Arizona state aviation needs study (SANS) 2000 
|
|
The concept selected for assessing the Needs for the SANS 2000 is one based on the application of objective
performance measures for evaluating alternative system funding scenarios. The value of this methodology is that
the results from various levels of investment in the system can be clearly determined and identified relative to the
goals, objectives and performance measures utilized. A key assumption of the methodology is that the overall system
performance should take precedence over the individual airports. Figure 14, which follows, graphically shows the
relationship between the recent
investments which have been made to
the Arizona system of airports since
1995 and the effects on system- wide
facility performance. Since 1995 the
level of investment to the airport system
has resulted in an overall deterioration
in system performance. A continuation
of the existing funding level will result
in a continued decline in services and
could affect aviation safety across the
state. While significant improvements
have been made at several larger
airports across the state, the aviation
system as a whole and many of the
smaller facilities continue to have
significant needs.
In scenarios B and C total financial needs identified in the long- range are considerably lower than those over the first
ten years due to the difficulty of projecting the need and extent of future projects with as much detail as in the early
stages of the planning program. The SANS, therefore concentrates more on the short and intermediate planning
periods.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
" B" Existing " C" Increased
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
" B" Existing " C" Increased
Figure 12:
Total 10- Year Financial Need for
Two Performance Scenarios B& C
2000- 2010
Figure 13:
Total 20- Year Financial Need for
Two Performance Scenarios B& C
2000- 2020
Performance Scenarios Performance Scenarios
Investment Needs ($ Millions)
Investment Needs ($ Millions)
Figure 14:
Investment and Performance
Performance Scenarios - Year 2020
$ Billion Dollars
System Performance (%)
100
50
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
1999 Baseline ' A' Existing
Investment
' B' Existing
Performance
' C' Improved
Performance
Total System Cost System Performance
Aviation needs are estimated using a performance
based needs model originally developed for the
1990 State Aviation Needs Study. The methodology,
which is illustrated in Figure 1, evaluates the
performance of all airports in the state aviation system
and determines needs relative to the state aviation
system’s goals and objectives. Three aviation needs
scenarios were developed corresponding to the capital
investment levels required to maintain and to improve
system performance over the next twenty years.
The first Scenario ( A) was designed to explore a scenario
in which the existing funding level ( in current dollars)
would remain unchanged over the next twenty year
period. The goal was to examine the types of
improvements that could be done in circumstances in
which funding for maintenance and construction does
not keep up with increasing demand.
The second Scenario ( B) determines the financial
investment required to maintain the present performance
level of Arizona’s airport system into the future.
Investment is sufficient only to keep pace with projected
demand.
The third Scenario ( C) assesses the financial investment
needed to improve all State Aviation System facilities
sufficiently to meet the Federal Aviation Administration
and ADOT’s minimum planning and design guidelines
for airports. In this scenario, existing airports are
expanded to meet forecast demand, and new airports are
constructed to meet access or capacity deficiencies.
The Arizona Department of Transportation,
Aeronautics Division, through its State System
Planning Process and special studies, has developed an
extensive and highly effective statewide aviation system.
Consisting of nearly 85 public use facilities, the system
moves over 20 million passengers per year and provides
an estimated 28.1 billion dollars in direct, indirect, and
induced economic impact annually for the State in 1998.
The aviation system supports the tourist industry and
other business opportunities, enhances the quality of life
in the state through the delivery of health care and social
services to rural areas, and facilitates the provision of
emergency medevac flights throughout the state.
rom a systemwide perspective, the condition of the
existing system relative to the basic airport
infrastructure, runway capacity, and the level of service
provided to the citizens of the state is generally good.
Overall, most airports in the state have better than
average airside and landside facilities, adequate runway
capacity, and well maintained pavements. The system
also performs well in fulfilling its fundamental mission of
the movement of people and goods. When compared to
national standards, the system has very few gaps in the
provision of convenient access to both commercial
passenger airline service and general aviation services.
owever, continued growth in both commercial
service and general aviation activity will put a
strain on the system. Significant increases in delay will
occur at the state’s busiest airports and system- wide
performance will decline without continued investment
in the system. Increased delays for both air carrier and
general aviation airports would substantially reduce the
significant positive economic impact of aviation to the
state.
F
H
Figure 1: SANS Methodology Flow Chart
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
" B" Existing " C" Increased
For this summary, we have primarily concentrated on
only two of the investment scenarios -- maintaining
existing performance and increased performance of the
system. Because the existing investment scenario ( A)
results in a dramatic decrease in overall system
performance, it was determined that this would be an
undesirable course of action for the future. Figure 9
shows the estimated cost to the existing level of
performance of the aviation system. In this scenario, the
total cost for the next five years is $ 539 million and for
the next ten years is $ 1.04 billion. Nearly one- third of all
expenditures are required by commercial service
airports, with about sixty percent invested in other state
primary airports.
maintain
Figure 10 shows the estimated cost to bring all system
airports up to the minimum Federal Aviation
Administration and ADOT guidelines for airport
planning and design. For the next five years, costs are
estimated at $ 1.123 billion and for the next ten years,
estimated expenditures are $ 1.9 billion. Again, the
majority of expenditures would be used to upgrade
commercial service and other primary system airports.
Commercial
Service
$ 396 Million
Secondary
$ 26 Million
Millions of Constant 2000 Dollars
Other Primary
System
$ 605 Million
Millions of Constant 2000 Dollars
Other Primary
Sytem
$ 1.06 Billion
Secondary
$ 46 Million
Commercial
Service
$ 756 Million
From the year 2000 forward, aviation revenue is
forecast to average about $ 72 million per year based
on current revenue sources. If averaged over the next five
years, total revenue is forecast to total about $ 360
million. For the ten- year period, total aviation revenue
would reach about $ 760 million. Of that ten- year total,
$ 592 million is estimated from the federal government,
$ 129 million from the state, and nearly $ 39 million from
local governments and private sources. Private
contributions for private airports vary with each
scenario.
Financial needs are defined as the difference between
costs and revenues. Figures 11- 13 show the
estimated financial needs for each Scenario. For
example, over the next five years, to maintain the
existing level of performance, an additional $ 127 million
is needed to meet expenditures. Over the next ten years
that figure rises to more than $ 276 million, and about
$ 604 million in additional funding is needed over the
next two decades.
To bring all the system airports to minimum guidelines,
an additional $ 696 million, $ 1.12 billion, and $ 1.5
billion is needed over the five-, ten- and twenty- years,
respectively.
Figure 11:
Total 5- Year Financial Need for
Two Performance Scenarios B& C
2000- 2005
Figure 9:
Cost Estimates to Maintain Existing Level
of Aviation System Performance 2000- 2010
Ten- Year Total Cost = $ 1.04 Billion
Figure 10:
Cost Estimates to Bring All Airports
to Minimum Guidelines 2000- 2010
Ten- Year Total Cost = $ 1.9 Billion
Performance Scenarios
The performance- based needs scenarios are the focus of this study. Needs scenarios were developed to evaluate
the various alternative future aviation system development strategies. They were matched against performance
measures that reflected the desired level of service that the state aviation system should provide. As indicated, three
alternative development strategies were considered. By comparing each system development scenario to the
performance measures, State decision makers can determine the level of performance that each scenario will provide,
as well as the associated costs of that scenario.
To adequately assess the system, three general categories of performance measures were developed:
Facility, Service Level, and Economic Measures.
Facility Performance - Primary measures are physical condition and airfield capacity.
Service Level Performance - Measures of the adequacy of the system in fulfulling the fundamental mission of the
movement of people and goods.
Economic Performance - Primary measures are costs of delay, economic impacts, and return on investment.
In total, 17 performance measures were selected for the SANS 2000. Figure 7 shows the existing performance level of
12 of the measures, those addressing only facility and service level performance. Figure 8 provides a comparison of
the State aviation system performance since the previous SANS prepared in 1995. As can be seen, some areas of
performance have improved over the past five years including the resulting total economic impact of the system
which has increased from $ 4.1 billion to $ 6.3 billion annually. At the same time, while many of the larger, more active
airports in the system have kept up with demand, the system, as a whole, due to lack of available funding, has
experienced a decline in overall performance.
Figure 7:
Facility and Services Level
Performance for
the Existing System
Figure 8:
Performance Measure
Comparison of the
State Aviation System
1995 to 2000
The primary goal of the SANS 2000 was to determine
the existing status, condition and performance of
Arizona’s aviation system and to evaluate the
improvement needs of the system on a five-, ten- and
twenty- year basis. The study provides guidance for the
structured development of aviation facilities necessary to
meet the State’s needs through the year 2020. The SANS
2000 incorporates the requirements of the ADOT,
Aeronautics Division and the Federal Aviation
Administration ( FAA) into the analysis and planning
program.
Goals and objectives are the essential bridge between
technical evaluation of alternative plans and the needs of
the state, regions within the state, individual
communities, and special interest groups. The evaluation
process combines quantitative standards or relatively
precise criteria with qualitative judgements. Setting goals
and objectives in the planning process directs the
quantitative ranking judgements towards conformity
with overall statewide and community values.
Ultimately, the success of this study effort largely
depends on identifying the long- term policies of the state
and developing an overall strategy that will guide the
planning effort in the desired direction. In support of
overall state social, economic and environmental
policies, the following goals were identified as relating to
the future development of Arizona’s state air
transportation system.
Provide for the timely development of aviation
facilities adequate to meet the air transportation
needs and economic goals of the State of Arizona.
Maintain a system of public use airports and
heliports that assures a high degree of safety to the
users while at the same time providing better than
adequate levels of service, in terms of reliability and
efficiency.
Maximize the economic benefits and return on
investment from development of Arizona’s air
transportation system.
Develop an air transportation system that is
consistent with Arizona’s long range comprehensive
planning policies and plans, particularly with
respect to surface transportation and land use.
In order to get input from users of the system, groups
representing both aviation and non- aviation interests
were invited to participate in the SANS as a Planning
Advisory Committee ( PAC). The following is a listing of
organizations that took part:
Arizona State Legislature ( Representative)
56th Fighter Wing ( Luke Air Force Base)
Arizona State University
Arizona Air National Guard
Vision 21 Task Force
Embry- Riddle Aeronautics University
Maricopa Association of Governments ( MAC)
Office of the Governor
Federal Aviation Administration ( FAA)
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association ( AOPA)
Honeywell Computer
Kingman Airport
Arizona Flyways
Glendale Municipal Airport
American West Airlines
Tucson Airport Authority
Arizona Pilots Association
MD Helicopters
Pima Association of Governments ( PAG)
Arizona Airports Association
Yuma International Airport
Southwest Airlines
Navajo Nation
Phoenix Sky- Harbor Airport
Arizona DOT, Aeronautics Division
Arizona’s aviation facilities range from small rural
unpaved airstrips to large long- haul commercial
service airports. Three hundred and nine Arizona
airports are registered with the Federal Aviation
Administration ( FAA), of which 92 are open to the
public and included in the State Aviation System.
Fifty- nine facilities are recognized by the FAA as
nationally significant by inclusion in FAA’s National
Plan of Integrated Airport Systems ( NPIAS). These
airports are eligible for federal funding for airport
planning and capital improvements. Included in this
group are eight primary commercial service airports,
five non- primary commercial airports, 33 general
aviation airports and nine reliever airports. Figure 2
shows the State Aviation System facilities ( public use)
by type. Figures 3 and 4 identify the State’s Primary
and Secondary System Airports.
Figure 2:
Classification of Aviation Facilities
Total State System Airports: 85
Figure 3:
Arizona State Primary Airport System
Figure 4:
Arizona State Secondary Airport System
General
Aviation
Airports included
in the FAA’s
National Plan for
Integrated Airport
Systems
37
Other General
Aviation Airports
26
Primary Commercial
Service Airports
8
Non- Primary
Airports
Reliever 5
Airports
9
GREENLEE
MOHAVE COCONINO
YAVAPAI
NAVAJO APACHE
LA PAZ
MARICOPA
YUMA
PIMA
PINAL
GRAHAM
SANTA CRUZ COCHISE
Public Airport
Private Airport
Native American
Government
LEGEND
AIRPORT OWNERSHIP
NOTE: Secondary System Definition: All public use and Native American
facilities not in the State’s Primary System.
SOURCE: Arizona Division of Aeronautics
Tombstone
Bowie
San Manuel
Kearny
Superior
Seligman
Hualapai
Temple Bar
Pearce Ferry
Tuweep
Marble Canyon
Rolle Airfield
Grand Canyon
Bar Ten
Sun Valley
Flying J Ranch
Sells
Ak- Chin
Lukachukai
Shonto Rock Point
Rocky Ridge
Pinon
Pine Springs
Valle
Grande Valley
Forepaugh
Grand Canyon Caverns
Memorial Airfield
GILA
San Carlos Apache
Polacca
Pleasant Valley Airstrip
Chinle
GREENLEE
MOHAVE COCONINO
YAVAPAI
NAVAJO APACHE
LA PAZ
MARICOPA
YUMA
PIMA
PINAL GRAHAM
SANTA CRUZ
COCHISE
AIRPORT CLASSIFICATIONS
Primary Commercial Service Airports
Other Commercial Service Airports
Reliever Service Airports
Public Use Airports
LEGEND
SOURCE: Arizona Division of Aeronautics
Page
Tuba City
Grand Canyon
National Park
Kingman
Laughlin/ Bullhead
Flagstaff- Pulliam
H. A. Clark
Memorial
Sedona
Lake Havasu Ernest A. Love Field
Bagdad Cottonwood
Winslow- Lindberg
Holbrook
St. Johns
Town of
Springerville
Whiteriver
Show Low
Taylor
Avi Suquilla Wickenburg
Yuma International
Marana NW
Regional
Tucson International
Cochise County
Stafford
Douglas
Bisbee- Douglas
Eloy
Pinal Airpark
Coolidge
Falcon Field
Scottsdale
Deer Valley
Pleasant Valley
Williams Gateway
Chandler
Stellar
Estrella
Ajo
Gila Bend
Casa Grande
Ryan Field Benson
Window Rock
Glendale
Goodyear
Buckeye
Greenlee County
Sierra Vista
Nogales Bisbee
Cochise College
Phoenix- Sky Harbor
Colorado City
Kayenta
Payson
Grand Canyon West
Eagle Airpark
Valle
Cibecue
Chinle
Ganado
GILA
San Carlos Apache
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
State Total Pima Maricopa All Others
0
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
35,000,000
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
All Others Tucson Phoenix
General aviation includes every type of civil flying other than the certificated air carriers and, often the system is
characterized by a relatively low profile. Most of the general public enjoys the benefits of the system while
many remain unaware of its existence or misunderstand its use and importance. Nationally, general aviation accounts
for 96 percent of all hours flown and provides
access to more than 12,000 communities, while
commercial air carriers provide service to about
350 airports. In Arizona, while the commercial
air carriers provide service to only 20
communities within the state, general aviation
public use airports provide quick, efficient
access to nearly 100 communities statewide.
Over the past five years, total general aviation
based aircraft within Arizona has increased by
9.7 percent. As illustrated in Figure 6, this
sustained growth in general aviation usage is
expected to continue in the state with an
estimated increase of more than 40 percent in
total- based aircraft over the next 20 years. In
terms of aircraft operations, or landings and
takeoffs, activity is expected to increase by
nearly 64 percent over this same period which
will result in even greater demand and need for
improvement to airfield facilities.
Arizona’s aviation industry is a catalyst for economic expansion and continues to grow rapidly. The state has
witnessed tremendous growth over the past twenty years and the next twenty promise to be filled with equal
potential as the state epitomizes “ sun belt” attractiveness. The forecast for commercial passenger enplanements is
for commercial passenger enplanements is
shown on Figure 5. Between 2000 and 2020,
total passenger enplanements are expected to
increase by 79 percent, to nearly 36 million
annually. Phoenix and Tucson carry worldwide
recognition and will account for the majority of
this activity. In addition, however, the Grand
Canyon and Colorado River communities
remain top draws for tourism, old West towns
perpetuate Arizona’s appeal, and the state’s
diversified climate and scenery create an
unmatched variety of travel experiences.
Figure 5:
Forecast Commercial Passenger Enplanements
2000- 2020
Figure 6:
Forecast General Aviation Based Aircraft
2000- 2020
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000
H:\ CD\ ELEMENT ONE. doc Element One 1- 1
ELEMENT ONE: INTRODUCTION
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
REVIEW OF EXISTING PLANS
Element One is the first in a series of seven elements that have been established to facilitate the
development of the 2000 Arizona State Aviation Needs Survey ( SANS). The SANS has been
sub- divided into these elements to allow for the periodic review of the study findings by other
concerned parties. Suggested revisions from these periodic reviews will be incorporated into the
final SANS documentation.
The focus of Element One is to provide an overview of the study process as well as to define the
goals and objectives of the SANS. Element One is divided into the following sections:
• Project Description
• Issues
• Goals and Objectives
• Review of Existing Plans
Each of the above referenced sections will provide adequate details to better understand the
procedures, definitions, assumptions, constraints, and information sources utilized in the SANS
report.
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Arizona Department of Transportation ( ADOT), Aeronautics Division reassesses the needs
of the state’s aviation system every five years. The previous needs assessment was completed in
1995. Given the significant population increases that Arizona has witnessed in recent years, it is
imperative to develop an accurate assessment that can address this blossoming population and
the growth associated with it. As the population bulges, the strains placed on the airport system
become more evident. Needs increase not only for commercial service but also for improved
cargo services, as well as medical and recreational support services. Population projections
indicate this trend will continue throughout the state. Therefore, it is necessary for Arizona to
approach the SANS study with a more unique methodology. Many factors that will have to be
considered may not be critical in studies where population trends are stagnant.
Airports and aviation facilities in the state are considered to be part of a system with each reaping
benefits of the other facilities in some manner. The primary goal of the SANS 2000 is to
determine the existing status, condition and performance of this system and to evaluate the
improvement needs of the system on a five-, ten- and twenty- year basis. Facilities considered in
the SANS include all public and private ( those open to public) airports, and heliports, as well as
recreational and Native American airports. A listing of all public use facilities with their
associated cities and counties is presented in Table 1- 1.
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000
H:\ CD\ ELEMENT ONE. doc Element One 1- 2
TABLE 1- 1: Arizona State Public Use Airports
AIRPORT NAME ASSOCIATED CITY COUNTY
Ajo Municipal Ajo Pima
Apache Junction ( New) Apache Junction Pinal
Avi Suquilla ( NA) Parker La Paz
Bagdad Bagdad Yavapai
Benson Municipal Benson Cochise
Bisbee Douglas International Douglas/ Bisbee Cochise
Bisbee Municipal Bisbee Cochise
Bowie Bowie Cochise
Buckeye Municipal Buckeye Maricopa
Casa Grande Municipal Casa Grande Pinal
Cascabel Airpark ( Note 1) Tucson Pima
Chandler Municipal Chandler Maricopa
Chinle Municipal Chinle Apache
Cibecue Municipal ( New) Cibecue Navajo
Cochise College Douglas Cochise
Cochise County Willcox Cochise
Colorado City Municipal Colorado City Mohave
Coolidge Municipal Coolidge Pinal
Cottonwood Municipal Cottonwood Yavapai
Douglas Municipal Douglas Cochise
Eagle Airpark Aguila Mohave
Eloy Municipal Eloy Pinal
Ernest A. Love Field Prescott Yavapai
Estrella Sailport Maricopa Pinal
Falcon Field Mesa Maricopa
Flagstaff- Pulliam Flagstaff Coconino
Flying J Ranch Pima Graham
Forepaugh Wickenburg Maricopa
Ganado ( NA) Ganado Apache
Gila Bend Municipal Gila Bend Maricopa
Glendale Municipal Glendale Maricopa
Grand Canyon Bar- Ten Whitmore Mohave
Grand Canyon Caverns Peach Springs Coconino
Grand Canyon National Park Grand Canyon Coconino
Grand Canyon West Meadview Mohave
Grande Valley Maricopa Pinal
Greenlee County Clifton/ Morenci Greenlee
H. A. Clark Memorial Field Williams Coconino
Holbrook Municipal Holbrook Navajo
Kayenta ( NA) Kayenta Navajo
Kearny Kearny Pinal
Kingman Kingman Mohave
Lake Havasu City Municipal Lake Havasu City Mohave
Laughlin/ Bullhead International Bullhead City Mohave
Marana NW Regional Marana Pima
Marble Canyon Marble Canyon Coconino
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000
H:\ CD\ ELEMENT ONE. doc Element One 1- 3
TABLE 1- 1: Arizona State Public Use Airports ( continued)
AIRPORT NAME ASSOCIATED CITY COUNTY
Memorial Airfield ( NA) ( Note 1) Chandler Maricopa
Mogollon Airpark ( Note 1) Overgaard Navajo
Nogales International Nogales Santa Cruz
Page Municipal Page Coconino
Payson Payson Gila
Pearce Ferry Meadview Mohave
Phoenix Deer Valley Phoenix Maricopa
Phoenix Goodyear Goodyear Maricopa
Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l Phoenix Maricopa
Pinal Airpark Marana Pinal
Pleasant Valley Peoria Maricopa
Polacca ( NA) Polacca Navajo
Quartzsite ( New) Quartzsite La Paz
Rolle Airfield Somerton Yuma
Ryan Field Tucson Pima
Safford Regional Safford Graham
St. Johns Industrial Airpark St. Johns Apache
San Carlos Apache Globe Gila
San Manuel San Manuel Pinal
Scottsdale Scottsdale Maricopa
Sedona Sedona Yavapai
Seligman Seligman Yavapai
Sells ( NA) Sells Pima
Show Low Municipal Show Low Navajo
Sierra Vista Muni/ Libby AAF Ft. Huachuca Cochise
Stellar Airpark Chandler Maricopa
Sun Valley Bullhead City Mohave
Superior Municipal Superior Pinal
Taylor Taylor Navajo
Temple Bar Temple Bar Mohave
Tombstone Municipal Tombstone Cochise
Town of Springerville Municipal Springerville Apache
Tuba City ( NA) Tuba City Coconino
Tucson International Tucson Pima
Tuweep Tuweep Mohave
Valle Airport Grand Canyon Coconino
Whiteriver ( NA) Whiteriver Navajo
Wickenburg Municipal Wickenburg Maricopa
Williams Gateway Phoenix Maricopa
Window Rock ( NA) Window Rock Apache
Winslow- Lindberg Regional Winslow Navajo
Yuma International Yuma Yuma
LEGEND:
NA = Native America
Note 1: Airport changec to “ Private Use”
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000
H:\ CD\ ELEMENT ONE. doc Element One 1- 4
As we progress toward a more global economy, the impact of aviation cannot be understated.
Efficient and safe access to and from a multitude of geographic locations is essential for
maintaining pace in an ever- changing world. Growth in the 21st century will depend heavily on
technology and transportation capabilities. Aviation facility improvements will be critical to
Arizona continuing its remarkable growth rate. In all likelihood, new facilities will become
necessary. Planning now for these improvements and new facilities is the key to success. Time
is required to develop budget items and associated appropriations. Alternative funding
mechanisms have to be considered and evaluated for viability in the event of a budget shortfall.
Decisions of this nature mandate that the information provided for decision making be
comprehensive and accurate. Given the time restrictions associated with these decisions, the
information must also present a concise picture of the overall statement. Cost projections must
be realistic. Findings must be substantiated by adequate proof to prevent second- guessing. The
SANS 2000 has been developed with these vital aspects in mind. While it is necessary to
analyze a large volume of data, it is even more crucial to focus the conclusions in the areas with
the greatest needs.
1.2 ISSUES
The SANS 2000 is designed to assess the needs of the aviation community as a whole. It
presents an opportunity to consider numerous issues that impact aviation throughout the state. It
also creates a forum to consider input from airport managers, pilots, economic development
agencies, air service providers, and other potentially affected parties. Among the issues that will
be considered in the development of SANS 2000 are the following:
Differences in existing information in aviation data such as airport master plans, Regional
Aviation System Plans ( RASP), and the State Aviation System Plan ( SASP)
Needs study methodologies used in other states
Educational and training needs of current and future system users
Planning, engineering, construction costs, and cost trends
Impact of advanced technological improvements
Land- use compatibility issues
Impact of environmental issues and constraints
Potential return- on- investment of tax dollars
Revenue and funding sources
Identification of specific needs to improve existing facilities and to develop new facilities
Medical aviation needs
Aviation safety throughout the system
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000
H:\ CD\ ELEMENT ONE. doc Element One 1- 5
The order of listing of these issues does not reflect relative priorities. All of the issues are
paramount in developing the SANS.
1.3 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The establishment of goals and objectives is essential in any data collection and interpretation
task. The desired end product must be confirmed before the collection effort is initiated in order
to prevent needless research. Defined goals and objectives are the key to this. The data
evaluation process combines quantitative measures with qualitative interpretations. Setting goals
and objectives at the onset allows the evaluation process to maintain focus and not become
encumbered.
As previously stated, the primary goal of the SANS 2000 is to determine the existing status,
condition and performance of Arizona’s aviation system and to evaluate the improvement needs
of the system on a five-, ten- and twenty- year basis. This study will provide guidance for the
structured development of aviation facilities necessary to meet the State’s needs through the year
2020. The SANS 2000 shall further incorporate requirements of the ADOT, Aeronautics
Division and the Federal Aviation Administration ( FAA).
To be an effective evaluation of the aviation system, it is essential to consider the “ big picture.”
Becoming entangled in the needs of a particular facility or in short- term needs of the system will
not benefit the entire system. It is necessary to consider long- range ideology. What will the
needs of the system be in twenty years or fifty years? Laying effective groundwork in the
present will prevent future difficulties. Having foresight now can result in significant savings
down the road. As Federal funding becomes tighter and tighter, it is even more critical to budget
and spend effectively. It is also necessary to address issues regarding environmental and social
impacts of aviation facilities. To this cause, the following developmental goals have been
established for Arizona’s aviation system:
Provision of adequate aviation facilities that can meet the transportation and economic
needs of the state
Maintenance of a system of airports and other aviation facilities that can ensure user
safety while supplying better than adequate levels of service in terms of reliability and
efficiency
Amplification of the economic rewards and return on investment by improving Arizona’s
aviation facilities
Cultivation of an air transportation system that is consistent with the long- term planning
policies, land use issues, and surface transportation goals.
