HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES 2744 CITY OF . RENTON, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 2744
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING
AND APPROVING THE RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Renton, Washington,
previously had authorized the preparation of an airport master plan;
and
WHEREAS , the council had previously accepted a federal grant to
partially fund the Renton Municipal Airport Master Plan; and
WHEREAS,. a Citizens Advisory Committee had been formed to
review and comment upon the Renton Municipal Airport Master Plan;
and
WHEREAS, the city council established the dates of July 13,
1988 and October 3, 1988, as dates for public hearings on said
Renton Municipal Airport Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, on July 13, 1988, and October 3, 1988, the city
council did hold such public hearings on the Renton Municipal
Airport Master Plan and received public comment; and
WHEREAS, the Renton Municipal Airport Master Plan appears to be .
in the public interest,
NOW
THEREFORE,, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON,
WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. The above findings are true and correct in all
respects .
SECTION II. The Renton Municipal Airport Master Plan is adopted
and approved by the Renton City Council as modified by the Citizens
Advisory Committee.
1
RESOLUTION NO. 2744
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 5th day of December ►
1988.
Maxine E. Motor, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 5th day of December ,
1988.
Earl Clymer, Maki
Approv as to form:
Z.-- -�- 4 12 1�4a .
Law en en, CTty Attorney
Res. 39: 10-17-88: as.
2
1
t 0 D D D
H PA L
PHASE I MAY
1 MASTER PLAN UPDATE 1987
Aft
_.: d438t e ;`safe �-
aaea
n M s
f
I
REID, MIDDLETON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
` H � HVOH
HUH � COPAL
PHASE 1 MAY
MASTER PLAN UPDATE 1987
Ir.. ..r- � f/���" '��, _a.xr. .. �to r .. a •
REID, MIDDLETON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Summary
Renton Municipal Airport is a crowded, well diversified, and
vital aeronautical facility which is important for the region
as well as the local community. This study is intended to
give a frame of reference on some of the changes which will
most probably be occurring in the aviation industry, the regional
market, and on the airport itself. From the perspective gained,
the City can make an informed choice on the best possible
course of action for the future of the airport. Four community ser-
vice altematives were described in the report. Following this sum-
mary is a matrix which clearly illustrates the differences between
these alternatives for both the City and the users.
Some of the other key factors for the airport's future which were
covered in the report are listed below:
• A Microwave Landing System (NILS) will be installed at
Renton and operating by 1990. Precision instrument
approaches will then be possible for those aircraft so
equipped which, because of equipment cost, will most
likely be those in the business aviation fleet.
• Regional air traffic and airport congestion will increase
dramatically towards the end of the century creating;
pressure for reliever facilities to Boeing Field which
instrument approaches constrain Sea-Tac's capacity.
• The business aviation fleet, represented by aircraft &om
large multi-engine piston powered types through corporate
jets, will be the fastest growing sector of the general
aviation (GA) market.
• Smaller GA aircraft, production of which has nearly
ceased in this country, will grow in number in the region
only as a function of population growth.
• In the face of the above increasing GA demands, Renton
Municipal Airport will likely lose 25 to 30% of it's
capacity to base aircraft as Boeing has need to reclaim
Apron "C on the west side of the airfield as part of their
W7 project and other production demands.
66
I
• Aircraft generated noise is not expected to be a problem
within the planning period.
• The facility requirements are relatively straightforward
aeronautical items with the exception of two particularly
important safety and liability issues; vehicle access
restrictions and bird control.
67
What is AEacnyE
involved for the Not much. This is the "business as usual" alternative.
City? The City might add a couple of employees to provide
security, bird control, etc., but this is not really related
to community service alternatives. Leases would be
revalued before 1990.
s
..........
The range of involvement depends on how aggressive
the City wants to be in attracting business aviation
and how much lessee response is made to that market
Airport management would become more active and
probably full time with needs in marketing, and
perhaps, redevelopment
..:........
.. ..:::.::::.
.................
Immediate action is needed by the City to begin
arranging the move of Boeing to the southeast airport
corner and the relocation of existing tenants to the
Apron "C" area on the west side. Added staff time
would be required and perhaps a special project team
would have to be assembled
::f:::..
MAXIM U M
This would require substantial City staff time over the
next few years to negotiate the property reallocations
with Boeing and other tenants. Probably, a
redevelopment team would need to be created with
design, financial, marketing, and legal skills. The
increased level of activity after redevelopment would
probably call for a full time airport manager.
68
. .... .:::;
ros and Cons : :::.::::::: ACTI
Minimum effort
Pro - Con - Based aircraft
needed by the City. capacity is sure to be
Users are generally lost. FBO's will be
satisfied with current strained as a result. Does
operation. not not maximi�r.
revenue to City. Forces
Boeing to occupy more
airport space. May not
enhance overall
economic goals of
Renton. Vehicular
access to the runway
remains a problem.
Pro-
Makes better Con-R urres more
system wide use of effort. Places pressure
airport for region. on recreational users of
Should provide more airport which will
revenue. Gives priority generate complaints as
to identified elements aircraft are displaced in
(Boeing, business favor of priority
aviation, seaplanes) elements.
which need to use RNT.
Increases employment
opportunities at the
airpn
'BA
Pro- This is the least Con- Tenants wrll need
disruptive option to the relocation. More
current level of GA immediate City
activity. Capacity to involvement is needed to
base aircraft is not lost. coordinate several
Both Boeing and FBO's parties. Capacity to base
get more efficient land aircraft is not increased.
use. Airport vehicle Relocation will have a
access security is price tag.
improved significantly.
69
r?ry.:•:r p%{.}XN.{u?pkgv V.Jfr?.iiii:?.:?.:.ry;.;.;r.;r.;
MAKtMUM
Pro-Makes best system Con-Requires most
wide use of Renton's effort. Requires
sophisticated facilities. maximum cooperation
Accommodates growth by the Boeing Company.
in all aviation activity Requires the greatest
sectors. Should provide capital investment.
most revenue to airport-
Gives
irportGives priority to
selected aviation uses
and allows recreational
use. Increases
employment
opportunities at airport
and in community.
Provides more efficient
land use for Boeing and
other GA. Gives Boeing
better security and
safety for parked aircraft.
70
What lays REacrwE
......: n...
ahead for the
City if they Not much change will be experienced by the City
until 1990, then a very gradual increase in business
pursue this aircraft plus loss of Apron" C" will displace many
pa t h o f a et i o n? recreational type users and there will be complaints
by users and FBO's. Also, revenue will probably fall
as fewer aircraft will most likely be using the airport
and
FBO revenues probably decrease. Higher land
rental rates could effect revenue loss from activity.
:/ii:-iii:i.vr.;%^isn;n..i?ii}Tiiii%•:v:i4i.;i4ii:n:i;:_::: i}::<:.::::::::.;:;:.:::::::::::!iiii:y:::.:x::::::v::.:v:.:v: ..................
Similar to Reactive in that there will be complaints
from displaced recreational users. Increased business
activity will require more City involvment to
encourage and manage. Revenues could possibly
increase due to operation by generally more active
business aircraft. More revenue could be generated
through higher land rental rates to offset some
increased airport personnel costs.
Tenants could resist relocation. FBO's could have
concerns about fairness of apportionment of new lease
areas (who gets what). The financing for the move
may incur some debt for the airport (e.g. revenue
bonds).Increased management for the relocation will
be needed. Airport revenues may benefit as a result of
a more efficient layout allowing more FBO income.
i
71
.��ti isii::.'.Y..:K:vii;Y;;;•;�nYy:?:::!K!:v;:!::rvj::;Y:;:;:ti;::::::�i::%:i:�:�,i:::;Eiji.:;ryi':iY i:ivi.�i�f::f�.
MAKtMU.M
::.:::.: ... .
More involvement by City personnel, with some
increased costs but substantially greater revenues
from greater activity and higher land rental rates.Very
significant relocation costs. Possibly more noise
complaints to deal with because of increased activity.
72
_. What happens
REACTIVE
to current
Not much until about 1990 when land rental rates
users? probably increase. Then in about 1992 Boeing will
probably recapture Apron" C' for 7J7 parking and
about 80 users will be displaced from the airport
Higher tie down rates will possibly have displaced a
few by then also. See based aircraft projections.
Same as Reactive but possibly a few more
recreational users will have been replaced in the
1990-92 timeframe. As business use increases
gradually, recreational use shall decrease gradually.
See based aircraft projections. Current users will be
most impacted by this scenario.
BA
No users will be displaced as a result of Apron "C"
recapture by Boeing. Users may experience rate
increase around 1990. More efficient layout should be
benefit to users. This option minimizes impact on
current users.
MAXIMUM >>>>:.;:::::;:::;>:
»:.:....,v..,: .:....::.:........v.,.............,.........
Things stay about the same until Boeing builds
additional apron on their property. Then additional
space will be available for more aircraft. Current
users will not be affected except for gradually
inflating costs.
73
r
RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
MASTER PLAN
UPDATE
PHASE
MAY 15, 1987
1
Reid, Middleton & Associates, Inc.
121 5th Avenue North, Suite 200
Edmonds, Washington 98020
with
Robert O. Brown, Airport Consultant
24511 140th Ave. S.E.
Kent, Washington 98042
TABLE OF CONTENTS
' SECTION PAGE
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
' National and Regional Forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
' Community Service Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
Environmental Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51
' Facility Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57
' Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66
Appendix1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74
i
' LIST F
S O TABLES
NO. TITLE PAGE
1) Ownership Rates of GA Aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
2) Recent GA Ownership Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
' 3) Based Aircraft at Renton Municipal Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
4) Aircraft Operations at Renton Municipal Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
5) Projections of Business Aircraft in King County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
6) Projected Fleet Composition for King County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
7) Unconstrained Projections of GA Aircraft at Renton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
8) Peak Hour Aircraft Delays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
9) Based Aircraft Projections for BFT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
' 10) Based Aircraft Projections for Renton Municipal Airport
by Community Service Alternative, Airport Type and Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
11) Non-Business and Business Based Aircraft Projections for
' Renton Municipal Airport with Land Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
12) Basic Transport Dimensional Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58
' ii
LIST OF FIGURES
' NO. TITLE PAGE
1) Year 2007 Based Aircraft Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
2) 2007 Land Use - Reactive Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
L
3) 2007 and Use -
Selective Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44
' 4) 2007 Land Use - Balanced Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
5 2007 Land
Use - Maximum Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46
6) Annual Operations and Based Aircraft History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
7) Aircraft Noise Impacts - Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
8) Aircraft Noise Impacts - Maximum Response Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56
iii
Introduction
The first phase of the Renton Airport Master Plan Update has
the objective of presenting enough context about the future
of the facility to allow an informed decision by the City on
what development concept should be pursued over the next 20
years. Four alternatives are explored later in this report.
1 They represent the probable spectrum of choices available at the
airport. With these alternatives the facility requirements and an-
ticipated physical improvements are described, and an environ-
mental review made of the plan. When the study moves into
Phase II, the preferred alternative will be further developed, its
physical features mapped and a financial plan established for im-
plementation.
The first major task in this plan's creation, then, is the considera-
tion of alternative futures for the airport. What will be the best
general direction for the development, operation, and marketing
of the facility? No major change of the FAA's classification of
1 the airport role as general aviation - basic transp is envisioned.
However, within that broad category, what can be done at the air-
port to best serve the community of Renton as a whole? Is any
change necessary? A cursory study of the lease map and Airport
Layout Plan for the Renton Municipal Airport will reveal a
facility which appears completely filled up, already developed,
with little or no apparent space left to be planned. This degree of
development is rare among airports in Washington State which
more commonly find themselves with an abundance of vacant
land and a dearth of tenants. Renton Municipal and Boeing Field,
its closest neighboring airport, are the most truly urban airfields
in the State, if urbanity can be defined in this case as having
every single acre committed to structures, airplanes, or vehicles.
As with all real estate, location is everything to an airport. The
demand for space at Renton Municipal Airport and Boeing Field
is determined by their proximity to population concentrations
and markets which other airfields with similar runway lengths
situated in the more rural areas of the state do not enjoy. Al-
though Boeing Field is more intensively developed than Renton,
they share many similarities and will be compared frequently in
this report.
1
Renton is truly fortunate to have its airport properties so much in
demand, but the resultant crowding has naturally led to space
' conflicts as redevelopment proposals are periodically introduced
to airport management. Some policy framework consistent with
the best overall interests of the community would be useful in
the evaluation of these airport land use proposals. However, Ren-
ton now has no clearly articulated goals for its airport, and as a
result, the City is hampered in pursuing a coherent marketing
and pricing strategy for its airport properties.
Perhaps the Airport Masterplan Update process can help build
the needed frame of reference for the creation of a community
airport policy. This report includes as a beginning the airport
demand forecasts for aviation activity. Some regional perspective
fon aviation growth is provided as well as discussion on national
trends in aircraft manufacture and usage.
What's clear in the forecasts is that there is, and will increasing-
ly be, excess demand for airport land at Renton.
As we will see, the conditions that created the current land use
organization and local aviation business economy will be chang-
ing at Renton Municipal Airport.
Some key factors will occur that will shape the regional aviation
market and the airport's ability to respond. They are as follows:
• A Microwave Landing System (MLS) will be installed at
Renton and operating by 1990. Precision instrument
approaches will then be possible for those aircraft so
equipped which, because of equipment cost, will most
likely be those in the business aviation fleet.
• Regional air traffic and airport congestion will increase
dramatically towards the end of the century creating
pressure for reliever facilities to Boeing Field which
instrument approaches constrain Sea-Tac's capacity.
�i • The business aviation fleet, represented by aircraft from
large multi-engine piston powered types through corporate
jets, will be the fastest growing sector of the general
aviation (GA) market.
2
I�
• Smaller GA aircraft, production of which has nearly
ceased in this country, will grow in number in the region
only as a function of population growth.
• In the face of the above increasingA m
G demands, Renton
�'P
Municipal ort will likely lose 25 to 30% of it's
P Y
capacity to base aircraft as Boeing has need to reclaim
Apron "C" on the west side of the airfield as part of their
7P project and other production demands.
This last factor is significant because the current GA activity on
the field is largely a function of based aircraft. Fixed Base
Operators (FBO's) depend on the ready pool of local aircraft for
a market for aviation products and services as well as tie-down
income.
Taken with the other factors mentioned above, the loss of Apron
"C" means that the airport will be going through an evolution in
the next few years. Market forces will move the airport away
from the current mix and level of activity if no action is taken by
the City. Whether this evolution will be in the best interests of
Renton is not for this study to determine; the city council must
determine the priorities. However, each alternative course of ac-
tion has its likely consequences which will later be described in
' this report
3
1
National and Regional Forecasts
The purpose of these forecasts is to update the projections of
general aviation (GA) aircraft and activities contained in the
Renton Municipal Airport and Will Rogers - Wiley Post
Memorial Seaplane Base Master Plan Report, published in 1978.
Since the time of that report, some fundamental changes have oc-
curred within the general aviation community. Many of the prin-
cipal factors involved with these changes will be briefly dis-
cussed in this section.
The traditional method of projecting future demands for aviation
facilities and operations (a takeoff or a landing) is to make
judgmental extrapolations of recent trends. Historically, past
trends have provided a sound basis for viewing the future of
general aviation. During the 1960's and 1970's, the ownership
rates of aircraft exceeded increases in population. This was true
nationally as well as in the Puget Sound area, and is shown in
the following table.
TABLE 1
OWNERSHIP RATES OF GA AIRCRAFT IN THE PUGET SOUND
1 AREA
• 1960- 930 Aircraft/1,500,000 = 6.20/10,000
• 1965 - 1,140 Aircraft/1,700,000 = 6.71/10,000
0 1970- 1,980 Aircraft/1,938,600 =10.21/10,000
0 1975 - 2,630 Aircraft/1,963,100 =13.40/10 000
0 1980- 3,669 Aircraft/2,240,200 =16.38/10,000
During the 1980's however, quite a different pattern has emerged
which presents a more complicated picture of the potential future
of general aviation.
4
■ TABLE 2
RECENT GA OWNERSHIP RATES IN THE PUGET SOUND AREA
• 1981 - 3,845 Aircraft/2,268,100 =16.95/10,000
0 1982- 3,852 Aircraft/2,296,000 =16.78/10,000
0 1983 - 3,745 Aircraft/2,323,900 =16.12/10,000
9 1984- 3,799 Aircraft/2,351,800 =16.15/10,000
• 1985 - 3,845 Aircraft/2,379,700 =16.16/10,000
As can be clearly seen, the rates of aircraft ownership in the
Puget Sound area during the early 1980's have nearly paralleled
increases in population. An even more dramatic turn has oc-
curred in the deliveries of new GA aircraft.
Nationally, declining aircraft sales have been mirrored by
decreasing numbers of student and private pilots. Between 1980
and 1984, for example, student pilots declined from 210,200 to
150,100, and the number of private pilots shrank from 343,300
to 320,100.
The drop in aircraft deliveries has been extensively analyzed by
the FAA's Office of Aviation Policy and Plans. This agency lists
the following six determinations:
1. Rapidly rising aircraft and avionic prices have significantly
reduced the demand for all types of aircraft.
2. Continued high operating costs are depressing the market for
single engine piston aircraft and reducing aviation activity.
' 3. Rising operating costs do not appear to influence the demand
for the larger more sophisticated aircraft.
4. Aircraft prices have been increasing at a faster rate than wage
rates. This implies that other factors such as rapidly rising
product liability costs and declining productivity are responsible
for price increases.
5
5. Avionics prices have been increasing at a faster rate than have
aircraft prices.
6. Relatively high prices and operating and maintenance costs
have reduced the number of student and private pilots.
Sales of U.S. made general aviation aircraft have plummeted lar-
gely due to soaring costs. During 1979, over 17,000 GA aircraft
' were delivered: during 1986, the number of delivered aircraft
was approximately 1,500. Edward W. Stimpson, President of the
General Aviation Manufacturers Association, has recently stated
that:
While a number of factors, such as foreign competition
and overall economic conditions have influenced general
aviation sales, nothing has hurt general aviation sales as
severely in the last few years as the U.S. tort system and
the crushing weight of product liability costs. These costs
have dramatically increased the price of aircraft.
His testimony of August 14, 1986 before the Subcommittee on
Monopolies and Commercial Law of the House Judiciary Com-
mittee also states:
A recent survey by the Department of Commerce shows
that, among major manufacturing industries in the U.S.,
general aviation has been the hardest hit over the past
four years. In looking at the annual growth rate of 211
major industries, general aviation has had an average an-
nual decline, or negative growth rate, of 24%from 1982-
86 -- worse than any other industry tracked by the Com-
merce Department.
Product liability costs, according to Mr. Stimpson, have ex-
ceeded (in some cases doubled) the direct labor costs of building
an aircraft. In 1962, manufacturers paid an average of $51 per
airplane for product liability cases. In 1972, that figure jumped
to $2,111. By 1986, the average cost of product liability per
iairplane is about $80,000, despite the industry's vastly improved
safety record.
Mr. Stimpson, representing 36 U.S. manufacturers of general
aviation aircraft and components, indicated that product liability
6
i
rice tags are higher than the cost of some new single en
P g g g gine
airplanes. He further states that there are now no training aircraft
in production in the U.S. General aviation tort reform acts have
been introduced into both the House and Senate and may be con-
sidered during the 1987 legislative sessions.
The sharp declines in U.S. GA aircraft deliveries have been con-
fined to single- and multi-engine propeller aircraft, however.
I Higher performance corporate and business aircraft have con-
tinued to sell. The FAA Aviation Forecasts - Fiscal Years 1986-
.1422 document, prepared by the FAA and published in February
of 1986, states on page 54:
As of January 1, 1985, the general aviation fleet con-
sisted of 220,943 aircraft. The annual growth rate of the
total fleet for the period 1980 to 1985 was only 0.9 per-
cent. During this period, the population of single engine
piston aircraft increased from 168,400 to 171,900, a year-
ly rate of increase of 0.4 percent. For the same time
frame, the multi-engine piston fleet remained stable at ap-
proximately 25,000 aircraft; turbine powered fixed wing
aircraft grew at an annual rate of 10.3 percent; and the
rotorcraft fleet increased about 4.1 percent a year.
Shipments of general aviation aircraft (excluding helicop-
ters, balloons, dirigibles, and gliders) declined ap-
proximately 16 percent in 1985. Single engine and multi-
engine piston aircraft deliveries fell 15 percent and 48
percent, respectively. Shipments of turboprop aircraft in-
creased 19 percent, while turbojet aircraft deliveries
declined 16 percent.
The FAA forecasting document also states that:
During the period 1980 through 1984, total hours flown
declined at an annual rate of 3.6 percent; single engine
piston aircraft hours flown declined at an annual rate of
3.6 percent; turbine powered aircraft hours grew at a 4.2
ipercent rate; and rotorcraft hours flown increased at a
rate of 1.0 percent.
The FAA projects a continuation of slow growth in the general
aviation fleet through the year 1997.
7
The population of active aircraft is forecast to increase
1.4 percent a year between 1985 and 1997. Active single
engine piston aircraft is forecast to grow at an annual
rate of only 0.9 percent. The number of turbine powered
aircraft is projected to increase from 10,129 in 1985 to
16,600 in 1996, growing at the rate of approximately 4.2
percent a year. The turbine rotorcraft fleet is expected to
increase at a yearly rate of 3.6 percent.
The projected rates of growth for business aircraft are echoed b
P J �' Y
short-term forecasts prepared by the prestigious magazine, Avia-
tion Week & Space Technology. In the March 10, 1986 issue
which features an "Aerospace Forecast and Inventory" section, it
is stated:
Despite dropping oil prices, 1986 business flying opera-
tions will remain static or increase only slightly from cur-
rent 36-million-hour levels as long as U.S. tax policy
remains unresolved and insurance rates continue to climb.
Since the writing of that article, tax policies have been resolved.
The elimination of the 10 percent Investment Tax Credit and
stretched out depreciation schedules may have a dampening ef-
fect upon the future sales of aircraft. Tort reform and national
liability limits could go a long way toward countering these nega-
tives, however.
The Role of Renton Municipal Airport
The above discussions indicate that at the national and regional
levels, the slump in general aviation has not ended despite the
recovery of the economy from the last recession. Historical pat-
terns provide few clues to the future of.general aviation in the
Puget Sound area.
Traditionally, it has been these past patterns that serve as the
basis for judgments as to what the near term future holds. Ren-
ton Municipal airport, because of its limited land, is highly con-
strained in the numbers of future aircraft that it can base.
Generating unconstrained projections of future aircraft and opera-
tions would serve no good purpose.
8
It is more productive to review the role that RNT (Renton
Municipal's city-airport code designation) plays within the local
air transport system. By so doing, a more adequate assessment of
the market forces can be made.
RNT is located within a dozen miles of the Seattle Central Busi-
ness District and within ten miles of the Bellevue CBD. The
nearest airport to RNT is Boeing Field, (King County Internation-
al Airport), and the next closest is Sea-Tac. These airports are
five and six air miles away, respectively.
The Seattle Metropolitan area has four airports with runways
longer than 5,000 feet; Renton Municipal, Boeing Field, Sea-Tac
International, and Paine Field. With a few exceptions, Sea-Tac is
exclusively dedicated to air carrier operations and does not give
priority to other general aviation markets, and is, therefore, not
comparable to Renton.
The other three airports have several similarities. All have
Boeing Commercial Airplane Company as a major user and/or
tenant. All have a mixed assortment of general aviation operators
from single engine trainers to corporate aircraft, and all serve the
Seattle extended urban area. Runway lengths, instrument ap-
proaches and available services vary substantially among these
facilities, but this group of airports are as similar to one another
as any in the region.
Theort role of RNT, as designated b the FAA is that of
an'P g Y
general aviation reliever. RNT diverts general aviation traffic
from Sea-Tac (SEA) so that "quality scheduled airline service
can be maintained at the air carrier airport". The Regional Air-
port System Plan (RASP-1982) which was published by the
Puget Sound Council of Governments, designates RNT as a
"general aviation - industrial/air taxi" airport". The service area
for RNT can be considered to include much of the central Puget
Sound region, with emphasis upon the Seattle, Bellevue, Renton,
Kent areas.
The concept of "general aviation" excludes only commercial air-
line and military operations. Consequently, nearly all of the avia-
tion operations at RNT are considered to be those of general avia-
tion. This includes the flights of the transport-class aircraft
produced by the adjacent Boeing plant.
9
Renton Municipal Airport is fully occupied with based aircraft,
and has been so for several years. Although the number of based
aircraft has recently increased, this has largely been a function of
an agreement by the Boeing Company to lease Apron "C" on an
interim basis. This apron area will likely be reclaimed for use by
Boeing as their new aircraft, the 777, is developed, or as Boeing
has need for other production facilities. Apron "C" has tiedowns
for about 80 light aircraft.
TABLE 3
BASED AIRCRAFT AT RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Sample Year Based Aircraft Sample Year Based Aircraft
1960 .................178 1977 .................207
1970 .................179 1979 .................272
1975 .................187 1985 .................260
Since the available apron space continues to determine the num-
ber of based aircraft, and since Boeing may reclaim Apron "C",
the number of based aircraft at RNT may soon return to levels
experienced during the mid-1970's. Approximately 200 based
aircraft represents the holding capacity of the existing airport if
FAA separation standards are held to their present sideline distan-
ces.
An example of these standards is the Building Restriction Line
(BRL), which for a Basic Transport airport is now required to be
750 feet from the centerline of the runway and would lie about
in the middle of Rainier Avenue. The last Master Plan followed
an earlier set of FAA standards which placed the BRL at 400
feet from centerline. Some intrusions on this historical measure
j are in effect at RNT. The MLS precision instrument approach
will put further pressure on the facility to maintain safety
sideline separations without further encroachment, even though
10
i
extensive waivers will be needed. Thus, a shrinking amount of
basing capacity will likely meet increasingly tightening dimen-
sional standards enforcement as the airport acquires a more
sophisticated instrument landing system.
Historical counts of operations during the last fifteen years sup-
port the picture of stable levels of aircraft and aviation activity at
RTN. The data displayed below on Table 4 are from Air Traffic
Actin records of the FAA.
TABLE 4
AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AT RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Fiscal Year Air Carrier Air Taxi* Military General Aviation Total Ops.**
1970 10 0 360 168,158 168,528
1971 4 0 266 132,498 132,768
1972 1 242 296 127,911 128,450
1973 0 410 290 135,588 136,288
1974 0 246 690 152,554 153,490
1975 13 62 260 139,101 139,436
1976 1 38 117 112,846 113,002
1977 2 15 41 139,169 139,227
1978 4 4 114 136,870 136,992
1979 4 25 133 154,427 154,589
1980 0 15 184 148,854 149,053
1981 0 7 165 143,259 143,431
1982 0 45 127 105,867 106,039
1983 0 29 144 178,665 178,838
1984 0 139 254 146,332 146,725
1985 0 532 306 138,581 139,419
*Until 1972, air taxi operations were included in general aviation totals and were not
shown separately. From 1972 through 1975, air taxi was defined as "air taxi and com-
muter air carrier carrying passengers, mail, or cargo for revenue in accordance with
FAR Part 135 or 121." Since 1976, air taxi is defined as "an air taxi operator which
performs at least five round trips per week between two or more points and publishes
flight schedules which specify times, days of the week and places between which such
flights are performed; or transports mail."
**Seaplane Operations are not included in tower counts; they use an "uncontrolled"
landing site.
11
The real questions, then, are whether the existing airport can be
physically expanded and what future fleet compositions at RNT
will look like. One assumption that can be made with some cer-
tainty is that a Microwave Landing System (MLS) will be in-
stalled within the next five years. The units have already been
contracted for by the FAA, with deliveries and installations to be
begun this year. Renton Municipal has been listed within the
highest priority category by the Flight Procedures Branch of the
Flight Standards Division of the Northwest Mountain Region for
an installation target date of 1990.
Current weather minima at Renton with the non-precision NDB
approach to Runway 15 for a category C* aircraft are 838 feet
above the ground and 2 3/4 miles visibility. For the non-
precision RNAV approach to Runway 13R at Renton the minima
are 853 feet and 2 1/2 miles. By comparison, the ILS approach
to Runway 13R at Boeing Field has minima of 260 feet and one
mile. The current Renton approach is simply not good enough
for reliable, consistent corporate aircraft operations in typical
Seattle weather.
The MLS system will substantially increase the attractiveness of
the airport to corporate aviation as well as improve the operation-
al reliability of air taxi and other commercial activities. Accord-
ing to FAA estimates, the weather minima for the MLS approach
could be lowered to 500 feet above the ground and 1 1/2 miles
visibility for category C aircraft. While not as low as those for
Boeing Field or Paine Field, these minima should make Renton a
reliable destination for those aircraft equipped with the necessary
receiving gear. The cost of an MLS receiver is currently around
$10,000 which prices it above the market for most GA light
aircraft.
Installation of an MLS instrument approach system will probably
encourage more use of RNT by the business aviation com-
munity. Another factor that may have a like effect is the
projected congestion at Boeing Field and Sea-Tac. RNT's
* Category C is an aircraft approach category for a group of
aircraft with approach speeds between 121 and 140 Knots,
typical of corporate aircraft.
12
proximity to Seattle and Bellevue coupled with the continued
growth in the number of business aircraft in the region may also
tend to change the fleet composition at Renton Municipal. The
fleet mix forecasts for aircraft in this region are discussed next.
PSCOG Forecasts
Aircraft in ownership and/or use by the corporate and business
community are normally either turbine-powered, are rotorcraft
(helicopters), or are powered by more than one reciprocating pis-
ton engine -- that is, multi-engine. The Puget Sound Council of
Governments has recently (1986) sponsored general aviation
forecasts for the central Puget Sound region. As part of these
forecasts, county-wide projections of general aviation aircraft, by
type, were developed. The forecasts are unconstrained and reflect
projections of future national fleet compositions. These projec-
tions are interpolated for the King County business aircraft fleet
in the following table:
TABLE 5
PROJECTIONS OF BUSINESS AIRCRAFT IN KING COUNTY IN-
TERPOLATED FROM 1986 PSCOG GENERAL AVIATION
FORECASTS
Aircraft Type 1987 1992 1997 2007
Multi-engine Propeller 205 219 235 270
Turboprop 30 35 41 55
Turbojet 74 87 103 145
Rotorcraft 94 111 131 183
Totals 403 452 510 653
I
13
The FAA and PSCOG forecasts project changes in future fleet
compositions that tend toward a greater business aviation com-
ponent. Interpolations of the PSCOG forecasts for King County
indicate that the percentage of multi-engine propeller aircraft will
remain approximately the same in the year 2007 as that of today.
Single-engine propeller aircraft, however, are expected to decline
as a percentage of the future fleet. These percentages are shown
in the next table.
