10/11/2022 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION
October 11, 2022 Tuesday 4:00 PM
Council Work Room
451 South State Street Room 326
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
SLCCouncil.com
4:00 PM Work Session
Or immediately following the 2:00 PM
Redevelopment Agency Meeting
7:00 pm Limited Formal Meeting
Room 326
(See separate agenda)
Please note: A general public comment period will not be held this day.
Welcome and public meeting rules
In accordance with State Statute and City Ordinance, the meeting may be held electronically. After 5:00 p.m., please enter the
City & County Building through the main east entrance.
The Work Session is a discussion among Council Members and select presenters. The public is welcome to listen. Items
scheduled on the Work Session or Formal Meeting may be moved and / or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting
based on circumstance or availability of speakers.
Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. Item start times
and durations are approximate and are subject to change at the Chair’s discretion.
Generated: 09:28:21
The Council has returned to a hybrid meeting approach. The hybrid meeting
enables people joining remotely or in-person to listen to the Council meeting and
participate during public comment items.
Public Hearings: The public can give comments to the Council during the
meetings online through Webex or in-person in Room 326 of the City and County
Building. In-person attendees can fill out a comment card and online participants
will register through Webex in order to be added to the comment queue.
Agenda & Registration Information: For more information, including
Webex connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings.
(A phone line will also be available for people whose only option is to call in.)
Public Health Information: Masks are no longer required in City Facilities, but
are welcome for any attendees who prefer to continue using them. We will
continue to monitor the situation take any reasonable precautions for the public
and staff.
Work Session Items
1.Resolution: Salt Lake City International Airport Master Plan
Follow-up ~ 4:30 p.m.
30 min
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about a resolution that would approve the
Salt Lake City Department of Airports’ 2022 Master Plan Update for continued
development of the Salt Lake City International Airport. The 2022 Master Plan evaluates
the ability of Airport facilities to accommodate user needs at existing and forecasted
demand levels and provides recommendations regarding additional facilities that are
needed to meet the forecasted demand.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, August 9, 2022 and Tuesday, October 11, 2022
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, August 16, 2022
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 6, 2022 and Tuesday,
October 18, 2022 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 20, 2022
2.Resolution: Airport Fund Fiscal Year 2023 Budget
Contingency ~ 5:00 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a resolution that would approve the release of
Budget Contingency for the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget Relating to the Department of
Airports.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, October 11, 2022
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 18, 2022
3.Ordinance: Rezone at 856 West 1300 South ~ 5:20 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning of the
property at 856 West 1300 South Street from R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential
District) to FB-UN1 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood District). The parcel is currently
occupied by a single-family residential dwelling. This proposed zoning map amendment
change will facilitate potential redevelopment of this parcel into a single-family attached
residential project. The zoning map amendment does not require an amendment to the
Westside Master Plan. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another
zoning district with similar characteristics.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, October 11, 2022
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 18, 2022
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Thursday, November 10, 2022 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, November 22, 2022
4.Resolution: Authorizing the Mayor to execute the Interlocal
Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation, the
Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, and the Utah Inland
Port Authority
~ 5:40 p.m.
25 min.
The Council will be briefed on a contract with the Utah Inland Port Authority (UIPA)
Board that outlines various Port activities and how City money will be used. The contract
will be executed by a resolution and Interlocal Agreement between Salt Lake City, the
Redevelopment Agency, and UIPA. The Council will review the contract terms and
consider approving a resolution authorizing the Interlocal Agreement. The contract
fulfills changes made by the Legislature in March 2022, which requires the City and
UIPA to enter into a contract by December 31, 2022, that includes the following:
•A process for how the Port Authority is to spend the Environmental Mitigation
Money and the Community Mitigation Money
•The Port Authority will consult with the City in determining how to spend the
Environmental Mitigation Money and the Community Mitigation Money
•The Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency spends 10% of exempt area property tax
it receives for affordable housing
•Salt Lake City provides at least one full-time employee as a single point of contact
to facilitate the efficient processing of land use applications relating to the
authority jurisdictional land
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, October 11, 2022
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 18, 2022
5.Resolutions: Utah Performing Arts Center Interlocal
Agreements ~ 6:05 p.m.
10 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about resolutions approving changes to two interlocal
agreements between Salt Lake City, the Redevelopment Agency (RDA), and the Utah
Performing Arts Center Agency (UPACA), for operation of the George S. and Delores
Dore Eccles Theater. The changes are related to insurance and intended to save taxpayers
money.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, October 11, 2022
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 18, 2022
6.Ordinance: Alley Vacation at approximately 925 South
1200 West Written Briefing
-
The Council will receive a written briefing about a proposal that would vacate a portion of
City-owned alley situated adjacent to the property at 925 South 1200 West, and a section
of the 9-Line trail. The proposal is to vacate an east/west alley segment and incorporate
the vacant land into the neighboring property.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, October 11, 2022
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 4, 2022
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Thursday, November 10, 2022
Standing Items
7.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
8.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director
Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and
announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to
City Council business, including but not limited to scheduling items.
9.Tentative Closed Session
The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described
under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to:
a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health
of an individual;
b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining;
c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;
d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property,
including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the
transaction would:
(i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration; or
(ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water
right or water shares, if:
(i) public discussion of the transaction would:
(A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration; or
(B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
(ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be
offered for sale; and
(iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body
approves the sale;
f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and
g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct.
A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to
Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements
of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act.
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
On or before 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 6, 2022, the undersigned, duly appointed City
Recorder, does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was (1) posted on the Utah Public
Notice Website created under Utah Code Section 63F-1-701, and (2) a copy of the foregoing provided
to The Salt Lake Tribune and/or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any
others who have indicated interest.
CINDY LOU TRISHMAN
SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER
Final action may be taken in relation to any topic listed on the agenda, including but
not limited to adoption, rejection, amendment, addition of conditions and variations
of options discussed.
The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for
reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary
aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request,
please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay
service 711.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL BUDGET
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Sam Owen, Policy Analyst
DATE: August 9, 2022
RE: Resolution: Updated Salt Lake City
International Airport Master Plan
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The proposed 2022 Airport Master Plan (AMP) is a blueprint for Salt Lake City International Airport (SLCIA)
future improvements and expansion to meet anticipated aeronautical demand now and for the next 20 years.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations create the structure and sequence for airport master plans
and the recommendation process. Staff is confirming with the City Attorney’s Office that the Council’s role as the
policy and budgeting body for the City is to approve this plan, similar to other City master plans. The elements
of the airport master plan and layout are described and justified based on the following:
-Existing conditions. The plan assumes that capital projects underway now are complete, and uses
those as a baseline for future expansion needs. Completion of these current projects is the fulfillment of
the previous master plans. The existing conditions report does not, for example, assume completion of a
forthcoming 16-gate expansion, or other projects specifically discussed in this report. The section also
discusses airport revenue sources, which include: airline landing fees, airline terminal usage fees, other
non-airline aeronautical revenues, and concessions-related sources like fees on rental cars, or airport
land leases.
-Aviation activity forecasting. The plan models a number of scenarios for air passenger and air cargo
activity levels over the horizon of the planning timeline.
o There are three planning activity levels the airport recognizes as determining priority for
projects on the horizon of the current plan. The plan anticipates the airport reaching these
activity levels and then describes the course of capital improvements appropriate for each
activity level.
o Increased activity forecasts are associated with increased revenue in categories like those listed
above. Increased revenue from activity is used to justify capital project expenses.
o The Airport looks at historical customer and cargo activity to inform future activity projections.
o The report describes the statistical methodology in detail.
-Facilities assessment and alternatives analysis. Separate sections of the plan evaluate the
adequacy and life of existing facilities to support air travel. This assessment looks at the capacity of
parking, runways, rental accommodations and elements of a terminal. The assessment makes
Item Schedule:
Briefing: August 9, 2022
Public Hearing: n/a
Potential Action: TBD
Page | 2
recommendations about changes or additions needed based on airport activity projected to increase now
and in subsequent decades. The alternatives analysis explores different configurations of capital
improvements and forwards the preferred scenario for each capital improvement or addition.
-Strategic vision, or development and implementation plan—Includes short, medium and
long term capital planning requests. Capital projects outlined below are proposed for the short
term, or 1-5 year horizon. Cost justification for the facility improvements comes from the aviation
activity forecast and corresponding anticipation of revenue that will support the facilities development.
Council Members have signaled the need for more discussion on the 2023 landside program below, in
particular the new proposed parking lot.
The report also includes sections on environmental assessment and federal process for airport capital expansion.
AMP, page 352. Capital projects proposal for 1-5 year horizon. The “ROM” category signals estimated cost of the
proposed improvement (ROM signals “rough order of magnitude”).
Note: Council Members may want to clarify the proposed $28.4m 2023 project for employee parking. Recent
policy guidance from the Council, as well as a contingency on the FY 23 budget, has been that they would
prefer enhanced conversations/service with UTA rather than add additional impervious surface to airport
property to facilitate parking for employees.
OTHER KEY ITEMS
Table 1—Describes activity forecasts by commercial airline operations.
Includes high and low bounds. The activity forecasts determine operational and capital expansion requests for
the life of the plan. Activity forecasts determine revenue projections as well.
LOW FORECAST ARRIVALS AND
DEPARTURES
INTERNATIONAL
2022 400 13
2027 422 16
2032 438 18
2037 450 20
HIGH FORECAST ARRIVALS AND
DEPARTURES
INTERNATIONAL
2022 413 14
2027 480 24
2032 517 29
2037 561 32
Page | 3
AMP, page 352. The total capital projects proposal over the life of the plan. These projects and the alternatives
analysis for each one are discussed by the plan.
Page | 4
AMP, page 122. An illustration of Delta’s share of traffic as the major hub airline at SLCIA.
Topics covered in the plan that may be of additional interest to the Council and public:
- General aviation refers to private and other commercial airport use. The additional hangars that
facilitate private aircraft are in high public and commercial demand. In 2018, the wait time for these
hangars was over 500 days on average. Airport staff report similar high demand for general aviation
accommodations at the other airports, South Valley and Tooele. General aviation is a major focus of the
master planning process for the South Valley and Tooele airports.
- Master planning that addresses the system’s other two airports, South Valley and Tooele, is underway
now.
- The plan contemplates possible TRAX expansion south and west of the Airport on the end of its
planning horizon, about 2035. The plan references ongoing regional transportation planning efforts. In
fact, “Capital projects within this plan ultimately impact the connectivity to SLCIA from the statewide
transportation network, but only those [improvements] found within the Wasatch Front Regional
Council project lists have noticeable impacts to development of SLCIA.” See policy questions for
discussion on incentivizing transit.
- “Air cargo at SLCIA includes the movement of freight and mail. In 2017, 382.2 million pounds of total
cargo was handled by the tenants of SLCIA.” See the Executive Summary, page 16 for projections for
cargo growth.
- The plan’s note on green house gas (GHG) emissions. “Research has shown there is a direct correlation
between fuel combustion and GHG emissions. In terms of U.S. contributions, the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) reports that “domestic aviation contributes about three percent of total
Page | 5
carbon dioxide emissions, according to EPA data, “compared with other industrial sources, including the
remainder of the transportation sector (20%) and power generation (41%). The International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO) estimates that GHG emissions from aircraft account for roughly three
percent of all anthropogenic GHG emissions globally.”
- The Airport Director previously indicated to the Council that the Airport works regularly with UTA to
identify opportunities to expand employee transit access to the airport, but there are barriers to the wide
use of transit by employees. Council staff understands that current limitations include, but may not be
limited to:
o the limited hours of operation of transit;
o the additional time it takes to ride transit rather than drive oneself;
o Airport employees reside over a very wide area—there isn't an area with a concentration of
Airport employees.
- UTA shared with Council staff some potential opportunities to address both the hours of operations and
convenience issues (please note that this is Council staff’s summary wording, based upon informal
inquiries):
o A van share program is available, wherein groups of employees would have a van available to
them on a long-term basis to commute at any hour.
o UTA and Amazon jointly provided a special express route at times that coincided with shift
change. Once the route had adequate ridership, UTA was able to take on full funding of the
service.
o There is also potential to work with UDOT and UTA to establish one or more Park and Ride lots
along the 5600 West area extending to West Jordan.
o Express service could be provided, reducing the transit commute time. Other public transit
programs include on-demand service that may provide an opportunity for collaboration here
also.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The Council adopted the FY23 budget with a requirement the Airport explore additional transit options
for employees prior to dollars being released to expand parking lots. Council Members might ask about
the status or next steps on this.
2. Could Airport staff describe the current timeline and projected completion of people movers that will
eventually connect the concourses? The reported amount of walking from Airport entrance to airplane
gates has been a focus.
3. Can the landside capital improvement program be changed so the employee parking lot is built long-
term, or not at all?
a. Consider for example the new parking garage or other parking expansions contemplated in the
medium and long term capital improvement program proposal. Could that capacity instead be
added first to relieve the strain on public parking without paving existing open space?
4. The Council adopted resolution 14 of 2020, which lays the groundwork for Council expectations on city
master plans. The questions & answers included as an appendix to this report show the symmetry
between FAA master plan requirements, and those outlined in resolution 14.
a. Would the airport report to the Council on the status of the master planning process for the
other SLC Department of Airports facilities, South Valley and Tooele?
5. Given the FAA approval of the proposed airport layout plan, is there a process for making changes if
policy or budget concerns arose with any aspect of the layout?
Page | 6
APPENDIX
Airport staff answers to Council staff questions
1. Please, would you provide a short summary of how a person would best understand the
concept of PAL? And the same for “daily operations” tallies?
Planning Activity Levels or PALs represent future levels of activity used to assess future
airport facility demand. PALs are divided into four categories: (1) annual passenger
boardings; (2) aircraft landings and take-offs; (3) airfield capacity and delay; and (4) annual
air cargo tonnage. PAL levels provide the bases for determining future facility requirements
including the type, size, and timing of aviation development.
A daily operation is defined as a take-off and landing of an aircraft. So, the tally of daily
operations is the number of take-off and landings per day.
2. Please discuss the FAA conditional approval document that was submitted with the
transmittal. A high-level timeline of agency review and process steps for the plan would
also be informative.
The FAA approves two parts of an airport master plan: (1) the forecast; and (2) the Airport
Layout Plan (ALP). The ALP shows all existing and proposed airport development over a 20-
year period. The FAA requires all on airport development to be carried out in accordance with
the FAA approved ALP.
At this time, the FAA has approved both parts of the master plan. However, “conditional
approval” is given to ALPs where an environmental analysis for all future airport
development shown on the ALP under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) has not
been completed. Because the ALP shows projects that will take place over the next 20 years
and NEPA approvals or Findings of No Significate Impact (FONSI) are only valid for three
years after the FONSI is issued, the FAA “conditionally” approved the ALP. Almost all ALP
approvals nationwide are conditional approvals.
3. Please discuss the sequence of landside public parking projects, including the following
points: While many projects are outlined in the landside public parking program, some
are proposed to occur before others, and in fact only one is proposed for actual planned
implementation. Page 348. Why are the landside projects proposed to be ordered the way
the plan outlines?
Project implementation for all airport projects is based on forecasted planning activity levels,
or PAL levels. Page 348 lists three landside projects, which are planned to be completed in the
following sequence: (1) Public Parking Phase III; (2) Commercial Vehicle Staging, and Park ‘n’
Wait lot relocation; and (3) Public Parking Garage Phase IV. All three of these projects are
listed as long-term projects. While all of these projects are landside parking projects, they are
used by different segments of airport customers and are at different levels of current capacity
and future demand.
Because the existing employee lot is consistently at capacity, the first step, prior to the
implementation of any of the landside projects listed on page 348, is to relocate and expand
the existing employee parking lot on the old golf course site. After the employee parking lot is
moved, the old employee lot will become an additional public economy parking lot. This
Page | 7
transition will accommodate forecasted growth in economy parking for the next several years
and allow for implementation of the three landside parking projects listed on page 348, in the
sequence listed below:
Project 1: The Public Parking Phase III project is an expansion to the current airport economy
parking lot. The Public Parking Phase III project will increase the capacity of the economy
parking lot when demand dictates.
Project 2: Demand indicates a need for expansion of the Park ‘N’ Wait lot in its current
location now, so it will be expanded by approximately 100 stalls this fiscal year. However, the
relocation of the current Commercial Vehicle Staging will be implemented as demand dictates.
Project 3: This project expands the parking garage. This project will be done as demand
dictates. Currently, the parking garage is at approximately 50% of its capacity.
4. Page 139 indicates a low limit for enplanement projections. The low limit for
international traffic is lower than the low limit projection for traffic altogether. Please
discuss—why are international flights more responsive to the lower limit in those
models?
The low case forecast was a scenario considering what passenger demand might look like
after a cataclysmic global event that weakened the global economy. International air travel at
U.S. airports will typically have greater declines than domestic air travel after catastrophic
events happening outside the U.S. The low case scenario forecast reflects this effect and
estimates a steeper decrease in demand than would be anticipated by domestic passenger
traffic.
5. Does DOA coordinate with other City departments on matters of EPA regulation?
The Department of Airports works directly with City departments on a variety of EPA
regulations including the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Toxic Substances Control
Act.
The Department of Airports works with the Department of Sustainability and participates in
many working groups with the City, including Energy Management Steering Committee,
World Resources Institute (WRI) 24/7 Carbon-Free Energy City Cohort, Electrified Transit
Subcommittee/Smart Mobility Subcommittee, Fleet Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure
Subcommittee, Green Infrastructure Steering Committee.
The Department of Airports also works closely with the Department of Public Utilities to meet
Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit and the Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer System permit requirements.
6. Resolution 14 of 2020 outlines the Council and public engagement process required for
master plan processes. Did this master plan process conform with some or all of the
aspects of the resolution? Please discuss or provide examples.
Although the airport master plan process for this plan started in February 2018, before
Resolution 14 was passed, the airport master plan process aligns closely with Resolution 14.
The airport master plan process also follows similar steps outlined in Advisory Circular
150/5070-6B, as required by airports receiving federal funds.
Page | 8
The Councils resolution states the master planning process should consist of the following
steps:
Each step has an activity, deliverable and council role associated with it.
1. Planning Preparation
2. Assess Existing Conditions
3. Public Engagement
4. Draft Plan
5. Adoption
6. Implementation
Similarly, the FAA requires the following steps, and the final master plan document contains
the following chapters:
1. Pre-planning
2. Assessing Existing Conditions and Aviation Forecasts
3. Evaluating Facility Requirements
4. Identification of Alternatives
5. Development Plan and Implementation
6. Environmental Overview of the Plan and Identifying NEPA Process
7. Airport Layout Plan and Conditional FAA Approval
The airport master planning process also includes a capital improvement program and a
public involvement program. For instance, the airport master planning process for the SLCIA
master plan consisted of 1 virtual engagement room, 3 public information meetings, 7 airport
board meetings, 6 working papers, 40 technical meetings, 65 stakeholder meetings, 350 public
participants and over 20,000 hours of planning conducted.
7. The plan asserts that in service of helping to meet Plan Salt Lake goals, the ARP will
bring more revenue to the city. Please discuss. Page 82
Plan Salt Lake’s purpose is to “create a shared [v]ision for the future of Salt Lake City for the
next 25 years.” The airport master plan is a transportation component of Plan Salt Lake’s
vision and provides a roadmap for the airport to serve the citizens of Salt Lake City and the
Intermountain West for the next 20 years and beyond.
According to the July 2020 Economic Impact of Salt Lake City International Airport, prepared
by Javiation, SLC supports an estimated 124,407 jobs with an associated payroll of
approximately $4.3 billion. SLC also supports a total annual spending of $7.2 billion and total
annual economic activity estimated at approximately $11.5 billion.
8. Does the airport police information in the plan represent the current organization of
the Airport Police? Some of the information in the plan is from earlier times.
Information regarding the airport police was obtained during the existing conditions phase of
the master plan and represents how the airport police division was organized in early 2018.
9. Please discuss the compensation structure for the commercial transportation staging
parking lot the Airport provides. What entities use this lot, and how is does the airport
recoup the value?
Automated vehicle identification (AVI) fees are accrued each time a registered vehicle enters
the airport. These fees (see link below) are paid by all registered users which may include but
are not limited to taxi’s, charter buses, independent operators, etc. Transportation network
companies (TNC) users (such as Lyft and Uber) pay a separate fee that is not listed on the AVI
rate schedule. Their fees are set under annual operating permits. Unlike other registered
Page | 9
users, TNCs pay a pick-up AND a drop-off fee. Under the current operating permit for TNCs,
the TNCs pay $3.00 per pick-up and drop-off.
Lastly, users who are not registered and are not considered a TNC pay an entry fee. These
operators are generally charter buses that are not local, and only may be here a few times
throughout the year. These operators pay as they go, and those fees are daily, weekly, or
monthly. The current structure is $50/daily, $250/weekly, or $500/monthly.
All of the users described above use the staging lots as either a “staging” point, or a pass-
through point to access the commercial curbs. Operating as a cost recovery system, the fees
are set to recover expenses.
10. The report makes assumptions about existing conditions in the context of ongoing
construction.
a. Are there any assumptions not reflected in actual physical things built today, and
what are those?
b. In other words, does the plan consider built anything that is not currently built?
c. For example, existing conditions method description page 41.
During the Existing Conditions phase of the master plan, the parking garage, terminal
building, concourses, central utility plant, and elevated roadway system were all under
construction. The master plan considered all of these facilities complete. Since that time, the
parking garage, terminal building, central utility plant, elevated roadway and the first phase
Concourse A and B have opened.
There are still two facilities currently under construction that the master plan considered
complete. First, the 22-gate Concourse A expansion to the east. The first four gates of this
expansion will open in May 2023 with the remaining gates opening in fall of 2023. Second, the
eight-gate Concourse B expansion. The first four gates of this expansion will open in the fall of
2024 and the remaining four gates will open in the fall if 2025.
11. What are unscheduled passenger operations of larger aircraft?
Irregular operations or IROPS is when a commercial airline or charter aircraft has to make
an unscheduled landing at SLC. This is usually due to bad weather at the destination airport, a
mechanical problem with the aircraft, a medical issue on board the aircraft, or sometimes an
unruly passenger.
12. What are future general aviation activities most compatible with commercial activity?
Would this reduce access for other potential user groups?
The current and future general aviation activity most compatible with commercial activities is
business jets with similar approach speeds as commercial aircraft. Business aircraft with
similar approach speeds maximizes the capacity and safety of the airport runway and
taxiway systems. During heavy commercial aircraft banks, slower general aviation aircraft
are ground-held until the surrounding airspace is clear of larger, faster commercial activity
for safety and capacity related issues.
13. What obstacles or opportunities has the airport experienced with the expansion of
employee bicycle storage, like the facilities noted on page 36 [46].
The Department of Airports has a strong commitment to the City’s sustainability goals, and
incorporates the City’s goals in airport facilities. The NEW SLC and all other facilities have a
goal of achieving at least a LEED Gold certification through the USGBC (a LEED certifying
agency). This created an immediate opportunity to install 210 bicycle racks along with 18
showers and changing areas in the NEW SLC. The bicycle racks and shower facilities serve the
airport staff, tenants and any passengers or visitors. The racks are located conveniently in the
Page | 10
parking garage, 100 feet from the entrance to the airport. These facilities are heavily used by
airport employees.
14. Is there a competitive process for corporate tenants who secure private hangar space at
the airport, such as those inventoried on page 53? Is it first come first serve?
There is not a competitive process for securing private hangar space. However, available
hangar space is extremely limited, and a preference is given to existing tenants who wish to
build new larger hangars.
15. The plan discusses changes to airport overlay B to allow more residential development.
Where does this overlay occur? Would this conflict at all with recent city policy
statements and actions in the city’s northwest? Page 82
On page 82, the current Northwest Community Plan is referenced as suggesting changes to the
Airport Flight Path Protection (AFPP) Zone B. AFPP Zone B prohibits residential uses, except
in agricultural zones with air circulations systems and at least twenty-five (25) dBs of sound
attenuation. However, the Department of Airports understands that a new Northwest
Community Plan is currently in development. The Department of Airports does not support
any changes to the AFPP overlay in any of the zones that would allow for additional
residential development under critical flight paths, patterns, or areas exposed to high levels of
aircraft noise.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Transmittal
2. Airport master plan
3. Plan executive summary
4. Work session presentation
5. FAA conditional approval, airport layout plan
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
______________________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer
Date Received: 5/24/2022
Date Sent to Council: 5/24/2022
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: May 23, 2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Bill Wyatt, Executive Director, Department of Airports
SUBJECT: Updated Salt Lake City International Airport Master Plan
STAFF CONTACTS: Brady Fredrickson, Director of Airport Planning and Capital Programming
DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing and resolution
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution
BUDGET IMPACT: The adoption of this resolution does not have an impact on this fiscal year’s
annual Department of Airports (SLCDA) budget. All capital improvement projects associated with
the airport master plan and airport layout plan will be included in the 20-year SLCDA Capital
Improvement Program (CIP). Each year, SLCDA CIP projects are ranked based on specific criteria
and the projects with the highest rank are included in annual airport fiscal year budget.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
I.Background
The last Salt Lake City International Airport master plan was completed in 1997 (1997 Master Plan).
The 1997 Master Plan defined the 20-year vision and preferred development plan for the Salt Lake
City International Airport (Airport) to meet increasing passenger and aviation services demand. This
development plan turned into the current $4.5 billion Airport Redevelopment Program (ARP) and
has guided the construction of the new Airport.
The 2022 master plan (2022 Master Plan) ensures that the proper steps are being taken to continue
to maintain, improve, and build upon the foundation created through the implementation of the
ARP, in a strategic, fiscally responsible, and coordinated fashion.
The 2022 Master Plan evaluates the ability of Airport facilities to accommodate user needs at
existing and forecasted demand levels. In addition, the 2022 Master Plan provides recommendations
Lisa Shaffer (May 24, 2022 13:38 MDT)
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
regarding additional facilities that are needed to meet the forecasted demand. Formulating the 2022
Master Plan involved collecting relevant data of existing conditions, forecasting aviation user
demand levels, determining the capacities of existing facilities, analyzing facility requirements based
on the demand and capacity relationships, generating alternative development options which meet
that demand, and developing a financially feasible implementation plan to achieve those facility
improvements. The study is comprehensive in nature, with the objective of creating a thorough list
of airport projects, for the SLCDA’s CIP, that are recommended for future development. Finally,
the 2022 Master Plan proposes an implementation plan that suggests the sequence of execution to
achieve it (Implementation Plan). The Implementation Plan considers stakeholder needs and input,
available funding, FAA safety and design standards, operational efficiencies, and overall impact to
user level of service experience.
II. Public Involvement
The 2022 Master Plan analysis was guided by several committees comprised of internal and external
Airport stakeholders: a Technical Advisory Committee, a Policy Advisory Committee, an Airport
Staff Working Group, and the Airport Board Advisory Group. Each committee was comprised of
stakeholders representing a broad spectrum of interests. Entities participating in the master plan
study included: airport users, airport tenants, aviation service providers, air carriers, general aviation
organizations, the FAA, state and local planning organizations, environmental interest groups,
SLCDA staff, and elected and appointed officials and staff representing surrounding local
municipalities, including Salt Lake City.
Before beginning the master plan analysis, multiple visioning meetings were held with stakeholders
to identify critical issues that needed to be resolved during the study and establish goals and
objectives included in the final recommendations. The most important goals and objectives are listed
below.
• Enhance safety by minimizing the potential for runway incursions.
• Determine ultimate terminal and concourse area requirements.
• Determine airfield improvements needed to increase airport capacity, hourly throughput,
and operational efficiencies.
• Improve operational performance and determine runway length requirements.
• Determine landside parking and rental car facility requirements.
• Identify opportunities to expand corporate general aviation facilities.
• Minimize environmental impacts of proposed airport development.
• Prepare an implementation plan that supports the financial sustainability of the Airport.
Public involvement improves the decision-making process by recognizing the needs and interests of
participants. In recognition of the importance of involving the public in the planning process, the
Master Plan Update team implemented a thorough Public Involvement Program (PIP) to seek
public feedback during all phases of the project and at all key decision points. The PIP process
involved three public information meetings, seven Airport Advisory Board updates, 40 technical
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
meetings, and 65 other stakeholder meetings.
III. Salt Lake City International Airport 2022 Master Plan Content
The master plan process included an inventory of existing conditions at the Airport, a summary
of the forecast of future demand, an assessment of future facility requirements, development
and evaluation of alternatives, and creation of an implementation plan. The demand forecast and
facility requirements indicate that facility upgrades, and future development projects will be
needed within the 20-year planning horizon of the Master Plan. Following a detailed evaluation
of alternatives, the master plan team formulated a plan for future development based on a
demand-driven, phased approach. The technical analysis was complemented by a thorough public
involvement process.
After preparing the forecast of aviation activity and evaluating facility requirements, multiple
conceptual plans were developed to describe the infrastructure improvements that could be
implemented to meet forecasted demand, FAA design standards, and other facility needs. Each
concept depicted various locations and alternative configurations of the proposed facilities. Airport
staff, tenants, and other stakeholders, including the public, considered the various concepts and
selected preferred solutions for each facility.
The preferred solution for each facility was combined into a comprehensive preferred alternative.
The plan for future development identifies short-term (0 to 5 years), mid-term (6 to 10 years), and
long-term (11 to 20-years) projects. The division between short-, mid-, and long-range projects was
established through an evaluation process based on priority, need, and the SLCDA vision. The
following were identified as short-term, mid-term, and long-term projects.
Short-term Projects
• Decommission and Remove Runway 14-32
• Decommission and Remove Taxiway Q
• Relocate Taxiway K2/Q
• Construct New Employee Parking Lot
• Expand Cargo Apron
Mid-term Projects
• Construct West Portion of Taxiway V
• Construct East Portion of Taxiway V and Tunnel
• Construct Taxiway U
• Construct Taxiway S Deice Pad
• Relocate 4000 West Street
• Expand Surface Public Parking
• Expand Rental Car QTA and Storage Garage
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
• Relocate Rental Car Remote Service Sites
Long-term Projects
• Construct Taxiway L Extension – Phase I
• Construct Taxiway L Extension – Phase II
• Construct Taxiway L Extension – Phase III
• Relocate Power Transmission Line
• Realign 2200 North Street
• Extend Runway 16L-34R
• Relocate Taxiway K5
• Expand Cargo Apron
• Expand Public Parking Garage
• Expand Surface Public Parking
• Relocate Commercial Vehicle Staging and Park’ n’ Wait Lots
• 16R Deicing Pads
IV. Description and Need for Short-Term Projects
The short-term projects were identified based upon immediate need to maintain the safe and
efficient operation of the Airport and ease and satisfaction for Airport users. Because the identified
short-term projects are nearest on the horizon, each project is described briefly below:
A. Decommission and Remove Runway 14-32: Runway 14-32 has two FAA defined safety
hazard zones or “hot spots”. Hot spots are areas on a runway where there has a history of
runway incursions by aircraft entering the runway without clearance. Runway 14-32 only
accommodates approximately 3,350 aircraft operations annually. Because of its short length,
the runway cannot support commercial aircraft operations. The FAA deemed the runway
unnecessary in the SLCIA runway system making it not eligible for federal funding. Through
engagement with SLCDA staff and stakeholders, it was determined the cost to correct the
runway hot spots outweighs the benefit the runway provides to the airport system and,
therefore, should be removed.
B. Decommission and Remove Taxiway Q: This project removes the mid-runway crossing on
Runway 17-35. With the removal of Runway 14-32, this taxiway crossing is no longer in an
optimal area. It will be relocated and replaced by the new K2/Q taxiway.
C. Relocate Taxiway K2/Q: This taxiway serves as a replacement for Taxiway Q. It will be
located and designed to accommodate large aircraft capable of serving Asian markets.
D. Construct New Employee Parking Lot: During shift changes, the current 3,400 stall
employee parking lot is reaching 85% of capacity. As additional phases of the airport finish,
airlines and concessionaires will be hiring additional employees to serve new flights and
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
added retail space. It’s projected that the airport will need an additional 1200 employee
parking stalls over the next two years to support this employee growth. This growth will fill
the existing employee parking lot beyond capacity and require the relocation and expansion
of the airport employee parking lot. This project will create a new employee parking lot on
airport land south of the existing surplus canal. The current employee lot will be
reprogrammed as a public parking lot.
E. Expand Cargo Apron: This project includes the apron and taxilane connection for a new
cargo apron adjacent to Taxiway B. This apron and taxiway will support an additional air
cargo carrier.
V. Financial Analysis
The projects shown in the short-, mid- and long-term time frames were programmed considering
SLCDA anticipated funding capacity. SLCDA anticipates a funding capacity of $25M per year for
capital projects within the first five years as the Airport recovers from the capital outlay associated
with building the new terminal. Beyond five years, it is anticipated that capital funding capacity will
return to approximately $40M per year, which is typical of years before building the new terminal.
The order of projects will be evaluated yearly based on SLCDA funding capacity and prioritization
based on the safe and efficient operation of the Airport.
This analysis indicates that funding will be available to plan, design, and construct the projects
identified in the 2022 Master Plan. A total of over $900M in capital projects has been identified,
of which about $90M are programmed in the first five-year period. This financial analysis is based
on the SLCDA anticipated funding capacity and continued FAA support. Based on the assumptions
and the analyses presented herein, the capital plan is considered practicable, and it is anticipated
that the SLCDA will be able to construct necessary aviation facilities at SLCIA over the 20-
year planning period to accommodate demand.
VI. Exhibits
https://slcairport.com/assets/pdfDocuments/Master-
Plan/SLCMasterPlanComprehensiveReportCompressedClientReview.pdf
https://slcairport.com/assets/pdfDocuments/Master-
Plan/SLCExecutiveSummaryFINALPRINT.pdf
https://slcairport.com/assets/pdfDocuments/Master-Plan/SLC3ALPwithsignatures.pdf
RESOLUTION NO. __ OF 2022
(A Resolution in Support and Approval of the Salt Lake City Department of Airports’ 2022
Master Plan Update for Continued Development of the Salt Lake City International Airport)
WHEREAS, in 1997 the Salt Lake City Department of Airports (“SLCDA”) completed a
master plan (“1997 Master Plan”) and business plan (“1997 Business Plan”) for the phase one
development program of the Salt Lake City International Airport (“Airport”); and
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council adopted Resolution 58 of 1997 approving and
supporting the 1997 Master Plan and 1997 Business Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Airport is a valuable asset and economic driver in Salt Lake City and the
state of Utah; and
WHEREAS, an airport master plan is a comprehensive study of an airport and usually
describes the short-, medium-, and long-term development plans to meet future aviation demand;
and
WHEREAS, community engagement is important in developing master plans, and so for
development of the 2022 Airport master plan (“2022 Master Plan”), SLCDA formed a variety of
stakeholder committees, including a Technical Advisory Committee, a Policy Advisory
Committee, an Airport Staff Working Group, and the Airport Board Advisory Group; and
WHEREAS, each committee was comprised of stakeholders representing a broad
spectrum of interests, including airport users, airport tenants, aviation service providers, air
carriers, general aviation organizations, the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”), state and
local planning organizations, environmental interest groups, airport staff, and elected and
appointed officials representing local municipalities; and
WHEREAS, SLCDA presented the 2022 Master Plan to the Salt Lake City Council in
detail, and the Council has had the opportunity to carefully consider aspects of the 2022 Master
Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has examined the 2022 Master Plan and has had the
opportunity to review the proposed construction and development, the needs and purposes for the
development and for the implementation generally presented in the 2022 Master Plan; and
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as
follows:
1. Having completed this examination, the City Council supports and approves the
2022 Master Plan, including the general development and funding aspects of those plans, and
agrees that the Airport should proceed with development using all reasonable means to give
effect to those plans.
2
2. The City Council reserves its rights and responsibilities to separately consider
each financing action for which it must give formal legal approval.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of _________, 2022.
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
By: ______________________
Dan Dugan, Chair, Salt Lake City Council
Attest:
___________________________
City Recorder
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Approved as to Form:
___________________________
Senior City Attorney
MASTER PLAN | 2022
CHAPTER 1 INVENTORY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
1.1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.2 1.2 HISTORIC CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND 2
1.2.1 Airport Redevelopment Program 4
1.2.2 Ownership, Management, and Oversight 5
1.3 AIRPORT SETTING AND ROLE 7
1.3.1 Airport Setting 7
1.3.2 Airport Role 8
1.3.2.1 Commercial Passenger Service 8
1.3.2.2 General Aviation 9
1.3.3 Meteorological Conditions 10
1.4 AIRFIELD FACILITIES 11
1.4.1 Runway System 12
1.4.2 Helipads 13
1.4.3 Taxiway System 15
1.4.4 Airfield Pavement 15
1.4.5 Airfield Hot Spots 19
1.4.5.1 Runway Incursion Mitigation Program 19
1.4.5.2 Historic Runway Incursions 19
1.4.6 Navigational Aids 20
1.4.6.1 Visual Aids 20
1.4.6.2 Electronic Aids 22
1.4.6.3 Meteorological Aids 22
1.5 AIRSPACE 23
1.5.1 National Airspace Structure 23
1.5.2 Salt Lake City Airspace Structure 23
1.5.3 Airport Traffic Control Procedures 25
1.5.3.1 Air Route Traffic Control Center 25
1.5.3.2 Air Traffic Control 26
1.5.4 VFR and IFR Procedures 27
1.5.4.1 VFR Flight Procedures 27
1.5.4.2 IFR Arrival Procedures 27
1.5.4.3 IFR Approach Procedures 28
1.5.4.4 IFR Departure Procedures 29
1.5.5 Local Airspace 29
1.5.6 14 CFR 77 - Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace 29
1.5.7 Obstructions 30
1.5.8 Noise Abatement 30
1.6 AIRPORT FACILITIES OVERVIEW 33
1.7 AIRLINE TERMINAL AND GATES 35
1.7.1 Terminal Overview 35
1.7.2 Terminal Level 1 36
1.7.3 Terminal Level 2 36
1.7.4 Terminal Level 3 36
1.7.5 Terminal Rail Station 38
1.7.6 Terminal Gateway Building 38
1.7.7 Terminal Concourses and Aircraft Gates 38
1.7.7.1 Concourse A 38
1.7.7.2 Concourse B 39
1.7.7.3 Potential Future Expansions 40
1.8 LANDSIDE FACILITIES 41
1.8.1 Airport Access 41
1.8.1.1 Regional Access 43
1.8.1.2 On-Airport Circulation 43
1.8.1.3 Terminal Curb Roadway 45
1.8.2 Ground Transportation Services and Facilities 46
1.8.3 Vehicle Parking 46
1.8.4 Rental Car Facilities 47
1.8.5 Stakeholder Interviews and 2018 Terminal Curb Road Observations 47
1.9 GENERAL AVIATION FACILITIES 50
19.1 Leasehold Zones 50
1.9.2 SLCDA T-Hangar Facilities 50
1.9.3 SLCDA Corporate Tenants 53
1.9.3.1 Utah Division of Aeronautics 53
1.9.3.2 Flightline, LLC 53
1.9.3.3 Harper Companies, Inc. 53
1.9.3.4 Leucadia Hangar 53
1.9.3.5 Hughes & Hughes Investment Corporation 53
1.9.3.6 ALSCO 53
1.9.3.7 Terra Diamond 53
1.9.3.8 Civil Air Patrol 54
1.9.3.9 DKH Services 54
1.9.3.10 Young Electric Sign Company 54
1.9.3.11 Hangar 4 Associates 54
1.9.4 Fixed Base Operators 54
1.9.5 Military Facilities 55
1.9.6 Non-Airside Facilities 55
1.9.6.1 National Weather Service 55
1.9.6.2 Flight Safety International 55
1.10 AIR CARGO FACILITIES 58
1.10.1 South Cargo Area 58
1.10.1.1 United States Postal Service 58
1.10.1.2 Joint Cargo Building #1 58
1.10.1.3 Joint Cargo Building #2 58
1.10.1.4 Consolidated Cargo Facility 58
1.10.1.5 Delta Air Cargo 58
1.10.2 North Cargo Area 58
1.10.2.1 United Parcel Service 58
1.10.2.2 Federal Express 58
1.11 AVIATION SUPPORT FACILITIES 62
1.11.1 FAA Facilities 62
1.11.2 Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting 62
1.11.3 Aircraft Deicing Facilities 62
1.11.4 Airport Snow and Ice Control Plan 63
1.11.4.1 Snow Removal 63
1.11.4.2 Pavement Deicing 63
1.11.5 Aviation Fuel Storage 63
1.11.5.1 North Fuel Storage Area 63
1.11.5.2 General Aviation Fuel Storage Area 65
1.11.5.3 North Fuel Storage Area 65
1.11.5.4 General Aviation Fuel Storage Area 65
1.11.6 Airport Police and Security Facilities 65
1.12 UTILITIES 70
1.12.1 Electrical Power Lines 70
1.12.2 Water, Sewer, and Stormwater Lines 70
1.12.3 Other Airport Utilities 70
1.13 FINANCIAL OVERVIEW 75
1.13.1 Revenues 75
1.13.2 Expenses 75
1.13.3 Capital Investments 75
1.13.4 Airport Grants 75
1.14 AIRPORT ENVIRONS 78
1.14.1 Land Use and Zoning 78
1.14.2 Coordination with Existing Local and Regional Plans 82
1.14.2.1 Salt Lake City Comprehensive Plan – Plan Salt Lake (Adopted 2015) 82
1.14.2.2 Northwest Community Master Plan (Adopted 1992, amended 2000 and 2004) 82
1.14.2.3 Northwest Quadrant Master Plan (Adopted 2016) 82
1.14.2.4 Regional Transportation Plan 83
1.14.2.5 UDOT Long Range Transportation Plan 84
1.14.2.6 Utah’s Unified Transportation Plan 84
1.15 ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS 84
1.15.1 Air Quality 84
1.15.2 Biological Resources 87
1.15.3 Climate 87
1.15.4 Coastal Resources 88
1.15.5 Department of Transportation, Section 4(f) 89
1.15.6 Farmlands 90
1.15.7 Hazardous Materials, Solid Waste, and Pollution Prevention 90
1.15.7.1 Hazardous Materials 90
1.15.7.2 Solid Waste 91
1.15.7.3 Pollution Prevention 91
1.15.8 Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources 91
1.15.9 Land Use 92
1.15.10 Natural Resources and Energy Supply 92
1.15.11 Noise and Noise-Compatible Land Use 92
1.15.12 Socioeconomic, Environmental Justice, and Children’s Environmental Health and Safety Risks 94
1.15.13 Visual Effects 96
1.15.13.1 Light Emissions 96
1.15.13.2 Visual Resources and Visual Character 96
1.15.14 Water Resources 96
1.15.14.1 Wetlands 96
1.15.14.2 Floodplains 96
1.15.14.3 Surface Waters 97
1.15.14.4 Groundwater 97
1.15.14.5 Wild and Scenic Rivers 97
CHAPTER 2 AVIATION ACTIVITY FORECAST
2.1 INTRODUCTION 102
2.1.1 Executive Summary of Forecasts for FAA Approval 103
2.1.2 SLC Service Area 105
2.1.2.1 Socioeconomic Analysis 105
2.1.3 Gross Domestic Product 109
2.2 REVIEW OF FORECASTS 110
2.2.1 FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years 2018-2038 110
2.2.2 Terminal Area Forecast 2017 (Published January, 2018) and Forecast Report 110
2.2.3 2019-2023 National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) 110
2.2.4 2006 Salt Lake City International Airport Layout Plan Update 110
2.2.5 Utah Continuous Airport System Plan 110
2.2.6 Expert Panel 113
2.2.7 Passenger Aircraft Fleet Mix-Baseline 2017 114
2.3 HISTORICAL OPERATIONS 115
2.3.1 Historical Total Operations 115
2.3.2 Historical Passenger Operations 115
2.3.3 Historical General Aviation Operations 115
2.3.4 Historical Military Operations 115
2.3.5 Detail 2017 Fleet Mix 115
2.4 PASSENGER ENPLANEMENTS 120
2.4.1 Historical Enplanements 120
2.4.1.1 Origination & Destination and Connecting Enplanements 121
2.4.1.2 Domestic and International Enplanements 123
2.4.1.3 Peak Month 128
2.4.2 Market Trends and Activity 130
2.4.2.1 SLC Operating Air Carriers 130
2.4.2.2 Air Carrier Market Share 130
2.4.2.4 Load Factors 131
2.4.2.5 Comparative Airport Analysis 132
2.4.2.6 SLC Market Analysis 134
2.4.2.6.1 Average Airfares 134
2.4.2.6.2 Airline Yield 134
2.4.2.6.3 Jet Fuel Prices Analysis 134
2.4.2.6.4 Passenger Aircraft Fleet Mix Trend Analysis 136
2.4.2.6.5 Short, Medium, and Long Range Global Potential 136
2.4.3 Passenger Enplanement Forecasts 136
2.4.3.1 Methodology 136
2.4.3.2 O&D Enplanements Forecasts 138
2.4.3.3 Connecting Enplanements Forecasts 139
2.4.3.4 International and Domestic Forecast 140
2.4.3.5 Total Enplanements Forecast 141
2.5 PLANNING DAY MODEL 149
2.5.1 Planning Day Model Methodology 149
2.5.2 Baseline Flight Schedule 2018 149
2.5.3 Planning Day Model Base Case Forecast 151
2.5.4 Planning Day Model Low Case Scenario Forecast 164
2.5.5 Planning Day Model High Case Scenario Forecast 169
2.5.6 Peak Day and Total Passenger Air Carrier Operations 174
2.5.7 Electric Vertical Takeoff and Landing Operations 177
2.5.7.1 eVTOL Operations Forecast 177
2.6 AIR CARGO 178
2.6.1 Historical Air Cargo 178
2.6.1.1 Historical Freight 178
2.6.1.2 Historical Belly Cargo 178
2.6.1.3 Historical Air Mail 178
2.6.1.4 Historical Air Cargo Peak Month 178
2.6.2 Air Cargo Fleet Mix-Baseline 2017 185
2.6.3 Local Cargo Forecasts 185
2.6.3.1 Belly Cargo Forecast 185
2.6.3.2 Freight Forecast 186
2.6.4 Total Air Cargo Forecast 187
2.6.5 Air Cargo Operations Forecast (Integrated Carriers) 190
2.7 GENERAL AVIATION AND MILITARY 192
2.7.1 General Aviation Forecast 192
2.7.1.1 Based Aircraft 192
2.7.1.2 General Aviation Operations 192
2.7.2 Military Forecast 195
2.7.2.1 Military Operations 195
2.8 SUMMARY OF AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS 196
2.8.1 Base Case Forecast Summary of Total Operations by Category 198
2.8.2 Base Case Forecast Summary of ADPM Operations by Category 198
2.8.3 IFR and VFR Operations 199
2.8.3.1 Annual Instrument Approaches 199
2.9 CRITICAL AIRCRAFT 200
2.9.1 Runway 14-32 Critical Aircraft 200
2.9.2 Runway 16L-34R Critical Aircraft 200
2.9.3 Runway 16R-34L Critical Aircraft 200
2.9.4 Runway 17-35 Critical Aircraft 200
2.10 AVIATION ACTIVITY FORECASTS SUMMARY 201
2.10.1 Comparison with FAA TAF 201
2.10.2 Forecast Usage within the Master Plan 203
CHAPTER 3 FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
3.1 INTRODUCTION 204
3.2 AIRFIELD REQUIREMENTS 208
3.2.1 Runway Requirements 208
3.2.1.1 Airfield Capacity and Delay 208
3.2.1.2 Wind Analysis 215
3.2.1.3 Runway Designation 216
3.2.1.4 Critical Aircraft 216
3.2.1.5 Runway Length 218
3.2.1.6 Runway Pavement Strength 221
3.2.1.7 Runway Protection Zones 221
3.2.1.8 Runway Geometric and Separation Standards 223
3.2.1.9 Hot Spots 226
3.2.2 Taxiway Requirements 228
3.2.2.1 Taxiway Design Analysis 228
3.2.2.2 Taxiway Layout Analysis 230
3.2.3 Operationally Related Facility Requirement Considerations 235
3.2.4 Airfield Requirements Summary 235
3.3 NAVIGATIONAL AIDS 236
3.3.1 Visual Aids 237
3.3.2 Electronic NAVAIDS 237
3.3.3 Meteorological Aids 238
3.4 TERMINAL CAPACITY AND REQUIREMENTS 239
3.4.1 Aircraft Gate Requirements 239
3.4.1.1 New Terminal Layout 2020 239
3.4.1.2 Gate Chart Model Analysis 240
3.4.1.3 Peak Hour Usage 240
3.4.1.4 Terminal Gate Requirements 241
3.4.1.5 RAD-RON Apron Parking Requirements 241
3.4.1.6 Timing for Concourse C 242
3.4.2 Terminal Space Requirements 242
3.4.2.1 Airline Ticketing and Check-In 242
3.4.2.2 Baggage Claim 243
3.4.2.3 Security Screening 243
3.4.2.4 Federal Inspection Services (FIS) 243
3.5 LANDSIDE FACILITY REQUIREMENTS 244
3.5.1 Access and Circulation Roadways 244
3.5.1.1 Regional Access 244
3.5.2 Terminal Area Roadways 245
3.5.3 Terminal Curb Roadways 246
3.5.4 Commercial Vehicle Staging Areas 248
3.5.5 Parking Requirements 249
3.5.6 Rental Car Requirements 253
3.5.7 Off-Airport Parking 255
3.5.7.1 Potential Impacts of True Hourly Parking 255
3.5.7.2 Impacts of TNCs on Landside Facilities 255
3.5.8 Landside Facility Requirement Summary 257
3.5.8.1 Roadway Facility Requirements Summary 257
3.5.8.2 Parking Facility Requirement Summary 257
3.5.8.3 Rental Car Facility Requirements Summary 257
3.6 AIR CARGO CAPACITY AND REQUIREMENTS 258
3.6.1 Background 258
3.6.2 Planning Criteria 259
3.6.2.1 Cargo Buildings 259
3.6.3 Cargo Apron 260
3.6.3.1 Other Cargo Facility Requirements 260
3.6.3.2 Passenger and Dedicated Air Cargo Carrier Facility Requirements 260
3.6.4 South Cargo Area 260
3.6.4.1 Delta 260
3.6.4.2 Southwest 260
3.6.4.3 All Other Passenger Airline Cargo 260
3.6.5 North Cargo Area 261
3.6.5.1 FedEx 261
3.6.5.2 UPS 261
3.6.5.3 Other Dedicated Air Cargo Carriers 261
3.6.6 Air Cargo Summary 263
3.7 UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS 264
3.7.1 Electrical Utilities 264
3.7.2 Water 264
3.7.3 Sanitary Sewer 264
3.7.4 Stormwater 265
3.7.5 Other Airport Utilities 265
3.7.5.1 Communication Infrastructure 265
3.7.5.2 Aviation Fuel Supply 265
3.7.5.3 Natural Gas 266
3.7.6 Utility Infrastructure Summary 266
3.8 GENERAL AVIATION REQUIREMENTS 266
3.8.1 Aircraft Storage 266
3.8.2 General Aviation Apron Requirements 267
3.8.3 General Aviation FBO Requirements 268
3.8.4 General Aviation Strategy Plan Considerations 268
3.8.5 Summary of General Aviation Facility Requirements 270
3.9 SUPPORT FACILITY REQUIREMENTS 271
3.9.1 Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting 271
3.9.1.1 Airport Index 271
3.9.1.2 Vehicle Requirements 271
3.9.1.3 Station Response Time Requirements 272
3.9.2 Fuel Storage 272
3.9.2.1 Commercial Aviation Fuel Storage 272
3.9.2.2 General Aviation 272
3.9.2.3 Sustainable Aviation Fuel 274
3.9.3 Airline Maintenance 274
3.9.4 Airport Maintenance 274
3.9.5 Airline Glycol Storage and Recovery 275
3.10 AIRPORT FACILITY REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 277
CHAPTER 4 IDENTIFICATION AND IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVES
4.1 INTRODUCTION 280
4.2 BALANCED AIRPORT ANALYSIS 280
4.3 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVES 281
4.3.1 Runway Extension for Long Haul Routes 281
4.3.2 Prior Planning for New West Runway and Runway 17-35 Realignment 284
4.3.3 Runway 17-35 Alternatives 286
4.3.4 Runway 14-32 and Adjacent Hot Spot Alternatives 289
4.3.4.1 Runway 14-32 Hot Spot Alternatives Evaluation 297
4.3.5 South End Around Taxiway 298
4.4 AIRFIELD ENHANCEMENTS 301
4.4.1 New and Removed Taxiways 301
4.4.2 Deicing Facilities 302
4.5 TERMINAL CONCOURSE EXPANSION ALTERNATIVES 304
4.6 NORTH AIR CARGO ALTERNATIVES 310
4.7 LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVES 314
4.7.1 Landside Planning Objectives and Guiding Principles 314
4.7.2 2100 North Roadway Realignment 315
4.7.3 Employee Parking 316
4.7.3.1 Employee Parking Alt. 1 – Single South Lot Served by One Shuttle Bus 318
4.7.3.2 Employee Parking Alt. 2 – Single South Lot Served by Two Shuttle Buses 318
4.7.3.3 Employee Parking Alt. 3 – North-South Split Lots Served by Separate Shuttle Buses 319
4.7.4 Employee Parking Evaluation 319
4.7.5 Preferred Employee Parking Alternative 320
4.7.6 Landside Facility Alternatives Dismissed from Further Consideration 321
4.7.6.1 Park ‘n’ Wait Lot and Service Center 321
4.7.6.2 Employee Parking 321
4.7.6.3 Rental Car Remote Service Site 321
4.7.7 Comprehensive Landside Alternatives 322
4.7.7.1 Comprehensive Landside Alternative One 323
4.7.7.2 Comprehensive Landside Alternative Two 326
4.7.8 Landside Alternatives Evaluation 327
4.7.9 Preferred Comprehensive Landside Development Plan 329
4.8 SUPPORT FACILITY ALTERNATIVES 331
4.8.1 Airline Maintenance, Airport Maintenance, and ARFF Sites 331
4.8.2 Commercial Service Fuel Farm 332
4.8.3 General Aviation 334
4.8.4 ARFF Training Facility 336
4.9 NON-AERONAUTICAL LAND USE OPPORTUNITIES 339
CHAPTER 5 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION
5.1 INTRODUCTION 341
5.2 STRATEGIC VISION 341
5.3 PROGRAM OVERVIEW 343
5.4 SHORT-TERM DEVELOPMENT 344
5.4.1 Airfield Projects 344
5.4.1.1 Runway/Taxiway Safety Program Projects 344
5.4.1.2 16L Deice Pad Facility Upgrades 344
5.4.2 Cargo Projects 344
5.4.3 Landside Projects 344
5.5 MEDIUM-TERM DEVELOPMENT 346
5.5.1 Airfield Projects 346
5.5.2 Cargo Projects 346
5.5.3 Landside Projects 346
5.6 LONG-TERM DEVELOPMENT 348
5.6.1 Airfield Projects 348
5.6.1.1 Taxiway L Extension Program Projects 348
5.6.1.2 Other Airfield Projects 348
5.6.2 Cargo Projects 348
5.6.3 Landside Projects 348
5.7 OTHER DEMAND DRIVEN PROJECTS 350
5.7.1 Airfield Projects 350
5.7.2 Landside Projects 350
5.7.3 Support and Terminal Projects 350
5.8 CAPITAL PROGRAMMING 352
5.8.1 Summary 353
5.9 NEAR TERM IMPLEMENTATION PRIORITIES AND CONSIDERATIONS 354
CHAPTER 6 ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW AND NEPA APPROACH
6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW AND NEPA GUIDANCE 355
6.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS 355
6.2.1 Air Quality 355
6.2.2 Biological Resources 355
6.2.3 Climate 355
6.2.4 Coastal Resources 356
6.2.5 Department of Transportation, Section 4(f) 356
6.2.6 Farmlands 356
6.2.7 Hazardous Materials, Solid Waste, and Pollution Prevention 356
6.2.7.1 Hazardous Materials 356
6.2.7.2 Solid Waste 356
6.2.7.3 Pollution Prevention 356
6.2.8 Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources 356
6.2.9 Land Use 356
6.2.10 Natural Resources and Energy Supply 356
6.2.11 Noise and Noise-Compatible Land Use 356
6.2.12 Socioeconomic, Environmental Justice, and Children’s Environmental Health and Safety Risks 357
6.2.13 Visual Effects 357
6.2.13.1 Light Emissions 357
6.2.13.2 Visual Resources and Visual Character 357
6.2.14 Water Resources 357
6.2.14.1 Wetlands 357
6.2.14.2 Floodplains 357
6.2.14.3 Surface Waters 357
6.2.14.4 Groundwater 357
6.2.14.5 Wild and Scenic Rivers 357
6.3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT PLAN 358
6.3.1 Runway Development Projects 358
6.3.1.1 Runway 16R-34L 2,500-foot Extension 358
6.3.1.2 Runway 16L-34R 2,498-foot Extension 359
6.3.1.3 Runway 17-35 4,903-foot Extension 359
6.3.1.4 Runway 17-35 Realignment and Extension 360
6.3.1.5 Runway 14-32 Closure and Conversion to a Taxiway 361
6.3.1.6 South Runway 16L-34R End Around Taxiway 361
6.3.2 Airfield Enhancement Development Projects 362
6.3.2.1 New and Removed Taxiways 362
6.3.2.2 Deicing Facilities 362
6.3.3 Terminal Concourse Expansion Development Project 363
6.3.4 North Air Cargo Alternatives 364
6.3.4.1 Ultimate Cargo Site 2 364
6.3.4.2 Ultimate Cargo Site 3 365
6.3.5 Landside Development Projects 365
6.3.5.1 2100 North Roadway Realignment 365
6.3.5.2 Employee Parking 366
6.3.5.3 Preferred Comprehensive Landside Development 367
6.3.6 Support Facility Development Projects 367
6.3.6.1 Airline Maintenance, Airport Maintenance, and ARFF Facility 367
6.3.6.2 Commercial Service Fuel Farm Relocation 368
6.3.6.3 General Aviation Leasehold Development 368
6.3.6.4 ARFF Training Facility 369
6.3.7 Non-Aeronautical Land Use Development Project Opportunities 370
6.4 APPROACHES TO NEPA DOCUMENTATION 371
6.4.1 North Cargo Area Expansion 371
6.4.2 Public Parking Construction Phase I – Employee Lot 371
6.4.3 Runway 14-32 Removal, Taxiway K2 Crossfield Connection Construction, Taxiway Q Removal,
and Runway 16L Deicing Pad Facilities Upgrades 372
6.4.4 Initial 4000W Roadway Relocation 372
6.4.5 West Portion Taxiway V Construction, East Portion Taxiway V Construction, East Taxiway
U Construction 372
6.4.6 Taxiway S Deice Pad Construction 372
CHAPTER 7 AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN
7.1 COVER SHEET 373
7.2 FACILITY LAYOUT PLAN 374
7.3 AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN 375
7.4 ULTIMATE AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN 376
7.5 AIRPORT DATA SHEET - 1 OF 2 378
7.6 AIRPORT DATA SHEET - 2 OF 2 379
7.7 TERMINAL AREA PLAN 380
7.8 GENERAL AVIATION AREA PLAN 381
7.9 NORTH SUPPORT AREA PLAN 382
7.10 AIRPORT AIRSPACE DRAWING - OUTER VIEW (EXISTING) 383
7.11 AIRPORT AIRSPACE DRAWING - INNER VIEW (EXISTING) 384
7.12 AIRPORT AIRSPACE DRAWING - OUTER VIEW (FUTURE) 385
7.13 AIRPORT AIRSPACE DRAWING - INNER VIEW (FUTURE) 386
7.14 EXISTING AND FUTURE PART 77 OBSTRUCTION TABLES 387
7.15 AIRSPACE PROFILE RUNWAY 16R-34L 388
7.16 AIRSPACE PROFILE RUNWAY 16L (EXISTING) 389
7.17 AIRSPACE PROFILE RUNWAY 16L-34R 390
7.18 AIRSPACE PROFILE RUNWAY 17-35 391
7.19 AIRSPACE PROFILE RUNWAY 14-32 (EXISTING) 392
7.20 INNER APPROACH PLAN AND PROFILE RUNWAY 16R 393
7.21 INNER APPROACH PLAN AND PROFILE RUNWAY 34L 394
7.22 INNER APPROACH PLAN AND PROFILE RUNWAY 16L (EXISTING) 395
7.23 INNER APPROACH PLAN AND PROFILE RUNWAY 16L (FUTURE) 396
7.24 INNER APPROACH PLAN AND PROFILE RUNWAY 34R 397
7.25 INNER APPROACH PLAN AND PROFILE RUNWAY 17 398
7.26 INNER APPROACH PLAN AND PROFILE RUNWAY 35 399
7.27 INNER APPROACH PLAN AND PROFILE RUNWAY 14 400
7.28 INNER APPROACH PLAN AND PROFILE RUNWAY 32 401
7.29 RUNWAY PROFILES 402
7.30 AIRPORT ACCESS PLAN 403
7.31 EXHIBIT ‘A’ AIRPORT PROPERTY INVENTORY MAP 404
7.32 EXHIBIT ‘A’ AIRPORT PROPERTY INVENTORY MAP 405
7.33 NOISE LAND INVENTORY 406
7.34 EXHIBIT ‘A’ AIRPORT PROPERTY INVENTORY MAP 407
7.35 EXHIBIT ‘A’ AIRPORT PROPERTY INVENTORY MAP 408
7.36 EXISTING AND FUTURE ZONING 409
7.37 EXISTING ON-AIRPORT LAND USE 410
7.38 FUTURE ON-AIRPORT LAND USE 411
7.39 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS 412
7.40 CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PHASING PLAN 413
7.41 UTILITY PLAN 414
1
|
I
N
V
E
N
T
O
R
Y
O
F
EX
I
S
TI
N
G
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S1INVENTORY OF
EXISTING CONDITIONS
1
INVENTORY OF
EXISTING CONDITIONS
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of crafting the Salt Lake City International
Airport Master Plan is to assess the ability of airport facilities
to accommodate user needs at existing and forecast demand
levels. In addition, the Master Plan provides recommendations
regarding additional facilities that are needed to meet the
forecasted demand. In the broadest sense, this involved
collecting relevant data of existing conditions, forecasting
aviation user demand levels, determining the capacities of
existing facilities, analyzing facility requirements based on the
demand and capacity relationships, generating alternative
development options which meet that demand, and developing
a financially feasible implementation plan to achieve those
facility improvements. The study is comprehensive in nature,
with the objective of creating a thorough list of airport
projects, known as the Capital Improvement Program (CIP),
that are recommended for future development. Finally, the
Master Plan proposes an Implementation Plan that suggests
the sequence of execution to achieve it. The Implementation
Plan takes into account available funding, stakeholder needs,
FAA safety and design standards, operational efficiencies, and
overall impact to user level of service experience.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory Circular (AC)
150/5070-6B Change 2, Airport Master Plans, outlines FAA
required and recommended steps in the development of an
airport master plan. The initial recommended step in
documenting the master planning process is the identification
of existing conditions at an airport. This involves the
collection of data germane to an airport and the area it serves.
The objective of the existing condition inventory task for Salt
Lake City International Airport (SLCIA) is to provide
background information used during subsequent phases
of the study. In addition to gathering baseline quantitative
inventory data, empirical and qualitative data was gathered
by way of observation, tenant surveys, and stakeholder input
collected during on-site interviews.
At the time of this writing, SLCIA was in the process of
redeveloping its terminal, concourse, and landside
environment, a plan 20 years in the making, resulting from the
preferred development path identified in the 1998 Salt Lake
City Airport Master Plan. This program is known as the Airport
Redevelopment Program (ARP) (previously known as the
Terminal Redevelopment Program). As economic
development and demand for aviation services matured over
time, the Salt Lake City Department of Airports (SLCDA)
began taking the steps required to meet passenger demand
and maintain optimal customer service levels. The construction
of these new facilities is a massive undertaking, costing
upwards of $4 billion and requiring a complex coordination
effort between the SLCDA and the contracted construction
firms which are helping make the plans happen.
Much like the 1998 Master Plan did before, the current master
planning process ensures that the proper steps are being taken
to maintain, improve, and build upon the foundation created
through the implementation of the ARP, in a strategic and
coordinated fashion. The unique aspect of this master planning
effort is that it must establish a baseline of existing conditions
as if passenger facilities under construction in 2018 are com-
pleted, and then identify the facility requirements necessary to
meet user demand for the 20 years following their completion.
This Master Plan will develop a baseline inventory under the fu-
ture “as-built” conditions, according to design and construction
documents being used to create the new terminal and landside
facilities.
32
The SLCIA is operated and managed by the SLCDA, a
department of Salt Lake City (SLC) Corporation. In addition
to SLCIA, the SLCDA operates and manages South Valley
Regional Airport (U42) and Tooele Valley Airport (TVY).
These three airports serve unique roles in the national
airspace system, the State of Utah, and the greater Salt Lake
Valley region.
SLCIA is located approximately five miles west of Salt Lake
City’s downtown business district in Salt Lake County, Utah.
SLCIA provides service for most of the commercial passen-
ger activity in the intermountain region. The primary counties
served by SLCIA include Davis, Salt Lake, Tooele, Utah, and
Weber. Beyond those five counties, SLCIA is also an important
link to the nation’s air transportation network for the rest of
Utah and even draws users from as far as Idaho, Wyoming,
Nevada, and western Colorado. SLCIA serves an estimated
23 million passengers per year and ranks as the 25th busiest
airport in North America.1 SLCIA is currently served by ten
airlines and their affiliates, and is a major hub for Delta Air
Lines. Additionally, SLCIA is an important center of economic
activity for the State of Utah, contributing approximately $1.9
billion annually to Utah’s gross domestic product (GDP).2
The SLCIA originated in 1911 as a cinder-covered landing strip
in a marshy pasture called “Basque Flats”. This area was
originally used for training and acrobatic flights and was the
host of the 1911 “Great International Aviation Carnival”.
Following the success of the carnival and a nationwide increase
in aviation activity, Salt Lake City purchased an additional
100 acres of land surrounding the existing landing strip. This
allowed for the expansion of airport infrastructure by
adding hangars and other buildings to support the United
States Postal Service, which began air mail service to Salt Lake
City in 1920. That same year, the airfield was named
“Woodward Field” in honor of local aviator, John P. Woodward.
Six years after the purchase and development of additional
land at Woodward Field, Western Air Express initiated the
first commercial passenger flight out of Woodward Field. This
company eventually grew into Western Airlines, which later
established its primary hub operation in Salt Lake City.
In 1930, Woodward Field changed it’s name to “Salt Lake City
Municipal Airport” and acquired an additional 300 acres of
land to add a second runway. Shortly after, the Airport built
the first terminal and airport administration building on Airport
property to support increases in airport operations. The
expansion of airport facilities allowed Salt Lake City Municipal
Airport to become a training base and replacement depot for
the U.S. Air Force.
Due to the continued growth of the aviation industry, an
additional terminal building was constructed in 1960 and Salt
Lake Municipal Airport was renamed “Salt Lake City Interna-
tional Airport” eight years later. As SLCIA continued to
experience increased activity, additional concourses and airport
facilities were constructed to support the growth. In 1978,
Terminal Two was constructed to host Western Airlines. The
west runway and taxiway systems were extended that same
year. SLCIA became a Western Airlines operational hub in
1982 and Terminal Two was expanded two years later to
accommodate an additional concourse.
Over the course of the next decade, growth in user demand
continued to necessitate further improvements to the airfield
and support facilities. Ground access improvements, parking
facilities, support facilities, and a golf course were all developed
on SLCIA property from the late 1980s into the early 1990s.
An additional air carrier runway, Concourse E, and an Interna-
tional Terminal were added to SLCIA by 1995. These, coupled
with other passenger and support facility improvements,
enabled SLCIA to accommodate the passenger activity levels
experienced during the 2002 Olympic Winter Games hosted
by Salt Lake City.
Since the 2002 Olympic Winter Games, SLCIA has made
various improvements required to accommodate steadily
increasing demand levels and prepare SLCDA for implementa-
tion of the preferred development path identified in the 1998
Salt Lake City International Airport Master Plan. Advanced
planning for the terminal and landside elements of the 1998
Master Plan have evolved over time through a number of
Airport Redevelopment Program iterations, which ultimately
honed the preferred development plan into a comprehensive
and implementable project. FIGURE 1-1 details SLCIA’s history
from its inception through the anticipated completion of the
terminal area investments by 2024. The ARP will ultimately
extend beyond 2024 as projects are developed to support
the overall initiative.
1.2 HISTORIC CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND
1 SLC Airport Fast Facts, Retrieved from https://www.slcairport.com/about-the-airport/airport-overview/fast-facts, 2018
2 Salt Lake City International Airport Economic Impact Analysis, 2013
Figure 1-1: SLCIA Historical Timeline
Source: SLCDA; Delta Flight Museum; SLC Chamber; Prepared by RS&H, 2018
4
1.2.1 Airport Redevelopment Program
The previous Master Plan, completed in 1998, identified the
need for additional terminal space to accommodate increased
passenger activity over a 20-year period. In 2009, the SLCDA
approved plans to redevelop the existing terminal facilities to
accommodate forecasted growth and to replace aging terminal
facilities. This plan, referred to as the Airport Redevelopment
Program (ARP), includes over $4 billion worth of
improvements through 2024 as detailed in FIGURE 1-2.
Originally constructed in the 1960s, the existing terminal
facility is aging and has become costly to maintain. The aging
terminal building suffered from energy inefficiencies and levels
of service became unsatisfactory based on current industry
standards. From an airside perspective, the concourse layout
contributed to airfield congestion, ultimately increasing aircraft
fuel consumption and emissions output. In order to accom-
modate increasing passenger activity and combat the negative
impacts of an aging terminal facility, the ARP proposed remov-
ing the three existing terminal buildings and replacing them
with one centrally located terminal building which serves a
system of attached and satellite concourses. The new terminal
complex consists of two concourses, one of which is a satellite
concourse connected by passenger tunnels. FIGURE 1-3
shows the construction images taken during the Airport
Redevelopment Program.
In addition to the new terminal, concourses, and airfield
improvements, the ARP also includes implementation of a
variety of facilities which improve the airport user experience.
Additional projects proposed in the ARP include a passenger
service gateway with sky bridges connecting to the terminal,
expanded parking facilities, new dual-level curb facilities, and
consolidated rental car services.
The following is an abbreviated list of major
ARP improvements:
• Multistory central terminal building serving three new con-
courses with a total of 78 concourse level (second story)
gates served by passenger boarding bridges.
͛Concourse A - East with 22 gates (formerly known as
South Concourse East).
͛Concourse A - West with 25 gates (formerly known as
South Concourse West).
͛Concourse B with 31 gates (formerly known as North
Concourse).
• Simplified airfield taxiway and taxilane system with dual tax-
ilanes between concourses.
• Gateway building accessing passenger sky bridges over the
terminal curb roads serving the terminal, ground transporta-
tion, and parking facilities.
• Five-story, approximately 1.7 million square foot parking
garage facility serving public parking and rental car ready-re-
turn. This space accommodates roughly 3,600 parked
vehicles.
• Consolidated rental car service facility comprised of three
buildings and a two-story quick turn-around facility with
capacity for roughly 1,650 stacked cars, 72 fuel nozzles, and
16 wash bays.
• Economy parking lots with 10,463 parking space capacity
• Two-level curb road with separated arrivals, departures, and
commercial vehicle traffic lanes.
• Central Utility Plant
Figure 1-2: Airport Redevelopment Program Timeline (2018 - 2024)
Source: SLCDA; Prepared by RS&H, 2018
5 6
1.2.2 Ownership, Management, and Oversight
The SLCIA is owned by Salt Lake City Corporation. As an enterprise department of Salt Lake City Corporation, the Department of
Airports requires no funding from property taxes, local government funds, or special district taxes. Rather, all capital requirements
are met from a variety of sources, including: earned airport operational revenues, revenue bonds, FAA approved passenger facility
charges (PFCs), rental car customer facility charges (CFCs), and FAA Airport Improvement Program grants.
Salt Lake City’s mayor, the City Council, and a nine-member advisory board of citizen volunteers oversee SLCIA’s affairs. The
Advisory Board provides a citizen and business perspective for SLCDA staff and makes recommendations to the Mayor regarding
airport rules and regulations, airport staff, construction and expansion, airport policy, and airport financial matters. Airport board
members are appointed by the Mayor to serve a four-year term. In addition to SLCIA, the SLCDA operates and manages South
Valley Regional Airport (U42) and Tooele Valley Airports (TVY). The organizational structure of SLCDA’s administrative leadership
is shown in FIGURE 1-4.
Figure 1-3: ARP Construction Photographs (Summer 2018)
Source: SLCDA, 2018
North Tunnel Opening - June 2018 Terminal Area Looking West - June 2018
Terminal Area Looking North - July 2018 Terminal Plaza - July 2018
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
-
4
:
S
L
C
D
A
O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
C
h
a
r
t
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
S
L
C
D
A
;
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
b
y
R
S
&
H
,
2
0
1
8
7 8
The following section describes the setting in which SLCIA
operates and its role within the local, regional, and national
aviation system.
1.3.1 Airport Setting
SLCIA is located in north-central Utah, five miles west of the
Salt Lake City business district, near the junction of Interstate
80 and Interstate 215. SLCIA is an integral element of the
overall Salt Lake Valley transportation network, which also
includes robust road and rail systems. FIGURE 1-5 shows the
1.3 AIRPORT SETTING AND ROLE
regional location of Salt Lake City International Airport relative
to the Salt Lake City urban areas.
SLCIA is located within Salt Lake County, part of the Salt Lake
City metropolitan area and the Wasatch Front. The SLCIA
service area, however, covers most of the State of Utah as
well as extending into portions of neighboring states, including
Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, and Wyoming. SLCIA is one of five
airports in Utah that provide commercial air transportation
services. FIGURE 1-6 illustrates SLCIA’s location and the
relative location of other commercial service airports in the
State of Utah.
1.3.2 Airport Role
SLCIA plays an important role within the local and national
aviation system. It serves more than one percent of the total
commercial passengers in the nation and serves a full range of
operation types. The Utah Continuous Airport System Plan
defines SLCIA as an international airport, which provides
essential national and international commercial airline access.
SLCIA is the only airport defined with this role in the state.
1.3.2.1 Commercial Passenger Service
The FAA has identified in the National Plan of Integrated
Airports Systems (NPIAS) approximately 3,400 airports in the
United States that are significant to national air transportation
and are eligible to receive federal grants under the
Airport Improvement Program (AIP). Salt Lake City Internation-
al Airport is a Large-Hub Primary Commercial Service airport
within the NPIAS. Large-hub airports are defined as airports
that enplane one percent or more of total U.S. passenger
enplanements. With 11,143,738 enplanements, SLCIA ranked
24th in the nation, enplaning approximately 1.34% of all U.S.
passengers for calendar year 2016 (the most recent year for
which data is available). SLCIA is one of nine airports in the U.S.
that serve as a hub for Delta Air Lines.
SLCIA holds an FAA issued 14 CFR 139 - Airport Certification,
which is required for airports serving scheduled air carrier
operations. There are four different classes of airports under
Part 139 which differ in the type of commercial aircraft they
Figure 1-5: Salt Lake Valley Intermountain Region
Source: SLCDA; Prepared by RS&H, 2018
Figure 1-6: Utah NPIAS Airports
Source: SLCDA, 2018
9 10
can serve. SLCIA is certificated as a Class I airport, which
allows it to serve scheduled operations of large (30+ seats)
and small (10-30 seats) air carrier aircraft, and unscheduled
passenger operations of large air carrier aircraft.
Currently, the following airlines provide service at SLCIA:
͛AeroMexico
͛Alaska Airlines
͛American Airlines
͛Delta Air Lines
͛Frontier Airlines
͛JetBlue Airways
͛KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
͛SkyWest Airlines
͛Southwest Airlines
͛United Airlines
Service by these airlines was provided to a total of 94
domestic and international non-stop locations. As of March
2018, the most frequent departure destinations from SLCIA
include Denver International Airport (DEN), Los Angeles Inter-
national Airport (LAX), and Phoenix – Sky Harbor International
Airport (PHX). Airlines at SLCIA use a variety of regional jets
and passenger jets; among the largest used include the
Airbus 330-300 and Boeing 787-900.
1.3.2.2 General Aviation
SLCIA, and the two Fixed-Base Operators (FBOs) providing
service, serve a wide variety of general aviation aircraft users
including both aviation hobbyists and private businesses. These
include corporate flying, law enforcement, fire suppression,
aircraft rescue, medical air evacuation, flight training, air
charters, transport of mail, government aviation, and the Utah
Air National Guard operations. General aviation services are
located along the eastern side of Airport property. The total
number of based general aviation aircraft at SLCIA is 290, of
which most are single-engine aircraft. However, SLCIA is
experiencing strong corporate aviation growth and demand.
As part of the SLCDA, SLCIA operates within an airport system,
including South Valley Regional Airport, Tooele Valley Airport,
and several non-SLCDA airports, that provide aviation services
to the metropolitan area. The SLCDA General Aviation Strate-
gic Plan, updated as part of the master planning process, iden-
tifies the role of SLCIA as a primary commercial service airport
with supporting general aviation facilities and services. General
aviation operations are accommodated as a secondary activity
to SLCIA’s primary purpose of serving commercial air carrier
operations. Future general aviation activities at SLCIA will focus
on those most compatible with commercial services.
One important element when detailing the issues and exist-
ing conditions at an airport is the examination of neighboring
airports and the services they offer. Understanding the services
offered at surrounding airports aids in understanding how SL-
CIA fits into the local and regional aviation systems.
There are six NPIAS airports within an approximate one hour
drive time from SLCIA. There is also one privately owned
public-use airport. TABLE 1-1 lists those airports along with
their role within the FAA NPIAS, based aircraft numbers, and
estimated drive time from Salt Lake City International Airport.
The majority of these airports have sizable amounts of based
aircraft, which is an indicator of an active general aviation com-
munity along the Wasatch Front.
Two airports, Ogden-Hinckley Airport and Provo Airport, also
provide commercial service. However, as non-hub primary
service airports, they perform substantially different roles than
SLCIA as a large-hub airport. The closest hub airport to SLCIA
is Boise Airport (BOI), which is a small-hub airport located an
estimated five-hour drive time from Salt Lake City.
1.3.3 Meteorological Conditions
A review of the prevailing meteorological conditions is neces-
sary to assist in the evaluation of aircraft performance charac-
teristics. Temperature, precipitation, winds, visibility, and cloud
ceiling heights are elements used to analyze an area’s climate
for airport planning purposes. National Weather Service
(NWS), a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), provides historic climate, weather,
and precipitation information. The following information was
derived from the NWS.
Salt Lake City is situated between the Wasatch Mountains to
the east, the Oquirrh Mountains to the west, and Great Salt
Lake to the northwest. The configuration of these ranges
creates a typically moderate climate with moderate rainfall for
the region. With the exception of the summer months, precip-
itation falls evenly throughout the year. Salt Lake City typically
receives approximately 16.1 inches of annual precipitation. On
average, there is measurable snowfall in Salt Lake City 35 days
per year.
Temperatures during cooler months have average highs of
30 and 40 degrees Fahrenheit with average lows of 20 to 30
degrees Fahrenheit. Summer time highs usually average from
80 degrees to low 90 degrees. According to NOAA records,
between 2000 and 2018 the Salt Lake City area averaged
eight days above 100 degrees during the summer months,
with most occurring in July. On average, the hottest month
of the year is July with an average maximum temperature of
92.6 degrees, and the coldest month is January with average
minimum temperature of 29.5 degrees.
Table 1-1: Airports Within One Hour Drive Time of SLCIA
11 12
This section provides an inventory of airside facilities at SLCIA, which includes the runway and taxiway systems as well as aprons
and helipads. Additionally, this section will discuss airfield hot spots, existing pavement condition, navigational aids, and lighting.
FIGURE 1-7 provides a graphical depiction of the airfield facilities.
1.4 AIRFIELD FACILITIES 1.4.1 Runway System
The runway system at SLCIA consists of two parallel runways oriented in the north-south direction (16R-34L and 16L-34R), a
third nearly-parallel runway oriented north-south (17-35), and a northeast-southwest runway (14-32).
Runway 16L-34R is a 12,002-foot-long, 150-foot-wide grooved asphalt runway with precision markings and a High Intensity Run-
way Lighting (HIRL) system. Runway 16R-34L is a 12,000 foot-long, 150 foot-wide Portland Cement Concrete runway with pre-
cision markings and HIRL lighting. The two runway centerlines are separated by a distance of 6,155 feet. This separation distance
allows air traffic control (ATC) to conduct independent operations on both runways simultaneously without intersecting the flight
patterns. These two runways accommodate the majority of commercial airline activity at SLCIA.
Runway 17-35 is a 9,597-foot-long and 150-foot-wide grooved asphalt runway. This runway is equipped with precision runway
markings and a HIRL system. Runway 14-32 is a 4,892 foot-long and 150 foot-wide grooved asphalt runway with visual markings
and HIRL lighting system. Due to their proximity to the existing general aviation facilities along the east side of SLCIA, these two
runways accommodate a majority of SLCIA’s general aviation and military traffic, with Runway 14-32 used primarily for cargo air-
craft operations. The runway characteristics for SLCIA are summarized in TABLE 1-2.
Declared distances are established for the runways and are summarized in TABLE 1-3. Declared distances, established in AC
150/5300-13A, Airport Design, represent the maximum distances available and suitable for meeting takeoff, rejected takeoff, and
land distance requirements for aircraft.
For Runway 35, the Takeoff Run Available (TORA), Takeoff Distance Available (TODA), and the Accelerate Stop Distance Available
(ASDA) is the full length of the runway (9,597 feet). However, the Landing Distance Available (LDA) is reduced to 9,273 feet due
to the displaced landing threshold caused by the intersection between the Runway 14-32 Runway Obstacle Free Area (ROFA) and
the approach end of Runway 35. The remaining runways have full runway length for TORA, TODA, ASDA, and LDA.
Runways are designed based on a Runway Design Code (RDC), which is determined using a combination of the aircraft approach
speed category (AAC), airplane design group (ADG), and the approach visibility minimums, all of which are based on the critical
aircraft using the runway. The AAC and ADG definitions are shown in TABLE 1-4 and TABLE 1-5. The visibility minimums, shown in
TABLE 1-6 are expressed by Runway Visual Range (RVR) values.
The RDC provides the information needed to determine certain design standards that apply to the runway system to allow unre-
stricted operations of the design aircraft. The RDC for Runway 16L-34R, Runway 16R-34L, and Runway 17-35 is D-V-1200, mean-
ing the runways can accommodate aircraft with approach speeds up to 166 knots, wingspans up to 214 feet, tail heights up to 66
feet tall, and visibility minimums below 1/4 mile. The RDC for Runway 14-32 is B-III-VIS, meaning the runway can accommodate
aircraft with approach speeds up to 121 knots, wingspans up to 118 feet, and tail heights up to 45 feet.
The Runway Safety Area (RSA) is a defined surface surrounding the runway specifically prepared to reduce the risk of damage
to aircraft in the event of an undershoot, overshoot, or excursion from the runway. The RSA is based on the RDC. The RSA for
Runways 16L-34R, 16R-34L, and 17-35 extend 1,000 feet beyond the runway end (or 600 feet prior to the threshold where the
runway end is equipped with vertical guidance) and is 500 feet wide centered on the runway centerline. The RSA for Runway 14-
32 extends 600 feet beyond the runway end (or 600 feet prior to the threshold where the runway end is equipped with vertical
guidance) and is 300 feet wide centered on the runway centerline.
Figure 1-7: SLC Airfield Diagram
Note: Not intended to be used for navigational purposes. FAA Airport Diagram modified to include completed ARP footprint.
Source: FAA Airport Diagram retrieved July 2018, Prepared by RS&H, 2018
Table 1-2: Runway System
13 14
The Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) is an area centered on
the ground on a runway centerline provided to enhance the
safety of aircraft operations by remaining clear of objects,
except for objects which are “fixed by function” and need to
be located within the object free area for air navigation or
aircraft ground maneuvering purposes. The ROFA for Runways
16L-34R, 16R-34L, and 17-35 extends 1,000 feet beyond the
runway end and is 800 feet wide centered on the runway cen-
terline. The ROFA for Runway 14-32 extends 600 feet beyond
the runway end and is 800 feet wide centered on the runway
centerline.
The Runway Protection Zones (RPZ) are areas at ground level
prior to the threshold and beyond the runway end to enhance
the safety and protection of people and property on the
ground. The RPZ dimensions for each runway are based on the
visibility minimums, AAC, and ADG of the runway. For the 16L,
16R, 34R, 34L, 17, and 35 runway ends, the approach RPZ
dimensions are 1,000 feet (inner width) by 1,750 feet (outer
width) by 2,500 feet (length). For the 14 and 32 runway ends,
the approach RPZ dimensions are 500 feet (inner width) by
700 feet (outer width) by 1,000 feet (length). The departure
RPZ dimensions for Runway 17 are 500 feet (inner width) by
1,010 feet (outer width) by 1,700 feet (length). The departure
RPZ dimensions for all other runway ends, excluding Runway
17, are 500 feet (inner width) by 1,010 feet (outer width) by
1,700 feet (length).
Runway pavement bearing strengths are defined in SECTION
1.4.4, Airfield Pavement.
1.4.2 Helipads
SLCIA has two helipad facilities located on the general aviation
apron. Helipad “B” (HB) is located in the south portion of the
general aviation apron within the TAC Air leasehold area. He-
lipad “F” (HF) is located on the general aviation apron in front
of Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) Station #11, just
outside the movement area adjacent Taxiway K4. Information
about the two helipads are detailed in TABLE 1-7.
Table 1-3: Declared Distances Table 1-4: Aircraft Approach Categories
Table 1-5: Airplane Design Groups
Table 1-6: Visibility Minimums
Table 1-7: Helipad System
1615
1.4.3 Taxiway System
SLCIA has an extensive taxiway system that provides access to
four runways from numerous aprons, as previously shown in
FIGURE 1-7. A list of the key taxiways at SLCIA is shown in TA-
BLE 1-8. Runway 16L-34R is serviced by Taxiway H, which is a
full-length parallel taxiway located west of the runway with a
centerline separation of 600 feet. The position of this taxiway
allows aircraft access to the terminal area, as well as the north
and south cargo aprons. The runway is also serviced by a par-
tial-length parallel taxiway, Taxiway G, which provides access to
the terminal and north cargo apron from the Runway 16L end.