The specific objectives of the SANS 2000 can be stated in terms suited for the use of
performance standards. The objectives listed below have been deemed significant to the State’s
aspiration of effective development of its aviation system.
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000
H:\ CD\ ELEMENT ONE. doc Element One 1- 6
Facilitate commercial air service in both urban and rural areas throughout Arizona
Ensure conformance with physical development standards established by Federal, state
and local agencies
Provide a system of aviation facilities within reasonable access time to all system users
Promote the use of aviation facilities for the delivery of emergency and rural health care
services
Encourage economic development opportunities through the utilization of an effective
aviation system
Maintain compatibility with local land use patterns and plans
Raise the efficiency of the aviation system
Maximum the return on investment for aviation dollars
Foster input from potentially impacted parties through a variety of means including
public forums and questionnaires
1.4 REVIEW OF EXISTING PLANS
Numerous studies have preceded the SANS 2000. These studies have been conducted by a
variety of entities including individual airports, regional planning agencies, and the ADOT,
Aeronautics Division. These studies provide valuable information that must be considered
during the compilation of the SANS 2000. Operations data, forecasting information, budget
figures, and physical characteristics are just a few of the items that can be ascertained from these
existing plans.
It is necessary to evaluate these extensive planning efforts for their applicability to the current
study. Many times the previous studies are not current enough to consider the data valid. Other
times their objectives are too site- specific to be beneficial to the study of the aviation system as a
whole. In general, however, these studies have been conducted through the expenditure of a
great deal of time that is not possible when assessing the needs of the entire state. It is this fact
that makes reliance on these documents mandatory. Several aspects of the SANS 2000 accept
the information in the existing plans “ as is” with no exceptions. This is a necessary step in order
to achieve the timeliness required.
The following sub- sections detail the background and sources of the existing planning efforts. In
all cases the most recent study available has been reviewed.
Background
Aviation planning efforts in Arizona are conducted at multiple levels: national, state, regional,
and local. The emphasis at each level varies as do the priorities. Different goals and objectives
of the sponsors create this variance.
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000
H:\ CD\ ELEMENT ONE. doc Element One 1- 7
At the national level is the National Plan of Integrated Airports Systems ( NPIAS) which is
produced by the FAA. The NPIAS is based on information developed as a result of state and
metropolitan/ regional system planning and individual facility master planning as well as national
forecasts and planning. It is a ten- year plan that is continually updated by the FAA. It lists the
development of public use airports that are considered to be of national interest and are thus
eligible for financial assistance for airport planning, maintenance, and development under the
Federal Airport Improvement Program ( AIP). To be considered for AIP funding, an aviation
facility must be included in the NPIAS.
State level planning efforts are performed by ADOT. These efforts generally target the
assessment of needs for new aviation facilities and the need for improvement of existing
facilities. Studies at this level include the Continuous Aviation System Planning Process
( CASPP) and a variety of special interest studies.
Regional planning efforts are conducted to identify the needs of larger regional/ metropolitan
areas that may have more specific interests. The needs are generally stated within the context of
regional priorities and are normally incorporated into state planning efforts. Regional plans have
been developed by Cochise County, the Maricopa Association of Governments ( MAG), and the
Pima Association of Governments ( PAG).
Local planning efforts are reflected by individual airport master plans. These master plans are
undertaken by local airport sponsors and operators. They detail the specific long- range plans of
the facility within the framework of local community goals and objectives as well as statewide
and regional/ metropolitan system plans.
National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems ( NPIAS)
As previously stated, NPIAS is an airport system plan developed by the FAA to indicate aviation
facilities of national significance. NPIAS airports are eligible for federal grants for airport
planning and various capital improvements. The NPIAS defines the status of an airport by its
service level. The service level of a facility is reflective of the type of public service that the
facility provides to the community. The service level is further indicative of the funding
categories established by Congress to assist in airport development. The service levels
categories identified by the NPIAS are as follows:
Primary Service ( PR) – Primary service airports are public use airports receiving
scheduled airline passenger service which also enplane 10,000 or more passengers per
year.
Commercial Service ( CM) – Commercial service airports are public use airports
receiving scheduled airline passenger service which also enplane 2,500 or more
passengers per year.
General Aviation ( GA) – General aviation airports are either publicly or privately owned
public use airports that serve general aviation users.
Reliever ( RL) – Reliever airports are general aviation ( RL) airports which have the
function of relieving congestion at a Primary Service airport and which provide the
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000
H:\ CD\ ELEMENT ONE. doc Element One 1- 8
general aviation user or small commercial operator with an alternative for access to the
overall community. Reliever airports receive higher priority for funding assistance than
other general aviation or commercial service airports.
The most recent NPIAS, March 2000, lists 57 airports in Arizona. This includes ten primary
airports, five non- primary commercial service airport, 33 general aviation airports and nine
reliever airports.
Arizona State Aviation System Planning
The initial State Aviation System Plan ( SASP) was prepared in 1973 and was updated in 1978
and 1988. The purpose of the SASP was to provide policy guidelines that would promote and
maintain a safe aviation system in the State while providing an assessment of the needs of the
system on a five-, ten-, and twenty- year basis.
In 1988 the SASP was replaced by the Continuous Aviation System Planning Process ( CASPP).
The components of the CASPP are stated below:
Volume I Economic Impact of Aviation in Arizona ( 1990)
Volume II Inventory of Aviation Activities ( 1988)
Volume III Forecasts of Aviation Activity ( 1988)
Volume IV Commuter Air Service Feasibility Study ( 1988)
Volume V Land Use Compatibility ( 1992)
Volume VI The Future of Aviation in Arizona ( 1988)
Other studies initiated by the State and identified in the 1995 SANS include a 1988 report on the
needs of Native American airports, secondary airports, and other airports; a study in 1988 on the
feasibility of a new regional airport facility in the Verde Valley area; the Arizona Recreational
Airports System Plan conducted in 1992; a Pavement Management System Study from 1992;
and the Arizona Regional Airport Feasibility Assessment Study done in 1993.
Studies performed by the state subsequent to these include the Feasibility Study and
Environmental Review for a Regional Rescue and Firefighter Training Facility ( ARFF)
completed in 1995, The Economic Impact of Aviation in Arizona from 1998, and the
Navigational Aids and Aviation Services Special Study completed in 1998. Completion of the
Arizona Rural Air Service Study is still pending.
Past Aviation Needs Study Efforts
The previously stated goals of the SANS 2000 were similar to those of the past SANS studies.
The SANS 2000 will be the fourth in a series of these broad spectrum analyses of the aviation
system in Arizona.
The first SANS was developed in 1985. Its purpose was to address the five-, ten-, and twenty-year
capital improvements needs for the aviation system in Arizona. Various performance levels
were considered and projected revenues were compared to costs at each performance level. This
process is very similar to the task at hand for SANS 2000.
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000
H:\ CD\ ELEMENT ONE. doc Element One 1- 9
A particularly unique aspect of the 1985 SANS was the use of comparison ratings to evaluate
performance levels. This rating scheme compared an airport’s overall ability to accommodate
demand versus the total aviation demand in the State both at 1985 levels as well as future
projection levels. Once a benchmark rating was determined, it was possible to evaluate
numerous scenarios that could impact the benchmark. Cost projections could be made for
various performance levels.
The SANS 1990 further refined the SANS 1985 rating methodology. The goal of SANS 1990
was to correlate the aviation system needs with state economic, social and environmental
policies. Planners were able to gauge the level of attainment of various goals and objectives
complying with these policies, thereby assuring effective management of taxpayer funds. An
additional variable implemented into SANS 1990 was 50- year projection information.
The SANS 1995 evaluated needs projections on a five-, ten-, and twenty- year basis. The
performance levels measured and the scenarios considered are similar to those utilized in SANS
2000. SANS 1995 promoted a methodology that would allow for an evaluation of the
relationship between the performance of the system and capital investments placed into various
parts of the system. This created the ability to interchange multiple capital investment scenarios
and subsequently provide valuable insight into funding decisions.
All of the SANS efforts have attempted to encourage the input of a variety of individuals. The
usage of questionnaires, the establishment of Planning Advisory Committees ( PAC), and the
public forums have fostered the development process.
Regional Airport System Plans ( RASP)
At this time there are three RASP’s in effect in Arizona. Entities undertaking RASP efforts
include Cochise County, the Maricopa Association of Governments ( MAG), and the Pima
Association of Governments ( PAG). These RASP’s further define the goals and objectives of
the airport system on a localized basis above and beyond the individual facility master plan
goals. Unique goals of the various RASP’s promote the development of somewhat dissimilar
data than that obtained at the state level, but their evaluation is essential in the preparation of
SANS 2000. The ability to minimize the study population increases the volume of information
that can be considered. Brief descriptions of the current RASP efforts are detailed in the
following paragraphs.
Cochise County
Two primary RASP efforts have been prepared for Cochise County. The initial RASP was done
in 1982. The most recent effort was completed in 1994. Information from the 1994 Cochise
County RASP was considered for SANS 1995. There were 13 airports evaluated by the RASP.
The facilities included in the 1994 report are:
Public Use Airports Private Airports
Sierra Vista Muni/ Libby AAF Douglas Municipal Benson
Bisbee Municipal Tombstone Municipal Whetstone
Bisbee- Douglas Int’l Bowie San Simon
Cochise College Benson ( proposed in 1994) McNeal
Cochise County
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000
H:\ CD\ ELEMENT ONE. doc Element One 1- 10
The 1994 RASP considered inventory data from each airport; input from pilot/ owners as well as
the public; operations and aircraft forecasts; and socio- economic data. It also compared the
existing facilities to the development guidelines established by ADOT planning efforts.
From the RASP, a listing of priority projects was produced. Among those projects identified by
the 1994 RASP included additional taxiways and PAPIs at Sierra Vista/ Libby AAF, a paved
taxiway and navigational lighting at Cochise County, and the construction of the new Benson
Municipal Airport.
Maricopa Association of Governments ( MAG)
The first Maricopa Association of Governments RASP was completed in 1979 and was updated
in 1986. Rapid development in Maricopa County prompted another revision of the plan in 1993.
The data from the 1993 RASP was utilized in the SANS 1995. There has been no update of the
MAG RASP since 1993, but the MAG recently received funding to initiate an update in 2001.
In 1996 MAG completed an Implementation Study of the RASP. This study identified over 100
aviation facilities in the region including 47 airports, 67 heliports, and three ultralight fields. Of
this number, 16 were identified as important in meeting the aviation needs of the community and
were designated System Airports. These 16 airports are as follows:
• Buckeye Municipal • Phoenix Goodyear
• Chandler Municipal • Phoenix Sky Harbor
• Estrella Sailport • Pleasant Valley
• Falcon Field • Scottsdale
• Gila Bend Municipal • Sky Ranch- Carefree
• Glendale Municipal • Stellar Airpark
• Memorial Airfield • Wickenburg Municipal
• Phoenix Deer Valley • Williams Gateway
Six primary data categories were identified by the Implementation Study: airport sketches,
database, capital improvement program, intermodal needs, noise contours, and land use
compatibility. Forecasting data utilized in the 1993 RASP was also utilized for this report. This
forecasting information was previously considered in the SANS 1995.
Much of the focus of the 1996 RASP was to define potential projects under the capital
improvement program. The RASP enumerates some 634 projects with an estimated cost of
slightly under $ 1,000,000,000. Projects were categorized under such criteria as local interest,
pavement maintenance, safety issues, design standard upgrades, navigational aids, and airport
capacity, among others. The largest percentage of projects from a cost standpoint ($ 381 million)
were proposed for Phoenix- Sky Harbor, which is not unexpected, given its crucial role in the
state aviation system. Williams- Gateway also had numerous projects proposed ($ 297 million) to
increase its capabilities.
Pima Association of Governments ( PAG)
The Pima Association of Governments ( PAG) adopted their initial RASP in 1985. The PAG
RASP was updated in 1995. Projections were made through 2020 in the 1995 RASP.
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000
H:\ CD\ ELEMENT ONE. doc Element One 1- 11
The public use airports identified by the RASP include the following: Ajo Municipal, Marana
NW Regional, Ryan Field, Sells, and Tucson International. LaCholla Airpark, which is
privately- owned but allows limited public access, was also included. Pinal Airpark was included
as well as Davis- Monthan Air Force Base.
The RASP identified numerous projects for each of the system facilities. The general conclusion
of the RASP indicated if the proposed projects were implemented the system would be adequate
to meet future needs of Pima County. It further recommended that the RASP be updated
periodically to ensure that changes in existing needs or conditions could be considered.
Airport Master Plans
Several airport sponsors have prepared Master Plans for their facilities. These plans attempt to
identify long- term development schemes on a localized basis. The goals and objectives of the
individual facility are much more specific than at the state or regional levels.
Master plans provide forecasting data and project implementation information in an effort to
support modernization of the facility. Much more emphasis can be placed on the individual
needs of the facility and the desires of the local community.
One of the key elements derived from master planning efforts is an Airport Layout Plan ( ALP).
The ALP is a graphic representation of the facility depicting all existing improvements, location,
pertinent clearance and dimensional information and other factors that can determine an airport’s
compliance with applicable standards. The ALP must be updated as improvements are made to
the facility.
Other data obtained from master plans include based aircraft projections, operations forecasts for
general aviation and commercial services ( where available), and completed projects information
among others.
Of the study airports identified, 64 were found to have completed master plans for their facility.
Data from these has been selectively included in the development of SANS 2000.
Summary
Table 1- 2 illustrates the planning efforts that have been undertaken in the State. These efforts
include NPIAS, master plans, airport layout plans, regional airport system plans, and special
studies. Table 1- 3 indicates the action taken on specific airports in this study that were included
in the 1995 State Aviation Needs Study.
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000
H:\ CD\ ELEMENT ONE. doc Element One 1- 12
TABLE 1- 2: Arizona State Aviation System Planning Efforts
AIRPORT NAME ASSOCIATED NPIAS Master Plan ALP RASP
CITY Yes Role Yes Year Yes Year Yes Year
Special
Studies
Ajo Municipal Ajo X GA X 1999 X 1999 X 1994 A, B, D
Apache Junction ( New) Apache Junction
Avi Suquilla ( NA) Parker X GA X 1997 X 1985 A, B
Bagdad Bagdad X GA X 1998 X 1998 A, B, D
Benson Municipal Benson X GA X 1990 X 1990 X 1994 A, B, D
Bisbee Douglas International Douglas/ Bisbee X GA X 1997 X 1997 X 1994 A, B, D
Bisbee Municipal Bisbee X GA X 1999 X 1999 X 1994 A, B, D
Bowie Bowie X 1994 A, B
Buckeye Municipal Buckeye X GA X 1998 X 1998 X 1996 A, B, D
Cascabel Airpark ( Note 1) Tucson A
Casa Grande Municipal Casa Grande X GA X 1997 X 1997 A, B, D
Chandler Municipal Chandler X RL X 1997 X 1997 X 1996 A, B, D
Chinle Municipal Chinle X GA X 1990 X 1990 A
Cochise College Douglas X 1983 X 1983 X 1994 A, B
Cochise County Willcox X GA X 1997 X 1997 X 1994 A, B, D
Colorado City Municipal Colorado City X GA X 1999 X 1999 A, B
Coolidge Municipal Coolidge X GA X 1997 X 1997 A, B, D
Cottonwood Municipal Cottonwood X GA X 1993 X 1993 A, B, D
Douglas Municipal Douglas X 1994 X 1994 X 1994 A, B, D
Eagle Airpark Bullhead City GA
Eloy Municipal Eloy X GA X 1997 X 1997 A, B, D
Ernest A. Love Field Prescott X CM X 1997 X 1997 A, B, D
Estrella Sailport Maricopa X 1996 A, B
Falcon Field Mesa X RL X 1997 X 1997 X 1996 A, B, D
Flagstaff- Pulliam Flagstaff X PR X 1991 X 1991 A, B, D
Flying J Ranch Pima A, B
Forepaugh Wickenburg
Ganado ( NA) Ganado X GA A, B
Gila Bend Municipal Gila Bend X GA X 1995 X 1995 X 1996 A, B, D
Glendale Municipal Glendale X RL X 1998 X 1998 X 1996 A, B, D
Globe- San Carlos Regional Globe X GA X 1998 X 1998 A, B
Grand Canyon Bar- Ten Whitmore A, B
Grand Canyon Caverns Peach Springs A, B
Grand Canyon National Park Grand Canyon X PR X 1991 X 1991 A, B, D
Grand Canyon West Peach Springs X GA X 1997 X 1997 A, B
Grande Valley Maricopa
Grapevine/ Roosevelt Lake Gila County A
Greenlee County Clifton/ Morenci X GA X 1993 X 1993 A, B, D
H. A. Clark Memorial Field Williams X GA X 1995 X 1995 A, B, D
Holbrook Municipal Holbrook X GA X 1999 X 1999 A, B, D
Kayenta ( NA) Kayenta X GA X 1987 X 1987 A, B
Kearny Kearny X 1994 X 1994 A, B, D
Kingman Kingman X GA X 1980 X 1980 A, B, D
Lake Havasu City Municipal Lake Havasu X PR X 1999 X 1999 A, B, D
Laughlin/ Bullhead International Bullhead City X PR X 1999 X 1999 A, B, D
Marana NW Regional Marana X RL X 1999 X 1999 X 1994 A, B, D
Marble Canyon Marble Canyon A, B
Memorial Airfield Chandler. X 1996 X 1996 X 1996 A, B
Mogollon Airpark ( Note 1) Overgaard
Nogales International Nogales X GA X 1992 X 1992 A, B
Page Municipal Page X PR X 1992 X 1992 A, B, D
Payson Payson X GA X 1998 X 1998 A, B, D
Pearce Ferry Meadview A, B
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000
H:\ CD\ ELEMENT ONE. doc Element One 1- 13
TABLE 1- 2: Arizona State Aviation System Planning Efforts ( continued)
AIRPORT NAME ASSOCIATED NPIAS Master Plan ALP RASP
CITY Yes Role Yes Year Yes Year Yes Year
Special
Studies
Phoenix Deer Valley Phoenix X RL X 1998 X 1998 X 1996 A, B, D
Phoenix Goodyear Goodyear X RL X 1998 X 1998 X 1996 A, B, D
Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l Phoenix X PR X 1998 X 1998 X 1996 A, B
Pinal Airpark Marana X GA X 1991 X 1991 X 1994 A, B
Pleasant Valley Peoria ? ? X 1996 A
Polacca ( NA) Polacca X 1977 X 1977 A, B
Quartzsite ( New) Quartzsite X GA X 1991 X 1991 A, B
Rolle Airfield Somerton A, B
Ryan Field Tucson X RL X 1999 X 1999 X 1994 A, B, D
Safford Regional Safford X GA X 1998 X 1998 A, B, D
St. Johns Industrial Airpark St. Johns X GA X 1998 X 1998 A, B, D
San Carlos Apache Globe X GA X 1998 X 1998 A, B
San Manuel San Manuel X 1997 X 1997 A, B, D
Scottsdale Scottsdale X RL X 1997 X 1997 X 1996 A, B, D
Sedona Sedona X GA X 1999 X 1999 A, B, D
Seligman Seligman X 1993 X 1993 A, B
Sells ( NA) Sells X 1994 A, B
Show Low Municipal Show Low X GA X 1991 X 1991 A, B, D
Sierra Vista Muni/ Libby AAF Sierra Vista X PR X 1996 X 1996 A, B, D
Stellar Airpark Chandler X 1979 X 1996 A, B
Sun Valley Bullhead City A, B
Superior Municipal Superior A, B
Taylor Taylor X GA X 1995 X 1995 A, B, D
Temple Bar Temple Bar X GA A, B
Tombstone Municipal Tombstone X 1999 X 1999 X 1994 A, B
Town of Springerville Municipal Springerville X GA X 1995 X 1995 A, B, D
Tuba City ( NA) Tuba City X GA A, B
Tucson International Tucson X PR X 1996 X 1996 X 1994 A, B
Tuweep Tuweep A, B
Valle Airport Grand Canyon
Whiteriver ( NA) Whiteriver X GA X 1998 X 1998 A, B
Wickenburg Municipal Wickenburg X GA X 1992 X 1992 A, B, D
Williams Gateway Phoenix X RL X 1999 X 1999 X 1996 A, B, D
Window Rock ( NA) Window Rock X GA X 1981 X 1981 A, B
Winslow- Lindberg Regional Winslow X GA X 1998 X 1998 A, B
Yuma International/ MCAS Yuma Yuma X PR X 1998 X 1998 A, B, D
KEY
SPECIAL STUDIES LEGEND
ALP Airport Layout Plan A: 1995 State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS)
CM Commercial Service Airport B: 1998 Navigational Aids and Aviation Services Special Study
GA General Aviation Airport C: Small Community Aviation Economic Development
NA Native American D: Pavement Management Study
NPIAS National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems
PR Primary Commercial Service Airport
RASP Regional Aviation System Plan
RL Reliever Airport
Note 1: Airport changed to “ Private Use”
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000
H:\ CD\ ELEMENT ONE. doc Element One 1- 14
TABLE 1- 3: 1995 SANS Airports Modified or Removed from the SANS 2000 Study
AIRPORT NAME ASSOCIATED
CITY
REASON
Ak- Chin Community Ak- Chin Private Use facility
Apache Junction ( New) Apache Junction No longer a viable airport candidate site
Avra Valley Marana Airport name changed to
Marana Northwest Regional
Camp Verde Camp Verde Airport closed
Cliff Dwellers Lodge Marble Canyon Private Use facility
Hualapai Triball Peach Springs Airport name changed to Hualapai.
Private Use facility
Inscription House Inscription House Airport closed
Low Mountain Low Mountain Airport closed
Lukachukai Lukachukai Private Use facility
Ora Acres Quartzite Airport closed
Pleasant Valley International Young Airport name changed to Peasant Valley Airstrip.
Private Use facility
Pulliam- Flagstaff Flagstaff Name in error. See Flagstaff- Pulliam
Quartizite ( New) Quartizite No longer a viable airport candidate site
Rio Vista Hills Wickenburg Private Use facility
Rock Point Rock Point Private Use facility
Shonto Shonto Private Use facility
Sky Ranch Carefree Carefree Private Use facility
Springerville Babbit Field Springerville Airport name changed to
Town of Springerville Municipal
Taylor Municipal Taylor Name in error. See Taylor
Toyei School Ganado Airport closed
Winslow Municipal Winslow Airport name changed to Winslow- Lindberg
Alamo Lake ( ERA) La Paz County Dropped from study. To be re- evaluated
Big Lake/ Sunrise ( ERA) Apache County Dropped from study. To be re- evaluated
Chiricahua Mountains ( ERA) Cochise County Dropped from study. To be re- evaluated
Cibola ( ERA) La Paz County Dropped from study. To be re- evaluated
Leupp/ Painted Desert ( ERA) Coconino County Dropped from study. To be re- evaluated
Mogollon Airpark ( ERA) Overgaard Private Use facility
Peach Springs ( New) Peach Springs Dropped from study. To be re- evaluated
Sprucedale ( New) Greenlee County Dropped from study. To be re- evaluated
Bullhead City Seaplane Base Bullhead Dropped from study. To ber e- evaluated
Lake Havasu Seaplane Base Lake Havasu City Active
Lake Mead Seaplane
Landing Area
Temple Bar Active
Lake Roosevelt Seaplane
Landing Area
Globe Active
Lake Powell Seaplane
Landing Area
Page Active
Source: ADOT Aeronautics 2000
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000
H:\ CD\ ELEMENT TWO. DOC Element Two 2- 1
ELEMENT TWO: METHODOLOGY
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this element is to identify and describe the process and methodology to recognize
trends, and provide decision makers with information regarding the effects of varying levels of
capital investment, or shifting emphasis, from one type of development to another. The selected
methodology should be able to assess the level of system performance for the various funding
levels, address the issues listed in the state's original request for proposal ( RFP), be easily
understandable by the Planning Advisory Committee ( PAC), and concur with the goals and
objectives of the Governor’s Vision 21 Task Force for improving transportation systems across
the state.
To adequately present the SANS methodology, this element is organized in the following
manner:
• Definitions;
• Desired features for the SANS 2000 Methodology;
• Concept Selected for the SANS 2000;
• Performance Criteria and Measures;
• Performance Based Needs Scenarios; and
• Summary.
2.2 DEFINITIONS
The terminology being used for the SANS is based on operational definitions of these key terms:
STATUS, CONDITION, CAPACITY, PERFORMANCE, STANDARDS, and NEEDS. These
terms can be explained in terms of descriptors such as runway length, registered based aircraft,
aircraft mix, number of operations, number of enplaned passengers, etc.
STATUS of the aviation system is a description of its state in terms of specific administrative,
economic, geometric, physical, and operational characteristics. Status represents the actual or
projected state of the aviation facilities. It relates to the role that each airport/ heliport and
aviation system component should perform in the total State aviation system.
The STATUS of aviation facilities in the SANS is defined through three facility classifications:
( 1) a classification system based on the National Plan Integrated Airport Systems ( NPIAS); ( 2) a
coding system developed by the FAA used to relate airport design criteria to the operational and
physical characteristics of the airplanes intended to operate at an airport; and ( 3) a classification
system that segregates the State's system of airports into three subsystems-- Primary, Secondary,
and Other Airports systems-- based primarily on level of service an airport or heliport currently
provides, or is intended to provide, to a community or region.
CONDITION represents the physical state of the aviation facilities. The condition of the
aviation facilities measures the various levels of fitness of the aviation system, i. e., how that
facility performs relative to a given status ( role). Thus, condition indicates the level of physical
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000
H:\ CD\ ELEMENT TWO. DOC Element Two 2- 2
fitness of the aviation facilities. Condition is determined from surveys, existing data, and
projections.
CAPACITY is used to designate the processing capability of an aviation facility over some
period of time. Capacity is defined as the maximum physical capability of a runway system to
process aircraft. It is expressed in this report as Annual Service Volume ( ASV). As annual
aircraft operations approach annual service volume, the average delay to each aircraft throughout
the year may increase rapidly with relatively small increases in aircraft operations, thereby
causing levels of service on the airfield to deteriorate. Capacity can be compared with the
existing and forecast demand to ascertain whether improvements to increase Capacity will be
needed.
