Willcox Williams Winslow GA-Rural Ajo Bisbee Bullhead City Chinle Clifton/Morenci Douglas Douglas Bisbee Gila Bend Globe Kayenta Kearny 7-47 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Figure 7-24: Airports Recommended to Meet Zoning and Land Use Control Performance Measures (Continued) Associated City Airport Name Disclosure Areas Controls Zoning Part 77 Phoenix Polacca San Luis San Manuel Seligman Temple Bar Tuba City Whiteriver Window Rock Phoenix Regional Polacca Rolle Airfield San Manuel/Ray/Blair Seligman Temple Bar Tuba City Whiteriver Window Rock Implement Implement Implement Implement Yes Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Yes Implement Yes Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Bagdad Cibecue Pearce Ferry Hualapai Sells Superior Municipal Tombstone Municipal Yes Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Yes Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement GA-Basic Bagdad Cibecue Meadview Peach Springs Sells Superior Tombstone Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 Percent of airports meeting local and regional planning goals Percent of airports included in regional transportation plans Currently, 47 percent of SASP airports are included in regional transportation plans. It is recommended that 100 percent of publicly owned airports in Arizona’s system should seek inclusion in the appropriate regional transportation plan for this action-related performance measure. Figure 7-25 presents which SASP airports should seek inclusion in regional transportation plans. Percent of airports that are recognized in local comprehensive plan Sixty-four percent of all SASP airports are currently included in a local comprehensive plan. The target has been set that 100 percent of all airports included in the SASP should achieve this goal. The action associated with meeting this target is that all airports with public, private, and Native ownership alike should achieve inclusion in the appropriate local comprehensive plan. Figure 7-25 shows which SASP airports need to be included in local comprehensive plans to meet this target. 7-48 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Figure 7-25: Airports Recommended for Inclusion in Regional Transportation or Local Comprehensive Plans Associated City Airport Name Commercial Service Grand Canyon Grand Canyon National Park Kingman Kingman Peach Springs Grand Canyon West Yuma Yuma International Reliever All Reliever Airports meet objective GA-Community Chandler Memorial Airfield Colorado City Colorado City Municipal Cottonwood Cottonwood Eloy Eloy Municipal Marana Pinal Airpark Nogales Nogales International Parker Avi Suquilla Peoria Pleasant Valley Springerville Springerville Municipal Willcox Cochise County Williams H.A. Clark Memorial Field Winslow Winslow-Lindbergh Regional GA-Rural Ajo Eric Marcus Municipal Bisbee Bisbee Municipal Bullhead City Sun Valley Douglas Cochise College Douglas Bisbee Bisbee Douglas International Gila Bend Gila Bend Municipal Kayenta Kayenta Phoenix Phoenix Regional Polacca Polacca San Luis Rolle Airfield Seligman Seligman Temple Bar Temple Bar Tuba City Tuba City Window Rock Window Rock GA-Basic Bagdad Bagdad Cibecue Cibecue Meadview Pearce Ferry Peach Springs Hualapai Sells Sells Superior Superior Municipal Tombstone Tombstone Municipal Local Comprehensive Plan Regional Transportation Plan Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Source: Airport Inventory and Data Survey 2008 7-49 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN GOAL CATEGORY: ECONOMIC SUPPORT Figure 7-26 restates each performance measure under the Economic Support Goal Category, showing each as either action- or information-oriented. Figure 7-26: Performance Measures in the Economic Support Goal Category Performance Measure Informational/ Action Dollars of economic impact on the state from aviation Informational Number of major recreational areas in the state within a 30-minute drive time of a system airport Informational Percent of businesses with the propensity to use aviation within a 30-minute drive of a system airport Informational Percent of population within a 30-minute drive time of a system airport meeting business user needs Action Number of airports having adequate utilities (electricity, telephone, water, sewer, and gas) Percent of airports with a primary runway pavement condition index (PCI) of 70 or greater Percent of airports with an average pavement condition index (PCI) of 70 or greater Informational Action Action Dollars of economic impact on the state from aviation As stated in Chapter Six, it is estimated that aviation currently produces $38.5 billion in economic impact for Arizona. No action is recommended as part of this information-oriented performance measure; however it should be noted that ADOT tries to update the statewide economic impact analysis every five years and provides the information to airports included in the analysis. Number of major recreational areas in the state within a 30-minute drive time of a system airport Currently, 84 percent of the state’s major recreational areas fall within a 30-minute drive time of a SASP airport. This coverage is considered adequate and is likely to improve in the future with the installation of new system airports in areas of deficiency. However, this is an information-oriented performance measure, and therefore has no specific recommendations. Percent of businesses with the propensity to use aviation within a 30-minute drive of a system airport Currently, 99 percent of businesses with a propensity to use aviation (as described in a previous chapter) are located within a 30-minute drive of a system airport. This is an informational performance measure, with no recommendation for future changes. The 99 percent coverage is considered very successful, and will likely stay constant in the future, as new businesses that have a likelihood of using aviation will likely locate within these areas where there are existing airports. 7-50 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Percent of population and area within a 30-minute drive time of a system airport meeting business user needs As stated in Chapter Six, business user needs have been defined as the following five airport facilities: • 5,000’ runway • Instrument approach • Jet fuel • Terminal • Ground transportation Currently, 29 system airports meet all of these needs as identified by typical airport business users. Based on target facility and service objectives, target compliance for this actionoriented performance measure is 46 airports, or 55 percent of the total system. The following 16 airports are targeted to meet business user needs in addition to the 25 which currently meet the needs: • Eloy Municipal • Grand Canyon National Park • Holbrook Municipal • Grand Canyon West • Marana – Pinal Airpark • Chandler Municipal • Parker – Avi Suquilla • Benson Municipal • Taylor • Buckeye Municipal • Wickenburg Municipal • Coolidge Municipal • Williams – H.A. Clark Memorial Field • Cottonwood • Bisbee Douglas International • Douglas Municipal Figure 7-27 depicts this target coverage with 30-minute drive time areas. The target is set that 82 percent of Arizona’s total population will be located within a 30-minute drive time of a system airport meeting business user needs. 7-51 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Figure 7-27: Potential Coverage Provided by Airports Meeting Business User Needs Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Note: A reference table containing airport codes, airport names, and associated city can be found in Appendix A 7-52 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Number of airports having adequate utilities (electricity, telephone, water, sewer, and gas) Currently, 49 percent of airports included in the SASP have all five of the utilities listed above. Although certain utility upgrades may be eligible for funding, no specific utility projects are recommended as part of the SASP. Therefore, this performance measure is considered informational and has no specific target. Airports are still strongly urged to provide these utilities to improve the airport’s future viability to attract development in the airport environs. Percent of airports with a PCI of 70 or greater As discussed in Chapter Six, a primary runway or average pavement condition index (PCI) was not readily available at all SASP airports. It is known that 59 percent of SASP airports have an average PCI of at least 70 on all pavements, and 54 percent have a primary runway PCI of at least 70. The action recommended for this measure is for all known PCIs under a rating of 70 to be improved to at least 70. Figure 7-28 displays the PCIs which are known to be under 70 and for which projects will be identified to improve performance in subsequent analyses. Figure 7-28: Airports Recommended to Improve either a Primary Runway or Average PCI Rating to at Least 70 Airport Name Average 2006 PCI Primary Runway PCI Laughlin/Bullhead International Compliant 57 Casa Grande Casa Grande Municipal Compliant 64 Colorado City Marana Springerville Willcox Winslow Colorado City Municipal Pinal Airpark Town of Springerville Municipal Cochise County Winslow-Lindbergh Regional Compliant 58 Compliant 62 69 62 59 65 Compliant 67 Cochise College Bisbee Douglas International Rolle Airfield 59 55 Compliant Compliant Compliant 67 Associated City Commercial Service Bullhead City GA-Community GA-Rural Douglas Douglas Bisbee San Luis Source: Arizona Department of Transportation Percent of airports meeting minimum facility and service objectives In Appendix A, facility and service objectives were evaluated for each airport in the system. Objectives were determined depending on the role category of each airport. A preliminary feasibility analysis was conducted for each of these objectives at all 83 SASP airports. The SASP did not include a detailed facility analysis for each airport based on demand, but instead examined each airport’s general ability to meet the objectives associated with its role in a high-level manner. Airport master plans, ALPs, and satellite imagery were all analyzed to determine the general feasibility of the improvements. Master plans and ALPs provided information on planned expansion of facilities such as runways, taxiways, parking, and apron space. In addition, physical constraints to other development can also be derived from ALPs and master plans. Constraints to development that reduce feasibility include major roadways, terrain, and commercial and residential development. Vegetation was not considered a constraint to 7-53 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN development. Where a master plan or ALP was not available, satellite imagery was analyzed to identify developable land and possible constraints. It must be noted that this analysis did not consider an airport sponsor’s ability to acquire land required to expand airport facilities or the ability to pay for the expansion. The following facility and service objectives were automatically assumed to be feasible for the purpose of the SASP: • FBO requirements • Maintenance • Ground transportation • Phone • Restroom • Fuel This performance measure is action-oriented. Figure 7-29 presents future target facility and service objectives by role. Blank areas are objectives for which no goal was set for a particular role category. 7-54 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Figure 7-29: Target Facility and Service Objective Compliance 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% ARC Primary Runway Length Primary Runway Width Runway Surface 90% 87% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Reliever 50% 50% 100% 100% 100% GA-Community 86% 75% 100% 100% 100% GA-Rural 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% GA-Basic 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Arizona Total Commercial Service Taxiway 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Approach Visual Aids Lighting Arizona Total 100% 100% 100% 90% Commercial Service 100% 100% 100% 100% Reliever 100% 100% 100% 75% GA-Community 100% 100% 100% GA-Rural 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% GA-Basic ALS 7-55 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Figure 7-29: Target Facility and Service Objective Compliance (continued) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% FBO Maintenance Ground Transportation Phone Restroom Fuel Arizona Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Commercial Service 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Reliever 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% GA-Community 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% GA-Rural GA-Basic 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Airport Fencing Terminal Hangar Spaces Apron Spaces Arizona Total 100% 100% 99% 100% Auto Parking Spaces 100% Commercial Service 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Reliever 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% GA-Community 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% GA-Rural 100% 100% 96% 100% 100% GA-Basic 100% 7-56 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN GOAL CATEGORY: SAFETY AND STANDARDS Figure 7-30 restates each performance measure under the Safety and Standards Goal Category, showing each as either action- or information-oriented. Figure 7-30: Performance Measures in the Safety and Standards Goal Category Performance Measure Informational/ Action Percent of airports with clear approaches to primary runway ends Percent of airports with adopted security plans Percent of airports with adopted Wildlife Management Plans Percent of airports that have a written emergency response plan Airports controlling all runway end Runway Protection Zones (RPZs) Percent of airports that meet runway/taxiway separation criteria for their current ARC Action Action Informational Action Action Action Percent of airports that have RSAs on their primary runway that meet the standards for their current ARC Percent of airports that have procedures in place to conduct self-inspections on a regular basis Percent of hospitals in the state within a 30-minute drive time of an airport with Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) capability, on-site weather reporting, and jet fuel availability Action Action Informational Percent of airports that support search and rescue operations Informational Percent of airports that support aerial fire fighting operations Informational Percent of airports with clear approaches to primary runway ends Currently, 51 percent of system airports meet FAA-designated optimal approach slopes on their primary runways according to data provided on FAA Form 5010s. FAA Form 5010 lists the types of obstructions that impede clear approaches to these runway ends. It is desired for all airports owned publicly or by a Native American community to meet this actionoriented performance measure. However, not all obstructions can be removed or relocated. Figure 7-31 shows which applicable airports do not currently meet their optimal approach slope and notes the obstructions identified through the 5010s. Obstructions such as roads, buildings, or terrain are not likely to be removed or relocated to attain this optimal approach slope. Others, such as brush or trees, can usually be addressed, particularly with the assistance of a vegetation management or obstruction removal program. The target for this performance measure is set at 100 percent of applicable airports. However, no specific projects are to be proposed as part of this plan. Each airport with obstructions in their approaches should carry out an obstruction removal study. The following privately owned airports meet this performance measure, despite not being a requirement: • Grand Canyon Valle • Maricopa – Estrella Sailport • Rimrock 7-57 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Figure 7-31: Airports with Obstructions Listed in FAA Form 5010, Airport Master Record Associated City Commercial Service Peach Springs Phoenix Prescott Show Low Tucson Yuma Reliever Mesa Phoenix GA-Community Casa Grande Coolidge Cottonwood Douglas Holbrook Lake Havasu City Payson Springerville St Johns Winslow GA-Rural Bisbee Bullhead City Douglas Gila Bend Kearny Phoenix Polacca Seligman Tuba City Window Rock GA-Basic Bagdad Peach Springs Sells Superior Tombstone Airport Name Grand Canyon West Phoenix Sky Harbor International Ernest A. Love Field Show Low Regional Tucson International Yuma International Obstruction Road Building/Road Road Pole Ground Unknown Falcon Field Phoenix Deer Valley Road/Tree Road/Hill Casa Grande Municipal Coolidge Municipal Cottonwood Douglas Municipal Holbrook Municipal Lake Havasu City Payson Springerville Municipal St Johns Industrial Air Park Winslow-Lindbergh Regional Road/Road Tree Brush Road Road Hill Tree Fencing Poles Tree/Tower Bisbee Municipal Sun Valley Cochise College Gila Bend Municipal Kearny Phoenix Regional Polacca Seligman Tuba City Window Rock Brush Road Roads Trees Trees Trees Brush Fencing Hill/Brush Hill/Trees Bagdad Hualapai Sells Superior Municipal Tombstone Municipal Brush/Ground Unknown Trees Brush/Tree Brush Source: FAA Form 5010, Airport Master Record 7-58 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Percent of Airports with Adopted Safety and Security Planning Percent of airports that have a written emergency response plan Only 47 percent of all system airports currently have a written emergency response plan. The target performance is that 100 percent of Commercial Service and Reliever airports have an emergency response plan. When including general aviation airports which already have an active emergency response plan, this sets the system-wide target at 49 percent. All Commercial Service airports currently have an emergency response plan. The following two airports should initiate an emergency response planning process, and adopt a plan, to fulfill this target: • Mesa – Falcon Field • Tucson – Ryan Field Guidelines for emergency response plans have been outlined by the FAA. FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-31A details the process for developing and implementing an airport emergency plan (AEP). These plans help to ensure safety not only for an airport’s users, but also for the surrounding community. An AEP is also intended to lower the impact of emergencies by addressing issues in the time period after the emergency. An AEP is intended to create quick response to emergencies by outlining responsibilities that individuals or organizations have. The plan is also airport-specific, detailing the emergencies most likely to happen at a particular airport, and what airport characteristics may affect a timely and efficient response. Percent of airports with adopted security plans According to data gathered as part of the Airport Inventory and Data Survey conducted during the SASP, 31 percent of Arizona system airports have adopted a security plan. The target set for this action-oriented performance measure is that all airports except those which are privately owned should develop and adopt a security plan. When including private facilities which already have a security plan (only Grand Canyon Caverns), this brings the target performance to 88 percent of the system airports. Figure 7-32 details airports which are recommended to create and implement a security plan. 7-59 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Figure 7-32: Airports Recommended to Develop a Security Plan Associated City Airport Name Reliever Associated City Airport Name GA-Rural Chandler Chandler Municipal Ajo Eric Marcus Municipal Marana Mesa Tucson Marana Regional Falcon Field Ryan Field Bisbee Bullhead City Chinle Bisbee Municipal Sun Valley Chinle Municipal Clifton/Morenci Greenlee County GA-Community Benson Buckeye Casa Grande Chandler Colorado City Coolidge Cottonwood Benson Municipal Buckeye Municipal Casa Grande Municipal Memorial Airfield Colorado City Municipal Coolidge Municipal Cottonwood Douglas Bisbee Gila Bend Globe Kayenta Phoenix Polacca San Luis Bisbee Douglas International Gila Bend Municipal San Carlos Apache Kayenta Phoenix Regional Polacca Rolle Airfield Douglas Eloy Holbrook Parker Payson Douglas Municipal Eloy Municipal Holbrook Municipal Avi Suquilla Payson Seligman Temple Bar Tuba City Whiteriver Window Rock Seligman Temple Bar Tuba City Whiteriver Window Rock Safford Safford Regional GA-Basic Springerville St Johns Taylor Wickenburg Willcox Williams Springerville Municipal St Johns Industrial Air Park Taylor Wickenburg Municipal Cochise County H.A. Clark Memorial Field Bagdad Cibecue Meadview Peach Springs Sells Superior Tombstone Bagdad Cibecue Pearce Ferry Hualapai Sells Superior Municipal Tombstone Municipal Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 Neither the FAA nor TSA currently require general aviation airports to develop security plans. However, TSA has a published document, Security Guidelines for General Aviation Airports, which is meant to be a comprehensive guide for general aviation airports to outline basic security practices. This includes the recommendation of security plans for every general aviation airport. Other recommendations in the document are concerned with several facets of security: • Personnel: passengers, students, aircraft renters, transient pilots • Aircraft • Facilities: hangars, locks, perimeter control, lighting, signage, identification systems, airport planning • Surveillance: community watch, reporting procedures, security committee, law enforcement support, closed circuit television, intrusion detection • Security procedures and communications: procedures, threat level increases, threat communication system • Specialty operations: agricultural, tenant facilities, fuel facilities, military facilities It must also be noted that different levels of security plans are necessary for different airports. Several factors tie in to the depth of a security plan an airport should develop including the level and type activity, existing airport facilities, and the surrounding 7-60 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN community. To develop an appropriate security plan, airports should consult the Security Guidelines for General Aviation Airports.2 Percent of airports with adopted Wildlife Management Plans Currently 18 percent of airports included in the SASP have an active wildlife management plan. Because this is an informational performance measure, no specific projects are being recommended and therefore no further action is required. However, airports may still desire to implement a wildlife management plan to ensure the safety of wildlife, passengers, and pilots. Like other airport plans, a wildlife management plan outlines responsibilities and procedures which are airport-specific. These procedures attempt to first repel wildlife by means such as fencing, chemicals, and auditory and visual deterrents. If repelling or capturing wildlife does not ensure human safety at the airport, the plans also outline the circumstances under which other measures should be implemented. An airport wishing to create a wildlife management plan can find basic guidance in the FAA’s Summary of Wildlife Management Plan Requirements.3 Airports controlling Runway Protection Zones (RPZs) on their primary runway Sixty percent of airports included in the SASP currently control both ends of their primary runway RPZ through either fee simple or an avigation easement. The recommended action or target set for this performance measure is that all publicly owned airports have complete control of all runway RPZs, however, only the control of the RPZ for the primary runway is measured in this analysis. Partial control or control of only one runway end does not qualify for this performance measure. Figure 7-33 details primary runways at airports which do not currently have complete control of their primary runway RPZs. Available online at: http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/security_guidelines_for_general_aviation_airports.pdf Available online at: http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/regional_guidance/central/airport_safety/ part139/best_practice/wildlife/media/Summary_Wildlife_Management.pdf 2 3 7-61 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Figure 7-33: Airports Recommended to Gain Full Control of Primary Runway RPZs Associated City Airport Name RWY End Current Level of Control RWY End Current Level of Control Commercial Service Kingman Kingman 3 None 21 Fee Simple Show Low Show Low Regional 6 Fee Simple 24 None Chandler Municipal Glendale Municipal Phoenix Goodyear Marana Regional Scottsdale 4L 1 3 12 3 Partial Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple Partial Fee Simple Partial Fee Simple 4R 19 21 30 21 Fee Simple None Partial Fee Simple Partial Fee Simple Fee Simple Casa Grande Municipal Coolidge Municipal Douglas Municipal Holbrook Municipal Sedona Springerville Municipal Taylor Wickenburg Municipal Cochise County Winslow-Lindbergh Regional 23 5 21 3 3 21 3 5 3 4 None Partial Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple None Partial Fee Simple None None Fee Simple Partial Fee Simple 5 23 3 21 21 3 21 23 21 22 Fee Simple Partial Fee Simple Partial Fee Simple None None Fee Simple Fee Simple None Partial Fee Simple Easement Bisbee Bisbee Municipal 35 Partial Fee Simple 17 Easement Douglas Kearny Phoenix Tucson Cochise College Kearny Phoenix Regional La Cholla Airpark 5 26 3 1 Partial Fee Simple Partial Fee Simple None None 23 8 21 19 None Partial Fee Simple None None Sells Superior Municipal Tombstone Municipal 4 22 24 None Partial Fee Simple Partial Fee Simple 22 4 6 None Partial Fee Simple Partial Fee Simple Reliever Chandler Glendale Goodyear Marana Scottsdale GA-Community Casa Grande Coolidge Douglas Holbrook Sedona Springerville Taylor Wickenburg Willcox Winslow GA-Rural GA-Basic Sells Superior Tombstone Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 Percent of airports that meet runway/taxiway separation criteria for their objective ARC Chapter Six detailed the airports that have a parallel taxiway that meets separation criteria for their current ARC. Nine publicly owned airports currently do not meet separation standards. One of these, Glendale, has an FAA waiver for not meeting separation standards. The target for this action-oriented performance measure is that all publicly owned airports with a parallel taxiway meet separation standards based on their target ARC. A feasibility analysis, similar to the one conducted for facility and service objectives, was also conducted for this performance measure. Airport master plans and layout plans were analyzed to determine the ability of each airport to meet the runway/taxiway separation criteria for their target ARC. ALPs were not available for Native airports and other non-NPIAS airports. Therefore, this analysis was not entirely comprehensive. 7-62 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Figure 7-34 details runway-taxiway separation standards for future objective ARCs at airports for which an ARC upgrade is recommended, where available. It is important to note that the extent and magnitude of the projects needed to meet runway/taxiway separation standards for their future ARCs are unknown. However, based on preliminary analyses, nine of these airports appear unable to meet runway-taxiway separations standards for their objective ARC. Percent of airports that have Runway Safety Areas (RSAs) on their primary runway that meet the standards for their objective ARC Currently, two publicly owned SASP airports do not meet RSA standards for their primary runway ARC. Avi Suquilla Airport in Parker and San Manuel/Ray/Blair Airport both have shortcomings in their RSA width. As with runway/taxiway separation, target performance for this action-oriented measure is that all publicly owned airports have a primary runway RSA that meets standards for their target ARC as well. The same feasibility analysis was conducted for this performance measure. Figure 7-34 details RSA standards for objective ARCs just at airports for which an ARC upgrade is recommended. Results of this analysis reveal that it is likely that nine SASP airports may not be able to meet the RSA standards of their future ARC due to development constraints. 7-63 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Figure 7-34: RSA and Runway-Taxiway Separation Standards Associated City Airport Name Commercial Service Current ARC Target ARC Required RSA Length Able to Comply Required RSA Width Able to Comply Required RWY/ TWY Separation Able to Comply Bullhead City Laughlin/Bullhead International C-III D-IV 1,000 Yes 500 Yes 400 Yes Page Peach Springs Prescott Show Low Tucson Yuma Page Grand Canyon West Ernest A. Love Field Show Low Regional Tucson International Yuma International B-II B-II C-III C-III D-IV E-VI D-II C-II D-IV D-III D-V D-IV 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 300 500 500 500 500 500 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes 400 400 400 400 400 400 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Chandler Municipal Glendale Municipal Phoenix Goodyear Falcon Field Phoenix Deer Valley Scottsdale Ryan Field B-II B-II D-IV B-II C-III D-II C-III C-III C-III C-III C-III C-III C-III C-III 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Yes No No No No No Yes 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 Yes No Yes No No No Yes Benson Municipal Coolidge Municipal Cottonwood Holbrook Municipal Lake Havasu City Pinal Airpark Nogales International Sedona Sierra Vista Municipal/LAA Springerville Municipal Winslow-Lindbergh Regional B-I B-II B-I B-I B-II D-V C-II B-I D-IV B-II C-II B-II B-II B-II B-II B-II B-II B-II B-II B-II B-II B-II 300 600 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes 150 300 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 N/A 240 Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes N/A Yes Reliever Chandler Glendale Goodyear Mesa Phoenix Scottsdale Tucson GA-Community Benson Coolidge Cottonwood Holbrook Lake Havasu City Marana Nogales Sedona Sierra Vista Springerville Winslow 7-64 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Figure 7-34: RSA and Runway-Taxiway Separation Standards for Target ARCs (Continued) Current ARC Target ARC Required RSA Length Able to Comply Required RSA Width Able to Comply Required RWY/ TWY Separation Able to Comply Greenlee County Gila Bend Municipal San Carlos Apache Kayenta Kearny Whiteriver B-II B-II C-II B-II A-I B-II B-I B-I B-I B-I B-I B-I 240 240 240 240 240 240 Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 120 120 120 120 120 120 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 225 225 225 225 N/A 225 Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes Bagdad Bagdad B-I A-I 240 Yes 120 Yes N/A N/A Superior Superior Municipal A-I A-I 240 Yes 120 Yes N/A N/A Associated City Airport Name GA-Rural Clifton/Morenci Gila Bend Globe Kayenta Kearny Whiteriver GA-Basic Sources: Airport master plans and ALPs, Wilbur Smith Associates Note: data only available for airports included in the NPIAS 7-65 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Percent of airports that have procedures in place to conduct self-inspections on a regular basis Airport self-inspection programs are listed under the FAA’s best practices for airport safety. A self-inspection program includes regular self-inspection, continuous surveillance, condition inspection, and maintaining records of the program. FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-18C lists the following airport facilities as basic parts of a self-inspection: • Fueling operations • Pavement areas • Snow and ice • Markings • Construction • Signs • Aircraft rescue and firefighting • Lighting • Public protection • Navigational aids • Obstructions Currently, 72 percent of airports included in the SASP report having self-inspection procedures. The action developed for this performance measure is for all system airports to have these procedures in place. Figure 7-35 lists the system airports which should implement these procedures to meet this target. Figure 7-35: Airports Recommended to Development Self-Inspection Procedures Associated City GA-Community Chandler Colorado City Coolidge Douglas Eloy Nogales Parker Safford Williams Airport Name Memorial Airfield Colorado City Municipal Coolidge Municipal Douglas Municipal Eloy Municipal Nogales International Avi Suquilla Safford Regional H.A. Clark Memorial Field Associated City GA-Rural Bisbee Clifton/Morenci Phoenix Polacca Temple Bar Tuba City Tucson Whiteriver GA-Basic Cibecue Meadview Peach Springs Sells Superior Airport Name Bisbee Municipal Greenlee County Phoenix Regional Polacca Temple Bar Tuba City La Cholla Airpark Whiteriver Cibecue Pearce Ferry Hualapai Sells Superior Municipal Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 Percent of hospitals in the state within a 30-minute drive time of an airport with Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) capability, on-site weather reporting, and jet fuel availability Currently 85 percent of hospitals in the state are within a 30-minute drive time of a system airport meeting these requirements analyzed as part of this performance measure. This is considered an informational performance measure and no target has been established. This performance measure was part of the SANS 2000 study. Performance has improved, increasing three percent since 2000 and five percent since 1995. While this performance measure is informational, it should be noted that improved instrument approach capabilities, on-site weather reporting (or nearby and effective weather reporting coverage), and new jet fuel at SASP airports will enhance the coverage of hospitals in the state as well. 7-66 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Percent of airports that support emergency operations Percent of airports that support search and rescue operations Sixty-four percent of system airports reported having search and rescue activities. This performance measure is informational. It is likely that additional airports may support these types of operations in the future, but there are no targets set for this activity at the current time. Percent of airports that support aerial fire fighting operations Fifty-seven percent of airports included in the SASP currently support aerial firefighting operations. Aerial firefighting is conducted purely on an as-needed basis, and thus operators make specific decisions as to where they base their operations. Largely because of these reasons, this is also an informational performance measure, and has no specific target set or system changes recommended. 7-67 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN GOAL CATEGORY: ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY AND STEWARDSHIP Percent of system airports that have Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) It is recommended that all airports in the SASP maintain a current Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The FAA and Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) require airports to meet storm water regulations set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Any facility that could potentially pollute storm water runoff is recommended to maintain a SWPPP. Thus, the target for this action-related performance measure is 100 percent of the system. Currently, only 45 percent of SASP airports meet this performance measure. Airports recommended to implement a SWPPP are listed in Figure 7-36. Figure 7-36: Airports Recommended to Develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Associated City Airport Name Commercial Service Associated City Airport Name GA-Rural Peach Springs Grand Canyon West Gila Bend Gila Bend Municipal Prescott Ernest A. Love Field Globe San Carlos Apache GA-Community Kayenta Kayenta Coolidge Coolidge Municipal Phoenix Phoenix Regional Eloy Eloy Municipal Polacca Polacca Payson Payson San Luis Rolle Airfield Safford Safford Regional San Manuel San Manuel/Ray/Blair Sierra Vista Sierra Vista Municipal Seligman Seligman Springerville Springerville Municipal Temple Bar Temple Bar St Johns St Johns Industrial Air Park Tuba City Tuba City Taylor Taylor Window Rock Window Rock Wickenburg Wickenburg Municipal GA-Basic Willcox Cochise County GA-Rural Bagdad Bagdad Cibecue Cibecue Ajo Eric Marcus Municipal Meadview Pearce Ferry Bisbee Bisbee Municipal Peach Springs Hualapai Bullhead City Sun Valley Sells Sells Chinle Chinle Municipal Superior Superior Municipal Douglas Cochise College Tombstone Tombstone Municipal Douglas Bisbee Bisbee Douglas International Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 Percent of the population that are within a 30-minute drive time of a system airport with a flight school/flight instructor Currently, 38 percent of airports included in the SASP have a flight school or instructor. Thirty-minute drive times from these airports cover approximately 74 percent of the state’s population, indicating that a high percentage of the state’s persons have the ability to undertake flight training if they are interested and capable. This informational performance measure has no specific associated projects and therefore no further action is required. 7-68 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Percent of system airports supporting Airframe and Powerplant (A&P) programs Four percent of system airports currently support educational A&P programs. This is an informational performance measure with no associated actions. Percent of system airports that have aviation maintenance and repair Currently, 55 percent of the airport system has aviation maintenance and repair available. Most of these services are provided at Commercial Service, Reliever, and GA-Community airports. This is an informational performance measure with no associated actions. Percent of system airports that have educational programs that are affiliated with local elementary/secondary schools, community colleges, or technical/vocational schools Thirty-five percent of the aviation system currently has programs affiliated with local schools and colleges. This is also an informational performance measure with associated actions. 