Taxiway G and Taxiway H are separated 267 feet from taxiway
centerline to taxiway centerline.
Runway 16R-34L is serviced by two full-length parallel taxi-
ways, Taxiway A and Taxiway B located east of the runway.
These taxiways are separated from the runway centerline by
a distance of 600 feet and 867 feet respectively. The two
taxiways provide access to Runway 16R-34L from the terminal
and apron areas, and vice versa. Dual parallel Taxiway E and
Taxiway F connect the east and west sides of the airfield. Lo-
cated north of the terminal area, these taxiways are separated
267 feet from taxiway centerline to taxiway centerline.
Runway 17-35 is serviced by a full-length parallel taxiway,
Taxiway K, with a centerline separation of 570 feet, with
the exception of the first 1,800 feet at the approach end of
Runway 35. The centerline separation in this area is reduced to
400 feet. This taxiway provides access to the general aviation
facilities located along the east side of airfield. Access between
the departure end of Runway 17 and the terminal area is pro-
vided primarily by Taxiway S.
Taxiway M is the main taxiway connector between the south
end of Runway 34R and the departure ends of Runway 35 and
Runway 32. This taxiway provides an east and west connection
to both sides of the airfield.
1.4.4 Airfield Pavement
SLCIA has approximately 4,075,000 square yards of paved
airfield surfaces which are made up of either Asphalt Con-
crete (AC) or Portland Cement Concrete (PCC). These paved
surfaces consist of runways, taxiways, and aprons as shown
in FIGURE 1-9. It is important to note that a portion of the
airfield pavements are installed, managed, and maintained by
various SLCIA tenants.
To determine the condition of the SLCDA-owned and main-
tained paved airfield surfaces, the SLCDA conducts a Pave-
ment Condition Index (PCI) survey every year as part of an
ongoing Pavement Management Program (PMP) using the
criteria contained in ASTM D5340 Standard Test Method for
Airport Pavement Condition Index Surveys.3
3 The 2017 update was the most recent survey at this time and data contained in this section is from that survey.
Table 1-8: Taxiway System
Figure 1-8: Airfield Pavement
Source: SLCIA pavement date, 2017 Prepared by RS&H, 2018
17
The purpose of the PCI survey is to determine a PCI value for
each contiguous pavement section having uniform construc-
tion, maintenance, usage history (traffic volume/load inten-
sity), and condition. The PCI value provides a measure of the
present condition of the pavement based on the distresses
observed on the surface of the pavement. This indicates the
structural integrity and surface operational condition. The PCI
values correspond with a pavement condition rating, shown
in FIGURE 1-8, which provides more detailed description of
pavement condition as a function.
The following is a summary of each pavement condition rating:
• Pavement rated as “Good” condition, between 100 to 86
PCI, has minor or no distresses and will require only routine
maintenance.
• Pavement rated as “Satisfactory” condition, between 85 to
71 PCI, has scattered low-severity distresses and very few,
if any, medium-severity distresses that should need only
routine maintenance.
• Pavement rated as “Fair” condition, between 70 to 56 PCI,
has a combination of generally low- and medium-severity
distresses. Maintenance and repair needs should be routine
to major in the near term.
• Pavement rated as “Poor” condition, between 55 and 41
PCI, has low-, medium-, and high-severity distresses that
probably cause some operational problems. Maintenance
and repair needs should range from routine to reconstruc-
tion in the near term.
• Pavement rated as “Very Poor” condition, between 40 and
26 PCI, has predominantly medium- and high-severity dis-
tresses causing considerable maintenance and operational
problems. Near-term maintenance and repair needs will be
intensive. Pavement rated as “Serious” condition, between
25 and 11 PCI, has mainly high-severity distresses that cause
operational restrictions. Repair needs are immediate. Pave-
ment rated as “Failed” condition, between 10 and 0 PCI, is
pavement that deteriorated and progressed to the point that
safe aircraft operations are no longer possible. Complete
reconstruction is required.
The airfield pavement condition rating at SLCIA from the 2017
PCI survey ranges from Good to Failed with most of the airfield
pavements in either good or satisfactory condition as illustrat-
ed in FIGURE 1-8 and FIGURE 1-10. The airfield pavement
condition ratings serve as the baseline to determine airfield
pavement CIP projects over the course of the next five years.
In addition to the Pavement Condition Index, the runways also
have an associated pavement bearing strength that define the
weight limit at or below which an aircraft may operate on the
runways. The weight bearing capacity for a runway is deter-
mined by the configuration of the aircraft landing gear system
and is shown in TABLE 1-9.
26%
41%
20%
9%
2%1%1%
Good
Satisfactory
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
Serious
Failed
Pavement Rating Scale
Figure 1-9: Pavement Condition by Pavement Rating
Table 1-9: Runway Pavement Bearing Strength
18
Figure 1-10: Airfield Pavement Condition (2017)
Source: SLCIA pavement date, 2017 Prepared by RS&H, 2018
19
1.4.5 Airfield Hot Spots
The FAA has defined specific locations at airports as hot spots
to help alert airport users to locations on the airfield that are
confusing and have a history of runway incursions or potential
risk of collision. SLCIA has two designated hot spots. The first
is located near the thresholds of Runway 32 and Runway 35.
This location is designated by the FAA as “HS1”. The second
hot spot is located at the intersection of Taxiway Q and
Taxiway L, near the approach end of Runway 14. This location
is designated by the FAA as “HS2”. FAA Airport Diagram
publications provide a description of why these locations are
listed as hot spots, as shown in FIGURE 1-11.
The following is a list of hot spots at SLCIA with a
brief description:
• HS1 – Wrong runway departure risk. Hold lines for Runway
32 and Runway 35 are at the same location at Taxiway K1
and Taxiway M with short taxi distance to either runway.
• HS2 – High risk of runway incursions at Runway 14-32 on
Taxiway Q due to short taxi distance between runways.
In 2015, the FAA initiated a pilot program to improve runway
safety at airports. The Runway Incursion Mitigation (RIM)
program, allows the FAA to focus on reducing the risk of
runway incursions at specific airfield intersections at an airport.
The following subsections provide an overview of the RIM
program along with the historic runway incursions that have
occurred at SLCIA.
1.4.5.1 Runway Incursion Mitigation Program
In an effort to improve the safety of the NPIAS, the FAA
evaluated runway incursion data at airports across the United
States. At the time of this writing, the national RIM program
has compiled a list of incursions occurring between 2008 and
2016, and has identified airports where geometry risk factors
may have contributed to these incursions. The FAA initiated
the multi-year RIM program to identify, prioritize, and develop
strategies to mitigate risk at these locations. SLCIA locations
where three or more incursions occurred in a given year, or
more than nine cumulative incursions occurred over the
evaluation period, were identified for further study. FAA
continually collects and updates the RIM inventory list on an
annual basis.
Both HS1 and HS2 are listed on the Preliminary Inventory List
of Airport Locations in the RIM program. Intersections on the
RIM inventory list need to be studied and evaluated to
determine an effective solution to reduce runway incursions.
The configuration of the taxiways in these particular areas will
be further assessed in the Facility Requirements and
Alternatives chapters of this master plan.
1.4.5.2 Historic Runway Incursions
A Runway Incursion (RI), as defined by the FAA is “any occur-
rence at an Aerodrome involving the incorrect presence of an
aircraft, vehicle, or pedestrian on the protected area of a sur-
face designated for the landing and takeoff of aircraft.” There
are three different classifications of runway incursions. These
Figure 1-10: Airfield Pavement
Condition (2017)
Note: Not intended to be used for navigational
purposes. FAA Airport Diagram modified to include completed ARP footprint.
Source: FAA Airport Diagram retrieved July 2018, Prepared by RS&H, 2018
2120
include operational incidents, pilot deviations, and vehicle/
pedestrian deviations. Runway incursions may be the result of
multiple factors such as a breakdown in communications, pilot
error, Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) error, vehicle driver
error, and/or airfield design factors.
The three classifications of runway incursion are
defined below:
• Operational Incident (OI) – A surface event attributed to
ATC action or inaction.
• Pilot Deviation (PD) – An action of a pilot that violates any
Federal Aviation Regulation.
• Vehicle / Pedestrian Deviation (VPD) – Any entry or
movement in the movement area or safety area of a vehicle
or pedestrian that has not been authorized by ATC.
Between the periods of June 1st, 2013 and June 30th, 2018,
62 runway incursions4 were documented at various locations
at SLCIA. Of the 62 recorded runway incursions, 18 took place
at HS1 and 9 took place at HS2. A large majority of runway
incursions took place east of the Terminal building. A complete
summary of the 62 runway incursions can be found in the
Appendix folder of the report.
1.4.6 Navigational Aids
Navigational Aids, known as NAVAIDS, are visual, electronic,
and meteorological air navigation equipment that facilitate
flight operations and enhance flight safety at an airport during
instances of inclement weather and/or darkness. Visual aids
include pavement markings, signage, and airfield lighting
systems. Electronic aids are devices used for aircraft instru-
ment approaches. Meteorological aids provide the SLCIA with
real-time weather updates for air traffic control personnel
and pilots. FIGURE 1-12 displays the locations of the various
NAVAIDs found at SLCIA.
1.4.6.1 Visual Aids
Visual aids and airfield lighting are necessary to facilitate flight
operations and enhance safety during periods of inclement
weather and/or darkness by providing guidance to pilots in
the air and on the ground. Visual aids at SLCIA are listed in
TABLE 1-10.
The Approach Lighting Systems (ALS) provide a means of
transition from instrument flight to visual flight for pilots on
final approach. The approach lighting systems installed at
SLCIA are the Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System
with Runway Alignment Indicator Lights (MALSR) and
Approach Light System with Sequenced Flashing Lights
(ALSF-2). The MALSR consists of a combination of threshold
lights providing runway alignment information, height
perception, and horizontal references for Category I
instrument precision approaches. The ALSF-2 is a high inten-
sity approach light system for operations under Category II or
Category III conditions. (Instrument approaches are discussed
in more detail in SECTION 1.5, Airspace). Runways 17 and 35
are equipped with MALSR systems. Runways 16L, 16R, 34L,
and 34R are equipped with ALSF-2 systems.
The Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPI) assist in provid-
ing visual glide slope guidance to pilots on approach. The PAPIs
are designed to visually inform the pilots during the approach
when the descent is too high or low from the runway thresh-
old or on proper angle of approach. Each runway at SLCIA is
equipped with four-box PAPIs located on the approach end.
4 FAA Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing (ASIAS) – Runway Incursion (RWS), 2018
Figure 1-12: SLC Navigational Aid Locations
Note: Only on-airport navigational aids are shown in graphic.
Source: Prepared by RS&H, 2018
Table 1-10: Navigational Aids
22
Runways 17-35, 16L-34R, and 16R-34L have precision instru-
ment markings which provide pilots with landing and takeoff
guidance during periods of inclement weather or poor visibility.
These markings consist of threshold markings at the end of
the runway, five sets of touchdown zone markings, and one
set of aiming points. The markings are in accordance with 14
CFR 139.311(a) and AC 150/5340-1, Standards for Airport
Markings. Runway 14-32 contains visual markings including
threshold and touchdown markings.
Various types of airfield signs are present at SLCIA to assist
pilots with identifying their location on the airfield and
directing them to their intended destination. Such signs
include taxiway and runway location signs, directional signs,
and assorted informational signs. All runways, except for
Runway 14-32, are equipped with runway distance remaining
signs.
1.4.6.2 Electronic Aids
Electronic Aids include devices and equipment used for aircraft
instrument approaches, which are listed in TABLE 1-10. Some
approaches rely on Very High Frequency Omni-Directional
Range (VOR) aids, which is a ground-based facility that
transmits high frequency radio signals 360 degrees in azimuth
from the station. These signals help the pilot turn at a given
point above the ground or fly along a radial to/from the sta-
tion. VORTAC is a combination VOR and tactical air navigation
system (TACAN), which also provides omni-directional azimuth
bearing information for military aircraft. Four VORTACs
currently operate near SLCIA: Wasatch (TCH), Ogden (OGD),
Fairfield (FFU), and Provo (PVU) VORTACs.
SLCIA is also equipped with Distance Measuring Equipment
(DME) which allows pilots to determine their distance from a
land-based transponder. TACANs are generally more accurate
than a combined VOR/DME, but they can also be used with
VOR and DME facilities.
Runways 16L, 34R, 16R, 34L, 17, and 35 feature Instrument
Landing Systems (ILS), which is an approach path that provides
horizontal and vertical alignment for an aircraft under Instru-
ment Flight Rules (IFR) or poor weather and visibility condi-
tions that typically contains three components: approach lights,
a localizer, and a glide slope. Guidance information is provided
through the combination of a localizer and a glide slope. Local-
izers provide horizontal runway centerline guidance whereas
glide slopes provide vertical guidance.
SLCIA’s Area Navigation (RNAV) and Global Positioning System
(GPS) approaches rely on the space-based GPS satellite
system to provide position and time information. GPS satellites
are owned by the United States Government and controlled by
the Department of Defense.
SLCIA also features Runway Visual Range (RVR) equipment on
Runway 16L-34R and Runway 16R-34L. This system consists
of three sensors, one on each end of the runway and one in the
center, which work to determine real-time visibility conditions.
Additionally, Runway 17-35 is equipped with an RVR consisting
of two sensors, one on each end of the runway.
The SLCIA ATCT hosts the terminal radar approach control
(TRACON) facility for SLCIA. The TRACON facility provides
radar air traffic control service throughout the terminal area.
Additionally, to support the TRACON, an Airport Surveillance
Radar (ASR) is stationed southeast of the Runway 34R end.
The ASR is used by the FAA air traffic controllers to track
aircraft moving through the airspace they are controlling.
1.4.6.3 Meteorological Aids
SLCIA has two Automatic Surface Observing Systems (ASOS)
operating on the airport. The ASOS provides real time weather
updates to air traffic control personnel and pilots, as well as
recording data used by the National Weather Service.
Additionally, SLCIA has a Runway Weather Information System
(RWIS) which provides real time data used by SLCDA
operations personnel. The ASOS system is located near the
end of Runway 32.
SLCIA also has a Low Level Wind Shear Alert System
(LLWAS) with ground-based detection facilities located around
airport. A LLWAS system generates warnings
associated with the detection of wind shear and microburst
events which are especially dangerous to aircraft operating
in the arrival and departure phases of flight.
23 24
The airspace system for Salt Lake City International Airport,
and the rest of the United States, is regulated by the FAA.
In establishing and regulating the National Airspace System
(NAS), the FAA’s goal is the safe and efficient use of navigable
airspace. The NAS is comprised of air navigation facilities, ATC
facilities, airports, and the governing rules and regulations
under which the system operates.
The following sections describe the SLCIA airspace system, the
responsibilities of various air traffic control facilities, as well as
flight path limitations imposed by the regional geography, local
communities, and the structure of the airspace system itself.
In addition, this section will describe preferred runway uses,
aircraft approaches and departures, special air traffic rules, and
noise mitigation strategies.
1.5.1 National Airspace Structure
Airspace can be categorized as either controlled or uncon-
trolled. The area over and surrounding SLCIA is in controlled
airspace. Controlled airspace is defined as positive navigational
control, meaning the pilot is communicating with a controller
on the ground, providing either directions to takeoff, land or
transition through the airspace.
The different classes of controlled airspace are defined as
follows:
• Class A Airspace – Generally includes all airspace between
18,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) and Flight Level (FL) 600.
In order to fly in this class of airspace both the pilot and the
aircraft must be instrument rated and obey instrument flight
rules (IFR).
• Class B Airspace – Generally consists of airspace from the
surface to 10,000 feet MSL, although SLCIA Class B airspace
extends to 12,000 feet MSL. The dimensions of this type
of airspace are tailored to specific airport conditions based
on operational needs and topographic constraints. Class B
airspace is associated with airports that experience large
numbers of IFR operations and/ or passenger enplanements.
Class B airspace is supported by a 30 nautical mile (NM)
radius which is defined as the terminal area. ATC clearance
is required to enter Class B airspace and all aircraft within it
receive separation services, therefore a Mode C transponder
is required.
• Class C Airspace – Class C airspace typically surrounds
medium sized airports. Dimensions of Class C airspace typi-
cally exist from the surface to 4,000 feet above the airport’s
elevation, usually extending in a 5 NM to 10 NM radius. Two-
way radio communication with ATC is required prior to en-
tering Class C airspace and must be continually maintained.
Mode C transponders are also required in Class C airspace.
• Class D Airspace – Class D airspace typically extends from
the surface to 2,500 feet above the airport’s elevation at
1.5 AIRSPACE
airports with an operational ATCT. Each configuration is
tailored to the specific airport but usually Class D airspace
spans a 5 NM radius. Unless otherwise authorized and pub-
lished, aircraft must establish two-way radio communication
with ATC prior to entering Class D and maintain communica-
tion while in the airspace.
• Class E Airspace – Generally, all controlled airspace that
is not defined as A, B, C, or D is Class E. Class E airspace is
often provided to transition aircraft from the terminal to the
en route environment. Class E also typically surrounds many
non-towered airports. In most cases, Class E airspace either
begins at the surface, 700 feet above ground level (AGL),
or 1,200 feet AGL. Class E extends up to, but not including,
18,000 MSL and all airspace above FL600 is categorized as
Class E.
1.5.2 Salt Lake City Airspace Structure
The airspace over SLCIA is Class B, which is the most restric-
tive class of controlled airspace. All aircraft entering the SLCIA
Class B Mode C Veil (Terminal Area) are required to obtain
ATC clearance prior to entering, establish and maintain two-
way radio communication with ATC, and have operational, all
navigational equipment required of Class B and the authorized
published flight procedures to be flown. Class B airspace is
designed to enhance safe operations in and around the airport
by restricting uncontrolled traffic. In general, Class B airspace
restrictions enable larger and faster flying aircraft, such as the
commercial airline jets operating at SLCIA, to operate unim-
peded by what are typically smaller and slower general aviation
aircraft. At the very minimum, pilots are required to have a
private pilot’s license or meet the student pilot requirements
outlined in 14 CFR 61 to fly in Class B airspace. Helicopters
are not required to have special equipment or a transponder, if
they operate at or below 1,000 feet above the elevation of
an airport.
In recent years, as part of the FAA NextGen program, the FAA
has rolled out an initiative which mandates aircraft operating
in most controlled airspace classes, including those at SLCIA,
to be equipped with, at a minimum, Automatic Dependent
Surveillance – Broadcast (ADS-B) Out by January 1, 2020.
ADS-B equipment is designed with two functions, the ability to
broadcast data to (ADS-B Out) and receive data from (ADS-B
In) other ADS-B equipment. ADS-B Out equipment broadcasts
information such as position, identification, and velocity as well
as other details specific to the individual aircraft, which are
capable of being received by ADS-B In equipment. At the time
of this writing, installation of ADS-B In equipment has not yet
been mandated by FAA. Ultimately, the new ADS-B equipment
is designed to increase pilot situational awareness by displaying
the locational data about nearby aircraft. Though pilots
flying in the Salt Lake City terminal area are required to have a
Mode C transponder today, all aircraft that continue to fly in
the area once the ADS-B mandate goes into effect, will need
to be fitted with this new technology.
Three public airports lie under the SLCIA Class B airspace.
Although the SLCIA Class B airspace exists above these air-
ports and restricts certain operations above them, other less
restrictive airspace lies between the airfield surface and the
beginning of the Class B floors which provides corridors for
controlled and uncontrolled aircraft operations, including gen-
eral aviation. The first is a non-towered public airport, Skypark
Airport (BTF), located within the immediate vicinity of SLCIA,
approximately five miles to the northeast. The Class B airspace
floor begins at 7,500 MSL above BTF. The second airport
under the SLCIA Class B airspace is South Valley Regional
Airport (U42) which is located about 10 statute miles (SM)
directly south of SLCIA. SLCIA Class B airspace floor begins at
6,000 MSL above U42. The third airport located under SLCIA
Class B airspace is Ogden-Hinckley Airport, which is a towered
airport roughly 26 SM north of SLCIA. Additionally, there is one
military airport, Hill Air Force Base (HIF), located under SLCIA
Class B airspace approximately 20 SM north of SLCIA. SLCIA
Class B airspace floor begins at 7,800 MSL above HIF. A three
dimensional graphic showing vertical limits of SLCIA Class B
airspace in the Salt Lake Valley is shown in FIGURE 1-13 and
FIGURE 1-14.
Figure 1-13: SLC Class B Airspace
Source: Google Earth; FAA Sectional Chart; Prepared by RS&H, 2018
Figure 1-14: U42 Under SLC Class B Airspace Cross Section
Source: Google Earth; FAA Sectional Chart; Prepared by RS&H, 2018
25 26
5 The FAA Airport/Facility Directory is updated and published in 56 day cycles.
There are other airports located within the 30 NM SLCIA Ter-
minal Area. Tooele Valley Airport (TVY) is a non-towered public
airport located approximately 22 SM southwest of SLCIA.
Morgan County Airport (42U) is a non-towered public airport
positioned roughly 26 SM miles northeast of SLCIA. There are
also a couple of private airstrips falling within the SLCIA 30 NM
radius, including Cedar Valley 30 SM to the south, and
Hoytsville, in the mountains about 30 SM to the east.
In terms of special use airspace, the terminal area for SLCIA
contains five restricted areas to the south and southwest.
Restricted areas are zones where operations are hazardous
to nonparticipating aircraft and contain airspace within which
the flight of aircraft, while not wholly prohibited, is subject to
restrictions. Unusual, often invisible hazards to aircraft (such
as artillery firing, aerial gunnery, or guided missiles) can exist in
restricted areas. The first restricted area is R-6403. It is a rel-
atively small area approximately 29 miles southwest of SLCIA.
Restrictions on aircraft flight exist up to 9,000 feet MSL from
8:00am to 8:00pm Monday through Thursday. There are no
air to ground communication radio frequencies to monitor for
R-6403. The last four restricted areas (R-6412 A, B, C, and D)
exist roughly 24 miles south of SLCIA over the Camp Williams
State Military Reservation, which is a Utah National Guard
training site. For R-6412 A and C, restrictions exist up to 9,000
feet MSL. For R-6412 B and D, restrictions exist from 9,000
feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL. Times of restrictions are posted
by Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) for all four areas and Salt Lake
TRACON is the controlling agency.
A Military Operations Area (MOA) contains airspace designated
and used for military operations. The closest MOA is located
approximately 52 miles east of SLCIA, over the Great Salt Lake
Desert. Restricted airspaces are also located over the desert.
Shape and sizes of both the MOAs and restricted airspaces
vary. FIGURE 1-15 shows the SLCIA Terminal Area.
1.5.3 Airport Traffic Control Procedures
The FAA controls airspace through several layers of air traffic
control facilities. In broad terms, the National Airspace System
is broken out into two categories: Air Route Traffic Control
Centers (ARTCC) and Air Traffic Control (ATC) facilities. The
following sections describe these facilities as they relate to
SLCIA airspace management.
1.5.3.1 Air Route Traffic Control Center
The Salt Lake City Air Traffic Control Center (ZLC) (referred
to as “Salt Lake Center”) serves as one of 22 FAA ARTCCs for
the NAS. Salt Lake Center services are provided from a secure
facility located on the east side of SLCIA, adjacent the Utah Air
National Guard Base. Salt Lake Center provides separation and
sequencing of arriving and departing aircraft as well as control
over en route traffic flying over the SLCIA airspace under IFR.
ZLC controls aircraft within one of the largest service areas,
covering 350,000 square miles. The ZLC service area covers
the majority of Utah and Montana, the western half of Wyo-
ming, the southern portion of Idaho, the far eastern section of
Oregon, the northeast area of Nevada, and small regions of the
western Dakotas. The ZLC service area is shown in
FIGURE 1-16.
1.5.3.2 Air Traffic Control
The Salt Lake City ATCT is responsible for controlling the
movement of aircraft within the 30 NM SLCIA Terminal Area.
The SLCIA ATC service area extends from Plain City in the
north to the city of Provo in the south, covering a range of
approximately 70 miles. Due to topographic constraints,
primarily the Wasatch Mountain Range, the service area only
extends approximately 30 miles from east to west. SLCIA Class
B airspace is centered on the airport. SLCIA ATCT provides two
services, housed in a single facility including, local Salt Lake
City Air Traffic Control (referred to as Salt Lake Tower) and
Salt Lake City Terminal Radar Approach Control (referred to as
Salt Lake TRACON).
These two divisions are defined below:
• Salt Lake Tower – Provides clearances and instructions to
aircraft and ground vehicles.
• Salt Lake TRACON – Controls airspace within the
terminal area.
Salt Lake Tower is operated continuously, meaning air traffic
controllers are on duty actively managing traffic all day, every
day. The tower is staffed with at least one controller at all
times and operations are managed by an operations super-
visor. Staff counts can vary throughout the day, depending
upon demand levels. Pilots contact the applicable ATC service
through assigned radio frequencies which can be found in the
most current published FAA Airport/Facility Directory.5 Salt
Lake Tower divides control services into Approach Control,
Departure Control, Tower, Ground control, Pre-taxi Clearance,
Pre-departure Clearance, and Clearance Delivery. For the most
part, ATC services are intuitive since each serves the flight ac-
tion associated with its title, i.e., aircraft approaching to land at
the airport contact “Approach Control”, aircraft seeking ground
movement taxi clearances contact “Ground Control”, etc. The
“Tower” frequency manages clearing aircraft traffic on and off
the active runways. Based on the large amount of operations
experienced annually by SLCIA, each runway has a separate
ATC frequency, with the exception of Runway 14-32. These
separate frequencies help controllers better manage workload
by dividing work into designated sectors. Ground communi-
cations are also divided into two separate ground frequencies
based on whether the activity is on the east portion and or
west portion of the airfield. Pilots or vehicle operators on the
airport are required contact the appropriate controller to ob-
tain clearance and/or instructions based on their location.
The second division of air traffic control is the Salt Lake
TRACON facility, designated with the code “S56”. The
TRACON is overseen by an operations manager. The TRACON
Operations Manager directs a team of supervisors, each of
whom manage a staff of air traffic controllers. The primary role
of the TRACON facility is to provide safe separation of aircraft
operating within the SLCIA Terminal Area. Salt Lake TRACON
controllers provide air surveillance radar service for instrument
approaches to SLCIA and for U42. In addition to this, TRACON
Figure 1-15: SLC Sectional Chart
Source: www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/digital_products/vfr, Retrieved July 31, 2018
Figure 1-16: FAA ARTCC Zones Within the Continental United States
Source: www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/digital_products/vfr, Retrieved July 31, 2018
27 28
controllers handle and direct IFR arrivals to other local airports
extending as far south as Provo Airport. This facility, like the
SLCIA ATCT, is actively operated continuously.
1.5.4 VFR and IFR Procedures
Air traffic operations generally fall within two categories:
aircraft flying under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) and those flying
under IFR. Under VFR, aircraft operate during good visibility
conditions at the required distance from clouds using “see
and avoid” practices. Specific VFR visibility and clearance
requirements are described under 14 CFR 91.155 – Basic VFR
Weather Minimums.
All transport category aircraft,6 as well as many charter aircraft
and high performance general aviation aircraft with proper
equipment and crew ratings, operate under IFR. IFR weather
conditions are those with cloud ceilings less than 1,000 AGL
and or/visibility less than three statue miles. IFR conditions
occur when aircraft are required to fly through clouds or in-
clement weather conditions which restrict or eliminate visibility
outside the aircraft. Aircraft flying under IFR are required to
file an IFR flight plan. These flight plans can be approved as
requested or altered by ATC dependent upon air traffic circum-
stances. Pilots are required to read back and comply with all
assigned IFR routes and altitudes given by air traffic controllers
during all phases of flight. Air traffic controllers then monitor
aircraft flying filed flight plans to ensure adequate separation
from other aircraft.
1.5.4.1 VFR Flight Procedures
Aircraft operating under VFR flight procedures are controlled
either by Salt Lake Tower or Salt Lake TRACON. Aircraft
departing under VFR flight procedures are assigned a
departing runway based on their current location on the
airfield, destination, current wind direction, and the volume
of traffic at the time of their request. Aircraft depart from the
runway on an ATC assigned heading. Aircraft transitioning in
and out of the SLCIA Class B airspace must comply with local
airspace restrictions.
VFR aircraft requesting to land at SLCIA must contact and
receive authorization from Salt Lake TRACON prior to entering
SLCIA Class B airspace. Arrival procedures will vary depending
upon the location of the aircraft in relation to SLCIA, current
wind direction, and volume of traffic at the time of the request.
Pilots must obtain current weather information from the
Automatic Terminal Information Service (ATIS) before a
landing request can be made.
1.5.4.2 IFR Arrival Procedures
Salt Lake TRACON controllers will typically clear aircraft to
land using a Standard Terminal Arrival Route (STAR). A STAR
is a standardized set of instructions used to shorten clearance
deliveries between an air traffic controller and the pilot. A
STAR defines a specific flight route, altitudes, speed restric-
tions, and fixes used to arrive into the Terminal Area. STARs
use a combination of published VHF omni-directional range
(VOR7) radials and intersections, along with assigned vectors,
altitudes, and speeds to standardized aircraft arrival flows, ter-
minating at the initial approach fix of the Instrument Approach
Procedure (IAP) to be flown. Aircraft are typically assigned a
STAR based on the location they are coming from. SLCIA has
five published STARs that use VOR technology.8
These procedures are as follows:
• BEARR – Aircraft arriving from the northwest
• BONNEVILLE – Aircraft arriving from the west
• BRIGHAM CITY – Aircraft arriving from the northeast
• JAMMN – Aircraft arriving from the south/southwest
• SPANE – Aircraft arriving from the south/southeast
Since the completion of the 1998 SLCIA Master Plan, the FAA
has implemented a new technology into developing STARs.
Area navigation, also referred to as RNAV, allows aircraft to
choose a course within a network of navigational beacons
rather than flying on a radial to and from a VOR. Navigational
beacons serves as a GPS waypoint for pilots to ensure they
are on the correct course. This change in technology allows
aircraft to take more direct and precise routes as opposed to
the old method of “bouncing” from one VOR to another. The
RNAV improvement creates arrival flow efficiencies which save
valuable time and fuel, and reduce the environmental impacts
of each flight. With this change in technology and arrival proce-
dures, a trend has been set into motion. NDB and VOR facilities
across the nation are being decommissioned and replaced with
RNAV (GPS) technology to serve aircraft during all phases of
flight.
In addition to the five VOR based STARs, SLCIA has six RNAV
STARs. These procedures are listed below:
• DELTA – Aircraft arriving from the northeast
• LEEHY – Aircraft arriving from the southeast
• NORDK – Aircraft arriving from the north
• QWENN – Aircraft arriving from the south/ southwest
• SKEES – Aircraft arriving from the north / northwest
• WAATS – Aircraft arriving from the west
1.5.4.3 IFR Approach Procedures
Aircraft approaching SLCIA during IFR conditions fly through
the airspace to land on runways using predetermined routes
called Standardized IAPs. The ability of a pilot to land without
actually seeing the runway landing zone is determined by a
number of factors, including pilot qualifications, aircraft equip-
ment, available navigational aids, and airport approach lighting
systems. A critical point of emphasis for pilots flying IAPs is the
requirement to adhere to procedural restrictions regarding the
decision altitude/decision height (DA/DH) or minimum decent
altitudes (MDA). Generally speaking, pilots are prohibited from
continuing the approach procedure below these altitudes
unless they meet airfield environment visual reference require-
ments. Specific regulations regarding takeoff and landing under
IFR are available in 14 CFR 91.175. TABLE 1-11 summarizes
the instrument approaches available at SLCIA and the mini-
mum visibility and DA/DH associated with each approach.
6 All airline operations use transport category aircraft and are conducted under IFR, therefore, IFR flight plans are required for all commercial airline flights.
7 Very High Frequency (VHF) Omni-Directional Range (VOR) is a type of fixed ground-based navigational equipment that allows properly equipped aircraft to use short
range radio signals to determine position based on relative direction to/from that facility.
8 All airline operations use transport category aircraft and are conducted under IFR, therefore, IFR flight plans are required for all commercial airline flights.
Table 1-11: Instrument Approaches
29 30
1.5.4.4 IFR Departure Procedures
There are two forms of IFR departure procedures (DP)
available at SLCIA: Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODP)
and Standard Instrument Departures (SID).9 The key differ-
ence between the two is that ODPs are not required of pilots
flying under 14 CFR 91 but exist to assist pilots in obstruction
avoidance; whereas, SIDs, while also providing protection from
obstacles, assist in meeting environmental, capacity, and air
traffic control requirements. Overall, DPs help to alleviate the
controller’s workload and improve communication between the
pilot and the controller while providing aircraft a safe route to
exit the terminal environment. This helps the controller to se-
quence aircraft with standardized heading and altitude assign-
ments for aircraft taking off. DPs ensure that aircraft receive
proper separation from obstacles and other aircraft that may
be in the area.
ODPs are developed to provide takeoff minimums when
obstructions penetrate the 40:1 departure obstacle clearance
surface (OCS).10 The primary goal of an ODP is to provide
standard takeoff minimums with a standard climb gradient to a
determined altitude at a designated fix. Each available ODP is
specific to a particular runway.
SIDs are assigned by ATC and provide pilots with specific
routing, altitude requirements, speed restrictions, and other
relevant flight instructions following takeoff as aircraft climb
out of the terminal environment. SIDS may require certain air-
craft equipment in order to be flown. SLCIA has eight SIDs, five
of which require RNAV capabilities.
These are listed as follows:
• ARCHZ (RNAV) – Destination to the south / southwest
of SLCIA.
• CGULL (RNAV) – Destination to the northwest of SLCIA.
• DEZERT (RNAV) – Destination to the west of SLCIA.
• FAIRFIELD – Destination to the south / southeast of SLCIA.
• RUGGED (RNAV) – Destination to the north / northeast of
SLCIA.
• SALT LAKE – Destination to the north / south of SLCIA.
• SEVYR – Destination to the southwest of SLCIA.
• ZIONZ (RNAV) – Destination to the south of SLCIA.
1.5.5 Local Airspace
The airfield geometry plays a crucial role in determining the
traffic patterns for an airport. SLCIA is served by two parallel
runways, Runway 16L-34R and Runway 16R-34L and two
non-parallel runways, Runway 17-35 and Runway 14-32. The
parallel runways are predominately used by commercial service
and large/heavy aircraft. This is primarily based on takeoff and
landing runway length requirements and the location of nearby
commercial terminal and air cargo facilities.
In 2014, the FAA released a capacity study conducted at
SLCIA which concluded that roughly one in every ten aircraft
operating at SLCIA is categorized as a general aviation aircraft.
Runway 17-35 is the primary runway serving general aviation
traffic but it is also used for commercial operations. Training
operations, such as touch-and-go’s, are isolated to this runway.
The alignment for Runway 17-35 is not parallel to the middle
runway (Runway 16L-34R) which results in impacts to the con-
figuration of the airspace system, specifically for traffic arriving
from the south on Runways 34L, 34R, and 35. These impacts
affect aircraft sequencing and separation requirements, ulti-
mately limiting airfield capacity.
Based on this type of airfield configuration, traffic patterns
should never cross over another runway. Runway 17 has a
right hand traffic pattern to avoid the runways to the west.
Runway 16L also has a right hand traffic pattern to avoid the
runways to the east. Runways 35 and 16R have standard left
hand traffic patterns. Aircraft take off and land into the wind to
maximize performance and, due to predominant wind patterns
in the area, the Airport often experiences a north traffic flow.
Under these conditions, Runways 34L, 34R and 35 are used
for departing and arriving aircraft.
At the regional level, South Valley Regional Airport Runway 16-
34 lies south of SLCIA within less than a mile of being in direct
alignment with Runway 16R-34L at SLCIA. The alignment and
relative proximity of these runways has significant impacts and
constraints on ATC procedures and the sequencing of aircraft
at both airports.
1.5.6 14 CFR 77 - Objects Affecting
Navigable Airspace
The airspace surrounding SLCIA should be kept clear of ob-
structions to the furthest extent possible. 14 CFR 77, Objects
Affecting Navigable Airspace (often referred to as “Part 77”)
is the framework by which the FAA attempts to keep essen-
tial airspace free and clear of obstructions that could prove
hazardous to aircraft flying an approach or departure from an
airport. For an object to be deemed an obstruction, it must
penetrate one of the five imaginary airspace surfaces defined
under Part 77. These surfaces are as follows: Primary Surface,
Approach Surface, Transitional Surface, Horizontal Surface, and
Conical Surface.
A description of each surface along with their dimensions are
listed below:
• Primary Surface – This surface is centered on the runway,
extending 200 feet beyond the edge of the runway. The
width of the surface is dependent upon the approach to the
runway. With the exception of Runway 14-32, the width
of the primary surface is 1,000 feet. Runway 14-32 has a
primary surface width of 250 feet.
• Approach Surface - This surface is a sloped plane that
begins at the edge of the Primary Surface and extends
horizontal in the shape of a trapezoid. The slope, horizontal
length, and the width of the surface are dependent upon
the approach to the runway. All runway ends at SLCIA, with
the exception of Runway 14-32, are precision instrument
runways with an approach surface length of 50,000 feet and
a width at the end of the surface of 16,000 feet. The first
10,000 feet of the approach surface have a slope of 50:1,
the remaining 40,000 feet have a slope of 40:1. Runway
14-32 is a visual approach runway with an approach surface
length of 5,000 feet and a width at the end of a surface of
1,250 feet and an approach slope of 20:1.
• Transitional Surface – This surface is a plane sloped at 7:1
from the primary surface and approach surfaces. The surface
terminates when it intersects with the horizontal surface.
Transitional surfaces for those portions of the precision ap-
proach surface which project through and beyond the limits
of the conical surface, extend a distance of 5,000 feet from
the edge of the approach surface and at right angles to the
runway centerline.
• Horizontal Surface – This surface is a horizontal plane 150
feet above the airport elevation. The geometry of the sur-
face is created by arcs centered on the edge of the primary
surface with defined radii and then connected by tangents.
The radius of the horizontal surface, based on the approach-
es at SLCIA, is 10,000 feet.
• Conical Surface – This surface is a plane sloped at 20:1 ex-
tending upward from the periphery of the horizontal surface
to 4,000 feet.
A graphical sectional view of 14 CFR 77 imaginary surfaces is
shown in FIGURE 1-17. A detailed illustration of the Part 77
surfaces which includes a three dimensional graphic, is shown
in Chapter 7, Airport Layout Plan.
1.5.7 Obstructions
Understanding the location of ground objects relative to
moving aircraft is critical to ensuring safe flight operations.
In order for the FAA to preserve navigable airspace and
promote safe flight operations, any object with potential to
penetrate a Part 77 surface requires notice be provided to the
FAA through the Notice or Proposed Construction or Alter-
nation (Form 7460-1) process in order to allow for evaluation
of potential impacts to flight safety. An obstruction analysis11
performed in May 2017 identified over 100 objects as
obstructions to air navigation under SLCIA Part 77 surfaces.
Most of the objects penetrating a Part 77 surface were defined
as fixed by function. Fixed by function objects are intentional-
ly sited with the sole purpose of aiding safe flight navigation
and providing situational awareness for landings, takeoffs and
ground maneuvers. These fixed by function objects range from
airfield edge lights, to signs and in some instances, navigational
aids. Other obstructions documented in the 2017 obstruc-
tion analysis occur naturally, such as trees, while others are
man-made. TABLE 1-12 shows the objects determined to be
an obstruction. The table lists object descriptions, identifies
heights in feet (MSL), and the impacted surface. It should be
noted that the obstructions listed below do not include objects
that could be categorized as fixed by function.
1.5.8 Noise Abatement
The SLCDA has adopted a Noise Compatibility Program (NCP)
as a result of having a completed Federal Aviation Regulations
(FAR) Part 150 study. One of the main objectives of the pro-
gram is to mitigate the impact of noise in non-compatible land
uses, such as residential areas. The program outlines several
FAA approved policies and procedures introduced by SLCDA
to reduce noise in these sensitive areas.
These procedures are listed along with a brief description
as follows:
• Nighttime Operations – Between the hours of 11:00pm
and 7:00am SLCIA will utilize a north flow for departures
and a south flow for arrivals.
• Runways 16R, 16L and 17 Departures – All jet aircraft
and large piston-powered aircraft are to turn west as
soon as practical.
• Runways 34R, 34L, and 35 Departures – Restricts all
traffic heading eastbound until they are one-half mile
from SLCIA.
• Runways 34R, 34L, and 35 Arrivals – Aircraft flying in
visual meteorological conditions (VMC) to fly as short a
downwind leg as.
• Runway 17-35 Traffic Pattern – Traffic pattern east of
SLCIA is restricted to aircraft weighting 19,000 pounds
or less.
Aircraft are classified, for noise purposed, into four different
stage groups and assigned a stage number based on the noise
levels they produce. In 2013, the FAA adopted a provision in
the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 which re-
quired jets, regardless of weight, to be Stage 3 noise compli-
ant. This provision prohibits all non-compliant Stage 3 aircraft
from flying in the United States. All non-compliant Stage 3
aircraft were required to be modified into compliance or sold
by the year 2016.
9 FAA Order 8260.46F describes the specific distinctions between ODPs and SIDs.
10 OCS is described in FAA Order 8260.3 – U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS).11 Obstruction analysis performed by Woolpert, Inc., 2017
3231
Figure 1-17: 14 CFR 77 Imaginary Surfaces
Table 1-12: Airspace Obstructions
3433
1.6 AIRPORT FACILITIES OVERVIEW
Salt Lake City International Airport facilities can best be
organized into five functional areas as follows:
1. Terminal Area
2. North Support and Cargo Area
3. South Support and Cargo Area
4. General Aviation Area
5. Utah Air National Guard Area
Buildings for these areas are identified and color coded
in FIGURE 1-18. The following inventory sections are
structured within this facility organizational framework.
Figure 1-18: Airport Facilities Overview
Source: Prepared by RS&H, 2018
35
1.7 AIRLINE TERMINAL AND GATES
The previous SLCIA Master Plan, completed in 1998,
provided a plan for developing a new terminal, concourses,
airfield taxiway system, and landside roads and parking facili-
ties. FIGURE 1-19 shows a diagram of the ARP terminal area.
In 2008, SLCDA began the process of implementing that plan
through the development of a Terminal Area Program (subse-
quently referred to as the Airport Redevelopment Program or
ARP) which laid out the framework for an ultimate two con-
course terminal complex and the supporting apron and taxiway
system. At the time, various economic factors put project
development and construction on hold.
In 2012, SLCDA validated the 2008 ARP documents with the
Program Validation and Preliminary Planning Update study,
further refining previous development scenarios based on
the most current available information, and combining them
with new information from SLCDA and airline stakeholders.
Shortly thereafter, SLCDA initiated the first phase of program
implementation by advancing construction of the Terminal
and South Concourse (subsequently known as Concourse A).
In 2016, the North Concourse Program (subsequently known
as Concourse B) produced an updated version of the 2012
Program Validation and Preliminary Planning Update. The
final version of this report was published in February 2017, at
which time, SLCDA approved the North Concourse Program
for final design and construction. Throughout the remainder
of this Master Plan, the South Concourse will be referred to as
Concourse A and the North Concourse will be referred to as
Concourse B.
This inventory of terminal and aircraft gate facilities was final-
ized prior to the completion of ARP construction, however, it
is written from the perspective that all ARP projects including
terminal, concourse, airfield, and landside facilities have been
completed. Since these projects were already well underway at
the time of beginning the Master Plan, ARP completion is con-
sidered the existing condition for all terminal and concourse
facilities within this inventory chapter.
1.7.1 Terminal Overview
The footprint of the new ARP facilities is roughly 300 acres,
with the following elements (approximated):
• Terminal - 908,000 square feet
• South Concourse – 3,700 linear feet (including 400 feet of
the terminal building) with 455,000 square feet in the west
area and 375,000 square feet in the east area
• North Concourse – 2,250 linear feet with 385,000 square
feet included in Phase 1 development and 200,000 square
feet in Phase 2 development
• Roadways – 11.9 miles of at grade road and 2.1 miles of
elevated road
• West Tunnel – Tunnel length of 1,000 feet with an area of
62,500 square feet
• Center Tunnel – Tunnel length of 1,000 feet with an area of
147,000 square feet
SLCDA’s goal for the new buildings is LEED Gold Certification
with a focus on energy efficiency through use of natural light.
Construction of facilities within the ARP began in 2014 with
large scale enabling projects such as the addition of a new
economy parking lot, and later in 2016, the construction of the
new Rental Car Service Center and Quick Turn Around facility.
Terminal tunnel excavation also began at this time.
Ground was broken for construction of the new terminal on
July 18, 2014 . The new terminal is located west of the former
terminal facility site and is scheduled for completion in 2020.
This was the first of three major terminal development phases
that transformed SLCIA’s terminal area into a safer and more
efficient model. The new format meets high customer level of
service expectations, contains approximately 908,000 square
feet of space and includes functional areas programmed for
the following uses:
• Airline space
͛Airline ticketing and service counters
͛Preferred customer check-in
͛Airline ticket office space
͛Self-serve check-in
͛Inbound baggage delivery
͛Airline operations areas
͛Departure lounges
͛Preferred customer lounges
• Domestic passenger security screening
͛Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
passenger security screening checkpoints
͛Bomb detection screening
͛TSA offices
͛Baggage make-up and return
• Federal Inspection Services (FIS)
͛Customs and Border Protection (CBP) primary space
and secondary space
͛CBP support and administrative space
͛Immigration and passport control
͛Sterile corridor
͛International baggage claim
͛International arrivals support space
• Concessions
͛News, food, and retail
͛Kitchens and food storage
͛Beverage lounges
• Ground Transportation
͛Rental car counters
͛Rental car offices
͛Additional ground transportation counters and offices
3736
• Administrative Space
͛SLCDA administrative offices
͛FAA administrative offices
• Other space
͛Public spaces and circulation area
͛Restrooms
͛Janitorial
͛Secure delivery locations
͛Mechanical and utility
͛
1.7.2 Terminal Level 1
Level 1 of the new terminal building houses many of SLCIA’s
support functions. Sized at approximately 260,000 square feet
of programmed space, a significant portion of Level 1 is used
for Federal Inspection Services and is occupied by Customs
and Border Protection. This includes areas for international
arrival document control (passport control), two international
baggage carousels, and customs inspection services. The FIS
facility is designed to simultaneously handle passenger loads of
400 passengers per hour from two international arrivals, one
jumbo and one wide-body aircraft.
The security checkpoint on this level is reserved for employees
but also used for connecting international passengers. This se-
curity checkpoint has five lanes. Terminal Level 1 also contains
mechanical/electrical rooms, offices, and general circulation
space. The northern area of Level 1 is occupied by baggage
processing equipment and conveyors. Secure and non-secure
loading docks are also located on Level 1.
1.7.3 Terminal Level 2
Terminal Level 2 contains approximately 255,000 square feet
of programmed space. Terminal Level 2 holds the primary
TSA security screening checkpoint, which accommodates
14 security screening lanes, and includes a large passenger
queuing area. TSA administrative offices are conveniently
located adjacent to the security checkpoint. The south end of
Terminal Level 2 contains eight sloped bed baggage claim units
and an additional two baggage claim units for oversized items.
Airline baggage services offices are located in this area near
the baggage claim devices. Delta leases the four westernmost
bag claim units and the remaining devices are shared-use by all
other airlines. The bag claim area on Terminal Level 2 provides
direct access to the pedestrian sky bridge that serves the Gate-
way Building and the parking garage.
Terminal Level 2 also contains a variety of other amenities
including an arrivals hall for greeters awaiting arriving passen-
gers, and two restrooms, one on each side of the terminal.
Concessions programmed for food and retail offerings are
located adjacent to this area for airport user convenience.
Public seating is also available in this area.
1.7.4 Terminal Level 3
Terminal Level 3 has a total of approximately 167,000 square
feet of programmed space. This level primarily supports de-
parting passenger services including passenger ticketing and
check-in facilities. Airline support offices are located behind
ticket counters and baggage handling services.
Level 3 of the terminal contains airline support offices and
passenger check-in facilities. The check-in counters are divided
into two sections, one is located on the east half of the termi-
nal and one is located on the west half. Each section has 38
counters for a combined total of 76 check-in counters. Over-
sized bag drops are available on the east and west ends of this
level. Self-check-in kiosks are also available. Terminal Level 3
features large open areas for circulation and open space which
overlooks the central core of Terminal Level 2. Building sup-
port areas for mechanical and electric systems are also housed
on this level. Two curbside check-in locations are also available
along the terminal curb road at this level. These positions are
currently programmed for shared-use and do not have a single
airline lessee.
SLCDA administrative offices are also located on Terminal
Level 3 in space north of the airline ticketing offices. SLCDA
activities housed in this area include planning, administration,
finance, and engineering. In the northeast quadrant of Ter-
minal Level 3 is the Delta Sky Club which occupies 18,000
square feet and offers lounge areas with views and an outdoor
SkyDeck.
Terminal Level 3 also contains a 20-foot wide sterile corridor
that connects all international gates to the US Customs and
Border Protection passenger screening area. No flights other
than international arrivals access this area.
Figure 1-19: Airport Redevelopment Program
Source: Prepared by RS&H, 2018
38
1.7.5 Terminal Rail Station
The TRAX/Light Rail Service station at SLCIA is located to the
east of the new terminal building. This facility is located on the
ground level and has storage space for 9 bicycles.
1.7.6 Terminal Gateway Building
The Gateway Building is a two-story accessory structure
attached to the parking garage and connected to the terminal
building via two 35 foot wide pedestrian sky bridges. The sky
bridges allow movement between the Terminal and Gateway
buildings and completely remove the need for passengers to
cross any curb roads. Level 1 of the Gateway Building houses
rental car customer services and includes rental car counters
and queuing space, rental car offices, public circulation, and
restrooms. Level 2 of the Gateway Building offers departing
passengers the opportunity to perform self-check-in (ticketing)
and remote bag drop (baggage processing) functions prior to
entering the terminal building. 16 shared use check-in kiosks
are available at Gateway Building Level 2. At the time of this
writing, it is unknown whether any airline has leased this space
exclusively or these facilities will be operated by a third-party
service provider. Level 2 of the Gateway Building also provides
public restrooms. Infrastructure is in place to install Pay on
Foot (POF) parking kiosks if desired by airport management,
but they have not yet been installed. Both levels of the facility
provide parking garage access, although rental car ready return
is programmed on the ground level (Level 1).
1.7.7 Terminal Concourses and Aircraft Gates
There are two concourses at SLCIA; Concourse A and Con-
course B (formally known as the South Concourse and the
North Concourse respectively). Concourse A is generally 90
feet wide and 3,700 feet long, containing “bump out nodes”
located at roughly 350 foot intervals (on center) to provide
additional space for vertical circulation, terminal support
functions, and public restrooms, depending on the building
level. Concourse A is oriented linearly in an east-west config-
uration and directly connected to the terminal at its mid-point
where it is divided into east and west halves. The western half
of Concourse A has 25 gates, all occupied by Delta Air Lines.
Four of the gates on the north side of the concourse closest
to the terminal building are also designated for international
flights. Three of the four international gates can accommodate
wide-body aircraft. The eastern half of Concourse A has 22
gates, bringing the total Concourse A gates to 47. The central
area of Concourse A, immediately beyond the TSA security
screening re-composure area, is dedicated to food service and
retail concessions. Concourse A and Concourse B are con-
nected by a system of tunnels. The primary connecting access
between the terminal building, Concourse A, and Concourse B
is called the “Center Tunnel” and is located at the north end of
the terminal building at the midpoint of Concourse A. Adjacent
tunnels running parallel to the Central Tunnel provide dedicat-
ed access routes for baggage processing and terminal support
functions. In total, the Center tunnel covers 147,000 square
feet. Located 1,000 feet west of the Center Tunnel, a 62,500
square foot secondary access tunnel labeled the “West Tunnel”
connects Concourse A and Concourse B. The tunnel is locat-
ed between Gates 13 and 15 on Concourse A and between
Gates 10 and 12 on Concourse B. This secondary tunnel serves
both passenger circulation and terminal support functions
within segregated spaces dedicated to each use. The following
sections describe approximate square footage of programmed
functional uses within each concourse.
1.7.7.1 Concourse A
Concourse A is divided into east and west halves because it is
bisected by the north end of the terminal building. Concourse
A East exclusively serves Delta Air Lines and international
arrivals traffic. Concourse A East Level 1 includes 55,000
square feet of space located immediately adjacent to the
terminal building for outbound baggage processing. 71,000
square feet of Level 1 space is programmed for terminal
support functions, 39,000 square feet serves airline support
functions, and 5,600 square feet is devoted to concession
needs such as food storage. All functional areas of Level 1
are served by a generally centralized corridor. Ground Service
Equipment (GSE) access to the outbound baggage area and
through Concourse A East is provided by Vehicle Service Roads
(VSRs) at Level 1. Concourse A East Level 1 has a total space
of 172,000 square feet.
Concourse A East Level 2 serves passenger needs with
67,000 square feet is dedicated to departure lounges for
airline gates and with 86,000 square feet dedicated to public
circulation or other public functions. Fifty foot wide circula-
tion corridors run through the center of the concourse with
multiple 160 foot long, 4 foot wide, moving walkways traveling
each direction through the center in series. Concession lease
space accounts for 26,000 square feet and approximately
3,000 square feet is split between airline support and terminal
support use. Concourse A East Level 2 has a total space of
182,000 square feet.
Concourse A East Level 3 is dedicated to terminal support
functions including 25,000 square feet for building mechanical
systems and vertical circulation corridors. 25,000 square feet is
the total space for Concourse A East Level 3. Combined
with Levels 1 and 2, total area is approximately 375,000
square feet.
Generally speaking, Concourse A West Level 1 is a mirror of
the eastern half of the concourse. Like Concourse A East Level
1, Concourse A West Level 1 includes a central area for
outbound baggage processing (69,000 square feet) and hosts
a variety of terminal and airline support functions in addition
to providing other mechanical and utility space. The floor plan
allocates 13,000 square feet for airline support, whereas 8,000
39 40
square feet are programmed for concessions (storage), and
49,000 square feet are programmed for terminal support func-
tions. A small amount of airport support space is also provided
and there is a centrally located Canine Relief Area. Concourse
A West Level 1 provides 141,000 square feet of space.
Passenger services are located on Concourse A West Level 2.
Functional space on this level primarily consists of departure
lounges, concessions space, and circulation corridors. Public
restrooms are also located at 350 foot intervals in the building
bump out nodes. A series of moving walkways assist passen-
gers traversing the concourse. Concourse A West Level 2 has a
total of 202,000 square feet, with 99,000 square feet dedi-
cated to public circulation and other public functions, 29,000
square feet programmed for concessions, 60,000 square feet
used as departure lounges, and 6,000 square feet devoted to
terminal support facilities. A small amount of airline support
space is also provided on Concourse A West Level 2.
The sterile corridor that serves international arrival gates on
Concourse A West (Gates 19, 21, 23, and 25) begins on the
northern exterior of Level 2. Arriving international passengers
use this corridor to ascend to Level 3 (Mezzanine) and contin-
ue following the sterile corridor leading to the terminal building
prior to descending to the FIS located on Level 1 of the
terminal building. The sterile corridor for international arrivals
accounts for 8,000 square feet on Concourse A East Level 2
and another 9,000 square feet on Concourse A West Level 3.
Concourse A West Level 3 also contains 17,000 square feet
worth of terminal support function space within the concourse
bump out nodes. Total programmed space on Concourse A
West Level 3 is 26,000 square feet. Total programmed space
for Concourse A West is 475,000 square feet.
1.7.7.2 Concourse B
The Concourse B Phase 1 is a satellite concourse located
approximately 1,100 feet north of the terminal building, in
an east-west orientation parallel to Concourse A. The first
phase of Concourse B development is 1,550 feet long, 90 feet
wide, and features four bump out nodes at 350 foot intervals
(on center). Similar to Concourse A, the bump outs provides
additional space for vertical circulation, terminal support func-
tions, and public restrooms, depending on the building level.
Concourse B Phase 2 extends the concourse eastward by an
additional 700 feet with two additional bump out nodes.
Generally speaking, the Concourse B is a mirror image of
Concourse A, with the exception of direct integration into the
terminal and the lack of swing gates with a sterile corridor to
support international arrivals facilities. Instead, Concourse B is
connected to Concourse A through the Center Tunnel and the
West Tunnel. Concourse B Phase 1 includes a total of 23 gates.
Concourse B Phase 1 Level 1 serves terminal support func-
tions (67,000 square feet), outbound baggage processing
(51,000 square feet), and to a much lesser extent, airport
support (1,000 square feet) and concessions functions (6,500
square feet). A central corridor runs through the center of
Concourse B Phase 1 Level 1 providing access to a variety of
rooms allocated to airline operations, break-rooms, and ground
crew restrooms. There is also an airline club. This space is
currently unused and was constructed as a shell. The total
space provided on Concourse B Phase 1 Level 1 is 168,000
square feet.
Concourse B Phase 1 Level 2 houses passenger facilities
such as departure lounges (56,000 square feet), concessions
(20,000 square feet), and general public circulation space
(86,000 square feet). Terminal support functions occupy
13,000 square feet and roughly 3,000 square feet is not pro-
grammed. Moving walkways are provided through the center
of the circulation corridor and restrooms are located within the
bump out nodes. Total space provided in Concourse B Phase 1
Level 2 is 178,000 square feet.
Concourse B Phase 1 Level 3 is mezzanine space serving
terminal support functions such as vertical circulation and me-
chanical space. This accounts for 38,000 square feet within the
total Concourse B Phase 1 space. Total space for Concourse B
Phase 1 is 384,000 square feet.
Concourse B Phase 2 is the final completed stage of the ARP,
accommodating an additional eight gates. This Concourse B
addition features a central station connecting Concourse A and
Concourse B via the Center Tunnel and creating a confluence
zone for passenger amenities including food service and retail
concessions. This section of Concourse B is designed to allow
future expansion of Concourse B Phase 2 east beyond the
2024 completion of the ARP.
Level 1 of Concourse B Phase 2 supports an additional 10,000
square feet of airport operations space, 23,000 square feet of
terminal support space, and 54,000 square feet of outbound
baggage processing space. The central movement corridor is
continued from Concourse B Phase 1 and is used to access
rooms including airline offices, ground crew restrooms, and six
additional outbound baggage carousels. Total space provided in
Concourse B Phase 2 Level 1 is 90,000 square feet.
Concourse B Phase 2 Level 2 again supports passenger
services including departure lounges (32,000 square feet),
concessions (16,000 square feet), terminal support func-
tions (5,000 square feet), and public space such as circulation
(45,000 square feet). Total space provided on Concourse B
Phase 2 Level 2 is 99,000 square feet.
Concourse B Phase 2 Level 3 consists of mezzanine space
for vertical circulation and mechanical uses and accounts for
14,000 square feet. Total program space provided in Con-
course B Phase 2 is 203,000 square feet.
Total combined square footage of the North Concourse
(Phase 1 and Phase 2) is:
• Concourse B Level 1 – 258,000 square feet
• Concourse B Level 2 – 277,000 square feet
• Concourse B Level 3 – 52,000 square feet
• Total Concourse B All Levels – 587,000 square feet
1.7.7.3 Potential Future Expansions
Future expansions beyond 2024 are programmed for
Concourse B to extend facilities in the same linear pattern to
the east. At the time of this writing, future expansions
anticipated for Concourse B extend the concourse east an
additional 1,200 feet.
Other plans created prior to the completion of the ARP and
this Master Plan also anticipated constructing a third parallel
satellite concourse north of Concourse B. This new east-west
oriented concourse would again mirror Concourse A and
Concourse B, be connected via tunnel extensions, and would
be located 1,800 feet north of Concourse B. This concourse
has yet to be fully programmed or designed. Further analysis in
this Master Plan will address the need and preferred location of
any potential third concourse.
4241
1.8 LANDSIDE FACILITIES
SLCIA’s landside facilities provide commercial passengers
access to the terminal building and, ultimately, commercial
aircraft, through a variety of available ground transportation
connections. Additionally, the landside system provides ground
access to all airport facilities for airport employees, tenants,
and other airport users. The landside system at SLCIA begins
at numerous regional access points stemming from roads, rail,
and pedestrian/bicycle paths. These regional access points
connect to on-airport circulation roadways, the terminal
building, an SLCIA TRAX station, parking facilities, and rental
car services. The location of these facilities are shown in
FIGURE 1-20.
Like the terminal building and concourse inventory, the airport
landside facilities inventory was finalized prior to the
completion of ARP construction and is written from the
perspective that all ARP projects including terminal, concourse,
airfield, and landside facilities have been completed. Since
these projects were already well underway at the time of
beginning the Master Plan, ARP completion is considered the
existing condition for all landside facilities within this inventory
chapter.
The following are the landside elements which will be docu-
mented in the inventory:
• SLCIA connections to the regional transportation network.
• On-airport access and circulation roadways, including sec-
tions south of the Economy Lot entrance (on the inbound)
and south of the Parking Exit Plaza (on the outbound), and
all service roadways.
• Access and circulation roads serving the new terminal, park-
ing garage, and rental car facilities.
• Surface parking lots including public, employee, and the park
‘n’ wait lot.
• Rental car service and Quick Turn Around (QTA) areas.
• Off-airport commercial vehicle staging area.
• Access/egress roadways to non-terminal portions of the air-
port, including the air cargo area, general aviation areas, the
Utah Air National Guard complex, and the Boeing facility.
• Utah Transit Authority (UTA) TRAX service to SLCIA.
In order to align landside demand forecasting with passenger
demand forecasting, data were collected on-site during exist-
ing conditions at busy times in 2018. Vehicle counts were tak-
en using pneumatic tube counters and video capturing equip-
ment, over a one week period from June 4th, 2018 through
June 10th, 2018, on main access and circulation roadways
serving the terminal campus. Using Peak Hour Average Day
Peak Month (PHADPM) analysis, these data will be adjusted/
factored in the Facility Requirements Chapter of this Master
Plan using passenger activity data to forecast traffic volumes
during the common planning hour.
1.8.1 Airport Access
Landside access modes for SLCIA include roadways, the
TRAX light rail transit system, and a shared use pedestrian/
bicycle path. Roadways access a variety of parking facilities
including garage parking, economy parking, employee parking,
and a park ‘n’ wait cell phone lot. The access and circulation
roadways also connect to the terminal curb roadways where
passengers can be picked up or dropped off by private vehicles
or commercial vehicles. A TRAX light rail station is located on
the east side of the terminal building. The pedestrian/bicycle
path leads to the TRAX light rail station where bicycle parking
facilities are also offered.
Figure 1-20: Terminal Area Landside Facilities
Source: Prepared by RS&H, 2018
43
1.8.1.1 Regional Access
The primary form of access for most airport users is the road-
way system. The commercial terminal area of SLCIA is served
by a highway interchange where Interstate 80 (I-80) meets
Bangerter Highway (Utah Route 154). This interchange also
provides connections between I-80, SLCIA, and North Temple
Street. The primary access/egress point for the commercial
terminal and associated landside facilities is Terminal Drive,
which begins at the northern end of this interchange as the
northern extension of the Bangerter Highway. SLCDA owned
right-of-way begins on Terminal Drive where the Terminal
Drive/Bangerter Highway bridges cross the canal.
General aviation facilities, the Utah Air National Guard complex,
Boeing, and other facilities located on the east side of SLCIA
are primarily served by access from Interstate 215 (I-215)
and 2200 W Street. Access is also provided via North Temple
from the south and 2100 N Street to the north. 2100 N is also
the only access road for facilities at the north end of SLCIA
property. At its westernmost point at SLCIA, this road bends
90 degrees to turn south, changing into 4000 W Street, and is
a critical access route for major air cargo facilities, the ATCT,
SLCDA maintenance facilities, and ARFF Station #12. This
road also provides access to the SkyWest hangar and the Delta
hangar and reservation facilities.
The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) is the state
agency responsible for Utah’s multi-modal transportation sys-
tem. UDOT’s focus is on the roadways and has varying roles for
all modes which use their public right-of-way, including autos,
trucks, pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit systems. UDOT
has a regional structure with SLCIA located in UDOT Region 2
which covers Salt Lake, Summit, and Tooele Counties. Policy,
project priorities, and funding decisions are governed by the
Utah Transportation Commission (UTC), an independent advi-
sory committee consisting of seven members appointed by the
governor, four of whom represent a UDOT region.
The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) operates the TRAX light rail
transit (LRT) system and bus service to SLCIA. The TRAX and
bus services to/from SLCIA connect with UTA’s other services,
including commuter rail, to enable communities as far south as
Provo, Utah to access SLCIA via public transportation.
The TRAX rail system is one component of a larger network of
public transportation provided by the UTA. The TRAX Green
Line provides rail transit access to the SLCIA Train Station
located at the eastern side of the terminal building. TRAX
trains arrive and depart from the SLCIA Train Station daily at
15 minute intervals roughly between 5am and midnight. The
SLCIA Train Station is the westernmost stop in the city for
the train on the Green Line, which runs east-west parallel to
I-80 until reaching Temple Square when it turns south through
downtown Salt Lake City and then branches southwest at Cen-
tral Point Station. Through the SLC downtown area, the TRAX
Green line stops at a variety of stations which provide transfer
opportunities to the larger transit network, including the TRAX
Red Line, TRAX Blue Line, S-Line Streetcar, and the Front-
Runner. The TRAX Green Line also provides rider options to
connect to local and regional bus routes including inter-county,
express, and flex routes. FIGURE 1-21 shows the UTA network
map.
1.8.1.2 On-Airport Circulation
Terminal Drive (terminal loop road) is the primary loop road-
way serving the commercial terminal area. Terminal Drive
is a one-way street which creates a loop beginning at the
northbound lanes from the interchange of I-80 and Bangerter
Highway, continuing and splitting into two levels serving arrivals
and departures at the terminal curb, and reconnecting beyond
the terminal curb to exit SLCIA property where it becomes
the southbound lanes of Bangerter Highway just north of
its interchange with I-80. Terminal Drive is designed for high
traffic volumes. The loop road has four dedicated lanes as you
enter the terminal area, splits to two levels at the terminal
curb, reconnects at ground level as you exit the curb area, and
becomes three dedicated lanes as you approach the economy
parking exit plaza and exit the terminal area. Speeds slow as
you enter the loop road environment and begin gradually in-
creasing again once you pass the terminal curb roads. Terminal
Drive also provides access other areas of SLCIA including 3700
W Street which serves cargo, support, and parking facilities at
the south end of SLCIA. There is no traffic signalization on the
main Terminal Drive loop road, however, there is a TRAX light
rail crossing with gates and signalization on the Terminal Drive
exit to 3700 W.
Access to the following facilities is provided from Terminal
Drive:
• 3700 W Street
• Park ‘n’ Wait cell phone lot
• Economy parking lots
• Parking garage
• Rental car ready/return
• Crossbar Road
• 4000 W Street
Crossbar Road provides a route for users of facilities at the
south end of SLCIA to pass over Terminal Drive and exit the
terminal area without requiring them to drive past the terminal
curb. Crossbar Road is a two-way, two lane road with relatively
low traffic volumes. There is a traffic signal at the intersection
of Crossbar Road and Terminal Drive. Additionally, 3700 W
connects with North Temple and provides access along the
south end of the airfield from the terminal area to the east side
of SLCIA. This road is a two-way, two-lane road with very low
traffic volumes.
4544
Various service roads limited to airport service vehicles and
rental car companies are located strategically within the Ter-
minal Drive loop road footprint to separate and limit conflicts
between public traffic and airport operations. These roads are
two-way, two-lane, low volume roads.
On the east side of SLCIA in the general aviation campus, 2200
W Street is the primary arterial road providing north-south
travel to access points. Additionally, I-215 parallels 2200 W
one block east with on/off ramp locations at 700 N Street,
1700 N Street, and 2100 N Street. Extending west of 2200
W, 2100 N provides entry to the northern half of SLCIA. This
is a 50 mile per hour, two-way, four lane road with shoulders
designated as bicycle lanes.
1.8.1.3 Terminal Curb Roadway
The terminal curb roadway is split into two levels, three at-
grade roads and one elevated road, each providing approxi-
mately 1,000 feet of curb length. The elevated road is pro-
grammed for drop-off of departing passengers. The associated
terminal curb is immediately adjacent to airline ticketing
and check-in facilities which are located inside the terminal
building. The departures curb road is five lanes wide. The two
innermost lanes closest to the curb are for vehicles maneuver-
ing and unloading passengers and baggage. The middle lane
(Lane 3) is a transitional lane where vehicles pull in and out of
the two drop-off lanes. The two outermost lanes (Lanes 4 and
5) are intended for use by through traffic.
There are three lower-level, at grade roads along the terminal
curb. The outermost road is five lanes wide and dedicated to
arriving passenger pick ups. Similar to the elevated departures
curb road, the two innermost lanes closest to the curb are for
vehicles pulling over and load passengers and baggage, the
middle lane (Lane 3) is a transitional lane for privately owned
vehicles (POVs) to pull in and out of the two drop-off lanes,
and the two outermost lanes (Lanes 4 and 5) are intended for
use by through traffic. There is no access from the terminal
building to the arrivals curb at grade level. Instead, access to
the arrivals curb is made possible by way of the pedestrian
sky-bridge which allows passengers to pass from the termi-
nal building to the arrivals curb without ever crossing at road
grade. Vertical circulation is then provided from the sky bridge
to the arrivals curb via elevators, escalators, and stairs to
descend to the curb.
Two at-grade roads between the arrivals road and the terminal
building are dedicated to commercial vehicle use. Both roads
are three lanes wide. These roads are dedicated to commercial
vehicles picking up arriving passengers at the terminal. At the
time of this writing, it is not known what space will be dedicat-
ed to specific commercial vehicle activities. Pedestrians using
the outermost commercial vehicles curb cross the innermost
commercial vehicle road at marked and lighted crosswalk
locations. In order to access the commercial vehicle roads,
vehicles must pass through a gates with Automated Vehicle
Identification (AVI) equipment, meaning the necessary
Radio-frequency Identification (RFID) tags must be present in
the vehicle. TNC’s operate through the ground transportation
lot and then proceed through Booth 10, a guard shack locat-
ed just east of the Terminal. The TNC operators do not have
AVI readers but instead are verified at Booth 10 and both pick
up and drop off on the outermost commercial vehicle lane.
FIGURE 1-22 shows a conceptual rendering of the completed
SLCIA terminal curb roads.
Figure 1-21: UTA System Map (Effective December 2017)
Source: Utah Transit Authority, www.rideuta.com/Rider-Tools/Schedules-and-Maps, Retrieved August 13,2018.
Figure 1-22: Conceptual Rendering of SLC Terminal Curb Roads
Source: SLCDA, 2018
46 47
1.8.2 Ground Transportation Services and Facilities
Salt Lake City International Airport is served by a number of
commercial ground transportation providers which make use
of road and rail facilities. Additionally, facilities are provided
for pedestrian and bicycle use. Observations and stakeholder
interviews noted that employees are the primary users of pe-
destrian/bicycle trails and bicycle storage facilities.
One unique element of Utah is that, in 2017, the state dereg-
ulated the taxi industry, meaning that a person was no longer
required to have a taxi endorsement on their driver’s license in
order to legally drive a taxi within Utah. Any ground transpor-
tation provider registered with the state can now perform taxi
services. However, in order to perform those services, specif-
ically related to operations at SLCIA, all commercial vehicles
must register with Salt Lake City, undergo vehicle inspections,
and meet a minimum standards code. Additionally, at SLCIA,
drivers must be vetted through the same badging process as
SLCDA and tenant employees. TNC drivers are regulated by
the State. TNC drivers are managed through a permitting pro-
cess which allows SLCDA to ensure security and collect fees.
Functionally, there is very little distinction between taxis, TNCs,
and any other form of commercial ground transportation pro-
viding for-hire services in the State of Utah.
Modes of commercial vehicles performing ground
transportation at SLCIA include:
• Taxi cab companies
• TNCs
• UTA buses
• Charter buses
• TRAX light rail
• Limousines
• Courtesy shuttles
• Resort shuttles
Commercial vehicle staging takes place at an SLCDA-owned
and operated staging lot off of the main SLCIA campus. The lot
is located at 2400 W Street immediately south of North
Temple. This lot covers slightly more than one acre with 79
parking spaces, three of which are oversized for buses.
TNC operations at SLCIA are regulated by SLCDA and drivers
are required to enter the First In-First Out (FIFO) TNC queuing
area shown in FIGURE 1-23. The queuing area is defined by a
geo-fence boundary that triggers the TNC driver application to
allow ride requests from the SLCIA terminal. When TNC
drivers are dropping off passengers at the terminal curb,
they are allowed a five minute period to accept new ride
requirements from the terminal area through a process
known as “rematching
1.8.3 Vehicle Parking
Parking is provided at SLCIA for the traveling public, SLCDA
and tenant employees, and various other users including air
cargo, military, general aviation, and airport support services.
Public parking for commercial terminal users is provided in
two facilities, each with an associated pricing structure. The
program capacity and rate structure is shown below.
Economy Lot: 10,463 spaces
• 0-60 minutes = $2.00
• Additional hour = $1.00
• 24 hour max = $9.00
• Parking garage: 3,600 spaces
• 0-30 minutes = $2.00
• Additional 20 minutes = $1.00
• 24 hour max = $32.00
The closest available parking to the terminal building is in
the parking garage. The garage is a five story, cast-in-place,
post-tensioned concrete structure providing a total of 3,600
spaces and direct access to the Gateway Building on the sec-
ond level via the pedestrian sky-bridge. The structure covers
approximately 11 acres including the helical ramps. All vehicle
parking levels are covered. The garage first level is dedicated
to rental car ready/return vehicle parking. The second story
is programmed for short-term parking spaces with posted
“No Overnight Parking” signs and wayfinding signage directs
long-term parkers to levels three, four, and five. The parking
operator enforces the “No Overnight Parking” policy according
to SLCDA direction. Two helical ramps allow vertical vehicle
access and egress from the different garage levels. This avoids
the requirement for vehicles to circulate past parked vehicles.
The helical ramp exterior diameters are 90 feet. The entry
ramp is dedicated to one-way upward movement and the
egress ramp is dedicated to one-way downward movement.
Economy surface parking lots are available on the interior of
the Terminal Drive loop road. Combined with vehicle circula-
tion routes, approximately 10,500 spaces are provided over 86
acres of land. Two lanes which exit from Terminal Drive provide
public access to the lots. These feed three access lanes with
gated ticketing systems which control entry into the lots.
Payment systems for public parking can be performed through
the “Hub Parking Technology” parking system. This system
allows payment by cash, credit, credit in/credit out, validation,
badges, and AVI. Pay-on-foot kiosks are also available in the
parking garage. Final egress from the parking garage and econ-
omy parking lots takes place through the parking exit plaza
where payment can be taken, confirmed, or waived.
Terminal tenant employee parking takes place on a gated
22 acre lot with 3,355 spaces located outside the southeast
portion of the Terminal Drive loop road. The gates are activat-
ed by a current airport employee badge. Badged employees
are shuttled to and from the airport, or can walk or bike to the
terminal using a path along 3700 W. SLCDA employee parking
is provided near the terminal building and employee parking
for other individual businesses/facilities is provided on-site
adjacent to the building.
1.8.4 Rental Car Facilities
Rental car facilities are structured and located to prioritize cus-
tomer convenience and efficient operational flows. Customer
service and administrative functions take place in the Gateway
Building on Level 1. This space includes customer service
counters with agents, queuing, circulation, and administrative
offices. The proximate locations of all rental car customer ser-
vices eliminates any need for customer shuttling.
Rental car ready/return is located immediately adjacent on
Level 1 of the parking garage. This is where rental car custom-
ers pick up and drop off rented vehicles. Spaces hold vehicles
ready for rental and returned vehicles are parked nose-to-tail in
return lanes for employee handling.
Rental car servicing and light maintenance is performed in the
QTA service center structure immediately south of the parking
garage. This facility serves fueling, washing, and storage pur-
poses. Fencing and barriers separate access between leased
spaces for different rental car agencies.
Three rental car service centers are located immediately south
of the QTA service center structure. These buildings are where
light maintenance such as oil changes, tire rotations, and small
repairs are performed. Space around these buildings supplies
additional nose-to-tail parking storage.
Several off-airport rental car agencies serving SLCIA also exist.
Inventory of these company assets is not included in this Mas-
ter Plan since SLCDA leases no land to them and holds no con-
trol over managing their future facility needs. Off-site rental car
companies pickup on the far west side of the parking garage.
1.8.5 Stakeholder Interviews and 2018 Terminal
Curb Road Observations
In order to better understand the SLCIA landside system,
existing terminal curb road demand, and how the curb roads
are operated, quantitative and qualitative data were collected
during two two-hour peak demand times in June 2018, a rel-
atively busy month. Note that this data was collected prior to
the completion of the ARP, which made major improvements
to the airports landside operating environment. On Wednesday
June 27, 2018, data were collected during an evening arrival
peak from 8:00pm to 10:00pm. Data collected on June 28,
2018 were gathered during the afternoon mixed peak from
12:15pm to 2:15pm. These data are used to quantify landside
demand in the Facility Requirements Chapter.
Empirical study during these two events revealed the following
challenges with the terminal curb.
• Demand on terminal curbs caused recurrent congestion for
a variety of reasons, with concurrent queuing traffic along
Terminal Drive as a result.
• While active unloading predominated on the departures
curb, “active loading only” rules by the public were not well
observed on the arrivals curb. Curb management staff takes
a variety of approaches to encourage users to obey the regu-
lation, stepping up their encouragement and enforcement as
needed when the curb gets most severely congested.
• Airport user confusion existed and appeared to be caused
by a mix of ongoing construction, curb design (June 2018
curb), and inconsistent and/or confusing wayfinding signing.
• When the parking garage (June 2018 garage) is full and
parkers are manually redirected to economy parking, this
traffic is required to drive past the terminal curb in order to
reach other parking/waiting locations.
It is important to reiterate that the data collected at this time
was related to operations on the terminal curb as it existed in
June 2018. This was prior to the completion of the ARP which
creates an entirely new curb road environment. The intent of
performing this study and providing this data is to inform SLC-
DA of operational challenges in order to assist in avoiding them
under the new curb road configuration.
Figure 1-23: SLC TNC Geo-fence Area
Source: https://help.lyft.com/hc/en-us/articles/115012928467-
Utah-airport-information-for-drivers, Retrieved August 30, 2018.
48 49
In addition to recording observations during peak events,
interviews were conducted with key landside stakeholders
including SLCDA staff, the parking operations company, and
on-airport rental car agencies. The following areas requiring
attention during the planning process were noted:
• On-airport parking
͛Capacity constraints for all locations
(garage, economy, employee)
͛Economy parking shuttle routes, fleet size, and
shelter configurations
͛Enforcement of parking and curb policies
͛Parking exit plaza, specifically oversize lanes,
bypass lanes, and shelter design
͛Growing presence of off-airport parking companies
͛Parking program effectiveness and pricing
rate structure
• Terminal curb roads
͛Arrivals and Departures curb programming
͛TNC pick up/drop-off locations and “pre-match and
re-match” policies
One important consideration when planning landside and terminal
facilities at SLCIA is the need to accommodate short-term parking
for greeting and well-wisher crowds during missionary arrivals or
departures. These occur in short, concentrated time-frames, when
missionaries from local church groups depart for, or arrive home from
trips. Family and friends of the missionaries arrive in large groups to
show support for and welcome home the missionaries, creating
significant peaks of demand for hourly or short-term parking spaces.
Additionally, these events trigger the need for designated meeting
space within the terminal arrivals hall just outside of the exit location
from the sterile area.
Ensuring high levels of customer service are provided and sustained
during the ARP and beyond is an important element of the landside
portion of the Master Plan study. This can be done by providing safe,
efficient, and adequately sized facilities; determining how, when, and
where landside facilities can expand to meet demand growth, and
programming the facilities to meet the unique needs of airport users
at SLCIA. Therefore, consideration will be given to these areas during
facility requirements and alternatives analyses in later chapters.
͛Curb management and active loading/unloading
policy enforcement
• Rental car
͛Capacity of new facilities
• TNCs
͛Impacts of TNC increased use on rental car
and parking are uncertain
• TRAX
͛Hours of operation limit usefulness for some
airport/tenant employees
• Park ‘n’ Wait lot
͛User confusion created by location and
access/egress paths
• Airport roadway safety
͛Adequacy of shoulders for Airport Police use
͛Diversion paths for traffic during Code Red
emergency operations
Figure 1-24: Arrivals Curb Road Queueing Traffic (June 2018)
Source: RS&H, 2018
Figure 1-25: Departures Curb Road (June 2018)
Source: RS&H, 2018
Source: RS&H, 2018
Figure 1-26: Greeters Awaiting Missionary Arrivals (June 2018)
5150
Salt Lake City International Airport serves a wide variety of
general aviation aircraft users including corporate flying, law
enforcement, fire rescue, medical air evacuation, recreational
flying, flight training, air charters, government aviation, military
aviation, and the transport of mail. General aviation facilities at
SLCIA are located along the east side of the airfield, extending
north from North Temple Road, between 2200 W Street and
Taxiway K. 2200 W Street provides landside access to the
east side general aviation area. General aviation facilities have
developed parallel to Runway 17-35 and Taxiway K, and are
the primary users of this portion of the airfield. The location of
general aviation facilities are identified in FIGURE 1-27.
SLCDA also manages two additional general aviation airports,
South Valley Regional Airport (U42) and Tooele Valley Airport
(TVY). A General Aviation Strategy Plan (GASP), which is
being prepared at the time of this writing, provides analysis
and a recommended action plan for the entire general aviation
system managed by SLCDA, which includes U42 and TVY.
19.1 Leasehold Zones
In 2015, SLCDA began a transition within the general aviation
area to program zones of control between SLCDA and the
FBOs serving SLCIA. This transition split control of facilities
into three zones managed by TAC Air, Atlantic Aviation, and
SLCDA. Zone 1, at the south end of the general aviation area,
is managed by TAC Air. Atlantic Aviation manages Zone 2 and
SLCDA controls Zone 3, which is located north of the taxilane
nearest to Taxiway K4. This system of control ultimately
reduces the involvement of SLCDA in the overall management
and future development of general aviation hangars at SLCIA.
At an undetermined future date, all leases will be conveyed
to the managing organization. At the time of this writing,
approximately 74 percent of based aircraft are in a location
that is managed by SLCDA, 24 percent are based with TAC Air,
and two percent are managed by Atlantic Aviation. The area
managed by SLCDA primarily consists of corporate hangars
but also includes an ARFF facility and a T-hangar row. The
future programmed areas of control are graphically depicted in
FIGURE 1-28.
1.9.2 SLCDA T-Hangar Facilities
SLCDA owns and maintains 226 total T-hangars at SLCIA,
mostly located in the southeast sector of the general aviation
area. These hangars include 145 single-engine T-hangar bays,
27 twin-engine T-hangar bays, and 54 shade hangars, located
in eight T-hangar rows and two shade hangar rows. However,
19 of the single-engine T-hangar bays are un-rentable due to
structural deficiencies. The hangars were built between 1970
and 1984, making them between 34 and 48 years old. It is ex-
pected that most, if not all, T-hangars will need to be replaced
within the planning horizon of this Master Plan. The T-hangar
facilities available at SLCIA are included in TABLE 1-13. As of
March 2018, 75 interested parties are on the waiting list for
single-engine aircraft hangars, and 20 are waiting for twin-en-
gine aircraft hangar availability. The historically estimated
waiting time on the hangar waiting list is over 500 days.
1.9 GENERAL AVIATION FACILITIES Figure 1-27: East Side General Aviation Buildings
Source: Prepared by RS&H, 2018
Tab;e 1-13: SLCDA T-Hangar Facilities
52
Figure 1-28: Ultimate General Aviation Development Zones
Source: Prepared by RS&H, 2018
53
1.9.3 SLCDA Corporate Tenants
SLCDA leases corporate hangars in the general aviation area to
12 organizations. Through the implementation of transitioning
into zones, some of these leases will ultimately be transferred
to Atlantic Aviation or TAC Air control. TABLE 1-14 provides a
breakdown of the corporate hangars leased by SLCDA.
1.9.3.1 Utah Division of Aeronautics
The Utah Division of Aeronautics, a division of the UDOT,
leases 86,444 square feet, including ramp access, hangar
facilities, and office space for operations. The Utah Division of
Aeronautics operates a Beechcraft King Air B200, Beechcraft
King Air C90, and a Cessna 206 from SLCIA.
1.9.3.2 Flightline, LLC
Flightline, LLC bases a Mitsubishi MU-2B-25 at SLCIA in a
6,768 square feet hangar. Their total lease area is 11,040
square feet.
1.9.3.3 Harper Companies, Inc.
Harper Companies, Inc., dealing in custom precast products,
bases a Cessna 550 aircraft and a Beechcraft King Air B300 in
a 12,500 square feet hangar at SLCIA. The total lease area for
Harper Companies, Inc. is 25,562 square feet.
1.9.3.4 Leucadia Hangar
This hangar lease has been assigned to American Investment
from Leucadia Aviation. Aircraft based at SLCIA for use by
this company includes a Gulfstream G450, a Gulfstream G-IV, a
Cessna Citation 525B, a Pilatus PC12, and a Cessna
Sovereign 680.
1.9.3.5 Hughes & Hughes Investment Corporation
Hughes & Hughes Investment Corporation develops and
manages commercial real estate projects. The company leases
32,160 total square feet from SLCDA, including a 17,694
square foot hangar. Based aircraft at SLCIA include a Cessna
LC41-550FG Corvallis, Cessna 510 Citation Mustang, and a
Cessna 525C Citation.
1.9.3.6 ALSCO
ALSCO provides linen rentals, employee uniform and work-
wear services. A Gulfstream G450 aircraft is based at SLCIA in
a 13,961 square foot hangar, part of a 35,970 square foot total
lease area.
1.9.3.7 Terra Diamond
Terra Diamond is an independent company specializing in man-
ufacturing tools and accessories. They lease a total of 12,675
square feet including a 6,933 square foot hangar where a
Cessna 441 is based.
Table 1-14: SLCDA Corporate Hangar Tenants
54 55
1.9.3.8 Civil Air Patrol
The Civil Air Patrol – Salt Lake City Senior Squadron (CAP),
is a volunteer program, funded as a United States Air Force
Auxiliary, with missions for emergency services, cadet training,
and aerospace education. The CAP leases a total of 16,172
square feet including hangar space. Ten Cessna 182s, a Cessna
206, and a Gippsland GA8 are based at SLCIA.