PERFORMANCE is the measurement of the system against a standard. A Performance Measure
is the " yardstick" utilized to assess how effectively the aviation system functions; for example,
how aviation demand factors relate to airport facility factors, etc. Two primary measures of
Performance are condition and capacity, explained above. They are primary, because they are
essential for an aviation facility to accomplish its fundamental mission-- the movement of people
and goods-- and other measures have been derived from or are related to these primary measures.
PERFORMANCE MEASURES will be used to select needed improvements, and to evaluate
both the positive and negative impacts of improvements at aviation facilities.
PERFORMANCE LEVEL is defined as the actual or proposed Performance of the aviation
system determined by specific values for a selected Performance measure. The performance
levels are established to reflect attainable ( not necessarily desirable) performance; for example,
maintain only the existing facilities, maintain existing system performance level by providing for
15 percent added growth, etc.
STANDARDS are the minimum tolerable values of the performance measures established by an
authority, such as FAA, ADOT, the Technical Advisory Committee, etc.
NEEDS are defined as specific improvements and the dollar amount required to achieve a given
level of aviation system PERFORMANCE. Various levels of needs will be developed for the
SANS 2000, reflecting differing levels of performance and investment.
2.3 DESIRED FEATURES FOR THE SANS 2000 METHODOLOGY
In selecting a methodology for use in the SANS 2000, a number of specific features are desired.
Foremost, the selected methodology must provide a relatively simple procedure that can be used
to evaluate the relationships between the performance of aviation system and capital investments
made in various parts of the system. This will allow decision makers to realize the trade- offs
involved in selecting one alternative over another.
Secondly, and related to the above feature, it is important that the selected methodology be able
to define the state aviation system needs relative to stated system goals and objectives. Goal and
objective statements are developed early in the process and are refined through an extensive
public involvement process. It is important that the selected methodology be able to measure the
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000
H:\ CD\ ELEMENT TWO. DOC Element Two 2- 3
achievement of the various goals and objectives in order to ensure that the taxpayers wants and
needs are being addressed.
Lastly, the selected methodology should allow for the synthesis of a large volume of data and
information such as population, access measures, activity measures, environmental impacts, etc.,
into a manageable form for purposes of analysis.
2.4 CONCEPT SELECTED FOR THE SANS 2000
The concept selected for assessing the needs for the SANS 2000 is one based on the application
of performance measures for evaluating alternative state aviation system needs scenarios. The
primary elements of this concept include: ( 1) the identification of quantifiable measures needed
to assess the existing performance of the Arizona aviation system; ( 2) the determination of the
status, condition and performance of the existing system; ( 3) the development of a forecast of
future system demand and available revenues; ( 4) the development of alternative needs scenarios
to meet forecasts of demand; and ( 5) the determination of the cost of facilities and the
performance of the system under each scenario. This concept provides an objective approach to
a process which is largely subjective, through the development of quantifiable performance
measures.
It is felt that the use of performance measures in Arizona aviation system planning will improve
the process in several important ways:
• Performance measures will enable the State to quantify as well as qualify system plan
objectives. Aviation system plan goal and objective statements tend to be general rather
than specific. By using performance measures, the State will be able to sharpen and
clearly define the precise meaning of each objective statement. On occasion, objective
statements may have to be clarified, modified, or restated to make them useful for
aviation system planning.
• Performance measures provide a quantitative link between system goal and objective
statements and the performance of the aviation system. Performance measures provide
for the scaling of how far each objective is achieved in an existing or proposed aviation
system, or collectively, how far an existing or proposed aviation system meets all the
system objectives.
• Performance measures are a beneficial tool for evaluation of alternative aviation systems
as part of the initial assessment of needs and development or a major update for a state
aviation system plan. Performance measures can be used to clearly quantify the trade-offs
among a broad range of system plan alternative scenarios and to assist in narrowing
the number of alternative scenarios to be studied in greater detail.
• Performance measures will enable the State to synthesize a large volume of data and
information-- population, access measures, activity measures, environmental impacts, etc.
-- into a manageable form for analyses purposes and for presentation to decision makers.
One of the more difficult tasks of preparing a plan is to present to elected officials and
government administrative staff the results of a comprehensive analysis in a simple,
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000
H:\ CD\ ELEMENT TWO. DOC Element Two 2- 4
straightforward, understandable manner. Performance measures can be used to clearly
illustrate the interrelationships between the various objectives of a plan and the
performance of the system.
• Performance measures can be combined into a single numerical value through weighting
of the individual measures to reflect public policy, although weighting tends to mask
important parts of the analysis and may, in effect, transfer to others choices which more
properly should be made by the appropriate decision makers.
Once the aviation system needs have been identified and implemented, the performance
measures can be used to improve the process for programming federal and state airport grant
funds. System performance measures can be used to support budget requests to the state
legislature by defining system needs and definitions relative to stated system goals and
objectives.
All of the publicly- funded transportation modes-- highways, transit, and aviation-- are in need of
increased funding. Budget requests need to be supported by return- on- investment analysis which
is both comprehensive and easily understood. Aviation system performance measures can be
used to strengthen agency budget requests in Arizona.
Description of Methodology
A step- by- step description of the methodology to be employed in performing the 2000 Needs
Study is relatively straightforward conceptually and in application. The decision maker is the
primary user of the analysis produced.
Shown in Exhibit 2- 1, the first step of the process is to formulate the goals, objectives, and
priorities that represent the desired set of conditions for the State system of airports. The goals
and objectives were formed through a public input process that utilized comments of the
Planning Advisory Committee ( PAC). From the goals and objectives, performance measures are
identified and defined.
The next major step in the process is to create a data base to provide the information needed to
determine the status and condition of the existing system. The status of the system relates to the
role that each aviation facility performs in the total State aviation system. It is based on specific
administrative, economic, geometric, physical, and operational characteristics. The condition
represents the physical state of the aviation system; that is, how the facility performs relative to a
given status. Creation of the data base is an on- going process and will continue throughout the
course of the SANS study as new information is received from airport sponsors.
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000
H:\ CD\ ELEMENT TWO. DOC Element Two 2- 5
EXHIBIT 2- 1: SANS Methodology Flow Chart
Another important aspect of the data base was to generate enough information to perform a
forecast of aviation activity and system capacity for the next five-, ten-, and twenty- year time
frames. The forecast of statewide aviation activity was used to determine future demand on the
statewide system and be central to the development of the future scenarios.
The performance- based needs scenarios were the focus of the study. Needs scenarios were
developed to evaluate the various alternative future aviation system development strategies.
They were matched against the performance measures that reflected the desired condition and
level of service the state aviation system should provide. Three alternative development
strategies were considered. By comparing each system development scenario to the performance
measures, State decision makers can determine the level of performance that each scenario will
provide, as well as the associated costs of that scenario.
Alternative development scenarios were based on various ways of achieving a high level of
systemwide performance, such as accommodating future demand and provision of rural health
care services, given limited financial resources. Comparing investment strategies with
performance measures clearly shows where systemwide performance trade- offs will occur.
Since the weighting of performance measures is always subjective, no relative weights were
considered. All the performance measures taken together reflect the profile of each scenario.
Survey of Airports, Pilots, Aircraft
Owners, Airlines, Chambers of
Commerce & Manufacturers
Review of Existing Plans,
Studies & FAA 5010 Data
SANS Methodology
SANS Database
FINAL REPORT
Technical Report
Implementation Plan
2000 Needs Study Summary
Summary Video
Technical Appendices
5, 10, 20 Year
Forecasting
Performance- Based
Status & Condition Needs Scenarios
of the SANS
Aviation System &
Facility Performance
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000
H:\ CD\ ELEMENT TWO. DOC Element Two 2- 6
Constraints, Assumptions, and Limitations
As with every methodology, there are some constraints and limitations to the use of performance
measures, as well as some general assumptions that must be noted. A discussion of these
follows.
Perhaps the key assumption of the methodology is that overall system performance should take
precedence over the individual facilities. System performance measures are not particularly
sensitive, on an annual basis, to programming decisions involving individual airport projects.
The definition of programming is the matching of available funds to satisfy the needs of a given
time period. The reason for this is that improvements in a single airport or even a small number
of airports will have only a small impact on the performance of the aviation system for an entire
state. Viewed over a longer period of time, for example, a five- year period, performance
measures will prove beneficial in evaluating alternative programming policies and for evaluating
the improvements in system performance anticipated from a five- year capital improvement
program.
Additionally, system performance measures are more sensitive to needs to provide increased
access and to forecast demand than they are to deficiencies in the structural integrity of existing
airports. As the proportion of reconstruction and standards type projects decreases, the
sensitivity of the performance measures to programming decisions will increase. The SANS is a
macro- level analysis and leads to system wide needs. Priority programming, on the other hand,
is a micro- level evaluation and leads to specific project improvements.
The performance measure components for each airport being considered for a grant can aid in
determining the relative contribution that each airport makes to the performance of the total
aviation system. Performance measures selected for assessing system needs are not sufficient
criteria for priority programming decisions related to specific airport improvement projects, as
many other factors must be considered. Performance measures may, however, provide a basis
for first cut in selective airport projects on the basis of their relative contribution to the State's
aviation system.
2.5 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA AND MEASURES
In the previous section, it was concluded that the use of performance measures can improve the
aviation system planning process by quantifying as well as qualifying system objectives, linking
system objectives and system performance, clarifying trade- offs among system alternatives, and
by synthesizing information for decision makers. This section will provide a more detailed
description and role of performance measures, apply performance measures and standards to the
study objectives, explain the use of future scenarios, and discuss the determination of minimum
acceptable levels of performance.
Role of Performance Measures
Goal and objective statements are used to define the desired condition to be achieved in the
development and operation of the Arizona aviation system. They are broadly stated in general
terms. For example, a primary goal of the SANS is to provide for the timely development of
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000
H:\ CD\ ELEMENT TWO. DOC Element Two 2- 7
aviation facilities adequate to meet the needs and economic goals of the state. An objective
related to the above goal is to facilitate the provision of convenient commercial air service to
both urban and rural communities. A performance measure is used to clarify and define the
meaning of the goal or objective statement and provide for a scaling of how well the goal or
objective is attained in any defined system.
As an example, in the above objective statement, the definition of " convenient" could be defined
as 60 minutes driving time; the term " commercial air service" could be defined as scheduled
passenger service operating a minimum of two flights a day, five days a week; and " community"
could be defined as an incorporated town with a minimum population of 5,000. By defining
these terms, the objective statement now lends itself to quantification. Thus, the measure of
performance related to the provision of convenient commercial air service would be: the
percentage of communities within the state, with a minimum population of 5,000, that are within
60 minutes driving time of an airport that provides regularly scheduled passenger service.
The performance measure now can be used to assess the existing system in terms of the
provision of commercial service, measure future system performance under varying conditions,
and provide a way of evaluating among system plan alternatives. Also, once an alternative has
been selected and implementation initiated, the process of that alternative can be tracked.
Performance Measures
To adequately assess the system, three general categories of performance measures were
developed: Facility, Service Level, and Economic Measures. The first relates to the performance
of the individual facilities making up the system, the second to the level of service provided by
those facilities, and the third to the efficiency of the system and return on investment.
Facility Performance
The facility performance measures are general measures designed to assess the condition, or
fitness, of the region's existing airport infrastructure. The two primary measures of facility
performance are condition and capacity. They are primary because they are essential for an
aviation facility to function in a safe and efficient manner. The performance criteria listed below
were designed to reflect the current and desired condition and performance of the existing and
future aviation infrastructure relative to basic recognized standards.
Facility Performance Measures
1. The extent to which system airports meet FAA and ADOT Transportation Board
minimum aviation development and planning standards.
2. The number of airports with an annual demand less than 60 percent of runway annual
service volume.
3. The number of airports experiencing delay to aircraft operations: the maximum and
average delay in minutes an aircraft experiences due to airside congestion.
4. The number of airports that generate INM noise contours greater than 65 DNL that
extend off airport property.
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000
H:\ CD\ ELEMENT TWO. DOC Element Two 2- 8
5. The number of system airports without adequate utilities ( electricity, telephone, water,
sewer, and gas).
6. The number of airports with no close- in obstructions ( within the 200 feet primary
surface) and where all FAR Part 77 approach obstructions are marked ( not including trees
and roads).
7. The number of total airports in the state with no or minimal shared airspace and/ or
restrictions under visual/ instrument flight rules.
Service Level Performance
Service level performance measures, in relation to facility performance measures, were designed
to measure the adequacy of the system in fulfilling its fundamental mission of the movement of
people and goods. Listed below are performance measures that measure the provision of
aviation services to the residents of the State of Arizona in relation to some general national
standards.
Service Level Performance Measures
1. Percent of communities in the State with a population greater than 5,000 within 60
minutes of a commercial service airport.
2. Percent of communities in the State with a population greater than 1,000 within 30
minutes of a general aviation airport.
3. Percent of communities in the State with a population greater than 15,000 within 30
minutes of a general aviation airport that can accommodate large general aviation aircraft
( ARC B- II) and has Instrument Meteorological Conditions ( IMC) capability.
4. Percent of hospitals in the State within 30 minutes of a general aviation airport with
Instrument Meteorological Conditions ( IMC) capability, with on- site weather reporting,
and jet fuel availability.
5. The number of major recreational areas in the state within 30 minutes of a general
aviation airport.
Economic Performance
Economic Performance Measures
1. The dollar cost of aircraft delay to Arizona airport system users.
2. Dollars of direct and indirect economic impact on the state from aviation.
3. The cost ratio of annual aviation infrastructure to total number of statewide annual
enplaned passengers and annual aircraft operations.
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000
H:\ CD\ ELEMENT TWO. DOC Element Two 2- 9
4. The total dollar cost from aircraft delays associated with airspace congestion.
2.6 DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS
To facilitate the understanding and appreciation of the financial needs of the State's aviation
system, it is important to assess the system performance changes that the investment of these
funds may induce. Once a performance- based needs model is available, a theoretically infinite
number of scenarios can be developed. For a given level of financial investment it is possible to
achieve a given performance level with a range of funding levels. There are operations research
tools ( e. g., dynamic programming, linear programming, simulation) available, which can help
planners and decision makers determine the optimal investment strategy for achieving a given
performance level, and vice versa. That effort is, however, beyond the scope of the current
study.
In this project, three scenarios were developed. It should be noted that the level of investment
and system performance gradually improves from Scenario A to Scenario C.
Each scenario will be evaluated by forecasting demand of statewide aviation activity over the
next five-, ten-, and twenty- year periods and applying the performance measures identified in the
previous section to determine the performance level of the state aviation system.
This method will allow decision makers to clarify trade- offs among system funding
commitments through the comparison of performance levels of each system alternative for each
of the three scenarios. Comparison of performance levels for each scenario will also link levels
of funding to the achievement of public policy as represented by the State's goals and objectives
for the Arizona aviation system, inherent in the development of the performance measures.
Scenario A - Existing Investment: This scenario was designed to explore a possible
situation/ state in which the existing funding level ( in current dollars) will be assumed to
remain unchanged over the next five-, ten-, and twenty- year periods. The goal was to
examine the types of improvements that can be done in the circumstances in which the
funding for maintenance and construction of aviation facilities does not keep up with the
increasing demand. In this scenario, status, condition, and performance of the system at the
fixed level of funding are evaluated.
Scenario B - Existing Performance ( Facility Preservation): This scenario was designed
to explore a possible situation/ state in which the existing system performance level will
remain unchanged. The goal is to estimate a level of funding which can help the state
aviation system keep up with the increasing demand in the future. A funding level for each
of the five-, ten-, and twenty- year periods is estimated. In this scenario, the financial needs
to maintain the existing system status, condition, and performance are estimated.
Scenario C - Increased Performance ( Facility Upgrade): The third scenario examines a
possible situation/ state in which all existing public- use airports are brought up to meet
minimum State airport development standards, existing airports are expanded to meet
forecast demand, and new airports are constructed to meet access or capacity deficiencies.
This is essentially an unconstrained growth scenario and determines the costs of expanding
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000
H:\ CD\ ELEMENT TWO. DOC Element Two 2- 10
and increasing the efficiency of the existing system to meet the expected growth in future
State aviation activity.
For each of the above scenarios, it is possible to have thousands of strategies to achieve the
stated goals. However, we are only identifying one of several situations/ states for each of the
three scenarios in this study. The performance- based needs model developed in this study would
be capable of exploring other situations/ states and additional scenarios as may be desired by the
state planners and decision makers. The model is flexible enough to allow modification of
decision variables based on input from public or alternative forecasts.
2.7 SUMMARY
The concept for assessing the needs for the SANS 2000 is one based on the use of performance
measures for evaluating alternative state aviation needs scenarios. The primary elements of this
system include ( 1) the identification of quantifiable measures needed to define the performance
of the state aviation system; ( 2) the determination of the status, condition, and performance of
the existing system; ( 3) the development of a forecast of future system demand and available
revenues; ( 4) the development of alternative needs scenarios to meet forecast of demand; ( 5) the
determination of the cost of facilities and the performance of the system under each scenario; and
( 6) the selection of a recommended course of action.
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS 2000)
H:\ CD\ ELEMENT THREE. doc Element Three 3- 1
ELEMENT THREE: DATABASE
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The development of SANS 2000 considers extensive volumes of data from various sources. The
compilation of an effective database is a key element in preparing SANS 2000. To determine the
aviation needs and subsequent improvement/ new projects to fulfill those needs, a comprehensive
set of statistics must be analyzed. It is necessary to sort through a variety of data and extract the
relative facts that impact aviation in Arizona. The extracted data can then be utilized to compile
each of the different elements in the SANS.
A great deal of data was collected and abridged during the Arizona SANS 1995 preparation.
Much of the SANS 2000 effort has been directed toward updating this existing database as
opposed to creating a new one. For the most part the objective of the data collection was to
provide new baseline numbers for various criteria and to obtain any projected information up to
the year 2020.
The SANS 1995 data was generally segregated into six categories. SANS 2000 has retained this
previous formatting. The data categories are:
• Socioeconomic
• Environment and Land Use
• Surface Transportation
• Aviation
• Finance
• Study Survey Results
Sources that have been used in the data collection effort include the Federal Aviation
Administration ( FAA), the Arizona Department of Transportation ( ADOT), the Arizona
Department of Economic Security, regional airport system plans, various airport master plans,
and other published reports. Another significant source of information includes questionnaires
submitted to pilots, aircraft owners, airport sponsors, airlines and local chambers of commerce.
Specific sources are identified with each data table.
The following sub- sections are presented to summarize the general findings of the SANS
database update.
3.2 SOCIOECONOMIC
Population trends, employment characteristics, and personal income levels are generally referred
to as socioeconomic factors. These factors have significant impact on aviation as many facets of
aviation are driven by the economic situation at a given time. An improved economic situation,
both at the personal and business level, is directly related to increased aviation usage. A stagnant
or declining economic picture will tend to result in less air travel and system usage. Increased
usage creates the need for improvements to existing facilities and the consideration of new
facilities to meet the demand. Decreased demand observably has the reverse effect. While the
correlation between socioeconomic issues and aviation may not always be directly proportional,
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS 2000)
H:\ CD\ ELEMENT THREE. doc Element Three 3- 2
it is an important driving element. Each of the key socioeconomic factors is discussed in detail
in the subsequent paragraphs.
Population
Arizona’s population continues to be one of the fastest growing in the nation. In the period
between 1960 and 1998, the population of Arizona more than tripled. Projections indicate that
between 1998 and 2020 the population will almost double again from the current 4.7 million to
an estimated 7.3 million residents. Growth of this nature will no doubt require supplemental
aviation services.
The population growth in Arizona continues to be heavily centered in Maricopa and Pima
Counties. Maricopa County is routinely considered one of the fastest growing counties in
America. Statistics from 2000 indicate that 60% of the Arizona population resides in Maricopa
County, of which Phoenix is the county seat. Residents of Pima County, for which Tucson is the
county seat, account for another 16% of the state’s population. Forecasts suggest that these areas
will remain the major population centers for the state.
Table 3- 1 illustrates Arizona’s historical population on a county- by- county basis from 1960 to
1990. Table 3- 2 illustrates the population forecasts for 1998, 1999 and 2000 and then in five-year
increments thereafter through the year 2020.
TABLE 3- 1: Arizona Historical Population 1970 to 2000
County 1970 1980 1990 2000
Apache 32,118 52,108 61,591 69,423
Cochise 63,910 85,686 97,624 117,755
Coconino 48,326 75,008 96,591 116,320
Gila 28,885 37,080 40,216 51,335
Graham 16,578 22,862 26,554 33,489
Greenlee 10,330 11,406 8,008 8,547
La Paz - 12,557 13,884 19,715
Maricopa 971,228 1,509,262 2,122,101 3,072,149
Mohave 25,857 55,865 93,497 155,032
Navajo 47,715 67,629 77,658 97,470
Pima 351,667 531,443 666,880 843,746
Pinal 67,916 90,918 16,379 179,727
Santa Cruz 13,966 20,459 29,676 38,381
Yavapai 36,733 68,145 107,714 167,517
Yuma 60,727 76,205 106,895 160,026
TOTAL 1,775,956 2,716,633 3,565,258 5,130,632
Note: Until 1980, La Paz was part of Yuma County.
Population figures are as of April 1 for years reported. Numbers may not sum due to differences between county figures and statewide
figures.
Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security, April 1, 2000.
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS 2000)
H:\ CD\ ELEMENT THREE. doc Element Three 3- 3
TABLE 3- 2: Arizona Forecast of Population 1998 to 2020
County 1998 1999 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Apache
66,350
67,069
67,925
72,236
76,645
81,173
85,766
Cochise
123,750
120,179
121,837
129,680
137,035
143,793
149,990
Coconino
121,625
120,848
123,329
135,595
147,352
158,753
169,343
Gila
49,175
47,898
48,614
51,644
54,603
57,613
60,757
Graham
34,700
34,245
35,164
39,427
43,499
47,181
50,673
Greenlee
9,125
8,908
8,984
9,297
9,605
9,923
10,271
La Paz
19,000
19,821
20,341
22,799
25,096
27,193
29,078
Maricopa
2,806,100
2,879,492
2,954,157
3,329,561
3,709,566
4,101,784
4,516,090
Mohave
138,625
142,600
147,529
171,504
194,403
215,988
236,396
Navajo
92,500
87,775
88,898
94,395
99,979
105,843
111,946
Pima
823,900
836,153
854,329
943,795
1,031,623
1,119,342
1,206,244
Pinal
157,675
157,413
161,630
181,487
199,715
216,215
231,229
Santa Cruz
37,800
37,439
38,225
42,154
46,246
50,556
55,111
Yavapai
148,500
148,428
152,966
175,693
198,052
219,614
240,849
Yuma
135,200
134,719
138,025
154,582
171,689
189,783
209,861
TOTAL 4,764,025 4,842,987 4,961,953 5,553,849 6,145,108 6,744,754 7,363,604
Note: Projections subsequent to the 2000 Census were not available.
Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security, August, 1997.
Employment
Arizona’s recent employment history and the forecast for the immediate future portray a bright
outlook. In 1998 Arizona added over 93,000 jobs, which correlates to a 4.8% increase in new
jobs. In fact, Arizona’s job growth rate ranked number one in the nation for seven out of the
twelve months in 1998, while finishing second in the other five months. It is anticipated that
over the next two years the state will add another 148,000 jobs, at a somewhat slower rate than
the recent growth. Employment sectors with the best performance were manufacturing,
construction, finance and real estate, transportation, utilities, and communication. A key sector
among those sectors experiencing a downturn was the mining industry.
Since 1995 unemployment in the state of Arizona has hovered in the 4.0- 5.5% range. The
unemployment rate for 1998 was 4.1%, and numbers through May 1999 indicate it to be
approximately 4.2%. While this is a desirable goal, continued lowering of the unemployment
rate will normally result in some sort of labor shortage. With a labor shortage, economic growth
will become inhibited as employers will not be able to find an adequately trained/ skilled work
force. Issues such as education and re- training of current employees and the utilization of
personnel displaced as a result of corporate downsizing will become critical in maintaining an
adequate workforce.
Table 3- 3 depicts Arizona’s recent historical employment data for the entire state and for the
larger metropolitan areas of Phoenix and Yuma.
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS 2000)
H:\ CD\ ELEMENT THREE. doc Element Three 3- 4
TABLE 3- 3: Arizona Historical and Forecast Employment
County/ Region 1980 1990 1997 1998 1999 2000
Arizona 1,017,705 1,498,660 1,976,785 2,072,726 2,150,538 2,220,712
Phoenix- Mesa 641,767 987,097 1,393,530 1,467,766 1,530,048 1,580,155
Tucson 178,198 246,827 296,785 308,281 317,406 328,426
Yuma N/ A 39,000 50,158 52,839 52,966 52,415
Rest of State 197,740 225,736 236,312 243,840 250,118 259,716
Apache 13,101 14,194 17,097 18,745 19,546 18,575
Cochise 21,212 25,791 29,193 29,457 30,217 31,467
Coconino 28,265 39,812 46,763 46,987 48,327 51,040
Gila 11,556 11,244 13,473 13,596 13,573 13,645
Graham 4,842 5,710 6,172 6,162 6,440 6,510
Greenlee 3,838 2,929 4,502 4,337 3,975 4,453
La Paz N/ A 4,492 5,389 5,489 5,524 5,738
Maricopa 641,767 987,097 1,355,775 1,431,060 1,494,051 1,544,971
Mohave 15,495 26,549 34,797 35,912 37,773 39,591
Navajo 16,974 20,443 22,457 23,582 24,200 24,550
Pima 178,198 246,827 296,785 308,281 317,406 328,426
Pinal 26,037 33,323 37,755 36,707 35,997 35,184
Santa Cruz 7,576 10,614 11,250 11,287 11,516 11,906
Yavapai 16,892 27,492 42,618 45,030 45,782 48,166
Yuma 29,135 39,000 50,158 52,839 52,966 52,415
Undefined 2,099 3,142 2,601 3,257 3,245 4,075
N = Not Available
* Undefined includes employment within the state not connected to individual counties or MSA’s.
Source: U. S. Department of Labor – Bureau of Labor Statistics Database ( 1975- 2000)
Income
Coincident with the population increase, Arizona has seen a steady rise in per capita income
( PCI). Historical data obtained through the Arizona Department of Economic Security shows a
continuing growth trend throughout the State. While PCI growth is more noticeable in some
areas of the state, no areas have seen decreases in PCI.