TABLE 6
PROJECTED FLEET COMPOSITION FOR KING COUNTY IN 2007
INTERPOLATED FROM PSCOG 1986 GENERAL AVIATION
FORECASTS
% of % of %
1985 Fleet 2007 Fleet Change
Single-engine Prop. 79.5% 74.2% (5.3)
Multi-engine Prop. 8.0% 7.9% (0.1)
Turboprop 1.1% 1.6% 0.5
Turbojet 2.8% 4.3% 1.5
Rotorcraft 3.5% 5.4% 1.9
Other 5.1% 6.7% 1.6
Tables 5 and 6 are based upon 1985 FAA data that identify
registered aircraft by county, aircraft type and by owner
residence. The Washington State DOT - Division of Aeronautics
data show aircraft counts by where the aircraft is based. 1985
State data indicate that 40 multi-engine propeller aircraft and no
turbine powered aircraft are based at Renton Municipal. On the
other hand, these data indicate 2 turbine aircraft at Sea-Tac and
43 at Boeing Field.
i'
14
The general aviation forecasts that were prepared for the Puget
Sound Council of Governments during 1986 use 1985 State
aircraft registration data and extrapolated FAA fleet mix projec-
tions that were adapted to local fleet mixes by county. These
projections were then allocated by airport based upon 1985 sub-
regional shares coupled with county population growth projec-
tions. When these unconstrained projections are interpolated,
they yield the following results.
TABLE 7
UNCONSTRAINED PROJECTIONS OF GA AIRCRAFT AT RNT IN-
TERPOLATED FROM PSCOG 1986 FORECASTS AND ALLOCA-
TIONS BY AIRPORT
1987 1992 1997 2007
Total Aircraft 268 291 315 370
Unless the capacity to base aircraft at Renton Municipal were
physically expanded by some dramatic fashion, it is obvious that
the figures indicated for the turn of the century cannot be
achieved. These projections do show, however, that increasing
levels of latent demand may be experienced at RNT.
As just discussed, this may especially prove to be the case with
the activation of a Microwave Landing System at Renton
Municipal. Another factor that could make RNT a more attrac-
tive destination for business aircraft is that of increasing delays
at Boeing Field (BFI) during both Visual and Instrument Flight
Rule conditions.
The Airspace Study
The potential delays at Boeing Field as well as those at Sea-Tac
were analyzed in great detail in a study that was published in
January of 1983. This study is entitled the Sea-Tac International
AirporLEing County International Aimort Airspace St ud . It was
prepared by the Port of Seattle Planning and Research Depart-
ment, Port of Seattle Aviation Department, King County Depart-
'i � 15
i
ment of Public Works/Aviation Department and Peat Marwick
and Mitchell and Copartnership (PMM) of San Francisco.
The study consisted of two phases. The first phase, among other
things, generated forecasts of aviation demand at Sea-Tac and
Boeing Field, and then assessed the impact of airspace interac-
tions on airport and airspace capacities. The second phase ex-
plored potential improvement techniques, and presented study
recommendations.
The study uses the concept of "annual service volume" for its
preliminary analysis. On page 5-16, the study states:
When annual aircraft operations on the airfield are equal
to annual service volume, average delay to each aircraft
throughout the year is on the order of one to four minutes.
The Airspace Study then goes on to say:
The estimated annual service volumes for Sea-Tac and
Boeing Field, together with projected annual demand
levels, are shown below.
Annual Annual
Service Demand
Volume 1980 1985 1990 2000
Sea-Tac 260,000 213,604 205,780 220,600 260,820
Boeing 485,000 410,853 424,000 445,000 488,500
Field
As shown annual
service volumes will be exceeded by
projected annual demands
at both airports b the year
rP Y Y
2000. As annual aircraft operations approach annual ser-
vice volume, average delay to each aircraft throughout
the year may increase rapidly with relatively small in-
creases in airport operations, thereby causing levels of
service on the airport to deteriorate.
I
16
III On page 5-18, after a discussion of Sea-Tac, the study states:
"The situation at Boeing Field is somewhat more critical in the
sense that demand levels have almost reached the critical 'knee'
of the curve--at about 420,000 annual operations--and aircraft
delays are estimated to increase quite rapidly with small in-
creases in demand."
Later, on page 5-18, the seriousness of the situation is again
profiled by a paragraph that discusses the large effects that small
changes can have upon airspace and airport capacities.
To demonstrate the sensitivity of the aircraft delay values
at Sea-Tac to Boeing Field arrival demand levels, a run
of the annual delay model was made assuming that the
demand at Boeing Field exceeded the forecast level in
IFR conditions in 1990 by only 4 operations or 10%; i.e.,
during the peak hour of the average day of the peak
month demand was increased from 36 to 40 operations
per hour. The results of the model run showed that (a)
aircraft delays during the peak hour of the average day,
peak month, in IFR conditions and south flow more than
fid, from about 20 minutes per aircraft to more than
60 minutes per aircraft and (b) even though the change in
demand was for IFR conditions, the average annual delay
increased by about 25% from 0.8 minute per aircraft to
1.0 minute per aircraft.
While a one to four minute average delay may not sound like
much of a burden on air traffic, real costs are associated with
extra time for approaches. The airspace study states on page 6-15:
At current (1980) levels of aircraft delays at Sea-Tac,
delay costs are approximately $2.8 million per year, of
which about $220,000 is attributable to the effects of the
airspace interactions. However, by the year 2000 under
the baseline ATC scenario, these delay costs are expected
to increase to about $25 million per year, and of this
amount, $19 million per year will be attributable to
airspace interactions. Under the optimistic ATC scenario,
delay costs attributable to the airspace interactions are
reduced dramatically--to about $1 million per year by the
year 2000.
17
L
' Table 6-3 of the Airspace Study summarizes the delays to
aircraft that were forecast by the detailed analysis that was per-
formed in that chapter.
' TABLE 8
PEAK HOUR AIRCRAFT DELAYS
Average Peak Hour Delays,
' Average Day, Peak Month
(Minutes Per Aircraft)
Baseline ATC VFR IFR IFR
Scenario North Flow South Flow
Sea-Tac 1980 1.9 4.8 11.0
1985 1.8 3.4 10.7
1990 2.3 8.8 19.4
2000 3.4 18.7 60.0+
Boeing Field 1980 4.1 0.3 0.3
1985 5.0 0.4 0.4
1990 6.7 0.9 0.9
2000 14.2 1.4 15.5
Optimistic ATC
Scenario
Sea-Tac 1980 1.9 4.8 11.0
1985 1.8 3.4 10.7
1990 1.8 3.8 10.0
' 2000 3.0 4.8 17.9
Boeing Field 1980 4.1 0.3 0.3
1985 5.0 0.4 0.4
' 1990 6.7 0.9 0.9
2000 13.8 1.2 1.2
It should be noted what little effect the very optimistic air traffic
control improvement scenario has upon Boeing Field's visual
flight rule delays. Equally of interest are the year 2000 IFR south
' 18
' flow delays in the baseline scenario (today's air traffic control en-
vironment).
The optimistic scenario assumes the installation of a Microwave
Landing System at Sea-Tac. Using this system, a potential instru-
ment approach for south flow traffic was devised that would
create a "no transgression zone" between flight tracks into
Boeing Field and to Sea-Tac. Currently, during instrument
' weather and a south flow of traffic, "the arrival capacity of Sea-
Tac and Boeing Field is reduced to little more than that of a
single airport. These conditions occur approximately 7% of the
' year."
Additionally, the Airspace Study states: "During instrument
weather and a north flow of traffic, Sea-Tac departures may be
delayed by a Boeing Field arrival and Boeing Field departures
may be delayed by a Sea-Tac departure. These conditions occur
approximately 2.4% of the year."
The MLS "no transgression zone" is conceptual in nature and
' would not be permissible under current ATC rules. "The
feasibility of such a procedure is subject to (1) FAA review, test-
ing, and modification of ATC rules; (2) provision of new
' avionics in aircraft; (3) performance characteristics of the aircraft
involved; and (4) acceptance of the pilots."
The FAA's plan for transition from an ILS system to an MLS
system stipulates that "no ILS will be removed until all of the
ELS-equipped airports have operational MLS and at least 60% of
the aircraft routinely using the ILS/MLS runway are MLS-
equipped.
The Airspace Study further reports on page 7-4:
In addition, the United States is committed, by an agree-
ment with the International Civil Aviation Organization,
to retain ILS service at international gateway airports
through 1995. There are 75 such airports now, including
Sea-Tac. Retaining ILS service at Sea-Tac may cause
some users to further delay purchasing MLS equipment
because the installed ILS equipment will still be usable
until at least 1995.
' 19
' Unless,virtually all aircraft use the MLS approach, the
delay reduction benefits cited above will not be realized.
' Thus, although a new dual independent instrument ap-
proach procedure using an MLS would remove the
' airspace interaction between Sea-Tac and Boeing Field
for a south flow operation, several considerations have to
be taken into account before such a new procedure could
be implemented. Alleviating or eliminating the airspace
interactions between Sea-Tac and Boeing Field by provid-
ing a new instrument approach to Sea-Tac would require:
• Installation of MLS serving Runway 16R at Sea-Tac
• Installation of necessary cockpit avionics in most aircraft
using Sea-Tac
• Research and demonstration, together with controller and
pilot acceptance of independent instrument procedures to
nonparallel runways
• Development of procedures by airline and other aircraft
' operators to ensure flight stabilization on "short"final
approach segment
• FAA modification of ATC rules and procedures
• Completion of environmental assessment and related
' processing
The difficulties of implementing such a system tend to suggest
that the delays for south flow traffic associated with the Baseline
ATC scenario can be expected rather than those of the Opdmis-
tic ATC scenario. If this is the case, the IFR south flow delays to
Boeing Field may begin to become onerous by the year 2000.
With an operating MLS at Renton Municipal, and ever increas-
ing IFR and VFR south flow delays at Boeing Field, higher per-
formance GA aircraft may find Renton an attractive alternative
to the other urban airfield.
20
In any case, the study sponsors found the potential airspace con-
gestion serious enough to recommend the following three part
program:
First, to encourage the research development and applica-
tion of air traffic control technology which may further
reduce the standard aircraft separations currently in use,
second, to investigate the potential of existing airports in
the vicinity of Sea-Tac and Boeing Field to serve as
general aviation relievers with instrument landing
capabilities, and third, to reassess the airspace situation
in approximately S years. (emphasis added).
Corporate/Business Aircraft - Potential Users of RNT
Boeing Field is the principal business aviation service center in
King County. There are several reasons for the airport's attrac-
tion to business aircraft. Among these are its proximity to the
Seattle CBD, BFI's runway lengths, its precision instrument ap-
proach system, and the extensive list of services available to
users of business aircraft.
' RNT does not share some of these assets. There is presently no
precision landing system in operation at Renton, although the air-
port does have an FAA-manned tower and an NDB instrument
approach. The activation of the MLS may compensate for the
lack of an ILS to a large degree. RNT has a displaced threshold
at the south end and a runway length of only 5,379 feet. Nearly
every business aircraft can conduct typical flight missions from a
field of that length during all but uncharacteristically hot
' weather. However, the runway length is uncomfortably short for
the higher performance, larger corporate jets which would have
to limit their loads to safely fly from a field of this length. In
' most cases this means that less than full fuel can be carried on
takeoff and , therefore, range would be limited.
' All corporate turboprops and Cessna "Citation" jets are fully
capable at Renton's runway length. The actual fleet mix in the
Seattle area can be approximated by data from the National Busi-
ness Aircraft Association. NBAA is generally regarded as an in-
dustry bellwether. In 1985 their local membership listed 26 tur-
bojet and turboprop aircraft. Of these, 8 were "King Air" tur-
21
' bo ro s and 8 were Cessna "Citation" turbofans. This sample in-
dicates
P
dicates that over 60 percent of the local NBAA fleet are aircraft
which could easily operate from Renton with no performance
limitations. As a further indication of potential market, aircraft
registration data shows that 30 percent of the corporate type
aircraft in King County are turboprops. Therefore, probably
about half of the turbine powered corporate aircraft local market
would find no limitation at Renton because of runway length.
The Renton airport is quite proximate to the Seattle business dis-
trict and is, in fact, closer to the emerging Bellevue CBD and to
the Kent industrial area than is BFI. The MLS at RNT will
provide approach minima that may not be comparable to those of
BFI, but that should generally be adequate for IFR conditions
that are typical to the Seattle area.
Business and Commercial Aviation magazine has evaluated per-
formance characteristics for the business aircraft that are normal-
ly used throughout the United States. On a 59 degree Fahrenheit
(15 degrees Celsius) day, RNT's runway is long enough to ac-
commodate most but not all corporate and business aircraft at
maximum gross weight.
More relevant to everyday use of business aircraft, however, are
the runway length requirements associated with typical business
missions. For example, a Gates Learjet LR-55 requires 4,600 feet
of runway for a 1,500 nautical mile flight with Instrument Flight
Rule reserves (200 nm). That 4,600 feet accommodates balanced
field length requirements and assumes a total of four 200-pound
persons aboard the aircraft. At gross weight the same aircraft
would require 5480 feet of runway for takeoff. While this indi-
cates that this Learjet could operate from RNT, this length leaves
little margin for error and most pilots would of course choose
BFI's longer runway if that option were open.
rThe Lear ets are high performance aircraft and are among the
most runway-demanding in general aviation. In contrast, a
similar mission (1,378 miles) by a Cessna Citation II requires
only 2,990 feet near sea level on a 59 degrees F. day. Even at 95
degrees F. (International Standard Atmosphere +20 degrees Cel-
sius), a Citation II at Renton Municipal needs only about 3,700
feet of runway for the same mission.
22
� r
� r
rNew business aircraft are in the prototype stage that may dramati-
cally extend the effectiveness of corporate aviation. Among the
more promising are Beech's Starship and Piaggio's P-180. Both
of these aircraft have an aft-swept main wing together with a
small forward canard-like wing. Both, too, have twin turbine en-
gines driving counterrotating pusher propellers. These aircraft
will have cruising speeds that compare favorably with the
smaller jets. Additionally, they are designed to use much less
rfuel and to have low interior levels of noise and vibration.
These aircraft represent radical departures from traditional
design. The Beech Aircraft Corporation is being assisted by Burt
Rutan, the designer of the Voyager and numerous other innova-
tive aircraft. Unlike the Piaggio P-180 Avand, Beech's Starship
' will largely consist of composite materials, including; epoxy-har-
dened carbon fiber, Nomex honeycomb and Kevlar. Under heat
and pressure, carbon composites are chemically altered and form
a rigid material that is lighter and stronger than aluminum.
r Flight tests of the P-180 Avand have confirmed fuel consump-
tion projections that are about 50% less than that of small busi-
ness gets. Cruise speeds are anticipated to be about 50 knots
faster than the projections for the newer turboprops. Since the
Avanti's wing is placed so far aft, it can be run between the
cabin and the cargo hold for maximum aerodynamic efficiency.
These new aircraft represent an important advance in the efficien-
cy of business aviation. New materials coupled with the use of
small canard or canard-like wings on the nose mean that the
primary wings can be 30% to 40% smaller than those of standard
configurations. The use of pusher propellers mounted well to the
rear of passenger seating also means that vibration and interior
cabin noise can be minimized.
In summary, these new generation business aircraft will increase
passenger comfort, use less fuel, and achieve speeds that are com-
petitive with business jets while having the runway requirements
of a turboprop. The calculated accelerate-stop distance for a Star-
ship at maximum takeoff weight is 2,990 feet. Deliveries of the
Piaggio P-180 are expected early in 1989, while first deliveries
of the Beech Starship are scheduled for 1988. In addition to the
8-11 passenger Starship 1, Beech is continuing the development
of a six-place twin that will be tested as a piston, turboprop and
i
23
r
turbofan powered aircraft. Beech is also developing a high-perfor-
mance aircraft powered by a single piston engine. All of these
aircraft will be able to operate at full capacity from RNT. That
demand exists for these and other business aircraft can be seen in
the increasing utilization of existing business fleets despite the
declines in production of new aircraft. A recent survey of 500
U.S. business chief executive officers found that almost one-
quarter now own or lease business aircraft, over 80% or which
' are advanced turboprop or jet aircraft (Aviation Week & Snace
Technology, Sept. 19, 1986, p.36).
As congestion at the nation's major airports increases, business
aircraft owners and operators are increasingly interested in
having instrument approaches to alternative airports that have
' lower delay tunes. For this reason, the National Business Aircraft
Association has reported that many business pilots want
Microwave Landing Systems installed at airports that are fre-
quently used by business aircraft but not currently served by
precision approach systems.
Installation of an MLS at Renton Municipal should have the ef-
fect of building business demand, both for basing business
aircraft and for transient use. As an example, one of the nation's
largest corporate aircraft charter operators just ordered eight Cita-
tion S2's because of that aircraft's short runway takeoff and land-
ing distance requirements. 1986 corporate aircraft charters were
up significantly and the company wants to expand its operations
by using business aircraft capable of operating at hundreds of the
smaller U.S. fields.
24
i
mm ni
Co u ty Service Alternatives
Demands for Renton Municipal will continue to grow. Be-
cause of the physical constraints of the airport properties,
not all of these present and future demands can be satisfied
without airport expansion. Those sectors of demand which can
be more fully accommodated may largely be a function of local
objectives and policies for the facility.
A range of approaches to the future of the airport exists. This
range can be divided into four distinct sets, which can be charac-
terized as follows:
Alternative Responses to changing Market Demands and chang-
ing Regional Conditions
(1) Reactive Response - Present Policies Continued: This option
envisions responses to individual proposals for airport develop-
ment and usage as they occur. Existing airport policies would be
amended through time as deemed appropriate.
(2) Selective Response - Business Aviation Emphasis: This ap-
proach emphasizes the accommodation of business and corporate
aviation activities, both for transient and based business aircraft.
(3) Balanced Response - Maintain CTA BasingCanaab:y: This op-
tion seeks to avoid the loss of Apron "C" to general aviation be-
cause of lease recapture by Boeing. About the same number of
GA aircraft could be based as now in this concept, but the loss
of about 25 to 30% of the basing capacity could be averted.
Some reconfiguration of lease areas would be necessary. Boeing
would take over the southeast corner of the airport displacing
non-Boeing GA uses to the west side to the Apron "C" area.
(4) Maximum Response - Airport Expansion: This last option
would attempt to increase the amount of available apron and han-
gar areas at the airport by relocating all Boeing activity to the
east side of the facility. This alternative would require the maxi-
' mum active cooperation of The Boeing Company, as new apron
would be needed on their property as well as major facility
relocation.
25
With the activation of the Microwave Landing System at RNT,
there could very well be an increase of operations by busi-
ness/corporate aircraft under all four of the alternatives.
' However, alternatives 2, 3, and 4 envision a much more active
role for the City. It has been assumed for planning purposes that
the Microwave Landing System will become fully operational
sometime around the year 1990.
The Reactive Response - Present Policies Continued alternative
seeks to maintain a relatively low City involvement regarding the
operation and management of the airport. This alternative repre-
sents no change from the present policies. City airport personnel
would purposely be kept at a minimum. As development
proposals are suggested, a review of the merits of each proposal
would be conducted. Every effort would be made to meet the re-
quirements of The Boeing Company as a reflection of that firm's
contribution to the economic vitality of the community.
Current Public Works Department policy on lease rates would
continue. Rates would be adjusted without regard to external
market but would instead be set to provide airport revenues suffi-
cient to offset anticipated expenses. Rates would be periodically
adjusted. The existing Fixed Base Operators would generally be
involved with proposed revisions in airport usage.
This option has the advantage of potentially minimizing City ex-
penditures at the airport, and also has the historical support of
most airport users while it minimizes user costs.
It has the disadvantages of not necessarily maximizing return on
investment to the City, and of potentially displacing users
through the loss of Apron "C". With no City action, 25 to 30%
of the basing capacity for GA aircraft will be lost through Apron
"C"lease recapture by Boeing for uses connected with their 777
project and other production needs. This option makes no at-
tempt to consider regional aviation needs. Also, the "reactive" ap-
proach does nothing about the root problem at Renton, too little
space for the growing aviation demand.
The actual mix of land use which will evolve under the Reactive
Response alternative will necessarily be affected by the lease
structure.
26
ISI
The Selective Response - Business Aviation Emphasis alternative
envisions a more active City involvement in the management of
the airport. This option is designed to market RNT to potential
business aircraft users, and to encourage the use of Renton
Municipal as a center for transient business aviation. Many
higher performance business aircraft require RNT's longer run-
way. As delays at Boeing Field increase, Renton Municipal with
its new MLS, may become increasingly attractive to business
aircraft. These aircraft need to be located near Seattle's and Bel-
levue's CBD's and will provide service to Renton as well as the
Kent Valley industries. Since business aircraft are more expen-
sive to operate and maintain than recreational aircraft, they can
provide a stronger and more constant revenue base to the FBO's
on the field.
Business Aviation is an appropriate target for such a marketing
effort since it continues to be a principal area of general aviation
growth. Moreover, this aviation sector can offer some distinct
benefits to the community not possible with light recreational
aircraft. First, business aviation can support a greater rate of
return on aviation properties. As one example, Boeing Field char-
ges $370 per month for T-hangars for small aircraft and $1150
1 per month for 60' x 60' jet hangars. Second, business aircraft are
more frequently flown than recreational aircraft, and because of
their relative size are more complex and use more fuel. There-
fore, revenue and employment opportunities among FBO's can
be increased. Third, business aviation can provide off-airport
revenue as the need for lodging and restaurants develops with
the flow of business travelers. And finally, proximity to an air-
port which can accommodate corporate aircraft is an incentive to
the attraction of diverse business and corporate offices to the
Renton area.
This alternative views the Renton Municipal Airport as a unique
and scarce resource for the region. The Selective Response _
Business Aviation Emphasis, option gives priority to those sec-
tors of general aviation that have the greatest need to use RNT
and which have the least ability to go elsewhere. Boeing,
seaplane operations and business/corporate aviation would all
have precedence over some light aircraft tiedowns and hangars.
The City of Renton could pursue this alternative through a range
of actions. On one end of the intensity scale, the airport could
27
i
1
simply more actively market itself to Business Aviation. Adver-
tising materials could be produced and distributed to potential
corporate aviation users, competing airports, and aviation media
with the objective of increasing Business Aviation demand at
RNT. If substantial interest is then generated, the existing lessees
on the airport would have the opportunity to modify their busi-
nesses towards supporting corporate aircraft. Since there is no
room for new aircraft, this means some current activities or
based aircraft would have to be displaced to other airports. The
motivation for such a market shift among the lessees would
presumably come from the greater potential profitability of cor-
porate over recreational aviation or other current land uses.
At the other end of the scale of City actions, if considerable Busi-
ness Aviation demand is created at RNT and gets little response
from the lessees, the City has the more intensive alternative of
redevelopment of existing properties for basing corporate
aircraft. The amount of land to be redeveloped should conform
to the anticipated demand. Forecasts for the amount of needed
area are discussed later in this report. However, no airport expan-
sion is part of this alternative. Demand from all sectors exceeds
capacity. The City has the ability to determine which aviation
sector would best benefit the community as a whole. This alterna-
tive makes deliberate choices as to which aviation activity should
be supported on existing land.
The Balanced Response - Maintain CTA BasingCapacity alterna-
tive seeks to avoid the loss of basing capacity for non-Boeing
GA aircraft in the likely event that Apron "C" is reclaimed for
space associated with the M project. Between 60 and 80
tiedowns are currently available on that apron, or about 25% of
the basing capacity of the airport.
In 1988 Boeing needs to build two paint hangars in addition to
the one they have on the east side of the airport. Right now their
only option is to locate these new buildings somewhere on the
aircraft parking ramp they own on the east side of the Cedar
River (Apron "D"). By so doing they will be take away some
large airplane parking stations on that apron and be forced to ex-
ercise their option to reclaim some of Apron "C".
Boeing has indicated their willingness to consider giving up their
lease on Apron "C" in exchange for control of the southeast
28
-1
corner of the airport. This would allow the new paint hangars to
be built south of their existing paint hangar on property currently
used by Benair and other tenants. The new paint hangars would
effectively cut off access by non-Boeing aircraft to the southwest
corner of the facility. Those uses which would be displaced in
this area could be relocated to the space north of Apron "C" cur-
rently occupied by outsize Boeing tooling (frames, cranes, lad-
ders, etc.), and by Boeing employee automobile parking. To
create an equal amount of area for what would be lost to the
FBO's in the southwest airport corner, Boeing would have to be
willing to relinquish most of Apron "C". The Boeing "lab" build-
ing in that area would be kept. This facility does not require
large aircraft access nearby, and the ramp space to the east of it
is taken up by Boeing employee car parking. If this parking were
provided instead to the west of a new row of FBO's south of the
"lab" and,lust east of the airport perimeter road, valuable aircraft
parking apron could be created.
Furthermore, non-essential automobile access to the aircraft ramp
could be more effectively restricted than is currently possible in
this area of the facility. Proper access control is really needed at
RNT with the tower counting at least one unauthorized vehicular
runway crossing per week. Another problem location is the area
around Benair at the southeast corner, a particularly confusing
mix of aircraft and cars with both sharing a common access
road/taxiway. At that location vehicles often wander out onto
aircraft ramps by the runway, or further, because of the difficulty
in constructing positive barriers which restrict cars but not
airplanes. Having Boeing completely occupy this corner of the
field would solve much of the facility's car entry problem.
This alternative is proposed as airport redevelopment which mini-
mizes changes to the current level of operations. No particular
market bias would be set by the City towards either recreational
or business aviation. Instead the emphasis would be on III
preserv-
ing a non-Boeing GA capacity tyand cleaning up some access
problems. The City would take an active role in the relocation ex-
ercise, but would rely on FBO's and the free market to establish
which aviation sector would be served.
The Maximum Response-Airport Expansion option directly con-
fronts the space shortage problem at Renton Municipal Airport
by both expanding apron area and rearranging land use in a
29
I
dramatic way by moving all Boeing activity to the east side of
the airfield.
This airport is particularly hemmed in on its boundaries. To the
north is Lake Washington, and to the west and south are, respec-
tively, Rainier Avenue and Airport Way, both major arterials.
Any expansion in these directions seems prohibitively expensive.
This essentially leaves only the possibility of expansion to the
east, across the Cedar River, on land occupied by Boeing.
This concept envisions an expansion of the Boeing aircraft apron
on the east side of the river (Apron 'D"), converting an existing
Boeing automobile parking into an additional seven acres of
aircraft ramp. This particular expansion would more than replace
the area of Apron "C" which currently holds 80 GA aircraft. Car-
rying this rearrangement further, all Boeing leased areas on the
airport's west side would be given up for complete Boeing con-
trol of the area to the east of the runway. Including the expan-
sion of the Boeing apron, the net Boeing area at their relocated
site would be just over 35 acres approximately equalling their
current leased area counting the reclaimed Apron "C". Of course,
this degree of reorganization would require extensive cooperation
between the City and Boeing with a view to the advantages to all
concerned.
For Boeing, this shift to the east side would consolidate their
flightline activities for greater efficiency and security control.
The move would also position more of their expensive aircraft a
greater distance from the runway and taxiway. Current parking
positions on the west side are about twice as close to the runway
as FAA criteria state. The relocation of autoarkin that would
P g
be displaced is another question that would have to be resolved.
However, given the extent of facility reorganization and new of-
fice development which Boeing is presently considering in north
Renton, there is substantially room for negotiation on develop-
ment issues between the City and Boeing.
The effect on GA based aircraft capacity of shifting Boeing off
the west side would be striking. The number of based aircraft
could expand to 370 versus the projected figure of 200 under cur-
rent land use configuration deducting the loss of Apron "C" to
Boeing. This means that all forecast categories of aircraft would
have expansion room, and business aviation would not necessari-
30
ly have to displace recreational aircraft. Furthermore, the reor-
ganization of the west side could be done with an eye to a more
efficient, attractive disposition of FBO leases. Scattered lease
holdings could be eliminated, and land uses could be organized
by aircraft type or function. Corporate aviation hangars, for ex-
ample, together with their support services could be located in a
unified complex.
The cost for this alternative is substantial. Boeing estimates that
their move to the east side would require in excess of $50 mil-
lion, not including property acquisition or demolition. Further-
more, they consider their leased area on the southwest side (be-
tween Fancher and Lane leases) to be too important and valuable
to move as it is currently being used as a fueling and defueling
site for their large airplanes.
This ultimate level of development would probably represent the
maximum possible aviation growth at this airport. Not only is ad-
ditional land for expansion going to be expensive, but 370 based
aircraft could possibly generate enough operations to approach
the capacity of this single runway airfield. Although the correla-
tion between based aircraft and operations is uncertain at larger
facilities such as this. Paine Field, for example, has approximate-
ly the same number of operations as Renton, about 150,000 an-
nually, but has nearly 500 based aircraft. And Renton's operation-
al levels have remained remarkably constant over the last 15
ryears even when based aircraft increased 45 percent.
This alternative is included to give a sense of the limits of pos-
sibilities at the airport. The great cost associated with the reloca-
tion of activities most probably makes this choice currently in-
feasible. However, a lot can happen within the 20 year planning
period that could change the priorities of Boeing and the City to
make a pronounced land use split between large transport aircraft
and smaller GA activities desirable. This alternative defines
some of the parameters of such a move.
31
Land Use and Lease Rates
Apart from the alternatives described above, future land use at
the airport will be affected by the lease rates charged by the City
for the underlying land. This warrants some discussion since a
major change in rates could have as large an effect on the mix of
activity as some direct land use restructuring.
Airport management has done a good job of getting rates on the
same basis (allowing some consideration of Boeing's extensive
holdings and services provided). However, a cursory comparison
with other similar facilities indicates that the leases are up to
50% undervalued at Renton.
This is an intentional but unstated policy of the Airport manage-
ment. Land use patterns are shaped by lease policy. The types of
based aircraft and the kinds of businesses at Renton Municipal
Airport are greatly affected by the underlying land rental rates.
This airport is urban and crowded and can expect to undergo an
evolution in land values based on market pressure as any urban
real estate holding will, if allowed.
The best example of what can happen at an airport to the mix of
based aircraft and aviation businesses when rates go up is, of
course, Boeing Field. They have seen a pronounced shift towards
more business aircraft and facilities while smaller aircraft types
have been displaced. For example, at Boeing Field in 1980 the
share of business aircraft was 16%, in 1985, 28.3%, and the num-
ber is forecast to be 43.8% in 2007. The impetus for this land
use change did not come from a reasoned consideration of
whether Boeing Field wanted more business jets and less single
engine aircraft. Instead, the airport land use was largely shaped
in response to the King County Budget Office requiring "fair
market rental value" in accordance with King County Code (Sec-
tion 4.56.010). As the rates increased, the aviation market ad-
justed, and Boeing Field has made physical plans for redevelop-
ment towards more business aviation to support the shifted
market.