7-69 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN SUMMARY The system’s ability to meet current and target performance is summarized in Figure 7-37. The projects outlined in this chapter to improve performance of the system will provide ADOT with useful information from which to make practical and informed decisions for the future development of the Arizona airport system. Recommendations for continued increase in performance ratings within the Arizona airport system and the cost to implement these improvements are discussed in Chapter Eight of this study. Figure 7-37: Current and Target Performance of the Arizona Airport System Current Compliance Target Performance Percent of population within a 30-minute drive time of each airport, by role category (additive percentages included in target column) 86% 86% Percent of communities in the state with a population greater than 5,000 within a 60-minute drive time of a commercial service airport 82% No target established Percent of communities in the state with a population greater than 1,000 within a 30-minute drive time of a general aviation airport 87% No target established Percent of population within a 30-minute drive time of a public use airport 85% 86% Percent of population within a 30-minute drive time of a National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) airport 83% 84% Percent of population within a 30-minute drive time of an airport and the number of airports with an instrument approach 80% 85% Percent of airports within a 30-minute drive time of an airport with ILS or LPV Percent of licensed pilots within a 30-minute drive time of a system airport 31% 94% 35% No target established Percent of airports capable of supporting emergency medical transport aircraft 40% 59% Full Capability 72% with AWOS Network 97% No target established 46% of airports 57% of land area 67% of airports 75% of land area 77% 84% 52% 45% 87% 80% 23 in 2007 59% 52% No target established No target established Performance Measure Development Percent of communities in the state with a population greater than 15,000 within a 30-minute drive time of a general aviation airport that can accommodate large general aviation aircraft (Airport Reference Code (ARC) B-II) and has Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) capability Percent of airports with on-site weather reporting and percent of statewide area within 25 nautical miles of an airport with on-site weather reporting Percent of population and area within a 30-minute drive time of an all weather runway (paved, instrument approach, AWOS) Percent of airports with jet fuel Percent of airports with 24/7 fuel Percent of airports with sufficient operational capacity Percent of airports projected to have sufficient operational capacity in 2030 Number of airports experiencing delay to aircraft operations: the maximum and average delay in minutes an aircraft experiences due to airside congestion Percent of population and employment centers that are within a 30-minute drive time of a system airport projected to not have sufficient capacity in 2030 28 in 2030 72% population 40% employment centers Airports with a current (past 5 years) master plan 55% Percent of airports with surrounding municipalities that have adopted “disclosure areas” 35% No target established No target established 100% of Applicable Airports 100% of Applicable Airports 7-70 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER SEVEN Figure 7-37: Current and Target Performance of the Arizona Airport System (Continued) Current Compliance Target Performance 60% 100% of Applicable Airports 46% 100% of Applicable Airports 64% 100% 47% 100% $38.5B No target established 84% No target established 99% No target established 79% 82% 49% No target established 54% 100% of Applicable Airports 59% 100% of Applicable Airports 51% 18% 31% 47% 60% 100% of Applicable Airports No target established 100% of Applicable Airports 100% of Applicable Airports 100% of Applicable Airports Percent of airports that have RSAs on their primary runway that meet the standards for their current ARC 59% 100% of Applicable Airports Percent of airports that meet runway/taxiway separation criteria for their current ARC 60% 100% of Applicable Airports 72% 100% of Applicable Airports 85% No target established 64% 57% No target established No target established Percent of system airports that have Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) 45% 100% of Applicable Airports Percent of the population that are within a 30-minute drive time of a system airport with a flight school/flight instructor 74% No target established 38% 4% 55% No target established No target established No target established 35% No target established Performance Measure Percent of airports with surrounding municipalities that have adopted controls/zoning to make land use in the airport environs compatible with airport operations and development Percent of airports that are compliant with Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 Percent of airports that are recognized in local comprehensive plan Percent of airports included in regional transportation plans Economic Support Dollars of economic impact on the state from aviation Number of major recreational areas in the state within a 30-minute drive time of a system airport Percent of businesses with the propensity to use aviation within a 30-minute drive of a system airport Percent of population within a 30-minute drive time of a system airport meeting business user needs Number of airports having adequate utilities (electricity, telephone, water, sewer, and gas) Percent of airports with a primary runway pavement condition index (PCI) of 70 or greater Percent of airports with an average pavement condition index (PCI) of 70 or greater Safety and Standards Percent of airports with clear approaches to primary runway ends Percent of airports with adopted Wildlife Management Plans Percent of airports with adopted Security Plans Percent of airports that have a written emergency response plan Airports controlling all runway end Runway Protection Zones (RPZs) Percent of airports that have procedures in place to conduct self-inspections on a regular basis Percent of hospitals in the state within a 30-minute drive time of an airport with Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) capability, on-site weather reporting, and jet fuel availability Percent of airports that support search and rescue operations Percent of airports that support aerial fire fighting operations Environmental Sensitivity and Stewardship Percent of system airports with a flight school/instructor Percent of system airports supporting A&P programs Percent of system airports that have aviation maintenance and repair Percent of system airports that have educational programs that are affiliated with local elementary/secondary schools, community colleges, or technical/vocational schools Source: Wilbur Smith Associates 7-71 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER EIGHT CHAPTER EIGHT: SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT COSTS INTRODUCTION Prior chapters of the Arizona State Airports System Plan (SASP) resulted in a score card for current system performance. This score card showed how the system is currently performing related to the ability of individual airports to meet their respective facility and service objectives. It also showed how the system is now performing relative to each of the system goal categories and their individual performance measures. The score card showed where the Arizona aviation system is adequate or deficient and identified targets for how the system should perform in the future. Costs for improving the system to meet the goals developed in Chapter One are presented in this chapter. These costs have been prepared for ADOT for internal planning purposes only in order to determine the overall long-term aviation needs of Arizona. The costs developed for the SASP are not intended to replace those developed in the airport master planning or capital improvement planning processes. These costs do not provide commitment of funding for projects. Actual funding of projects will be subject to the Arizona Revised Statutes, Arizona Transportation Board, and administrative policies as well as availability of funds. METHODOLOGY/PROCESS Development costs were estimated for each system airport by comparing existing conditions and applicable facility/service objectives established by the system plan. Development costs include all projects associated with bringing system airports into compliance with the objectives for their recommended system role. Costs to increase overall system performance, related to the SASP’s performance measures, are also identified. Not all recommended actions have associated costs. In other instances, costs could not be developed because the full magnitude of the needed project could not be estimated, given the scope of this plan. Further investigation and justification would be required before many projects stemming from the system plan can be implemented. In particular, projects seeking FAA funding would require additional study. In this process, facility needs and costs were first identified on an airport-by-airport basis. This chapter of the system plan presents this information only in summary format, with no individual airport data presented. Three methods were used in developing the cost estimates for the Arizona State Airports System Plan through 2030. The first two methods involved utilizing existing projects and costs for the airport by reviewing each airport’s master plan, airport Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and ADOT’s CIP. The cities of Phoenix and Tucson provided airport CIP information for their system of airports. It is important to note that only project costs for the near-term were available for Phoenix Sky Harbor International. In addition, for the purpose of the SASP, terminal improvement costs at Phoenix Sky Harbor and Tucson International were not included in the overall need. However, the costs for the SkyTrain at Phoenix Sky Harbor are included master plan/airport CIP costs. For projects contained in both the master plan and/or airport CIP, and the ADOT CIP, the higher cost estimate of the two was used. In some cases where data was more than five 8-1 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER EIGHT years old, the master plan costs were increased by 15 percent to account for cost increases. In general, the CIP costs were included as listed. The third method of developing the cost estimates used construction cost history for unit prices of typical construction projects to develop costs for projects identified by the SASP as part of facility and service objectives. The applicable area (or linear foot) was used and multiplied by the unit price to obtain the construction cost for the project. All costs are presented in 2009 dollars. In addition, for the long term period, two pavement preservation projects were assigned for each area, such as runway, taxiway, and apron pavements. This is due to the fact that pavement preservation is typically performed every three to seven years. To establish a basis for pavement preservation, ADOT’s Airport Pavement Management System was reviewed. This system has a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) for the majority of the state’s airports. The rule of thumb in determining pavement preservation projects was for pavements with PCIs 70 and greater, a pavement preservation project was assigned; pavements with PCIs between 55 and 70 were assigned pavement overlays; while pavements with PCIs less than 55 were assigned pavement reconstructions. In general, the following process was used: • • • If there is a reconstruction in the short term (due to the PCI levels), the follow up will be a pavement preservation every five years If there is a pavement preservation in the short term, the follow up will be two pavement preservations (every five years) and then an overlay project If there is a pavement overlay in the short term, the follow up will be two pavement preservations (every five years) and then a reconstruction project Regardless of which costing method was used, all projects were vetted against an ADOT master grant file list to verify that projects were not previously completed. The analyses completed in previous chapters evaluated system development needs at airports over the next 20 years, based on each airport’s role in the system as well as forecast activity and operational efficiency. One of the most critical elements in the planning process is the application of basic financial, economic, and management rationale to determine the feasibility of each project contained in the system plan. It is not critical to develop all recommended projects in this study immediately. On the contrary, it would be more prudent to systematically implement improvements in order to spread development costs through the 20-year period and focus efforts on critical projects in the early stages. Short, medium, and long-term implementation periods were established in order to prioritize individual projects over the next 20 years. 8-2 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER EIGHT SYSTEM PLAN COST SUMMARY BY GOAL OBJECTIVE Total estimated costs are presented in the following sections. Airports may incur additional costs to have sufficient operating capacity; clear approaches; comply with Part 77 standards; acquire land in an airport’s RPZ; meet runway-taxiway separation standards; or meet RSA standards. These costs have not been estimated unless they were identified as part of an airport-specific CIP or master plan, as this would require a master planning level of detail. Specific project costs have been estimated in the following categories: • Development • Instrument approaches • Emergency medical transport aircraft accommodation projects • Weather reporting • Fuel • Master plans • Capacity (if noted in ADOT CIP or airport master plans) • Part 77 compliance projects (if noted in ADOT CIP or airport master plans) • Economic Support • Business user needs accommodation projects • Pavement improvements/preservation • Facility and service objectives • Runway length projects • Runway width projects • Taxiway projects • Approach projects • Visual Aids (PAPIs, REILs, rotating beacon, segmented circle, wind cone) • Runway lighting projects • Taxiway lighting projects • Approach lighting projects • Perimeter fencing projects • Fuel • Terminal projects • Hangar storage • Apron parking spaces • Auto parking spaces • Safety and Standards • Clear approach projects (if noted in ADOT CIP or airport master plans) • Security plans • Emergency response plan • RPZ land acquisition (if noted in ADOT CIP or airport master plans) • Runway/taxiway separation improvements (if noted in ADOT CIP or airport master plans) • RSA improvements/expansions (if noted in ADOT CIP or airport master plans) • Environmental Sensitivity and Stewardship • Stormwater pollution prevention plans 8-3 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER EIGHT System Costs by Goal Category: Development Figure 8-1 details estimated project costs associated with the Development goal category. System-wide cost to meet these performance measures is estimated at $445 million. It should be noted that the costs by performance measure presented in the table cannot be added together due to the overlap of measures and specific needs related to the measures. For example, if an airport is recommended for an instrument approach, this cost is included in the three performance measures: 1) Percent of population within a 30-minute drive time of an airport and the number of airports with an instrument approach, 2) Percent of airports capable of supporting emergency medical transport aircraft, and 3) Percent of population and area within a 30-minute drive time of an all weather runway. The Development goal category cost includes regular updates to airport master plans. Costs of on-site weather reporting projects are based on project recommendations in the ADOT AWOS Network Study. Estimated costs to improve operational capacity were derived from airport master plans and CIPs only. Capacity improving projects in the Development goal costs include additional runways, additional taxiways, air traffic control towers, high-speed taxiway exits, and other taxiway system improvements. It should be noted that $72 million of the funding identified for capacity improvements is for construction of the new runway at Tucson International. Additional projects are needed at several airports in order to fully meet the sufficient operating capacity performance measure. Due to the level of planning needed to develop appropriate costs, costs for these additional projects have not been developed as part of the SASP. In the following chapter, it is recommended that an airspace and operational capacity study be undertaken by the state to fully understand the needs and costs of improving the operational capacity of the system. System Costs by Goal Category: Economic Support Figure 8-2 shows the cost estimates for projects in the Economic Support goal category, including all projects recommended for meeting minimum facility and service objective compliance. The system-wide cost to meet these performance measures is approximately $1.85 billion. Similar to the Development goal category costs, the numbers presented in the table cannot be added together to arrive at a total due to double counting. Included in this cost is periodic maintenance and upkeep of all airport pavements throughout the state in order to maintain pavement condition indexes (PCIs) of 70 or greater. Facility and service objective costs are estimated at $448 million for landside facilities by 2030, $228 million for airside facilities, and $4.7 million for landside services. 8-4 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER EIGHT Figure 8-1: Development Goal Category Project Costs 2010-2030* System Plan Cost (2010-2030) Performance Measure Percent of population within a 30-minute drive time of an airport and the number of airports with an instrument approach Percent of airports within a 30-minute drive time of an airport with ILS or LPV Percent of airports capable of supporting emergency medical transport aircraft: Full Airport System Percent of airports with on-site weather reporting and percent of statewide area within 25 nautical miles of an airport with onsite weather reporting Percent of population and area within a 30-minute drive time of an all weather runway (paved, instrument approach, AWOS) Percent of airports with jet fuel Percent of airports with 24/7 fuel Percent of airports with sufficient operating capacity Airports with current (past 5 years) master plans and/or ALP Percent of airports that are compliant with Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77* Commercial Service Reliever GA-Community GA-Rural $2,320,000 $4,775,000 GA-Basic Total $7,095,000 $270,000 $90,000 $0 $0 $0 $360,000 $900,000 $0 $3,560,000 $6,920,000 $0 $11,380,000 $440,000 $1,630,000 $395,000 $2,465,000 $485,000 $0 $2,590,000 $6,110,000 $0 $9,185,000 $0 $1,060,000 $0 $0 $890,000 $0 $0 $130,000 $0 $0 $890,000 $1,180,000 $308,920,000 $6,215,000 $57,770,000 $9,032,000 $0 $12,500,000 $0 $8,725,000 $0 $1,890,000 $366,690,000 $58,362,000 $0 $2,320,000 $5,280,000 $0 $0 $7,600,000 Source: Arizona Department of Transportation, Wilbur Smith Associates, Airport Master Plans Note: * The costs for this goal category cannot be added together for a total due to double counting of projects within the various performance measures. FAR Part 77 project costs are only those included in airport master plans or state CIP. 8-5 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER EIGHT Figure 8-2: Economic Support Goal Category Project Costs 2010-2030* System Plan Cost (2010-2030) Performance Measure Percent of population within a 30-minute drive time of a system airport meeting business user needs Percent of airports with a primary runway pavement condition index (PCI) of 70 or greater Percent of airports with an average pavement condition index (PCI) of 70 or greater Percent of airports meeting minimum facility and service objectives Airside Facilities Runway Length Runway Width Runway Surface Taxiway Approach Capability Visual Aids Runway & Taxiway Lighting Approach Lighting System Fencing Landside Services Maintenance Restroom Fuel Landside Facilities Terminal Hangar Space Apron Space Auto Parking Commercial Service Reliever GA-Community GA-Rural GA-Basic Total $270,000 $4,100,000 $11,060,000 $0 $0 $15,430,000 $65,830,000 $34,440,000 $105,600,000 $57,350,000 $5,990,000 $269,210,000 $554,420,000 $189,920,000 $144,70,000 $45,590.000 $420,000 $934,610,000 $337,820,000 $206,750,000 $96,950,000 $36,840,000 $1,680,000 $679,580,000 $94,300,000 $54,190,000 $2,330,000 $0 $4,660,000 $50,730,000 $14,270,000 $8,260,000 $0 $8,080,000 $54,120,000 $19,440,000 $10,050,000 $0 $9,320,000 $27,280,000 $0 $3,320,000 $0 $7,420,000 $1,400,000 $0 $200,000 $0 $0 $227,830,000 $87,900,000 $24,160,000 $0 $29,490,000 $270,000 $510,000 $5,200,000 $5,150,000 $21,990,000 $1,060,000 $0 $0 $1,060,000 $90,000 $270,000 $0 $4,490,000 $15,270,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,320,000 $950,000 $5,250,000 $350,000 $6,430,000 $1,220,000 $150,000 $0 $1,070,000 $4,780,000 $1,100,000 $10,260,000 $0 $400,000 $2,010,000 $0 $230,000 $1,790,000 $550,000 $0 $0 $660,000 $420,000 $0 $420,000 $0 $7,460,000 $3,380,000 $20,720,000 $9,990,000 $44,740,000 $4,710,000 $150,000 $650,000 $3,920,000 $242,600,000 $24,040,000 $15,490,000 $132,390,000 $70,690,000 $156,030,000 $0 $112,750,000 $40,370,000 $2,910,000 $41,420,000 $1,250,000 $33,940,000 $3,120,000 $3,110,000 $8,020,000 $0 $6,350,000 $1,050,000 $620,000 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $448,130,000 $25,340,000 $168,520,000 $176,940,000 $77,330,000 Source: Arizona Department of Transportation, Wilbur Smith Associates, Airport Master Plans Note: * The costs for this goal category can not be added together for a total due to double counting of projects within the various performance measures. 8-6 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER EIGHT System Costs by Goal Category: Safety & Standards Estimated project costs for the Safety and Security goal category are detailed in Figure 8-3. The system-wide cost to meet these performance measures is estimated at $152 million by 2030. All costs associated with a runway protection zone, runway safety area, or runway-taxiway separation standards came from airport documents such as master plans and airport layout plans. System Costs by Goal Category: Environmental Sensitivity and Stewardship Under the Environmental Sensitivity and Stewardship goal category, only the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan performance measure was assigned an estimated cost. Figure 8-4 details this cost by airport role, estimated at $2.6 million system-wide by 2030. 8-7 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER EIGHT Figure 8-3: Safety and Standards Goal Category Project Costs 2010-2030 System Plan Cost (2010-2030) Commercial Service Reliever GA-Community GA-Rural GA-Basic Total $0 $0 $540,000 $500,000 $0 $1,040,000 $210,000 $300,000 $1,350,000 $1,200,000 $230,000 $3,290,000 $0 $70,000 $0 $0 $0 $70,000 $1,020,000 $69,270,000 $12,370,000 $3,140,000 $0 $85,800,000 $0 $1,930,000 $13,270,000 $0 $0 $15,210,000 Percent of airports that have RSAs on their primary runway that meet the standards for their current ARC $21,450,000 $20,020,000 $5,280,000 $150,000 $0 $46,900,000 Total $22,680,000 $91,590,000 $32,810,000 $4,990,000 $230,000 $152,310,000 Performance Measure Percent of airports with clear approaches to primary runway ends Percent of airports with adopted Security Plans Percent of airports that have a written emergency response plan Airports controlling all runway end Runway Protection Zones (RPZs) Percent of airports that meet runway/taxiway separation criteria for their current ARC Source: Arizona Department of Transportation, Wilbur Smith Associates, Airport Master Plans Note: Project cost for RPZ, RSA, and runway-taxiway separation standards are only those included in airport master plans or state capital improvement plans. Figure 8-4: Environmental Sensitivity and Stewardship Goal Category Project Costs 2010-2030 System Plan Cost (2010-2030) Performance Measure Percent of system airports that have Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Commercial Service Reliever GA-Community GA-Rural GA-Basic Total $830,000 $130,000 $810,000 $750,000 $90,000 $2,610,000 Source: Arizona Department of Transportation, Wilbur Smith Associates, Airport Master Plans 8-8 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER EIGHT System Plan Cost Summary by Goal Category Figure 8-5 reflects the total 20-year development costs by goal category. The 20-year estimate of costs is $2.45 billion. As previously noted, while there was some double counting of projects within specific performance measures as shown above, each project was counted in only one goal category in the totals reflected in Figure 8-5. Of the $2.45 billion in total costs, Economic Support accounts for the largest portion (76 percent). Maintaining existing pavements, under the Economic Support goal category, accounts for half of the system costs over the time period. The costs of projects needed to meet facility and service objectives comprised 26 percent of the system costs. Development goal category projects account for 18 percent of the total estimated costs. The remaining six percent of the total $2.45 billion development costs include projects to meet the Safety and Standards goal category. The cost to meet the Environmental Sensitivity and Stewardship goal category was less than one percent of the total costs. Figure 8-5: Summary of SASP Costs, by Goal Category 2010-2030 (in millions) Environment, $2.61, <1% Safety/Standards, $152.30, 6% Development, $444.65, 18% Economic Support, $1,851.78, 76% Pavement, $1,203.82, 50% Facilty and Service Objectives, $647.96, 26% Source: Wilbur Smith Associates SYSTEM PLAN COST SUMMARY BY AIRPORT ROLE Figure 8-6 summarizes the estimated 20-year costs by airport role. As shown, 78 percent of these costs relate to raising the level of performance for Commercial Service and Reliever airports in Arizona (54 and 24 percent, respectively). The remaining 22 percent is needed to raise the level of performance of GA-Community, GA-Rural, and GA-Basic airports. 8-9 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER EIGHT Figure 8-6: Summary of System Costs, by SASP Role 2010-2030 (in millions) GA-Rural GA- $156.34 6% GA-Basic $10.49 <1% Community $398.37 16% Reliever $591.96 24% Commercial Service $1,294.17 54% Source: Wilbur Smith Associates ADDITIONAL SYSTEM COSTS New Airports As noted in the SASP, local communities have proposed the development of three new airports. They include Maricopa Municipal Airport in Pinal County, a new airport near Pinon in Navajo County, and a new airport near Lukachukai in Apache County. In addition, plans are underway for the replacement of following airports: Polacca, Cibecue, Superior, and Ganado. The cost for developing, constructing, and maintaining (only the existing sites) these seven airports through the forecast period would be $164.5 million. This cost is in addition to the system costs noted above. AWOS Data Center In addition to recommending AWOS units at various Arizona system airports, the AWOS Network Study also recommends the installation of the ADOT AWOS Data Center to coordinate the system, connecting existing and planned AWOS sites in Arizona to the National Airspace Data Interchange Network (NADIN). The study estimates the initial cost of establishment of the center at approximately $200,000, with an annual operating cost of $100,000. The total cost of the center through the forecast period would be $2.3 million. State Continuous Planning The system plan provides ADOT with a blueprint for the future development of the airport system. As the aviation industry changes and the state’s socioeconomic and demographic characteristics evolve, the system plan should again be updated. It is recommended that ADOT consider updating the system plan at five-year intervals with updates in 2014, 2019, 2024, and 2029. The estimated cost for updating the system plan and its database through the forecast period would be $3.0 million. 8-10 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER EIGHT CIP AND MASTER PLAN COST SUMMARY NOT INCLUDED IN SASP DEVELOPMENT COSTS In addition to the projects identified in the system plan, most of the airports in Arizona have identified additional projects through local planning and goal setting. Airport-specific capital projects and costs are identified in each airport’s master plan. Many of the airports in Arizona have updated their master plans in the last five years. Many planned projects in airport master plans that will use federal and state funds are identified in the current state CIP. The current state CIP has estimated project and cost information annually to 2015. Figure 8-7 presents the additional project costs identified in the state CIP and published airport master plans. In addition to the $2.45 billion identified to meet system plan recommendations, an additional $7.1 billion could be needed to meet airport needs ($504 million for other state CIP costs and $6,595 million for other master plan/airport CIP costs). Figure 8-7: Other Future Airport Costs (in millions) Cost Category Other State CIP Costs Other Master Plan/Airport CIP Costs Near Term 2010-2014 $504.35 Mid-Term 2015-2019 $0 Long-Term 2020-2030 $0 Total $504.35 $1,241.22 $1,847.36 $3,506.47 $6,595.04 Sources: WSA; Airport Master Plans; Tucson International and Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport CIPs, Navajo Nation CIP, Arizona DOT This cost summary is not exhaustive of all the airport projects that are needed through 2030. Several larger system airports including Phoenix Sky Harbor International, Yuma International, Laughlin/Bullhead City International, and Scottsdale currently have master plans underway. Improvement costs that will come from these master plans are not included in this SASP. Many airports also do not provide project costs throughout the entire system plan’s forecast period (through 2030). Most master plans only provide costs through a 15 or 20-year period. Also, pricing in many construction-related aspects has increased, decreased, and increased again in recent years due to economic conditions worldwide. These rising construction costs impact original project cost estimates developed in the state CIP or the airport master plans including pavement projects, runway and taxiway extensions, and apron projects. The cost estimates provided for these types of projects in older master plans tended to be lower than the costs actually needed to perform the project today. 8-11 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER EIGHT TOTAL FUTURE DEVELOPMENT FUNDING NEEDS Figure 8-8 presents the additional project costs identified in the state CIP and published airport master plans by near-term, mid-term, and long term time periods. For the near-term alone, approximately $2.8 billion has been identified for projects from the SASP, additional system costs, other state CIP costs, and other master plan costs. This indicates that in addition to the $934 million identified to meet system plan recommendations in the near term, an additional $1.8 billion could be needed to meet all airport needs through 2014 alone. Figure 8-8: Total Airport Development Costs 2010-2030 (in millions) Cost Category SASP Implementation Costs Additional System Costs* Other State CIP Costs Near Term 2010-2014 Mid-Term 2015-2019 Long-Term 2020-2030 Total $933.79 $542.38 $975.17 $2,451.34 $87.90 $24.72 $57.55 $170.17 $504.35 $0 $0 $504.35 Other Master Plan Costs $1,241.22 $1,847.36 $3,506.47 $6,595.04 Total Costs $2,767.27 $2,414.45 $4,539.19 $9,720.91 Sources: WSA, Airport Master Plans, ADOT Aeronautics Note:*includes costs developed for the construction and maintenance of new airports, the development and maintenance of the AWOS Network Center, and future state system planning needs. Although the longer term funding needs are uncertain, if near term funding needs continue into the future, it is estimated that an additional $2.4 billion will be incurred in the mid-term (2015 to 2019) and $4.5 billion in the long-term (2020 to 2030). Throughout the forecast period it is estimated that $9.7 billion will be needed to fund Arizona airports. This equates to an average annual need of $486 million to fund system-wide development. Between 2010 and 2030, the approximate annual cost to raise the level of performance of airports to meet system plan objectives would be at least $122.6 million. However, when other desired airport projects are considered as well, the annual costs are estimated to reach $486 million on average over the 20-year forecast period. Due to incomplete information on funding needs, especially from larger airports who do not conduct long-term capital development planning to this level of detail, the long term costs are considered incomplete and probably understated. The following discussion provides an overview of the funding currently available to Arizona’s airports and a summary of the anticipated shortfall through the 20-year forecast period. 8-12 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER EIGHT FUNDING SOURCES Funding for airport improvement projects is an important issue when considering the future of Arizona’s aviation system. In order to meet user needs, airports typically rely on funding sources beyond their own revenue. Airport development is typically driven by the ability of individual airport sponsors to identify funding sources and to successfully obtain funding. There are various sources of funding available to airports in Arizona; however, each year, the funding requested far outweighs available funding. In general, funding for capital improvement projects can be secured from the following sources: federal, state, local, or private funds. Implementation of the recommendations presented in the SASP will require significant effort on the part of all funding agencies. A brief description of each source of funding is presented in the following sections. Federal Funding Sources The FAA, through Airport Improvement Plan (AIP) grants, distributes federal funds to the nation’s airport system from the Aviation Trust Fund. The Aviation Trust Fund was originally established in 1970 and has since been amended on numerous occasions. The Aviation Trust Fund establishes a source of funds, collected only from the users of the nation’s airport system that can be used to fund airport improvements. Only airports included in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) are eligible to apply for FAA funding. Fifty-nine of Arizona’s 83 system airports are currently part of the NPIAS and are eligible for federal funding.1 Figure 8-9 presents total AIP funding for all eligible U.S. airports for the fiscal years 2000 through 2009. Figure 8-9: All U.S. Historical AIP Funding (Billions) Total AIP Funding FY 2002 $3.3 FY 2003 $3.4 FY 2004 $3.4 FY 2005 $3.5 FY 2006 $3.6 FY 2007 $3.7 FY 2008 $3.6 FY 2009 $3.6 Source: FAA Airports Financial Assistance Division Vision 100 was signed into law in December 2003 and reauthorized the AIP Program through 2007. Because Vision 100 expired at the end of FY2007 and a long term reauthorization is not in place at the time of the SASP writing, there have been no funding targets for 2008 and beyond. While FY2008 and FY2009 funding was eventually appropriated at the FY 2006 level of $3.6 billion, the future of the AIP is largely unknown without a program reauthorization. The future AIP program may include changes to federal share amounts, nonprimary entitlements, set-asides, and passenger facility charges (PFCs), among other items. Commercial Service Entitlement Funding for Arizona Commercial service airports receive entitlement funds based on the number of passengers they enplane during the prior calendar year. Entitlement funding is based on a graduated methodology that provides a lower per enplanements entitlement as the total enplanement level increases. This process is used to offset funding disparity that results from the vastly different levels of enplanements occurring at U.S. airports. The minimum passenger However, it was noted during the inventory effort of the SASP that that Ganado Airport is now closed. Although Ganado is included in the FAA NPIAS, it was not included in SASP analysis. 1 8-13 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER EIGHT entitlement for Primary Airports (those airports enplaning at least 10,000 passengers per year) is $1 million. In Arizona, nine airports were considered Primary Airports in FY2009 including Laughlin/Bullhead City International, Flagstaff-Pulliam, Grand Canyon National Park, Grand Canyon West, Page, Phoenix Sky Harbor International, Phoenix Mesa Gateway, Tucson International, and Yuma International. According to the FAA, these airports received $16.3 million in Primary Entitlements in FY2007 (the most recent data available from the FAA). Not all of this money is spent in the year it is received. Commercial service airports may also receive cargo entitlement funding based on the landed weight of cargo aircraft. Phoenix Sky Harbor will receive $1.4 million in Cargo Entitlements in FY2009 and Tucson International will receive over $200,000. State Apportionment & Non-Primary Entitlement Funding for Arizona General aviation airports (included in the NPIAS) are eligible for State Apportionment funds and Non-Primary Entitlement funds. State Apportionment funds are allocated to states based on a formula using population and geographic size. Those funds are distributed to airports based on FAA prioritization of projects. According to the FAA, Arizona non-primary airports will receive approximately $8.3 million in State Apportionment funds in FY2009 for federally funded projects at non-primary airports only. General aviation airports are also eligible for up to $150,000 in Non-Primary Entitlement funds. To obtain the funds, airports must have a 5-Year CIP with eligible projects that meet AIP funding guidelines. In FY2009, 48 Arizona airports received Non-Primary Entitlement funds for a total of $7.0 million. Federal Discretionary Funding for Arizona General aviation and commercial service airports also compete for Federal Discretionary funds, which are awarded based on priority ratings given to each potential project by the FAA. The prioritization process ensures that (from the FAA’s viewpoint) the most important and most beneficial projects are the first to be completed, given the availability of adequate discretionary funds. This source of funding is over and above entitlement funding, and is provided to airports for projects that have a high federal priority for enhancing safety, security, and capacity of the airport, and would be difficult to fund otherwise. The dollar amounts of individual grants vary and can be significant in comparison to entitlement funding. 8-14 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER EIGHT Between FY2006 and the first six months of FY2009, the discretionary funding for Arizona airports from the FAA Western Pacific Region was over $135 million. The following Arizona airports received discretionary funds during the three and a half year period: • Phoenix Deer Valley ($12.1m) • Avi Suquilla ($5.5m) • Phoenix Goodyear ($19,000) • Bagdad ($0.3m) • Phoenix Mesa Gateway ($20.0m) • Bisbee Municipal ($1.1m) • Phoenix Sky Harbor ($3.0m) • Chandler Municipal ($2.4m) • Scottsdale ($2.5m) • Flagstaff Pulliam ($11.6m) • Sedona ($1.0m) • Grand Canyon West ($24.0m) • Show Low Regional ($0.1m) • Kayenta ($5.8m) • Springerville Municipal ($1.6m) • Laughlin/Bullhead City ($10.3m) • Tucson International ($21.7m) • Marana Regional ($3.3m) • Winslow Regional ($0.1m) • Mesa Falcon Field ($1.7m) • Yuma International ($5.0m) • Nogales International ($1.4m) • Page Municipal ($1.0m) American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 President Barack Obama signed the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 in February 2009. This one time economic stimulus package included $48.1 billion in domestic spending on infrastructure improvements. Of this, $1.1 billion was provided to the FAA for airport projects. Priority was given to projects that were ready to go (also referred to as shovel ready) and could be completed within two years. Six Arizona airports were awarded one of these 100 percent federal funded grants for a total of $28.7 million. These airport projects include the following: • Phoenix-Sky Harbor International taxiway rehabilitation ($10.5m) • Sierra Vista Municipal/LAA runway rehabilitation ($6.0m) • Kingman apron rehabilitation ($5.0m) • Taylor runway rehabilitation ($3.5m) • Avi Suquilla taxiway rehabilitation ($1.8m) • Tucson International security enhancements ($1.85m) Summary Federal funding is limited to development that is justified to meet aviation demand, according to FAA standards. Each airport development project, including those recommended in the SASP, will be subject to eligibility and justification requirements in the normal AIP funding process. State Funding In support of the state aviation system, the state of Arizona also participates in airport improvement projects through its own grant program. State funding is available for all publicly-owned airports in Arizona, excluding Native American-owned airports. The source for state airport improvement funds is the Arizona Aviation Fund administrated by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Aeronautics Division and funded mainly through flight property taxes, aircraft lieu taxes and registration fees, and aviation fuel taxes. Figure 8-10 presents the sources of the aviation fund in FY2008. In FY2008, $25.5 million was deposited into the State Aviation Fund. 8-15 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER EIGHT Figure 8-10: Arizona Aviation Fund Sources FY 2008 - $25.5 million Investment Interest $1,364,987 Airport Loan 5% Repayment $724,169 3% Federal Grants $706,346 3% Grand Canyon Airport $937,434 Aviation Fuel Tax $420,915 4% 2% Flight Property Tax $13,805,600 53% Lieu Tax, Registration Fees & Misc. $7,520,120 30% Source: ADOT Aeronautics State aviation funding is “non-dedicated.” Aeronautics relies on two annual appropriations from the Ariziona Legislature each year: one for the operating budget of the Aeronautics Division and Grand Canyon National Park Airport and the other for the airport projects including matching grants for FAA funding, pavement preservation, airport loans, and other state projects. Between FY2001 to FY2009, the Arizona Aeronautics Division received a total of $144 million from the State Aviation Fund for aviation projects: • 2001-$9.9 million • 2002- $7.1 million • 2003- $25.9 million • 2004- $8.7 million • 2005- $15.5 million • 2006- $24.9 million • 2007- $28.4 million • 2008- $20.8 million • 2009- $2.8 million • 2010E- $3.5 million In FY2008, the Legislature moved $18.1 million from the State Aviation Fund to help balance the state budget. This sweep moved dedicated grant money from planned airport projects. In FY2009, the State Aviation Fund will be swept by another $22.5 million to the Legislature, terminating 28 approved airport projects. It is uncertain when the State Aviation Fund will once again be dedicated for use for aviation-related projects only. Based on this uncertainty, the Aeronautics Division is anticipating funding just $3.5 million in federal matching grants in FY2010. The State Transportation Board establishes the policies for distribution of the State Aviation Fund across the following categories of airport development assistance: • Federal/State/Local Grants • State/Local Grants • Airport Pavement Management System (APMS) (including projects maintaining and protecting aviation pavement surfaces) • System Planning 8-16 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER EIGHT • Airport Loan Program (including economic development/revenue generating loans, grant match loans, and grant advance loans) These programs are discussed in more detail below. Federal/State/Local and State/Local Grant Programs The state’s Airport Development Grants Program is designed to provide 50 percent of the local share for projects receiving federal AIP funding. These are referred to as Federal/State/Local grants. Current sponsor obligations on federal projects for most airports are five percent of a project’s total cost, making the state share 2.5 percent. However, the local share of federal projects for Phoenix Sky Harbor International is 25 percent and the local share for Tucson International is nine percent, making the state share 12.5 and 4.47 percent, respectively. Projects must be included in ADOT’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and require approval by the STB in order to receive the matching funds for Federal/State/Local grants. The Arizona Revised Statutes and STB policy provides guidance on funding limits and eligibility. Types of projects eligible for this funding as well as State/Local grants include planning, design, development, land acquisition, construction, and improvement of publiclyowned and operated airport facilities. There is currently a cap on the maximum annual state grant funding that an individual airport can receive; effective October 1, 2009, an eligible airport can receive grant monies from the Aviation Fund up to an amount equal to 10 percent of the average fund revenue for the past three years. The state also participates in State/Local grants. The state funds 90 percent of projects at state-defined primary airports and 95 percent of the project cost of secondary airports. These projects must also be included in ADOT’s CIP and approved by the STB. Due to limited funding in FY 2009 and FY2010, the state was not able to fund any State/Local grants in those years. Airport Pavement Management System (APMS) Arizona’s Airport Pavement Management System also may fund up to 90 percent of a primary airport pavement maintenance project and 95 percent of a secondary airport pavement project (primary and secondary are Arizona airport classifications) which is not eligible for AIP funding, such as crack seals, slurry seals, pavement overlays, and pavement markings. The APMS is updated every three years and provides an eight-year list of needed projects. Airport Loan Program ADOT Aeronautics Division has an Airport Loan Program, established to enhance the utilization of state funds and provide a flexible funding mechanism to assist airports in funding improvement projects. Eligible projects include runways, taxiways, aircraft parking ramps, aircraft storage facilities (hangars), fueling facilities, general aviation terminal buildings or pilot lounges, utility services (power, water, sewer, etc.) to the airport runway or taxiway lighting, approach aids (electronic or visual), ramp lighting, airport fencing, airport drainage, land acquisition, planning studies, and under certain conditions, the preparation of plans and specifications for airport construction projects. Projects not eligible for funding 8-17 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER EIGHT under other programs but are designed to improve an airport’s ability to be financially selfsufficiency may also be considered. There are three types of loans available through the program: matching fund loans, revenue generating loans, and economic development loans. The matching fund loans are provided to meet the local matching fund requirement for securing federal airport improvement grants. This loan is available for construction projects and projects must be included in the ADOT five-year CIP. These loans cannot be repaid with future airport development grant funds. The revenue generating loan funds are provided for airport related construction projects, which are not eligible for funding, in whole or part, under other programs and are designed to improve airport financial self-sufficiency. Economic development loans are available for projects that promote airport self-sufficiency but are not considered a direct revenue-producing project. Summary Due to the uncertainty of available funds, sweeps of the Aviation Fund make programming for aviation capital needs difficult, particularly for high-priority, high-cost and multi-year projects. Needs exceed available funds. Increased construction expenses exacerbate the funding dilemma. Local Funding Local airport sponsors are responsible for costs associated with airport development projects that remain after federal and state shares have been applied. Beginning in 2004, the local and state match for federal projects is 2.5 percent. However, the local share of state projects for Phoenix Sky Harbor International is 12.5 percent and the local share for Tucson International is 4.47 percent. For state projects, the local share has varied from 10 percent to 50 percent, depending on the nature of the improvement. Local government funding of airport development projects is derived from the following sources: • General Fund Revenues • Bond Issues • Airport-Generated Revenues • Private Funding Of these, general fund revenues and general obligation bonds are by far the most common funding sources. Revenue bonds supported by airport generated revenues are seldom used because most general aviation airports do not generate enough money to pay operating expenses and the debt service of capital funding requirements. General Fund Revenues Capital development expenditures from general fund revenues have been somewhat difficult to obtain in recent years. One reason for this difficulty is the seemingly universal shortfall in local general fund revenues. Budgetary problems have created an environment where local funding is uncertain. The amount of general fund support for airport improvement projects varies by airport and is based upon the local tax base, priority of the development project, historical funding trends, and, of course, local attitudes concerning the importance of aviation. 