Table 3- 4 illustrates historical PCI by county for the years of 1991- 1997. Greenlee County has
experienced the most significant increase in PCI during this period ($ 13,572 to $ 19,119 or 41%)
while the PCI in Yuma County has seen the lowest increase ($ 13,512 to $ 15,629 or 16%). The
PCI in Maricopa and Pima Counties have exhibited similar growth during this period ( approx.
31% increase).
The succeeding Table 3- 5 depicts the percent change in PCI by county for the same period,
1991- 1997. Using the average of these percent changes, a projection through the year 2000 is
also supplied. The projection assumes a continuous increase based on the average percent
change for the years 1991- 1997.
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS 2000)
H:\ CD\ ELEMENT THREE. doc Element Three 3- 5
TABLE 3- 4: Arizona Per Capita Income 1991- 1997 ( in dollars)
County/ Region 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Arizona 16,971 17,583 18,270 19,127 20,078 21,071 21,998
Phoenix- Mesa 18,484 19,103 19,832 20,779 21,887 23,025 24,137
Apache 8,803 9,779 9,995 10,335 10,257 10,894 11,044
Cochise 13,556 14,351 14,647 14,739 15,088 15,984 16,532
Coconino 13,804 14,793 15,199 15,942 16,704 17,608 18,180
Gila 13,375 14,003 14,795 15,437 15,338 16,290 16,569
Graham 10,326 10,957 11,239 11,834 11,919 12,518 12,835
Greenlee 13,572 14,592 14,845 15,369 16,990 18,207 19,119
La Paz 15,258 15,351 17,279 16,538 17,175 18,125 19,352
Maricopa 18,799 19,430 20,151 21,145 22,274 23,435 24,601
Mohave 14,692 14,925 15,416 16,215 16,408 17,185 17,985
Navajo 10,030 10,682 10,787 11,216 11,493 11,947 12,166
Pima 16,337 16,942 17,756 18,684 19,375 20,375 21,068
Pinal 12,707 13,096 13,947 13,965 14,646 15,330 15,372
Santa Cruz 11,857 12,217 12,615 12,929 13,111 13,670 14,312
Yavapai 15,216 15,713 16,241 17,326 17,780 18,585 19,362
Yuma 13,512 13,803 14,538 14,334 16,889 15,511 15,629
Source:
1. Arizona Department of Economic Security, May, 1999
TABLE 3- 5: Arizona Historical Change in Per Capita Income 1991- 1997 ( in dollars)
1991- 92 1992- 93 1993- 94 1994- 95 1995- 96 1996- 97 2000
County/ Region (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) ( Dollars)
Arizona 3.61 3.91 4.69 4.97 4.95 4.40 $ 22,970
Phoenix- Mesa 3.35 3.82 4.78 5.33 5.20 4.83 $ 25,235
Apache 11.09 2.21 3.40 - 0.75 6.21 1.38 $ 11,477
Cochise 5.86 2.06 0.63 2.37 5.94 3.43 $ 17,091
Coconino 7.16 2.74 4.89 4.78 5.41 3.25 $ 19,036
Gila 4.70 5.66 4.34 - 0.64 6.21 1.71 $ 17,176
Graham 6.11 2.57 5.29 0.72 5.03 2.53 $ 13,311
Greenlee 7.52 1.73 3.53 10.55 7.16 5.01 $ 20,250
La Paz 0.61 12.56 - 4.29 3.85 5.53 6.77 $ 20,159
Maricopa 3.36 3.71 4.93 5.34 5.21 4.98 $ 25,730
Mohave 1.59 3.29 5.18 1.19 4.74 4.66 $ 18,604
Navajo 6.50 0.98 3.98 2.47 3.95 1.83 $ 12,566
Pima 3.70 4.80 5.23 3.70 5.16 3.40 $ 21,981
Pinal 3.06 6.50 0.13 4.88 4.67 0.27 $ 15,872
Santa Cruz 3.04 3.26 2.49 1.41 4.26 4.70 $ 14,769
Yavapai 3.27 3.36 6.68 2.62 4.53 4.18 $ 20,157
Yuma 2.15 5.32 - 1.40 17.82 - 8.16 0.76 $ 16,059
Sources:
Arizona Department of Economic Security, May, 1999
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS 2000)
H:\ CD\ ELEMENT THREE. doc Element Three 3- 6
3.3 ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE
Physical Setting
Arizona has the sixth largest land area ( 113,417 square miles) in the United States. It is bordered
by the states of California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah, as well as the country of Mexico.
The state terrain is highlighted by large desert areas, high mountainous regions, numerous mesas
and buttes, and an array of canyons. This varied terrain creates lengthy surface transportation
routes, thereby further substantiating the need for a more than adequate aviation system.
The climate in Arizona varies along with the terrain. From the hot and arid conditions in the
southwest part of the state to the cool and moist conditions at the higher elevations, climate
changes are an important consideration in the aviation needs assessment. Such issues as
pavement design, takeoff and landing distances, and navigational aids can all be impacted by
these drastic climatic differences.
Land Use
A large portion of the state is uninhabited and undeveloped. The focus of the state’s economic
activity and population is centered in two metropolitan areas: Phoenix and Tucson. Several
smaller urban communities are scattered throughout the state and support various mining,
military, agricultural and recreational activities. Communities fitting this category include
Douglas- Bisbee, Flagstaff, Lake Havasu City, Prescott, Sierra Vista, and Yuma. Numerous
Native American reservations are present in the state. Exhibit 3- 1 shows the predominant land
use patterns in Arizona.
Note: The “ Urbanized Areas” as defined by the 1990 census are Flagstaff, Phoenix, Tucson, and
Yuma.
Land Use Ordinances
Table 3- 6 lists the existing land use ordinances relative to aviation development in the state. As
shown, several Arizona counties have enacted some sort of ordinance that must be considered for
system improvement.
3.4 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
Highway System
According to the 1998 Arizona State Highway System Status and Condition Report, the Arizona
system route has 6,142 miles and a lane mileage of 15,895. There are 4,169 bridges on the
system. The state is navigated by four major interstates, two smaller interstate sections, and a
vast array of state highways. A complex freeway system is also in place in the larger
metropolitan areas of the state. Exhibit 3- 2 illustrates the existing system.
FLAGSTAFF
PHOENIX
TUCSON
0 10 20 30 40 50
MILES
Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS 2000)
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
T:\ 99248\ STUDY GRAPHICS\ EXHIBIT 3- 1. PPT
EXHIBIT 3- 1: Predominant Land Uses
FLAGSTAFF
PHOENIX
TUCSON
SOURCE: Bucher, Willis & Ratlif
Mining Operation
Indian Reservation
National Forest Land
Irrigated Land/ Agriculture
Military Land
Natl. Rec. Area or Refuge
Natl. Park or Monument
Urban Area
LEGEND
X
X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X XXXX X
X X
X
X X
X
X X X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XX
X
X
X
XX
XX
X
X
X X
XX
X
X
X X
X
X
X
GREENLEE
MOHAVE COCONINO
YAVAPAI
NAVAJO APACHE
LA PAZ
MARICOPA
YUMA
PIMA
PINAL GRAHAM
COCHISE
Background
SANTA CRUZ
GILA
f
Element Three 3- 7
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS 2000)
H:\ CD\ ELEMENT THREE. doc Element Three 3- 8
TABLE 3- 6: County Ordinance Review Summary
COUNTY ORDINANCES
Apache County has regulations which govern only typical land use zoning practices.
Cochise County- wide height hazard zoning.
Coconino No active county- owned airport.
Gila Only typical zoning.
Graham Only typical zoning.
Greenlee County has traditional height hazard zoning for Greenlee County Airport.
La Paz Controls both height of structures and land use. Land use based on noise contours, modeled
after military ordinance
Maricopa County has military base land use zoning ordinance.
County has height and hazard zoning adopted for military bases.
Mohave The county has an Airport District zone which addresses both height of structures and land use.
Navajo Controls height of structures along center line of runway.
Pima Overlay zoning for height and land use zoning.
Pinal The county has no ordinances or regulations regarding the control of object height or land use
compatibility.
Santa Cruz County is in process of developing an Airport Master Plan and County Development Code.
Yavapai County is in process of reviewing and adopting proposed ordinances.
Yuma City and County zoning essentially the same. Both height hazard and land use compatibility.
Source: Arizona Airport Land Use Compatibility Study, 1992, ADOT Aeronautics
FLAGSTAFF
PHOENIX
TUCSON
Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
T: 99248\ STUDY GRAPHICS\ EXHIBIT 3- 2,3 & 6. PPT
GREENLEE
MOHAVE COCONINO
YAVAPAI
NAVAJO APACHE
LA PAZ
MARICOPA
YUMA
PIMA
PINAL GRAHAM
SANTA CRUZ
COCHISE
GILA
EXHIBIT 3- 2: State Highway System
17
40
40
10
10
10
8
180
A89
60
191
180
191
60
60
70
191
80
66
89
80
15
19
264
87
86
85
89
87
89
66
160
191
90 80
82
83
191
80
116633
191
191
77
89
93
A89
93
95
LEGEND
Interstate Highways
U. S. Highways
State Highways
SOURCE: Arizona State Highway Maps
Element Three 3- 9
0 10 20 30 40 50
MILES
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS 2000)
H:\ CD\ ELEMENT THREE. doc Element Three 3- 10
Rail
There are numerous main rail lines navigating the state as well as multiple branch lines
connecting to these. Amtrak is the only company offering passenger rail service in the state.
Amtrak does not own rail lines in the state; they merely utilize the lines of others that provide
cargo service. Several other companies offer such cargo service.
There are two basic passenger routes offered by Amtrak. One route runs through Kingman,
Flagstaff, and Winslow in both directions. This is part of the Southwest Chief route that runs
from Los Angeles to Chicago through Albuquerque. The other route goes through Yuma,
Tucson and Benson, again in both directions. It is part of the Sunset Limited that goes from Los
Angeles to San Antonio, then to New Orleans and on to Orlando. Amtrak also provides a
connecting service between Flagstaff and Phoenix to facilitate passenger travel between the two
routes.
Amtrak railroad stations are present in the following locations in Arizona.
• Benson • Phoenix North
• Camp Verde • Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport
• Flagstaff • Tucson
• Grand Canyon • Williams
• Kingman • Williams Junction
• Lake Havasu • Winslow
• Munds Park • Yuma
• Phoenix Amtrak Station
A recreational rail system is also offered for round- trip service between Williams and the Grand
Canyon.
Bus Service
Bus service, while offered by a variety of carriers, is not widely used in the state. The
geographic isolation in some portions of Arizona make establishing routine service to these
locations cost- prohibitive. Numerous charter operators provide service for tour groups and, in
the larger metropolitan areas of Phoenix and Tucson, mass transit by bus is provided.
Greyhound fills the need for state- to- state travel by bus to and from Arizona.
The Maricopa Association of Governments ( MAG) Regional Public Transportation Authority
makes available to Phoenix and Maricopa County a bus service area of 585 square miles. This
service area includes some 56 local routes that allow almost 85% of the Maricopa County
population to live within one mile of an established bus route.
Sun Tran is the primary provider of public transportation in the Tucson area. Sun Tran operates
almost 40 routes that cover approximately 240 square miles. The average daily passenger
volume for Sun Tran is approximately 60,000.
As mentioned, several small urban and rural transit entities provide service on fixed routes to
other areas of the state. Their overall service is limited in nature, but they still provide key
transport mechanisms to these under served locations.
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS 2000)
H:\ CD\ ELEMENT THREE. doc Element Three 3- 11
3.5 AVIATION
Aviation is more important in Arizona relative to other states for a few reasons. Key among
these are the following:
• A very large tourist population that travels primarily by air
• A vast expanse of area much of which is isolated by its landscape
• Ideal flight weather conditions for 98% of the year that increase usage
The aviation industry continues to be one of the fastest growing components of the Arizona
economy. The estimated economic impact of aviation in Arizona for 1997- 98 was over $ 15
billion dollars. The industry employed 167,325 people in that same period. Its $ 4.3 billion
dollar payroll was also a major component for the state.
Given Arizona’s burgeoning economy and population, aviation can only continue to thrive.
Global economics and the need for businesses to maintain a fast, competitive pace will be
driving factors for the aviation industry. Transportation speed capabilities in our technologically
advanced world will feed the need for instant gratification. Aviation is the only mode that can
optimize that benefit.
The state’s aviation system can generally be organized in the following manner:
• Aviation Facility Classification
• Airport Facilities
• Heliport Facilities
• Seaplane Facilities
• Air Carrier Activity
• Scheduled Airline Routes
• Air Taxi
• General Aviation
• Rural Health Care Delivery/ Air Ambulance Service
• Military
• Airspace and NAVAIDs
Aviation Facility Classifications
Arizona has a variety of aviation facilities. Some are small rural unpaved airstrips serving
isolated portions of the state. Some are busy rooftop heliports facilitating the needs of corporate
America. Others are large, long- haul commercial service airports moving people and cargo back
and forth. Because of this diversity of facilities with broad ranges of operating parameters and
design standards, a means of facility classification is necessary.
Four basic aviation facility classifications are used by the FAA and the Arizona Department of
Transportation. The first is a classification system, mentioned in Element One, utilized in the
National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems ( NPIAS). The second is a coding system used by
the FAA to relate airport design criteria to the operational and physical characteristics of the
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS 2000)
H:\ CD\ ELEMENT THREE. doc Element Three 3- 12
airplanes operating at an airport. The third is a hierarchical classification used by the Arizona
Aeronautics Division that segregates the state’s airports into a Primary System, a Secondary
System, and Other Airports. The fourth was developed by the ADOT, based on former FAA
airport classification categories, to assist in setting minimum development standards and
planning guidelines for airport facility development in the state.
National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems ( NPIAS)
The NPIAS is a national airport system plan developed by the FAA to indicate aviation facilities
of national significance. NPIAS airports are eligible for federal grants for airport planning and
various capital improvements. The NPIAS defines an airport’s status by its service level. The
service level of an airport reflects the type of public service the airport provides to the
community. The service level also reflects the funding categories established by Congress to
assist in airport development. These categories are:
Primary Service ( PR) – Primary Service airports are public use airports receiving
scheduled airline passenger service which also enplane 10,000 or more passengers per
year.
Commercial Service ( CM) - Commercial Service airports are public use airports which
receive scheduled airline passenger service and which annually enplane 2,500 or more
passengers.
General Aviation ( GA) – General Aviation airports are either publicly or privately
owned, public use airports which serve general aviation needs.
Reliever ( RL) – Reliever airports are general aviation or commercial service airports
which have the function of relieving congestion at a Primary Service airport and which
provide the general aviation user or small commercial operator with an alternative for
access to the overall community. Reliever airports receive higher priority for funding
assistance than other general aviation or commercial service airports.
Airport Reference Code ( ARC)
The ARC is a coding system developed by the FAA used to relate airport design criteria to the
operational and physical characteristics of the airplanes intended to operate at an airport. The
ARC has two components related to the airport design aircraft. The first component, depicted by
a letter, is the aircraft approach category and relates to aircraft approach speed. These aircraft
categories are as follows:
• Category A: Speed less than 91 knots.
• Category B: Speed 91 knots or more, but less than 121 knots.
• Category C: Speed 121 knots or more, but less than 141 knots.
• Category D: Speed 141 knots or more, but less than 166 knots.
• Category E: Speed 166 knots or more.
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS 2000)
H:\ CD\ ELEMENT THREE. doc Element Three 3- 13
The second component, depicted by a Roman numeral, is the airplane design group and relates to
airplane wingspan. This grouping links an airport’s dimensional standards to aircraft wingspans.
The categories are as follows:
• Design Group I: Wingspan up to but not including 49 feet.
• Design Group II: Wingspan 49 feet up to but not including 79 feet.
• Design Group III: Wingspan 79 feet up to but not including 118 feet.
• Design Group IV: Wingspan 118 feet up to but not including 171 feet.
• Design Group V: Wingspan 171 feet up to but not including 214 feet.
• Design Group VI: Wingspan 214 feet up to but not including 262 feet.
Generally, aircraft approach speed applies to runways and runway related facilities. Airplane
wingspan primarily relates to separation criteria involving taxiways and taxilanes.
Airports expected to accommodate single- engine airplanes normally fall into Airport Reference
Code B- I. Airports serving larger general aviation and commuter- type planes are usually Airport
Reference Code B- II or C- II. Small to medium- sized airports serving air carriers are usually
Airport Reference Code C- III, while larger air carrier airports are usually Airport Reference
Code D- VI.
Primary and Secondary Airport Classifications
Arizona State’s aviation system is segregated by the ADOT, Aeronautics Division into two
subsystems ~ a Primary system and a Secondary system category. System airports are divided
into these two categories primarily by size and usage. In order for an airport to be included
under the primary system, it must be open to the public and meet at least one of the following
criteria:
• Have 10 or more based aircraft and/ or 2000 or more yearly operations; or
• Have scheduled air carrier service; or
• Receive commuter service regularly; or
• Projected to meet any of the above criteria within 10 years.
Primary system airports serving scheduled air carrier service must be certified under Federal
Aviation Regulation Part 139 ( Certification and Operations: Land Airports Serving Certain Air
Carriers).
There are 62 airports included in the Primary Airport System based on ADOT Aeronautics
Division’s 1999 records. Secondary airports are different in character from the State’s Primary
airports. Since these airports are normally located in rural areas, population size does not
generate sufficient aviation activity to warrant the level of airport facilities generally associated
with Primary airports. Secondary airports do provide facilities that can be utilized by single-engine
and light- twin aircraft ( e. g., FAA Stage I type aircraft). These Secondary airports are not
designed to serve business jets, heavy twin- engines, large commuter aircraft, or commercial
airlines.
The State’s definition of a Secondary airport is one that satisfies both of the following criteria:
( 1) recognized by the FAA as an airport per Form 5010, and ( 2) open to the public. There are 20
Secondary airports identified in the 1999 Fiscal Year listing.
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS 2000)
H:\ CD\ ELEMENT THREE. doc Element Three 3- 14
Previously, a category of airports called Emerging Rural Airports were included by ADOT as
part of the State’s system of airports that did not meet the requirements of either a Primary or
Secondary facility, but existed in areas that were not adequately served by aviation facilities.
The concept of Emerging Rural Airports was described in detail in a special study of Secondary,
Native American, and Other Rural Airports produced by ADOT in 1988. This special study
identified nine airports as potential State aviation network facilities. This category of airport is
no longer identified as a special category in the Arizona Aviation system.
Airport Categories
The following definitions are applicable to the State Primary and Secondary Systems.
1. Commercial Service Airport: a publicly owned airport which enplanes 2,500 or more
passengers annually and receives scheduled passenger air service.
2. Reliever Airport: an airport that serves as a “ relief of General Aviation traffic congestion
for a Commercial Service airport, providing more general aviation access to the overall
community. The Reliever Airport should have a current or forecast activity level of 50
based aircraft and a minimum of 25,000 annual itinerant operations ( or 35,000 local
operations).
3. General Aviation Airports: the remaining airports that do not fall into either the
Commercial Service or Reliever status are referred to as General Aviation airports. This
category includes privately owned and/ or private use airports/ heliports. For system
planning purposes, the General Aviation Airports may be divided into the following
types:
a. Community Airport: an airport within the State of Arizona serving an incorporated
community with a population more than 1,000 people.
b. Rural Airport: an airport within the State of Arizona serving an incorporated
community with less than 1,000 population.
c. Emergency Airport: an airport/ facility or area within the State of Arizona that
currently has, or can demonstrate, a need for an emergency or “ air evacuation”
airport. These airports may serve general aviation, recreation, and/ or emergency
services.
4. New Urban Airport: the construction of a new airport within 24 statute miles of the
Urbanized Area Boundary of Phoenix, Tucson, Yuma, and Flagstaff requires the approval
of the State Transportation Board ( A. R. S. 28- 8205).
Airport Facilities
This section provides a summary of existing aviation facilities in the state. Facilities included in
this section include all public- use facilities regardless of ownership. Arizona’s system of public-use
airports is very comprehensive. Airports are among the most heavily used means of public
transportation throughout the state. Maintaining and updating the aviation system is a critical
element to effectively fulfill the transportation needs of Arizona.
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS 2000)
H:\ CD\ ELEMENT THREE. doc Element Three 3- 15
The subsequent series of maps and tables on the next few pages to summarize the available
aviation resources. Exhibit 3- 3 and Table 3- 7 shows the State’s public- use airport system, both
commercial and general aviation. Military airports that are publicly owned but restricted in use
are also depicted. Exhibit 3- 4 illustrates only Arizona’s Primary airports while Exhibit 3- 5
presents only the Secondary airport system.
A summary of existing airfield facilities that lists runway data and taxiway information is
provided as Table 3- 8. Existing airport lighting and terminal navigational aids are detailed in
Table 3- 9.
Heliport Facilities
Helicopters provide a vital resource to the aviation system, particularly for the corporate and
medical communities in Arizona. There are well over 100 heliports located throughout the state.
The vast majority are privately owned with restricted use. Some facilities are publicly owned,
( Glendale Heliport and Helistop, Mesa Heliport) but required prior permission in order to use the
facility. In addition to the numerous heliports, many airports have routine helicopter service.
Helicopters are also a key element in the tourist industry. Numerous flights are available in the
Grand Canyon and Sedona areas. Most of these operate out of the Grand Canyon National Park
and Sedona Airports.
Seaplane Facilities
Seaplane facilities are of two types: seaplane bases and seaplane landing areas. Seaplane bases
have a resident operator who provides commercial services such as flight instruction, sight
seeing flights, aviation fuel, and / or aircraft maintenance. Seaplane landing areas are designated
bodies of water on which seaplanes can operate but where no seaplane- specific facilities are
available.
The following are seaplane facilities in Arizona.
Cocoino National Forest
Mormon Lake, Flagstaff, AZ
Lake Mary, Flagstaff, AZ
Upper Lake Mary, Flagstaff, AZ
Tonto National Forest
Roosevelt Lake, Roosevelt, AZ
U. S. National Park Service
Lake Mead, Temple Bar, AZ
Lake Mohave, Bullhead City, AZ
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
Lake Powell
Lake Havasu City
Lake Havasu, Lake Havasu City, AZ
FLAGSTAFF
PHOENIX
TUCSON
Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
T: 99248\ STUDY GRAPHICS\ EXHIBIT 3- 2,3 & 6. PPT
GREENLEE
MOHAVE COCONINO
YAVAPAI
NAVAJO APACHE
LA PAZ
MARICOPA
YUMA
PIMA
PINAL GRAHAM
SANTA CRUZ
COCHISE
GILA
4
40
82
EXHIBIT 3- 3: Existing Arizona State Public Use Airport System - 2000
109
57
30
107
87
32
67
65
56
82
99
95
40
5
66
14 23
110
72
46
29
96
21
11
28
55
88
9
105
80
113
97
63
34
SOURCE: ADOT, Division of Aeronautics; Bucher, Willis & Ratliff
98
76
7
NPIAS Airport
Non- NPIAS Airport
American Indian Airport
Other Airports
New/ Proposed Airport
LEGEND
33
49
22
4
Military Airport
Joint Use - Military/ Air Carrier Airport*
5
115
116
118
117
4
114
108
45
111
74
16
NOTE: * Phoenix- Sky Harbor, Tucson International and
Libby AFB are currently used by the Arizona
Air National Guard ( AANG).