Regardless of whether Renton reaches a consensus on airport ob-
jectives, an evolution in land use similar to Boeing Field's ex-
perience can be expected if lease rates are set to market value.
This report has established a frame of reference on some of the
anticipated market pressures. A complete market evaluation and
32
t, appraisal of aviation properties is beyond the scope of this study,
although this appraisal should definitely be done to determine
fair market values in advance of the next round of lease negotia-
tions coming in 1990.
The following discussion sets some perspective on Renton's
lease structure by comparison with other similar facilities. At
RNT lease rates are generally set at a two-tier basis, with Boeing
ground leases at $.12 per square foot per year and other proper-
ties at about $.14 per square foot. Boeing also provides on-site
security and fire protection. The differential for Boeing is based
on these services, the importance of this manufacturer to the
City, and the amount of ground under lease to Boeing which
now amounts to about 70 percent of the available leased area at
the airport. Lease terms on the airport vary considerably but are
generally longer than 20 years with periodic rate negotiations.
A comparison with the two transport airports in Renton's market
area would be useful. Boeing Field also has a two-tier rate struc-
ture. Lease rates for most property range between $.31 and $.41
per square foot. Boeing Company ground leases were arbitrated
to be $.27 per square foot, a figure even higher than that argued
by the property owner, King County. Boeing Field has had its
property appraised at industrial values of about $8 - 9 per square
foot and has set the goal of a fair market return of about 5 per-
cent of the land value per year for aviation leases. This 5 percent
rate is half the typical lease rate formula in consideration of the
differences between aviation related properties and the general in-
dustrial land market. Perhaps most importantly, Boeing Field has
stated in their 1986 Master Plan that:
The Airport is provided as a government service. While
the economic realities of its users have been given due
consideration, the Airport is a public asset and must be
administered in the best interests of the community. As a
safeguard against major unforseen circumstances in the
future, King County must invest a reserve for Boeing
* See Appendix 1 for listing pp a sting of relevant statutes and
requirements on the charging of fair market value for airport
land rents.
II
i 33
i
Field which provides a source of financing for
programmed expenditures.
The result of the relatively new economic policy has been a shift
of markets at Boeing Field away from light general aviation and
towards the corporate sector. In other words, increased lease
rates are driving out those aviation related businesses which are
no longer supported by the market and supplanting them with
larger corporate aircraft facilities for which there is now a wait-
ing list.
At Paine Field, where considerable acreage is available, lease
rates are set at $.206 per square foot, a figure based on 10 per-
cent of the land value per year. Boeing Commercial Aircraft
Company does not directly lease ground on the airport; their 747
plant is adjacent. However, Paine Field typically collects be-
tween $275,000 and $300,000 in annual operating fees. Addition-
ally, Boeing Company holds a "first right of refusal" on 40 acres
of undeveloped airport land for a fee of $100,000 annually, or
$.057 per square foot.
Those comparisons seem to indicate that the lease rates at Ren-
ton do not reflect true market value and will be definitely under-
valued when the MLS approach is installed. Although a thorough
appraisal and lease comparison study needs to be made, the cur-
rent rates appear up to 50% undervalued. Raising the rates at
RNT would likely have a similar effect to what occurred at
Boeing Field when their new lease policy was instituted. That is,
the mix of aircraft based at the facility can be expected to shift
from light general aviation, recreational aircraft towards business
oriented aviation which generally has a greater capacity to pay
urban airport rates.
Lease rates, thus, can be considered an indirect land use control.
On the other hand, an evolution in fleet mix is very likely to
occur at RNT after the MLS arrives and as FBO's realize the
market potential in serving a more corporate clientele. Some
shift will occur regardless of lease rates charged by the City.
Should more emphasis on corporate aviation be wanted, raising
lease rates will accelerate the shift from less lucrative markets.
Establishing a lease rate structure that reflects the competitive
market for aeronautical uses is the goal of most public airports.
34
Whether Renton should charge market rates is the subject of
some internal debate within the City. Currently the facility is
taking in enough revenue to cover expenses. Phase II of this
study will evaluate the finances necessary to implement the
preferred alternative. Its very possible that more revenue will be
needed to keep the facility on a sustaining basis. Its also possible
that the state auditor or the FAA will impose a more market
oriented interpretation of what the City must charge as a public
entity. The point is, in any scenario the airport should be able to
anticipate and evaluate the effects of rate changes on the land
use of the facility.
Airport Priorities
Setting airport priorities is the prerogative of the City, however,
a regional perspective may be useful in formulating those
priorities. The Boeing Company is a great asset to the City and
to Renton Municipal Airport. The Company needs to be located
there. To a large degree, seaplanes are also dependent upon
RNT. The Will Rogers-Wiley Post Memorial Seaplane Base is
the only publicly owned facility for seaplanes in the Seattle
area. These aircraft have few options, and depend upon the Ren-
ton facilities. These two users have little to no locational
flexibility. It can be argued that, as a consequence, they should
continue to be accommodated at RNT.
A case can also be made for the basing of business aircraft at
Renton Municipal. These higher performance aircraft require a
runway that is longer than the typical utility-class runway of be-
tween 2,500 and 3,500 feet. Business aviation is best served by a
* Current seaplane activities on Lake Union and at Kenmore
on north Lake Washington are extremely constrained by
available space and by the density of boats on the lakes. A
closure of either site would place greater demand on the
seaplane facilities at Renton although the degree of impact is
hard to quantify. Lake Union is particularly well sited for
airtaxi seaplane service next to downtown Seattle, and how
much of this business could be transferred to Will Rogers -
Wiley Post Memorial SPB is open to question.
35
location that is centrally located and by a precision landing sys-
tem. Renton Municipal has the length and location. RNT is
programmed to have an active MLS by about 1990. As VFR and
IFR congestion grow at Boeing Field, Renton Municipal Airport
may well become more important and desirable to the Seattle
area business aviation fleet. Business aircraft, too, should have
priority at RNT.
Recreational aircraft, on the other hand, have more locational
flexibility than the three categories of users just discussed. From
a regional perspective there are no overriding reasons that these
aircraft must be based at RNT. Renton Municipal is obviously
handy to many recreational aircraft owners, but not essential. Al-
ternative airports exist that provide the necessary airport features
that these users need. For this reason, recreational aircraft should
�f have a lower priority than do Boeing, seaplanes and higher per-
formance business aircraft.
Forecasts by Community Alternative
The number and types of based aircraft at RNT will directly re-
late to the City's responses to future demand. Apron space is
quite limited so that hard choices will have to be made. The fol-
lowing forecasts reflect these choices.
Germane to these forecasts, however, are the recently prepared
projections for Boeing Field International. The following table
shows the BFI forecasts from the draft Airport Master Plan
prepared by Coffman Associates. These projections have been ad-
justed forward by two years to match the RNT forecasting
timeframe (1987-2007). The growth factors indicated in the BE
report were used to make these adjustments.
36
TABLE 9
BASED AIRCRAFT PROJECTIONS FOR BFI ADJUSTED FORWARD TWO YEARS IN TIME
Single-Engine Multi-Engine Jet Rotorcraft/Other Total
1987 364 (63.3%) 138(24.0%) 50 (8.7%) 23 (4.0%) 575
1992 374 (60.0%) 150(24.1%) 71 (11.4%) 28 (4.5%) 623
1997 383 (56.5%) 166(24.5%) 95(14.0%) 34 (5.0%) 678
2007 404 (48.9%) 201(24.3%) 170(20.6%) 51 (6.2%) 826
These forecasts are based upon U.S. fleet mix forecasts together
with recent shifts in the composition of the based aircraft at BFI.
Multi-engine and jet aircraft have been increasing in numbers at
nearly a 10 percent per year rate during the last six years at
rBoeing Field. The Coffman Associates expect annual increases
in jet aircraft of eight percent per year between 1985 and 1990,
followed by six percent growth through the year 2005.
The BFI forecasts indicate a significant decline g dec ne in the percentage
of single-engine propeller aircraft by the year 2007. Multi-engine
reciprocating aircraft are projected to remain at about a constant
percentage of the fleet mix at the airport. Rotorcraft and turbine
.� powered aircraft are expected to continue to increase, not only in
absolute numbers but also as a percentage of the airport's based
aircraft. Again, these projections reflect national and regional
forecasts and experience at Boeing Field.
The next tables show the forecasts of based aircraft at the Renton
Municipal Airport for each Community Service Alternative over
the next twenty years. The effect of each alternative varies the
fleet mix of based aircraft, particularly the percentage of busi-
ness aircraft. This proportion is shown graphically on Figure 1.
What is also illustrated is the fact that the number of based
aircraft will significantly decline under every alternative except
the Maximum Response.
I37
For these forecasts, business aircraft were taken to be 70 percent
of the multi-engine propeller (MEP) powered fleet, all of the tur-
bine powered aircraft, and all rotorcraft. Non-business aircraft
were figured to be thirty percent of the MEP's and all of the
single-engine propeller (SEP) aircraft. These are planning as-
sumptions for the purpose of determining land requirements
based on aircraft size. Of course, some single engine aircraft are
used for business purposes.
Approximately 13 single-engine propeller aircraft per acre can be
placed in T-hangars, while about 16 aircraft per acre can be
placed at tiedowns. Itinerant aircraft are normally positioned at
about 13 1/2 aircraft per acre. Consequently, an average figure of
14 aircraft per acre has been assumed for non-business aircraft.
Rotorcraft and multi-engine propeller aircraft can be hangared at
about 14 aircraft per acre, while turbine aircraft are normally han-
gared at about 7 aircraft per acre. Therefore, an average of 10
business aircraft per acre has been used as a design standard for
business aircraft.
38
' 7
3 0
BUSINESS 61
' NON-BUSINESS
...................
...................
...................
...................
261 265
16
R4
200
195
59
X.
.....
XX
EXISTING REA..�TIV�
C EELE�
S CTIVE BALANCED MAXIMUM
FIGURE 1
YEAR 2007 BASED AIRCRAFT PROJECTIONS FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE ALTERNATIVES
39
' TABLE 10
BASED AIRCRAFT PROJECTIONS FOR RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BY
' COMMUNITY SERVICE ALTERNATIVE, AIRCRAFT TYPE,AND YEAR
' YEAR ALTERNATIVE SEP MEP TP TJ RC/O TOT. % BUSINESS
' 1987 Existing 239 20 1 -- 1 261 6.1
1992* Reactive** 160 20 3 5 2 190 12.6
' Selective** 154 19 6 8 3 190 15.8
Balanced 223 28 4 7 3 265 12.6
Maximum** 144 22 8 12 4 190 20.5
1997 Reactive 163 20 6 8 3 200 15.5
Selective 152 18 10 12 5 197 20.1
Balanced 216 26 8 11 4 265 15.5
Maximum*** 257 25 12 20 6 320 17.5
' 2007 Reactive 150 20 10 15 5 200 22.0
Selective 131 18 18 20 8 195 30.3
Balanced 199 26 13 20 7 265 22.0
' Maximum 280 30 20 30 10 370 21.9
* Assumes Microwave Landing System Operational by 1990
** Assumes Apron "C" Reclaimed by Boeing
' *** Assumes All Boeing Flightline moves to East of Runway
SEP - Single Engine Propeller
MEP - Multi-Engine Propeller
TP - Turboprop
' TJ - Turbojet or Turbofan
RC/O - Rotorcraft or Other
40
r
r
r
TABLE 11
NON-BUSINESS AND BUSINESS BASED AIRCRAFT PROJECTIONS FOR RENTON
' MUNICIPAL AIRPORT WITH LAND REQUIREMENTS
NON- TOTAL NEEDED
YEAR ALTERNATIVE BUSINESS BUSINESS AIRCRAFT ACRES
1987 Existing 245 16 261 22.7
1992* Reactive** 166 24 190 16.2
Selective** 160 30 190 16.3
Balanced 232 33 265 19.9
Maximum** 151 39 190 16.5
1
1997 Reactive 169 31 200 17.2
r Selective 157 40 197 17.1
Balanced 223 41 265 20.0
Maximum*** 264 56 320 27.6
2007 Reactive 156 44 200 17.4
Selective 136 59 195 17.2
' Balanced 207 58 265 20.6
Maximum 289 81 370 28.7
r
* Assumes Microwave Landing System Operational by 1990
** Assumes Apron "C" Reclaimed by Boeing
' *** Assumes all Boeing Flightline moves to East of Runway
1
r
r
r41
The above assume a balance of aircraft types and hangar require-
ments. The total acreage needed for each alternative is displayed
' in the right-hand column of the above table. The graphic depic-
tion of the resulting land uses can be plotted from these category
requirements.
Each of the three Community Service Alternatives will have an
effect on land use at the airport, and the Reactive, Selective,
Balanced and Maximum responses to market demands are il-
lustrated on Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5 respectively. Five land use
categories are mapped. These are as follows:
' 1) Land servingprimarily non-business aircraft - These aircraft
are predominantly SEP, recreational, and parked or hangared on
this ground at a density of 14 aircraft per acre.
2) Land servingnay business aircraft - These aircraft are
' predominantly multi-engine, piston or turbine powered, or
rotorcraft, parked or hangared at a density of 10 aircraft per acre.
' 3) Land serving Boeing -
4) Land for aviation related activities - This would include
aeronautical manufacturing other than Boeing airport offices, and
other aviation connected functions.
5) Land for non-aviation related activities - The restaurant is the
prime example. Also shown is a parking lot on Figure 4.
' Figure 2 displays the Reactive Response to market demand. The
assumptions are that Apron "C" would revert to use by Boeing,
and that existing businesses would make some response to the
business aircraft demand.
The Selective Response, shown on Figure 3, assumes that the
City of Renton redevelops about 6 acres for business aircraft
basing. The site displayed would offer the required acreage and
has the advantage of being adjacent to the restaurant. The meet-
ing rooms available there, along with the attractive lakeside loca-
tion, would be a unique amenity for based corporate aircraft.
The Balanced Response alternative displayed on Figure 4 shows
the southwest corner of the facility fully occupied by Boeing. On
the west side Apron "C" is given to non-Boeing GA. The
42
2007
1
LAND US E
REACTIVE
Lake RESPONSE
Washington
LEGEND
NON-BUSINESS A/C
BUSINESS A/C
'tYStL�1111i
�t}Sr1
BOEING
AVIATION RELATED
NON—AVIATION
GRAPHIC SCALE
-= 1
0 200 100 e00 OW 1000
APRON C
SUBJECT = M
TO BOEING
RECAPTURE --------------------
-
I ---------
----------------
-----------------_ -
_-- - __ _ - -- ---
_ _- I --- - ___ --7a_tL3lt-T•--a
BOEING
OWNED R EIV TON
RAMP
- - _-- _-- MUNICIPAL
AIRPORT
ll-==
=s=- MASTER PLAN
!FIGURE NO, 2
43
2007
1
LAND USE
SELECTIVE
Lake RESPONSE
Washington
_- LEGEND
NON-BUSINESS A/C
! BUSINESS A/C
_ BOEING
AVIATION RELATED
! \ NON-AVIATION
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 200 400 600 600 1000
APRON C -
SUBJECT
TO BOEING
RECAPTURE
--
2007
LAND USE
BALANCED
Washington Lake RESPONSE
LEGEND
v r 1
NON—BUSINESS A/C
BUSINESS A/C
z:=rte=
BOEING
�rrrt-�
-_ ---_-- I AVIATION RELATE®
NON—AVIATION
GRAPHIC SCALE
AUTOMOBILE o 2waoo 00o eoo t000
PARKING
ll-
-----------------
-
-
=-_=-------------
___
B _ BOEING
OVVNE® RENTON
°
RAMP MUNICIPAL
AIRPORT
MASTER PLAN
r- --- 5 R®®. 6+lII�IE%ON 8t ASSOCIATES. INC
_ FIGURE NO. 4
45
2007
LAND USE
MAXIMUM
Lake RESPONSE
Washington
LEGEND
I
NON-BUSINESS A/C
-_ BUSINESS A/C
-- " BOEING
- I
1
i AVIATION RELATED
I NON-AVIATION
a
GRAPHIC SCALE
- 0 200 100 600 E00 1000
I SOME BOEING
- 9 ACTIVITY MOVED
== FROM WEST SIDE
' == OF-_A_I_--R_P_OR-T
---------------
=-----------------------
-- -e
---------------------------
___ _____ _---__-_ =___-=_=--
-_ --- --- -__ _ ---
- _ ----_---=- =_--_-----_ _--
== 1- =-------------------------------------------
----------
== _-=_____ =__ -= ______-
_ __- _ z = -
_e___ __ - -x
u�=-�= = e
BOEING
OWNED RENTON
RAMP MUNICIPAL
AIRPORT
MASTER PLAN
3 _ _=_ RMo MID ATM NQ
--- y1GURE NO. 5
46
automobile parking area shown in brown by Apron "C" would be
joint use for both the Boeing "lab" building nearby and relocated
FBO's along the west edge of the aircraft apron.
The Maximum Response alternative, Figure 5, would create
more room for based aircraft by reclaiming all of the west side
from Boeing use. As discussed earlier, Boeing would have to
find space for new apron east of the Cedar River. What is shown
in this illustration is an expansion of their existing eastside
aircraft apron into an area currently used for automobile parking
and Boeing fully sited east of the runway.
The above forecasts envision a proportional decline in the per-
centage of single engine propeller aircraft from today's 84 per-
cent to about the 65-70 percent range depending upon the em-
phasis alternative selected by the City. Multi-engine reciprocat-
ing aircraft are projected to remain at about 15 percent of the
fleet of based aircraft, while turbine powered aircraft are an-
ticipated to rise to a 10-17 percent proportion of the fleet.
Boeing Field forecasts, by contrast, indicate over one-fourth of
the year 2007 fleet to be turbine-powered.
It should be noted that a Microwave Landing System receiver
can cost in the neighborhood of $10,000. This price may effec-
tively restrict the use of MLS to business and corporate aircraft.
MLS is potentially of greater benefit to the business aircraft that
is flown more often and in more diverse weather conditions than
the recreational aircraft. While Boeing Field and Sea-Tac will
also soon have an MLS precision approach, RNT will gain the
greatest improvement in IFR minima when its MLS becomes
operational.
One further comment relates to the constraints that Boeing Field
has relative to the basing of additional aircraft. BFI's Airport
Master Plan report states on pages 6-8 and 7-12 that:
The demand for conventional hangar space is expected to
be more than double by the year 2005 (425,000 square
feet compared to the existing 178,000).
The combined area required for new and/or redeveloped
conventional hangars, T-hangars and hangar apron will
47
exceed the area existing for those purposes by 451,600
square feet within 20 years.
If the Firestone property and Boeing parking lot cannot
be acquired, then only 57% of the conventional hangar
demand, 66% of the T-hangar demand and 91% of the
local and transient apron demand can be met for 2005.
Operational Forecasts by Community Alternative
The future level of flight activity at Renton Municipal Airport is
used for general facility planning but is particularly important for
two specific aspects; operational capacity and aircraft generated
noise. Operations at RNT over the last 15 years have been
remarkably constant. From Table 4, "AIRCRAFT OPERA-
TIONS AT RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT", the trend line
can be calculated. This shows an annual growth rate of only
0.124%. A 20 year projection of the total operations at this near-
ly flat rate would give a figure of 146,641 by the year 2007. Can
we assume that this is a reasonable extrapolation for this airport?
At smaller general aviation facilities the number of operations
can often be related to the number of based aircraft. However,
these two factors don't correlate well at Renton. Figure 6 graphs
the operations over 16 years along with the record of based
aircraft. Large increases in based aircraft such as between 1977
and 1979 when 65 airplanes came onto the field do not seem to
directly increase the operations. Also, the large drop in activity
in 1982 is not evidently connected with the relatively constant
amount of aircraft stored on the field over the same period.
Economic factors external to the Renton facility are a more like-
ly cause of the operational decrease at that time. Three other air-
ports with control towers, Paine Field, Tacoma Narrows, and
Boeing Field, all had significant drops in activity during the
early 1980's. In the case of BFI, based aircraft actually increased
over 30%o between 1978 and 1982 when total operations were
declining.
The lack of correlation between aircraft on the ground and
aircraft in the sky makes it difficult to relate the community ser-
vice alternatives to any meaningful future operational levels.
However, since our main interest is whether the airport is likely
48
i
i
iFIGURE 6
ANNUAL OPERATIONS AND BASED AIRCRAFT HISTORY AT RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
BASED
' AIRCRAFT
300,000
272 260
O
i E 200,000187 207
179
R
A
T
I
0100,000 ANNUAL
N OPERATIONS
S
1970
1975 1980 1985
YEAR
i
49
to become too busy or too noisy, for the purpose of checking a
worst case possibility let's assume a direct correlation between
increasing activity and increasing based aircraft.
The Maximum Response alternative allows an increase in based
aircraft from the current 261 to 370, or 41.76% growth, by the
year 2007. If operations were to increase at a similar rate the
number would be 208,000 by the end of the planning period.
The FAA Practical Annual Capacity (PANCAP) for a an airfield
with a single runway configuration like Renton's is about
230,000 operations. This assumes that at least 80% of the move-
ments would be by light aircraft of less than 12,500 pounds, a
probable occurrence at Renton. The maximum hourly capacity
would be 98 operations per hour under visual flight rules (VFR).
Airspace interactions with BFI and Sea-Tac would likely restrict
hourly instrument flight rules (IFR) capacity to something less
than half the VFR rate.
In any case the operational limits of the field are not likely to be
exceeded within the planning period. PANCAP is a rough es-
timate of actual capacity and particularly so at RNT where much
of the flight activity is local proficiency flight training. Pilots
will often divert to a more rural airport for practice if congestion
at the primary field makes training difficult. Thus, discretionary
flying is spread among the local airports and critical loadings can
be self-limiting. Renton actually has demonstrated the ability to
operate substantially more airplanes than the current annual rate.
In 1968 operations reached 204,000, representing the peak of a
busy stretch of years.
The actual growth rate and operational levels will probably be
lower than that discussed above in the Maximum Response
scenario. The Washington State Coordinated Airport System
Plan (WSCASP) is currently being written, and the draft
forecasts section calls for 174,200 operations at RNT by the year
1997, an annual growth rate of 2.93%. This rate compares to the
Puget Council of Governments (PSCOG) forecast of 1.65% an-
nual growth for Renton's operations. BFI's 1986 master plan
predicts annual rates of increase between 1.5% and 1.75% for
transient air activity. A 1.5% yearly growth would mean 198,481
operations by the year 2007.
50
1
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The forecasts of aircraft operations, when considered with the
fleet mix projections, can be used to generate anticipated
aircraft noise contours on a map, which in turn can be used
for compatible land use planning. The noise contours for Renton
graphically indicate that expected levels of off-airport aircraft
noise by the end of the planning period do not exceed the FAA
Part 150 criteria for residential areas. The contours for the exist-
ing operational level as well as for the year 2007 Maximum
Response alternative are shown on Figures 7 and 8, respectively.
The contours were calculated using the FAA report titled
Developing Noise Exposure Contours for General Aviation Air-
pQ=. A number of assumptions are necessary to develop the con-
tours including: (1) total operations; (2) total propeller opera-
tions; (3) total jet operations; (4) percent nighttime operations for
' both propeller and jet; (5) twin engine propeller as a percent of
all propeller operations; and (6) turbojet operations as a percent
of jet operations. An additional element is the percentage of use
of the runway in each direction.
The assumptions that were used include:
• A 50/50 split in the runway directional use - Actual
runway use is closer to 60/40, favoring runway 15, but
this is not significant in the manual computation of
contours.
• Less than 1300 annual turbojet operations - Turbojets
are differentiated from turbofans in that these earlier
engines have a straight-through flow of high velocity air
and are relatively noisy. Turbofans generally have a large
compressor section which blows air outside and around
the exhausting gasses, bypassing the combustion
chambers, thereby shrouding the high energy, turbulent
exhaust and quieting the flow. Boeing's commercial
aircraft manufactured at Renton, the 737 and 757, use
turbofan engines, and the latter has been certified as an
FAA Stage 3 aircraft, the quietest transport category. A
similar designation is expected for the W7. FAA Part 36
regulations have prohibited the manufacture of Stage 1
aircraft, which are the noisier turbojets, since 1975. These
51
aircraft have been disappearing from the business jet fleet
and are not expected to be a significant percentage of the
overall fleet mix by 1995. Furthermore, these turbojet
powered corporate jets cannot operate at full gross weights
at Renton Municipal Airport (RNT) because of the runway
length requirements these aircraft have, and therefore, a
lower percentage of turbojet operations can be expected at
RNT than at a more capable airfield such as Boeing Field
(BFI). Turbofan powered corporate jets contribute to the
map of noise contours but are not considered a special
case. For example, according to FAA advisory circular
36-3D a Cessna Citation II business turbofan generates
62.6 dBA on takeoff compared to 69 dBA for Cessna 180
single-engine prop., 60 dBA for a Piper Cherokee 140
single engine prop., 67.0 dBA for Gates Learjet 55
turbofan, and 68.8 for a Beech Super King Air 200
turboprop.
• Existing operations = 141,642 - This is an adjusted figure
for 1986 based on a projection of the trend line over the
last 15 years.
• Year 2006 operations = 208,608 - This is a projection
based on the Maximum Response alternative where the
number of based aircraft increase by 41.76% with a
corresponding increase in operations over the trend line
growth.
• Twin engine operations as a percent of all propeller
operations - Existing = 8%; Year 2007 = 15%
* This circular provides listings of estimated airplane noise
levels in units of A-weighted sound level in decibels (dBA)
for both takeoff and approach phases of flight. The
document allows reasonable comparison between quite
diverse categories of aircraft which are certified under
different and sometimes incompatible noise measurement
standards. Noise level estimates are provided at FAR Part 36
Appendix C positions (6500 meters from start of roll for
takeoff and 2000 meters from the runway threshold for
approach)
52
• A 1% nighttime use - Nighttime is defined as between
10:00pm and 7:00am.
Integrating these factors yields an adjusted number of operations
of 165,155 for the existing condition and 286,836 for the year
2007.
The noise contour of greatest interest in an urban environment is
the Ldn 65. This is the only contour of real significance to
residential areas according to FAA and the Department of Hous-
ing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines for aircraft
generated noise affecting land use. At Renton the Ldn 65 contour
is contained within the boundaries of the airport property for
both the existing condition and the projected level of operations
in the year 2007. In both cases the Ldn 65 contour does not ex-
tend past the runway ends. In the Maximum Response alternative
for the year 2007 an Ldn 70 contour is generated over the middle
of the runway paved area.
"Ldn" stands for "level day-night", and is defined as "the A
weighted sound level in decibels...during a 24-hour period with a
10 dB weighting applied to nighttime sound levels." In describ-
ing the cumulative noise exposure during a 24 hour day, Ldn dif-
ferently weights the individual sound levels of operations which
occur at night between 10:00pm and 7:00am in an attempt to ac-
count for the greater intrusiveness of noise during those late
hours. The Ldn measure incorporates the relationship of in-
dividual noise levels, number of events and time of day. This
relationship is modeled and the results expressed for a typical 24-
hour day averaged for a year.
The Ldn noise descriptor can be used to correlate noise impacts
with health effects and measures of perceptual intrusiveness. Ldn
is now widely used by nearly all federal agencies including the
Department of Defense, the FAA, NASA, HUD, and the
Veterans Administration. Land use compatibility guidelines are
established for Ldn levels above 65. These guidelines are not in-
tended to preempt local land use decisions but to provide direc-
tion for land use planning. Area outside of the Ldn 65 contour is
shown as acceptable for all land uses including the more noise
sensitive ones such as auditoriums, nursing homes, and concert
halls. The 60 Ldn contour represents even quieter conditions, and
53
is not even included in the FAA/HUD land use compatibility
standards.
To provide some perspective on the projected aircraft noise, an
activity level 50% greater than that which has been forecasted
under the Maximum Response alternative was calculated. This
analysis shows that even if this unlikely scenario were to occur
the Ldn 65 contour would not extend beyond the east or west
property lines of the airport, and the contour would only project
about 1000 feet beyond the ends of the runway into an area the
FAA designates as "clear zone" where no structures are recom-
mended because of safety concerns unrelated to noise.
A special case which may generate some noise complaints in the
future is the seaplane activity at Will Rogers-Wily Post
Memorial Seaplane Base. The 1984 FAA estimates of activity
(Form 5010) only shows 2000 seaplane operations for the year,
not enough to affect the total noise mix at the airport. However,
seaplanes are often perceived to be noisier than comparible land
based aircraft. This is because of water noise reflection, power
settings, propeller configuration, and the fact that seaplanes vary
their takeoff routes according to the wind and wave conditions.
"Single event" noise such as this will not average enough over a
24 hour period to affect the total noise footprint, but it can some-
times be very annoying to local residents. Airport management
could impose operational restrictions for noise control on
seaplanes should they become a significant irritation.
Total aircraft generated noise is, therefore, not expected to repre-
sent a significant land use problem for the City of Renton in the
future.
1
54
I
LEGEND
_ 2h : , ..
65
Ldn CONTOUR
O
'to
GRAPHIC SCALE
i � ra
0 1000 2000 3000
FEET
Jr.
==sir ►.:5� � ��_ f RAQW
�+ �• '�
it
�- innt�: } �
I
WAS
yra rdS
ED nLEGEND
65
mall W.
CONTOUR
0 GRAPHIC SCALE
0 1000 2000 3000
Are
-a
FEET
IF
Win! WWWA,
y t
Facility Requirements
' Design Standards
Renton Municipal Airport has an unusually wide range of
aircraft types using the facility. By far the majority of use is by
' light, single-engine propeller driven airplanes, or basic utility
aircraft by FAA definition. However, the Boeing plant adjacent
to the field builds 737's, 757's, and 707 types which use most of
' the airport pavements, mingling with the other activity, in the
normal course of their assembly and preparation. These large
aircraft contribute about 200 annual departures to the runway
' traffic. There is also a mix of corporate turbine-powered aircraft
sufficient to qualify the airport for FAA designation as a Basic
Transport airport.Design standards for this facility can be found
' in the FAA Advisory Circular AC:150/5300 -12.
' The purpose of such standards is to provide guidance for the
dimensions which separate the airport features such as runways,
taxiways, parked airplanes, and buildings. Such standards are par-
ticularly important at facilities like RNT which have a large
diversity of airplane types. However, this airport is extremely
constrained in area and, therefore, in its ability to strictly impose
the FAA transport criteria. The need for some compromise is sug-
gested in the table below.
' Nevertheless, the limits of compromise must be set firmly. In-
dividual applications for encroachment past the BRL by potential
or existing lessees can be expected to occur on a regular basis.
