1

Enabling Decision Making:Alternatives Development and Evaluation—Discussion Materials

LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA

2

Alternatives Analysis

A reasoned and rational process using various quantitative and qualitative criteria to assess the relative merits and deficiencies of a set of options (alternatives) for determining an option, process or approach that most viably addresses an identified need or goal.

3

Alternatives Analysis

GIVEN THIS DEFINITION RECOGNIZE THAT:

• The definition did not say to arrive at the “best” option, rather it indicates the most viable. The best alternative is often not be achievable for various reasons.

• You will almost always be operating in an environment of limited time, limited budget, and often, incomplete, or non-existent data.

4

Define the guidingissues and needs

• Review the basis for the proposed actions and identify potential issues or deficiencies in that basis.– An example—Use of Annual Service Volume as a sole basis for

airfield capacity Improvements.

• Bring any concerns into the open early in the process.

• What are the Sponsor’s goals and objectives of the proposed action.

• Identify the pitfalls/landmines, that will have to be dealt with in the process.

• Consider the other requirements the analysis will serve– To provide a basis for benefit-cost assessments– To provide a basis for NEPA analysis

5

Understand the Project Setting

• Understand the characteristics of the study area– Walk the site and closely inspect all facets of the area– Develop a full photographic inventory of characteristics, possible

attributes and constraints– Develop background from various sources familiar with the

setting conditions, attributes and constraints

• Identify, obtain and process available data

• Innovate to address data deficiencies

6

Determine the Boundaries

• Every alternatives analysis has its limits and boundaries;

• These may be physical boundaries, such as:– Topography, building footprint, water body, site lease, etc.;

• They may be political or jurisdictional in nature;

• Boundaries can most certainly be environmental;

• Finally, they can be regulatory and certainly financial;

• These factors will establish a study area and also act to place boundaries on the range of options.

7

Alternative Sites in the Three County Area

8

Diagonal Airport Property Line

Historic Triple Hangars

DOD/RaytheonBlast Safety

Mitigation Zones

No less than 700’ fromRunway 11L/29R

70% of arrivals areto the Runway 11

end triggering CAT-IRequirements and a

RPZ that extends2,700’ beyond the

of the runway.

Remain clearof Part 77 surfaces

Residential,Commercial and Places of publicAssembly not

Allowed in RPZ

Ordinance Bunkers

Rail line & 5-laneU.S. Highway

Riparian & Wetland Areas

Factors Guiding Closely-Spaced Options

9

Define and InvolveKey Stakeholders

• Use care if considering involvement of political leadership or specific interest groups in an alternatives ranking process

• Clearly define stakeholder roles and responsibilities

• Planning agencies, airlines, and others can be key to fully understanding and evaluating alternatives

Internal planning standards Operational requirementsDimensional considerations Pending investments/initiatives

• Involvement of key sponsor staff can provide valuable background information, analysis and guidance in defining elements of alternatives

10

Selection of Evaluation Criteria

• Evaluations will typically employ quantitative & qualitative measures and need to be keyed to the goals of the potential development action– Quantitative criteria can include:

• Passenger throughput in a security checkpoint• Runway occupancy times and airfield capacity• Conformity with design standards

– Qualitative measures can include:• Level of service indices• Public acceptance or political viability considerations• Phasing and constructability factors

11

Common Evaluation Criteria

• Evaluation criteria should be tailored to the specific action or facility under consideration

• Do not downplay political or stakeholder acceptability• Examples of common review criteria include

– Operational efficiency and safety considerations– Phasing & constructability– Impact to existing operations or facilities– Development costs– Financial feasibility– Environmental factors– Off-airport impacts– Infrastructure availability, needs and viability– Conformity with regulatory requirements and standards

• Each of the above can be further refined or subdivided

12

Alternatives Routinely ImpactOther Airport Elements

• Airport facilities are both geographically and functionally linked

• Development alternatives are often affected by constrained areas in which to address need or demand

• A change in the configuration or operation of one facility often triggers impacts to, and changes in, other facilities that must be evaluated

• A change in standards can also have a major impact on facility options. Stay current with FAA standard changes and initiatives.

13

Examples of Induced Impacts

Terminal option triggers multiple facility impacts

Regulatory compliance triggers airfield facility redesign

14

Terminal Options Trigger Impacts

15

Tracking and Defining Induced Impacts

• Decision tree methodologies employ statistical measures of the impact of alternative actions– A decision tree is a diagram based tool for defining the

interrelationships, probabilities and potential relative benefits between actions or in this case options

• Decision trees can be beneficial when trying to plan and organize a sequence of decisions

• Aids in addressing how actions or potential external events/impacts at an earlier stage influence down-line options and decisions

• Also can be valuable in considering the probability and implications of significant changes in demand and/or role

16

Decision Tree Example

17

Consider the Full Range of Alternatives

• Determine need to consider NEPA requirements

• Address no action implications to provide a comparative baseline

• Consider lesser-build options and the value & implications of changing technology– capacity benefit from NextGen – implications of enhanced self service actions on terminals