69
80
58
2
Element Three 3- 16
A89
40
66
60
95
89
89
60
17
80
86
85
8
10
89
19
83
80
90 191 80
10
77
70
191
191
180
191
A89
93
93
10
87
180
89
163
160
87
191
264
22 60
36
41
35
104
42
100
37
47
49
6
48
27
24
86
75
54
112
60 90
93
61
10 20 25
102
51
81
26 84
33
31
12
85
15
2
121
120
122
15
0 10 20 30 40 50
MILES
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS 2000)
H:\ CD\ ELEMENT THREE. doc Element Three 3- 17
TABLE 3- 9: Listing of Public Use Airports
Legend
1. Ak- Chin Community ( 1)
2. Ajo Municipal
3. Apache Junction *
4. Avi Suquilla
5. Avra Valley ( Marana Reg’l)
6. Bagdad
7. Benson Municipal
8. Big Lake/ Sunrise ( 2)
9. Bisbee Douglas International
10. Bisbee Municipal
11. Bowie
12. Buckeye Municipal
13. Camp Verde ( 3)
14. Casa Grande Municipal
15. Chandler Municipal
16. Chinle Municipal
17. Chiricahau Mountains ( 2)
18. Cibola ( 2)
19. Cliff Dwellers Lodge ( 1)
20. Cochise College
21. Cochise County
22. Colorado City Municipal
23. Coolidge Municipal
24. Cottonwood Municipal
25. Douglas Municipal
26. Eloy Municipal
27. Ernest A. Love Field
28. Estrella Sailport
29. Flying J Ranch
30. Ganado
31. Gila Bend Municipal
32. Glendale Municipal
33. San Carlos Apache
34. Grand Canyon Bar- Ten
35. Grand Canyon Caverns
36. Grand Canyon National Park
37. Grand Canyon West
38. Grapevine/ Roosevelt Lake ( 1)
39. Greasewood ( 3)
40. Greenlee County
41. H. A. Clark Memorial Field
42. Holbrook Municipal
43. Hualapai ( 1)
44. Inscription House ( 3)
45. Kayenta
46. Kearny
47. Kingman
48. Lake Havasu City Municipal
49. Laughlin/ Bullhead Int’l
50. Leupp/ Painted Desert ( 3)
51. Sierra Vista Muni/ Libby AAF
52. Low Moutain ( 3)
53. Lukachukai ( 1)
54. Marble Canyon
55. Memorial Airfield ( 1)
56. Falcon Field
57. Mogollon Airpark ( 1)
58. Nogales International
59. Ora Acres ( 3)
60. Page Municipal
61. Payson
62. Peach Springs *
63. Pearce Ferry
64. Petrified Forest ( 3)
65. Phoenix Deer Valley
66. Phoenix Goodyear
67. Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l
68. Pearce Ferry
69. Pinal Airpark
70. Pine Springs ( 1)
71. Pinon ( 1)
72. Pleasant Valley
73. Pleasant Valley Airstrip ( 1)
74. Polacca
75. Flagstaff- Pulliam
76. Quartzsite *
MILITARY:
114. Davis- Monthan AFB
115. Laguna AAF
116. Luke AFB
117. Gila Bend- AF Aux.
118. Papago AAF
77. Rio Vista Hills ( 1)
78. Rock Point ( 1)
79. Rocky Ridge ( 1)
80. Rolle Airfield
81. Ryan Field
82. Safford Regional
83. Sampley ( 1)
84. San Manuel
85. Scottsdale
86. Sedona
87. Seligman
88. Sells
89. Shonto ( 1)
90. Show Low Municipal
91. Sky Ranch Carefree ( 1)
92. Somerton Field ( 1)
93. Town of Springerville Municipal
94. Sprucedale ( 2)
95. St. Johns Industrial Airpark
96. Stellar Airpark
97. Sun Valley
98. Superior Municipal
99. Taylor
100. Temple Bar
101. Three Point ( 3)
102. Tombstone Municipal
103. Toyei School *
104. Tuba City
105. Tucson International
106. Tucson Mercury ( 3)
107. Tuweep
108. Whiteriver
109. Wickenburg Municipal
110. Williams Gateway
111. Window Rock
112. Winslow Lindberg Regional
113. Yuma International/ MCAS Yuma
119. Alamo Lake ( 2)
120. Forepaugh
121. Grande Valley
122. Valle Airport
Airport candidates no longer viable and dropped from study = *
Airports that are active, private use airports = ( 1)
Recreational Study Airports, dropped from the SANS = ( 2)
Airpo
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
| Rating | |
| TITLE | Arizona state aviation needs study (SANS) 2000 |
| CREATOR | Arizona Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Division and Planning Advisory Committee. |
| SUBJECT | Airports--Arizona--Planning; Aeronautics and state--Arizona--Planning; Aeronautics--Economic aspects--Arizona; |
| Browse Topic |
Transportation |
| DESCRIPTION | 242 pages (PDF version). File size: 4462.705 KB. Prepared for the Arizona Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Division and Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) by Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corp. ; in association with the Presnell Group, Z & H Engineering, Inc., [and] the Kiehl-Hendrickson Group. |
| Language | English |
| Publisher | Arizona Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Division and Planning Advisory Committee. |
| TYPE | Text |
| Material Collection |
State Documents |
| Acquisition Note | Publication or link to publication sent to reports@lib.az.us |
| RIGHTS MANAGEMENT | Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be downloaded, reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution. |
| DATE ORIGINAL | [200?-] |
| Time Period |
2000s (2000-2009) |
| ORIGINAL FORMAT | Paper |
| Source Identifier | TRT 3.2:A 64/2000 |
| Location | ocm51859496 |
| DIGITAL IDENTIFIER | StateAviationNeedsStudy_2000.pdf |
| DIGITAL FORMAT | PDF (Portable Document Format) |
| REPOSITORY | Arizona State Library. Archives and Public Records--Law and Research Library. |
| File Size | 4462.705 KB |
| Full Text | The concept selected for assessing the Needs for the SANS 2000 is one based on the application of objective performance measures for evaluating alternative system funding scenarios. The value of this methodology is that the results from various levels of investment in the system can be clearly determined and identified relative to the goals, objectives and performance measures utilized. A key assumption of the methodology is that the overall system performance should take precedence over the individual airports. Figure 14, which follows, graphically shows the relationship between the recent investments which have been made to the Arizona system of airports since 1995 and the effects on system- wide facility performance. Since 1995 the level of investment to the airport system has resulted in an overall deterioration in system performance. A continuation of the existing funding level will result in a continued decline in services and could affect aviation safety across the state. While significant improvements have been made at several larger airports across the state, the aviation system as a whole and many of the smaller facilities continue to have significant needs. In scenarios B and C total financial needs identified in the long- range are considerably lower than those over the first ten years due to the difficulty of projecting the need and extent of future projects with as much detail as in the early stages of the planning program. The SANS, therefore concentrates more on the short and intermediate planning periods. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 " B" Existing " C" Increased 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 " B" Existing " C" Increased Figure 12: Total 10- Year Financial Need for Two Performance Scenarios B& C 2000- 2010 Figure 13: Total 20- Year Financial Need for Two Performance Scenarios B& C 2000- 2020 Performance Scenarios Performance Scenarios Investment Needs ($ Millions) Investment Needs ($ Millions) Figure 14: Investment and Performance Performance Scenarios - Year 2020 $ Billion Dollars System Performance (%) 100 50 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 1999 Baseline ' A' Existing Investment ' B' Existing Performance ' C' Improved Performance Total System Cost System Performance Aviation needs are estimated using a performance based needs model originally developed for the 1990 State Aviation Needs Study. The methodology, which is illustrated in Figure 1, evaluates the performance of all airports in the state aviation system and determines needs relative to the state aviation system’s goals and objectives. Three aviation needs scenarios were developed corresponding to the capital investment levels required to maintain and to improve system performance over the next twenty years. The first Scenario ( A) was designed to explore a scenario in which the existing funding level ( in current dollars) would remain unchanged over the next twenty year period. The goal was to examine the types of improvements that could be done in circumstances in which funding for maintenance and construction does not keep up with increasing demand. The second Scenario ( B) determines the financial investment required to maintain the present performance level of Arizona’s airport system into the future. Investment is sufficient only to keep pace with projected demand. The third Scenario ( C) assesses the financial investment needed to improve all State Aviation System facilities sufficiently to meet the Federal Aviation Administration and ADOT’s minimum planning and design guidelines for airports. In this scenario, existing airports are expanded to meet forecast demand, and new airports are constructed to meet access or capacity deficiencies. The Arizona Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Division, through its State System Planning Process and special studies, has developed an extensive and highly effective statewide aviation system. Consisting of nearly 85 public use facilities, the system moves over 20 million passengers per year and provides an estimated 28.1 billion dollars in direct, indirect, and induced economic impact annually for the State in 1998. The aviation system supports the tourist industry and other business opportunities, enhances the quality of life in the state through the delivery of health care and social services to rural areas, and facilitates the provision of emergency medevac flights throughout the state. rom a systemwide perspective, the condition of the existing system relative to the basic airport infrastructure, runway capacity, and the level of service provided to the citizens of the state is generally good. Overall, most airports in the state have better than average airside and landside facilities, adequate runway capacity, and well maintained pavements. The system also performs well in fulfilling its fundamental mission of the movement of people and goods. When compared to national standards, the system has very few gaps in the provision of convenient access to both commercial passenger airline service and general aviation services. owever, continued growth in both commercial service and general aviation activity will put a strain on the system. Significant increases in delay will occur at the state’s busiest airports and system- wide performance will decline without continued investment in the system. Increased delays for both air carrier and general aviation airports would substantially reduce the significant positive economic impact of aviation to the state. F H Figure 1: SANS Methodology Flow Chart 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 " B" Existing " C" Increased For this summary, we have primarily concentrated on only two of the investment scenarios -- maintaining existing performance and increased performance of the system. Because the existing investment scenario ( A) results in a dramatic decrease in overall system performance, it was determined that this would be an undesirable course of action for the future. Figure 9 shows the estimated cost to the existing level of performance of the aviation system. In this scenario, the total cost for the next five years is $ 539 million and for the next ten years is $ 1.04 billion. Nearly one- third of all expenditures are required by commercial service airports, with about sixty percent invested in other state primary airports. maintain Figure 10 shows the estimated cost to bring all system airports up to the minimum Federal Aviation Administration and ADOT guidelines for airport planning and design. For the next five years, costs are estimated at $ 1.123 billion and for the next ten years, estimated expenditures are $ 1.9 billion. Again, the majority of expenditures would be used to upgrade commercial service and other primary system airports. Commercial Service $ 396 Million Secondary $ 26 Million Millions of Constant 2000 Dollars Other Primary System $ 605 Million Millions of Constant 2000 Dollars Other Primary Sytem $ 1.06 Billion Secondary $ 46 Million Commercial Service $ 756 Million From the year 2000 forward, aviation revenue is forecast to average about $ 72 million per year based on current revenue sources. If averaged over the next five years, total revenue is forecast to total about $ 360 million. For the ten- year period, total aviation revenue would reach about $ 760 million. Of that ten- year total, $ 592 million is estimated from the federal government, $ 129 million from the state, and nearly $ 39 million from local governments and private sources. Private contributions for private airports vary with each scenario. Financial needs are defined as the difference between costs and revenues. Figures 11- 13 show the estimated financial needs for each Scenario. For example, over the next five years, to maintain the existing level of performance, an additional $ 127 million is needed to meet expenditures. Over the next ten years that figure rises to more than $ 276 million, and about $ 604 million in additional funding is needed over the next two decades. To bring all the system airports to minimum guidelines, an additional $ 696 million, $ 1.12 billion, and $ 1.5 billion is needed over the five-, ten- and twenty- years, respectively. Figure 11: Total 5- Year Financial Need for Two Performance Scenarios B& C 2000- 2005 Figure 9: Cost Estimates to Maintain Existing Level of Aviation System Performance 2000- 2010 Ten- Year Total Cost = $ 1.04 Billion Figure 10: Cost Estimates to Bring All Airports to Minimum Guidelines 2000- 2010 Ten- Year Total Cost = $ 1.9 Billion Performance Scenarios The performance- based needs scenarios are the focus of this study. Needs scenarios were developed to evaluate the various alternative future aviation system development strategies. They were matched against performance measures that reflected the desired level of service that the state aviation system should provide. As indicated, three alternative development strategies were considered. By comparing each system development scenario to the performance measures, State decision makers can determine the level of performance that each scenario will provide, as well as the associated costs of that scenario. To adequately assess the system, three general categories of performance measures were developed: Facility, Service Level, and Economic Measures. Facility Performance - Primary measures are physical condition and airfield capacity. Service Level Performance - Measures of the adequacy of the system in fulfulling the fundamental mission of the movement of people and goods. Economic Performance - Primary measures are costs of delay, economic impacts, and return on investment. In total, 17 performance measures were selected for the SANS 2000. Figure 7 shows the existing performance level of 12 of the measures, those addressing only facility and service level performance. Figure 8 provides a comparison of the State aviation system performance since the previous SANS prepared in 1995. As can be seen, some areas of performance have improved over the past five years including the resulting total economic impact of the system which has increased from $ 4.1 billion to $ 6.3 billion annually. At the same time, while many of the larger, more active airports in the system have kept up with demand, the system, as a whole, due to lack of available funding, has experienced a decline in overall performance. Figure 7: Facility and Services Level Performance for the Existing System Figure 8: Performance Measure Comparison of the State Aviation System 1995 to 2000 The primary goal of the SANS 2000 was to determine the existing status, condition and performance of Arizona’s aviation system and to evaluate the improvement needs of the system on a five-, ten- and twenty- year basis. The study provides guidance for the structured development of aviation facilities necessary to meet the State’s needs through the year 2020. The SANS 2000 incorporates the requirements of the ADOT, Aeronautics Division and the Federal Aviation Administration ( FAA) into the analysis and planning program. Goals and objectives are the essential bridge between technical evaluation of alternative plans and the needs of the state, regions within the state, individual communities, and special interest groups. The evaluation process combines quantitative standards or relatively precise criteria with qualitative judgements. Setting goals and objectives in the planning process directs the quantitative ranking judgements towards conformity with overall statewide and community values. Ultimately, the success of this study effort largely depends on identifying the long- term policies of the state and developing an overall strategy that will guide the planning effort in the desired direction. In support of overall state social, economic and environmental policies, the following goals were identified as relating to the future development of Arizona’s state air transportation system. Provide for the timely development of aviation facilities adequate to meet the air transportation needs and economic goals of the State of Arizona. Maintain a system of public use airports and heliports that assures a high degree of safety to the users while at the same time providing better than adequate levels of service, in terms of reliability and efficiency. Maximize the economic benefits and return on investment from development of Arizona’s air transportation system. Develop an air transportation system that is consistent with Arizona’s long range comprehensive planning policies and plans, particularly with respect to surface transportation and land use. In order to get input from users of the system, groups representing both aviation and non- aviation interests were invited to participate in the SANS as a Planning Advisory Committee ( PAC). The following is a listing of organizations that took part: Arizona State Legislature ( Representative) 56th Fighter Wing ( Luke Air Force Base) Arizona State University Arizona Air National Guard Vision 21 Task Force Embry- Riddle Aeronautics University Maricopa Association of Governments ( MAC) Office of the Governor Federal Aviation Administration ( FAA) Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association ( AOPA) Honeywell Computer Kingman Airport Arizona Flyways Glendale Municipal Airport American West Airlines Tucson Airport Authority Arizona Pilots Association MD Helicopters Pima Association of Governments ( PAG) Arizona Airports Association Yuma International Airport Southwest Airlines Navajo Nation Phoenix Sky- Harbor Airport Arizona DOT, Aeronautics Division Arizona’s aviation facilities range from small rural unpaved airstrips to large long- haul commercial service airports. Three hundred and nine Arizona airports are registered with the Federal Aviation Administration ( FAA), of which 92 are open to the public and included in the State Aviation System. Fifty- nine facilities are recognized by the FAA as nationally significant by inclusion in FAA’s National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems ( NPIAS). These airports are eligible for federal funding for airport planning and capital improvements. Included in this group are eight primary commercial service airports, five non- primary commercial airports, 33 general aviation airports and nine reliever airports. Figure 2 shows the State Aviation System facilities ( public use) by type. Figures 3 and 4 identify the State’s Primary and Secondary System Airports. Figure 2: Classification of Aviation Facilities Total State System Airports: 85 Figure 3: Arizona State Primary Airport System Figure 4: Arizona State Secondary Airport System General Aviation Airports included in the FAA’s National Plan for Integrated Airport Systems 37 Other General Aviation Airports 26 Primary Commercial Service Airports 8 Non- Primary Airports Reliever 5 Airports 9 GREENLEE MOHAVE COCONINO YAVAPAI NAVAJO APACHE LA PAZ MARICOPA YUMA PIMA PINAL GRAHAM SANTA CRUZ COCHISE Public Airport Private Airport Native American Government LEGEND AIRPORT OWNERSHIP NOTE: Secondary System Definition: All public use and Native American facilities not in the State’s Primary System. SOURCE: Arizona Division of Aeronautics Tombstone Bowie San Manuel Kearny Superior Seligman Hualapai Temple Bar Pearce Ferry Tuweep Marble Canyon Rolle Airfield Grand Canyon Bar Ten Sun Valley Flying J Ranch Sells Ak- Chin Lukachukai Shonto Rock Point Rocky Ridge Pinon Pine Springs Valle Grande Valley Forepaugh Grand Canyon Caverns Memorial Airfield GILA San Carlos Apache Polacca Pleasant Valley Airstrip Chinle GREENLEE MOHAVE COCONINO YAVAPAI NAVAJO APACHE LA PAZ MARICOPA YUMA PIMA PINAL GRAHAM SANTA CRUZ COCHISE AIRPORT CLASSIFICATIONS Primary Commercial Service Airports Other Commercial Service Airports Reliever Service Airports Public Use Airports LEGEND SOURCE: Arizona Division of Aeronautics Page Tuba City Grand Canyon National Park Kingman Laughlin/ Bullhead Flagstaff- Pulliam H. A. Clark Memorial Sedona Lake Havasu Ernest A. Love Field Bagdad Cottonwood Winslow- Lindberg Holbrook St. Johns Town of Springerville Whiteriver Show Low Taylor Avi Suquilla Wickenburg Yuma International Marana NW Regional Tucson International Cochise County Stafford Douglas Bisbee- Douglas Eloy Pinal Airpark Coolidge Falcon Field Scottsdale Deer Valley Pleasant Valley Williams Gateway Chandler Stellar Estrella Ajo Gila Bend Casa Grande Ryan Field Benson Window Rock Glendale Goodyear Buckeye Greenlee County Sierra Vista Nogales Bisbee Cochise College Phoenix- Sky Harbor Colorado City Kayenta Payson Grand Canyon West Eagle Airpark Valle Cibecue Chinle Ganado GILA San Carlos Apache 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 State Total Pima Maricopa All Others 0 5,000,000 10,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000 25,000,000 30,000,000 35,000,000 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 All Others Tucson Phoenix General aviation includes every type of civil flying other than the certificated air carriers and, often the system is characterized by a relatively low profile. Most of the general public enjoys the benefits of the system while many remain unaware of its existence or misunderstand its use and importance. Nationally, general aviation accounts for 96 percent of all hours flown and provides access to more than 12,000 communities, while commercial air carriers provide service to about 350 airports. In Arizona, while the commercial air carriers provide service to only 20 communities within the state, general aviation public use airports provide quick, efficient access to nearly 100 communities statewide. Over the past five years, total general aviation based aircraft within Arizona has increased by 9.7 percent. As illustrated in Figure 6, this sustained growth in general aviation usage is expected to continue in the state with an estimated increase of more than 40 percent in total- based aircraft over the next 20 years. In terms of aircraft operations, or landings and takeoffs, activity is expected to increase by nearly 64 percent over this same period which will result in even greater demand and need for improvement to airfield facilities. Arizona’s aviation industry is a catalyst for economic expansion and continues to grow rapidly. The state has witnessed tremendous growth over the past twenty years and the next twenty promise to be filled with equal potential as the state epitomizes “ sun belt” attractiveness. The forecast for commercial passenger enplanements is for commercial passenger enplanements is shown on Figure 5. Between 2000 and 2020, total passenger enplanements are expected to increase by 79 percent, to nearly 36 million annually. Phoenix and Tucson carry worldwide recognition and will account for the majority of this activity. In addition, however, the Grand Canyon and Colorado River communities remain top draws for tourism, old West towns perpetuate Arizona’s appeal, and the state’s diversified climate and scenery create an unmatched variety of travel experiences. Figure 5: Forecast Commercial Passenger Enplanements 2000- 2020 Figure 6: Forecast General Aviation Based Aircraft 2000- 2020 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000 H:\ CD\ ELEMENT ONE. doc Element One 1- 1 ELEMENT ONE: INTRODUCTION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES REVIEW OF EXISTING PLANS Element One is the first in a series of seven elements that have been established to facilitate the development of the 2000 Arizona State Aviation Needs Survey ( SANS). The SANS has been sub- divided into these elements to allow for the periodic review of the study findings by other concerned parties. Suggested revisions from these periodic reviews will be incorporated into the final SANS documentation. The focus of Element One is to provide an overview of the study process as well as to define the goals and objectives of the SANS. Element One is divided into the following sections: • Project Description • Issues • Goals and Objectives • Review of Existing Plans Each of the above referenced sections will provide adequate details to better understand the procedures, definitions, assumptions, constraints, and information sources utilized in the SANS report. 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Arizona Department of Transportation ( ADOT), Aeronautics Division reassesses the needs of the state’s aviation system every five years. The previous needs assessment was completed in 1995. Given the significant population increases that Arizona has witnessed in recent years, it is imperative to develop an accurate assessment that can address this blossoming population and the growth associated with it. As the population bulges, the strains placed on the airport system become more evident. Needs increase not only for commercial service but also for improved cargo services, as well as medical and recreational support services. Population projections indicate this trend will continue throughout the state. Therefore, it is necessary for Arizona to approach the SANS study with a more unique methodology. Many factors that will have to be considered may not be critical in studies where population trends are stagnant. Airports and aviation facilities in the state are considered to be part of a system with each reaping benefits of the other facilities in some manner. The primary goal of the SANS 2000 is to determine the existing status, condition and performance of this system and to evaluate the improvement needs of the system on a five-, ten- and twenty- year basis. Facilities considered in the SANS include all public and private ( those open to public) airports, and heliports, as well as recreational and Native American airports. A listing of all public use facilities with their associated cities and counties is presented in Table 1- 1. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000 H:\ CD\ ELEMENT ONE. doc Element One 1- 2 TABLE 1- 1: Arizona State Public Use Airports AIRPORT NAME ASSOCIATED CITY COUNTY Ajo Municipal Ajo Pima Apache Junction ( New) Apache Junction Pinal Avi Suquilla ( NA) Parker La Paz Bagdad Bagdad Yavapai Benson Municipal Benson Cochise Bisbee Douglas International Douglas/ Bisbee Cochise Bisbee Municipal Bisbee Cochise Bowie Bowie Cochise Buckeye Municipal Buckeye Maricopa Casa Grande Municipal Casa Grande Pinal Cascabel Airpark ( Note 1) Tucson Pima Chandler Municipal Chandler Maricopa Chinle Municipal Chinle Apache Cibecue Municipal ( New) Cibecue Navajo Cochise College Douglas Cochise Cochise County Willcox Cochise Colorado City Municipal Colorado City Mohave Coolidge Municipal Coolidge Pinal Cottonwood Municipal Cottonwood Yavapai Douglas Municipal Douglas Cochise Eagle Airpark Aguila Mohave Eloy Municipal Eloy Pinal Ernest A. Love Field Prescott Yavapai Estrella Sailport Maricopa Pinal Falcon Field Mesa Maricopa Flagstaff- Pulliam Flagstaff Coconino Flying J Ranch Pima Graham Forepaugh Wickenburg Maricopa Ganado ( NA) Ganado Apache Gila Bend Municipal Gila Bend Maricopa Glendale Municipal Glendale Maricopa Grand Canyon Bar- Ten Whitmore Mohave Grand Canyon Caverns Peach Springs Coconino Grand Canyon National Park Grand Canyon Coconino Grand Canyon West Meadview Mohave Grande Valley Maricopa Pinal Greenlee County Clifton/ Morenci Greenlee H. A. Clark Memorial Field Williams Coconino Holbrook Municipal Holbrook Navajo Kayenta ( NA) Kayenta Navajo Kearny Kearny Pinal Kingman Kingman Mohave Lake Havasu City Municipal Lake Havasu City Mohave Laughlin/ Bullhead International Bullhead City Mohave Marana NW Regional Marana Pima Marble Canyon Marble Canyon Coconino ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000 H:\ CD\ ELEMENT ONE. doc Element One 1- 3 TABLE 1- 1: Arizona State Public Use Airports ( continued) AIRPORT NAME ASSOCIATED CITY COUNTY Memorial Airfield ( NA) ( Note 1) Chandler Maricopa Mogollon Airpark ( Note 1) Overgaard Navajo Nogales International Nogales Santa Cruz Page Municipal Page Coconino Payson Payson Gila Pearce Ferry Meadview Mohave Phoenix Deer Valley Phoenix Maricopa Phoenix Goodyear Goodyear Maricopa Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l Phoenix Maricopa Pinal Airpark Marana Pinal Pleasant Valley Peoria Maricopa Polacca ( NA) Polacca Navajo Quartzsite ( New) Quartzsite La Paz Rolle Airfield Somerton Yuma Ryan Field Tucson Pima Safford Regional Safford Graham St. Johns Industrial Airpark St. Johns Apache San Carlos Apache Globe Gila San Manuel San Manuel Pinal Scottsdale Scottsdale Maricopa Sedona Sedona Yavapai Seligman Seligman Yavapai Sells ( NA) Sells Pima Show Low Municipal Show Low Navajo Sierra Vista Muni/ Libby AAF Ft. Huachuca Cochise Stellar Airpark Chandler Maricopa Sun Valley Bullhead City Mohave Superior Municipal Superior Pinal Taylor Taylor Navajo Temple Bar Temple Bar Mohave Tombstone Municipal Tombstone Cochise Town of Springerville Municipal Springerville Apache Tuba City ( NA) Tuba City Coconino Tucson International Tucson Pima Tuweep Tuweep Mohave Valle Airport Grand Canyon Coconino Whiteriver ( NA) Whiteriver Navajo Wickenburg Municipal Wickenburg Maricopa Williams Gateway Phoenix Maricopa Window Rock ( NA) Window Rock Apache Winslow- Lindberg Regional Winslow Navajo Yuma International Yuma Yuma LEGEND: NA = Native America Note 1: Airport changec to “ Private Use” ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000 H:\ CD\ ELEMENT ONE. doc Element One 1- 4 As we progress toward a more global economy, the impact of aviation cannot be understated. Efficient and safe access to and from a multitude of geographic locations is essential for maintaining pace in an ever- changing world. Growth in the 21st century will depend heavily on technology and transportation capabilities. Aviation facility improvements will be critical to Arizona continuing its remarkable growth rate. In all likelihood, new facilities will become necessary. Planning now for these improvements and new facilities is the key to success. Time is required to develop budget items and associated appropriations. Alternative funding mechanisms have to be considered and evaluated for viability in the event of a budget shortfall. Decisions of this nature mandate that the information provided for decision making be comprehensive and accurate. Given the time restrictions associated with these decisions, the information must also present a concise picture of the overall statement. Cost projections must be realistic. Findings must be substantiated by adequate proof to prevent second- guessing. The SANS 2000 has been developed with these vital aspects in mind. While it is necessary to analyze a large volume of data, it is even more crucial to focus the conclusions in the areas with the greatest needs. 