8-18 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER EIGHT Bond Funds Airport authorities can issue bonds without approval from the city or county. However, they must use their own revenue to repay the bonds. Airport revenue istypically used to repay these bonds. A city or county can also operate an airport. For these airports, bond issues funding the local share of airport development projects must compete with bond issues for other types of community improvements such as schools, highways, and sewer systems. As with the general fund apportionment, bond issues supporting airport development depend greatly on the priority assigned to such projects by the local community. Airport-Generated Revenues It is not uncommon for revenues generated by an airport operation, in particular a general aviation airport operation, to fail to match the expense of the operation. In such cases, the airport sponsor subsidizes the operating and the capital improvement expenses of the airport. Commercial service airports, via the collection of revenue from landing fees, space rental, auto parking, fuel sales and/or fuel flowage fees, concession fees, etc., are more likely to generate the revenue necessary for operating and capital improvement expenses. Commercial service airports may also impose a Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) to generate revenue to pay approved capital improvement expenses. The PFC program included in the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 requires the U.S. Department of Transportation to issue regulations for the PFC program. Those regulations allow an airport sponsor to charge a PFC up to $4.50 per enplaned passenger. The proceeds from the PFC program are used to finance eligible projects, in whole or in part, and to pay debt-service and finance expenses incurred with an approved project. PFCs can be used in combination with grant funds to complete a project and as the sponsor’s share for a federal grant for an approved project. An estimated $97 million in PFCs were collected by Arizona airports in 2007. Those airports and their PFCs are • Flagstaff Pulliam $3.00 • Grand Canyon West $3.00 • Phoenix Mesa Gateway $4.50 • Phoenix Sky Harbor International $4.50 • Tucson International $4.50 • Yuma International $4.50 Private Funds Items such as storage and maintenance hangars, fuel systems, and pay parking lots are not typically eligible for federal or state grant funding at public airports because they generate income for the airport. Communities sometimes work FBOs or other local businesses to fund these types of improvements. 8-19 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER EIGHT Funding Summary Figure 8-11 presents a summary provided by ADOT Aeronautics and the FAA of total funding for airports in Arizona over the last five fiscal years (July 1 through June 30). The funding includes federal, state, and local funding for this time period. Projects that use 100 percent of local funds or PFC funding are not included. On average between FY2004 and FY2008, funding for Arizona airports has been nearly $100 million, considerably less than the needs of the system presented above. As shown in Figure 8-11, due largely to state funding cuts, FY2009 total funding was estimated to be just $68.3 million, well below the $100 million average of the previous five years. If the total funding level from FY2009 of $68.3m is compared to the future annual funding needs developed in the beginning of this chapter, ($486 million per year), this equates to an annual shortfall of approximately $417 million. Figure 8-11: Arizona Airport Historic Funding FY2004-2009E Project Type Source Federal/State/Local Federal Entitlement Discretionary Federal Total Local Match State Match Total State/Local State Local Total APMS State Local Match Total State Total Funding Total State Funding FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009E $26,720,416 $57,573,182 $84,293,598 $3,012,812 $1,201,868 $88,508,278 $28,699,722 $50,362,308 $79,062,030 $2,519,266 $1,433,836 $83,015,132 $28,464,159 $41,303,198 $69,767,357 $1,965,907 $1,522,461 $73,255,725 $32,011,370 $36,379,767 $68,391,137 $2,235,419 $6,684,138 $77,310,694 $29,152,343 $38,738,304 $67,890,647 $2,325,214 $1,069,318 $71,285,179 $25,000,000 $38,000,000 $63,000,000 $2,487,674 $2,487,674 $67,975,347 $1,945,476 $212,497 $2,157,973 $9,752,682 $1,892,083 $11,644,765 $17,937,687 $2,249,242 $20,186,929 $21,703,979 $2,626,163 $24,330,142 $19,667,548 $2,178,613 $21,846,161 $0 $0 $0 $3,424,888 $380,541 $3,805,429 $4,256,517 $0 $4,256,517 $3,328,179 $151,105 $3,479,284 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,104,566 $2,104,567 $2,155,000 $0 $85,000 $277,359 $96,576,246 $101,020,980 $99,076,938 $101,640,836 $93,216,340 $68,252,706 $8,676,798 $17,547,602 $24,943,327 $28,388,117 $20,821,866 $2,765,033 Source: ADOT Aeronautics Note: E=estimate 8-20 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER EIGHT RETURN ON INVESTMENT Arizona is continually facing increasing demand for limited financial resources. The SASP identified the importance of addressing safety and capacity related projects in the near and mid-term. The challenge is to prioritize which additional airport capital investment projects should be funded with state assistance. Factors considered in the decision-making process include aviation activity (i.e., aircraft operations and based aircraft), emergency access, and economic development (business attraction and retention). From an economic development perspective, the objective is to identify how the greatest benefit can be achieved given aviation’s role compared to many other economic development factors, such as labor (availability, skill levels and rates), taxes, accessibility, etc. A 2002 study completed by the Arizona Department of Transportation for public airports in Arizona concluded that there are an estimated 395,000 jobs throughout the state that are linked directly to the airports and their operations. Total economic output contributed by the public-use airports included in the SASP was over $38.5 billion in 2002. While the results of the airport economic impact analysis are extremely useful in illuminating the importance of Arizona’s aviation industry, they do not shed light on the potential return on investment (ROI) of aviation as a whole. The return on investment goes beyond the airport itself, and extends into the local and regional economies that they operate within. Without the availability of airports, the ability of the local or regional economy to expand is impacted. Airports serve an important role in providing access for the local business, as well as access for visitors and vendors of the business that is not easily quantified as a specific return on investment. When a company is looking to expand or relocate, there are many factors that affect their decision-making process. In a survey conducted as part of the SASP of more than 2,500 Arizona businesses, the survey asked the business to rank the importance of the following factors when considering expansion or relocation. The factors are listed from most important to least in terms of the results: • Convenient highway access • Availability of trained workforce • Cost of living • A commercial service airport • Tax incentives • Proximity of suppliers • An urban business district • Academic or cultural centers • Universities or R&D centers • Airport with international flights • A general aviation airport • Historic location of business • Raw materials/natural resources • Rail transportation facilities As shown, the location of a commercial service airport ranks very high (fourth out of 14 factors), indicating the economic value of commercial airline service to businesses and the overall economy. Proximity to a general aviation airport ranks 11th in the listing, just below airport with international flights. 8-21 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER EIGHT The survey confirmed that many businesses depend on the state’s airports for the transport of employees, clients, and suppliers, as well as goods. Without access to commercial and general aviation airports, some companies would be forced to cut employment or possibly locate outside the state. It is the off-airport, value added benefit that non-aviation businesses gain through their use of aviation that is extremely difficult to quantify. Role of the Airport in Economic Development Airports are often catalysts for economic development; however, investment in airport infrastructure does not necessarily stimulate economic development. Airport investment (development) is more often an important facilitator of growth, not the origin, or the cause of growth. Within any market area, rising demand for goods and services stimulates economic growth, and subsequently the need to invest in and grow airports. Rising demand for goods and services is most often linked to growth in population and employment, capital investment (public and private), and/or technological progress. These three measures are not easily quantified. Studies have shown that when a market area has certain characteristics, there is a greater propensity for rising demand for goods and services. Rising demand for goods and services equates to the need to invest in and grow airport facilities. When certain characteristics are present in a market area, these characteristics generally indicate a higher demand for aviation services and hence a greater potential for return when investment is made in airports. It is more often the characteristics of an airport’s market area, and not the airport specific development project, which determine if there will be a positive off-airport return on investment. SUMMARY The Arizona State Airports System Plan has identified costs to elevate the overall performance of the state’s airport system and to enable individual airports in the system to fulfill their designated roles. Through 2030, the approximate annual average cost to raise the level of performance of airports throughout Arizona to meet SASP recommendations alone would be at least $123 million. When additional funding needs are considered based on airport CIPs, ADOT’s current CIP, and airport master plans, the annual level of need is estimated to jump to $486 million or a total of $9.7 billion over the 20-year forecast period. Historically and prior to FY 2009, when federal, state, and local funding sources are all considered each year an average of approximately $100 million has been invested in the Arizona airport system. With an estimated $486 million in annual estimated need, this results in a deficit of $386 million per year in funding shortfall. Immediate action is needed at all levels to help ensure that Arizona’s airports can be appropriately maintained and improved. State funding for Arizona’s airport system has been cut drastically in the last two fiscal years. ADOT Aeronautics relies on funds appropriated from the Legislature to maintain a healthy and safe statewide aviation system. With the recent State Aviation Fund sweeps, the limited funding has made it difficult for the state just to match federal grants. In addition, this limits the ability of the state to fund any special programs, including airport pavement maintenance. Aside from funds to match federal grants, additional dedicated state funding is needed for the maintenance and development of public airports in Arizona. The importance of Arizona’s airports to the economies of the state, cities, and counties is undeniable. The system must be maintained and justifiably expanded not only to meet the needs of the aviation community but also the economic objectives of the state. The return on 8-22 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER EIGHT the investment in Arizona’s airports can be great, if the funding is in place to maintain and support its system. 8-23 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER NINE CHAPTER NINE: RECOMMENDED PLAN & POLICIES INTRODUCTION With analysis of Arizona’s future airport system needs and the costs to implement the recommendations complete, the steps associated with implementation can be determined. This final chapter of the Arizona State Airports System Plan (SASP) provides an overview of the analysis and recommendations identified throughout the planning process. This plan was developed so that it is consistent with Arizona's goals for development, economic support, safety and standards, and environmental sensitivity and stewardship. The Arizona SASP was developed using a process that results in the identification, preservation, and enhancement of an aviation system to meet the state’s long-term needs. This chapter also presents a summary of policy issues related to implementing recommendations and action items for the stakeholders of the system. The SASP provides a 20-year outlook (through 2030) for the state’s aviation needs. The system planning process was developed to ensure that ADOT remains responsive to air transportation needs by identifying roles and characteristics for existing and new airports. Airports in Arizona continue to evolve to respond to changes in the communities they serve and the aviation industry trends. The facility and service objectives established in this plan are a general guide and frame of reference for balanced development. More detailed design, planning, and environmental analysis for airports will be accomplished as part of individual master plans. Actual development is driven by local needs and decisions. Any airport project will be required to meet eligibility and justification guidelines before being eligible for funding. The SASP provides ADOT with an important tool to monitor the ability of airports to meet customer needs. The plan also provides a means to measure the effects of investment on the performance of the Arizona airports system. Over the next 20 years, federal, state, local, and private funding will be needed to ensure that the aviation system meets goals established in this study. It is estimated that at least $2.5 billion will be needed over the next 20 years if airports in Arizona are to respond to objectives set by the SASP. This does not include additional airport needs not identified in the SASP but currently identified in airportspecific planning efforts. Information from the SASP may be used to update the FAA’s National Plan for Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) that is provided to Congress on a biannual basis, especially the identification of funding needs for the system. The SASP may also be used by individual airports to update master plans and airport layout plans (ALPs). In future years, the plan will enable ADOT to measure the change in system performance. By tracking key indicators for the airport system (presented in this report in the form of performance measures) it will be possible for ADOT and FAA to formulate strategies for responding to Arizona’s air transportation needs. The SASP provides a guide for the state and its communities to ensure that the vision established for the Arizona airports system can be achieved as the system continues to develop in the future. 9-1 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER NINE SUMMARY OF SASP PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS It was estimated that it will cost $2.45 billion over the next 20 years just to meet the goals developed for the SASP. To recap, the goals include: • • • • Development – Arizona should provide an airport system that is adequately maintained to meet current and projected demand and is easily accessible from both the ground and the air. Economic Support – Arizona should advance a system of airports that is supportive of Arizona’s economy, ensuring that the airport system is matched to Arizona’s socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. Safety and Security – Arizona should provide for a safe airport system, as measured by compliance with applicable safety and security standards to support health, welfare, and safety-related services and activities. Environmental Sensitivity and Stewardship – Arizona should promote a system of airports that is considerate of the environment and supports aviation programs and outreach opportunities in Arizona. Through the use of performance measures under each of these goal categories and the development of airport roles, system performance was evaluated. With the evaluation complete and outside influences considered, recommendations for improving the airport system were developed. Highlights of SASP findings and recommendations include: • Safety-Related Projects – Safety is by far the most important priority for ADOT Aeronautics. The state and its airports have devoted a great deal of effort and resources to continue to improve safety at their facilities. However, the SASP showed that additional improvements are needed to meet FAA standards. As presented in Chapter Six, Figure 6-47, just 67 percent of airports have clear approaches to their primary runways. In additional, just 60 percent of airports meet FAA standards for RPZs, RSAs, and runway-taxiway separation. (See Figures 6-49, 6-50, 6-51.) Although no specific projects were recommended for these measures due to the in-depth analysis required to identify needed improvements, it is recommended that the state work closely with the airports to improve performance of these measures in the nearterm. • Land Use Planning Recommendations – ADOT also recognizes the importance of having appropriate land-use planning in place to protect its airport resources. Just 31 percent of system airports noted that they have a published disclosure area compliant with Arizona statutes. (Shown in Figure 6-34.) In addition, less than half of system airports have FAR Part 77 height zoning in place. ADOT should work closely with airports to improve the performance of these measures. • Operational Capacity Concerns – As discussed in Chapter Six and presented in Figure 6-29, 11 system airports (13 percent) currently exceed the demand/capacity ratio of 60 percent, the point at which the FAA suggests airport planning for improved operational capacity. Six more airports will exceed this ratio by 2030 based on SASP projections of activity. While there are a few airports with plans for capacity improvements, the state should continue to work with airports, especially those in the Phoenix and Tucson metro areas, to find solutions to improve operational capacity. 9-2 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER NINE • Pavement Maintenance – Chapter Eight noted that the cost of maintaining existing pavements in Arizona over the next 20 years accounts for 50 percent of the all SASPrelated costs ($1.2 billion). This points to the large need just to maintain existing facilities and the importance of a continued statewide pavement program. As a result of the projected shortfall between the total development costs shown in the SASP and actual funding levels, it is important to prioritize spending on projects recommended by the SASP in order to direct available funding to projects that will improve the system’s performance the most. For example, if an airport meets the approach facility objective, it may also help improve the performance of several measures including percent of population within a 30-minute drive time of an airport and the number of airports with an instrument approach, percent of population and area within a 30-minute drive time of a system airport meeting business user needs, percent of airports capable of supporting emergency medical transport aircraft, and percent of population within a 30-minute drive time of an all weather runway. FUTURE NPIAS CONSIDERATIONS Airports included in the FAA’s NPIAS are eligible to compete for project funding from the federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP). According to the FAA’s 2009-2013 NPIAS published September 30, 2008, there are 59 airports in Arizona included in the NPIAS.1 Appendix C presents the criteria used by the FAA to determine whether or not an airport qualifies for the NPIAS. These criteria were applied to several non-NPIAS airports in Arizona to examine their ability to currently meet FAA NPIAS qualifications. This information is developed for informational purposes only. The state and non-NPIAS airport sponsors should continue to monitor airport activity and each airport’s ability to meet other eligibility criteria for inclusion in the NPIAS. As Arizona grows and demand for aviation resources increases, the airport system may also need to grow and expand. If the system grows as projected, certain airports may become good candidates for NPIAS standing. In SASP analysis, several areas in the state were recognized as potentially needing new or replacement airports. In all instances, this need had already been identified or was in the process of being studied through state or locally supported airport feasibility/site selection studies. The SASP recognized the need for additional or replacement airports in the following areas of the state: • Pinal County- City of Maricopa Airport (new) • Superior- Superior Airport (replacement) • Tribal Airports • Navajo Reservation - Ganado (replacement), Pinon (new), and Lukachukai/Teec Nos Pos area (new) • Hopi Reservation - Polacca (replacement) • White Mountain Apache Reservation - Cibecue (replacement) If Maricopa and Superior airports are developed in the future, facilities and services should be commensurate with the SASP objectives outlined for the General Aviation-Community airports. Depending on final development of the airports and the status of the FAA’s program, these airports could be considered by the airport sponsor for eligibility in the NPIAS in the future. 1 It should be noted that Ganado Airport, which is closed, is included in the FAA’s 2009-2013 NPIAS. 9-3 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER NINE Although the tribal airports are not currently eligible for state funding participation, it is recommended that these airports be developed in accordance with the SASP’s GA-Rural airport facility and service objectives. Polacca and Cibecue airports are currently and should continue to be included in the NPIAS when replaced. Consideration of the ability of the Navajo airports to meet NPIAS criteria such as based aircraft should be evaluated to determine if they could also achieve NPIAS status. In addition to new system airports, the SASP concluded that activity at and conditions near Rolle Airport should be monitored for the airport’s possible inclusion in the NPIAS. Although the airport does not currently meet the based aircraft criteria for inclusion, Yuma International Airport is the only other airport with a NPIAS designation in the region. Yuma is projected to experience large demographic growth through 2030. In addition, Yuma International was operating at 66 percent of capacity in 2007 and is projected to reach 91 percent by 2030. The Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS), located at Yuma International, has also noted plans to expand in its five-year plan. Yuma international Airport has recognized that an improved general aviation airport nearby, namely Rolle, could help relieve future congestion. Monitoring of the conditions in this area is warranted to determine if Rolle could be considered by the FAA for NPIAS inclusion. FUTURE RELIEVER CONSIDERATIONS Reliever airports are NPIAS airports designated by the FAA to relieve congestion at commercial service airports and to provide improved general aviation access to the overall community. Criteria for a Reliever airport includes current activity levels of at least 100 based aircraft or 25,000 annual itinerant operations. A Reliever airport must relieve a commercial service airport that serves a metropolitan area with a population of at least 250,000 persons or at least 250,000 annual enplaned passengers. The relieved airport also must operate at or below 60 percent of its capacity. Currently, there are nine airports in Arizona that have reliever status including: • Phoenix Sky Harbor International • Tucson International Reliever Reliever Airports Airports • Chandler Municipal • Marana Regional • Glendale Municipal • Ryan Field • Phoenix Deer Valley • Phoenix Goodyear • Phoenix-Mesa Gateway2 • Mesa Falcon Field • Scottsdale Despite the current presence of seven reliever airports in Greater Phoenix, projections of future aviation demand due largely to the recent and projected population growth of the Phoenix Metropolitan Statistical Area may require greater reliever capacity. Buckeye Municipal and the proposed Maricopa Airport were included in an analysis of Reliever candidate airports found in Appendix D. This analysis is presented for informational purposes and airport sponsors must pursue FAA-defined Reliever status. 2It should be noted that while the most recent FAA NPIAS (2009-2013) still shows Phoenix-Mesa Gateway as a Reliever airport, that the airport should be classified as a Primary Commercial Service Airport. This airport has maintained commercial airline service and has surpassed the 10,000 annual enplanement mark. 9-4 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER NINE It was noted in the analysis that neither Buckeye Municipal nor the proposed Maricopa Airport (if and when developed) meets the current activity criteria for consideration as FAA Reliever airports. Activity at these airports and other airports near Phoenix Sky Harbor and Tucson International should be monitored for future consideration as Reliever airports. IMPLEMENTATION OF SASP RECOMMENDATIONS ASM Database Coordination An important component of the SASP is the inclusion of key pieces of data in the comprehensive ADOT Airports System Manager (ASM) database. This system allows ADOT to track comprehensive data related to the planning and evaluation of its aviation facilities. Currently, project funding, Airport Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP) information, and aircraft registration are all included in the ASM database. The following information from the SASP is also included in the ASM upon conclusion of the study: • • All information from the 12-page inventory forms completed through the on-site inventory process has been uploaded into ASM. Much of this information is presented in Chapter Three of the SASP and was used to perform the system performance analysis presented in Chapter Six. The database includes the following items collected during the inventory effort of the SASP : • Airport information (sponsor name, contact, phone number, hours attended) • Aeronautical activity (based aircraft, operational mix, design\critical aircraft, recreational aircraft) • Aeronautical services • Scheduled airline activity • Air cargo activity • Activities (business, training, sport and recreational) • Airside facilities • Landside facilities and ground access • Landing aids • Weather/communications • Approach minima and protection standards • Ordinances (enacted locally) • Land use/regulatory • Airspace/obstructions (constraints and design standards) • Ownership/management • Capital improvements • Operations/maintenance • Emergency services • Special aviation uses (such as military, pilot training, firefighting support, skydiving operations, glider operations, etc.) • Major airport users • Security measures Bar charts presented in Chapter Six, Current System Performance, and the corresponding data has been integrated into ASM. This will allow ADOT to monitor and track improvements in performance as airports implement recommendations related to the SASP. 9-5 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER NINE • Recommended project lists developed for each airport in the analysis of system needs that are associated with improving performance have been included in ASM. These projects are associated with SASP performance measures and have costs relative to the improvements. These project lists will be helpful to ADOT as the agency works with airports in determining priorities for both the state and the local airport sponsors. It is intended that ADOT will frequently update the database when new information is received from airports and as projects are completed. It is likely that ADOT will routinely request, either annually or biannually, updated information from the airports as the agency tries to maintain accurate data on the existing system and its needs. The data included in the ASM database will be easily updatable for future system analysis, including evaluation of investment in the aviation system and its relationship to improved system performance. Continuous Planning The state recognizes the importance of continuous planning as a way to measure the success of the airport system to meet the goals established in this SASP. This study draws many comparisons to the previous system plan, the 2000 State Aviation Needs Study (SANS), and recorded the changes that have occurred since the previous plan. The system performance changes since 2000 were documented in Chapter Six. As part of the continuous planning effort, system performance can be monitored and additional studies undertaken. Monitoring System Performance One element of the continuous planning process addresses needed updates. The final section of this report has identified steps for keeping the SASP current in accordance with objectives established in this study. In addition to these updates, the following actions are also recommended as part of the continuous planning process. • Annual SASP Data Updates – As conditions at system airports change and improvements are realized, it is recommended that ADOT update the airport-specific data included in the SASP. ADOT’s ASM database provides a mechanism for keeping the data used in the SASP current. Using ASM capabilities, ADOT could provide an electronic survey to each airport to review the data included in the SASP and allow them to make changes and corrections. • Future Airports System Plans – The SASP provides ADOT with a blueprint for the development of its airport system over the next 20 years. As the aviation industry changes over time, Arizona’s airports grow, and the state’s socioeconomic and demographic characteristics change, the system plan should again be updated. It is recommended that ADOT consider updating the system plan in 5-year intervals with the next update in the 2014-2015 timeframe. • Master Plans - The SASP concluded that it was desirable for all airports to have current master plans and ALPs. It is the recommendation of this plan that each of the airports in Arizona consider updating their master plans/ALPs every five to seven years. It should be noted that recent FAA guidance indicates that funding of master plans will be based on changes at an airport that warrant airport improvements, not just on a set timeframe. 9-6 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER NINE Special Studies There is often a need for follow on special studies that are desirable to address needs identified during the system planning process. As part of the continuous system planning process, the need for the following special studies has been identified: • Airport Operational Capacity and Airspace Capacity Study – The Arizona aviation system should provide ample operational capacity. The SASP performed a cursory review of operational capacity at the system airports. Most airports in the Arizona system currently operate well below the capacity threshold and will continue to operate below the threshold throughout the 20-year forecast period. As noted in Chapter Seven, 17 system airports are expected to exceed the FAA demand/capacity trigger of 80 percent, including nine airports in the Phoenix Metro area and three airports in the Tucson Metro area. No capacity-related targets were established in the SASP due to the level of analysis and the need for individual airports to determine their ability to increase capacity. It is recommended that a state study that will further investigate increasing capacity, including the possible development of new system airports, be considered as operational delays continue to increase. In addition to operational capacity, airspace congestion continues to be a major issue in Arizona. While the FAA, not the state, has influence over changes to airspace patterns, the state can provide appropriate information to appropriate stakeholders. In addition to airspace congestion in the major metropolitan areas, congestion in areas near and around the military facilities and ranges has been of particular concern. The advent of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) over the last few years also has potential to impact airspace in Arizona as well. A comprehensive examination of what the integration of UAV activity means to the state’s airspace may be appropriate. • Economic Impact Study – An economic impact study was prepared for the Arizona airports in 2002. The data in this study is now dated, especially given the changes in the economy and the aviation industry. It is a recommendation of the continuous planning process that a comprehensive economic impact study be conducted for the airports in Arizona. This study would identify current jobs, payroll, and annual economic activity attributable to each system airport. This study can also help airports have a better understanding of their airport users and the qualitative contribution of each airport to the community and region it serves. It is recommended that airports are provided with their individual information for use in their local communities. • Land Use Compatibility Guidance – In 2007, The Governor’s Advisory Council on Aviation (GACA) noted the need for the state to further commit to compatible land use planning through airport legislation. The SASP noted that incompatible land use in the airport environment has the potential to limit the future growth and development of airports in Arizona. Recognizing this fact, follow-on steps should be taken to update the guidelines for land use compatibility. Land use compatibility can generally be described as the compatibility of the area around each airport where the height of objects should be limited so as not to impede safe airport operations, where noise impacts could most logically be expected, and where typical aircraft traffic patterns would occur. Additional guidance for community adoption of compatible 9-7 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER NINE land use code could be used by all system airports to enable them to better meet the system plan’s safety objectives. • Runway Approach Obstruction Study – One of the objectives for the Arizona airport system is for all system airports to have clear approaches to both ends of their primary runway. Just over half of the system airports currently meet this objective. To meet this objective, it is recommended that a follow-on study be conducted. Coordination and meetings with each of the airports and municipalities would be included as part of this follow-on study. ADOT could confirm the extent of the obstructions at each of the airports that do not have clear approaches to both ends of the primary runway as noted in the SASP. If an airport has additional runways, analysis should also be conducted for these runway ends as well. The study could also include the development of a model height zoning ordinance that would be taken to each municipality. The objective would be to have all municipalities tailor the model zoning ordinance to their particular situation, and for each to adopt a height zoning ordinance, while ensuring unobstructed approaches to each airport’s primary runway. Follow-on study is needed to identify where obstructions cannot be resolved and to determine where obstructions have been mitigated through lighting. If a state study is not feasible, the state should consider the inclusion of obstruction analysis in state-funded projects. • Pavement Management Plan (Continuous) – One of the objectives for the system plan is for all airports to have a pavement condition index (PCI) of at least 70 on their primary runways. ADOT currently has the Arizona Pavement Preservation Program (APPP) to meet and maintain this objective. This program has not been funded for several years. It is a recommendation of the continuous planning process that as part of the APPP, the Airport Pavement Management System (APMS), which evaluates the pavement conditions, continue to be conducted on a regular basis. This will identify current pavement condition, possible maintenance or rehabilitation projects, and costs attributable to each system airport. The last year that APMS was conducted for ADOT was in 2007 and will need to be conducted again in 2010. • Regional Aviation System Plan for Pinal County – As noted in Chapter Seven, the population of Pinal County, located between the Phoenix and Tucson Metro areas along I-10, is the fastest growing county in Arizona and experienced the third- highest rate of population growth in the U.S. between 2006 and 2007. The population of Pinal County is expected to triple through the 2030 forecast period. It is recommended that a detailed study regarding the impact of this growth on aviation be undertaken. A regional aviation system plan (RASP) for Pinal County airports could provide guidance and recommendations for accommodating the future growth in this region. 9-8 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER NINE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS Arizona’s aviation system is governed, regulated, and monitored according to Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS), State Transportation Board (STB) Aviation Policies, and guidelines included ADOT’s Five-Year Airport Capital Improvement Program (ACIP). Policy considerations relative to each of these three areas are provided below. Arizona Revised Statutes Title 28 – Chapter 25 Aviation ARS Title 28, Chapter 25 addresses aviation. The eight articles in the ARS address issues ranging from the operation of the Aeronautics Division to aircraft operation, aircraft registration and taxation, aircraft dealers, airports, airport zoning and regulation, and joint powers airport authorities. Grand Canyon National Park Airport One of the most challenging of the statutes requires the ADOT director to operate and maintain the Grand Canyon National Park Airport. While operating and maintaining the airport in and of itself can be accomplished, the funding for the airport is included in the State Aviation Fund which is subject to the annual legislative appropriations cycle. This airport is the only one in the state operated by ADOT and funded strictly through the State Aviation Fund. In addition, one of the articles (Article 28-8204, State owned airports; fees) sets the framework for the types of fees that can be charged at the airport. The airport is subjected to regulatory processes imposed on other state agencies. All of the employees are state employees, placing limitations on the salary structure compared to other airports of comparable size and complexity. Other regulatory process issues include the process to procure necessary equipment and contracting for services. The ownership and maintenance of the Grand Canyon National Park Airport has been evaluated in the past and at one time an airport authority was established to address these issues. However, the same regulatory issues were applied to the airport authority, limiting the ability of the organization to change the airport’s structure significantly. Consideration continues to be given to possibly changing the responsibility for management and operation of the airport. A similar position was posed as part of the 2007 Governor’s Advisory Council on Aviation Final Report. Compatible Land Use Planning Finally, through ARS–Title 28, Chapter 25, the option of the state or the governing body of a political subdivision to establish an airport influence area is provided. The statute identifies property in the vicinity of the airport “that is currently exposed to aircraft noise and overflight and that either has a day-night average sound level of 65 decibels or higher or is within such geographical distance from an existing runway that exposes the area to aircraft noise and overflights as determined by the airport owner or operator” as potentially included in the airport influence area. After notification and conducting a hearing, the political entity that has established an airport influence area must file a record of the area in the office of the county recorder in each county that contains property in the airport influence area. As part of the record, owners or potential purchasers of property in the airport influence area will receive notification that property in the area is currently subject to aircraft noise and aircraft overflights. 