• A viable option in some cases may involve an action not typically considered

• There are times when an option deemed “crazy” requires consideration and may be carried forward

18

Consideration of NEPA in Alternatives

• Tailor the consideration of environmental factors to the size, setting and operating environment of the project

• Prepare an inventory (overview) of environmental conditions in project area

• Identify potential environmental impacts of alternatives

• Address the extent of required permitting, if any

• If existing documentation does not identify project justification, consider incorporation of justification into evaluation

• Adherence to 5050.4b is not mandatory, but understanding its requirements is beneficial

19

Alternatives in a Changing Industry

• Major airports and smaller markets have been severely impacted by industry changes– In the 1990’s Nashville, San Jose, Raleigh Durham, Kansas City,

Columbus, Baltimore all saw hub operations cease. – Since 2000 St. Louis, Dallas, Cincinnati, Portland, Pittsburgh &

Las Vegas have seen hub closures.– Airline bankruptcies acquisitions and cessation of service

including Vanguard, Skybus, Braniff, Midway, TWA, Independence Air, Air South, ATA, Airborne, Flying Tiger, Pan Am and Kiwi

• Scenario utilization is increasingly valuable in demand projections and development alternatives.

• Consider the implications of the range of potential industry impacts on the options developed

20

Presenting Alternatives Evaluations

• Some studies will involve an array of linked alternatives

• Present each individually or to combine individual facility alternatives into overall concept configurations

• There are positive and negative features for each approach

• Extent of interrelationships, induced impacts to key facilities and analytical level of detail can help determine approach

• Results can be presented either through a ranking matrix or through a narrative analysis of attributes and constraints or with both

21

Alternatives Ranking Matrices

• A matrix ranking system is used to numerically or visually present relative rankings among alternatives

• A matrix can be complex or relatively simple

• Determine the need for criteria weighting

• The more complex the matrix the greater potential to get focused on the minutiae of the criteria and weighting

• Employ multiple team members in the ranking process

• Allow stakeholders, sponsors, public and elected officials review and comment on rankings

• A matrix presents in a perceived objective manner a series of basically subjective assessments

22

Sample Numerical Ranking

23

Sample Numerical Ranking(cont’d)

24

Runway Options –Comparative Characteristics

Option 1 -Upgrading

Existing

Option 2 -800' Offset

Option 3 -1,064' Offset

Option 4 -1,156' Offset

Option 5 -1,207' Offset

Option 6 -Widely Spaced

Construction/Phasing concernsMeets ADG IV StandardsPreserves Ability to expand to ADG VExtent of Impact to Riparian AreasImpact to Waters of U.S.Impact to FloodplainsIncrease CapacitySection 4(f) ImpactsExpand Noise ContoursCreates Intersecting RunwaysAircraft Queuing Space IssuesRunway Occupancy TimesPart 77 Impact to On Airport FacilitiesImpact to Non-Aviation Public InfrastructureImpact to Off Airport PropertyDevelopment costsNAVAID Viability

Minimal impact when compared to other more impactive optionsDoes not meet criteria or presents a negative effect

Meets criteria, or is a significantly lower impact

Evaluation Criteria

25

Runway Safety Area Alternatives—Comparative

CharacteristicsOption 1 Option 2 Option 4 Option 5

Runway 01 Runway 19 Runway 01 Runway 19 Runway 01 Runway 19 Runway 01 Runway 19 Runway 01 Runway 19

# of EMAS Beds 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0Speed (kts) 70 70 52 52 70 70 70 70 70 N/A

TORA (ft.) 6,718 6,718 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000TODA (ft.) 6,718 6,718 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000ASDA (ft.) 6,718 6,718 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000LDA (ft.) 6,553 6,131 6,694 6,225 6,500 6,225 6,772 6,225 6,205 6,254

RSA linear ft. (beyond runway end) 446 446 295 295 446 446 446 446 446 1,000

RSA Only 0.0 2.5 0.0 2.6 1.2 2.5 0.0 3.1 3.0 3.4Additional Txy/TSA3 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0

Total Wetlands Impact 0.0 3.3 0.0 3.7 1.2 2.9 0.0 4.4 3.0 3.4

NO NO NO NO NO NO YES YES YES YES

RunwayTaxiwayRoadway

Development Cost

NOTES:1 - Only accounts for wetlands within the RSA and affected by the installation of an EMAS bed or directly off the existing ends of the runway.2 - New Pavement includes added pavement needed for runway or taxiway reconfigurations, does not include pavement for EMAS bed3 - This area encompasses the additional Taxiway and associated taxiway safety area extending from the existing hold pad at the north end of the airfield to the relocated Runway 19 pavement end under various options.

14,146 14,29513,786

8,1625,624

5,2986,500

5,047

4,981 9,7954,500

4009865,504

NO NO

New Pavement (sq. yds.)2

ROFA MOS

7,0007,0007,000

Option 3

Wetlands Impact (acres)1

Redneck Road Relocation NO YES

Declared Distances

11,798

EMAS

7,0007,0007,0007,000

Total New Pavement

Runway Length (ft.) 7,0006,7186,718

YES

3,6610 0 3,661 0