1.2 ISSUES The SANS 2000 is designed to assess the needs of the aviation community as a whole. It presents an opportunity to consider numerous issues that impact aviation throughout the state. It also creates a forum to consider input from airport managers, pilots, economic development agencies, air service providers, and other potentially affected parties. Among the issues that will be considered in the development of SANS 2000 are the following: Differences in existing information in aviation data such as airport master plans, Regional Aviation System Plans ( RASP), and the State Aviation System Plan ( SASP) Needs study methodologies used in other states Educational and training needs of current and future system users Planning, engineering, construction costs, and cost trends Impact of advanced technological improvements Land- use compatibility issues Impact of environmental issues and constraints Potential return- on- investment of tax dollars Revenue and funding sources Identification of specific needs to improve existing facilities and to develop new facilities Medical aviation needs Aviation safety throughout the system ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000 H:\ CD\ ELEMENT ONE. doc Element One 1- 5 The order of listing of these issues does not reflect relative priorities. All of the issues are paramount in developing the SANS. 1.3 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The establishment of goals and objectives is essential in any data collection and interpretation task. The desired end product must be confirmed before the collection effort is initiated in order to prevent needless research. Defined goals and objectives are the key to this. The data evaluation process combines quantitative measures with qualitative interpretations. Setting goals and objectives at the onset allows the evaluation process to maintain focus and not become encumbered. As previously stated, the primary goal of the SANS 2000 is to determine the existing status, condition and performance of Arizona’s aviation system and to evaluate the improvement needs of the system on a five-, ten- and twenty- year basis. This study will provide guidance for the structured development of aviation facilities necessary to meet the State’s needs through the year 2020. The SANS 2000 shall further incorporate requirements of the ADOT, Aeronautics Division and the Federal Aviation Administration ( FAA). To be an effective evaluation of the aviation system, it is essential to consider the “ big picture.” Becoming entangled in the needs of a particular facility or in short- term needs of the system will not benefit the entire system. It is necessary to consider long- range ideology. What will the needs of the system be in twenty years or fifty years? Laying effective groundwork in the present will prevent future difficulties. Having foresight now can result in significant savings down the road. As Federal funding becomes tighter and tighter, it is even more critical to budget and spend effectively. It is also necessary to address issues regarding environmental and social impacts of aviation facilities. To this cause, the following developmental goals have been established for Arizona’s aviation system: Provision of adequate aviation facilities that can meet the transportation and economic needs of the state Maintenance of a system of airports and other aviation facilities that can ensure user safety while supplying better than adequate levels of service in terms of reliability and efficiency Amplification of the economic rewards and return on investment by improving Arizona’s aviation facilities Cultivation of an air transportation system that is consistent with the long- term planning policies, land use issues, and surface transportation goals. The specific objectives of the SANS 2000 can be stated in terms suited for the use of performance standards. The objectives listed below have been deemed significant to the State’s aspiration of effective development of its aviation system. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000 H:\ CD\ ELEMENT ONE. doc Element One 1- 6 Facilitate commercial air service in both urban and rural areas throughout Arizona Ensure conformance with physical development standards established by Federal, state and local agencies Provide a system of aviation facilities within reasonable access time to all system users Promote the use of aviation facilities for the delivery of emergency and rural health care services Encourage economic development opportunities through the utilization of an effective aviation system Maintain compatibility with local land use patterns and plans Raise the efficiency of the aviation system Maximum the return on investment for aviation dollars Foster input from potentially impacted parties through a variety of means including public forums and questionnaires 1.4 REVIEW OF EXISTING PLANS Numerous studies have preceded the SANS 2000. These studies have been conducted by a variety of entities including individual airports, regional planning agencies, and the ADOT, Aeronautics Division. These studies provide valuable information that must be considered during the compilation of the SANS 2000. Operations data, forecasting information, budget figures, and physical characteristics are just a few of the items that can be ascertained from these existing plans. It is necessary to evaluate these extensive planning efforts for their applicability to the current study. Many times the previous studies are not current enough to consider the data valid. Other times their objectives are too site- specific to be beneficial to the study of the aviation system as a whole. In general, however, these studies have been conducted through the expenditure of a great deal of time that is not possible when assessing the needs of the entire state. It is this fact that makes reliance on these documents mandatory. Several aspects of the SANS 2000 accept the information in the existing plans “ as is” with no exceptions. This is a necessary step in order to achieve the timeliness required. The following sub- sections detail the background and sources of the existing planning efforts. In all cases the most recent study available has been reviewed. Background Aviation planning efforts in Arizona are conducted at multiple levels: national, state, regional, and local. The emphasis at each level varies as do the priorities. Different goals and objectives of the sponsors create this variance. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000 H:\ CD\ ELEMENT ONE. doc Element One 1- 7 At the national level is the National Plan of Integrated Airports Systems ( NPIAS) which is produced by the FAA. The NPIAS is based on information developed as a result of state and metropolitan/ regional system planning and individual facility master planning as well as national forecasts and planning. It is a ten- year plan that is continually updated by the FAA. It lists the development of public use airports that are considered to be of national interest and are thus eligible for financial assistance for airport planning, maintenance, and development under the Federal Airport Improvement Program ( AIP). To be considered for AIP funding, an aviation facility must be included in the NPIAS. State level planning efforts are performed by ADOT. These efforts generally target the assessment of needs for new aviation facilities and the need for improvement of existing facilities. Studies at this level include the Continuous Aviation System Planning Process ( CASPP) and a variety of special interest studies. Regional planning efforts are conducted to identify the needs of larger regional/ metropolitan areas that may have more specific interests. The needs are generally stated within the context of regional priorities and are normally incorporated into state planning efforts. Regional plans have been developed by Cochise County, the Maricopa Association of Governments ( MAG), and the Pima Association of Governments ( PAG). Local planning efforts are reflected by individual airport master plans. These master plans are undertaken by local airport sponsors and operators. They detail the specific long- range plans of the facility within the framework of local community goals and objectives as well as statewide and regional/ metropolitan system plans. National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems ( NPIAS) As previously stated, NPIAS is an airport system plan developed by the FAA to indicate aviation facilities of national significance. NPIAS airports are eligible for federal grants for airport planning and various capital improvements. The NPIAS defines the status of an airport by its service level. The service level of a facility is reflective of the type of public service that the facility provides to the community. The service level is further indicative of the funding categories established by Congress to assist in airport development. The service levels categories identified by the NPIAS are as follows: Primary Service ( PR) – Primary service airports are public use airports receiving scheduled airline passenger service which also enplane 10,000 or more passengers per year. Commercial Service ( CM) – Commercial service airports are public use airports receiving scheduled airline passenger service which also enplane 2,500 or more passengers per year. General Aviation ( GA) – General aviation airports are either publicly or privately owned public use airports that serve general aviation users. Reliever ( RL) – Reliever airports are general aviation ( RL) airports which have the function of relieving congestion at a Primary Service airport and which provide the ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000 H:\ CD\ ELEMENT ONE. doc Element One 1- 8 general aviation user or small commercial operator with an alternative for access to the overall community. Reliever airports receive higher priority for funding assistance than other general aviation or commercial service airports. The most recent NPIAS, March 2000, lists 57 airports in Arizona. This includes ten primary airports, five non- primary commercial service airport, 33 general aviation airports and nine reliever airports. Arizona State Aviation System Planning The initial State Aviation System Plan ( SASP) was prepared in 1973 and was updated in 1978 and 1988. The purpose of the SASP was to provide policy guidelines that would promote and maintain a safe aviation system in the State while providing an assessment of the needs of the system on a five-, ten-, and twenty- year basis. In 1988 the SASP was replaced by the Continuous Aviation System Planning Process ( CASPP). The components of the CASPP are stated below: Volume I Economic Impact of Aviation in Arizona ( 1990) Volume II Inventory of Aviation Activities ( 1988) Volume III Forecasts of Aviation Activity ( 1988) Volume IV Commuter Air Service Feasibility Study ( 1988) Volume V Land Use Compatibility ( 1992) Volume VI The Future of Aviation in Arizona ( 1988) Other studies initiated by the State and identified in the 1995 SANS include a 1988 report on the needs of Native American airports, secondary airports, and other airports; a study in 1988 on the feasibility of a new regional airport facility in the Verde Valley area; the Arizona Recreational Airports System Plan conducted in 1992; a Pavement Management System Study from 1992; and the Arizona Regional Airport Feasibility Assessment Study done in 1993. Studies performed by the state subsequent to these include the Feasibility Study and Environmental Review for a Regional Rescue and Firefighter Training Facility ( ARFF) completed in 1995, The Economic Impact of Aviation in Arizona from 1998, and the Navigational Aids and Aviation Services Special Study completed in 1998. Completion of the Arizona Rural Air Service Study is still pending. Past Aviation Needs Study Efforts The previously stated goals of the SANS 2000 were similar to those of the past SANS studies. The SANS 2000 will be the fourth in a series of these broad spectrum analyses of the aviation system in Arizona. The first SANS was developed in 1985. Its purpose was to address the five-, ten-, and twenty-year capital improvements needs for the aviation system in Arizona. Various performance levels were considered and projected revenues were compared to costs at each performance level. This process is very similar to the task at hand for SANS 2000. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000 H:\ CD\ ELEMENT ONE. doc Element One 1- 9 A particularly unique aspect of the 1985 SANS was the use of comparison ratings to evaluate performance levels. This rating scheme compared an airport’s overall ability to accommodate demand versus the total aviation demand in the State both at 1985 levels as well as future projection levels. Once a benchmark rating was determined, it was possible to evaluate numerous scenarios that could impact the benchmark. Cost projections could be made for various performance levels. The SANS 1990 further refined the SANS 1985 rating methodology. The goal of SANS 1990 was to correlate the aviation system needs with state economic, social and environmental policies. Planners were able to gauge the level of attainment of various goals and objectives complying with these policies, thereby assuring effective management of taxpayer funds. An additional variable implemented into SANS 1990 was 50- year projection information. The SANS 1995 evaluated needs projections on a five-, ten-, and twenty- year basis. The performance levels measured and the scenarios considered are similar to those utilized in SANS 2000. SANS 1995 promoted a methodology that would allow for an evaluation of the relationship between the performance of the system and capital investments placed into various parts of the system. This created the ability to interchange multiple capital investment scenarios and subsequently provide valuable insight into funding decisions. All of the SANS efforts have attempted to encourage the input of a variety of individuals. The usage of questionnaires, the establishment of Planning Advisory Committees ( PAC), and the public forums have fostered the development process. Regional Airport System Plans ( RASP) At this time there are three RASP’s in effect in Arizona. Entities undertaking RASP efforts include Cochise County, the Maricopa Association of Governments ( MAG), and the Pima Association of Governments ( PAG). These RASP’s further define the goals and objectives of the airport system on a localized basis above and beyond the individual facility master plan goals. Unique goals of the various RASP’s promote the development of somewhat dissimilar data than that obtained at the state level, but their evaluation is essential in the preparation of SANS 2000. The ability to minimize the study population increases the volume of information that can be considered. Brief descriptions of the current RASP efforts are detailed in the following paragraphs. Cochise County Two primary RASP efforts have been prepared for Cochise County. The initial RASP was done in 1982. The most recent effort was completed in 1994. Information from the 1994 Cochise County RASP was considered for SANS 1995. There were 13 airports evaluated by the RASP. The facilities included in the 1994 report are: Public Use Airports Private Airports Sierra Vista Muni/ Libby AAF Douglas Municipal Benson Bisbee Municipal Tombstone Municipal Whetstone Bisbee- Douglas Int’l Bowie San Simon Cochise College Benson ( proposed in 1994) McNeal Cochise County ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000 H:\ CD\ ELEMENT ONE. doc Element One 1- 10 The 1994 RASP considered inventory data from each airport; input from pilot/ owners as well as the public; operations and aircraft forecasts; and socio- economic data. It also compared the existing facilities to the development guidelines established by ADOT planning efforts. From the RASP, a listing of priority projects was produced. Among those projects identified by the 1994 RASP included additional taxiways and PAPIs at Sierra Vista/ Libby AAF, a paved taxiway and navigational lighting at Cochise County, and the construction of the new Benson Municipal Airport. Maricopa Association of Governments ( MAG) The first Maricopa Association of Governments RASP was completed in 1979 and was updated in 1986. Rapid development in Maricopa County prompted another revision of the plan in 1993. The data from the 1993 RASP was utilized in the SANS 1995. There has been no update of the MAG RASP since 1993, but the MAG recently received funding to initiate an update in 2001. In 1996 MAG completed an Implementation Study of the RASP. This study identified over 100 aviation facilities in the region including 47 airports, 67 heliports, and three ultralight fields. Of this number, 16 were identified as important in meeting the aviation needs of the community and were designated System Airports. These 16 airports are as follows: • Buckeye Municipal • Phoenix Goodyear • Chandler Municipal • Phoenix Sky Harbor • Estrella Sailport • Pleasant Valley • Falcon Field • Scottsdale • Gila Bend Municipal • Sky Ranch- Carefree • Glendale Municipal • Stellar Airpark • Memorial Airfield • Wickenburg Municipal • Phoenix Deer Valley • Williams Gateway Six primary data categories were identified by the Implementation Study: airport sketches, database, capital improvement program, intermodal needs, noise contours, and land use compatibility. Forecasting data utilized in the 1993 RASP was also utilized for this report. This forecasting information was previously considered in the SANS 1995. Much of the focus of the 1996 RASP was to define potential projects under the capital improvement program. The RASP enumerates some 634 projects with an estimated cost of slightly under $ 1,000,000,000. Projects were categorized under such criteria as local interest, pavement maintenance, safety issues, design standard upgrades, navigational aids, and airport capacity, among others. The largest percentage of projects from a cost standpoint ($ 381 million) were proposed for Phoenix- Sky Harbor, which is not unexpected, given its crucial role in the state aviation system. Williams- Gateway also had numerous projects proposed ($ 297 million) to increase its capabilities. Pima Association of Governments ( PAG) The Pima Association of Governments ( PAG) adopted their initial RASP in 1985. The PAG RASP was updated in 1995. Projections were made through 2020 in the 1995 RASP. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000 H:\ CD\ ELEMENT ONE. doc Element One 1- 11 The public use airports identified by the RASP include the following: Ajo Municipal, Marana NW Regional, Ryan Field, Sells, and Tucson International. LaCholla Airpark, which is privately- owned but allows limited public access, was also included. Pinal Airpark was included as well as Davis- Monthan Air Force Base. The RASP identified numerous projects for each of the system facilities. The general conclusion of the RASP indicated if the proposed projects were implemented the system would be adequate to meet future needs of Pima County. It further recommended that the RASP be updated periodically to ensure that changes in existing needs or conditions could be considered. Airport Master Plans Several airport sponsors have prepared Master Plans for their facilities. These plans attempt to identify long- term development schemes on a localized basis. The goals and objectives of the individual facility are much more specific than at the state or regional levels. Master plans provide forecasting data and project implementation information in an effort to support modernization of the facility. Much more emphasis can be placed on the individual needs of the facility and the desires of the local community. One of the key elements derived from master planning efforts is an Airport Layout Plan ( ALP). The ALP is a graphic representation of the facility depicting all existing improvements, location, pertinent clearance and dimensional information and other factors that can determine an airport’s compliance with applicable standards. The ALP must be updated as improvements are made to the facility. Other data obtained from master plans include based aircraft projections, operations forecasts for general aviation and commercial services ( where available), and completed projects information among others. Of the study airports identified, 64 were found to have completed master plans for their facility. Data from these has been selectively included in the development of SANS 2000. Summary Table 1- 2 illustrates the planning efforts that have been undertaken in the State. These efforts include NPIAS, master plans, airport layout plans, regional airport system plans, and special studies. Table 1- 3 indicates the action taken on specific airports in this study that were included in the 1995 State Aviation Needs Study. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000 H:\ CD\ ELEMENT ONE. doc Element One 1- 12 TABLE 1- 2: Arizona State Aviation System Planning Efforts AIRPORT NAME ASSOCIATED NPIAS Master Plan ALP RASP CITY Yes Role Yes Year Yes Year Yes Year Special Studies Ajo Municipal Ajo X GA X 1999 X 1999 X 1994 A, B, D Apache Junction ( New) Apache Junction Avi Suquilla ( NA) Parker X GA X 1997 X 1985 A, B Bagdad Bagdad X GA X 1998 X 1998 A, B, D Benson Municipal Benson X GA X 1990 X 1990 X 1994 A, B, D Bisbee Douglas International Douglas/ Bisbee X GA X 1997 X 1997 X 1994 A, B, D Bisbee Municipal Bisbee X GA X 1999 X 1999 X 1994 A, B, D Bowie Bowie X 1994 A, B Buckeye Municipal Buckeye X GA X 1998 X 1998 X 1996 A, B, D Cascabel Airpark ( Note 1) Tucson A Casa Grande Municipal Casa Grande X GA X 1997 X 1997 A, B, D Chandler Municipal Chandler X RL X 1997 X 1997 X 1996 A, B, D Chinle Municipal Chinle X GA X 1990 X 1990 A Cochise College Douglas X 1983 X 1983 X 1994 A, B Cochise County Willcox X GA X 1997 X 1997 X 1994 A, B, D Colorado City Municipal Colorado City X GA X 1999 X 1999 A, B Coolidge Municipal Coolidge X GA X 1997 X 1997 A, B, D Cottonwood Municipal Cottonwood X GA X 1993 X 1993 A, B, D Douglas Municipal Douglas X 1994 X 1994 X 1994 A, B, D Eagle Airpark Bullhead City GA Eloy Municipal Eloy X GA X 1997 X 1997 A, B, D Ernest A. Love Field Prescott X CM X 1997 X 1997 A, B, D Estrella Sailport Maricopa X 1996 A, B Falcon Field Mesa X RL X 1997 X 1997 X 1996 A, B, D Flagstaff- Pulliam Flagstaff X PR X 1991 X 1991 A, B, D Flying J Ranch Pima A, B Forepaugh Wickenburg Ganado ( NA) Ganado X GA A, B Gila Bend Municipal Gila Bend X GA X 1995 X 1995 X 1996 A, B, D Glendale Municipal Glendale X RL X 1998 X 1998 X 1996 A, B, D Globe- San Carlos Regional Globe X GA X 1998 X 1998 A, B Grand Canyon Bar- Ten Whitmore A, B Grand Canyon Caverns Peach Springs A, B Grand Canyon National Park Grand Canyon X PR X 1991 X 1991 A, B, D Grand Canyon West Peach Springs X GA X 1997 X 1997 A, B Grande Valley Maricopa Grapevine/ Roosevelt Lake Gila County A Greenlee County Clifton/ Morenci X GA X 1993 X 1993 A, B, D H. A. Clark Memorial Field Williams X GA X 1995 X 1995 A, B, D Holbrook Municipal Holbrook X GA X 1999 X 1999 A, B, D Kayenta ( NA) Kayenta X GA X 1987 X 1987 A, B Kearny Kearny X 1994 X 1994 A, B, D Kingman Kingman X GA X 1980 X 1980 A, B, D Lake Havasu City Municipal Lake Havasu X PR X 1999 X 1999 A, B, D Laughlin/ Bullhead International Bullhead City X PR X 1999 X 1999 A, B, D Marana NW Regional Marana X RL X 1999 X 1999 X 1994 A, B, D Marble Canyon Marble Canyon A, B Memorial Airfield Chandler. X 1996 X 1996 X 1996 A, B Mogollon Airpark ( Note 1) Overgaard Nogales International Nogales X GA X 1992 X 1992 A, B Page Municipal Page X PR X 1992 X 1992 A, B, D Payson Payson X GA X 1998 X 1998 A, B, D Pearce Ferry Meadview A, B ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000 H:\ CD\ ELEMENT ONE. doc Element One 1- 13 TABLE 1- 2: Arizona State Aviation System Planning Efforts ( continued) AIRPORT NAME ASSOCIATED NPIAS Master Plan ALP RASP CITY Yes Role Yes Year Yes Year Yes Year Special Studies Phoenix Deer Valley Phoenix X RL X 1998 X 1998 X 1996 A, B, D Phoenix Goodyear Goodyear X RL X 1998 X 1998 X 1996 A, B, D Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l Phoenix X PR X 1998 X 1998 X 1996 A, B Pinal Airpark Marana X GA X 1991 X 1991 X 1994 A, B Pleasant Valley Peoria ? ? X 1996 A Polacca ( NA) Polacca X 1977 X 1977 A, B Quartzsite ( New) Quartzsite X GA X 1991 X 1991 A, B Rolle Airfield Somerton A, B Ryan Field Tucson X RL X 1999 X 1999 X 1994 A, B, D Safford Regional Safford X GA X 1998 X 1998 A, B, D St. Johns Industrial Airpark St. Johns X GA X 1998 X 1998 A, B, D San Carlos Apache Globe X GA X 1998 X 1998 A, B San Manuel San Manuel X 1997 X 1997 A, B, D Scottsdale Scottsdale X RL X 1997 X 1997 X 1996 A, B, D Sedona Sedona X GA X 1999 X 1999 A, B, D Seligman Seligman X 1993 X 1993 A, B Sells ( NA) Sells X 1994 A, B Show Low Municipal Show Low X GA X 1991 X 1991 A, B, D Sierra Vista Muni/ Libby AAF Sierra Vista X PR X 1996 X 1996 A, B, D Stellar Airpark Chandler X 1979 X 1996 A, B Sun Valley Bullhead City A, B Superior Municipal Superior A, B Taylor Taylor X GA X 1995 X 1995 A, B, D Temple Bar Temple Bar X GA A, B Tombstone Municipal Tombstone X 1999 X 1999 X 1994 A, B Town of Springerville Municipal Springerville X GA X 1995 X 1995 A, B, D Tuba City ( NA) Tuba City X GA A, B Tucson International Tucson X PR X 1996 X 1996 X 1994 A, B Tuweep Tuweep A, B Valle Airport Grand Canyon Whiteriver ( NA) Whiteriver X GA X 1998 X 1998 A, B Wickenburg Municipal Wickenburg X GA X 1992 X 1992 A, B, D Williams Gateway Phoenix X RL X 1999 X 1999 X 1996 A, B, D Window Rock ( NA) Window Rock X GA X 1981 X 1981 A, B Winslow- Lindberg Regional Winslow X GA X 1998 X 1998 A, B Yuma International/ MCAS Yuma Yuma X PR X 1998 X 1998 A, B, D KEY SPECIAL STUDIES LEGEND ALP Airport Layout Plan A: 1995 State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) CM Commercial Service Airport B: 1998 Navigational Aids and Aviation Services Special Study GA General Aviation Airport C: Small Community Aviation Economic Development NA Native American D: Pavement Management Study NPIAS National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems PR Primary Commercial Service Airport RASP Regional Aviation System Plan RL Reliever Airport Note 1: Airport changed to “ Private Use” ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000 H:\ CD\ ELEMENT ONE. doc Element One 1- 14 TABLE 1- 3: 1995 SANS Airports Modified or Removed from the SANS 2000 Study AIRPORT NAME ASSOCIATED CITY REASON Ak- Chin Community Ak- Chin Private Use facility Apache Junction ( New) Apache Junction No longer a viable airport candidate site Avra Valley Marana Airport name changed to Marana Northwest Regional Camp Verde Camp Verde Airport closed Cliff Dwellers Lodge Marble Canyon Private Use facility Hualapai Triball Peach Springs Airport name changed to Hualapai. Private Use facility Inscription House Inscription House Airport closed Low Mountain Low Mountain Airport closed Lukachukai Lukachukai Private Use facility Ora Acres Quartzite Airport closed Pleasant Valley International Young Airport name changed to Peasant Valley Airstrip. Private Use facility Pulliam- Flagstaff Flagstaff Name in error. See Flagstaff- Pulliam Quartizite ( New) Quartizite No longer a viable airport candidate site Rio Vista Hills Wickenburg Private Use facility Rock Point Rock Point Private Use facility Shonto Shonto Private Use facility Sky Ranch Carefree Carefree Private Use facility Springerville Babbit Field Springerville Airport name changed to Town of Springerville Municipal Taylor Municipal Taylor Name in error. See Taylor Toyei School Ganado Airport closed Winslow Municipal Winslow Airport name changed to Winslow- Lindberg Alamo Lake ( ERA) La Paz County Dropped from study. To be re- evaluated Big Lake/ Sunrise ( ERA) Apache County Dropped from study. To be re- evaluated Chiricahua Mountains ( ERA) Cochise County Dropped from study. To be re- evaluated Cibola ( ERA) La Paz County Dropped from study. To be re- evaluated Leupp/ Painted Desert ( ERA) Coconino County Dropped from study. To be re- evaluated Mogollon Airpark ( ERA) Overgaard Private Use facility Peach Springs ( New) Peach Springs Dropped from study. To be re- evaluated Sprucedale ( New) Greenlee County Dropped from study. To be re- evaluated Bullhead City Seaplane Base Bullhead Dropped from study. To ber e- evaluated Lake Havasu Seaplane Base Lake Havasu City Active Lake Mead Seaplane Landing Area Temple Bar Active Lake Roosevelt Seaplane Landing Area Globe Active Lake Powell Seaplane Landing Area Page Active Source: ADOT Aeronautics 2000 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000 H:\ CD\ ELEMENT TWO. DOC Element Two 2- 1 ELEMENT TWO: METHODOLOGY 2.1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this element is to identify and describe the process and methodology to recognize trends, and provide decision makers with information regarding the effects of varying levels of capital investment, or shifting emphasis, from one type of development to another. The selected methodology should be able to assess the level of system performance for the various funding levels, address the issues listed in the state's original request for proposal ( RFP), be easily understandable by the Planning Advisory Committee ( PAC), and concur with the goals and objectives of the Governor’s Vision 21 Task Force for improving transportation systems across the state. To adequately present the SANS methodology, this element is organized in the following manner: • Definitions; • Desired features for the SANS 2000 Methodology; • Concept Selected for the SANS 2000; • Performance Criteria and Measures; • Performance Based Needs Scenarios; and • Summary. 