9-9 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER NINE This statute provides a means for airports to educate those in their environs of the potential noise and overflight issues associated with airports. There are separate statutes that address military airports and their disclosure and these have been widely implemented. While many airports may have airport influence areas, less than 30 have taken the next step in implementing public disclosure through the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE). Article 7, 28-8486. Public airport disclosure; definitions denotes that the ADRE “shall have and make available to the public on request a map showing the exterior boundaries of each territory in the vicinity of a public airport.” The ADRE is to work with each public airport and affected local government “as necessary to develop a map that is visually useful in determining whether property is located in or outside of a territory in the vicinity of a public airport.” While these two statutes provide for some airport zoning and regulation, there are no requirements and no penalties for not implementing airport influence areas or public airport disclosure. Because of this, encroachment is worsening around airports, limiting expansion potential and creating additional impacted areas. Consideration of additional aviation legislation was proposed by the Governor’s Advisory Council on Aviation to address compatible land use planning related to airports. Tribal Airport Funding Eligibility Historically, airports owned by Native American communities have not been eligible to receive ADOT funding, even though some of the airports are eligible for FAA funding (due to their inclusion in the NPIAS). This lack of funding has meant limited maintenance and development of many of the Native American owned and operated airports. These airports are typically located in less populated areas of the state. Several of the airports are used primarily for transport of physicians and patients for medical purposes and access to these more rural and sometimes remote areas. For those reasons, these airports do contribute to Arizona’s aviation system and have been included in the SASP for analysis of statewide needs. The eligibility for Native American airports has been considered through legislative action in the past but to date, these airports remain ineligible. Continued consideration of the importance of these airports to the system and to their communities should be pursued as part of the aviation funding policies. Arizona STB Aviation Policies As noted, the ARS establishes the laws that govern the state’s aviation system. Arizona’s State Transportation Board is responsible for developing rules to administer the ARS and create statewide transportation policies. There are six State Transportation Board policies applicable to the State Airports System, which were adopted as current policy on October 18, 2002 (Fiscal Year 2003). ADOT is currently evaluating potential revisions to the FY 2003 STB policies; therefore this analysis presents issues only as they relate to the SASP’s potential affect on the policies. The 2003 STB Aviation Policies includes a definition of the State Aviation System. This definition is important as it describes the division of airports into two systems for planning and administrative purposes. It also describes airport categories within the two systems. As part of the SASP, updated airport roles or classifications have been identified. These roles or classifications could be utilized in the definitions of the system for the proposed policies. 9-10 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER NINE The six STB Aviation policies are: • Loan program • Airport pavement management program • Planning guidelines • Priority rating system • Resource allocation • Small Community Air Service Pilot Program Based upon the results of this SASP, several modifications could be considered within these policies. Planning Guidelines The current STB policies contain guidelines related to the development of airports within the primary and secondary airport systems. Through the SASP process, new airport roles or classifications were developed based on an analysis of how each airport functions within the system. A quantitative process was used to evaluate each airport according to over 20 different measurable factors that relate an airport’s function to the goals of the system. Through this process five airport role categories were defined, each with facility and service objectives specific to the category. The airport roles and facility and service objectives developed during the SASP could be considered to be “updated planning guidelines” for purposes of STB or ADOT Aeronautics policy and procedures. Priority Rating System Through the SASP, a review of the current priority rating system and a summary of other states’ systems were conducted. This review complemented the SASP’s analysis of the system’s performance and the costs of improving system performance through 2030, providing a comprehensive analysis of future needs and information for assessing the priority rating system. Based on the results of the SASP, several potential considerations for changes to the priority rating system were noted: • Point System Structure –The point system structure for ranking projects currently favors airports that can score high on certain factors that may be completely unrelated to the specific project funding request. Therefore, ADOT Aeronautics could consider changing the point system to ensure all points awarded are applicable to the project that they are supporting. Examples would include eliminating points for a high ratio of operations to 60 percent annual service volume (ASV) on a landside project, but keeping it on airfield-related projects which truly address capacity such as a secondary runway. A similar example is the waiting-list-to-based-aircraft ratio and enplanement levels. These factors should not be considered on projects with no relationship to these factors. In addition, the waiting list and enplanement figures may be misrepresentative of any ACIP needs at an airport. The points for these factors and the points assigned for airport operations may also skew the priority rankings among projects. • Project Definitions –Today, many project components lack a specific definition to help sponsors determine if their project aligns with the purpose of the project component. This is important to the state to ensure that a project is truly eligible for the point value assigned to that component. Specific examples include fire protection with 80 points and security fencing with 60 points, which are two of the high-point 9-11 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER NINE value projects that lack a clear definition. Fire protection may be funded for its high priority point value, but the actual improvement might offer more to enhance utility infrastructure if there is little need for fire protection. Each project component should have a definition that spells out the “what and why” of each project so the sponsor understands the eligibility of the project before including it in the online ACIP. This effort should not fully eliminate the flexibility in funding projects, but it should help separate and elevate the more critical projects. This effort should also help minimize the time and effort that ADOT Aeronautics spends in addressing project component errors in the ACIP and sponsor questions about the same. • Eligibility of Sponsor/Project For Land Use Concerns – It is recommended that airport sponsors be held more accountable for incompatible land use development, but in a more proactive manner that requires the sponsor define, implement, and enforce land use controls just as they would with any other important development area in the community. In the future, when considering specific project funding, ADOT could base eligibility on the airport’s implementation of land use protection. The goal should be to better educate sponsors on the importance of protecting their airport environs so it becomes important to them, particularly under the umbrella of their own community-wide needs, financial constraints and politics, rather than placing more responsibility on the state to enforce something that the sponsors do not fully understand. Resource Allocation Distribution of the State Aviation Fund begins with the state legislature’s allocation of funds for ADOT’s aviation-related operational costs. Monies are allocated to ADOT’s Motor Vehicle Division for expenses associated with the aircraft registration function, to the Multi-Modal Transportation Planning Division for the Aeronautics Group’s airport development task, and to the Transportation Services Group’s Physical Plant Operations section for the operation of the Grand Canyon National Park Airport. Subsequently, the legislature allocates funds to the Aeronautics Group for its airport development program and state aviation planning services. The airport development program includes federal/state/local matching grants, state/local grants, loans, and the airport pavement preservation program. Per the current STB policy, state/local grant funds are divided into three categories: commercial service/reliever airports, other primary airports and secondary airports. The allocation formula currently in place directs 80 percent of available funds to the commercial service/reliever airports. Other primary airports receive 18 percent of available funds and secondary airports receive two percent. The SASP determined financial needs based on updated airport roles and performance measures. Using those standards, the financial needs of airports generally correlate well with the existing distribution of funds among the state’s airports. The SASP did, however, identify specific costs by performance measure. Consideration could be given to developing programs, such as the current statewide Airport Pavement Preservation Program, with funding being allocated to those programs before it’s assigned to the airport categories. Because the pavement preservation program has been so successful at helping to manage pavement maintenance priorities on a statewide basis, consideration could be given to creating similar programs that would help manage other performance issues on a system- 9-12 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER NINE wide basis. Such changes would be more effective in combination with changes to the system point structure, which will be discussed later. A program that could be beneficial to the implementation of SASP recommendations, enabling project prioritization from a system standpoint instead on an airport standpoint, is safety. Safety projects could compete against each other for priority, without regard for airport-specific point ratings. This could cause safety projects to be considered solely based upon their importance to the system and the particular airport. Other programs that might be similarly considered are AWOS, land acquisition, security and capacity. An advantage to a programmatic approach is a program project would be prioritized within the system rather than being considered after funding had been allocated to the three different airport categories. This process would enable projects to be prioritized based upon their importance to the system and the airport. Small Community Air Service Pilot Program A STB policy was created to address air service throughout Arizona and to maximize funding that may be provided through the USDOT for the Small Community Air Service Development Program. Based on grants that were provided by USDOT to several of Arizona’s smaller commercial service airports, this policy allowed for matching funds to be dedicated to air service improvement. This policy has not been utilized in several years by any Arizona airport and it is dependent on the federal program’s long-term availability. At the present time, this federal program is being considered for deletion, thereby making the STB policy unnecessary. Five-Year ACIP Guidelines The Five-Year ACIP allocates funds for eligible projects from the State Aviation Fund and distributes these funds across four major funding categories: the Airport Development Grants Program; Airport Loan Program; Airport System Planning; and the Airport Preventive Maintenance Services. The guidelines used to distribute the funds in each of these categories have resulted in Arizona’s current aviation system development. The guidelines implement the STB policies which are currently under review. At such time as the STB policies are revised, the Five-Year ACIP Guidelines should be revisited to provide additional information to airports. 9-13 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER NINE CONSIDERATION FOR ADDITIONAL PROGRAM FUNDING The state of The State of Arizona has long recognized the importance of its system of airports to the state’s economy and its citizens’ quality of life. To support the airport system, a dedicated source of revenue to fund airport improvements has been in place since 1970. During FY2008, Arizona’s airports benefited from $20.8 million of state funded improvement projects. However, in FY2009, due to state budget issues, only $2.5 million was available. Budget issues continue to threaten the State Aviation Fund and airport grants. Although FAA grants provide much-needed additional funding to improve the airport system, they will not provide enough funding to support the development of projects identified in the state CIP, individual airport CIPs and master plans, and through the system planning process. Between FY2010 and FY2030, the SASP estimates that approximately $2.5 billion will be necessary to improve Arizona’s airport system based on system objectives alone. If all other airport needs are included, an estimated $9.7 billion or $486 million per year will be needed. If approximately $100 million is available from federal, state and local sources in each of those years, a total of $2.0 billion will be available to respond to the needs. This assumes that future sweeps of the State Aviation Fund will not occur. As presented in Figure 9-1, the gap between estimated needs and available funding through 2030 could reach $7.7 billion Figure 9-1: Estimate of Funding Shortfall 2010-2030 (in millions) Estimated Funding Requests for SASP Needs 2010-2030 $2,451.82 Plus Additional Airport/State Needs 2010-2030 $7,269.56 Equals Total Need 2010-2030 $9,721.38 Minus Estimated Available Funding by FAA/State/Local $2,000.00 Equals Estimated State Shortfall 2010-2030 $7,721.38 Source: Wilbur Smith Associates It is apparent that additional funding is critical to Arizona’s airport system. If sweeps of the State Aviation Fund continue, it will be extremely detrimental to the system. A dedicated and protected State Aviation Fund is needed to ensure that the existing system will continue to be maintained and meet the state and local objectives into the future. SUMMARY Besides being a critical transportation link locally, regionally, nationally and internationally, airports are important economic catalysts. Employers throughout Arizona agree that commercial and general aviation airports are vital to business attraction, development and retention. By responding to performance measures, benchmarks and facility/service objectives outlined in the Arizona State Airport Systems Plan, Arizona will have a flight plan that will take it through 2030 and beyond It is important to note that the Arizona State Airports System Plan is not a programming or implementation document. The SASP is a resource document that ADOT can follow to provide an aviation system that will meet the air transportation needs for Arizona, now and into the future. The SASP is a “top down” planning analysis. Findings from this plan must still be implemented by individual airports from the “bottom up.” 9-14 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – CHAPTER NINE Over the next 20 years, this plan has shown that an annual average of $486 million will be needed to raise the performance of the Arizona airports system and to respond to the needs that the airports themselves have identified. Arizona is expected to experience a great deal of population and employment growth. A well-maintained and developed aviation system is an important component of the state’s multi-modal transportation system. 9-15 A rizona’s aviation system is diverse….as diverse as the state itself. From Arizona’s major cities to its mountains, deserts, and world renowned tourist destinations, Arizona’s airports provide important connections. Arizona’s airports move people and goods. Arizona businesses and residents rely on the airport system to transport them to destinations around the world. The airports in Arizona also provide domestic and international visitors with convenient access to Arizona tourist attractions. The airport system also moves packages, parts, and supplies to all areas of the state. Airports throughout Arizona support quality of life by accommodating recreational, health, welfare, and safety-related services. Critical firefighting activities, search and rescue missions, patient transport, news and traffic reporting, and recreational opportunities are just a few of the aviation related services provided. 1 Overview of the Plan In order to ensure Arizona’s airport system continues to effectively connect, move, and support the state’s needs, the Arizona Department of Transportation Aeronautics Division initiated the Arizona State Airports System Plan (SASP). The SASP provides direction for state aviation system planning for years to come. The purpose of this plan is to provide a framework for the integrated planning, operation, and development of Arizona’s aviation assets. Vision, Goals, & Measures Airport Roles Airport Assets Current Transportation System Performance Forecasts Future Transportation System Performance System Development Costs Recommended Plan The plan was guided by a Project Advisory Committee that was comprised of representatives from Arizona airports, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), regional associations of governments, League of Cities and Towns, aviation related businesses, and various airport and aircraft associations around the state. System Vision and Goals Establishing goals and measures is important to setting a future course for the airport system and for assessing its current performance. Members of the Project Advisory Committee helped identify current issues facing the system and translate those issues into goals and objectives to guide the system’s future performance. Given the importance of airports and aviation to employers throughout Arizona, over 2,000 businesses and 4,000 pilots in Arizona were contacted to secure input on airport issues and needs. The vision established for the 2008 Arizona State Airports System Plan led to the development of four goals, which were established for the airport system that serves Arizona. These goals are used to evaluate each airport’s role in the statewide system and determine the performance of Arizona’s airports. Vision “Provide an airport system that accommodates demand, supports economic and transportation needs, and maximizes funding resources” GOALS Development: Economic Support: Arizona should provide an airport system that is adequately maintained to meet current and projected demand and is easily accessible from both the ground and the air. Arizona should advance a system of airports that is supportive of Arizona’s economy, ensuring that the airport system is matched to Arizona’s socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. Safety and Standards: Arizona should provide for a safe airport system, as measured by compliance with applicable safety standards, which supports health, welfare, and safety-related services and activities. Environmental Sensitivity and Stewardship: Arizona should promote a system of airports that is sensitive to and considerate of the environment. The system shoud support aviation outreach opportunities. 2 Arizona’s Airport System There are over 200 airports in Arizona, however, the analysis in the SASP focused primarily on public use airports. For purposes of the SASP, 83 airports, including 11 privately owned airfields and 14 Native American owned airports, were identified as the “system of airports”. These 83 airports vary in size and serve different functions in meeting Arizona’s aviation and economic needs. Because all airports do not serve the same needs, a method of determining roles among the airports is necessary for evaluating the system. The airports were assigned to one of five SASP roles following an in-depth analysis of 21 factors. Some of these factors included: • • • • • • • • • • • • Population Served Businesses Served Number of Pilots Served Retail Sales Hotel Rooms Nearby Type of Aviation Services Offered Airside and Landside Facilities Current Demand Expansion Potential Zoning Controls Community Support Community Outreach Efforts Scores were derived for each of the factors and summed for comparison. Based on scores, the 83 airports were classified into one of the five following roles: • • • • • 3 Commercial Service Reliever General Aviation-Community General Aviation-Rural General Aviation-Basic Airport Code Associated City Airport Name Airport Role 27AZ P01 E51 E95 P04 BXK IFP A20 18AZ CGZ CHD 34AZ P19 E91 Z95 CFT AZC P08 P52 P03 DGL DUG E60 FLG E63 GEU P13 GYR GCN 40G P14 0V7 E67 IGM HII AVQ MZJ L41 E68 L25 FFZ IWA OLS PGA P20 PAN L37 1G4 3AZ5 P48 DVT A39 PHX P10 PRC 48AZ SAD 44A E77 SDL SEZ P23 E78 SOW FHU D68 SJN E81 TYL U30 P29 T03 57AZ RYN TUS E24 1Z1 E25 P33 CMR RQE INW NYL Aguila Ajo Bagdad Benson Bisbee Buckeye Bullhead City Bullhead City Carefree Casa Grande Chandler Chandler Chandler Chinle Cibecue Clifton/Morenci Colorado City Coolidge Cottonwood Douglas Douglas Douglas Bisbee Eloy Flagstaff Gila Bend Glendale Globe Goodyear Grand Canyon Grand Canyon Holbrook Kayenta Kearny Kingman Lake Havasu City Marana Marana Marble Canyon Maricopa Meadview Mesa Mesa Nogales Page Parker Payson Peach Springs Peach Springs Peach Springs Peoria Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Polacca Prescott Rimrock Safford San Luis San Manuel Scottsdale Sedona Seligman Sells Show Low Sierra Vista Springerville St Johns Superior Taylor Temple Bar Tombstone Tuba City Tucson Tucson Tucson Whiteriver Whitmore Wickenburg Willcox Williams Window Rock Winslow Yuma Eagle Roost Eric Marcus Municipal Bagdad Benson Municipal Bisbee Municipal Buckeye Municipal Laughlin/Bullhead International Sun Valley Sky Ranch at Carefree Casa Grande Municipal Chandler Municipal Memorial Airfield Stellar Airpark Chinle Municipal Cibecue Greenlee County Colorado City Municipal Coolidge Municipal Cottonwood Cochise College Douglas Municipal Bisbee Douglas International Eloy Municipal Flagstaff Pulliam Gila Bend Municipal Glendale Municipal San Carlos Apache Phoenix Goodyear Grand Canyon National Park Valle Holbrook Municipal Kayenta Kearny Kingman Lake Havasu City Marana Regional Pinal Airpark Marble Canyon Estrella Sailport Pearce Ferry Falcon Field Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Nogales International Page Municipal Avi Suquilla Payson Grand Canyon Caverns Grand Canyon West Hualapai Pleasant Valley Phoenix Deer Valley Phoenix Regional Phoenix Sky Harbor International Polacca Ernest A. Love Field Rimrock Safford Regional Rolle Airfield San Manuel Scottsdale Sedona Seligman Sells Show Low Regional Sierra Vista Municipal-Libby AAF Springerville Municipal St Johns Industrial Air Park Superior Municipal Taylor Temple Bar Tombstone Municipal Tuba City La Cholla Airpark Ryan Field Tucson International Whiteriver Grand Canyon Bar Ten Airstrip Wickenburg Municipal Cochise County H.A. Clark Memorial Field Window Rock Winslow-Lindbergh Regional Yuma International GA-Basic GA-Rural GA-Basic GA-Community GA-Rural GA-Community Commercial Service GA-Rural GA-Community GA-Community Reliever GA-Community GA-Community GA-Rural GA-Basic GA-Rural GA-Community GA-Community GA-Community GA-Rural GA-Community GA-Rural GA-Community Commercial Service GA-Rural Reliever GA-Rural Reliever Commercial Service GA-Community GA-Community GA-Rural GA-Rural Commercial Service GA-Community Reliever GA-Community GA-Rural GA-Rural GA-Basic Reliever Commercial Service GA-Community Commercial Service GA-Community GA-Community GA-Rural GA-Rural GA-Basic GA-Community Reliever GA-Rural Commercial Service GA-Rural Commercial Service GA-Basic GA-Community GA-Rural GA-Rural Reliever GA-Community GA-Rural GA-Basic Commercial Service GA-Community GA-Community GA-Community GA-Basic GA-Community GA-Rural GA-Basic GA-Rural GA-Rural Reliever Commercial Service GA-Rural GA-Basic GA-Community GA-Community GA-Community GA-Rural GA-Community Commercial Service Colorado Utah AZC PGA L41 0V7 Nevada 1Z1 L25 E91 T03 U30 1G4 MOHAVE GCN P10 COCONINO RQE 40G 3AZ5 L37 P23 IGM APACHE NAVAJO CMR IFP FLG INW A20 P14 New Mexico SEZ P52 PRC 48AZ E51 HII SJN TYL YAVAPAI SOW PAN P20 D68 California 27AZ Z95 E25 18AZ P48 LA PAZ GEU SDL DVT FFZ BXK P13 PHX GYR IWA P19 MARICOPA E68 34AZ E81 GRAHAM CGZ P08 YUMA E60 SAD PINAL E77 MZJ P01 57AZ AVQ PIMA RYN P33 TUS E95 E78 Mexico COCHISE P29 FHU Airport Roles Commercial Service CFT E67 A39 44A GREENLEE CHD E63 NYL E24 GILA SANTA CRUZ GA-Community DUG P04 OLS P03 DGL GA-Rural Reliever GA-Basic Miles 0 10 20 40 60 80 4 Future Aviation Demand For Arizona to achieve the vision for the aviation system, the system should be matched to future demand levels. The SASP used several methodologies, compiled national and state aviation trends, and analyzed state and regional socioeconomic trends in order to forecast aviation demand through 2030. Demand was projected on a statewide level and for each airport in the system. Projections were then compared to FAA and local planning documents where available. Projections of demand were developed for the following components: Enplanements: number of people boarding commercial airlines (including air tours) Based Aircraft: number of aircraft permanently stored at an airport Total Operations: number of takeoffs and landings by all aircraft types 2007 number of takeoffs and landings by noncommercial, general aviation aircraft Cargo: tonnage transported in commercial aircraft 2012 2017 2030 Enplanements (Including Air Tours) 23.2M (2008) 25.3M 29.0M 41.1M Based Aircraft 8,043 8,757 9,523 11,892 General Aviation Operations 3.84M 4.21M 4.63M 5.93M Total Operations (including military) 4.84M 5.23M 5.75M 7.32M Cargo Tonnage 0.17M 0.19M 0.22M 0.32M M=million 5 General Aviation Operations: System Performance The SASP used a performance-based analysis to evaluate the system of airports. The four study goals were translated into performance measures. These measures were used to develop a “report card” for the existing airport system. Over 45 performance measures were developed for the SASP to produce the report card and evaluate the system for its current performance. A few of the performance measures include the following: • Percent of population within 30 minutes of a SASP airport • Percent of airports meeting zoning and land use control goals • Percent of population within 30 minutes of SASP airport meeting business user needs • Percent of airports meeting FAA safety area requirements • Percent of system airports that have a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) • Percent of system airports supporting flight training With the existing system evaluation complete, target performance of the future airport system was analyzed. Prior to initiating the future system analysis, other factors that may influence aviation activity, independent of the state airport system, were considered. The SASP reviewed these outside influences to determine how they may impact future system performance. These non-aviation outside influences included: • • • • • • Extensive Population Growth Major Employment Growth High-Technology and Aerospace Industry Growth Tourism Retirement/Seasonal Residency Major Surface Transportation Improvements Specific performance measures were developed within each goal category to assess the total system’s performance. It is important to note that this evaluation was developed for the state to provide a “big picture” overview of overall system performance. A sampling of the performance measures used to evaluate the system, by goal category, is presented on the following pages. 6 GOAL CATEGORY: DEVELOPMENT Measure: Percent of population within 30 minutes of a SASP airport It is essential for Arizona to have a strategy that provides the state with a system of airports that provides reasonably convenient access. The system of airports should serve existing demand, as well as be capable of accommodating Arizona’s anticipated population and economic growth. Current Performance: 86% of statewide population within 30 minutes Recommendation: Based on a review of airport access provided to the current and projected population, it was determined that no changes in airport roles appear warranted at this time. The existing system serves the state well in terms of access, especially given population concentration and the amount of underdeveloped land. The construction of new airports/closure of existing airports and demographic growth throughout the state may impact future coverage provided by the airport system. Monitoring growth and other changes is needed. Commercial Service o ! o ! o ! o ! Reliever o " General Aviation- Community General Aviation- Rural General Aviation- Basic 30 Minute Commercial Service 30 Minute Reliever 30 Minute General Aviation- Community 30 Minute General Aviation- Rural 30 Minute General Aviation- Basic Interstate Highway I Miles 0 7 50 100 GOAL CATEGORY: DEVELOPMENT Measure: Percent of airports meeting zoning and land use control goals Airport zoning and land use controls are critical to safety and the long-term viability of airports. Measures to control development near airports protect people on the ground and in the air. In addition, these measures are important to minimize the impact of aircraft noise in a community, especially during aircraft takeoffs and landings. Analysis of adoption of airport influence areas (as defined in enacted A.R.S. § 28-8485 and 8486 in 1999 and referenced as disclosure areas) and zoning ordinances related to airports (both land use and height controls) was conducted in the SASP. Current Performance: 35% of system airports have adopted airport influence areas 60% of system airports have adopted airport-compatible land use zoning Surrounding Municipalities with Airport Influence Areas 35% Airport-Compatible Controls/Zoning 60% Zoning in Part 77 Surfaces 0% 46% of system airports have adopted height zoning to meet FAA’s Part 77 regulation 46% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Recommendation: Airport influence areas, airport-compatible land use zoning and controls, and height zoning to address FAA Part 77 regulations are recommended for all of Arizona’s publicly owned and Native American owned airports. 8 GOAL CATEGORY: ECONOMIC SUPPORT Measure: Percent of population within 30 minutes of SASP airport meeting business user needs Businesses which have the propensity to use aviation must not only have reasonable access to airports, but those airports must also meet the specific needs that business aviation presents. The following five objectives are sought by businesses that typically operate aircraft: 5,000-foot long runway Instrument approach Jet fuel Terminal facilities Ground transportation With increased reliance on aviation by many businesses, it is important for Arizona’s airports to serve these needs. By enhancing airports to meet business-related objectives, Arizona’s economy is strengthened. Current Performance: 35% of airports covering 79% of statewide population Recommendation: 55% of airports covering 82% of statewide population o o Commercial Service Airport General Aviation Airport 30 Minute Drive Time of Airport that Meets Business User Needs 30 Minute Drive Time of Airport Targeted to Meet Business User Needs I Miles 0 9 50 100 GOAL CATEGORY: SAFETY AND STANDARDS Measure: Percent of airports meeting FAA safety area requirements To ensure safety is maintained at the highest levels, the FAA implemented standards for airport development. These standards relate to specific criteria for areas off of the end of runways to be kept undeveloped for protection purposes. These include runway safety areas (RSAs), which are close to the runway area, and runway protection zones (RPZs), which are off the ends of the runways and extend out to protect aircraft on approach to and departure from the runway. It should be noted that if an airport does not meet the FAA safety area requirements, it does not preclude safe airport operations. However, there may be additional steps the airport can take to comply with FAA standards. Current Performance: 59% of system airports fully meet RSA standards 60% of system airports have full control of RPZs Meets RSA Standards 59% Control of Primary Runway RPZs 60% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Recommendation: The target for the performance of RSA and RPZ compliance is for all publicly owned airports to strive to meet the FAA safety-related standards. Additional analysis of the ability of each airport to meet these standards is typically performed as part of airport planning and development. 10 GOAL CATEGORY: ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY AND STEWARDSHIP Measure: Percent of system airports that have Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) The FAA and Arizona Department of Environmental Quality require airports to meet storm water regulations set by the Environmental Protection Agency. Any facility that could potentially pollute storm water runoff is recommended to maintain a SWPPP. Arizona Total 45% Commercial Service 83% Reliever 100% GA-Community Current Performance: 45% of system airports GA-Rural Recommendation: The GA-Basic target performance for this measure is for all airports or 100 percent of the system to maintain a current SWPPP. 52% 13% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Measure: Percent of system airports supporting flight training Current Performance: 38% of system airports Recommendation: The current performance indicates that a high percentage of the state’s population has the ability to undertake flight training if they are interested and capable. This informational performance measure shows the importance of flight training at many Arizona airports. Arizona Total 22% Commercial Service 16% 42% 17% Reliever 41% 88% GA-Community GA-Rural 62% 14% 34% 52% 8% 92% 100% GA-Basic 0% 12% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Full-Time School/Instruction Part-Time School/Instruction No On-Airport Flight Instruction 11 Recommended Plan The SASP identifies many actions needed to ensure that Arizona has a system of airports to meet its needs. Most of those actions rest with individual airport sponsors and owners. It is imperative that, as airports update their individual master plans and airport layout plans, they consider the findings and recommendations of this study. Since the Arizona Department of Transportation is not the owner or the operator of airports in the state airport system, except for the Grand Canyon National Park Airport, action items identified by this plan must be implemented from the bottom up by individual airports. There are, however, other key actions identified by this study that can be pursued by ADOT to enhance the airport system’s performance. These include: Key Actions Regularly update data gathered during the SASP and integrate data into the state’s aviation database to provide current information on airport activities Airport Operational Capacity and Airspace Capacity studies to address congestion issues in major metropolitan areas Update Economic Impact Studies to assess aviation’s impact on Arizona’s economy Initiate Runway Approach Obstruction Study to ensure continued safety for aircraft operations Continue updating Pavement Management Plans to determine and meet maintenance needs Based on the recommendations of the SASP, estimates of costs that could be incurred to respond to future needs were analyzed by goal category and airport role. To meet SASP goals alone, more than $2.45 billion is needed through 2030. Summary of SASP Costs by Role 2010-2030 GA-Community $398.97 million 16% GA-Rural $156.35 million 6% GA-Basic $10.49 million <1% Reliever $591.96 million 24% Commercial Service $1,294.17 million 54% Summary of SASP Costs by Goal Category 2010-2030 Environmental Safety & Sensitivity & Standards Stewardship $2.6 million $152.3 million Development 6% <1% $444.7 million 18% Facility and Service Objectives $648.0 million 26% Pavement $1,203.8 million 50% Total SASP Needs: $2.45 billion Economic Support $1,851.8 million 76% 12 The SASP estimated total needs to meet the goals of the study, but also considered individual airport development plans that are above and beyond SASP goals. When all of these airport needs are considered it is likely that the 20-year funding needs for all commercial and general aviation airports could approach $10 billion. This translates to an average annual funding need of at least $486 million for each of the next 20 years. Adequate funding is essential to the success of this plan. SASP Needs 2010-2030 $2.45 billion Additional State Airport Needs 2010-2030 $7.27 billion Total State Airport Needs: $9.72 billion One of the most critical policy issues facing airports is the loss of funding dedicated to aviation. Between 1998 and 2004, the State Aviation Fund lost over $40 million in revenue due to legislative mandate. In fiscal years 2008 and 2009, an additional $42 million was diverted from the State Aviation Fund to the General Fund. The loss of more than $82 million has negatively impacted the ability of Arizona’s airports to meet development needs, make safety improvements, and complete other enhancements. In addition to funding needs, in order to support the recommendations in this study changes to current policy and/or legislation may be required. This study’s analysis recommends changes to the following policies/ legislation: • Grand Canyon National Park Airport funding through State Aviation Fund • Additional aviation legislation to address compatible land use planning • Eligibility of Native American owned airports for State Aviation Fund grants 13 Summary The SASP provides an outlook of the state’s aviation needs through 2030. The system planning process was developed to ensure that ADOT remains responsive to air transportation needs by identifying roles and characteristics for existing and new airports. As airports in Arizona continue to evolve to respond to changes in the communities they serve and aviation industry trends, the performance measures established in this plan can serve as a general guide and frame of reference for balanced development. More detailed design, planning, and environmental analysis for airports will be accomplished as part of individual master plans. All airport projects will be required to meet eligibility and justification guidelines before being eligible for funding. Airports are economic catalysts. Investment is necessary for airports to continue to meet the needs of residents, visitors, and businesses throughout the state and the world. The reliance on aviation by a wide range of businesses from banks to restaurants, flower shops to hospitals, and hotels and attractions shows the importance of accommodating business needs and tourism throughout Arizona. According to a 2004 study, Arizona’s airports support over 470,000 jobs that have an annual payroll estimated at $14.7 billion. Total annual economic activity or output associated with Arizona’s airports is estimated at $38.5 billion. An annual investment of $486 million in federal, state, and local funds for improvements to a system that generates $38.5 billion in annual economic benefit is an incredible value. It is critical that Arizona’s airports continue to serve their role in Moving, Connecting, and Supporting the state. 