1.9.3.9 DKH Services
DKH Services operates a Bombardier Global 5000. Bombardier
BD-700-1A11, Dassault Mystère-Falcon 50, Quest Kodiak
100, and an Aviat A-1B. DKH Services leases a total of 52,830
square feet of space.
1.9.3.10 Young Electric Sign Company
Young Electric Sign Company, or YESCO, is a private manufac-
turer of signs, lighting, and display systems. The company bases
a Beechcraft Baron 58 and Beech Bonanza V35B aircraft
from SLCIA, stored in a 5,163 square foot hangar. Total area
included in the YESCO lease is 17,368 square feet.
1.9.3.11 Hangar 4 Associates
This building includes a total of four hangars, some of which
are leased to private individuals. Aircraft in this 29,176 square
foot facility include an Embraer EMB-500, Pilatus PC 12/45,
Cessna 320, Cirrus SR22, Cessna 210T, and Beech B200 King
Air.
1.9.4 Fixed Base Operators
Two FBOs serve the general aviation community at SLCIA.
Services provided include aircraft sales and leasing, air charter
service, aircraft parts and maintenance, fuel sales, and aircraft
storage.
Atlantic Aviation began operations at SLCIA in April 2016.
After assuming possession of the company’s leased area, im-
provements were made including apron renovations and new
hangar construction. In April 2018, Atlantic Aviation opened
a new executive terminal. The FBO has more than 100,000
square feet of aircraft storage split between four hangars. A
total of five aircraft are based with Atlantic Aviation including
four multi-engine aircraft and one single-engine aircraft.
Atlantic Aviation has capacity for growth in based aircraft, with
substantial additional room available in their newly constructed
hangars. The Atlantic Aviation total leasehold area is 866,208
square feet. Atlantic Aviation buildings are shown in
TABLE 1-15.
Atlantic Aviation offers full fueling service with Jet A and
100LL fuel available for purchase. Between July 2017 and
April 2018, Atlantic Aviation fuel flowage data shows
approximately 209,355 gallons per month on average.
Additional fuel capacity details are included in SECTION 1.11.5,
Aviation Fuel Storage.
Non-aeronautical services provided by Atlantic Aviation include
office space rental, “snooze rooms”, and rental car services
provided through partnership with Go Rentals, a rental car
company based in the Atlantic Aviation executive terminal.
TAC Air also provides FBO service at SLCIA. This FBO includes
subsidiary company Keystone Aviation, as well as Million Air, a
former FBO at SLCIA which was acquired by TAC Air in May
2012. TAC Air manages 18 total buildings, ranging in size from
7,500 square feet to over 45,000 square feet. A total of 75
aircraft are based at TAC Air including 19 single-engine, 15
multi-engine aircraft, 35 jet-engine aircraft, and six helicop-
ters. The demand for aircraft storage fluctuates seasonally,
spiking during the winter months. In 2016, TAC Air completed
construction of an additional 39,200 square feet box hangar
and, according to TAC Air, is receiving inquires for additional
growth. The total TAC Air leasehold area is 1,319,297 square
feet. An overview of facilities managed by TAC Air is shown in
TABLE 1-16.
TAC Air offers full fueling service with Jet A and 100LL fuel
available for purchase. In addition to sales, fuel is provided for
transient military operations as well as fuel pumping for com-
mercial airlines. Between July 2017 and April 2018 the TAC
Air fuel flowage data shows approximately 297,413 gallons per
month on average. Additional fuel capacity details are included
in SECTION 1.11.5, Aviation Fuel Storage.
TAC Air provides a wide range of services at SLCIA. Aircraft
sales and leasing are available through a partnership with
SOCATA TBM and Honda Jet aircraft. Air charter operations
are available through a fleet of 20 aircraft including a variety of
team charters. Additionally, aircraft maintenance is available for
five of the airlines that utilize SLCIA and private aircraft.
1.9.5 Military Facilities
The Utah Air National Guard (UANG) leases approximately
135 acres for the Roland R. Wright Air National Guard Base.
In 2018, this lease agreement was extended for an additional
term through 2068. The 151st Air Refueling Wing is the host
unit at this base charged with the mission of aerial refueling
operations utilizing Boeing KC-135R Stratotankers. As of
2016, nearly 1,500 personnel are involved in the operation of
the base. FIGURE 1-29 illustrates the UANG facilities on SLCIA.
1.9.6 Non-Airside Facilities
SLCDA also leases non-airside facilities within the general
aviation footprint on the east side of SLCIA. These vary in
function, as described in the following sections, and are shown
in FIGURE 1-30.
1.9.6.1 National Weather Service
The NWS leases a 55,617 square foot office facility for the
Salt Lake City NWS Forecast Office on W North Temple.
1.9.6.2 Flight Safety International
Flight Safety International offers flight training for the
Bombardier CRJ200 and Bombardier CRJ700. The company
leases a 173,889 of square foot facility along 2200 W.
Table 1-15: Atlantic Aviation Buildings
Table 1-16: TAC Air Buildings
56
Figure 1-29: Utah Air National Guard Buildings
Source: Prepared by RS&H, 2018
57
Figure 1-30: Other General Aviation Buildings Without Airfield Access
Source: Prepared by RS&H, 2018
58
Air cargo at SLCIA includes the movement of freight and mail.
In 2017, 382.2 million pounds of total cargo was handled by
the tenants of SLCIA. Cargo facilities at SLCIA are located in
two areas, the South Cargo Area, located near the approach
end of Runway 34R, and the North Cargo Area, located near
the approach end of Runway 16L. The South Cargo Area is
accessed via N 3700 W. Landside access for the North Cargo
Area facilities is provided via 1580 N. FIGURE 1-31 and FIG-
URE 1-32 visually depict cargo facilities.
1.10.1 South Cargo Area
1.10.1.1 United States Postal Service
The United States Postal Service (USPS) occupies a 45,000
square foot building situated between Joint Cargo Building #2
and the Airport Operations Center. This facility offers typical
Post Office services with 23 vehicle parking spaces available
for public use and another 64 parking spaces inside a fenced
area for employee parking and USPS vehicles. This facility has
a total of eight truck docks. The 84,000 square feet apron is
used for GSE only. Mail and packages are shipped/received via
United Parcel Service (UPS) or Delta Air Lines.
1.10.1.2 Joint Cargo Building #1
Located between Joint Cargo Building #2 and #3, Joint Cargo
Building #1 previously served as the main location for cargo
operations but currently serves mostly belly cargo handling for
airlines. Companies that lease sections of this building include
G-2 Secure, which is a contractor that handles American Air-
lines cargo operations, SkyWest Cargo, and Southwest Airlines.
The building includes 34,095 square feet of space with 22
truck dock spaces and a total of 35 vehicle parking spaces.
1.10.1.3 Joint Cargo Building #2
Joint Cargo Building #2, the southernmost building of the
Joint Cargo buildings, is a 10,424 square foot facility with
three truck dock spaces and 23 vehicle parking spaces.
SkyWest Airlines leases space in this building for cargo
opertions. Five aircraft parking positions are located to the
east of Joint Cargo Building #1 and #2. These are designated
for remain-overnight (RON) parking. There are four aircraft
parking positions to the east of SLCIA Operations Center
which are also designated for RON parking. SkyWest does
park Embraer 175 aircraft in this location using the taxi-in
and taxi-out method.
1.10.1.4 Consolidated Cargo Facility
The Consolidated Cargo Facility has a total of 37,168 square
feet and accommodates 10 truck dock spaces and an addi-
tional 21 vehicle parking spaces. Perimeter Gate 11, staffed by
an airport security officer, is located southeast of Joint Cargo
Building #2 to allow for secured side access.
Air General provides cargo handling operations out of the Con-
solidated Cargo building. Several airlines, including Alaska Air,
United Cargo, and American Cargo contract with Air General to
handle their cargo services. Combined, these airlines handled
1.3 million pounds of cargo in 2017.
1.10.1.5 Delta Air Cargo
Delta Air Cargo leases a 202,413 square foot facility to handle
their cargo operations. This includes a 22,646 square foot
building with nine truck dock spaces and a total of 64 vehicles
parking spaces. In 2017 Delta Air Cargo handled 31.2 million
pounds of cargo.
1.10.2 North Cargo Area
1.10.2.1 United Parcel Service
The UPS cargo operations in the North Cargo Area began after
construction of a 26,211 square foot facility constructed after
the completion of the previous Airport Master Plan. The facility
has the capacity to accommodate a total of 25 trucks through
five truck dock locations. There are 130 vehicle parking spaces
available northwest of the facility. The UPS apron in the North
Cargo Area is approximately 787,000 square feet. The existing
apron layout is marked to accommodate a maximum of four
large jets and nine smaller aircraft.
In 2017, UPS handled 117.4 million pounds of cargo at SLCIA.
Aircraft in the UPS fleet at SLCIA include the Airbus A300-
600, the Boeing 757-200, the Boeing 767-300, and the Mc-
Donnell Douglas MD-11. Cargo flights for UPS typically occur
daily approximately in the range of 4:00 am and 5:30 am as
well as 5:00 pm and 8:00 pm. Daily flights from Louisville, KY
to SLCIA occur, with most days seeing several flights between
these destinations. Multiple cargo flights occur weekly to SL-
CIA from Ontario, CA and Boise, ID as well.
1.10.2.2 Federal Express
Federal Express (FedEx) relocated its cargo operations to the
North Cargo Area in 2015 after completing the construction
of a new 70,908 square foot building. The new building has
the ability to accommodate a total of 25 trucks. There are 109
vehicle parking spaces available southeast of the facility. The
FedEx apron in the North Cargo Area is approximately 608,000
square feet. The existing apron layout is marked to accommo-
date a maximum of four large jets and 14 aircraft that are ADG
II or smaller.
1.10 AIR CARGO FACILITIES
6059
In 2017, FedEx handled 192.2 million pounds of cargo at
SLCIA. Aircraft utilized in the FedEx fleet at SLCIA include
the Cessna 208 Caravan, Airbus A300-600, Boeing 757-200,
McDonnell Douglas DC-10, and McDonnell Douglas MD-11.
FedEx 76 77 cargo operations time slots at SLCIA are clus-
tered around 5:00 am and 6:00 pm, every day except Monday.
Several daily flights typically occur from Memphis International
Airport (MEM) to SLCIA. Flights originating from Indianapolis,
IN and Oakland, CA occur approximately four days a week.
Other FedEx flight locations include Grand Junction, CO and
Boise, ID.
DHL Express located cargo facilities in the North Cargo Area
in 2006 after constructing a new 62,000 square foot facility.
Before construction for the new facility was completed, DHL
managed cargo coming into SLCIA through ramp operations.
The new DHL cargo building has a total of five truck docks and
an overall capacity for 15 trucks. A total of 132 vehicle parking
spaces are available. The DHL apron in the North Cargo Area
is approximately 278,000 square feet and the existing apron
layout is marked to accommodate a maximum of two large jets
and four smaller aircraft.
In 2017, DHL handled 4.5 million pounds of cargo at SLCIA.
Air service for DHL is provided by Southern Air, who operate
Boeing 737-400 aircraft for cargo operations at SLCIA. Flights
occur near the 8:00 am hour from Cincinnati Monday through
Friday, and near the 5:00 am hours on Sunday. Flights from
Sacramento arrive near the 8:00 pm hour every day except for
Saturdays.
Figure 1-31: South Cargo and Support Buildings
Source: Prepared by RS&H, 2018
61
Figure 1-32: North Cargo and Support Buildings
Source: Prepared by RS&H, 2018
62
The aviation support facilities area is located south of the Air
Cargo facilities. This describes the location and condition of
various support facilities important to the overall operation
of SLCIA. These facilities include FAA facilities, aircraft rescue
and firefighting facilities, fuel facilities, de-icing, airport mainte-
nance facilities, snow removal equipment facilities, and security
related facilities. A graphical representation of all the support
facilities are shown in FIGURE 1-31, FIGURE 1-32, FIGURE
1-33, and FIGURE 1-34.
1.11.1 FAA Facilities
The ATCT, as shown in FIGURE 1-33, is located off of 1200
N on SLCIA property. The ATCT facility was built in the late
1990s and handles over 300,000 operations per year. An
operation is defined as either a takeoff or a landing. Therefore,
if an aircraft lands, drops off, and picks up passengers, and then
departs to a new destination, two operations have occurred.
The tower operates continuously under the control of FAA
personnel. When the ATCT is in operation, air traffic controllers
provide clearance to pilots and vehicle operators on the move-
ment area. They also provide takeoff clearance and instruc-
tions, along with providing pertinent weather information.
Although not located on SLCIA property, an ARTCC is located
adjacent to SLCIA. This ARTCC, known as ZLC, is one of 22
FAA Area Control Centers in the United States. It covers one
of the largest areas of any other control center. The ARTCC
facility also contains the Salt Lake TRACON.
1.11.2 Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting
Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) involves hazard miti-
gation, as well as fire prevention, firefighting, rescue, and med-
ical response in the event of an aircraft incident or accident.
All Part 139 airports serving scheduled and unscheduled air
carriers are required to provide ARFF services at an FAA-es-
tablished appropriate level. This level, known as an index, is de-
fined in 14 CFR 139.315 and characterizes the level of service
for the ARFF facility.
Using the index set forth in 14 CFR 139.315, SLCIA’s ARFF
index to serve commercial aircraft is Index E. Index E is based
on the potential for an average of five or more daily departures
of B767-400 air carrier aircraft. Although the average daily de-
partures may lower on a seasonal basis, SLCIA will continue to
staff and equip for the higher index value. TABLE 1-18 details
the ARFF equipment at SLCIA.
There are two ARFF stations supporting SLCIA. The first is
located east of Runway 17-35 (Fire Station #11), shown in
FIGURE 1-28. The second is located in the North Support
Area between Runway 16L-34R and Runway 16R-34L (Fire
Station #12), shown in FIGURE 1-33. Fire Station #12 is the
site of the original facility that supported the airfield prior to
the construction of Runway 16R-34L in 1995. These facilities
are staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week with appropriately
trained fire personnel as required to maintain SLCIA’s Index E.
Since 1997, SLCIA had been the site of the first FAA approved
ARFF Training Center in the Western United States, located on
the west side of SLCIA property. Due to the high cost of main-
tenance and operation of an aging facility, the training center
closed on June 30th, 2018.
1.11.3 Aircraft Deicing Facilities
SLCIA has five de-icing pads on the airfield; one near Runway
34L, one near the end of Runway 34R, one between Runways
16L-34R and 14-32, one at Taxiway K3, and one near the end
of Runway 16L. There are two additional deice locations on
the North Cargo Ramp for UPS, FedEx, and DHL. The locations
of the aircraft deicing pads are shown in FIGURE 1-35 and
detailed in TABLE 1-19.
The deicing pads at the ends of Runway 34L, Runway 34R, and
Taxiway L-Runway 34R are the primary facilities for commer-
cial service aircraft deicing. The deicing pad located at K3 taxi-
way is used for general and business aviation aircraft. Addition-
ally, the deicing pads located at the North Cargo Ramp include
one near the UPS/DHL Ramp and one near the FedEx ramp.
These facilities provide deicing services for any cargo aircraft
that parks on these ramps. The newest deicing pad, located at
the end of Runway 16L was completed in 2017.
The Airport exclusively uses propylene glycol-based fluids for
deicing and anti-icing. All deicing fluids must be approved by
the Airport Executive Director who is notified of the type and
manufacturer of each fluid prior to the winter season. The
deicing pads have been designed to capture residual deicing
1.11 AVIATION SUPPORT FACILITIES
Table 1-18: Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Equipment
63 64
fluid as it is being used on the aircraft for recycling purposes.
Aircraft deicing fluid captured from the drainage system in the
deicing pads is then transferred to a deicing fluid reclamation
plant and processed back into glycol. The glycol collected in
this process is able to be reused and resold, simultaneously
conserving airport resources and generating additional
airport revenue. Since 2016, SLCIA has processed over
3 million gallons of fluid and recovered more than 100,000
gallons of glycol.12
1.11.4 Airport Snow and Ice Control Plan
Frequently, SLCIA experiences heavy periods of snow and ice
which can impact airport operations. The SLCIA pavement
de-icing and snow removal plans allow for safe and efficient
removal of snow and ice from pavement surfaces.
1.11.4.1 Snow Removal
The SLCDA removes ice and snow from almost all areas of
the airport including runways, taxiways, aprons, cargo areas,
roads, and sidewalks that access the terminal area. The Snow
Removal Team at SLCIA is composed of two individual groups
referred to as “elements”. Each element on the airfield includes
the necessary snow removal equipment required to maintain
an operational airfield during periods of snow and ice. Each
element is under the control of an Airfield Maintenance Super-
visor, with the exception of the ramp snow removal element.
One runway and taxiway element is referred to as “Snow Com-
mand One” and the other element is “Snow Command Two”.
Ramp clearing elements are referred to as “Snow Command
Ramp”.
SLCDA maintains appropriate equipment levels and staffing
to comply with the recommended snow clearance times for
commercial service airports, described in TABLE 1-20. A
list of SLCIA Snow Removal Equipment (SRE) is shown in
TABLE 1-21.
1.11.4.2 Pavement Deicing
When forecasted to experience winter weather conditions,
SLCDA will pre-treat the airfield with an EPA and FAA
approved solution composed of biodegradable potassium
acetate. This deicing solution can be used concurrently with
sand and solid runway deicer to improve runway and
taxiway conditions.
1.11.5 Aviation Fuel Storage
Aviation fuel storage can be found in two locations on SLCIA,
as shown in FIGURE 1-36. The first area is in the North
Support Area and the second is in the General Aviation Area
in the southeast portion of the airport. The UANG also has
its own fuel storage area. The UANG uses JP-8 fuel that is
delivered by truck. Aircraft are fueled using a hydrant fueling
system.
1.11.5.1 North Fuel Storage Area
The North Fuel Storage Area is located between the SkyWest
Hangar (NS-23) and airport maintenance buildings along the
east side of 3950 W Street. Jet A fuel is stored in six above
ground tanks (two 40,000 barrel tanks, two 30,000 barrel
tanks, and two 5,000 barrel tanks) with a total capacity of
150,000 barrels (or 6.45 million gallons). This fuel is supplied
to the tanks via a dedicated pipeline from the tanks where it is
then supplied to the terminal hydrant system. Menzies
Aviation provides fuel to the aircraft at the passenger terminal
for Delta Air Lines and American Airlines. TAC Air provides fuel
to Southwest Airlines from the tanks in this area via truck. In
addition to the Jet A fuel tanks, there is one 18,000 gallon tank
storing gasoline. The gasoline is supplied by truck. It is
offloaded to underground pipes at a location just northwest
of the fuel storage tanks where the gasoline is then transferred
to the storage tank.
12 SLCIA, November 17, 2017, https://slcairport.com/blog/2017/11/airport-works-to-preserve-resources-by-recycling-deicing-fluid, Retrieved August 28, 2018
Table 1-19 Deicing Pads
Table 1-20: Snow Clearance Times
Figure 1-21: Snow Removal Equipment
6665
1.11.5.2 General Aviation Fuel Storage Area
The General Aviation Fuel Storage Area is located between the
Atlantic Aviation Hangar (GA-09) and the Harper Construction
Hangar (GA-30) along the south side of 470 N Street. Fuel
storage for Atlantic Aviation is provided by three 30,000 gallon
tanks of Jet A, one 10,000 gallon tank of 100LL, and one
2,000 gallon diesel fuel tank.
For TAC Air, fuel is stored in two 30,000 gallon tanks, two
28,800 gallon tanks, and two 28,200 gallon tanks, resulting in
a total Jet A storage capacity of 174,000 gallons. Additional
fuel storage is provided by two 16,800 gallon tanks storing
100LL and one 16,800 gallon diesel tank. Four 16,800 gallon
fuel tanks are currently not in service. TAC Air provides fuel to
Frontier Airlines, FedEx and DHL from the tanks in the general
aviation area via fuel trucks.
A summary of the aviation fuel stored on SLCIA can be found
in TABLE 1-22.
1.11.5.3 North Fuel Storage Area
The North Fuel Storage Area is located between the SkyWest
Hangar (NS-23) and airport maintenance buildings along the
east side of 3950 W Street. Jet A fuel is stored in six above
ground tanks (two 40,000 barrel tanks, two 30,000 barrel
tanks, and two 5,000 barrel tanks) with a total capacity of
150,000 barrels (or 6.45 million gallons). This fuel is supplied
to the tanks via a dedicated pipeline from the tanks where it is
then supplied to the terminal hydrant system. Menzies Avia-
tion provides fuel to the aircraft at the passenger terminal for
Delta Air Lines and American Airlines. TAC Air provides fuel
to Southwest Airlines from the tanks in this area via truck. In
addition to the Jet A fuel tanks, there is one 18,000 gallon tank
storing gasoline. The gasoline is supplied by truck. It is offload-
ed to underground pipes at a location just northwest of the
fuel storage tanks where the gasoline is then transferred to the
storage tank.
1.11.5.4 General Aviation Fuel Storage Area
The General Aviation Fuel Storage Area is located between the
Atlantic Aviation Hangar (GA-09) and the Harper Construction
Hangar (GA-30) along the south side of 470 N Street. Fuel
storage for Atlantic Aviation is provided by three 30,000 gallon
tanks of Jet A, one 10,000 gallon tank of 100LL, and one
2,000 gallon diesel fuel tank.
For TAC Air, fuel is stored in two 30,000 gallon tanks, two
28,800 gallon tanks, and two 28,200 gallon tanks, resulting in
a total Jet A storage capacity of 174,000 gallons. Additional
fuel storage is provided by two 16,800 gallon tanks storing
100LL and one 16,800 gallon diesel tank. Four 16,800 gallon
fuel tanks are currently not in service. TAC Air provides fuel to
Frontier Airlines, FedEx and DHL from the tanks in the general
aviation area via fuel trucks.
A summary of the aviation fuel stored on SLCIA can be found
in TABLE 1-22.
1.11.6 Airport Police and Security Facilities
Police protection at SLCIA is provided by the Salt Lake City
Police Department, with full police authority granted by the
State of Utah. Airport Police have multiple divisions including
patrol (and bicycle patrol), detectives, K-9 explosive detection
teams, SWAT, Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD), and training.
Management of the department is performed by the airport
police chief, a captain, and two lieutenant officers.
Police operations are conducted out of the Airport Operations
Center. A police training facility and police dog training facility
are located on the northern portion of SLCIA property in a
4,225 square foot facility. The facility also includes an exterior
police dog training course and a firing range.
SLCIA has security facilities typical of large commercial air-
ports. The airfield is secured through a perimeter fence and a
hierarchy of controlled access areas requiring specific levels of
badging. SLCIA access to secure areas of the airport including
the Secure Identification Display Area (SIDA), is vetted through
the Airport Security badging program which includes an FBI
fingerprinting criminal history background check and a TSA
security threat assessment.
Figure 1-33: North Support Buildings
Source: Prepared by RS&H, 2018
Table 1-22: Aviation Fuel Storage
67
Figure 1-34: Additional North Support Buildings
Source: Prepared by RS&H, 2018
68
Figure 1-35: SLC Deicing Locations
Source: Prepared by RS&H, 2018
69
Figure 1-36: Fuel Farms
Source: Prepared by RS&H, 2018
70
Utilities provide an essential service that tenants, passengers
and users need in order to operate on a day-to-day basis.
Utilities can enhance user experience at a facility, for example,
through offering complimentary WiFi connectivity via a fiber
network connection or supplying water to an aircraft wash
rack. SLCIA serves its tenants and users by providing a mul-
titude of utilities at various locations on the airport. Available
utilities include electrical power, stormwater and sanitary
sewer, water, natural gas, communication, and glycol and fuel
lines. The following sections describe each of the utilities found
at SLCIA along with a brief description of the provider, location
of trunk lines, and details about the utility.
1.12.1 Electrical Power Lines
The primary source of electrical power at SLCIA is Rocky
Mountain Power. Several trunk lines feed power to the airport.
About one and a half miles north of the Runway 16L approach
end are overhead electrical power lines. These power lines
generally run in an east-west direction on the northwest side of
SLCIA. These electrical lines supply power to a large portion of
the airfield systems and feed electrical energy into an under-
ground duct bank system that enters the airfield at the middle
portion of Runway 16L-34R.
On the east side of SLCIA the primary electrical trunk line is
located along the right-of-way for 2200 W. This trunk line is
buried underground and supplies power to support facilities in
the east portion of the airfield.
FIGURE 1-37 shows the electrical utility lines found at SLCIA.
1.12.2 Water, Sewer, and Stormwater Lines
SLCIA has several storm drain lines of various sizes which all
feed into detention basins. The existing storm water system
has the ability to retain all stormwater on site as necessary,
but can also release water into the Surplus Canal and city
stormwater drainage system, also known as the “City Drain”,
as required. Both the Surplus Canal and stormwater drain-
age system are owned and operated by Salt Lake County. All
stormwater that is discharged into the county’s infrastructure
is done so mechanically through lift stations.13 SLCIA has one
outfall14 that discharges to the city’s stormwater system and
four outfalls that discharge into the Surplus Canal. A majority
of the storm drain pipes are reinforced with concrete or with
high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
materials.
The southeast side of SLCIA has 18-inch and 24-inch san-
itary sewer lines that flow into a lift station. This lift station
is owned and operated by the Salt Lake City Department
of Public Utilities (SLCDPU). On the north side of SLCIA, a
12-inch sanitary sewer line runs along the west side of the
air cargo apron, towards 2100 N. These lines feed two addi-
tional lift stations located just south of the terminal park-
ing garage and the west end of the terminal building. The
majority of the sewer pipe is made of PVC material, with
some reinforced concrete, vitrified clay, cast iron, ductile
iron, asbestos cement, and HDPE pipe.
The water demand at SLCIA is supplied by SLCDPU and
used for culinary/drinking water, fire suppression sprinklers,
and fire hydrants. Two main trunk lines supply SLCIA with
water. Two 12-inch water lines enter the airport from the
southeast and supply the terminal and surrounding facilities
through a loop system. One 12-inch line supplies water to
the northern portion of SLCIA which terminates in a loop
system as well. Most of the water lines are PVC, but there
are also some segments made of steel, cast iron, ductile
iron, and asbestos cement.
FIGURE 1-38 shows the stormwater, sewer, and water lines
found at SLCIA.
1.12.3 Other Airport Utilities
Dominion Energy supplies SLCIA with natural gas through
a 6-inch high pressure line on the south end of the airport
and a 6-inch intermediate high pressure line on the north
end. Two intermediate high pressure gas loops are installed
around the terminal building. In addition to the major supply
lines, there are also gas lines that supply each of the build-
ings at SLCIA.
Century Link and MCI/Verizon own various communications
lines that serve all major facilities at SLCIA. A major commu-
nications trunk line is located on the north side of Interstate
80. This line supplies communication service to the terminal
building and surrounding facilities. In addition, the FAA owns
and operates several fiber-optic communication lines buried
underneath the airfield. The FAA-owned lines support vari-
ous navigational aids maintained by the FAA.
On the north side of SLCIA there are two 16-inch glycol
lines that direct glycol contaminated stormwater to glycol
1.12 UTILITIES
13 Wastewater lift stations are facilities designed to move wastewater from lower to higher elevation through pipes. – Collection Systems Technology Fact Sheet Sew-
ers, Lift Station https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/sewers-lift_station.pdf
14 A point source as defined by 40 CFR 122.2 at the point where a municipal separate storm sewer system discharges to waters of the united States and does not
include open conveyances connecting two municipal separate storm sewers or pipes, tunnels or, other conveyances which connect segments of the same stream or
other waters of the United States and are used to convey waters of the United States – EPA https://www3.epa.gov/region10/pdf/npdes/stormwater/msgp_faq_
aug2015.pdf
7271
retention ponds where it is held until being treated/recycled
at the treatment plant. There are several glycol pump stations
strategically located around SLCIA. These lines are either
gravity-feed or supplemented with a pump to aid the flow of
glycol. The main glycol lines are made of an HDPE material and
reinforced concrete, while the channel drain pipes are made of
concrete. The glycol pipelines were installed in 1998, and are in
good condition.
Approximately four miles northeast of SLCIA is the Big West
Oil Refinery. This oil refinery supplies the airport with fuel
through two underground pipelines that supply the tanks on
the north end of SLCIA. From those storage tanks, fuel is dis-
tributed via ground piping to the terminal apron. The pipes are
made of steel and coated with a caprolactam (CPL) material.
Transfer of fuel through the buried lines is aided by two pump
stations. The first pump station is located west of the Air
National Guard Base and the second is located further west,
near 2200 N.
FIGURE 1-39 shows the natural gas, communication, glycol,
and fuel lines at SLCIA.
Figure 1-37: SLC Electrical Utilities
Source: Prepared by Bowen Collins & Associates and RS&H, 2018
73
Figure 1-38: SLC Water and Stormwater Lines
Source: Prepared by Bowen Collins & Associates and RS&H, 2018
74
Figure 1-39: Other SLC Utilities
Source: Prepared by Bowen Collins & Associates and RS&H, 2018
75
Salt Lake City Department of Airports comprises a single
enterprise fund and operates as a self-sustaining department
within Salt Lake City Corporation. This means that SLCDA is
not supported by any general tax revenues from Salt Lake City.
The other airports within the SLCDA system, U42 and TVY, are
also included in the enterprise fund but constitute only a small
amount of the financial total.
This section provides a high-level overview of the SLCDA reve-
nues, expenses, capital expenditures, and FAA grants received
to date at SLCIA. The Financial Feasibility chapter of this
Master Plan provides a deeper analysis of the overall financial
standing and capacity to undertake future capital projects.
1.13.1 Revenues
TABLE 1-23 shows the revenues generated by SLCDA from
Fiscal Years (FY) 2013 to 2017. Revenues are generated
from a variety of sources and are grouped into the following
categories: airline aeronautical revenues, non-airline aeronau-
tical revenues, non-aeronautical revenues, and non-operating
revenues. Historically, non-aeronautical revenues have been the
largest source of revenue, averaging 39.2 percent of total reve-
nue. Non-operating revenues have provided the second largest
source of revenue at 35.3 percent of total revenue.
The single largest revenue producing item is the Passenger
Facility Charge (PFC). This FAA program allows airports to col-
lect PFC fees of up to $4.50 for every enplaned passenger at
commercial airports. The program caps PFC fees at $4.50 per
flight segment with a maximum of two PFCs charged on a one-
way trip or four PFCs on a round trip, for a maximum of $18
total. FAA allows airports to use the proceeds from this fee to
fund FAA-approved projects that enhance safety, security, or
capacity; reduce noise; or increase air carrier competition.
Two other charges are determined by Salt Lake City Ordi-
nance. Customer facility charge (CFC) is a user fee that is
imposed on each rental car transaction. CFCs are charged
each rental transaction day, up to a maximum of 12 days. As of
2018, SLCDA charges $5 per day, however the ordinance
allows for a maximum charge of up to $10 per day. Landing
fees are also determined by Salt Lake City Ordinance.
SLCDA charges landing fees for air carriers at a rate of $2.22
per 1,000 pounds of landing weight for aircraft landing on
SLCIA runways.
1.13 FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
1.13.2 Expenses
Operating expenses for SLCDA are shown in TABLE 1-24.
Expenses have been broken into three categories: salaries and
benefits, services and supplies, and depreciation of assets. De-
preciation has historically been the largest operating expense
for SLCDA.
1.13.3 Capital Investments
As discussed previously, the ARP is the most prominent capital
investment project occurring at SLCIA, with costs totaling over
$3 billion. Other capital projects, such as pavement manage-
ment programs, include capital investment projects that are
also underway at SLCIA.
At the time of this writing, to fund ARP construction costs,
SLCDA has borrowed $2 billion through issuance of Gener-
al Airport Revenue Bonds (GARB). Additional borrowing is
expected to as necessary to completely fund the ARP. Bonds
were issued on February 23, 2017 through two different series
of bonds with interest rates of 5 percent and a final maturity
date of July 1, 2047. General obligations for repayment of the
GARBs lie entirely with SLCDA and do not extend to Salt Lake
City and the taxing power of the City.
The total capital expenditures in progress for SLCDA has
grown substantially due to ARP construction. The cost of
projects in progress in 2017 was seven times the level it was
in 2013 due to the project phase and level of construction
activity. A yearly financial breakdown of capital expenditures in
progress is included in TABLE 1-25.
1.13.4 Airport Grants
SLCDA receives grant money from the FAA in the form of AIP
entitlement funding, which equate to yearly allocated federal
funds based on the role of the airport. Additionally, SLCIA can
receive AIP discretionary grants, which are special awards for
priority projects as determined by FAA processes. TABLE 1-26
lists the total AIP grant receipts from 2000 to 2017. As shown
in the table, some projects are funded in multiple consecutive
years, while other projects may require one large investment.
Often, the cost of these projects requires discretionary
funding from the FAA. In those instances, funding levels are
typically reduced the following year so that the FAA can
balance funding allocation to all airports in the region.
Between 2007 and 2017, SLCIA averaged $6,117,684
annually in federal AIP funding.
76 77
Table 1-23: SLC Operating Revenues
Table 1-24: SLC Operating Expenses
Table 1-25: SLC Capital Expenditures
Table 1-26: AIP Grant History
78 79
The following section discusses existing land use and zoning
policies for Salt Lake City International Airport and the sur-
rounding region. The specific sections include a discussion of
area land uses surrounding the Airport as well as an inventory
of land use controls and future land use actions in the vicinity
of SLCIA. Additionally, to ensure SLCIA Master Plan alignment
with regional planning efforts, a review of local and regional
vision plans, land use plans, and transportation plans has been
performed.
1.14.1 Land Use and Zoning
Airport land development policies can influence the character-
istics of the Salt Lake Valley region. That is why it’s important
to ensure development land surrounding SLCIA, especially
that underlying primary navigational corridors, is compatible
with existing and future airport development plans. Effective
December 2000, Utah has established a set of standards for
compatible land use development at the State’s 54 airports
enrolled in the Statewide Airport System. These standards
provide methods and tools for airport administrators and local
planning and zoning officials to ensure safe and efficient access
to the state, region, and national air transportation systems.
The responsible development of land and the preservation of
open space are very important to the people of Utah and Salt
Lake City. As such, Chapter 21A of the Salt Lake City Code
(SLC Code) describes land use policies with the purpose of
promoting the “health, safety, morals, convenience, order,
prosperity and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of
Salt Lake City.” In order to guide development in a way which
promotes these goals, Salt Lake City has established a series
of zoning districts as follows: Residential, Commercial, Form
Based, Manufacturing, Downtown, Gateway, Special Purpose,
and Overlay.
Salt Lake City International Airport land use regulations are
also governed under SLC Code Title 21A – Zoning. SLCIA
land is categorized under Special Purpose District rules, and
specifically sub-categorized as an “Airport District”. SLC Code
21A.32.060 defines the purpose of the Airport District code
as to “provide a suitable environment for the Salt Lake City
International Airport and private uses that function in support
of the airport facility. This district is appropriate in areas of the
city where the applicable master plans support this type of land
use.” Permitted and conditional uses within the Airport District
area is defined under SLC Code 21A.33.070. Airport District
zoning ultimately preserves the land for airport uses and pro-
vides a buffer to minimize conflicts with surrounding uses.
City codes also delineate an Airport Flight Path Protection
(AFPP) Overlay District under SLC Code 21A.34.040 to pro-
tect land uses below aircraft navigation routes and the airborne
aircraft flying them. The AFPP Airport Flight Path Protection
1.14 AIRPORT ENVIRONS
Overlay District provides “supplemental regulations or stan-
dards pertaining to specific geographic features or land uses,
wherever these are located, in addition to ‘base’ or underlying
zoning district regulations applicable within a designated area.”
SLC Code recognizes that “hazard[s] to the operation of the
airport endangers the lives and property of users of the Salt
Lake City International Airport, and the health, safety and wel-
fare of property or occupants of land in its vicinity. If the hazard
is an obstruction or incompatible use, such hazard effectively
reduces the size of the area available for landing, takeoff and
maneuvering of aircraft, thus tending to destroy or impair the
utility of the Salt Lake City International Airport and the public
investment. Accordingly, it is declared:
• That the creation or establishment of an airport hazard is a
public nuisance and an injury to the region served by the Salt
Lake City International Airport;
• That it is necessary in the interest of the public health, public
safety, and general welfare that the creation or establish-
ment of airport hazards be prevented; and
• That the prevention of these hazards should be accom-
plished, to the extent legally possible, by the exercise of the
police power without compensation.
This Overlay District serves to protect development occurring
under regular navigation routes to and from SLCIA from “im-
pacts [that] may interfere with the use and enjoyment of adja-
cent property and use” by “minimiz[ing] them where possible.”
This distinction establishes four “Airport Influence Zones” that
restrict or establish requirements on the type of development
in each area. These influence zones include:
• Airport Influence Zone A: Area is exposed to very high levels
of aircraft noise and has specific height restrictions. The fol-
lowing uses are incompatible in this zone and are prohibited
• Residential uses;
͛Commercial uses, except those constructed with air
circulation systems and at least twenty five (25) dBs of
sound attenuation;
͛Institutional uses such as schools, hospitals, churches
and rest homes;
͛Hotels and motels, except those constructed with
air circulation systems and at least thirty (30) dBs of
sound attenuation in sleeping areas and at least twenty
five (25) dBs of sound attenuation elsewhere.
• Airport Influence Zone B: Area is exposed to high levels of
aircraft noises and has specific height restrictions. The fol-
lowing uses are incompatible in this zone and are prohibited:
͛Residential uses, except residences in agricultural
zones with air circulation systems and at least twenty
five (25) dBs of sound attenuation;
͛Institutional uses such as schools, hospitals, churches
and rest homes, except those constructed with air
circulation systems and at least twenty five (25) dBs of
sound attenuation;
͛Hotels and motels except those constructed with air
circulation systems, and at least twenty five (25) dBs of
sound attenuation, in sleeping areas.
• Airport Influence Zone C: Area is exposed to moderate levels
of aircraft noises and has specific height restrictions. The
following uses are incompatible uses in this zone and are
prohibited:
͛Residential uses, except those constructed with air
circulation systems;
͛Mobile homes, except those constructed with air
circulation systems and at least twenty (20) dBs of
sound attenuation;
͛Institutional uses such as schools, hospitals, churches
and rest homes, except those constructed with air
circulation systems.
• Airport Influence Zone H: Uses shall be the same as the
underlying city zone.
FIGURE 1-40 shows the Salt Lake City zoning districts. Further
applications of the SLC Code related to the Airport Flight Path
Protection (AFPP) Overlay District, such as avigation easement
requirements and use restrictions, can be found in SLC Code
21A.34.040. A table of land uses falling within the Airport Influ-
ence Zone are shown in TABLE 1-27. Detailed and updated
information specific to individual parcels is made available
through the Salt Lake City Planning Department website.
Title 16 of the SLC Code governs airport operations and
restrictions. This section contains operational requirements for
aircraft, ground transportation, tenants, and all supporting ac-
tivities. Airport property leasing requirements are also codified
within SLC Code 16.56. Airport use restrictions limit landing
and taking off aircraft to Stage 2 or 3 to control noise distur-
bances, according to the federal requirements found within the
Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA). More infor-
mation regarding aircraft noise can be found in SECTION 1.15,
Environmental Conditions.
Table 1-27: Zoned Land Uses Within SLC Airport Influence Area
8180
Figure 1-40: Salt Lake City Zoning Map
Source: http://gis-slcgov.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets, Retrieved March 29, 2018; Prepared by RS&H, 2018
ZONING MAP LEGEND
82
1.14.2 Coordination with Existing Local
and Regional Plans
Salt Lake City and the surrounding metropolitan area have
many land use and transportation plans in place to guide
community development and the regional transportation
system. Utah State Code Title 10, Chapter 9a – Municipal Land
Use, Development, and Management Act, outlines regulations
granting local entities authority to “enact all ordinances, reso-
lutions, and rules… appropriate for the use and development
of land within the municipality.” In order to ensure coordinated
development in the region, a review of existing plans has been
performed. The following list outlines important local and
regional plans along with an analysis of how they relate to the
Salt Lake City Master Plan.
1.14.2.1 Salt Lake City Comprehensive Plan –
Plan Salt Lake (Adopted 2015)
Plan Salt Lake, the comprehensive plan for the Salt Lake City
metropolitan area, was created to establish “a shared Vision for
the future of Salt Lake City for the next 25 years.” “The Plan
outlines the overarching ‘umbrella’ policies related to managing
growth and change that are best identified on a citywide level.”
This plan provides direction to policy makers by identifying
commonly held community values, establishing a framework
for future community plans, and setting targets and metrics
to measure success over time. Planning efforts included the
coordination of dozens of community organizations.
Promoting the goals of efficient and sustainable land use
across the rural and urban spectrum, the SLCIA Master Plan
works in harmony with Plan Salt Lake. The planning goals pro-
moted within Plan Salt Lake serve to emphasize zoning policies
which are compatible with SLCIA and protect the surrounding
environs from sprawling and incompatible development.
One specific goal of Plan Salt Lake is to provide “a transpor-
tation and mobility network that is safe, accessible, reliable,
affordable, and sustainable, providing real choices and con-
necting people with places.” The City’s transportation network
has become increasingly multi-modal, with SLCIA being the
primary regional link to the nation’s air transportation network.
Mobility and economic initiatives within the plan “support and
enhance the Salt Lake City International Airport as a regional
and international amenity” for passenger and freight activity.
Beyond progressing proper social policies surrounding air-
port development and its associated impacts, Plan Salt Lake
explicitly promotes economic development surrounding airport
activities through economic initiatives that “support for the
redevelopment of Salt Lake City International Airport.” This
may be achieved through the support of the ongoing Airport
Redevelopment Program, which is expected to bring additional
revenue in for the city.
1.14.2.2 Northwest Community Master Plan
(Adopted 1992, amended 2000 and 2004)
The Salt Lake City metropolitan area is divided into distinct
community boundaries and the Northwest Community Master
Plan includes SLCIA. Adjacent communities include the “North-
west Quadrant”, “West Salt Lake”, and “Capitol Hill”. FIGURE
1-41 shows SLCIA in relation to the Northwest Quadrant and
other surrounding communities.
The Northwest Community Master Plan guides land use
planning to meet future growth needs within the communi-
ty boundary. The policy direction in the plan is based on the
community’s vision coupled with the City’s land use code, and
is intended to address the needs and desires of the Northwest
Community residents. The plan integrates with SLCIA by cre-
ating a study area called the “Jordan River/Airport Area” that
encompasses the east side of the airport and the associated
residential areas. This plan examines the existing mix of land
uses surrounding SLCIA and concludes a future development
strategy that would benefit the community while preserving
the aeronautical necessity of SLCIA.
The Northwest Community Master Plan specifically recognizes
the economic and transportation benefits that SLCIA provides
to its community. The airport is identified as an economic asset
and the plan encourages development that supports airport
expansion while keeping in mind the surrounding community
desires. To that effect, the plan suggests changes in zoning
policies for Airport Influence Zone B (see Section 1.14.1, Land
Use and Zoning) to allow for the expansion of residential uses
in the area. Residential uses are allowed within Airport Influ-
ence Zone B only if they have air circulation systems and a
specified degree of soundproofing.
1.14.2.3 Northwest Quadrant Master Plan (Adopted 2016)
Additionally, the Northwest Quadrant is another Salt Lake City
community master plan identified in the County’s Master Plan
Boundaries (see FIGURE 1-41). Although this community
does not encompass SLCIA directly, the community is affected
by long-term aviation development at the airport. Representing
a large portion of the County’s undeveloped land, the goal of
the Northwest Quadrant Master Plan is to support
sustainable growth experienced in the region by providing a
long-term community approach. The plan is coordinated at a
community level in order to preserve the needs and desires
of the community.
The Northwest Quadrant Master Plan also acknowledges the
impacts airport development has upon surrounding land uses
and the regional transportation network. Specifically, the plan
suggests new, practical ways to connect the relatively
undeveloped land encompassed by the community boundaries
to the future development at SLCIA by tapping in to the
existing light rail lines and bus routes.
83 84
The plan addresses the 2006 Airport Layout Plan Update that
identified the future need for an additional runway that would
enter the Northwest Quadrant Boundary. The plan takes into
consideration that SLCIA development may expand into this
territory and establishes a goal of preservation of existing
Northwest Quadrant lands for future airport business and
accommodation of that expansion.
The Northwest Quadrant Master Plan encourages the vision
articulated by Plan Salt Lake in its support and enhancement
of SLCIA’s future development as regional and international
amenity. This Master Plan presents various policies to achieve
that goal that include:
• Policy DA-2.1: Coordinate with SLCIA on future
expansion plans.
• Policy DA-2.2: Continue to support land uses that benefit
from being adjacent to SLCIA.
• Policy DA-2.3: Encourage the continuation of the Salt Lake
City International Airport and airport related industry by
maintaining the high level of compatible land uses that exist
around the airport today.
• Policy T-1.4: Connect the Northwest Quadrant with a public
transit network to provide transportation choices. Preserve
a corridor for future transit to connect to the airport TRAX
line. Extend airport light rail incrementally west as a critical
mass of jobs are located along I-80.
• Policy T-4.1: Support the expansion of the short line railroad
west of the International Center to boost the economic
advantage of that area.
Recent changes to land use within the Northwest Quadrant
include the development of an inland port on approximately
20,000 acres west and southwest of SLCIA. Under 2018 Utah
Senate Bill 234, the Utah Inland Port Authority was established
with responsibility for governing development of the land as
a logistics hub. The location leverages proximity to highways,
railroad, and SLCIA for development of facilities supporting
freight handling logistics.
1.14.2.4 Regional Transportation Plan
The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is a plan created in
partnership with UDOT, UTA, and the local communities to ad-
dress long-term transportation needs in the region. According
to the Wasatch Front Regional Council, which is the local Met-
ropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) accountable for pro-
gramming federal transportation funding dollars in the region,
the RTP is “a fiscally constrained plan for roadway, transit, and
other transportation facility improvements over the next 20-30
years.” Designed with the intent of meeting the travel demands
of a growing population, the RTP meets federal guidelines. This
“includes roadway, transit, and active transportation facilities
paired with the appropriate land use that is identified, modeled,
selected, and phased, with the help of region-wide transporta-
tion partners; local communities including planners, engineers,
and elected officials; stakeholders; and the general public
through an extensive planning process.” This process helps
determine the best transportation investments under funding
constraints. The RTP incorporates high degrees of consid-
eration to SLCIA air transportation including coordination of
freight networks, roadway networks, and transit services.
1.14.2.5 UDOT Long Range Transportation Plan
The 2015-2040 Long Range Transportation Plan is developed
by UDOT and updated every four years to identify anticipat-
ed transportation system needs for the next 25 to 30 years
in Utah’s rural areas. This plan recognizes the importance
of providing safe mobility connections to regional airports
through proactive preservation of transportation infrastructure.
The plan is a collaborative planning effort between Salt Lake
City staff, residents, and a technical committee comprised of
members of Utah transit authorities. Projects within this plan
improve access to SLCIA at a regional level and have minimal
or no direct impact on facilities within the SLCIA boundary.
UDOT maintained roadways do connect to roadways on SLCIA
property and any future airport expansion decisions impacting
roads beyond the airport boundary need to be coordinated
with UDOT.
1.14.2.6 Utah’s Unified Transportation Plan
Utah’s Unified Transportation Plan is unique in that it is a “col-
laborative effort between transportation agencies across the
state of Utah including UDOT, Wasatch Front Regional Council,
Mountainland Association of Governments, Dixie Metropolitan
Planning Organization, Cache Metropolitan Planning Organiza-
tion and UTA.” The goal of establishing this statewide coordi-
nation is to share information and enhance returns on infra-
structure investments for the public good. Through statewide
coordination, common goals are developed, financial plans can
be made, and performance can be measured. Capital projects
within this plan ultimately impact the connectivity to SLCIA
from the statewide transportation network, but only those
improvement found within the Wasatch Front Regional Council
project lists have noticeable impacts to development of SLCIA.
The most impactful project on record requiring coordination
between the SLCDA, UDOT, and UTA, is the planned extension
of the TRAX line to the west and south of the Airport. This
transit project is long-term, slated for 2035-2040.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory Circular (AC)
150/5070-6B Change 2, Airport Master Plans, provides
guidance for the preparation of master plans for airports. The
purpose of considering environmental factors in airport master
planning is to help the Airport Sponsor thoroughly evaluate air-
port development alternatives and to provide information that
will help expedite subsequent environmental processing. For a
comprehensive description of the existing environmental con-
ditions at SLCIA, environmental resource categories outlined
in FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures, were used as a guide that help identify potential
environmental effects during the planning process.
FAA Order 1050.1F and FAA Order 5050.4B, National Environ-
mental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport
Actions, require the evaluation of airport development projects
as they relate to specific environmental resource categories
by outlining impacts and thresholds at which the impacts are
considered significant. For some environmental resource cat-
egories, this determination can be made through calculations,
measurements, or observations. However, other environmental
resource categories require that the determination be estab-
lished through correspondence with appropriate federal, state,
and/or local agencies. A complete evaluation of the environ-
mental resource categories identified in FAA Orders 1050.1F
and 5050.4B is required during a categorical exclusion, envi-
ronmental assessment, or environmental impact statement.
Future development plans at SLCIA take into consideration
environmental resources that are known to exist in the vicinity
of the airport. Early identification of these environmental re-
1.15 ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
sources help avoid impeding development plans in the future.
This section provides an overview of resource categories
defined in FAA Order 1050.1F, Chapter 4, as it applies to the
environs at, and surrounding, SLCIA. TABLE 1-28 provides a
summary of the environmental resource categories studied for
the Master Plan.
1.15.1 Air Quality
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) sets
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for certain
air pollutants to protect public health and welfare through
Section 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The USEPA has identi-
fied the following six criteria air pollutants and has set NAAQS
for them: Carbon Monoxide (CO), Lead (Pb), Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2), 8-Hour Ozone (O3), Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5),
and Sulfur Dioxide (SO2).
Areas found to be in violation of one or more NAAQS of these
pollutants are classified as “non-attainment areas.” States with
non-attainment areas must develop a State Implementation
Plan (SIP) demonstrating how the areas will be brought back
into attainment of the NAAQS within designated time-frames.
Areas where concentrations of the criteria pollutants are be-
low (i.e., within) these threshold levels are classified as
“attainment areas.” Areas with prior non-attainment status that
have since transitioned to attainment are known as
“maintenance areas.”
According to the USEPA, SLCIA, located in Salt Lake County, is
in a maintenance area for CO and PM10, and in a nonattainment
area for PM2.5, O3, and SO2.15
15U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Quality Green Book, Utah. Accessed: https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/anayo_ut.html, May 2021
Figure 1-41: Community Master Plan Areas
Source: www.slc.gov/planning/master-plans, Retreived August 18, 2018
85 86
Environmental
Resource Description
Air Quality
The Airport is in a maintenance area for Carbon Monoxide (CO) and
Particulate Matter-10 (PM10), and in a nonattainment area for
Particulate Matter-2.5 (PM2.5), 8-Hour Ozone (O3), and Sulfur Dioxide (SO2).
See Section 1.15.1 for details.
Biological Resources
There are federal- and state-threatened and –endangered species, and
migratory birds in the Airport area. There is no critical habitat at the Airport.
See Section 1.15.2 for details
Climate There are greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions produced at the Airport.
See Section 1.15.3 for details.
Coastal Resources
The Airport is not within a coastal zone and there are no Coastal Barrier Re-
source System (CBRS) segments within Airport property.
See Section 1.15.4 for details.
Department of Transporta-
tion Act, Section 4(f)
There is one Section 4(f) property on Airport property.
See Section 1.15.5 for details.
Farmlands The Airport contains farmland of statewide importance and prime farmland
soil types. See Section 1.15.6 for details.
Hazardous Materials,
Solid Waste and Pollution
Prevention
The Airport is considered a hazardous waste site.
The Airport is required under the Airport’s Utah Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (UPDES) stormwater discharge permit (UPDES Permit
#UT0024988, approved on March 14, 2014) to have a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The Airport additionally has a Spill Prevention,
Control, and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC).
See Section 1.15.7 for details.
Salt Lake County Landfill is the only municipal solid waste landfill in
Salt Lake County.
Historical, Architectural,
Archaeological and
Cultural Resources
There are no known historic resources located at the Airport.
See Section 1.15.8 for details.
Environmental
Resource Description
Land Use
Future development plans would [or would not] occur entirely on Airport prop-
erty; therefore, would be compatible with surrounding land uses.
See Section 1.15.9 for details.
Natural Resources and
Energy Supply
Electricity is supplied to the Airport by Rocky Mountain Power, natural gas is
supplied by Dominion Energy, and water and sewer is supplied by the Salt Lake
City Department of Public Utilities. None of the natural resources or energy
supplies used at the Airport are in rare or short supply.
See Section 1.15.10 for details.
Noise and Noise-
Compatible Land Use
There are no noise-sensitive land uses within the updated DNL 65 dBA noise
contour.
See Section 1.15.11 for details.
Socioeconomics, Environ-
mental Justice, Children’s
Environmental Health and
Safety Risks
The Airport is located within the Salt Lake City, Utah Metropolitan Area, as
defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. See Section 1.15.12 for details.
Department of Transporta-
tion Act, Section 4(f)
There is one Section 4(f) property on Airport property.
See Section 1.15.5 for details.
Visual Effects
Light emissions at the Airport currently result from airfield, building, access
roadway, parking, and apron area lighting fixtures required for the safe and
secure movement of people, vehicles, and aircraft.
The visual resources and visual character of the Airport currently includes the
terminal building, fixed base operators, hangars, and maintenance buildings.
See Section 1.15.13 for all Visual Effects details.
Water Resources
The Airport property does contain wetlands.
There are 100-year floodplains located on Airport property.
Three canals exist on Airport property: the Surplus Canal, the North Point
Canal, and a city drain. In addition, two unnamed ponds are in the southern
portion of Airport property.
The Airport property is within the Crystal Creek and Jordan River watersheds.
The Airport property does not contain any wild and scenic rivers.
See Section 1.15.14 for all Water Resources details.
Figure 1-28: Environmental Resource Categories Summary
87 88
1.15.2 Biological Resources
Biological resources include terrestrial and aquatic plant and
animal species; game and non-game species; special status
species; and environmentally sensitive or critical habitats. The
following are relevant federal laws, regulations, Executive
Orders (EOs), and guidance16 that protect biotic communities:
• Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544);
• Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
(16 U.S.C. §§ 668 et seq.);
• Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.);
• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. § 661-667d);
• Executive Order (EO) 13112, Invasive Species
(64 FR 6183);
• Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. § 1361 et seq.);
• Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. §§ 703 et seq.);
• EO 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect
Migratory Birds (66 FR 3853);
• Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Guidance on In-
corporating Biodiversity Considerations into Environmental
Impact Analysis under NEPA; and
• Memorandum of Understanding to Foster the
Ecosystem Approach.
Although the Endangered Species Act does not protect
state-protected species or habitats, NEPA documentation en-
sures that environmental analysis prepared for airport actions
addresses the potential effects to state-protected resources.
TABLE 1-29 lists the 28 federally- and state-threatened and
endangered species that have the potential to be found in Salt
Lake County.17 According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), there is no designated critical habitat at SLCIA.18
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the taking
of any migratory birds, their parts, nests, or eggs except as
permitted by regulations, and does not require intent to be
proven. TABLE 1-30 lists the 22 migratory bird species that
have the potential to be found at SLCIA.19
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) are those waters and substrate
necessary for fish spawning, breeding, feeding, and growth to
maturity as defined under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Con-
servation and Management Act (MSA). The MSA also requires
federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries about actions
that could damage EFH. There are no fish species currently
protected under the MSA in Salt Lake County.20
An SLCIA Wildlife Hazard Assessment (WHA) was complet-
ed by SLCDA in 2004 and revised in 2018. SLCDA continues
to consult with the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Wildlife Services on a regular basis in order to reduce
wildlife hazards. During the 2004 WHA, 60 bird species and
seven mammal species were observed in and around
SLCIA. As a result of the WHA, a Wildlife Hazard Management
Plan (WHMP) was prepared. The WHMP prescribes wildlife
management techniques for preventing and reducing wildlife
hazards at SLCIA.21
1.15.3 Climate
Relevant federal laws, regulations, and EOs that relate to
climate include:
• CAA (42 U.S.C. §§ 7408, 7521, 7571, 7661 et seq.);
• EO 13514, Federal Leadership in Environment Energy and
Economic Performance (74 FR 52117);
• EO 13653, Preparing the United States for the Impacts of
Climate Change (78 FR 66817); and
• EO 13693, Planning for Federal Sustainability
(80 FR 15869).
Greenhouse gases (GHG) are gases that trap heat in the earth’s
atmosphere. Both naturally occurring and man-made GHGs
primarily include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous
oxide, hydro-fluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur
hexafluoride. Activities that require fuel or power are the
primary stationary sources of GHGs at airports. Aircraft and
ground access vehicles that are not under the control of an
airport, typically generate more GHG emissions than airport
controlled sources.
Research has shown there is a direct correlation between fuel
combustion and GHG emissions. In terms of U.S. contributions,
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports that
“domestic aviation contributes about three percent of total
carbon dioxide emissions, according to EPA data, “compared
with other industrial sources, including the remainder of the
transportation sector (20%) and power generation (41%).22
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) estimates
that GHG emissions from aircraft account for roughly three
percent of all anthropogenic GHG emissions globally.23
1.15.4 Coastal Resources
The primary statutes, regulations, and EOs that protect coastal resources include:
• Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. § 3501 et seq.);
• Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) (16 U.S.C. § 1451-1466);
• National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. §1431 et seq.);
• EO 13089, Coral Reef Protection (63 FR 32701); and
• EO 13547, Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes (75 FR 43021-43027).
Utah is not a coastal state. As such, SLCIA is not within a coastal zone. Additionally, there are no Coastal Barrier Resource System
(CBRS) segments within SLCIA property.24 The closest CBRS segment is over 1,200 miles southeast of the airport.
16 Due to the number of federal laws and EOs applicable to the future development plans, this section presents only the legal citations or references for those
requirements in lieu of summarizing their requirements. See FAA Order 1050.1F Desk Reference for more information.
17 State of Utah Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources, Utah Sensitive Species List.
18 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC), Salt Lake County.
Accessed: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/HPRQ53L6KFCCPNQX6PQUGXVLDA/resources, August 2018
19 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC), Salt Lake County.
Accessed: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/HPRQ53L6KFCCPNQX6PQUGXVLDA/resources#migratory-birds, August 2018
20 National Marine Fisheries Service, Essential Fish Habitat Mapper. Accessed: http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/efhmapper/index.html, August 2018
21 Salt Lake City International Airport, Wildlife Hazard Management Plan. Accessed: https://www.slcairport.com/assets/pdfDocuments/Wildlife_Plan.pdf, August 2018
22 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Report to Congressional Committees, Aviation and Climate Change, June 2009.
Accessed: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09554.pdf, May 2016
23 Melrose, Alan, European ATM and Climate Adaptation: A Scoping Study, ICAO Environmental Report, 2010.
Accessed: http://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Documents/EnvironmentReport-2010/ICAO_EnvReport10-Ch6_en.pdf, May 2016.24 Accessed: https://www.fws.gov/cbra/Maps/Mapper.html, August 2018.
Table 1-29: Federally and State Listed Species
89 90
1.15.5 Department of Transportation, Section 4(f)
Relevant federal laws, regulations, and EOs that protect
Section 4(f) resources include:
• U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Act, Section
4(f) (49 U.S.C. § 303.);
• Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C.
§§ 4601-4604 et seq.);
• Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) – Section 6009 (49
U.S.C. § 303.); and
• U.S. Department of Defense Reauthorization (Public Law
(P.L.) 105-185, Division A, Title X, Section 1079, November
18, 1997, 111 Stat. 1916).
The USDOT Act, Section 4(f) provides that no project that
requires the use of any land from a public park or recreational
area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site be approved
by the Secretary of Transportation unless there is no viable
alternative and provisions to minimize any possible harm are
included in the planning. Similarly, the Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act prevents the conversion of
lands purchased or developed with Land and Water
Conservation funds to non-recreation uses, unless the
Secretary of the Interior, through the National Park Service,
approves the conversion. Conversion may only be approved if it
is consistent with the comprehensive statewide outdoor
recreation plan when the approval occurs. Additionally, the
converted property must be replaced with other recreation
property of reasonably equivalent usefulness and location,
and at least equal fair market value.
The closest Section 4(f) property to SLCIA is the Airport Trail
bike path, a 2.8-mile bike path that runs through the southern
portion of SLCIA property (see Figure 1-47).25 The closest
LWCF site to SLCIA is the Red Butte Canyon Research Area,
located about six miles east of the airport.26
1.15.6 Farmlands
The following statutes, regulations, and guidance pertain to
farmlands:
• Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) (7 U.S.C. §§
4201-4209); and
• CEQ Memorandum on the Analysis of Impacts on Prime
or Unique Agricultural Lands in Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act (45 FR 59189).
The FPPA of 1981 regulates federal actions that have the
potential to convert farmland to non-agricultural uses. The
FAA requires consideration of “important farmlands,” which
it defines to include “all pasturelands, croplands, and forests
considered to be prime, unique, or statewide or local
important lands.”27
According to the Natural Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS), portions of SLCIA property contain farmland of
statewide importance and prime farmland, as defined above.28
However, according to Section 523.10(B) of the FPPA, lands
identified as urbanized areas by the U.S. Census Bureau are
not subject to the provision of the FPPA. Further, Section
658.29(a) of the FPPA states that, “farmland does not include
land already in or committed to urban development.” Accord-
ing to the U.S. Census Bureau, SLCIA property is identified as
an urban area.29 Additionally, airports can be considered urban
land uses. Therefore, the soils on SLCIA property are not
protected by the FPPA.
1.15.7 Hazardous Materials, Solid Waste, and
Pollution Prevention
Federal laws, regulations, and EOs that relate to hazardous
materials, solid waste, and pollution prevention include:
• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) (42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9765);
• Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act
(42 U.S.C. §§ 11001-11050);
• Federal Facilities Compliance Act (42 U.S.C. § 6961);
• Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
(49 U.S.C. §§ 5101-5128);
• Oil Pollution Prevention Act of 1990
(33 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2762);
• Pollution Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 13101-13109);
• Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
(15 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2697);
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (42 U.S.C.
§§ 6901-6992k);
• EO 12088, Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Stan-
dards (43 FR 47707);
• EO 12580, Superfund Implementation (52 FR 2923), (63
CFR 45871), and (68 CFR 37691);
• EO 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy,
and Transportation Management (72 FR 3919); and
• EO 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy,
and Economic Performance (74 FR 52117).
1.15.7.1 Hazardous Materials
In a regulatory context, the terms “hazardous wastes,” “hazard-
ous substances,” and “hazardous materials” have very precise
and technical meanings:
Hazardous Wastes. Subpart C of the RCRA defines hazard-
ous wastes (sometimes called characteristic wastes) as solid
wastes that are ignitable, corrosive, reactive, or toxic. Examples
include waste oil, mercury, lead or battery acid. In addition,
Subpart D of the RCRA contains a list of specific types of solid
wastes that the USEPA has deemed hazardous (sometimes
called listed wastes). Examples include degreasing solvents,
petroleum refining waste, or pharmaceutical waste.
Hazardous Substances. Section 101(14) of the CERCLA
defines hazardous substances broadly and includes hazardous
wastes, hazardous air pollutants, or hazardous substances
designated as such under the Clean Water Act and TSCA
and elements, compounds, mixtures, solutions, or substances
listed in 40 CFR Part 302 that pose substantial harm to human
health or environmental resources. Pursuant to the CERCLA,
hazardous substances do not include any petroleum or natural
gas substances and materials. Examples include ammonia,
bromine, chlorine, or sodium cyanide.
Hazardous Materials. According to 49 CFR Part 172, hazard-
ous materials are any substances commercially transported
that pose unreasonable risk to public health, safety, and
property. These substances include hazardous wastes and
hazardous substances, as well as petroleum and natural gas
substances and materials. As a result, hazardous materials
represent hazardous wastes and substances. Examples include
household batteries, gasoline, or fertilizers.
Table 1-30: Potential Migratory Birds in Airport Area
25 Salt Lake City Government, Transportation, Urban Trails. Accessed: https://www.slcairport.com/assets/pdfDocuments/bike_map.pdf, September 2018.
26 Land Water Conservation Fund, Utah.
Accessed: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58a60299ff7c508c3c05f2e1/t/5b29566eaa4a99e30737b026/1529435758782/Utah+fact+sheet+6.13.18.pdf,
August 2018.
27 Federal Aviation Administration, Order 1050.1F Desk Reference, July 2015. Accessed: https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/environ_poli-
cy_guidance/policy/faa_nepa_order/desk_ref/media/desk-ref.pdf, August 2018.
28 Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey. Accessed: https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, August 2018.
29 U.S. Census Bureau, Urbanized Areas and Urban Clusters: 2010.
Accessed: https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/dc10map/UAUC_RefMap/ua/ua78499_salt_lake_city--west_valley_city_ut/DC0UA78499.pdf, September, 2018.
91 92
Aircraft fuel constitutes the largest quantity of hazardous
substances stored and consumed at SLCIA. Fuel is stored on
Airport property within a 261,491 square foot fuel farm.
SECTION 1.11.5, Aviation Fuel Storage describes the fuel type
and quantity within the fuel farm.
The USEPA identifies SLCIA (Handler ID: UTD982595662)
as a hazardous waste site under the RCRA.30 The USEPA also
identified two additional hazardous waste sites on SLCIA
property:
• SLC Department of Airports, Deicing Fluid Reclamation
Plant (Handler ID: UTR000005397); and
• SLCC Public Utilities Lab (Handler ID: UTD982586703).
There are no CERCLA superfund sites on SLCIA property,
however there are two superfund sites within three miles of
the airport.31 Portland Cement Kiln Dust 2 & 3 (Site EPA ID:
UTD980718670) is located 1.75 miles southeast of SLCIA,
and Utah Power & Light/American Barrel Co. (Site EPA ID:
UTD980667240) is located 2.3 miles east of the airport.
1.15.7.2 Solid Waste
The Salt Lake County Landfill is the only municipal solid waste
landfill located in Salt Lake County.32 This landfill is located
two miles southwest of SLCIA. This landfill is not expected to
reach capacity until 2077, and recently received permission
to increase its slope and height, prolonging the lifespan of the
landfill.33
1.15.7.3 Pollution Prevention
SLCIA is required under the airport’s Utah Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (UPDES) stormwater discharge permit
(UPDES Permit #UT0024988, approved on March 14, 2014)
to have a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The
Airport’s Spill Prevention and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC)
was prepared in June, 2015. The SPCC is required to satisfy
the federal requirements for facilities that have above ground
oil storage tanks with a capacity greater than 1,320 gallons.
1.15.8 Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and
Cultural Resources
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (54 U.S.C.
§§300101 et seq.) establishes the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (ACHP). The ACHP oversees federal agency com-
pliance with the NHPA. The NHPA also established the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP) that the National Park Ser-
vice (NPS) oversees. Other applicable statues and EOs include:
• American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 U.S.C. § 1996);
• Antiquities Act of 1906 (54 U.S.C. §§320301-320303);
• Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. §§
312501-312508);
• Archaeological Resources Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 470aa-470mm);
• USDOT Act, Section 4(f) (49 U.S.C. § 303);
• Historic Sites Act of 1935 (16 U.S.C. §§ 461-467);
• Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25
U.S.C. §§ 3001-3013);
• Public Building Cooperative Use Act (40 U.S.C. §§ 601a,
601a1, 606, 611c, and 612a4);
• EO 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural
Environment (36 FR 8921);
• EO 13006, Locating Federal Facilities on Historic Properties
in Our Nation’s Central Cities (61 FR 26071);
• EO 13007, Indian Sacred Sites (61 FR 26771);
• EO 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments (65 FR 67249);
• Executive Memorandum, Government-to-Government
Relations with Native American Tribal Governments
(April 29, 1994);
• Executive Memorandum on Tribal Consultation (Nov. 5,
2009) (65 FR 67249); and
• USDOT Order 5650.1, Protection and Enhancement of the
Cultural Environment.
The closest National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-listed
historic site is the Fisher, Albert, Mansion and Carriage House
located approximately 1.75 miles southeast of the SLCIA.34
Additionally, the Fisher, Albert, Mansion and Carriage House is
the closest Salt Lake City Historic Site.35
1.15.9 Land Use
Various statutes, regulations, and EOs relevant to land
use include:
• The Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, and
subsequent amendments (49 U.S.C. 47107(a)(10));
• The Airport Improvement Program (49 U.S.C. 47106(a)(1);
• The Airport Safety, Protection of Environment, Criteria for
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (40 CFR § 258.10); and
• State and local regulations
SLCIA is within Salt Lake County, zoned as a Special Purpose
District (specifically an “Airport District”) under the Salt Lake
Municipal Code Title 21A – Zoning. SLC Code 21A.32.060
defines the purpose of the Airport District code is to “provide
a suitable environment for the Salt Lake City International
Airport and private uses that function in support of the Airport
facility. This district is appropriate in areas of the City where
the applicable master plans support this type of land use.”
The City also delineates an Airport Flight Path Protection
(AFPP) Overlay District under SLC Code 21A.34.04036 (see
FIGURE 1-42) to protect land uses below aircraft navigation
routes. The AFPP Overlay District rules declare:
• That the creation or establishment of an airport hazard is a
public nuisance and an injury to the region served by the Salt
Lake City International Airport;
• That it is necessary in the interest of the public health, public
safety, and general welfare that the creation or establish-
ment of airport hazards be prevented; and
• That the prevention of these hazards should be accom-
plished, to the extent legally possible, by the exercise of the
police power without compensation.
Land uses within the immediate vicinity of SLCIA include open
space, commercial, mixed use transit station, single family and
multifamily residential, and agricultural.37 Less than a mile east
of SLCIA is mainly residential, along with various commercial
developments. Immediately south of SLCIA is open space, and
west of the airport is open space as well as agricultural land.
North of the airport is Farmington Bay, a section of the Great
Salt Lake, including wetlands and open salt water.
1.15.10 Natural Resources and Energy Supply
Statutes and EOs that are relevant to natural resources and
energy supply include:
• Energy Independence and Security Act
(42 U.S.C. § 17001 et seq.);
• Energy Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 15801 et seq.);
• EO 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy,
and Transportation Management (72 FR 3919); and
• EO 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and
Economic Performance (74 FR 52117).
Natural resources (e.g., water, asphalt, aggregate, etc.) and en-
ergy use (e.g., fuel, electricity, etc.) at an airport is a function of
the needs of aircraft, support vehicles, airport facilities, support
structures, and terminal facilities.
Water is the primary natural resource used at the Airport on
a daily basis (see the SECTION 1.15.14, Water Resources for
further details). Asphalt, aggregate, and other natural resourc-
es have also been used in various construction projects at
SLCIA. None of the natural resources that the airport uses, or
has used, are in rare or short supply. Energy use at SLCIA is
primarily in the form of electricity required for the operation of
airport-related facilities (e.g., terminal building, hangars, airfield
lighting) and fuel for aircraft, aircraft support vehicles/equip-
ment, and Airport maintenance vehicles/equipment. Rocky
Mountain Power supplies electricity to SLCIA, Dominion Ener-
gy provides natural gas services, and the Salt Lake City Depart-
ment of Public Utilities provides water and sewer services.
1.15.11 Noise and Noise-Compatible Land Use
Statutes and EOs relevant to noise and noise-compatible land
use include:
• The Control and Abatement of Aircraft Noise and Sonic
Boom Act of 1968 (49 U.S.C. § 44715);
• The Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 U.S.C. §§ 4901-4918);
• Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979
(49 U.S.C. § 47501 et seq.);
• Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982
(49 U.S.C. § 47101 et seq.);
• Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990
(49 U.S.C. §§ 47521-47534, §§ 106(g);
• Section 506 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of
2012, Prohibition on Operating Certain Aircraft Weighting
75,000 Pounds of Less Not Complying with Stage 3 Noise
Levels (49 U.S.C. §§ 47534); and
• State and local noise laws and ordinances.
The measurement of aircraft noise impacts on land uses is
prescribed by the FAA as a Day-Night Sound Level (DNL). The
DNL is based on sound levels measures in relative intensity of
sound, (decibels or dB) on the “A-weighted scale” or dBA over
a time-weighted average normalized to a 24-hour period.38
DNL has been widely accepted as the best available method
to describe aircraft noise exposure. The USEPA identifies the
DNL as the principal metric for airport noise analysis. The FAA
requires DNL as the noise descriptor for use in aircraft noise
exposure analysis and noise compatibility planning. DNL levels
are commonly shown as lines of equal noise exposure, similar
to terrain contour maps, referred to noise contours. All residen-
tial areas are considered compatible with cumulative noise level
below DNL 65 dBA. As SECTION 1.15.9, Land Use describes,
30 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Envirofact, Hazardous Waste (RCRA info). Accessed: https://www3.epa.gov/enviro/facts/rcrainfo/search.html,
September 2018.
31 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Superfund, National Priorities List, Utah.
Accessed: https://www.epa.gov/superfund/search-superfund-sites-where-you-live#map, September 2018.
32 Salt Lake County, Utah, Public Works & Municipal Services Department, Landfill. Accessed: https://slco.org/landfill/, September 2018.
33 Office of the Salt Lake County Auditor, A Performance Audit of The Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Facility.
Accessed: https://slco.org/uploadedFiles/depot/fAuditor/2015_audit_reports/15_07_solid_waste_management.pdf, September, 2018.
34 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NEPAssist. Accessed: https://nepassisttool.epa.gov/nepassist/nepamap.aspx?wherestr=salt+lake+city+airport, August 2018.
35Salt Lake City, Historic Districts and Buildings, Landmark Sites. Accessed: https://www.slc.gov/historic-preservation/historic-districts-and-buildings, September 2018.
36 Salt Lake City, Salt Lake City Code, Chapter 21A.34, Overlay Districts. Accessed: www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=672, September 2018.
37 Salt Lake City, Salt Lake City Maps, Zoning. Accessed: http://maps.slcgov.com/mws/zoning.htm, September 2018.
38 Federal Aviation Administration, Technical Support for Day/Night Average Sound Level (DNL) Replacement Metric Research, Final Report, June 14, 2011.
93 94
there are residential land uses near SLCIA. These areas may be
sensitive to aircraft noise associated with the Airport. The Air-
port’s aviation noise contours have been updated as part of this
Master Plan (see FIGURE 1-43). There are no noise-sensitive
land uses within the updated DNL 65 dBA noise contour.
As mentioned in SECTION 1.5.8, Noise Abatement, SLCDA
adopted a Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) for SLCIA in
January 1999 as a result of their completed Part 150 Study.
The Part 150 Study outlines procedures to mitigate the impact
of aircraft noise on non-compatible land uses, such as residen-
tial areas. Additionally, SLCDA actively implements mitigation
measures at SLCIA from the FAA-approved NCP, such as
reducing night-time activity, utilizing departure tracks which
avoid residential areas, etc.
1.15.12 Socioeconomic, Environmental Justice,
and Children’s Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
The primary considerations of socioeconomics analysis are the
economic activity, employment, income, population, housing,
public services, and social conditions of the area. The Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Poli-
cy Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. § 61 et seq.), implemented by 49
CFR Part 24, is the primary statute related to socioeconomic
impacts. Statutes, EOs, memorandums, and guidance that are
relevant to environmental justice and children’s environmental
health and safety risks include:
• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. §§
2000d-2000d-7);
• EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Jus-
tice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
(59 FR 7629);
• Memorandum of Understanding on Environmental Justice
and EO 12898;
• USDOT Order 5610.2(a), Environmental Justice in Minority
and Low-Income Populations (77 FR 27534);
• CEQ Guidance: Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the
National Environmental Policy Act;
• Revised USDOT Environmental Justice Strategy (77 FR
18879); and
• EO 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885).
SLCIA is entirely within Census Tract 9800, Block Group 1,
which has a population of zero. Therefore, the Salt Lake City,
Utah Metropolitan Area, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau,
was used to describe the socioeconomic and environmental
justice characteristics in the airport area compared to Utah
(see TABLE 1-31). Census data for the Salt Lake City, Utah
Metropolitan Area is from the U.S. Census Bureau 2012-2016
American Community Survey, and census data for Utah is from
2017 American Community Survey.
With regard to children’s environmental health and safety risks,
the closest school to SLCIA is Meadowlark Elementary, ap-
proximately 1,500 feet east of the airport.39 The school serves
students in kindergarten through sixth grade. The closest child
care center to SLCIA is the Sunshine House, located approx-
imately 1,200 feet east of the airport.40 The closest child
friendly recreational area is Westpointe Park, a city park with
tennis courts, basketball courts and playground area located
1,700 feet east of the Airport.41 The closest children’s health
clinic is the Children’s Center, a children’s mental health clinic
located approximately 3.9 miles east of SLCIA.42
Figure 1-42: SLC Airport Flight Path Protection Overlay District
Source: Salt Lake City, 1995
Figure 1-31: Socioeconomic and Environmental Justice Characteristics
39 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NEPAssist, Places, Schools. Accessed: https://nepassisttool.epa.gov/nepassist/nepamap.aspx?wherestr=salt+lake+city+airport,
September 2018.
40 Sunshine House Early Learning Academy, Salt Lake City. Accessed: https://sunshinehouse.com/center/salt-lake, September 2018.
41 Salt Lake City Government, Parks and Public Lands. Accessed: http://slcgov.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=85ef343352c8495ba0cdf-
d0504610a92, September 2018.
42 The Children’s Center, Salt Lake City. Accessed: https://childrenscenterutah.org, September 2018
95 96
1.15.13 Visual Effects
There is no federal statutory or regulatory requirement for
adverse effects resulting from light emissions or visual impacts.
FAA Order 1050.1F describes factors to consider within light
emissions and visual resources/visual character. Potential
impacts from light emissions include the annoyance or inter-
ference with normal activities, as well as effects to the visual
character of the area due to light emissions, including the
importance, uniqueness, and aesthetic value of the affected
visual resources.
1.15.13.1 Light Emissions
Various lighting features currently illuminate SLCIA facilities,
such as the airfield (e.g., runways and taxiways), buildings,
access roadways, automobile parking areas, and apron areas
for the safe and secure movement of people and vehicles (e.g.,
aircraft, passenger cars, etc.).
1.15.13.2 Visual Resources and Visual Character
Structures at SLCIA include, but are not limited to, the terminal
building, the FAA Air Traffic Control Tower, fixed base opera-
tors, hangars, and maintenance buildings. As previously men-
tioned, SLCIA is zoned as an Airport District and is developed
in a manner that is consistent with this zoning.
Residential land uses to the east have a direct line of sight to
SLCIA. Vegetation (e.g., trees and shrubs) help to reduce both
the light emissions and visual effects to SLCIA for residential
areas.
1.15.14 Water Resources
Water resources are considered wetlands, floodplains, surface
waters, groundwater, and wild and scenic rivers. These re-
sources typically function as a single, integrated natural system
that are important in providing drinking water in supporting
recreation, transportation and commerce, industry, agriculture,
and aquatic ecosystems.
1.15.14.1 Wetlands
Statutes and EOs that are relevant to wetlands include:
• EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands (42 FR 26961);
• Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1387);
• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. § 661-667d) ;
and
• USDOT Order 6660.1A, Preservation of the
Nation’s Wetlands.
The Clean Water Act defines wetlands as “…those areas that
are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.”43
Wetlands have three necessary characteristics:
• Water: Presence of water at or near the ground surface for a
part of the year;
• Hydrophytic Plants: A preponderance of plants adapted to
wet conditions; and
• Hydric Soils: Soil developed under wet conditions.
An SLCIA airport-wide wetlands inventory was conducted in
2004 (see FIGURE 1-43). Wetlands were identified during the
site survey and mapped for future development considerations,
and all wetlands shown in FIGURE 1-43 have been determined
as jurisdictional by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE);
however, jurisdictional determinations are only valid for a
five-year period.
1.15.14.2 Floodplains
Statues and EOs that are relevant to floodplains include:
• EO 11988, Floodplain Management (42 FR 26951);
• National Flood Insurance Act (42 U.S.C. § 4001 et seq.); and
• U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Order 5650.2,
Floodplain Management and Protection.
Floodplains are “…lowland areas adjoining inland and coastal
water which are periodically inundated by flood waters, includ-
ing flood-prone area of offshore islands.” Floodplains are often
referred to in terms of the 100-year floodplain, rather, the
one percent chance of a flood occurring in any given year. The
USDOT Order 5650.2 outlines the policies and procedures for
ensuring that proper consideration is given to the avoidance
and mitigation of adverse floodplain impacts in agency actions,
planning programs, and budget requests. Therefore, the ob-
jective is to avoid, to the extent practicable, any impacts within
the 100-year floodplain.
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for the SLCIA area,
there are floodplains within the airport property.44 The flood-
plains are located in the northwestern, western, and southern
portions of SLCIA property (see FIGURE 1-44).
Figure 1-43: 2017 Noise Contour Map
43 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
44 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Map Service Center, Flood Insurance Rate Maps 49035C0140E (effective 9/21/2001), 49035C0137E (effec-
tive 9/21/2001), 49035C0139E (effective 9/21/2001), 49035C0120E (effective 9/21/2001), 49035C0150G (effective 9/25/2009), 49035C0125G (effective
9/25/2009), and 49035C0129G (effective 9/25/2009). Accessed: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search#searchresultsanchor, September 2018.
9897
1.15.14.3 Surface Waters
Statues that are relevant to surface water include:
• Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1387);
• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. § 661-667d);
and
• Rivers and Harbors Act (33 U.S.C. § 401 and 403).
Surface waters include areas where water collects on the
surface of the ground, such as streams, rivers, lakes, ponds,
estuaries, and oceans. There is one unnamed stream running
through SLCIA property (see FIGURE 1-45).45 This stream runs
through the southern and western portions of SLCIA property.
Additionally, there are two unnamed ponds in the southern
portion the property (see FIGURE 1-45).
1.15.14.4 Groundwater
Statues relevant to groundwater include:
• Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 300(f)-300j-26).
Groundwater is described as the “subsurface water that oc-
cupies the space between sand, clay, and rock formations.”46
SLCIA property intersects two hydrologic units.47 The western
portion of airport property is within the Crystal Creek water-
shed (HUC 12 ID: 160202040404) and the eastern portion of
airport property is within the Jordan River watershed (HUC 12
ID: 160202040405).
1.15.14.5 Wild and Scenic Rivers
Statues relevant to wild and scenic rivers include:
• Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 1271-1278).
Wild and scenic rivers are defined as “outstanding natural,
cultural, and recreational values in a free-flowing condition for
the enjoyment of present and future generations.”48 There are
no wild and scenic rivers or river segments within the SLCIA
area.49 The closest wild and scenic river, the Snake River, is
over 170 miles northeast of SLCIA.50
45 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NEPAssist, Water Features, Streams.
Accessed: https://nepassisttool.epa.gov/nepassist/nepamap.aspx?wherestr=salt+lake+city+airport, September 2018.
46 Federal Aviation Administration, 1050.1F Desk Reference, Section 14.4 Groundwater. July 2015.
47 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NEPAssist, Water Features, Watersheds (HUC 12).
Accessed: https://nepassisttool.epa.gov/nepassist/nepamap.aspx?wherestr=salt+lake+city+airport, September 2018.
48 National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, About the WSR Act. Accessed: https://www.rivers.gov/wsr-act.php, September 2018.
49 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NEPAssist, Water Features, Wild and Scenic Rivers.
50 U.S. National Park Service, Wild and Scenic Rivers Program, Interactive Map of NPS Wild and Scenic Rivers.
Figure 1-44: Wetlands
Source: SLCDA wetlands data, 2004; Prepared by RS&H, 2018
99
Figure 1-45: Floodplains
Source: FEMA; Prepared by RS&H, 2018
100
Figure 1-46: Surface Waters
Source: Esri; Prepared by RS&H, 2018
101
Figure 1-47: Department of Transportation Act, Section 4(f)
Source: Esri; Prepared by RS&H, 2018
2
|
AV
I
A
T
I
O
N
AC
T
I
V
I
T
Y
F
O
R
E
C
A
S
T2AVIATION ACTIVITY
FORECAST
AVIATION ACTIVITY
FORECAST
͛Military Operations
͛Critical aircraft identified by runway
Three forecasts were generated for passenger, cargo, and GA
activity – they are identified as the Base Case, Low Case, and
High Case Scenario Forecasts. The prevailing practice relative
to military activity is to maintain the base year data (in this case
2017) constant over the forecast period, therefore the military
activity for the Base Case, Low Case Scenario, and High Case
Scenario Forecasts are all the same.
The preferred forecast is referred to as the Base Case
Forecast, and it has the highest probability for achievement.
In addition, several specialized forecasts, or derivatives, were
developed by considering different assumptions regarding
passenger enplanements which identify both a lower and
higher level of enplanements than the Base Case Forecast.
The Base Case Forecast of passenger enplanements can be
used as a barometer to measure growth and the need for facil-
ities in future years. If activity grows faster than anticipated by
this Base Case Forecast, i.e., toward the level of enplanements
identified by the High Case Scenario Forecast, then the Salt
Lake City Department of Airports should reassess their imple-
mentation schedule and accelerate plans as necessary. Similar-
ly, slower than projected growth (Low Case Scenario Forecast)
may warrant SLCDA deferring planned improvements until
higher activity is reached. Actual activity growth should be
frequently compared to anticipated design and construction
schedules so that modifications can be
identified, as necessary.
This document provides an aviation demand forecast and de-
velops support forecasts, or derivative forecasts such as peak
period passenger or aircraft operations forecasts by type, for
use in preparing Facility Requirements within the next chapter.
Given the recent period of fast enplanement growth and the
uncertainty about the ability to sustain this level of growth
much longer, the Base Case and two scenario forecasts provide
flexibility to predict future facility requirements that might
be needed within a range of reasonableness. These forecasts
serve as benchmarks for understanding the pace of growth at
SLC should the Base Case Forecast be exceeded, or
conversely, not achieved.
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Chapter 2 presents a forecast of aviation activity for
Salt Lake City International Airport (SLC or Airport). The
forecast uses 2017 as the baseline year, and makes projec-
tions beginning in 2018, extending over the 20-year planning
horizon to 2037.