' This will happen because gaining land by acquiring a concession
on setback standards is an attractively inexpensive alternative to
gaining space through proper redevelopment or relocation. The
City should weigh short term commercial interests against the
' need to preserve the long term viability of the facility.
I!
* All Boeing large airplane departures are to the north over
Lake Washington
57
i
TABLE 12
BASIC TRANSPORT DIMENSIONAL CRITERIA AT RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
DESIGN FAA MAXIMUM SUGGESTED
ITEM TRANSPORT POSSIBLE DESIGN
STANDARD AT RENTON STANDARDS
Runway width 100' 200' 150'
Runway safety area width 500' 500' 500'
Runway centerline to 400' 304'west 304' west
taxiway centerline 320'east 304'east
Runway centerline to 500' 375'west 375' west
aircraft parking area 350'east 340'east
' Runway centerline to 750' 375'west** 400' ***
building restriction line 350'east** 400' ***
' Taxiway centerline to 64'* 78' 78' ****
fixed or movable object
i
*This dimension is based on airplane design group II which includes all executive jets
up to 78' wingspan. For aircraft such as the Boeing 737 the standard is 94' and this in-
creases to 139' for Boeing 707 type aircraft.
' **The large Airmaster hangar is only 375' from the runway centerline, and the recent-
ly constructed Lane/Lake hangars are 382'. Other buildings are at least 400'. On the
east side of the airport, the Cedar River hangar is only 350' from the runway centerline.
' ***The suggested building restriction line for any new building on either side is 400',
and extends past the ends of the runway to the property lines.
****This assumes the west taxiway centerline could be moved 7' to the east from the
Airmaster hangar north where the taxiway is wider.
r
' 58
' What particularly underscores the importance of these separation
criteria is the impending arrival of the MLS precision instrument
approach. Those airports with precision approach capability are
held to a higher level of compliance with FAA design standards
than those without. Although the final MLS criteria are yet to be
published, the FAA is requiring ILS dimensional standards to be
met where possible. There will probably not be very much relaxa-
tion from these separation distances with the new MLS equip-
ment. While the greater BRL separation can not be reasonably
' achieved at RNT (750 feet from runway centerline places the
BRL in the middle of Rainier Avenue), the escalated standard
' will at least make future deviations from the historical 400 foot
BRL much more difficult to get waived by the FAA. Incursions
1 on the BRL before installation of the precision approach could
have the effect of raising approach minima since the estab-
lishment of minimum descent altitudes requires the FAA to
judge, along with their other technical criteria, the conformance
of the facility to safety standards including separation distances.
Aeronautical Facility Needs
Access Control - The number one problem at the airport iden-
tified by the control tower chief is unauthorized access onto the
field. His personnel record at least one incursion onto the runway
per week. For a facility as busy as Renton Municipal Airport, the
risk of a serious accident is considerable with most of the
liability accruing to the City as the sole operator. Historically,
aircraft owners have driven out to their aircraft through the
numerous access gates around the perimeter of the field. This
convenience unfortunately allows anyone access, whether they
have knowledge of airport hazards or not. Positive control
' through fencing and vehicle access prohibition is the only
reasonable way to establish control. While discontinuing aircraft
owner car access will undoubtedly stir complaints from long
time users, this is a major safety and liability issue which much
be resolved.
' A particularly troublesome area of the airport is the southeast
corner by the Benair lease. Airplanes and cars use the same
taxiway/access road to get to the various commercial activities lo-
cated near there. The runway end is less than 400 feet away from
the very ambiguous airplane/vehicle pavement which has no
clear boundary. Signs and pavement markings would help some-
59
clear boundary. Signs and pavement markings would help some-
what in this location, although they would only be a partial solu-
tion. Security patrols would also be useful, but this is not current-
ly possible with the small number of airport staff available.
Runway - The single runway at this airport, designated 15/33, is
5379 feet long by 200 feet wide. The south landing threshold is
displaced 350 feet from the end. Bituminous concrete is the
material for most of the runway and varies in condition from fair
to very good with the poorest areas located in the southern third.
The taxiway crossing of the runway where Boeing tows heavy
aircraft across shows some significant "alligator" cracking which
will need attention soon. The concrete pavement at the south end
is in very good condition.
Since the runway is expected to receive more use in the future
with an increasing percentage of use from higher performance
aircraft, and because of the frequency of rain in the area, the sur-
face should be grooved or a porous friction course applied to as-
sure maximum braking capability. With a landing length of only
slightly more than 5000 feet when landing to the north and 5379
feet when landing to the south, the surface should be made as
resistant to tire skidding as possible. This is important to both
the landing distances and accelerate-stop distances required by
high performance aircraft. Before any type of friction enhancing
treatment is performed on the runway the existing surface should
be in as good a condition as possible or the surfacing effort may
be somewhat wasted. Therefore, a bituminous concrete overlay
should be applied to the runway sometime within the next five
years followed by either grooving or a porous friction course and
then the instrument runway marking.
At the same time the above work is done, the runway should be
narrowed to a width of 150 feet. This will reduce the immediate
overlay costs by about 25% as well as the costs of future projects
and maintenance.
' Taxiways - The 1978 Airport Master Plan suggested the pos-
sibility of moving taxiway A, the main parallel taxiway on the
west side, closer to the runway to allow more aircraft parking on
the adjacent ramp. This should not be done. The FAA standard
separation for this transport type airport is 400 feet from runway
centerline to parallel taxiway centerline. Current taxiway center-
60
line separation is 304 feet. To reduce this even further would
d
compromise FAA standards in the face of the expected MLS
and the enhanced safety criteria associated with this precision in-
strument approach system. The anticipated evolution towards
higher performance aircraft operations connected with the better
approach is another argument against a standards reduction.
In recent years the Renton Public Works Department has been
' conscientious in reconstructing and patching poor sections of the
taxiways, and as result most of these pavements are in good to
very good condition. Two taxi exits could use some work soon.
They are the two 90 degree angle exits, one on either side of the
runway, located north of the control tower. These two exits
should be overlaid within five years. A few of the other exits
may also need work within the same period.
The west side parallel taxiway system, being in good to very
' good condition, should logically be overlaid somewhat later,
probably in the second five year period. The same is true for the
partial parallel taxiway network on the east side along the
southern one -third of the runway.
A new short section of parallel taxiway , 35 feet wide, should be
constructed west of the compass rose in the first five years. This
would allow the aircraft based on the east side of the field to con-
duct a large percentage of their operations without having to
cross the runway. The new taxiway section would thus have a
small positive effect on airport capacity and mean a more con-
venient operation for both pilots and controllers.
Terminal Area - The aprons include some very good concrete
on the west side and an excellent new tie-down area in the
Fancher lease vicinity on the west side. No major apron projects
are envisioned for the next 10 years. A small apron expansion
' east of the Fancher operation would be desirable within 5 years,
but this would be very limited in size because of runway
clearance requirements.
' Currently, three multi-service fixed base operators (FBO's)
operate from the airport. Without further subdivision of leased
areas, that is about the limit for this facility. If Apron "C" were
to be retained and expanded for non-Boeing GA as in the
Balanced Response alternative, a new allocation of space is pos-
61
sible. New T-hangars could be built here in lieu of open tie-
downs, and the mix of hangar sizes could be controlled depend-
ing on the response desired towards the corporate market.
Seaplane terminal facilities are potentially a special requirement
at Renton Municipal Airport. The Will Rogers-Wily Post
Memorial Seaplane Base is the only publicly owned seaplane
facility in the state. Only two other locations in the Seattle area
support commercial seaplane activity, Kenmore at the north end
of Lake Washington and Lake Union. The latter, while close to
the central business district, is an extremely crowded body of
water. Rising land values and competition for waterfront access
could in time displace the seaplane operators. The potential for
an accident with the dense boating traffic is also always present
on Lake Union. Closure of this lake to seaplanes would divert at
least part of the downtown Seattle market demand to the remain-
ing facilities, and thus Renton could see much more activity
should the above scenario occur. Unfortunately, the probability
of a Lake Union closure is very difficult to assess.
In any case, should the seaplane market increase in Renton, the
area adjacent to Lake Washington now occupied by the res-
taurant should be considered for seaplane use. At the time of this
writing the restaurant is open. However, the establishment has
had several operators since beginning about ten years ago. com-
peting restaurants have since opened in the airport neighborhood.
Perhaps the airport restaurant will be successful but
P up as future op-
tions the building could become a terminal for seaplane air taxi
service, a combined terminal and small restaurant, a combined
terminal and meeting room space, office space for an FBO
specializing in seaplane operations, or some other combination of
uses. Of course, the entire site could be used for seaplane park-
ing , but this is a low intensity use for a waterfront site. The
wooden ramp along the shoreline will soon need replacing and
should be considered for transient seaplane use.
Once away from the lakeside, seaplanes can be treated much like
any other light GA aircraft. Except, of course, without am-
phibious wheels they have to rely on some other way of being
moved about the airport for service, such as with special
forklifts. A dedicated area for seaplanes at the water's edge
would be desirable, however.
' 62
Seaplane float storage is common during the winter at Renton
when a significant number of aircraft are configured for wheels.
The large area these floats cover could be reduced if float
storage racks of 3 or 4 tiers were built to concentrate the equip-
ment, thereby reducing the competition for available ground
space.
Obstructions - The south approach contains a mixture of com-
mercial and residential uses. To clear structures in this area the
south landing threshold has been displaced to provide an accept-
ably clear approach surface. Every few years this approach will
also need to have the trees topped which penetrate the approach
surfaces.
Renton is scheduled to have an MLS precision instrument ap-
proach installed in 1990. The primary surface width associated
with such operations is 1000 feet. In a primary surface no ob-
jects are supposed to be higher than the adjacent runway eleva-
tion. At the edge of the primary surface a transition surface is lo-
cated, sloped at 1 foot of vertical rise for every 7 feet of horizon-
tal run (7:1). No objects should penetrate this surface. The reality
at Renton is that neither the primary nor transition surfaces can
meet standards because of prior development and the surround-
ing terrain. No obstruction removal is planned in these areas and
waivers will have to be made. However, no future development
or construction should be allowed that would create an obstruc-
tion greater than those which already exist.
Lighting and Navaids - The runway now has a Medium Inten-
sity Lighting System (MIRL) that has been in service since
before 1970. The useful life of these systems is normally con-
sidered to be about 20 years, and the time has come for this one
to be scheduled for replacement. Furthermore, because of the
coming MLS in 1990, a change in systems would be appropriate.
While MIRL systems are acceptable for precision instrument
operations, High Intensity Runway Lights (H[RL) are preferred.
Also as discussed earlier in this section under runway needs, the
width of the runway will probably be narrowed to 150 feet in the
first five year period and would require moving the lights. Con-
sidering all the above factors, the lighting system should be
changed to HIRL concurrent with the runway narrowing.
63
The Microwave Landing System (MLS) will become the new na-
tional standard for precision approach equipment and the current
Instrument Landing Systems (ILS) that have been in use for
many years will be phased out over the next decade. The new
MLS for Renton is part of the first contract purchase for this
region to be put in place about 1990 along with systems planned
for Sea-Tac and Boeing Field. This will be an FAA installed and
maintained system. No significant direct City costs are an-
ticipated with this facility.
Miscellaneous - The amount of birds near the Renton facility
poses another safety and liability problem for the City. Bird con-
trol is a subject not often covered under facility requirements,
but here the potential for bird strikes and major engine damage is
serious because of the concentration of seagulls and other water-
fowl at the mouth of the Cedar River. Boeing has expressed con-
cern to the City about the risks to their operations posed by these
flocks.
Birds are attracted to the river because of the food available at
the mouth, particularly when salmon are spawning upstream and
the banks and shallows are littered with fish carcasses. Gradual
siltation has filled the main channel and added considerably to
the delta which is now in places only a few inches deep and thus
allows the birds easy feeding.
The problem can be reduced by pursuing two directions; an ac-
tive control program to frighten and discourage the birds that col-
lect near the runway, and a program to diminish the availability
of the feed which attracts them in the first place.
Active control is commonly done at other airports and involves
setting off noise making devices, recorded bird distress calls, and
other forms of harassment. While some if this can be done
through remote, automated control, additional personnel are
usually required.
Reduction of the available feed will require dredging of the river
and its delta. Done at the right time of the year the salmon run
would not be affected by this work since the spawning beds are
further up the river. The intent of dredging would be to lower the
sands and gravels which collect the feed at an accessible depth
for the birds. The clearing of the channel would also help j
mitigate the flood potential on the east side of the airport. This
dredging will require an extensive list of permits from several
1 agencies.
Flooding of the east side perimeter road is now a fairly common
occurrence, with some threat of inundation of the low tie-down
area and hangars in that vicinity. The Public Works Department
intends to raise the road along the east side to function as a dike,
with the fill material to be dredged from the adjacent river.
i
1
1
1
1
65
Summary
Renton Municipal Airport is a crowded, well diversified, and
vital aeronautical facility which is important for the region
as well as the local community. This study is intended to
give a frame of reference on some of the changes which will
most probably be occurring in the aviation industry, the regional
market, and on the airport itself. From the perspective gained,
the City can make an informed choice on the best possible
course of action for the future of the airport. Four community ser-
vice alternatives were described in the report. Following this sum-
mary is a matrix which clearly illustrates the differences between
these alternatives for both the City and the users.
Some of the other key factors for the airport's future which were
covered in the report are listed below:
• A Microwave Landing System (MLS) will be installed at
Renton and operating by 1990. Precision instrument
approaches will then be possible.for those aircraft so
equipped which, because of equipment cost, will most
likely be those in the business aviation fleet.
• Regional air traffic and airport congestion will increase
dramatically towards the end of the century creating
pressure for reliever facilities to Boeing Field which
instrument approaches constrain Sea-Tac's capacity.
• The business aviation fleet, represented by aircraft from
large multi-engine piston powered types through corporate
jets, will be the fastest growing sector of the general
aviation (GA) market.
• Smaller GA aircraft, production of which has nearly
ceased in this country, will grow in number in the region
only as a function of population growth.
• In the face of the above increasing GA demands, Renton
Municipal Airport will likely lose 25 to 30% of it's
capacity to base aircraft as Boeing has need to reclaim
Apron "C" on the west side of the airfield as part of their
M project and other production demands.
66
• Aircraft generated noise is not expected to be a problem
within the planning period.
• The facility requirements are relatively straightforward
aeronautical items with the exception of two particularly
important safety and liability issues; vehicle access
restrictions and bird control.
67
!
What isIV
: :: :
......: :
involved for the Not much. This is the "business as usual" alternative.
City? The City might add a couple of employees to provide
security, bird control, etc., but this is not really related
to community service alternatives. Leases would be
revalued before 1990.
::<:<:<:> > >.........
... .:::::.......:: '1`AVE. ::...: .....................:::.
.....................................................................................................................................................
The range of involvement depends on how aggressive
the City wants to be in attracting business aviation
and how much lessee response is made to that market.
Airport management would become more active and
probably full time with needs in marketing, and
perhaps, redevelopment.
LAN. .
>:.....:>:<:::..
................................................................................................................................................
Immediate action is needed by the City to begin
arranging the move of Boeing to the southeast airport
corner and the relocation of existing tenants to the
Apron "C" area on the west side. Added staff time
would be required and perhaps a special project team
would have to be assembled.
This would require substantial City staff time over the
next few years to negotiate the property reallocations
with Boeing and other tenants. Probably, a
redevelopment team would need to be created with
design, financial, marketing, and legal skills. The
increased level of activity after redevelopment would
probably call for a full time airport manager.
68
................... ...............................
Pr n n ............ . .
Pros
Pro Minimum effort Con>:......................................... .............
Based aircraft
needed by the City. capacity is sure to be
Users are generally lost. FBO's will be
satisfied with current strained as a result. Does
operation. not not maximize
revenue to City. Forces
Boeing to occupy more
airport space. May not
enhance overall
' economic goals of
Renton. Vehicular
access to the runway
remains a problem.
:......::»::>:>:::::>:::>:;>:;>:<: ......:::::...:....L T E.::::::..:..............................................:.
Pro-Makes better Con-Requires more
system wide use of effort. Places pressure
airport for region. on recreational users of
Should provide more airport which will
revenue. Gives priority generate complaints as
to identified elements aircraft are displaced in
(Boeing, business favor of priority
aviation, seaplanes) elements.
which need to use RNT.
Increases employment
opportunities at the
airport.
.::.:::.:......:.....>:< ::>:<>:>::>::>:<:>::>::>:::
................. :: .........I;::::
............................: : ::: : :::>::>::::>;:::::::::::::::::::::::: ....................�4 N G.E f 3....:.........................................:..........
:.;:.::::Pro- Thi:.;;:..1�:.:::.::...................................... .... .................. ........ ....
....:....................:.::::::.::.::.::.:::.:::.::::::;:.;:::::::::::::::::.;:.;;:;;::::::::::.:.:.;:.;:::
This s the least Con- Tenants will need
disruptive option to the relocation. More
current level of GA immediate City
activity. Capacity to involvement is needed to
base aircraft is not lost. coordinate several
Both Boeing and FBO's parties. Capacity to base
get more efficient land aircraft is not increased.
use. Airport vehicle Relocation will have a
access security is price tag.
improved significantly.
69
i
r ............... .................................X........................... . .......
......................................................... .......... .............
......................
Pro-Makes best system Con-Requires most
wide use of Renton's effort. Requires
sophisticated facilities. maximum cooperation
Accommodates growth by the Boeing Company.
in all aviation activity Requires the greatest
sectors. Should provide capital investment.
most revenue to airport.
Gives priority to
selected aviation uses
and allows recreational
use. Increases
employment
opportunities at airport
and in community.
Provides more efficient
land use for Boeing and
other GA. Gives Boeing
better security and
safety for parked aircraft.
70
i
Whatlays Y ................................................................................................
ahead for the
.................. ::::::.:.::::::::::::::.:.::...::::::::.
Not much change will be experienced by the City
City if they until 1990, then a very gradual increase in business
pursue this aircraft plus loss of Apron" C" will displace many
recreational type users and there will be complaints
path of action? by users and FBO's. Also, revenue will probably fall
as fewer aircraft will most likely be using the airport
and FBO revenues probably decrease. Higher land
rental rates could effect revenue loss from activity.
>< >>>SE CSE:.>_ >:>..._:.> >''< « <'> ` < " < `<> > <><=
Similar to Reactive in that there will be complaints
from displaced recreational users. Increased business
activity will require more City involvment to
encourage and manage. Revenues could possibly
increase due to operation by generally more active
business aircraft. More revenue could be generated
through higher land rental rates to offset some
increased airport personnel costs.
:>=:>:>;>:>::»�< :>:::><:::::::;>:::>::»::>:>:>................... NCE ...................................::..................
Tenants could resist relocation. FBO's could have
concerns about fairness of apportionment of new lease
areas (who gets what). The financing for the move
may incur some debt for the airport (e.g. revenue
bonds),Increased management for the relocation will
be needed. Airport revenues may benefit as a result of
a more efficient layout allowing more FBO income.
71
1
REM
�I More involvement by City personnel, with some
increased costs but substantially greater revenues
from greater activity and higher land rental rates.Very
significant relocation costs. Possibly more noise
complaints to deal with because of increased activity.
r ....:.........:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::....:
What happens :: :: ::: :
p p ....................................................................................................................................................
to current
Not much until about 1990 when land rental rates
users? probably increase. Then in about 1992 Boeing will
probably recapture Apron" C" for M parking and
about 80 users will be displaced from the airport.
Higher tie down rates will possibly have displaced a
few by then also. See based aircraft projections.
::::::.:::::::::. E....EF.::..:..........................................:::.::::.
Same as Reactive but possibly a few more
recreational users will have been replaced in the
1990-92 timeframe. As business use increases
gradually, recreational use shall decrease gradually.
See based aircraft projections. Current users will be
most impacted by this scenario.
No users will be displaced as a result of Apron "C"
recapture by Boeing. Users may experience rate
increase around 1990. More efficient layout should be
benefit to users. This option minimizes impact on
current users.
IMU
Things stay about the same until Boeing builds
additional apron on their property. Then additional
space will be available for more aircraft. Current
users will not be affected except for gradually
inflating costs.
73
�i
Appendix 1
Airport rental rates and charges are typically based on prevailing
rates at other comparable aeronautical facilities. In other words,
the rates are controlled by the aviation market, not necessarily
the highest and best use of the property for non-aviation pur-
poses. Airports are generally considered special microeconomic
zones which are part of a larger but constrained economic avia-
tion market. Thus, the value basis for airport lands are not ex-
pected to reflect the worth of that property outside the airport
boundary. Increasing industrial land values off-airport, for ex-
ample, would not necessarily be indicative of aviation property
values since the industrial uses are often not permitted on-air-
port, and of course, aviation uses do not occur away from the air-
port.
With the proper interpretation of "market", the principal of fair
market value has some basis in local, state and federal law. The
pertinent sections are excerpted below:
• King County Code - " `Fair market value' is defined as
an amount in the competitive market that a well-informed
and willing lessor, who desires but is not required to lease,
would accept, and which a well-informed and willing
lessee, who desires but is not required to lease, would pay
for the temporary use of the premises, after due
consideration of all the elements reasonably affecting
value." (Section 4.56.010)
• Revised Code of Washington - A County or Municipality
is empowered "To determine the charges or rental for the
use of any [airport] properties under its control and the
charges for any services or accommodations, and the
terms and conditions under which such properties may be
used: Provided, that in all cases the public is not deprived
of its rightful, equal and uniform use of such property.
Charges shall be reasonable and uniform for the same
class of service and established with due regard to the
property and improvements used and the expense of
operation to the municipality." (RCW 14.08.120.6) Also:
"(i) Consideration shall be given to rental being paid to
other lessors by lessees of similar property for similar
purposes over similar periods of time; (ii) Consideration
74
shall be given to what would be considered a fair rate of
return on the market value of the property leased less
reasonable deductions for any restrictions on use, special
operating requirements or provisions for concurrent use by
the lessor, another person or the general public." (RCW
82.29A.020.2b)
• Washington State Constitution - "No county, city, town
or other municipal corporation shall hereafter give any
money, or property, or loan its money, or credit to or in
aid of any individual, association, company or corporation,
except for the necessary support of the poor and infirm, or
become directly or indirectly the owner of any stock in or
bonds of any association, company or corporation.
(Constitution of Washington, Art.8, Sect. 7)
• Code of Federal Regulations - "the airport operator or
owner will maintain a fee and rental structure for the
facilities and services being provided the airport users
which will make the airport as self-sustaining as possible
under the circumstances existing at that particular airport,
taking into account such factors as the volume of traffic
and economy of collection..." (Airport and Airway
Improvement Act of 1982, Sect. 511.a.9)
i
75
f i
1
1
1
t
1
t
1
1
r
t
t
D 6 ��i����� �7��
�
Q �
1 MASTER PLAN UPDATE DECEMBER 1988
1
'aw
1
1
1
f
�r fr2Yf
we
K ..„may ....
1
1 REID, MIDDLETON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
' RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
MASTER PLAN
UPDATE
CITY Orr" REN70M
JAN 2 j 1189
' RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
December 5, 1988
Reid, Middleton & Associates, Inc.
19031 334d Ave. W., Suite 301
P.O. Box 6638
Lynnwood, Washington 98036-6638
with
t
Robert O. Brown, Airport Consultant
' 24511 140th Ave. S.E.
Kent, Washington 98042
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 2744
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING
AND APPROVING THE RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Renton, Washington,
previously had authorized the preparation of an airport master plan;
and
' WHEREAS, the council had previously accepted a federal grant to
partially fund the Renton Municipal Airport Master Plan; and
' WHEREAS, a Citizens Advisory Committee had been formed to
review and comment upon the Renton Municipal Airport Master Plan;
and
WHEREAS, the city council established the dates of July 13,
1988 and October 3, 1988, as dates for public hearings on said
' Renton Municipal Airport Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, on July 13, 1988, and October 3, 1988, the city
council did hold such public hearings on the Renton Municipal
1 Airport Master Plan and received public comment; and
WHEREAS, the Renton Municipal Airport Master Plan appears to be
' in the public interest,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON,
' WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
' SECTION I. The above findings are true and correct in all
respects.
' SECTION II. The Renton Municipal Airport Master Plan is adopted
and approved by the Renton City Council as modified by the Citizens
' Advisory Committee.
' 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2744
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 5th day of December
1988.
r�
Maxine E. Motor , City Clerk
' APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 5th day of December ,
1988. F(
' Earl Clymer , Ma
' App rov as to form:
' Law en en, --City Attorney
Res. 39: 10-17-88:as.
t
' 2
II
' The preparation of this document was financed inart through a
P g
planning grant from the Federal Aviation Administration as
' provided under Section 13 of the Airport and Airway Act of
1970. The contents of this report reflect the views of the Consul-
tant who is responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data
' presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the offi-
cial views or policy of the FAA. Acceptance of this report by the
FAA does not in any way constitute a commitment on the part of
the United States to participate in any development depicted
therein nor does it indicate that the proposed development is en-
vironmentally acceptable in acordance with Public Laws 91-920,
91-258, and/or 90-490.
' TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
' Phase I
' H. National and Regional Forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
III. Community Service Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
IV. Environmental Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51
' V. Facility Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57
Phase II
' VI. Financial Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66
' VII. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80
VIII. Appendices
Appendix 1 - Regulations Pertaining to
Airport Rates and charges
' Appendix 2 -Development Alternatives Decision Matrix
III
LIST OF TABLES
NO. TITLE PAGE
1) Ownership Rates of GA Aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
2) Recent GA Ownership Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
' 3) Based Aircraft at Renton Municipal Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
' 4) Aircraft Operations at Renton Municipal Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
5) Projections of Business Aircraft in King County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
' 6) Projected Fleet Composition for King County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
7) Unconstrained Projections of GA Aircraft at Renton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
8) Peak Hour Aircraft Delays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
' 9) Based Aircraft Projections for BE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
10) Based Aircraft Projections for Renton Municipal Airport
by Community Service Alternative, Airport Type and Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
11) Non-Business and Business Based Aircraft Projections for
Renton Municipal Airport with Land Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
12) Basic Transport Dimensional Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58
13) Phase I Capital Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74
14) Phase II Capital Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76
15) Phase III Capital Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78
LIST OF FIGURES
NO. TITLE PAGE
1) Year 2007 Based Aircraft Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
2) 2007 Land Use - Reactive Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
3) 2007 Land Use - Selective Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44
4) 2007 Land Use - Balanced Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
5) 2007 Land Use - Maximum Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46
6) Annual Operations and Based Aircraft History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
7) Aircraft Noise Impacts - Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
8) Aircraft Noise Impacts - Maximum Response Alternative 56
9) 2007 Land Use - Balanced Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67
10) Project Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72
I. Introduction
'
T
he Master Plan Update for the Renton Municipal Airport has
proceeded in two phases. Phase I, completed in May 1987,
analyzed the facility with respect to forecast aviation growth
and developed four alternatives for future land use. The first
Phase report considers projected aviation noise impacts for the
selected alternative and describes needed aviation-related facility
improvements. This earlier report is now combined in a final
document with the Phase H report of the Master Plan Update,
consisting of a financial plan for the implementation of airport im-
provements and the mapping of the planned airport layout, land
use, airport obstructions, and utilities on four seperate drawings
not bound in this report.
The first phase of the Renton Airport Master Plan Update has the
objective of presenting enough context about the future of the
1 facility to allow an informed decision by the City on what
development concept should be pursued over the next 20 years.
Four alternatives are explored later in this report, representing the
probable spectrum of choices available at the facility. With these
alternatives, the facility requirements and anticipated physical im-
provements are then described and an environmental review made
' of the plan. In Phase H, the preferred alternative is further
developed, its physical features mapped and a financial plan es-
tablished for implementation.
The first major task in this plan's creation, then, is the considera-
tion of alternative futures for the airport. What will be the best
general direction for the development, operation, and marketing of
the facility? No major change of the FAA's classification of the
airport role as general aviation - basic transport is envisioned.
However, within that broad category, what can be done at the air-
port to best serve the community of Renton as a whole? Is any
change necessary? A cursory study of the lease map and Airport
Layout Plan for the Renton Municipal Airport will reveal a
facility which appears completely filled up, already developed,
with little or no apparent space left to be planned. This degree of
development is rare among airports in Washington State which
more commonly find themselves with an abundance of vacant
land and a dearth of tenants. Renton Municipal and Boeing Field,
its closest neighboring airport, are the most truly urban airfields in
the State, if urbanity can be defined in this case as having every
1
single acre committed to structures, airplanes, or vehicles. As with
all real estate, location is everything to an airport. The demand for
space at Renton Municipal Airport and Boeing Field is deter-
mined by their proximity to population concentrations and
markets which other airfields with similar runway lengths situated
in the more rural areas of the state do not enjoy. Although Boeing
Field is more intensively developed than Renton, they share many
similarities and will be compared frequently in this report.
Renton is truly fortunate to have its airport properties so much in
demand, but the resultant crowding has naturally led to space con-
flicts as redevelopment proposals are periodically introduced to
airport management. Some policy framework consistent with the
best overall interests of the community would be useful in the
evaluation of these airport land use proposals.
Perhaps the Airport Master Plan Update process has helped build
the needed frame of reference for the creation of a community air-
port policy. This report includes as a beginning the airport
demand forecasts for aviation activity. Some regional perspective
on aviation growth is provided as well as discussion on national
trends in aircraft manufacture and usage.
What's clear in the forecasts is that there is, and will increasingly
be, excess demand for airport land at Renton.
As we will see, the conditions that created the current land use or-
ganization and local aviation business economy will be changing
at Renton Municipal Airport
iSome key factors will occur that will shape the regional aviation
market and the airport's ability to respond. They are as follows:
• A Microwave Landing System (MLS) will be installed at
Renton and operating by 1990. Precision instrument
approaches will then be possible for those aircraft so
equipped which, because of equipment cost, will most
likely be those in the business aviation fleet.
• Regional air traffic and airport congestion will increase
dramatically towards the end of the century creating
pressure for reliever facilities to Boeing Field which
instrument approaches constrain Sea-Tac's capacity.
2
• The business aviation fleet, represented by aircraft from
large multi-engine piston powered types through corporate
jets, will be the fastest growing sector of the general
aviation (GA) market.
• Smaller GA aircraft, production of which has nearly
ceased in this country, will grow in number in the region
only as a function of population growth.
• Recent demand for Boeing 737 and 757 type aircraft has
' increased Boeing's requirement for aircraft parking ramp
space at Renton.
• In the face of the above increasing GA demands, Renton
Municipal Airport will likely lose 25 to 30% of it's
capacity to base aircraft as Boeing has need to reclaim
Apron "C" on the west side of the airfield as part of their
7P project and other production demands.