2.2 DEFINITIONS The terminology being used for the SANS is based on operational definitions of these key terms: STATUS, CONDITION, CAPACITY, PERFORMANCE, STANDARDS, and NEEDS. These terms can be explained in terms of descriptors such as runway length, registered based aircraft, aircraft mix, number of operations, number of enplaned passengers, etc. STATUS of the aviation system is a description of its state in terms of specific administrative, economic, geometric, physical, and operational characteristics. Status represents the actual or projected state of the aviation facilities. It relates to the role that each airport/ heliport and aviation system component should perform in the total State aviation system. The STATUS of aviation facilities in the SANS is defined through three facility classifications: ( 1) a classification system based on the National Plan Integrated Airport Systems ( NPIAS); ( 2) a coding system developed by the FAA used to relate airport design criteria to the operational and physical characteristics of the airplanes intended to operate at an airport; and ( 3) a classification system that segregates the State's system of airports into three subsystems-- Primary, Secondary, and Other Airports systems-- based primarily on level of service an airport or heliport currently provides, or is intended to provide, to a community or region. CONDITION represents the physical state of the aviation facilities. The condition of the aviation facilities measures the various levels of fitness of the aviation system, i. e., how that facility performs relative to a given status ( role). Thus, condition indicates the level of physical ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000 H:\ CD\ ELEMENT TWO. DOC Element Two 2- 2 fitness of the aviation facilities. Condition is determined from surveys, existing data, and projections. CAPACITY is used to designate the processing capability of an aviation facility over some period of time. Capacity is defined as the maximum physical capability of a runway system to process aircraft. It is expressed in this report as Annual Service Volume ( ASV). As annual aircraft operations approach annual service volume, the average delay to each aircraft throughout the year may increase rapidly with relatively small increases in aircraft operations, thereby causing levels of service on the airfield to deteriorate. Capacity can be compared with the existing and forecast demand to ascertain whether improvements to increase Capacity will be needed. PERFORMANCE is the measurement of the system against a standard. A Performance Measure is the " yardstick" utilized to assess how effectively the aviation system functions; for example, how aviation demand factors relate to airport facility factors, etc. Two primary measures of Performance are condition and capacity, explained above. They are primary, because they are essential for an aviation facility to accomplish its fundamental mission-- the movement of people and goods-- and other measures have been derived from or are related to these primary measures. PERFORMANCE MEASURES will be used to select needed improvements, and to evaluate both the positive and negative impacts of improvements at aviation facilities. PERFORMANCE LEVEL is defined as the actual or proposed Performance of the aviation system determined by specific values for a selected Performance measure. The performance levels are established to reflect attainable ( not necessarily desirable) performance; for example, maintain only the existing facilities, maintain existing system performance level by providing for 15 percent added growth, etc. STANDARDS are the minimum tolerable values of the performance measures established by an authority, such as FAA, ADOT, the Technical Advisory Committee, etc. NEEDS are defined as specific improvements and the dollar amount required to achieve a given level of aviation system PERFORMANCE. Various levels of needs will be developed for the SANS 2000, reflecting differing levels of performance and investment. 2.3 DESIRED FEATURES FOR THE SANS 2000 METHODOLOGY In selecting a methodology for use in the SANS 2000, a number of specific features are desired. Foremost, the selected methodology must provide a relatively simple procedure that can be used to evaluate the relationships between the performance of aviation system and capital investments made in various parts of the system. This will allow decision makers to realize the trade- offs involved in selecting one alternative over another. Secondly, and related to the above feature, it is important that the selected methodology be able to define the state aviation system needs relative to stated system goals and objectives. Goal and objective statements are developed early in the process and are refined through an extensive public involvement process. It is important that the selected methodology be able to measure the ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000 H:\ CD\ ELEMENT TWO. DOC Element Two 2- 3 achievement of the various goals and objectives in order to ensure that the taxpayers wants and needs are being addressed. Lastly, the selected methodology should allow for the synthesis of a large volume of data and information such as population, access measures, activity measures, environmental impacts, etc., into a manageable form for purposes of analysis. 2.4 CONCEPT SELECTED FOR THE SANS 2000 The concept selected for assessing the needs for the SANS 2000 is one based on the application of performance measures for evaluating alternative state aviation system needs scenarios. The primary elements of this concept include: ( 1) the identification of quantifiable measures needed to assess the existing performance of the Arizona aviation system; ( 2) the determination of the status, condition and performance of the existing system; ( 3) the development of a forecast of future system demand and available revenues; ( 4) the development of alternative needs scenarios to meet forecasts of demand; and ( 5) the determination of the cost of facilities and the performance of the system under each scenario. This concept provides an objective approach to a process which is largely subjective, through the development of quantifiable performance measures. It is felt that the use of performance measures in Arizona aviation system planning will improve the process in several important ways: • Performance measures will enable the State to quantify as well as qualify system plan objectives. Aviation system plan goal and objective statements tend to be general rather than specific. By using performance measures, the State will be able to sharpen and clearly define the precise meaning of each objective statement. On occasion, objective statements may have to be clarified, modified, or restated to make them useful for aviation system planning. • Performance measures provide a quantitative link between system goal and objective statements and the performance of the aviation system. Performance measures provide for the scaling of how far each objective is achieved in an existing or proposed aviation system, or collectively, how far an existing or proposed aviation system meets all the system objectives. • Performance measures are a beneficial tool for evaluation of alternative aviation systems as part of the initial assessment of needs and development or a major update for a state aviation system plan. Performance measures can be used to clearly quantify the trade-offs among a broad range of system plan alternative scenarios and to assist in narrowing the number of alternative scenarios to be studied in greater detail. • Performance measures will enable the State to synthesize a large volume of data and information-- population, access measures, activity measures, environmental impacts, etc. -- into a manageable form for analyses purposes and for presentation to decision makers. One of the more difficult tasks of preparing a plan is to present to elected officials and government administrative staff the results of a comprehensive analysis in a simple, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000 H:\ CD\ ELEMENT TWO. DOC Element Two 2- 4 straightforward, understandable manner. Performance measures can be used to clearly illustrate the interrelationships between the various objectives of a plan and the performance of the system. • Performance measures can be combined into a single numerical value through weighting of the individual measures to reflect public policy, although weighting tends to mask important parts of the analysis and may, in effect, transfer to others choices which more properly should be made by the appropriate decision makers. Once the aviation system needs have been identified and implemented, the performance measures can be used to improve the process for programming federal and state airport grant funds. System performance measures can be used to support budget requests to the state legislature by defining system needs and definitions relative to stated system goals and objectives. All of the publicly- funded transportation modes-- highways, transit, and aviation-- are in need of increased funding. Budget requests need to be supported by return- on- investment analysis which is both comprehensive and easily understood. Aviation system performance measures can be used to strengthen agency budget requests in Arizona. Description of Methodology A step- by- step description of the methodology to be employed in performing the 2000 Needs Study is relatively straightforward conceptually and in application. The decision maker is the primary user of the analysis produced. Shown in Exhibit 2- 1, the first step of the process is to formulate the goals, objectives, and priorities that represent the desired set of conditions for the State system of airports. The goals and objectives were formed through a public input process that utilized comments of the Planning Advisory Committee ( PAC). From the goals and objectives, performance measures are identified and defined. The next major step in the process is to create a data base to provide the information needed to determine the status and condition of the existing system. The status of the system relates to the role that each aviation facility performs in the total State aviation system. It is based on specific administrative, economic, geometric, physical, and operational characteristics. The condition represents the physical state of the aviation system; that is, how the facility performs relative to a given status. Creation of the data base is an on- going process and will continue throughout the course of the SANS study as new information is received from airport sponsors. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000 H:\ CD\ ELEMENT TWO. DOC Element Two 2- 5 EXHIBIT 2- 1: SANS Methodology Flow Chart Another important aspect of the data base was to generate enough information to perform a forecast of aviation activity and system capacity for the next five-, ten-, and twenty- year time frames. The forecast of statewide aviation activity was used to determine future demand on the statewide system and be central to the development of the future scenarios. The performance- based needs scenarios were the focus of the study. Needs scenarios were developed to evaluate the various alternative future aviation system development strategies. They were matched against the performance measures that reflected the desired condition and level of service the state aviation system should provide. Three alternative development strategies were considered. By comparing each system development scenario to the performance measures, State decision makers can determine the level of performance that each scenario will provide, as well as the associated costs of that scenario. Alternative development scenarios were based on various ways of achieving a high level of systemwide performance, such as accommodating future demand and provision of rural health care services, given limited financial resources. Comparing investment strategies with performance measures clearly shows where systemwide performance trade- offs will occur. Since the weighting of performance measures is always subjective, no relative weights were considered. All the performance measures taken together reflect the profile of each scenario. Survey of Airports, Pilots, Aircraft Owners, Airlines, Chambers of Commerce & Manufacturers Review of Existing Plans, Studies & FAA 5010 Data SANS Methodology SANS Database FINAL REPORT Technical Report Implementation Plan 2000 Needs Study Summary Summary Video Technical Appendices 5, 10, 20 Year Forecasting Performance- Based Status & Condition Needs Scenarios of the SANS Aviation System & Facility Performance ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000 H:\ CD\ ELEMENT TWO. DOC Element Two 2- 6 Constraints, Assumptions, and Limitations As with every methodology, there are some constraints and limitations to the use of performance measures, as well as some general assumptions that must be noted. A discussion of these follows. Perhaps the key assumption of the methodology is that overall system performance should take precedence over the individual facilities. System performance measures are not particularly sensitive, on an annual basis, to programming decisions involving individual airport projects. The definition of programming is the matching of available funds to satisfy the needs of a given time period. The reason for this is that improvements in a single airport or even a small number of airports will have only a small impact on the performance of the aviation system for an entire state. Viewed over a longer period of time, for example, a five- year period, performance measures will prove beneficial in evaluating alternative programming policies and for evaluating the improvements in system performance anticipated from a five- year capital improvement program. Additionally, system performance measures are more sensitive to needs to provide increased access and to forecast demand than they are to deficiencies in the structural integrity of existing airports. As the proportion of reconstruction and standards type projects decreases, the sensitivity of the performance measures to programming decisions will increase. The SANS is a macro- level analysis and leads to system wide needs. Priority programming, on the other hand, is a micro- level evaluation and leads to specific project improvements. The performance measure components for each airport being considered for a grant can aid in determining the relative contribution that each airport makes to the performance of the total aviation system. Performance measures selected for assessing system needs are not sufficient criteria for priority programming decisions related to specific airport improvement projects, as many other factors must be considered. Performance measures may, however, provide a basis for first cut in selective airport projects on the basis of their relative contribution to the State's aviation system. 2.5 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA AND MEASURES In the previous section, it was concluded that the use of performance measures can improve the aviation system planning process by quantifying as well as qualifying system objectives, linking system objectives and system performance, clarifying trade- offs among system alternatives, and by synthesizing information for decision makers. This section will provide a more detailed description and role of performance measures, apply performance measures and standards to the study objectives, explain the use of future scenarios, and discuss the determination of minimum acceptable levels of performance. Role of Performance Measures Goal and objective statements are used to define the desired condition to be achieved in the development and operation of the Arizona aviation system. They are broadly stated in general terms. For example, a primary goal of the SANS is to provide for the timely development of ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000 H:\ CD\ ELEMENT TWO. DOC Element Two 2- 7 aviation facilities adequate to meet the needs and economic goals of the state. An objective related to the above goal is to facilitate the provision of convenient commercial air service to both urban and rural communities. A performance measure is used to clarify and define the meaning of the goal or objective statement and provide for a scaling of how well the goal or objective is attained in any defined system. As an example, in the above objective statement, the definition of " convenient" could be defined as 60 minutes driving time; the term " commercial air service" could be defined as scheduled passenger service operating a minimum of two flights a day, five days a week; and " community" could be defined as an incorporated town with a minimum population of 5,000. By defining these terms, the objective statement now lends itself to quantification. Thus, the measure of performance related to the provision of convenient commercial air service would be: the percentage of communities within the state, with a minimum population of 5,000, that are within 60 minutes driving time of an airport that provides regularly scheduled passenger service. The performance measure now can be used to assess the existing system in terms of the provision of commercial service, measure future system performance under varying conditions, and provide a way of evaluating among system plan alternatives. Also, once an alternative has been selected and implementation initiated, the process of that alternative can be tracked. Performance Measures To adequately assess the system, three general categories of performance measures were developed: Facility, Service Level, and Economic Measures. The first relates to the performance of the individual facilities making up the system, the second to the level of service provided by those facilities, and the third to the efficiency of the system and return on investment. Facility Performance The facility performance measures are general measures designed to assess the condition, or fitness, of the region's existing airport infrastructure. The two primary measures of facility performance are condition and capacity. They are primary because they are essential for an aviation facility to function in a safe and efficient manner. The performance criteria listed below were designed to reflect the current and desired condition and performance of the existing and future aviation infrastructure relative to basic recognized standards. Facility Performance Measures 1. The extent to which system airports meet FAA and ADOT Transportation Board minimum aviation development and planning standards. 2. The number of airports with an annual demand less than 60 percent of runway annual service volume. 3. The number of airports experiencing delay to aircraft operations: the maximum and average delay in minutes an aircraft experiences due to airside congestion. 4. The number of airports that generate INM noise contours greater than 65 DNL that extend off airport property. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000 H:\ CD\ ELEMENT TWO. DOC Element Two 2- 8 5. The number of system airports without adequate utilities ( electricity, telephone, water, sewer, and gas). 6. The number of airports with no close- in obstructions ( within the 200 feet primary surface) and where all FAR Part 77 approach obstructions are marked ( not including trees and roads). 7. The number of total airports in the state with no or minimal shared airspace and/ or restrictions under visual/ instrument flight rules. Service Level Performance Service level performance measures, in relation to facility performance measures, were designed to measure the adequacy of the system in fulfilling its fundamental mission of the movement of people and goods. Listed below are performance measures that measure the provision of aviation services to the residents of the State of Arizona in relation to some general national standards. Service Level Performance Measures 1. Percent of communities in the State with a population greater than 5,000 within 60 minutes of a commercial service airport. 2. Percent of communities in the State with a population greater than 1,000 within 30 minutes of a general aviation airport. 3. Percent of communities in the State with a population greater than 15,000 within 30 minutes of a general aviation airport that can accommodate large general aviation aircraft ( ARC B- II) and has Instrument Meteorological Conditions ( IMC) capability. 4. Percent of hospitals in the State within 30 minutes of a general aviation airport with Instrument Meteorological Conditions ( IMC) capability, with on- site weather reporting, and jet fuel availability. 5. The number of major recreational areas in the state within 30 minutes of a general aviation airport. Economic Performance Economic Performance Measures 1. The dollar cost of aircraft delay to Arizona airport system users. 2. Dollars of direct and indirect economic impact on the state from aviation. 3. The cost ratio of annual aviation infrastructure to total number of statewide annual enplaned passengers and annual aircraft operations. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000 H:\ CD\ ELEMENT TWO. DOC Element Two 2- 9 4. The total dollar cost from aircraft delays associated with airspace congestion. 2.6 DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS To facilitate the understanding and appreciation of the financial needs of the State's aviation system, it is important to assess the system performance changes that the investment of these funds may induce. Once a performance- based needs model is available, a theoretically infinite number of scenarios can be developed. For a given level of financial investment it is possible to achieve a given performance level with a range of funding levels. There are operations research tools ( e. g., dynamic programming, linear programming, simulation) available, which can help planners and decision makers determine the optimal investment strategy for achieving a given performance level, and vice versa. That effort is, however, beyond the scope of the current study. In this project, three scenarios were developed. It should be noted that the level of investment and system performance gradually improves from Scenario A to Scenario C. Each scenario will be evaluated by forecasting demand of statewide aviation activity over the next five-, ten-, and twenty- year periods and applying the performance measures identified in the previous section to determine the performance level of the state aviation system. This method will allow decision makers to clarify trade- offs among system funding commitments through the comparison of performance levels of each system alternative for each of the three scenarios. Comparison of performance levels for each scenario will also link levels of funding to the achievement of public policy as represented by the State's goals and objectives for the Arizona aviation system, inherent in the development of the performance measures. Scenario A - Existing Investment: This scenario was designed to explore a possible situation/ state in which the existing funding level ( in current dollars) will be assumed to remain unchanged over the next five-, ten-, and twenty- year periods. The goal was to examine the types of improvements that can be done in the circumstances in which the funding for maintenance and construction of aviation facilities does not keep up with the increasing demand. In this scenario, status, condition, and performance of the system at the fixed level of funding are evaluated. Scenario B - Existing Performance ( Facility Preservation): This scenario was designed to explore a possible situation/ state in which the existing system performance level will remain unchanged. The goal is to estimate a level of funding which can help the state aviation system keep up with the increasing demand in the future. A funding level for each of the five-, ten-, and twenty- year periods is estimated. In this scenario, the financial needs to maintain the existing system status, condition, and performance are estimated. Scenario C - Increased Performance ( Facility Upgrade): The third scenario examines a possible situation/ state in which all existing public- use airports are brought up to meet minimum State airport development standards, existing airports are expanded to meet forecast demand, and new airports are constructed to meet access or capacity deficiencies. This is essentially an unconstrained growth scenario and determines the costs of expanding ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000 H:\ CD\ ELEMENT TWO. DOC Element Two 2- 10 and increasing the efficiency of the existing system to meet the expected growth in future State aviation activity. For each of the above scenarios, it is possible to have thousands of strategies to achieve the stated goals. However, we are only identifying one of several situations/ states for each of the three scenarios in this study. The performance- based needs model developed in this study would be capable of exploring other situations/ states and additional scenarios as may be desired by the state planners and decision makers. The model is flexible enough to allow modification of decision variables based on input from public or alternative forecasts. 2.7 SUMMARY The concept for assessing the needs for the SANS 2000 is one based on the use of performance measures for evaluating alternative state aviation needs scenarios. The primary elements of this system include ( 1) the identification of quantifiable measures needed to define the performance of the state aviation system; ( 2) the determination of the status, condition, and performance of the existing system; ( 3) the development of a forecast of future system demand and available revenues; ( 4) the development of alternative needs scenarios to meet forecast of demand; ( 5) the determination of the cost of facilities and the performance of the system under each scenario; and ( 6) the selection of a recommended course of action. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS 2000) H:\ CD\ ELEMENT THREE. doc Element Three 3- 1 ELEMENT THREE: DATABASE 3.1 INTRODUCTION The development of SANS 2000 considers extensive volumes of data from various sources. The compilation of an effective database is a key element in preparing SANS 2000. To determine the aviation needs and subsequent improvement/ new projects to fulfill those needs, a comprehensive set of statistics must be analyzed. It is necessary to sort through a variety of data and extract the relative facts that impact aviation in Arizona. The extracted data can then be utilized to compile each of the different elements in the SANS. A great deal of data was collected and abridged during the Arizona SANS 1995 preparation. Much of the SANS 2000 effort has been directed toward updating this existing database as opposed to creating a new one. For the most part the objective of the data collection was to provide new baseline numbers for various criteria and to obtain any projected information up to the year 2020. The SANS 1995 data was generally segregated into six categories. SANS 2000 has retained this previous formatting. The data categories are: • Socioeconomic • Environment and Land Use • Surface Transportation • Aviation • Finance • Study Survey Results Sources that have been used in the data collection effort include the Federal Aviation Administration ( FAA), the Arizona Department of Transportation ( ADOT), the Arizona Department of Economic Security, regional airport system plans, various airport master plans, and other published reports. Another significant source of information includes questionnaires submitted to pilots, aircraft owners, airport sponsors, airlines and local chambers of commerce. Specific sources are identified with each data table. The following sub- sections are presented to summarize the general findings of the SANS database update. 3.2 SOCIOECONOMIC Population trends, employment characteristics, and personal income levels are generally referred to as socioeconomic factors. These factors have significant impact on aviation as many facets of aviation are driven by the economic situation at a given time. An improved economic situation, both at the personal and business level, is directly related to increased aviation usage. A stagnant or declining economic picture will tend to result in less air travel and system usage. Increased usage creates the need for improvements to existing facilities and the consideration of new facilities to meet the demand. Decreased demand observably has the reverse effect. While the correlation between socioeconomic issues and aviation may not always be directly proportional, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS 2000) H:\ CD\ ELEMENT THREE. doc Element Three 3- 2 it is an important driving element. Each of the key socioeconomic factors is discussed in detail in the subsequent paragraphs. Population Arizona’s population continues to be one of the fastest growing in the nation. In the period between 1960 and 1998, the population of Arizona more than tripled. Projections indicate that between 1998 and 2020 the population will almost double again from the current 4.7 million to an estimated 7.3 million residents. Growth of this nature will no doubt require supplemental aviation services. The population growth in Arizona continues to be heavily centered in Maricopa and Pima Counties. Maricopa County is routinely considered one of the fastest growing counties in America. Statistics from 2000 indicate that 60% of the Arizona population resides in Maricopa County, of which Phoenix is the county seat. Residents of Pima County, for which Tucson is the county seat, account for another 16% of the state’s population. Forecasts suggest that these areas will remain the major population centers for the state. Table 3- 1 illustrates Arizona’s historical population on a county- by- county basis from 1960 to 1990. Table 3- 2 illustrates the population forecasts for 1998, 1999 and 2000 and then in five-year increments thereafter through the year 2020. TABLE 3- 1: Arizona Historical Population 1970 to 2000 County 1970 1980 1990 2000 Apache 32,118 52,108 61,591 69,423 Cochise 63,910 85,686 97,624 117,755 Coconino 48,326 75,008 96,591 116,320 Gila 28,885 37,080 40,216 51,335 Graham 16,578 22,862 26,554 33,489 Greenlee 10,330 11,406 8,008 8,547 La Paz - 12,557 13,884 19,715 Maricopa 971,228 1,509,262 2,122,101 3,072,149 Mohave 25,857 55,865 93,497 155,032 Navajo 47,715 67,629 77,658 97,470 Pima 351,667 531,443 666,880 843,746 Pinal 67,916 90,918 16,379 179,727 Santa Cruz 13,966 20,459 29,676 38,381 Yavapai 36,733 68,145 107,714 167,517 Yuma 60,727 76,205 106,895 160,026 TOTAL 1,775,956 2,716,633 3,565,258 5,130,632 Note: Until 1980, La Paz was part of Yuma County. Population figures are as of April 1 for years reported. Numbers may not sum due to differences between county figures and statewide figures. Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security, April 1, 2000. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS 2000) H:\ CD\ ELEMENT THREE. doc Element Three 3- 3 TABLE 3- 2: Arizona Forecast of Population 1998 to 2020 County 1998 1999 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Apache 66,350 67,069 67,925 72,236 76,645 81,173 85,766 Cochise 123,750 120,179 121,837 129,680 137,035 143,793 149,990 Coconino 121,625 120,848 123,329 135,595 147,352 158,753 169,343 Gila 49,175 47,898 48,614 51,644 54,603 57,613 60,757 Graham 34,700 34,245 35,164 39,427 43,499 47,181 50,673 Greenlee 9,125 8,908 8,984 9,297 9,605 9,923 10,271 La Paz 19,000 19,821 20,341 22,799 25,096 27,193 29,078 Maricopa 2,806,100 2,879,492 2,954,157 3,329,561 3,709,566 4,101,784 4,516,090 Mohave 138,625 142,600 147,529 171,504 194,403 215,988 236,396 Navajo 92,500 87,775 88,898 94,395 99,979 105,843 111,946 Pima 823,900 836,153 854,329 943,795 1,031,623 1,119,342 1,206,244 Pinal 157,675 157,413 161,630 181,487 199,715 216,215 231,229 Santa Cruz 37,800 37,439 38,225 42,154 46,246 50,556 55,111 Yavapai 148,500 148,428 152,966 175,693 198,052 219,614 240,849 Yuma 135,200 134,719 138,025 154,582 171,689 189,783 209,861 TOTAL 4,764,025 4,842,987 4,961,953 5,553,849 6,145,108 6,744,754 7,363,604 Note: Projections subsequent to the 2000 Census were not available. Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security, August, 1997. Employment Arizona’s recent employment history and the forecast for the immediate future portray a bright outlook. In 1998 Arizona added over 93,000 jobs, which correlates to a 4.8% increase in new jobs. In fact, Arizona’s job growth rate ranked number one in the nation for seven out of the twelve months in 1998, while finishing second in the other five months. It is anticipated that over the next two years the state will add another 148,000 jobs, at a somewhat slower rate than the recent growth. Employment sectors with the best performance were manufacturing, construction, finance and real estate, transportation, utilities, and communication. A key sector among those sectors experiencing a downturn was the mining industry. Since 1995 unemployment in the state of Arizona has hovered in the 4.0- 5.5% range. The unemployment rate for 1998 was 4.1%, and numbers through May 1999 indicate it to be approximately 4.2%. While this is a desirable goal, continued lowering of the unemployment rate will normally result in some sort of labor shortage. With a labor shortage, economic growth will become inhibited as employers will not be able to find an adequately trained/ skilled work force. Issues such as education and re- training of current employees and the utilization of personnel displaced as a result of corporate downsizing will become critical in maintaining an adequate workforce. Table 3- 3 depicts Arizona’s recent historical employment data for the entire state and for the larger metropolitan areas of Phoenix and Yuma. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS 2000) H:\ CD\ ELEMENT THREE. doc Element Three 3- 4 TABLE 3- 3: Arizona Historical and Forecast Employment County/ Region 1980 1990 1997 1998 1999 2000 Arizona 1,017,705 1,498,660 1,976,785 2,072,726 2,150,538 2,220,712 Phoenix- Mesa 641,767 987,097 1,393,530 1,467,766 1,530,048 1,580,155 Tucson 178,198 246,827 296,785 308,281 317,406 328,426 Yuma N/ A 39,000 50,158 52,839 52,966 52,415 Rest of State 197,740 225,736 236,312 243,840 250,118 259,716 Apache 13,101 14,194 17,097 18,745 19,546 18,575 Cochise 21,212 25,791 29,193 29,457 30,217 31,467 Coconino 28,265 39,812 46,763 46,987 48,327 51,040 Gila 11,556 11,244 13,473 13,596 13,573 13,645 Graham 4,842 5,710 6,172 6,162 6,440 6,510 Greenlee 3,838 2,929 4,502 4,337 3,975 4,453 La Paz N/ A 4,492 5,389 5,489 5,524 5,738 Maricopa 641,767 987,097 1,355,775 1,431,060 1,494,051 1,544,971 Mohave 15,495 26,549 34,797 35,912 37,773 39,591 Navajo 16,974 20,443 22,457 23,582 24,200 24,550 Pima 178,198 246,827 296,785 308,281 317,406 328,426 Pinal 26,037 33,323 37,755 36,707 35,997 35,184 Santa Cruz 7,576 10,614 11,250 11,287 11,516 11,906 Yavapai 16,892 27,492 42,618 45,030 45,782 48,166 Yuma 29,135 39,000 50,158 52,839 52,966 52,415 Undefined 2,099 3,142 2,601 3,257 3,245 4,075 N = Not Available * Undefined includes employment within the state not connected to individual counties or MSA’s. Source: U. S. Department of Labor – Bureau of Labor Statistics Database ( 1975- 2000) Income Coincident with the population increase, Arizona has seen a steady rise in per capita income ( PCI). Historical data obtained through the Arizona Department of Economic Security shows a continuing growth trend throughout the State. While PCI growth is more noticeable in some areas of the state, no areas have seen decreases in PCI. Table 3- 4 illustrates historical PCI by county for the years of 1991- 1997. Greenlee County has experienced the most significant increase in PCI during this period ($ 13,572 to $ 19,119 or 41%) while the PCI in Yuma County has seen the lowest increase ($ 13,512 to $ 15,629 or 16%). The PCI in Maricopa and Pima Counties have exhibited similar growth during this period ( approx. 31% increase). The succeeding Table 3- 5 depicts the percent change in PCI by county for the same period, 1991- 1997. Using the average of these percent changes, a projection through the year 2000 is also supplied. The projection assumes a continuous increase based on the average percent change for the years 1991- 1997. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS 2000) H:\ CD\ ELEMENT THREE. doc Element Three 3- 5 TABLE 3- 4: Arizona Per Capita Income 1991- 1997 ( in dollars) County/ Region 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Arizona 16,971 17,583 18,270 19,127 20,078 21,071 21,998 Phoenix- Mesa 18,484 19,103 19,832 20,779 21,887 23,025 24,137 Apache 8,803 9,779 9,995 10,335 10,257 10,894 11,044 Cochise 13,556 14,351 14,647 14,739 15,088 15,984 16,532 Coconino 13,804 14,793 15,199 15,942 16,704 17,608 18,180 Gila 13,375 14,003 14,795 15,437 15,338 16,290 16,569 Graham 10,326 10,957 11,239 11,834 11,919 12,518 12,835 Greenlee 13,572 14,592 14,845 15,369 16,990 18,207 19,119 La Paz 15,258 15,351 17,279 16,538 17,175 18,125 19,352 Maricopa 18,799 19,430 20,151 21,145 22,274 23,435 24,601 Mohave 14,692 14,925 15,416 16,215 16,408 17,185 17,985 Navajo 10,030 10,682 10,787 11,216 11,493 11,947 12,166 Pima 16,337 16,942 17,756 18,684 19,375 20,375 21,068 Pinal 12,707 13,096 13,947 13,965 14,646 15,330 15,372 Santa Cruz 11,857 12,217 12,615 12,929 13,111 13,670 14,312 Yavapai 15,216 15,713 16,241 17,326 17,780 18,585 19,362 Yuma 13,512 13,803 14,538 14,334 16,889 15,511 15,629 Source: 1. Arizona Department of Economic Security, May, 1999 TABLE 3- 5: Arizona Historical Change in Per Capita Income 1991- 1997 ( in dollars) 1991- 92 1992- 93 1993- 94 1994- 95 1995- 96 1996- 97 2000 County/ Region (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) ( Dollars) Arizona 3.61 3.91 4.69 4.97 4.95 4.40 $ 22,970 Phoenix- Mesa 3.35 3.82 4.78 5.33 5.20 4.83 $ 25,235 Apache 11.09 2.21 3.40 - 0.75 6.21 1.38 $ 11,477 Cochise 5.86 2.06 0.63 2.37 5.94 3.43 $ 17,091 Coconino 7.16 2.74 4.89 4.78 5.41 3.25 $ 19,036 Gila 4.70 5.66 4.34 - 0.64 6.21 1.71 $ 17,176 Graham 6.11 2.57 5.29 0.72 5.03 2.53 $ 13,311 Greenlee 7.52 1.73 3.53 10.55 7.16 5.01 $ 20,250 La Paz 0.61 12.56 - 4.29 3.85 5.53 6.77 $ 20,159 Maricopa 3.36 3.71 4.93 5.34 5.21 4.98 $ 25,730 Mohave 1.59 3.29 5.18 1.19 4.74 4.66 $ 18,604 Navajo 6.50 0.98 3.98 2.47 3.95 1.83 $ 12,566 Pima 3.70 4.80 5.23 3.70 5.16 3.40 $ 21,981 Pinal 3.06 6.50 0.13 4.88 4.67 0.27 $ 15,872 Santa Cruz 3.04 3.26 2.49 1.41 4.26 4.70 $ 14,769 Yavapai 3.27 3.36 6.68 2.62 4.53 4.18 $ 20,157 Yuma 2.15 5.32 - 1.40 17.82 - 8.16 0.76 $ 16,059 Sources: Arizona Department of Economic Security, May, 1999 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS 2000) H:\ CD\ ELEMENT THREE. doc Element Three 3- 6 3.3 ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE Physical Setting Arizona has the sixth largest land area ( 113,417 square miles) in the United States. It is bordered by the states of California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah, as well as the country of Mexico. The state terrain is highlighted by large desert areas, high mountainous regions, numerous mesas and buttes, and an array of canyons. This varied terrain creates lengthy surface transportation routes, thereby further substantiating the need for a more than adequate aviation system. The climate in Arizona varies along with the terrain. From the hot and arid conditions in the southwest part of the state to the cool and moist conditions at the higher elevations, climate changes are an important consideration in the aviation needs assessment. Such issues as pavement design, takeoff and landing distances, and navigational aids can all be impacted by these drastic climatic differences. Land Use A large portion of the state is uninhabited and undeveloped. The focus of the state’s economic activity and population is centered in two metropolitan areas: Phoenix and Tucson. Several smaller urban communities are scattered throughout the state and support various mining, military, agricultural and recreational activities. Communities fitting this category include Douglas- Bisbee, Flagstaff, Lake Havasu City, Prescott, Sierra Vista, and Yuma. Numerous Native American reservations are present in the state. Exhibit 3- 1 shows the predominant land use patterns in Arizona. Note: The “ Urbanized Areas” as defined by the 1990 census are Flagstaff, Phoenix, Tucson, and Yuma. Land Use Ordinances Table 3- 6 lists the existing land use ordinances relative to aviation development in the state. As shown, several Arizona counties have enacted some sort of ordinance that must be considered for system improvement. 3.4 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION Highway System According to the 1998 Arizona State Highway System Status and Condition Report, the Arizona system route has 6,142 miles and a lane mileage of 15,895. There are 4,169 bridges on the system. The state is navigated by four major interstates, two smaller interstate sections, and a vast array of state highways. A complex freeway system is also in place in the larger metropolitan areas of the state. Exhibit 3- 2 illustrates the existing system. FLAGSTAFF PHOENIX TUCSON 0 10 20 30 40 50 MILES Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS 2000) ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION T:\ 99248\ STUDY GRAPHICS\ EXHIBIT 3- 1. PPT EXHIBIT 3- 1: Predominant Land Uses FLAGSTAFF PHOENIX TUCSON SOURCE: Bucher, Willis & Ratlif Mining Operation Indian Reservation National Forest Land Irrigated Land/ Agriculture Military Land Natl. Rec. Area or Refuge Natl. Park or Monument Urban Area LEGEND X X X X X X X X X X XXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X XX XX X X X X XX X X X X X X X GREENLEE MOHAVE COCONINO YAVAPAI NAVAJO APACHE LA PAZ MARICOPA YUMA PIMA PINAL GRAHAM COCHISE Background SANTA CRUZ GILA f Element Three 3- 7 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS 2000) H:\ CD\ ELEMENT THREE. doc Element Three 3- 8 TABLE 3- 6: County Ordinance Review Summary COUNTY ORDINANCES Apache County has regulations which govern only typical land use zoning practices. Cochise County- wide height hazard zoning. Coconino No active county- owned airport. Gila Only typical zoning. Graham Only typical zoning. Greenlee County has traditional height hazard zoning for Greenlee County Airport. La Paz Controls both height of structures and land use. Land use based on noise contours, modeled after military ordinance Maricopa County has military base land use zoning ordinance. County has height and hazard zoning adopted for military bases. Mohave The county has an Airport District zone which addresses both height of structures and land use. Navajo Controls height of structures along center line of runway. Pima Overlay zoning for height and land use zoning. Pinal The county has no ordinances or regulations regarding the control of object height or land use compatibility. Santa Cruz County is in process of developing an Airport Master Plan and County Development Code. Yavapai County is in process of reviewing and adopting proposed ordinances. Yuma City and County zoning essentially the same. Both height hazard and land use compatibility. Source: Arizona Airport Land Use Compatibility Study, 1992, ADOT Aeronautics FLAGSTAFF PHOENIX TUCSON Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION T: 99248\ STUDY GRAPHICS\ EXHIBIT 3- 2,3 & 6. PPT GREENLEE MOHAVE COCONINO YAVAPAI NAVAJO APACHE LA PAZ MARICOPA YUMA PIMA PINAL GRAHAM SANTA CRUZ COCHISE GILA EXHIBIT 3- 2: State Highway System 17 40 40 10 10 10 8 180 A89 60 191 180 191 60 60 70 191 80 66 89 80 15 19 264 87 86 85 89 87 89 66 160 191 90 80 82 83 191 80 116633 191 191 77 89 93 A89 93 95 LEGEND Interstate Highways U. S. Highways State Highways SOURCE: Arizona State Highway Maps Element Three 3- 9 0 10 20 30 40 50 MILES ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS 2000) H:\ CD\ ELEMENT THREE. doc Element Three 3- 10 Rail There are numerous main rail lines navigating the state as well as multiple branch lines connecting to these. Amtrak is the only company offering passenger rail service in the state. Amtrak does not own rail lines in the state; they merely utilize the lines of others that provide cargo service. Several other companies offer such cargo service. There are two basic passenger routes offered by Amtrak. One route runs through Kingman, Flagstaff, and Winslow in both directions. This is part of the Southwest Chief route that runs from Los Angeles to Chicago through Albuquerque. The other route goes through Yuma, Tucson and Benson, again in both directions. It is part of the Sunset Limited that goes from Los Angeles to San Antonio, then to New Orleans and on to Orlando. Amtrak also provides a connecting service between Flagstaff and Phoenix to facilitate passenger travel between the two routes. Amtrak railroad stations are present in the following locations in Arizona. • Benson • Phoenix North • Camp Verde • Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport • Flagstaff • Tucson • Grand Canyon • Williams • Kingman • Williams Junction • Lake Havasu • Winslow • Munds Park • Yuma • Phoenix Amtrak Station A recreational rail system is also offered for round- trip service between Williams and the Grand Canyon. Bus Service Bus service, while offered by a variety of carriers, is not widely used in the state. The geographic isolation in some portions of Arizona make establishing routine service to these locations cost- prohibitive. Numerous charter operators provide service for tour groups and, in the larger metropolitan areas of Phoenix and Tucson, mass transit by bus is provided. Greyhound fills the need for state- to- state travel by bus to and from Arizona. The Maricopa Association of Governments ( MAG) Regional Public Transportation Authority makes available to Phoenix and Maricopa County a bus service area of 585 square miles. This service area includes some 56 local routes that allow almost 85% of the Maricopa County population to live within one mile of an established bus route. Sun Tran is the primary provider of public transportation in the Tucson area. Sun Tran operates almost 40 routes that cover approximately 240 square miles. The average daily passenger volume for Sun Tran is approximately 60,000. As mentioned, several small urban and rural transit entities provide service on fixed routes to other areas of the state. Their overall service is limited in nature, but they still provide key transport mechanisms to these under served locations. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS 2000) H:\ CD\ ELEMENT THREE. doc Element Three 3- 11 3.5 AVIATION Aviation is more important in Arizona relative to other states for a few reasons. Key among these are the following: • A very large tourist population that travels primarily by air • A vast expanse of area much of which is isolated by its landscape • Ideal flight weather conditions for 98% of the year that increase usage The aviation industry continues to be one of the fastest growing components of the Arizona economy. The estimated economic impact of aviation in Arizona for 1997- 98 was over $ 15 billion dollars. The industry employed 167,325 people in that same period. Its $ 4.3 billion dollar payroll was also a major component for the state. Given Arizona’s burgeoning economy and population, aviation can only continue to thrive. Global economics and the need for businesses to maintain a fast, competitive pace will be driving factors for the aviation industry. Transportation speed capabilities in our technologically advanced world will feed the need for instant gratification. Aviation is the only mode that can optimize that benefit. The state’s aviation system can generally be organized in the following manner: • Aviation Facility Classification • Airport Facilities • Heliport Facilities • Seaplane Facilities • Air Carrier Activity • Scheduled Airline Routes • Air Taxi • General Aviation • Rural Health Care Delivery/ Air Ambulance Service • Military • Airspace and NAVAIDs Aviation Facility Classifications Arizona has a variety of aviation facilities. Some are small rural unpaved airstrips serving isolated portions of the state. Some are busy rooftop heliports facilitating the needs of corporate America. Others are large, long- haul commercial service airports moving people and cargo back and forth. Because of this diversity of facilities with broad ranges of operating parameters and design standards, a means of facility classification is necessary. Four basic aviation facility classifications are used by the FAA and the Arizona Department of Transportation. The first is a classification system, mentioned in Element One, utilized in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems ( NPIAS). The second is a coding system used by the FAA to relate airport design criteria to the operational and physical characteristics of the ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS 2000) H:\ CD\ ELEMENT THREE. doc Element Three 3- 12 airplanes operating at an airport. The third is a hierarchical classification used by the Arizona Aeronautics Division that segregates the state’s airports into a Primary System, a Secondary System, and Other Airports. The fourth was developed by the ADOT, based on former FAA airport classification categories, to assist in setting minimum development standards and planning guidelines for airport facility development in the state. National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems ( NPIAS) The NPIAS is a national airport system plan developed by the FAA to indicate aviation facilities of national significance. NPIAS airports are eligible for federal grants for airport planning and various capital improvements. The NPIAS defines an airport’s status by its service level. The service level of an airport reflects the type of public service the airport provides to the community. The service level also reflects the funding categories established by Congress to assist in airport development. These categories are: Primary Service ( PR) – Primary Service airports are public use airports receiving scheduled airline passenger service which also enplane 10,000 or more passengers per year. Commercial Service ( CM) - Commercial Service airports are public use airports which receive scheduled airline passenger service and which annually enplane 2,500 or more passengers. General Aviation ( GA) – General Aviation airports are either publicly or privately owned, public use airports which serve general aviation needs. Reliever ( RL) – Reliever airports are general aviation or commercial service airports which have the function of relieving congestion at a Primary Service airport and which provide the general aviation user or small commercial operator with an alternative for access to the overall community. Reliever airports receive higher priority for funding assistance than other general aviation or commercial service airports. Airport Reference Code ( ARC) The ARC is a coding system developed by the FAA used to relate airport design criteria to the operational and physical characteristics of the airplanes intended to operate at an airport. The ARC has two components related to the airport design aircraft. The first component, depicted by a letter, is the aircraft approach category and relates to aircraft approach speed. These aircraft categories are as follows: • Category A: Speed less than 91 knots. • Category B: Speed 91 knots or more, but less than 121 knots. • Category C: Speed 121 knots or more, but less than 141 knots. • Category D: Speed 141 knots or more, but less than 166 knots. • Category E: Speed 166 knots or more. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS 2000) H:\ CD\ ELEMENT THREE. doc Element Three 3- 13 The second component, depicted by a Roman numeral, is the airplane design group and relates to airplane wingspan. This grouping links an airport’s dimensional standards to aircraft wingspans. The categories are as follows: • Design Group I: Wingspan up to but not including 49 feet. • Design Group II: Wingspan 49 feet up to but not including 79 feet. • Design Group III: Wingspan 79 feet up to but not including 118 feet. • Design Group IV: Wingspan 118 feet up to but not including 171 feet. • Design Group V: Wingspan 171 feet up to but not including 214 feet. • Design Group VI: Wingspan 214 feet up to but not including 262 feet. Generally, aircraft approach speed applies to runways and runway related facilities. Airplane wingspan primarily relates to separation criteria involving taxiways and taxilanes. Airports expected to accommodate single- engine airplanes normally fall into Airport Reference Code B- I. Airports serving larger general aviation and commuter- type planes are usually Airport Reference Code B- II or C- II. Small to medium- sized airports serving air carriers are usually Airport Reference Code C- III, while larger air carrier airports are usually Airport Reference Code D- VI. Primary and Secondary Airport Classifications Arizona State’s aviation system is segregated by the ADOT, Aeronautics Division into two subsystems ~ a Primary system and a Secondary system category. System airports are divided into these two categories primarily by size and usage. In order for an airport to be included under the primary system, it must be open to the public and meet at least one of the following criteria: • Have 10 or more based aircraft and/ or 2000 or more yearly operations; or • Have scheduled air carrier service; or • Receive commuter service regularly; or • Projected to meet any of the above criteria within 10 years. Primary system airports serving scheduled air carrier service must be certified under Federal Aviation Regulation Part 139 ( Certification and Operations: Land Airports Serving Certain Air Carriers). There are 62 airports included in the Primary Airport System based on ADOT Aeronautics Division’s 1999 records. Secondary airports are different in character from the State’s Primary airports. Since these airports are normally located in rural areas, population size does not generate sufficient aviation activity to warrant the level of airport facilities generally associated with Primary airports. Secondary airports do provide facilities that can be utilized by single-engine and light- twin aircraft ( e. g., FAA Stage I type aircraft). These Secondary airports are not designed to serve business jets, heavy twin- engines, large commuter aircraft, or commercial airlines. The State’s definition of a Secondary airport is one that satisfies both of the following criteria: ( 1) recognized by the FAA as an airport per Form 5010, and ( 2) open to the public. There are 20 Secondary airports identified in the 1999 Fiscal Year listing. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS 2000) H:\ CD\ ELEMENT THREE. doc Element Three 3- 14 Previously, a category of airports called Emerging Rural Airports were included by ADOT as part of the State’s system of airports that did not meet the requirements of either a Primary or Secondary facility, but existed in areas that were not adequately served by aviation facilities. The concept of Emerging Rural Airports was described in detail in a special study of Secondary, Native American, and Other Rural Airports produced by ADOT in 1988. This special study identified nine airports as potential State aviation network facilities. This category of airport is no longer identified as a special category in the Arizona Aviation system. Airport Categories The following definitions are applicable to the State Primary and Secondary Systems. 1. Commercial Service Airport: a publicly owned airport which enplanes 2,500 or more passengers annually and receives scheduled passenger air service. 2. Reliever Airport: an airport that serves as a “ relief of General Aviation traffic congestion for a Commercial Service airport, providing more general aviation access to the overall community. The Reliever Airport should have a current or forecast activity level of 50 based aircraft and a minimum of 25,000 annual itinerant operations ( or 35,000 local operations). 3. General Aviation Airports: the remaining airports that do not fall into either the Commercial Service or Reliever status are referred to as General Aviation airports. This category includes privately owned and/ or private use airports/ heliports. For system planning purposes, the General Aviation Airports may be divided into the following types: a. Community Airport: an airport within the State of Arizona serving an incorporated community with a population more than 1,000 people. b. Rural Airport: an airport within the State of Arizona serving an incorporated community with less than 1,000 population. c. Emergency Airport: an airport/ facility or area within the State of Arizona that currently has, or can demonstrate, a need for an emergency or “ air evacuation” airport. These airports may serve general aviation, recreation, and/ or emergency services. 4. New Urban Airport: the construction of a new airport within 24 statute miles of the Urbanized Area Boundary of Phoenix, Tucson, Yuma, and Flagstaff requires the approval of the State Transportation Board ( A. R. S. 28- 8205). Airport Facilities This section provides a summary of existing aviation facilities in the state. Facilities included in this section include all public- use facilities regardless of ownership. Arizona’s system of public-use airports is very comprehensive. Airports are among the most heavily used means of public transportation throughout the state. Maintaining and updating the aviation system is a critical element to effectively fulfill the transportation needs of Arizona. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS 2000) H:\ CD\ ELEMENT THREE. doc Element Three 3- 15 The subsequent series of maps and tables on the next few pages to summarize the available aviation resources. Exhibit 3- 3 and Table 3- 7 shows the State’s public- use airport system, both commercial and general aviation. Military airports that are publicly owned but restricted in use are also depicted. Exhibit 3- 4 illustrates only Arizona’s Primary airports while Exhibit 3- 5 presents only the Secondary airport system. A summary of existing airfield facilities that lists runway data and taxiway information is provided as Table 3- 8. Existing airport lighting and terminal navigational aids are detailed in Table 3- 9. Heliport Facilities Helicopters provide a vital resource to the aviation system, particularly for the corporate and medical communities in Arizona. There are well over 100 heliports located throughout the state. The vast majority are privately owned with restricted use. Some facilities are publicly owned, ( Glendale Heliport and Helistop, Mesa Heliport) but required prior permission in order to use the facility. In addition to the numerous heliports, many airports have routine helicopter service. Helicopters are also a key element in the tourist industry. Numerous flights are available in the Grand Canyon and Sedona areas. Most of these operate out of the Grand Canyon National Park and Sedona Airports. Seaplane Facilities Seaplane facilities are of two types: seaplane bases and seaplane landing areas. Seaplane bases have a resident operator who provides commercial services such as flight instruction, sight seeing flights, aviation fuel, and / or aircraft maintenance. Seaplane landing areas are designated bodies of water on which seaplanes can operate but where no seaplane- specific facilities are available. The following are seaplane facilities in Arizona. Cocoino National Forest Mormon Lake, Flagstaff, AZ Lake Mary, Flagstaff, AZ Upper Lake Mary, Flagstaff, AZ Tonto National Forest Roosevelt Lake, Roosevelt, AZ U. S. National Park Service Lake Mead, Temple Bar, AZ Lake Mohave, Bullhead City, AZ Glen Canyon National Recreation Area Lake Powell Lake Havasu City Lake Havasu, Lake Havasu City, AZ FLAGSTAFF PHOENIX TUCSON Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS) 2000 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION T: 99248\ STUDY GRAPHICS\ EXHIBIT 3- 2,3 & 6. PPT GREENLEE MOHAVE COCONINO YAVAPAI NAVAJO APACHE LA PAZ MARICOPA YUMA PIMA PINAL GRAHAM SANTA CRUZ COCHISE GILA 4 40 82 EXHIBIT 3- 3: Existing Arizona State Public Use Airport System - 2000 109 57 30 107 87 32 67 65 56 82 99 95 40 5 66 14 23 110 72 46 29 96 21 11 28 55 88 9 105 80 113 97 63 34 SOURCE: ADOT, Division of Aeronautics; Bucher, Willis & Ratliff 98 76 7 NPIAS Airport Non- NPIAS Airport American Indian Airport Other Airports New/ Proposed Airport LEGEND 33 49 22 4 Military Airport Joint Use - Military/ Air Carrier Airport* 5 115 116 118 117 4 114 108 45 111 74 16 NOTE: * Phoenix- Sky Harbor, Tucson International and Libby AFB are currently used by the Arizona Air National Guard ( AANG). 69 80 58 2 Element Three 3- 16 A89 40 66 60 95 89 89 60 17 80 86 85 8 10 89 19 83 80 90 191 80 10 77 70 191 191 180 191 A89 93 93 10 87 180 89 163 160 87 191 264 22 60 36 41 35 104 42 100 37 47 49 6 48 27 24 86 75 54 112 60 90 93 61 10 20 25 102 51 81 26 84 33 31 12 85 15 2 121 120 122 15 0 10 20 30 40 50 MILES ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Arizona State Aviation Needs Study ( SANS 2000) H:\ CD\ ELEMENT THREE. doc Element Three 3- 17 TABLE 3- 9: Listing of Public Use Airports Legend 1. Ak- Chin Community ( 1) 2. Ajo Municipal 3. Apache Junction * 4. Avi Suquilla 5. Avra Valley ( Marana Reg’l) 6. Bagdad 7. Benson Municipal 8. Big Lake/ Sunrise ( 2) 9. Bisbee Douglas International 10. Bisbee Municipal 11. Bowie 12. Buckeye Municipal 13. Camp Verde ( 3) 14. Casa Grande Municipal 15. Chandler Municipal 16. Chinle Municipal 17. Chiricahau Mountains ( 2) 18. Cibola ( 2) 19. Cliff Dwellers Lodge ( 1) 20. Cochise College 21. Cochise County 22. Colorado City Municipal 23. Coolidge Municipal 24. Cottonwood Municipal 25. Douglas Municipal 26. Eloy Municipal 27. Ernest A. Love Field 28. Estrella Sailport 29. Flying J Ranch 30. Ganado 31. Gila Bend Municipal 32. Glendale Municipal 33. San Carlos Apache 34. Grand Canyon Bar- Ten 35. Grand Canyon Caverns 36. Grand Canyon National Park 37. Grand Canyon West 38. Grapevine/ Roosevelt Lake ( 1) 39. Greasewood ( 3) 40. Greenlee County 41. H. A. Clark Memorial Field 42. Holbrook Municipal 43. Hualapai ( 1) 44. Inscription House ( 3) 45. Kayenta 46. Kearny 47. Kingman 48. Lake Havasu City Municipal 49. Laughlin/ Bullhead Int’l 50. Leupp/ Painted Desert ( 3) 51. Sierra Vista Muni/ Libby AAF 52. Low Moutain ( 3) 53. Lukachukai ( 1) 54. Marble Canyon 55. Memorial Airfield ( 1) 56. Falcon Field 57. Mogollon Airpark ( 1) 58. Nogales International 59. Ora Acres ( 3) 60. Page Municipal 61. Payson 62. Peach Springs * 63. Pearce Ferry 64. Petrified Forest ( 3) 65. Phoenix Deer Valley 66. Phoenix Goodyear 67. Phoenix Sky Harbor Int’l 68. Pearce Ferry 69. Pinal Airpark 70. Pine Springs ( 1) 71. Pinon ( 1) 72. Pleasant Valley 73. Pleasant Valley Airstrip ( 1) 74. Polacca 75. Flagstaff- Pulliam 76. Quartzsite * MILITARY: 114. Davis- Monthan AFB 115. Laguna AAF 116. Luke AFB 117. Gila Bend- AF Aux. 118. Papago AAF 77. Rio Vista Hills ( 1) 78. Rock Point ( 1) 79. Rocky Ridge ( 1) 80. Rolle Airfield 81. Ryan Field 82. Safford Regional 83. Sampley ( 1) 84. San Manuel 85. Scottsdale 86. Sedona 87. Seligman 88. Sells 89. Shonto ( 1) 90. Show Low Municipal 91. Sky Ranch Carefree ( 1) 92. Somerton Field ( 1) 93. Town of Springerville Municipal 94. Sprucedale ( 2) 95. St. Johns Industrial Airpark 96. Stellar Airpark 97. Sun Valley 98. Superior Municipal 99. Taylor 100. Temple Bar 101. Three Point ( 3) 102. Tombstone Municipal 103. Toyei School * 104. Tuba City 105. Tucson International 106. Tucson Mercury ( 3) 107. Tuweep 108. Whiteriver 109. Wickenburg Municipal 110. Williams Gateway 111. Window Rock 112. Winslow Lindberg Regional 113. Yuma International/ MCAS Yuma 119. Alamo Lake ( 2) 120. Forepaugh 121. Grande Valley 122. Valle Airport Airport candidates no longer viable and dropped from study = * Airports that are active, private use airports = ( 1) Recreational Study Airports, dropped from the SANS = ( 2) Airpo |
|
|
| A |
|
| B |
| C |
|
| D |
| E |
| F |
| G |
| H |
| I |
| J |
| L |
| M |
|
| N |
| O |
| P |
|
| R |
| S |
|
| T |
|
| U |
| V |
| W |
| Y |
|
|