The aviation activity forecast chapter:
• Reviews and compares relevant forecasts for projected
growth at SLC
• Identifies the service area for SLC that represents the
primary geographic area from which customers are drawn
and socioeconomic data is evaluated. Valid and relevant data
from a variety of sources was evaluated, including but are
not limited to:
͛Bureau of Transportation Statistics
͛T-100 market segment data
͛Official Airline Guide schedules (OAG)
͛Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
͗Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) 2017, published
in January 2018
͗FAA Aerospace Forecasts
͗The Operations Network (OPSNET)
͛Historical Airport Data from the Salt Lake City Depart-
ment of Airports
͛General Aviation Strategy Plan, 2019
͛Key stakeholder input identified in the Forecast Expert
Panel Session (See Section 1.2.6)
͛The University of Utah Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute
͛2007 Utah Continuous Airport Systems Plan (UCASP)
͛Woods & Poole, Inc., 2018 socioeconomic data for
United States (U.S.) metropolitan statistical areas
(MSAs), and Micropolitan Statistical Areas (MICROs)
• Uses a variety of methods for generating forecasts with
included; trendline analysis, econometric regression
modeling, and monte carlo simulation.
• Forecasts projections for the Airport in the areas of:
͛Passenger Activity
͗Enplanements (total, origin & destination (O&D),
and connecting)
͗Operations (itinerant, local, annual instrument
approaches, instrument flight rules (IFR), visual
flight rules (VFR), and fleet mix)
͗Design Day Schedule
͗Peak Hour
͛Air Cargo (total, freight, and belly cargo)
͛General Aviation (GA) Based Aircraft and Operations
102
104
Reflecting positive trends in the United States and the region
for future growth in air travel, the Base Case Forecast assumes;
• Continuation of strong growth between SLC and its city
pairs at least in the short term
• Continuation of seasonal flights
• Continuation of flights to small cities in the western moun-
tain region and the use of aircraft with 60 seats and less
• Limited increases in non-stop destinations as SLC already
serves 98 cities non-stop (August 2018)
• Continued increases in international enplanements with a
growth in new international city pairs
• Continued upgauging of aircraft on routes from SLC,
particularly to the West Coast
• Additional overnight flights to the east coast to connect with
international flights
• Accommodation of expanding growth in tourism and
business.
The High Case Scenario Forecast is based upon a slightly
higher long-term growth rate in population and employment
as indicated in forecasts by the University of Utah’s Kem C.
Gardener Policy Institute as opposed to using Woods & Poole.
In addition, the FAA’s slightly higher long-term Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) for the U.S. is used as opposed to the Woods
& Poole Gross Regional Product (GRP) for the counties in the
SLC Service Area (defined in Section 2.1.2). All these variables
for this region are approximately equal to or greater than those
of the United States. This is in addition to the possible effect
from sustained competitive airfares and airline profitability. The
Low Case Scenario assumes a slight decline in long-term GDP
growth relative to Woods & Poole’s estimate of regional GRP
as well as higher airfares and airline yields that suppresses air
passenger growth.
It should be noted that the aviation activity forecasts were
completed before the onset of the global pandemic caused by
COVID-19. Having a forecast range that covers possible activity
levels between the Low Case and High Case ensures that
master plan analysis and recommendations remain valid given
future social and economic uncertainties.
2.1.1 Executive Summary of Forecast
for FAA Approval
This section provides a quick summation of forecasts for
the reader and for the FAA. Detailed explanation about the
forecast methodology and results may be found in subsequent
portions of the forecast chapter.
A key consideration in the development of aviation forecasts
is how they compare with the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) Terminal Area Forecasts (TAF).1 The TAF is an important
planning tool used by the FAA to review and compare forecasts
prepared by Airport Sponsors. In accordance with FAA Order
5050.4B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Imple-
menting Instructions for Airport Actions, paragraph 706.b(3),
“The sponsor’s forecast must be consistent with the Terminal
Area Forecast (TAF). To be consistent with the TAF, the spon-
sor’s 5-year forecast should be within 10% of the TAF and a
10-year forecast should be within 15% of the TAF.”2 The FAA
must approve sponsor forecasts before they can be used to
prepare facility requirements in a master plan or before going
forward with an environmental document that requires a fore-
cast. If these stated thresholds are exceeded, the FAA Region
office in which the airport is located will forward the forecasts
to FAA headquarters for approval.
The basis for comparison of forecasts is the FAA TAF 2017
published in January 2018. The FAA TAF compares data on
a fiscal year basis, i.e., October 1 of a year through Septem-
ber 30 of the next year. Wherever possible, the Master Plan
Update forecasts use the same fiscal year methodology as the
FAA TAF for purposes of direct comparison. Data cited identi-
fies whether it is fiscal year data or calendar year.
It should be noted that the preferred Base Case Forecast for
SLC tracks closely with the current FAA, TAF 2017 published
January 2018.) TABLE 2-1 provides a comparison of the SLC
Forecast with the FAA TAF 2017. Commercial operations refer
to all scheduled and non-scheduled passenger and air cargo
operations. As described in the paragraphs below, the long-
term number of commercial operations indicated by TAF 2017
is slightly higher than forecast by the Base Case. This is due to
assumptions regarding increasing gauge that results in fewer
total operations having greater seating configurations and
carrying more passengers. In addition, long-term GA operations
are projected to slightly increase over TAF 2017 levels, as a
result of anticipated increases in the number of turbojet opera-
tions, although, piston operations are forecast to decline.
103
1 The Terminal Area Forecast is the official FAA forecast of aviation activity for United States airports.
2 December 23, 2004, memorandum from the FAA Director, Airport Planning and Programming, entitled Revision to Guidance on Review and
Approval of Aviation Forecasts.Ta
b
l
e
2
-
1
:
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
w
i
t
h
F
A
A
T
A
F
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
7
2
0
2
2
2
0
2
7
2
0
3
7
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
TA
F
2
0
1
7
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
TA
F
2
0
1
7
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
TA
F
2
0
1
7
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
TA
F
2
0
1
7
E
n
p
l
a
n
e
m
e
n
t
s
1
1
,
5
1
5
,
6
3
9
1
1
,
5
1
5
,
6
3
9
1
4
,
2
2
8
,
5
7
4
1
3
,
1
2
1
,
8
5
7
1
5
,
6
6
2
,
1
5
7
1
4
,
4
9
9
,
1
4
2
1
8
,
6
6
6
,
3
6
9
1
7
,
6
2
3
,
3
3
9
P
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
2
5
7
,
8
6
3
2
7
7
,
2
6
9
2
8
2
,
0
7
7
2
9
8
,
1
6
3
3
0
9
,
3
9
5
3
2
4
,
6
5
3
3
4
3
,
5
3
5
3
8
8
,
3
1
3
C
a
r
g
o
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
1
9
,
4
0
6
2
3
,
1
2
2
2
4
,
2
8
0
3
1
,
1
4
2
G
A
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
4
0
,
4
7
6
4
0
,
4
7
6
4
2
,
8
2
5
3
9
,
5
9
9
4
5
,
6
2
4
3
9
,
8
9
9
5
2
,
8
0
7
4
0
,
5
0
3
M
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
7
,
3
4
8
7
,
3
4
8
7
,
3
4
8
7
,
3
4
8
7
,
3
4
8
7
,
3
4
8
7
,
3
4
8
7
,
3
4
8
To
t
a
l
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
3
2
5
,
0
9
3
3
2
5
,
0
9
3
3
5
5
,
3
7
2
3
4
5
,
1
1
0
3
8
6
,
6
4
7
3
7
1
,
9
0
0
4
3
4
,
8
3
2
4
3
6
,
1
6
4
G
A
B
a
s
e
d
A
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
1
2
9
0
3
5
9
2
9
4
3
8
7
2
9
5
4
1
5
3
0
3
4
7
8
C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
w
i
t
h
F
A
A
T
A
F
2
0
1
7
(
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
)
E
n
p
l
a
n
e
m
e
n
t
s
0
.
0
%
7
.
8
%
7
.
4
%
5
.
6
%
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
.
0
%
2
.
3
%
2
.
7
%
-
3
.
6
%
G
A
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
0
.
0
%
7
.
5
%
1
2
.
5
%
2
3
.
3
%
M
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
0
.
0
%
0
.
0
%
0
.
0
%
0
.
0
%
To
t
a
l
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
0
.
0
%
2
.
9
%
3
.
8
%
-
0
.
3
%
G
A
B
a
s
e
d
A
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
-
2
3
.
8
%
-3
1
.
6
%
-
4
0
.
7
%
-
5
7
.
8
%
1
T
h
e
d
i
s
c
r
e
p
a
n
c
y
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
a
n
d
F
A
A
T
A
F
2
0
1
7
i
n
G
A
B
a
s
e
d
A
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
i
s
t
h
e
r
e
s
u
l
t
o
f
a
v
e
r
i
f
i
e
d
c
o
u
n
t
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
m
i
d
-
2
0
1
8
2 C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
d
e
f
i
n
e
d
a
s
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
a
i
r
c
a
r
r
i
e
r
p
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
a
n
d
c
a
r
g
o
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
R
S
&
H
,
2
0
1
8
;
F
A
A
T
A
F
,
2
0
1
7
105 106
2.1.2 SLC Service Area
The SLC service area is defined as the maximum boundary
from which Airport customers are anticipated to travel, giving
consideration for drive time, cost, and the types of services
that are unique to SLC over other airports. Defining the service
area plays a major role in the forecast, because it determines
the values of the socioeconomic variables that will be used in
projecting the Airport’s growth.
The drive-time analysis assumes people would drive a max-
imum distance of approximately 120 minutes to reach SLC,
based on the size of SLC and the variety of airport services of-
fered there. As a result, the main population center of Salt Lake
City3 is included in the Salt Lake Metropolitan Statistical Area4
(MSA) along with three other MSAs that include: Provo-Orem,
UT MSA; Ogden-Clearfield, UT MSA; and Logan, UT MSA. It
also includes three Micropolitan Statistical Areas5 (MICRO)
s: Heber, UT MICRO; Summit Park, UT MICRO; and Evanston,
WY MICRO. The counties that are within these statistical areas
are identified as the SLC Service Area and used as some of the
socioeconomic data for this forecast. FIGURE 2-1 shows the
SLC Service Area.
A consensus regarding the composition of the SLC Service
Area was gained during the Master Plan Update Forecast Ex-
pert Panel Session held on August 28, 2018. While additional
counties in Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming were discussed as po-
tentially being part of the service area, the decision to exclude
them from the analysis centered on including only MSAs and
MICROs for which there was more complete data and due to
the small additional population those other counties would
add, which would not significantly affect the forecast.
TABLE 2-2 shows a comparison of key socioeconomic
variables for the SLC service area, state of Utah, and the
U.S. as a whole.
2.1.2.1 Socioeconomic Analysis
Population, employment, personal income per capita (PIPC),
and Gross Regional Product (GRP)6 are all considered the four
key socioeconomic variables, or potential economic drivers for
forecasting aviation activity. Therefore they were all analyzed
for historical and long term growth projections.
From 1993 to 2017, the SLC service area and the State of
Utah aligned very closely in each of the four variables as well as
their annual average growth rates (AAGR)s.7 This was, and still
is, due to the populations of the MSAs and MICROs surround-
ing the Airport representing a high proportion of the state as
a whole. In 2017, 87.5% of the state of Utah’s population was
within the SLC service area.8
Over the past 25 years, the SLC service area and state of Utah
each had greater AAGRs than the U.S. for all of the socioeco-
nomic variables compared. The SLC service area (2.0% AAGR)
and the state of Utah (2.1% AAGR) both had double the rate
of population growth that the U.S. (1.0% AAGR) had. While the
employment and PIPC also followed similar trends, the PIPC
rates of growth were the closest among the four socioeco-
nomic variables with the SLC service area (2.2% AAGR), state
of Utah (2.1% AAGR), and U.S. (1.8% AAGR). The GRP was the
most noticeably divergent statistic with the SLC service area
and the state of Utah (4.4% AAGR) over 1.5% higher than the
U.S. (2.7% AAGR). FIGURE 2-2 compares the historical AAGRs
for the socioeconomic variables from 1993-2017.
The projected AAGRs of the SLC service area and state of
Utah remained similar over the planning horizon indicating the
region is an economic core to the state of Utah and surround-
ing areas. Like the historical growth rates, the SLC service area
projections showed AAGR increases in all of the socioeco-
nomic variables over the planning horizon, with GRP being the
greatest. The only variable that shows a projected U.S. AAGR
surpassing the SLC service area and the state of Utah is PIPC.
FIGURE 2-3 compares the projected socioeconomic variables
from 2018-2037.
3 SLC is located approximately five miles due west and slightly north of downtown Salt Lake City, Utah.
4 Metropolitian Statistical Areas, or MSAs, are defined by having at least one urbanized area of 50,000 or more population, plus adjacent territory that has a high degree
of social and economic integration with the core as measured by commuting ties.
5 Micropolitan Statistical Areas, or MICROs are defined by having at least one urban cluster of at least 10,000 but less than 50,000 population, plus adjacent territory
that has a high degree of social and economic integration with the core as measured by commuting ties.
6 GRP is referred to as Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at the national level.
7 AAGRs are calculated by taking each percentage of growth for a particular timeframe and averaging them.
8 Percentage based on Woods and Poole Inc. 2018 population totals for SLC service area counties and the U.S.F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
1
:
S
L
C
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
A
r
e
a
108107
Figure 2-2: Comparison of Historical Socioeconomic Variables (1993-2017)
Figure 2-3: Comparison of Socioeconomic Variable Projections (2018-2037)
Ta
b
l
e
2
-
2
:
K
e
y
S
o
c
i
o
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
(
2
0
1
7
-
2
0
3
7
)
Source: RS&H, 2018; Woods and Poole Inc., 2018
Source: RS&H, 2018; Woods and Poole Inc., 2018
2
0
1
7
2
0
2
2
2
0
2
7
2
0
3
7
2
0
1
8
-
2
0
3
7
A
A
G
R
2
0
2
9
-
2
0
3
8
A
A
G
R
S
L
C
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
A
r
e
a
To
t
a
l
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
2
,
7
0
7
,
3
6
7
2
,
9
0
3
,
1
8
2
3
,
1
1
0
,
8
1
1
3
,
5
3
9
,
1
7
5
1
.
3
%
1
.
2
8
%
To
t
a
l
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
1
,
7
7
3
,
5
1
8
1
,
9
4
4
,
5
8
2
2
,
1
0
3
,
4
1
0
2
,
4
0
6
,
8
2
5
1
.
5
%
1
.
3
2
%
P
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
I
n
c
o
m
e
P
e
r
C
a
p
i
t
a
$
4
6
,
2
0
9
$
4
9
,
1
3
5
$
5
1
,
5
3
2
$
5
5
,
0
9
4
0
.
9
%
0
.
6
3
%
G
r
o
s
s
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
(
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
$
1
5
8
,
3
5
5
$
1
7
7
,
5
0
3
$
1
9
5
,
8
6
2
$
2
3
3
,
3
4
3
2
.
0
%
1
.
7
3
%
S
t
a
t
e
o
f
U
t
a
h
To
t
a
l
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
3
,
0
9
3
,
4
3
5
3
,
3
2
5
,
6
0
3
3
,
5
7
3
,
5
7
8
4
,
0
9
2
,
8
6
1
1
.
4
%
1
.
3
5
%
To
t
a
l
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
1
,
9
8
4
,
3
4
6
2
,
1
7
9
,
1
6
9
2
,
3
6
1
,
3
3
1
2
,
7
1
4
,
5
4
1
1
.
6
%
1
.
3
7
%
P
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
I
n
c
o
m
e
P
e
r
C
a
p
i
t
a
$
4
4
,
5
0
6
$
4
7
,
3
6
6
$
4
9
,
7
3
5
$
5
3
,
2
6
9
0
.
9
%
0
.
6
5
%
G
r
o
s
s
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
(
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
$
1
7
3
,
5
4
7
$
1
9
4
,
5
5
1
$
2
1
4
,
8
0
8
$
2
5
6
,
4
7
9
2
.
0
%
1
.
7
6
%
U
n
i
t
e
d
S
t
a
t
e
s
To
t
a
l
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
3
2
5
,
8
8
8
,
1
2
9
3
4
1
,
3
2
7
,
7
4
6
3
5
7
,
4
3
0
,
4
6
0
3
8
9
,
0
4
6
,
1
9
0
0
.
9
%
0
.
8
4
%
To
t
a
l
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
1
9
8
,
9
8
9
,
6
8
8
2
1
4
,
5
9
9
,
0
0
6
2
2
9
,
1
5
8
,
4
3
5
2
5
6
,
7
5
8
,
9
5
3
1
.
3
%
1
.
1
2
%
P
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
I
n
c
o
m
e
P
e
r
C
a
p
i
t
a
$
5
3
,
2
0
1
$
5
6
,
9
1
5
$
6
0
,
2
5
0
$
6
5
,
5
5
8
1
.
0
%
0
.
8
1
%
G
r
o
s
s
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
(
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
$
2
0
,
1
8
9
,
3
5
5
$
2
2
,
2
3
7
,
5
7
3
$
2
4
,
2
5
7
,
4
9
7
$
2
8
,
4
0
6
,
7
4
6
1
.
7
%
1
.
5
7
%
N
o
t
e
A
A
G
R
s
a
r
e
r
o
u
n
d
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
n
e
a
r
e
s
t
0
.
1
%
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
R
S
&
H
,
2
0
1
8
;
W
o
o
d
s
a
n
d
P
o
o
l
e
I
n
c
,
2
0
1
8
2.2 REVIEW OF FORECASTS
This section provides an assessment of key reports and docu-
mentation used in preparing SLC aviation activity forecasts.
2.2.1 FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years
2018-2038
The FAA Aerospace Forecast for Fiscal Years 2018-2038
projects steady long term growth for revenue passenger
enplanements of U.S. commercial air carriers.9 Revenue
passenger enplanements are projected to increase rapidly
from FY 2017-2018 for all passenger types with domestic
enplanements increasing with an AAGR of 4.7%, international
enplanements at an AAGR of 5.0%, and the combined system
enplanements at an AAGR of 4.7%. Post-2018 through the end
of the planning horizon growth is predicted to level out to an
AAGR of 1.7% for domestic, 3.3% AAGR for international, and
1.9% for the system. FIGURE 2-5 shows the projected growth
for U.S. domestic, international, and system revenue passenger
enplanements over the next 20 years.
2.2.2 Terminal Area Forecast 2017 (Published Janu-
ary, 2018) and Forecast Report
The FAA TAF is the official forecast produced annually by the
FAA for U.S. airports. TAF forecasts are prepared to assist in
planning efforts and needs of the FAA. Because the TAF is
updated annually, a specific forecast may differ from previous
years. The TAF is based on the federal fiscal year (FY) which
goes from October 1 through September 30, as opposed to
calendar year (CY) which begins January 1 and ends December
31. FIGURE 2-6 shows the growth rates per actual year of a
selection of TAF forecasts including: preliminary TAF 2018, as
well as the current TAF 2017 (which was published in January,
2018), TAF 2016, TAF 2015, TAF 2014, TAF 2010, and TAF
2006.
2.2.3 2019-2023 National Plan of Integrated
Airport Systems (NPIAS)
The FAA’s National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS)
for 2019-2023 identifies the roles for each of the 3,328
airports included within the national airport system, as well
as the federal funding each airport is eligible to receive under
the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). Each time the NPIAS
is updated, all of the NPIAS airports are categorized as either
primary or non-primary, based on their enplaned passenger
totals. For the evaluation of each airport within the 2019-
2023 NPIAS, passenger enplanement totals for CY 2017 were
used. Of all NPIAS airports, there were a total of 380 primary
airports receiving scheduled service with 10,000 or more en-
planed passengers annually, while there were 2,941 non-prima-
ry airports that received less than 10,000 enplaned passengers.
Salt Lake City International Airport is a primary airport, since it
does enplane more than 10,000 passengers.
Each primary airport is then further classified as a large hub,
medium hub, small hub, or non-hub airport based on the
percentage of total U.S. enplanements it handles. In the 2019-
2023 NPIAS, there were 30 large hub airports each accounting
for 1 percent or more of the U.S. total, 31 medium hub airports
each accounting for 0.25 to 1 percent of the U.S. total, 72
small hub airports each accounting for 0.05 to 0.25 percent of
the U.S. total, and 249 non-hub airports each accounting for
less than 0.05 percent of the U.S. total, but still receiving more
than 10,000 enplanements annually. Based on SLC’s passen-
ger enplanement total of 11,143,738, it accounts for 1.3% of
the U.S. total, ranking as the 24th busiest U.S. airport in terms
of passenger enplanements in the 2019-2023 NPIAS Report.
FIGURE 2-7 shows a comparison of large hub airports in the
2019-2023 NPIAS, with SLC identified in green.
2.2.4 2006 Salt Lake City International Airport Lay-
out Plan Update
The 2006 Salt Lake City International Airport Layout Plan Up-
date produced optimistic and conservative scenario forecasts
for enplanement growth through 2025. FIGURE 2-8 shows the
two scenarios and compares them to the actual enplanement
growth of the Airport through 2017. The conservative scenario
forecast aligned closely with the actual enplanement growth
through 2010. It should be noted that decline in actual activity
was significantly influenced by the 2008 national economic
crisis which affected the entire aviation industry.
2.2.5 Utah Continuous Airport System Plan
The 2007 Utah Continuous Airport System Plan (UCASP)
identifies SLC as the sole international airport in the state of
Utah, providing essential national and international commercial
airline service. The last UCASP update in 2007 forecast an
AAGR of 0.9% for commercial operations, and 1.2% for total
passenger enplanements through 2026. FIGURE 2-9 shows
the projected enplanements and commercial operations for
SLC through 2026, as well as the actual totals during that
timeframe. As with the forecast of enplanements, actual ac-
tivity was negatively impacted by the 2008 national economic
crisis.
The 2007 UCASP also recognized multiple factors that could
influence aviation demand in Utah including:
• Transportation improvements
• Tourism
• Oil/Gas
• Retirements/Second homes
• Population growth
• Employment growth
110
2.1.3 Gross Domestic Product
U.S. GDP is one of the variables that correlates very well with
long-term growth and is a factor that is often associated with
passenger and cargo forecasts.
Additional research was preformed regarding other historical
estimates and future projections of GDP. Data was available
from 1980 with projections beyond 2037 from two sources
-- Woods & Poole and Global Insight. Woods & Poole was used
as the primary indicator of U.S. GDP and SLC GRP forecasts.
Global Insight is used by the FAA in its annual Aerospace Fore-
casts. Another source consulted was GDP forecasts published
by the Congressional Budget Office. Their data was available
for the period 2013-2028. An international GDP projection of
U.S. GDP published by the Organization for Economic Cooper-
ation and Development (OECD) was also consulted. The OECD
is a more than 50-year old organization originally established
to plan the most efficient way to use U.S. money from the Mar-
shall Plan to rebuild Europe after World War II. That organiza-
tion publishes U.S. GDP forecasts from 2014 to beyond 2037.
Finally, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis was considered,
which provides historical GDP data, going back to 1980.
Other sources, including Barclays and the International Mon-
etary Fund, were also investigated but excluded as a result of
limited available data.
FIGURE 2-4 provides a graph of these GDP forecasts. All an-
nual projections show U.S. GDP growth is expected to peak in
2018 and decrease quickly over the next 5 years to 1.8%-1.4%.
In particular, the next 5 years appear to be especially slow
growth years with only modest increasing forecasts thereafter;
nothing approaching the recent period.
• Woods & Poole’s projections of GDP are highest in 2018
(2.97%) and decline to 1.8% in five years and continues to
decline thereafter to less than 1.5% after 2038.
• Global Insight’s peak forecast of GDP over the next 20 years
is in 2018 at 2.6% and then declines to 2.0% where it re-
mains constant over to beyond 2037. This forecast is highest
over the long term.
• OECD’s estimates of GDP growth indicate the next five years
as a trough with a low projection of 1.4% in 2021 followed
by a slow growth rebound through 2038 at 1.9%.
• The Congressional Budget Office predicts a 3.3% GDP
growth rate for 2018 declining in the next five years to 1.6%
and leveling off at approximately 1.9% after ten years.
109
Figure 2-4: Comparison of Gross Domestic Product Forecasts by Various Sources
9 Includes both mainline and regional air carriers.
Source: Woods & Poole, Inc., 2018; U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2018; FAA Aero-
space Forecast: FY 2018-2038; U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Congressional Budget Office, 2018
112111
Figure 2-5: Projected Revenue Passenger Enplanements for U.S. Commercial Air Carriers (2017-2038)
Figure 2-6: Recent TAF Forecast Growth Rates for SLC
Figure 2-7: Comparison of NPIAS Large Hub Airports
Figure 2-8: Optimistic and Conservative Scenarios (2006 SLC Airport Layout Plan Update)
Note: Totals represent the sum of U.S. Mainline and Regional Air Carriers; Totals are interpolated and rounded using the AAGRs from 2017-2018 and
2018-2038 U.S. Mainline Air Carriers Scheduled Passenger Traffic Table (Table 5)
Source: FAA Aerospace Forecasts Fiscal Years 2018-2038; RS&H, 2018
Note: Growth rates are per actual year of forecast
Source: FAA TAF 2006; FAA TAF 2010: FAA TAF 2014; FAA TAF 2015; FAA TAF 2016; FAA TAF 2017; Preliminary FAA TAF 2018
Note: Based on Calendar Year 2017 enplanement totals
Source: RS&H, 2018; NPIAS, 2019-2023
Source: SLC Master Plan Update, 2006
114
2.2.6 Expert Panel
The SLCDA established a committee composed of technical
persons knowledgeable of aviation industry trends to critique
the draft forecast prepared for the Airport. This committee,
or Expert Panel, included individuals representing the FAA,
Utah Division of Aeronautics, airlines interests including Delta,
Economic Development Corporation of Utah, Utah Governor’s
Office of Economic Development, and executive SLCDA Staff.
An Expert Panel meeting was held on August 28, 2018. The
consultant provided a presentation of historical Airport, airline,
passenger, cargo, general aviation, and military trends as well as
the input that would be used in developing a base case passen-
ger enplanement forecast and derivative forecasts of lower and
higher scenarios.
Numerous comments were provided by the Expert Panel mem-
bers to help guide forecast development. Comments received
from the panel included:
• SkyWest enplanement shares should be broken down by
affiliated mainline carriers (American, Alaska, Delta, and Unit-
ed) and separate from SkyWest only operations
• Discussion of future growth in domestic and international
markets and the aircraft that would serve them was provided
• Consensus was reached that SLC anticipated growth of four
percent would be achieved over the next four-to-five years
• The general forecast methodology is sound and the macro/
micro areas considered to be representative of the SLC Mar-
ket Service Area is appropriate
• Utah population growth is quite different than much of the
US total population
• Commenting about the uniqueness of SLC traffic patterns
showing upgauging to support west coast airports and the
paradigm shifts effects on near term growth
• General trends that will likely result in only having 20 to 30
Regional Jet operations per day by 2030 having seats of 60
or fewer passengers
• Acknowledging the benefits of the new airport terminal, its
favorable cost model, and the competitive advantage it gives
SLC over competitive airports like Denver International Air-
port (DEN), Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX),
and Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport (DFW).
113
Figure 2-9: 2007 UCASP Forecast for Commerical Operations and Enplanements in Utah
10 For this forecast, the term “passenger aircraft” or “passenger operations” refers to the sum of total of air carrier and air taxi & commuter aircraft types operating out
of SLC.
11 “Most commonly used passenger aircraft” refers to those aircraft with at least 1,000 operations in FY 2017, however this list it is not meant to limit or omit any the
other passenger aircraft fleet used out of SLC.
Note: Values are interpolated and rounded using the UCASP AAGR for commercial operations (0.89%) and enplanements (1.23%)
Source: RS&H, 2018; UCASP Executive Summary, 2007; FAA TAF, 2017 (State of Utah Summary)
Airbus
• Airbus 319-100
• Airbus 320-200
• Airbus 321-200
• Airbus 300-600
• Airbus 330-200, -300
Bombardier
• Bombardier CRJ 200
• Bombardier CRJ 700
• Bombardier CRJ 900
• Bombardier Dash 8 (Q400)
Boeing
• Boeing 717-200
• Boeing 737-700, -800, -900
• Boeing 757-200
• Boeing 767-300
• Boeing 787-900
Embraer
• Embraer 170
• Embraer 175-L, -S
McDonnell-Douglas (Boeing)
• McDonnell Douglas MD-90
• McDonnell Douglas DC-10
• McDonnell Douglas MD-11
2.2.7 Passenger Aircraft Fleet Mix-Baseline 2017
The passenger aircraft10 fleet mix baseline list identifies
the most commonly used passenger aircraft11 at SLC
for 2017. Further details on the number of operations
of each aircraft compared to the passenger aircraft
operations as a whole can be found in Appendix C.
116115
12 Air taxi and commuter operations are those with less than 60 passenger seats or a cargo payload of less than 18,000 pounds. These can include aircraft such as the
Embraer 120 or Cessna 208.
13 Includes air cargo operations.
14 For this forecast, passenger operations refer to the combined total of air carrier and air taxi & commuter operations.
Figure 2-10: Historical Total Operations (2003-2017)
FY Total
Operations
Air
Carrier
Air Taxi &
Commuter
Total
GA
Total
Military
2003 400,700 146,598 164,914 80,168 9,020
2004 411,785 132,072 197,093 79,122 3,498
2005 446,926 158,880 210,342 74,944 2,760
2006 426,350 165,632 191,068 67,611 2,039
2007 422,297 165,306 188,429 66,642 1,920
2008 402,424 172,208 168,106 60,029 2,081
2009 374,004 172,481 140,470 58,955 2,098
2010 366,785 178,513 125,074 61,085 2,113
2011 364,839 178,563 113,077 68,570 4,629
2012 330,023 175,449 93,681 58,649 2,244
2013 331,008 175,921 88,915 64,097 2,075
2014 325,115 178,093 86,586 58,243 2,193
2015 315,338 184,011 77,652 49,249 4,426
2016 318,284 194,767 73,990 42,118 7,410
2017 325,093 209,203 68,066 40,476 7,348
Average Annual Growth Rate (AAGR)
2003 - 2017 -1.3%2.4%-5.1%-4.1%7.7%
Source: FAA TAF 2017, Published January, 2018
2.3 HISTORICAL OPERATIONS
2.3.1 Historical Total Operations
Over the past 15 years, the total operations from SLC have decreased by over 75,000. During that time the largest
contributors to the decline were decreases in air taxi & commuter (-5.1% AAGR)12; this category includes commuter
jets having fewer than 60 seats, e.g., CRJ-200. General Aviation (GA) operations (-4.1% AAGR) reflects declining
piston engine operations. In contrast, air carrier13 operations (2.4% AAGR) increased from 146,598 to 209,203
during those 15 years to offset some of the decline. FIGURE 2-10 shows the historical distribution of total airport
operations from 2003-2017.
2.3.2 Historical Passenger Operations
In 2003, the distribution of passenger operations14 by type as indicated in the FAA TAF was nearly an even split,
with air taxi & commuter representing 52.5%, and air carrier representing 47.5% of the total. Since that time, air
carrier activity increased from 146,598 to 209,203 flights, representing 75.5% of total passenger share; and air taxi
& commuter decreased from 164,914 to 68,066, representing a 24.5% share of passenger operations. This shift in
operations is largely due to evolving airline business strategies in which high frequency routes currently served by
small aircraft are being served by larger aircraft flying less often. FIGURE 2-11 shows the historical distribution of
passenger operations from 2003-2017.
2.3.3 Historical General Aviation Operations
Itinerant GA operations predominate over local operations at SLC. Historically from 2003-2017, the itinerant GA
operations have averaged 93% of all GA operations annually. FIGURE 2-12 shows the historical distribution of
operations from 2003-2017.
2.3.4 Historical Military Operations
Historical military operations provide a view of how active military aircraft operate out of SLC. Much like GA, the his-
torical military operations are very much one sided with the majority of operations being itinerant. Over the past 15
years, itinerant military operations have never represented less than 98.2% of military operations. The total military
operations have decreased from 9,020 in 2003, to 7,348 in 2017. FIGURE 2-13 shows the historical distribution of
total military operations from 2003-2017.
2.3.5 Detail 2017 Fleet Mix
Appendix C provides a detail listing of the aircraft model types that operated at SLC in 2017. This data was derived
from the FAA’s National Offload Program (NOP) for aircraft activity and comprises 91% of all operations. It, however,
does not include military or helicopter operations. Appendix C included military and helicopter operations as a result
of coordinating with the FAA Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) and Fixed Base Operators (FBOs). The 325,093
operations represented in this table is the same as the FAA TAF 2017 number of operations for SLC.
Source: FAA TAF 2017, Published January, 2018
115
118117
Figure 2-11: Historical Passenger Operations (2003-2017)Figure 2-12: Historical General Aviation Operations (2003-2017)
FY Total Air
Carrier % Share Air Taxi &
Commuter % Share
2003 311,512 146,598 47.1%164,914 52.9%
2004 329,165 132,072 40.1%197,093 59.9%
2005 369,222 158,880 43.0%210,342 57.0%
2006 356,700 165,632 46.4%191,068 53.6%
2007 353,735 165,306 46.7%188,429 53.3%
2008 340,314 172,208 50.6%168,106 49.4%
2009 312,951 172,481 55.1%140,470 44.9%
2010 303,587 178,513 58.8%125,074 41.2%
2011 291,640 178,563 61.2%113,077 38.8%
2012 269,130 175,449 65.2%93,681 34.8%
2013 264,836 175,921 66.4%88,915 33.6%
2014 264,679 178,093 67.3%86,586 32.7%
2015 261,663 184,011 70.3%77,652 29.7%
2016 268,757 194,767 72.5%73,990 27.5%
2017 277,269 209,203 75.5%68,066 24.5%
Source: FAA TAF 2017, Published January, 2018
FY Total GA Itinerant GA % Share Local Civil*% Share
2003 80,168 68,282 85.2%11,866 14.8%
2004 79,122 71,879 90.8%7,243 9.2%
2005 74,944 69,617 92.9%5,327 7.1%
2006 67,611 64,267 95.1%3,344 4.9%
2007 66,642 66,633 >99.9%9 <0.1%
2008 60,029 60,027 >99.9%2 <0.1%
2009 58,955 58,444 99.1%511 0.9%
2010 61,085 58,700 96.1%2,385 3.9%
2011 68,570 57,701 84.1%10,869 15.9%
2012 58,649 55,118 94.0%3,531 6.0%
2013 64,097 60,346 94.1%3,751 5.9%
2014 58,243 55,022 94.5%3,221 5.5%
2015 49,249 46,180 93.8%3,069 6.2%
2016 42,118 39,710 94.3%2,408 5.7%
2017 40,476 38,372 94.8%2,104 5.2%
Note: *Local Civil Operations refers to Local GA operations in the FAA TAF
Source: FAA TAF 2017, Published January, 2018
Source: FAA TAF 2017, Published January, 2018 Source: FAA TAF 2017, Published January, 2018
120119
2.4 PASSENGER ENPLANEMENTS
2.4.1 Historical Enplanements
According to the historical data from the FAA TAF 2017, annual15 enplanements16 at SLC have increased by over 4 million
from FY 1993-2017. During that time both air carrier and commuter17 enplanements increased by over 2 million. The proportion
of enplanements served by each airline type has also changed, as commuter airlines served only 3.8% of the Airport’s total
enplanements in 1993, and in 2017 they served 22.9%. TABLE 2-3 and FIGURE 2-14 show the historical enplanements
by type from 1993-2017.
Table 2-3: Historical Enplanements by Type (1993-2017)
15 Unless otherwise identified, all references to “annual” refers to the federal fiscal year, October 1-September 30.
16 An enplanement is count of an individual who boards a passenger aircraft
17 The definition of commuter refers to a passenger aircraft having fewer than 60 seats.
Figure 2-13: Historical Military Operations (2003-2017)
FY Total Military Itinerant Military % Share Local Military % Share
2003 9,020 8,910 98.8%110 1.2%
2004 3,498 3,437 98.3%61 1.7%
2005 2,760 2,744 99.4%16 0.6%
2006 2,039 2,027 99.4%12 0.0%
2007 1,920 1,920 100.0%0 0.0%
2008 2,081 2,081 100.0%0 0.0%
2009 2,098 2,098 100.0%0 0.0%
2010 2,113 2,113 100.0%0 0.0%
2011 4,629 4,620 99.8%9 0.2%
2012 2,244 2,234 99.6%10 0.4%
2013 2,075 2,061 99.3%14 0.7%
2014 2,193 2,153 98.2%40 1.8%
2015 4,426 4,396 99.3%30 0.7%
2016 7,410 7,392 99.8%18 0.2%
2017*7,348 7,342 99.9%6 0.1%
Source: FAA TAF 2017, Published January, 2018
Enplanements
FY Air Carrier Commuter Total
1993 6,855,872 269,203 7,125,075
1994 7,825,735 364,279 8,190,014
1995 8,192,501 469,625 8,662,126
1996 9,203,501 469,625 8,662,126
1997 9,495,786 649,333 10,145,119
1998 9,192,805 615,431 9,808,236
1999 8,770,603 866,780 9,637,383
2000 8,760,945 917,629 9,678,574
2001 8,206,164 1,084,526 9,290,690
2002 7,189,655 1,756,937 8,946,592
2003 7,107,602 1,913,721 9,021,323
2004 6,278,603 2,545,231 8,823,834
2005 6,899,968 3,414,855 10,314,823
2006 6,783,300 3,503,255 10,286,555
2007 7,001,699 3,590,981 10,592,680
2008 6,809,752 3,361,871 10,171,623
2009 6,324,440 3,489,027 9,813,467
2010 5,945,758 3,845,991 9,791,749
2011 6,276,982 3,519,577 9,796,559
2012 6,394,392 3,209,108 9,603,500
2013 6,549,622 3,088,372 9,637,994
2014 6,958,146 3,021,896 9,980,042
2015 7,647,018 2,862,209 10,509,227
2016 8,161,829 2,840,040 11,001,869
2017 8,880,620 2,635,019 11,515,639
Average Annual Growth Rate (AAGR)
1993 - 2017 1.9%11.3%2.7%
Source: FAA TAF 2017, Published January, 2018
Source: FAA TAF 2017, Published January, 2018
122121
Figure 2-14: Historical Enplanement Breakdown (1993-2017)
18 Analysis of O&D and connecting passengers includes connecting passengers among interline carriers as a part of the mainline carrier statistic.
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
1
5
:
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
O
&
D
a
n
d
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
E
n
p
l
a
n
e
m
e
n
t
s
(
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
7
)
2.4.1.1 Origination & Destination and
Connecting Enplanements.
Enplanements can be classified by passenger types, in
reference to the Airport’s role within their itinerary. These
passenger types include origin & destination (O&D) and
connecting enplanements.
O&D enplanements represent the passengers that enplane/de-
plane a commercial aircraft beginning or ending their itinerary
at SLC. These passengers may travel nonstop, or connect at
other airports domestically and internationally before reach-
ing their final destination. Meanwhile, connecting passengers
begin their itinerary at a different airport, and connect in SLC
and possibly other airports before reaching their final desti-
nation. As a connecting airport, SLC acts as a middle segment
to a passenger’s trip. Enplanement type distribution ratios are
essential, because they provide valuable information to deter-
mine the facilities that will be necessary to accommodate the
needs of each enplanement type. TABLE 2-4 shows a historical
summary of the total enplanements, and ratios of O&D and
connecting enplanements from 1993-2017.
Historically, the Airport has fluctuated around the 50% mark
for both O&D and connecting enplanements. More recently,
the trend has seen O&D enplanements increasing at a higher
rate (AAGR of 3.6%) than connecting enplanements which
increased at an AAGR of 0.8% from 1993-2017. From 2013-
2017, the Airport proportion of O&D and connecting enplane-
ments changed by 7.3% resulting in base year 2017 in which
SLC had its highest percentage of O&D enplanements (61.4%),
and lowest percentage of connecting enplanements (38.6%)
over the past 25 years.
Delta Air Lines (DL) has been the largest operating commercial
airline out of SLC for the past 25+ years. As the most promi-
nent air carrier at SLC, its own O&D and connecting activities
greatly affect the Airport’s passenger type distribution. During
the past five years, DL has decreased its connections and
become more even in its distribution of O&D and connecting
enplanements. At the same time, other airlines operating out
of SLC have shown an increase in O&D enplanements resulting
in lower connecting proportions. FIGURE 2-15 compares DL’s
contribution to the total enplanements at SLC with the rest
of the commercial passenger airlines as a whole from 2013-
2017.18
Source: FAA TAF 2017, Published January, 2018
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
B
u
r
e
a
u
o
f
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
T
-
1
0
0
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
d
a
t
a
,
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
7
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
B
u
r
e
a
u
o
f
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
T
-
1
0
0
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
d
a
t
a
,
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
7
124123
2.4.1.2 Domestic and International Enplanements
Domestic O&D passengers begin or end their itinerary at SLC,
and travel to or from a domestic destination. These passengers
fly nonstop or connect through various locations. The connect-
ing domestic passengers are those that originate their travel
at an airport other than SLC, connect at SLC, and continue to
another domestic airport upon departing from SLC. In either
case, SLC acts as a middle segment of a domestic itinerary.
TABLE 2-5 ranks the top 25 domestic O&D destinations by
total enplaned and deplaned O&D passengers for FY 2017.
Three types of international travelers were defined based on
the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) T-100 segment
market data.19 The first group was identified as nonstop inter-
national O&D enplanements. The nonstop international O&D
enplanements include those individuals that were on nonstop
flights out of SLC, to any of the destinations at which the
Airport provides nonstop international service. The second
group is also identified as international O&D enplanements,
but is different from the first because they included various
connecting segments. These enplanements include passen-
gers that began their trip in SLC, before connecting to other
airports (both domestic and international), upon reaching their
final international destination.
TABLE 2-6 ranks the top 25 international destinations by the
total enplaned and deplaned O&D passenger counts for FY
2017. The last group is identified as connecting international
passengers. These passengers all connect at SLC for one of
their middle segments on their international trip.
TABLE 2-7 provides an alternative way to view the top 25
international O&D destinations as compared to the previous
table, by adding in total connecting passengers to establish a
final total of international passengers to each market.
FIGURE 2-16 provides a map of these top international
markets from 2017.
An analysis of these three types of international enplanements
out of SLC for FY 2013-2017 found that the domestic
percentage of O&D versus connecting enplanements were
very similar. As a result, for planning purposes, it was deter-
mined to use the same O&D/connecting percentages for both
domestic and international enplanements in this forecast. This
does not have any impact upon the Facility Requirements that
would be generated from these forecasts.
19 T-100 segment market data, also known as the Air Carrier Statistics database, contains certificated monthly reports of domestic and international airline
market and segment data.
Table 2-4: Historical Enplanement Distribution (1993-2017)
Ta
b
l
e
2
-
5
:
T
o
p
2
5
D
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
D
e
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
b
y
O
&
D
P
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
s
(
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
7
)
FY
Origin & Destination (O&D)Connecting
%Enplanements %Enplanements
1993 44.3%3,156,408 55.7%3,968,667
1998 48.5%4,756,994 51.5%5,051,242
2003 50.8%4,582,832 49.2%4,438,491
2008 55.3%5,620,821 44.7%4,550,802
2009 52.2%5,119,439 47.8%4,694,028
2010 51.3%5,019,406 48.7%4,772,343
2011 52.3%5,121,099 47.7%4,675,460
2012 53.6%5,143,580 46.4%4,459,920
2013 54.1%5,214,155 45.9%4,423,839
2014 54.2%5,406,189 45.8%4,573,853
2015 56.1%5,896,727 43.9%4,612,500
2016 57.4%6,312,872 42.6%4,688,997
2017 61.4%7,065,996 38.6%4,449,643
Enplanement Average Annual Growth Rate (AAGR)
1993-1997 11.9%7.4%
1998-2002 -1.7%-3.1%
2003-2007 4.5%3.1%
2008-2017 2.5%-1.1%
1993-2017 3.60%0.77%
Note: O&D and Connecting Enplanements were interpolated using connecting percentages from the 2006 SLC Master Plan Update and T-100 Airline
Market Data from 2005-2012 and the FAA TAF 2018
Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics T-100 segment data, 2005-2017; 2005-2012; SLC Mast Plan Update, 2006 (data for years 1993-2004)
126125
Ta
b
l
e
2
-
7
:
T
o
p
2
5
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
D
e
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
b
y
T
o
t
a
l
O
&
D
P
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
s
w
i
t
h
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
P
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
s
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
(
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
7
)
Ta
b
l
e
2
-
6
:
T
o
p
2
5
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
D
e
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
b
y
O
&
D
P
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
s
(
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
7
)
128127
Figure 2-17: Peak Month
Enplanements (FY 2013-2017)
F
i
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
1
6
:
T
o
p
2
5
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
D
e
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
b
y
R
e
g
i
o
n
(
2
0
1
7
)
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
R
S
&
H
,
2
0
1
8
;
E
s
r
i
,
2
0
1
8
Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics T-100 segment data, 2013-2017
2.4.1.3 Peak Month
Over the past five fiscal years, the peak months identified by
total enplanements at SLC have occurred in either July or August,
with July being the peak month during the most recent four years.
Both July 2016 and 2017 had over one million enplanements.
Over the past five fiscal years July has represented an average of
9.5% of the Airport’s annual enplanements. Given these totals,
July is identified as the Peak Month of Enplanements for this
Master Plan Update. FIGURE 2-17 and TABLE 2-8 compare the
enplanements out of SLC by month from 2013-2017.
130129
2.4.2 Market Trends and Activity
2.4.2.1 SLC Operating Air Carriers
The air carriers which operate at SLC include;
• Aeroméxico (AM)
• Alaska Airlines (AS)
• American Airlines (AA)
• Delta Air Lines (DL)
• Frontier Airlines (F9)
• JetBlue Airways (B6)
• KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KL)
• SkyWest Airlines (OO)
• Southwest Airlines (WN)
• United Airlines (UA)
2.4.2.2 Air Carrier Market Share
Of all mainline and regional carriers operating out of SLC, DL
has consistently maintained the largest share of enplanements
over the past 25+ years. More recently DL has increased its
share with a 3.9% increase from 2013 to 2017. As a regional
carrier, SkyWest Airlines20 (OO) code shares with Alaska Airlines,
American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, as well as United Airlines and
operates as an individual airline. The air carrier shares indicated
in FIGURE 2-18 includes the portion of SkyWest code shares,
and are identified as part of the mainline carrier’s market share of
enplanements. As an individual airline, the airline with the second
greatest share is SkyWest Airlines. Southwest Airlines is third in
air carrier shares.
20 SkyWest Airlines is not included in the list of air carriers because it is a regional carrier.
Figure 2-18: SLC Air Carrier Market Share of Enplanements (2013 & 2017)
2.4.2.3 Airline Markets Served
As of August, 2018 the Airport’s route network had 373 daily departures to 98 nonstop destinations. The international
destinations include three European, three Canadian, and five Mexican nonstop destinations. Domestically, SLC provides service
across the country, with nonstop service from coast to coast, as well as the Hawaiian Islands, and Alaska. FIGURE 2-19 shows a
map of the nonstop destinations in August, 2018.
Ta
b
l
e
2
-
8
:
M
o
n
t
h
l
y
E
n
p
l
a
n
e
m
e
n
t
s
S
h
a
r
e
b
y
F
i
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
(
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
7
)
C
Y
O
c
t
N
o
v
D
e
c
J
a
n
F
e
b
M
a
r
A
p
r
M
a
y
J
u
n
J
u
l
A
u
g
S
e
p
t
T
o
t
a
l
2
0
1
3
7
8
9
,
9
7
5
7
2
1
,
7
2
3
7
3
9
,
3
5
5
7
3
7
,
0
7
0
6
8
6
,
6
2
4
8
6
8
,
7
1
8
7
8
8
,
5
1
4
8
0
5
,
6
4
9
8
7
2
,
1
2
4
9
0
4
,
3
8
5
9
1
9
,
6
7
7
7
9
3
,
8
7
7
9
,
6
2
7
,
6
9
1
8
.
2
%
7
.
5
%
7
.
7
%
7
.
7
%
7
.
1
%
9
.
0
%
8
.
2
%
8
.
4
%
9
.
1
%
9
.
4
%
9
.
6
%
8
.
3
%
1
0
0
.
0
0
%
2
0
1
4
8
0
7
,
6
3
7
7
0
6
,
6
5
0
7
6
4
,
7
0
6
7
6
2
,
2
5
8
7
2
1
,
6
4
2
9
0
3
,
5
3
8
8
2
2
,
6
5
6
8
4
0
,
4
1
6
9
0
8
,
6
5
2
9
5
3
,
0
0
6
9
4
6
,
7
1
3
8
3
3
,
6
4
4
9
,
9
7
1
,
5
1
8
8
.
1
%
7
.
1
%
7
.
7
%
7
.
7
%
7
.
2
%
9
.
1
%
8
.
3
%
8
.
4
%
9
.
1
%
9
.
6
%
9
.
5
%
8
.
4
%
1
0
0
.
0
0
%
2
0
1
5
8
6
3
,
2
2
7
7
5
9
,
4
2
6
8
1
3
,
2
2
2
8
1
2
,
6
6
4
7
7
5
,
0
0
6
9
5
3
,
7
3
3
8
5
0
,
5
0
2
8
7
3
,
2
8
3
9
4
6
,
5
0
9
9
9
4
,
5
5
4
9
9
1
,
3
1
3
8
6
5
,
1
5
8
1
0
,
4
9
8
,
5
9
7
8
.
2
%
7
.
2
%
7
.
8
%
7
.
7
%
7
.
4
%
9
.
1
%
8
.
1
%
8
.
3
%
9
.
0
%
9
.
5
%
9
.
4
%
8
.
2
%
1
0
0
.
0
0
%
2
0
1
6
9
0
7
,
7
1
4
8
1
0
,
7
7
8
8
4
2
,
7
0
8
8
3
7
,
8
5
4
8
1
4
,
0
5
2
9
6
3
,
4
4
7
8
6
6
,
4
8
2
9
3
8
,
1
4
8
1
,
0
1
9
,
4
6
0
1
,
0
5
4
,
1
6
9
1
,
0
1
5
,
2
9
4
9
2
2
,
9
2
9
1
0
,
9
9
3
,
0
3
5
8
.
3
%
7
.
4
%
7
.
7
%
7
.
6
%
7
.
4
%
8
.
8
%
7
.
9
%
8
.
5
%
9
.
3
%
9
.
6
%
9
.
2
%
8
.
4
%
1
0
0
.
0
0
%
2
0
1
7
9
4
2
,
1
7
2
8
6
5
,
8
3
2
8
9
3
,
3
3
1
8
9
3
,
9
2
1
8
3
3
,
4
9
1
1
,
0
3
7
,
1
7
0
9
1
4
,
3
3
2
9
6
8
,
7
6
8
1
,
0
3
0
,
5
8
5
1
,
0
9
4
,
7
8
9
1
,
0
9
1
,
5
1
1
9
5
0
,
6
0
5
1
1
,
5
1
6
,
5
0
7
8
.
2
%
7
.
5
%
7
.
8
%
7
.
8
%
7
.
2
%
9
.
0
%
8
.
0
%
8
.
4
%
9
.
0
%
9
.
5
%
9
.
5
%
8
.
3
%
1
0
0
.
0
0
%
N
o
t
e
:
F
o
r
e
a
c
h
y
e
a
r
t
h
e
f
i
r
s
t
f
o
w
o
f
v
a
l
u
e
s
s
h
o
w
s
t
h
e
t
o
t
a
l
e
n
p
l
a
n
e
m
e
n
t
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
a
t
f
i
s
c
a
l
y
e
a
r
;
t
h
e
s
e
c
o
n
d
r
o
w
o
f
v
a
l
u
e
s
f
o
r
t
h
a
t
y
e
a
r
i
s
e
q
u
a
l
t
o
t
h
e
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
t
h
e
f
i
s
c
a
l
y
e
a
r
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
e
n
p
l
a
n
e
m
e
n
t
s
re
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
f
o
r
t
h
a
t
m
o
n
t
h
.
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
s
a
r
e
r
o
u
n
d
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
n
e
a
r
e
s
t
0
.
1
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
.
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
B
u
r
e
a
u
o
f
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
T
-
1
0
0
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
d
a
t
a
,
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
7
Note: Other Airlines* indicates teh sum of all enplanements by those airlines with less than 100,000 eb=nplanements annually
Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics T-100 segment data, 2018
132
2.4.2.5 Comparative Airport Analysis
2.4.2.5.1 Regional Large Hub Market Share Comparison
FIGURE 2-21 compares the total enplanements for four of the other large hub airports in the general region over the past five
fiscal years. These airports include Denver International Airport (Denver, Colorado-DEN), McCarran International Airport
(Las Vegas, Nevada-LAS), Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (Phoenix, Arizona-PHX), and Dallas-Fort Worth
International Airport (Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas-DFW).
The average air fares of these airports were also compared in FIGURE 2-22. From 2008-2017 SLC had a greater average airfare
than three of the four large hub airports compared with the exception of DFW. It also had higher annual average airfares than the
United States’ average as a whole, except
for the years of 2008 and 2009.
131
Figure 2-20: Historic Load Factors
2.4.2.4 Load Factors
Load factors represent the percentage number of paying
passengers on a commercial flight, compared to total seats
available. Over the past 10 fiscal years, air carriers at SLC have
sustained a load factor of 80%21 or greater annually, as well as
continuing to be above the U.S. average each year. In FY 2015,
SLC reached its highest average loads during that time with
an annual load factor of 85.77%; the highest U.S. average was
82.72% in 2014. FIGURE 2-20 compares changes in the FY
origin load factors22 for all airlines out of SLC and the U.S. from
2008-2017.
Load factors are also unique to markets, airlines, and routes. An
analysis of the T-100 load factors by air carriers at SLC showed
that many of the top SLC markets for all passengers had out-
bound load factors near the Airport’s average of 84.8%.
LAX = 83.3%
DEN = 83.2%
PHX = 75.3%
ATL = 92.2%
SEA = 79.9%
LAS = 77.9%
Figure 2-19: Nonstop Destinations (August, 2018)
21 Load factors were taken from BTS T-100 market segment data, and rounded in some cases for comparative purposes.
22 Average FY load factors were calculated by taking the average load factor for the FY analyzed.
Source: SLCDA, 2018 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics T-100 segment data, 2018
Salt Lake City's Route Network Includes 373 Average Daily
Departures to 98 Nonstop Destinations
2.4.2.6 SLC Market Analysis
2.4.2.6.1 Average Airfares
Average airfare data for each airport is provided by the Bureau
of Transportation Statistics. The averages provided for each
airport are based on a 10% sample of all airline tickets for U.S.
carriers at that airport. The airfares23 are “itinerary in type”,
meaning they include round trip costs, unless a one way ticket
is purchased. Each average airfare is in current US dollars for
the year that it is listed.
Since 1993, SLC has been below the U.S. average for airfare
until 2007. However, airfares for the U.S. as a whole and SLC
have both increased very similarly over the past 25 years. The
historical AAGR for SLC’s average airfare and the U.S. is 0.5%.
FIGURE 2-23 shows the historical and projected airfares for
SLC and the U.S. The projected growth rates of airlines for this
Forecast were derived using the same historical AAGRs.
2.4.2.6.2 Airline Yield
Airline yield like airfare, is also a good indicator for projecting
airport enplanement growth. Airline yield is the average airfare
per passenger per mile. Oftentimes, airline yield can be used
as a surrogate for airfares, if the airfare variable is not usable
or unavailable. Airline yield is determined by taking the revenue
seat miles and dividing them by total revenue. Airline yield is re-
ported in cents (¢) and the assumption can be made that when
yield is higher the number of enplanements is usually lower.
For this Forecast, the historical (1.5%) AAGR for SLC airline
yields from 1993-2017 was used, although the U.S. used the
(1.9%) AAGR projected in the FAA Aerospace Forecast for
FY 2018-2038. The U.S. airline yield is shown for comparison
purposes only. FIGURE 2-24 shows the historical airline yields
for SLC and the U.S. from 1993-2017, and the yields forecast
over the planning horizon.
2.4.2.6.3 Jet Fuel Prices Analysis
Jet fuel prices are a highly important variable to consider when
analyzing enplanements. Fuel prices may impact the cost of
a passenger’s ticket; higher fuel prices often result in higher
airfares which translates into decreases in discretionary travel.
This Forecast uses the U.S. Energy Information Administra-
tion for historical jet fuel prices and the projected 4.3% AAGR
for Jet Fuel Prices over the planning horizon from the FAA
Aerospace Forecast FY 2018-2038. FIGURE 2-25 shows the
historical and projected jet fuel prices.
133 134
23 Average air fares do not include charter air travel or baggage and optional services that an airline may provide at additional costs.
Figure 2-23: Historical and Projected Average Domestic Airfare (1993-2037)
Figure 2-21: Comparison of Regional Large Hub Airport Enplanements (2013-2017)
Figure 2-22: Annual Average Domestic Airfare Comparison among similarly sized Regional Airports
Source: FAA TAF, 2017, Published January, 2018
Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics T-100 segment data, 2018
Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics T-100 segment data, 2018
2.4.2.6.4 Passenger Aircraft Fleet Mix Trend Analysis
Anticipated trends for the Airport’s passenger aircraft fleet mix
over the planning horizon are identified in this section. Some
of these changes are anticipated due to the age of existing
aircraft or potential requirements, while others are based on
trends in upgauging, or increased performance and efficiency.
The following changes are intended to only reflect each listed
airline’s SLC fleet mix, and is not necessarily intended to be
representative for the airline as a whole.
Delta Air Lines
Airbus 220-100, -300
Airbus 320-Airbus 321 → Airbus320neo/Airbus321neo
Boeing 737-700, -800, -9001 → Boeing 737 MAX 7,
MAX 8, MAX 9
Boeing 747-4001 → Airbus 350-900
Boeing 777-200
Frontier Airlines
Airbus 319-Airbus 321 → Airbus 321neo
JetBlue Airways
Airbus 320-Airbus 321 → Airbus 320neo/321neo
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
Boeing 777-200/Boeing 787-900
United Airlines
Airbus 319-320 → Airbus 320neo/Airbus 321neo
2.4.2.6.5 Short, Medium, and Long Range Global Potential
It is anticipated that SLC will slowly add new nonstop
domestic city pairs in the future. In terms of international
routes, the largest number of non-stop markets unserved are
those in Asia. There may be incremental new city pairs to North
American markets such as to Canada or Mexico and potentially
Latin America or the Caribbean. Another possibility is a South
American city pair. At this time, there are no additional non-
stop routes anticipated to Europe.
2.4.3 Passenger Enplanement Forecasts
2.4.3.1 Methodology
This section provides the methodology for developing passen-
ger enplanement forecasts. This involves the formulation and
use of three multiple regression models with different growth
assumptions to develop the most likely forecast, referred to as
the Base Case Forecast, and the alternate forecasts presenting
High Case and Low Case Scenarios. Each model incorporates
various combinations of independent variables with statistical
significance based on the standard alpha P-value24 of 0.05. The
output of these models (or dependent variable) is a projected
number of O&D enplanements for each of the 20 years over
the planning horizon. The independent variables that were
tested and selected ranged from:
• Socioeconomic characteristics unique to the
SLC service area
• Economic indicators such as national jet fuel prices, average
airfare, and airline yield
• Qualitative variables,25 which are unique events that
have a noticeable impact on aviation activity locally
at SLC or nationally.
The general practice in forecasting enplanements is the use of
a multiple variable regression analysis that ultimately provides
the “best fit” model26 for the data. The best fit regression
model identified as the Base Case Forecast makes projections
for enplanements based on the projected growth rates that
have been derived from the data sources used, FAA projec-
tions, or historical AAGRs when applicable. Often times, the
Base Case model’s variables adjust their projected growth
rates to generate derivative scenario forecasts to reflect Low
and High ranges. For example, if the Base Case variables that
produces the most statistically relevant equation with the
highest correlations includes population, GRP, and airline yield,
then the Low Case could decrease the rate of GRP growth and
increase airline yield, whereas the rate of GRP growth could be
increased and airline yield would be decreased to generate the
High Case.
For SLC the same approach was applied but in greater detail.
For the Base Case and derivative Low and High Cases, the
same 11 predictor variables were analyzed for use. The Low
and High Case Scenario variables selected for each model,
include adjustments to some of the projections so that they
could better reflect the nature of the scenario. For instance,
135 136
24 A standard alpha P-value of 0.05 is the value commonly used in social sciences for accepting or rejecting null hypotheses regarding multivariate regression models.
When a P-value is less than the alpha 0.05, the null hypothesis (that states the regression model is not impacted by the selected independent variables) can be rejected.
This conclusion, enables the model with a P-value less than 0.05 to be accepted at the 95% confidence level.
25 For this Forecast qualitative variables are also known as “binomial” or “dummy’ variables.
26 Designation of a “Best Fit” regression model is supported by the model or models that have the greatest R Square value, along with other supporting statistics that
are statistically significant for the tests performed.
27 In the High Case Scenario, the University of Utah Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute data were used in lieu of increasing Woods & Poole population and employment
growth rates for regional area.
Figure 2-24: Historical and Projected Airline Yield (1993-2037)
Figure 2-25: Historical and Projected Jet Fuel Prices (1993-2037)
*Airline yields are shown in US cents for the year that they are referenced | Note: Projected airline yields were interpolated using the historical AAGR (1.5%) from 1993-
2017 for SLC, and the projected (1.9%) AAGR given in the FAA Aerospace Forecast FY 2018-2038 for the US. | Source: RS&H, 2018; Bureau of Transportation Statistics
T-100 segment data, 2018, Salt Lake City Master Plan Update, 2006; FAA Aerospace Forecast FY 2018-2038
*Jet fuel prices are shown in US dollars for the year that they are referenced | Note: Projected Jet Fuel Prices are interpolated using the FAA Aerospace Forecast FY
2018-2038 AAGR of 4.3% from 2018-2037 | Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2018; FAA Aerospace Forecast FY 2018-2038; RS&H, 2018
͗YIELD= SLC Airline Yield (decreased by 10%)
(P-value=<0.01)
͗9/11= Terrorists attacks of 9/11 qualitative vari-
able (“1” given for the year of 9/11 and all years
thereafter)
The forecast variables that best represent an increase in O&D
enplanements for the High Case Scenario Forecast is assumed
increases in the rate of population growth over the Base Case,
a decline in airline yield, the ongoing effect of airline mergers,
and variables that account for unanticipated local, national, or
world events.
After the three regression models were selected, the O&D pro-
jections were given a proportion of all enplanements relevant
to specific historical trends of O&D and connecting enplane-
ment distributions out of SLC. Because SLC is a hub, the ex-
isting 61.4% of enplanements being O&D, is not anticipated to
continue, instead each forecast anticipates a transition back to
more even distribution between O&D and connecting enplane-
ments. Therefore, the three scenario distributions reflect more
of a hub-type distribution.36
2.4.3.1.2 Monte Carlo Simulations
Monte Carlo simulation was used to evaluate each of the three
scenarios.
The software developer37 of Monte Carlo simulation refers to
the software as a probability simulation. It is a technique used
to understand the impact of risk and uncertainty in
forecasting models.
In developing a forecast, certain assumptions are made in order
to identify that a future value, for example, enplanements, will
occur in a particular year. Since this is a forecast, the best one
can do is to estimate an expected value based upon historical
data, future trends information, or experience. The greater the
number of variables that are used to generate a forecast, the
greater the number of potential ranges of outcomes. Typically,
several variables produce the best overall statistical correla-
tions. Using a range of possible values can generate a more
realistic future.
Monte Carlo simulation provides an estimate of the probability
of the likelihood of a resulting outcome based upon the range
of variables. Because it is a simulation technique, each set of
variables can be tested against each other to identify
ranges of probability.
For this Forecast, the simulation compared the projections of
the regression model within the Monte Carlo simulation’s 95%
probability range. Each Monte Carlo simulation run completed
a total of 10,000 iterations of all input variables. The results
which include random error, verify that each of the three
forecast models are generated within a 95% confidence level.
FIGURE 2-26 shows the Base Case Forecast regression model
and identifies the upper and lower limits with a 95% probability
confidence level. After inserting the Monte Carlo simulation
predicted O&D enplanements, and establishing the AAGRs
over the planning horizon, some of the annual growth rates
were adjusted to provide a smooth transition from the previous
distribution to the new hub type distributions. Results for the
Low and High Scenario regressions within a 95% probability
confidence level look almost exactly like the one depicted in
FIGURE 2-26.
2.4.3.2 O&D Enplanements Forecasts
The Base Case Forecast for O&D has an AAGR of 1.7% over
the planning horizon. The model was built using the SLC ser-
vice area’s GRP, average airfare for the Airport, national jet fuel
prices, and two qualitative variables that reflect the impacts of
the Terrorist Attacks of 9/11 and the Recession of 2009.
Using this model, the number of annual O&D enplanements
will increase from approximately 7.1 million in 2017, to 9.9
million in 2037.
The Low Case Scenario Forecast model is built using the SLC
service area’s population and employment, as well as the airline
yield and average airfare for the Airport; please see Section
2.4.3.1 Methodology. The Low Case Scenario model projects
an AAGR of 1.4% over the planning horizon, increasing the
annual O&D enplanements from approximately 7.1 million in
2017, to 9.2 million in 2037.
Lastly, the High Case Scenario Forecast model was based
on population growth for the SLC service area, but instead
of using the Woods & Poole projections, it used the slightly
higher University of Utah’s AAGR (1.5%). The other variables
include the projected airline yield for SLC, but in this scenario
it is decreased by 10%, and finally the two qualitative variables
which include the Terrorist Attacks of 9/11 and the Northwest
Airlines and Delta Air Lines Merge of 2008. The High Case
Scenario model projects an AAGR of 2.4% over the planning
horizon, increasing the annual O&D enplanements from
approximately 7.1 million in 2017, to 11.3 million in 2037.
TABLE 2-10 shows the projected O&D enplanements for
each forecast, and the distribution or share of O&D enplane-
ments versus connecting enplanements as a percentage
from 2018-2037.
137 138
36 In this Forecast, a “hub-type” distribution refers to a more balanced breakdown of O&D and connecting enplanements.
37 Internet, www.riskamp.com, November 13, 2018.
the Low Case Scenario included projections that were de-
creased by ten percent, and the High Case Scenario includes
projections that were increased by ten percent. There was also
one instance where a different source for projecting population
and employment over the planning horizon was used.
To further validate the forecasts and take into consideration
random error, Monte Carlo Simulation was used to test results
(see discussion of Monte Carlo below). The simulation results
prove with a 95% probability that the models all have the
potential to predict future enplanements.
In summary, the results of this process identifies a unique set
of variables for each scenario while using the same overall data
set for each scenarios. The results is a best fit equation for
each scenario derived from the variables that correlate best
with that scenario’s enplanement projections.
2.4.3.1.1 Regression Models and Statistics
The following three regression models were selected as the
Base Case, Low Case Scenario, and High Case Scenario Fore-
casts. The equation and statistics of each forecast are provided
below.
• Base Case Forecast
͛R Square28= 0.989
͛Adjusted R Square29= 0.972
͛Equation30= 3052880.55391373
+ (-7358.77682732965*AIR-
FARE) + (141401.285712933*FU-
EL)+(41.8884116094778*GRP)+
( -228537.429647365*RECESS) +
(-523832.531871583*9/11)
͛Degrees of Freedom31=5
͛Significance (F)32= <0.01
͛Durbin-Watson33=2.002
͛Variables34=
͗AIRFARE= Average airfare of SLC (P-value=< 0.01)
͗FUEL= National Jet Fuel Prices (P-value=0.037)
͗GRP= Gross Regional Product of SLC Service Area
(P-Value= <0.01) value
͗RECESS= Recession qualitative variable (“1” given
for those years affected by the 2009 Recession)
(P-value= 0.020)
͗9/11= Terrorists attacks of 9/11 qualitative
variable (“1” given for the year of 9/11 and all
years thereafter)
The forecast variables, or predictors35 that generated the “best
fit” equation to estimate the future level of O&D enplanements
for the Base Case Forecast, are projections of average airfares,
jet fuel prices, SLC Service Area GRP, and variables that ac-
count for unanticipated local, national, or world events.
• Low Case Scenario Forecast
͛R Square= 0.976
͛Adjusted R Square= 0.971
͛Equation=1964317.012+( -7240.154096*AIRFARE)
+( 6.90256294*EMPLOY)+(-2.404449617*POP)+
( 90651.2393*YIELD)
͛Degrees of Freedom=4
͛Significance (F)= <0.01
͛Durbin-Watson=1.723
͛Variables=
͗AIRFARE= Average airfare of SLC (P-value=< 0.01)
͗EMPLOY= Employment of SLC Service Area
(P-Value= <0.01)
͗POP= Population of SLC Service Area
(P-Value= <0.01)
͗YIELD= SLC Airline Yield (P-value=<0.01)
The forecast variables that best represent a forecast of slower
growth in O&D enplanements in the SLC market for the Low
Case are an increase in airfares and airline yield and a slowing
of growth in population and employment over the Base Case.
• High Case Scenario Forecast
͛R Square= 0.869
͛Adjusted R Square= 0.843
͛Equation= -4214297.74147306 +
( -871241.946536854*MERGE)
+ (5.84509052639647*POP) +
(-185318.820602199*YIELD) +
(-1037476.00386821*9/11)
͛Degrees of Freedom=4
͛Significance (F)= <0.01
͛Durbin-Watson=1.495
͛Variables=
͗MERGE= Delta Air Lines-Northwest Airlines Merg-
er of 2008 (“1” given for the year of the merge in
2008, and every year thereafter) (P-Value= <0.01)
͗POP= Population of SLC Service Area (with Uni-
versity of Utah Population Growth Rate) (P-Value=
<0.01)
28 The R Square value is a percentage that indicates how well the data points fit the regression model. If R Square values are closer to 1.0, then the regression model can
be regarded as a good model for fitting the data.
29 The Adjusted R Square value is also a percentage indicating goodness of fit in the regression model, but unlike the R Square value it is based on the importance of
each of the independent variables that are used in the model, therefore if it differs greatly from the R Square value, there are a greater number of insignificant variables
in the model.
30 The multivariate regression model uses the equation Y=b0 + b1*X1 + b2*X2…
31 Degrees of Freedom represent the number of coefficients which are free to vary, or (n-1) where n=the number of independent variables.
32 The Significance F of the regression, tells what the probability of the regression output is by chance. If it is below the alpha P-value of 0.05, then there is a greater than
95% probability the model’s output is not by chance.
33 The Durbin-Watson statistic tests for autocorrelations in a data sample, or correlations between data over time. It produces a value between 0 and 4, and a value of 2
indicates that there is no autocorrelation in the sample.
34 Variables listed in each of the models are the coefficients used in the regression model, each with significant P-values.
35 Also known as independent variables.
139 140
dynamic period since 2000 that includes periods both of fast-
paced and declining economic growth. The Low Case reflects
a lower connecting ratio and fewer enplanements whereas the
High Case reflects a slightly higher connecting ratio than the
Base Case with greater enplanement levels:
• Base Case Forecast- 53.2% O&D and 46.8% Connecting
Passengers reflect the average percentages of SLC Passen-
gers from FY 2000-2017. This is a higher level of connec-
tions than currently but does reflect the ongoing effects
of airline mergers (anticipated to be completed) as well as
upheaval in events such as an unforeseen global event and a
recession. As a mid-level of connections, it is used with the
Base Case Scenario and generates an increase in the number
of annual connecting enplanements from approximately 4.5
million in 2017 to 8.7 million in 2037.
• Low Case Scenario Forecast- 56.5% O&D and 43.5% Con-
necting Passengers reflect the average percentages of SLC
Passengers from FY 2013-2017. This level of connections
is similar to today’s level and reflects a solid SLC Market
Service Area economy and maintaining the ratio of seats for
O&D versus connecting passengers at the higher O&D levels.
As an overall lower level of connections, it is used with the
Low Case Scenario and generates an increase in the number
of annual connecting enplanements from approximately 4.5
million in 2017 to 7.1 million in 2037.
• High Case Scenario Forecast- 51.9% O&D and 48.1% Con-
necting Passengers reflect the average percentages of SLC
Passengers from FY 1993-2017. This level of connections
represents the long-term historical level. As an overall higher
level of connections, it is used in the High Case Scenario and
generates an increase in the number of annual connecting
enplanements from approximately 4.5 million in 2017 to
10.5 million in 2037.
TABLE 2-11 shows the projected connecting enplanements
for each forecast scenario, and the distribution or share of
connecting enplanements versus O&D enplanements as a
percentage from 2017-2037.
2.4.3.4 International and Domestic Forecast
SLC has increased its international share of annual
enplanements from 1.0% in FY 2003 to 3.9% in 2017 with
accelerated growth since 2013 by Delta. A historical
analysis of international O&D and connecting enplanements
from FY 2013-2017 showed that the distribution of O&D
and connecting enplanements does not deviate greatly from
the domestic enplanements. Therefore, the same distributions
of O&D and connecting enplanements were used in each of
the international enplanement forecasts as was used for
domestic enplanements.
Over the past few years, Delta through its code share partners
has continued to increase its international service from SLC by
providing new nonstop service to some of the most popular
destinations such as London, Amsterdam, and Mexico City. It is
not anticipated that the accelerated rate of the past five years
will continue as robustly into the future now that service is
provided to all ten of the top ten international markets from
SLC but the trend toward increasing the percentage of
international enplanements compared to all enplanements
is anticipated to continue slowly.
In terms of future service, it is common knowledge in the
industry that Delta has increased its ownership share in
Aeroméxico which will provide customers more opportunities
of flying to destinations in Mexico, Central America, and the
Caribbean. In addition, five of the Top 25 International Desti-
nations (See TABLE 1-11) between #11 and #20 are Asian
locations in Japan, Korea, and China. Currently, there is no non-
stop service between SLC and Asia, although there has been
some discussion it may be a possibility. As far as long-term new
markets are concerned, it is not anticipated that there will be
any more direct flights to European destinations but it is not
out of the realm of feasibility to think that a destination such as
Lima, Peru could materialize.
Given these trends, there are expectations for continued
growth on existing international routes as well as the potential
for SLC to serve new international markets.
The Base Case assumes continued growth on existing routes
and the incremental addition of new routes. This would have
the impact of increasing the percentage number of interna-
tional enplanements to total enplanements. Over the past five
years, the number of international enplanements to total
enplanements has doubled, i.e., from 1.9% to approximately
3.8%. The Low Case assumes a lower rate of growth that
would accompany a slowdown in domestic and international
economic activity. In addition to growth in current markets,
the High Case assume initiation of new international routes at
a faster rate with more time for growth in those markets over
the forecast period. As a result the percent of international
enplanements to total enplanements would be greater than
the Base Case.
TABLE 2-9 shows the distributions of international and
domestic enplanements for each forecast scenario over the
planning horizon. While each distribution differs slightly, each
scenario forecast shows growth in the number of international
enplanements over the planning horizon, although the
percentage of international enplanements to total
enplanements differ.
TABLE 2-12 shows the projected international and domestic
enplanements out of SLC over the planning horizon. FIGURE
2-27 compares the international enplanement forecast sce-
narios, and FIGURE 2-28 compares the domestic enplanement
forecast scenarios over the planning horizon.
2.4.3.3 Connecting Enplanements Forecasts
As of 2017, the connecting enplanements represented 38.6%
of all passengers departing from SLC. During its time as a hub
airport, the distribution of connecting versus O&D passengers
has fluctuated over the past 25 years, but it has always been
in the vicinity of a 50-50 split. A major factor influencing the
annual connecting enplanements, and ultimately total annual
enplanements, is the distribution percentages of O&D and
connecting passengers. The SLC city pair for each airline will
have its own connecting ratio based upon the number of O&D
passengers available on that route and that airline’s policy.
There are two typical ways that connecting passengers are
estimated. One is to hold the number of enplanements
constant over the course of the forecast period or, based on
more in depth analysis, forecast the existing O&D/connecting
mix per route. Essentially holding the current level constant is
a weighted average for that point in time.
At this point in SLC’s history, the connecting ratio is near its
historical low point. It is unknown whether this is a long-term
phenomenon, a trend that could be reversed with the addi-
tional capacity afforded by the new terminal along with the
potential for upgauging that this building brings, or is reflective
of this point in SLC’s history.
The number of connecting passengers is generally dictated by
the operational policies of the major hub carrier at an airport,
in this case Delta. For 2017, the O&D to connecting ratio of
approximately 61/39 percent is an outlier and the connecting
share of 39% is much lower than historical trends. In conver-
sations with Delta, it has been their general policy to maintain
a higher overall level of connecting passengers at SLC than
exists at the present time. In addition, Delta has been using
SLC as a connect point to west coast markets and there are
opportunities for this trend to expand in the future. At the
same time, there is not expected to be much change in the way
the other airlines operate at SLC which indicates those airlines’
average O&D to connecting ratios will not change appreciably.
It is also anticipated that once the new airline terminal opens in
2020, there will be more space available for upgauging aircraft
and thereby providing more seating capacity to accommodate
connecting passengers.
These factors all point to the potential for increasing numbers
of connecting passengers, although there is no expectation
that the O&D to connecting ratio will return to a 50/50 split.
The three forecast scenarios for O&D to connecting passenger
ratios are patterned after historical time frames at SLC and
their O&D to connecting ratios. The Base Case reflects the
Figure 2-26: Base Case Forecast Regression Model and Monte Carlo Simulation Limits
Source: RS&H, 2018
142141
2.4.3.5 Total Enplanements Forecast
The total enplanements projected in each forecast scenario are
a combination of the output of the O&D enplanement fore-
casts and historical hub-type distributions. Therefore, not only
does each model inform the rate of growth for O&D
enplanements and total enplanements, but as the O&D and
connecting distribution becomes more even, the greater the
total enplanements will be also.
In the Base Case Forecast, it is assumed that the Airport would
maintain a 53.2% O&D to 46.8% connecting hub-type distribu-
tion over the planning horizon. This yields a 2.77% AAGR over
the planning horizon, increasing the total annual enplanements
by over 5.5 million in 2037.
The Low Case Scenario Forecast assumes a 56.5% O&D to
43.5% connecting hub-type distribution over the planning
horizon. This yields a 1.78% AAGR over the planning horizon,
which would increase the total annual enplanements by over
4.8 million in 2037.
Lastly, the High Case Scenario Forecast assumes a 51.9% O&D
to 48.1% connecting hub-type distribution over the planning
horizon. This yields a 3.71% AAGR over the planning horizon,
which would increase the total annual enplanements by over
10.2 million in 2037.
TABLE 2-13 shows the year-by-year total enplanements for
each of the three forecast scenarios, as well as the FAA TAF
2017. FIGURE 2-29 compares each forecast with the FAA TAF
2017 from 2018-2037.
Table 2-9: International/Domestic Enplanement Forecast Distribution (2017-2037)
Ta
b
l
e
2
-
1
0
:
O
&
D
E
n
p
l
a
n
e
m
e
n
t
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
s
(
2
0
1
7
-
2
0
3
7
)
FY
Low Case Scenario Forcast Base Case Forcast High Case Scenario Forcast
%
International
%
Domestic
%
International
%
Domestic
%
International
%
Domestic
2017 3.9%96.1%3.9%96.1%3.9%96.1%
2022 3.6%96.4%4.1%95.9%4.1%95.9%
2027 3.5%96.5%4.3%95.8%4.5%95.5%
2032 3.5%96.5%4.3%95.8%4.6%95.4%
2037 3.5%96.5%4.3%95.8%4.6%95.4%
Source: RS&H, 2018
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
R
S
&
H
,
2
0
1
8
;
F
A
A
T
A
F
,
2
0
1
7
;
B
T
S
T
-
1
0
0
S
e
g
m
e
n
t
D
a
t
a
,
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
7
F
Y
L
o
w
C
a
s
e
S
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
%
O
&
D
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
Fo
r
e
c
a
s
t
%
O
&
D
H
i
g
h
C
a
s
e
S
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
%
O
&
D
2
0
1
7
7
,
0
6
5
,
9
9
6
6
1
.
4
%
7
,
0
6
5
,
9
9
6
6
1
.
4
%
7
,
0
6
5
,
9
9
6
6
1
.
4
%
2
0
1
8
6
,
8
4
3
,
2
1
6
5
7
.
5
%
6
,
9
7
6
,
9
5
8
5
3
.
9
%
7
,
2
0
1
,
3
6
6
5
3
.
3
%
2
0
1
9
7
,
0
0
2
,
1
9
1
5
7
.
2
%
7
,
1
4
2
,
8
0
7
5
3
.
7
%
7
,
3
3
6
,
7
3
6
5
3
.
0
%
2
0
2
0
7
,
1
3
6
,
6
4
9
5
7
.
0
%
7
,
2
9
2
,
4
4
7
5
3
.
6
%
7
,
4
7
2
,
1
0
5
5
2
.
7
%
2
0
2
1
7
,
2
6
8
,
5
5
1
5
6
.
9
%
7
,
4
3
0
,
1
0
7
5
3
.
5
%
7
,
6
0
7
,
4
7
5
5
2
.
4
%
2
0
2
2
7
,
4
0
3
,
1
0
2
5
6
.
7
%
7
,
5
7
1
,
9
2
5
5
3
.
3
%
7
,
7
4
2
,
8
4
5
5
2
.
2
%
2
0
2
3
7
,
5
3
2
,
3
6
9
5
6
.
5
%
7
,
7
2
1
,
6
9
2
5
3
.
2
%
7
,
8
7
8
,
2
1
5
5
1
.
9
%
2
0
2
4
7
,
6
6
2
,
6
8
5
5
6
.
5
%
7
,
8
7
2
,
9
3
7
5
3
.
2
%
8
,
0
9
9
,
0
2
3
5
1
.
9
%
2
0
2
5
7
,
7
9
4
,
3
9
2
5
6
.
5
%
8
,
0
2
5
,
5
3
8
5
3
.
2
%
8
,
3
2
3
,
2
7
7
5
1
.
9
%
2
0
2
6
7
,
9
2
6
,
9
2
2
5
6
.
5
%
8
,
1
7
9
,
0
3
3
5
3
.
2
%
8
,
5
5
1
,
0
6
1
5
1
.
9
%
2
0
2
7
8
,
0
5
7
,
8
4
9
5
6
.
5
%
8
,
3
3
4
,
5
9
3
5
3
.
2
%
8
,
7
8
2
,
4
2
0
5
1
.
9
%
2
0
2
8
8
,
1
8
7
,
2
9
0
5
6
.
5
%
8
,
4
9
2
,
4
8
0
5
3
.
2
%
9
,
0
1
7
,
4
2
6
5
1
.
9
%
2
0
2
9
8
,
3
1
5
,
4
5
6
5
6
.
5
%
8
,
6
5
1
,
2
0
1
5
3
.
2
%
9
,
2
5
6
,
1
0
1
5
1
.
9
%
2
0
3
0
8
,
4
4
2
,
0
6
1
5
6
.
5
%
8
,
8
1
0
,
7
2
7
5
3
.
2
%
9
,
4
9
8
,
5
2
8
5
1
.
9
%
2
0
3
1
8
,
5
6
6
,
6
2
8
5
6
.
5
%
8
,
9
7
0
,
5
4
6
5
3
.
2
%
9
,
7
4
4
,
7
5
0
5
1
.
9
%
2
0
3
2
8
,
6
8
8
,
6
0
9
5
6
.
5
%
9
,
1
3
0
,
4
7
0
5
3
.
2
%
9
,
9
9
4
,
8
6
4
5
1
.
9
%
2
0
3
3
8
,
8
0
7
,
7
3
2
5
6
.
5
%
9
,
2
9
0
,
4
1
4
5
3
.
2
%
1
0
,
2
4
8
,
8
6
6
5
1
.
9
%
2
0
3
4
8
,
9
2
4
,
4
0
2
5
6
.
5
%
9
,
4
5
0
,
4
6
9
5
3
.
2
%
1
0
,
5
0
6
,
8
7
0
5
1
.
9
%
2
0
3
5
9
,
0
3
9
,
0
2
5
5
6
.
5
%
9
,
6
1
0
,
8
4
0
5
3
.
2
%
1
0
,
7
6
8
,
9
1
1
5
1
.
9
%
2
0
3
6
9
,
1
5
1
,
3
9
8
5
6
.
5
%
9
,
7
7
1
,
6
1
0
5
3
.
2
%
1
1
,
0
3
5
,
0
7
7
5
1
.
9
%
2
0
3
7
9
,
2
6
1
,
4
6
4
5
6
.
5
%
9
,
9
3
2
,
8
3
7
5
3
.
2
%
1
1
,
3
0
5
,
4
2
0
5
1
.
9
%
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
r
o
w
t
h
R
a
t
e
s
(
A
A
G
R
)
2
0
1
8
-
2
0
2
2
1
.
0
%
1
.
4
%
1
.
9
%
2
0
2
3
-
2
0
2
7
1
.
7
%
1
.
9
%
2
.
6
%
2
0
2
8
-
2
0
3
7
1
.
4
%
1
.
8
%
2
.
6
%
2
0
1
8
-
2
0
3
7
1
.
4
%
1
.
7
%
2
.
4
%
144143
Ta
b
l
e
2
-
1
2
:
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
n
d
D
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
E
n
p
l
a
n
e
m
e
n
t
s
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
s
(
2
0
1
7
-
2
0
3
7
)
Ta
b
l
e
2
-
1
1
:
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
E
n
p
l
a
n
e
m
e
n
t
s
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
s
(
2
0
1
7
-
2
0
3
7
)
F
Y
L
o
w
C
a
s
e
S
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
%
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
%
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
H
i
g
h
C
a
s
e
S
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
%
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
2
0
1
7
4
,
4
4
9
,
6
4
3
3
8
.
6
%
4
,
4
4
9
,
6
4
3
3
8
.
6
%
4
,
4
4
9
,
6
4
3
3
8
.
6
%
2
0
1
8
5
,
2
7
1
,
6
0
9
4
2
.
5
%
6
,
1
3
3
,
2
5
8
4
6
.
1
%
6
,
3
2
1
,
8
3
2
4
6
.
7
%
2
0
1
9
5
,
3
9
3
,
4
9
0
4
2
.
8
%
6
,
2
7
9
,
1
4
9
4
6
.
3
%
6
,
5
1
1
,
1
0
9
4
7
.
0
%
2
0
2
0
5
,
4
9
6
,
6
1
5
4
3
.
0
%
6
,
4
1
0
,
7
8
9
4
6
.