This last factor is significant because the current GA activity on
the field is largely a function of based aircraft. Fixed Base
Operators (FBO's) depend on the ready pool of local aircraft for a
market for aviation products and services as well as tie-down in-
come.
Taken with the other factors mentioned above, the loss of Apron
"C" means that the airport will be going through an evolution in
the next few years. Market forces will move the airport away
from the current mix and level of activity if no action is taken b
Y Y
the City. Whether this evolution will be in the best interests of
Renton is not for this study to determine; the city council must
determine the priorities. However, each alternative course of ac-
tion has its likely consequences which will later be described in
this report.
3 III
II. National and Regional Forecasts
'
T
he purpose of these forecasts is to update the projections of
general aviation (GA) aircraft and activities contained in the
Renton Municipal Airport and Will Rogers - Wiley Post
Memorial Seaplane Base Master Plan Report, published in 1978.
Since the time of that report, some fundamental changes have oc-
curred within the general aviation community. Many of the prin-
cipal factors involved with these changes will be briefly discussed
in this section.
The traditional method of projecting future demands for aviation
facilities and operations (a takeoff or a landing) is to make
judgmental extrapolations of recent trends. Historically, past
trends have provided a sound basis for viewing the future of
general aviation. During the 1960's and 1970's, the ownership
rates of aircraft exceeded increases in population. This was true
nationally as well as in the Puget Sound area, and is shown in the
following table.
TABLE 1
OWNERSHIP RATES OF GA AIRCRAFT IN THE PUGET SOUND
' AREA
• 1960 - 930 Aircraft/1,500,000 = 6.20/10,000
• 1965 - 1,140 Aircraft/1,700,000 = 6.71/10,000
' • 1970 - 1,980 Aircraft/1,938,600 =10.21/10,000
0 1975 - 2,630 Aircraft/1,963,100 =13.40/10,000
0 1980 - 3,669 Aircraft/2,240,200 =16.38/10,000
During the 1980's however, quite a different pattern has emerged
which presents a more complicated picture of the potential future
of general aviation.
4
iTABLE 2
RECENT GA OWNERSHIP RATES IN THE PUGET SOUND AREA
0 1981 - 3,845 Aircraft/2,268,100 =16.95/10,000
0 1982 - 3,852 Aircraft/2,296,000 =16.78/10,000
' • 1983 - 3,745 Aircraft/2,323,900 =16.12/10,000
0 1984 - 3,799 Aircraft/2,351,800 =16.15/10,000
0 1985 - 3,845 Aircraft/2,379,700 =16.16/10,000
As can be clearly seen, the rates of aircraft ownership in the Puget
Sound area during the early 1980's have nearly paralleled in-
creases in population. An even more dramatic turn has occurred in
the deliveries of new GA aircraft.
Nationally, declining aircraft sales have been mirrored by decreas-
ing numbers of student and private pilots. Between 1980 and
1984, for example, student pilots declined from 210,200 to
' 150,100, and the number of private pilots shrank from 343,300 to
320,100.
The drop in aircraft deliveries has been extensively analyzed by
the FAA's Office of Aviation Policy and Plans. This agency lists
the following six determinations:
1. Rapidly rising aircraft and avionic prices have significantly
reduced the demand for all types of aircraft.
1 2. Continued high operating costs are depressing the market for
single engine piston aircraft and reducing aviation activity.
' 3. Rising operating costs do not appear to influence the demand
for the larger more sophisticated aircraft.
4. Aircraft prices have been increasing at a faster rate than wage
rates. This implies that other factors such as rapidly rising product
liability costs and declining productivity are responsible for price
' increases.
5
5. Avionics prices have been increasing at a faster rate than have
aircraft prices.
6. Relatively high prices and operating and maintenance costs
have reduced the number of student and private pilots.
Sales of U.S. made general aviation aircraft have plummeted lar-
gely due to soaring costs. During 1979, over 17,000 GA aircraft
were delivered: during 1986, the number of delivered aircraft was
approximately 1,500. Edward W. Stimpson, President of the
General Aviation Manufacturers Association, has recently stated
that:
While a number of factors, such as foreign competition
and overall economic conditions have influenced general
aviation sales, nothing has hurt general aviation sales as
severely in the last few years as the U.S. tort system and
the crushing weight of product liability costs. These costs
have dramatically increased the price of aircraft.
His testimony of August 14, 1986 before the Subcommittee on
Monopolies and Commercial Law of the House Judiciary Com-
mittee also states:
A recent survey by the Department of Commerce shows
that, among major manufacturing industries in the U.S.,
' general aviation has been the hardest hit over the past
four years. In looking at the annual growth rate of 211
major industries, general aviation has had an average an-
nual decline, or negative growth rate, of 24%from 1982-
86 -- worse than any other industry tracked by the Com-
merce Department.
Product liability costs, according to Mr. Stimpson, have exceeded
(in some cases doubled) the direct labor costs of building an
aircraft. In 1962, manufacturers paid an average of $51 per
airplane for product liability cases. In 1972, that figure jumped to
$2,111. By 1986, the average cost of product liability per airplane
is about $80,000, despite the industry's vastly improved safety
record.
' Mr. Stimpson, representing 36 U.S. manufacturers of general avia-
tion aircraft and components, indicated that product liability price
6
tags are higher than the cost of some new single engine airplanes.
He further states that there are now no training aircraft in produc-
tion in the U.S. General aviation tort reform acts have been intro-
duced into both the House and Senate and may be considered
during the 1987 legislative sessions.
The sharp declines in U.S. GA aircraft deliveries have been con-
fined to single- and multi-engine propeller aircraft, however.
' Higher performance corporate and business aircraft have con-
tinued to sell. The FAA Aviation Forecasts - Fiscal Years 1986-
1997
document, prepared by the FAA and published in February
of 1986, states on page 54:
As of January 1, 1985, the general aviation fleet consisted
of 220,943 aircraft. The annual growth rate of the total
fleet for the period 1980 to 1985 was only 0.9 percent.
During this period, the population of single engine piston
aircraft increased from 168,400 to 171,900, a yearly rate
of increase of 0.4 percent. For the same time frame, the
multi-engine piston fleet remained stable at approximately
25,000 aircraft; turbine powered fixed wing aircraft grew
at an annual rate of 10.3 percent; and the rotorcraft fleet
increased about 4.1 percent a year.
' Shipments of general aviation aircraft (excluding helicop-
ters, balloons, dirigibles, and gliders) declined ap-
proximately 16 percent in 1985. Single engine and multi-
engine piston aircraft deliveries fell 15 percent and 48
percent, respectively. Shipments of turboprop aircraft in-
creased 19 percent, while turbojet aircraft deliveries
declined 16 percent.
The FAA forecasting document also states that:
During the period 1980 through 1984, total hours flown
' declined at an annual rate of 3.6 percent; single engine
piston aircraft hours flown declined at an annual rate of
3.6 percent; turbine powered aircraft hours grew at a 4.2
percent rate; and rotorcraft hours .flown increased at a
rate of 1.0percent.
The FAA projects a continuation of slow growth in the general
aviation fleet through the year 1997.
7
1
The population of active aircraft is forecast to increase 1.4
percent a year between 1985 and 1997. Active single en-
gine piston aircraft is forecast to grow at an annual rate
of only 0.9 percent. The number of turbine powered
aircraft is projected to increase from 10,129 in 1985 to
16,600 in 1996, growing at the rate of approximately 4.2
percent a year. The turbine rotorcraft fleet is expected to
increase at a yearly rate of 3.6 percent.
' The projected rates of growth for business aircraft are echoed by
short-term forecasts prepared by the prestigious magazine, Ayia-
' tion Week & Space Technology_. In the March 10, 1986 issue
which features an "Aerospace Forecast and Inventory" section, it
is stated:
' Despite dropping oil prices, 1986 business flying opera-
tions will remain static or increase only slightly from cur-
rent 36-million-hour levels as long as U.S. tax policy
remains unresolved and insurance rates continue to climb.
Since the writing of that article, tax policies have been resolved.
The elimination of the 10 percent Investment Tax Credit and
stretched out depreciation schedules may have a dampening effect
' upon the future sales of aircraft. Tort reform and national liability
limits could go a long way toward countering these negatives,
however.
' The Role of Renton Municipal Airport
The above discussions indicate that at the national and regional
levels, the slump in general aviation has not ended despite the
recovery of the economy from the last recession. Historical pat-
terns provide few clues to the future of general aviation in the
Puget Sound area.
' Traditionally, it has been these past patterns that serve as the basis
for judgments as to what the near term future holds. Renton
Municipal airport, because of its limited land, is highly con-
strained in the numbers of future aircraft that it can base. Generat-
ing unconstrained projections of future aircraft and operations
would serve no good purpose.
8
It is more productive to review the role that RNT (Renton
Municipal's city-airport code designation) plays within the local
' air transport system. By so doing, a more adequate assessment of
the market forces can be made.
' RNT is located within a dozen miles of the Seattle Central Busi-
ness District and within ten miles of the Bellevue CBD. The
nearest airport to RNT is Boeing Field, (King County Internation-
al Airport), and the next closest is Sea-Tac. These airports are five
and six air miles away, respectively.
The Seattle Metropolitan area has four airports with runways
longer than 5,000 feet; Renton Municipal, Boeing Field, Sea-Tac
International, and Paine Field. With a few exceptions, Sea-Tac is
exclusively dedicated to air carrier operations and does not give
priority to other general aviation markets, and is, therefore, not
comparable to Renton.
The other three airports have several similarities. All have Boeing
Commercial Airplane Company as a major user and/or tenant. All
' have a mixed assortment of general aviation operators from single
engine trainers to corporate aircraft, and all serve the Seattle ex-
tended urban area. Runway lengths, instrument approaches and
available services vary substantially among these facilities, but
this group of airports are as similar to one another as any in the
region.
The airport role of RNT, as designated by the FAA, is that of
general aviation reliever. RNT diverts general aviation traffic from
Sea-Tac (SEA) so that "quality scheduled airline service can be
maintained at the air carrier airport". The Regional Airport System
Plan (RASP-1982) which was published by the Puget Sound
Council of Governments, designates RNT as a "general aviation -
industrial/air taxi airport". The service area for
RNT can be con-
sidered to include much of the central Puget Sound region, with
' emphasis upon the Seattle, Bellevue, Renton, and Kent areas.
The concept of "general aviation" excludes only commercial air-
line and military operations. Consequently, nearly all of the avia-
tion operations at RNT are considered to be those of general avia-
tion. This includes the flights of the transport-class aircraft
' produced by the adjacent Boeing plant.
9
' Renton Municipal Airport is fully occupied with based aircraft,
and has been so for several years. Although the number of based
' aircraft has recently increased, this has largely been a function of
an agreement by the Boeing Company to lease Apron "C" on an
interim basis. This apron area will likely be reclaimed for use by
Boeing as their new aircraft, the W7, is developed, or as Boeing
has need for other production facilities. Apron "C" has tiedowns
for about 80 light aircraft.
1 TABLE 3
BASED AIRCRAFT AT RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Sample Year Based d Air craft Sample Year Based Aircraft
1960 178 1977 207
1970 .................179 1979 .................272
1975 .................187 1985 .................260
' Since the available apron space continues to determine the num-
ber of based aircraft, and since Boeing may reclaim Apron
the number of based aircraft at RNT may soon return to levels ex-
perienced during the mid-1970's. Approximately 200 based
aircraft represents the holding capacity of the existing airport if
FAA separation standards are held to their present sideline distan-
ces.
An example of these standards is the Building Restriction Line
(BRL), which for a Basic Transport airport is now required to be
750 feet from the centerline of the runway (for precision instru-
ment approach only) and would lie about in the middle of Rainier
Avenue. The last Master Plan followed an earlier set of FAA
standards which placed the BRL at 400 feet from centerline.
Some intrusions on this historical measure are in effect at RNT.
The MLS precision instrument approach will put further pressure
on the facility to maintain safe sideline separations without further
10
' encroachment, even though extensive waivers will be needed.
Thus, a shrinking amount of basing capacity will likely meet in-
creasingly tightening dimensional standards enforcement as the
airport acquires a more sophisticated instrument landing system.
Historical counts of operations during the last fifteen years sup-
port the picture of stable levels of aircraft and aviation activity at
RTN. The data displayed below in Table 4 are from Air Traffic
' Activit records of the FAA.
' TABLE 4
AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AT RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
' Fiscal Year Air Carrier Air Taxi* Military General Aviation Total Ops.**
' 1970 10 0 360 168,158 168,528
1971 4 0 266 132,498 132,768
1972 1 242 296 127,911 128,450
' 1973 0 410 290 135,588 136,288
1974 0 246 690 152,554 153,490
1975 13 62 260 139,101 139,436
1976 1 38 117 112,846 113,002
' 1977 2 15 41 139,169 139,227
1978 4 4 114 136,870 136,992
1979 4 25 133 154,427 154,589
' 1980 0 15 184 148,854 149,053
1981 0 7 165 143,259 143,431
1982 0 45 127 105,867 106,039
' 1983 0 29 144 178,665 178,838
1984 0 139 254 146,332 146,725
1985 0 532 306 138,581 139,419
1987 181,000
1 *Until 1972, air taxi operations were included in general aviation totals and were not
shown separately. From 1972 through 1975, air taxi was defined as "air taxi and com-
muter air carrier carrying passengers, mail, or cargo for revenue in accordance with
FAR Part 135 or 121." Since 1976, air taxi is defined as "an air taxi operator which per-
forms at least five round trips per week between two or more points and publishes flight
schedules which specify times, days of the week and places between which such flights
are performed; or transports mail."
**Seaplane Operations are not included in tower counts; they use an "uncontrolled"
landing site.
11
1
' The real questions, then, are whether the existing airport can be
physically expanded and what future fleet compositions at RNT
will look like. One assumption that can be made with some cer-
tainty is that a Microwave Landing System (MLS) will be in-
stalled within the next five years. The units have already been
contracted for by the FAA, with deliveries and installations to be
begun this year. Renton Municipal has been listed within the
highest priority category by the Flight Procedures Branch of the
Flight Standards Division of the Northwest Mountain Region for
an installation target date of 1990.
' Current weather minima at Renton with the non-precision NDB
approach to Runway 15 for a category C* aircraft are 838 feet
above the ground and 2 3/4 miles visibility. For the non-precision
' RNAV approach to Runway 13R at Renton the minima are 853
feet and 2 1/2 miles. By comparison, the ILS approach to Runway
13R at Boeing Field has minima of 260 feet and one mile. The
current Renton approach is simply not good enough for reliable,
consistent corporate aircraft operations in typical Seattle weather.
The MLS system will substantially increase the attractiveness of
the airport to corporate aviation as well as improve the operational
reliability of air taxi and other commercial activities. According to
FAA estimates, the weather minima for the MLS approach could
be lowered to 500 feet above the ground and 1 1/2 miles visibility
for category C aircraft. While not as low as those for Boeing Field
' or Paine Field, these minima should make Renton a reliable des-
tination for those aircraft equipped with the necessary receiving
gear. The cost of an MLS receiver is currently around $10,000
' which prices it above the market for most GA light aircraft.
Installation of an MLS instrument approach system will probably
' encourage more use of RNT by the business aviation community.
Another factor that may have a like effect is the projected conges-
tion at Boeing Field and Sea-Tac. RNT's proximity to Seattle and
Bellevue coupled with the continued growth in the number of
' * Category C is an aircraft approach category for a group of
aircraft with approach speeds between 121 and 140 Knots,
typical of corporate aircraft.
12
' business aircraft in the region may also tend to change the fleet
composition at Renton Municipal. The fleet mix forecasts for
' aircraft in this region are discussed next.
' PSCOG Forecasts
Aircraft in ownership and/or use by the corporate and business
' community are normally either turbine-powered, are rotorcraft
(helicopters), or are powered by more than one reciprocating pis-
ton engine -- that is, multi-engine. The Puget Sound Council of
' Governments has recently (1986) sponsored general aviation
forecasts for the central Puget Sound region. As part of these
forecasts, county-wide projections of general aviation aircraft, by
' type, were developed. The forecasts are unconstrained and reflect
projections of future national fleet compositions. These projec-
tions are interpolated for the King County business aircraft fleet in
' the following table:
TABLE 5
PROJECTIONS OF BUSINESS AIRCRAFT IN KING COUNTY IN-
TERPOLATED FROM 1986 PSCOG GENERAL AVIATION
FORECASTS
' Aircraft Type 1987 1992
YP 1997 2007
' Multi-engine Propeller 205 219 235 270
' Turboprop 30 35 41 55
Turbojet 74 87 103 145
Rotorcraft 94 111 131 183
' Totals 403 452 510 653
13
The FAA and PSCOG forecasts project changes in future fleet
compositions that tend toward a greater business aviation com-
ponent. Interpolations of the PSCOG forecasts for King County
indicate that the percentage of multi-engine propeller aircraft will
remain approximately the same in the year 2007 as that of today.
' Single-engine propeller aircraft, however, are expected to decline
as a percentage of the future fleet. These percentages are shown in
the next table.
TABLE 6
' PROJECTED FLEET COMPOSITION FOR KING COUNTY IN 2007
INTERPOLATED FROM PSCOG 1986 GENERAL AVIATION
FORECASTS
% of % of %
' 1985 Fleet 2007 Fleet Change
Single-engine Prop. 79.5% 74.2% (5.3)
Multi-engine Prop. 8.0% 7.9% (0.1)
Turboprop 1.1% 1.6% 0.5
Turbojet 2.8% 4.3% 1.5
' Rotorcraft 3.5% 5.4% 1.9
Other 5.1% 6.7% 1.6
Tables 5 and 6 are based upon 1985 FAA data that identify
registered aircraft by aircraft type and by county of owner
' residence. The Washington State DOT - Division of Aeronautics
data show aircraft counts by where the aircraft is based. 1985
State data indicate that 40 multi-engine propeller aircraft and no
' turbine powered aircraft are based at Renton Municipal. On the
other hand, these data indicate 2 turbine aircraft at Sea-Tac and 43
at Boeing Field.
14
l
The general aviation forecasts that were prepared for the Puget
Sound Council of Governments during 1986 use 1985 State
aircraft registration data and extrapolated FAA fleet mix projec-
tions that were adapted to local fleet mixes by county. These
projections were then allocated by airport based upon 1985 sub-
regional shares coupled with county population growth projec-
tions. When these unconstrained projections are interpolated, they
yield the following results.
TABLE 7
UNCONSTRAINED PROJECTIONS OF GA AIRCRAFT AT RNT IN-
TERPOLATED FROM PSCOG 1986 FORECASTS AND ALLOCA-
TIONS BY AIRPORT
1987 1992 1997 2007
1 Total Aircraft 268 291 315 370
Unless the capacity to base aircraft at Renton Municipal were
physically expanded by some dramatic fashion, it is obvious that
the figures indicated for the turn of the century cannot be
achieved. These projections do show, however, that increasing
levels of latent demand may be experienced at RNT.
As just discussed, this may especially prove to be the case with
the activation of a Microwave Landing System at Renton
Municipal. Another factor that could make RNT a more attractive
destination for business aircraft is that of increasing delays at
Boeing Field (BFI) during both Visual and Instrument Flight Rule
conditions.
The Airspace Study
The potential delays at Boeing Field as well as those at Sea-Tac
were analyzed in great detail in a study that was published in
January of 1983. This study is entitled the Sea-Tac International
Airport/King County International Airport Airspace Study. It was
' prepared by the Port of Seattle Planning and Research Depart-
ment, Port of Seattle Aviation Department, King County Depart-
15
ment of Public Works/Aviation Department and Peat Marwick
and Mitchell and Copartnership (PMM) of San Francisco.
The study consisted of two phases. The first phase, among other
things, generated forecasts of aviation demand at Sea-Tac and
Boeing Field, and then assessed the impact of airspace interac-
tions on airport and airspace capacities. The second phase ex-
plored potential improvement techniques, and presented study
recommendations.
The study uses the concept of "annual service volume" for its
preliminary analysis. On page 5-16, the study states:
When annual aircraft operations on the airfield are equal
to annual service volume, average delay to each aircraft
-throughout the year is on the order of one to four minutes.
The Airspace Study then goes on to say:
The estimated annual service volumes for Sea-Tac and
Boeing Field, together with projected annual demand
levels, are shown below.
Annual Annual
Service Demand
Volume 1980 1985 1990 2000
Sea-Tac 260,000 213,604 205,780 220,600 260,820
Boeing 485,000 410,853 424,000 445,000 488,500
Field
As shown, annual service volumes will be exceeded by
projected annual demands at both airports by the year
2000. As annual aircraft operations approach annual ser-
vice volume, average delay to each aircraft throughout the
year may increase rapidly with relatively small increases
in airport operations, thereby causing levels of service on
the airport to deteriorate.
' 16
' Ona e 5-18, after a discussion of Sea-Tac, Y the stud states:
Pg
"The situation at Boeing Field is somewhat more critical in the
sense that demand levels have almost reached the critical 'knee'
of the curve--at about 420,000 annual operations--and aircraft
delays are estimated to increase quite rapidly with small increases
in demand."
' Later, on page 5-18, the seriousness of the situation is again
profiled by a paragraph that discusses the large effects that small
changes can have upon airspace and airport capacities.
' To demonstrate the sensitivity of the aircraft delay values
at Sea-Tac to Boeing Field arrival demand levels, a run of
the annual delay model was made assuming that the
demand at Boeing Field exceeded the forecast level in IFR
conditions in 1990 by only 4 operations or 10%; i.e.,
' during the peak hour of the average day of the peak month
demand was increased from 36 to 40 operations per hour.
The results of the model run showed that (a) aircraft
I delays during the peak hour of the average day, peak
month, in IFR conditions and south flow more than tripled,
from about 20 minutes per aircraft to more than 60
' minutes per aircraft and (b) even though the change in
demand was for IFR conditions, the average annual delay
increased by about 25% from 0.8 minute per aircraft to
1.0 minute per aircraft.
While a one to four minute average delay may not sound like
much of a burden on air traffic, real costs are associated with
extra time for approaches. The airspace study states on page 6-15:
1 At current (1980) levels of aircraft delays at Sea-Tac,
delay costs are approximately $2.8 million per year, of
which about $220,000 is attributable to the effects of the
' airspace interactions. However, by the year 2000 under
the baseline ATC scenario, these delay costs are expected
to increase to about $25 million per year, and of this
1 amount, $19 million per year will be attributable to
airspace interactions. Under the optimistic ATC scenario,
delay costs attributable to the airspace interactions are
1 reduced dramatically--to about $1 million per year by the
year 2000.
17
i
' Table 6-3 of the Airspace Study summarizes the delays to aircraft
that were forecast by the detailed analysis that was performed in
' that chapter.
TABLE 8
PEAK HOUR AIRCRAFT DELAYS
Average Peak Hour Delays,
' Average Day, Peak Month
(Minutes Per Aircraft)
Baseline ATC VFR IFR IFR
Scenario North Flow South Flow
' Sea-Tac 1980 1.9 4.8 11.0
1985 1.8 3.4 10.7
1990 2.3 8.8 19.4
2000 3.4 18.7 60.0+
Boeing Field 1980 4.1 0.3 0.3
' 1985 5.0 0.4 0.4
1990 6.7 0.9 0.9
2000 14.2 1.4 15.5
Optimistic ATC
Scenario
iSea-Tac 1980 1.9 4.8 11.0
1985 1.8 3.4 10.7
1 1990 1.8 3.8 10.0
2000 3.0 4.8 17.9
Boeing Field 1980 4.1 0.3 0.3
1985 5.0 0.4 0.4
1990 6.7 0.9 0.9
2000 13.8 1.2 1.2
It should be noted what little effect the very optimistic air traffic
1 control improvement scenario has upon Boeing Field's visual
flight rule delays. Equally of interest are the year 2000 IFR south
1 18
flow dela s in the baseline scenario (today's air traffic control en-
vironment). ( y o e
vironment).
The optimistic scenario assumes the installation of a Microwave
Landing System at Sea-Tac. Using this system, a potential instru-
ment approach for south flow traffic was devised that would
create a "no transgression zone" between flight tracks into Boeing
Field and to Sea-Tac. Currently, during instrument weather and a
south flow of traffic, "the arrival capacity of Sea-Tac and Boeing
Field is reduced to little more than that of a single airport. These
conditions occur approximately 7% of the year."
Additionally, the Airspace Study states: 'During instrument
weather and a north flow of traffic, Sea-Tac departures may be
delayed by a Boeing Field arrival and Boeing Field departures
may be delayed by a Sea-Tac departure. These conditions occur
1 approximately 2.4% of the year."
The MLS "no transgression zone" is conceptual in nature and
1 would not be permissible under current ATC rules. "The
feasibility of such a procedure is subject to (1) FAA review, test-
ing, and modification of ATC rules; (2) provision of new avionics
' in aircraft; (3) performance characteristics of the aircraft involved;
and (4) acceptance of the pilots."
The FAA's plan for transition from an ILS system to an MLS sys-
tem stipulates that "no ILS will be removed until all of the ELS-
equipped airports have operational MLS and at least 60% of the
' aircraft routinely using the ILS/MLS runway are MLS-equipped.
The Airspace Study further reports on page 7-4:
' In addition, the United States is committed, by an agree-
ment with the International Civil Aviation Organization, to
retain ILS service at international gateway airports
through 1995. There are 75 such airports now, including
Sea-Tac. Retaining ILS service at Sea-Tac may cause some
users to further delay purchasing MLS equipment because
the installed ILS equipment will still be usable until at
least 1995.
Unless virtually all aircraft use the MLS approach, the
delay reduction benefits cited above will not be realized.
19
i
Thus although a new dual independent instrument g p ns ument ap-
proach procedure using an MLS would remove the
airspace interaction between Sea-Tac and Boeing Field for
a south flow operation, several considerations have to be
taken into account before such a new procedure could be
implemented. Alleviating or eliminating the airspace inter-
actions between Sea-Tac and Boeing Field by providing a
new instrument approach to Sea-Tac would require:
• Installation of MLS serving Runway 16R at Sea-Tac
• Installation of necessary cockpit avionics in most aircraft
using Sea-Tac
• Research and demonstration, together with controller and
pilot acceptance of independent instrument procedures to
' nonparallel runways
• Development of procedures by airline and other aircraft
operators to ensure flight stabilization on "short"final
approach segment
' • FAA modification of ATC rules and procedures
• Completion of environmental assessment and related
processing
The difficulties of implementing such a system tend to suggest
that the delays for south flow traffic associated with the Baseline
ATC scenario can be expected rather than those of the Optimistic
' ATC scenario. If this is the case, the IFR south flow delays to
Boeing Field may begin to become onerous by the year 2000.
With an operating MLS at Renton Municipal, and ever increasing
IFR and VFR south flow delays at Boeing Field, higher perfor-
mance GA aircraft may find Renton an attractive alternative to the
other urban airfield.
In any case, the study sponsors found the potential airspace con-
gestion serious enough to recommend the following three part
program:
' 20
' First, to encourage the research development and applica-
tion of air traffic control technology which may further
reduce the standard aircraft separations currently in use,
second, to investigate the potential of existing airports in
the vicinity of Sea-Tac and Boeing Field to serve as
general aviation relievers with instrument landing
capabilities, and third, to reassess the airspace situation in
' approximately 5 years. (emphasis added).
Corporate/Business Aircraft - Potential Users of RNT
Boeing Field is the principal business aviation service center in
' King County. There are several reasons for the airport's attraction
to business aircraft. Among these are its proximity to the Seattle
CBD, BFI's runway lengths, its precision instrument approach
' system, and the extensive list of services available to users of
business aircraft.
RNT does not share some of these assets. There is presently no
' precision landing system in operation at Renton, although the air-
port does have an FAA-manned tower and an NDB instrument
1 approach. The activation of the MLS may compensate for the lack
of an ILS to a large degree. RNT has a displaced threshold at the
south end and a runway length of only 5,379 feet. Nearly every
business aircraft can conduct typical flight missions from a field
of that length during all but uncharacteristically hot weather.
However, the runway length is uncomfortably short for the higher
performance, larger corporate jets which would have to limit their
loads to safely fly from a field of this length. In most cases this
means that less than full fuel can be carried on takeoff and , there-
fore, range would be limited.
All corporate turboprops and Cessna "Citation" jets are fully
capable at Renton's runway length. The actual fleet mix in the
Seattle area can be approximated by data from the National Busi-
ness Aircraft Association. NBAA is generally regarded as an in-
dustry bellwether. In 1985 their local membership listed 26 tur-
bojet and turboprop aircraft. Of these, 8 were "King Air" tur-
boprops and 8 were Cessna "Citation" turbofans. This sample in-
dicates that over 60 percent of the local NBAA fleet are aircraft
which could easily operate from Renton with no performance
limitations. As a further indication of potential market, aircraft
1 21
registration data shows that 30 percent of the corporate type
aircraft in King County are turboprops. Therefore, probably about
' half of the turbine powered corporate aircraft local market would
find no limitation at Renton because of runway length.
The Renton airport is quite proximate to the Seattle business dis-
trict and is, in fact, closer to the emerging Bellevue CBD and to
the Kent industrial area than is BFI. The MLS at RNT will
' provide approach minima that may not be comparable to those of
BFI, but that should generally be adequate for IFR conditions that
are typical to the Seattle area.
Business and Commercial Aviation magazine has evaluated per-
formance characteristics for the business aircraft that are normally
' used throughout the United States. On a 59 degree Fahrenheit (15
degrees Celsius) day, RNT's runway is long enough to accom-
modate most but not all corporate and business aircraft at maxi-
mum gross weight.
i
More relevant to everyday use of business aircraft, however, are
the runway length requirements associated with typical business
missions. For example, a Gates Learjet LR-55 requires 4,600 feet
' of runway for a 1,500 nautical mile flight with Instrument Flight
Rule reserves (200 nm). That 4,600 feet accommodates balanced
field length requirements and assumes a total of four 200-pound
persons aboard the aircraft. At gross weight the same aircraft
would require 5480 feet of runway for takeoff. While this indi-
cates that this Learjet could operate from RNT, this length leaves
little margin for error and most pilots would of course choose
BFI's longer runway if that option were open.
' The Learjets are high performance aircraft and are among the
most runway-demanding in general aviation. In contrast, a similar
mission (1,378 miles) by a Cessna Citation II requires only 2,990
' feet near sea level on a 59 degrees F. day. Even at 95 degrees F.
(International Standard Atmosphere +20 degrees Celsius), a Cita-
tion II at Renton Municipal needs only about 3,700 feet of run-
way for the same mission.