14 Arizona Department of Transportation Multimodal Planning Division Aeronautics Group 206 S. 17th Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85007 602.712.8223 www.azdot.gov/aviation Prepared by: Wilbur Smith Associates 1475 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 480 Scottsdale, Arizona 85257 480.477.8651 www.wilbursmith.com 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – GLOSSARY AND BIBLIOGRAPHY GLOSSARY OF TERMS ABBREVIATIONS A&P AAAE AC ACA ACC ACI ACIP ADEQ ADG ADOT ADRE AEP AGL AIP AIR-21 ALP ALRIS ALS ALSF-1 AMSL AOPA APA APMS APPP APV ARC ARCA ARFF ARS ARTCC ASCET ASAC ASOS ASM ASM ASU ASV ATC ATCT ATIS AvGas AWOS AzAA - Aircraft & Powerplant American Association of Airport Executives Advisory Circular Governor’s Advisory Council on Aviation Airport Consultants Council Airports Council International Airport Capital Improvement Program Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Airplane Design Group Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Department of Real Estate Airport Emergency Plan Above Ground Level Airport Improvement Program Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century Airport Layout Plan Arizona Land Resource Information System Approach Lighting System Approach Light System with Sequence Flasher Lights Above mean sea level Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Arizona Pilots Association Airport Pavement Management System Arizona Pavement Preservation Program Approach Procedures with Vertical Guidance Airport Reference Code Arizona Rural Consortium of Airports Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting Arizona Revised Statutes Air Route Traffic Control Center Airport Small Community Economic Development & Transportation Program Aviation Advisory Committee Automated Surface Observation System Airports System Manager Database Available Seat Miles Arizona State University Annual Service Volume Air Traffic Control Air Traffic Control Tower Automated Terminal Information System Aviation Gasoline Automatic Weather Observation System Arizona Airports Association BLM - Bureau of Land Management 1 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – GLOSSARY AND BIBLIOGRAPHY CAASD CAGR CASPP CIP CM CTAF - Center for Advanced Aviation Development Compound Average Growth Rate Continuous Airport System Planning Process Capital Improvement Program Commercial Service Airport Common Traffic Advisory Frequency DME DNL DHS DOT DW - Distance Measuring Equipment Day-Night Sound Levels Department of Homeland Security Department of Transportation Dual Wheel EA EAA EAS EIS EMS EPA - Environmental Assessment Experimental Aircraft Association Essential Air Service Environmental Impact Statement Emergency Medical Services The United States Environmental Protection Agency FAA FAR FBI FBO FMS FSS FY - Federal Aviation Administration Federal Aviation Regulation Federal Bureau of Investigation Fixed Base Operator Flight Management System Flight Service Station Fiscal Year GA GAMA GACA GBAS GIS GPS GS - General Aviation General Aviation Manufacturers Association Governor’s Advisory Council on Aviation Ground Based Approach Systems Geographic Information Systems Global Positioning System Glide Slope HAI HAT HIRL HITL - Helicopter Association International Height Above Threshold High Intensity Runway Lights High Intensity Taxiway Lights ICAO IDS IFR ILS IMC INM IR - International Civil Aviation Organization Intrusion Detection System Instrument Flight Rules Instrument Landing System Instrument Meteorological Conditions Integrated Noise Model IFR Military Training Routes LAAS - Local Area Augmentation System 2 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – GLOSSARY AND BIBLIOGRAPHY LAWRS LCC LEO LIRL LLWAS LNAV LOC LPV LTL - Limited Aviation Weather Reporting Station Low-Cost Carrier Law Enforcement Officer Low Intensity Runway Lights Low Level Wind Shear Alert System Lateral Navigation Localizer Beam Localizer Performance with Vertical guidance Less-Than-Truckload MAG MALS MALSF MALSR MCAS MDA MIRL MITL MOA MoGas MSL - Maricopa Association of Governments Medium Intensity Approach Light System Medium Intensity Approach Light System with Sequence Flashing Lights Medium Intensity Approach Light System with Runway Alignment Indicators Marine Corp Air Station Minimum Descent Altitude Medium Intensity Runway Lights Medium Intensity Taxiway Lights Military Operations Area Motor Gasoline Mean Sea Level NADIN NAFTA NAICS NAS NASAO NATA NAVAID NBAA NDB NEPA NOTAM NPA NPI NPIAS NTSB - National Airspace Data Interchange Network North American Free Trade Agreement North American Industry Classification System National Airspace System National Association of State Aviation Officials National Air Transportation Association Navigational Aid National Business Aircraft Association Non-Directional Beacon National Environmental Policy Act Notice to Airmen Non-Precision Approach Non-Precision Instrument Approach National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems National Transportation Safety Board O&D OAG ODALS OFA OFZ OPBA - Origination/Destination Official Airline Guide Omni-Directional Approach Lighting System Object Free Area Obstacle Free Zone Operations Per Based Aircraft PAC PAG PAPI PCI PFC PIR - Project Advisory Committee Pima Association of Governments Precision Approach Path Indicator Pavement Condition Index Passenger Facility Charge Precision Instrument Runway 3 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – GLOSSARY AND BIBLIOGRAPHY PR - Primary Service Airport RASP RCO REIL RL RNAV RNP ROI RPM RSA RPZ RTM RW - Regional Airport System Plan Remote Communications Outlet Runway End Identifier Lights Reliever Airport Area Navigation Required Navigation Performance Return on Investment Revenue Passenger Miles Runway Safety Area Runway Protection Zone Revenue Ton Miles Runway SANS 2000 - State Aviation Needs Study 2000 SASP State Airports System Plan SBAS Satellite Based Approach Systems SCASDP Small Community Air Service Development Program STB State Transportation Board SW Single Wheel SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan TACAN TAF TDWR TRACON TSA TSAAC TW - Tactical Air Navigation Terminal Area Forecasts Terminal Doppler Weather Radar Terminal Radar Approach Control Transportation Security Administration TSA Access Certificate Taxiway UA UAV UNICOM USDOT USPA USPS - University of Arizona Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Universal Integrated Communication United States Department of Transportation United States Parachute Association United States Postal Service VASI VFR VGSI VHF VLJ VNAV VR VOR VORTAC - Visual Approach Slope Indicator Visual Flight Rules Visual Glide Slope Indicator Very High Frequency Very Light Jet Vertical Navigation VFR Military Training Routes Very High Frequency Omni-Directional Range Navigation System Very High Frequency Omni-Directional Range/Tactical Air Navigation WAAS - Wide Area Augmentation System 4 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – GLOSSARY AND BIBLIOGRAPHY DEFINITIONS Ad-Hoc/On-Demand Carriers – Unscheduled charter flights carrying freight or mail. Advisory Circular (AC) – A series of FAA publications providing guidance and standards for the design, operation, and performance of aircraft and airport facilities. Aeronautics Division (ADOT Aeronautics) – Division of ADOT that promotes aviation in the state, licenses aircraft dealers, assists in the development of public airport projects, and manages Grand Canyon National Park Airport. Air Cargo – Commercial freight (including packages and mail) transported by passenger and all-cargo airliners. Air Carrier – A commercial airline with published schedules operating at least five round trips per week. Certified in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Parts 121 and 127. Air Freight – Items principally transported by all-freight carriers and as belly freight on scheduled passenger services, including heavy-weight items as well as routine palletized shipments. Air Mail – Items carried as belly freight on some commercial carriers and carried as freight by freight forwards (i.e. FedEx) under contract with the US Postal Service (USPS). Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) – An FAA facility established to provide air traffic control service to aircraft operating on Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flight plans within controlled airspace during the en route portion of flight. Air Taxi – An aircraft operator who conducts operations for hire or compensation in accordance with FAR Part 135 in an aircraft with 30 or fewer passenger seats and a payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or less. An air taxi operates on an on-demand basis and does not meet the “scheduled-flight" qualifications of a commuter. Air Traffic Control (ATC) – A service operated by the appropriate authority to promote the safe, orderly, and expeditious flow of air traffic. The ATC system includes ARTCCs, Towers, airport ground radar and other elements such as navigational aids to pilots. Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) – The airport traffic control facility located on an airport that is responsible for traffic separation within the immediate vicinity of the airport and on the surface of the airport. Aircraft Approach Category – An element of the ARC. A grouping of airplanes based on wingspan, per the following: Category A Speed less than 91 knots Category B Speed 91 knots or more, but less than 121 knots Category C Speed 121 knots or more, but less than 141 knots Category D - Speed 141 knots or more, but less than 166 knots Category E Speed 166 knots or more. Aircraft Mix – The classification of aircraft into groups which are similar in size and operational characteristics. 5 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – GLOSSARY AND BIBLIOGRAPHY Aircraft Operations − Airborne movements of aircraft at an airport including aircraft landings (arrivals) at and takeoffs (departures). These operations can be further defined by the following: − Local Operations include those performed by aircraft that operate in the local traffic pattern or within sight of the airport; and/or are known to be departing for or arriving from a local practice area. − Itinerant Operations are all others. Airplane Design Group (ADG) – An element of the ARC. A grouping of airplanes based on wingspan, per the following: Group I Up to, but not including 49 feet Group II 49 feet up to, but not including, 79 feet Group III 79 feet up to, but not including, 118 feet Group IV 118 feet up to, but not including, 171 feet Group V 171 feet up to, but not including, 214 feet Group IV 214 feet up to, but not including, 262 feet Airport Capital Improvement Program (ACIP) – The ACIP serves as the primary planning tool for systematically identifying, prioritizing and assigning funds to critical airport development and associated capital needs of an airport. The FAA relies on the ACIP to serve as the basis for the distribution of limited grant funds under the Airport Improvement Program. Airport Elevation − The highest point on an airport’s usable runways, expressed in feet above mean sea level (MSL). Airport Improvement Program (AIP) – A congressionally mandated program through which FAA provides funding assistance for the development and enhancement of airport facilities. AIP is periodically reauthorized by Congress through appropriations from the Aviation Trust Fund, which is funded through excise taxes on airline tickets, aviation fuel, etc. Airport Layout Plan (ALP) – A scaled drawing of existing and proposed land and facilities necessary for the operation and development of the airport. The ALP shows boundaries and proposed additions to all areas owned or controlled by the airport operator for airport purposes, the location and nature of existing and proposed airport facilities and structures, as well as the location of existing and proposed non-aviation areas and improvements on the airport. Airport Master Plan – A standard planning document that presents a concept of the ultimate development of an airport, including the research and logic from which the plan was evolved, as well as the plan in graphic and written formats. An airport master plan is normally presented to the FAA for approval and would typically also be approved and adopted by the airport sponsor. Airport Pavement Management Program (APMP) – program in Arizona that helps preserve airport infrastructure, protects the initial investment used to fund critical aircraft pavement projects and extends to the maximum amount the useful life of the airport system's pavement. 6 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – GLOSSARY AND BIBLIOGRAPHY Airport Reference Code (ARC) – An FAA design criteria based upon the approach speed (aircraft approach category) and wing span (airplane design group) of an aircraft which produces a minimum annual 500 operations per year at an airport. Airport Sponsor – A public agency that is authorized to own and operate an airport, to obtain property interests, to obtain funds, and to be legally, financially, and otherwise able to meet all applicable requirements of current laws and regulations. Airside – The portion of the airport meant for taxiing, takeoff, landing, parking, loading and unloading, or any other aircraft operation, including the aircraft parking aprons, taxiways, runways, and safety areas. Airspace – The area above the ground in which aircraft travel. It is divided into corridors, routes and restricted zones for the control and safety of aircraft operations. All-Cargo Carrier - An air carrier certificated in accordance with FAR Part 121 to provide scheduled air freight, express, and mail transportation over specific routes, as well as the conduct of nonscheduled operations that may include passengers. Annual Service Volume (ASV) – An FAA planning tool that reflects the ability of airfield facilities (i.e. runways, taxiways, and approach aids) to accommodate aviation demand that includes commercial, general aviation, and military operations. It accounts for differences in runway use, aircraft mix, weather conditions, etc. that would encountered over a year’s time. Approach End of Runway – The near end of the runway as viewed from the cockpit of a landing aircraft. Approach Lighting System (ALS) – An ALS is a lighting system installed on the approach end of an airport runway and consists of a series of light bars, strobe lights, or a combination of the two that extends outward from the runway end. ALS usually serves a runway that has an instrument approach procedure associated with it and allows the pilot to visually identify the runway environment once he or she has arrived at a prescribed point on an approach. Approach Minimums – The altitude below which an aircraft may not descend while on an IFR approach unless the pilot has the runway in sight. Approach Surface – An FAR Part 77 imaginary surface longitudinally centered on the extended runway centerline and extending outward and upward from each end of the primary surface. Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) – Arizona state government agency charged with managing the state's highway system, public transportation, overseeing the aviation transportation system, and managing the Grand Canyon National Park Airport. Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) – document that provides the governing framework for the laws by which citizens are expected to obey and live by. Title 28 – Chapter 25 establishes the guidance and requirements for the Aeronautics Division and the Director of Aviation to follow in order to encourage and advance the safe and orderly development of aviation in the state. 7 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – GLOSSARY AND BIBLIOGRAPHY Assurance – An assurance (or grant assurance) is a provision contained in a Federal grant agreement to which the recipient of AIP funding has voluntarily agreed to comply with in consideration of the funding provided. Automated Surface Observation System (ASOS) – The primary surface weather observing system in the U.S. that supports aviation operations and weather forecasting. An ASOS has automated sensors that record wind direction and speed, visibility, cloud ceiling, precipitation, etc and sends that data automatically to the National Weather Service. At many locations, a computer-generated voice broadcasts the minute-by-minute weather reports to pilots on a discrete radio frequency. Automated Terminal Information Service (ATIS) – The continuous broadcast of recorded noncontrol information at towered airports. Information typically includes wind speed, direction, and runway in use. Automated Weather Observing System (AWOS) – An automated weather reporting system that provides airport weather observations (i.e. cloud height, visibility, wind speed and direction, temperature, dew point, etc.) to pilots on a discrete radio frequency via a computer-generated voice. Less sophisticated than ASOS, it is oftentimes installed using state or local funding. Available Seat Miles (ASMs) – A measure of airline capacity, equal to the number of seats available multiplied by the number of miles flown. Avigation Easement – A form of limited property right purchase that establishes legal landuse control prohibiting incompatible development of areas required for airports and aviationrelated purposes. Based Aircraft – An aircraft that is “operational & air worthy,” which is based at an airport for the majority of the year. Belly Cargo – Freight which is carried in the hold of a commercial passenger aircraft below the main passenger deck. Breakeven Load Factor – The number of seats airlines have to sell to cover operating expenses. Capacity – A measure of the maximum number of aircraft operations that can be accommodated by an airport’s airfield over a designated time period (i.e. hour or year). Capital Improvement Program (CIP) – A schedule of planned projects and costs for an airport typically prepared and adopted by the airport sponsor and other public agencies. Ceiling – The height above the ground of the base of the lowest layer of clouds or obscuring phenomena aloft that is reported as broken or overcast and not classified as scattered, thin, or partial. Ceiling figures in aviation weather reports may be determined as measured, estimated, or indefinite. Charter – A nonscheduled flight offered by either a supplemental or certificated air carrier. 8 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – GLOSSARY AND BIBLIOGRAPHY Circling Approach – An instrument approach procedure in which an aircraft executes the published instrument approach to one runway, then maneuvers visually to land on a different runway. Circling approaches are also used at airports that have published instrument approaches with a final approach course that is not aligned within 30 degrees of any runway. Commercial Air Carrier – An air carrier certified in accordance with FAR Parts 121 or 127 to conduct scheduled services on specified routes. These air carriers may also provide nonscheduled or charter services as a secondary operation. Commercial Service Airports – Publicly owned airports that enplane 2,500 or more passengers annually and receive scheduled passenger aircraft service. It is a NPIAS classification. Commercial service airports are either one of the following: − Primary - airport that enplanes more than 10,000 passengers annually − Nonprimary - airport that enplanes between 2,500 and 10,000 passengers annually. Commuter Air Carrier – An air carrier certified in accordance with FAR Part 135 that operates aircraft seating with a maximum of 60 passengers and provides at lease five scheduled round trips per week between two or more points, or carries mail. Controlled Airspace − Airspace of defined dimensions within which air traffic control service is provided to IFR flights and to VFR flights in accordance with the airspace classification. Controlled airspace is designated as Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E. Aircraft operators are subject to certain pilot qualifications, operating rules, and equipment requirements as specified in FAR Part 91, depending upon the class of airspace in which they are operating. − CLASS A - Airspace between 18,000 and 60,000 feet MSL over the conterminous United States. IFR clearances are required for all aircraft operating in CLASS A airspace. − CLASS B - Airspace area around the busiest U.S. hub airports, typically to a radius of 20 nautical miles and up to 10,000 feet above ground level. Operations within CLASS B airspace require an ATC clearance and at least a Private pilot certificate (local waivers available), radio communication, and an altitude-reporting (Mode C) transponder. − CLASS C - Airspace area around busy U.S. airports (other than CLASS B). Radio contact with approach control is mandatory for all traffic. Typically includes an area from the surface to 1,200 feet AGL out to 5 miles and from 1,200 to 4,000 feet AGL to 10 miles from the airport. − CLASS D - Airspace around an airport with an operating control tower; typically to a radius of 5 miles from the surface to 2,500 feet AGL. Radio contact with the control tower required prior to entry. − CLASS E - General controlled airspace comprising control areas, transition areas, Victor airways, the Continental Control Area, etc. − CLASS F - International airspace designation not used in the U.S. − CLASS G - Uncontrolled airspace, generally the airspace from the surface up to 700 or 1,200 feet AGL in most of the U.S., but up to as high as 14,500 feet in some remote Western and sparsely populated areas. Crack Spread – the difference between crude and jet fuel cost per barrel. Decision Height (DH) – During a precision approach, the height (or altitude) at which a decision must be made to either continue the approach or execute a missed approach. 9 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – GLOSSARY AND BIBLIOGRAPHY Demand – Level of activity that needs to be accommodated. Demand Management – The art or science of controlling demand as a strategy to avoid congestion. Design Aircraft – An aircraft whose dimensions and/or other operational requirements make it the most demanding aircraft currently using an airport’s facilities (i.e. runways and taxiways). The design aircraft must be an aircraft that has or is expected to conduct 500 or more annual operations (250 landings) at a given airport, and is used as the basis for airport planning and design at that airport. Displaced Threshold − A threshold that is located at a point on the runway other than the designated beginning of the runway, often for the purpose of avoiding obstructions on approach. The portion of pavement behind a displaced threshold may be available for takeoffs in both directions and landings from the opposite direction. Distance measuring equipment (DME) − A flight instrument that measures the line-of-sight distance of an aircraft from a navigational radio station in nautical miles. Easement – The legal right of one party to use a portion of the total rights in real estate owned by another party. This may include the right of passage over, on, or below the property; certain air rights above the property, including view rights; and the rights to any specified form of development or activity, as well as any other legal rights in the property that may be specified in the easement document. Enplanements - The total number of revenue passengers boarding aircraft, including originating, stop-over, and transfer passengers, in scheduled and non-scheduled services. Enroute System – That part of the National Airspace System where aircraft are operating between origin and destination airports. Entitlement Funds – Federal aid funds (see AIP) apportioned to each airport for authorized and approved projects, based on a statutory formula that takes into account the airport's passenger enplanements and cargo. Environmental Assessment (EA) – A concise document that assesses the environmental impacts of a proposed Federal Action. It discusses the purpose and need for the proposed action and alternatives, as well as their environmental impacts. An environmental assessment should provide sufficient evidence and analysis for a Federal determination whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Public participation and consultation with other Federal, state, and local agencies is a cornerstone of the EA process. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) – An EIS is a document that provides a discussion of the significant environmental impacts which would occur as a result of a proposed project, and informs decision-makers and the public of the reasonable alternatives which would avoid or minimize adverse impacts. Public participation and consultation with other Federal, state, and local agencies is a cornerstone of the EIS process. 10 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – GLOSSARY AND BIBLIOGRAPHY Essential Air Service (EAS) – Program administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation is designed to ensure that selected small communities that were served by one or more air carriers prior to airline deregulation would retain a minimum level of scheduled airline service, even if such service requires the payment of subsidy. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) – A branch of the U.S. Department of Transportation responsible insuring the safe and efficient use of the nation’s airspace, for fostering civil aeronautics and air commerce, and for supporting the requirements of national defense. In addition to regulating airports, aircraft manufacturing and parts certification, aircraft operation and pilot certification, the FAA operates Air Traffic Control, purchases and maintains navigation equipment, certifies airports and aids airport development, among other activities. The FAA also administers the AIP that provides for airport development. Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) – The body of Federal regulations relating to aviation, published as Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Final Approach – The flight path of an aircraft which is inbound to the airport on an approved final instrument approach course, beginning at the point of interception of that course and extending to the airport or the point where circling for landing or missed approach is executed. Fixed Base Operator (FBO) – Any aviation business duly licensed and authorized by written agreement with the airport owner to provide aeronautical activities at the airport under strict compliance with such agreement and pursuant to these regulations and standards. Typically provide services such as hangar space, fuel, flight training, repair, and maintenance to general aviation airport users. Fixed Wing – Any aircraft not considered to be a rotorcraft. Flight Service Station (FSS) – Air traffic facility operated by the FAA to provide flight service assistance such as pilot briefings, en route communications, search and rescue assistance and weather information. Fractional Ownership – An aircraft ownership concept whereby multiple companies can partially own an aircraft through use of a common aircraft management company used to maintain the aircraft and administer the leasing of the aircraft among the owners. The aircraft owners participating in the program agree not only to share their aircraft with others having an ownership interest in that aircraft, but also to lease their aircraft to other owners in the program. Freight Forwarder – A company that accepts small packages from shippers and consolidates them into container loads. These loads are then transferred to the non-integrated carrier or a passenger airline to deliver to an agent or subsidiary at another airport. General Aviation (GA) – All civil aviation operations other than scheduled air services and non-scheduled air transport operations for remunerations or hire. Often misunderstood to be only small, propeller-driven aircraft; even a large jet or cargo plane operated under FAR Part 91 can be a general aviation aircraft. General Aviation Airports – Those airports not classified as commercial service. 11 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – GLOSSARY AND BIBLIOGRAPHY Glider – An aircraft that does not use an engine, but flies by floating on air currents. Gliders or sailplanes are heavier-than-air aircraft primarily intended for unpowered flight. Glideslope (GS) – Provides vertical guidance for aircraft during approach and landing. Generally a 3-degree angle of approach to a runway established by means of airborne instruments during instrument approaches, or visual ground aids for the visual portion of an instrument approach and landing. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) − An information system that is designed for storing, integrating, manipulating, analyzing, and displaying data referenced by spatial or geographic coordinates. Global Positioning System (GPS) − Satellite-based navigation system operated by Department of Defense, providing extremely accurate position, time, and speed information to civilian and military users. Based on a "constellation" of 24 satellites, GPS will replace ground-based navigation systems (VOR, ILS) as the primary worldwide air navigation system in the 21st Century. Hazard to Air Navigation – An object which, as a result of an aeronautical study, the FAA determines will have a substantial adverse effect upon the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft, operation of air navigation facilities, or existing or potential airport capacity. Instrument Approach − A series of predetermined maneuvers for the orderly transfer of an aircraft under instrument flight conditions from the beginning of the initial approach to a landing, or to a point from which a landing may be made visually. Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) − Rules from Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 91) that govern the procedures for conducting instrument flight. Pilots are required to follow these rules when operating in controlled airspace during Instrument Meteorological Conditions (i.e. visibility of less than three miles and/or ceiling lower than 1,000 ft). These procedures may also be used under visual conditions and provide for positive control by ATC. Instrument Landing System (ILS) – ILS is designed to provide an exact approach path for alignment and descent of aircraft. Generally consist of a localizer, glide slope, outer marker, middle marker, and approach lights. There are three types of ILS: − Cat I – Category I ILS which provides for approach to a height above touchdown of not less than 200 feet and with visibility of not less than ½ mile or a Runway Visual Range of not less than 2400 (RVR 1800 with operative touchdown zone and runway centerline lights). − Cat II – Category II ILS approach procedure which provides for approach to a height above touchdown of not less than 100 feet and with a Runway Visual Range of not less than 1200. − Cat III – Category III ILS approach procedure which provides for approaches to minima less than CAT II. Instrument Runway – A runway equipped with electronic and visual navigation aids for which a precision or non-precision approach procedure having straight-in landing minimums has been approved. 12 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – GLOSSARY AND BIBLIOGRAPHY Integrated Express Carrier − Operators move the customer’s goods door-to-door, providing shipment collection, transport via air or truck, and delivery. Integrated express operators include FedEx Express, UPS, and DHL. Integrated Noise Model (INM) − A computer model developed, updated and maintained by the FAA to predict the noise exposure generated by aircraft operations at an airport. Itinerant Operation – All aircraft operations at an airport other than local. Joint Use Airport - Airport with existing formal written joint use agreement between the military and the local civilian sponsor. Land Use Compatibility – The ability of land uses surrounding the airport to coexist with airport-related activities with minimum conflict. Landside – The general public common use areas of the airport such as terminals, public roadways, parking lots and buildings which are not contained in the airside area. Large Airplane – An airplane of more than 12,500 pounds (5,700 kg) maximum certificated takeoff weight (MTOW). Leakage – Refers to passengers that travel outside their market area to access airline services. Load Factor –The ratio of how much of an airline’s carrying capacity is used, calculated using the ratio of revenue passenger miles to available seat miles on a particular flight. Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) – An enhancement of the Global Positioning System (GPS) providing greater navigation accuracy and system integrity for civilian operations. Local Operation – Includes aircraft operating in the local air traffic pattern or within sight of the air traffic control tower; aircraft that are known to be departing for, or arriving from local practice areas located within a 25-mile radius of the ATCT; or aircraft making simulated instrument approaches or low passes at the airport. Localizer – The component of an ILS which provides course guidance to the runway. Mean Sea Level (MSL) – The average height of the surface of the sea for all stages of the tide over a 19 year period; used as a reference for elevations. Military Operations Area (MOA) – Depicted on navigational charts, MOAs are airspace in which military flight operations (training and practice combat) are conducted. They may be transited by VFR civilian traffic, but special vigilance is recommended. Minimum Standards – The qualifications or criteria established by an airport sponsor as the minimum requirements to be met by businesses engaged in on-airport aeronautical uses as a condition for the right to conduct those activities. MOgas – The everyday gasoline used in cars. Motor gasoline, MOgas, distinguishes automobile fuel from aviation gasoline or AVgas. 13 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – GLOSSARY AND BIBLIOGRAPHY National Airspace System (NAS) – The common network of U.S. airspace, includes air navigation facilities, equipment and services, airports or landing areas; aeronautical charts, information and services; rules, regulations and procedures, technical information, manpower and material. National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) – FAA planning document that identifies more than 3,300 airports that are significant to national air transportation and thus eligible to receive Federal grants under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). It also includes estimates of the amount of AIP money needed to fund infrastructure development projects that will bring these airports up to current design standards and add capacity to congested airports. FAA is required to provide Congress with a 5-year estimate of AIP eligible development every 2 years. The NPIAS comprises all commercial service airports, all reliever airports, and selected general aviation airports. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) – The independent federal agency charged with investigating and finding "probable cause" of transportation accidents. Navigational Aids (NAVAIDs) − A term used to describe any electrical or visual air navigational aids, lights, signs, and associated supporting equipment (i.e. PAPI, VASI, ILS, etc.). Noise Abatement − A measure or action that minimizes the amount of impact of noise on the environs of an airport. Noise abatement measures include aircraft operating procedures and use or disuse of certain runways or flight tracks. Noise Contour Map − A map representing average annual noise levels summarized by lines connecting points of equal noise exposure. Non-Directional Beacon (NDB) − A radio beacon transmitting nondirectional signals whereby the pilot of an aircraft equipped with direction finding equipment can determine his bearing to and from the station. When the radio beacon is installed in conjunction with the ILS marker, it is normally called a compass locator. Non-Precision Approach Procedure – A standard instrument approach procedure with only horizontal guidance or area-type navigational guidance for straight-in approaches, and no electronic vertical guidance (i.e. glideslope) is provided, such as VOR, TACAN, NDB, or LOC. Non-Towered Airport – An airport without a control tower, which encompasses the majority of America's 13,000 airports (only approximately 680 airports have control towers). Note that Non-Towered airports are far from being "uncontrolled" in that pilots follow traffic pattern procedures and self-announce positions and intentions using the Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF), usually called the UNICOM frequency. Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) – A notice containing information concerning the establishment, condition or change in any aeronautical facility, service, procedure or hazard, the timely knowledge of which is essential to personnel concerned with flight operations. NOTAMs are distributed via two methods: telecommunications (Class I) and/or postal services (Class 11). Object Free Area (OFA) – An area on the ground centered on a runway, taxiway, or taxilane centerline provided to enhance the safety of aircraft operations by having the area free of objects, except for objects that need to be located in the OFA for air navigation or aircraft ground maneuvering purposes. 14 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – GLOSSARY AND BIBLIOGRAPHY Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) – The OFZ is the airspace below 150 feet above the established airport elevation and along the runway and extended runway centerline that is required to be clear of all objects, except for frangible visual NAVAIDs that need to be located in the OFZ because of their function, in order to provide clearance protection for aircraft landing or taking off from the runway, and for missed approaches. The OFZ is sub-divided as follows: − Runway OFZ - The airspace above a surface centered on the runway centerline. − Inner-approach OFZ - The airspace above a surface centered on the extended runway centerline. It applies to runways with an approach lighting system. − Inner-transitional OFZ - The airspace above the surfaces located on the outer edges of the runway OFZ and the inner-approach OFZ. It applies to runways with approach visibility minimums lower than ¾ statute mile. Obstruction to Air Navigation – An object of greater height than any of the heights or surfaces presented in Subpart C of Code of Federal Regulation (14 CFR), Part 77. Obstructions to air navigation are presumed to be hazards to air navigation until an FAA study has determined otherwise. Operation – A take-off or landing of an aircraft. Every aircraft flight requires at least two operations, a take-off and landing. Origination/Destination (O&D) – A measure of the point of origination of a passenger to the final destination that comprises that passenger’s actual trip, regardless of changing flights/planes during the journey. Outer Marker – An ILS navigation facility in the terminal area navigation system located four to seven miles from the runways edge on the extended centerline indicating the beginning of final approach. Overflight – Aircraft whose flights originate or terminate outside the metropolitan area that transit the airspace without landing. Part 61, 141, 142 – The parts of FARs covering pilot certification and flight school operations: the pilot certification and standard flight school (Part 61), the integrated curriculum type school (Part 141) requiring slightly fewer flying hours, and Part 142 program allowing replacement of more flight time with advanced flight simulators. Part 77 – The part of Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) covering objects affecting navigable airspace. It provides for the establishment of “imaginary surfaces” on and around an airport to identify potential aeronautical hazards in order to prevent or minimize the adverse impacts to the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace. Imaginary surfaces include the primary surface, approach surfaces, transitional surfaces, the horizontal surface, and the conical surface. Part 91, 121, 125, 135 – The parts of Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) covering noncommercial operations (Part 91), major scheduled air carriers (Part 121), commuters (Part 125), non-scheduled carriers and air taxis (Part 135). Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs) – Airport user fees regulated under 14 C.F.R. Part 158. 15 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – GLOSSARY AND BIBLIOGRAPHY Pavement Condition Index (PCI) – Numerical index between 0 and 100 used to indicate the condition of a selected portion of pavement with 100 representing excellent pavement. Peak Hour – Part of the day with the busiest traffic. Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) – Provides visual approach slope guidance to aircraft during an approach. It is similar to a VASI but provides a sharper transition between the colored indicator lights. Precision Approach Procedure – A standard instrument approach procedure in which an electronic glide slope is provided, such as an ILS. GPS precision approaches may be operational in the future. Prohibited Area – An airspace area where flight is prohibited except by prior arrangement with the controlling agency. An example is the P-56 area over downtown Washington, D.C., prohibiting flight over the White House. Public Use Airport – An airport open to public use without prior permission, and without restrictions within the physical capabilities of the facility. It may or may not be publicly owned. Priority Rating System – A rating system utilized to numerically score individual airport development projects requested by system eligible airports. This numerical rating system is designed to assist the Aeronautics Division in recommending the allocation of funds to the highest priority airport development projects within the statewide airport system. Private-Use Airport – Typically, a privately-owned airport not open to the public or operated for the public benefit. Reliever Airport – A public use airport that relieves airport congestion at a commercial service airport and provides general aviation access to the overall community. It is a NPIAS classification. Remote Communications Outlet (RCO) – An unstaffed transmitter receiver/facility remotely controlled by air traffic personnel. RCOs serve flight service stations (FSSs). RCOs were established to provide ground-to-ground communications between air traffic control specialists and pilots at satellite airports for delivering enroute clearances, issuing departure authorizations, and acknowledging instrument flight rules cancellations or departure/landing times. Restricted Area – Airspace which (when "Active" or "Hot") usually excludes civilian aircraft, oftentimes for military training/operations (i.e. rocket flights, practice air-to-air combat or ground-based artillery practice). Temporary restricted areas are established for events such as forest fires, natural disasters or major news stories. Flight through a restricted area may be authorized by the "controlling agency" or by FAA. Revenue Passenger Miles (RPMs) – One fare-paying passenger carried one mile. Revenue Ton Miles (RTMs) – One ton of cargo carried one mile. Rotocraft – A heavier-than-air aircraft that depends principally for its support in flight on the lift generated by one or more rotors. Includes helicopters and gyroplanes. 16 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – GLOSSARY AND BIBLIOGRAPHY Rules and Regulations – Directions approved and enforced by an airport sponsor to protect public health, safety, interest, and welfare on the airport, as well as to augment any ordinances and resolutions pertaining to the airport. Runway (RW) – A defined rectangular surface on an airport prepared or suitable for the landing or takeoff of airplanes. Runway End Identifier Lights (REIL) – Two synchronized flashing lights (one on each side of the runway threshold) that identify the approach end of the runway. Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) – An area off the runway end to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground. The RPZ is a trapezoidal shape. Its dimensions are determined by the aircraft approach speed and runway approach type and minima. Runway Safety Area (RSA) – A defined surface surrounding the runway prepared or suitable for reducing the risk of damage to airplanes in the event of an undershoot, overshoot, or excursion from the runway. Segmented Circle – A system of visual indicators designed to provide traffic pattern information at airports without operating control towers. Small Airplane – An airplane of 12,500 pounds or less maximum certificated takeoff weight. Special Use Airspace – All airspace in which restrictions or prohibitions to flight are imposed for military or government needs (See MOA, Restricted Area, Prohibited Area). State Aviation Fund – A separately established program for airport construction and development is that derives funds from taxes on aviation goods and services. Flight property taxes, aircraft lieu tax, registration fees and aviation fuel tax are the primary sources of revenue for the State Aviation Fund. State Transportation Board (STB) – has policy powers and duties in addition to serving in an advisory capacity to the Director of the Arizona Department of Transportation. The Board awards contracts and monitors the status of c projects and has the exclusive authority to issue revenue bonds for financing needed transportation improvements throughout the state. Super Unicom – FAA certified for altimeter settings and other weather data required for instrument approach implementation. T-Hangar – An aircraft hangar in which aircraft are parked alternatively tail to tail, each in the T-shaped space left by the other row of aircraft or aircraft compartments. Tactical Area Navigation (TACAN) – the military equivalent of the VOR/DME system, and provides both distance and direction guidance. Taxilane (TL) – The portion of the aircraft parking area used for access between taxiways and aircraft parking positions. 17 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – GLOSSARY AND BIBLIOGRAPHY Taxiway (TW) – A defined path established for the taxiing of aircraft from one part of an airport to another. Terminal Area Capacity – The ability of an airport terminal area to accommodate aircraft, passengers, and cargo. Individual elements within terminal areas that comprise the overall terminal capacity typically include airline gate positions, airline apron areas, cargo apron areas, general aviation apron areas, airline passenger terminals, general aviation terminals, cargo buildings, automobile parking and aircraft maintenance facilities, among others. Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) – The official forecast of aviation activity at FAA facilities, which are prepared to meet the budget and planning needs of FAA and provide information for use by state and local authorities, the aviation industry, and the public. The TAF includes forecasts for the following: − FAA towered airports − Federally contracted towered airports − Nonfederal towered airports − Non-towered airports. Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) – An FAA Air Traffic Control Facility which uses radar and two-way communication to provide separation of air traffic within a specified geographic area in the vicinity of one or more airports. TRACONs control IFR and participating VFR flights. Tie-down – An apparatus used to secure an aircraft while parked on the apron. Touch-and-Go Operation – A flight training operation in which a landing approach is made, the aircraft touches-down on the runway, but does not fully reduce speed to turn off the runway. Instead, after the landing, full engine power is applied while still rolling and a takeoff is made, thereby practicing both maneuvers as part of one motion. It counts as two separate aircraft operations Traffic Pattern – The traffic flow for aircraft landing and departure at an airport. Typical components of the traffic pattern include: upwind leg, crosswind leg, downwind leg, base leg, and final approach. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) – U.S. government agency is a component of the Department of Homeland Security and is responsible for security of the nation's transportation systems. Turbojet Aircraft – An aircraft having a jet engine in which the energy of the jet operates a turbine which in turn operates the air compressor. Turboprop Aircraft – An aircraft having a jet engine in which the energy of the jet operates a turbine which drives the propeller. Uncontrolled Airspace – Generally the airspace from the surface up to 700 or 1,200 feet AGL in most of the U.S., but up to as high as 14,500 feet in some remote Western and sparsely populated areas. Uncontrolled airspace is designated as Class G airspace by the FAA. Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) – An unpiloted aircraft that can be controlled remotely using GPS or other satellite guidance, or flown autonomously based on pre-programmed flight 18 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – GLOSSARY AND BIBLIOGRAPHY plans or more complex dynamic automation systems. UAVs are currently primarily used in a number of military roles, but are also used in a small but growing number of civil applications such as firefighting, police observation of civil disturbances and crime scenes, and reconnaissance support in natural disasters. Very High Frequency Omni-directional Range (VOR) – A ground-based electronic navigation aid transmitting very high frequency navigation signals, 360 degrees in azimuth, oriented from magnetic north. Used as the basis for navigation in the National Airspace System. The VOR periodically identifies itself by Morse Code and may have an additional voice identification feature. Very High Frequency Omni-directional Range Station with Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) – A navigational aid providing VOR azimuth and TACAN distance measuring equipment (DME) at one site. Very Light Jet (VLJ) – A small jet aircraft approved for single-pilot operation, seating 4-8 people, with a maximum take-off weight of under 10,000 pounds. They are lighter than what is commonly termed business jets. Visual Approach – An approach conducted on an IFR flight plan, operating in VFR conditions under the control of an air traffic facility and having an air traffic control authorization, may proceed to destination airport under VFR. Visual Approach Slope Indicator (VASI) – A visual aid for the final approach to the runway threshold consisting of two wing bars of lights located in tandem on either side of the runway. Each bar produces a split beam of light – the upper segment is white, the lower is red. Visual Flight Rules (VFR) – Rules and procedures specified in 14 CFR 91 for aircraft operations under visual meteorological conditions, or weather conditions with a ceiling of 1,000 feet above ground level and visibility of three miles or greater. Under VFR, it is the pilot’s responsibility to maintain visual separation and not that of the air traffic controller. Visual Glide Slope Indicator (VGSI) – system of lights on the side of the runway threshold near the touchdown zone that help to ensure that any obstructions in the approach area are cleared by indicating if the aircraft is higher than or lower than the appropriate glide slope angle. The two most common types of VGSI are PAPI and VASI. Visual Runway – A runway without an existing or planned straight-in instrument approach procedure. Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) – An enhancement to the GPS system providing greater navigation accuracy and system integrity and permitting GPS to be used for precision instrument approaches to most airports. Wind Coverage – Percent of time for which aeronautical operations are considered safe due to acceptable crosswind components. 19 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – GLOSSARY AND BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY The Airport Technology and Planning Group Incorporated. Rural Air Service Study August 1999. 265 p. Applied Pavement Technology. Arizona Airport Pavement Management System November 2003. 23 p. Federal Aviation Administration. FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2008-2025 March 2008. 96p. General Aviation Manufacturers Association. 2008 General Aviation Statistical Databook & Industry Outlook 2008. 76 p. Governor’s Advisory Council on Aviation. Final Report January 2007. 38 p. Honeywell Aerospace. Business Aviation Outlook October 2007. Morrison Institute for Public Policy, Arizona State University. Megapolitan: Arizona’s Sun Corridor May 2008. 52p. National Association of State Aviation Officials. State Aviation Funding and Organizational Data Report FY2007 180p. QED Airport and Aviation Consultants. Automatic Weather Observation System Network Study August 2007. 29 p. Simat Helliesen & Eichner, Inc. The Economic Impact of Aviation in Arizona 2004 20 p. Wilbur Smith Associates. Arizona Rural Air Service Study June 2005. 70-71. 250 p. Wilbur Smith Associates. Pima Association of Governments’ Regional Aviation System Plan June 2002. 299 p. Wilbur Smith Associates, Inc. Maricopa Association of Governments’ Regional Aviation System Plan 2004 350 p. Wilbur Smith Associates. Airport Small Community Economic Development & Transportation Program October 1999. 59 p. 20 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX A AIRPORT CODE REFERENCE TABLES APPENDIX A: AIRPORT CODE REFERENCE TABLES Figure A-1: Arizona Airport Code Reference Table, Numerical/Alphabetical by Airport Code FAA ID 00AZ 04AZ 0V7 18AZ 1AZ0 1G4 1Z1 20AZ 27AZ 34AZ 39AZ 3AZ5 40G 41AZ 44A 44E 45AZ 46AZ 48AZ 49AZ 4AZ7 50AZ 51AZ 53AZ 57AZ 5AZ3 85V A09 A20 A39 AVQ AZC BXK CFT CGZ CHD CMR D68 DGL DMA DUG DVT E24 E25 E51 E60 E63 E67 E68 E77 E78 E81 E91 Associated City Cordes Chinle Kayenta Carefree Mobile Peach Springs Whitmore Picacho Aguila Chandler Lukachukai Hualapai Grand Canyon Maricopa San Luis Wickenburg Pine Springs Pinon Rimrock Rock Point San Carlos Rocky Ridge Roosevelt Shonto Tucson Queen Creek Ganado Bullhead City Bullhead City Phoenix Marana Colorado City Buckeye Clifton/Morenci Casa Grande Chandler Williams Springerville Douglas Tucson Douglas Bisbee Phoenix Whiteriver Wickenburg Bagdad Eloy Gila Bend Kearny Maricopa San Manuel Sells Superior Chinle Airport Name Cordes Chinle Kayenta Sky Ranch At Carefree Mobile Grand Canyon West Grand Canyon Bar Ten Airstrip Eds Field Eagle Roost Airpark Gila River Memorial Airport Lukachukai Hualapai Valle Ak-Chin Rolle Airfield Forepaugh Pine Springs Pinon Rim Rock Rock Point San Carlos Rocky Ridge Grapevine Shonto La Cholla Airpark Pegasus Airpark Ganado Eagle Airpark Sun Valley Phoenix Regional Marana Regional Colorado City Municipal Buckeye Municipal Greenlee County Casa Grande Municipal Chandler Municipal H.A. Clark Memorial Field Springerville Municipal Douglas Municipal Davis-Monthan AFB Bisbee Douglas International Phoenix Deer Valley Whiteriver Wickenburg Municipal Bagdad Eloy Municipal Gila Bend Municipal Kearny Estrella Sailport San Manuel Sells Superior Municipal Chinle Municipal FAA ID E95 FFZ FHU FLG GBN GCN GEU GYR HII IFP IGM INW IWA L25 L37 L41 L50 LGF LUF MZJ NYL OLS P01 P03 P04 P08 P10 P13 P14 P18 P19 P20 P23 P29 P33 P48 P52 PAN PGA PHX PRC RQE RYN SAD SDL SEZ SJN SOW T03 TUS TYL U30 Z95 Associated City Benson Mesa Fort Huachuca Flagstaff Gila Bend Grand Canyon Glendale Goodyear Lake Havasu City Bullhead City Kingman Winslow Mesa Meadview Peach Springs Marble Canyon Tuweep Yuma Litchfield Park Marana Yuma Nogales Ajo Douglas Bisbee Coolidge Polacca Globe Holbrook Scottsdale Chandler Parker Seligman Tombstone Willcox Peoria Cottonwood Payson Page Phoenix Prescott Window Rock Tucson Safford Scottsdale Sedona St Johns Show Low Tuba City Tucson Taylor Temple Bar Cibecue Airport Name Benson Municipal Falcon Fld Sierra Vista Municipal Flagstaff Pulliam Gila Bend-AF Aux. Grand Canyon National Park Glendale Municipal Phoenix Goodyear Lake Havasu City Laughlin/Bullhead International Kingman Winslow-Lindbergh Regional Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Pearce Ferry Grand Canyon Caverns Marble Canyon Tuweep Laguna AAF Luke AFB Pinal Airpark Yuma Mcas/Yuma International Nogales International Eric Marcus Municipal Cochise College Bisbee Municipal Coolidge Municipal Polacca San Carlos Apache Holbrook Municipal Papago AAF Stellar Airpark Avi Suquilla Seligman Tombstone Municipal Cochise County Pleasant Valley Cottonwood Payson Page Municipal Phoenix Sky Harbor International Ernest A. Love Field Window Rock Ryan Field Safford Regional Scottsdale Sedona St Johns Industrial Show Low Regional Tuba City Tucson International Taylor Temple Bar Cibecue A-1 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX A AIRPORT CODE REFERENCE TABLES Figure A-2: Arizona Airport Code Reference Table, Alphabetical by Associated City FAA ID 27AZ P01 E51 E95 P04 BXK A09 IFP A20 18AZ CGZ CHD 34AZ P19 04AZ E91 Z95 CFT AZC P08 00AZ P52 P03 DGL DUG E60 FLG FHU 85V E63 GBN GEU P13 GYR GCN 40G P14 3AZ5 0V7 E67 IGM HII LUF 39AZ AVQ MZJ L41 E68 41AZ L25 FFZ IWA 1AZ0 Associated City Aguila Ajo Bagdad Benson Bisbee Buckeye Bullhead City Bullhead City Bullhead City Carefree Casa Grande Chandler Chandler Chandler Chinle Chinle Cibecue Clifton/Morenci Colorado City Coolidge Cordes Cottonwood Douglas Douglas Douglas Bisbee Eloy Flagstaff Fort Huachuca Ganado Gila Bend Gila Bend Glendale Globe Goodyear Grand Canyon Grand Canyon Holbrook Hualapai Kayenta Kearny Kingman Lake Havasu City Litchfield Park Lukachukai Marana Marana Marble Canyon Maricopa Maricopa Meadview Mesa Mesa Mobile Airport Name Eagle Roost Airpark Eric Marcus Municipal Bagdad Benson Municipal Bisbee Municipal Buckeye Municipal Eagle Airpark Laughlin/Bullhead International Sun Valley Sky Ranch At Carefree Casa Grande Municipal Chandler Municipal Gila River Memorial Airport Stellar Airpark Chinle Chinle Municipal Cibecue Greenlee County Colorado City Municipal Coolidge Municipal Cordes Cottonwood Cochise College Douglas Municipal Bisbee Douglas International Eloy Municipal Flagstaff Pulliam Sierra Vista Municipal Ganado Gila Bend Municipal Gila Bend-AF Aux. Glendale Municipal San Carlos Apache Phoenix Goodyear Grand Canyon National Park Valle Holbrook Municipal Hualapai Kayenta Kearny Kingman Lake Havasu City Luke AFB Lukachukai Marana Regional Pinal Airpark Marble Canyon Estrella Sailport Ak-Chin Pearce Ferry Falcon Field Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Mobile FAA ID OLS PGA P20 PAN L37 1G4 P48 DVT A39 PHX 20AZ 45AZ 46AZ P10 PRC 5AZ3 48AZ 49AZ 50AZ 51AZ SAD 4AZ7 44A E77 P18 SDL SEZ P23 E78 53AZ SOW D68 SJN E81 TYL U30 P29 T03 DMA 57AZ RYN TUS L50 E24 1Z1 E25 44E P33 CMR RQE INW LGF NYL Associated City Nogales Page Parker Payson Peach Springs Peach Springs Peoria Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix Picacho Pine Springs Pinon Polacca Prescott Queen Creek Rimrock Rock Point Rocky Ridge Roosevelt Safford San Carlos San Luis San Manuel Scottsdale Scottsdale Sedona Seligman Sells Shonto Show Low Springerville St Johns Superior Taylor Temple Bar Tombstone Tuba City Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tuweep Whiteriver Whitmore Wickenburg Wickenburg Willcox Williams Window Rock Winslow Yuma Yuma Airport Name Nogales International Page Municipal Avi Suquilla Payson Grand Canyon Caverns Grand Canyon West Pleasant Valley Phoenix Deer Valley Phoenix Regional Phoenix Sky Harbor International Eds Field Pine Springs Pinon Polacca Ernest A. Love Field Pegasus Airpark Rim Rock Rock Point Rocky Ridge Grapevine Safford Regional San Carlos Rolle Airfield San Manuel Papago AAF Scottsdale Sedona Seligman Sells Shonto Show Low Regional Springerville Municipal St Johns Industrial Superior Municipal Taylor Temple Bar Tombstone Municipal Tuba City Davis-Monthan AFB La Cholla Airpark Ryan Field Tucson International Tuweep Whiteriver Grand Canyon Bar Ten Airstrip Wickenburg Municipal Forepaugh Cochise County H.A. Clark Memorial Field Window Rock Winslow-Lindbergh Regional Laguna AAF Yuma Mcas/Yuma International A-2 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX A AIRPORT CODE REFERENCE TABLES Figure A-3: Arizona Airport Code Reference Table, Alphabetical by Airport Name FAA ID 41AZ P20 E51 E95 DUG P04 BXK CGZ CHD 04AZ E91 Z95 P03 P33 AZC P08 00AZ P52 DMA DGL A09 27AZ 20AZ E60 P01 PRC E68 FFZ FLG 44E 85V E63 GBN 34AZ GEU 1Z1 L37 GCN 1G4 51AZ CFT CMR P14 3AZ5 0V7 E67 IGM 57AZ LGF HII IFP 39AZ LUF Associated City Maricopa Parker Bagdad Benson Douglas Bisbee Bisbee Buckeye Casa Grande Chandler Chinle Chinle Cibecue Douglas Willcox Colorado City Coolidge Cordes Cottonwood Tucson Douglas Bullhead City Aguila Picacho Eloy Ajo Prescott Maricopa Mesa Flagstaff Wickenburg Ganado Gila Bend Gila Bend Chandler Glendale Whitmore Peach Springs Grand Canyon Peach Springs Roosevelt Clifton/Morenci Williams Holbrook Hualapai Kayenta Kearny Kingman Tucson Yuma Lake Havasu City Bullhead City Lukachukai Litchfield Park Airport Name Ak-Chin Avi Suquilla Bagdad Benson Municipal Bisbee Douglas International Bisbee Municipal Buckeye Municipal Casa Grande Municipal Chandler Municipal Chinle Chinle Municipal Cibecue Cochise College Cochise County Colorado City Municipal Coolidge Municipal Cordes Cottonwood Davis-Monthan AFB Douglas Municipal Eagle Airpark Eagle Roost Airpark Eds Field Eloy Municipal Eric Marcus Municipal Ernest A. Love Field Estrella Sailport Falcon Field Flagstaff Pulliam Forepaugh Ganado Gila Bend Municipal Gila Bend-AF Aux. Gila River Memorial Airport Glendale Municipal Grand Canyon Bar Ten Airstrip Grand Canyon Caverns Grand Canyon National Park Grand Canyon West Grapevine Greenlee County H.A. Clark Memorial Field Holbrook Municipal Hualapai Kayenta Kearny Kingman La Cholla Airpark Laguna AAF Lake Havasu City Laughlin/Bullhead International Lukachukai Luke AFB FAA ID AVQ L41 1AZ0 OLS PGA P18 PAN L25 5AZ3 DVT GYR A39 PHX IWA MZJ 45AZ 46AZ P48 P10 48AZ 49AZ 50AZ 44A RYN SAD 4AZ7 P13 E77 SDL SEZ P23 E78 53AZ SOW FHU 18AZ D68 SJN P19 A20 E81 TYL U30 P29 T03 TUS L50 40G E24 E25 RQE INW NYL Associated City Marana Marble Canyon Mobile Nogales Page Scottsdale Payson Meadview Queen Creek Phoenix Goodyear Phoenix Phoenix Mesa Marana Pine Springs Pinon Peoria Polacca Rimrock Rock Point Rocky Ridge San Luis Tucson Safford San Carlos Globe San Manuel Scottsdale Sedona Seligman Sells Shonto Show Low Fort Huachuca Carefree Springerville St Johns Chandler Bullhead City Superior Taylor Temple Bar Tombstone Tuba City Tucson Tuweep Grand Canyon Whiteriver Wickenburg Window Rock Winslow Yuma Airport Name Marana Regional Marble Canyon Mobile Nogales International Page Municipal Papago AAF Payson Pearce Ferry Pegasus Airpark Phoenix Deer Valley Phoenix Goodyear Phoenix Regional Phoenix Sky Harbor International Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Pinal Airpark Pine Springs Pinon Pleasant Valley Polacca Rim Rock Rock Point Rocky Ridge Rolle Airfield Ryan Field Safford Regional San Carlos San Carlos Apache San Manuel Scottsdale Sedona Seligman Sells Shonto Show Low Regional Sierra Vista Municipal Sky Ranch At Carefree Springerville Municipal St Johns Industrial Stellar Airpark Sun Valley Superior Municipal Taylor Temple Bar Tombstone Municipal Tuba City Tucson International Tuweep Valle Whiteriver Wickenburg Municipal Window Rock Winslow-Lindbergh Regional Yuma Mcas/Yuma International A-3 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE A variety of actions and recommendations are needed to enable system airports to meet target objectives established in the Arizona State Airports System Plan (SASP). Facility and service objectives for Commercial Service, Reliever, GA-Community, GA-Rural, and GA-Basic airports have been established to enable system airports to fulfill their functional roles and as identified in Chapter Five, Establish Existing Airport Roles. In many instances, system airports have identified similar facility and service needs as part of their individual master plans and capital improvement programs and are proceeding to address many of the facility and service-related needs identified in the SASP. This appendix further identifies and expands on the facility and service objectives discussed in Chapter Six. The objectives are analyzed to determine current compliance. This appendix is divided into two sections. The first section describes each of the airside facilities that are objectives at each system airport. The second section identifies general aviation landside facilities and services that should be offered at those airports. AIRSIDE FACILITIES Airside facilities play the most significant role in the ability of the airports to support system needs. Airside facility objectives include the following items: • Airport Reference Code (ARC) • Primary runway length, width, and surface • Taxiway type and width • Approach type • Visual aids • Runway and taxiway lighting • Approach lighting system (ALS) Figure B-1 summarizes the system’s compliance for each airside facility objective. B-1 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE 75% Not An Objective Not An Objective Not An Objective 88% 92% 100% Not An Objective 75% 79% 100% 0% 100% 81% 75% 75% 71% 69% 71% 76% 80% 80% 70% 99% 100% 100% 97% 100% Not An Objective 86% 92% 90% 97% 96% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Figure B-1: Airside Facility Compliance Summary 45% 47% 30% 28% 30% 33% 34% 42% 45% 40% 50% 55% 50% 50% 50% 55% 60% 21% 20% 20% 0% ARC Runway Length Runway Width Arizona Total Runway Surface Commercial Service Taxiway Reliever Approach GA-Community 0% 0% 13% 13% 10% Visual Aids Lighting GA-Rural GA-Basic ALS B-2 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE Airport Reference Code (ARC) Each airport in the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) is encouraged by the FAA to meet all applicable design and development standards. The most demanding aircraft that operates at the airport on a regular basis with at least 500 takeoffs and landings a year determines each airport’s individual design standards and is known as the design or critical aircraft. An airport’s design standards are typically established during the development of an airport-specific master plan or airport layout plan (ALP). Each airport’s design standards are related to the approach speed and the wingspan of its design aircraft. These two parameters are used to determine each airport’s airport reference code (ARC); a letter, A, B, C, D, or E, is defined by the approach speed of the design aircraft, while a Roman numeral, I, II, III, IV, or V, is identified based on the wingspan of the design aircraft. A full discussion of ARCs is provided in Chapters Three and Five. Figure B-2 summarizes ARC objectives at SASP airports. For the ARC objectives, 100 percent of Commercial Service, 50 percent of Reliever, 69 percent of GA-Community, 71 percent of GA-Rural, and 100 percent of GA-Basic airports meet the ARC objective set for them. System-wide, this accounts for 76 percent of airports included in the SASP that meet their ARC objective based on their existing role in the system. It is important to note that airports that are not included in the NPIAS are not required to meet FAA standards, however, the FAA standards have been developed to promote the safe and orderly development of all airports and provide a reference point regarding facility development at all airports. Figure B-3 details these results by individual airports. B-3 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE Figure B-2: Percentage of Airports by Role Meeting ARC Objectives Arizona Total Compliance 76% Commercial Service 100% Reliever 50% GA-Community 69% GA-Rural 71% GA-Basic 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008, Airport Records B-4 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE Figure B-3: ARC Compliance by Airport Existing Associated City Airport Name ARC Commercial Service: Objective - Consistent with Master Plan* Bullhead City Laughlin/Bullhead International C-III Flagstaff Flagstaff Pulliam C-III Grand Canyon Grand Canyon National Park C-III Kingman Kingman C-III Mesa Phoenix-Mesa Gateway D-V Page Page B-II Peach Springs Grand Canyon West B-II Phoenix Phoenix Sky Harbor International D-V Prescott Ernest A. Love Field C-III Show Low Show Low Regional C-III Tucson Tucson International D-IV Yuma Yuma International Airport E-VI Reliever: Objective - C-III Chandler Chandler Municipal B-II Glendale Glendale Municipal B-II Goodyear Phoenix Goodyear D-IV Marana Marana Regional B-II Mesa Falcon Field D-II Phoenix Phoenix Deer Valley C-II Scottsdale Scottsdale C-III Tucson Ryan Field B-II GA-Community: Objective - B-II Benson Benson Municipal B-I Buckeye Buckeye Municipal B-II Carefree Sky Ranch at Carefree B-I Casa Grande Casa Grande Municipal B-II Chandler Memorial Airfield D-IV Chandler Stellar Airpark B-I Colorado City Colorado City Municipal B-II Coolidge Coolidge Municipal C-II Cottonwood Cottonwood B-I Douglas Douglas Municipal B-II Eloy Eloy Municipal B-II Grand Canyon Grand Canyon Valle A-I Holbrook Holbrook Municipal B-I Lake Havasu City Lake Havasu City C-III Marana Pinal Airpark D-V Nogales Nogales International C-II Parker Avi Suquilla C-II Payson Payson B-II Peoria Pleasant Valley A-II Safford Safford Regional B-II Sedona Sedona B-I Sierra Vista Sierra Vista Municipal D-IV Springerville Springerville Municipal B-II St Johns St Johns Industrial Air Park B-II Objective Compliance D-IV C-III C-III C-III D-V D-II C-II D-V D-IV D-III D-IV D-IV Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes C-III C-III C-III C-III C-III C-III C-III C-III No No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes B-II B-II B-II B-II B-II B-II B-II B-II B-II B-II B-II B-II B-II B-II B-II B-II B-II B-II B-II B-II B-II B-II B-II B-II No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes B-5 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE Figure B-3: ARC Compliance by Airport (Continued) Associated City Airport Name GA-Community: Objective - B-II Taylor Taylor Wickenburg Wickenburg Municipal Willcox Cochise County Williams H.A. Clark Memorial Field Winslow Winslow-Lindbergh Regional GA-Rural: Objective - B-I Ajo Eric Marcus Municipal Bisbee Bisbee Municipal Bullhead City Sun Valley Chinle Chinle Municipal Clifton/Morenci Greenlee County Douglas Cochise College Douglas Bisbee Bisbee Douglas International Gila Bend Gila Bend Municipal Globe San Carlos Apache Kayenta Kayenta Kearny Kearny Marble Canyon Marble Canyon Maricopa Estrella Sailport Peach Springs Grand Canyon Caverns Phoenix Phoenix Regional Polacca Polacca San Luis Rolle Airfield San Manuel San Manuel/Ray/Blair Seligman Seligman Temple Bar Temple Bar Tuba City Tuba City Tucson La Cholla Airpark Whiteriver Whiteriver Window Rock Window Rock GA-Basic: Objective - A-I Aguila Eagle Roost Bagdad Bagdad Cibecue Cibecue Meadview Pearce Ferry Peach Springs Hualapai Rimrock Rimrock Sells Sells Superior Superior Municipal Tombstone Tombstone Municipal Whitmore Grand Canyon Bar Ten Airstrip Existing ARC Objective Compliance B-II B-II B-II B-II C-II B-II B-II B-II B-II B-II Yes No Yes Yes Yes B-I B-I A-I B-I B-II B-I C-I B-II C-II B-II A-I A-I A-I A-I B-I A-I B-I B-I B-I A-I B-II B-I B-II B-II B-I B-I B-I B-I B-I B-I B-I B-I B-I B-I B-I B-I B-I B-I B-I B-I B-I B-I B-I B-I B-I B-I B-I B-I Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes A-I B-I B-II A-I A-I A-I A-I B-II A-I A-I A-I A-I A-I A-I A-I A-I A-I A-I A-I A-I Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Sources: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008, Airport Records *Commercial Service objectives are “Ultimate” goal from master plans. Not meeting this goal does not cause incompliance. B-6 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE Runway Length Adequate runway facilities, especially runway lengths, are important components of an aviation system. Facility and service objectives were developed for each of the classification levels based on the types of aircraft anticipated to operate at airports in these role classifications. In this analysis, the ability of the existing system to meet the identified minimum objective for primary runway length was examined using each airport’s respective ARC and their role. The FAA runway length model was used to calculate optimal lengths unique for Reliever, GACommunity, and GA-Rural airports. The model takes into account a number of factors such as mean maximum daily temperature during the hottest month and elevation or altitude of each airport. The model has several outputs depending on the type of aircraft and useful load the airport will accommodate. Based on input from ADOT, the five airport roles have the following objectives set for their primary runway lengths: • Commercial Service: consistent with master plan • Reliever: accommodate 75 percent of large aircraft at 90 percent useful load • GA-Community: accommodate 75 percent of large aircraft at 60 percent useful load • GA-Rural: accommodate 75 percent of small planes • GA-Basic: maintain existing length The SASP sets minimum primary runway lengths as a basis for evaluation. Airports that exceed the minimum primary runway length are recommended to maintain the additional length, as determined to be necessary. As shown in Figure B-4, 71 percent of the system airports meet the minimum primary runway length objectives for their respective role. All Commercial Service airports are compliant with this objective. Based on the results of the FAA runway length model, only 13 percent of Reliever airports are compliant with runway length objectives, while 45 percent of GA-Community and 96 percent of GARural airports are compliant. The low compliance of in the Reliever and GA-Community roles are due to the long runway length objectives noted by the FAA model needed to accommodate large general aviation aircraft, which takes into account the mean temperature, which is higher in much of Arizona, compared to other states. Because GA-Basic airports are recommended to maintain their current runway length, they show 100 percent compliance. B-7 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE Figure B-4: Percentage of Airports by Role Meeting Primary Runway Length Objectives Arizona Total Compliance 71% Commercial Service 100% Reliever 13% GA-Community 45% GA-Rural 96% GA-Basic 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Sources: FAA Runway Length Program. Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 An analysis of the primary runway length for each airport is presented in Figure B-5. B-8 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE Figure B-5: Primary Runway Length Compliance by Airport Primary Runway Primary Length Associated City Airport Name Runway Commercial Service: Objective - Consistent with Master Plan* Bullhead City Laughlin/Bullhead International 16/34 7,520 Flagstaff Flagstaff Pulliam 03/21 8,800 Grand Canyon Grand Canyon National Park 03/21 9,000 Kingman Kingman 03/21 6,831 Mesa Phoenix-Mesa Gateway 12R/30L 10,401 Page Page 15/33 5,950 Peach Springs Grand Canyon West 17/35 5,058 Phoenix Phoenix Sky Harbor Intl 08/26 11,489 Prescott Ernest A. Love Field 03R/21L 7,616 Show Low Show Low Regional 06/24 7,200 Tucson Tucson International 11L/29R 10,996 Yuma Yuma International 03L/21R 13,300 Reliever: Objective - Accommodate 75% of large aircraft at 90% useful load Chandler Chandler Municipal 04R\22L 4,850 Glendale Glendale Municipal 01/19 7,150 Goodyear Phoenix Goodyear 03/21 8,500 Marana Marana Regional 04R/22L 5,102 Mesa Falcon Field 07R/25L 8,208 Phoenix Phoenix Deer Valley 03/21 8,249 Scottsdale Scottsdale 12/30 6,901 Tucson Ryan Field 06R/24L 5,500 GA-Community: Objective - Accommodate 75% of large aircraft at 60% useful load Benson Benson Municipal 10/28 4,000 Buckeye Buckeye Municipal 17/35 5,500 Carefree Sky Ranch at Carefree 06/24 4,037 Casa Grande Casa Grande Municipal 05/23 5,200 Chandler Memorial Airfield 12/30 8,530 Chandler Stellar Airpark 17/35 3,913 Colorado City Colorado City Municipal 11/29 6,300 Coolidge Coolidge Municipal 05/23 5,528 Cottonwood Cottonwood 14/32 4,250 Douglas Douglas Municipal 03/21 5,760 Eloy Eloy Municipal 02/20 3,900 Grand Canyon Grand Canyon Valle 01/19 4,199 Holbrook Holbrook Municipal 03/21 6,698 Lake Havasu City Lake Havasu City 14/32 8,000 Marana Pinal Airpark 12/30 6,850 Nogales Nogales International 03/21 7,199 Parker Avi Suquilla 01/19 6,750 Payson Payson 06/24 5,500 Peoria Pleasant Valley 05C/23C 4,200 Safford Safford Regional 12/30 6,015 Sedona Sedona 03/21 5,132 Sierra Vista Sierra Vista Municipal 08/26 12,001 Objective Length Compliance 9,000 8,800 10,000 7,000 12,501 7,200 6,500 12,000 7,616 8,600 11,000 13,299 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 8,110 8,270 8,500 8,320 8,410 8,680 8,130 8,480 No No Yes No No No No No 6,270 5,550 4,037 5,230 5,140 3,913 7,050 5,420 6,490 6,390 5,000 4,199 7,280 5,480 5,230 7,430 5,090 6,780 4,200 5,970 7,710 7,840 No No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes B-9 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE Figure B-5: Primary Runway Length Compliance by Airport (Continued) Primary Runway Primary Length Associated City Airport Name Runway GA-Community: Objective - Accommodate 75% of large aircraft at 60% useful load Springerville Springerville Municipal 03/21 8,417 St Johns St Johns Industrial Air Park 14/32 5,322 Taylor Taylor 03/21 7,200 Wickenburg Wickenburg Municipal 05/23 6,100 Willcox Cochise County 03/21 6,095 Williams H.A. Clark Memorial Field 18/36 6,000 Winslow Winslow-Lindbergh Regional 04/22 7,499 GA-Rural: Objective - Accommodate 75% of small airplanes Ajo Eric Marcus Municipal 12/30 3,800 Bisbee Bisbee Municipal 17/35 5,929 Bullhead City Sun Valley 18/36 3,700 Chinle Chinle Municipal 18/36 6,149 Clifton/Morenci Greenlee County 07/25 4,970 Douglas Cochise College 05/23 5,303 Douglas Bisbee Bisbee Douglas International 17/35 7,311 Gila Bend Gila Bend Municipal 04/22 5,200 Globe San Carlos Apache 09/27 6,500 Kayenta Kayenta 05/23 7,100 Kearny Kearny 08/26 3,400 Marble Canyon Marble Canyon 03/21 3,715 Maricopa Estrella Sailport 6R/24L 2,520 Peach Springs Grand Canyon Caverns 05/23 5,300 Phoenix Phoenix Regional 03/21 4,000 Polacca Polacca 04/22 4,200 San Luis Rolle Airfield 17/35 2,800 San Manuel San Manuel/Ray/Blair 11/29 4,200 Seligman Seligman 04/22 4,800 Temple Bar Temple Bar 18/36 3,500 Tuba City Tuba City 15/33 6,230 Tucson La Cholla Airpark 01/19 4,500 Whiteriver Whiteriver 01/19 6,350 Window Rock Window Rock 02/20 7,000 GA-Basic: Objective - Maintain existing Aguila Eagle Roost 17/35 3,400 Bagdad Bagdad 05/23 4,552 Cibecue Cibecue 07/25 4,200 Meadview Pearce Ferry 01/19 2,810 Peach Springs Hualapai 07/25 4,790 Rimrock Rimrock 05/23 2,184 Sells Sells 04/22 5,830 Superior Superior Municipal 04/22 3,250 Tombstone Tombstone Municipal 06/24 4,610 Whitmore Grand Canyon Bar Ten Airstrip 16/34 4,300 Objective Length Compliance 7,700 7,050 8,080 6,280 6,430 7,340 7,390 Yes No No No No No Yes 3,150 4,480 2,950 4,920 4,010 4,110 4,130 2,980 3,810 5,020 3,290 3,715 2,520 5,300 3,120 4,920 2,730 3,790 4,770 3,170 4,380 4,500 4,520 5,770 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 3,400 4,552 4,200 2,810 4,790 2,184 5,830 3,250 4,610 4,300 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Sources: FAA Runway Length Program, Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 Note: *Commercial Service objectives are “ultimate” goal from master plans. Not meeting this goal does not cause incompliance. B-10 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE Runway Width Another important component to the runway system is the width of the primary runway. It is important for runways to have adequate width that meet the minimum facility standards established as part of this study and meet FAA design standards. Objectives for runway widths were based on the recommended ARC of each airport and determined using FAA guidelines.1 As shown in Figure B-6, 86 percent of the system airports meet the primary runway width objectives for their respective role. Ninety-two percent of Commercial Service, 75 percent of Reliever, and 97 percent of GA-Community airports meet primary runway width objectives. Seventy-five percent of GARural and 80 percent of GA-Basic airports meet this objective. Figure B-7 shows each airport’s adequacy in the primary runway width objective. Figure B-6: Percentage of Airports by Role Meeting Primary Runway Width Objectives Arizona Total 86% Commercial Service 92% Reliever 75% GA-Community 97% GA-Rural 75% GA-Basic 80% Compliance 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 1 For airports with an ARC exceeding the recommended ARC, widths were based on the existing ARC. B-11 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE Figure B-7: Primary Runway Width Compliance by Airport Primary Associated City Airport Name Runway Commercial Service: Objective - Consistent with Master Plan Bullhead City Laughlin/Bullhead International 16/34 Flagstaff Flagstaff Pulliam 03/21 Grand Canyon Grand Canyon National Park 03/21 Kingman Kingman 03/21 Mesa Phoenix-Mesa Gateway 12R/30L Page Page 15/33 Peach Springs Grand Canyon West 17/35 Phoenix Phoenix Sky Harbor International 08/26 Prescott Ernest A. Love Field 03R/21L Show Low Show Low Regional 06/24 Tucson Tucson International 11L/29R Yuma Yuma International Airport 03L/21R Reliever: Objective - Consistent with ARC, Minimum C-III Chandler Chandler Municipal 04R\22L Glendale Glendale Municipal 01/19 Goodyear Phoenix Goodyear 03/21 Marana Marana Regional 04R/22L Mesa Falcon Field 07R/25L Phoenix Phoenix Deer Valley 03/21 Scottsdale Scottsdale 12/30 Tucson Ryan Field 06R/24L GA-Community: Objective - Consistent with ARC, Minimum B-II Benson Benson Municipal 10/28 Buckeye Buckeye Municipal 17/35 Carefree Sky Ranch at Carefree 06/24 Casa Grande Casa Grande Municipal 05/23 Chandler Memorial Airfield 12/30 Chandler Stellar Airpark 17/35 Colorado City Colorado City Municipal 11/29 Coolidge Coolidge Municipal 05/23 Cottonwood Cottonwood 14/32 Douglas Douglas Municipal 03/21 Eloy Eloy Municipal 02/20 Grand Canyon Grand Canyon Valle 01/19 Holbrook Holbrook Municipal 03/21 Lake Havasu City Lake Havasu City 14/32 Marana Pinal Airpark 12/30 Nogales Nogales International 03/21 Parker Avi Suquilla 01/19 Payson Payson 06/24 Peoria Pleasant Valley 05C/23C Safford Safford Regional 12/30 Sedona Sedona 03/21 Sierra Vista Sierra Vista Municipal 08/26 Primary Runway Width ARC Objective Runway Width Compliance 150 150 150 150 150 150 60 150 150 100 150 200 150 150 150 150 150 150 100 150 150 100 150 200 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 75 100 150 100 100 100 100 75 100 100 150 100 100 100 100 100 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 75 75 50 100 300 60 75 150 75 75 75 45 75 100 150 90 100 75 100 100 100 150 75 75 50 75 100 60 75 75 75 75 75 45 75 75 150 100 75 75 100 75 75 150 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes B-12 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE Figure B-7: Primary Runway Width Compliance by Airport (Continued) Primary Associated City Airport Name Runway GA-Community: Objective - Consistent with ARC, Minimum B-II Springerville Springerville Municipal 03/21 St Johns St Johns Industrial Air Park 14/32 Taylor Taylor 03/21 Wickenburg Wickenburg Municipal 05/23 Willcox Cochise County 03/21 Williams H.A. Clark Memorial Field 18/36 Winslow Winslow-Lindbergh Regional 04/22 GA-Rural: Objective - Consistent with ARC, Minimum B-I Ajo Eric Marcus Municipal 12/30 Bisbee Bisbee Municipal 17/35 Bullhead City Sun Valley 18/36 Chinle Chinle Municipal 18/36 Clifton/Morenci Greenlee County 07/25 Douglas Cochise College 05/23 Douglas Bisbee Bisbee Douglas International 17/35 Gila Bend Gila Bend Municipal 04/22 Globe San Carlos Apache 09/27 Kayenta Kayenta 05/23 Kearny Kearny 08/26 Marble Canyon Marble Canyon 03/21 Maricopa Estrella Sailport 6R/24L Peach Springs Grand Canyon Caverns 05/23 Phoenix Phoenix Regional 03/21 Polacca Polacca 04/22 San Luis Rolle Airfield 17/35 San Manuel San Manuel/Ray/Blair 11/29 Seligman Seligman 04/22 Temple Bar Temple Bar 18/36 Tuba City Tuba City 15/33 Tucson La Cholla Airpark 01/19 Whiteriver Whiteriver 01/19 Window Rock Window Rock 02/20 GA-Basic: Objective - Consistent with ARC, Minimum A-I Aguila Eagle Roost 17/35 Bagdad Bagdad 05/23 Cibecue Cibecue 07/25 Meadview Pearce Ferry 01/19 Peach Springs Hualapai 07/25 Rimrock Rimrock 05/23 Sells Sells 04/22 Superior Superior Municipal 04/22 Tombstone Tombstone Municipal 06/24 Whitmore Grand Canyon Bar Ten Airstrip 16/34 Primary Runway Width ARC Objective Runway Width Compliance 75 75 75 75 75 100 150 60 75 75 75 75 75 100 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 60 75 42 60 75 72 100 75 100 75 60 35 30 45 50 50 60 75 75 50 75 44 75 75 60 60 75 75 75 75 60 75 100 75 60 35 30 45 75 75 60 60 75 75 75 44 75 60 Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes 40 60 100 90 30 75 48 75 65 33 40 60 75 60 60 75 60 75 60 33 Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 B-13 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE Primary Runway Surface A runway’s surface type is a major determinant of the types of aircraft that can land on it, weight capacity, and resistance to weathering. Runway surfaces range from turf and gravel to concrete and asphalt, the latter paved runways are required to land aircraft of any significant size. Figure B-8 summarizes SASP airport roles in their compliance with primary runway surface objectives. Statewide, 99 percent of SASP airports are compliant with the runway surface objectives for their airport roles. GA-Community, at 97 percent compliance, is the only role that is not 100 percent compliant. Figure B-9 details airport adequacy for this objective. Figure B-8: Percentage of Airports by Role Meeting Primary Runway Surface Objectives Arizona Total 99% Commercial Service 100% Reliever 100% GA-Community 97% GA-Rural 100% GA-Basic 100% Compliance 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 B-14 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE Figure B-9: Primary Runway Surface Compliance by Airport Associated City Airport Name Commercial Service: Objective - Asphalt/Paved Bullhead City Laughlin/Bullhead International Flagstaff Flagstaff Pulliam Grand Canyon Grand Canyon National Park Kingman Kingman Mesa Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Page Page Peach Springs Grand Canyon West Phoenix Phoenix Sky Harbor International Prescott Ernest A. Love Field Show Low Show Low Regional Tucson Tucson International Yuma Yuma International Airport Reliever: Objective - Asphalt/Paved Chandler Chandler Municipal Glendale Glendale Municipal Goodyear Phoenix Goodyear Marana Marana Regional Mesa Falcon Field Phoenix Phoenix Deer Valley Scottsdale Scottsdale Tucson Ryan Field GA-Community: Objective - Asphalt/Paved Benson Benson Municipal Buckeye Buckeye Municipal Carefree Sky Ranch at Carefree Casa Grande Casa Grande Municipal Chandler Memorial Airfield Chandler Stellar Airpark Colorado City Colorado City Municipal Coolidge Coolidge Municipal Cottonwood Cottonwood Douglas Douglas Municipal Eloy Eloy Municipal Grand Canyon Grand Canyon Valle Holbrook Holbrook Municipal Lake Havasu City Lake Havasu City Marana Pinal Airpark Nogales Nogales International Parker Avi Suquilla Payson Payson Peoria Pleasant Valley Safford Safford Regional Sedona Sedona Sierra Vista Sierra Vista Municipal Existing Runway Surface Compliance Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Concrete Asphalt Asphalt Concrete Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Concrete Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Dirt Asphalt Asphalt Concrete Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes B-15 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE Figure B-9: Primary Runway Surface Compliance by Airport (Continued) Associated City Airport Name GA-Community: Objective - Asphalt/Paved Springerville Springerville Municipal St Johns St Johns Industrial Air Park Taylor Taylor Wickenburg Wickenburg Municipal Willcox Cochise County Williams H.A. Clark Memorial Field Winslow Winslow-Lindbergh Regional GA-Rural: Objective - Asphalt Desired; Unpaved Ajo Eric Marcus Municipal Bisbee Bisbee Municipal Bullhead City Sun Valley Chinle Chinle Municipal Clifton/Morenci Greenlee County Douglas Cochise College Douglas Bisbee Bisbee Douglas International Gila Bend Gila Bend Municipal Globe San Carlos Apache Kayenta Kayenta Kearny Kearny Marble Canyon Marble Canyon Maricopa Estrella Sailport Peach Springs Grand Canyon Caverns Phoenix Phoenix Regional Polacca Polacca San Luis Rolle Airfield San Manuel San Manuel/Ray/Blair Seligman Seligman Temple Bar Temple Bar Tuba City Tuba City Tucson La Cholla Airpark Whiteriver Whiteriver Window Rock Window Rock GA-Basic: Objective - Gravel/Dirt Aguila Eagle Roost Bagdad Bagdad Cibecue Cibecue Meadview Pearce Ferry Peach Springs Hualapai Rimrock Rimrock Sells Sells Superior Superior Municipal Tombstone Tombstone Municipal Whitmore Grand Canyon Bar Ten Airstrip Existing Runway Surface Compliance Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Concrete Asphalt Asphalt Gravel Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Asphalt Asphalt Gravel Dirt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Dirt Asphalt Chip & Seal/Dirt Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 B-16 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE Taxiway Taxiways are constructed to facilitate aircraft movements to and from the runway system. Strategically placed taxiway exits permit aircraft to clear the runway after landing and significantly increase the runway capacity. Some taxiways are necessary simply to provide access between the apron and runway, whereas other taxiways become needed as activity increases and safer and more efficient use of the airfield is required. Objectives were developed in the SASP for both taxiway type and width. Based on input from ADOT, the five airport roles have the following taxiway objectives: • Commercial Service: Full parallel taxiway, with width consistent with airport master plan • Reliever: Full parallel taxiway, with width consistent with ARC • GA-Community: Full or partial parallel taxiway, with width consistent with ARC • GA-Rural: Full or partial parallel taxiway, connectors, or turnarounds; width per ARC where applicable • GA-Basic: Not an objective