4
%
6
,
7
0
3
,
3
9
9
4
7
.
3
%
2
0
2
1
5
,
5
9
7
,
7
5
5
4
3
.
1
%
6
,
5
3
1
,
8
9
3
4
6
.
5
%
6
,
8
9
8
,
6
6
6
4
7
.
6
%
2
0
2
2
5
,
7
0
0
,
9
1
7
4
3
.
3
%
6
,
6
5
6
,
6
4
8
4
6
.
7
%
7
,
0
9
7
,
0
2
4
4
7
.
8
%
2
0
2
3
5
,
8
0
0
,
0
4
5
4
3
.
5
%
6
,
7
8
8
,
3
9
8
4
6
.
8
%
7
,
2
9
8
,
5
1
6
4
8
.
1
%
2
0
2
4
5
,
8
9
9
,
9
9
0
4
3
.
5
%
6
,
9
2
1
,
4
5
1
4
6
.
8
%
7
,
5
0
3
,
1
3
5
4
8
.
1
%
2
0
2
5
6
,
0
0
0
,
9
8
4
4
3
.
5
%
7
,
0
5
5
,
6
8
1
4
6
.
8
%
7
,
7
1
0
,
9
8
8
4
8
.
1
%
2
0
2
6
6
,
1
0
2
,
5
8
1
4
3
.
5
%
7
,
1
9
0
,
7
2
6
4
6
.
8
%
7
,
9
2
2
,
1
0
3
4
8
.
1
%
2
0
2
7
6
,
2
0
2
,
9
8
2
4
3
.
5
%
7
,
3
2
7
,
5
6
4
4
6
.
8
%
8
,
1
3
6
,
5
1
0
4
8
.
1
%
2
0
2
8
6
,
3
0
2
,
2
1
6
4
3
.
5
%
7
,
4
6
6
,
4
5
8
4
6
.
8
%
8
,
3
5
4
,
3
0
5
4
8
.
1
%
2
0
2
9
6
,
4
0
0
,
5
2
3
4
3
.
5
%
7
,
6
0
6
,
0
8
6
4
6
.
8
%
8
,
5
7
5
,
5
1
4
4
8
.
1
%
2
0
3
0
6
,
4
9
7
,
5
9
9
4
3
.
5
%
7
,
7
4
6
,
4
1
3
4
6
.
8
%
8
,
8
0
0
,
1
8
3
4
8
.
1
%
2
0
3
1
6
,
5
9
3
,
0
8
4
4
3
.
5
%
7
,
8
8
7
,
0
0
8
4
6
.
8
%
9
,
0
2
8
,
3
9
3
4
8
.
1
%
2
0
3
2
6
,
6
8
6
,
6
3
2
4
3
.
5
%
8
,
0
2
7
,
6
9
9
4
6
.
8
%
9
,
2
6
0
,
1
6
6
4
8
.
1
%
2
0
3
3
6
,
7
7
7
,
9
8
0
4
3
.
5
%
8
,
1
6
8
,
3
9
7
4
6
.
8
%
9
,
4
9
5
,
5
7
1
4
8
.
1
%
2
0
3
4
6
,
8
6
7
,
4
2
1
4
3
.
5
%
8
,
3
0
9
,
2
0
1
4
6
.
8
%
9
,
7
3
4
,
7
0
1
4
8
.
1
%
2
0
3
5
6
,
9
5
5
,
3
3
4
4
3
.
5
%
8
,
4
5
0
,
2
7
9
4
6
.
8
%
9
,
9
7
7
,
5
4
1
4
8
.
1
%
2
0
3
6
7
,
0
4
1
,
4
9
2
4
3
.
5
%
8
,
5
9
1
,
7
0
3
4
6
.
8
%
1
0
,
2
2
4
,
2
3
3
4
8
.
1
%
2
0
3
7
7
,
1
2
5
,
8
8
2
4
3
.
5
%
8
,
7
3
3
,
5
3
7
4
6
.
8
%
1
0
,
4
7
4
,
7
8
3
4
8
.
1
%
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
r
o
w
t
h
R
a
t
e
s
(
A
A
G
R
)
2
0
1
8
-
2
0
2
2
5
.
3
%
9
.
2
%
1
0
.
8
%
2
0
2
3
-
2
0
2
7
1
.
7
%
1
.
9
%
2
.
8
%
2
0
2
8
-
2
0
3
7
1
.
4
%
1
.
8
%
2
.
6
%
2
0
1
8
-
2
0
3
7
2
.
4
%
3
.
7
%
4
.
7
%
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
R
S
&
H
,
2
0
1
8
L
o
w
C
a
s
e
S
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
H
i
g
h
C
a
s
e
S
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
Y
e
a
r
In
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
E
n
p
l
a
n
e
m
e
n
t
s
D
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
E
n
p
l
a
n
e
m
e
n
t
s
In
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
E
n
p
l
a
n
e
m
e
n
t
s
D
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
E
n
p
l
a
n
e
m
e
n
t
s
In
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
E
n
p
l
a
n
e
m
e
n
t
s
D
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
E
n
p
l
a
n
e
m
e
n
t
s
2
0
1
7
4
4
8
,
0
3
1
1
1
,
0
6
7
,
6
0
8
4
4
8
,
0
3
1
1
1
,
0
6
7
,
6
0
8
4
4
8
,
0
3
1
1
1
,
0
6
7
,
6
0
8
2
0
1
8
4
8
4
,
1
9
8
1
1
,
9
3
1
,
1
3
8
5
1
9
,
0
3
3
1
2
,
7
8
9
,
5
0
4
5
2
7
,
4
0
5
1
2
,
9
9
5
,
7
9
3
2
0
1
9
4
8
3
,
1
5
3
1
2
,
1
3
1
,
7
9
6
5
3
7
,
1
2
3
1
3
,
0
2
6
,
5
8
8
5
4
8
,
3
7
5
1
3
,
2
9
9
,
4
7
0
2
0
2
0
4
8
2
,
4
0
2
1
2
,
3
1
3
,
4
0
3
5
5
4
,
9
4
6
1
3
,
2
4
9
,
6
8
8
5
6
9
,
8
5
5
1
3
,
6
0
5
,
6
4
9
2
0
2
1
4
8
0
,
0
6
3
1
2
,
4
9
4
,
6
1
4
5
7
2
,
6
2
9
1
3
,
4
6
2
,
3
9
2
5
9
1
,
8
5
1
1
3
,
9
1
4
,
2
9
0
2
0
2
2
4
7
7
,
5
4
7
1
2
,
6
7
8
,
0
2
3
5
8
9
,
3
1
2
1
3
,
6
7
9
,
7
4
8
6
1
2
,
8
8
7
1
4
,
2
2
6
,
9
8
2
2
0
2
3
4
7
5
,
9
6
8
1
2
,
8
5
6
,
4
6
1
6
0
7
,
9
7
3
1
3
,
9
0
2
,
1
2
0
6
3
5
,
9
0
5
1
4
,
5
4
0
,
8
2
6
2
0
2
4
4
7
4
,
6
9
4
1
3
,
0
8
8
,
0
0
0
6
2
8
,
7
6
2
1
4
,
1
6
5
,
6
2
9
6
6
3
,
0
9
2
1
4
,
9
3
9
,
0
6
9
2
0
2
5
4
8
2
,
8
3
8
1
3
,
3
1
2
,
5
3
7
6
4
0
,
9
5
1
1
4
,
4
4
0
,
2
5
5
6
9
2
,
6
8
0
1
5
,
3
4
1
,
5
9
0
2
0
2
6
4
9
1
,
0
3
2
1
3
,
5
3
8
,
4
6
6
6
5
3
,
2
1
5
1
4
,
7
1
6
,
5
4
3
7
2
3
,
1
7
2
1
5
,
7
4
9
,
9
9
0
2
0
2
7
4
9
9
,
1
2
8
1
3
,
7
6
1
,
6
7
9
6
6
5
,
6
4
2
1
4
,
9
9
6
,
5
1
4
7
5
4
,
5
8
5
1
6
,
1
6
4
,
3
5
8
2
0
2
8
5
0
7
,
1
3
3
1
3
,
9
8
2
,
3
8
6
6
7
8
,
2
5
5
1
5
,
2
8
0
,
6
8
1
7
8
6
,
9
3
9
1
6
,
5
8
4
,
7
8
1
2
0
2
9
5
1
5
,
8
8
9
1
4
,
2
0
0
,
9
0
5
6
9
0
,
9
3
5
1
5
,
5
6
6
,
3
5
3
8
2
0
,
2
4
5
1
7
,
0
1
1
,
3
5
0
2
0
3
0
5
2
2
,
8
8
9
1
4
,
4
1
6
,
7
8
4
7
0
3
,
6
7
8
1
5
,
8
5
3
,
4
6
3
8
4
1
,
7
4
0
1
7
,
4
5
6
,
9
6
5
2
0
3
1
5
3
0
,
5
9
0
1
4
,
6
2
9
,
1
3
4
7
1
6
,
4
4
6
1
6
,
1
4
1
,
1
1
1
8
6
3
,
5
6
4
1
7
,
9
0
9
,
5
7
2
2
0
3
2
5
3
8
,
1
3
2
1
4
,
8
3
7
,
0
8
2
7
2
9
,
2
2
2
1
6
,
4
2
8
,
9
4
5
8
8
5
,
7
3
1
1
8
,
3
6
9
,
2
8
1
2
0
3
3
5
4
5
,
5
0
0
1
5
,
0
4
0
,
2
0
4
7
4
1
,
9
9
9
1
6
,
7
1
6
,
8
1
2
9
0
8
,
2
4
5
1
8
,
8
3
6
,
2
0
4
2
0
3
4
5
5
2
,
7
1
4
1
5
,
2
3
9
,
1
0
5
7
5
4
,
7
8
6
1
7
,
0
0
4
,
8
7
7
9
3
1
,
1
1
2
1
9
,
3
1
0
,
4
5
3
2
0
3
5
5
5
9
,
7
5
0
1
5
,
4
3
4
,
5
6
1
7
6
7
,
5
9
8
1
7
,
2
9
3
,
5
2
5
9
5
4
,
3
3
8
1
9
,
7
9
2
,
1
4
2
2
0
3
6
5
6
6
,
7
5
0
1
5
,
6
2
6
,
1
0
9
7
8
0
,
4
4
1
1
7
,
5
8
2
,
8
7
8
9
7
7
,
9
2
9
2
0
,
2
8
1
,
3
8
8
2
0
3
7
5
7
3
,
5
5
8
1
5
,
8
1
3
,
8
0
4
7
9
3
,
3
2
1
1
7
,
8
7
3
,
0
4
7
1
,
0
0
1
,
8
8
9
2
0
,
7
7
8
,
3
0
8
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
r
o
w
t
h
R
a
t
e
s
(
A
A
G
R
)
2
0
1
8
-
2
0
2
2
1
.
3
%
2
.
8
%
5
.
8
%
4
.
5
%
6
.
6
%
5
.
3
%
2
0
2
3
-
2
0
2
7
0
.
9
%
1
.
7
%
2
.
5
%
1
.
9
%
4
.
3
%
2
.
6
%
2
0
2
8
-
2
0
3
7
1
.
4
%
1
.
4
%
1
.
8
%
1
.
8
%
2
.
9
%
2
.
5
%
2
0
1
8
-
2
0
3
7
1
.
3
%
1
.
8
%
2
.
9
%
2
.
5
%
4
.
2
%
3
.
3
%
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
R
S
&
H
,
2
0
1
8
146145
Ta
b
l
e
2
-
1
3
:
T
o
t
a
l
E
n
p
l
a
n
e
m
e
n
t
s
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
s
(
2
0
1
7
-
2
0
3
7
)
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
2
7
:
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
E
n
p
l
a
n
e
m
e
n
t
s
–
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
(
2
0
0
3
-
2
0
1
7
)
a
n
d
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
(
2
0
1
8
-
2
0
3
7
)
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
R
S
&
H
,
2
0
1
8
F
Y
FA
A
T
A
F
2
0
1
7
L
o
w
C
a
s
e
S
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
H
i
g
h
C
a
s
e
S
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
2
0
1
7
1
1
,
5
1
5
,
6
3
9
1
1
,
5
1
5
,
6
3
9
1
1
,
5
1
5
,
6
3
9
1
1
,
5
1
5
,
6
3
9
2
0
1
8
1
1
,
9
6
0
,
0
7
1
1
2
,
1
1
4
,
8
2
5
1
3
,
1
1
0
,
2
1
6
1
3
,
5
2
3
,
1
9
8
2
0
1
9
1
2
,
2
8
4
,
3
9
9
1
2
,
3
9
5
,
6
8
1
1
3
,
4
2
1
,
9
5
6
1
3
,
8
4
7
,
8
4
5
2
0
2
0
1
2
,
5
7
5
,
4
7
6
1
2
,
6
3
3
,
2
6
4
1
3
,
7
0
3
,
2
3
5
1
4
,
1
7
5
,
5
0
4
2
0
2
1
1
2
,
8
4
7
,
7
0
4
1
2
,
8
6
6
,
3
0
6
1
3
,
9
6
2
,
0
0
0
1
4
,
5
0
6
,
1
4
1
2
0
2
2
1
3
,
1
2
1
,
8
5
7
1
3
,
1
0
4
,
0
1
9
1
4
,
2
2
8
,
5
7
3
1
4
,
8
3
9
,
8
6
9
2
0
2
3
1
3
,
3
9
1
,
8
6
6
1
3
,
3
3
2
,
4
1
5
1
4
,
5
1
0
,
0
9
0
1
5
,
1
7
6
,
7
3
2
2
0
2
4
1
3
,
6
6
2
,
2
7
6
1
3
,
5
6
2
,
6
7
5
1
4
,
7
9
4
,
3
8
8
1
5
,
6
0
2
,
1
5
8
2
0
2
5
1
3
,
9
3
1
,
8
7
3
1
3
,
7
9
5
,
3
7
6
1
5
,
0
8
1
,
2
1
9
1
6
,
0
3
4
,
2
6
6
2
0
2
6
1
4
,
2
1
2
,
6
5
5
1
4
,
0
2
9
,
5
0
3
1
5
,
3
6
9
,
7
5
9
1
6
,
4
7
3
,
1
6
5
2
0
2
7
1
4
,
4
9
9
,
1
4
2
1
4
,
4
8
9
,
5
0
6
1
5
,
6
6
2
,
1
5
7
1
6
,
9
1
8
,
9
3
1
2
0
2
8
1
4
,
7
9
6
,
6
2
3
1
4
,
4
8
9
,
5
0
6
1
5
,
9
5
8
,
9
3
8
1
7
,
3
7
1
,
7
3
1
2
0
2
9
1
5
,
1
0
0
,
6
9
0
1
4
,
7
1
5
,
9
7
9
1
6
,
2
5
7
,
2
8
7
1
7
,
8
3
1
,
6
1
4
2
0
3
0
1
5
,
4
0
5
,
6
4
2
1
4
,
9
3
9
,
6
6
0
1
6
,
5
5
7
,
1
3
9
1
8
,
2
9
8
,
7
1
1
2
0
3
1
1
5
,
7
1
5
,
3
5
4
1
5
,
1
5
9
,
7
1
2
1
6
,
8
5
7
,
5
5
3
1
8
,
7
7
3
,
1
4
2
2
0
3
2
1
6
,
0
2
2
,
5
9
3
1
5
,
9
7
5
,
2
4
2
1
7
,
1
5
8
,
1
6
8
1
9
,
2
5
5
,
0
3
0
2
0
3
3
1
6
,
3
2
6
,
0
6
8
1
5
,
5
8
5
,
7
1
2
1
7
,
4
5
8
,
8
1
1
1
9
,
7
4
4
,
4
3
7
2
0
3
4
1
6
,
6
3
8
,
9
7
4
1
5
,
7
9
1
,
8
2
3
1
7
,
7
5
9
,
6
7
1
2
0
,
2
4
1
,
5
7
1
2
0
3
5
1
6
,
9
6
3
,
6
5
8
1
5
,
9
9
4
,
3
5
9
1
8
,
0
6
1
,
1
1
9
2
0
,
7
4
6
,
4
5
1
2
0
3
6
1
7
,
2
9
3
,
0
7
3
1
6
,
1
9
2
,
8
8
9
1
8
,
3
6
3
,
3
1
3
2
1
,
2
5
9
,
3
1
0
2
0
3
7
1
7
,
6
2
3
,
3
3
9
1
6
,
3
8
7
,
3
4
6
1
8
,
6
6
6
,
3
7
4
2
1
,
7
8
0
,
2
0
3
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
G
r
o
w
t
h
R
a
t
e
s
(
A
A
G
R
)
2
0
1
8
-
2
0
2
2
2
.
7
%
2
.
6
%
4
.
4
%
5
.
4
%
2
0
2
3
-
2
0
2
7
2
.
0
%
1
.
7
%
3
.
1
%
4
.
4
%
2
0
2
8
-
2
0
3
7
2
.
0
%
1
.
4
%
1
.
8
%
2
.
6
%
2
0
1
8
-
2
0
3
7
2
.
2
%
1
.
8
%
2
.
8
%
3
.
7
%
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
R
S
&
H
,
2
0
1
8
148147
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
2
9
:
T
o
t
a
l
E
n
p
l
a
n
e
m
e
n
t
s
-
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
(
1
9
9
3
-
2
0
1
7
)
a
n
d
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
(
2
0
1
8
-
2
0
3
8
)
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
2
8
:
D
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
E
n
p
l
a
n
e
m
e
n
t
s
–
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
(
2
0
0
3
-
2
0
1
7
)
a
n
d
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
(
2
0
1
8
-
2
0
3
7
)
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
R
S
&
H
,
2
0
1
8
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
R
S
&
H
,
2
0
1
8
150149
2.5.1 Planning Day Model Methodology
The demand for an airport is identified by incorporating all of the
characteristics that express how a total number of enplanements can be
achieved. In order to recognize each of them, a daily planning model is often
created. Planning models, are very useful tools in establishing facility
requirements, as they represent the frequency of arriving and departing
aircraft for an Average Day of the Peak Month (ADPM). In addition, they
also recognize the equipment used, and how full the planes are.
Four planning model schedules (2022, 2027, 2032, and 2037) were
produced for each planning scenario, Base, Low, and High Cases. Each
planning model schedule was based upon the assumed average day of
the peak month for 2018 which was July 19, 201838 that had 377
arrivals and departures.
Each schedule scenario for the Base, Low, and High Cases used initial load
factors that were provided by Delta for June 1-June 12, 2018 and applied to
all Delta flights by market. Initial load factors for all other airlines were obtained
from BTS T-100 Segment Data, 2013-2017.
Forecast assumptions included:
• Addition of new markets, as reflected from conversations with Airport staff,
airline representatives, research about future industry trends, comments
made during the Expert Panel session, and other related research conducted,
in an effort to make each planning day model more robust.
• Addition of incremental frequencies were added to existing markets where
the base schedule load factor exceeded 85%, and to new markets with an
initial 80% load factor. All incremental frequencies were added at times of
the day that complemented existing schedules.
• Flights were added at times respecting the current structure of Delta’s
banks of arrivals and departures.
• Equipment changes were upgauged based upon existing airline fleets,
orders, and options with highest load factor flights by market being upgraded
first. Load factors for equipment upgrades largely remained the same as on
the prior equipment, assuming high load factors existing prior to the upgrade
would fill the larger aircraft over the five-year interval between forecasts.
38 An analysis of the enplanements by month over the past five fiscal years identified July as the Airport’s peak month.
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
3
0
:
T
o
t
a
l
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
A
D
P
M
B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
(
2
0
1
7
)
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
M
a
r
y
A
.
L
y
n
c
h
,
2
0
1
8
2.5 PLANNING DAY MODEL
2.5.2 Baseline Flight Schedule 2018
The flight schedule for an ADPM in 2018, identified a total of 377 arriving and 377 departing commercial service operations, with
12 of the arrivals and 12 of the departures being international flights. The peak hour for arrivals was 7:00 pm with 49 operations,
and the peak hour for departures was 11:00 am with 51 operations. For international operations, 12:00 pm, 1:00 pm, and 6:00 pm
each had two arrivals; and 9:00 am and 11:00 am each had three departures. The peak hour for combined departures and arrivals
was at 1:00 pm with 64 total operations.
FIGURE 2-30 shows the ADPM for the Baseline Flight Schedule of July 19, 2018. TABLE 2-14 shows a summary of the mainline
carrier’s operations for the planning day model with a list of each type of equipment used.
152151
2.5.3 Planning Day Model Base Case Forecast
The Base Case Forecast Planning Day Model summarizes the
operational counts and times for the four forecast years listed
below:
• FY 2022 projects a total of 413 arriving and 413 depart-
ing commercial service operations, with 14 of the arrivals,
and 14 of the departures being international flights. The
peak hour for total arrivals is 10:00 am with 50 operations,
and total departures is 11:00 am with 56 operations. For
international operations, 10:00 am, 12:00 pm, 1:00 pm, 4:00
pm, and 6:00 pm each have two arrivals, and 11:00 am has
four departures. The peak hour for combined departures
and arrivals is at 1:00 pm with 76 total operations. Average
day peak month FY 2022 domestic operations are shown in
FIGURE 2-31, international operations are shown in FIGURE
2-35, and total operations are shown in FIGURE 2-39.
• FY 2027 projects a total of 453 arriving and 453 departing
commercial service operations, with 19 of the arrivals, and
19 of the departures being international flights. The peak
hour for total arrivals is 10:00 am with 55 operations, and
total departures is 11:00 am with 60 operations. For inter-
national operations, 10:00 am, 12:00 pm, and 6:00 pm each
have three arrivals, and 11:00 am has four departures. The
peak hour for combined departures and arrivals is at 1:00 pm
with 82 total operations. Average day peak month FY 2027
domestic operations are shown in FIGURE 2-32, internation-
al operations are shown in FIGURE 2-36, and total opera-
tions are shown in FIGURE 2-40.
• FY 2032 projects a total of 475 arriving and 475 departing
commercial service operations, with 24 of the arrivals, and
24 of the departures being international flights. The peak
hour for total arrivals is 10:00 am with 57 operations, and
total departures is 11:00 am with 62 operations. For inter-
national operations, 6:00 pm has four arrivals, and 11:00 am
and 8:00 pm each have four departures. The peak hour for
combined departures and arrivals is at 1:00 pm with 84 total
operations. Average day peak month FY 2032 domestic op-
erations are shown in FIGURE 2-33, international operations
are shown in FIGURE 2-37, and total operations are shown
in FIGURE 2-41.
• FY 2037 projects a total of 503 arriving and 503 departing
commercial service operations, with 27 of the arrivals, and
27 of the departures being international flights. The peak
hour for total arrivals is 10:00 am with 58 operations, and
total departures is 11:00 am with 63 operations. For inter-
national operations, 1:00 pm and 6:00 pm each have four
arrivals, and 11:00 am and 8:00 pm each have four depar-
tures. The peak hour for combined departures and arrivals
is at 1:00 pm with 94 total operations. Average day peak
month FY 2037 domestic operations are shown in FIGURE
2-34, international operations are shown in FIGURE 2-38,
and total operations are shown in FIGURE 2-42.
Table 2-14: Baseline Schedule 2018 Airline Summary
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
3
1
:
D
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
A
D
P
M
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
(
2
0
2
2
)
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
M
a
r
y
A
.
L
y
n
c
h
,
2
0
1
8
Airline Arrivals Departures Equipment (IATA Code)
Aeroméxico 1 1 E90
Alaska
Airlines 12 12 739, 73H, 73J, E75
American
Airlines 20 20 319, 321, 738, CR7, E75
Delta Air
Lines 277 277 319, 320, 321, 717, 738, 739, 757,
76W, CRJ, CR7, CR9, E75, E7W, M90
Frontier
Airlines 4 4 320, 321
JetBlue
Airways 7 7 320
Southwest
Airlines 33 33 73H, 73W
United
Airlines 23 23 319, 320, 739, 73G, CRJ, CR7, E70, E7W, 73H, 73W
Total 377 377
Source: Mary A. Lynch, 2018
154153
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
3
3
:
D
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
A
D
P
M
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
(
2
0
3
2
)
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
3
2
:
D
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
A
D
P
M
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
(
2
0
2
7
)
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
M
a
r
y
A
.
L
y
n
c
h
,
2
0
1
8
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
M
a
r
y
A
.
L
y
n
c
h
,
2
0
1
8
156155
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
3
5
:
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
A
D
P
M
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
(
2
0
2
2
)
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
3
4
:
D
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
A
D
P
M
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
(
2
0
3
7
)
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
M
a
r
y
A
.
L
y
n
c
h
,
2
0
1
8
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
M
a
r
y
A
.
L
y
n
c
h
,
2
0
1
8
158157
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
3
7
:
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
A
D
P
M
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
(
2
0
3
2
)
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
3
6
:
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
O
p
e
r
a
t
o
i
n
s
A
D
P
M
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
(
2
0
2
7
)
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
M
a
r
y
A
.
L
y
n
c
h
,
2
0
1
8
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
M
a
r
y
A
.
L
y
n
c
h
,
2
0
1
8
160159
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
3
9
:
T
o
t
a
l
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
A
D
P
M
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
(
2
0
2
2
)
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
3
8
:
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
A
D
P
M
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
(
2
0
3
7
)
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
M
a
r
y
A
.
L
y
n
c
h
,
2
0
1
8
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
M
a
r
y
A
.
L
y
n
c
h
,
2
0
1
8
162161
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
4
1
:
T
o
t
a
l
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
A
D
P
M
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
(
2
0
3
2
)
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
4
0
:
T
o
t
a
l
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
A
D
P
M
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
(
2
0
2
7
)
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
M
a
r
y
A
.
L
y
n
c
h
,
2
0
1
8
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
M
a
r
y
A
.
L
y
n
c
h
,
2
0
1
8
164163
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
4
2
:
T
o
t
a
l
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
A
D
P
M
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
(
2
0
3
7
)
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
M
a
r
y
A
.
L
y
n
c
h
,
2
0
1
8
2.5.4 Planning Day Model Low Case Scenario Forecast
The Low Case Scenario Forecast Planning Day Model projects the following
operational counts and times for the forecast years listed below:
• FY 2037 projects a total of 450 arriving and
450 departing commercial service opera-
tions, with 20 of the arrivals, and 20 of the
departures being international flights. The
peak hour for total arrivals is 10:00 am with
54 operations, and total departures is 11:00
am with 60 operations. For international
operations, 10:00 am, 12:00 pm, and 6:00
pm each have three arrivals, and 11:00 am
has four departures. The peak hour for
combined departures and arrivals is at 1:00
pm with 83 total operations. Total opera-
tions for the average day of peak month in
FY 2037 are shown in FIGURE 2-46.
• FY 2032 projects a total of 438 arriving and
438 departing commercial service opera-
tions, with 18 of the arrivals, and 18 of the
departures being international flights. The
peak hour for total arrivals is 10:00 am with
54 operations, and total departures is 11:00
am with 60 operations. For international
operations, 10:00 am and 6:00 pm each
have three arrivals, and 11:00 am has four
departures. The peak hour for combined
departures and arrivals is at 1:00 pm with
79 total operations. Total operations for
the average day of peak month in FY 2032
are shown in FIGURE 2-45.
• FY 2027 projects a total of 422 arriving and
422 departing commercial service opera-
tions, with 16 of the arrivals, and 16 of the
departures being international flights. The
peak hour for total arrivals is 10:00 am with
52 operations, and total departures is 11:00
am with 57 operations. For international
operations, 10:00 am and 6:00 pm each
have three arrivals, and 11:00 am has four
departures. The peak hour for combined
departures and arrivals is at 1:00 pm with
77 total operations. Total operations for
the average day of peak month in FY 2027
are shown in FIGURE 2-44.
• FY 2022 projects a total of 400 arriving and
400 departing commercial service opera-
tions, with 13 of the arrivals, and 13 of the
departures being international flights. The
peak hour for total arrivals is 10:00 am and
7:00 pm, with each having 49 operations,
and total departures is 11:00 am with 55
operations. For international operations,
10:00 am, 12:00 pm, 1:00 pm, 4:00 pm, and
6:00 pm each have two arrivals, and 11:00
am has four departures. The peak hour for
combined departures and arrivals is at 1:00
pm with 70 total operations. Total opera-
tions for the average day of peak month in
FY 2022 are shown in FIGURE 2-43.
166165
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
4
3
:
T
o
t
a
l
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
A
D
P
M
L
o
w
C
a
s
e
S
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
(
2
0
2
2
)
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
4
4
:
T
o
t
a
l
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
A
D
P
M
L
o
w
C
a
s
e
S
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
(
2
0
2
7
)
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
M
a
r
y
A
.
L
y
n
c
h
,
2
0
1
8
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
M
a
r
y
A
.
L
y
n
c
h
,
2
0
1
8
168167
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
4
5
:
T
o
t
a
l
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
A
D
P
M
L
o
w
C
a
s
e
S
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
(
2
0
3
2
)
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
4
6
:
T
o
t
a
l
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
A
D
P
M
L
o
w
C
a
s
e
S
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
(
2
0
3
7
)
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
M
a
r
y
A
.
L
y
n
c
h
,
2
0
1
8
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
M
a
r
y
A
.
L
y
n
c
h
,
2
0
1
8
170169
• FY 2022 projects a total of 413 arriving and
departing commercial service operations,
with 14 of the arrivals, and 14 of the
departures being international flights. The
peak hour for total arrivals is 10:00 am with
50 operations, and total departures is 11:00
am with 56 operations. For international
operations, 10:00 am, 12:00 pm, 1:00 pm,
4:00 pm, and 6:00 pm each have two arriv-
als, and 11:00 am has four departures. The
peak hour for combined departures and ar-
rivals is at 1:00 pm with 76 total operations.
FIGURE 2-47 shows the total operations of
average day and peak month for FY 2022.
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
4
7
:
T
o
t
a
l
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
A
D
P
M
H
i
g
h
C
a
s
e
S
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
(
2
0
2
2
)
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
M
a
r
y
A
.
L
y
n
c
h
,
2
0
1
8
2.5.5 Planning Day Model High Case Scenario Forecast
The High Case Scenario Forecast Planning Day Model projects the following
operational counts and times for the forecast years listed below:
• FY 2037 projects a total of 561 arriving and
departing commercial service operations,
with 32 of the arrivals, and 32 of the
departures being international flights. The
peak hour for total arrivals is 10:00 am with
62 operations, and total departures is 11:00
am with 66 operations. For international
operations, 1:00 pm has five arrivals, and
11:00 am, 1:00 pm, 3:00 pm, and 4:00 pm
each have four departures. The peak hour
for combined departures and arrivals is at
1:00 pm with 111 total operations. FIGURE
2-50 shows the total operations of average
day and peak month for FY 2037.
• FY 2032 projects a total of 517 arriving and
departing commercial service operations,
with 29 of the arrivals, and 29 of the
departures being international flights. The
peak hour for total arrivals is 10:00 am with
58 operations, and total departures is 11:00
am with 63 operations. For international
operations, 1:00 pm has five arrivals, and
11:00 am and 4:00 pm each have four
departures. The peak hour for combined
departures and arrivals is at 1:00 pm with
103 total operations. FIGURE 2-49 shows
the total operations of average day and
peak month for FY 2032.
• FY 2027 projects a total of 480 arriving and
departing commercial service operations,
with 24 of the arrivals, and 24 of the
departures being international flights. The
peak hour for total arrivals is 10:00 am with
57 operations, and total departures is 11:00
am with 62 operations. For international
operations, 1:00 pm and 6:00 pm each have
four arrivals, and 11:00 am has four
departures. The peak hour for combined
departures and arrivals is at 1:00 pm with
91 total operations. FIGURE 2-48 shows
the total operations of average day and
peak month for FY 2027.
172171
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
4
8
:
T
o
t
a
l
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
A
D
P
M
H
i
g
h
C
a
s
e
S
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
(
2
0
2
7
)
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
4
9
:
T
o
t
a
l
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
A
D
P
M
H
i
g
h
C
a
s
e
S
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
(
2
0
3
2
)
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
M
a
r
y
A
.
L
y
n
c
h
,
2
0
1
8
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
M
a
r
y
A
.
L
y
n
c
h
,
2
0
1
8
174173
Peak day passenger carrier operations forecasts were built off of the
planning design day models of each forecast scenario. Total passenger air
carrier operations were derived from the planning design day models by
using the most recent five year average of peak month enplanements to
annual enplanements or 9.5% peak month to annual.
There are two primary reasons for the dip in air carrier passenger
operations between 2017 and 2018. The 2018 peak day operations
were built off of actual schedules and there was a noticeable upgauge
from one year to the next. In addition, 2017 operational figures were
based upon the National Offload Program that included a number of
on demand operations that were classified as air passenger that are
not reflected in the schedule.
TABLE 2-15 shows a comparison of the ADPM passenger operations
by forecast from 2018-2037. TABLE 2-16 shows a comparison of the
operations by passenger aircraft type operations from 2022-2037, and
FIGURE 2-51 compares the total passenger operations from 2018-2037.
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
5
0
:
T
o
t
a
l
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
A
D
P
M
H
i
g
h
C
a
s
e
S
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
(
2
0
3
7
)
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
M
a
r
y
A
.
L
y
n
c
h
,
2
0
1
8
2.5.6 Peak Day and Total Passenger
Air Carrier Operations
Table 2-15: Summary of ADPM Passenger Carrier
Operations Forecasts (2018-2037)
Source: Mary A. Lynch, 2018
FY
Low Case Scenario Forcast Base Case Forcast High Case Scenario Forcast
Arrivals Departures Arrivals Departures Arrivals Departures
2018 377 377 377 377 377 377
2022 400 400 413 413 413 413
2027 422 422 453 453 480 480
2032 438 438 475 475 517 517
2037 450 450 503 503 561 560
176175
Ta
b
l
e
2
-
1
6
:
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
A
i
r
C
a
r
r
i
e
r
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
s
b
y
A
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
T
y
p
e
(
2
0
2
2
-
2
0
3
7
)
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
5
1
:
P
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
s
(
1
9
9
3
-
2
0
3
7
)
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
M
a
r
y
A
.
L
y
n
c
h
,
2
0
1
8
;
R
S
&
H
,
2
0
1
8
L
o
w
C
a
s
e
S
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
H
i
g
h
C
a
s
e
S
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
P
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
A
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
2
0
2
2
2
0
2
7
2
0
3
2
2
0
3
7
2
0
2
2
2
0
2
7
2
0
3
2
2
0
3
7
2
0
2
2
2
0
2
7
2
0
3
2
2
0
3
7
A
2
2
0
-
4
,
7
8
1
6
,
8
3
0
6
,
8
3
0
3
,
4
1
5
7
,
5
1
3
1
3
,
6
6
0
1
9
,
1
2
4
3
,
4
1
5
1
4
,
3
4
3
2
3
,
2
2
2
3
0
,
0
5
2
A
3
1
9
1
0
,
9
2
8
1
0
,
9
2
8
1
0
,
2
4
5
6
8
3
1
1
,
6
1
1
1
1
,
6
1
1
6
8
3
6
8
3
1
1
,
6
1
1
1
1
,
6
1
1
6
8
3
6
8
3
A
3
2
0
2
1
,
8
5
6
2
,
0
4
9
-
-
1
6
,
3
9
2
2
,
0
4
9
1
,
3
6
6
1
,
3
6
6
1
6
,
3
9
2
2
,
0
4
9
-
-
A
3
2
0
n
e
o
-
2
1
,
8
5
6
3
3
,
4
6
7
4
6
,
4
4
3
6
,
1
4
7
3
0
,
0
5
2
4
3
,
7
1
1
5
1
,
9
0
7
6
,
1
4
7
3
2
,
1
0
1
4
9
,
8
5
8
5
1
,
9
0
7
A
3
2
1
1
8
,
4
4
1
1
6
,
3
9
2
1
4
,
3
4
3
1
5
,
7
0
9
1
6
,
3
9
2
1
8
,
4
4
1
1
6
,
3
9
2
1
6
,
3
9
2
1
6
,
3
9
2
1
8
,
4
4
1
1
6
,
3
9
2
1
7
,
7
5
8
A
3
2
1
n
e
o
4
,
0
9
8
4
,
7
8
1
8
,
1
9
6
8
,
1
9
6
4
,
7
8
1
8
,
1
9
6
1
2
,
9
7
7
1
4
,
3
4
3
4
,
7
8
1
1
0
,
9
2
8
1
7
,
0
7
5
2
4
,
5
8
8
A
3
3
0
-
6
8
3
6
8
3
6
8
3
6
8
3
6
8
3
6
8
3
6
8
3
6
8
3
6
8
3
6
8
3
6
8
3
A
3
3
9
-
3
,
4
1
5
4
,
0
9
8
4
,
7
8
1
3
,
4
1
5
4
,
0
9
8
4
,
7
8
1
4
,
7
8
1
3
,
4
1
5
4
,
7
8
1
4
,
7
8
1
5
,
4
6
4
A
3
5
9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6
8
3
6
8
3
7
1
2
1
2
,
2
9
4
1
2
,
2
9
4
1
2
,
2
9
4
-
1
2
,
2
9
4
1
2
,
2
9
4
1
2
,
2
9
4
-
1
2
,
2
9
4
1
2
,
2
9
4
1
2
,
2
9
4
-
7
3
7
2
2
,
5
3
9
2
2
,
5
3
9
1
6
,
3
9
2
1
6
,
3
9
2
2
2
,
5
3
9
1
6
,
3
9
2
1
4
,
3
4
3
1
4
,
3
4
3
2
2
,
5
3
9
1
6
,
3
9
2
1
4
,
3
4
3
1
0
,
9
2
8
7
3
9
4
0
,
2
9
7
4
1
,
6
6
3
2
8
,
6
8
6
1
4
,
3
4
3
4
1
,
6
6
3
4
4
,
3
9
4
1
5
,
0
2
6
1
4
,
3
4
3
4
1
,
6
6
3
4
4
,
3
9
4
1
5
,
0
2
6
1
5
,
0
2
6
7
3
9
2
0
,
4
9
0
5
,
4
6
4
5
,
4
6
4
2
,
7
3
2
2
1
,
1
7
3
5
,
4
6
4
6
,
1
4
7
3
,
4
1
5
2
1
,
1
7
3
6
,
1
4
7
6
,
1
4
7
3
,
4
1
5
M
A
X
7
-
-
-
1
2
,
2
9
4
-
-
-
1
2
,
9
7
7
-
-
-
1
2
,
9
7
7
M
A
X
8
6
8
3
1
9
,
8
0
7
4
1
,
6
6
3
5
9
,
4
2
0
2
,
7
3
2
3
1
,
4
1
8
6
4
,
2
0
1
7
0
,
3
4
8
2
,
7
3
2
3
4
,
8
3
3
7
3
,
0
8
0
8
6
,
7
4
0
7
6
3
2
,
7
3
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
C
R
J
3
,
4
1
5
3
,
0
7
3
3
,
0
7
3
3
,
0
7
3
2
,
7
3
2
2
,
7
3
2
2
,
7
3
2
2
,
7
3
2
2
,
7
3
2
2
,
7
3
2
2
,
7
3
2
3
,
4
1
5
C
R
7
4
5
,
7
6
0
4
6
,
1
0
2
3
3
,
8
0
8
3
3
,
8
0
8
4
6
,
4
4
3
4
7
,
8
0
9
4
7
,
8
0
9
4
7
,
8
0
9
4
6
,
4
4
3
1
0
,
5
8
6
1
0
,
2
4
5
1
0
,
9
2
8
C
R
9
1
7
,
0
7
5
1
7
,
0
7
5
3
2
,
1
0
1
3
2
,
7
8
4
1
7
,
0
7
5
1
9
,
1
2
4
1
9
,
1
2
4
1
9
,
1
2
4
1
7
,
0
7
5
5
6
,
3
4
7
5
6
,
6
8
8
5
6
,
6
8
8
E
1
7
0
6
8
3
6
8
3
6
8
3
6
8
3
6
8
3
6
8
3
6
8
3
6
8
3
6
8
3
6
8
3
6
8
3
6
8
3
E
1
7
5
4
3
,
0
2
9
4
5
,
7
6
0
4
5
,
7
6
0
4
7
,
1
2
6
4
3
,
0
2
9
4
5
,
0
7
7
4
5
,
0
7
7
4
5
,
7
6
0
4
3
,
0
2
9
4
5
,
7
6
0
4
5
,
7
6
0
4
7
,
8
0
9
E
9
0
1
,
3
6
6
1
,
3
6
6
1
,
3
6
6
1
,
3
6
6
1
,
3
6
6
1
,
3
6
6
2
,
7
3
2
2
,
7
3
2
1
,
3
6
6
2
,
7
3
2
2
,
7
3
2
2
,
7
3
2
M
9
0
7
,
5
1
3
7
,
5
1
3
-
-
7
,
5
1
3
-
-
-
7
,
5
1
3
-
-
-
2
7
3
,
1
9
7
2
8
8
,
2
2
3
2
9
9
,
1
5
1
3
0
7
,
3
4
6
2
8
2
,
0
7
6
3
0
9
,
3
9
5
3
2
4
,
4
2
1
3
4
3
,
5
4
5
2
8
2
,
0
7
6
3
2
7
,
8
3
6
3
5
3
,
1
0
7
3
8
3
,
1
5
9
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
M
a
r
y
A
.
L
y
n
c
h
,
2
0
1
8
:
R
S
&
H
,
2
0
1
8
177 178
2.5.7 Electric Vertical Takeoff and
Landing Operations
The concept of autonomous and on-demand ridesharing air
taxis or, Electric Vertical Takeoff and Landing (eVTOL) aircraft,
is continuing to progress as one potential solution to urban
congestion and increased mobility. In Uber Elevate’s white
paper, titled Fast-Forwarding to a Future of On-Demand Urban
Air Transportation39, some of the details for how an eVTOL
system could function and what resources might be needed
are described. In the paper, the use of the terms “vertiports”
and “vertistops” are used to provide the means for connecting
passengers from one destination to another. The vertiports
and vertistops40, could potentially use the flat rooftops of ex-
isting buildings and facilities within already-built up urban and
suburban areas or adjacent flat areas to these facilities.
Overall, the concept aims to provide efficient service within
urban and suburban environments using the eVTOL
equipment. Uber Elevate assumes the maximum VTOL
distance would be 120 miles, and the enroute speed would
be approximately 170 mph.
2.5.7.1 eVTOL Operations Forecast
It is important that this Forecast recognize the eVTOL tech-
nology so that thought can be given to potential locations for
facilities to serve these operations. However, it is felt the
technology is so new that it is premature to provide an
enplanements forecast.
In addition, the timing for the technology is also speculative.
This Forecast assumes operations will not begin at airports like
SLC until a few years after the technology becomes available.
Given some of the Uber concepts and assumptions, this Fore-
cast assumes that SLC would integrate regular eVTOL service
to at least two or three destinations within 50 miles of the
Airport and near the end of the planning horizon (2032-2037).
Even though certification and approval of eVTOL operations
are anticipated to be sometime after 2022, the first active year
with steady demand and ridership of eVTOL operations out
of SLC is grossly estimated to be sometime after 2027 and
will be part of the operations forecast by 2032. While the cost
of the service is expected to be highest in its initial phases,
increased ridership and success will likely lower fares over the
long-term, adding to the overall number of passengers and
operations.
TABLE 2-17 provides an initial estimate of potential activity
based upon what would need to be a profitable venture. At this
point, these forecasts are conjecture and are not included in
the summary of total operations for SLC. Operations forecasts
are based upon 10 percent of arrival air passenger operations
generating commuter eVTOL operations with a fast-paced
growth to 20 percent by 2037.
2.6 AIR CARGO
2.6.1 Historical Air Cargo
Over the past decade, SLC has shown continual growth in
its air cargo activity. The following historical41 analysis and
forecasts define the Airport’s air cargo activity, which is made
up of freight and belly cargo, with air mail being a subcategory
of the total belly cargo poundage. TABLE 2-18 provides the
annual totals of air cargo by type, with TABLE 2-19 showing
the total air cargo processed by the largest air cargo carriers
and all others combined. FIGURE 2-52 compares the shares
of total air cargo by the largest air cargo carriers, and FIGURE
2-53 compares the total enplaned and deplaned cargo from
2008 to 2017.
2.6.1.1 Historical Freight
Since 2008, Federal Express (FedEx) and the United Parcel
Service (UPS) have maintained their roles as the most active
integrated cargo carrier operators out of SLC. FIGURE 2-54
compares the largest shares of air cargo freight at SLC in 2008
and 2017. During the past ten years UPS has increased its total
freight share at the Airport by 12% going from 66,340,875 lbs
to 117,415,471 lbs Meanwhile, FedEx the largest cargo opera-
tor at the Airport, has decreased its total freight share by over
5%, however, it still maintains the greatest quantity of total
freight processed by any integrated cargo carrier. The annual
enplaned and deplaned freight totals out of SLC has remained
somewhat consistent in quantity over the past 10 years, with
the totals never differing by more than 10.7%. TABLE 2-18
and FIGURE 2-55 provides the enplaned, deplaned, and total
freight annually from 2008-2017. Finally, TABLE 2-19 shows
the annual freight poundage processed by the largest cargo
carriers at SLC from 2008-2017.
2.6.1.2 Historical Belly Cargo
The two mainline carriers (Delta Air Lines and Southwest Air-
lines) with the greatest number of enplanements at SLC, have
also maintained the greatest amount of belly cargo pound-
age processed from 2008-2017. The belly cargo poundage
deplaned has consistently been greater than the poundage
enplaned, although both annual quantities are similar in size. In
base year 2017, DL increased its share of belly cargo at SLC
from 2008 by over 9%, and WN decreased its share by over
4% during the same time. FIGURE 2-56 compares the largest
shares of belly cargo out of SLC. TABLE 2-18 and FIGURE
2-57 show the historical enplaned and deplaned belly cargo
from 2008 to 2017.
2.6.1.3 Historical Air Mail
The air mail processed into/out of SLC is carried by both com-
bination and integrated cargo carriers. While statistics track
the number of pounds (lbs) of mail, there are no totals differ-
entiating specific amount of mail carried by particular airlines,
whether a combination of passenger and belly cargo by pas-
sengers airlines or freight by the all-cargo airlines. Therefore,
these forecasts do not identify a separate forecast of airmail
and assume forecasts of belly cargo and all-cargo include air
mail. Air mail has changed in type over the past ten years. In
2008, the enplaned air mail was 22.5% greater than deplaned
air mail. Today, the enplaned air mail is 72.3% greater than the
deplaned air mail. TABLE 2-18 provides annual air mail and bel-
ly cargo totals, and FIGURE 2-58 shows the historical enplaned
and deplaned air mail from 2008-2017.
2.6.1.4 Historical Air Cargo Peak Month
The total historical air cargo was compared on a monthly basis
from 2013-2017. During those years, the Airport showed
consistent balance as no month ever dropped below 7% of the
yearly total. The highest month of any year during that period
was 10.57% in December, 2015. The analysis confirmed that
December, is the peak air cargo month at SLC, likely due to
fulfillment orders for the holidays. It is interesting to note that
in 2017, June had 37,077,806 lbs of total cargo, or 9.70%, and
December had 37,097,455 lbs or 9.71% making it the closest
alternative month to December over the past five years. TABLE
2-20 and FIGURE 2-59 show the total monthly air cargo by
month out of SLC from 2013-2017.
Table 2-17: eVTOL Operations Forecast (2022-2037)
38 An analysis of the enplanements by month over the past five fiscal years identified July as the Airport’s peak month.
39 Uber Elevate (October 27, 2016) Retrieved online November 11, 2018 at: https://www.uber.com/elevate.pdf/
40 Uber Elevate identifies vertiports as sites for eVTOLs with multiple takeoff and landing pads, and vertistops as a single takeoff and landing pad.
41 Historical air cargo data is in calendar year (CY).
FY
Low Scenario Forcast Base Case Forcast High Scenario Forcast
eVTOL Operations Total eVTOL Operations Total eVTOL Operations
2022 0 0 0
2027 0 0 0
2032 15,998 17,349 18,883
2037 32,873 36,744 40,981
Source: RS&H, 2018
180179
Ta
b
l
e
2
-
1
9
:
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
A
i
r
C
a
r
g
o
b
y
C
a
r
r
i
e
r
Figure 2-53: Historical Total Air Cargo (2008-2017)
Figure 2-52: Comparison of Total Air Cargo Shares by Carrier (2008 & 2017)Ta
b
l
e
2
-
1
8
:
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
C
a
r
g
o
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
(
2
0
0
8
-
2
0
1
7
)
Source: RS&H, 2018
C
a
l
e
n
d
a
r
Y
e
a
r
2
0
0
8
2
0
0
9
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
F
r
e
i
g
h
t
E
n
p
l
a
n
e
d
1
5
1
,
3
5
8
,
7
7
5
1
2
5
,
8
8
8
,
1
2
8
1
3
0
,
4
5
9
,
3
0
0
1
4
6
,
2
4
9
,
0
4
5
1
5
3
,
9
4
6
,
7
5
1
1
5
4
,
9
7
7
,
5
6
0
1
5
2
,
9
1
7
,
8
2
2
1
5
3
,
0
9
9
,
9
8
3
1
5
1
,
3
0
7
,
0
3
1
1
6
0
,
3
1
8
,
6
4
5
D
e
p
l
a
n
e
d
1
4
9
,
4
7
7
,
4
8
9
1
2
1
,
4
4
7
,
1
5
4
1
3
0
,
9
5
5
,
2
2
6
1
4
0
,
9
8
3
,
5
6
8
1
4
5
,
1
8
2
,
6
4
0
1
4
0
,
0
0
1
,
1
8
3
1
4
0
,
2
9
5
,
2
4
8
1
5
0
,
3
3
1
,
4
5
0
1
6
7
,
4
2
8
,
5
3
1
1
7
9
,
4
5
9
,
3
3
4
T
o
t
a
l
3
0
0
0
,
8
3
6
,
2
6
4
2
4
7
,
3
3
5
,
2
8
2
2
6
1
,
4
1
4
,
5
2
6
2
8
7
,
2
3
2
,
6
1
3
2
9
9
,
1
2
9
,
3
9
1
2
9
4
,
9
7
8
,
7
4
3
2
9
3
,
2
1
3
,
0
7
0
3
0
3
,
4
3
1
,
4
3
3
3
1
8
,
7
3
5
,
5
6
2
3
3
9
,
7
7
7
,
9
7
9
B
e
l
l
y
C
a
r
g
o
E
n
p
l
a
n
e
d
1
9
,
3
5
2
,
1
2
5
1
8
,
8
3
0
,
1
6
0
2
0
,
7
0
8
,
8
6
3
1
9
,
2
4
9
,
0
5
9
2
0
,
2
7
9
,
2
8
8
1
7
,
5
4
8
,
0
7
8
1
5
,
8
6
6
,
6
3
0
1
5
,
5
5
3
,
0
2
2
1
4
,
4
9
9
,
1
4
8
1
8
,
1
3
8
,
4
1
3
D
e
p
l
a
n
e
d
2
4
,
4
3
6
,
5
8
8
2
3
,
2
3
3
,
4
1
1
2
7
,
9
3
6
,
1
0
8
2
4
,
4
8
1
,
0
0
6
2
4
,
7
9
4
,
9
3
0
2
4
,
1
3
3
,
2
7
5
1
9
,
5
2
4
,
5
2
8
2
0
,
5
2
3
,
2
7
2
2
0
,
5
1
3
,
0
3
4
2
4
,
2
8
6
,
7
1
9
T
o
t
a
l
4
3
,
7
8
8
,
7
1
3
4
2
,
0
6
3
,
5
7
1
4
8
,
6
4
4
,
9
7
1
4
3
,
7
3
0
,
0
6
5
4
5
,
0
7
4
,
2
1
8
4
1
,
6
8
1
,
3
5
3
3
5
,
4
1
1
,
1
5
8
3
6
,
0
7
6
,
2
9
4
3
5
,
0
1
2
,
1
8
2
4
2
,
4
2
5
,
1
3
2
A
i
r
M
a
i
l
*
E
n
p
l
a
n
e
d
5
,
1
8
4
,
8
4
0
5
,
0
3
0
,
7
0
9
7
,
1
0
1
,
8
6
0
1
1
,
8
2
2
,
4
2
7
1
6
,
2
2
0
,
4
7
1
2
0
,
3
0
2
,
4
7
9
1
8
,
7
8
6
,
9
4
9
2
4
,
1
1
1
,
0
4
0
2
0
,
3
3
8
,
7
1
0
2
3
,
4
7
6
,
2
7
6
D
e
p
l
a
n
e
d
4
,
2
3
0
,
7
2
5
4
,
5
2
2
,
8
6
5
3
,
4
8
1
,
2
7
3
5
,
8
4
9
,
5
5
1
8
,
5
0
9
,
0
0
6
9
,
6
9
3
,
7
0
9
9
,
4
4
4
,
0
6
7
1
2
,
7
3
9
,
2
5
7
1
0
,
0
7
9
,
5
7
0
1
3
,
6
1
8
,
4
4
1
T
o
t
a
l
9
,
4
1
4
,
5
6
5
9
,
5
5
3
,
5
7
4
1
0
,
5
8
3
,
1
3
3
1
7
,
6
7
1
,
9
7
8
2
4
,
7
2
9
,
4
7
7
2
9
,
9
9
6
,
1
8
8
2
8
,
2
3
1
,
0
1
6
3
6
,
8
5
0
,
2
9
7
3
0
,
4
1
8
,
2
8
0
3
7
,
0
9
4
,
7
1
7
To
t
a
l
y
A
i
r
C
a
r
g
o
*
E
n
p
l
a
n
e
d
1
7
0
,
7
1
0
,
9
0
0
1
4
4
,
7
1
8
,
2
8
8
1
5
1
,
1
6
8
,
1
6
3
1
6
5
,
4
9
8
,
1
0
4
1
7
4
,
2
2
6
,
0
3
9
1
7
2
,
5
2
5
,
6
3
8
1
6
8
,
8
0
4
,
4
5
2
1
6
8
,
6
5
3
,
0
0
5
1
6
5
,
8
0
6
,
1
7
9
1
7
8
,
4
5
7
,
0
5
8
D
e
p
l
a
n
e
d
1
7
3
,
9
1
4
,
0
7
7
1
4
4
,
6
8
0
,
5
6
5
1
5
8
,
8
9
1
,
3
3
4
1
6
5
,
4
6
4
,
5
7
4
1
6
9
,
9
7
7
,
5
7
0
1
6
4
,
1
3
4
,
4
5
8
1
5
9
,
8
1
9
,
7
7
6
1
7
0
,
8
5
4
,
7
2
2
1
8
7
,
9
4
1
,
5
6
5
2
0
3
,
7
4
6
,
0
5
3
T
o
t
a
l
3
4
4
,
6
2
4
,
9
7
7
2
8
9
,
3
9
8
,
8
5
3
3
1
0
,
0
5
9
,
4
9
7
3
3
0
,
9
6
2
,
6
7
8
3
4
4
,
2
0
3
,
6
0
9
3
3
6
,
6
6
0
,
0
9
6
3
2
8
,
6
2
4
,
2
2
8
3
3
9
,
5
0
7
,
7
2
7
3
5
3
,
7
4
7
,
7
4
4
3
8
2
,
2
0
3
,
1
1
1
*A
i
r
M
a
i
l
a
t
S
L
C
i
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
b
o
t
h
b
e
l
l
y
c
a
r
g
o
f
r
e
i
g
h
t
p
o
u
n
d
a
g
e
a
n
d
e
x
c
l
u
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
T
o
t
a
l
A
i
r
C
a
r
g
o
t
o
t
a
l
s
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
S
L
C
D
A
,
2
0
1
8
C
a
l
e
n
d
a
r
Y
e
a
r
2
0
0
8
2
0
0
9
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
C
a
r
r
i
e
e
r
s
Fe
d
E
x
1
8
6
,
8
4
6
,
2
1
9
1
6
4
,
6
2
1
,
5
4
9
1
7
6
,
1
9
8
,
5
1
8
1
8
2
,
5
8
7
,
9
2
6
1
8
2
,
7
9
3
,
3
1
2
1
7
0
,
8
7
0
,
8
1
7
1
6
5
,
0
3
2
,
0
4
2
1
7
1
,
7
3
7
,
4
0
1
1
8
6
,
8
6
2
,
7
2
8
1
9
2
,
2
3
9
,
3
9
1
U
P
S
6
6
,
3
4
0
,
8
7
5
6
3
,
7
1
6
,
2
5
9
6
3
,
6
7
1
,
5
0
1
8
1
,
1
0
1
,
7
1
5
9
4
,
0
2
9
,
6
6
0
1
0
1
,
2
8
7
,
1
2
9
1
0
4
,
3
3
4
,
4
6
5
1
0
5
,
6
4
8
,
8
5
1
1
0
7
,
7
4
9
,
5
3
0
1
1
7
,
4
1
5
,
4
7
1
O
t
h
e
r
C
a
r
r
i
e
r
s
4
7
,
6
4
9
,
1
7
0
1
8
,
9
9
7
,
4
7
4
2
1
,
5
4
4
,
5
0
7
2
3
,
5
4
2
,
9
7
2
2
2
,
3
0
6
,
4
1
9
2
2
,
8
2
0
,
7
9
7
2
3
,
8
4
6
,
5
6
3
2
6
,
0
4
5
,
1
8
1
2
4
,
1
5
9
,
3
0
4
3
0
,
1
2
3
,
1
1
7
C
o
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
C
a
r
r
i
e
r
s
D
e
l
t
a
A
i
r
L
i
n
e
s
2
7
,
9
8
3
,
2
2
8
2
9
,
5
7
6
,
4
2
1
3
8
,
2
7
6
,
6
3
1
3
3
,
3
8
6
,
6
7
6
3
4
,
0
9
8
,
3
5
7
3
0
,
6
0
8
,
2
5
8
2
5
,
0
1
7
,
5
6
9
2
4
,
9
1
1
,
0
2
3
2
3
,
4
8
9
,
3
6
8
3
1
,
1
5
9
,
3
5
4
S
o
u
t
h
w
e
s
t
A
i
r
l
i
n
e
s
1
0
,
5
7
7
,
8
1
7
8
,
5
7
5
,
9
1
1
8
,
1
2
5
,
8
6
5
8
,
3
9
5
,
0
8
2
9
,
6
5
6
,
2
5
8
9
,
7
7
2
,
1
2
0
9
,
1
3
4
,
6
3
6
9
,
5
6
1
,
3
6
4
8
,
9
6
9
,
8
5
7
8
,
3
7
8
,
9
7
5
O
t
h
e
r
C
a
r
r
i
e
r
s
5
,
2
2
7
,
6
6
8
3
,
9
1
1
,
2
3
9
2
,
2
4
2
,
4
7
5
1
,
9
4
8
,
3
0
7
1
,
3
1
9
,
6
0
3
1
,
3
0
0
,
9
7
5
1
,
2
5
8
,
9
5
3
1
,
6
0
3
,
9
0
7
2
,
5
5
2
,
9
5
7
2
,
8
8
6
,
8
0
3
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
S
L
C
D
A
,
2
0
1
8
Source: SLCDA, 2018
182181
Figure 2-55: Historical Freight (2008-2017)
Figure 2-54: Comparison of Freight Cargo Shares by Carrier (2008 & 2017)
Figure 2-57: Historical Belly Cargo (2008-2017)
Figure 2-56: Comparison of Belly Cargo Shares by Carrier (2008 & 2017)
Source: SLCDA, 2018
Source: SLCDA, 2018
Source: SLCDA, 2018 Source: SLCDA, 2018
184183
Figure 2-59: Peak Month Total Cargo (2013-2017)
Figure 2-58: Historical Air Mail (2008-2017)
Table 2-20: Air Cargo Processed by Month (2013-2017)
Source: SLCDA, 2018
Source: SLCDA, 2018
Note: Percentages are rounded to the nearest 0.1.
Source: SLCDA, 2018
CY Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
2013
29,800,841 26,940,868 29,391,583 27,605,363 28,288,634 27,040,027
8.9%8.0%8.7%8.2%8.4%8.0%
2014
25,443,398 23,924,434 27,004,935 27,040,438 27,821,637 26,707,931
7.7%7.3%8.2%8.2%8.5%8.1%
2015
27,061,527 24,620,591 26,431,303 27,143,281 27,369,468 27,417,151
8.0%7.3%7.8%8.0%8.0%8.0
2016
27,354,310 26,381,449 29,815,741 28,781,732 28,822,798 30,285,538
7.7%7.5%8.4%8.1%8.2%8.6%
2017
28,809,066 27,112,995 32,707,931 29,044,665 29,990,574 37,077,806
7.5%7.1%8.6%7.6%7.9%9.7%
CY Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013
26,415,727 28,933,808 26,334,221 28,186,057 26,060,500 31,662,467
7.9%8.6%7.8%8.4%7.7%9.4%
2014
27,660,644 27,650,980 26,974,235 29,712,209 26,800,812 31,882,575
8.4%8.4%8.2%9.0%8.2%9.7%
2015
28,595,556 28,594,636 28,843,187 30,287,128 27,262,764 35,881,135
8.4%8.4%8.5%8.9%8.0%10.6%
2016
27,884,788 29,318,809 29,400,339 28,847,122 30,347,128 36,507,990
7.9%8.3%8.3%8.2%8.6%10.3%
2017
26,672,343 33,664,372 31,090,161 32,106,170 33,829,573 37,097,455
7.8%8.8%8.1%8.4%8.9%9.7%
185 186
2.6.2 Air Cargo Fleet Mix-Baseline 2017
The air cargo fleet mix baseline, identifies the most
commonly used fleet of aircraft by the Airport’s integrated
carriers in 2017. These aircraft include:
Airbus
• Airbus 300-600
ATR
• ATR-43 Cargo
• ATR-72 Cargo
Beech
• Beech King Air 1900
• Beech 99 Airliner
Boeing
• Boeing 737-400F
• Boeing 757-200F
• Boeing 767-300F
Cessna
• Cessna 208 Caravan
• Cessna 402
Embraer
• Embraer 120
Fairchild Swearingen
• Fairchild Swearingen 4 Metro
McDonnell Douglas (Boeing)
• McDonnell Douglas DC-10
• McDonnell Douglas MD-11
2.6.3 Local Cargo Forecasts
The local belly cargo forecasts project the combined enplaned
and deplaned belly cargo, whereas the local freight forecasts
project the combined enplaned and deplaned freight.
2.6.3.1 Belly Cargo Forecast
There are no FAA forecasts for growth in air cargo pounds.
Instead, the forecast will use revenue ton miles (RTM) as a
surrogate. The AAGR for domestic airlines belly cargo forecast
RTM ranges from 1.0 percent to 1.2 percent over the course
of the 20-year planning period . Forecasts of belly cargo RTM
carried on international routes is more robust and is anticipat-
ed to average about 3.4 percent over the same period . Due to
the larger cargo capacities of international airlines’ aircraft that
use a greater percentage of wide body equipment, it is com-
mon that the average cargo capacity of international passenger
aircraft is significantly greater than U.S. domestic aircraft. While
percentages vary widely, studies have indicated that U.S. airport
belly cargo represents from 10-15 percent of all cargo whereas
the percentage at international airports is almost evenly split.
Over the past ten years, belly cargo growth at SLC has been
approximately 1.25 percent AAGR which is very similar to the
FAA forecast for domestic RTMs. Over the past five years, as
the percent of international enplanements has doubled at SLC,
belly cargo growth has been 3.5 percent AAGR which is very
similar to the long-term forecast of international belly cargo
RTMs for the U.S.
In conversations with both passenger and air cargo carriers,
including Delta, Federal Express, and UPS, these airlines have
equated general growth for the next few years to be in line
with the growth in U.S. GDP.
For the belly cargo forecasts, the rate of GDP growth is used
for the Base Case Forecast (1.7 percent). This rate of growth is
a hybrid between the previous five and ten year growth rates in
belly cargo at SLC and is in line with the potential for increased
belly cargo capacity from upgauging.
The Low Case belly cargo forecast assumes a rate of GDP
growth associated with belly cargo to be 20 percent lower
than the Base Case which rate is slightly larger than the growth
FAA forecast for long-term domestic belly cargo RTMs
(approximately 1.4 percent).
The High Case belly cargo forecast assumes a rate of 40
percent higher GDP rate of growth than the Base Case. Two
primary reasons are assumed for the High Case growth rate:
(1) anticipation that new international flights on larger aircraft
will provide more belly cargo capacity, as a result of carrying a
growing number of passengers relative to all enplanements on
larger aircraft, and (2) an outgrowth of the first, an anticipated
initiation of international service from SLC to Asia, the fastest
air cargo growth market in the world, that would provide more
opportunity for belly air cargo growth.
TABLE 2-21 shows the belly cargo forecasts from 2017-2037.
2.6.3.2 Freight Forecast
The annual local freight forecasts were based on historical and
anticipated changes for FedEx and UPS individually as well as
the remainder of the integrated cargo carriers combined into
the “Others” group.
Rates of growth were mainly determined from interviews
with the individual carriers for the short term. FedEx and UPS
indicated that they expected to grow in line with U.S. GDP
AAGRs over the short-term and into the future. In addition, the
forecasts also include consideration for a potential expansion in
the SLC market based upon serving Amazon whether through
expansion of service with integrated carriers or initiation of
individual service that primarily serves Amazon.
The Base Case air cargo forecast assumes continuation of
growth for the next five years based upon rates over the past
five years plus the potential growth that might be associated
with Amazon. While, there are no specific indicators regard-
ing the potential for Amazon growth, it is accounted through
assumptions of experiencing growth rates greater than GDP.
The Low Case scenario assumes growth that is based upon a
decrease in the U.S. GDP by ten percent. The High Case Sce-
nario Forecast builds on the Base Case Forecast by assuming a
growth rate 20 percent over the Base Case. This assumes the
potential for greatly expanded service that would be due to,
in part a sustained economy, but also the possibility of a new
airline operated for or by Amazon.
TABLE 2-22 shows the total freight forecasts
from 2017-2037.
Table 2-21: Belly Cargo Forecast-Total Pounds (2017-2037)
42 AFAA Aerospace Forecast: Fiscal Years 2018-2038, Federal Aviation Administration, Table 19 – U.S. Commercial Air Carriers Air Cargo Revenue Ton Miles, p. 84.
43 FAA Aerospace Forecast: Fiscal Years 2018-2038, Federal Aviation Administration, Table 19 - U.S. Commercial Air Carriers Air Cargo Revenue Ton Miles, p. 84.
44 Airport Cooperative Research Program, Air Cargo Facility Planning and Development Final Report, 2015.
Year Low Case Scenario Forecast Base Case Forecast High Case Scenario Forecast
2017 42,425,132 42,425,132 42,425,132
2018 43,006,356 43,154,844 43,439,093
2019 43,595,543 43,897,108 44,477,287
2020 44,192,802 44,652,138 45,540,294
2021 44,798,244 45,420,155 46,628,707
2022 45,411,980 46,201,381 47,743,133
2023 46,034,124 46,996,045 48,884,194
2024 46,664,731 47,804,377 50,052,526
2025 47,304,099 48,626,612 51,248,782
2026 47,952,165 49,462,990 52,473,628
2027 48,609,110 50,313,753 53,727,747
2028 49,275,055 51,179,150 55,011,841
2029 49,950,123 52,059,431 56,326,623
2030 50,634,439 52,954,854 57,672,830
2031 51,328,131 53,865,677 59,051,210
2032 52,031,327 54,792,167 60,462,534
2033 52,744,156 55,734,592 61,907,589
2034 53,466,751 56,693,227 63,387,180
2035 54,199,245 57,668,350 64,902,134
2036 54,941,775 58,660,246 66,453,295
2037 55,694,477 59,669,202 68,041,529
Average Annual Growth Rate (AAGR)
2018-2037 1.37%1.72%2.39%
Source: RS&H, 2018
188187
2.6.4 Total Air Cargo Forecast
The total air cargo forecasts take a bottom up approach, in which the total enplaned and
deplaned air cargo in pounds (lb.) is projected based on the growth of both enplaned and
deplaned belly cargo and enplaned and deplaned freight. FIGURE 2-60 provides a
breakdown of belly cargo versus freight cargo forecasts for the Base Case Forecast.
FIGURE 2-61 compares the projected total air cargo poundage of the three forecast
scenarios through 2037.
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
6
0
:
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
o
f
A
i
r
C
a
r
g
o
b
y
T
y
p
e
(
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
3
7
)
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
R
S
&
H
,
2
0
1
8
Table 2-22: Freight Forecast-Total Pounds (2017-2037)
Year Low Case Scenario Forecast Base Case Forecast High Case Scenario Forecast
2017 339,777,979 339,777,979 339,777,979
2018 345,005,312 347,593,221 350,008,670
2019 350,313,065 355,610,674 360,558,000
2020 355,702,475 363,836,141 371,436,252
2021 361,174,799 372,275,605 382,654,054
2022 366,731,312 380,935,231 394,222,390
2023 372,373,310 389,821,380 406,152,609
2024 378,102,107 398,940,605 418,456,447
2025 383,919,040 408,299,667 431,146,028
2026 389,825,463 417,905,536 444,233,888
2027 395,822,754 427,765,398 457,732,983
2028 401,912,310 437,886,666 471,656,708
2029 408,095,552 448,276,982 486,018,908
2030 414,373,920 458,944,230 500,833,897
2031 420,748,878 469,896,537 516,116,472
2032 427,221,912 481,142,290 531,881,932
2033 433,794,531 492,690,135 548,146,096
2034 440,468,266 504,548,992 564,925,317
2035 447,244,674 516,728,062 582,236,506
2036 454,125,334 529,236,836 600,097,148
2037 461,111,850 542,085,104 618,525,325
Average Annual Growth Rate (AAGR)
2018-2037 1.54%2.36%3.04%
Source: RS&H, 2018
2.6.5 Air Cargo Operations Forecast
(Integrated Carriers)
To accurately reflect operations by aircraft type, interviews
were conducted with the largest passenger and integrated
cargo carriers.
Trends and market factors that may affect cargo operations
out of SLC are:
• Surveyed responses from major cargo providers including
FedEx, UPS, Delta Air Lines, Southwest Airlines, and
American Airlines
• Examination of changes in fleet mix (e.g. anticipated retire-
ments of passenger aircraft, usage of small vs. large aircraft)
• Belly cargo versus dedicated freighter cargo demand and
anticipated changes in air cargo fleets by integrated carriers
• Economic political and demographic trends that will have
potential impacts on the Airport’s market share growth in
the short, medium, and long-term
A detailed analysis was performed of cargo load factors by air
cargo aircraft type by integrated carrier for September and
December 2017 to calibrate load factors to be used in
forecasting future operations forecasts for integrated carriers.
Increased potential for belly cargo uplift is assumed by the
air passenger forecasts.
Each integrated carrier indicated that it would be upgauging
aircraft in the future, with plans for additional parking positions
for both their air carrier fleet and feeder fleets and could be
constrained if more space is not available. In general, there
would be a move away from older aircraft such as the B-757,
MD-11, and DC-10s to more frequencies by B767-300. In
terms of feeder aircraft, wherever possible the use of
existing aircraft in the fleet would grow over time with
upgauging where possible to handle additional load. A separate
sub-forecast of integrated carriers was developed for
feeder aircraft and which derived operational forecasts for
those aircraft. This is included within the identified forecasts.
For example, instead of adding an additional ATR-43 to a route,
the aircraft would be upgauged to an ATR-72 when the air
cargo load factor increased to the 2017 level. Existing air cargo
airline load factors were maintained over the forecast period
based upon 2017 load factors.
In terms of the future fleet beyond upgauging to B-767s or
increasing B-767 frequencies, the long-term forecasts
consider larger aircraft that are not currently being
anticipated to handle increasing volumes of air cargo. For
that reason, aircraft such as the B-777 and A330 could be
introduced to increase capacity per flight as opposed to
increasing frequencies. There are no other apparent new
generation aircraft that would increase capacity for feeder
aircraft to a point that could offset the need for an increased
frequencies of operations . Should this happen, the number of
feeder aircraft frequencies would be less than forecast.
TABLE 2-23, TABLE 2-24, and TABLE 2-25 provide air cargo
operations forecast for the Base, Low, and High Cases.
189 190
45 All-cargo versions of CRJ-200 exist but have approximately the same air cargo capacity as the ATR-72.
Table 2-23: Air Cargo Operations by Aircraft-Base Case Forecast (2017-2037)
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
6
1
:
T
o
t
a
l
A
i
r
C
a
r
g
o
(
l
b
s
.
)
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
(
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
3
7
)
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
R
S
&
H
,
2
0
1
8
Base Case Forecast - Air Cargo Operations by Aircraft
Aircraft 2017 2018 2022 2027 2032 2037
Airbus 300-600 2,177 2,392 2,496 3,068 2,148 1,344
Airbus 330-300 0 0 0 0 440 1,360
Boeing 777F 0 0 254 384 522 1,018
Boeing 767-300F 489 538 1,720 3,532 6,374 7,836
Boeing 757-200SF 1,370 2,300 2,206 742 0 0
Boeing 737-400F 986 1,002 1,096 1,168 1,272 1,384
McDonnell Douglas MD-11 1,846 1,944 1,358 1,122 328 0
McDonnell Douglas DC-10 331 436 312 166 0 0
ATR-72 Cargo 28 276 356 652 1,182 1,460
ATR-43 Cargo 377 450 540 548 906 996
Embraer 120 620 452 338 220 214 0
Fairchild Swearingen 4 Metro 1,391 1,420 1,574 750 300 0
Beech 99 Airliner 3,392 3,458 3,796 4,310 4,894 5,556
Beech King Air 1900 3,168 3,236 3,544 4,024 4,570 5,188
Cessna 402 495 608 716 758 1,328 1,620
Cessna 208 Caravan 2,736 2,776 2,816 2,886 2,956 3,380
Total 19,406 21,288 23,122 24,280 27,434 31,142
Source: RS&H, 2018
192191
2.7 GENERAL AVIATION AND MILITARY
2.7.1 General Aviation Forecast
2.7.1.1 Based Aircraft
The Salt Lake City Department of Airports General Aviation
Strategy Plan (SLCDA GASP) was prepared to examine the
Salt Lake City Department of Airports General Aviation
(SLCDA GA) System of Airports. The report determined a
total of 290 based aircraft at SLC, including 178 single-engine,
42 multi-engine, 51 jets, and 19 helicopters. This reflects a
decrease in total based aircraft by 109 since 2008, mainly in
single engine aircraft (-92), jet (-18), and multi-engine (-7).
Helicopter is the only category of aircraft that has increased
during that time (+8). During this time nationally, jet,
turboprop, and helicopters are increasing as a part of the fleet
whereas single/multi-engine piston are decreasing.
The forecast prepared in the General Aviation Strategy Plan
report for based aircraft at SLC was built off of the actual 2017
totals, and used the AAGRs derived from the FAA Aerospace
Forecast for FY 2018-2038 as its means for change. Using
the trends of the FAA Aerospace Forecast, the single-engine
aircraft category is the only type of based aircraft anticipated
to decrease with a -1.0% AAGR, while jets are projected to in-
crease the fastest with a 2.2% AAGR from 2018-2037. TABLE
2-26 shows the historical based aircraft fleet at SLC by type
from 2008-2017, as well as the forecast for the Base Case
projections over the planning horizon.
2.7.1.2 General Aviation Operations
The SLCDA GA Forecast for GA operations over the planning
horizon used a methodology of combining operations per
based aircraft (OPBA) and the FAA Aerospace Forecast for FY
2018-2038: Active General Aviation and Air Taxi Hours Flown
AAGRs. Each of the GA designated aircraft categories and their
operations were classified by based aircraft type using the
categories supplied by the FAA Aerospace Forecast which in-
cluded: single-engine piston, multi-engine piston, single-engine
turboprop, multi-engine turboprop, jet, and helicopter. Data
from the FAA’s National Offload Program was then gathered
to identify the operations of the fleet mix for SLC in FY 2017.
FAA Aerospace Forecast AAGRs were used to project the
aircraft category’s growth through 2037.
TABLE 2-28 shows the forecast of operations by GA aircraft
type, in which some of the Airport’s specific aircraft
types were identified.
Local GA operations increased at the rate of single engine
piston aircraft hours flown, while still maintaining the same
number of OPBA for single engine pistons in 2017. This results
in the local GA operations decreasing from 2,104 in 2017
to 1,686 in 2037 with a -1.1% AAGR. However, the itinerant
GA operations are projected to increase from 38,372 annual
operations in 2017 to 51,121 operations in 2037 with a 1.5%
AAGR largely attributed to an increase in jet operations
at the Airport.
TABLE 2-27 shows the itinerant and local GA operations
forecast for 2018-2037.
Table 2-25: Air Cargo Operations by Aircraft-High Case Scenario Forecast (2017-2037)
Table 2-24: Air Cargo Operations by Aircraft-Low Case Scenario Forecast (2017-2037)
Table 2-26: General Aviation Based Aircraft Historical and Forecast (2008-2037)
Low Case Scenario Forecast - Air Cargo Operations by Aircraft
Aircraft 2017 2018 2022 2027 2032 2037
Airbus 300-600 2,177 2,440 2,496 3,068 1,700 1,218
Airbus 330-300 0 0 0 0 104 408
Boeing 777F 0 0 268 422 528 942
Boeing 767-300F 489 1,228 2,094 3,612 6,424 7,170
Boeing 757-200SF 1,370 1,574 1,690 474 0 0
Boeing 737-400F 986 1,000 1,062 1,166 1,240 1,360
McDonnell Douglas MD-11 1,846 1,768 1,042 606 0 0
McDonnell Douglas DC-10 331 322 312 104 0 0
ATR-72 Cargo 28 320 338 448 1,034 1,154
ATR-43 Cargo 377 486 518 564 616 670
Embraer 120 620 504 350 202 104 0
Fairchild Swearingen 4 Metro 1,391 1,408 1,494 504 0 0
Beech 99 Airliner 3,392 3,432 3,794 3,808 4,308 4,694
Beech King Air 1900 3,168 3,222 3,498 3,510 4,026 4,384
Cessna 402 495 710 1,014 1,114 1,264 1,356
Cessna 208 Caravan 2,736 2,750 2,852 3,098 3,444 3,942
Total 19,406 21,164 22,822 22,700 24,792 27,298
Source: RS&H, 2018
High Case Scenario Forecast - Air Cargo Operations by Aircraft
Aircraft 2017 2018 2022 2027 2032 2037
Airbus 300-600 2,177 2,236 3,512 3,150 2,498 0
Airbus 330-300 0 0 0 208 416 1,288
Boeing 777F 0 0 358 388 416 832
Boeing 767-300F 489 1,332 3,802 6,028 7,870 10,012
Boeing 757-200SF 1,370 1,186 240 0 0 0
Boeing 737-400F 986 1,026 1,104 1,128 1,270 1,476
McDonnell Douglas MD-11 1,846 1,660 194 0 0 0
McDonnell Douglas DC-10 331 312 312 0 0 0
ATR-72 Cargo 28 150 576 954 1,328 1,570
ATR-43 Cargo 377 390 566 670 792 938
Embraer 120 620 532 466 0 0 0
Fairchild Swearingen 4 Metro 1,391 1,174 898 598 0 0
Beech 99 Airliner 3,392 3,508 3,958 4,680 5,538 6,552
Beech King Air 1900 3,168 3,276 3,694 4,372 5,176 6,114
Cessna 402 495 512 746 1,746 2,144 2,688
Cessna 208 Caravan 2,736 2,830 3,218 3,658 4,226 4,788
Total 19,406 20,124 23,644 27,580 31,674 36,258
Source: RS&H, 2018
Salt Lake City International Airport
Year Single-Engine Multi-Engine Jet Helicopter Total
2008 270 49 69 11 399
2009 250 46 55 15 366
2010 250 46 55 15 366
2011 204 36 46 15 301
2012 204 36 46 15 301
2013 186 41 70 31 328
2014 186 41 70 31 328
2015 186 41 70 31 328
2016 203 46 62 31 342
2017 178 42 51 19 290
2022 171 47 56 20 294
2027 163 48 62 22 295
2032 155 50 69 24 298
2037 147 52 77 27 303
Average Annual Growth Rate (AAGR)
-4.3%-0.9%5.3%5.3%-3.2%
-1.0%0.8%1.8%1.8%0.2%
Source: Salt Lake City Department of Airports, General Aviation Strategic Vision and Immediate Action Plan, 2019
194193
Table 2-28: GA Operations by Aircraft Type Forecast Summary (2017-2037)Table 2-27: Itinerant and Local GA Operations Historical (2008-2017) and Forecast (2018-2037)
Year Itinerant Operations Local Operations Total Operations
2008 60,027 2 60,029
2009 58,444 511 58,955
2010 58,700 2,385 61,085
2011 57,701 10,869 68,570
2012 55,118 3,531 58,649
2013 60,346 3,751 64,097
2014 55,022 3,221 58,243
2015 46,180 3,069 49,249
2016 39,710 2,408 42,118
2017 38,372 2,104 40,476
2018 38,832 2,081 40,913
2019 39,284 2,081 41,365
2020 39,799 2,035 41,834
2021 40,308 2,013 42,321
2022 40,834 1,991 42,825
2023 41,378 1,969 43,347
2024 41,940 1,947 43,888
2025 42,521 1,926 44,447
2026 43,121 1,905 45,026
2027 43,741 1,884 45,624
2028 44,380 1,863 46,243
2029 45,040 1,842 46,883
2030 45,721 1,822 47,544
2031 46,424 1,802 48,226
2032 47,148 1,782 48,931
2033 47,896 1,763 49,658
2034 48,666 1,743 50,409
2035 49,460 1,724 51,184
2036 50,278 1,705 51,983
2037 51,121 1,686 52,807
Average Annual Growth Rate (AAGR)
2018 - 2037 1.5%-1.1%1.4%
Source: Salt Lake City Department of Airports, General Aviation Strategic Vision and Immediate Action Plan, 2019
Aircraft 2017 2018 2022 2027 2032 2037
Pistons 11,166 12,747 10,657 10,173 9,714 9,279
Cessna 172 4,816 5,498 4,557 4,312 4,080 3,860
Cirrus SR22 989 1,129 936 885 838 793
Cessna 182 751 857 711 672 636 602
Cessna 206 343 392 325 307 291 275
Cessna 185 334 381 316 299 283 268
Piper 28A 330 377 312 295 280 265
Diamond DA-40 287 328 272 257 243 230
Cessna 340 333 380 328 323 318 314
Piper-44 287 328 283 278 274 270
Other Pistons 2,696 3,078 2,618 2,543 2,472 2,403
Turboprops 9,341 10,663 9,426 9,549 9,714 9,923
Pilatus PC-12 5,225 5,965 4,871 4,679 4,495 4,318
Piper 46T 273 312 320 307 295 283
Beechcraft Super King Air 2,996 3,420 3,266 3,571 3,904 4,268
Other Turboprops 847 967 969 992 1,020 1,053
Jet 17,324 19,778 19,794 22,614 25,836 29,518
Cessn Citation 6,990 7,980 7,464 8,528 9,743 11,131
Gulfstream IV 1,734 1,979 1,852 2,115 2,417 2,761
Hawker 800 966 1,103 1,032 1,179 1,346 1,538
Hawker 400 334 381 413 472 593 616
Challenger 300 1,354 1,547 1,676 1,915 2,188 2,500
Challenger 350 345 394 427 488 557 637
Challenger 650 760 868 940 1,074 1,227 1,402
Falcon 900 359 410 444 507 580 662
Falcon 2000 455 519 563 643 735 839
LearJet 35 475 542 588 671 767 876
LearJet 45 253 289 313 358 409 467
Learjet 60 416 475 515 588 672 768
Other Jets 2,883 3,291 3,567 4,075 4,656 5,319
Helicopter 2,645 2,949 2,949 3,288 3,666 4,087
Agusta A109SP 994 1,108 1,108 1,236 1,378 1,536
Bell 206 577 643 643 717 800 892
Robinson R22 440 491 491 547 610 680
Robinson R44 302 337 337 375 419 467
Other Helicopters 332 370 370 413 460 513
Total 40,476 46,137 42,826 45,624 48,930 52,807
Source: Salt Lake City Department of Airports, General Aviation Strategic Vision and Immediate Action Plan, 2019
196195
2.7.2 Military Forecast
2.7.2.1 Military Operations
The itinerant and local military aircraft that operate out of SLC represented only 2.2% of all 325,093 operations as identified within
TAF 2017. This Forecast does not make any changes to the number of local or itinerant military operations. Instead, as is a custom-
ary practice, it holds the existing count of 7,348 operations for local and itinerant military operations constant from 2017-2037.
TABLE 2-29 shows the military operations and represents military operations forecasts for the Base, Low, and High Cases.
2.8 SUMMARY OF AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
The forecast of total operations for the Airport are a summation of the passenger, air cargo, GA, and military operation forecasts
presented in previous sections. Also mentioned above, the forecast of eVTOL operations is not included at this time. TABLE 2-30
and FIGURE 2-62 show the projected totals from 2017-2037 for each scenario.
Table 2-29: Military Operations Forecast (2017-2037)Table 2-30: Comparison of Total Annual Operations Forecasts (2017-2037)
Operations by Military Aircraft
Aircraft 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037
A-7D Corsair 2 4 4 4 4 4
F-18S Super Hornet 2 2 2 2 2
T-38 Talon 4 4 4 4 4
C-23 Sherpa 2 2 2 2 2
F-18 Hornet 100 100 100 100 100
C-17 Globemaster III 10 10 10 10 10
C-130 Hercules 10 10 10 10 10
C-12 Huron 200 200 200 200 200
C-20 Gulfstream 200 200 200 200 200
Pilatus PC-12 200 200 200 200 200
KC-135 Stratotanker 6,580 6,580 6,580 6,580 6,580
V-22 Osprey 32 32 32 32 32
AH-64 Apache 4 4 4 4 4
Total 7,348 7,348 7,348 7,348 7,348
Source: FAA, TAF 2018; SLC ATC, 2018 and TAC Air, 2018
FY TAF 2017 Base Case Forecast Low Case Scenario
Forecast
High Case Scenario
Forecast
2017 325,093 325,093 325,093 325,093
2018 329,087 332,261 332,137 331,097
2019 334,320 338,039 335,651 337,296
2020 338,635 343,917 339,203 343,612
2021 341,941 349,897 342,792 350,045
2022 345,110 355,372 346,194 355,894
2023 349,378 361,627 349,734 366,393
2024 354,722 367,992 353,310 377,201
2025 360,257 374,469 356,923 388,329
2026 366,020 381,060 360,573 399,784
2027 371,900 386,647 363,894 408,388
2028 378,003 390,944 367,159 414,922
2029 384,244 395,289 370,454 421,561
2030 390,514 399,682 373,778 428,306
2031 396,873 404,124 377,132 435,159
2032 403,191 408,133 380,220 441,059
2033 409,446 413,473 383,136 448,761
2034 415,899 418,882 386,074 456,598
2035 422,591 424,363 389,035 464,572
2036 429,371 429,915 392,018 472,685
2037 436,164 434,832 394,799 479,571
Source: RS&H, 2018; SLCDA General Aviation Strategy Plan, 2018: Mary A Lynch,,2018
Year Air Carrier/
Air Taxi1 Cargo GA2 Military Total
2018 822 68 147 23 1,060
2022 907 71 146 23 1,147
2027 988 77 145 23 1,233
2032 1,042 88 157 23 1,310
2037 1,097 99 168 23 1,387
1 Air carrier/Air taxi operations include on-demand and miscellaneous commercial operations in addition to air carrier passenger operations.