New business aircraft are in the prototype stage that may dramati-
cally extend the effectiveness of corporate aviation. Among the
more promising are Beech's Starship and Piaggio's P-180. Both
of these aircraft have an aft-swept main wing together with a
22
small forward canard-like wing. Both, too, have twin turbine en-
gines driving counterrotating pusher propellers. These aircraft will
have cruising speeds that compare favorably with the smaller jets.
Additionally, they are designed to use much less fuel and to have
' low interior levels of noise and vibration.
These aircraft represent radical departures from traditional design.
The Beech Aircraft Corporation is being assisted by Burt Rutan,
the designer of the Voyager and numerous other innovative
aircraft. Unlike the Piaggio P-180 Avanti, Beech's Starship will
' largely consist of composite materials, including; epoxy-hardened
carbon fiber, Nomex honeycomb and Kevlar. Under heat and
pressure, carbon composites are chemically altered and form a
' rigid material that is lighter and stronger than aluminum.
Flight tests of the P-180 Avand have confirmed fuel consumption
' projections that are about 50% that of small business jets. Cruise
speeds are anticipated to be about 50 knots faster than the projec-
tions for the newer turboprops. Since the Avanti's wing is placed
' so far aft, it can be run between the cabin and the cargo hold for
maximum aerodynamic efficiency.
' These new aircraft represent an important advance in the efficien-
cy of business aviation. New materials coupled with the use of
small canard or canard-like wings on the nose mean that the
primary wings can be 30% to 40% smaller than those of standard
configurations. The use of pusher propellers mounted well to the
rear of passenger seating also means that vibration and interior
' cabin noise can be minimized.
In summary, these new generation business aircraft will increase
passenger comfort, use less fuel, and achieve speeds that are com-
petitive with business jets while having the runway requirements
uirements
of a turboprop. The calculated accelerate-stop distance for a Star-
ship at maximum takeoff weight is 2,990 feet. Deliveries of the
Piaggio P-180 are expected early in 1989, while first deliveries of
the Beech Starship are scheduled for 1988. In addition to the 8-11
passenger Starship 1, Beech is continuing the development of a
six-place twin that will be tested as a piston, turboprop and tur-
bofan powered aircraft. Beech is also developing a high-perfor-
mance aircraft powered by a single piston engine. All of these
aircraft will be able to operate at full capacity from RNT. That
demand exists for these and other business aircraft can be seen in
23
the increasingutilization of existing business fleets despite the
P
declines in production of new aircraft. A recent survey of 500
' U.S. business chief executive officers found that almost one-
quarter now own or lease business aircraft, over 80% or which are
advanced turboprop or jet aircraft (Aviation Week & Space Tech-
nology, Sept. 19, 1986, p.36).
As congestion at the nation's major airports increases, business
' aircraft owners and operators are increasingly interested in having
instrument approaches to alternative airports that have lower delay
times. For this reason, the National Business Aircraft Association
' has reported that many business pilots want Microwave Landing
Systems installed at airports that are frequently used by business
' aircraft but not currently served by precision approach systems.
Installation of an MLS at Renton Municipal should have the effect
' of building business demand, both for basing business aircraft and
for transient use. As an example, one of the nation's largest cor-
porate aircraft charter operators gust ordered eight Citation S2's
because of that aircraft's short runway takeoff and landing dis-
tance requirements. 1986 corporate aircraft charters were up sig-
nificantly and the company wants to expand its operations by
' using business aircraft capable of operating at hundreds of the
smaller U.S. fields.
' 24
III. Community Service Alternatives
'
D
emands for Renton Municipal will continue to grow. Be-
cause of the physical constraints of the airport properties, not
all of these present and future demands can be satisfied
' without airport expansion. Those sectors of demand which can be
more fully accommodated may largely be a function of local ob-
jectives and policies for the facility.
A range of approaches to the future of the airport exists. This
range can be divided into four distinct sets, which can be charac-
terized as follows:
Alternative Responses to changing Market Demands and changing
' Regional Conditions
(1) Reactive Response - Present Policies ontinued: This option
envisions responses to individual proposals for airport develop-
ment and usage as they occur. Existing airport policies would be
amended through time as deemed appropriate.
' (2) Selective Response - Business Aviation Emphasis: This ap-
proach
r
proach emphasizes the accommodation of business and corporate
' aviation activities, both for transient and based business aircraft.
(3) Balanced Response - Maintain GA Basing Capacity This op-
tion seeks to avoid the loss of Apron "C" to general aviation be-
cause of lease recapture by Boeing. About the same number of
GA aircraft could be based as now in this concept, but the loss of
' about 25 to 30% of the basing capacity could be averted. Some
reconfiguration of lease areas would be necessary. Boeing would
' take over the southeast corner of the airport displacing non-
Boeing GA uses to the west side to the Apron "C" area.
(4) Maximum Response - Airport Expansion: This last option
would attempt to increase the amount of available apron and han-
gar areas at the airport by relocating all Boeing activity to the east
side of the facility. This alternative would require the maximum
active cooperation of The Boeing Company, as new apron would
be needed on their property as well as major facility relocation.
With the activation of the Microwave Landing System at RNT,
there could very well be an increase of operations by busi-
' 25
' ness/corporate aircraft under all four of the alternatives. However,
active
alternatives 2, 3, and 4 n assumed envision
a much for planning purposes 1e for the
r
City. It has been thatthe
Microwave Landing System will become fully operational some-
time around the year 1990.
' The Reactive Response Present Policies Continued alternative
seeks to maintain a relatively low City involvement regarding the
operation and management of the airport. This alternative repre-
sents no change from the present policies. City airport personnel
would purposely be kept at a minimum. As development
proposals are suggested, a review of the merits of each proposal
' would be conducted. Every effort would be made to meet the re-
quirements of The Boeing Company as a reflection of that firm's
contribution to the economic vitality of the community.
Current Public Works Department policy on lease rates would
continue. Rates would be adjusted without regard to external
1 market but would instead be set to provide airport revenues suffi-
cient to offset anticipated expenses. Rates would be periodically
adjusted. The existing Fixed Base Operators would generally be
involved with proposed revisions in airport usage.
This option has the advantage of potentially minimizing City ex-
penditures at the airport, and also has the historical support of
most airport users while it minimizes user costs.
It has the disadvantages of not necessarily maximizing return on
investment to the City, and of potentially displacing users through
the loss of Apron "C". With no City action, 25 to 30% of the
basing capacity for GA aircraft will be lost through Apron
"C"lease recapture by Boeing for uses connected with their M
project and other production needs. This option makes no attempt
to consider regional aviation needs. Also, the "reactive" approach
does nothing about the root problem at Renton, too little space for
' the growing aviation demand.
The actual mix of land use which will evolve under the Reactive
1 Response alternative will necessarily be affected by the lease
structure.
The Sele ss Aviation Emphasis alternative
1 envisions a more active City involvement in the management of
26
' the airport. This option is designed to market RNT to potential
business aircraft users, and to encourage the use of Renton
t Municipal as a center for transient business aviation. Many higher
performance business aircraft require RNT's longer runway. As
delays at Boeing Field increase, Renton Municipal with its new
' MLS, may become increasingly attractive to business aircraft.
These aircraft need to be located near Seattle's and Bellevue's
CBD's and will provide service to Renton as well as the Kent
Valley industries. Since business aircraft are more expensive to
operate and maintain than recreational aircraft, they can provide a
' stronger and more constant revenue base to the FBO's on the
field.
Business Aviation is an appropriate target for such a marketing ef-
fort since it continues to be a principal area of general aviation
growth. Moreover, this aviation sector can offer some distinct
' benefits to the community not possible with light recreational
aircraft. First, business aviation can support a greater rate of
return on aviation properties. As one example, Boeing Field char-
ges $370 per month for T-hangars for small aircraft and $1150
per month for 60' x 60' jet hangars. Second, business aircraft are
more frequently flown than recreational aircraft, and because of
' their relative size are more complex and use more fuel. Therefore,
revenue and employment opportunities among FBO's can be in-
creased. Third, business aviation can provide off-airport revenue
as the need for lodging and restaurants develops with the flow of
' business travelers. And finally, proximity to an airport which can
accommodate corporate aircraft is an incentive to the attraction of
' diverse business and corporate offices to the Renton area.
This alternative views the Renton Municipal Airport as a unique
' and scarce resource for the region. The Selective Response -
Business Aviation Emphasi option gives priority to those sectors
of general aviation that have the greatest need to use RNT and
which have the least ability to go elsewhere. Boeing, seaplane
operations and business/corporate aviation would all have
precedence over some light aircraft tiedowns and hangars.
The City of Renton could pursue this alternative through a range
of actions. On one end of the intensity scale, the airport could
' simply more actively market itself to Business Aviation. Advertis-
ing materials could be produced and distributed to potential cor-
porate aviation users, competing airports, and aviation media with
', � 27
the objective of increasing Business Aviation demand at RNT. If
substantial interest is then generated, the existing lessees on the
airport would have the opportunity to modify their businesses
towards supporting corporate aircraft. Since there is no room for
new aircraft, this means some current activities or based aircraft
would have to be displaced to other airports. The motivation for
such a market shift among the lessees would presumably come
from the greater potential profitability of corporate over recrea-
tional aviation or other current land uses.
At the other end of the scale of City actions, if considerable Busi-
ness Aviation demand is created at RNT and gets little response
from the lessees, the City has the more intensive alternative of
redevelopment of existing properties for basing corporate aircraft.
The amount of land to be redeveloped should conform to the an-
ticipated demand. Forecasts for the amount of needed area are dis-
cussed later in this report. However, no airport expansion is part
of this alternative. Demand from all sectors exceeds capacity. The
City has the ability to determine which aviation sector would best
benefit the community as a whole. This alternative makes
deliberate choices as to which aviation activity should be sup-
ported on existing land.
The Balanced Response - Maintain GA Basing Capacity alterna-
tive seeks to avoid the loss of basing capacity for non-Boeing GA
aircraft in the likely event that Apron "C" is reclaimed for space
associated with the M or increased production of 737 and 757
aircraft. Between 60 and 80 small aircraft tiedowns are currently
available on that apron, or about 25% of the basing capacity of
the airport.
In 1988 Boeing discussed building two paint hangars in addition
to the one they have on the east side of the airport. Right now
their only option is to locate these new buildings somewhere on
the aircraft parking ramp they own on the east side of the Cedar
River (Apron "D"). By so doing they will be take away some
large airplane parking stations on that apron and be forced to ex-
ercise their option to reclaim some of Apron "C".
Boeing has indicated their willingness to consider giving up their
lease on Apron "C" in exchange for control of the southeast
corner of the airport. However, because of Boeing's growing need
28 SII
1
for aircraft parking ramp, they would require additional spaceace of -
airport to the east of the Cedar River.
This would allow the new paint hangars to be built south of their
existing paint hangar on property currently used by Benair and
other tenants. The new paint hangars would effectively cut off ac-
cess by non-Boeing aircraft to the southwest corner of the facility.
Those uses which would be displaced in this area could be relo-
cated to the space north of Apron "C" currently occupied by out-
size Boeing tooling (frames, cranes, ladders, etc.), and by Boeing
employee automobile parking. To create an equal amount of area
for what would be lost to the FBO's in the southwest airport
corner, Boeing would have to be willing to relinquish most of
Apron "C". The Boeing "lab" building in that area would be kept.
This facility does not require large aircraft access nearby, and the
ramp space to the east of it is taken up by Boeing employee car
parking. If this parking were provided instead to the west of a
new row of FBO's south of the "lab" and just east of the airport
perimeter road, valuable aircraft parking apron could be created.
Furthermore, non-essential automobile access to the aircraft ramp
could be more effectively restricted than is currently possible in
this area of the facility. Proper access control is really needed at
RNT with the tower counting at least one unauthorized vehicular
runway crossing per week. Another problem location is the area
around Benair at the southeast corner; a particularly confusing
mix of aircraft and cars with both sharing a common access
road/taxiway. At that location vehicles often wander out onto
aircraft ramps by the runway, or further, because of the difficulty
in constructing positive barriers which restrict cars but not
airplanes. Having Boeing completely occupy this corner of the
field would solve much of the facility's car entry problem.
To make this alternative work, Boeing would need to acquire the
use of additional space next to Apron "D" east of the river. This
means either the use of the high school stadium property or
redevelopment of an auto parking area north of the stadium.
This alternative is proposed to minmize changes to the current
level of operations. No particular market bias would be set by the
City towards either recreational or business aviation. Instead the
emphasis would be on preserving a non-Boeing GA capacity and
cleaning up some access problems. The City would take an active
29
role in the relocation exercise, but would rely on FBO s and the
free market to establish which aviation sector would be served.
The Maximum Response-Airport Expansion option directly con-
fronts the space shortage problem at Renton Municipal Airport by
both expanding apron area and rearranging land use in a dramatic
way by moving all Boeing activity to the east side of the airfield.
This airport is particularly hemmed in on its boundaries. To the
north is Lake Washington, and to the west and south are, respec-
tively, Rainier Avenue and Airport Way, both major arterials. Any
' expansion in these directions seems prohibitively expensive. This
essentially leaves only the possibility of expansion to the east,
across the Cedar River, on land occupied by Boeing.
This concept envisions an expansion of the Boeing aircraft apron
on the east side of the river (Apron "D"), converting an existing
1 Boeing automobile parking into an additional seven acres of
aircraft ramp. This particular expansion would more than replace
the area of Apron "C" which currently holds 80 GA aircraft. Car-
rying this rearrangement further, all Boeing leased areas on the
airport's west side would be given up for complete Boeing control
' of the area to the east of the runway. Including the expansion of
the Boeing apron, the net Boeing area at their relocated site would
be just over 35 acres approximately equalling their current leased
area counting the reclaimed Apron "C". Of course, this degree of
reorganization would require extensive cooperation between the
City and Boeing with a view to the advantages to all concerned.
' Also, Boeing's ramp requirements have been growing, and they
may need more space east of the Cedar River. A logical, but
politically complicated, location for their expansion is into the
area now occupied by the high school stadium.
For Boeing, this shift to the east side would consolidate their
flightline activities for greater efficiency and security control. The
move would also position more of their expensive aircraft a
greater distance from the runway and taxiway. Current parking
positions on the west side are about half as far to the runway as
FAA criteria state. The relocation of auto parking that would be
displaced is another question that would have to be resolved.
Most likely, a parking garage would have to be built because of
the density of development in this area. However, given the extent
of facility reorganization and new office development which
� � 30
Boeing is developing in north Renton, there is substantial room
for negotiation on growth issues between the City and Boeing.
The effect on GA based aircraft capacity of shifting Boeing off
the west side would be striking. The number of based aircraft
could expand to 370 versus the projected figure of 200 under cur-
rent land use configuration deducting the loss of Apron "C" to
Boeing. This means that all forecast categories of aircraft would
have expansion room, and business aviation would not necessarily
have to displace recreational aircraft. Furthermore, the reorganiza-
tion of the west side could be done with an eye to a more effi-
cient, attractive disposition of FBO leases. Scattered lease hold-
ings could be eliminated, and land uses could be organized by
aircraft type or function. Corporate aviation hangars, for example,
together with their support services could be located in a unified
complex.
The cost for this alternative is substantial. Boeing estimates that
their move to the east side would require in excess of$50 million,
not including property acquisition or demolition. The move is also
politically complicated because of the need for cooperation be-
tween the City, Boeing, and possibly the School Board if the
stadium property is considered. For now, because of the pressure
Boeing feels to secure sufficient aircraft parking ramp space in the
short term, because of the costs, and because of the complexity, a
complete Boeing move to the east side of the runway is highly
unlikely in the near future. Nevertheless, the concept should
remain as a long term goal of the airport to implement as condi-
tions allow.
This ultimate level of development would probably represent the
1 maximum possible aviation growth at this airport. Not only is ad-
ditional land for expansion going to be expensive, but 370 based
aircraft could possibly generate enough operations to approach the
capacity of this single runway airfield. Although the correlation
between based aircraft and operations is uncertain at larger
facilities such as this. Paine Field, for example, has approximately
the same number of operations as Renton, about 150,000 annual-
ly, but has nearly 500 based aircraft. And Renton's operational
levels have remained remarkably constant over the last 15 years
even when based aircraft increased 45 percent.
31
' This alternative is included to give a sense of the limits of pos-
sibilities at the airport. The great cost associated with the reloca-
tion of activities most probably makes this choice currently in-
feasible. However, much can happen within the 20 year planning
period that could change the priorities of Boeing and the City to
1 make a pronounced land use split between large transport aircraft
and smaller GA activities desirable. This alternative defines some
of the parameters of such a move.
Land Use and Lease Rates
Apart from the alternatives described above, future land use at the
airport will be affected by the lease rates charged by the City for
' the underlying land. This warrants some discussion since a major
change in rates could have as large an effect on the mix of ac-
tivity as some direct land use restructuring.
1 Airport management has done a good job of getting rates on the
same basis (allowing some consideration of Boeing's extensive
holdings and services provided). However, a cursory comparison
with other similar facilities indicates that the leases are up to 50%
undervalued at Renton.*
This is an intentional but unstated policy of the Airport manage-
ment. Land use patterns are shaped by lease policy. The types of
based aircraft and the kinds of businesses at Renton Municipal
Airport are greatly affected by the underlying land rental rates.
This airport is urban and crowded and can expect to undergo an
evolution in land values based on market pressure as any urban
real estate holding will, if allowed.
The best example of what can happen at an airport to the mix of
based aircraft and aviation businesses when rates go up is, of
course, Boeing Field. They have seen a pronounced shift towards
* This was an early perception in the planning process. An
appraisal completed in the Spring of 1988 for Renton
Municipal Airport properties appraised lease values at $.30
per square foot.
32
more business aircraft and facilities while smaller aircraft types
have been displaced. For example, at Boeing Field in 1980 the
1 share of business aircraft was 16%, in 1985, 28.3%, and the num-
ber is forecast to be 43.8% in 2007. The impetus for this land use
change did not come from a reasoned consideration of whether
Boeing Field wanted more business jets and less single engine
aircraft. Instead, the airport land use was largely shaped in
response to the King County Budget Office requiring "fair market
irental value" in accordance with King County Code (Section
4.56.010). As the rates increased, the aviation market adjusted,
and Boeing Field has made physical plans for redevelopment
towards more business aviation to support the shifted market.
Regardless of whether Renton reaches a consensus on airport ob-
jectives, an evolution in land use similar to Boeing Field's ex-
perience can be expected if lease rates are set to market value.
' This report has established a frame of reference on some of the
anticipated market pressures. A complete market evaluation and
appraisal of aviation properties is beyond the scope of this study.*
Th following o ll
owing discussion sets some perspective on Renton's lease
' structure by comparison with other similar facilities. At RNT
lease rates are generally set at a two-tier basis, with Boeing
ground leases at $.12 per square foot per year and other properties
1 at about $.14 per square foot. Boeing also provides on-site
security and fire protection. The differential for Boeing is based
on these services, the importance of this manufacturer to the City,
and the amount of ground under lease to Boeing which now
amounts to about 70 percent of the available leased area at the air-
port. Lease terms on the airport vary considerably but are general-
ly longer than 20 years with periodic rate negotiations.
A comparison with the two transport airports in Renton's market
area would be useful. Boeing Field also has a two-tier rate struc-
ture. Lease rates for most property range between $.31 and $.41
' * See Appendix 1 for a listing of relevant statutes and
requirements on the charging of fair market value for airport
land rents.
33
per square foot. Boeing Company ground leases were arbitrated to
be $.27 per square foot, a figure even higher than that argued by
the property owner, King County. Boeing Field has had its
property appraised at industrial values of about $8 - 9 per square
foot and has set the goal of a fair market return of about 5 percent
of the land value per year for aviation leases. This 5 percent rate
is half the typical lease rate formula in consideration of the dif-
ferences between aviation related properties and the general in-
dustrial land market. Perhaps most importantly, Boeing Field has
stated in their 1986 Master Plan that:
The Airport is provided as a government service. While the
economic realities of its users have been given due con-
sideration, the Airport is a public asset and must be ad-
ministered in the best interests of the community. As a
safeguard against major unforseen circumstances in the
future, King County must invest a reserve for Boeing Field
which provides a source of financing for programmed ex-
penditures.
The result of the relatively new economic policy has been a shift
of markets at Boeing Field away from light general aviation and
towards the corporate sector. In other words, increased lease rates
' are driving out those aviation related businesses which are no
longer supported by the market and supplanting them with larger
Icorporate aircraft facilities for which there is now a waiting list.
At Paine Field, where considerable acreage is available, lease
rates are set at $.206 per square foot, a figure based on 10 percent
of the land value per year. Boeing Commercial Aircraft Company
does not directly lease ground on the airport; their 747 plant is ad-
jacent. However, Paine Field typically collects between $275,000
and $300,000 in annual operating fees. Additionally, Boeing
Company holds a "first right of refusal" on 40 acres of un-
developed airport land for a fee of $100,000 annually, or $.057
per square foot.
1 Those comparisons seem to indicate that the lease rates at Renton
do not reflect true market value and will be definitely undervalued
when the MLS approach is installed. Although a thorough ap-
praisal and lease comparison study needs to be made, the current
rates appear up to 50% undervalued. Raising the rates at RNT
would likely have a similar effect to what occurred at Boeing
34
Field when their new lease policy was instituted. That is, the mix
of aircraft based at the facility can be expected to shift from light
general aviation, recreational aircraft towards business oriented
aviation which generally has a greater capacity to pay urban air-
port rates.
Lease rates, thus, can be considered an indirect land use control.
On the other hand, an evolution in fleet mix is very likely to
' occur at RNT after the MLS arrives and as FBO's realize the
market potential in serving a more corporate clientele. Some shift
will occur regardless of lease rates charged by the City. Should
1 more emphasis on corporate aviation be wanted, raising lease
rates will accelerate the shift from less lucrative markets.
1 Establishing a lease rate structure that reflects the competitive
market for aeronautical uses is the goal of most public airports.
Whether Renton should charge market rates is the subject of some
internal debate within the City. Currently the facility is taking in
enough revenue to. cover expenses. Phase II of this study will
evaluate the finances necessary to implement the preferred alter-
native. It's very possible that more revenue will be needed to keep
the facility on a sustaining basis. It's also possible that the state
auditor or the FAA will impose a more market oriented interpreta-
tion of what the City must charge as a public entity. The point is,
in any scenario the airport should be able to anticipate and
evaluate the effects of rate changes on the land use of the facility.
35
Airport Priorities
Setting airport priorities is the prerogative of the City, however, a
regional perspective may be useful in formulating those priorities.
The Boeing Company is a great asset to the City and to Renton
Municipal Airport. The Company needs to be located there. To a
large degree, seaplanes are also dependent upon RNT. The Will
Rogers-Wiley Post Memorial Seaplane Base is the only publicly
owned facility for seaplanes in the Seattle area.* These aircraft
have few options, and depend upon the Renton facilities. These
two users have little to no locational flexibility. It can be argued
that, as a consequence, they should continue to be accommodated
' at RNT.
A case can also be made for the basing of business aircraft at
' Renton Municipal. These higher performance aircraft require a
runway that is longer than the typical utility-class runway of be-
tween 2,500 and 3,500 feet. Business aviation is best served by a
location that is centrally located and by a precision landing sys-
tem. Renton Municipal has the length and location. RNT is
programmed to have an active MLS by about 1990. As VFR and
IFR congestion grow at Boeing Field, Renton Municipal Airport
may well become more important and desirable to the Seattle area
business aviation fleet. Business aircraft, too, should have priority
at RNT.
' Recreational aircraft, on the other hand, have more locational
flexibility than the three categories of users just discussed. From a
regional perspective there are no overriding reasons that these
aircraft must be based at RNT. Renton Municipal is obviously
handy to many recreational aircraft owners, but not essential. Al-
* Current seaplane activities on Lake Union and at Kenmore
on north Lake Washington are extremely constrained by
available space and by the density of boats on the lakes. A
closure of either site would place greater demand on the
seaplane facilities at Renton although the degree of impact is
hard to quantify. Lake Union is particularly well sited for
airtaxi seaplane service next to downtown Seattle, and how
much of this business could be transferred to Will Rogers -
Wiley Post Memorial SPB is open to question.
36
i
' ternative airports exist that provide the necessary airport features
that these users need. For this reason, recreational aircraft should
have a lower priority than do Boeing, seaplanes and higher perfor-
mance business aircraft.
Forecasts by Community Alternative
The number and types of based aircraft at RNT will directly relate
to the City's responses to future demand. Apron space is quite
limited so that hard choices will have to be made. The following
' forecasts reflect these choices.
Germane to these forecasts, however, are the recently prepared
projections for Boeing Field International. The following table
shows the BFI forecasts from the draft Airport Master Plan
prepared by Coffman Associates. These projections have been ad-
justed forward by two years to match the RNT forecasting
timeframe (1987-2007). The growth factors indicated in the BFI
report were used to make these adjustments.
' TABLE 9
BASED AIRCRAFT PROJECTIONS FOR BFI ADJUSTED FORWARD TWO YEARS IN TIME
Single-Engine Multi-Engine Jet Rotorcraft/Other Total
1987 364 (63.3%) 138(24.0%) 50 (8.7%) 23 (4.0%) 575
1992 374 (60.0%) 150(24.1%) 71 (11.4%) 28 (4.5%) 623
1997 383 (56.5%) 166(24.5%) 95(14.0%) 34 (5.0%) 678
2007 404 (48.9%) 201 (24.3%) 170(20.6%) 51 (6.2%) 826
r
These forecasts are based upon U.S. fleet mix forecasts together
with recent shifts in the composition of the based aircraft at BFI.
Multi-engine and jet aircraft have been increasing in numbers at
37
Boeing Field. The Coffman Associates expect annual increases in
jet aircraft of eight percent per year between 1985 and 1990, fol-
lowed by six percent growth through the year 2005.
The BFI forecasts indicate a significant decline in the percentage
of single-engine propeller aircraft by the year 2007. Multi-engine
reciprocating aircraft are projected to remain at about a constant
percentage of the fleet mix at the airport. Rotorcraft and turbine
powered aircraft are expected to continue to increase, not only in
absolute numbers but also as a percentage of the airport's based
aircraft. Again, these projections reflect national and regional
forecasts and experience at Boeing Field.
The next tables show the forecasts of based aircraft at the Renton
Municipal Airport for each Community Service Alternative over
the next twenty years. The effect of each alternative varies the
fleet mix of based aircraft, particularly the percentage of business
' aircraft. This proportion is shown graphically on Figure 1. What is
also illustrated is the fact that the number of based aircraft will
' significantly decline under every alternative except the Maximum
Response.
For these forecasts, business aircraft were taken to be 70 percent
of the multi-engine propeller (MEP) powered fleet, all of the tur-
bine powered aircraft, and all rotorcraft. Non-business aircraft
were figured to be thirty percent of the MEP's and all of the
single-engine propeller (SEP) aircraft. These are planning assump-
tions for the purpose of determining land requirements based on
' aircraft size. Of course, some single engine aircraft are used for
business purposes.
Approximately 13 single-engine propeller aircraft per acre can be
placed in T-hangars, while about 16 aircraft per acre can be
placed at tiedowns. Itinerant aircraft are normally positioned at
1 about 13 1/2 aircraft per acre. Consequently, an average figure of
14 aircraft per acre has been assumed for non-business aircraft.
Rotorcraft and multi-engine propeller aircraft can be hangared at
1 about 14 aircraft per acre, while turbine aircraft are normally han-
gared at about 7 aircraft per acre. Therefore, an average of 10
business aircraft per acre has been used as a design standard for
business aircraft.
38
370
BUSINESS 61
' NON-BUSINESS
261 265
58
16
200
195
59
...................
' EXISTING
REACTIVE E SELE. C.
TIVE BALANCED MAXIMUM
FIGURE 1
YEAR 2007 BASED AIRCRAFT PROJECTIONS FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE ALTERNATIVES
39
TABLE 10
BASED AIRCRAFT PROJECTIONS FOR RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BY
COMMUNITY SERVICE ALTERNATIVE, AIRCRAFT TYPE, AND YEAR
' YEAR ALTERNATIVE SEP MEP TP TJ RC/0 TOT. % BUSINESS
' 1987 Existing 239 20 1 -- 1 261 6.1
1992* Reactive** 160 20 3 5 2 190 12.6
' Selective** 154 19 6 8 3 190 15.8
Balanced 223 28 4 7 3 265 12.6
Maximum** 144 22 8 12 4 190 20.5
' 1997 Reactive 163 20 6 8 3 200 15.5
Selective 152 18 10 12 5 197 20.1
' Balanced 216 26 8 11 4 265 15.5
Maximum*** 257 25 12 20 6 320 17.5
' 2007 Reactive 150 20 10 15 5 200 22.0
Selective 131 18 18 20 8 195 30.3
Balanced 199 26 13 20 7 265 22.0
Maximum 280 30 20 30 10 370 21.9
r * Assumes Microwave Landing System Operational by 1990
' ** Assumes Apron "C" Reclaimed by Boeing
*** Assumes All Boeing Flightline moves to East of Runway
SEP - Single Engine Propeller
MEP - Multi-Engine Propeller
TP - Turboprop
' TJ - Turbojet or Turbofan
RC/O - Rotorcraft or Other
40
' TABLE 11
NON-BUSINESS AND BUSINESS BASED AIRCRAFT PROJECTIONS FOR RENTON
MUNICIPAL AIRPORT WITH LAND REQUIREMENTS
NON- TOTAL NEEDED
YEAR ALTERNATIVE BUSINESS BUSINESS AIRCRAFT ACRES
' 1987 Existing 245 16 261 22.7
' 1992* Reactive** 166 24 190 16.2
Selective** 160 30 190 16.3
Balanced 232 33 265 19.9
' Maximum** 151 39 190 16.5
1997 Reactive 169 31 200 17.2
Selective 157 40 197 17.1
Balanced 223 41 265 20.0
Maximum*** 264 56 320 27.6
' 2007 Reactive 156 44 200 17.4
Selective 136 59 195 17.2
Balanced 207 58 265 20.6
Maximum 289 81 370 28.7
' * Assumes Microwave Landing System Operational by 1990
** Assumes Apron "C" Reclaimed by Boeing
*** Assumes all Boeing Flightline moves to East of Runway
41
' The above assume a balance of aircraft types and hangar require-
ments. The total acreage needed for each alternative is displayed
in the right-hand column of the above table. The graphic depiction
of the resulting land uses can be plotted from these category re-
quirements.
Each of the three Community Service Alternatives will have an
effect on land use at the airport, and the Reactive, Selective,
Balanced and Maximum responses to market demands are il-
lustrated on Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5 respectively. Five land use
categories are mapped. These are as follows:
' 1) Land servinz primarily non-business aircraft - These aircraft
are predominantly SEP, recreational, and parked or hangared on
' this ground at a density of 14 aircraft per acre.