Figure B-10 reveals that 100 percent of Commercial Service, 50 percent of Reliever, 79 percent of GA-Community, and 75 percent of GA-Rural airports currently meet their taxiway objectives. Eightyone percent of all system airports now meet the system plan’s taxiway objective. Figure B-10: Percentage of Airports by Role Meeting Taxiway Objectives Arizona Total 81% Commercial Service 100% Reliever 50% GA-Community 79% GA-Rural 75% GA-Basic Not An Objective 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 The current and objective taxiway types and widths for each system airport are presented in Figure B11. Airports must meet both their taxiway type and width objectives in order to be compliant. As shown, all Reliever airports meet their taxiway type objective, but half fall short of their width objectives, which are determined by their ARC. B-17 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE Figure B-11: Taxiway Type and Width Compliance by Airport Existing Taxiway Associated City Airport Name Type Commercial Service: Objective - Consistent with Master Plan (Full Parallel) Bullhead City Laughlin/Bullhead Intl Full Parallel Flagstaff Flagstaff Pulliam Full Parallel Grand Canyon Grand Canyon National Park Full Parallel Kingman Kingman Full Parallel Mesa Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Partial Parallel Page Page Full Parallel Peach Springs Grand Canyon West Full (under constr.) Phoenix Phoenix Sky Harbor Intl Full Parallel Prescott Ernest A. Love Field Full Parallel Show Low Show Low Regional Full Parallel Tucson Tucson International Full Parallel Yuma Yuma International Full Parallel Reliever: Objective - Full Parallel; width per ARC Chandler Chandler Municipal Full Parallel Glendale Glendale Municipal Full Parallel Goodyear Phoenix Goodyear Full Parallel Marana Marana Regional Full Parallel Mesa Falcon Field Full Parallel Phoenix Phoenix Deer Valley Full Parallel Scottsdale Scottsdale Full Parallel Tucson Ryan Field Full Parallel GA-Community: Objective - Full or Partial Parallel; width per ARC Benson Benson Municipal Full Parallel Buckeye Buckeye Municipal Full Parallel Carefree Sky Ranch at Carefree Full Parallel Casa Grande Casa Grande Municipal Full Parallel Chandler Memorial Airfield Full Parallel Chandler Stellar Airpark Full Parallel Colorado City Colorado City Municipal Partial Parallel Coolidge Coolidge Municipal Stub Cottonwood Cottonwood Full Parallel Douglas Douglas Municipal Partial Parallel Eloy Eloy Municipal Full Parallel Grand Canyon Grand Canyon Valle Stub Holbrook Holbrook Municipal Full Parallel Lake Havasu City Lake Havasu City Full Parallel (TW 'A') Marana Pinal Airpark Full Parallel Nogales Nogales International Full Parallel Parker Avi Suquilla Partial Parallel Payson Payson Full Parallel Peoria Pleasant Valley None Safford Safford Regional Full Parallel Sedona Sedona Partial Parallel Sierra Vista Sierra Vista Municipal/LAA Full Parallel Existing Taxiway Width Objective Taxiway Width Full Taxiway Compliance 75 50 75 75 75 40 40 75 50 50 60 75 75 50 50 75 75 40 50 75 75 50 75 75 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes* Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 40 35 75 50 50 75 40 45 50 50 75 50 50 50 50 50 No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No 50 40 30 40 50 40 35 40 40 35 40 28 35 50 150 52 75 35 NA 35 35 85 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 75 35 35 35 35 35 35 75 Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes B-18 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE Figure B-11: Taxiway Type and Width Compliance by Airport (Continued) Existing Taxiway Width Objective Taxiway Width Full Taxiway Compliance Associated City Airport Name Existing Taxiway Type GA-Community: Objective - Full or Partial Parallel; width per ARC Springerville Springerville Municipal Full Parallel 30 35 St Johns St Johns Industrial Air Park Full Parallel 40 35 Taylor Taylor Partial Parallel 35 35 Wickenburg Wickenburg Municipal Full Parallel 34.5 35 Willcox Cochise County Full Parallel (part gravel) 35 35 Williams H.A. Clark Memorial Field Full Parallel 50 35 Winslow Winslow-Lindbergh Regional Full Parallel 40 35 GA-Rural: Objective - Full or Partial Parallel, Connectors, or Turnarounds; width per ARC where applicable Ajo Eric Marcus Municipal Stub 30 25 Bisbee Bisbee Municipal Full Parallel 35 25 Bullhead City Sun Valley Full Parallel 20 25 Chinle Chinle Municipal Turnaround NA 25 Clifton/Morenci Greenlee County Full Parallel (12/08) 35 35 Douglas Cochise College Full Parallel 25 25 Douglas Bisbee Bisbee Douglas International Partial Parallel 35 25 Gila Bend Gila Bend Municipal Full Parallel 40 35 Globe San Carlos Apache Full Parallel 35 35 Kayenta Kayenta None NA 35 Kearny Kearny Turnarounds 0 25 Marble Canyon Marble Canyon Stub 20 20 Maricopa Estrella Sailport None NA NA Peach Springs Grand Canyon Caverns Partial Parallel 20 20 Phoenix Phoenix Regional Full Parallel 25 25 Polacca Polacca None NA 35 San Luis Rolle Airfield Turnaround 0 25 San Manuel San Manuel/Ray/Blair Partial Parallel 50 25 Seligman Seligman Full Parallel 35 25 Temple Bar Temple Bar Turnarounds 0 25 Tuba City Tuba City None NA 25 Tucson La Cholla Airpark Full Parallel 18 18 Whiteriver Whiteriver Partial Parallel 35 35 Window Rock Window Rock None NA 25 GA-Basic: Not an Objective Aguila Eagle Roost Turnaround 33 25 Bagdad Bagdad None NA 25 Cibecue Cibecue None NA 35 Meadview Pearce Ferry None NA 25 Peach Springs Hualapai None NA NA Rimrock Rimrock None NA 25 Sells Sells Turnaround 35 35 Superior Superior Municipal None NA 25 Tombstone Tombstone Municipal None NA 25 Whitmore Grand Canyon Bar Ten Airstrip None NA 25 No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 Notes: NA=Not Applicable, *Commercial Service objectives are “ultimate” goal from master plans. Not meeting this goal does not cause noncompliance. B-19 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE APPROACH Precision approach systems provide electronic horizontal and vertical information to aircraft during their approach to and landing at an airport. These systems allow aircraft to locate an airport and land on a specific runway during periods of reduced visibility and/or inclement weather. Operators of the most demanding general aviation aircraft, including business aircraft, typically prefer to operate at airports with precision approaches, in part due to their reliability during periods of inclement weather. Additionally, a precision approach minimizes the time that airports are closed because of poor visibility. This reduces delays, rerouting of aircraft, and ground travel times associated with not being able to access the most convenient airport. Similar to precision approaches, non-precision approaches provide electronic information to aircraft during their approach to and landing at an airport. In general, non-precision approach systems provide horizontal guidance with relation to a specific runway at an airport. Some of these systems do provide vertical guidance or glide slope information to aircraft although most do not. While not as advanced or expensive to install and maintain as precision approaches, non-precision approaches support airport operations during periods of reduced visibility and inclement weather when visual approaches are not possible. Non-precision approaches also provide additional reliability to aircraft operators. Airports were evaluated based on the type of the most demanding approach available/published. The following categories were used: • Precision Approach • Near-Precision Approach • Non-Precision Approach • Visual Approach As shown in Figure B-12, only 55 percent of system airports currently meet their approach type objective. By role, 75 percent of Commercial Service, 100 percent of Reliever, 55 percent of GACommunity, and 13 percent of GA-Rural airports meet their objectives. A published approach is not an objective at GA-Basic Airports. B-20 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE Figure B-12: Percentage of Airports by Role Meeting Approach Type Objectives Arizona Total 55% Commercial Service 75% Reliever 100% GA-Community 55% GA-Rural 13% GA-Basic Not An Objective 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Source: FAA Approach Plates Figure B-13 lists the Arizona airports that currently report having an instrument approach to at least one end of their primary runway and whether or not system airports meet their objectives. B-21 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE Figure B-13: Approach Type Compliance by Airport Existing Approach Associated City Airport Name Capability Commercial Service: Objective - Precision Desired; Near Precision Minimum Bullhead City Laughlin/Bullhead International Near-Precision Flagstaff Flagstaff Pulliam Precision Grand Canyon Grand Canyon National Park Precision Kingman Kingman Non-Precision Mesa Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Precision Page Page Near-Precision Peach Springs Grand Canyon West Visual Phoenix Phoenix Sky Harbor International Precision Prescott Ernest A. Love Field Precision Show Low Show Low Regional Non-Precision Tucson Tucson International Precision Yuma Yuma International Airport Precision Reliever: Objective - Near-Precision Desired; Non-Precision Minimum Chandler Chandler Municipal Non-Precision Glendale Glendale Municipal Near-Precision Goodyear Phoenix Goodyear Non-Precision Marana Marana Regional Non-Precision Mesa Falcon Field Non-Precision Phoenix Phoenix Deer Valley Near-Precision Scottsdale Scottsdale Non-Precision Tucson Ryan Field Precision GA-Community: - Objective - Non-Precision Benson Benson Municipal Visual Buckeye Buckeye Municipal Visual Carefree Sky Ranch at Carefree Visual Casa Grande Casa Grande Municipal Precision Chandler Memorial Airfield Visual Chandler Stellar Airpark Non-Precision Colorado City Colorado City Municipal Non-Precision Coolidge Coolidge Municipal Non-Precision Cottonwood Cottonwood Visual Douglas Douglas Municipal Visual Eloy Eloy Municipal Visual Grand Canyon Grand Canyon Valle Non-Precision Holbrook Holbrook Municipal Visual Lake Havasu City Lake Havasu City Non-Precision Marana Pinal Airpark Visual Nogales Nogales International Non-Precision Parker Avi Suquilla Non-Precision Payson Payson Non-Precision Peoria Pleasant Valley Visual Safford Safford Regional Non-Precision Sedona Sedona Non-Precision Sierra Vista Sierra Vista Municipal Precision Springerville Springerville Municipal Non-Precision St Johns St Johns Industrial Air Park Non-Precision Compliance Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes B-22 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE Figure B-13: Approach Type Compliance by Airport (Continued) Associated City Airport Name GA-Community: - Objective - Non-Precision Taylor Taylor Wickenburg Wickenburg Municipal Willcox Cochise County Williams H.A. Clark Memorial Field Winslow Winslow-Lindbergh Regional GA-Rural: Objective - Non-Precision Ajo Eric Marcus Municipal Bisbee Bisbee Municipal Bullhead City Sun Valley Chinle Chinle Municipal Clifton/Morenci Greenlee County Douglas Cochise College Douglas Bisbee Bisbee Douglas International Gila Bend Gila Bend Municipal Globe San Carlos Apache Kayenta Kayenta Kearny Kearny Marble Canyon Marble Canyon Maricopa Estrella Sailport Peach Springs Grand Canyon Caverns Phoenix Phoenix Regional Polacca Polacca San Luis Rolle Airfield San Manuel San Manuel/Ray/Blair Seligman Seligman Temple Bar Temple Bar Tuba City Tuba City Tucson La Cholla Airpark Whiteriver Whiteriver Window Rock Window Rock GA-Basic: Not an Objective Aguila Eagle Roost Bagdad Bagdad Cibecue Cibecue Meadview Pearce Ferry Peach Springs Hualapai Rimrock Rimrock Sells Sells Superior Superior Municipal Tombstone Tombstone Municipal Whitmore Grand Canyon Bar Ten Airstrip Existing Approach Capability Compliance Non-Precision Visual Non-Precision Visual Non-Precision Yes No Yes No Yes Visual Visual Visual Visual Visual Visual Non-Precision Visual Non-Precision Visual Visual Visual Visual Visual Visual Visual Visual Visual Visual Visual Visual Visual Visual Non-Precision No No No No No No Yes No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes Visual Visual Visual Visual Visual Visual Visual Visual Visual Visual NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Source: FAA Approach Plates B-23 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE Visual Aids Various visual aids provide navigational assistance to aircraft arriving and departing Arizona’s airports. Further, visual aids provide support to non-precision and precision approach aids. Visual aids required at Arizona airports include rotating beacons, wind indicators, segmented circles, Runway End Identifier Lights (REILs) on both runway ends, and a Visual Glide Slope Indicator such as Visual Approach Slope Indicators (VASIs), or Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPIs), or Pulse Light Approach Slope Indicator (PLASI) on both runway ends. As shown in Figure B-14, 35 percent of all system airports currently meet the visual aids objectives benchmark. By role, 42 percent of Commercial Service, 88 percent of Reliever, 28 percent of GACommunity, 33 percent of GA-Rural, and zero percent of GA-Basic airports meet all of their visual aid objectives. Figure B-14: Percentage of Airports by Role Meeting Visual Aid Objectives Arizona Total Full Compliance 34% Commercial Service 42% Reliever 88% GA-Community 28% GA-Rural GA-Basic 33% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 Figure B-15 presents which airports currently meet their objectives for visual aids. Notably, if an airport does not meet all of its visual aid objectives it is recognized as not meeting the benchmark in totality. B-24 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE Figure B-15: Visual Aid Compliance by Airport Associated City Airport Name Existing Visual Aids Commercial Service: Objective - Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone/Segmented Circle, REILs, VGSI Bullhead City Laughlin/Bullhead Intl Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle, REILs, PAPIs Flagstaff Flagstaff Pulliam Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, PAPIs Grand Canyon Grand Canyon National Park Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle, REIL, VASI Kingman Kingman Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle, REILs, PAPIs Mesa Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle Page Page Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle, REILs, VASIs Peach Springs Grand Canyon West Wind Sock, Segmented Circle Phoenix Phoenix Sky Harbor Intl Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, REIL, PAPIs Prescott Ernest A. Love Field Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle, REILs, PAPIs Show Low Show Low Regional Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle, REILs, PAPIs Tucson Tucson International Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, REIL, PAPIs Yuma Yuma International Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, PAPIs Reliever: Objective - Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone/Segmented Circle, REILs, VGSI Chandler Chandler Municipal Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle, REILs, PAPIs Glendale Glendale Municipal Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle, REILs, PAPIs Goodyear Phoenix Goodyear Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle, REILs, PAPIs Marana Marana Regional Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle, REILs, PAPIs Mesa Falcon Field Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle, REILs, PAPIs Phoenix Phoenix Deer Valley Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle, REILs, PAPIs Scottsdale Scottsdale Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle, REILs, PAPIs Tucson Ryan Field Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle, REIL, VASI GA-Community: Objective - Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone/Segmented Circle, REILs, VGSI Benson Benson Municipal Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle, REILs, PAPIs Buckeye Buckeye Municipal Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle, PAPIs Carefree Sky Ranch at Carefree Lighted Wind Cone, REILs, PLASIs Casa Grande Casa Grande Municipal Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle, VASIs Chandler Memorial Airfield Wind Sock Chandler Stellar Airpark Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle, VASI Colorado City Colorado City Municipal Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle, REILs, PAPIs Coolidge Coolidge Municipal Rotating Beacon, Wind Sock, Segmented Circle, PAPIs Cottonwood Cottonwood Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle, REIL, PAPI Douglas Douglas Municipal Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle, PAPIs Eloy Eloy Municipal Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle Grand Canyon Grand Canyon Valle Rotating Beacon, Wind Sock, Segmented Circle, REILs, VASIs Holbrook Holbrook Municipal Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle, REILs, PAPIs Lake Havasu City Lake Havasu City Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle, REILs, PAPIs Marana Pinal Airpark Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle Nogales Nogales International Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle, PAPI Parker Avi Suquilla Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle, REILs, PAPIs Payson Payson Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle, PAPI Peoria Pleasant Valley Wind Sock, Segmented Circle Safford Safford Regional Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle, VASIs Sedona Sedona Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle, REILs, PAPIs Sierra Vista Sierra Vista Municipal Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, PAPIs Springerville Springerville Municipal Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle, PAPIs Compliance Yes No No Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No No Yes No No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes No No No Yes No No B-25 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE Figure B-15: Visual Aid Compliance by Airport (Continued) Associated City Airport Name Existing Visual Aids GA-Community: Objective - Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone/Segmented Circle, REILs, VGSI St Johns St Johns Industrial Air Park Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle, REIL, PAPIs Taylor Taylor Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle, REILs, PAPIs Wickenburg Wickenburg Municipal Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle, REILs, PAPIs Willcox Cochise County Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle Williams H.A. Clark Memorial Field Rotating Beacon, Wind Sock, Segmented Circle, REILs, PAPIs Winslow Winslow-Lindbergh Regional Rotating Beacon, Wind Sock, Segmented Circle, REIL, VASI GA-Rural: Objective - Rotating Beacon, Wind Cone/Segmented Circle, VGSI Ajo Eric Marcus Municipal Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle, PAPIs Bisbee Bisbee Municipal Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle Bullhead City Sun Valley Wind Sock, Segmented Circle Chinle Chinle Municipal Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle, REILs, PAPIs Clifton/Morenci Greenlee County Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle, PAPIs Douglas Cochise College Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle, PAPIs Douglas Bisbee Bisbee Douglas Intl Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle, REILs, VASIs Gila Bend Gila Bend Municipal Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle, PAPIs Globe San Carlos Apache Rotating Beacon, Wind Sock, Segmented Circle, REILs, PAPIs Kayenta Kayenta Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle, VASI Kearny Kearny Wind Sock Marble Canyon Marble Canyon Wind Sock, Segmented Circle Maricopa Estrella Sailport Wind Sock, Segmented Circle Peach Springs Grand Canyon Caverns Wind Sock Phoenix Phoenix Regional Wind Sock Polacca Polacca Wind Sock San Luis Rolle Airfield Wind Sock, Segmented Circle San Manuel San Manuel/Ray/Blair Wind Sock, Segmented Circle Seligman Seligman Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle, REILs, PAPIs Temple Bar Temple Bar Wind Sock, Segmented Circle Tuba City Tuba City Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, Segmented Circle, REILs, PAPIs Tucson La Cholla Airpark Lighted Wind Cone, VASI Whiteriver Whiteriver Rotating Beacon, Wind Sock, Segmented Circle, REILs, PAPI Window Rock Window Rock Rotating Beacon, Lighted Wind Cone, REIL, PAPI GA-Basic: Objective - Rotating Beacon, Wind Sock Aguila Eagle Roost Lighted Wind Cone Bagdad Bagdad Wind Cone Cibecue Cibecue Wind Sock Meadview Pearce Ferry Wind Sock, Segmented Circle Peach Springs Hualapai Wind Sock Rimrock Rimrock Wind Sock, REIL, VASI Sells Sells Wind Sock Superior Superior Municipal Wind Sock Tombstone Tombstone Municipal Wind Sock, VASI Whitmore Grand Canyon Bar Ten Airstrip Wind Sock Compliance No Yes Yes No No No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No Yes No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 B-26 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE Lighting Runway lights are used to outline the edges of runways during periods of darkness or restricted visibility conditions. These light systems are classified according to the intensity or brightness they are capable of producing: High Intensity Runway Lights (HIRL), Medium Intensity Runway Lights (MIRL), Low Intensity Runway Lights (LIRL), and reflectors. Taxiway lights are named the same way: high (HITL), medium (MITL), and low (LITL). At smaller airports, runway reflectors are often acceptable. It should be noted that in order to meet this benchmark, airports must meet both their runway and taxiway lighting objectives. As shown in Figure B-16, 47 percent of all airports included in the SASP meet their lighting objectives. This includes 92 percent of Commercial Service and 100 percent of Reliever airports. In addition, 45 percent of GA-Community, 21 percent of GA-Rural and 20 percent of GA-Basic airports meet their objectives. Figure B-16: Percentage of Airports by Role Meeting Runway and Taxiway Lighting Objectives Arizona Total 47% Commercial Service 92% Reliever 100% GA-Community 45% GA-Rural 21% GA-Basic 20% 0% 10% 20% Full Compliance 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 Figure B-17 indicates which airports are currently meeting their respective lighting objectives. B-27 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE Figure B-17: Runway and Taxiway Lighting Compliance by Airport Existing Runway Lighting Associated City Airport Name Commercial Service: Objective - HIRL/HITL (MIRL/MITL Minimum) Bullhead City Laughlin/Bullhead International MIRL Flagstaff Flagstaff Pulliam HIRL Grand Canyon Grand Canyon National Park MIRL Kingman Kingman MIRL Mesa Phoenix-Mesa Gateway MIRL Page Page MIRL Peach Springs Grand Canyon West None Phoenix Phoenix Sky Harbor International HIRL Prescott Ernest A. Love Field MIRL Show Low Show Low Regional MIRL Tucson Tucson International HIRL Yuma Yuma International Airport HIRL Reliever: Objective - MIRL/MITL Chandler Chandler Municipal MIRL Glendale Glendale Municipal MIRL Goodyear Phoenix Goodyear MIRL Marana Marana Regional MIRL Mesa Falcon Field MIRL Phoenix Phoenix Deer Valley MIRL Scottsdale Scottsdale MIRL Tucson Ryan Field MIRL GA-Community: Objective - MIRL/MITL Benson Benson Municipal HIRL Buckeye Buckeye Municipal MIRL Carefree Sky Ranch at Carefree LIRL Casa Grande Casa Grande Municipal MIRL Chandler Memorial Airfield None Chandler Stellar Airpark MIRL Colorado City Colorado City Municipal MIRL Coolidge Coolidge Municipal MIRL Cottonwood Cottonwood MIRL Douglas Douglas Municipal MIRL Eloy Eloy Municipal MIRL Grand Canyon Grand Canyon Valle MIRL Holbrook Holbrook Municipal MIRL Lake Havasu City Lake Havasu City MIRL Marana Pinal Airpark MIRL Nogales Nogales International MIRL Parker Avi Suquilla MIRL Payson Payson MIRL Peoria Pleasant Valley None Safford Safford Regional MIRL Sedona Sedona MIRL Sierra Vista Sierra Vista Municipal HIRL Existing Taxiway Lighting Full Compliance MITL MITL MITL MITL MITL MITL None MITL MITL MITL MITL MITL Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes MITL MITL MITL MITL MITL MITL MITL MITL Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes MITL MITL None MITL None Reflectors Reflectors MITL None MITL None None MITL MITL Reflectors MITL MITL Reflectors None MITL MITL MITL Yes Yes No Yes No No No Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes B-28 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE Figure B-17: Runway and Taxiway Lighting Compliance by Airport (Continued) Associated City Airport Name GA-Community: Objective - MIRL/MITL Springerville Springerville Municipal St Johns St Johns Industrial Air Park Taylor Taylor Wickenburg Wickenburg Municipal Willcox Cochise County Williams H.A. Clark Memorial Field Winslow Winslow-Lindbergh Regional GA-Rural: Community - MIRL/MITL Ajo Eric Marcus Municipal Bisbee Bisbee Municipal Bullhead City Sun Valley Chinle Chinle Municipal Clifton/Morenci Greenlee County Douglas Cochise College Douglas Bisbee Bisbee Douglas International Gila Bend Gila Bend Municipal Globe San Carlos Apache Kayenta Kayenta Kearny Kearny Marble Canyon Marble Canyon Maricopa Estrella Sailport Peach Springs Grand Canyon Caverns Phoenix Phoenix Regional Polacca Polacca San Luis Rolle Airfield San Manuel San Manuel/Ray/Blair Seligman Seligman Temple Bar Temple Bar Tuba City Tuba City Tucson La Cholla Airpark Whiteriver Whiteriver Window Rock Window Rock GA-Basic: Community - LIRL or Reflectors Aguila Eagle Roost Bagdad Bagdad Cibecue Cibecue Meadview Pearce Ferry Peach Springs Hualapai Rimrock Rimrock Sells Sells Superior Superior Municipal Tombstone Tombstone Municipal Whitmore Grand Canyon Bar Ten Airstrip Existing Runway Lighting Existing Taxiway Lighting Full Compliance MIRL MIRL MIRL MIRL MIRL MIRL MIRL Reflectors Reflectors Reflectors MITL Reflectors None None No No No Yes No No No LIRL MIRL LIRL MIRL MIRL LIRL MIRL MIRL HIRL MIRL None None None None None LIRL None None MIRL None MIRL LIRL MIRL MIRL NA MITL None MITL Reflectors LITL MITL MITL None NA None None None None None NA None None MITL None NA Reflectors None NA No Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No LIRL None None None None LIRL None None None None None None NA None NA NA None None None None Yes No No No No Yes No No No No Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 Note: NA=not applicable B-29 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE Approach Lighting Systems Much like visual aids, an approach lighting system (ALS) provides navigational assistance to aircraft arriving at and departing from Arizona’s system airports. Figure B-18 summarizes the percentage of airports in each role that meet this objective. An ALS is only a requirement for Commercial Service airports and a suggestion for Reliever airports. It is not an objective for the other general aviation airports. Only 30 percent of airports for which it is a suggestion at a minimum have an ALS. Fifty percent of Commercial Service and no Reliever airports currently have an ALS. Figure B-18: Percentage of Airports by Role Meeting ALS Objectives Arizona Total 30% Commercial Service Reliever 50% 0% GA-Community Not An Objective GA-Rural Not An Objective GA-Basic Not An Objective 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 Figure B-19 details the results of this analysis at Commercial Service and Reliever airports. B-30 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE Figure B-19: Approach Lighting System Compliance by Airport Associated City Airport Name Existing ALS Compliance Commercial Service: Objective - ALS Bullhead City Laughlin/Bullhead International None No Flagstaff Grand Canyon Kingman Mesa Page Peach Springs Phoenix Prescott Show Low Tucson Yuma Flagstaff Pulliam Grand Canyon National Park Kingman Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Page Grand Canyon West Phoenix Sky Harbor International Ernest A. Love Field Show Low Regional Tucson International Yuma International Airport ALS ALS None None None None ALS ALS None ALS ALS Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes None None None None None None None None No No No No No No No No Reliever: Objective - ALS Desired Chandler Glendale Goodyear Marana Mesa Phoenix Scottsdale Tucson Chandler Municipal Glendale Municipal Phoenix Goodyear Marana Regional Falcon Field Phoenix Deer Valley Scottsdale Ryan Field Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 B-31 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE LANDSIDE FACILITIES AND SERVICES Landside facilities and services contribute significantly to the development of an airport and its attractiveness. Hangar storage and apron parking are key elements in determining the number of aircraft that can be accommodated at the airport. A fixed base operator (FBO), which provides various services like fuel and maintenance, as wells as rental cars and auto parking play a vital role at the airport by attracting general aviation users and facilitating their passage. Landside facility and service objectives described below include the following: • Airport Fencing • Services o Fixed base operator (FBO) o Maintenance o Ground transportation o Phone o Restroom o Aviation fuel • Facilities o Commercial or general aviation terminals o Pilots lounge or related facilities o Hangars o Apron o Auto Parking Airport Fencing Fencing all or part of an airport is a crucial component in airport safety and security. Airports in Arizona typically employ one of four types of airport fencing. Four-foot tall barbwire and six- foot chain link fencing are used commonly in full perimeter fencing and sometimes to fence secure areas. Eight-foot security fencing and 10-foot wildlife fencing are also used; security fencing is more common to fence in secure areas such as the runway, apron, or control tower. For this benchmark, perimeter fencing was only considered compliant if it was complete fencing with no gaps. There is an objective for all airports to have full perimeter fencing. It is also a goal for Commercial Service and Reliever airports to have some type of controlled access to their airfields. As shown in Figure B-20, 67 percent of airports in the SASP meet their objectives for airport fencing. By role, 50 percent of Commercial Service, 50 percent of Reliever, 76 percent of GA-Community, 75 percent of GA-Rural, and 60 percent of GA-Basic airports meet objectives set for airport fencing. B-32 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE Figure B-20: Percentage of Airports by Role Meeting Airport Fencing Objectives Compliance Arizona Total 67% Commercial Service 50% Reliever 50% GA-Community 76% GA-Rural 75% GA-Basic 60% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey Figure B-21 details fencing compliance by individual airport. As shown, while all Commercial Service and Reliever airports have full perimeter fencing, many noted that they had did not have controlled access to their airports, which is part of their objective. This led to the low compliance in these two categories. B-33 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE Figure B-21: Airport Fencing Compliance by Airport Associated City Airport Name Existing Fencing Commercial Service: Objective - Perimeter Fencing and Controlled Areas Bullhead City Laughlin/Bullhead International Perimeter Fencing Flagstaff Flagstaff Pulliam Perimeter Fencing Grand Canyon Grand Canyon National Park Perimeter Fencing and Controlled Areas Kingman Kingman Perimeter Fencing Mesa Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Perimeter Fencing and Controlled Areas Page Page Perimeter Fencing Peach Springs Grand Canyon West Perimeter Fencing and Controlled Areas Phoenix Phoenix Sky Harbor International Perimeter Fencing and Controlled Areas Prescott Ernest A. Love Field Perimeter Fencing Show Low Show Low Regional Perimeter Fencing Tucson Tucson International Perimeter Fencing and Controlled Areas Yuma Yuma International Airport Perimeter Fencing and Controlled Areas Reliever: Objective - Perimeter Fencing and Controlled Areas Chandler Chandler Municipal Perimeter Fencing Glendale Glendale Municipal Perimeter Fencing Goodyear Phoenix Goodyear Perimeter Fencing and Controlled Areas Marana Marana Regional Perimeter Fencing and Controlled Areas Mesa Falcon Field Perimeter Fencing Phoenix Phoenix Deer Valley Perimeter Fencing and Controlled Areas Scottsdale Scottsdale Perimeter Fencing Tucson Ryan Field Perimeter Fencing and Controlled Areas GA-Community: Objective - Perimeter Fencing Benson Benson Municipal Perimeter Fencing and Controlled Areas Buckeye Buckeye Municipal Perimeter Fencing and Controlled Areas Carefree Sky Ranch at Carefree Partial Perimeter Fencing Casa Grande Casa Grande Municipal Perimeter Fencing and Controlled Areas Chandler Memorial Airfield None Chandler Stellar Airpark Perimeter Fencing Colorado City Colorado City Municipal Perimeter Fencing and Controlled Areas Coolidge Coolidge Municipal Perimeter Fencing Cottonwood Cottonwood Perimeter Fencing Douglas Douglas Municipal Partial Perimeter Fencing and Controlled Areas Eloy Eloy Municipal Controlled Areas Grand Canyon Grand Canyon Valle Perimeter Fencing Holbrook Holbrook Municipal Perimeter Fencing Lake Havasu City Lake Havasu City Perimeter Fencing and Controlled Areas Marana Pinal Airpark Perimeter Fencing and Controlled Areas Nogales Nogales International Perimeter Fencing Parker Avi Suquilla Perimeter Fencing Payson Payson Perimeter Fencing Peoria Pleasant Valley None Safford Safford Regional Perimeter Fencing and Controlled Areas Sedona Sedona Perimeter Fencing and Controlled Areas Sierra Vista Sierra Vista Municipal Perimeter Fencing Springerville Springerville Municipal None St Johns St Johns Industrial Air Park Perimeter Fencing and Controlled Areas Taylor Taylor Controlled Areas Compliance No No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No B-34 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE Figure B-21: Airport Fencing Compliance by Airport (Continued) Associated City Airport Name GA-Community: Objective - Perimeter Fencing Wickenburg Wickenburg Municipal Willcox Cochise County Williams H.A. Clark Memorial Field Winslow Winslow-Lindbergh Regional GA-Rural: Objective - Perimeter Fencing Ajo Eric Marcus Municipal Bisbee Bisbee Municipal Bullhead City Sun Valley Chinle Chinle Municipal Clifton/Morenci Greenlee County Douglas Cochise College Douglas Bisbee Bisbee Douglas International Gila Bend Gila Bend Municipal Globe San Carlos Apache Kayenta Kayenta Kearny Kearny Marble Canyon Marble Canyon Maricopa Estrella Sailport Peach Springs Grand Canyon Caverns Phoenix Phoenix Regional Polacca Polacca San Luis Rolle Airfield San Manuel San Manuel/Ray/Blair Seligman Seligman Temple Bar Temple Bar Tuba City Tuba City Tucson La Cholla Airpark Whiteriver Whiteriver Window Rock Window Rock GA-Basic: Objective - Perimeter Fencing Desired Aguila Eagle Roost Bagdad Bagdad Cibecue Cibecue Meadview Pearce Ferry Peach Springs Hualapai Rimrock Rimrock Sells Sells Superior Superior Municipal Tombstone Tombstone Municipal Whitmore Grand Canyon Bar Ten Airstrip Existing Fencing Compliance Perimeter Fencing Perimeter Fencing Perimeter Fencing Perimeter Fencing and Controlled Areas Yes Yes Yes Yes Perimeter Fencing Perimeter Fencing and Controlled Areas Perimeter Fencing Perimeter Fencing Perimeter Fencing Perimeter Fencing and Controlled Areas Perimeter Fencing Perimeter Fencing Perimeter Fencing Perimeter Fencing Perimeter Fencing Controlled Areas None Partial Perimeter Fencing None Perimeter Fencing Controlled Areas Perimeter Fencing and Controlled Areas Perimeter Fencing and Controlled Areas Perimeter Fencing Perimeter Fencing None Perimeter Fencing Perimeter Fencing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Perimeter Fencing Perimeter Fencing Perimeter Fencing Perimeter Fencing None None None Perimeter Fencing Perimeter Fencing None Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes No Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 B-35 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE Services Services which are available to local pilots and tenants, as well as transient pilots, are often expected necessities while others are essential for security. Basic services that are typically welcomed at airports by pilots include local and/or emergency phone service and restrooms. The presence of an FBO which provides aviation services at an airport is a service provided to both local and transient users. An FBO was considered full-service if it provides flight instruction, maintenance, fuel, and charter service. Coupled with an FBO, a designated maintenance facility and/or hangar are important services that airports can provide that are beneficial to all vested members of the aviation community. This service is yet another mechanism that airports use to be self-sufficient while conducting business and adding jobs to the economic base of the local community, region, and state. Additionally, when aircraft owners fly into an airport either for business or discretionary purposes, it is often important for them to have access to transportation services. Users may require on-site rental car services, while at other times, off-site rental car service, or a courtesy/loaner car is acceptable to meet this demand. Figure B-22 shows that only 20 percent of all system airports meet their respective services objectives completely. While 80 percent of airports do not meet all of the applicable objectives for their role, it is noteworthy that the airports perform much better in this benchmark by individual services. Many airports partially fulfill an individual service objective. For example, Commercial Service and Reliever airports are required to have both Jet A and AvGas available to the public 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Many airports that have public fuel do not meet this requirement as it may not be available 24/7. Figure B-23 indicates which airports are currently meeting their respective landside service objectives. It must be taken into consideration that if an airport does not meet all of its service objectives it is recognized as not meeting the objective in totality. B-36 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE Not an Objective 75% 70% 63% 60% 75% Not an Objective Not an Objective 100% 92% 79% 83% 82% 80% 86% 90% 86% Not an Objective 100% Not an Objective Figure B-22: Percentage of Airports by Role Meeting Service Objectives 38% 40% 29% 25% 20% 31% 30% 20% 45% 48% 50% Reliever 79% 83% 64% 62% 63% 70% 60% GA-Basic 76% 80% GA-Rural 86% 83% 90% GA-Community Ground Transportation 93% 100% 100% Commercial Service 100% Arizona Total Maintenance Not an Objective FBO 100% Full Compliance 100% 0% 0% 8% 10% 50% 33% 40% 25% 30% 20% 0% Phone Arizona Total 0% 0% 10% Restroom Commercial Service Reliever Fuel GA-Community GA-Rural GA-Basic Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey B-37 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE Figure B-23: Airport Services Compliance by Airport Individual Service Compliance Associated City Airport Name FBO Maintenance Ground Transportation Phone Restroom Commercial Service: Objective - Full Service FBO, Maintenance, On-site Rental Car, Phone, Restroom, 24/7 AvGas and Jet A Bullhead City Laughlin/Bullhead International Yes Yes Yes No Yes Flagstaff Flagstaff Pulliam Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Grand Canyon Grand Canyon National Park Yes Yes No Yes Yes Kingman Kingman Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Mesa Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Page Page No Yes Yes Yes Yes Peach Springs Grand Canyon West No No No Yes Yes Phoenix Phoenix Sky Harbor International Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Prescott Ernest A. Love Field Yes Yes Yes No Yes Show Low Show Low Regional Yes Yes No Yes Yes Tucson Tucson International Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yuma Yuma International Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Reliever: Objective - Full Service FBO, Maintenance, On-site Rental Car, Phone, Restroom, 24/7 AvGas and Jet A Chandler Chandler Municipal Yes Yes No Yes Yes Glendale Glendale Municipal Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Goodyear Phoenix Goodyear No Yes Yes Yes Yes Marana Marana Regional Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Mesa Falcon Field Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Phoenix Phoenix Deer Valley Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Scottsdale Scottsdale No Yes Yes Yes Yes Tucson Ryan Field No Yes No Yes Yes GA-Community: Objective - Limited Service FBO, Limited Maintenance, On-site Ground Transportation, Phone, Restroom, AvGas and Jet A Benson Benson Municipal Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Buckeye Buckeye Municipal No No No Yes Yes Carefree Sky Ranch at Carefree No No No Yes Yes Casa Grande Casa Grande Municipal No Yes No No No Chandler Memorial Airfield No No No No No Chandler Stellar Airpark Yes Yes No Yes Yes Colorado City Colorado City Municipal Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Coolidge Coolidge Municipal Yes Yes No Yes Yes Fuel Full Compliance Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No Yes No B-38 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE Figure B-23: Airport Services Compliance by Airport (Continued) Individual Service Compliance Associated City Airport Name FBO Maintenance Ground Transportation Phone Restroom GA-Community: Objective - Limited Service FBO, Limited Maintenance, On-site Ground Transportation, Phone, Restroom, AvGas and Jet A Cottonwood Cottonwood Yes Yes No No Yes Douglas Douglas Municipal Yes Yes No Yes Yes Eloy Eloy Municipal Yes Yes No Yes Yes Grand Canyon Grand Canyon Valle Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Holbrook Holbrook Municipal Yes No Yes Yes Yes Lake Havasu City Lake Havasu City Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Marana Pinal Airpark Yes Yes No No Yes Nogales Nogales International Yes Yes No Yes Yes Parker Avi Suquilla Yes Yes No Yes Yes Payson Payson Yes Yes No Yes Yes Peoria Pleasant Valley Yes Yes No Yes Yes Safford Safford Regional Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Sedona Sedona Yes No Yes Yes Yes Sierra Vista Sierra Vista Municipal Yes Yes No Yes Yes Springerville Town of Springerville Municipal Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes St Johns St Johns Industrial Air Park Yes No Yes Yes Yes Taylor Taylor Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Wickenburg Wickenburg Municipal Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Willcox Cochise County Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Williams H.A. Clark Memorial Field Yes Yes No Yes Yes Winslow Winslow-Lindbergh Regional Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes GA-Rural: Objective - Ground Transportation, Phone, Restroom, AvGas Ajo Eric Marcus Municipal NA NA No No No Bisbee Bisbee Municipal NA NA Yes Yes Yes Bullhead City Sun Valley NA NA No Yes Yes Chinle Chinle Municipal NA NA No No No Clifton/Morenci Greenlee County NA NA No No Yes Douglas Cochise College NA NA No Yes Yes Douglas Bisbee Bisbee Douglas International NA NA No Yes Yes Gila Bend