See table 2-15 for the total number of passenger operations in the ADPM.
2 GA includes helicopter operations.
Source: RS&H, 2018
2.8.1 Base Case Forecast Summary of Total
Operations by Category
TABLE 2-31 provides projections of the number of Air Carrier/
Air Taxi, Cargo, GA, and Military operations for each forecast
year. Each category of operation forecast was developed in the
sections above.
2.8.2 Base Case Forecast Summary of ADPM
Operations by Category
TABLE 2-32 provides projections of the number of Air Carrier/
Air Taxi, Cargo, GA, and Military operations for an average day
of the peak month (ADPM) for each forecast year. The total
SLC fleet mix and operations were obtained from the 2017
FAA National Offload Program and annualized to reflect the
FAA TAF 2018, published in January, 2017. Afterwards, the
2018 ADPM totals were developed using the SLC aviation
activity forecast, while maintaining the 2017 ADPM proportion.
The Cargo and GA operations maintained their proportionate
share of 2017, and align with total operations for each
forecast year. Military operations remained constant over
the planning horizon.
However, the passenger46 operations were obtained using the
design day forecast flight schedule for commercial passenger
air carriers. They were then adjusted to include the on-demand
and miscellaneous commercial operations identified in 2017.
197 198
Table 2-32: Base Case Forecast Summary of ADPM Operations by Category (2018-2037)
Table 2-31: Base Case Forecast Summary of Total Operations by Category (2018-2037)
46 Passenger operations were identified as “Air Carrier/Air Taxi” in this analysis.
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
-
6
2
:
T
o
t
a
l
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
s
(
2
0
1
8
-
2
0
3
7
)
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
R
S
&
H
,
2
0
1
8
Year Air Carrier/
Air Taxi1 Cargo GA2 Military Total
2018 257,488 21,288 46,137 7,348 332,261
2022 282,076 23,122 42,827 7,348 355,372
2027 309,395 24,280 45,624 7,348 386,647
2032 324,421 27,434 48,930 7,348 408,133
2037 343,545 31,142 52,807 7,348 434,842
1 Air carrier/Air taxi operations include on-demand and miscellaneous commercial operations in addition to air carrier passenger operations.
See table 2-15 for the total number of passenger operations in the ADPM.
2 GA includes helicopter operations.
Source: RS&H, 2018
199
2.9 CRITICAL AIRCRAFT
The existing critical aircraft are determined by the usage of
each of the Airport’s four runways. It is defined as the most
demanding aircraft with 500 or more operations annually.
A representative group type can be used in some cases if no
single aircraft model has sufficient operations to achieve the
threshold. The dimensions of existing critical aircraft are
depicted in FIGURE 2-63.
2.9.1 Runway 14-32 Critical Aircraft
Existing: Beechcraft 1900D
• Aircraft Approach Group - B
• Aircraft Design Group - II
• Taxiway Design Group - 2
Future: Beechcraft 1900D
• Aircraft Approach Group - B
• Aircraft Design Group - II
• Taxiway Design Group – 2
2.9.2 Runway 16L-34R Critical Aircraft
Existing: Airbus A330/Boeing 737-9
• Aircraft Approach Group - D
• Aircraft Design Group - V
• Taxiway Design Group - 5
Future: Airbus A350/Boeing 777-3
• Aircraft Approach Group - D
• Aircraft Design Group - V
• Taxiway Design Group - 6
2.9.3 Runway 16R-34L Critical Aircraft
Existing: Airbus A330/Boeing 737-9
• Aircraft Approach Group - D
• Aircraft Design Group - V
• Taxiway Design Group - 5
Future: Airbus A350/Boeing 777-3
• Aircraft Approach Group - D
• Aircraft Design Group - V
• Taxiway Design Group - 6
2.9.4 Runway 17-35 Critical Aircraft
Existing: Boeing 757/767
• Aircraft Approach Group - D
• Aircraft Design Group - IV
• Taxiway Design Group - 5
Future: Boeing 767
• Aircraft Approach Group - D
• Aircraft Design Group - IV
• Taxiway Design Group - 5
200
Figure 2-63: Existing Critical Aircraft DimensionsTable 2-33: IFR and VFR Forecasts (2018-2037)
FY Base Case Forecast Low Case Scenario Forecast High Case Scenario Forecast
IFR VFR IFR VFR IFR VFR
2018 260,966 71,295 260,869 71,268 260,052 71,045
2022 279,118 76,254 271,909 74,285 279,528 76,366
2027 303,682 82,965 285,811 78,083 320,758 87,630
2032 320,558 87,575 298,634 81,586 346,419 94,640
2037 341,528 93,304 310,085 84,714 376,667 102,904
Source: RS&H, 2018; FAA Opsnet, 2018; SLC TRACON, 2018
Table 2-34: Annual Instrument Approaches Forecasts (2018-2037)
FY Base Case Forecast Low Case Scenario Forecast High Case Scenario Forecast
2018 130,483 130,434 130,026
2022 139,559 135,955 139,764
2027 151,841 142,906 160,379
2032 160,279 149,317 173,209
2037 170,764 155,042 188,333
Source: RS&H, 2018; FAA Opsnet, 2018; SLC TRACON, 2018
2.8.3 IFR and VFR Operations
The SLC Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON)
provided a distribution of the existing IFR and VFR itinerant
operations for SLC. For Base Year 2017, the Airport had
78.5%, of its operations identified as instrument flight rules
(IFR) itinerant, and 21.5% of operations identified as visual
flight rules (VFR) itinerant. Holding the 2017 distribution
constant, the IFR and VFR operations projected for each of
the forecast years are compared in TABLE 2-33.
2.8.3.1 Annual Instrument Approaches
Annual instrument approaches represent the number of
approaches that use IFR procedures annually. The number
of annual instrument approaches can be identified as 50%
of the IFR operations projected for the Airport in each
forecast. TABLE 2-34 shows the forecasts for annual
instrument approaches for the forecast years of 2022,
2027, 2032, and 2037.
202201
2.10.1 Comparison with FAA TAF
This section compares the FAA TAF 2017 published January
2018 with the Base Case Forecast. In accordance with FAA
Order 5050.4B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions, paragraph
706.b(3), the FAA uses the following parameters to assess
aviation forecasts, including those prepared for airport master
plans. To be consistent with the FAA TAF:
• The 5-year forecast should be within 10 percent
of the TAF; and,
• The 10-year forecast should be within 15 percent
of the TAF47.
Each of the forecasts used fiscal years for enplanements and
operations to be directly comparable with the FAA TAF.
The Base Case Forecast of enplanements was generated
through an extensive analysis of regional socioeconomic
statistics, trends, and sources as well as in-depth interviews
with key stakeholders within the Salt Lake City regional area.
Based on these inputs, a best-fit model was produced using a
multiple variable regression analysis and then evaluated using
Monte Carlo simulation. In addition to the Base Case Forecast,
alternative Low and High Case Scenario Forecasts were also
produced in a similar manner for comparison.
Operation forecasts and derivatives were created using
Ta
b
l
e
2
-
3
5
:
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
w
i
t
h
F
A
A
T
A
F
2
0
1
7
1 T
h
e
d
i
s
c
r
e
p
a
n
c
y
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
a
n
d
F
A
A
T
A
F
2
0
1
7
i
n
G
A
B
a
s
e
d
A
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
i
s
t
h
e
r
e
s
u
l
t
o
f
a
v
e
r
i
f
i
e
d
c
o
u
n
t
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
m
i
d
-
2
0
1
8
2 C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
d
e
f
i
n
e
d
a
s
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
a
i
r
c
a
r
r
i
e
r
p
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
a
n
d
c
a
r
g
o
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
R
S
&
H
,
2
0
1
8
;
F
A
A
T
A
F
,
2
0
1
7
2.10 AVIATION ACTIVITY FORECASTS SUMMARY
planning design day models for an ADPM passenger sched-
ule from July, 2018. The projected passenger and air cargo
operation projections align with the enplanement projections
of the forecast scenarios. Existing and anticipated load factors,
equipment, and markets were all considered, as well as indus-
try-wide trends, and interviews with representatives of several
of the larger passenger airlines as well as integrated carriers
at SLC. The Base Case Forecast also adopts the Base Case
SLCDA General Aviation Strategy Plan GA based aircraft and
operations forecasts. Like the enplanement forecasts, alter-
native based aircraft and operations forecasts were identified
and detailed in these forecasts. The existing military operations
from TAF 2017 are projected to remain constant over the 20-
year planning horizon.
A comparison of the FAA TAF 2017 is shown in TABLE 2-35
and was also presented in TABLE 2-1 at the beginning of this
document. In all cases the preferred Base Case Forecast meets
the 5 year and 10 year percent parameters established by
the FAA for assessing forecast differences.
2
0
1
7
2
0
2
2
2
0
2
7
2
0
3
7
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
TA
F
2
0
1
7
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
TA
F
2
0
1
7
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
TA
F
2
0
1
7
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
TA
F
2
0
1
7
E
n
p
l
a
n
e
m
e
n
t
s
1
1
,
5
1
5
,
6
3
9
1
1
,
5
1
5
,
6
3
9
1
4
,
2
2
8
,
5
7
4
1
3
,
1
2
1
,
8
5
7
1
5
,
6
6
2
,
1
5
7
1
4
,
4
9
9
,
1
4
2
1
8
,
6
6
6
,
3
6
9
1
7
,
6
2
3
,
3
3
9
P
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
2
5
7
,
8
6
3
2
7
7
,
2
6
9
2
8
2
,
0
7
7
2
9
8
,
1
6
3
3
0
9
,
3
9
5
3
2
4
,
6
5
3
3
4
3
,
5
3
5
3
8
8
,
3
1
3
C
a
r
g
o
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
1
9
,
4
0
6
2
3
,
1
2
2
2
4
,
2
8
0
3
1
,
1
4
2
G
A
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
4
0
,
4
7
6
4
0
,
4
7
6
4
2
,
8
2
5
3
9
,
5
9
9
4
5
,
6
2
4
3
9
,
8
9
9
5
2
,
8
0
7
4
0
,
5
0
3
M
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
7
,
3
4
8
7
,
3
4
8
7
,
3
4
8
7
,
3
4
8
7
,
3
4
8
7
,
3
4
8
7
,
3
4
8
7
,
3
4
8
To
t
a
l
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
3
2
5
,
0
9
3
3
2
5
,
0
9
3
3
5
5
,
3
7
2
3
4
5
,
1
1
0
3
8
6
,
6
4
7
3
7
1
,
9
0
0
4
3
4
,
8
3
2
4
3
6
,
1
6
4
G
A
B
a
s
e
d
A
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
1
2
9
0
3
5
9
2
9
4
3
8
7
2
9
5
4
1
5
3
0
3
4
7
8
C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
w
i
t
h
F
A
A
T
A
F
2
0
1
7
(
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
)
E
n
p
l
a
n
e
m
e
n
t
s
0
.
0
%
7
.
8
%
7
.
4
%
5
.
6
%
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
2
0
.
0
%
2
.
3
%
2
.
7
%
-
3
.
6
%
G
A
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
0
.
0
%
7
.
5
%
1
2
.
5
%
2
3
.
3
%
M
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
0
.
0
%
0
.
0
%
0
.
0
%
0
.
0
%
To
t
a
l
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
0
.
0
%
2
.
9
%
3
.
8
%
-
0
.
3
%
G
A
B
a
s
e
d
A
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
-
2
3
.
8
%
-3
1
.
6
%
-4
0
.
7
%
-
5
7
.
8
%
47 December 23, 2004, memorandum from the FAA Director, Airport Planning and Programming, entitled Revision to Guidance on
Review and Approval of Aviation Forecasts
203
2.10.2 Forecast Usage within the Master Plan
This forecast studied historical SLC aviation data, as well as
Airport trends, while analyzing current and anticipated eco-
nomic impacts within the industry. Since airport activity levels
are heavily influenced by economic events and changes in the
industry, planning recommended facility expansions or required
upgrades on specific years can be challenging. It is generally
accepted that new facility construction should be initiated only
when specific activity levels have been reached that neces-
sitate the improvement, rather than being initiated based on
reaching a calendar date.
Therefore, three planning activity levels (PALs) will be used in
the Facility Requirements chapter to identify the threshold for
required changes to the Airport’s facilities, instead of defining a
particular year. These PALs represent a trigger level of activity
that could occur sooner or later than the year associated with
that level of activity in this forecast document. For planning
purposes, the subsequent three PALs (PAL 1, PAL 2, and PAL
3) correspond to the forecast years (2022, 2027, and 2037).
As shown in FIGURE 2-64, the distance between one PAL and
another is an unspecified length of time. In theory, the time dif-
ference between each PAL is five years between the base year
and PAL 1, five years between PAL 1 and PAL 2, and 10 years
between PAL 2 and PAL 3, although the times can be much
longer. In times of fast economic growth or new airline service
the next PAL level could be achieved in less than five years.
During this unspecified length of time, an expected Level of
Service (LOS) begins to erode with increasing demand. In gen-
eral terms, planning for the next level of improvements begins
at approximately 60 percent of the difference between one
PAL and another. Design would occur at the 80 percent level
and the facility would be fully operational prior to achieving the
next PAL level. At the time of facility improvement, the capac-
ity of the facility increases and the LOS is enhanced to design
parameters. Facility improvements are designed to meet the
threshold of efficiency and cost effectiveness for that facility.
Meaning facilities are constructed at an acceptable cost and
LOS but not developed until they are needed.
Figure 2-64: Planning Activity Level (PAL) Development Path
3
|
F
A
C
I
L
I
T
Y
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
S3
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Future airport facility requirements, including the type, size,
and quantity, are dependent on the future aviation activity
levels projected in the aviation demand forecasts discussed
in Chapter 2. The need for new or expanded facilities is often
driven by capacity shortfalls that leave an airport unable to
accommodate the forecasted growth using existing facilities.
However, the requirements for new or improved facilities can
also be driven by other circumstances, such as, updated stan-
dards which have been adopted by the FAA or another regu-
latory agency, an evolving strategic vision for the airport, the
replacement of outdated or inefficient facilities, or the desire
to introduce new services and facilities. These various circum-
stances can have a significant impact on future needs and have
been considered in this analysis for the Airport.
The aviation demand forecast used demographic, economic,
and geographic statistical analysis to derive three forecast sce-
narios tied to real-world factors in the Salt Lake City metropoli-
tan area. From this analysis, aviation activity was forecasted out
for a twenty-year period (2017 – 2037). Although the forecast
defines aviation activity milestones for the years 2022 (short-
term), 2027 (mid-term), and 2037 (long-term), it is important
to understand that facility requirements are driven by levels
of aircraft operations and passenger enplanement demands,
which may or may not coincide with those specific years.
204
FACILITY
REQUIREMENTS
Therefore, to eliminate associations between demand levels
and specific years, the levels of demand which trigger facility
improvements, referred to as a Planning Activity Level (PAL),
are broken into three activity levels: PAL 1, PAL 2, and PAL 3
respectively. The projected demand, based on the base-case
forecast scenario, for the based year and each of the planning
levels is shown in TABLE 3-1.
In this facility requirements chapter, some requirements are
simply based on airport design standards, while others are re-
quirements based on demand levels. Those based on demand
are directly tied to a planning activity level. This approach
enables Airport staff to track demand and implement develop-
ment to ensure the right size facility is built to accommodate
demand as it increases in the future. FIGURE 3-1 illustrates this
principle. As demand, represented by the blue line, increases,
a facility must also increase in size and/or capacity to accom-
modate that demand. The premise of this approach is to plan,
design, and implement facility enhancements to ensure that
each PAL level is adequately accommodated.
Developing facility requirements is a foundational element of
this and any airport master plan. The resulting facility require-
ments were used as the basis for planning future development
at the Airport including the development of a long-term airport
layout and an evaluation of alternatives.
Table 3-1: Planning Activity Levels
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
16,000,000
18,000,000
20,000,000
0
2017 PAL1 PAL2 PAL3
24 MAP
28 MAP
32 MAP
38 MAP
An
n
u
a
l
P
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
s
P
A
L
s
205
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
16,000,000
18,000,000
20,000,000
0
2017 PAL1 PAL2 PAL3
12,000,000
14,000,000
16,000,000
19,000,000
E
n
p
l
a
n
e
m
e
n
t
P
A
L
s
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,000
0
2017 PAL1 PAL2 PAL3
325,000
355,000
385,000
435,000
To
t
a
l
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
P
A
L
s
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,000
0
2017 PAL1 PAL2 PAL3
275,000 300,000
330,000
375,000
P
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
P
A
L
s
206
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
0
2017 PAL1 PAL2 PAL3
40,000 43,000
46,000
53,000
G
A
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
P
A
L
s
60,000
3.2 AIRFIELD REQUIREMENTS
This section details the analysis conducted on each airfield
component to determine its ability to accommodate future de-
mand and meet current design standards. Airfield components
were evaluated based on their ability to meet forecast demand
and meet FAA design standards outlined in AC 150/5300-13A
Change 1, Airport Design. Design requirements were applied
to the evaluation of SLC airfield infrastructure based on critical
aircraft requirements, runway approach capabilities, and typical
usage of pavement and aircraft flows.
3.2.1 Runway Requirements
Analyses of the runways addresses the ability of the existing
runways to meet both current and forecast demand. The num-
ber of runways at an airport are directly correlated to capacity
and wind coverage. The first parts of this section detail the
capacity analysis and wind coverage analysis conducted as part
of this master plan.
Specific runway related focus points in this master plan include
study elements from previous reports, including the 2006
Airport Layout Plan Update and the 1996 Master Plan. These
elements along with new elements of focus in this study in-
clude the following:
• Fifth Runway – An area for a new west parallel runway was
preserved on the 2006 ALP to provide capacity relief when
needed. The capacity analysis of the existing airfield, as
detailed in this chapter, has determined that a fifth runway
will not be needed within the planning period. However, this
study will still consider a fifth runway as an ultra-long range
capacity enhancement option. The alternatives analysis
examines capacity relief benefits and integration of a
fifth runway.
• Runway 17-35 – Runway 17-35 was studied in the 1996
Master Plan and 2006 ALP for its ability to be realigned
with the other parallel runways to provide capacity benefit.
During this master plan process, airport and airline stake-
holders expressed that an extension of the existing runway
would prevent having to limit larger narrow body aircraft
from using the runway for departures in hot conditions. The
operational and capacity related benefits of an extension to
Runway 17-35 and a runway realignment is analyzed further
within the alternatives analysis.
• Runway 14-32 – While not a focus of previous studies,
this runway was a focus element for this master plan. Two
“Hot Spots” associated with this runway have been identified
by the FAA, which have the potential to encourage runway
incursions. In order to eliminate the potential for runway
incursions, modifications to the runway were evaluated as
discussed in the alternatives chapter. The master plan analy-
ses evaluated the runway for wind coverage and capacity
to determine if the runway is needed or can be taken out of
the system.
This study’s approach for analyzing and recommending airfield
and capacity related components is tiered, with a primary ob-
jective of enhancing safety and capacity through design modi-
fications to the existing airfield prior to any major new runway
development. The following details the priority of objectives
for this study. This approach is carried into the alternatives,
which will focus on the development of demand-dependent,
cohesive solutions.
• Priority 1 – address all safety and design deficiencies. This
includes the hot spots adjacent to Runway 14-32, as well
as other taxiway configurations that do not adhere to FAA
best practices. This facility requirements chapter outlines
current deficiencies.
• Priority 2 – maximize capacity and efficiency of the existing
airfield. The alternatives chapter details airfield solutions that
have been explored and vetted in this study.
• Priority 3 – utilize demand reduction techniques to delay
major capacity enhancements. The General Aviation
Strategy Plan, included in Appendix X, provides
recommended methods to transfer general aviation
demand from SLC to the other two SLCDA general
aviation airports.
• Priority 4- provide additional runway capacity with a
realignment of Runway 17-35 and/or addition of a west
parallel runway.
Beyond capacity and wind coverage, this Runway
Requirements section also provides an overview of the
analyses conducted to determine runway design related
requirements. These include, runway designation, length,
width, strength, and runway protection zones.
3.2.1.1 Airfield Capacity and Delay
Airport capacity is the number of aircraft an airport system
can accommodate in a reference time period, e.g. hourly, daily,
yearly. Capacity is influenced by many factors including airport
layout, airspace, aircraft mix, ATC operational procedures,
navigation equipment, and meteorological conditions. As an
airport reaches its capacity there is an increase in the amount
of delay, defined as the amount of time above the unimped-
ed travel time that exists when not delayed by other aircraft
or airport operations. Unimpeded travel time accounts for
required air traffic control flight and taxi spacing between air-
craft. Delays can occur during each phase of aircraft operation,
including push-back, taxi-out, departure, arrival, and taxi-in.
Delay increases can have serious impacts to airline and cargo
operations. By understanding the amount of delay being ex-
perienced at SLC, and during which segment of operation the
delay occurs, determinations can be made if the current airfield
configuration can accommodate existing and forecasted traffic
levels or if, and where, improvements will be required.
207 208
Figure 3-1: Planning Activity Level (PAL) Development Path
1,000,000,000
2,000,000,000
3,000,000,000
4,000,000,000
5,000,000,000
6,000,000,000
7,000,000,000
0
2017 PAL1 PAL2 PAL3
383,000,000
425,000,000
479,000,000
602,000,000
To
t
a
l
C
a
r
g
o
P
A
L
s
(
l
b
s
)
3.2.1.1.1 Methodology
The capacity of the airport system was determined using
SIMMOD modeling software, which considers airline flight
schedules, aircraft taxi time and flight speeds, the various
runway configurations used at SLC, and the required
separation distances required between different sized
aircraft to avoid wake turbulence generated by aircraft. For
the modeling efforts, a baseline model was developed and
calibrated to reflect existing conditions and operations using
radar data, reported ground travel times, and field
observations. The model was verified against the experienced
throughput levels and taxi times for 2018 as reported by the
FAA Aviation System Performance Metrics (ASPM).
Arrival operations were modeled starting from the aircraft’s
position entering the terminal airspace and continuing through
landing, exiting the runway, and taxiing to the non-movement
area and to the gate. Departure operations were modeled
starting from aircraft gate pushback and continuing through
taxi, transition from the non-movement ramp area to the con-
trolled taxiways, taxi to the departure queues, take-off, initial
departure heading, and flying out of terminal airspace.
As discussed in detail in the Chapter 2, Aviation Activity Fore-
cast, a Base Case Forecast Planning Day Model was completed
to forecast the operational counts and times for each of the
PAL levels. The results of that forecast are overviewed below
and included in TABLE 3-2. Note that the peak hour times and
corresponding operations are based on a combined total of
commercial passenger, cargo, and general aviation operations.
• The average day peak month (ADPM) for 2018 includes 377
arriving and 377 departing scheduled airline operations as
well as 121 arriving and 115 departing unscheduled opera-
tions, consisting of general aviation, cargo, and military. The
peak hour for arrivals is 7:00-7:59 p.m. with 62 operations,
the peak hour for departures is 11:00-11:59 a.m. with 56
operations, and the combined peak hour is 1:00-1:59 p.m.
with 71 operations.
• PAL 2 forecasts a total of 453 arriving and 453 departing
scheduled airline operations per day as well as 124 arriving
and 120 departing unscheduled operations, consisting of
general aviation, cargo, and military. The peak hour for arriv-
als is 7:00-7:59 p.m. with 64 operations, the peak hour for
departures is 11:00-11:59 a.m. with 65 operations, and the
combined peak hour is 1:00-1:59 p.m. with 91 operations.
• PAL 3 forecasts a total of 503 arriving and 503 departing
scheduled airline operations per day as well as 147 arriving
and 144 departing unscheduled operations, consisting of
general aviation, cargo, and military. The peak hour for arriv-
als is 7:00-7:59 p.m. with 68 operations, the peak hour for
departures is 11:00-11:59 a.m. with 70 operations, and the
combined peak hour is 1:00-1:59 p.m. with 103 operations.
Runway use is dynamic and dependent on many factors such as weather and peak hour operations. ATC staff adjust the SLC
runway use plan throughout the day to best accommodate the demand during the airline peak arrival periods and peak departure
periods. Runway use for 2018 was calculated using the distribution experienced according to data obtained from the FAA
National Offload Program. It should be noted that as traffic demand grows in each PAL, especially in future IMC scenarios, the
existing runway use could not accommodate demand without significant delays showing up in the model. As such, the runway use
was adjusted for PAL 2 and PAL 3 using detailed assumptions provided by SLC air traffic controllers. The resulting runway use for
each flow, weather, and demand level is shown in TABLE 3-3.
Generally, Runway 16R-34L is the most used runway for arriving aircraft, Runway 16L-34R is the most used runway for departing
aircraft, and Runway 17-35 is used for a mix between arriving and departing aircraft depending of if there are more arrivals or
departures at that time. However, if few arrivals occur during a departure peak, Runway 16R-34L is used for departures rather than
Runway 17-35 and if few departures occur during an arrival peak, Runway 16L-34R is used rather than Runway 17-35. Runway
14-32 was excluded from the table as all percentages would round to zero percent due to a negligible number of operations.
An in-depth discussion of the original and revised runway use, as well as additional details of the methodology and assumptions
used in SIMMOD airfield capacity and delay analysis is included in the Methods, Assumptions and Performance Specifications
report provided in Appendix D.
While aircraft using Runway 16R-34L can operate mostly independently of all other runways and Runway 14-32 is always
dependent, the interdependencies of Runway 16L-34R and Runway 17-35 differ based on runway operations and weather
conditions. TABLE 3-4 shows the independence or dependence of the two runways in each condition.
209 210
Table 3-3: Runway UseTable 3-2: Base Case Forecast Planning Day Model
2018 PAL2 PAL3
Arrivals Departures Arrivals Departures Arrivals Departures
Airline 377 377 453 453 503 503
GA 75 69 74 70 86 82
Cargo 34 34 38 39 49 51
Military 12 12 12 11 12 11
Total 498 492 577 573 650 647
Peak Hour 62 56 64 65 68 70
Flow Weather Demand Arrival Departure
16R/34L 16L/34R 17/35 16R/34L 16L/34R 17/35
North
VMC
2018 39%40%20%26%58%16%
PAL 2 56%20%24%17%61%22%
PAL 3 54%21%24%16%62%22%
IMC
2018 39%40%21%26%58%16%
PAL 2 63%15%22%14%60%26%
PAL 3 62%17%22%13%60%26%
South
VMC
2018 44%37%19%23%59%18%
PAL 2 48%30%21%23%59%18%
PAL 3 48%32%20%23%58%19%
IMC
2018 44%38%18%22%60%18%
PAL 2 49%31%20%24%58%18%
PAL 3 46%27%27%22%56%22%
3.2.1.1.2 Average Annualized Delay
The weighted average daily delay, or average annualized delay, is the average delay for the flight schedule across an entire 24-hour
schedule. Each of the simulation exercises is run independently of one another for an entire 24-hour period, and the average delay
per aircraft is calculated per simulation run. Average annualized delay is the weighted average delay per aircraft based on the annu-
al percentage the airport is in each flow direction and weather condition. The delay is measured in air delay, arrival taxi delay, and
departure delay as noted below. Additionally, taxi time is measured and can change based upon runway utilization.
• Arrival Air Delay – the amount of delay experienced in the air on approach to the Airport.
• Arrival Taxi Delay – the delay an aircraft may experience during taxi after landing, between the runway exit
and the terminal.
• Departure Delay – the amount of delay associated with taxi delay and departure queue delay.
• Taxi Time – the amount of unimpeded taxi time between terminal and runway, and runway and terminal.
A table showing average daily and average annualized delay per aircraft is shown in TABLE 3-5. The aviation industry has settled
on a standard metric for determining the amount of average delay that is generally acceptable before capacity enhancements
are needed. At major connecting hubs with low incidence of IMC and reduced capacity in IMC, average annualized delay of five
minutes is used as a general threshold of acceptable delay1, but every additional minute has negative impacts for the airlines and
traveling public.
211 212
Table 3-4: Runway 17-35 and 16L-34R Dependencies
Table 3-5: SIMMOD Average Daily And Average Annualized Delay Forecast
Source: TransSolutions, RS&H; 2019
1 ACRP Report 104: Defining and Measuring Aircraft Delay and Airport Capacity Thresholds
Source: TransSolutions, RS&H; 2019
Average Daily Times (Minutes)
Demand Weather Flow Arrival Departure
Air Delay Taxi Time Taxi Delay Total Taxi Time Delay Total
2018
(Existing
Terminal)
VMC North 1.4 6.5 0.5 7.0 12.6 4.1 16.7
South 1.0 6.9 0.6 7.5 13.9 2.5 16.4
IMC North 1.9 6.7 0.5 7.2 12.7 8.6 21.3
South 1.5 6.9 0.6 7.5 13.8 8.5 22.3
Average Annualized 1.3 6.7 0.6 13.3 3.6
2018
(New
Terminal)
VMC North 1.5 5.7 0.2 5.9 12.0 2.7 14.7
South 1.0 5.4 0.2 5.6 13.1 2.2 15.3
IMC North 2.0 5.7 0.3 6.0 12.0 6.6 18.6
South 1.6 5.5 0.2 5.7 13.2 8.3 21.5
Average Annualized 1.3 5.5 0.2 12.5 2.7
PAL 2
VMC North 2.7 6.1 0.5 6.6 12.7 2.9 15.6
South 1.5 5.9 0.4 6.3 13.8 2.4 16.2
IMC North 4.2 6.0 0.4 6.4 12.7 6.1 18.8
South 2.6 5.7 0.4 6.1 13.5 9.4 22.9
Average Annualized 2.1 5.9 0.4 13 2.9
PAL 3
VMC North 3.6 6.1 0.6 6.7 12.8 3.9 16.7
South 1.8 5.9 0.5 6.4 13.7 3.5 17.2
IMC North 6.2 5.9 0.4 6.3 12.8 9.2 22.0
South 3.4 6.1 0.6 6.7 13.4 17.4 30.8
Average Annualized 2.8 5.8 0.5 13 4.2
TABLE 3-6 details the overall annualized taxi times, total delay,
and combined total. Note that taxi times change slightly
between 2018 and the planning activity levels due to changes
in runway utilization assumptions.
Average annualized delay increases exponentially as operations
increase towards maximum capacity. FIGURE 3-2 shows the
increase in delay as arrivals and departures increase. Through
PAL 3 SLC is forecasted to remain below the five-minute
threshold of acceptable delay. Five minutes of average annu-
alized delay is expected to occur at around 1,500 daily opera-
tions, which is roughly an 11 percent increase beyond PAL 3.
An inflection point is expected at around 1,800 to 1,900 daily
operations. Within those levels, it is estimated that delay will
exponentially increase.
While the results show that SLC has capacity through the
planning period to keep delay below the five-minute threshold,
capacity improvements must be planned for now to ensure
enabling projects can be completed prior to the construc-
tion of any major improvement. This master plan alternatives
section will explore alternative airfield solutions in effort to
ensure a long-range plan is in place for SLC to add capacity to
its system.
3.2.1.1.3 Peak Hour Delay
Due to the large amount of connecting flights and cargo opera-
tions at SLC, peak hour delay is an important metric. The peak
hour delay metric reports the highest average hourly delay of
all flights that operate during each hour over the 24-hour pe-
riod. In other words, it represents the average amount of delay
experienced by any given flight within the peak hour of delay.
At major connecting hubs with a typical incidence of VMC and
reduced capacity in IMC, peak hour delays of approximately
30 minutes in VMC or 45 minutes in IMC are considered delay
thresholds not to be exceeded2. As shown in TABLE 3-7, peak
hour departure delays reach as high as 40 minutes in south
flow IMC conditions in PAL 3, but none exceed industry stan-
dard delay thresholds.
3.2.1.1.4 Hourly Throughput
A sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the exist-
ing airfield runway capacity. Both the north flow and south
flow VMC models were utilized in this analysis. Initial findings
indicated that the existing SLC airfield capacity could accom-
modate beyond PAL 3. In order to determine the true existing
runway throughput, PAL 3 operations were increased by an ad-
ditional 50 percent. TABLE 3-8 summarizes the highest hourly
runway throughputs averaged over 10 simulated days. This
analysis assumes perfect conditions and the actual sustainable
runway capacity would likely be approximately 5 percent lower.
3.2.1.1.5 Summary
Overall, the SLC airfield has adequate capacity to accommo-
date demand through PAL 3. The new terminal configuration
will significantly reduce aircraft taxi times and delays. The
capacity of the existing airfield will be reached at around 1,500
daily operations. At that point, the five-minute industry stan-
dard average annualized delay threshold will be reached.
Simulation findings indicate that the runway capacity at SLC is
very sensitive to runway use. While the runway use was devel-
oped using the principles of the SLC ATCT, adjustments to the
runway use have a significant impact on delay and capacity.
While the airport system is forecasted to reach the five-minute
average delay threshold around 1,500 daily operations, which is
beyond PAL 3, alternatives will have to be selected to take the
necessary preparatory steps to be able to have improvements
complete before delay becomes a major constraint.
213 214
Table 3-6: Average Annualized Travel Time
Figure 3-2: SLC Average Annualized Delay
Table 3-7: SIMMOD Peak Hour Delay Forecast
Table 3-8: SIMMOD Average Hourly Runway Throughput
2 ACRP Report 104: Defining and Measuring Aircraft Delay and Airport Capacity Thresholds
Source: TransSolutions, RS&H; 2019
Peak Hour Daily Times (Minutes)
Demand Weather Flow Arrival Departure
Air Delay Taxi Time Taxi Delay Total Taxi Time Delay Total
2018
(Existing
Terminal)
VMC North 4.3 6.9 0.9 7.8 13.2 7.5 20.7
South 3.9 7.8 1.1 8.9 14.0 7.9 21.9
IMC North 6.8 6.2 2.3 8.5 13.3 17.0 30.3
South 5.6 7.4 1.5 8.9 14.2 21.2 35.4
2018
(New
Terminal)
VMC North 4.6 5.6 1.0 6.6 12.3 5.1 17.4
South 3.9 5.5 0.5 6.0 13.4 8.3 21.7
IMC North 6.6 5.5 1.7 7.2 13.0 10.0 23.0
South 5.3 5.8 0.6 6.4 13.7 22.6 36.3
PAL 2
VMC North 7.9 7.1 1.5 8.6 13.9 6.5 20.4
South 6.8 7.4 0.8 8.2 14.3 5.4 19.7
IMC North 11.4 6.5 0.7 7.2 13.0 13.7 26.7
South 11.4 7.4 0.8 8.2 13.5 21.7 35.2
PAL 3
VMC North 10.9 6.9 2.1 9.0 13.7 8.3 22.0
South 8.4 6.9 1.1 8.0 14.2 10.2 24.4
IMC North 14.1 6.4 0.6 7.0 13.3 19.5 32.8
South 11.1 7.0 1.6 8.6 14.2 40.0 54.2
Demand Annual Weighted Average (Minutes)
Taxi Time Delay Total
2018 (Existing Terminal)10.0 2.7 12.7
2018 (New Terminal)9.0 2.1 11.1
PAL 2 9.4 2.7 12.1
PAL 3 9.4 3.8 13.2
Flow Arrivals Departures Overall
North 77 71 124
South 79 80 135
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
A
n
n
u
a
l
i
z
e
d
D
e
l
a
y
p
e
r
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
M
i
n
)
Number of Daily Operations
Arrival
Departure
Overall
3.2.1.2 Wind Analysis
Runway wind coverage analysis was conducted using the
FAA’s Wind Analysis Airport Design Tool. To analyze the wind
coverage for each of the Airport’s runways, wind data from
2008-2017 was supplied by the National Climatic Data Center
from the weather reporting station located at Salt Lake City
International Airport3. Over that ten-year period, more than
125,000 wind observations were recorded, 6,756 observations
of which were Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) conditions. This
equates to 5 percent of the observations being IFR conditions
while 95 percent were of Visual Flight Rules (VFR) conditions.
FAA runway design standards recommend an airport’s runway
system provide a minimum of 95 percent wind coverage. The
95 percent wind coverage is computed based on the crosswind
component not exceeding the set value of the Runway Design
Code (RDC)4. If a single runway cannot provide this level of
coverage, then a crosswind runway is warranted.
The RDC for Runway 16R-34L and 16L-34R is D-V and
Runway 17-35 is D-IV, meaning the allowable crosswind
component is 20 knots. For Runway 14-32, which has an
RDC of B-II, the allowable crosswind components is 13 knots.
TABLE 3-9 details the crosswind analysis results for each
runway. Combined, the four runways provide 99.96 percent or
better wind coverage with a 20 knot crosswind component for
all-weather conditions. Each runway at SLC provides sufficient
wind coverage individually at all crosswind component
categories. Thus, there is no need for a crosswind runway
based on wind coverage as all runways today can individually
meet FAA wind coverage requirements. The wind analysis
concluded that Runway 14-32 is not needed as a crosswind
runway to provide wind coverage at SLC.
3.2.1.3 Runway Designation
Every runway has two associated directional headings. A true
heading, or the direction toward which it is physically
oriented that will not change unless the runway is realigned,
and a magnetic heading, which is determined by the runway’s
orientation along with an adjustment for magnetic declination.
A runway’s magnetic heading is important for pilots since they
use magnetic compasses to determine their heading while
in flight. Runway designations are provided on each runway
to indicate the runway orientation according to the magnetic
compass bearing. Due to the slow drift of the magnetic poles
on the Earth’s surface in relation to the location of the Airport,
the magnetic bearing of a runway can change over time and
runway designations must occasionally be updated. It is
industry standard that a runway designation be considered
when the runway magnetic heading shifts more than 5° from
the runway marking designation.
As of November 27, 2015, the magnetic declination at the
Airport is 11° 35’ E and is changing by 0° 11’ W per year. As
illustrated in TABLE 3-10, Runway 16R-34L, Runway 16L-34R,
and Runway 14-32 will have magnetic bearings greater than
the 5° tolerance, during the planning period. At the current rate
of change in magnetic declination in Salt Lake City, it is esti-
mated that Runway 16R-34L and Runway 16L-34R will exceed
a 5° tolerance in the year 2026 and Runway 14-32 will exceed
the tolerance in the year 2037. Runway 17-35 is not expected
to exceed the 5° tolerance in the planning period.
The expected change in magnetic bearing for Runway
16L-34R and 16R-34L would purportedly require the
runways to be designated as “17-35” runways. However,
because existing Runway 17-35 is not parallel to these
runways, a new runway designation scheme will have to be
worked out by FAA. There is no hard-set rule on runway
designation, and there are multiple stakeholders within FAA
that coordinate the implementation of runway re-designations.
Prior to runway designation changes, coordination should
commence between the FAA Airport District Office (ADO),
SLC ATC, FAA Operational Support Group/Flight Procedures
Team (OSG-FPT), and SLCDA staff.
Further exploration and coordination in regard to the need to
re-designate the runways in the planning period will be carried
forward into the alternatives analysis. If it is determined that a
runway re-designation is required in the planning period, the
cost of that project will be included in the implementation plan
developed during the last phase of this study.
215 216
Table 3-9: Wind Coverage Analysis
3.2.1.4 Critical Aircraft
The FAA requires the identification of the existing and future
critical aircraft, also known as the design aircraft, for airport
planning purposes. In some cases, the critical aircraft may be
a collection of aircraft with similar characteristics. For airports
with multiple runway and taxiway complexes, like SLC, critical
aircraft are identified for each runway or taxiway complex.
The critical aircraft for SLC is the most demanding aircraft
having substantial use of each runway/taxiway complex. Per
FAA Advisory Circular 150/5000-17 Critical Aircraft and
Regular Use Determination, substantial use is defined as 500
annual operations, not counting touch-and-go operations, or
operations related to atypical conditions such as construction
projects. However, the designated critical aircraft can be a
composite of several aircraft for each of the parameters that
determined the critical aircraft.
Three parameters are used to classify the critical aircraft:
Aircraft Approach Category (AAC) shown in TABLE 3-11.
Airplane Design Group (ADG) shown in TABLE 3-12, and
Taxiway Design Group (TDG) shown in TABLE 3-13. The AAC,
depicted by a letter, relates to aircraft approach speeds. The
ADG, depicted by a Roman numeral, relates to airplane
wingspan and height. The TDG, classified by number, relates to
the outer to outer main gear width and the distance between
the cockpit and main gear. These parameters serve as the basis
of the design and construction of airport infrastructure.
3 Weather observation data was collected from the SLC Automated Surface Observation System (ASOS).
4 The RDC is a design standard specific to a single runway, and per FAA Advisory Circular AC 150/5300-13A Change 1, Airport Design, “runway standards are related to
aircraft approach speed, aircraft wingspan, and designated or planned approach visibility minimums.” Designing to the RDC ensures runways meet necessary physical
and operational characteristics for the most demanding aircraft operating at the Airport.
All Weather Wind Data
Runway 10.5 Knots 13 Knots 16 Knots 20 Knots
Runway 16L-34R 97.89%98.96%99.62%99.88%
Runway 16R-34L 97.89%98.96%99.62%99.88%
Runway 17-35 97.57%98.75%99.54%99.85%
Runway 14-32 96.46%98.47%99.50%99.86%
Combined 99.10%99.60%99.86%99.96%
Source NOAA National Climatic Data Center
All Weather Observations: 125,538
Station: Salt Lake City International Airport
Data Range: 2008-2017
IFR Wind Date
Runway 10.5 Knots 13 Knots 16 Knots 20 Knots
Runway 16L-34R 96.01%97.62%98.95%99.63%
Runway 16R-34L 96.01%97.62%98.95%99.63%
Runway 17-35 95.24%97.03%98.54%99.48%
Runway 14-32 96.29%98.35%99.35%99.78%
Combined 98.20%99.17%99.68%99.91%
Source NOAA National Climatic Data Center
IFR Observations: 6,756
Station: Salt Lake City International Airport
Data Range: 2008-2017
Table 3-10: Existing and Future Magnetic Bearing
Existing 2022 2027 2037
RunwayDesignatin True Bearing Magnetic Bearing Magnetic Bearing RunwayDesignatin Magnetic Bearing RunwayDesignatin Magnetic Bearing RunwayDesignatin
Runway 16R 174” 56’ 58”163” 21’ 58”164” 16’ 58”Runway 16R 165” 11’ 58”Runway 17R 167” 01’ 58”Runway 17R
Runway 34L 354” 57’ 07”343” 22’ 07”344” 17’ 07”Runway 34L 345” 12’ 07”Runway 35L 347” 02’ 07”Runway 35L
Runway 16L 174” 57’ 50”163” 22’ 50”164” 17’ 50”Runway 16L 165” 12’ 50”Runway 17C 167” 02’ 50”Runway 17C
Runway 34R 354” 57’ 59”343” 22’ 59”344” 17’ 59”Runway 34R 345” 12’ 59”Runway 35C 347” 02’ 59”Runway 35C
Runway 17 179” 59’ 43”168” 24’ 43”169” 19’ 43”Runway 17 170” 14’ 43”Runway 17L 172” 04’ 43”Runway 17L
Runway 35 359” 59’ 43”348” 24’ 43”349” 19’ 43”Runway 35 350” 14’ 43”Runway 35R 352” 04’ 43”Runway 35R
Runway 14 152” 58’ 32”141” 23’ 32”142” 18’ 32”Runway 14 143” 13’ 32”Runway 14 145” 03’ 32”Runway 15
Runway 32 332” 58’ 51”321” 23’ 51”322” 18’ 51”Runway 32 323” 13’ 51”Runway 32 325” 03’ 51”Runway 33
Source NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information; RS&H Analysis, 2018
3.2.1.5 Runway Length
The previous master plan for SLC recommends an extension
of Runway 16L-34R to 15,100 feet. Since the completion of
the last master plan, important industry events and trends
have emerged which influence runway length requirements.
New generation aircraft have generally reduced runway length
requirements at airports. However, at SLC, high elevation, high
maximum mean temperature, and existing obstructions such
as the powerlines to the north present challenges to aircraft
performance and result in limitations to the allowable take-off
weight of some aircraft using the Airport.
In addition to the last master plan, several runway length
analyses have been completed in support of air service
development at the Airport. A validation of previously studied
runway lengths of 12,002’, 13,500’, 15,100’, and 16,000’
feet was conducted based on both the existing and forecasted
fleet, and updates to meteorological conditions. A temperature
of 95.6° F, the 95 percentile of temperature at SLC, and dry
runways were assumed. The existing and future aircraft fleet
mix which would have the greatest likelihood to be benefited
by a runway extension including the Airbus A330, Airbus A350,
Boeing 737-900, Boeing 777-200F, and Boeing 787-900
were examined.
There are five factors that can restrict the allowable maximum
take-off weight for aircraft. These include:
• Brake Energy – the aircraft brakes will be unable to absorb
the amount of energy required to stop the aircraft during an
aborted take-off
• Climb – the allowable weight of the aircraft to meet climb
gradients for takeoff flight path segments
• Field Length – the runway length available does not allow
the aircraft to meet regulations such as the accelerate stop
distance, or take-off distance for weight beyond the
restricted weight
• Obstacle – the aircraft will be unable to sufficiently clear the
existing obstacles such as powerlines and trees to the north
of the airfield beyond the allowable weight
• Tire Speed – the speed required for take-off will be
greater than the maximum speed for which the aircraft tires
are rated
The runway length calculations are based on departures on
Runway 34R. For each of the aircraft studied, an allowable
take-off weight for each runway length was determined with
and without the powerlines located north of the Airport. At
95.6° F, all aircraft examined were limited from reaching the
maximum take-off weight of the aircraft. However, lower
temperatures would allow for an increase in allowable take-off
weight. All aircraft faced a limitation other than field length at
a runway length of 15,100 feet or longer. TABLE 3-15 shows
the results of this analysis.
218217
The critical aircraft for each runway at SLC is detailed in Table
3-14. The previous Airport Layout Plan listed the Boeing 767-
400 as the critical aircraft for Runway 16L-34R, 16R-34L, and
17-35. The B767 is an aircraft approach category (AAC) D and
airplane design group (ADG) IV aircraft.
Since the Airport Layout Plan was updated in 2006, the critical
aircraft for Runway 16L-34R and 16R-34L has increased to
ADG V, as was verified in the analysis completed for the Avia-
tion Activity Forecast. Growth in operations by aircraft such as
the Airbus A330, Boeing 777, and Boeing 787 have resulted in
this increase. This results in increased runway design charac-
teristics, such as holding position distances and runway blast
pad sizing, as discussed in detail in Section 3.2.1.2.
The critical aircraft characteristics for Runway 17-35 and Run-
way 14-32 remains the same today and through the planning
period, despite slightly different aircraft models. However, it
should be noted that if Runway 17-35 is realigned as a parallel
runway, it is recommended it be designed to D-V standards as
its functionality and capability would be enhanced to equal the
exiting parallel runways.
Table 3-12: Aircraft Design Group
Table 3-13: Taxiway Design Group
Table 3-14: Critical AircraftTable 3-11: Aircraft Approach Category
Aircraft Approach Category Approach Speed
A Approach speed less than 91 knots
B Approach speed 91 knots or more but less than 121 knots
C Approach speed 121 knots or more but less than 141 knots
D Approach speed 141 knots or more but less than 166 knots
E Approach speed 166 knots or more
Source: FAA AC 150/5300- 13A, Airport Design
Group Tail Height Wingspan
I < 20’< 49’
II 20’ ≤ 30’49’ ≤ 79’
III 30’ ≤ 45’79’ ≤ 118’
IV 45’ ≤ 60’118’ ≤ 171’
V 60’ ≤ 66’171’ ≤ 214’
VI 66’ ≤ 80’214’ ≤ 262’
Source: FAA AC 150/5300- 13A, Airport Design
Source: FAA AC 150/5300- 13A, Airport Design
Runway16L/34R Runway16R/34L Runway17/35 Runway14/32
Previous Critical Aircraft B767-400 B767-400 B767-400 EMB120
AAC D D D B
ADG IV IV IV II
TDG 5 5 5 3
Existing Critical Aircraft A330/B737-9 A330/B737-9 A330/B737-9 A330/B737-9
AAC D D D B
ADG V V IV II
TDG 5 5 5 2
Future Critical Aircraft A350/B777-3 A350/B777-3 B767 B1900D
AAC D D D B
ADG V V IV II
TDG 6 6 5 2
Source: 2006 Airport Layout Plan, RS&H Analysis, 2019
The existing obstacles, such as the powerlines, were found to
impact the allowable take-off weight of the Airbus A330 and
A350 at almost all runway lengths, but have no impact on the
B737-900, B777-200F, or B787-900. If these obstacles are
removed, the Airbus A330 and A350 would have a greater
allowable take-off weight that require up to a 16,000-foot
runway. However, the increases in allowable take-off weight
become less between 13,500 feet and 15,100 feet. The
B777-200F receives no benefit from a runway length beyond
13,100 feet, and the B787-9 receives no benefit from a
runway length beyond 15,100 feet.
Using the determined allowable take-off weights, approximate
range capabilities were determined for the A350 and
B787-900 as shown in Figure 3-3. Routes between major
cities in Asia including the Delta hub at Incheon International
Airport serving Seoul, South Korea, Beijing China and other
cities in the region, were identified in the Aviation Activity
Forecast as locations likely to see demand growth.
Assumptions in this calculation include mitigation of all existing
obstructions, 85 percent of the annual winds, and an 80
percent load factor. For the A350, a 13,500-foot runway allows
for a range that includes Seoul, South Korea; Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil; and nearly all of Europe. With a reduction in payload,
the A350 could reach Beijing, China. The B787-900 can reach
Tokyo, Japan; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; and westernmost Europe
on a 13,500-foot runway. As with the A350, the B787-900 can
reach markets like Beijing with a reduced payload. Although
limited by brake energy, the A330 could increase its take-off
weight to a point it would require a 16,000-foot runway.
However, this aircraft is not expected to be widely used in the
Asian market from SLC.
The point at which the limiting take-off factor is not field
length occurs between 13,500 feet and 15,100 feet (A350
and B787-900, no obstructions). Interpolating the take-off
weight for those two aircraft yields a runway length require-
ment of 14,500 feet. The A350, the largest aircraft Delta is
likely to utilize for flights to Asia, can accommodate a maxi-
mum passenger payload on both a 13,500-foot and 14,500-
foot runway to Seoul, Beijing, and Tokyo. At 14,500 feet, the
A350 can accommodate an additional 5,000 pounds to 6,000
pounds of cargo to these three markets.
To maximize allowable take-off weight for the future critical
aircraft, it is recommended that the master plan provide for a
future 14,500-foot runway.
219 220
Table 3-15: Runway Length Allowable Take-Off Weight and Limitations Figure 3-3: Runway Extension Range Capabilities
Source: Flight Engineering, May 2019
Aircraft Airbus A330-243 Airbus A350-941 Boeing 737-900 Boeing 777-200F Boeing 787-9
Engine
MTOW (lbs)
Trent 772
524,700
Trent XWB-84
617,294
CFM56-7B26
187,000
GE90-110BL
766,000
Genx-1B74/75
557,000
Runway
Length
Obstruc-
tions
Allowable
Take-Off
Weight
(lbs)
Limitation
Allowable
Take-Off
Weight
(lbs)
Limitation
Allowable
Take-Off
Weight
(lbs)
Limitation
Allowable
Take-Off
Weight
(lbs)
Limitation
Allowable
Take-Off
Weight
(lbs)
Limitation
12,002’
Existing
482,750 Brake Energy 539,035 Obstacle 165,481 Climb 654,300 Field Length 477,500 Field Length
13,500’483,976 Obstacle 545,999 Obstacle 166,858 Climb 668,300 Tire Speed 488,300 Field Length
15,100,483,827 Obstacle 548,509 Obstacle 166,858 Climb 669,300 Tire Speed 495,600 Climb
16,000’483,742 Obstacle 548,409 Obstacle 166,858 Climb 669,300 Tire Speed 495,600 Climb
12,002’
None
482,750 Brake Energy 541,366 Field Length 165,481 Climb 654,300 Field Length 477,500 Field Length
13,500’488,304 Brake Energy 555,841 Field Length 166,858 Climb 668,300 Tire Speed 488,300 Field Length
14,500’--562,858 Brake Energy ------
15,100’493,570 Brake Energy 564,953 Brake Energy 166,858 Climb 669,300 Tire Speed 495,600 Climb
16,000’496,214 Brake Energy 567,350 Brake Energy 166,858 Climb 669,300 Tire Speed 495,600 Climb
Source: Flight Engineering, May 2019
3.2.1.6 Runway Pavement Strength
Runway pavement strength determines the aircraft weight
that can land repeatedly with normal wear on a runway. If an
aircraft landing regularly exceeds the pavement strength of the
runway, the runway will age prematurely and can be damaged.
This can compromise the integrity of the pavement, requiring
reconstruction at an earlier and unscheduled time. In order to
ensure that aircraft are capable of landing on a runway
according to weight, aircraft are assigned their weights in
conjunction to the configuration of their main gear.
TABLE 3-16 details the max takeoff weight (MTOW) of the
existing and future critical aircraft at SLC. The heaviest of
the existing critical aircraft are the Airbus A330-300 and the
Boeing 767-300. In the future, it is expected that the Airbus
A350-900 and Boeing 777-300 will be the heaviest aircraft
using the runways at SLC with substantial use. The Boeing 777
is expected to be used by cargo operators by PAL 1, and
forecast in the base case scenario to exceed the substantial
use threshold of 500 annual operations by PAL 2. Use of the
Airbus A350 is forecasted in the high case scenario to exceed
the substantial use threshold in PAL 2.
The analysis of runway pavement strength is a high-level
analysis which compares published weight capacity to the
MTOW of critical aircraft, and does not include examination
of aircraft condition numbers (ACN), pavement condition
numbers (PCN), or typical takeoff and landing weights of
aircraft operating at the Airport. The analysis found a delta
between the published maximum runway strength and the
MTOW of dual-tandem wheel critical aircraft, both existing
and future. The published strength for dual-tandem wheel
aircraft for all runways at SLC is 350,000 pounds. The
existing critical aircraft, the A330-300 and Boeing 767-300,
both dual-tandem wheel aircraft, have MTOW that exceed
the published weight capacity. The future critical aircraft, the
Airbus A350-900, also exceeds the published weight capacity.
The Boeing 777-300, the heaviest of all future critical aircraft,
is configured with a triple-tandem gear, of which there is no
published weight capacity. TABLE 3-17 details the existing
published runway strength and the recommended strength to
accommodate the MTOW of the critical aircraft. Overall, it is
recommended that Runway 16L-34R, Runway 16R-34L and
Runway 17-35 be strengthened in the future.
Interesting to note, during the analysis completed for the
Aviation Forecast, it was found that no aircraft with a MTOW
of 20,000 pounds or greater conducted any operations on
Runway 14-32 in 2017, although the pavement strength is
comparable to the other three runways. Runway 14-32 is a
remnant WWII era runway, assumed to have been built to
accommodate very heavy aircraft. As the airport was further
developed, Runway 14-32 was often used for taxiing aircraft
from the terminal area to Runway 35. Today, Taxiway L allows
this operation, but the previous history and use of Runway
14-32 is estimated to be related to the high weight bearing
capacity of the runway. To serve existing and expected
operations, Runway 14-32 need only accommodate single
gear aircraft up to roughly 30,000 pounds, and dual-wheel
gear up to 50,000 pounds.
3.2.1.7 Runway Protection Zones
For the protection of people and property on the ground, the
FAA has identified an area of land located off each runway end
as the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) that should be under
airport control and free of incompatible objects and activities.
The size of these zones varies according to the critical aircraft
characteristics and the lowest instrument approach visibility
minimum defined for each runway.
221 222
FAA desires airports to own in fee all the land within RPZs.
Two of the eight RPZs at SLCIA are not entirely under control
and/or owned in fee by SLCDA, as denoted in TABLE 3-18. An
8,117 square foot section of the Runway 34L RPZ, or approxi-
mately 0.2% of the total RPZ, extends off airport property onto
property the airport sponsor does not control, as shown in
FIGURE 3-4. This section extends onto a section of property
for Interstate 80. Note that there is no object or use in this area
that constitutes a safety issue. Considering this is such a small
area of unowned land and that the primary use of the land is
a right-of-way for an interstate, no action is recommended at
this time. If Interstate 80 is ever relocated, it is recommended
that SLCDA purchase the land remaining in the RPZ.
According to the Salt Lake County Assessors web viewer, the
Utah Transit Authority owns slivers of land within the Runway
35 RPZ where the TRAX line runs. This land is assumed to
have been sold to the Utah Transit Authority with a perpetual
easement, and thus was acceptable for conveyance by FAA.
Coordination between the Airport and FAA is ongoing on other
parcels of land used but not owned by TRAX, and no further
action is recommended.
Three RPZs have existing transportation facilities, within their
boundaries. These include the 2100 N roadway inside the
Runway 16L RPZ, the TRAX light rail Green Line and North
Temple roadway inside the Runway 35R RPZ, and I-80 inside
the Runway 34L RPZ (as noted). Note that Salt Lake City owns
all the land used by 2100 N and North Temple roadways. While
not an incompatible land use, as each was an existing condi-
tion prior to the 2012 FAA Memorandum Interim Guidance on
Land Uses within a Runway Protection Zone, it is recommend-
ed that if any of these facilities are rebuilt in the future, they be
relocated outside of the RPZ. Furthermore, if Runway 17-35 is
realigned, it should be positioned such that the RPZ is clear of
roadways and the TRAX line if possible.
A portion of the now closed Wingpointe Golf Course sits under
and immediately adjacent to the Runway 35R RPZ. The portion
shown in red in FIGURE 3-5 used to be part of the driving
range. The intent of the 2012 FAA Memorandum is to reduce
hazards to people and property. The document notes that new
recreational land uses, including golf courses, require APP-400
approval. The reopening of the Wingpointe Golf Course would
constitute a new land use compared to today’s condition; thus
APP-400 approval would be required.
Table 3-17: Runway Strength Requirements
Table 3-16: Existing and Future Critical Aircraft MTOW
Existing Critical Aircraft ARC Gear Type Maximum Take-Off
Weight
Boeing 737-900 D-III Dual-Wheel 188,000 lbs
Airbus A330-300 C-V Dual-Tandem Wheel 518,000 lbs
Boeing 767-300 D-IV Dual-Tandem Wheel 412,000 lbs
Beech 1900 B-II Dual-Wheel 27,000 lbs
Future Existing Aircraft ARC Gear Type Maximum Take-Off
Weight
Boeing 777-300 D-V Triple-Tandem Wheel 660,000 lbs
Airbus A350-900 D-V Dual-Tandem Wheel 591,000 lbs
Boeing 767-300 D-IV Dual-Tandem Wheel 412,000 lbs
Beech 1900 B-II Dual-Wheel 27,000 lbs
Source: RS&H 2019, Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A Change 1, Airport Design
Gear Type Existing
Pavement Strength
Recommended
Pavement Stregth Meets Requirements
Runway 16L-34R
Single (S)60,000 lbs 60,000 lbs ✔
Dual (D)200,000 lbs 200,000 lbs ✔
Dual Tandem (2D)350,000 lbs 600,000 lbs X
Triple Tandem (3D)Unknown 660,000 lbs Unknown
Double-Dual Tandem (2D/2D2)850,000 lbs 850,000 lbs ✔
Runway 16R-34L
Single (S)60,000 lbs 60,000 lbs ✔
Dual (D)200,000 lbs 200,000 lbs ✔
Dual Tandem (2D)350,000 lbs 600,000 lbs X
Triple Tandem (3D)Unknown 660,000 lbs Unknown
Double-Dual Tandem (2D/2D2)850,000 lbs 850,000 lbs ✔
Runway 17-35
Single (S)60,000 lbs 60,000 lbs ✔
Dual (D)200,000 lbs 200,000 lbs ✔
Dual Tandem (2D)350,000 lbs 600,000 lbs X
Triple Tandem (3D)Unknown 660,000 lbs Unknown
Double-Dual Tandem (2D/2D2)850,000 lbs 850,000 lbs ✔
Runway 14-32
Single (S)60,000 lbs 30,000 lbs ✔*
Dual (D)200,000 lbs 50,000 lbs ✔*
Dual Tandem (2D)350,000 lbs NA lbs ✔*
Double-Dual Tandem (2D/2D2)850,000 lbs NA lbs ✔*
Source: Airport Facilities Directory Effective 9/13/2018 to 11/7/2018, RS&H Analysis, 2019
*Runway 14-32 is built to a strength beyond that required to support current and forecasted operations
TABLE 3-20 compares the FAA airport design standards for
the Runway 16L-34R and 16R-34L, based on existing design
standards. Design standards not in compliance are denoted by
a bold “X.” Layouts that are not compliant include blast pads
and blast pad markings. In addition, runway hold position
marking separation and runway to taxiway separation at
specific locations that only apply when visibility is decreased
were determined to be non-compliant. The details of these
instances are discussed below. Blast pads should be marked
with chevrons aligned with the runway for the total width and
length of the blast pad5. The markings on the Runway 16L
blast pad are not currently full width, and the markings on the
Runway 34R blast pad do not extend the full length of the
paved surface. Additionally, the Runway 34R blast pad
pavement is not full width. These issues do not require
alternatives analysis, but the cost to fix the deficiencies will be
included in the capital improvement program developed
as part of this study.
As it relates to runway hold position markings and runway to
taxiway separation, deficiencies were found that only apply
when visibility decreases to specific levels. Runway 16L-34R
and 16R-34L both meet base level ADG V standards for
runway to taxiway and runway to hold position separation.
Note that both runways meet all standards for ADG IV
separation standards during any visibility. Thus, the
deficiencies identified only apply for ADG V runway operations
during specific visibility conditions, as detailed in TABLE 3-19.
The hold position lines for Runway 16L-34R meet the
standards for an ADG V runway at 292 feet from the runway
centerline, when visibility is ¾-statute miles or greater.
However, when visibility drops below ¾- statute miles, the
standard requires runway hold positions to be 322 feet from
the runway centerline6. In an analysis evaluating the runway’s
Inner-transitional obstacle free zone (OFZ), it was found the
current hold position markings are placed in a location suffi-
cient to keep holding aircraft clear of that surface. Thus, the
current placement of these markings do not require any special
operational procedures.
The current runway to parallel taxiway separation for Runway
16L-34R and Runway 16R-34L is adequate for ADG V
operations, except when visibility is less than ½-statute mile.
Both runways have 600 feet of separation to the taxiways,
centerline to centerline, except where the taxiways run
adjacent to the deice pads. At those points, separation is
reduced to 460 feet between Runway 16L-34R and Taxiway H,
and 450 feet between Runway 16R-34L and Taxiway A. That
amount of separation is adequate for ADG V runway
operations when visibility is ½-statute mile or greater. When
visibility drops below ½-statute mile, 500 feet separation is
required7. Today, SLCDA Operations restricts operations
on the parallel taxiway when ADG V are landing and runway
visual range (RVR) is below 1,200 feet. For ADG V aircraft to
land on Runway 16L-34R or 16R-34L when RVR is less than
1,200 feet, the correlated parallel taxiway must be clear of
aircraft in those areas where separation is reduced adjacent to
the deice pads.
The runway to taxiway and hold marking position separation
issues described will be brought forward together into the
alternatives analysis. Alternatives analysis will examine if fixing
these issues is warranted based upon cost versus overall
benefit to airport operations.
223 224
Figure 3-4: Runway 34L RPZ
To remain in compliance with current FAA policy, it is
recommended that the former golf course remain vacant
until compatible development is proposed for the site It is not
recommended that any of the land within the airport property
boundary be returned to use as a golf course. In addition to
the issue of the golf course being under the Runway 35R RPZ,
the land itself was and currently is a wildlife attractant due to
the presence of open water ponds and grass expanses that
can be used for feeding birds. Advisory Circular 150/5200-
33B Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports notes
specifically that FAA recommends against construction of new
golf courses located within 5 miles of an airport operations
area. Thus, reopening the Wingpointe Golf Course, which
constitutes a new usage of this land compared to the exiting
condition, directly conflicts with AC 150/5200-33B.
Overall, it is not recommended that the golf course be
reopened, as that action goes against FAA recommendations
Figure 3-5: Runway 34R RPZ
provided within AC 150/5200-33B Hazardous Wildlife
Attractants On or Near Airports and is not a preferred land use
within an RPZ. The area formally used as a golf course and the
canal system on the south and west sides of the airport are
recommended to be mitigated for wildlife to the fullest extent
possible. This would include the modification of the canal
systems and repurposing the land in a manner that discourages
use by wildlife and meets RPZ requirements.
3.2.1.8 Runway Geometric and Separation Standards
This section analyzes the existing runway geometric layouts
and separation distances against the dimensional standards
that correspond with the critical aircraft category designated
for each runway. Compliance with FAA airport geometric
layouts and separation standards, without modification to
standards, is intended to meet a minimum level of airport
operational safety and efficiency.
Table 3-18: Runway Protection Zone Requirements
Table 3-19: Runway to Taxiway and Hold Marking Separations
5 Advisory Circular 150/5340-1L – Standards for Airport Markings
6 For a D-V runway the required holding position separation from runway centerline when visibility is less than ¾ statute miles is 280’ from the runway centerline plus 1
additional foot for each 100 feet above sea level of the airport elevation.
7 Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A Change 1 – Airport Design, Footnote 5, page 94. Note applies to ADG V runways
Source: RS&H Analysis, 2019
Runway
Runway
16R 34L 16L 34R 17 35 14 32
Length 2,500’2,500’2,500’2,500’2,500’2,500’1,000’1,000’
Inner Width 1,000’1,000’1,000’1,000’1,000’1,000’500’500’
Outer Width 1,750’1,750’1,750’1,750’1,750’1,750’700’700’
Percent SLCDA
Controlled 100%99.08%100%100%100%Unknown 100%100%
Meets Standard 3 3*3 3 3 3*3 3
Source: Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A Change 1, Airport Design, RS&H Analysis 2019
*These instances of land not under direct control by SLCDA do not require immediate action. The land
under the Runway 35 RPZ that is not owned by SLCDA is assumed to have a perpetual easement.
Aircraft Design Group/Visibility FAA Standard Runway 16L/34R Runway 16R/34L
Runway to Taxiway Seperation
ADG IV -- Any Visibility 400 Feet 3 3
ADG V -- 1/2 SM Visibility or Above 450 Feet 3 3
ADG V -- Below 1/2 SM Visibility 500 Feet X*X*
Runway to Hold Position Separation
ADG IV -- Any Visibility 292 Feet 3 3
ADG V -- 3/4 SM Visibility or Above 292 Feet 3 3
ADG V -- Below 3/4 SM Visibility 322 Feet X 3
Source: Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A Change 1, Airport Design, RS&H Analysis 2019
Note that runway to hold position requirement accounts for SLC field elevation
*Runway 16L/34R and 16R/34L are only deficient in the areas adjacent to deice pads where taxiway to runway separation is decreased
SM is Stature Mile
TABLE 3-21 compares the FAA airport design standards for
Runway 17-35 and Runway 14-32. The only non-compliant
design standard found in analyzing these two runways is the
blast pad for Runway 17. That blast pad does not meet the
ADG IV runway blast pad length requirement of 200 feet.
FIGURE 3-6 shows the locations on the airfield of each of
these deficiencies. Overall, the blast pad deficiencies are minor
deficiencies that require small investment to correct. The hold
position markings for Runway 16L-34R are recommended to
be moved during large scale taxiway projects that involve fillet
design, lighting, and signage changes if it is determined by
Airport staff that these changes are warranted. The runway to
taxiway separation deficiencies will be brought forward
into the alternatives to determine if changes to allow
unrestricted ADG V operations on Runway 16L-34R or
16R-34L are justified.
As it relates to the next phase of study, Chapter 4 – Identifica-
tion and Evaluation of Alternatives, the relocation of runways
and deice pads will be evaluated to determine how best to
accommodate unrestricted ADG V operations at SLC.
3.2.1.9 Hot Spots
The FAA defines a hot spot as a location on an airport
movement area with a history of runway incursions or the
potential risk of aircraft collisions, and where heightened atten-
tion by pilots and drivers is necessary. As previously mentioned
in Chapter 1 – Inventory of Existing Conditions, two hot spots
have been designated at SLC. Both hot spots are on the FAA
Runway Incursion Mitigation list. The first hot spot is located
near the threshold of Runway 32 and Runway 35, designated
as “HS1”. The second hot spot is located at the intersection of
Taxiway Q and Taxiway L, near the approach end of Runway
14, designated as “HS2”. The location of the two FAA hot spots
are shown in FIGURE 3-6.
225 226
HS1 has been identified as a hot spot because of the risk of
departing on the wrong runway. The v-shaped configuration
for Runway 14-32 and Runway 17-35 has the potential risk for
aircraft departing and landing on the wrong runway. HS2 has
been identified as a hot spot because of the risk of runway
incursions due to the short taxi distance on Taxiway Q
between Runway 14-32 and Runway 16L-34R. SLCDA
Operations staff noted that the incursions at HS2 are typically
related to pilots taxiing east across Runway 16L-34R, missing
the right turn on Taxiway L, and subsequently running the
hold-short markings for Runway 14-32.
Table 3-21: Runway 17-35 and Runway 14-32 Design StandardsTable 3-20: Runway 16L-34R and Runway 16R-34L Design Standards
Airfield Components ADG D-V-2400
Requirement
Runway 16L-34R Runway 16R-34L
Existing Future Met (3)Existing Future Met (3)
Runway Design
Runway Width 150’150’3 150'3
Runway Shoulder Width 35’50’3 35’3
Runway Blast Pad Width 220’150’X (34R)*220’3*
Runway Blast Pad Length 400’400’3 400’3
Runway Protection
Runway Safety Area (RSA)
Length Beyond Departure End 1,000’1,000’3 1,000’3
Length Prior to Threshold 600’600’3 600’3
Width 500’500’3 500’3
Runway Object Free Area (ROFA)
Length Beyond Runway End 1,000’1,000’3 1,000’3
Length Prior to Threshold 600’600’3 600’3
Width 800’800’3 800’3
Runway Obstacle Free Zone (ROFZ)
Length 200’200’3 200’3
Width 400’400’3 400’3
Precision Obstacle Free Zone (POFZ)
Length 200’200’3 200’3
Width 800’800’3 800’3
Approach Runway Protection Zone (ARPZ)
Length 2,500’2,500’3 2,500’3
Inner Width 1,000’1,000’3 1,000’3
Outer Width 1,750’1,750’3 1,750’3
Acres 78,914 78,914 3 78,914 3
Departure Runway Protection Zone (DRPZ)
Length 1,700 1,700 3 1,700’3
Inner Width 500’500’3 500’3
Outer Width 1,010’1,010’3 1,010’3
Acres 29,465 29,465 3 29,465 3
Runway Separation
Runway Centerline to:
Parallel Runway Centerline 4,300’6,156’3 6,156’3
Holding Position 322’292’X 322’3
Parallel Taxiway/Taxilane Centerline 500’460’X 450’X
Aircraft Parking Area 500’590’3 645’3
Airfield Components ADG D-V-2400
Requirement
Runway 17-35 ADG B-II-VIS
Requirement
Runway 14-32
Existing Future Met (3)Existing Future Met (3)
Runway Design
Runway Width 150’150’3 75’150’3
Runway Shoulder Width 25’35’3 10’25’3
Runway Blast Pad Width 200’200’3 95’150’3
Runway Blast Pad Length 200’104’X (17)150’125’3
Runway Protection
Runway Safety Area (RSA)
Length Beyond Departure End 1,000’1,000’3 300’300’3
Length Prior to Threshold 600’600’3 300’300’3
Width 500’500’3 150’150’3
Runway Object Free Area (ROFA)
Length Beyond Runway End 1,000’1,000’3 300’300’3
Length Prior to Threshold 600’600’3 300’300’3
Width 800’800’3 500’500’3
Runway Obstacle Free Zone (ROFZ)
Length 200’200’3 200’200’3
Width 400’400’3 400’400’3
Precision Obstacle Free Zone (POFZ)
Length 200’200’3 N/A N/A N/A
Width 800’800’3 N/A N/A N/A
Approach Runway Protection Zone (ARPZ)
Length 2,500’2,500’3 1,000 1,000 3
Inner Width 1,000’1,000’3 500’500’3
Outer Width 1,750’1,750’3 700’700’3
Acres 78,914 78,914 3 13,770’13,770’3
Departure Runway Protection Zone (DRPZ)
Length 1,700 1,700 3 1,000’1,000’3
Inner Width 500’500’3 500’500’3
Outer Width 1,010’1,010’3 700’700’3
Acres 29,465 29,465 3 13,770 13,770 3
Runway Separation
Runway Centerline to:
Parallel Runway Centerline N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Holding Position 292’292’3 200’240’3
Parallel Taxiway/Taxilane Centerline 400’400’3 N/A N/A N/A
Aircraft Parking Area 500’558’3 250’525’3
Source: Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A Change 1, Airport Design, RS&H Analysis 2019
*Runway blast pad marking for Runway 16L and 34R are not to standard
Source: Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A Change 1, Airport Design, RS&H Analysis 2019
227
Figure 3-6: Runway Deficiencies and Hot Spots
228
3.2.2 Taxiway Requirements
The taxiway system requirements analysis addresses specific
requirements relative to FAA design criteria and the ability of
the existing taxiways to accommodate current and forecasted
demand. At a minimum, taxiways must provide safe and effi-
cient circulation by maintaining traffic flow using taxi routing
with a minimum number of points requiring a change in the air-
plane’s taxiing speed, provide access between runways, aircraft
parking and hangar areas, and meet FAA design standards to
safely accommodate the critical aircraft.
Examining taxiways requires two different types of perspec-
tives of evaluation. The first is through a lens focused only
on the design of the taxiway as it relates to pavement width
and separation from other surfaces and obstacles. For this,
the critical aircraft associated with each taxiway drives the
design standards that are required. The second perspective
of evaluation is related to how each taxiway integrates with
other pavement surfaces, such as runways, aprons, and other
taxiways. This section details the analysis conducted under the
purview of both perspectives.
3.2.2.1 Taxiway Design Analysis
The taxiway design criteria analysis included an evaluation of
each taxiway to meet the design criteria of the associated
critical aircraft. Taxiway pavement width is determined by the
TDG of the critical aircraft. Separation standards are
determined by the ADG of the critical aircraft. Depending on
use, portions of an airfield are designed for one specific aircraft
type while other portions are designed for other aircraft types.
FIGURE 3-7 illustrates the ADG and TDG for which each
taxiway at SLC was evaluated. The categorization between
ADG V/TDG 5 and ADG IV/TDG 4 is correlated to the critical
aircraft of the runway the taxiways serve, and typical aircraft
routing patterns employed by Airport Traffic Control. The
taxiways that serve the parallel runways and the terminal area
were evaluated for ADG V and TDG 5 standards. The taxiways
that serve Runway 17-35 and the general aviation area were
evaluated for ADG IV and TDG 4 standards.
Note, new taxiway infrastructure for a future realigned Runway
17-35 is recommended to be built to ADG V and TDG 5
standards to ensure maximum airfield capability.
Figure 3-7: Taxiway Design Based on Runway Critical Aircraft
Prepared by: RS&H, 2018
TABLE 3-22 details the analysis findings of the ADG V/TDG 5
taxiway that serve the parallel runways and connect the termi-
nal area to Runway 16R-34L and Runway 16L-34R. The design
deficiencies identified includes Taxiway Q, which is primarily
used to transition aircraft from the terminal area to the L Deic-
ing Pad. That taxiway has 25-foot paved shoulder on the north
side instead of a standard 30’ TDG 5 shoulder. Taxiway B has a
fence penetrating the TOFA in the area adjacent to the vehicle
service road north of Taxiway F. Additionally, almost all taxiway
fillet geometry does not meet current FAA standards. This
issue is common for taxiways built prior to 2012 when AC
150/5300 Airport Design was updated and began using new
fillet geometry standards. That AC was updated again in 2014
with additional fillet design changes. Correction to fillet
geometry is recommended anytime there is need for
full-depth taxiway reconstruction.
The future critical aircraft for Runway 16L-34R and 16R-34L
is the A350 and B777-300, which are both ADG V/TDG 6
aircraft. All taxiways that meet TDG 5 standards today, also
meet TDG 6 standards in all categories except fillet design. It is
recommended that when current TDG 5 taxiways are
reconstructed throughout the planning period, they be
designed to meet TDG 6 fillet geometry standards.
Table 3-23 details the findings of the analysis of the ADG IV/
TDG 4 taxiways that serve Runway 17-35 and the general avi-
ation areas. The only design deficiency found is related to fillet
design. The fillets on these taxiways do not meet the newest
design standards outlined in AC 150/5300-13A Change 1,
Airport Design.
In addition, it was determined that all these taxiways, except
Taxiway K, are designed with width and separation to support
ADG V/ TDG 5/6 aircraft. Taxiway widths in many cases are
greater than the ADG V/ TDG 5/6 required 75 feet, and in all
instances where shoulder width is less than 30 feet, additional
taxiway width makes up for the difference in overall pavement
width. Taxiway K meets the ADG 5/TDG 5 standard width of
229 230
Table 3-23: SLC ADG IV/TDG 4 Taxiways
Table 3-22: SLC ADG V/TDG 5 Taxiways
75 feet, but only has 25-foot shoulders as opposed to 30-foot
which is required. Taxiway K also only meets ADG IV separation
standards between taxiway centerline and all facilities, taxila-
nes, and apron on the east side. The Airport taxiway system is
robust and overbuilt to the extent that taxiways provide a great
deal of flexibility for accommodating a wide variety of aircraft
types. In many cases, taxiway widths far exceed the base ADG/
TDG requirements. Overall, no design deficiencies exist that
require alternative analysis. However, the current design and
use of taxiways will be considered in the development of alter-
natives.
The Airport taxiway system is robust and overbuilt to the
extent that taxiways provide a great deal of flexibility for
accommodating a wide variety of aircraft types. In many cases,
taxiway widths far exceed the base ADG/TDG requirements.
Overall, no design deficiencies exist that require alternative
analysis. However, the current design and use of taxiways will
be considered in the development of alternatives.
3.2.2.2 Taxiway Layout Analysis
In addition to design standards for taxiways related to pave-
ment width and separation, FAA provides standards for recom-
mended taxiway layout to enhance safety and decrease risk of
runway incursions. An analysis was conducted of the taxiway
layout at SLC to identify those taxiways and areas where taxi-
way layout does not meet the recommendations in Advisory
Circular 150/5300-13A, Change 1, Airport Design.
(1) FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A, Change 1 recommends paved shoulders for ADG IV/V aircraft.
(2) See Section 406, paragraph (b) in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A, Change 1 for fillet design dimensions.
(3) Taxiway H12 and H13 meet TDG 5 Taxiway Fillet Design standards* Taxiway fillet design does not meet TDG 6 standards ** Taxiway Q west of Runway 14/32 does
not meet TDG 5 or 6 shoulder width on the north side of the taxiway.
Source: FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A, Change 1
Taxiway
Components
Taxiway
Width
Taxiway
Shoulder
Width
Taxiway
Safety Area
Width
Taxiway Object
Free Area
Width
Centerline
to Parallel
Taxiway
Centerline
to Fixed or
Movable
Object
Taxiway
Fillet Design
Meets TDG 6
Requirements
Requirement
(ADG V,
TDG 5)
75’30’(1)21.4’320’267’138’(2)
A 3 3 3 3 3 3 X 3*
B 3 3 3 X 3 3 X 3*
E 3 3 3 3 3 3 X 3*
F 3 3 3 3 3 3 X 3*
G 3 3 3 3 3 3 ✔3*
H 3 3 3 3 3 3 X(3)3*
L 3 3 3 3 N/A 3 X 3*
M 3 3 3 3 N/A 3 X 3*
Q (W of RWY
14/32)3 X**3 3 N/A 3 X X**
U 3 3 3 3 3 3 X 3*
V 3 3 3 3 3 3 X 3*
FIGURE 3-8 details the layout related deficiencies identified in
the analysis. Some of the deficiencies identified are related to
the airfield hot spots discussed in Section 3.2.1.3, while others
have been in place for decades at SLC with no issue. A primary
component of this study is to develop alternatives that correct
those areas that are prone to issues and work to fix airfield hot
spots. The following bullets detail the FAA criteria for taxiway
layouts, and where each criterion is applicable for consider-
ation at SLC.
• Three-Node Concept
The three-node concept means that a pilot is presented with
no more than three choices at an intersection. Using the three-
node concept simplifies taxiway intersections, allowing for
consistent placement of airfield markings, signage and lighting,
and increasing pilot situational awareness. Complex intersec-
tions increase the possibility of pilot error, and if near a runway
entrance can increase chance for a runway incursion.
The following taxiways have greater than three-node inter-
sections: Taxiways H, H9, and H10; Taxiways H8, H, F, and E;
Taxiways A5, A and the parallel terminal taxilanes; and Taxiway
A4 and the parallel terminal taxilanes. The latter three inter-
sections can be considered a three-node intersection, with
one node having two options that run parallel to each other.
The fact that these taxiways are all runway exits removes the
chances of the intersection creating confusion that could lead
Taxiway
Components
Taxiway
Width
Taxiway
Shoulder
Width
Taxiway
Safety Area
Width
Taxiway Object
Free Area
Width
Centerline
to Parallel
Taxiway
Centerline
to Fixed or
Movable
Object
Taxiway
Fillet Design
ADG V / TDG
5 & 6
Capable*
Requirement
(ADG IV,
TDG 4)
50’20’(1)171’259’215’129.5’(2)
J 3 3 3 3 N/A 3 X 3
K 3 3 3 3 N/A 3 X NO
N 3 3 3 3 N/A 3 X 3
P 3 3 3 3 N/A 3 X 3
Q (W of RWY
14/32)3 3 3 3 N/A 3 X 3
R 3 3 3 3 N/A 3 X 3
S 3 3 3 3 N/A 3 X 3
(1) FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A, Change 1 recommends paved shoulders for ADG IV/V aircraft.
(2) See section 406, paragraph (b) in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A, Change 1 for fillet design dimensions.
*Taxiway fillet design also does not meet TDG 5 or 6 standards
Source: FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A, Change 1
231 232
indirect access between aircraft parking aprons and a runway.
To accomplish this, the taxiway layout must require a pilot to
make a series of turns while taxiing from an apron to a runway.
Instances of direct access at SLC are denoted on Figure 3-8
and include the following: south cargo ramp to Runway 34R;
south deice pad to Runway 34R; and the GA apron to
Runway 17 via Taxiway K1, K4 and K5. Note that Taxiway
A4 and A5 provide nearly direct access between runway and
apron. However, the configuration of these taxiways was not
found to create a direct access deficiency that increases risk of
runway incursion. This determination is based on the fact that
a turn is required to enter the runway, and that two parallel
taxiways are between the runway and the apron. These factors
greatly reduce the chance that a pilot would mistake the
runway for Taxiway A or B.
In regard to the instances of direct access at the south cargo
apron and the south deice pad, it was determined that the high
degree of signage, markings, and in-pavement lighting at H2
and H1, and the fact that the apron is at the threshold of the
runway lessen the chance that pilots would mistake the runway
for a parallel taxiway and taxi onto it. Direct access from the
south cargo ramp and the deice pad was not found to be a
deficiency requiring realignment of infrastructure.
The instance of direct access involving Taxiways K1, K4, and
K5, is recommended to be brought into the alternatives
analysis to determine solutions to limit direct access to
Runway 17-35.
Runway / Taxiway Right-Angle Intersections
Right-angle intersections are FAA standard for all runway
entrances and runway/taxiway intersections except for
high-speed exit taxiways. A right-angle intersection provides a
pilot the best possible vantage point to scan for aircraft on the
runway before entering or crossing the runway. Additionally,
a right-angle intersection allows the optimum orientation of
signage so that it is clearly visible to pilots. Runway/taxiway
intersections that are at acute angles but are not high-speed
taxiways are denoted with a red dot in FIGURE 3-8.
Of these, alternatives to realign runway entrance Taxiways Q,
K5, M, P, and N will be evaluated in the Alternatives chapter.
Other instances of acute angle taxiway entrances are
currently negated by having hold position bars at a right angle
to the runway, or are configured to position aircraft at an angle
to face arriving traffic. As such, these are acceptable and do not
require reconfiguration.
Wide Expanse of Pavement
Wide expanses of pavement require placement of signs far
from a pilot’s eye and reduce other visual cues. Under low vis-
ibility conditions a pilot’s focus is on the centerline, which may
result in the pilot not seeing a sign located beyond the pave-
ment extents. This is especially critical at runway
entrance points. A list of expansive pavement deficiencies is
depicted in Figure 3-9. Some of the wide expanses of
pavement are unavoidable at SLC, such as where dual
taxilanes intersect parallel taxiways. An example of this
configuration is where Taxiway A5 intersects Taxiway A and B.
This type of configuration was determined to be an
acceptable configuration at SLC.
Taxiways that have a wide expanse of pavement adjacent to
runways were found to pose potential safety issues. These
include the intersection of Taxiways P, N, and Runway 14-32;
the intersection of Taxiway Q, K5, K6, and Runway 17-35; the
intersection of Taxiway H4, H5, H6 and Runway 17L-34R; the
intersection of Taxiway H7, H8 and Runway 17L-34R; and
the intersection of Taxiway J, M, Runway 32, and Runway 35
thresholds. Alternatives to correct these layouts will be evalu-
ated in the Alternatives chapter.
to a runway incursion. As such, it was not found to be an issue
that requires future correction. However, the intersection of
Taxiway H8, H, F, and E, in addition to a three-node layout, cre-
ates a wide expanse of pavement. Alternatives to correct this
non-conforming layout will be evaluated in the next chapter.
