Loading...
RES2744 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