2) Land serving primarily business aircraft - These aircraft are
predominantly multi-engine, piston or turbine powered, or
rotorcraft, parked or hangared at a density of 10 aircraft per acre.
3) Land serving�Boeing
4) Land for aviation related activities - This would include
aeronautical manufacturing other than Boeing, airport offices, and
other aviation connected functions.
5) Land for non aviation related activities - The restaurant is the
prime example. Also shown is a parking lot on Figure 4.
Figure 2 displays the Reactive Response to market demand. The
assumptions are that Apron "C" would revert to use by Boeing,
and that existing businesses would make some response to the
business aircraft demand.
The Selective Response, shown on Figure 3, assumes that the City
of Renton redevelops about 6 acres for business aircraft basing.
' The site displayed would offer the required acreage and has the
advantage of being adjacent to the restaurant. The meeting rooms
available there, along with the attractive lakeside location, would
be a unique amenity for based corporate aircraft.
The Balanced Response alternative displayed on Figure 4 shows
' the southwest corner of the facility fully occupied by Boeing. On
42
l
1
200'7
LAND US E
REACTIVE
Laky
RESPONSE
wasgt®»
LEGEND
es m NON—BUSINESS A/C
OBUSINESS A/C
BOEING
B�
AVIA110N RELATED
I NON—AVIATION
I1 GRAPHIC SCALE
' -- — 0 200 400 500 SW 1000
-------------------
----------------
----------------------
---------------------
BOEING
I OWNED RENTON
RAMP MUNICIPAL
AIRPORT
-------- . MASTER PLAN
REID, MIDDLETON is ASSOCIATES, INC.
_s _
FIGURE NO.
43
200x7
LAND US E
SELECTIVE
Lake RESPONSE
R Washington
- ` LEGEND
INON-BUSINESS A/C
' g E:l BUSINESS A/C
IBOEING
AVIATION RELATED
I O NON-AVIATION
=== I GRAPHIC SCALE
0 200 400 600 600 1000
ansa-emaaasrrr rag
---------------------
-- ---
--- - - -- --=--
BOEING
OWNED
RENTON
RAMP
I = MUNICIPAL
AIRPORT
MASTER PLAN
REID. MIDDLETON do ASSOCIATES, INC.
FIGURE NO. 3
' 44
2007
LAND US E
BALANCED
Lake RESPONSE
Washington
_ LEGEND
Q NON-BUSINESS A/C
El BUSINESS A/C
IBOEING
9
AVIATION RELATED
NON-AVIATION
m_ U GRAPHIC SCALE
' -- 1
!
•
- ooOWo0 000
AUTOMOBILE 200 b
=-- -- I -
PARKING --- -
=- --
___ - ---_ - _--
---------------
----_--
--
It
"BOEING
OWNED
R
- _ EN TON
-' --= RAMP
MUNICIPAL
AIRPORT
MASTER PLAN
REID. MIDDLETON & ASSOCIATES, INC
-1-
FIGURE NO. 4
' 45
200x7
LAND US E
MAXIMUM
Lake RESPONSE
WaahingtAm
LEGEND
a === NON—BUSINESS A/C
BUSINESS A/C
=_ I BOEING
_--__=__ D _
��_ AVIATION RELATED
NON—AVIATION
z �zell
GRAPHIC SCALE
-a
900 ®00 900 1000
SOME BOEING
ACTIVITY MOVED
FROM WEST SIDE
OF
AIRPORT
----------------------------------- -
=eaa_aa�aaz�aa_aaa9aw-,�a..-"__'-_�
.311 0.
---------------
---- -- -=ti---- - _
rr::-qtr:-rr-
-1 _xis=i-s---" ste Sz=r__
='=-==-i -- - --- --- - - - - -
_____ riga it :-- -- --r -----------------------
i =="----- ----------_ --
--
------------------ -----------------
-------
-:=:e _=
-_ - i --
--------------------
-
-
_1 ----------------
------------------_ a
:.} a_ ----
------------------ r .-----
- �
r I -- --sr_r_=------ ------
-r---
_ I BOEING
=a: _ OwNED RENTON
RAMP
iHi
MUNICIPAL
RRR AIRPORT
----- MASTER PLAN
REID, MIODLETON it ASSCCIATM INC.
FIGURE N®.5
46
the west side Apron "C" is given to non-Boeing GA. The
automobile parking area shown in brown by Apron "C" would be
joint use for both the Boeing "lab" building nearby and relocated
FBO's along the west edge of the aircraft apron.
The Maximum Response alternative, Figure 5, would create more
room for based aircraft by reclaiming all of the west side from
Boeing use. As discussed earlier, Boeing would have to find space
for new apron east of the Cedar River. What is shown in this il-
lustration is an expansion of their existing eastside aircraft apron
into an area currently used for automobile parking and Boeing
fully sited east of the runway.
The above forecasts envision a proportional decline in the per-
centage of single engine propeller aircraft from today's 84 percent
to about the 65-70 percent range depending upon the emphasis al-
temative selected by the City. Multi-engine reciprocating aircraft
are projected to remain at about 15 percent of the fleet of based
aircraft, while turbine powered aircraft are anticipated to rise to a
10-17 percent proportion of the fleet. Boeing Field forecasts, by
contrast, indicate over one-fourth of the year 2007 fleet to be tur-
bine-powered.
It should be noted that a Microwave Landing System receiver can
cost in the neighborhood of $10,000. This price may effectively
restrict the use of MLS to business and corporate aircraft. MLS is
potentially of greater benefit to the business aircraft that is flown
more often and in more diverse weather conditions than the
recreational aircraft. While Boeing Field and Sea-Tac will also
soon have an MLS precision approach, RNT will gain the greatest
improvement in IFR minima when its MLS becomes operational.
One further comment relates to the constraints that Boeing Field
has relative to the basing of additional aircraft. BFI's Airport
Master Plan report states on pages 6-8 and 7-12 that:
The demand for conventional hangar space is expected to
be more than double by the year 2005 (425,000 square
feet compared to the existing 178,000).
The combined area required for new and/or redeveloped
iconventional hangars, T-hangars and hangar apron will
47
exceed the area existing for those purposes by 451,600
square feet within 20 years.
' If the Firestone property and Boeing parking lot cannot be
acquired, then only 57% of the conventional hangar
' demand, 66% of the T-hangar demand and 91% of the
local and transient apron demand can be met for 2005.
Operational Forecasts by Community Alternative
The future level of flight activity at Renton Municipal Airport is
used for general facility planning but is particularly important for
two specific aspects; operational capacity and aircraft generated
noise. Operations at RNT over the last 15 years have been
remarkably constant. From Table 4, "AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
AT RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT", the trend line can be
calculated. This shows an annual growth rate of only 0.124%. A
20 year projection of the total operations at this nearly flat rate
would give a figure of 146,641 by the year 2007. Can we assume
that this is a reasonable extrapolation for this airport?
At smaller general aviation facilities the number of operations can
often be related to the number of based aircraft. However, these
two factors don't correlate well at Renton. Figure 6 graphs the
operations over 16 years along with the record of based aircraft.
Large increases in based aircraft such as between 1977 and 1979
when 65 airplanes came onto the field do not seem to directly in-
crease the operations. Also, the large drop in activity in 1982 is
' not evidently connected with the relatively constant amount of
aircraft stored on the field over the same period. Economic factors
external to the Renton facility are a more likely cause of the
operational decrease at that time. Three other airports with con-
trol towers, Paine Field, Tacoma Narrows, and Boeing Field, all
had significant drops in activity during the early 1980's. In the
case of BFI, based aircraft actually increased over 30% between
1978 and 1982 when total operations were declining.
The lack of correlation between aircraft on the ground and aircraft
in the sky makes it difficult to relate the community service alter-
natives to any meaningful future operational levels. However,
since our main interest is whether the airport is likely to become
too busy or too noisy, for the purpose of checking a worst case
48
1
1
1
' FIGURE 6
ANNUAL OPERATIONS AND BASED AIRCRAFT HISTORY AT RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
BASED
AIRCRAFT
300,000
' 272 2so
O
' P
E 200,000 207
179 187
R
� A
T
I
0100,000 ANNUAL
N
S OPERATIONS
1970 1975 1980 1985
YEAR
49
II
' possibility let's assume a direct correlation between increasing ac-
tivity and increasing based aircraft.
The Maximum Response alternative allows an increase in based
aircraft from the current 261 to 370, or 41.76% growth, by the
year 2007. If operations were to increase at a similar rate the
number would be 208,000 by the end of the planning period.
The FAA Practical Annual Capacity (PANCAP) for a an airfield
with a single runway configuration like Renton's is about 230,000
operations. This assumes that at least 80% of the movements
' would be by light aircraft of less than 12,500 pounds, a probable
occurrence at Renton. The maximum hourly capacity would be 98
operations per hour under visual flight rules (VFR). Airspace in-
teractions with BFI and Sea-Tac would likely restrict hourly in-
strument flight rules (IFR) capacity to something less than half the
VFR rate.
' In any case the operational limits of the field are not likely to be
exceeded within the planning period. PANCAP is a rough es-
timate of actual capacity and particularly so at RNT where much
of the flight activity is local proficiency flight training. Pilots will
often divert to a more rural airport for practice if congestion at the
primary field makes training difficult. Thus, discretionary flying is
spread among the local airports and critical loadings can be self-
limiting. Renton actually has demonstrated the ability to operate
substantially more airplanes than the current annual rate. In 1968
operations reached 204,000, representing the peak of a busy
stretch of years.
The actual growth rate and operational levels will probably be
lower than that discussed above in the Maximum Response
scenario. The Washington State Continuous Airport System Plan
(WSCASP) is currently being written, and the draft forecasts sec-
tion calls for 174,200 operations at RNT by the year 1997, an an-
nual growth rate of 2.93%. This rate compares to the Puget Sound
Council of Governments (PSCOG) forecast of 1.65% annual
growth for Renton's operations. BFI's 1986 master plan predicts
' annual rates of increase between 1.5% and 1.75% for transient air
activity. A 1.5% yearly growth would mean 198,481 operations
by the year 2007.
50
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The forecasts of aircraft operations, when considered with the
fleet mix projections, can be used to generate anticipated
aircraft noise contours on a map, which in turn can be used
' for compatible land use planning. The noise contours for Renton
graphically indicate that expected levels of off-airport aircraft
noise by the end of the planning period do not exceed the FAA
' Part 150 criteria for residential areas. The contours for the existing
operational level as well as for the year 2007 Maximum Response
alternative are shown on Figures 7 and 8, respectively.
' The contours were calculated using re the FAA ort titled
P
Developing Noise Exposure Contours for General Aviation Air-
ports. A number of assumptions are necessary to develop the con-
tours including: (1) total operations; (2) total propeller operations;
(3) total jet operations; (4) percent nighttime operations for both
' propeller and jet; (5) twin engine propeller as a percent of all
propeller operations; and (6) turbojet operations as a percent of jet
operations. An additional element is the percentage of use of the
1 runway in each direction.
The assumptions that were used include:
• A 50150 split in the runway directional use - Actual
runway use is closer to 60/40, favoring runway 15, but this
is not significant in the manual computation of contours.
• Less than 1300 annual turbojet operations - Turbojets
are differentiated from turbofans in that these earlier
engines have a straight-through flow of high velocity air
and are relatively noisy. Turbofans generally have a large
compressor section which blows air outside and around the
exhausting gasses, bypassing the combustion chambers,
thereby shrouding the high energy, turbulent exhaust and
quieting the flow. Boeing's commercial aircraft
manufactured at Renton, the 737 and 757, use turbofan
engines, and the latter has been certified as an FAA Stage
' 3 aircraft, the quietest transport category. A similar
designation is expected for the W7. FAA Part 36
regulations have prohibited the manufacture of Stage 1
aircraft,which are the noisier turbojets, since 1975. These
aircraft have been disappearing from the business jet fleet
51
' and are not expected to be a significant percentage of the
overall fleet mix by 1995. Furthermore, these turbojet
' powered corporate jets cannot operate at full gross weights
at Renton Municipal Airport (RNT) because of the runway
length requirements these aircraft have, and therefore, a
lower percentage of turbojet operations can be expected at
RNT than at a more capable airfield such as Boeing Field
(BFI). Turbofan powered corporate jets contribute to the
' map of noise contours but are not considered a special
case. For example, according to FAA advisory circular
36-3D* a Cessna Citation II business turbofan generates
62.6 dBA on takeoff compared to 69 dBA for Cessna 180
single-engine prop., 60 dBA for a Piper Cherokee 140
single engine prop., 67.0 dBA for Gates Learjet 55
turbofan, and 68.8 for a Beech Super King Air 200
turboprop.
' • Existing operations = 141,642 - This is an adjusted figure
for 1986 based on a projection of the trend line over the
' last 15 years.
• Year 2006 operations = 208,608 - This is a projection
' based on the Maximum Response alternative where the
number of based aircraft increase by 41.76% with a
corresponding increase in operations over the trend line
' growth.
• Twin engine operations as a percent of all propeller
' operations - Existing = 8%; Year 2007 = 15%
* This circular provides listings of estimated airplane noise
levels in units of A-weighted sound level in decibels (dBA)
for both takeoff and approach phases of flight. The
' document allows reasonable comparison between quite
diverse categories of aircraft which are certified under
different and sometimes incompatible noise measurement
' standards. Noise level estimates are provided at FAR Part 36
Appendix C positions (6500 meters from start of roll for
takeoff and 2000 meters from the runway threshold for
' approach)
' 52
• A 1% nighttime use - Nighttime is defined as between
' 10:00pm and 7:00am.
Integrating these factors yields an adjusted number of operations
of 165,155 for the existing condition and 286,836 for the year
2007.
' The noise contour of greatest interest in an urban environment is
the Ldn 65. This is the only contour of real significance to
residential areas according to FAA and the Department of Hous-
ing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines for aircraft
generated noise affecting land use. At Renton the Ldn 65 contour
is contained within the boundaries of the airport property for both
' the existing condition and the projected level of operations in the
year 2007. In both cases the Ldn 65 contour does not extend past
the runway ends. In the Maximum Response alternative for the
year 2007 an Ldn 70 contour is generated over the middle of the
runway paved area.
"Ldn" stands for "level day-night", and is defined as "the A
weighted sound level in decibels...during a 24-hour period with a
10 dB weighting applied to nighttime sound levels." In describing
' the cumulative noise exposure during a 24 hour day, Ldn dif-
ferently weights the individual sound levels of operations which
' occur at night between 10:00pm and 7:00am in an attempt to ac-
count for the greater intrusiveness of noise during those late
hours. The Ldn measure incorporates the relationship of in-
dividual noise levels, number of events and time of day. This
relationship is modeled and the results expressed for a typical 24-
hour day averaged for a year.
' The Ldn noise descriptor can be used to correlate noise impacts
with health effects and measures of perceptual intrusiveness. Ldn
is now widely used by nearly all federal agencies including the
Department of Defense, the FAA, NASA, HUD, and the Veterans
Administration. Land use compatibility guidelines are established
' for Ldn levels above 65. These guidelines are not intended to
preempt local land use decisions but to provide direction for land
use planning. Area outside of the Ldn 65 contour is shown as ac-
ceptable for all land uses including the more noise sensitive ones
such as auditoriums, nursing homes, and concert halls. The 60
' 53
' Ldn contour represents even quieter conditions, and is not even
included in the FAA/HUD land use compatibility standards.
' To provide some perspective on the projected aircraft noise, an
activity level 50% greater than that which has been forecasted
' under the Maximum Response alternative was calculated. This
analysis shows that even if this unlikely scenario were to occur
the Ldn 65 contour would not extend beyond the east or west
' property lines of the airport, and the contour would only project
about 1000 feet beyond the ends of the runway into an area the
FAA designates as "clear zone" where no structures are recom-
mended because of safety concerns unrelated to noise.
A special case which may generate some noise complaints in the
future is the seaplane activity at Will Rogers-Wily Post Memorial
Seaplane Base. The 1984 FAA estimates of activity (Form 5010)
only shows 2000 seaplane operations for the year, not enough to
' affect the total noise mix at the airport. However, seaplanes are
often perceived to be noisier than comparible land based aircraft.
' This is because of water noise reflection, power settings, propeller
configuration, and the fact that seaplanes vary their takeoff routes
according to the wind and wave conditions. "Single event" noise
' such as this will not average enough over a 24 hour period to af-
fect the total noise footprint, but it can sometimes be very annoy-
ing to local residents. Airport management could impose opera-
tional restrictions for noise control on seaplanes should they be-
come a significant irritation.
Total aircraft generated noise is, therefore, not expected to repre-
sent a significant land use problem for the City of Renton in the
future.
54
1\ `\
,j =JV �!L
7W LEGEND
l �
:►�t �l a, •\�
� s. s65
!Kim MELMcm
\J
Ldn CONTOUR
i
w
, .;17
,, lam1 �IltGRAPHIC SCALE
0 10DO 2000 3000
- � FEET
4Ira-
ILI
,�•1+i._� -urs-: -J �
�i
RIP"
r, �� tom'►,, er- .
A:1 Wil
11,4VMl
.!
--
J."
LEGEND
k.
65
ILI
Ldn CONTOUR
\.,: —
iL
Wk,
,
NIGRAPHIC SCALE
1C 0 1000 2000 3000
FEETPEWMV
row I!
�'� --� '-�--� •,off ��� _ �...
,fir`,,. 1 ����►
-- - q -
> 1
0.11
i
1
i
V. FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
' Design Standards
Renton Municipal Airport has an unusually wide range of aircraft
types using the facility. By far the majority of use is by light,
single-engine propeller driven airplanes, or basic utility aircraft
by FAA definition. However, the Boeing plant adjacent to the
' field builds 737's, 757's, and 707 types which use most of the air-
port pavements, mingling with the other activity, in the normal
course of their assembly and preparation. These large aircraft con-
tribute about 200 annual departures* to the runway traffic. There
is also a mix of corporate turbine-powered aircraft sufficient to
qualify the airport for FAA designation as a Basic Transport air-
port. Design standards for this facility can be found in the FAA
Advisory Circular AC:150/5300 -12.
' The purpose of such standards is to provide guidance for the
dimensions which separate the airport features such as runways,
taxiways, parked airplanes, and buildings. Such standards are par-
ticularly important at facilities like RNT which have a large diver-
sity of airplane types. However, this airport is extremely con-
strained in area and, therefore, in its ability to strictly impose the
1 FAA transport criteria. The need for some compromise is sug-
gested in the table below.
' Nevertheless, the limits of compromise must be set firmly. In-
dividual applications for encroachment past the BRL by potential
or existing lessees can be expected to occur on a regular basis.
This will happen because gaining land by acquiring a concession
on setback standards is an attractively inexpensive alternative to
gaining space through proper redevelopment or relocation. The
' City should weigh short term commercial interests against the
need to preserve the long term viability of the facility.
* More than 90% of Boeing large airplane departures are to
1 the north over Lake Washington
1 57
TABLE 12
BASIC TRANSPORT DIMENSIONAL CRITERIA AT RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
DESIGN FAA MAXIMUM SUGGESTED
1 ITEM TRANSPORT POSSIBLE DESIGN
STANDARD AT RENTON STANDARDS
Runway width 100' 200' 150'
' Runway safety area width 500' 500' 500'
Runway centerline to 400' 304'west 304' west
taxiway centerline 320'east 304'east
Runway centerline to 500' 375'west 375' west
' aircraft parking area 350'east 340'east
Runway centerline to 750' 375'west** 400' ***
building restriction line 350'east** 400' ***
Taxiway centerline to 64'* 78' 78' ****
fixed or movable object
*This dimension is based on airplane design group H which includes all executive jets
up to 78' wingspan. For aircraft such as the Boeing 737 the standard is 94' and this in-
creases to 139' for Boeing 707 type aircraft.
**The large Airmaster hangar is only 375' from the runway centerline, and the recently
constructed Lane/Lake hangars are 382'. Other buildings are at least 400'. On the east
side of the airport, the Cedar River hangar is only 350' from the runway centerline.
***The suggested building restriction line for any new building on either side is 400',
and extends past the ends of the runway to the property lines.
****This assumes the west taxiway centerline could be moved 7' to the east from the
Airmaster hangar north where the taxiway is wider.
' 58
What particularly underscores the importance of these separation
criteria is the impending arrival of the MLS precision instrument
approach. Those airports with precision approach capability are
held to a higher level of compliance with FAA design standards
than those without. Although the final MLS criteria are yet to be
published, the FAA is requiring ILS dimensional standards to be
met where possible. There will probably not be very much relaxa-
tion from these separation distances with the new MLS equip-
ment. While the greater BRL separation can not be reasonably
achieved at RNT (750 feet from runway centerline places the
BRL in the middle of Rainier Avenue), the escalated standard will
at least make future deviations from the historical 400 foot BRL
much more difficult to get waived by the FAA. Incursions on the
BRL before installation of the precision approach could have the
effect of raising approach minima since the establishment of mini-
mum descent altitudes requires the FAA to judge, along with their
other technical criteria, the conformance of the facility to safety
standards including separation distances.
Aeronautical
Facility Needs
Access Control - The number one problem at the airport iden-
tified by the control tower chief is unauthorized access onto the
field. His personnel record at least one incursion onto the runway
per week. For a facility as busy as Renton Municipal Airport, the
risk of a serious accident is considerable with most of the liability
accruing to the City as the sole operator. Historically, aircraft
owners have driven out to their aircraft through the numerous ac-
cess gates around the perimeter of the field. This convenience un-
fortunately allows anyone access, whether they have knowledge
of airport hazards or not. Positive control through fencing and
vehicle access prohibition is the only reasonable way to establish
control. While discontinuing aircraft owner car access will un-
doubtedly stir complaints from long time users, this is a major
safety and liability issue which much be resolved.
A particularly troublesome area of the airport is the southeast
corner by the Benair lease. Airplanes and cars use the same
taxiway/access road to get to the various commercial activities lo-
cated near there. The runway end is less than 400 feet away from
the very ambiguous airplane/vehicle pavement which has no clear
boundary. Signs and pavement markings would help somewhat in
' 59
this location, although they would only be aP artial solution.
Security patrols would also be useful, but this is not currently pos-
sible with the small number of airport staff available.
Runway - The single runway at this airport, designated 15/33, is
' 5379 feet long by 200 feet wide. The south landing threshold is
displaced 350 feet from the end. Bituminous concrete is the
material for most of the runway and varies in condition from fair
to very good with the poorest areas located in the southern third.
The taxiway crossing of the runway where Boeing tows heavy
' aircraft across shows some significant "alligator" cracking which
will need attention soon. The concrete pavement at the south end
is in very good condition.
Since the runway is expected to receive more use in the future
with an increasing percentage of use from higher performance
aircraft, and because of the frequency of rain in the area, the sur-
face should be grooved or a porous friction course applied to as-
sure maximum braking capability. With a landing length of only
slightly more than 5000 feet when landing to the north and 5379
feet when landing to the south, the surface should be made as
resistant to tire skidding as possible. This is important to both the
landing distances and accelerate-stop distances required by high
performance aircraft. Before any type of friction enhancing treat-
ment is performed on the runway the existing surface should be in
as good a condition as possible or the surfacing effort may be
somewhat wasted. Therefore, a bituminous concrete overlay
should be applied to the runway sometime within the next five
years followed by either grooving or a porous friction course and
then the instrument runway marking.
At the same time the above work is done, the runway should be
narrowed to a width of 150 feet. This will reduce the immediate
overlay costs by about 25% as well as the costs of future projects
and maintenance.
Taxiways - The 1978 Airport Master Plan suggested the pos-
sibility of moving taxiway A, the main parallel taxiway on the
west side, closer to the runway to allow more aircraft parking on
the adjacent ramp. This should not be done. The FAA standard
separation for this transport type airport is 400 feet from runway
centerline to parallel taxiway centerline. Current taxiway center-
line separation is 304 feet. To reduce this even further would
60
compromise FAA standards in the face of the expected MLS and
the enhanced safety criteria associated with this precision instru-
ment approach system. The anticipated evolution towards higher
performance aircraft operations connected with the better ap-
proach is another argument against a standards reduction.
' In recent years the Renton Public Works Department has been
conscientious in reconstructing and patching poor sections of the
taxiways, and as a result most of these pavements are in good to
very good condition. Two taxi exits could use some work soon.
They are the two 90 degree angle exits, one on each side of the
' runway, located north of the control tower. These two exits should
be overlaid within five years. A few of the other exits may also
' need work within the same period.
The west side parallel taxiway system, being in good to very good
condition, should logically be overlaid somewhat later, probably
in the second five year period. The same is true for the partial
parallel taxiway network on the east side along the southern one -
third of the runway.
A new short section of parallel taxiway, 35 feet wide, should be
constructed west of the compass rose in the first five years. This
would allow the aircraft based on the east side of the field to con-
duct a large percentage of their operations without crossing the
runway. The new taxiway section would thus have a small posi-
tive effect on airport capacity and mean a more convenient opera-
tion for both pilots and controllers.
Terminal Area - The aprons include some very good concrete on
the west side and an excellent new tie-down area in the Fancher
lease vicinity on the west side. No major apron projects are en-
visioned for the next 10 years. A small apron expansion east of
the Fancher operation would be desirable within 5 years, but this
would be very limited in size because of runway clearance re-
quirements.
Currently, three multi-service fixed base operators (FBO's)
operate from the airport. Without further subdivision of leased
areas, that is about the limit for this facility. If Apron "C" were to
be retained and expanded for non-Boeing GA as in the Balanced
Response alternative, a new allocation of space is possible. New
T-hangars could be built here in lieu of open tie-downs, and the
61
i
1
1 mix of hangar sizes could be controlled depending on the
response desired towards the corporate market.
Seaplane terminal facilities are potentially a special requirement at
Renton Municipal Airport. The Will Rogers-Wily Post Memorial
1 Seaplane Base is the only publicly owned seaplane facility in the
state. Only two other locations in the Seattle area support com-
mercial seaplane activity, Kenmore at the north end of Lake
' Washington and Lake Union. The latter, while close to the central
business district, is an extremely crowded body of water. Rising
land values and competition for waterfront access could in time
' displace the seaplane operators. The potential for an accident with
the dense boating traffic is also always present on Lake Union.
Closure of this lake to seaplanes would divert at least part of the
downtown Seattle market demand to the remaining facilities, and
thus Renton could see much more activity should the above
scenario occur. Unfortunately, the probability of a Lake Union
1 closure is very difficult to assess.
In any case, should the seaplane market increase in Renton, the
' area adjacent to Lake Washington now occupied by the restaurant
should be considered for seaplane use. At the time of this writing
the restaurant is open. However, the establishment has had several
operators since beginning about ten years ago. competing res-
taurants have since opened in the airport neighborhood. Perhaps
the airport restaurant will be successful, but as future options the
building could become a terminal for seaplane air taxi service, a
combined terminal and small restaurant, a combined terminal and
' meeting room space, office space for an FBO specializing in
seaplane operations, or some other combination of uses. Of
course, the entire site could be used for seaplane parking, but this
is a low intensity use for a waterfront site. The wooden ramp
along the shoreline will soon need replacing and should be con-
sidered for transient seaplane use.
Once away from the lakeside, seaplanes can be treated much like
any other light GA aircraft. Except, of course, without amphibious
wheels they have to rely on some other way of being moved
1 about the airport for service, such as with special forklifts. A dedi-
cated area for seaplanes at the water's edge would be desirable,
' however.
62
Seaplane ea float is common during the winter at Renton
S p storage g g
when a significant number of aircraft are configured for wheels.
1 The large area these floats cover could be reduced if float storage
racks of 3 or 4 tiers were built to concentrate the equipment,
thereby reducing the competition for available ground space.
' Obstructions - The south approach contains a mixture of com-
mercial and residential uses. To clear structures in this area the
' south landing threshold has been displaced to provide an accept-
ably clear approach surface. Every few years this approach will
also need to have the trees topped which penetrate the approach
surfaces.
Renton is scheduled to have an MLS precision instrument ap-
proach installed in 1990. The primary surface width associated
with such operations is 1000 feet. In a primary surface no objects
are supposed to be higher than the adjacent runway elevation. At
the edge of the primary surface a transition surface is located,
sloped at 1 foot of vertical rise for every 7 feet of horizontal run
' (7:1). No objects should penetrate this surface. The reality at Ren-
ton is that neither the primary nor transition surfaces can meet
standards because of prior development and the surrounding ter-
rain. No obstruction removal is planned in these areas and waivers
will have to be made. However, no future development or con-
struction should be allowed that would create an obstruction
' greater than those which already exist.
Lighting and Navaids - The runway now has a Medium Intensity
' Lighting System (MIRL) that has been in service since before
1970. The useful life of these systems is normally considered to
be about 20 years, and the time has come for this one to be
scheduled for replacement. Furthermore, because of the coming
MLS in 1990, a change in systems would be appropriate. While
MIRL systems are acceptable for precision instrument operations,
High Intensity Runway Lights (HIRL) are preferred. Also as dis-
cussed earlier in this section under runway needs, the width of the
runway will probably be narrowed to 150 feet in the first five year
period and would require moving the lights. Considering all the
above factors, the lighting system should be changed to HIRL
concurrent with the runway narrowing.
The Microwave Landing System (MLS) will become the new na-
tional standard for precision approach equipment and the current
63
Instrument Landing Systems (ILS) that have been in use for many
years will be phased out over the next decade. The new MLS for
Renton is part of the first contract purchase for this region to be
put in place about 1990 along with systems planned for Sea-Tac
and Boeing Field. This will be an FAA installed and maintained
' system. No significant direct City costs are anticipated with this
facility.
Runway Safety Areas - FAA standards for a Transport Runway
call for a 500 foot wide by 1,000 foot long area off each runway
end to be designated as Safety Area. A Safety Area has to be rela-
tively smooth and able to support an occassional aircraft. They are
important in cases of aircraft overrunning the runway end on take-
off or landing short of the pavement.
At Renton, the north end of the runway stops at Lake
Washington, and the south end is 600 feet away from Airport
Way. Therefore, the Safety Areas cannot be easily brought to
standard without a great quantity of fill into Lake Washington to
build a surface, and a relocation of Airport Way. Another alterna-
tive would be to shorten the runway by 1,400 feet by permanently
moving the thresholds, but this would effectively prevent transport
operations and severely impact Boeing's important activity.
Miscellaneous - The amount of birds near the Renton facility
poses another safety and liability problem for the City. Bird con-
trol is a subject not often covered under facility requirements, but
here the potential for bird strikes and major engine damage is
serious because of the concentration of seagulls and other water-
fowl at the mouth of the Cedar River. Boeing has expressed con-
cern to the City about the risks to their operations posed by these
' flocks.