The intersection of Taxiways H, H9 and H10 presents a “fourth”
node when pilots are taxiing from Taxiway G to H10 to cross
Runway 16L-34R to Taxiway S. This is a common operation,
as Taxiways H10 and S are used to route aircraft to Runway
17 for departure. Though the likelihood of a pilot turning from
Taxiways G and/or H into the high-speed runway exit Taxiway
H9 is low, this intersection is recommended to be further eval-
uated for alternatives to correct the deficiency.
High Energy Intersection
High energy intersections are considered those in the middle
third of the runway. The middle third is most often a “high-en-
ergy” zone of a runway where an aircraft, landing or taking
off, is traveling at a rate at which a pilot can least maneuver to
avoid a collision with another aircraft. Runway crossings should
be limited to the outer third of runways. Taxiways K5, K6,
and Q form an intersection within the middle third of Runway
16L-34R. If Runway 16L-34R is extended in the future, what
is considered the middle third of the runway will change, and
the intersection of Taxiway S and H10 may become part of the
middle third of the runway depending on the ultimate runway
length. Runway 17-35 has an intersection in the center of the
middle third of the runway where K5, K6, and Q connect.
Alternatives to remove the above referenced taxiways from
the middle third of the runway and provide efficient and safe
connectivity between the terminal area and Runway 17-35 will
be evaluated in the next chapter.
Aligned Taxiway
An aligned taxiway is one where the centerline of a taxiway
aligns directly with a runway centerline. FAA specifically pro-
hibits these types of alignments for new airfield construction,
and notes in AC 150/5330-13A that any existing configuration
“should be removed as soon as practicable.” An aligned taxiway
layout is present at SLC where Taxiway J is aligned with
Runway 14-32. Taxiway J also intersects with two runways
which is not a permitted layout per current FAA standards.
That layout creates a wide expanse of pavement which can
lead to pilot disorientation and potentially wrong runway de-
partures. These factors correlate to the reasoning behind the
area being labeled a Hot Spot. Alternative layouts to correct
these deficiencies will be evaluated in the Alternatives chapter.
Direct Access to Runway
Direct access between aircraft parking aprons and a runway
is not recommended, as it has proven too easy for a pilot to
lose situational awareness while taxiing out, miss the turn for a
taxiway and mistakenly end up on a runway. FAA requires
233
Figure 3-8: Taxiway System Deficiencies
234
3.2.3 Operationally Related
Facility Requirement Considerations
In conversations with ATC and SLCDA staff, a few important
factors were noted that will be considered when developing
airfield alternatives. The following bullets detail those factors:
• Having a single parallel taxiway (Taxiway K) to serve Runway
17-35 presents challenges for ATC when routing aircraft
to and from the GA area, especially when Runway 17 is in
use. In that condition, head-to-head traffic is possible when
a small aircraft lands on Runway 17, exits and taxis south on
Taxiway K while other GA aircraft are taxiing north on Taxi-
way K to depart Runway 17. Note that in that scenario, the
need for having an aircraft exit as soon as possible, instead
of rolling out long and exiting at the end of the runway, is
related to capacity. During peak periods, ATC must have
aircraft land and exit as quickly as possible to allow the next
departure and/or landing operation.
• It is recommended that the alternatives development
process consider how to add another parallel taxiway to
serve Runway 17-35 to provide additional circulation. This
could be accommodated with a parallel taxiway to the west
of the existing runway, a runway shift and realignment that
allows a dual parallel taxiway system on the east, or a combi-
nation thereof.
• The Taxiway Q intersection with Runway 16L-34R is within
the 34R localizer critical area. When Runway 34R is in use
during deicing operations, this becomes an issue, as aircraft
must cross the runway to Taxiway Q to access the Taxiway
L Deice Pad. To permit this operation, arrival separation for
Runway 34R must be increased, which effectively drops the
runway’s arrival capacity. A South End Around Taxiway is rec-
ommended to improve the circulation between the terminal
area and the Taxiway L Deice Pad.
• The Runway 34R Deice Pad is preferred for use unless the
Taxiway L Deice Pad is also needed. A factor in that prefer-
ence includes the fact that the holding position for Runway
34R on Taxiway M is relatively far back from the runway.
The holding bar is placed correctly to protect the Runway
34R ILS, but consequently adds runway occupancy time for
those aircraft departing 34R from Taxiway M. This factor will
be considered in the alternatives analysis to determine if a
better connection to Runway 34R is viable.
• Cross-field (east/west) circulation is important, specifically
with the new terminal concourse layout. The taxilanes be-
tween the new concourses are also used for aircraft push-
back, which increases the need for orchestrated aircraft
routing between the terminal gates and the runways. The
need for cross-field routing of aircraft other than on taxila-
nes between the concourses is expected to increase through
the planning period. During snow events, additional east/
west circulation is expected to be required to prevent bottle-
necks and allow uninterrupted access to all terminal gates.
It is recommended that the alternatives analysis determine
whether Taxiways V and U should be constructed as planned
and/or if other locations for cross-field taxiways may be
advantageous.
• The Runway 16L deice pad does not have restroom facili-
ties or truck deicing refill facilities. As such, during extend-
ed deice events, deicing operations in south flow must be
conducted on the south deicing pads. This is not optimal as
it creates congestion and delays during busy periods of the
day. It is recommended that facilities be added to the Run-
way 16L deice pad, and a deice pad be added adjacent the
Runway 16R threshold.
3.2.4 Airfield Requirements Summary
The analysis of the airfield identified all circumstances of any
geometry that differed from the most current FAA design
standards and recommendations. Each circumstance was
further analyzed to determine if the existing geometry requires
correction to meet the intent of the current FAA design
standards. Some circumstances were found acceptable and
do not require changes. Those circumstances that do require
changes are detailed in Table 3-24. Those identified with a
blue box will be carried forward into the alternatives analysis so
that a remedy to the issue may be developed and incorporated
into the SLC development plan. Additionally, all operational
facility requirement considerations described in Section 3.2.3
will be integrated with these airfield requirements during the
alternatives analysis.
The planning team in conjunction with Airport staff determined
that the South End Around Taxiway is required and should be
programed for near-term implementation. This airfield
component will be brought into alternatives analysis to
determine a preferred configuration.
235
Figure 3-9: Wide Expanse of Pavement Deficiency
3.3 NAVIGATIONAL AIDS
Navigational aids, referred to as NAVAIDS, consist of
equipment to help pilots locate and operate at the airport.
NAVAIDS can provide information to pilots about the aircraft’s
horizontal alignment, height above the ground, location of
airport facilities, and the aircraft’s position relative to the air-
field. SLCIA features all three types of navigational aids (visual,
electronic, and meteorological), as detailed in Chapter 1
3.3.1 Visual Aids
Visual aids at SLCIA include those specific to each runway and
those that serve the whole airport.
TABLE 3-25 lists the visual aids at SLCIA. Analysis determined
the airport is equipped with all the required and recommended
visual aids.
It was noted that some PAPI units at SLC use incandescent
bulbs. As existing incandescent PAPI units begin to fail, it is
recommended SLCIA coordinate the purchase and installation
236 237
Table 3-24: Airfield Requirements Summary
3.3.2 Electronic NAVAIDS
Electronic aids include devices and equipment used for aircraft
instrument approaches. Electronic aids at SLCIA are listed in
Table 3-26. Analysis of the existing equipment and the needs
of the airport indicate that there are no deficiencies and that
all electronic aids are adequate considering the current
configuration and usage of the airfield.
SLCIA does not have an on-airport VOR; however, these
navigational services are provided by the Wasatch VOR, two
miles to the north of the airport. Since the Wasatch VOR is
near SLCIA, an on-airport VOR is not needed. All non-direc-
tional beacon (NDB) facilities identified in the previous
master plan have since been decommissioned and replaced
by GPS technology.
Instrument approach procedures have been designed for
SLCIA that use GPS technology. As part of NextGEN, the
FAA plans to further modernize the national airspace system
(NAS) by implementing new technology, with one goal being
to increase capacity. One method that has been tested and
approved by the FAA, is to implement performance-based
navigation (PBN).
Table 3-26: Electronic Aids
Elements Description of Need and/or Recommendation
Runway Requirements
■Hot Spot HS1 and HS2 Hot Spot HS1 and HS2 require alternative analysis to determine if geometric related solutions can remedy
the issues at these airfield locations.
■Runway Length A future runway length for Runway 16L-34R of 14,500 feet will be carried forward.
■Runway 17-35 Runway 17-35 will be brought into the alternatives to examine realignment options and other options to
enhance capacity and overall system performance.
Runway Designation Re-designation of runway headings will be vetted for inclusion in the CIP as a capital project.
Blast Pads
Runway 34R blast pad is not full width. Runway 17 blast pad is not full length. Additionally, the Runway
16L blast pad markings are not full width, and Runway 34R blast pad markings are not full length. These
deficiencies are easily remedied through addition of asphalt and new paint markings as appropriate.
Runway Pavement Strength Runway 16L-34R, 16R-34L, and Runway 17-35 are recommended to be strengthened during future reha-
bilitation projects to support future forecasted aircraft operations.
■ Runway to Taxiway and Hold
Postion Separation
Runway 16L-34R and 16R-34L have runway to taxiway centerline separation reductions adjacent to each
deice pad that restricts ADG V operations during low visibility conditions. Additionally, the runway center-
line to hold position separation on Runway 16L-34R does not meet ADG V standards in low visibility. These
conditions will be brought forward into alternative analysis to determine if remedies to this situation are
justified, and if so, what options are viable.
Taxiway Requirements
■Three Node Concept The intersection of Taxiway H, H9 and H10 require a revised configuration to eliminate the current 4-node intersection.
■High Energy Intersections The following intersections require consideration in the alternatives analysis: Runway 16L-34R and Taxi-
ways H4, H5, H6 and Q; Runway 17-35 and Taxiways K5, K6, and Q.
■Aligned Taxiway The configuration of Runway 32 and Taxiway J is not standard and contributes to the Hot Spot in this area.
■Direct Access The following taxiways have been identified as providing direct access from the apron to Runway 17-35:
Taxiway K1, K4 and K5. These require alternatives analysis to remedy this condition.
■Runway/Taxiway
Right-Angle Intersection
The following intersections are identified for future correction: Runway 34R and TWY H1 and M; Runway
16L-34R and TWY Q; Runway 14-32 and TWY N and P; Runway 14 and TWY Q; Runway 17-35 and
TWY Q and K5.
Wide Expanses of Pavement
■Runway 16L-34R Wide expanse of pavement related to the following taxiway/runway intersections are identified for future
correction: H4-H5-H6 and H7-H8.
■Runway 14-32 Wide expanse of pavement related to the following taxiway/runway intersections are identified for future
correction: P-N and J-M.
■Runway 17-35 Wide correction of pavement related to the following taxiway/runway intersections are identified for
future corrections: K5-K6-Q.
■Elements that will be carried forward in the alternatives analysis
of LED units. The FAA has been conducting research to replace
incandescent with light emitting (LED) technology in PAPI
units. LED PAPI units reduce the time needed to warm up,
resulting in decreased energy use. The light spectrum of LED
compared to incandescent also provides an increased visual
clarity for pilots as indicated from FAA field tests.
Inventory of Existing Conditions. The following narrative
describes the three types of NAVAIDs as well as any deficien-
cies. This section also identifies new technology SLCIA could
implement to provide a higher-level of service and increase
efficiency for its users and tenants.
Table 3-25: Visual Aids
Visual Aids Runway Runway Runway Runway Adequate (3)
Deficient (x)16L 34R 16R 34L MALSR MALSR 14 32
Approach Lighting ALSF-2 ALSF-2 ALSF-2 ALSF-2 ALSF-2 ALSF-2 --3
Lighting System HIRL HIRL HIRL HIRL HIRL HIRL HIRL HIRL 3
Runway Centerline Lights Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No 3
Runway Guard Lights Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 3
Runway Markings Precision Precision Precision Precision Precision Precision Visual Visual 3
Runway Windcone Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 3
Stop Bar Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No 3
Touchdown Zone Lighting Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No 3
Visual Slope Indicator PAPI (P4L)PAPI (P4L)PAPI (P4L)PAPI (P4L)PAPI (P4L)PAPI (P4L)PAPI (P4L)PAPI (P4L)3
Rotating Beacon --------3
Segmented Circle --------3
Source: FAA Chart Supplements, FAA gov, RS&H Analysis, 2019
Notes: ALSF-2 High intensity approach light system with sequenced flashers, MALSR = Medium intensity approach light system with runway alignment indicator lights,
ODALS = Omnidirectional approach light system, PAPI = Precision approach path indicator, VASI = Visual approach slope indicator, REIL = Runway end identifier lights,
RVR = Runway visual range is used for determining airfield visibility for all precision approaches.
Electronic Aids Runway Runway Runway Runway Adequate (3)
Deficient (x)16L 34R 16R 34L 17 35 14 32
Glideslope Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No 3
Localizer Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No 3
LDA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No 3
Source: FAA Chart Supplements, FAA gov, RS&H Analysis, 2019 | Notes: LDA = Localizer directional aid
PBN navigation provides additional precision compared to GPS
alone. Required Navigation Performance (RNP), a form of PBN,
requires additional navigational equipment for an aircraft but
provides a more precise path of navigation. As the path of trav-
el is more precise, the airspace protected around the aircraft
becomes narrower. A RNAV8 (RNP) approach compared to an
RNAV (GPS) approach saves fuel and time for operators. The
advantage for an airport to implement RNP based procedures
is a reduction in required separation between aircraft. The pro-
tection around the aircraft in the terminal area reduces from
five nautical miles to three. This allows more aircraft to operate
in and out of an airport, enhancing the capacity of the airspace
system. It is recommended SLCIA coordinate with the FAA to
develop and implement RNAV (RNP) instrument approach pro-
cedures for each instrument runway end to enhance capacity
and efficiency.
Ground-Based Augmentation System (GBAS) is another Next-
GEN system that provides navigation and precision approach
capabilities at an airport, that could be considered for future
implementation at SLCIA. The system is comprised of a ground
facility and various antennas to communicate with the aircraft
during takeoffs and landings. A single GBAS system can provide
precision instrument approaches for multiple runway ends.
This can provide a cost savings if implementing a new precision
instrument approach compared to a traditional ILS system. The
downside of the GBAS system is the amount of land needed
to protect the antennas. Also, the antennas themselves need
to have a clear line of sight of each runway end. To fly a GBAS
approach also referred to as GLS, aircraft are required to be
fitted with proper VHF data broadcast (VDB) equipment. At
the time of this writing, the FAA has approved the use of GBAS
Approach Service Type-C, which is the same as an ILS Catego-
ry I approach. Testing has been completed for GBAS Approach
Service Type-D, which is the same as an ILS Category III
approach; however, has yet to be implemented at a non-test
airport.
SLCIA has ILS Category III on both ends of the parallel runways
and a Category I ILS approach on both ends of Runway 17-35.
To enhance the approaches on Runway 17-35 to that of the
parallel runway, a GBAS Approach Service Type-D system could
be installed to service both runway ends. Implementing the
system could potentially upgrade Runway 17-35 to support
CAT II/III approaches. Though the initial cost of implementation
may be greater than a single ILS system, over time operating
and maintenance costs may be less than maintaining two ILS
systems. Efficiencies would be even greater if a future GBAS
serves all runway ends, including the parallel runways. It is
recommended that SLCIA reserve a parcel of land for a GBAS
Approach Service Type-D system. Opportunities to integrate
a GBAS system at SLCIA will be examined in the alternatives
analysis.
3.3.3 Meteorological Aids
Meteorological aids consist of equipment that reports weather
conditions to users and tenants at an airport. The metrological
aids at SLCIA are listed in Table 3-27.
The LLWAS system type is unknown but was found to be
configured differently than as suggested in the 1989 document
FAA Order 6560.21A. It is recommended the Airport continue
to ensure the LLWAS is up-to-date and working as needed to
support safe operations. The runway visual range (RVR) system
and existing AWOS system at SLCIA are adequate for current
operations.
While not an FAA requirement, SLCIA staff may want to con-
sider installing a runway weather information system (RWIS).
An RWIS provides real time monitoring information to airport
personnel. Sensors are installed underneath the runway to re-
port surface temperature, ambient air temperature and type of
contaminants. This system is ideal for airports that experience
regular snow fall, like SLCIA. This system could improve snow
removal operations by providing real time weather conditions
and historical trends. Historical trends can be used to deter-
mine the most effective time to apply an application of runway
deicing fluid, potentially resulting in cost savings and more
efficient operations.
This section details passenger aircraft gate requirements for
each PAL. Additionally, an analysis was conducted on primary
terminal processing components to determine what, if any,
deficiencies may arise as passenger traffic increases through
the planning horizon.
3.4.1 Aircraft Gate Requirements
The purpose of this section is to establish the timing for ter-
minal gate development at SLC. Gate capacity requirements
are based upon an analysis of the design day flight schedule
generated as part of the aviation activity forecasts, which
was approved by the FAA on May 1, 2019. This task will also
identify the potential needs for long-term parking apron re-
quirements for passenger aircraft that would be at the Airport
during extended over-night hours identified as Remain Over-
Night (RON), or during extended daytime hours, identified as
Remain All-Day (RAD).
In particular, the exercise will focus on the potential timing for
necessary gate additions to Concourse B after it opens in 2020
relative to PAL 1, PAL 2, and PAL 3.
3.4.1.1 New Terminal Layout 2020
Table 3-28 shows the distribution of the gates by
their ADG capacity.
The current design of Concourse A includes the international
arrivals sterile corridor on the third level of the north-western
portion of the concourse. As such, the Airport’s international
gates are integrated on the north-western portion of
Concourse A. In addition to the three international ADG-III/
ADG-V MARS gates, there are two international ADG-III gates
and one international ADG-IV gate, making up a total of six
international gates.
Table 3-29 shows the distribution of gates for international
and domestic use in 2020.
238 239
Table 3-27: Meteorological Aids
Table 3-28: Terminal Gates by ADG Capacity (2020)
Table 3-29: Terminal Gates by Domestic and International Use (2020)
8 “Area navigation (RNAV) is a method of navigation the permits aircraft operation on any desired flight path within the coverage of ground- or space-based navigational
aids or within the limits of the capability of self-contained aids, or a combination of these.” Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP), 2012
Metrological Aids Runway Runway Runway Runway Adequate (3)
Deficient (x)16L 34R 16R 34L 17 35 14 32
LLWAS No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 3*
RVR Equipment Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No 3
ASOS --------3
Source: FAA Chart Supplements, FAA.gov, RS&H Analysis, 2019
Notes: ASOS = Automated surface observing system, RVR = Runway visual range, LLWAS = Low level wind shear alert system
* LLWAS system type is unknown. Noted that the system is configured differently than discussed in the 1989 document ‘FAA Order 6560.21A, Siting Guidlines for Low
Level Windshear Alert System (LLWAS)’
3.4 TERMINAL CAPACITY AND REQUIREMENTS
Terminal Gates Leased and Operated by Delta Air Lines
Concourse ADG-III ADG-IV ADG-V Total
Concourse A 31 13 3 47
Concourse B 6 2 0 8
Delta Air Lines Total 37 15 3 55
Terminal Gates Leased and Operated by Other Air Lines
Concourse ADG-III ADG-IV ADG-V Total
Concourse A 0 0 0 0
Concourse B 19 2 2 23
Other Air Lines Total 19 2 2 23
Terminal Gates Leased and Operated by Delta Air Lines
Concourse Domestic International1 Total
Concourse A 41 6 47
Concourse B 8 0 8
Delta Air Lines Total 49 6 55
Terminal Gates Leased and Operated by Other Air Lines
Concourse Domestic International1 Total
Concourse A 0 0 0
Concourse B 23 0 23
Other Air Lines Total 23 0 23
Source: RS&H, 2019
Note: 1- Any airlines with international arrivals receive precedence at the Delta International gates over Delta Domestic flights.
Source: RS&H, 2019
3.4.1.2 Gate Chart Model Analysis
A gate chart model was completed to analyze the gate capac-
ity and occupancy of the newly constructed terminal as well
as the increasing requirements over the planning horizon. The
model utilized the Master Plan Update Base Case Forecast,
and the design day flight schedule, which was based upon an
Average Day of the Peak Month (ADPM) of PAL 1, PAL 2, and
PAL 3. To create a more detailed model of what the gate usage
would look like, several assumptions were created based on
airline and industry standards and meetings with Airport and
airline staff. The assumptions used in this analysis include:
• All airlines will attempt to operate their own or Salt Lake City
gates at maximum efficiency before moving an aircraft to the
RON-RAD Apron or requiring a new gate.
• Separation time, or the minimum time allocated by an airline
between consecutive arriving and departing aircraft at a
gate, is 20 minutes.
• Airlines will only operate out of their leased gates. The three
Salt Lake City designated gates may be used by any airline at
the Airport.
• International gates are swing gates and may be as domestic
gates by Delta when international arrival operations do not
require them. Any airline with an international arrival will take
precedence over any Delta domestic flight on these gates.
• Any aircraft may be considered RON-RAD when it is at SL-
CIA for more than three hours at a time. Those aircraft may
be moved from the gate to a RON-RAD Apron if the gate is
needed for other arrival or departure operations. If moved, it
is assumed the aircraft vacate the gate no sooner than one
hour after arrival and return no later than one hour prior to
departure.
• Aircraft returning to a gate from the RON-RAD Apron may
use a different gate other than which it used initially.
The gate chart model works by taking each arriving and/or
departing flight and placing it at a gate leased by that airline,
if it can accommodate that aircraft based on its ADG. The
exception being the SLC gates, which may be used by any
airline, or the Delta international gates which must first serve
international arriving flights, before serving any Delta domestic
flights. As more flights are added to the schedules of each of
the forecast years consecutively, the duration that an aircraft
is at any gate begins to create conflicts, especially during peak
hours. When gate space becomes limited for an airline, it is
assumed that the airline would tow the longest parked aircraft
to the RON-RAD Apron as an initial solution. Ultimately, after
the RON-RAD tows are no longer an option, any remaining
aircraft that cannot be accommodated generates demand for
an additional gate. The gate chart analysis for each forecast
year identifies the number of new gate(s) needed, if any, to
accommodate the design day flight schedule at peak hour
times. Likewise, the number of RON-RAD aircraft towed to the
apron at any given time fluctuates over the course of the day
causing a peak hour(s) of usage in which a maximum number
of parking spaces on the RON-RAD Apron is identified.
3.4.1.3 Peak Hour Usage
The peak hour indicates the hour each day in which the great-
est strain on Airport facilities will occur. The results of the gate
chart analysis showed that during peak hours all of the gates
may not be necessarily used, but because of separation times,
ADG capacity, and the use of gates exclusively by airlines whom
they are leased to, peak hours are the driving force for new
gates and RON-RAD Apron aircraft parking space.
Table 3-30 shows the peak hour terminal gate requirements,
including international gates needs for each of the forecast
years. Table 3-31 shows the peak hour terminal international
gate requirements for the forecast years.
3.4.1.4 Terminal Gate Requirements
The analysis results concluded that the Airport will require
nine new gates over the planning horizon in addition to what
it is opening with in 2020. The following details the need for
each PAL.
• PAL 1 - Four additional domestic ADG-III gates will be need-
ed, totaling 82 for the Airport. Because this demand is after
the opening of the new terminal in 2020, the need for up to
four of these additional domestic ADG-III gates might also
exist at a sooner time, and therefore should be considered.
These gates would be leased by Delta Air Lines and added
onto the east end of Concourse B.
• PAL 2 - Two new international ADG-III gates will be
needed, totaling 84 for the Airport. For greater flexibility it is
recommended that one of the two added gates be consid-
ered as another international MARS gate that could allow
up to ADG V aircraft. The two newly added gates would be
leased by Delta Air Lines, however, because they are inter-
national they must be incorporated into an FIS and sterile
corridor facility. To utilize the existing international facilities,
it is assumed that two of the existing domestic ADG-III gates
leased by Delta Air Lines adjacent to the six international
gates planned for Concourse A, would be converted. The
two gates that were transformed into international, would
then be relocated to the east end of Concourse B, as two
new domestic ADG-III gates.
• PAL 3 - Three new gates will be needed, which include two
domestic ADG-III gates, and one international ADG-III gate,
totaling 87 for the Airport. All three gates will be leased by
Delta Air Lines, and the two domestic gates would be added
onto the east end of Concourse B. It is assumed that the
new international gate would be added adjacent to one of
the existing international gates, by transforming a domestic
gate into an international one and expanding the internation-
al facilities and FIS as necessary. The transformed domestic
gate would be relocated to the east end of Concourse B, like
the two that were relocated in PAL 2.
In total, the analysis showed that by PAL 3 there will be a need
for the three international ADG-III gates and six domestic
ADG-III gates.
Table 3-32 shows the terminal gate requirements when the
terminal opens in 2020 and at each planning activity level.
Concourse B at full build out can accommodate 46 gates,
making a total gate count at full build out of 93 gates. Thus,
based on the base case forecast, the total gate demand will
not exceed the combined capacity of Concourse A and
Concourse B. However, concourse expansion to accommodate
9 new gates on Concourse B will be needed.
240 241
Table 3-31: Peak Hour Terminal International Gate Requirements
Table 3-30: Peak Hour Terminal Gate Requirements
Table 3-32: Terminal Gate Requirements
PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3
Existing Gates9 78 78 78
Required Gates 82 84 87
Peak Hour(s)2100-2159
2200-2259
1000-1059
2200-2259 1000-1059
PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3
Existing Gates 6 6 6
Required Gates 6 8 9
Peak Hour(s)1300-1359 1600-1659
1300-1559
1400-1459
1500-1559
1600-1659
Concourse 2020 PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3
Concourse A 47 47 47 47
Concourse B 31 35 37 40
Total 78 82 84 87
Surplus/(Deficit) Assuming Full Build Out 11 9 6
3.4.1.5 RAD-RON Apron Parking Requirements
The analysis concluded that the RON-RAD Apron peak hour of
usage is between 2400 and 0059 and 1500-1559 consistently
over the planning horizon based upon this studies design day
flight schedules. While most of the aircraft that would use the
RON-RAD Apron are ADG-III, there are times when ADG-V
aircraft will also use it, therefore added space and concrete
strength should be considered in the design.
• PAL 1 - 11 ADG-III parking spaces are required on the
RON-RAD Apron during peak hours.
• PAL 2 - 12 ADG-III parking spaces are required on the
RON-RAD Apron during peak hours.
• PAL 3 - 13 ADG-III parking spaces are required on the
RON-RAD Apron during peak hours.
Table 3-33 shows the maximum number of RON-RAD aircraft
parking spaces required during peak hours, and at which times
those peak hours occur for each of the forecast years.
Table 3-33: Maximum Number of Aircraft Parking on RAD-RON Apron
Type PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3
RON-RAD parking spaces required 11 12 13
Peak Hour(s)2400-0059
1500-1559
2400-0059
1500-1559
2400-0059
1500-1559
Source: RS&H, 2019
Source: RS&H, 2019
3.4.1.6 Timing for Concourse C
Given the results of this analysis, it can be concluded that the
timing for a future C Concourse would be beyond the 20-year
Master Plan time frame based on the base case forecast. A
high-level analysis was conducted to examine the gate re-
quirements associated with the high-growth scenario forecast.
That analysis also indicated that Concourse C would not yet be
needed within the planning horizon. However, by around 2037-
2038, it could be expected that all gates on the full build out of
Concourse A and B would be 100 percent utilized if the high-
growth scenario forecast materializes. If the base-case scenario
forecast materializes, it is estimated Concourse A and B gates
would not reach full utilization until roughly 2043-2044.
Though it is estimated that Concourse C is nearly two decades
from being needed, planning for it must begin now as no mat-
ter where the new concourse is sited, numerous large-scale en-
abling projects are required. Previous studies and the Terminal
Redevelopment Program planned for Concourse C to be po-
sitioned north of Concourse A and B. The alternatives analysis
of this study will examine and refine the location for the future
concourse and determine the sequencing of enabling projects
that may be necessary before construction can begin.
3.4.2 Terminal Space Requirements
The construction of the new terminal facilities, on-going at the
time of the writing of the master plan, will provide an increase
in size and efficiency of terminal elements at SLC. As the termi-
nal is still being constructed, expansions and changes to spaces
have occurred that depart from the original design. Critical to
this study, the terminal building is being built with an expansion
to FIS, baggage claim, and Federal Inspection Services (FIS)
space. As part of this study, a high-level validation of the new
terminal design using the master plan forecasted traffic levels
was conducted. Areas of potential future congestion during the
planning period were identified. Facility requirements were de-
termined for the primary components of the terminal building
including airline ticketing and check-in, baggage claim, pas-
senger security screening, and FIS. Some terminal elements,
such as concessions, baggage handling, support, and employee
screening spaces were omitted from the analysis due to the
status of the terminal construction.
Passenger peak hours for each PAL were calculated from
the design day flight schedule discussed in Chapter 2 of this
report. Connecting domestic passengers who will depart on
another flight after arriving at SLC were excluded from analysis
as they will not utilize any terminal processor being analyzed. A
60-minute rolling peak hour for originating passengers, domes-
tic terminating passengers, and international terminating pas-
sengers at each PAL was created. The 60-minute rolling peak
hour considers the differing time in which passengers pass
through the terminal before a departing flight and the time
between when an aircraft arrives and when passengers arrive
at baggage claim. The summary of the peak hour for each type
of passenger is detailed in Table 3-34.
3.4.2.1 Airline Ticketing and Check-In
Airline ticketing and check-in space includes a combination
of the conventional ticketing and check-in counters as well
as self-service kiosks, which are provided near the conven-
tional check-in counters and in the Gateway Building, which is
attached to the parking garage and connected to the terminal
by pedestrian sky bridges. The total space includes counter
or kiosk space, active area, and queueing area. The number
of conventional ticketing and check-in counter spaces were
carried forward from the sizing in the previous terminal. This
accounted for a total of 64 positions including 32 for Delta
Air Lines and 32 for all other airlines. The scope of this study’s
analysis did not warrant a survey at SLC to determine current
usage patterns. Current industry trends point towards roughly
20 percent of passengers using the ticket counter for check-
in. For this analysis a conservative approach was used, and a
distribution percentage of 30/30/40 was assumed for passen-
gers using the ticket-counters, self-serve kiosks, and mobile
boarding, respectively.
Overall, a surplus of counter space is estimated through the
planning period at SLC. Self-serve kiosks are also estimated to
have surplus due to having two locations, the airline ticketing
area and the Gateway Building, accommodating those units.
An overview of facility requirements for airline ticketing and
check-in is shown in Table 3-35.
242 243
Table 3-34: Terminal Passenger Peak Hour
3.4.2.2 Baggage Claim
The baggage claim will have a total of 10 traditional baggage
carousels and more than 70,000 square feet of space. In
order to accommodate future growth and to allow baggage
carousels used by Delta Air Lines to be in one consolidated
location, the baggage claim lobby was built to provide surplus
capacity beyond the required demand in the planning period.
Table 3-36 shows the projected surplus, including an additional
21,700 square feet at PAL 3. The additional claim units aid in
providing redundancy and flexibility for irregular operations and
any future magnification of the peak hour arrivals.
3.4.2.3 Security Screening
The security screening in the new terminal will have 14 check-
point lanes and a total square footage of just under 40,000
square feet. The existing space is designed for an expansion
to a total of 16 checkpoint lanes with no modifications to the
existing layout or space envelope. The checkpoint lanes being
installed at SLC are estimated to process an average of 190
passengers per hour. As passenger traffic grows, the available
total space including queuing and inspection is forecasted to
Peak Hour Originating Passengers Domestic
Terminating Passengers
International
Terminating Passengers
2018 2,670 2,500 670
PAL 1 2,360 2,710 780
PAL 2 2,710 2,980 790
PAL 3 3,210 3,650 1,040
Table 3-35: Airline Ticketing and Check-In
Terminal Area Existing
Planning Activity Level
PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3
Ticketing
Square Footage
Surplus/(Deficit)
43,400 11,000
32,400
12,200
31,200
14,400
29,000
Conventional Ticketing & Check-in Counter
Surplus/(Deficit)
64 30
34
33
31
39
25
Self-Service Kiosk
Surplus/(Deficit)
48 13
35
15
33
18
30
remain sufficient through the planning period. However, the
number of built checkpoint lanes are forecasted to be insuffi-
cient as one additional lane is needed at PAL 2 and a total of
17 lanes, which is one above which the current layout was de-
signed to accommodate, are needed at PAL 3 to meet 30-min-
ute wait time maximums as shown in Table 3-37.
3.4.2.4 Federal Inspection Services (FIS)
The required sizing for the Federal Inspection Services (FIS)
is determined through coordination with the United States
Customs and Border Protection agency and is built to handle
a passenger throughput peak hour. The required services and
subsequent spacing required can vary significantly between air-
ports depending on the customs and border protection needs
of the facility. For the new terminal at SLC, a layout that can
accommodate approximately 1,000 passengers per hour was
constructed. With a forecasted PAL 3 international terminating
peak hour of approximately 1,040 passengers, the FIS is not
forecasted to require additional space or facilities.
Table 3-36: Baggage Claim
Terminal Area Existing
Planning Activity Level
PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3
Baggage Clain
Square Footage
Surplus/(Deficit)
71,100 35,500
35,600
47,200
23,900
49,400
21,700
Table 3-37: Security Screening
Terminal Area Existing
Planning Activity Level
PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3
Security Screening
Square Footage
Surplus/(Deficit)
39,700 22,000
17,700
25,100
14,600
29,700
10,000
Inspection Lanes
Surplus/(Deficit)
14 13
1
15
(1)
17
(3)
Landside facility requirements include all elements that provide
access and egress for the airport, circulation within the public
portions of the airport, and storage of vehicles at the air-
port. These include the regional roadway and transit system,
on-airport roadways, the terminal curb roadways, public and
employee parking, rental car facilities, and commercial ground
transportation facilities. Each of these is addressed in the sub-
sequent subsections.
At the time of the analysis and writing of this chapter, the
new terminal facility was scheduled to be open and in use by
September 2020. This new terminal facility has a different curb
and parking configuration than the existing facility. Thus, this
study focused entirely on the new configuration to determine
requirements for that facility through the planning period.
Plans of the new terminal facility and roadway network were
used in instances where new infrastructure, such as the termi-
nal curb, was not yet constructed or in use.
The determination of the landside requirements varied slightly
depending on the type of facility, but the analysis generally
followed this process:
• The data gathered from the airport, its landside tenants and
operators, and by the Master Plan staff in the field were used
to determine the current capacity and level of service using
procedures appropriate to the available data and the stan-
dards of the profession.
• Level of service standards were determined that reflect the
Airport’s commitment to a quality experience for its passen-
gers.
• The base case (typically, peak hour of the average day of the
peak month) O-D passenger activity levels were related to
the landside activity levels assembled for the capacity and
level of service analyses.
• The future O-D passenger activity levels from the aviation
forecasts were then used to forecast landside activity for
each planning activity level as documented in Chapter 2,
Aviation Activity Forecasts.
• Using the same procedures that analyzed current capacity
and level of service, the future capacity and level of service
was estimated for each planning activity level.
• If either capacity or level of service did not meet standards,
these same procedures were then run again to determine
the characteristics of the future facility (size, etc.) that would
be required to provide the target level of service and/or
capacity.
It should be noted that for some facilities, (e.g., parking and
rental car, which are spatial in nature), this process is like
that used for terminal facilities and provides an independent
estimate of requirements. For roadways of all types, the future
requirements are not only a function of size (e.g., number of
lanes, or length of curb), but also of physical arrangement, and
operation. Thus, the requirements provided herein reflect the
future physical arrangement of roads and curbs, and their pro-
posed manner of operation. The next sections explain trade-
offs that can be explored in the development and analysis of
future improvements. These changes could include either
changes to physical plant, or to roadway or curb operations, in
order to achieve desired capacity and/or level of service.
The requirements presented herein assume that there will be
negligible changes in mode of access and egress and other
landside behaviors by the traveling public over the next 20
years. The markets for the newest mode (TNC) are assumed to
have stabilized, as has the degree of competition from off-air-
port parking. At the end of this section, those assumptions are
examined, to demonstrate the degree to which requirements
may change if those assumptions do not hold true. Develop-
ment and evaluation of concepts will include consideration of
options that can respond flexibly to how things may change at
SLCIA.
3.5.1 Access and Circulation Roadways
This section presents the requirements for several regional
access systems as well as for the on-airport roadway system
that serves the terminal campus.
3.5.1.1 Regional Access
SLCIA has one principal access/egress route, Terminal Drive,
which is a northern extension of Bangerter Highway (Utah
Route 154). Terminal Drive brings in all traffic from Bangert-
er Highway as well as from I-80, which generates the largest
inbound volumes. The interchange at I-80 and Terminal Drive/
Bangerter Highway is complex, as it also includes ramps to/
from North Temple Street. Furthermore, the airport inter-
change lies not quite two miles west of the I-80 system
interchange with I-215. To assist in handling the movements
among all these highways, there are collector-distributor roads
adjacent to I-80 in both directions between the adjacent inter-
changes.
In considering how to assess the requirements for adequate
capacity and level of service for the airport’s interchange, the
Master Plan team first examined the combined capacity of all
the inbound ramps:
• One lane serving traffic from North Temple and I-215
• One lane serving traffic from westbound I-80
• Two lanes serving traffic from eastbound I-80 and Bangerter
Highway.
Collectively, these four lanes have a combined maximum ser-
vice volume flow of nearly 5,600 vehicles per hour at Level of
Service C, which is the desired level of service on the Airport’s
connections to the regional road system. Given that at PAL 3 the
244 245
total inbound volume at SLCIA is forecast to be only 3,980, the
interchange itself was judged to be adequate across the plan-
ning period. Conversations with UDOT traffic engineering and
planning staff indicated that there were no known or anticipat-
ed issues with the interchange continuing to provide adequate
access to the Airport.
Regarding egress from the Airport, the team looked at whether
the three ramps out of the Airport provide adequate levels of
service. The ramps include:
• One lane serving traffic to westbound I-80
• Two lane serving traffic to Bangerter Highway
• Two lanes serving traffic to eastbound I-80, North Temple,
and I-215.
The combined maximum service flow volume of these five
lanes is nearly 7,000 vehicles per hour at Level of Service C. As
such, the ramps themselves pose no issues to adequate Airport
egress over the planning period.
However, observations and discussions with UDOT staff
flagged one concern which can be problematic today, and
which will continue to worsen over the planning period unless
addressed by UDOT. The highest volume of traffic leaving
SLCIA uses the two-lane ramp which feeds traffic to North
Temple11, eastbound I-80, and north- and southbound I-215.
After the diverge to North Temple, the two lanes merge into
eastbound I-80, quickly dropping one of the two lanes. There
is a weaving area on eastbound I-80 created by this merging
ramp and the exit ramp diverging 2,800 feet downstream to
serve all movement to I-215. The merging area, by observation,
can operate at levels of service which create queues back-
ing up towards southbound Terminal Drive, the exit from the
Airport. UDOT knows of the issue, and while it has a long-range
project to potentially widen I-80 in this area, it is not likely that
a widening alone will solve this problem. More than likely, braid-
ing of the on-ramp from the Airport and the exit ramp to I-215
would be required to eliminate the weave entirely, and resolve
the issue. The Airport will need to work with UDOT to ensure
that some form of solution to this significant congestion is de-
veloped in order for the Airport’s egress to not be constrained.
The Airport is also served by the TRAX light rail system, by
UTA bus, and by a bike trail. The TRAX station served approx-
imately 2,500 riders (boardings and alightings) per day in the
12-month period ending April 2018. The system averaged
approximately a five percent month-over-month increase
between 2017 and 2018. By observation, it serves a mix of
employees and passengers. The Airport is the end of line sta-
tion for the Green Line, and with overall no congestion points
on the line, no issues are anticipated for continued high quality
light rail service throughout the planning period.
UTA bus routes 453, 454, (both inter-county routes) and 551
(limited stop service in the peak hours) serve the airport. The
first two routes continue west to Tooele or Grantsville, and
east to the TRAX Red Line or the Central Station with con-
nections to the Blue Line and the FrontRunner commuter rail.
Route 551 serves commutes to/from the International Center
just west of the Airport, connecting to TRAX at the Airport.
Across the planning period, no issues are anticipated with con-
tinuing provision of UTA bus service.
For bike connectivity, the Airport Trail follows North Temple,
3700 West, and its own trail alignment to connect the Air-
port with roadways and developed areas east and west of the
airport, such as International Center. Bike racks are provided at
the Airport Station as well as in the parking garage. By obser-
vation, cycling is a mode used far more frequently by employ-
ees than by passengers. The Airport Trail, though, where it
passes south of the east side of the AOA, has gates on it, which
constrain the hours of its use and requires a SLC Airport Secu-
rity Badge to access. There are no capacity or level of service
issues anticipated with bicycle access to the Airport through
the planning period, unless the operations of these gates were
to change.
3.5.2 Terminal Area Roadways
From the entry of the Airport to about the entry to Economy
Parking, the future terminal area roadway network will be the
same as it was in 2018 when the traffic data were collected.
Similarly, from the parking exit plaza all the way to off the
Airport, the roadway network will remain the same. What
changes with the opening of the new terminal is how the
inbound roadway (Terminal Drive) divides to serve the various
on-airport destinations, and how, once past the new terminal
curbs, garage, and rental car facilities, the several roadways
merge together before the parking exit plaza’s ramp merges in.
The future roadway configuration is presented in Chapter 1 -
Inventory of Existing Conditions, Figure 1-20.
Using the forecast volumes from Chapter 2 – Aviation Activity
Forecast, and the roadway configuration from Figure 1-20,
the traffic operations of the critical roadway locations were
analyzed, both for the base case and for the three PALs. Tech-
niques for assessing level of service were sourced from the
Highway Capacity Manual12 and ACRP Report 4013, depending
on the nature, with each level of service color coded (shown in
Table 3-38):
• Levels of service A and B are green, representing high quality
operation
• Level of service C is yellow, indicating it is the lowest level of
tolerable operation
11 Traffic to North Temple, which provides access to the eastern and northern portions of the Airport (e.g., to the cargo and general aviation areas) and to the north end
of the city, uses the single lane ramp which diverges right from the two-lane main ramp. This ramp and movement is not a concern.
12 TRB, Highway Capacity Manual, 2010, Washington, DC
13 TRB, ACRP Report 40, Airport Curbside and Terminal Area Roadway Operations, 2010, Washington, DC
3.5 LANDSIDE FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
• Level of service D is orange, representing operations which
are approaching failure
• Levels of service E and F are red, representing significant
congestion and delay or failure of the system.
Most of the roadway segments will operate well throughout
the planning period, providing levels of service A – C. Five loca-
tions are flagged for consideration for improvements which will
help them meet those standards:
• The rental car return: This operated at LOS F in 2018, with
congestion internal to the garage creating queues that
blocked the left lane of the outer curb roadway. With the
new facilities operational, a single-lane ramp will feed a
two-lane roadway across the north side of the garage, with
entrances and exits for each rental car company. The single
lane ramp will degrade in operation from LOS C to LOS D
across the planning period.
• The exit from the rental car ready/return at the ground level
of the new garage: This is being constructed as a two-lane
roadway across the north face of the garage, which narrows
down to one lane prior to merging into the two lanes of
much heavier traffic from the outer (POV) arrivals curb. By
PAL 3, it will operate at LOS E.
• Terminal Drive on the inbound approach has three critical
locations:
͛Today, and in the future, there is a significant weaving
area between the return-to-terminal ramp entering on
the left and the exit to 3700 West on the right. This
weave degrades in LOS over the planning period to
LOS D.
͛The future Terminal Drive will have a four-lane segment
downstream after the left exit to the Park’n’Wait lot.
Under 2018 traffic loads, this segment would operate
at LOS C, with further degradation to LOS E by PAL 3.
͛The next segment downstream, on the final approach
to the terminal curbs, with three lanes, includes only
the traffic for the POV curbs (upper curb at Depar-
tures, and outer curb at Arrivals). With 2018 volumes,
it would operate at LOS C, but by PAL 3, the level of
service would decrease to D.
In the development of alternatives, in conjunction with terminal
planning, these level of service issues will be addressed, and
options defined and evaluated for their amelioration.
3.5.3 Terminal Curb Roadways
The four terminal curb roadways were analyzed for their
future14 capacity and level of service for the three PALs. The
analysis utilized a spreadsheet-based model which has been
previously used at SLC in the development of the initial com-
prehensive landside improvement plan and the initial conceptu-
al and schematic design of the new terminal and its curbs. The
model simultaneously considers the capacity of a curb road-
way to service vehicles stopped to unload or load passengers
(service capacity), and the capacity of the same roadway to
move those vehicles to, along, and away from the curb (“thru”
capacity). The actual capacity of the overall curb is the equilib-
rium point between service capacity and thru capacity. Level of
service is a function of the ratio of the demand volume to the
equilibrium capacity (V/C). The target is to achieve a PHADPM
V/C < 0.70, which is the threshold of LOS C. If the curbs op-
erate no worse than this during the PHADPM, then during the
very busiest hours of the year (e.g., peak hours during Thanks-
giving or Christmas holidays), the quality of service will still be
acceptable and manageable.
The analysis requires the following data:
• Curb length
• Number of lanes
• Assigned classes of vehicles and their function (drop off, pick
up, or both)
• Volume of stopping vehicles by vehicle class (POVs, taxis,
TNCs, hotel shuttles, et al.)
• Vehicle length by vehicle class
• Average dwell time by vehicle class (duration of stopped
time for unloading and loading)
• Volume of non-stopping vehicles (typically those who are
recirculating on the arrivals curb looking for their party, or
service vehicles).
Curb lengths and lane configurations were taken from the
design plans for the ARP. Assignments were provided by SLCIA
staff, based on their currently proposed operations plan. Ve-
hicle lengths (which provide for some small maneuvering dis-
tance between vehicles) are noted from field observations. All
remaining data were those collected in June 2018, as adjusted
to reflect any proposed changes in operational characteristics.
Notably, dwell times were adjusted for certain classes of vehi-
cles which in 2018 made separate stops for drop off and pick
up, but which in the future would dwell at a single point to drop
off one passenger or group, and then wait a short time to pick
up the next. The dwell time data did reflect a continuation of
the grace period for a rematch for TNCs.
Table 3-39 presents the key data on peak hour demand
volumes, capacity, and level of service. Through PAL 2, all
curb roadways are anticipated to operate well, at LOS A or B.
By PAL 3, though, the center arrivals curb, serving TNCs and
off-airport parking shuttles, will degrade to a LOS C in the late
evening arrivals peak, and to LOS D in the midday departures
peak. With the other commercial curbs operating well during
these same conditions, a simple reassignment of the various
modes to better balance volumes on the curbs could potential-
ly achieve the targeted levels of service for all. An operational
change such as this, and other physical improvements, will be
considered in the development and evaluation of concepts.
246 247
14 No analyses were conducted of the current curb roadways as they will be completely replaced through ARP development.
Ta
b
l
e
3
-
3
8
:
F
u
t
u
r
e
T
e
r
m
i
n
a
l
A
r
e
a
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
N
a
m
e
T
y
p
e
o
f
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
F
r
e
e
F
l
o
w
S
p
e
e
d
L
a
n
e
s
Vo
l
u
m
e
s
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Te
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
PA
L
1
PA
L
2
PA
L
3
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
PA
L
1
PA
L
2
PA
L
3
1
In
b
o
u
n
d
T
e
r
m
i
n
a
l
D
r
.
u
n
i
n
t
e
r
u
p
t
e
d
f
l
o
w
1
2
4
5
-
1
3
4
5
5
0
4
2
,
3
5
0
2
,
9
2
0
3
,
2
7
0
3
,
9
8
0
B
C
C
C
a
2
O
u
t
b
o
u
n
d
T
e
r
m
i
n
a
l
D
r
.
u
n
i
n
t
e
r
u
p
t
e
d
f
l
o
w
1
3
1
5
-
1
4
1
5
5
5
3
2
.
0
5
0
2
,
5
5
0
2
,
8
6
0
3
,
4
8
0
B
B
B
C
b
3
E
x
i
t
t
o
3
7
0
0
W
r
a
m
p
0
6
0
0
-
0
7
0
0
4
0
1
5
9
0
7
3
0
8
2
0
1
,
0
0
0
B
C
D
D
a
4
E
n
t
r
a
n
c
e
t
o
P
a
r
k
‘
n
’
W
a
i
t
L
o
t
r
a
m
p
1
2
3
0
-
1
3
3
0
2
5
1
2
6
0
3
3
0
3
7
0
4
5
0
B
B
B
C
a
5
E
x
i
t
F
r
o
m
P
a
r
k
‘
n
’
W
a
i
t
L
o
t
r
a
m
p
1
2
4
5
-
1
3
4
5
2
5
1
3
1
0
3
9
0
4
3
0
5
3
0
B
B
C
C
a
6
R
e
t
u
r
n
t
o
Te
r
m
i
n
a
l
R
a
m
p
u
n
i
n
t
e
r
u
p
t
e
d
f
l
o
w
1
3
0
0
-
1
4
0
0
4
0
1
2
9
0
3
6
0
4
0
0
4
9
0
A
A
B
B
a
8
E
x
i
t
f
r
o
m
A
l
l
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
r
a
m
p
1
3
1
5
-
1
4
1
5
4
0
1
4
6
0
5
7
0
6
4
0
7
8
0
B
B
C
C
a
1
0
E
x
i
t
f
r
o
m
G
a
r
a
g
e
u
n
i
n
t
e
r
u
p
t
e
d
f
l
o
w
1
3
0
0
-
1
4
0
0
2
5
1
1
5
0
1
8
0
2
1
0
2
5
0
A
A
A
B
a
1
1
R
e
n
t
a
l
C
a
r
R
e
t
u
r
n
r
a
m
p
1
4
1
5
-
1
5
1
5
2
5
1
4
0
0
5
0
0
5
5
0
6
7
0
F
C
C
D
a
1
2
R
e
n
t
a
l
C
a
r
E
x
i
t
u
n
i
n
t
e
r
u
p
t
e
d
f
l
o
w
1
0
3
0
-
1
1
3
0
2
5
1
5
1
0
6
4
0
7
2
0
8
7
0
C
D
D
E
a
1
3
Te
r
m
i
n
a
l
C
u
r
b
A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
u
n
i
n
t
e
r
u
p
t
e
d
f
l
o
w
2
1
0
0
-
2
2
0
0
2
5
3
1
,
9
7
0
1
,
9
5
0
2
,
1
9
0
2
,
6
6
0
C
C
C
D
a
1
4
Te
r
m
i
n
a
l
A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
u
n
i
n
t
e
r
u
p
t
e
d
f
l
o
w
1
2
4
5
-
1
3
4
5
3
0
4
2
,
2
3
0
2
,
7
7
0
3
,
1
0
0
3
,
7
7
0
C
C
D
E
a
N
/
A
In
b
o
u
n
d
W
e
a
v
e
w
e
a
v
e
1
2
4
5
-
1
3
4
5
4
0
5
2
,
7
2
0
3
,
3
9
0
3
,
7
8
0
4
,
6
1
0
B
C
C
D
c
Te
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
:
(
a
)
A
C
R
P
R
e
p
o
r
t
4
0
,
T
a
b
l
e
4
-
1
,
(
b
)
2
0
1
0
H
C
M
,
E
x
h
.
1
1
-
6
,
(
c
)
A
C
R
P
R
e
p
o
r
t
4
0
,
Q
A
T
A
R
a
i
r
p
o
r
t
w
e
a
v
e
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
.
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
C
u
r
t
i
s
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
L
L
C
;
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
b
y
R
S
&
H
,
2
0
1
9
There is one relevant caveat to the results in Table 3-39. The
curb lengths used in the analysis are based on the CAD draw-
ings of the facilities which are under construction. The nominal
length of all but the center arrivals curb is roughly 1,000 feet;
the center arrivals curb is 760 feet long. However, the terminal
itself is only about 590 feet long. At the departures level, there
typically is the greatest relationship between where a driver
stops to drop off a passenger and what is happening inside the
terminal (where the doors, ticket counters, bag check stations,
and security screening checkpoint are located). Drivers look to
stop in front of where their passenger is going. On this curb,
though, more than 40 percent of its length will not be adjacent
to anything in the terminal, implying the need for increased
walking distances, passenger/driver disorientation, and the
likely chance that the driver will choose to wait in front of the
terminal for a space to become available, rather than drop off
from a location that is perceived as being far away. As noted,
the curb length was not assumed to be reduced to reflect the
idea that many will not take full advantage of its length. But
clearly, there is a need to reconsider such impacts as concepts
are developed and evaluated to ensure the desired level of
service is provided to the users.
3.5.4 Commercial Vehicle Staging Areas
The new landside that will open with the new terminal includes
commercial vehicle staging areas upstream of the two at-
grade curbs to be used by the all ground transportation modes
except the TNCs. These include 30 spaces for the taxi queue,
and 83 other pull-through stalls for use by the various shuttles
and buses.
248 249
Table 3-39: Future Terminal Curb Volumes, Capacity, and Level of Service
Year &
Condition Curb Stopping
Volume
Thru
Volume
Balanced
Capacity V/C LOS
PAL 1
Departure Peak
(Midday)
Departures 774 60 1,993 0.40 A
Inner Arrivals 137 0 724 0.19 A
Center Arrivals 291 0 477 0.61 B
Outer Arrivals N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
PAL 1
Arrivals Peak
(Late Evening)
Departures N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Inner Arrivals 166 0 744 0.22 A
Center Arrivals 254 0 477 0.53 A
Outer Arrivals 831 120 1,775 0.49 A
Year &
Condition Curb Stopping
Volume
Thru
Volume
Balanced
Capacity V/C LOS
PAL 2
Departure Peak
(Midday)
Departures 868 60 1,993 0.44 A
Inner Arrivals 153 0 724 0.21 A
Center Arrivals 326 0 477 0.68 B
Outer Arrivals N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
PAL 12
Arrivals Peak
(Late Evening)
Departures N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Inner Arrivals 186 0 744 0.25 A
Center Arrivals 285 0 477 0.60 B
Outer Arrivals 934 120 1,775 0.54 A
Year &
Condition Curb Stopping
Volume
Thru
Volume
Balanced
Capacity V/C LOS
PAL 3
Departure Peak
(Midday)
Departures 1,055 60 1,993 0.54 A
Inner Arrivals 186 0 724 0.26 A
Center Arrivals 397 0 477 0.83 D
Outer Arrivals N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
PAL 3
Arrivals Peak
(Late Evening)
Departures N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Inner Arrivals 226 0 744 0.30 A
Center Arrivals 346 0 477 0.73 A
Outer Arrivals 1,134 120 1,775 0.66 A
Source: Curtis Transportation Consulting LLC; Prepared by RS&H, 2019
For on-demand modes (taxi, limo, certain shuttles), staging
areas need to be able to provide the necessary number of wait-
ing vehicles such that passengers coming to the curb do not
have to wait for service. For the services which run on a sched-
ule, to encourage efficient operations, operators like to mini-
mize lost time sitting in a staging area. Thus, such vehicles tend
to wait no more than one headway if the headways are small (<
30 minutes), and if the headways are longer, they tend to wait
no more than 30 minutes. The requirements were therefore
calculated with an assumption that the mean wait time across
all modes (except taxis) was 20 minutes. The requirements are
highly sensitive to this assumption, which in turn is related to
the final set of fees to be charged and other operational poli-
cies and practices which have yet to be determined.
The SLCDA intends to create a geo-fenced area that would be
the only place a TNC would be able to receive and accept a call
for service15. The location of this geo-fenced area has not yet
been determined. The requirements for the geo-fenced area
assume that a third of the TNCs would accept a re-check, with
the balance of the vehicles to be provided from a geo-fenced
staging area in which the mean wait time would be 10 minutes.
The collective requirements for commercial vehicle staging are
shown in Table 3-40. Whether these requirements will be met
within the staging areas just upstream from the terminal curb
or in other locations as well (i.e., for TNCs) will be examined in
the development and evaluation of concepts.
3.5.5 Parking Requirements
Parking requirements reflect an airport’s goals and policies
regarding how well to serve the public relative to providing
readily available parking. In the U.S. there are two logical and
commonly used ways to decide how much parking an airport
wants to provide:
• To provide enough parking that no customer is ever turned
away from the lot, even on the busiest hour of the busiest
time of the year.
• To provide enough parking based on a quality-of-service
standard which is defined by the difficulty of finding a space
in the peak hours of parking demand. For surface lots typ-
ically used for long-term parking, the rule of thumb is that
when the lot is 90 percent occupied, the difficulty of tracking
down an available space suggests that the lot is “effectively
full”. For garage parking, where the driver seeking a space
must go up or down between levels, the rule of thumb is that
80 – 85 percent occupied is “effectively full”. The lower end
of this range is typically applied to garage areas with hourly
or short-term parking; the upper end applies more to garag-
es which serve daily or multi-day parking.
Based on discussions with airport staff and the parking op-
erator, the following criteria were established as setting the
requirements for public parking:
• The target for both garage and economy parking is to pro-
vide enough spaces to accommodate the 99th percentile
of demand at the effectively full level, meaning that enough
spaces are provided to meet nearly all demand at the effec-
tively full level.
• For the Economy lot and Employee lots, effectively full
is defined as when 90 percent of available spaces are
occupied.
• For the Parking garage, effectively full is defined as when 83
percent of available spaces are occupied.
The public parking requirements are shown in Table 3-41. To
meet future needs in PAL 3, the public parking in the terminal
campus needs to increase from a total of 14,063 spaces to
a total of 20,815, an increase of 6,752 spaces (48 percent
increase). This need assumes that there will be no required
closures of the parking garage to redirect traffic to a dedicated
long-term parking facility.
The economy lot and garage parking have their own specific
entrances but share an exit plaza. Customer transaction times
were sampled for both parking entry locations and the parking
exit plaza. Entry transactions for both locations averaged 14
seconds, equivalent to 257 vehicle entries per hour. Exit plaza
transaction times varied by type, with cashier lane transactions
averaging 40 seconds (90 vehicles per hour) and automated
lane transactions averaging 36 seconds (100 vehicles per
hour), Table 3-42 shows peak hour volumes at the economy
lot and garage lot entrances, associated number of required
lanes, and the expected length and time of queues. Table 3-43
shows peak hour volumes, lane requirements, and expected
queue length and times at the parking exit plaza by transaction
type.
Requirements for the Park’n’Wait lot are shown in Table 3-44.
Using the combined capacity of the Park’n’Wait lot and the
Service Center, no deficiencies occur over the planning period.
This is because Service Center users make use of Park’n’Wait
spaces during peak hour demand.
15 TNCs would also be able to accept a call for service on the center arrivals curb with the continuation of a five-minute grace period for re-check.
250 251
Table 3-41: Economy Lot and Garage Parking Facility Requirements
Base Year 2018 PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3
Economy Lot
Space Count 10,463 10,463 10,463 10,463
Effective Capacity 9,417 9,417 9,417 9,417
PHADPM Demand 9,771 11,366 12,893 15,238
Required Spaces 10,857 12,629 14,326 16,931
Surplus/(Deficit)(394)(2,166)(3,863)(6,468)
Parking Garage
Space Count 1,770 3,600 3,600 3,600
Effective Capacity 1,469 2,988 2,988 2,988
PHADPM Unconstrained Demand 1,903 2,367 2,652 3,224
Required Spaces 2,293 2,851 3,195 3,884
Surplus/(Deficit)(523)749 405 (284)
Total System Required Spaces 13,149 15,480 17,521 20,815
Total System Surplus/(Deficit)(916)(1,417)(3,458)(6,752)
Source: Curtis Transportation Consulting LLC; Prepared by RS&H, 2019
Table 3-40: Commercial Vehicle Staging Area Requirements
Base Year 2018 PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3
Mode
Taxi 16 20 22 27
TNC 25 31 35 43
All Others 42 52 58 71
Total 83 103 115 141
Source: Curtis Transportation Consulting LLC; Prepared by RS&H, 2019
Table 3-42: Public Parking Entry Plaza Requirements
2018 PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3
PH
Volume Lanes PH
Volume Lanes PH
Volume Lanes PH
Volume Lanes
Economy Entry
Forecast Hourly Volume 560
3
690
4
780
4
940
5Effective Hourly Volume 659 812 918 1106
Exp Queue Length 4.3 2.2 6.5 4.2
Time in Queue (sec)24 10 25 14
Garage Entry
Forecast Hourly Volume 270
3
330
3
370
3
450
3Effective Hourly Volume 333 407 457 556
Exp Queue Length 0.1 0.3 0.5 1.4
Time in Queue (sec)1 2 4 9
Source: Curtis Transportation Consulting LLC; Prepared by RS&H, 2019
Table 3-43: Public Parking Exit Plaza Requirements
2018 PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3
PH
Volume Lanes PH
Volume Lanes PH
Volume Lanes PH
Volume Lanes
Cashier
Forecast Hourly Volume 178
3
220
4
247
4
301
5Effective Hourly Volume 197 224 274 335
Exp Queue Length 1.4 0.8 1.7 1.3
Time in Queue (sec)26 12 22 14
Automated
Forecast Hourly Volume 282
8
350
7
393
7
479
6Effective Hourly Volume 314 389 437 532
Exp Queue Length 0 0.2 0.3 5.5
Time in Queue (sec)0 1 2 37
Total
Forecast Hourly Volume 460 570 640 780
Effective Hourly Volume 511 633 711 867
Exisiting Lanes 12 12 12 12
Required Lanes 11 11 11 11
Surplus/(Deficit)1 1 1 1
Source: Curtis Transportation Consulting LLC; Prepared by RS&H, 2019
Table 3-44: Park ‘N’ Wait Lot Requirements
Base Year 2018 PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3
Park ‘n’ Wait Lot Capacity 131 131 131 131
PH Park ‘n’ Wait Demand 56 70 78 95
PH Surplus/(Deficit)75 61 53 36
Service Center Capacity 31 31 31 31
PH Service Center Demand 34 42 47 58
PH Surplus/(Deficit)(3)(11)(16)(27)
Total Surplus/(Deficit)72 50 37 9
Source: Curtis Transportation Consulting LLC; Prepared by RS&H, 2019
3.5.6 Rental Car Requirements
The sizing of rental car facilities is an exercise in balancing the
cost of the physical plant with the costs of operating out of
that physical plant over its lifetime. If the facilities are larger,
then capital costs are higher, but fewer staff are needed to
keep customers supplied with cars. The converse is also true.
Under-sized facilities can significantly increase the cost of staff
needed to move cars from storage to waiting customers. There
are no accepted industry standards, and planners and designers
of rental car facilities in the United States have used a variety
of methods to estimate facility requirements.
The requirement for physical space to store cars is best viewed
in the aggregate. The ready-return lot is not the only location
where cars are stored, but it is the only one with direct cus-
tomer access to the waiting vehicle. At SLCIA, cars are stored
on-airport above the QTA, as well as in proprietary lots off-air-
port. In this analysis, the ready-return lot requirement was first
estimated. Then the on-airport storage requirement was esti-
mated, linking it with the scale of the required ready-return lot.
Service areas were estimated independently. All requirements
are for the on-airport companies in the aggregate.
A measure of the efficiency of the ready-return spaces is the
number of times per day a space needs to have a car moved
into it in order to meet demand. This is referred to as “turns
per day.” In the current facility, the industry experiences 6.6
turns per day overall, though some companies reported turning
their spaces as many as 10 times per day. This is very high,
above the experience at most large U.S. airports, and well
above the number of turns per day the rental car companies
prefer. Companies tend to look for 3 or fewer turns per day as
representing a minimization of their staffing, while more than 4
turns per day brings them into the territory of increasing costs,
and thus decreasing margins. For some companies, the turns
per day in SLC are the highest at any U.S. airport.
The planning of the SLCIA landside system included a program
review in 2007. That effort forecasted the need for ready-re-
turn spaces which would evolve over 20 years from 2.9 turns
per day to 4.8 turns per day. The planning of other large airport
consolidated rental car facilities used values of 3.116turns per
day to 3.8 turns per day17 to size ready-return spaces. Feed-
back from current SLC rental car station managers suggested
that 4.3 turns per day would greatly improve their operations.
From these varying approaches, requirements for ready-return
spaces were developed using 4.0 turns per day as the target
that balanced customer satisfaction (with low wait times), cap-
ital cost, and rental car staffing operating costs. Those require-
ments are shown in Table 3-46.
Ideally, all rental cars would be stored on airport, near the cus-
tomer, to minimize/eliminate wait times. Given the competition
for land at the terminal campus, that is not feasible. Nonethe-
less, with approximately 900 storage spaces above the QTA,
some companies deploy as many as 50 staff on the busy rental
day (Monday) to shuttle cars from off-airport lots as much as
20 minutes away. Their customers can end up waiting an hour
or more for a car. Clearly, more on-airport spaces are required.
Rental car storage requirements are based on providing ade-
quate availability of cars for customers without requiring exten-
sive waits for a vehicle. August 2018 data (factored from June
2018 vehicle counts) showed that available cars located at
ready-return and the QTA storage area began to falter around
9am Monday morning as rental car companies were required
to shuttle in vehicles from storage sites other than the QTA
storage deck. This trend continued through Friday when more
cars began to return, and vehicles began to require shuttling
off-airport for weekend storage. Using weekly average rental
car availability deficits derived from average daily deficits, the
spaces required to meet average demand levels was deter-
mined, as shown in Table 3-46.
The requirements for the number of service positions in the
QTA are based upon the idea that the surplus of cars returned
over the weekend all need to be ready by the start of the peak
Monday rental day. The analysis reflected several key assump-
tions:
• Each position can process five cars per hour
• Each position would be operated 12 hours per day
• The targeted utilization would be 80 percent. The estimated
utilization of the current 62-position facility is 88 percent,
which can lead to queuing of dirty cars and cars between
fuel/vacuum and the wash racks.
The results of the QTA analysis are provided in Table 3-46.
As with other landside facilities, there are trade-offs between
physical plant and operating practices. In the case of the QTA,
the number of service positions required would decrease to
75 percent of the value in Table 3-46 if the QTA were operat-
ed for 16 hours per day rather than the assumed 12 hours
per day.
Immediately south of the QTA building is the Remote Service
Site (RSS), the rental car maintenance and repair area. The
area occupies approximately 11.5 acres, of which 1.8 acres is
occupied by three maintenance buildings, and the rest is paved
lot for storage and maneuvering of rental cars, and/or parking
of employee and visitor vehicles. In the aggregate over the
industry, the area can hold an estimated 1,468 cars. The area is
252 253
The requirements shown in Table 3-44 assumed that the
Park’n’Wait lot remains in its current location, and would
continue to serve some of the customers of the convenience
center. Observations and feedback from users and staff
indicate that the relocation of the lot decreased its utilization.
Comments from customers indicated that the lot is hard to
find, not well signed, and it is hard to get from the lot to the
terminal. If the lot were to be relocated, perhaps to near where
it used to be (off to the right of Terminal Drive after the exit for
3700 West), demand might increase. However, since a relocat-
ed lot would not share usage with the convenience center, the
requirements in Table 3-44 stand as a reasonable estimate.
Employee parking requirements are shown in Table 3-45. Peak
hour deficits already exist in the base year and into PAL 1. Fu-
ture ARP changes in employee parking reduce overall deficien-
cy in PAL 2. However, employee parking deficiencies increase
again by PAL 3.
16 3.1 turns per day rental car planning metric used at Charlotte Douglas International Airport (CLT).
17 3.8 turns per day rental car planning metric used at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP).
Table 3-45: Employee Parking Lot Requirements
Base Year 2018 PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3
Employee Lot
Capacity 2,950 2,950 2,950 2,950
Demand 2,708 2,925 3,168 3,826
Percent Occupied 92%99%107%130%
Surplus/(Deficit)242 25 (218)(876)
Additional Employee Lots
Capacity1 250 0 780 780
Demand 215 232 252 304
Percent Occupied 86%0%32%39%
Surplus/(Deficit)35 (232)528 476
Total System Required Spaces 2,923 3,157 3,420 4,130
Total System Surplus/(Deficit)277 (207)310 (400)
Total Required Spaces 3,248 3,508 3,800 4,589
Requires Spaces Surplus/(Deficit)(48)(558)(70)(859)
Note: (1) Lot 3 closes by PAL 1 .Two lots east of garage and QTA assumed to open in PAL 2.
Source: RS&H and Curtis Transportation Consulting LLC, 2019
3.5.7 Off-Airport Parking
The first off-airport parking operation began in 1989. A second
operation began in 1991, and the third started in 2018. Col-
lectively, they offer several thousand surface spaces (some cov-
ered) within 5 to 10 minutes of the terminal curb. They offer
trunk-to-door service, which some passengers find attractive,
and they tend to price their product below on-airport rates.
Undoubtedly, they have siphoned off demand for parking which
otherwise SLCIA might serve in their own facilities. Unfortu-
nately, data are not available to provide the scale of the impact
of these operations.
The parking requirements in Table 3-41 are all based on these
operations continuing through the planning period, neither
gaining nor losing market share. Stated otherwise, they as-
sume the airport’s parking products will continue to compete
successfully for the passengers who prefer on-airport parking,
providing those passengers with the right combination of price,
location (convenience), and availability, relative to the off-air-
port operators.
The SLCDA may choose to challenge the off-airport provid-
ers, by increasing on-airport availability, lowering prices, and/
or providing higher customer utility (closer locations, trunk-
to-door service, amenities, etc.). In doing so, of course, the
requirements for on-airport parking would commensurately
increase.
Changes to the relative attractiveness of on-airport parking can
best be considered in this Master Plan within the development
and evaluation of concepts for meeting the requirements and
satisfaction of Airport objectives. Any such moves could have
significant financial implications, all of which will be considered
in concept development and evaluation.
3.5.7.1 Potential Impacts of True Hourly Parking
With two-thirds of all garage parkers parking for less than 90
minutes, and three-quarters parking for under 3.5 hours, it
is reasonable to consider whether the spaces in the garage
should be developed in part to provide very convenient spaces
for the exclusive use of those who are parking for only a few
hours. Many airports provide their most convenient parking
as Hourly Parking, with an upper limit of permitted time being
typically in the 2 to 4-hour range. If a special ticket is pulled
to access these spaces, then enforcement is accomplished
through very aggressive prices for those who stay over the lim-
it. Where a common ticket is pulled for all spaces in the garage,
enforcement is required, with violations being issued, requiring
special fines to be paid for overstaying the limit. Airports such
as Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport (DFW), which has
reserved the front row of all its garages for hourly parking since
1974, find that strong signing and friendly but firm enforce-
ment lead to very little effort in the way of issuing violations.
254 255
secure and divided into seven parcels of varying size from one
to nearly two acres. The parcels are allocated similarly to how
QTA and ready-return spaces are allocated.
The rental car station managers report that the RSS is very
heavily used, and undersized for current (2018) operations.
Their estimates of additional required spaces for car storage
range from 500 to 750 spaces needed, and from four to six
service bays short. With additional forecast passenger growth,
the range by PAL3 for additional spaces needed range from a
100 to 140 percent increase in spaces, or an additional 1,600
– 2,000 spaces. This would be result in a Remote Service Site
of from 24 – 27 acres. The high and low forecasts of require-
ments are shown in Table 3-47. Whether the high or low
estimate is closer to the mark remains to be seen, but in either
case, it represents a significant increase in the total area re-
quired for efficient rental car operations, all of which are desir-
ably contiguous to one another. Thus, rental car requirements
compete significantly with public parking for space within the
terminal loop roadway.
The implications on parking requirements are somewhat less
clear than the desirable impacts of making this change. Today,
two issues constrain the availability of garage parking for short-
term customers:
• Level 2 permits parking of any duration that does not include
an overnight stay. These are the most convenient spaces,
too, being at the pedestrian bridge level. Consequently,
day-tripping flyers, most of them on business, can park
on Level 2, catch an early flight out, a late flight back, and
not park overnight. When short-term parkers come to the
airport any time after 8 or 9am, they find many of the spaces
on Level 2 already filled by day-tripping travelers.
• Overnight parkers are actively turned away by operations
staff when the garage approaches maximum capacity. As
upper garage Levels 3 and 4 fill, some longer-term parkers
begin to overflow into the short-term area (Level 2) which
further decreases hourly parking availability.
With true hourly parking, sized correctly, not only would the
closures not happen, but the level of service provided the cus-
tomers would greatly increase. This is because the air traveler
who garage parks is typically 1.4 to 1.6 people per vehicle, or
roughly 3 person trips between garage and terminal. When a
meeter-greeter or well-wisher parks, the number of person
trips between garage and terminal goes up, as the size of the
air travel party (1.5 people on average) is more than doubled
by the number of visitors sending them off or greeting them
upon return. In addition, the visiting customer will make two
trips, one for departure, one for arrival. Thus, an hourly space
generates nearly five times the number of person trips be-
tween garage and terminal as a regular garage space. Providing
this much higher number of people with the closest spaces
greatly improves overall quality of service at the airport for the
greatest number of customers.
The potential for true hourly parking spaces will be dealt with
in detail in the development and evaluation of concepts. In gen-
eral, since true hourly spaces turn over 5 to 10 times per day,
it is not necessary to provide that many hourly spaces to meet
demand. This drops the overall parking space requirement
slightly from the values identified in this section. The implica-
tions of that decrease will be examined in concept develop-
ment and evaluation.
3.5.7.2 Impacts of TNCs on Landside Facilities
Transportation Network Companies (e.g., Lyft, Uber) began
service to SLCIA in the Fall of 2015. Their self-reported trips
had grown to over 100,000 monthly by the summer of 2018.
What is not known is whether the market has been saturat-
ed, and whether their growth will level off or continue to gain
market share. They have chiefly taken market share from other
for-hire modes, predominantly taxi and shared-ride shuttles.
Table 3-46: Rental Car Facility Requirements
August 2018 PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3
Ready-Return Spaces
Rentals, Busy Day, Peak Month 4,620 5,750 6,440 7,830
Turns per Day 4 4 4 4
Ready-Return Spaces Required 1,155 1,438 1,610 1,958
Available Spaces 699 1,122 1,122 1,122
Surplus/(Deficit)(456)(316)(488)(836)
Rental Car Storage
Total On-Airport Storage Required 2,213 2,095 2,574 3,005
Available Storage at Ready-Return 699 1,122 1,122 1,122
Available Storage Above QTA 900 900 900 900
Surplus/(Deficit)(614)(73)(552)(983)
QTA Positions
Total Returns (Thu-Sun) to be Ready Monday AM 14,033 17,453 19,557 23,776
Required QTA Positions 68 84 94 115
Available Positions 62 62 62 62
Surplus/(Deficit)(6)(22)(32)(53)
Source: Curtis Transportation Consulting LLC; Prepared by RS&H, 2019
Table 3-47: Rental Car Maintenance and Repair Area Requirements
Item Actual
Aug ‘18
Low Estimate High Estimate
Aug ‘18 PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3 Aug ‘18 PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3
Storage
Spaces 1,468 1,968 2,289 2,597 3,069 2,218 2,580 2,927 3,459
Square Fee (sf)366,490 492,000 572,306 649,211 767,265 554,500 645,008 731,682 864,733
Buildings/parking (sf)78,000 91,000 105,853 120,078 141,913 97,500 113,414 128,655 152,050
Circulation/misc. (sf)60,810 81,620 94,942 107,700 127,285 91,280 106,179 120,447 142,350
Total Square Feet 505,300 664,620 773,102 876,989 1,036,463 743,280 864,601 980,784 1,159,132
Total Acres 11.6 15.3 17.7 20.1 23.8 17.1 19.8 22.5 26.2
Source: Curtis Transportation Consulting LLC; Prepared by RS&H, 2019
The available data were analyzed to see if there have been
impacts of TNCs that have affected parking at the airport, and
rental cars. Using the TSA counts of O-D passengers (on a
monthly basis) passing through the security screening check-
points (SSCP), the month-over-month growth rates were
examined and compared with the month-over-month growth
rates for three indices: parking revenues, parking transactions,
and rental car revenues. The results are shown in Table 3-48.
The green highlighted cells are months in which the growth
of a landside index was higher than the growth of the O-D
passenger count. Overall, the number of parking transactions
more than kept pace with O-D passenger growth for the 19
months for which data were available. Parking revenues gener-
ally did not keep pace with passenger growth. One interpreta-
tion is that the number of short-term parkers (meeter-greet-
ers, well-wishers, and visitors) is increasing, but not parkers
who stay for longer periods and drive up mean revenues per
transaction. But any impact of TNCs on these data can only be
speculative.
Rental car revenues, for the first 13 months of data, grew
faster than O-D passengers in 12 of the 13 months. In the final
six months, rental car revenues have fallen behind. During that
same period, there was a 20 percent increase in TNC trips
to/from the airport, but again, it is unclear whether the TNC
growth came from taking market share from the rental car
companies.
Absent clearer indications of impacts by the TNCs on parking
and rental cars, the requirements in this section remain as pro-
vided, but open for discussion with the SLCDA in terms of how
best to consider them as the Master Plan moves into alterna-
tive concept development and evaluation.
3.5.8 Landside Facility Requirement Summary
The following is a brief summary of landside facility require-
ment conclusions.
3.5.8.1 Roadway Facility Requirements Summary
Terminal Area Roadways – Five locations are flagged for con-
sideration for improvements which will help SLCDA meet LOS
standards (Reference Table 3-38):
• The future rental car return ramp.
• The future exit from the rental car ready/return at the
ground level of the new garage.
• Terminal Drive on the inbound approach has three critical
locations:
͛Current and future weaving area between the re-
turn-to-terminal ramp entering on the left and the exit
to 3700 West on the right
͛The future four-lane segment downstream of the left
exit to the Park’n’Wait lot.
͛The future final approach to the terminal curbs (three
lanes) serving only the traffic for the POV curbs (upper
curb at Departures, and outer curb at Arrivals).
Terminal Curb Roadways – By PAL 3 the center arrivals curb
serving TNCs and off-airport parking shuttles will degrade to
a LOS C during the late evening arrivals peak, and to LOS D
during the midday departures peak. With other commercial
curbs operating well during these same conditions, reassign-
ment of the various modes to better balance volumes on the
curbs may achieve the targeted levels of service for all. (Refer-
ence Table 3-39)
3.5.8.2 Parking Facility Requirement Summary
Public Parking – To meet future needs in PAL 3, public park-
ing in the terminal campus needs to increase from a total of
14,063 spaces to a total of 20,120, an increase of 6,057 spac-
es. This need assumes that there will be no required closures
of the parking garage to redirect traffic to a dedicated long-
term parking facility. (Reference Table 3-41)
Employee Parking – Peak hour deficits occur in PAL 2 as the
main employee lot begins to exceed capacity. (Reference Table
3-45)
3.5.8.3 Rental Car Facility Requirements Summary
Rental Car Ready Return – Ready-return spaces were deter-
mined using 4.0 turns per day as the target that balanced cus-
tomer satisfaction (low wait times), capital cost, and rental car
staffing operating costs. These spaces are currently deficient
and remain so throughout the planning period under future
facility conditions. (Reference Table 3-46)
Rental Car Storage - Rental car storage requirements are
based on providing adequate availability of cars for customers
without requiring extensive waits for a vehicle. Using weekly
average rental car availability deficits derived from average
daily deficits, the spaces required to meet average demand
levels was determined to be deficient throughout the planning
period. (Reference Table 3-46)
Rental Car QTA – The number of service positions required
in the QTA are based upon the idea that the surplus of cars
returned over the weekend all need to be ready by the start
of the peak Monday rental day. QTA service positions are, and
remain deficient, throughout the planning period. In the case
of the QTA, the number of service positions required would
decrease to 75 percent of the value in Table 3-46 if the QTA
were operated for 16 rather than 12 hours per day.
256 257
Table 3-48: Growth in O-D Passengers Compared with Growth in Landside Indices
Period O-D Passenger
Volume at SSCP
Growth Ratio in a Year
Parking
Revenue
Parking
Transactions
Rental Car
Revenue
Oct-15 - Oct-16 1.082 1.056 0.963 1.111
Nov-15 - Nov-16 1.095 1.000 1.157 1.131
Dec-15 - Dec-16 1.101 0.975 0.924 1.193
Jan-16 - Jan-17 1.124 1.175 0.967 1.184
Feb-16 - Feb-17 1.065 0.893 1.289 1.140
Mar-16 - Mar-17 1.132 0.980 1.082 1.229
Apr-16 - Apr-17 1.138 1.005 1.200 1.181
May-16 - May-17 1.109 1.099 1.206 1.148
Jun-16 - Jun-17 1.067 1.022 1.120 1.094
Jul-16 - Jul-17 1.110 1.178 1.153 1.164
Aug-16 - Aug-17 1.090 0.918 1.154 1.182
Sep-16 - Sep-17 1.063 1.034 1.162 1.083
Oct-16 -Oct-17 1.073 1.106 1.222 1.063
Nov-16 - Nov-17 1.093 1.014 1.149 1.133
Dec-16 - Dec-17 1.043 0.977 1.192 1.042
Jan-17 - Jan-18 1.032 1.025 1.242 0.919
Feb-17 - Feb-18 1.060 1.098 1.210 0.989
Mar-17 - Mar-18 1.048 0.984 1.196 1.014
Apr-17 - Apr-18 1.084 1.128 1.184 1.063
May-17 - May-18 1.079 0.976 1.187 1.066
Techniques: (a) ACRP Report 40, Table 4-1, (b) 2010 HCM, Exh. 11-6, (c) ACRP Report 40, QATAR airport weave analysis.
Source: Curtis Transportation Consulting LLC; Prepared by RS&H, 2019
This portion of the Facility Requirements chapter addresses air
cargo requirements for both passenger aircraft that also carry
cargo and mail or “belly cargo” and air cargo and mail carried
by the dedicated air cargo airlines through the 20-year master
plan time frame.
Dedicated air cargo airlines at SLC include integrated carriers,
freighters, and e-commerce transportation providers. FedEx,
UPS, and to some extent DHL are integrated carriers that pro-
vide the full range of logistic services, not just transportation.
Freighters are airlines that are dedicated to carrying only cargo
and do not operate as frequently, such as Atlas, or are other
airlines operating on-demand services. E-commerce trans-
portation are customer-focused shippers that provide trans-
portation; these airlines are continuing to emerge and include
Amazon.
E-commerce is accelerating quickly and has become an
increasingly important part of global trade. Over two billion
consumers will be regularly shopping online, completing ap-
proximately 13.5% of total retail consumption.18 E-commerce
is forecasted to ultimately drive a change in the air freight
industry and require airlines to consider where air freight
hubs can expand as “availability in existing logistics buildings
at mature cargo hubs19 are at historic lows.20 SLC is one of
twelve airports that is “well-suited to capitalize on this global
cargo boom, provide authorities take proper action today to
invest in required infrastructure.21 ”It is important to note that
“historically e-commerce orders have overwhelmingly flowed
from Asia into the US and other western nations. The boom in
cross-border e-commerce is rebalancing these flows whereby
more goods that originate in the West are flowing into Asia”.22
Customer-focused shippers like Amazon are developing both
sortation and fulfillment facilities on airports. This is having an
impact on leasehold areas, building sizes, landside, and securi-
ty23 requirements. Recently, Amazon opened a new 855,000
square foot customer fulfillment center adjacent to SLC24.
While there are no plans to connect the fulfillment center with
the Airport, SLC should be prepared to address either through
direct connections or a standalone Amazon facility. Already,
Amazon Air is flying to 20 destinations across the U.S. using
B-767 and B-737 aircraft and operated by ABX Air, Atlas Air,
Air Transport Services Group, and Southern Air.25
At this time, SLC is primarily serviced by integrators but there
are also occasional freighter and e-commerce operations. Fa-
cility requirements are identified for the two largest integrated
carriers, FedEx and UPS. All other air cargo integrators, freight-
ers, and e-commerce operators are combined in “dedicated air
cargo carriers”.
3.6.1 Background
These facility requirements address combination carriers and
dedicated air cargo carriers. Different approaches are taken for
each since the two function differently. Passenger airlines carry
belly cargo and mail as part of their overall revenue strategy
but it is not their main function whereas air cargo handling is
the major function of the dedicated air cargo carriers. For ded-
icated air cargo airlines, the customers criteria is for delivery of
parcels by a specified time with no regard for routes, type of
aircraft, etc.
Mail is carried by both passenger and dedicated air cargo air-
lines. SLCDA tracks mail statistics separately by weight but not
by airline. However, statistics by airline for cargo does include
mail poundage. Therefore, air cargo tonnage forecasts do ac-
count for mail but does not separate it from cargo.
Air cargo facility requirements summarizes the estimated
facilities necessary to meet forecasted demand levels through
the 20-year planning period for: cargo warehousing building;
aircraft parking and maneuvering areas; storage for containers
and GSE equipment; truck docks and truck dock maneuvering
areas; and, vehicular parking.
Maneuvering areas refer to pavement that is used for posi-
tioning aircraft on the apron or trucks at a truck dock plus the
pavement associated with circulation and movement. For air-
craft, this includes taxilanes and the area extending out to the
Taxilane Obstacle Free Areas (TOFA). For trucks, this includes
truck vehicular lanes, service roads, and maneuvering areas.
Where practices by particular airlines are unique to that carrier,
modifications of general industry-wide criteria are made. The
best example is UPS. From interviews with UPS, the carrier has
a practice to minimize space at airports and move as much car-
go from off-site warehouses as it can. UPS sorts air cargo both
on the air cargo apron as well as on the pavement adjacent
to the truck docks. While aviation air cargo forecasts indicate
significant future growth for UPS, the carrier indicates it does
not have plans to expand the warehouse facility on-site. At the
same time, UPS does plan to move containers currently stored
on-site to the off-site facility, opening up additional pavement
for sortation on the pavement.
Therefore, planning criteria use for air cargo are based in part
on interviews with stakeholders, common industry practices,
and general practices of specific airlines at SLC.
3.6.2 Planning Criteria
Aviation industry planning standards for air cargo facilities are
adhered to wherever possible but also take into consideration
interviews with tenants and presumed continuation of practic-
es particular to an airline.
3.6.2.1 Cargo Buildings
Forecasts consider different characteristics for cargo buildings,
passenger carriers and dedicated air cargo carriers since they
are entirely different functions. Building needs will be ad-
dressed in terms of building square footage.