Gila Bend Municipal NA NA No No Yes Globe San Carlos Apache NA NA Yes No Yes Kayenta Kayenta NA NA No No No Fuel Full Compliance No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No No No Yes No Yes No No No No No Yes No No Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No B-39 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE Figure B-23: Airport Services Compliance by Airport (Continued) Associated City Airport Name FBO GA-Rural: Objective - Ground Transportation, Phone, Restroom, AvGas Kearny Kearny NA Marble Canyon Marble Canyon NA Maricopa Estrella Sailport NA Peach Springs Grand Canyon Caverns NA Phoenix Phoenix Regional NA Polacca Polacca NA San Luis Rolle Airfield NA San Manuel San Manuel/Ray/Blair NA Seligman Seligman NA Temple Bar Temple Bar NA Tuba City Tuba City NA Tucson La Cholla Airpark NA Whiteriver Whiteriver NA Window Rock Window Rock NA GA-Basic: Objective - Phone and Restroom Desired Aguila Eagle Roost NA Bagdad Bagdad NA Cibecue Cibecue NA Meadview Pearce Ferry NA Peach Springs Hualapai NA Rimrock Rimrock NA Sells Sells NA Superior Superior Municipal NA Tombstone Tombstone Municipal NA Whitmore Grand Canyon Bar Ten Airstrip NA Maintenance Individual Service Compliance Ground Transportation Phone Restroom Fuel Full Compliance NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA No No No Yes No No No Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No No No Yes No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No No No Yes No No No No No No No Yes No No No Yes No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA No No No No No No No No No No Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 Note: NA=Not Applicable B-40 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE Facilities Landside facilities are important infrastructure elements of an airport and vital economic catalysts for both airport and its community. A terminal building is typically seen as both an airport’s and community’s “welcome center” when pilots and users arrive by aircraft. General aviation terminals serve different roles depending on the complexity of the airport. At many airports, the terminal may house the FBO, a pilots’ lounge, a weather information area, and an observation area. Similarly, the need to provide covered storage for based aircraft varies by airport, climate, aircraft cost, security, and other considerations. Nationally, there continues to be trend for owners of general aviation aircraft to seek covered storage. Until recently, hangar development did not qualify for federal grants and the need for hangar development often lagged behind the airport’s ability to provide such facilities. In addition to providing covered storage for based aircraft there is the need to ensure adequate apron space for storing local and transient aircraft that cannot be housed in hangars. Regardless of how an individual reaches an airport, there is an inherent need for auto parking whether it is for employees of aviation businesses to park their personal vehicles, aircraft owners that wish to park their car before taking their aircraft for a flight, or visitors and business users arriving via aircraft that will rent a car or utilize a courtesy car to go into town. As a result of the events on September 11, 2001, new security guidelines for commercial and general aviation airports may result in restricted auto parking in aircraft movement areas. Airports should therefore plan to provide auto parking in designated areas away from hangars and other areas of aircraft movement. Figure B-24 shows that only 32 percent of airports for which facility objectives were set meet these objectives. Similar to the landside service objectives, most airports roles perform better in the individual facility objectives. The only facility objective where poor performance is noted is in the number of hangar spaces. Only 41 percent of total airports met this objective. Again, one should consider that if an airport does not meet all of its applicable landside facility objectives it is recognized as not meeting the objective in totality. Facility objectives were not set for GA-Basic airports. Figure B-25 indicates which airports are currently meeting their respective landside service objectives. B-41 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Figure B-24: Percentage of Airports by Role Meeting Landside Facility Objectives 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 0% 10% 13% 17% 20% 0% Full Compliance Terminal Reliever 100% 100% Commercial Service Hangar Spaces GA-Community GA-Rural 100% Arizona Total 67% 72% 73% 70% 79% 75% 86% 92% 90% 80% 29% 34% 25% 32% 30% 41% 40% 60% 50% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Apron Spaces Arizona Total Auto Parking Spaces Commercial Service Reliever GA-Community GA-Rural Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey B-42 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE Figure B-25: Airport Facilities Compliance by Airport Hangar Objective Apron Objective Auto Parking Objective Individual Facility Compliance Auto Other Full Terminal Hangars Apron Parking Facilities Compliance Associated City Airport Name Commercial Service: Objective - Consistent with Master Plan Bullhead City Laughlin/Bullhead International NA NA NA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Flagstaff Flagstaff Pulliam NA NA NA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Grand Canyon Grand Canyon National Park NA NA NA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Kingman Kingman NA NA NA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Mesa Phoenix-Mesa Gateway NA NA NA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Page Page NA NA NA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Peach Springs Grand Canyon West NA NA NA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Phoenix Phoenix Sky Harbor International NA NA NA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Prescott Ernest A. Love Field NA NA NA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Show Low Show Low Regional NA NA NA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Tucson Tucson International NA NA NA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yuma Yuma International Airport NA NA NA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Reliever: Objective - Terminal with Pilots' Lounge, Hangars (75% of based fleet and 25% overnight), Apron (25% of based fleet and 75% transient), Auto Parking (75% of based fleet) Chandler Chandler Municipal 382 217 375 Yes No Yes No Yes No Glendale Glendale Municipal 314 148 310 Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Goodyear Phoenix Goodyear 215 159 230 Yes Yes No No Yes No Mesa Falcon Field 723 382 711 Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Phoenix Phoenix Deer Valley 968 464 956 Yes No No Yes Yes No Scottsdale Scottsdale 347 249 336 Yes No Yes No Yes No Tucson Marana Regional 233 112 207 Yes No No No Yes No Tucson Ryan Field 235 153 228 Yes No Yes Yes Yes No GA-Community: Objective - Terminal with Appropriate Facilities, Hangars (60% of based fleet and 25% overnight), Apron (40% of based fleet and 50% transient), Auto Parking (33% of based fleet) Benson Benson Municipal 26 21 14 Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Buckeye Buckeye Municipal 39 31 21 Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Carefree Sky Ranch at Carefree 70 46 38 Yes Yes No No Yes No Casa Grande Casa Grande Municipal 56 44 31 Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Chandler Memorial Airfield 1 3 0 Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Chandler Stellar Airpark 93 68 51 Yes Yes No No Yes No Colorado City Colorado City Municipal 4 4 2 Yes Yes Yes No Yes No B-43 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE Figure B-25: Airport Facilities Compliance by Airport (Continued) Individual Facility Compliance Auto Parking Hangar Apron Auto Other Full Objective Objective Objective Terminal Hangars Apron Parking Facilities Compliance Associated City Airport Name GA-Community: Objective - Terminal with Appropriate Facilities, Hangars (60% of based fleet and 25% overnight), Apron (40% of based fleet and 50% transient), Auto Parking (33% of based fleet) Coolidge Coolidge Municipal 21 18 12 Yes No No No Yes No Cottonwood Cottonwood 31 27 17 Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Douglas Douglas Municipal 17 17 9 Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Eloy Eloy Municipal 26 22 14 Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Grand Canyon Grand Canyon Valle 4 2 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Holbrook Holbrook Municipal 13 11 7 Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Lake Havasu City Lake Havasu City 140 109 76 Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Marana Pinal Airpark 1 0 0 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Nogales Nogales International 23 24 12 Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Parker Avi Suquilla 27 25 14 Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Payson Payson 54 46 29 Yes No Yes No Yes No Peoria Pleasant Valley 21 14 12 Yes No Yes No Yes No Safford Safford Regional 26 26 14 Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Sedona Sedona 66 66 35 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Sierra Vista Sierra Vista Municipal 50 38 28 Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Springerville Town of Springerville Municipal 12 14 7 Yes No Yes Yes Yes No St Johns St Johns Industrial Air Park 10 14 5 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Taylor Taylor 9 7 5 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Wickenburg Wickenburg Municipal 29 24 16 Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Willcox Cochise County 17 15 9 Yes No Yes No Yes No Williams H.A. Clark Memorial Field 12 9 6 Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Coolidge Coolidge Municipal 21 18 12 Yes No No No Yes No GA-Rural: Objective - Hangars (50% of based fleet and 25% overnight), Apron (50% of based fleet and 25% transient), Auto Parking (equal to based fleet) Ajo Eric Marcus Municipal 5 9 8 Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Bisbee Bisbee Municipal 18 32 34 Yes No Yes No Yes No Bullhead City Sun Valley 17 23 33 Yes No No No Yes No Chinle Chinle Municipal 3 4 4 Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Clifton/Morenci Greenlee County 2 2 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Douglas Cochise College 12 12 15 Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Douglas Bisbee Bisbee Douglas International 10 18 18 Yes No Yes Yes Yes No B-44 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX B: CURRENT FACILITY AND SERVICE OBJECTIVE COMPLIANCE Figure B-25: Airport Facilities Compliance by Airport (Continued) Hangar Objective Apron Objective Auto Parking Objective Individual Facility Compliance Auto Other Terminal Hangars Apron Parking Facilities Associated City Airport Name GA-Rural: Objective - Hangars (50% of based fleet and 25% overnight), Apron (50% of based fleet and 25% transient), Auto Parking (equal to based fleet) Gila Bend Gila Bend Municipal 2 3 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Globe San Carlos Apache 24 38 47 Yes No Yes No Yes Kayenta Kayenta 1 2 0 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Kearny Kearny 3 5 5 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Marble Canyon Marble Canyon 1 1 1 Yes No Yes No Yes Maricopa Estrella Sailport 15 20 28 Yes No Yes No Yes Peach Springs Grand Canyon Caverns 1 2 0 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Phoenix Phoenix Regional 6 8 11 Yes No Yes No Yes Polacca Polacca 1 2 0 Yes No Yes Yes Yes San Luis Rolle Airfield 0 2 0 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes San Manuel San Manuel/Ray/Blair 30 53 57 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Seligman Seligman 1 3 0 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Temple Bar Temple Bar 1 2 0 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Tuba City Tuba City 1 2 0 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Tucson La Cholla Airpark 49 67 97 Yes No No No Yes Whiteriver Whiteriver 1 2 0 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Window Rock Window Rock 3 4 4 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Full Compliance Yes No No Yes No No Yes No No Yes No No No No No No Yes Source: Airport Inventory & Data Survey 2008 B-45 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX C NPIAS CANDIDATE APPENDIX C: NPIAS CANDIDATE AIRPORT ANALYSIS This appendix details the analysis to determine eligibility of Arizona system airports for NPIAS inclusion. If the airport system grows as projected in the SASP, there may be a future need for improved facilities that may benefit from inclusion in the NPIAS. Three airports are analyzed for their ability to meet NPIAS candidacy: Rolle Airfield in San Luis, and proposed airports at Superior and Maricopa. It is important to note that the state should continue to monitor activity at non-NPIAS system airports to see if other airports should be considered in the future as well. NPIAS AIRPORTS IN ARIZONA The National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) is the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) national airport plan. The NPIAS includes nearly 3,500 existing and proposed airports in the United States which are of significance to the national air transportation system. Fifty-nine of Arizona’s 83 public-use airports are included in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems for Fiscal Years (FYs) 2009-2013. Airports included in the NPIAS are eligible to compete for federal funding from the FAA’s Airport Improvement Program (AIP). As noted in Chapter Two of the SASP, the FAA classifies airports in the NPIAS into categories such as primary commercial service, non-primary commercial service, or general aviation. Figure C-1 depicts the location of Arizona’s NPIAS airports in the 2009-2013 publication. Currently, there are 11 commercial service airports and 48 general aviation airports in Arizona that are included in the 2009-2013 NPIAS.1 As noted, inclusion of an airport in the NPIAS makes it eligible to compete for project funding from the AIP. Funds for AIP come from the Aviation Trust Fund which is 100 percent user funded. For airports to be eligible for funding from the FAA, they must be included in the NPIAS. FAA Order 5090.3C, Field Formulation of the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems dated December 4, 2000 provides guidelines for qualifying airports for entrance into the NPIAS. 1It should be noted that while the most recent FAA NPIAS (2009-2013) still shows Phoenix-Mesa Gateway as a reliever, that the airport should be classified as a Primary Commercial Service Airport. This airport has maintained commercial airline service and has surpassed the 10,000 annual enplanement mark. C-1 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX C NPIAS CANDIDATE Figure C-1: Arizona FAA Airport Classification Sources: FAA National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) 2009-2011 and AZ SASP Records. Prepared: January 2009. C-2 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX C NPIAS CANDIDATE NPIAS ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA Based on the FAA’s order, there are airports which could be considered for inclusion in the NPIAS since the previous State Aviation Needs Study was completed in 2000. Airport economics and significant changes in Arizona with regards to energy, tourism, and agriculture have lead to the need for an evaluation of potential NPIAS eligibility. The FAA’s criteria for an airport’s inclusion in the NPIAS are based on a variety of factors such as airport demand, geographic location, airport sponsorship, as well as other criteria. The following sections discuss FAA’s criteria considered for inclusion in the NPIAS: • • • • • Airports formerly in the NPIAS – Airports that have been included at one time in the NPIAS but have been eliminated from the program are eligible for inclusion. These airports must meet other NPIAS criteria, however, such as a minimum level of based aircraft. An exception to this criterion includes airports not included in a SASP or airports where there is clearly no longer a continuing national interest in the airport. Airport’s location in relation to the nearest NPIAS airport – An airport that is included in a SASP may be included in the NPIAS if it has 10 or more based aircraft and serves a community located at least 20 miles or a 30-minute drive from the nearest existing or proposed NPIAS airport. Reliever Airport – An existing or proposed airport may be included in the NPIAS if it relieves airport congestion in a metropolitan area by providing general aviation users with an alternative landing location. The purpose of the reliever airport is to provide substantial capacity or instrument training relief. Currently, there are nine airports in the Arizona system that have been given reliever status. Airports receiving U.S. Mail Service – Any public airport where a scheduled air carrier transports mail to an airport or where an independent carrier, freight forwarder, FBO, etc. is under contract with the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) to carry mail may be included in the NPIAS. The airport must be adequate to satisfy the needs of the USPS. Airports with a National Defense Role – Any public-use airport where a unit of the Air National Guard or of a reserve component of the Armed Forces of the United States is permanently based or is adjacent to and who operates permanently assigned aircraft directly related to its mission is included in the NPIAS. An existing or proposed airport not meeting the criteria above may be included in the NPIAS if it meets all of the following: • It is included in the SASP • It serves a community more than 30 minutes from the nearest NPIAS airport • It is forecast to have 10 or more based aircraft within the short-term planning period (5 years) • There is an eligible public sponsor willing to undertake the ownership and development of the airport Airports that do not meet any of the previously discussed entry criteria may be considered for inclusion in the NPIAS on the basis of a special justification. This justification must show that there is a significant national interest in the airport. Such special justifications include: • A determination that the benefits of the airport will exceed its development costs • Written documentation describing isolation • Airports serving the needs of Native American communities C-3 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX C NPIAS CANDIDATE • • Airports needed to support recreation areas Airports needed to develop or protect important national resources Benefit/Cost Analysis If an airport is included in a SASP, but the community it serves is within 20 miles or a 30minute drive of an existing or proposed NPIAS airport, or if it is forecasted to have less than 10 based aircraft in the short-term planning period, a benefit analysis may be conducted to determine if the benefits of the airport exceed its cost. The FAA defines the benefits accruing to airport users as the time saved by using an airport and the net costs of such use relative to travel to the next best alternative airport. The rationale is that time saved can be devoted to other endeavors, resulting in a net increase in the production of goods and services in the national economy. In the FAA’s 1992 report Estimating the Regional Economic Significance of Airports, the FAA established a methodology that estimates the measure of importance of airports on their surrounding communities. In such an analysis, the FAA considers both the transportation benefits and the economic benefits of candidate airports. The guidelines estimate that when the distance saved by general aviation users is 20 miles, the annual benefit per based aircraft is $12,330. When the 1992 estimated annual benefit per based aircraft is adjusted for inflation over the last 17 years, the annual benefit becomes $18,740 per based aircraft. However, it is believed that the true economic benefit of Arizona airports is much greater than that calculated by the FAA report. ADOT Aeronautics sponsored a much more recent economic impact study that determined the economic output derived from airports in Arizona. According to the study, completed in 2004, each based aircraft at a general aviation airport equates to approximately $275,000 in annual economic benefit. For the purpose of this analysis, this figure, which is more recent and Arizona-specific compared to the FAA benefit calculation, will be used to determine if the benefits of an airport joining the NPIAS outweigh the cost of upgrading the airport to FAA standards. To determine the cost of an airport, it was assumed that the average cost for upgrading a non-standard general aviation airport’s runway to FAA standards is approximately $1.5 to $2.0 million. This figure is based on actual historical experience in Arizona within the last five years. Within the context of establishing whether or not an airport is eligible for NPIAS inclusion, FAA methodology generally considers based aircraft because the number is more verifiable than operations or passengers. The FAA methodology then relates based aircraft to annual passenger trips by using an average number of itinerant operations per based aircraft. The resulting number of based aircraft required for an airport being considered for NPIAS inclusion is dependant on upon the time required to drive to the nearest alternate NPIAS airport and the NPIAS cost of the candidate airport. The lower the development and operating costs for the candidate airport, the fewer the number of based aircraft required to justify the airport’s inclusion in the NPIAS. It is important to note that the FAA’s entry equation for NPIAS inclusion is most sensitive to three factors. These factors are: • Based aircraft • Access time and distance to other NPIAS airports • Airport costs C-4 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX C NPIAS CANDIDATE ARIZONA NPIAS-CANDIDATE AIRPORTS This section discusses three possible candidate airports to be considered for NPIAS inclusion: Rolle, Maricopa, and Superior. The potential airports at Maricopa and Superior are presently in the planning stages. They are included to assess the potential for becoming a NPIAS airport if they are constructed. Rolle Airfield The existing Rolle Airfield is located in southwest Arizona, approximately 15 miles south of Yuma. The airfield has one paved runway, Runway 17/35. The airport’s existing runway is 2,800 feet long and 60 feet wide. The airport has visual approaches to both runway ends. The 2008 Arizona SASP effort shows that the airport had no based aircraft in 2007 and experienced approximately 2,900 total operations in 2007. The airport’s based aircraft are forecast as part of the SASP to increase to 1 by 2013 with operations increasing to 3,285. Figure C-2 identifies the criteria used to determine whether the airport is eligible for inclusion in the NPIAS. When following FAA’s guidelines and methodologies, Rolle Airfield fulfills the requirements concerning geographic location, but not for airport demand. It is at least 15 miles or 30 minutes from the nearest NPIAS airport, however it does not currently have nor is it projected to have more than 10 based aircraft. Local general aviation traffic and military operations are currently the primary aviation activities at Rolle Airfield. The distance to the nearest existing NPIAS airport, Yuma International, is 37 minutes driving time. Despite the fact that this does meet the FAA requirement, the lack of current and projected based aircraft results in very little benefit to offset cost of upgrading the airport’s non-standard general aviation runway to FAA standards. Rolle Airfield does not meet minimum requirements for inclusion in the NPIAS at this time, but activity should continue to be monitored through the SASP forecast period. C-5 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX C NPIAS CANDIDATE Figure C-2: NPIAS Candidate Airport Data and Entry Criteria – Rolle Airfield Facility Data Primary Runway Length: 2,800 feet Runway Surface: Asphalt 60 feet Approach Type: Visual 2007 2008 Estimate 2013 Projection Runway Width: Activity Data Based Aircraft: Operations: 0 1 1 2,900 2,961 3,285 NPIAS Entry Criteria If any of the following questions are answered positively, then the airport is eligible. Yes No Was the airport formerly included in the NPIAS? Is the airport more than 30 minutes from the nearest NPIAS airport? -What is the closest NPIAS airport? X X Yuma International -What is the driving distance in miles? -What is the driving distance in minutes? 15 miles 37 minutes Is the airport a reliever airport? X Does the airport receive U.S. mail? X Does the airport have a national defense role? X If all of the following questions are answered positively, then the airport is eligible. Yes Is the airport included in the SASP? X Does the airport serve a community more than 30 minutes from the nearest NPIAS airport? X Is the airport forecast to have 10 or more based aircraft? Does the airport have a willing sponsor? No X X If any of the following questions are answered positively, then the airport is eligible. Yes Do the airport’s benefits outweigh its costs? No X Does the airport serve the needs of the following: -Remote/isolated communities? X -Native American communities? X -Support recreational areas? X -Promote development or protect important national resources X Source: Arizona State Parks, Arizona Game and Fish Department, and Wilbur Smith Associates Prepared: January 2009 C-6 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX C NPIAS CANDIDATE Proposed Maricopa Airport A new airport is proposed for the City of Maricopa, to be located in south central Arizona, approximately 35 miles south of Phoenix and 20 miles northwest of Casa Grande. Projections for the City of Maricopa are sizeable; the population growth rate is over 50 percent per year for at least the next five years, and employment is projected to grow at an even faster rate. If growth rates are sustained, Maricopa could be on pace to become a metropolitan center between Phoenix and Tucson. In 2006, the City of Maricopa and the Arizona Department of Transportation commissioned an airport feasibility study2 to assess the potential for a general aviation airport in the city. Estimates of based aircraft at the new Maricopa airport were made based on proximity to the Maricopa planning area and from registered aircraft per capita growth rates in Pinal County. In zip codes located within the primary service area, two of three registered aircraft were assigned to the new airport; while in zip codes on the fringe of the primary service area, 10 percent of the registered aircraft were assigned to the new airport. The result was a potential for an initial basing of 54 aircraft if the airport were to open in 2006, and an increase to 80 aircraft by 2010. The feasibility study was completed prior to the recent economic downturn and estimates of based aircraft and operations may now be lower than suggested in the study. It is important to note that this study may need to be revisited in order for the proposed airport to be considered for NPIAS candidacy. However, this NPIAS candidate analysis is a cursory examination and does not provide new estimates. Determining potential operations at Maricopa Airport was estimated based on ratios of operations per based aircraft at existing area towered airports. The study estimated 32,400 annual operations in 2006, and 48,000 by 2010; 40 percent of which would be itinerant operations. As noted above, these estimates are based on good economic conditions that would be sustained through the completion of a new Maricopa airport. When following FAA’s guidelines and methodologies, the proposed Maricopa Airport, based on 2006 activity and based aircraft projections, appears to meet the criteria concerning airport demand and geographic location. The driving time to the nearest NPIAS airport, Casa Grande, is 40 minutes. This distance meets FAA criteria. In addition, the City of Maricopa is a willing sponsor of the airport. The airport would also help to promote and enhance the state’s recreational and national resources being very close in proximity to the Gila River Indian Reservation and Sonoran Desert National Monument. Using the benefit/cost analysis guidelines and data from the 2006 study, Maricopa Airport could qualify for the NPIAS soon after its development as the benefit would outweigh the cost of constructing the airport in 30 years. Using ADOT estimates of annual per aircraft benefit of $275,000, and study projections to have between 50 and 80 based aircraft when the airport is developed, the cost of constructing the new $44,000,000 airport could be paid for in less than five years. As business and corporate activity increases, the length of time for paying off the costs of construction would decrease. If the airport were constructed, it appears that demand for the facility and the current proposed location would make the airport eligible for NPIAS consideration. Activity related to the airport’s development should be monitored for future NPIAS consideration. 2 Coffman Associates: City of Maricopa Airport Feasibility Study. . C-7 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX C NPIAS CANDIDATE Superior Airport The existing Superior Municipal Airport is located in southern Arizona, approximately 65 miles east of Phoenix. The airport has one gravel runway, 04/22, that is 3,250 feet long and 75 feet wide with visual approaches to both runway ends. In addition, there are no based aircraft, making the current Superior Municipal ineligible for NPIAS candidacy. The Town of Superior purchased the airport property from Pinal County in 1999. The town is seeking to acquire another 181 acres of contiguous land. This acquisition would provide an opportunity for future expansion of the airport and economic diversification. The need for a new airport is also being driven by one local business, Resolution Copper, a mining company that has invested recently in the town and who would like to use the Superior Airport for its business needs. Resolution Copper cannot safely fly its aircraft into the current airport. A feasibility study for the relocation and expansion of the airport is planned but currently on hold. The timeframe on the development of a new airport is unknown, but may occur within the SASP forecast period. The activity at the airport should be monitored and candidacy for NPIAS inclusion should be evaluated as plans for the new airport are developed. C-8 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX D RELIEVER CANDIDATE APPENDIX D: RELIEVER CANDIDATE AIRPORT ANALYSIS The FAA classifies NPIAS airports as primary commercial service, non-primary commercial service, or general aviation. In addition to these classifications, a fourth class of airport deemed “Reliever” is also eligible to compete for federal funding from the FAA’s Airport Improvement Program (AIP). Reliever airports are designated by the FAA to relieve congestion at commercial service airports and to provide improved general aviation access to the overall community. They may be publicly or privately owned. Currently, there are eight general aviation airports in Arizona that have reliever status, six of which are located in Greater Phoenix. These airports are listed here: • Phoenix Metro Area • Tucson Metro Area • Marana Regional • Chandler Municipal • Ryan Field • Glendale Municipal • Phoenix Deer Valley • Phoenix Goodyear • Phoenix-Mesa Gateway • Mesa Falcon Field • Scottsdale It should be noted that while the most recent FAA NPIAS (2009-2013) still shows PhoenixMesa Gateway as a reliever, that the airport should be classified as a Primary Commercial Service Airport. This airport has maintained commercial airline service and has surpassed the 10,000 annual enplanement mark. NPIAS RELIEVER CRITERIA FAA Order 5090.3C, Field Formulation of the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems, identifies criteria to determine the eligibility of airports to be included in the NPIAS. In Arizona’s State Airports System, there are existing or proposed airports which could be considered for inclusion in the NPIAS as relievers. Significant changes in airport economics and Arizona since the previous State Aviation Needs Study have lead to this evaluation, based upon data from the 2008 Arizona State Airports System Plan. An individual review should be conducted for each candidate reliever to determine whether there is a current or future significant requirement for additional general aviation capacity to relieve congestion at the nearby commercial service airport or to enhance general aviation access to the overall community. An airport should be designated as a reliever airport only if the review documents a significant requirement. The following sections discuss reliever airport criteria. • • High Activity Level – The reliever airport must have current activity levels of at least 100 based aircraft or 25,000 annual itinerant operations (a heliport may qualify as a reliever if it has one half of this activity level). In the case of a new airport or an existing airport it must have a forecasted activity level of at least 100 based aircraft or 25,000 annual itinerant operations for the time period in which it is being designated as a reliever. Reliever to Commercial Airport – The relieved airport must be a commercial service airport that serves a metropolitan area with a population of at least 250,000 persons or at least 250,000 annual enplaned passengers. The relieved airport also must D-1 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX D RELIEVER CANDIDATE • operate at 60 percent of its capacity, or would be operated at such a level before being relieved by one or more reliever airports, or is subject to restrictions that limit activity that would otherwise reach 60 percent of capacity. Grandfathered Reliever Status – Privately owned airports currently designated as reliever airports that do not meet the new reliever criteria but have received AIP funds and are subject to grant obligations will retain the reliever airport designation and therefore remain eligible for AIP funds. These grandfathered airports will retain their reliever designation until the grant obligations have been met (10 years for privately owned airports). Those airports that do not meet the new reliever criteria and have not received AIP funds should be re-designated as general aviation airports or removed from the NPIAS. Once it is established that one or more reliever airports are determined to be necessary to serve a community, issues of complexity, general location, and total number of reliever airports must be considered. • • • Complexity – One reliever should be recommended as an all-weather instrumented facility primarily to serve itinerant general aviation activity. This reliever should be located with respect to the city center or business or industrial district served by the relieved airport, so that it will provide essentially the same user conveniences as those provided by the relieved airport. General Location – Any additional relievers, if required, may be less complex if they primarily will accommodate locally based small aircraft. Location in relationship to aircraft owners to be served or to an area well suited for instrument training should not be a consideration; access to the city center is the primary concern. Total Number of Relievers – Depending upon optimum siting conditions, there are situations where a single reliever can adequately serve both transient itinerant activity and based aircraft requirements. There are also situations where more than one reliever is needed to provide the required degree of relief. Most of the latter instances occur in large, densely populated metropolitan areas where reliever airports must be planned on a system basis and where optimum airport locations are not available (not unlike Phoenix). It should be noted that prior to recommending the inclusion of a reliever airport in the NPIAS, the airport to be relieved must be examined for alternative means of expanding its capacity and relieving congestion. In every instance, recommendation of a short runway (not necessarily parallel) should be considered to serve general aviation in lieu of or in conjunction with a reliever airport. EXISTING RELIEVERS FOR PHX In 2007, Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX) enplaned 15.4 million passengers and had over 539,000 annual operations. According to the 2008 SASP, PHX operated at 79 percent of capacity in 2007. Operations at PHX are expected to exceed capacity during the forecast period, with the demand/capacity ratio reaching 132 percent by 2030. There are currently seven reliever airports (including Phoenix-Mesa Gateway) in the Greater Phoenix area, all helping to relieve congestion at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX) while providing valuable general aviation access to their respective communities. Figure D-1 shows the locations of each existing reliever in relation to PHX. D-2 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX D RELIEVER CANDIDATE Figure D-1: Location of Existing Reliever Airports in Phoenix Metro Area Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Figure D-2 below displays the activity levels and driving times/distances for the existing reliever airports, which are criteria for determining reliever status. All existing reliever airports meet or exceed minimum requirements. Figure D-2: Based Aircraft and Activity at Phoenix Metro Area Reliever Airports and Driving Time/Distance to Phoenix Sky Harbor FAA ID CHD DVT FFZ GEU GYR IWA SDL Airport Chandler Municipal Phoenix Deer Valley Falcon Field Glendale Municipal Phoenix Goodyear Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Scottsdale Based Aircraft (2007)) 499 1274 947 413 276 103 447 Itinerant Operations (2007) 89,379 141,224 141,665 43,753 87,416 88,327 133,374 Driving Miles to Phoenix 27 20 25 20 20 31 20 Driving Time to Phoenix 35 32 31 27 28 44 33 Sources: Airport Inventory and Data Survey, Google Maps POSSIBLE NEW RELIEVERS The airport relieved, PHX, far exceeds its criteria of having 250,000 annual enplanements or serving a community of at least 250,000 people, which fulfills one of the desired criteria for a reliever. Despite the current presence of seven reliever airports in Greater Phoenix, projections of future aviation demand due to the staggering growth of the Phoenix Metropolitan Statistical Area (second fastest growth rate in the U.S.) will require greater reliever capacity. This section discusses the suitability of two regional general aviation airports to become Reliever airports for Phoenix Sky Harbor International (PHX). The airports are Buckeye Municipal and Maricopa Airport, the latter of which is a proposed airport. Figure D-3 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX D RELIEVER CANDIDATE D-3 depicts the location of both Buckeye Municipal and the proposed Maricopa Airport in relation to PHX and existing reliever airports. Figure D-3 Current and Potential Candidate Reliever Airports in Phoenix Metro Area Source: Wilbur Smith Associates Buckeye Municipal Airport Buckeye Municipal Airport is located in the City of Buckeye approximately 38 miles west of downtown Phoenix. Buckeye was ranked as the second fastest growing suburb in the U.S. after the population grew 192 percent between 2000 and 2006. In 2007, Buckeye Municipal had 62 based aircraft and a total of 9,425 itinerant operations; which does not currently meet the desired criteria of 100 based aircraft or 25,000 itinerant operations. Although the population of Buckeye is rapidly growing, there is not enough current activity from itinerant flights to warrant reliever status at Buckeye Municipal. Not only are the activity levels not sufficient, but its location in relation to existing relievers also works against its cause. Buckeye lies directly west of Phoenix where two existing relievers, Phoenix Goodyear and Glendale Municipal, lie halfway between Buckeye and downtown Phoenix. Situated in the path of major population and economic growth west of Phoenix, these two airports are heavily used and absorb much of the general aviation demand in the area. Current planning for Phoenix Goodyear includes development of a parallel runway to provide capacity relief and to better separate single engine aircraft from the larger aircraft, while plans for Glendale Municipal include a runway extension and taxiway development to accommodate larger business jets and increase overall capacity. There are also potential issues related to the expansion of Buckeye Municipal due to the location of the Yuma Proving Ground to the southwest. It appears that by expanding capacity at Phoenix Goodyear and Glendale Municipal would be sufficient, at least in the near term, to provide the region with an effective reliever airport system. However, activity levels at Phoenix Sky Harbor, as well as Phoenix Goodyear and Glendale Municipal should be monitored to determine the need for additional activity relief. D-4 2008 ARIZONA STATE AIRPORTS SYSTEM PLAN – APPENDIX D RELIEVER CANDIDATE Proposed Maricopa Airport Maricopa Airport is a proposed airport for the City of Maricopa, to be located in south central Arizona, approximately 42 miles south of Phoenix. Future growth projections for the City of Maricopa are sizeable. With population and business growth comes growth in aviation demand, so a future Maricopa Airport could be a key asset to the growing economy of Greater Phoenix. A 2006 feasibility study estimates Maricopa Airport to have 80 based aircraft in 2010 and 140 by 2015, assuming the aircraft was constructed before that time. Annual operation estimates from the 2006 study are 48,000 in 2010 and 84,000 by 2015. These estimates do not account for the recent economic downturn which would likely drastically decrease the activity estimates. As of early 2009, the community was requesting airport inclusion in the FAA NPIAS and no construction had been initiated. It is estimated that initial activity levels at Maricopa Airport would most likely not be sufficient for reliever status. However, with the growth that had occurred in the City of Maricopa prior to the economic downturn, it was estimated that activity levels would grow rapidly at the newly built airport. The study’s projections, which were prepared based on registered aircraft per capita growth rates in Pinal County, estimate 31,000 itinerant operations and 140 based aircraft by 2015, more than sufficient for reliever status if these levels were achieved and additional capacity relief was still important in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Location is the other major factor considered in the NPIAS Reliever analysis. The distance from Maricopa to downtown Phoenix is on par with the other reliever airports, and its proposed location would make it the only NPIAS airport southwest of Phoenix. This, in conjunction with general aviation demand projections, makes it a potential candidate to achieve reliever status should the airport be constructed and demand in the region continue at its recent pace. D-5