Birds are attracted to the river because of the food available at the
mouth, particularly when salmon are spawning upstream and the
banks and shallows are littered with fish carcasses. Gradual silta-
tion has filled the main channel and added considerably to the
delta which is now in places only a few inches deep and thus al-
lows the birds easy feeding.
The problem can be reduced by pursuing two directions; an active
control program to frighten and discourage the birds that collect
' near the runway, and a program to diminish the availability of the
feed which attracts them in the first place.
' Active control is commonly done at other airports and involves
setting off noise making devices, recorded bird distress calls, and
other forms of harassment. While some if this can be done
through remote, automated control, additional personnel are usual-
ly required.
Reduction of the available feed will require dredging of the river
and its delta. Done at the right time of the year the salmon run
' would not be affected by this work since the spawning beds are
further up the river. The intent of dredging would be to lower the
sands and gravels which collect the feed at an accessible depth for
the birds. The clearing of the channel would also help mitigate the
flood potential on the east side of the airport. This dredging will
require an extensive list of permits from several agencies.
' Flooding of the east side perimeter road is now a fairly common
occurrence, with some threat of inundation of the low tie-down
' area and hangars in that vicinity. The Public Works Department
intends to raise the road along the east side to function as a dike,
with the fill material to be dredged from the adjacent river.
65
VI. FINANCIAL PLAN
' Introduction
This chapter represents the second Phase of the Master Plan Up-
date for the Renton Municipal Airport. Phase I, completed in May
' 1987, analyzed the facility with respect to forecast aviation
growth and developed four alternatives for future land use. The
first report considered projected aviation noise impacts for the
' "Balanced Response" alternative selected by the City Council and
described needed aviation related facility improvements. This
financial plan includes an implementation scheme for those airport
improvements described in the earlier report.
A financial plan for an airport should also include a development
schedule for expected capital improvements including cost es-
timates and a plan for the funding of these expenditures.
However, at Renton Municipal Airport significant uncertainties
' exist about two major factors in the airport's growth; the amount
of future land use redevelopment and the expected level of
revenue which can be generated on the facility.
' First, while the goal of achieving some major land use separations
between Boeing's large aircraft operations and the remainder of
' the light aircraft general aviation (GA) is generally agreed upon,
the exact method and sequencing of lease relocations has not been
finally settled by Boeing, the City, and other lessees.
The preferred alternative development concept from the Phase I
Master Plan Update report called for the relocation of Boeing land
1 uses from west side Apron "C" to the southeast corner of the air-
port. This proposed arrangement is shown on Figure 9. Light
aircraft general aviation would in turn switch to the west side.
This scheme would provide better land use efficiency, preserve
the basing capacity for light GA aircraft, and would significantly
increase the safety of the facility by controlling unauthorized
vehicle access.
Boeing has clearly indicated their long term support for the idea
' of relocating their large aircraft land uses to the east side of the
runway thereby clearly separating light general aviation from
66
1
2007
1 LAND USE
Lak1 BALANCED
Washington RESPONSE
i
LEGEND
e=_ ® NON—BUSINESS A/C
g El BUSINESS A/C
ddd.F a
�t I BOEING
AVIATION RELATED
NON—AVIATION
�d
d I
�t djd'
7
8 � 9 GitAPt#C SCALE
' AUTOMOBILE �= i o aoo 4W Soo Soo 10oo
PARkING 7dddd I -
tjiSt � 1"
1 e I d ===========e^`
-------------
___ _===-=--
_-- ----------------
_ ===_=_
_-_=-__-==__ --
I = __ = og=:=�
9 _=_ BOEING
OWNED RENTON
RAMP MUNICIPAL
== AIRPORT
--= I -- - MASTER PLAN
�'' ® ---------- -- - f�a ►o�9lFT�ld !� AS90ClAlES, RdC,
1
FIGURE NO. 9
' 67
large scale manufacturing activities. There is general consensus
that jet transports and small airplanes should not be mixed.
' Boeing has recognized that significant improvements in site ac-
cess control, and thus safety, could be achieved through such an
east-west delineation of land uses. Boeing has also indicated inter-
est in achieving greater future efficiency in their flightline ac-
tivities as well as in the possibility of acquiring more flightline
capacity and aircraft parking.
' But the sticking point for Boeing in any decision to commit to a
major relocation to the east side of the airport is their need for
' sufficient aircraft parking and staging areas during every phase of
a relocation. This translates to an eventual need for more space
for parking airplanes, and the only possibility for more Boeing
' flightline on the east side of the runway is that area east of the
Cedar River off of the airport property. The manner in which
Boeing would be allowed to acquire and develop additional off-
airport property on the east side of the Cedar River is a major fac-
tor in their decision of whether to commit now to a series of
phased steps leading to an eventual relocation to the east side of
' the airport. Boeing, the City of Renton, and other parties both on
and off the airport will need months of careful discussion before a
' concrete set of steps for redevelopment of land uses on the airport
can be scheduled and their costs estimated. These discussions
should include the school district which owns the land and
stadium south of the Boeing plant on the east side of the Cedar
River.
' Until Boeing has developed a plan for achieving additional
aircraft parking space on the east side of the Cedar River, a land
use redevelopment schedule cannot be practically created for the
City owned airport land. Existing light aircraft areas in the
airport's southeast corner, for example, should not be displaced
until space is made available on Boeing leased Apron "C" on the
west side of the facility, and Boeing is not interested in reducing
their production flexibility by moving from the west side until
they have found room east of the river. Land use redevelopment
' on the airport is an interconnected chain with the key link outside
of airport property.
The lack of a detailed timetable for land use relocation will leave
the implementation of the concept developed in the Phase I report
up in the air until Boeing resolves their aircraft parking needs.
' 68
' Therefore, it seems in the City's best interest, and in the interest
of other airport tenants, to assist Boeing's planning efforts in the
' area east of Cedar River wherever the City can.
The second major uncertainty in this financial plan is future
' revenue. The future income stream for the airport cannot now be
accurately forecast. Initial comparisons with other similar airports
including Paine Field and Boeing Field indicate that lease rates at
' Renton may be undervalued by two to three times the fair market
value. Because no assumptions about projected revenues should
be made on cursory comparisons, the City of Renton has ordered
' an appraisal of current land values on the airport. This is not to
suggest that existing land rents will increase to any particular
level. Lease policy will remain the prerogative of the city. Past
' leasing policy on the facility has generated sufficient revenue to
finance past capital improvements. However, the revenue potential
of the airport properties needs to be established in order to ration-
ally plan for the future of the facility. Although revenue projec-
tions will not be a part of this report, the value data upon which
revenue estimates can be made should be available to the city in
' early 1988.
' Other Policy Considerations
The future development of the airport may require additional
policies to be established by the City along with the leasing policy
mentioned above in order to guarantee orderly growth. The fol-
lowing list is a set of airport land use assumptions used in the
' creation of this Master Plan Update. Each assumption represents a
commonly held perspective on airport use but none has formally
been considered as a City policy. While each item may seem ob-
vious as a simple extension of historical patterns of use, the finan-
cial plan for the future of the facility is based in part on these as-
sumptions.
• Balanced Mix of Aviation - Future proportions of based
' general aviation should not be allowed to vary
significantly from current fleet mix. This means that
Renton Municipal Airport will continue to primarily serve
light aircraft and Boeing's manufacturing need for
' flightline space. Also, the basing capacity for light GA
should be maintained at about 260 aircraft. The number of
69
' based business aircraft should be kept to less than 20% of
the total of non-Boeing GA aircraft on the field. Leasing
' policy and negotiations may be a tool for implementation.
• The eastern boundary of the airport is the Cedar River
Currently, Boeing has aircraft parking for their operations
on the east side of the Cedar River on land that they own.
The City's airport ownership should not extend across the
river.
• Maximize the use of space on the airport - Wherever
' possible land uses should be condensed. This step will
benefit the revenue flow for the airport as well as help
' accommodate the increased demand expected in the future.
Examples of condensed use might be common auto
parking areas shared by more than one tenant, or using
' racks for the storage of seaplane floats.
• Airport leases that need runway access should have
' Priority- Airport flightline is a limited resource and
should not be given to uses which could operate
elsewhere. Included in this policy would be consideration
' of seaplane access. Renton is the only publically owned
seaplane facility in the area and, therefore, seaplane access
deserves a priority along the lakeshore.
i
Cost Analysis
This report consists of a twenty year cost analysis of recom-
mended projects that would need consideration regardless of the
land use redevelopment scheme eventually followed. Most of
these projects relate directly to the improvement of the aviation
facility itself and do not address the potential relocation of Boeing
or other commercial leases on the airport.
Accordingly, the probability of Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) funding support in the form of grants is factored into the
cost breakdown for these airport projects because aviation related
improvements are generally eligible under FAA criteria. FAA air-
port development grants come from the Aviation Trust Fund sup-
ported largely by commercial airline ticket taxes. These funds are
allocated periodically by Congress in the form of Airport Im-
1 70
provement Programs (AIP). As of this writing the next AIP bill is
pending passage, but history suggests that the probability of a
continued funding program is quite good. Most eligible aviation
related improvements on airports have qualified for a 90% federal
share in AIP grants as funding becomes available depending on
the priority of the project with the FAA. Therefore, a more ac-
curate way of illustrating the fiscal impact of airport capital im-
provement projects on the city is a tabulation of the 10% local
share for a given funding period.
Eligible items under AIP are land acquisition, runways, taxiways,
other aircraft operating areas, roadways and non-revenue produc-
ing terminal areas. Excluded are facilities such as hangar build-
ings, commercial offices and other revenue producing items. No
funding by either the State of Washington or private sources has
been assumed.
' The following Tables 13,14, and 15 list those improvements dis-
cussed in the May 1987 Phase I Airport Master Plan Update
report in the section titled "Aeronautical Facility Needs." The
locations of individual projects are shown on Figure 10. Pavement
rehabilitation costs and requirements have been identified and
summarized with the aid of a report titled " Airfield Pavement
Management Plan, Renton Municipal Airport" (Revised Novem-
ber 2, 1987) by ARE, Inc. Costs for the reconstruction of East
Airport Perimeter Road and the new flood control dike were
gathered from an AIP Funding Request by the Renton Public
Works Department.
While the items listed in the table comprise the most current sum-
mary of recommended or programmed projects, the history of
capital improvements at Renton Municipal Airport shows that
utility and road improvement projects have periodically been part
of annual budgets at a greater average annual cost than is sug-
gested in the following projections. However, the Public Works
Department has provided for this plan a listing of all of their
known future projects.
The estimates of costs shown were developed for general planning
purposes only, based on recent bids for similar items. Prior to
any commitment of airport resources, detailed engineering cost es-
timates should be prepared.
71
i
MAJOR
PROJECT
1
I �
LOCATION
t IQ I .
PLAN
I D �IQ ti LEGEND
I �
a p
PHASE NO.
I 3 — DEVELOPMENT
ITEM No.
0
(REFER TO TABLE Nos.
1, 2, & 3 FOR IDENTI—
FICATION OF PLANNED
IMPROVEMENTS.)
I1
II—lb GRAPHIC SCALE
' '
III-1b I o zoo 400 soo aoo i000
1
1-7 1 a I o
1-3
I
II-2b ' \
1
i oIo - N
( I \ I-5
�I-7
I 11
i o
1
odd, RENTON
---���� MUNICIPAL
�-- AIRPORT
MASTER PLAN
1
111--
3
III-2 REID, MIDDLETON do ASSOCIATES, INC.
FIGURE NO. 10
72
' The estimates are arranged into three construction phases, 1987-
1991, 1992-1996, and 1997-2006, with federal and local shares
identified for each item. An additional 25 percent has been in-
cluded for indirect costs such as design fees, obtaining necessary
permits, grant application fees, and other incidental factors. Addi-
tionally, 10 percent has been added to further account for un-
foreseen contingencies. All of the estimates are in 1987 dollars,
and as time goes by inflationary adjustments must be included to
keep the estimates current.
i
73
Table 13
Phase 1 (1987-91)
No. Description Local Federal Total
Cost Cost Cost
1. Pavement rehabilitation including storm 100,200 722,400 822,600
drain,joint & crack sealing, taxiway
reconstruction, partial runway overlay,
and runway markings.
2. Access control: 6' chainlink fence with 12,100 108,900 121,000
card actuated gates.
New asphalt concrete taxiway for general 3,300 29,700 33,000
aviation aircraft west of compass rose.
4. Trimming of trees to eliminate obstruc- 600 5,400 6,000
tions at south approach.
' S. Reconstruction of East Airport Perimeter 30,800 277,200 308,000
Road and building new flood control dike.
6. Reconstruction of seaplane beaching ramps 23,800 214,200 238,000
using existing piling, including new timber
deck with 25% replacement of caps,beams
and stringers. (for 100% replacement down
to existing piles add $112,000)
7. Navigational Aids: replacement of existing_ 2.900 26.100 29,000
' VASI's and rotating beacon.
Subtotal 173,700 1,383,900 1,557,600
Engineering, permits, and misc. fees @25% 43,300 346,100 389,400
Subtotal 217,000 1,730,000 1,947,000
Contingency @ 10% 22,000 173,000 195,000
' TOTAL $239,000 $1,903,000 $2,142,000
Note: All costs in 1987 dollars.
74
' Detailed Project Descriptions - Phase I
1. Pavement Rehabilitation -The Airfield Pavement Management
Plan by ARE, Inc. describes several speck components to their
first project including crack sealing on the main runway, placing
fabric over cracks wider than 1/4", a partial asphalt overlay on the
runway between taxiways D and K, asphalt overlays on taxiways
1 B and D, and major reconstructions of taxiways F, K, and M.
2. Access Control - In order to enhance security of the airfield
' and to restrict unauthorized vehicle access, a perimeter chain-link
fence with a limited number of card actuated access gates is
planned.
3. GA Taxiway - A short section of taxiway for light GA aircraft
is planned to connect the hangar area on the east side of the field
' with the parallel taxiway to the south which currently ends at the
Boeing compass rose. Without this taxiway extension, light GA
aircraft will continue to have to cross the middle of the active run-
way to reach a runway end for takeoff thereby creating an un-
necessary traffic conflict.
4. Obstruction Removal - Periodically the trees located near the
high school to the south of the airport must be topped.
5. East Perimeter Road and Dike - This road needs to be
reconstructed to help act as a dike against the flooding along the
east side of the airport along the Cedar River. This project will
help reduce the threat of inundation of the hangars and tie-downs
in that area. Fill material will be dredged from the adjacent river.
6. Seaplane Beaching Ramps - Along Lake Washington at the
north end of the airport, the ramp decking and some of the sup-
porting structure for the seaplane beaching ramps has become rot-
ten. Some reconstruction will be needed if this area is to continue
being used by seaplanes.
' 7. Navigational Aids - The existing VASI's and rotating beacon
are aged and in need of replacment.
75
' Table 14
Phase II (1992-96)
No. Description Local Federal Total
' Cost Cost Cost
' la. Pavement rehabilitation including 2" asphalt 104,400 623,800 728,200
concrete overlay on AC runway, grooving,
PCC joint resealing, taxiway reconstruction
and crack sealing, and runway marking.
' (Assumes 200' wide runway)
lb. Same as above except that runway width is 99,100 576,400 675,500
restriped for 150' width with no removal of
excess pavement - AC overlay and grooving
on 150' of runway with sealcoat on excess
pavement width.
2a. Replace existing lighting system with new 9,100 81,900 91,000
high intensity system, assuming 200' runway
width.
2b. Same as above except that runway width is 14,600 131,400 146,000
reduced to 150' with no removal of excess
pavement.
3. Trimming of trees. 600 5,400 6,000
Subtotal 114,300 713,200 827,500
Engineering, permits & misc. fees @ 25% 28,600 178,300 206,900
1 Subtotal 142,900 891,500 1,034,400
Contingency @ 10% 14,100 89,500 103,600
TOTAL $157,000 $981,000 $1,138,000
Note:
1. All costs in 1987 dollars.
2. Figures in italics not included in totals.
1 76
Detailed Project Descriptions - Phase II
Ia. Pavement Rehabilitation - This project involves a 2" asphalt
overlay on the main runway over the full 200 foot width. Crack
' sealing of the concrete portions of the runway, runway grooving
and reconstruction of taxiway E is figured.
lb. Pavement Rehabilitation - This project is the same as the
above except for the runway being narrowed to 150 feet. Because
this narrowing would create 25 foot wide shoulders, some crack
' sealing of these non-traffic pavements along with a chip seal is
figured in the total. Savings in excess of $60,000 might be
acheived if these lower priority shoulder pavements could be
' simply crack sealed.
2a. New Runway Lighting - High intensity lighting is generally
recommended with a precision instrument approach runway. The
new Microwave Landing System is expected to be installed by the
FAA sometime in this phase and the lighting system should be
considered concurrently with the pavement rehabilitation. This
lighting system would be installed at the full 200 foot runway
w' th
' 2b. New Runway Lighting - This project is the same lighting as
above except for being installed on arunway of 150 feet in
' wi th.Some pavement cutting will be required to bring the wiring
in to the narrower light positions.
3. Obstruction Removal - Periodically the trees located near the
high school to the south of the airport must be topped.
77
' Table 15
Phase 111 (1997- 2006)
No. Description Local Federal Total
' Cost Cost Cost
Ia. Pavement rehabilitation including 3"AC 176,400 644,500 820,900
overlay on AC runway, runway grooving,
crack sealing, taxiway overlays and runway
markings. (Assumes retaining a 200' wide
' runway)
lb. Same as above but with 150' runway width 169,600 581,000 750,600
' (AC overlay and grooving on 150' of runway
with sealcoat on excess pavement width)
2. Tree trimming. 1,200 10,800 12,000
Subtotal 170,800 591,800 762,600
' Engineering, permits & misc. fees @ 25% 42,700 148,000 190,700
' Subtotal 213,500 739,800 953,300
Contingency @ 10% 21,500 74,200 95,700
TOTAL $235,000 $814,000 $1,049,000
Note:
' 1. All costs in 1987 dollars.
2. Figures in italics not included in totals.
' 78
Detailed Project Descriptions - Phase III
la. Pavement Rehabilitation - This project is follow-on 3" as-
phalt overlay to the runway as part of the pavement management
program recommended by ARE, Inc. The overlay would be over
thelfu 1200 foot width. Asphalt overlays are planned for taxiways
L and N. The runway would be regrooved in this project.
' lb. Pavement Rehabilitation - This project would be the same
as above but with a runway width of 150 feet.
2. Obstruction Removal - Periodically the trees located near the
high school to the south of the airport must be topped.
79
VII. SUMMARY
enton Municipal Airport is a crowded, well diversified, and
' Rvital aeronautical facility which is important for the region
as well as the local community. This study is intended to
give a frame of reference on some of the changes which will most
probably be occurring in the aviation industry, the regional
market, and on the airport itself. Four community service alterna-
tives were described in the report. Following this summary is a
matrix which clearly illustrates the differences between these al-
ternatives for both the City and the users. From the perspective
gained, the City can make an informed choice on the best possible
course of action for the future of the airport.
Some of the other key factors for the airport's future which were
covered in the report are listed below:
' • A Microwave Landing System (MLS) will be installed at
Renton and operating by 1990. Precision instrument
approaches will then be possible for those aircraft so
' equipped which, because of equipment cost, will most
likely be those in the business aviation fleet.
' • Regional air traffic and airport congestion will increase
dramatically towards the end of the century creating
pressure for reliever facilities to Boeing Field whose
' instrument approaches constrain Sea-Tac's capacity.
• The business aviation fleet, represented by aircraft from
' large multi-engine piston powered types through corporate
jets, will be the fastest growing sector of the general
aviation (GA) market.
• Smaller GA aircraft, production of which has nearly
ceased in this country, will grow in number in the region
only as a function of population growth.
' • Recent demand for Boeing 737 and 757 type aircraft has
increased Boeing's requirement for aircraft parking ramp
space at Renton.
80
' In the face of the above increasing GA demands, Renton
Municipal Airport will likely lose 25 to 30% of its
capacity to base aircraft as Boeing has need to reclaim
Apron "C" on the west side of the airfield as part of their
7J7 project and other production demands.
• Aircraft generated noise is not expected to be a problem
within the planning period.
• The facility requirements are relatively straightforward
aeronautical items with the exception of two particularly
important safety and liability issues, vehicle access
restrictions and bird control.
Policy Considerations
The future development of the airport may require additional
policies to be established by the City along with a restructured
leasing policy mentioned earlier in this report in order to guaran-
tee orderly growth. The following list is a set of airport land use
assumptions used in the creation of this Master Plan Update. Each
assumption represents a commonly held perspective on airport use
and is hereby accepted as City policy. While each item may seem
obvious as a simple extension of historical patterns of use, the
' plan for the future of the facility is based in part on these assump-
tions.
' Balanced Mix of Aviation - Future proportions of based
general aviation should not be allowed to vary
significantly from current fleet mix. This means that
Renton Municipal Airport will continue to primarily serve
light aircraft and Boeing's manufacturing need for
flightline space. Also, the basing capacity for light GA
should be maintained at about 260 aircraft. The number of
based business aircraft should be kept to less than 20% of
the total of non-Boeing GA aircraft on the field. Leasing
policy and negotiations may be a tool for implementation.
• The eastern boundary of the airport is the Cedar River
Currently Boeing has aircraft parking for their operations
on the east side of the Cedar River on land that they own.
81
1 The City's airport ownership should not extend across the
river.
• Maximize the use of space on the airport - Wherever
possible land uses should be condensed. This step will
benefit the revenue flow for the airport as well as help
accommodate the increased demand expected in the future.
Examples of condensed use might be common auto
parking areas shared by more than one tenant, or using
' racks for the storage of seaplane floats.
• Airport leases that need runway access should have
' Priority - Airport flightline is a limited resource and
should not be given to uses which could operate
elsewhere. Included in this policy would be consideration
' of seaplane access. Renton is the only publicly owned
seaplane facility in the area and, therefore, seaplane access
1 deserves a priority along the lakeshore.
Balanced Responses
The selected community service alternative for the Master Plan
Update is the "Balanced Response" (Figure 9, page 67). This op-
tion seeks to maintain the mix of aviation activity at Renton
Municipal Airport. Therefore, an objective of this plan is to avoid
the loss of basing capacity for light general aviation aircraft
should Boeing reclaim Apron "C." Land use on the airport should
start to consider separation of aircraft activity based on size.
Rather than continue the mix of large and small aircraft around
the airport, this plan begins to direct Boeing's transport aircraft
activities to the east side of the runway while reserving the west
side for other forms of general aviation. Separation of large
transports from light aircraft is a common sense safety improve-
ment and would also help control vehicle access better near the
runway.
' The Balanced Response plan will require Boeing's involvement
and cooperation in the relocation of their activities, and because
Boeing's space needs are currently growing, additional land for
their flightline requirements will have to be developed east of the
Cedar River if this plan is going to work. The City will need ac-
tive involvement as well to implement the concept contained in
1 this report, especially because a reorganization of airport land re-
quires off-airport planning.
82
Accordingly, this plan recommends that the City create a task
force for the express purpose of implementation and coordination
of the recommended shift in airport land use.
83
' APPENDIX 1 - Regulations Pertaining to Airport
Rates and Charges
' Airport rental rates and charges are typically based on prevailing
rates at other comparable aeronautical facilities. In other words,
the rates are controlled by the aviation market, not necessarily the
highest and best use of the property for non-aviation purposes.
Airports are generally considered special microeconomic zones
which are part of a larger but constrained economic aviation
market. Thus, the value basis for airport lands are not expected to
reflect the worth of that property outside the airport boundary. In-
creasing industrial land values off-airport, for example, would not
necessarily be indicative of aviation property values since the in-
dustrial uses are often not permitted on-airport, and of course,
1 aviation uses do not occur away from the airport.
With the proper interpretation of "market", the principal of fair
market value has some basis in local, state and federal law. The
pertinent sections are excerpted below:
• King County Code - " `Fair market value' is defined as
an amount in the competitive market that a well-informed
and willing lessor, who desires but is not required to lease,
would accept, and which a well-informed and willing
lessee, who desires but is not required to lease, would pay
for the temporary use of the premises, after due
consideration of all the elements reasonably affecting
value." (Section 4.56.010)
• Revised Code of Washington - A County or Municipality
is empowered "To determine the charges or rental for the
use of any [airport] properties under its control and the
charges for any services or accommodations, and the terms
and conditions under which such properties may be used:
Provided, that in all cases the public is not deprived of its
rightful, equal and uniform use of such property. Charges
shall be reasonable and uniform for the same class of
service and established with due regard to the property and
improvements used and the expense of operation to the
municipality. (RCW 14.08.120.6) Also: "(i) Consideration
shall be given to rental being paid to other lessors by
lessees of similar property for similar purposes over
similar periods of time; (ii) Consideration shall be given to
what would be considered a fair rate of return on the
market value of the property leased less reasonable
deductions for any restrictions on use, special operating
' requirements or provisions for concurrent use by the
lessor, another person or the general public." (RCW
82.29A.020.2b)
• Washington State Constitution - "No county, city, town
or other municipal corporation shall hereafter give any
money, or property, or loan its money, or credit to or in
aid of any individual, association, company or corporation,
except for the necessary support of the poor and infirm, or
' become directly or indirectly the owner of any stock in or
bonds of any association, company or corporation.
(Constitution of Washington, Art.8, Sect. 7)
• Code of Federal Regulations - "the airport operator or
owner will maintain a fee and rental structure for the
facilities and services being provided the airport users
which will make the airport as self-sustaining as possible
under the circumstances existing at that particular airport,
taking into account such factors as the volume of traffic
and economy of collection... (Airport and Airway
' Improvement Act of 1982, Sect. 511.a.9)
APPENDIX 2 - Development Alternatives
t Decision Matrix
i
1
i
1
1
1
i
1
1
:.:..........:::.;:.;:.;::.;;;:.;;;;;;:.; :.
.............................................................
What ::::::::::::::::::::: ::;:::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::.::.:::.::.::.: :::::::.::::.::.::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::..............................
involved for the Not much. This is the "business as usual" alternative.
The City might add a couple of employees to provide
City? security, bird control, etc., but this is not really related
to community service alternatives. Leases would be
' revalued before 1990.
The range of involvement depends on how aggressive
the City wants to be in attracting business aviation
' and how much lessee response is made to that market.
Airport management would become more active and
probably full time with needs in marketing, and
perhaps,redevelopment.
.......................................................
Immediate action is needed by the City to begin
arranging the move of Boeing to the southeast airport
' corner and the relocation of existing tenants to the
Apron "C" area on the west side. Added staff time
would be required and perhaps a special project team
would have to be assembled.
.............................................................................................................................
This would require substantial City staff time over the
next few years to negotiate the property reallocations
' with Boeing and other tenants. Probably, a
redevelopment team would need to be created with
design, financial, marketing, and legal skills. The
' increased level of activity after redevelopment would
probably call for a full time airport manager.
APDX2 - 1
1 Pros and Cons :::::::::::::::::.::.::.::::.::::::
Pro - Minimum effort Con - Based aircraft
capacity is sure to be
needed by the City.
' Users are generally lost. FBO's will be
satisfied with current strained as a result. Does
operation. not not maximize
revenue to City. Forces
Boeing to occupy more
airport space. May not
' enhance overall
economic goals of
Renton. Vehicular access
to the runway remains a
problem.
Pro-Makes better system Con-Requires mo
' wide use of airport for effort. Places pressure
region. Should provide on recreational users of
more revenue. Gives airport which will
' priority to identified generate complaints as
elements (Boeing, aircraft are displaced in
business aviation, favor of priority
' seaplanes) which need to elements.
use RNT. Increases
' employment
opportunities at the
airport.
Pro- This is the least Con- Tenants will need
' disruptive option to the relocation. More
current level of GA immediate City
activity. Capacity to involvement is needed to
' base aircraft is not lost. coordinate several
Both Boeing and FBO's parties. Capacity to base
get more efficient land aircraft is not increased.
' use. Airport vehicle Relocation will have a
access security is price tag.
improved significantly.
APDX2 - 2
...........
:.....:......:..........:.:....:...:.::...:.......:.....::...
Pro-Makes best system Con-Requires most
wide use of Renton's effort. Requires
sophisticated facilities. maximum cooperation
Accommodates growth by the Boeing Company.
' in all aviation activity Requires the greatest
sectors. Should provide capital investment.
most revenue to airport.
Gives priority to selected
aviation uses and allows
recreational use.
Increases employment
opportunities at airport
and in community.
' Provides more efficient
land use for Boeing and
other GA. Gives Boeing
' better security and safety
for parked aircraft.
APDX2 - 3
Whatlies ahead :: :: :: :::: ::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::.::.:::::.::::::::::.:::::.:.................
for the City if Not much change will be experienced by the City
they pursue until 1990, then a very gradual increase in business
aircraft plus loss of Apron" C" will displace many
this path of
recreational type users and there will be complaints by
action? users and FBO's. Also, revenue will probably fall as
fewer aircraft will most likely be using the airport and
FBO revenues probably decrease. Higher land rental
rates could effect revenue loss from activity.
Similar to Reactive in that there will be complaints
' from displaced recreational users. Increased business
activity will require more City involvment to
encourage and manage. Revenues could possibly
' increase due to operation by generally more active
business aircraft. More revenue could be generated
through higher land rental rates to offset some
increased airport personnel costs.
Tenants could resist relocation. FBO's could have
concerns about fairness of apportionment of new lease
areas (who gets what). The financing for the move
may incur some debt for the airport (e.g. revenue
bonds),Increased management for the relocation will
be needed. Airport revenues may benefit as a result of
a more efficient layout allowing more FBO income.
APDX2 - 4
' More involvement by City personnel, with some
increased costs but substantially greater revenues from
greater activity and higher land rental rates.Very
significant reloc=ation costs. Possibly more noise
complaints to deal with because of increased activity.
APDX2 - 5
1
. .......................................................................
............:..::::::::.::::.;::.;:;.:
Whathappens : :::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::.....::.::::.:::.::.::.:::::::::....................
to current Not much until about 1990 when land rental rates
iusers? probably increase. Then in about 1992 Boeing will
probably recapture Apron" C' for 7P parking and
about 80 users will be displaced from the airport.
Higher tie down rates will possibly have displaced a
few by then also. See based aircraft projections.
Same as Reactive but possibly a few more recreational
users will have been replaced in the 1990-92
timeframe. As business use increases gradually,
recreational use shall decrease gradually. See based
' aircraft projections. Current users will be most
impacted by this scenario.
No users will be displaced as a result of Apron "C"
recapture by Boeing. Users may experience rate
increase around 1990. More efficient layout should be
benefit to users. This option minimizes impact on
current users.
Things stay in s about the same until Boeing builds
y
additional apron on their property. Then additional
' space will be available for more aircraft. Current users
will not be affected except for gradually inflating costs.
APDX2 - 6