Most often air cargo facility capacity is measured through the
amount of air cargo handled per square foot. Most studies
indicate air cargo facilities that operate at approximately one
metric ton of cargo per square foot of building are the best
balanced. Major cargo airports including Los Angeles Interna-
tional Airport and Hong Kong International Airport can exceed
this level of capacity through greater efficiency. At SLC, FedEx
operates at 1.46 tons of cargo per square foot of building.
Smaller airports that do not have specialized cargo equipment
or have older or repurposed buildings have much lower utiliza-
tion, as low as 0.4 tons per square foot. This is also true of belly
cargo facilities of passenger airlines where cargo handling is an
important but secondary function.
For belly cargo, Table 8-2 of the 2015 Report identified a
range of 0.22-0.63 tons per square feet.26 This may be function
of the passenger airlines having cargo buildings that date from
the 1970s or 1980s to match demand at that time. At SLC,
this is the case regarding belly cargo facilities. Airlines have car-
go space in multiple buildings. As a result, the facility require-
ment indicates a surplus of space but that surplus of space is
not indicative of the large number of airlines, each needing
separate belly cargo areas for its particular use.
However, there was a period when the average aircraft size
went down and passenger airlines could not carry as much car-
go. FedEx and UPS picked up the demand. Today, TSA screen-
ing requirements have suppressed demand for the combination
carrier. Such low capacity ratios may be more an issue that the
passenger carriers are just operating with buildings that are too
large and it is not economical to alter them.
Replacement of older facilities for belly cargo at major interna-
tional gateway airports like Los Angeles International or John
F. Kennedy International is a consideration. As a result of the
significant number of wide body passenger aircraft opera-
tions, belly cargo is a much bigger business. At this time, this
is not an important issue for SLCDA but could be considered
an emerging issue for consideration toward the end of the
20-year master plan time frame. If Delta’s announced plans
to begin non-stop operations to Asia materialize and result in
greater success than anticipated, there may be opportunities
for substantial belly cargo growth at SLC.
At SLC, each of the facilities were evaluated in terms of how
they compare to these ratios. For belly cargo, Delta operates at
0.45 tons per square foot which is within the range anticipat-
ed. The 0.45 tons per square foot factor was applied to Delta
forecasts and other belly cargo facilities at SLC. Interviews with
Delta indicate they soon will need additional building space.
While both UPS and FedEx operate well beyond the 1.0 tons
per square foot general capacity ratio, each carrier approaches
their facilities differently. More recently, a higher capacity ratio
of 1.25 tons per square foot has been used and better reflects
the nature of today’s air carrier carriers. This criteria will be
used for air cargo building facility requirements.
258 259
18 Internet: https://www.accenture.com/_acnmedia/PDF-10/Accenture-APAC-China,-d-,v10-Infographic.pdf. Accenture, The Future of Commerce has Arrived: Under-
standing the New Asian Customer.
19 Internet: https://www.supplychaindive.com/news/air-cargo-boom-real-estate-implications/542344/. International e-commerce is taking off and airports better get
ready, Ben Cromwell, senior managing director and e-Commerce Advisory Group practice leader at Cushman & Wakefield, November 15, 2018, p 4.
20 John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK); Los Angeles International Airport (LAX); Miami International Airport (MIA); San Francisco International Airport (SFO);
Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORD); New Liberty International Airport, (EWR); George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH); Dallas-Fort Worth International
Airport (DFW); and Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL), Internet: https://www.supplychaindive.com/news/air-cargo-boom-real-estate-implica-
tions/542344/. International e-commerce is taking off and airports better get ready, Ben Cromwell, November 15, 2018, pp. 1-7.
21 Internet: https://www.supplychaindive.com/news/air-cargo-boom-real-estate-implications/542344/. International e-commerce is taking off and airports better get
ready, Ben Cromwell, November 15, 2018, p 6.
22 Internet: https://www.supplychaindive.com/news/air-cargo-boom-real-estate-implications/542344/. International e-commerce is taking off and airports better get
ready, Ben Cromwell, November 15, 2018, p 2.
23 The U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and Customs and Border Protection (CPB) are both study the issues of screening e-Commerce. Customer
expectations around e-Commerce include expedited handling and tracking that drive the need to reassess and redesign some of the traditional ways airlines, forwarders,
cargo ground handlers and truck companies have done business, Internet: https://www.freightwaves.com/news/aircargo/ecommerce-cns-partnership-conference/,
e-Commerce is the Hot Topic for Air Cargo at the Upcoming CNS Partnership Conference, Jesse Cohen, April 21, 2019.
24 Internet: https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/04/17/amazon-opens-its-new-salt/, Amazon opens its new Salt Lake City center – ant it is loaded with Robots, The
Salt Lake City Tribune, Tony Semerad, April 17, 2019.
25 Internet: Amazon’s Prime Air cargo jet fleet is bigger than ever and has a new name, Jim Hammerand, Houston Business Journal. Houston, Texas, December 30,
2017.
26 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2015, Air Cargo Facility Planning and Development Final Report, Washington, D.C.: The National Acade-
mies Press, Chapter 8: Air Cargo Facility Requirements, Table 8-2 Air Cargo Facility Requirements Ratio Matrix, pp, 8-11.
3.6 AIR CARGO CAPACITY AND REQUIREMENTS
3.6.3 Cargo Apron
Peak hour fleet forecasts for each of the integrated carriers
were used for estimating apron needs. Apron requirements
assume the long-term parking positions will be like what is
existing today. Aircraft parking positions for mainline and feed-
er aircraft will each be served by a taxilane, service road, and
maneuvering areas.
There is little belly cargo apron for dedicated aircraft parking;
it is primarily used for storage and loading/unloading of
containers.
3.6.3.1 Other Cargo Facility Requirements
Factors for facility requirements for GSE/storage areas, truck
docks and maneuvering areas, and vehicular parking re-
quirements are also discussed in the 2015 Air Cargo Facility
Planning and Development Final Report. Similarly, general
ranges for facility requirements were discussed and applied
to replicate existing conditions at SLC. Not unexpectedly for a
major hub airport with wide-ranging sizes of airline operations
by both passenger and dedicated air cargo airlines, general
criteria does not apply very well and often provide conflicting
results. For example, if one applies the ratio in the 2015 Report
of 10 truck docks per 20,000 square feet of building space, the
number of estimated truck docks needed far exceeds current
levels. This may very well be because SLC is a regional hub with
substantial cargo coming in on mainline carriers and distributed
via feeder carriers.
Interviews with the largest airline tenants both for passenger
and dedicated air cargo carriers indicated their space re-
quirements for buildings, aprons, storage areas, and vehicular
parking would need to consider expansion within the next five
years. During interviews, the largest passenger carriers (Delta
and Southwest) and dedicated air cargo carriers (FedEx and
UPS) indicated their cargo facilities were at or nearing capacity.
For FedEx and UPS, space for container storage, truck docks,
and vehicular parking was at or nearing capacity as well. Be-
cause of the unique characteristics for each operation and that
major operators are nearing capacity, it was assumed for these
other facility requirements that needs would be determined
using the percentage of growth in cargo.
3.6.3.2 Passenger and Dedicated Air Cargo Carrier Facility
Requirements
The following sections provide factors for passenger airline
belly cargo facility requirements in the South Cargo Area and
for dedicated air cargo carriers in the North Cargo Area.
3.6.4 South Cargo Area
Specific comments for each airline not identified in Table 3-49
are provided in bullet points below and includes information
not found in the Inventory Chapter.
3.6.4.1 Delta
• Additional wide body aircraft operations in the future could
increase the need for additional space dedicated to belly
cargo.
• The current building will need to be relocated if/when Taxi-
way G is realigned.
• There is no apron parking and maneuvering/deicing at this
facility.
3.6.4.2 Southwest
• Southwest leases approximately 35% of Joint Cargo Building
#1 for a total of 10,500 square feet composed of three
lease areas:
͛The largest lease area is on the north end of the
building with 4,900 square feet of cargo area, 900
square yards of GSE/Container/Storage area between
the building and the vehicle service road, and five truck
docks
͛The second lease area is in the center of Cargo Building
#1 comprising of 3,300 square feet of cargo area, 600
square yards of GSE/Container/Storage area between
the building and the vehicle service road, and three
truck docks
͛The third lease area is south of the center of Cargo
Building #1 consisting of 2,300 square feet of cargo
area, 600 square yards of GSE/Container/Storage area
between the building and the vehicle service road, and
two truck docks
• There is RON apron parking east of the building.
3.6.4.3 All Other Passenger Airline Cargo
• Three areas comprise the other passenger airline cargo area:
͛Air General handles cargo for Alaska Air, United cargo,
and American cargo at the Consolidated Cargo Facility.
This facility has 29,500 square feet of air cargo area,
2,600 square yards of GSE/Container/Storage area
between the building and the vehicle service road, and
ten truck docks
͛G-2 Secure handles cargo for American cargo, Sky-
West, and Southwest in a small portion (approximately
5%) of the Joint Cargo Building #1 which consists of
1,300 square feet of cargo area, 300 square yards of
GSE/Container/Storage area between the building and
the vehicle service road, and one truck dock
͛SkyWest leases Joint Cargo Building #2. It has 7,000
square feet of cargo area, 1,500 square yards of GSE/
Container/Storage area between the building and the
vehicle service road, and three truck docks
• There is RON apron parking east of Joint Cargo Building #1
and #2 that SkyWest uses temporarily for containers.
• Other Passenger Airline Cargo operators are American, Alas-
ka, Compass, Frontier, Horizon, SkyWest, and United.
Table 3-49 provides Facility Requirements for Passenger Air-
line Cargo.
3.6.5 North Cargo Area
Specific comments for each airline not identified in Table 3-50
are provided in bullet points below and includes information
not found in the Inventory Chapter.
3.6.5.1 FedEx
• The East apron is shared area between FedEx and UPS. For
purposes of Facility Requirements, it was assumed that the
east-west vehicle service road on the apron is an approxi-
mate boundary.
• The existing apron parking and maneuvering area is marked
for five ADG IV wide body aircraft and 12 ≤ADG II aircraft
with an existing peak demand of 5 ADG IV, 1 ADG III and 7
ADG II. Table 3-51 provides the existing peak hour demand
and future demand for air carrier and feeder operations for
PAL 1, PAL 2, and PAL 3. Assumptions for apron parking re-
quirements for various existing and future aircraft that would
be parked on the FedEx apron.
• Table 3-52 provides apron parking requirements for vari-
ous existing and future aircraft that would be parked on the
FedEx apron.
• Deicing takes place on the concrete collection area, 38,700
square yards, on the FedEx ramp.
3.6.5.2 UPS
• The East apron is shared area between UPS and FedEx. For
purposes of Facility Requirements, it was assumed that the
east-west vehicle service road on the apron is an approxi-
mate boundary.
• There is also a shared apron area between UPS and DHL
on the South apron. It is assumed the north-south vehicle
service road that runs between them an approximate border.
During interviews, UPS indicated a need for immediate
additional ramp for feeder aircraft as verified in Table 3-50
below.
• Existing apron parking and maneuvering area is marked for
four ADG IV aircraft and 9 feeder aircraft with an existing
peak hour parking demand of 3 ADG IV, 5 ADG II and 6 ADG
I. Table 3-51 provides the existing peak hour and future
demand for air carrier and feeder operations for PAL 1, PAL
2, and PAL 3.
• Table 3-52 provides assumptions for apron parking require-
ments for various existing and future aircraft that would be
parked on the UPS apron.
• Deicing takes place in the designated deice boxes marked
in green on the ramp. The deicing area is currently 37,600
square yards.
3.6.5.3 Other Dedicated Air Cargo Carriers
• The greatest percentage of other dedicated air cargo carri-
ers is carried by DHL.
• Amazon may obtain their own aircraft, including narrow body
aircraft such as the B737-800 or wide-body aircraft such as
the B767-300.
• DHL Building, apron parking and maneuvering, truck docks,
truck parking and maneuvering and vehicular parking exceed
facility requirements throughout planning period. In addition
to truck and vehicular parking area, DHL has 2,345 square
yards of fenced-in parking for delivery vans.
• Existing apron parking and maneuvering area is marked for
2 ADG III aircraft and the existing aircraft parking demand
during peak periods is one ADG III. Table 3-51 provides the
existing peak hour demand and future demand for air carrier
operations for PAL 1, PAL 2, and PAL 3; currently, there are
no feeder operations during peak hour. Assumptions for
apron parking requirements for various existing and future
aircraft that would be parked on the apron serving other
dedicated air cargo carriers.
• Table 3-52 provides apron parking requirements for vari-
ous existing and future aircraft that would be parked on the
apron of dedicated air cargo carriers.
260 261
Table 3-49: Passenger Cargo Requirements
Criteria
Requirements
2018
Existing 2018 PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3
Freight (tons)Forecast
0.45 (tons/sf)
21,200 21,200 23,100 25,150 29,850
Cargo Building (sf)(1)83,000 47,100 51,300 55,900 66,300
GSE/Containers/Storage (sy)
Percent
Increase
of Cargo
Forecast
17,400 17,400 18,900 20,600 24,500
Truck Docks 33 19 20 22 26
Truck Parking/Maneuvering
(sy)6,800 3,900 4,200 4,600 5,400
Vehicular Parking 128 73 79 86 102
Acreage 6 5 5 6(2)7(2)
Source: RS&H Analysis, 2019
(1) This is cargo Storage area only. Does not include an airline’s office space or other non-airline tenant’s square footages within a building.
(2) Does not include potential space for an increase of belly cargo operations due to more frequent activity by wide body aircraft.
Criteria
Requirements
2018
Existing 2018 PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3
3Freight (tons)Forecast 169,850 169,850 190,650 214,200 272,000
Cargo Building (sf) (1)1.25 (tons/sf)142,900 135,900 152,500 171,400 217,600
Narrow/Wide body Apron
Parking and Maneuvering (sy)
(2)(3)
Forecast 128,000 100,600 110,300 128,000 154,300
Feeder Apron Parking and
Maneuvering (sy) (2)(3)Forecast 43,200 60,000 62,700 83,000 87,600
Deicing (sy) (4)Forecast 83,100 87,300 99,300 118,600 147,800
GSE/Container/Storage (sy)
Percent
Increase
of Cargo
Forecast
56,300 56,300 63,200 71,000 90,200
Truck Docks 27 26 29 32 41
Truck Parking/Maneuvering
(sy)23,600 22,400 25,100 28,300 35,900
Vehicular Parking 349 332 372 418 531
Acreage 55 52 57 (5)68 (5)81 (5)
Acreage Surplus / (Deficit)3 (2)(13)(26)
Source: RS&H Analysis, 2019
(1) This is cargo storage area only. Does not include an airline’s office space or other non-airline tenant’s square footages within a building.
(2) Apron parking and maneuvering includes aircraft parking and taxilane.
(3) N/A - From interviews with UPS, there are no plans to increase the size of the building. In the future, all cargo will be sorted and containerized at their off-airport sort
facility that is doubling in size. Additional truck maneuvering area is assumed to be accommodated by that portion of existing GSE/Container/Storage square yardage
pavement which is now stored in containers that will be moved to the off-site sort facility.
(4) Deicing occurs on and is included within the facility requirement for narrow/wide body and feeder aprons. However, this category does indicate the incremental need
for deicing areas as all cargo aprons expand.
(5) Does not include potential space for an increase of e-Commerce operations.
• Deicing takes place in the designated deice boxes marked
in green on the ramp. The deicing area is currently 6,800
square yards.
• Any additional GSE/Container/Storage space requirements
can be accommodated on the excess aircraft apron parking
area.
Table 3-50 provides Facility Requirements for Dedicated Air
Cargo Carriers.Table 3-51 provides the existing and forecast
peak hour demand for apron parking positions for dedicated air
cargo carriers, both for air carrier and feeder aircraft opera-
tions.
Table 3-52 provides apron parking requirements for various
existing and future aircraft that would be parked on the apron
of various integrated carriers. The CRJ-200 freighter conver-
sion is not identified by an airline for SLC, however it is repre-
sentative of a larger feeder aircraft that might be anticipated to
become part of the fleet in the next 20-years since many larger
feeder aircraft may need to be replaced in the future due to
age or need for larger capacities.
262 263
3.6.6 Air Cargo Summary
While these facility requirements identify future facilities needs
for passenger cargo and dedicated air cargo carriers, there are
significant potential opportunities that cannot be quantified
that need to be kept in mind during alternatives analysis.
For passenger airlines, in particular Delta, any future change in
route structure that introduces additional wide body aircraft on
a frequent basis, particularly to Asia, may generate a need for
additional areas for handling belly cargo.
E-Commerce could have a significant impact upon the land
requirements for air cargo facility development in the future.
As mentioned above, SLC is being considered as a potential
alternative airport to accommodate e-Commerce operators
as a result of the lack of space available at other cargo hubs.
Further, operations like Amazon conduct business around the
clock. This may have an operational impact upon airlines such
as DHL, UPS, and FedEx.
While these facility requirements for passenger and dedicat-
ed air cargo airlines cannot forecast any specific size areas
needed, it is prudent to give this serious consideration in the
development of master plan alternatives.
Criteria
Requirements
2018
Existing 2018 PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3
FedEx
Forecast
2 A-300
5 D-IV 6 D-IV 7 D-V 8 D-VNarrow/Wide body Aircraft 2 B-757
1 MD-11
Feeder Aircraft Forecast 1 ATA43 8 B-III 8 B-III 9 B-III 10 B-III5 C-208
2 E120
UPS
Narrow/Wide body Aircraft Forecast
1 B-757
3 C-IV 4 C-IV 4 D-V 5 D-V1 B-767
1 A-300
Feeder Aircraft Forecast 5 B190 11 B-II 12 B-II 13 B-III 14 B-III
6 BE99
All Other
Aircraft Forecast 1 B-737 1 ADG III 1 ADG III 1 ADG III 2 ADG III
Source: RS&H Analysis, 2019
Table 3-50: Dedicated Air Cargo Facility Requirements
Table 3-51: Peak Hour Demand for Dedicated Air Cargo Aircraft
Table 3-52: Representative Aircraft In Airline Fleets for Dedicated Air Cargo Carriers
Aircraft Designator Aircraft Model ADG Envelope (sy)
A333 (1)Airbus A330-300 V 6,241
AT43 ATR-42-300/320 III 1,457
AT72 ATR-72 III 1,687
B190 Beechcraft 1900C II 880
B734 Boeing 737-400 III 2,147
B763 Boeing 767-300 IV 4,464
B777(1)Boeing 777F V 6,241
C208 Cessna 208 II 715
CRJ2 (1)CRJ 200 Freighter Conversion II 1,210
E120 Embraer 120 II 990
MD11 McDonnell Douglas MD-11 IV 5,009
Source: FAA Aircraft Characteristics Database; RS&H, 2019
(1) Projected design aircraft to use air cargo apron
Utilities at SLCIA include electrical power, sanitary sewer,
stormwater, water, communication, aviation fuel and natural
gas. The existing utility infrastructure was evaluated to de-
termine deficiencies. Evaluation of the utility infrastructure
examined major trunk lines, redundancy, materials, and ability
to accommodate existing and future demand.
The following subsections describe each utility at SLCIA,
deficiencies and recommendations to improve the infrastruc-
ture. Additional details on utility infrastructure at SLCIA can be
found in Appendix X.
3.7.1 Electrical Utilities
The on-airport electrical system is adequate for today’s needs.
The Airport has purchased additional capacity for future de-
mand in an underground duct bank to be used as a secondary
power source. From discussions with SLCIA staff, on-airport
electrical system information and survey varies in age and de-
tail. It is recommended a study be conducted to inventory the
existing system and determine future needs of the on-airport
electrical system.
Electrical power service to SLCIA is supplied by Rocky Moun-
tain Power through overhead and buried lines. As reported
by Rocky Mountain Power, the existing trunk lines that feed
power to the airport are adequate. It is recommended that
SLCIA staff continue to coordinate with Rocky Mountain Pow-
er during the planning phase of any development that would
necessitate large power requirements.
The electrical utilities adjacent to the airport also include major
transmission lines serving other customers. On the north side
of the airport are two high voltage overhead transmission lines
that run east to west in a near perpendicular configuration to
the runways. The lines extend around the north west corner of
airport and connect to a substation in the development west
of Runway 16R-34L, as can be seen in Chapter 1, Figure 1-37.
Discussions with Rocky Mountain Power suggest no deficien-
cies with the existing lines. They have an indefinite lifecycle and
as components become warn or faulty, they are replaced at the
expense of the utility provider.
While not a deficiency of the lines themselves, the height and
location of the lines north of the airport are an obstruction for
certain aircraft departing Runway 34R and/or 34L depending
on take-off weight. As described in Section 3.2.1.2, Runway
Length Requirements, the transmission lines restrict some
aircraft from operating at SLC with maximum allowable take-
off weight. Additionally, the location of the transmission lines
and substation to the west are within the area proposed on the
current Airport Layout Plan for a possible future west runway.
These factors are critical elements for consideration in the
alternatives analyses, especially due to the high cost associated
with relocating transmission line infrastructure.
The next chapter, Evaluation and Identification of Alternatives,
will explore alternatives for possibly extending Runway 34R
and relocating the transmission lines north of the airport based
on runway length and aircraft requirements identified in this
chapter. Additionally, concepts for future expansion of the
airport to the west will include consideration of cost and com-
plexity related to the existing transmission lines and substation
location in that area.
3.7.2 Water
Water is supplied by the Salt Lake City Department of Public
Utilities (SLCDPU). Two 12-inch water lines enter SLCIA from
the southeast and a single 12-inch line enters the Airport
from the north. A 12-inch loop has been constructed around
the Terminal, as previously shown in Chapter 1, Figure 1-38.
Information provided by SLCIA staff suggests most of the
water lines are polyvinyl chloride (PVC); however, some of the
older segments are steel, cast iron, ductile iron and asbestos
cement. Generally, the water supply to SLCIA is adequate to
accommodate the forecasted growth in passengers. As SLCIA
implements large capital improvement projects in areas known
to have asbestos cement pipes, it is recommended these pipes
be removed and replaced with PVC piping.
3.7.3 Sanitary Sewer
SLCIA sanitary sewer system is largely comprised of 18-inch
and 24-inch lines on the south and a 12-inch line on the north
end of the Airport. The sanitary sewer system is supported by
several lift stations, as previously shown in Chapter 1, Figure
1-38. Most of the piping for the sanitary sewer is PVC, with
some reinforced concrete, vitrified clay, cast iron, asbestos
cement, and HDPE pipe. Since 2010, the airport has construct-
ed two smaller lift stations. One located west of the South
Economy Parking Lot and another west of the terminal.
The existing sewer pump stations can accommodate existing
demand and has enough capacity to accommodate full build-
out of the two terminal concourses. If an additional concourse
is needed in the future, the sewer pump station system will
need to be modified and utility lines expanded to accommo-
date the additional demand.
A utility specific study is needed to determine how to increase
capacity to serve future development, which is outside the
purview of this master plan. When that study is conducted, it is
recommended that the age and condition of the older infra-
structure be inventoried, and a plan be created for upgrades as
needed. Lastly, as SLCIA implements large capital improvement
projects in areas known to have asbestos cement pipes, it is
recommended these pipes be removed and replaced with PVC
piping.
3.7.4 Stormwater
The stormwater infrastructure is comprised of various sized
lines, 14 pump stations and five outfalls. Four of the five out-
falls discharge into the Surplus Canal and the other into the
City Drain. The location of the City Drain, outfalls and pump
stations in relation to facilities at SLCIA is shown in Chapter
1, Figure 1-38. Information provided by SLCIA staff suggests
stormwater pipes are made of reinforced concrete, high- den-
sity polyethylene (HDPE) and PVC. Generally, the existing
stormwater infrastructure is adequate to accommodate exist-
ing conditions, but improvements are likely needed to accom-
modate future growth.
Discussions with SLCIA staff suggest the existing detention
basins can retain all storm water if necessary and pump water
into the Surplus Canal and City Drain. Currently, SLCIA dis-
charges approximately 3-4 cubic feet per second (cfs) to the
City Drain and is reaching the maximum allowable discharge
rate of 90 cfs into the Surplus Canal. As SLCIA continues to
grow and construct more impervious surfaces, stormwater
runoff will increase. With the last drainage study master plan
having been conducted in 1997, there are now many elements
that require new study. It is recommended a new drainage
master plan be conducted to determine how to increase storm
water discharge rates and on-site detention to ensure the
Airport is equipped to handle future development.
The Surplus Canal located along the southern and western
borders of SLCIA, collects most of the storm water runoff. The
canal is owned and managed by Salt Lake County. The canal
was originally constructed in the 1890s, and later enlarged
with the addition of levees along the banks by the United
States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in the 1960s. The
USACE conducted a detailed inspection in 2012 that identified
deficiencies with the levees and overall design of the canal. The
study found the levees do not meet current USACE standards.
Other deficiencies associated with the canal include vegetation
growth, inadequate bank protection and slope, penetration to
right-of-way, and lack of sod cover. A critical finding in the US-
ACE study were high-risk flood hazard deficiencies. The sum
of these deficiencies will need to be corrected to obtain FEMA
certification.
Overall, the Surplus Canal is old and requires numerous up-
grades and enhancements to ensure it functions safely and
effectively in the future. Because deficiencies are located along
the entire length of the Surplus Canal, there is opportunity to
mitigate some deficiencies while expanding available land for
aeronautical development. In the alternative’s analysis, consid-
eration will be given to modify the existing Surplus Canal to
address deficiencies and increase available land for aeronauti-
cal use.
The North Point Canal is a divergence from the Surplus Canal
which serves agricultural and wetland properties off airport
property. The canal also feeds the ponds located on the golf
course before crossing the Surplus Canal via a flume. The
North Point Canal is owned and managed by the North Point
Canal Company. Stormwater runoff does not flow into the
North Point canal from SLCIA. The canal company has sug-
gested they would like to see the elimination of the flume and
improve how water diverts off the Surplus Canal. The ponds
are currently used by the canal company for winter habitat of
triploid carp. The carp are used during summer months when
the canal is active to keep the canal clear of moss and algae.
However, the ponds and the carp themselves are a concern
for the Airport as they are an attractant for waterfowl. FAA
AC 150/5300-33 Hazardous Wildlife Attracts On or Near
Airports recommends a separation radius of 10,000 feet from
an airport to the closest hazardous wildlife attractant. As the
pond is located inside this imaginary radius, it is recommended
that SLCIA staff coordinate with the appropriate agencies to
remove the ponds. If the ponds cannot be removed, mitigation
efforts should be undertaken to reduce the wildlife attractant
elements of the ponds.
3.7.5 Other Airport Utilities
The following subsections summarize the evaluation of other
utilities located at SLCIA. Location of other airport utilities is
shown in Chapter 1, Figure 1-39.
3.7.5.1 Communication Infrastructure
Communication lines are owned and operated by either Centu-
ry Link, MCI/Version and the FAA. From discussions with SLCIA
staff, communication lines are adequate and meet the needs
of the existing users and tenants. As SLCIA grows, additional
communication lines may be needed. SLCIA should coordinate
with the appropriate entity to ensure an acceptable level of
service is maintained for its users and tenants.
3.7.5.2 Aviation Fuel Supply
A 6-inch steel jet fuel line supplies SLCIA from an oil refinery to
the north. The line is connected from the oil refinery to the fuel
tanks in the north support area. Two pump stations, one locat-
ed west of the Air National Guard Based and another off 2200
West, north of the Boeing facility. The fuel line is adequate to
accommodate existing and future demand. Note that current-
ly, the oil refinery has reduced the amount of jet fuel blend
produced, thus most of the fuel for the fuel farm tanks is being
brought in via tanker trucks from Las Vegas and Wyoming. This
264 265
3.7 UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS
266 267
is a fundamental shift in historical operational procedures and
could impact fuel farm requirements in the future. As such,
these factors will be considered in alternatives development
regarding future fuel farm locations and connectivity to the
refinery and vehicle roadways.
3.7.5.3 Natural Gas
SLCIA natural gas supply is supplied by Dominion Energy
through a series of high to intermediate-high pressure lines. A
6-inch high pressure line runs east to west on the south side of
SLCIA. This line provides natural gas for the Terminal and sur-
rounding support facilities. Around the terminal are two high
pressure gas loops that provide service to concessions and oth-
er terminal tenants. Another 6-inch line runs on the north side
of West 2100 North and serves facilities in the north support
area. Lastly, a 36-inch steel gas line, operated by Kern River,
a supply company, runs along with north and west sides of
SLCIA, providing service for various tenants, such as the FBOs.
The natural gas infrastructure is adequate to accommodate
existing and future demand.
This section outlines the requirements for the general aviation
(GA) facilities for based and transient general aviation aircraft
at SLC during the planning period based upon local, regional,
and national trends. The areas evaluated in this section include
general aviation aprons, aircraft hangars, and FBO facilities. The
Master Plan forecast predicts a gradual and continuous change
in the composition of the general aviation fleet. The number of
single-engine aircraft and operations are projected to decrease
throughout the planning period while multi-engine, jet engine,
and helicopter based aircraft and operations are projected to
increase. As a result of the change in fleet composition, the
forecast predicts that at PAL 3 there will be a total of 12,331
additional aircraft operations and 13 additional based aircraft.
Separate from this Master Plan, a General Aviation Strategy
Plan was completed in 2019 to recommend a SLCDA devel-
opmental action plan to accommodate GA users within the
SLCDA airport system of SLC, South Valley Regional Airport
(U42), and Tooele Valley Airport (TVY). Considerations from
that report are included in this analysis to demonstrate that
general aviation growth is expected throughout the system of
airports and show those facilities that would be required if the
policy decisions of the strategy plan were implemented. Imple-
mentation of the strategy plan is forecasted to result in growth
of operations at U42 and TVY, resulting in a sharper decline of
smaller general aviation aircraft at SLC.
planning parameters to determine future hangar requirements.
More than 75 percent of the box hangar facilities at SLC are
provided by TAC Air and Atlantic Aviation, most of which are
shared hangar space. Due to this prevalence of shared hangar
space facilities provided by the FBOs, the existing average box
hangar space per based aircraft of 6,300 square feet is used
to determine appropriate space requirements for future box
hangars needs.
Using the planning parameters, hangar requirements were
determined based on the forecasted number of based aircraft
at each PAL. The hangar requirements needed at each PAL for
each hangar type is shown in Table 3-54.
The most recent of the existing row of shade or T-hangars was
constructed in 1984, and in many cases the condition of the
hangars reflects this age. Of the 126 total single T-hangar bays
at the Airport, 19 are deemed un-rentable due to structural
deficiencies. The forecasted 51,000 square feet surplus of
T-hangars will allow for the removal of unusable or difficult to
maintain hangar facilities as well as areas for potential redevel-
opment.
The General Aviation Strategic Plan recommended the
forecasted need through the planning period for more than
250,000 additional square feet of box hangars be developed
by the FBOs at the Airport. As discussed in Section 1.9, Gener-
al Aviation Facilities, zones of control for future development
have been determined for each FBO to accommodate demand,
removing the need of the SLCDA to construct additional han-
gar facilities. The alternatives analysis will determine if these
zones will be able to accommodate the demand forecasted.
Though this analysis identified specific requirements based
on hangar type, the real use of this analysis is to determine
the total amount of land that will be required in order to meet
future demand. This is because actual hangar development is
based primarily on financial economics and business decisions
of the developer. For these reasons, land reservations must
be created to ensure space is available for future hangars. For
example, either FBO may find greater economy in building one
27 A greyfield site is a previously developed property that does not have known environmental containments. A greenfield site is one that has never been
developed or disturbed.
TABLE 3-53: SLC General Aviation Hangar Planning Parameters
3.7.6 Utility Infrastructure Summary
The existing utilities were determined to be a mix of new and
old infrastructure. Future improvements will need to be made
to the water, sewer and storm water systems to meet current
design standards and support planned development. Addition-
ally, the utility data is not comprehensive, and as such, a utility
master plan is recommended to detail existing conditions and
determine how best to upgrade existing infrastructure and
provide future capacity. A utility master plan will identify the
capacity of existing lines and determine triggering events for
when systems need to be replaced and upgraded. Recommen-
dations from the utility infrastructure master plan should be
incorporated into SLCIA’s CIP.
Development in both greyfield27 and greenfield sites may
require additional utility infrastructure enhancements. Addi-
tional utility considerations will be identified and determined in
Chapter 4 – Identification and Evaluation of Alternatives.
3.8.1 Aircraft Storage
Understanding aircraft storage demand is an important
element when considering facility requirements for general avi-
ation based aircraft. The quantity and type of hangar space is
driven by many different factors such as total number of based
aircraft, fleet mix, local weather conditions, airport security,
cost, and user preference. This section outlines requirements
for the types of hangar storage provided at SLC including
single T-hangars, twin T-hangars, shade hangars and box
hangars. These hangar types are generic terms for different
sized hangars. T-hangars are small hangars that are typically
arranged so small aircraft are “nested” next to each other in
alternating directions in individual bays within the facility. The
twin T-hangars are similar, but approximately 30 percent larger
than single T-hangars. Shade hangars are arranged in a similar
fashion to T-hangars, but only provide a protective roof. Box
hangars are standalone buildings of varied dimensions, which
at SLC range from 5,000 to 46,000 square feet. The space
within a box hangar may serve as shared hangar space that ac-
commodates multiple aircraft or the hangar may only provide
storage for one aircraft often with an office or lounge area built
on the side of the building.
The hangar types used by based aircraft, determined by
historical distributions of aircraft at SLC and industry trends,
are included in Table 3-53. These percentages were used as
3.8 GENERAL AVIATION REQUIREMENTS
large hangar and housing multiple aircraft instead of building
multiple smaller hangars. Future land reservations must be
flexible, and conceptual layouts must be organized to provide a
functional spatial layout.
3.8.2 General Aviation Apron Requirements
General aviation apron areas provide parking and circulation
for transient aircraft, those aircraft that are not based at the
airport, and local aircraft, those based at the airport. For con-
venience and ease of movements, the parking apron area is
typically located in close proximity to general aviation terminal
buildings, fuel delivery systems, and ground transportation.
For this analysis, the general aviation apron was divided into
three areas to determine the appropriate future requirements
including aircraft parking apron, box hangar apron, and circu-
lation apron. Aircraft parking apron is pavement that is used
to temporarily park transient aircraft. Box hangar apron is
space leased to a based aircraft tenant of a box hangar, located
between the box hangar and the circulation apron. Box hangar
apron allows an aircraft owner to park his or her aircraft in
front of their hangar without impacting adjacent taxilane
movement areas. The circulation apron is pavement that allows
for the movement and taxiing of aircraft to parking areas, han-
gars, and services provided at the Airport.
The demand for apron space was determined using the
existing and forecasted peak day operations and fleet mix for
each aircraft type. Using the fleet mix allows for consideration
of appropriate apron space needed as larger aircraft, such as
business jets, take up more space on the apron than smaller
single engine aircraft. The facility requirements for the general
aviation apron area are shown in Table 3-55.
At forecasted growth levels, SLC experiences a deficiency in
apron space in every category at almost every PAL level ex-
amined. As T-hangar demand decreases in PAL 1, the existing
total apron square footage is nearly sufficient. However, an
additional 491,000 square feet of apron space is forecasted to
be required by PAL 3.
Single T Twin T Shade Box
Single-Engine 55%5%15%25%
Multi-Engine 40%5%55%
Jet Engine 100%
Helicopter 100%
Source: RS&H Analysis, 2019
3.8.3 General Aviation FBO Requirements
TAC Air and Atlantic Aviation provide FBO terminal facilities for
daily aircraft operations of tenants, pilots, and passengers. Like
apron requirements, FBO terminal facilities were determined
using the number of peak month/average day operations and
the projected fleet mix. The projected number of individuals
flying on each aircraft type within the fleet mix was used to
determine the amount of space that would be required. As
shown in Table 3-56, FBO terminal facilities are expected to be
enough throughout the planning period.
3.8.4 General Aviation Strategy Plan Considerations
The SLC Master Plan identifies facilities required to accommo-
date long-term general aviation requirements based upon avia-
tion activity forecasts, as described above. Those forecasts are
unconstrained and result in a slight reduction in the number of
based aircraft over the 20-year time frame but a major change
in the size of the fleet mix to larger aircraft.
In addition to the SLC Master Plan, the SLCDA has developed
a separate General Aviation Strategy Plan. Its purpose is to
maximize efficiency within the SLCDA system to the extent
reasonable by providing enhanced facilities at SLCDA reliever
airports. In part, the strategy plan assumes the smaller general
aviation aircraft, essentially those in shade hangars and many
of those in T-hangars will be attracted to SLCDA relievers as a
result of enhanced facilities and services at those airports.
268 269
Table 3-54: General Aviation Hangar Requirements
Table 3-55: General Aviation Apron Requirements
Table 3-56: General Aviation FBO Terminal Requirements
Hangar Type 2017
Planning Activity Level
PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3
Single T-Hangar
Hangar Rows 7 5 5 4
Hangar Bays 116 95 90 81
Square Footage 145,0001 110,000 104,000 94,000
Surplus/(Deficit)35,000 41,000 51,000
Twin T-Hangar
Hangar Rows 1 1 1 1
Hangar Bays 27 27 27 27
Square Footage 38,000 38,000 38,000 38,000
Surplus/(Deficit)0 0 0
Shade Hangar
Hangar Rows 2 1 1 1
Hangar Bays 54 28 27 25
Square Footage 54,000 28,000 27,000 25,000
Surplus/(Deficit)26,000 27,000 29,000
Box Hangar
Hangar Rows 28 37 39 43
Hangar Bays 103 125 129 142
Square Footage 834,000 785,000 814,000 897,000
Surplus/(Deficit)(140,000)(169,000)(252,000
Total
Square Footage Required 434,000 889,000 907,000 969,000
Surplus/(Deficit)(55,000)(73,000)(135,000)
General Aviation Apron Area (SqFt)2017
Planning Activity Level Requirements
PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3
Aircraft Parking Apron
Square Footage Required 635,000 675,000 772,000 996,000
Surplus/(Deficit)(40,000)(137,000)(361,000)
Box Hangar Apron
Square Footage Required 174,000 201,000 208,000 225,000
Surplus/(Deficit)(27,000)(34,000)(51,000)
Circulation Apron
Square Footage Required 1,706,000 1,647,000 1,731,000 1,785,000
Surplus/(Deficit)59,000 (25,000)(79,000)
Total
Square Footage Required 2,515,000 2,523,000 2,711,000 3,006,000
Surplus/(Deficit)(8,000)(196,000)(491,000)
Source: SLCDA, FAA OPSNET, RS&H Analysis, 2019
2017
Planning Activity Level Requirements
PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3
FBO Terminal Facilities
Square Footage 22,000 18,000 19,000 22,000
Surplus/(Deficit)4,000 3,000 0
Source: RS&H Analysis, 2019
1 Existing single T-hangars include 19 hangar bays that are unrentable due to structural deficiencies
Source: SLCDA; RS&H Analysis, 2019
According to industry trends and airport development in
the region, in the near-term, the General Aviation Strategy
Plan forecasts single-engine aircraft based at SLC to decline
by half, and multi-engine aircraft to decline by 25 percent.
This sharp decline will directly affect T-hangar requirements
throughout the planning period, resulting in a surplus of space
for that which had been used for combined single T-hangar,
twin T-hangar, and shade hangars by 2037. At the same time,
the number of based jet aircraft are expected to significantly
increase. Along with anticipated growth by helicopters, the
General Aviation Strategy Plan forecasts an additional need to
accommodate box hangars throughout the planning period.
In effect, the General Aviation Strategy Plan provides alter-
native scenarios that will be used in the Alternatives Evalua-
tion process of the SLC Master Plan along with alternatives
developed for accommodating general aviation requirements
described in SECTION 3.1, General Aviation Requirements.
3.8.5 Summary of General Aviation
Facility Requirements
Over the next 20 years at SLC, significant jet-oriented growth
is anticipated to continue, requiring additional hangars and
apron for larger aircraft. In total 3,997,000 square feet of
space is forecasted to be needed at PAL 3. As shown in
Table 3-57, this is a deficit of 626,000 square feet including
135,000 square feet of hangar space and 491,000 square
feet of apron. The alternatives will examine ways to address
this demand.
During alternatives analysis, it will also be necessary to con-
sider the potential impacts to SLC that may occur as a result
of implementing the General Aviation Strategy Plan. That
plan considers actions at U42 and TVY that could result in
attraction of aircraft from SLC. Implementation of that plan
would result in a different configuration of GA facilities at SLC.
Additionally, the impact of potential changes to airfield config-
uration, such as the realignment of Runway 17-35, may result
in additional alternative for the GA area.
Aviation support facilities at an airport encompass a broad set
of functions that exist to ensure the airport can fill its primary
role and mission in a smooth, safe and efficient manner. The
following sections outline the requirements for different sup-
porting facilities at Salt Lake City International Airport.
It should be noted that the overriding issue facing all support
facilities is that long range development of Concourse C will
require displacement of many existing support facilities. There-
fore, the future facility requirements must consider not only
what is needed to meet current deficits in capacity, but also to
replace what exists today in a location that will work long term.
3.9.1 Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting
The required Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) facilities
are determined based on Code of Federal Regulations Title 14
Part 139. This section evaluates the ARFF index, equipment,
and station requirements.
3.9.1.1 Airport Index
Airports serving scheduled air carrier flights are required to
provide facilities and equipment for ARFF. ARFF equipment
requirements for FAR Part 139 airports are determined by an
index ranking based on aircraft size, number and type of emer-
gency vehicles, as well as number of scheduled daily aircraft
departures.
SLC is classified as Index E based on the aircraft operations ex-
perienced at the airport. Except as provided in Part 139.319(c),
the air carrier aircraft with the largest length and an average
of five or more daily departures determines the ARFF Index
required for an airport. The ARFF Index then determines the
specific ARFF standards and equipment requirements for that
airport. ARFF Index requirements for SLC are shown in Table
3-58. Based on the future fleet mix in the aviation activity fore-
cast, it is expected that SLC will remain classified as an Index E
facility throughout the forecast period.
3.9.1.2 Vehicle Requirements
Under Part 139.317, Index E requires the airport operator to
have response equipment ready that hold specified amounts of
dry chemical and water. Three vehicles are required for ARFF
under Index E including;
• One vehicle carrying 500 pounds of sodium-based dry
chemical, halon 1211, or clean agent; or
• 450 pounds of potassium-based dry chemical and water
with a commensurate quantity of aqueous film forming
foam (AFFF) to total 100 gallons for simultaneous dry
chemical and AFFF application.
• Two vehicles carrying an amount of water and the com-
mensurate quantity of AFFF so the total quantity of water
for foam production carried by all three vehicles is at least
6,000 gallons.
The Airport currently has eight ARFF equipment vehicles, in-
cluding four Oshkosh Striker 3000. In total, the ARFF vehicles
at SLC provide 18,600 gallons of water capacity, 2,600 gallons
of foam capacity, 3,620 gallons of sodium-based dry chemical
capacity, 2,880 gallons of halotron, and 200 gallons of halon
1211. These amounts are greater than the requirements of
Part 139.317 but allow for an increased ARFF response. Most
of the ARFF equipment on the Airport is based at Fire Station
#12, located in the North Support area. Based equipment at
Fire Station #11, located in the General Aviation area, include
a GMC 1-Ton 4x4 and an Oshkosh Striker 3000. Table 3-59
shows an overview of the SLC ARFF vehicles.
270 271
Table 3-58: ARFF Classifications and Requirements
3.9 SUPPORT FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
Table 3-57: Summary of General Aviation Requirements
2017 PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3
Hangars
Square Footage 834,000 889,000 907,000 969,000
Surplus/(Deficit)(55,000)(73,000)(135,000)
Apron
Square Footage 2,515,000 2,523,000 2,711,000 3,006,000
Surplus/(Deficit)(8,000)(196,000)(491,000)
FBO
Square Footage 22,000 16,000 18,000 22,000
Surplus/(Deficit)6,000 4,000 0
Total
Square Footage 3,371,000 3,428,000 3,636,000 3,997,000
Surplus/(Deficit)(57,000)(265,000)(626,00)
Source: SLCDA, FAA OPSNET, RS&H Analysis, 2019
ARFF Index Aircraft
Length in Feet Example Aircraft Required
ARFF Vehicles
A <90 Canadair Regional Jet 200 (CRJ-200)2
B 90 - <126 McDonnel Douglas DC-9 (DC-9)1-2
C 126 - <159 Boeing 757-200 (B-757-200)2-3
D 159 - <200 Airbus A-300 (A-300)3
E >200 Boeing 777 (B-777)3
3.9.1.3 Station Response Time Requirements
The Index E response time requirements are described in Part
139.319. Within three minutes, at least one ARFF truck must
reach the midpoint of the farthest runway serving air carrier
aircraft from its assigned post or reach any other specified
point of comparable distance on the movement area that is
available to air carriers and begin application of an extinguish-
ing agent. Within four minutes from the time of alarm, all other
required vehicles must reach the point specified above from
their assigned posts and begin application of an extinguishing
agent. The two ARFF stations at SLC are optimally located to
provide quick response to any point on the airfield and meet
the response time requirements. Given the location of the
ARFF stations, it is likely that these locations would be able
to meet the response time requirements for potential future
runway and taxiway expansions during the planning period.
Beyond the planning period, as terminal expansion requires
relocation of ARFF facilities, an alternative location that meets
the response time requirements will need to be identified.
3.9.2 Fuel Storage
Fuel storage requirements at the Airport depend on the level
of aircraft traffic, fleet mix, and fuel delivery schedules. Growth
in commercial aviation operations and changes in general avi-
ation aircraft fleet mix will both likely increase demand for Jet
A fuel. Fuel storage requirements were determined for both
commercial and general aviation. Fuel to support commercial
aviation is stored in large storage tanks located in the North
Support Area. Fuel for general aviation is managed by Atlantic
Aviation and TAC Air and located in the General Aviation area.
3.9.2.1 Commercial Aviation Fuel Storage
The North Support Area includes a total storage capacity of
6.45 million gallons of Jet A fuel provided by six fuel tanks
managed by Menzies Aviation. Fuel pipelines connect to the
fuel farm and refill tanks directly from the Andeavor Logistics
Salt Lake City Refinery. This allows for quick resupply of fuel
into the tanks, but during times of lower production of aviation
fuel due to profitability or other factors, tanker trucks are used
to refill the fuel farm tanks. An underground pipe network
extends from the fuel farm to the terminal area to provide
hydrant fueling for aircraft gates at the passenger terminal.
An analysis was conducted to determine the necessary storage
facilities for commercial fuel storage. The connectivity to the
refinery typically allows for quick refueling of the fuel farm, but
for times of low aviation fuel production a five-day storage de-
mand was assumed for fuel to be available if there is a disrup-
tion in the supply chain caused by some unusual circumstance,
such as a major weather event. Approximately 3.0 million
gallons in 2017 would be needed for a five-day storage based
on per departure fuel flowage for the average day for July, the
busiest month. As shown in Table 3-60, the existing storage
levels are enough for the planning period. At PAL 3 activity
levels, the existing available storage levels can accommodate
approximately eight days of fuel storage. Beyond the planning
period, as terminal expansion requires relocation of fuel stor-
age facilities, an alternative location that meets requirements
will need to be identified.
3.9.2.2 General Aviation
In the general aviation area, both TAC Air and Atlantic Avia-
tion manage a fuel farm. Combined, a total of 14 fuel tanks
provide 307,600 gallons of aviation storage, including 43,600
gallons of 100LL and 264,000 gallons of Jet A. As a result of
changes in the fleet mix of aircraft that use the airport, SLC is
experiencing an increase in the usage of Jet A fuel by general
aviation, while operations by aircraft that use 100LL fuel are
steadily decreasing. The percentage of general aviation opera-
tions by aircraft that use 100LL fuel are expected to decrease
by 11 percent from 2017 amounts by PAL 3.
Like commercial fuel storage, a five-day surplus supply of fuel
was used for the analysis of fuel storage. The analysis to deter-
mine the five-day fuel demand was based on the peak month
of fuel flowage, which was determined by examining historical
fuel sales. The average day of the peak month was then used
to determine the required gallons to satisfy a five-day demand
based on the number of operations forecasted for each type of
fuel.
As shown in Table 3-61, the existing available storage provides
enough supply for five days using the planning factors applied.
Based on the analysis, the 43,600 gallon storage capacity of
100LL fuel provides a surplus of approximately 39,800 gallons
throughout the forecast period. In practice, the FBOs only have
the 100LL fuel tanks partially refueled approximately every
two to three weeks as that is all that is needed to meet de-
mand given existing tank capacity. At existing levels the amount
of 100LL fuel capacity would sufficiently meet demand for
more than eight weeks. Each FBO manages at least one 100LL
fuel tank, providing additional fuel storage than the minimum
that would be necessary.
While the amount of Jet A fuel needed to meet the five-day
demand rises sharply by PAL 3, the available storage is esti-
mated to remain enough through the planning period. Again, as
each FBO manages a separate fuel farm there is redundancy in
tank storage when compared to requirements.
272 273
Table 3-59: ARFF Vehicle Storage Capacity
Vehicle Capacity (gallons)
Water Foam Dry Chemical Halotron Halon 1211
Fire Statoin #11
GMC 1-Ton 4x4 300 g 40 g 450 g --
Oshkosh Striker 3000 3000 g 420 g 450 g 500 g -
Fire Station #12
GMC 1-Ton 4x4 300 g 40 g 450 g --
Rosenbauer Panther 300 3000 g 400 g 500 g 460 g -
Oshkosh Striker 3000 3000 g 420 g 450 g 500 g -
Oshkosh TB3000 3000 g 420 g 420 g 420 g 200 g
Oshkosh Striker 3000 3000 g 420 g 450 g 500 g -
Oshkosh Striker 3000 3000 g 420 g 450 g 500 g -
Source: SLC Airport Certification Manual, 2018
Table 3-60: Commercial Fuel Storage Capacity
2017
Planning Activity Level
PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3
Peak Month average Day (PMAD) Fuel Flowage 605,000 663,000 728,000 809,000
(PMAD) Commercial Departures 377 413 453 503
5 - Day Fuel Need (Gallons)3,025,000 3,315,000 3,640,000 4,045,000
Available Storage (Gallons)6,450,000 6,450,000 6,450,000 6,450,000
Total Storage for 4 Day Need: Surplus/(Deficit)3,425,000 3,135,000 2,810,000 2,405,000
Source:SLCDA, RS&H Analysis, 2019
Table 3-61: General Aviation Fuel Storage Capacity
2017
Planning Activity Level
PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3
Peak Month Average Day (PMAD) Operations 136 143 153 175
100LL
PMAD Operations 40 38 37 33
PMAD Fuel Flowage 758 720 690 630
5 - Day Fuel Need (Gallons)3,800 3,700 3,500 3,200
Available Storage (Gallons)43,600 43,600 43,600 43,600
Total Storage for 5 Day Need: Surplus/(Deficit)39,800 39,900 40,100 40,400
Jet A
PMAD Operations 96 105 116 142
PMAD Fuel Flowage 25,146 27,550 30,330 37,200
5 - Day Fuel Need (Gallons)126,000 138,000 152,000 186,000
Available Storage (Gallons)264,000 264,000 264,000 264,000
Total Storage for 5 Day Need: Surplus/(Deficit)138,000 126,000 112,000 78,000
Source: RS&H Analysis, 2018
3.9.2.3 Sustainable Aviation Fuel
As part of sustainability initiatives, an increasing number of
airlines are using sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), or biofuel,
blended with Jet A fuel to reduce aircraft emissions. Certain
certified sustainable aviation fuels, derived from a variety of
feedstocks such as crops, are chemically indistinguishable from
existing jet fuel and are used in some aircraft flying today with-
out any loss of performance.
The largest issue for SAF remains in economies of scale occur-
ring to increase fuel available for airlines while reducing cost
of SAF to similar pricing of existing Jet A fuel. There exists the
potential for this to occur, but the fuel must develop further
before it will become widely available. Fuel farm alternatives in
this master plan study will preserve a location that can accom-
modate the storage, hydrant system, and blending facility nec-
essary for the use of sustainable aviation fuel on the Airport.
3.9.3 Airline Maintenance
Facility requirements for airline maintenance facilities are
determined by the business decisions of each individual airline
and are difficult to project long-term. However, to plan for the
future of the Delta and SkyWest maintenance facilities at SLC,
conservative overviews and assumptions of required space
were developed based on inputs from these companies.
The Delta lease area in the North Support area includes an
aircraft maintenance hangar, work areas, and office space,
totaling approximately 120,000 square feet as well as a Delta
reservation center consisting of more than 60,000 square
feet. The total footprint of the leased area including the Delta
aircraft maintenance hangar, aircraft apron parking, reservation
center, and vehicle parking is approximately 1.1 million square
feet. In discussions with Delta airline representatives, it was
identified that Delta is experiencing a growing demand for
aircraft maintenance at SLC. The existing Delta aircraft mainte-
nance hangar can accommodate two or three aircraft, but this
space is insufficient to meet the nightly demand for the facility.
Additional space is needed in both the short-term and over the
long-term. In total, at least a doubling in overall size must be
planned for within the planning period.
Delta performs ground support equipment (GSE) maintenance
in the South Cargo area located in a section of the Delta Cargo
building. In discussion with Delta representatives, it was found
that the existing maintenance facility space is enough to ser-
vice the roughly 1,400 pieces of equipment that are operated
today by Delta. While Delta flight operations are expected
to increase, only a small number of additional equipment are
expected to be added, which will not impact the capacity of
the facility. Currently, the GSE fleet is gas powered, but Delta
is transitioning to electric GSE with the opening of the new
terminal. The transition from gas to electric GSE equipment
does not impact the space requirements of the facility. If future
site alternatives for this facility are evaluated in this study,
location near the terminal envelope and a unified location must
be considered.
SkyWest performs airline maintenance in the North Sup-
port area as well, leasing approximately 600,000 square feet
of space. On their leased area they have an approximately
175,000 square feet hangar which is used for aircraft mainte-
nance, GSE maintenance, and training facilities. SkyWest also
uses an additional five aircraft parking spaces in the South
Cargo area due to space constraints of their hangar apron. This
South Cargo location creates challenges as the aircraft must
travel a long distance between the maintenance hangar and
overnight parking location. The GSE maintenance area in the
hangar is used to maintain equipment for not only SLC, but
other smaller airports in the region as well. The limited size of
the existing building requires that some equipment must be
located outside. The existing and forecasted demand SkyWest
experiences necessities expansion of all maintenance facilities.
In discussions with SkyWest, it was approximated that facilities
could be expanded by 50 percent in size.
For a conservative estimate, space for future facilities for Delta
and SkyWest of double their existing footprint will be reserved
in the alternatives analysis.
3.9.4 Airport Maintenance
Airport maintenance facilities encompass approximately 1.0
million square feet located in the North Support area of the
Airport, including approximately 320,000 square feet of build-
ings. Through discussions with SLCDA maintenance staff, each
building was examined to determine a rough level of additional
space needs, useful life remaining, and location requirements.
Table 3-62 shows the result of this analysis. Snow Removal
Equipment (SRE) Storage, Airfield Maintenance, and Sand, Salt,
& Urea Storage are among the buildings which will necessitate
the largest growth to accommodate demand.
The existing airport maintenance space does not meet the
storage and workspace needs at the Airport. With the increas-
ing size of the new terminal, and likely increase in pavement
areas to maintain as aprons, runways and taxiways are expand-
ed necessitating additional staffing, equipment, and materials,
increases in the sizing of space and facilities will be needed. To
handle the current shortage and expected growth, the mainte-
nance campus is estimated to require an increase of the total
campus envelope by 30 percent, which equates to roughly
300,000 square feet.
Many of the existing maintenance facilities were built 30 to
40 years prior and are nearing the end of their useful life. This
is exasperated by industry changes, such as environmental
changes and the use of SRE equipment that is larger than the
equipment for which the building was designed. Additionally,
several of the material storage buildings are dealing with the
corrosion effects caused by the stored materials. In addition to
the building expansions that are required for various main-
tenance needs, the life expectancy of many of the existing
facilities is less than eight years, Alternatives will need to be
identified to replace existing facilities before they are no longer
usable.
Current space is divided by the 1200 S roadway and separated
between several buildings. Consolidation of the maintenance
facilities would allow for an increased ease of use as employ-
ees often travel between multiple buildings during all weather
conditions. Additionally, in consideration of the potential to
provide 100% employee screening, the alternatives analysis
will examine locations to provide this capability. Of the facilities
included in Table 3-62, at least elements of all buildings except
#13 – Airfield Electrical Vault, #16 Cold Storage #2, #21 SRE
Storage, and #26 Snow Chemical Storage can be moved to a
landside facility. In total, at PAL 3, future facilities should pro-
vide 298,900 square feet of buildings for the airside functions
and 123,650 square feet of buildings for landside functions
with associated apron and parking as well as the ability for
expandability.
274 275
3.9.5 Airline Glycol Storage and Recovery
During aircraft de-icing operations, SLCDA collects de-icing
fluid in order to remove used propylene glycol from runoff and
resell the reclaimed fluid. From the four commercial service
runway end de-icing pads at SLC, discussed in SECTION
1.11.3, Aircraft Deicing Facilities, deicing fluid is collected and
pumped to the Glycol Reclamation Plant for recovery. At this
facility, the propylene glycol is separated from the water used
as part of the deicing fluid as well as any stormwater that was
also collected. Available deicing fluid and glycol storage at the
Glycol Reclamation Plant includes three lagoons totaling 10.2
million gallons of storage capacity, a tank farm with a storage
capacity of 478,000 gallons, and modular tanks that can store
an additional 740,000 gallons. In 2017 SLC recovered and sold
a total of 119,227 gallons of glycol, or 21.3 percent of the
559,471 gallons of total glycol used. For the planning period, it
is assumed that 20 to 25 percent of glycol used at the Airport
will be recovered.
The existing storage capacity at the Airport is expected to
remain enough through the planning period despite projected
increases in the number of flight operations and associated
deicing required to service larger aircraft as a result of fleet
mix changes. The maximum storage capacity of the existing
lagoons is in excess of 12 million gallons. Processed fluid is
removed from the lagoon during the season after completion
of the reclamation process. With 3 million gallons of fluid pro-
Table 3-62: Airport Maintenance Buildings
Building Number Square
Footage
Additional
Square Footage
Needed at PAL 3
Space Needed
Type
Useful Life
Remaining
(Years)
1. Airfield Maintenance 39,000 20,000 Work 5 to 8
2. Sand, Salt, & Urea 35,000 17,500 Storage 5
3. Vehicle Storage East 37,000 10,000 Storage 5 to 8
4. Vehicle Maintenance 70,000 15,000 Work 10
5. Maintenance Cold Storage 15,000 3,750 Storage 5 to 8
7. Airfield Paint Storage 6,400 2,000 Storage 20
13. Airfield Electrical Vault 8,800 0 N/A 30
14. Airport Greenhouse 4,600 0 N/A 3 to 5
15. Facility Maintenance #2 30,000 7,500 Work 18 to 20
16. Cold Storage #2 12,000 0 N/A 18 to 20
21. SRE Storage 46,000 23,000 Storage 40 to 45
26. Snow Chemical Storage 16,000 4,000 Storage 15 to 20
Total 319,800 102,750
Source: SLCDA, 2019
3.10 AIRPORT FACILITY REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY
The facility requirements for SLC were prepared based on the
projected future aviation activity levels to determine future
needs. This chapter identified areas of capacity shortfalls
caused by increasing activity levels. A summary of the facility
requirements, including the forecasted deficits or surpluses
for each major functional component is shown in Table 3-63
at each PAL. Additionally, Figure 3-10 is a graphical represen-
tation of the findings expressed in the table. The bars shown
for each major component indicate the general level of service
experienced by tenants and users throughout the planning
horizon. They also give an indication of when capacity-en-
hancing efforts should be initiated to accommodate demand.
Three main colors are shown in the figure. The green-shaded
areas indicate that facility space and/or configuration are
adequate to meet demand and desired service expecta-
tions. Yellow-shaded areas indicate where demand is nearing
capacity. Red-shaded areas indicate when a deficit occurs for
the respective facility. Note that each facility deficiency is not
dependent on the others, and some metrics may be reached
sooner than others. For example, if cargo operations grow fast-
er than passenger enplanements, then cargo parking positions
may need attention before the capacity deficit in the passenger
terminal needs to be addressed.
As noted previously, besides the capacity deficits that each
facility might exhibit in each PAL, additional considerations
such as the life expectancy of the facilities and the long-range
development of Concourse C will require displacement of the
existing support facilities. Therefore, alternatives for future fa-
cilities must consider not only what is needed to meet current
deficits in capacity, but also what is needed to replace what
exists today in locations that will work long-term.
The following bullets outline the generalized conclusions of the
facility requirements analysis based on demand levels at each
specified planning activity level.
PAL 1 - 355,000 Annual Operations | 28 Million
Annual Passengers
• Mitigate Hot Spot 1 and 2 to increase safety of the Airport
by reconfiguring the associated runways and taxiways. Imple-
ment the alternatives analysis preferred solution.
• Begin advanced planning of long-haul runway extension to
14,500 feet to provide additional allowable take-off weight
for aircraft and increase reachability of Asian markets such as
Seoul, South Korea.
• Begin advanced planning efforts for future airfield config-
uration enhancements such as Taxiway U and V crossfield
taxiways, future parallel taxiways, rapid exit taxiways, and
deicing facility upgrades.
• Construct the South End Around Taxiway (SEAT) on Runway
34R in order to reduce runway crossings, potential incur-
sions, and aircraft fuel consumption. In addition, the SEAT
will improve airfield efficiency, improve airline gate arrival
times, and increase the airfields overall capacity and hourly
throughput.
• Begin initial optimization of the airfield configuration to pro-
vide enhanced operational efficiencies, increase safety, and
eliminate deficiencies with FAA standards.
• Expand dedicated air cargo facilities and apron area to serve
immediate growth requirements. Begin enabling projects
required for long-term expansion of existing facilities, and for
potential future airline entrants.
• Begin to reconfigure the east side general aviation area to
provide space to meet the changing demand for general
aviation hangars and apron.
• Accommodate need for additional airline maintenance and
support space while preparing for long-term development
and expansion in a new site outside of the future terminal
envelope.
• Accommodate need for additional airport maintenance
space while preparing for long-term development and ex-
pansion in a new site outside of the future terminal envelope.
• Complete a utility master plan to prepare for growth related
to future airfield and landside facilities.
• Begin the advanced planning for public parking and rental car
parking expansion to satisfy long-term needs should begin to
be programed and implemented.
• Expand employee lot.
PAL 2 - 385,000 Annual Operations | 32 Million
Annual Passengers
• Implement long-haul runway extension to 14,500 feet.
• Continue advanced planning efforts and begin to implement
airfield configuration enhancements as needed. Decrease
airfield deficiencies during pavement rehabilitation and re-
configuration projects.
• Convert two ADG III capable gates on Concourse A to
international gates. This will require two additional gates on
Concourse B to supplement the total gate count.
• Further expand dedicated cargo facilities and apron area or
expect that dedicated cargo operators are now growing into
any surplus space built in PAL 1.
• Potentially expand passenger cargo area to accommodate
any increased belly cargo tonnage generated from new inter-
national markets.
• If no expansion of public parking and rental car parking has
materialized, parking expansion will be required in PAL 3.
• Consider long-term needs and advanced planning efforts for
the terminal area roadway configuration.
• Begin to implement enabling projects for Concourse C. This
includes clearing the terminal envelope of existing facilities
such as airline support, airport maintenance, and the fuel
farm facility.
• Examine functionality of terminal processors to determine
future expansion needs as demand levels near PAL 3.
276 277
cessed in 2017, the lagoons can accommodate approximately
four times the existing level with no changes to plant
operations. Similarly, the tanks used to store processed glycol
are not forecasted to approach capacity levels during the
planning period.
Through the installation of diversion valves at the four run-
way-end de-icing pads, the amount of stormwater processed
has sharply declined as rainwater and other ground moisture
has not been pumped to the reclamation plant. The installation
of similar valve and pump system in the cargo de-icing location
can further remove additional stormwater that would other-
wise be processed, which would subsequently add capacity for
the plant. As cargo ramp facilities are expanded to meet the
demand referenced in SECTION 3.8, Air Cargo Capacity and
Requirements, considerations should be made to incorporate
diversion valves on the cargo de-icing collection system.
278 279
PAL 3 - 435,000 Annual Operations | 38 Million
Annual Passengers
• Implement airfield configuration enhancements that have
been vetted through advanced planning efforts as needed.
Continue to decrease airfield deficiencies during pavement
rehabilitation and reconfiguration projects.
• Convert one ADG III capable gate on Concourse A to an
international gate. This will require an additional gate on
Concourse B to supplement the total gate count. Addition-
ally, it is expected that another two domestic gates will be
needed on Concourse B. Concourse B may be fully built-out
by PAL 3.
Table 3-63: Facility Requirements Summary
Figure 3-10: Facility Requirements Summary Chart
Area
PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3
Surplus/Deficiency
Existing PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3
Airfield Longest Runway Length (ft)14,500 14,500 14,500 12,002 (2,498)(2,498)(2,498)
Terminal
Aircraft Gates 82 84 87 78/93 (4)/11 (6)/9 (9)/6
Check-In (sq ft)11,000 12,200 14,400 43,400 32,400 31,200 29,000
Baggage Claim (sq ft)35,500 47,200 49,400 71,100 35,600 23,900 21,700
Security Screening (sq ft)22,000 25,100 29,700 39,700 17,700 14,600 10,000
FIS (passengers per hour)780 790 1,040 1,000 220 210 (40)
Landside
Terminal Area Roadways (LOS)D D E C ---
Terminal Curb Roadways (LOS)B B D C ++-
Commercial Vehicle Staging Areas 103 115 141 113 10 (2)(28)
Economy Lot 12,629 14,326 16,931 10,463 (2,166)(3,863)(6,468)
Parking Garage 2,851 3,195 3,884 3,600 749 405 (284)
Park ‘n’ Wait 112 125 153 162 50 37 9
Employee Lot 3,508 3,800 4,589 3,200 (558)(70)(859)
Rental Car Ready-Return Spaces 1,438 1,610 1,958 1,122 (316)(488)(836)
Rental Car Storage 2,348 2,828 3,381 2,022 (326)(806)(1,359
Rental Car QTA Positions 84 94 115 62 (22)(32)(53)
Air Cargo
Passenger Cargo (acres)5 6 7 6 1 0 (1)
Dedicated Air Cargo (acres)57 68 81 55 (2)(13)(26)
General
Aviation
GA Hangers (sq ft)889,000 907,000 969,000 834,000 (55,000)(73,000)(135,000)
GA Apron (sq ft)2,523,000 2,711,000 3,006,000 2,515,000 (8,000)(196,000)(491,000)
GA FBO Buildings (sq ft)18,000 19,000 22,000 22,000 4,000 3,000 0
Support
5-Day Commercial Fuel Storage (gal)3,310,000 3,630,000 4,030,000 6,450,000 3,140,000 2,820,000 2,420,000
5-Day GA Fuel Storage - 100LL (gal)3,700 3,500 3,200 43,600 39,900 40,100 40,400
5-Day GA Fuel Storage - Jet A (gal)138,000 152,000 186,000 264,000 126,00 112,000 78,000
Airline Maintenance (acres)78 39 --(39)
Airport Maintenance (acres)30 23 --(7)
Glycol Storage and Recovery (gal)11,420,000 +++
• Implement enhancements to terminal area roadways that
have deteriorated in level of service.
• Increase passenger cargo area to accommodate increased
belly cargo tonnage.
• Further expand dedicated cargo facilities and apron area or
expect that dedicated cargo operators are now growing into
any extra space built in PAL 2.
• Begin advanced planning efforts for Concourse C and/or
begin initial design. Complete final enabling projects for Con-
course C development.
• Examine functionality of terminal processors to determine
future expansion needs.
Source: RS&H Analysis, 2019
Source: RS&H Analysis, 2019
Notes: ‘+’ indicates surplus. ‘-‘ indicates deficiency
Aircraft gates requirements are segmented with two numbers. The first number accounts for the initial planned build out of Concourse B. The second number accounts
for the full build out of Concourse B.
4 |
I
D
E
N
T
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
EVA
L
U
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
AL
TE
R
N
A
T
I
V
E
S
4
IDENTIFICATION AND
EVALUATION OF
ALTERNATIVES
280
4.2 BALANCED AIRPORT ANALYSIS
The SLC terminal program includes a full build out of Con-
course A and a partial build out of Concourse B. Current plan-
ning for ultimate terminal development includes a Concourse C
which would increase the total gate count at SLCIA to approx-
imately 140 gates. To account for long-range land use preser-
vation, a Concourse D was also considered in this master plan.
Adding a Concourse D would provide up to 186 gates. An initial
survey of large hub airports with gate counts ranging between
100 to 190 indicated that SLC airfield capacity may not be able
to support a Concourse D. Analysis was completed to verify a
reasonable level of gate buildout that should be planned con-
sidering long-term airfield and landside capacity.
When the Airport reaches planning activity level (PAL) 3 with
32 million annual passengers, it is expected that SLC will
accommodate roughly 1,300 daily operations and require 87
gates. A full build out of Concourse B will provide the Airport
a total of 93 gates, which is expected to be required a few
years beyond PAL 3. At PAL 3, gate demand is in balance with
runway capacity and the terminal landside components (curbs,
roads, and vehicle parking), as illustrated in Figure 4-1.
If Concourse C is required in the future, a half build-out of Con-
course C will take the airport to approximately 115 total gates.
With that many gates, SLC could be expected to experience
10 minutes of annualized average delay. As noted in the Facility
Requirements chapter, the industry accepted threshold of
annualized runway delay is 5 minutes. Thus, capacity enhance-
ment will be required before Concourse C is developed to
maintain a balanced airport. Additionally, parking, terminal curb,
and roadway enhancements will be required to support a par-
tial Concourse C build out, but these are feasible expansions.
Demand levels that would require breaking ground on a partial
concourse C are not expected until beyond PAL 3. Considering
that factor, some existing facilities within the future Concourse
C footprint may not require relocation during their useful life.
However, new areas must be preserved through the future for
relocation of these facilities when they need replacement. The
alternatives development for this study accounted for the need
to plan for a fully built future Concourse C beyond PAL 3 and
considered the need to eventually relocate and provide expan-
sion opportunities for the fuel farm, airline support/mainte-
nance, Fire Station #12, and airport maintenance facilities.
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter identifies and evaluates facility development al-
ternatives for Salt Lake City International Airport based on the
facility requirements determined in Chapter 3, Facility Require-
ments. The primary purpose behind identifying and evaluating
various alternative development options is to ensure airport
facilities are capable of meeting projected activity demand
levels, are making efficient and effective use of available airport
land and are meeting FAA airfield design standards. Every
potential alternative in this chapter has been thoroughly ana-
lyzed, refined, and vetted through the stakeholder involvement
process in order to develop a plan which reflects stakeholder
and community values and preferences, and integrates well
with the unique operational nature and role of Salt Lake City
International Airport.
A hierarchy of priority is required when analyzing airport facil-
ities and developing alternatives. Components of the airport
are broken down into leading elements and trailing elements,
with leading elements considered first. Leading elements are
primary facilities that require significant amounts of land and/
or capital investment to implement, and whose placement
and configuration must take precedence when formulating
alternatives. At Salt Lake City International Airport, these
facilities include runways, primary taxiways, passenger terminal
facilities, and air cargo facilities. Trailing elements are those
whose placement and configuration are influenced by, and
dependent on, the decisions made for primary facilities. Trailing
elements at the airport include aviation support facilities such
as airline maintenance, airport maintenance, and fuel storage.
The division between leading and trailing elements allows the
initial focus of analysis to be on determining solutions for those
high cost, more demanding leading elements. The placement
and decisions surrounding the leading elements influence the
location and layout of the trailing elements.
IDENTIFICATION AND
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
Additionally, the analysis indicated a Concourse D may not ever be able to be supported by the runway capacity, airspace capacity,
and terminal systems at SLC. A fully built Concourse D would bring the total number of gates up to 186, which is roughly the same
as Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL) in 2020. While the alternatives development in this master plan account-
ed for a Concourse D within the planned terminal envelope, the land area required for a future Concourse D is better used as
developable land within the planning period. If airspace and runway capacity are increased to the point of supporting construction
of a Concourse D, by that time it can be expected that any building placed within the area needed for the concourse would have
reached the end of its useful life and need replacement. Considering these factors, this study assumes the land within the Con-
course D footprint is available through the planning period for development of other facilities.
4.3 RUNWAY ALTERNATIVES
This section discusses the alternatives generated to address
the Airport’s need for a long-haul runway extension, enhance-
ments for Runway 17-35, and to resolve Runway 14-32 design
issues and adjacent hot spots.
4.3.1 Runway Extension for Long Haul Routes
The Aviation Activity Forecast (Chapter 2) indicates market
support for flights to Asia direct from SLC. These flights would
entail larger and heavier passenger aircraft which, coupled with
the high elevation and maximum mean temperatures at SLC,
necessitate additional runway length to meet aircraft perfor-
mance requirements. The required runway length determina-
tion for SLC is based on the future critical aircraft, the Airbus
A350, and its departure performance. In general, departure op-
erations require longer runway lengths than arrival operations.
The runway length requirement for SLC to accommodate the
Airbus A350 on long-haul routes was determined to be 14,500
feet. Today, the primary parallel runways are roughly 12,000
feet in length.
The 1996 Master Plan recommended Runway 16L-34R be ex-
tended to the north to a final length of 14,302 feet. The 2006
Airport Layout Plan Update recommended Runway 16L-34R
be extended to the north to a final length of 15,100 feet. The
difference in runway length requirements determined within
the two studies was due to the critical aircraft being planned
for, but both studies carried forward Runway 16L-34R as the
runway to extend to the north. The primary reason for reexam-
ination of these alternatives within this master plan is to ensure
due diligence is taken in examining any option that could be
more beneficial, or have fewer implementation impacts, than
extending Runway 16L-34R to the north.
This master plan study includes a validation of the previous
two studies findings. An examination of possible extension to
the other runways, including a realigned Runway 17-35 as an
alternative, is illustrated in Figure 4-2.
281 282
Table 4-1: Balanced Airport Analysis
Source: RS&H Analysis, 2020Note: Existing vehicle parking areas combined with available land to the south of those parking facilities are estimated to be sufficient for parking demand beyond PAL 3. Though not all Concourse B gates are built today, plans are in place for full build-out as needed. Concourse C will require further planning and development of taxilanes, taxiways, and apron.
Figure 4-2: Long-Haul Runway Extension Alternatives
Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 include extensions to the north of ex-
isting runways to a final length of 14,500 feet. Extension to the
south is constrained by airspace requirements and Interstate
80, and thus was not explored further. Alternative 4 assumes
that Runway 17-35 would be realigned in parallel with the 16-
34 runways and built to 14,500 feet. Alternative 4 was includ-
ed in this evaluation as proof-of-concept to determine whether
that runway is the best runway for long-haul aircraft departures
should the runway complex be realigned.
One critical consideration for a north runway extension is the
high-tension power lines located immediately north of the air-
port. The lines run east-west and are furthest from the airport
north of Runway 17-35 and closest north of Runway 16R-34L.
Today, the power lines impact one-engine inoperative (OEI)
requirements for airlines under certain circumstances on the
16-34 runways.
Because long-haul and larger aircraft require a longer runway
length than is provided by Runway 17-35 and the lines are
furthest from this runway, power line related constraints do not
impact Runway 17-35 in its current configuration. Of the four
alternatives, power line related impacts are greatest for Alter-
native 1 where the lines are the closest to the runway, and the
least for Alternative 3 where the lines are the furthest north
from the runway. The previous studies recognized these lines
as an implementation hurdle for extending Runway 16L-34R
to the north and is one reason this study included evaluation of
Alternative 3 and 4. Moving or burying the power lines is a fea-
sible but costly option that was accounted for in the evaluation.
The timeframe for implementation was also considered in the
evaluation. As noted, market support for a flight to Asia direct
from SLC was found likely to materialize in the near-term.
At the time of this writing in 2020, COVID-19 had reduced
demand for domestic and international travel, but it is expected
that as the industry recovers, market demand will materialize
for a direct Asian flight. Alternative 4, which is a complete re-
alignment of Runway 17-35, is not needed to support capacity
in the near-term and thus would not be programmed until the
Source: SLCDA; RS&H Analysis, 2020
tail end of PAL 3. This factor eliminated Alternative 4 from be-
ing included as a viable alternative. Further description of the
realigned runway evaluation is provided in Section 4.3.3.
The evaluation criteria developed for this analysis are de-
scribed below along with a summary of associated findings and
considerations. Review of the alternatives with SLCDA man-
agement and SLC FAA ATCT controllers resulted in Alternative
2 being chosen as the preferred alternative.
Evaluation Criteria and Assessment:
• Climb Gradients/Airspace: How does the option integrate
with the airspace and does it work to support minimal climb
gradients required by heavy aircraft?
͛Heavy aircraft departures today are conducted on
Runway 16L-34R as the departure path is straight out
down the valley. This departure avoids the need to
climb rapidly to avoid mountainous terrain. Additionally,
no turn is needed for heavy aircraft on climb out from
16L-34R. This is a benefit as large heavy aircraft on
climb out have less maneuverability than narrow body
aircraft in the initial phase of flight.
• High-tension power lines exist north of the airfield and cre-
ate obstructions. Mitigation of the power lines is needed for
all options but less so as the departure path is moved east.
Alternative 3 has the least impact on the power lines and
Alternative 1 has the greatest impact.
• Runway Usage and Integration: Does the option fit with how
ATCT controllers operate the airfield and the airspace?
͛As noted above, heavy aircraft at SLC generally require
a straight-out departure. It would be possible to depart
a heavy aircraft on the west or east runway (including a
realigned east runway), however the departure would
need to fly down the valley along the course used for
Runway 16L and 34R departures. This would disrupt
operations of the center runway, essentially shutting
down that runway for departures while the heavy
aircraft departs. This is the primary deciding factor to
support Alternative 2 as the preferred option.
• Wetlands Impacts: What is the extent of wetlands impact of
the option?
͛The estimated wetlands impact of a runway extension
and associated parallel taxiway complex extension for
each option is:
͗Alternative 1 - 10 acres
͗Alternative 2 - 1 acre
͗Alternative 3 - 13 acres
͗Alternative 4 - 20 acres
• Constructability: The runway extension is assumed to be
needed within the near-term. How does the option work to
allow near-term implementation?
͛As noted, Alternative 4 is unfeasible for implementa-
tion in the near-term. The other three options perform
relatively equally based on the feasibility of their
construction in the near-term.
• Cost Factors: How does the option perform on a basis of
cost compared to the other options?
͛Alternative 4 will be far more expensive than the other
options, while the other three options are estimated to
be similar in ROM costs.
• Carbon Footprint: Does the option effectively reduce or
increase carbon emissions?
͛Alternatives 1 and 2 were found to perform equally,
as both Runway 16L-34R and Runway 16R-34L are
adjacent to the terminal and do not require an exces-
sively longer taxi to the new threshold than is required
currently. Alternatives 3 and 4 require taxi across
the center runway and in general, a longer taxi. The
increased taxi time for all aircraft needing to depart
on the longer runway correlates with greater carbon
emissions.
• Safety: How does the option maintain a safe operating
environment?
͛Alternatives 3 and 4 require aircraft to cross the
center runway whereas Alternative 1 and 2 do not
require a runway crossing. Avoiding a runway crossing
is preferred. An end around taxiway, considered in this
study, could alleviate runway crossing but increases taxi
distance and cost.
͛Alternatives 3 and 4 require aircraft to conduct a longer
taxi and more turning maneuvers prior to take-off than
Alternatives 1 and 2. On taxi-out, an aircraft is fully
burdened with fuel and is at its heaviest weight during
the operation. Best practices1 are for heavy aircraft not
to exceed 3 miles in taxi distance and to minimize turns
in effort to reduce tire heat build-up. Alternatives 3 and
4 both require less than 3 miles of taxi if not taxiing via
a new end around taxiway, but both have a greater taxi
distance than Alternatives 1 and 2.
Overall, the evaluation of the options validated that Runway
16L-34R should be the runway extended to allow greater flex-
ibility for long-haul routes. That runway is the only runway that
can accommodate heavy aircraft departures without impacting
departure and arrival operations of the adjacent runways. ATCT
controllers validated this assessment.
Table 4-1 visually summarizes the evaluation and conclusions
of SLC management and the planning team. Further alternative
analysis was conducted to determine how to best mitigate the
power line obstructions and determine ROM costs for mitiga-
tion. That analysis is provided in Appendix A.
283 284
1 ICAO Aerodrome Design Manual, Part 2 Taxiways, Aprons and Holding Bays. Fourth Edition 2005
Table 4-1: Long-Haul Runway Extension Alternatives Evaluation
4.3.2 Prior Planning for New West Runway and
Runway 17-35 Realignment
Since the development of the 1998 Salt Lake City Airport
Master Plan, Runway 17-35 has been analyzed for realignment
and a new west runway complex was examined for poten-
tial future integration. However, the 1998 Master Plan only
brought forward a realigned concept for Runway 17-35 into
the Airport Layout Plan, as shown in Figure 4-3. The decision
to move forward with a realigned Runway 17-35 was based
on the cost/benefit compared to building a new west runway
complex.
The next planning study at SLC was the 2006 Airport Layout
Plan Update. That study completed further analysis and exam-
ination of a realigned Runway 17-35 and a new west runway
complex. As shown in Figure 4-4, the concept of a new west
runway was further defined, as was the location and length of
a realigned Runway 17-35. The narrative report of the 2006
Update recommended that both a new west runway and a
realigned Runway 17-35 be preserved for long term develop-
ment. The report indicated that the realigned runway should
be implemented before the new west runway. However, as
show in Figure 4-5, the current ALP last updated in 2012, a
realigned Runway 17-35 is not shown, but instead a new west
runway is depicted.
The planning rationale is not clear as to why the west runway
was depicted on the current ALP and the realigned Runway
17-35 was removed. However, it is important to note that both
the 1998 Study and the 2006 Update found advantage to a
realigned Runway 17-35 and a new west runway. Both studies
also recognized the significant facilities work required to imple-
ment a new west runway and concluded that work is greater
than what would be required for a realigned runway.
The facility requirements found that no additional runway
capacity is needed at SLC within the 20-year planning period.
Thus, the need for major runway improvements isn’t required
immediately. However, as the balanced airport analysis indicat-
ed, additional capacity is needed prior to expanding into a Con-
course C. Planning and programming for that capacity increase
could be required within this study’s planning period. For this
reason, this study built upon the prior two decades of planning
and further examined the potential benefit of a realigned run-
way and a new west runway.
Analysis conducted in this study determined that a realigned
Runway 17-35 would provide more benefit to the SLC system
than a new west runway. The airspace analysis concluded that
overall, a new west runway would not provide independent
operations due to the other parallel runways missed approach
requirements and the surrounding terrain. The 2006 Study
recommendation that a realigned runway should be programed
before a new west runway was validated. The following
sub-section describes the comprehensive analysis conducted
on a Runway 17-35 realignment to further define an ideal sep-
aration, and length to be planned for, based on today’s airspace
technologies.
Although a new west runway was not explored further in this
study, it is recommended the concept be carried forward on
the updated ALP, like that on the 2012 ALP. A new west run-
way may provide some benefit over the life of the Airport and
depending on technology and airspace redesigns in the future,
could be more beneficial than currently identified. The preser-
vation of the west runway concept on the ALP will help ensure
future actions make a new west runway more, and not less,
feasible as an option in the future.
Criteria
Alternative 1
Extend Runway
16R-34L
Alternative 2
Extend Runway
16L-34R
Alternative 3
Extend Runway
17-35
Alternative 4
New Realigned
Runway
Climb Gradients/Airspace
RWY Usage and Integration
Wetlands Impacts
Constructability
ROM Costs
Carbon Footprint
Safety
Performance Legend Good Fair Poor
285 286
Figure 4-3: 1998 Master Plan Airport Layout Plan Sheet
Figure 4-4: 2006 Airport Layout Plan Update Four-Runway Concept
Figure 4-5: SLC Airport Layout Plan Updated 2012
Source: 1998 Salt Lake
City Airport Master Plan
Source: Existing Airport Layout
Plan last updated in 2012
Source: 2006 Airport Layout Plan Update,
Figure 2-2 Four-Runway Consideration
4.3.3 Runway 17-35 Alternatives
As noted above, Runway 17-35 was studied extensively in the
1996 Master Plan and the 2006 Airport Layout Plan Update.
The focus of those studies was on the capacity improvements
a realigned Runway 17-35 may provide as a third parallel run-
way. Air traffic separation rules, instrument procedure design
criteria, and fleet mix at SLC have changed since those studies
were completed, and this master plan study re-analyzed the
ideal separation from Runway 16L-34R as well as the capac-
ity and operational benefits that could be realized with that
separation.
Parallel runway separation requirements, detailed in Table
4-2, are correlated with different levels of dependency and
independency for parallel runway operations under visual
(VMC) and instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). The
2006 Airport Layout Plan Update recommended the realigned
runway be sited between 2,500 and 4,300 feet from existing
Runway 16L-34R. At a minimum of 2,500 feet, simultaneous
dependent approach operations between runways in IMC can
be provided. As separation between runways increases be-
yond 3,000 feet, additional ATC and capacity benefits may be
realized, but there are substantial impacts to existing ground
facilities and additional potential restrictions to the instrument
approach procedures needed to fully realize the benefits of a
realigned runway.
As part of this master plan, a comprehensive airspace analysis
was conducted which included flight procedure redevelopment
concepts and a study of the existing airspace. The baseline
for separation analysis began with 2,500 feet from Runway
Table 4-2: Runway Separation Requirements
Runway Separation Requirements
RunwaySeparation
VMC IMC CommentApproachDepartureApproachDeparture
700’See Comment See Comment Dependent Dependent Independent operations for ADG-I
through IV aircraft
1,200’See Comment See Comment Dependent Dependent Independent operations for ADG-I
through IV aircraft
2,500’Independent Independent Dependent See Comment Simultaneous radar departures only
3,500’Independent Independent Dependent Independent Simultaneous radar and non-radar
departures
3,600’Independent Independent See Comment Independent
PBN instrument dual approach to an
offset final approach course (FAC) or a
procedure paried with an offset FAC.
3,900’Independent Independent See Comment Independent
PBN instrument triple approach to an
offset final approach course (FAC) or a
procedure paired with and offset FAC.
4,300’Independent Independent See Comment Independent Dual simultaneous precision
instrument approaches
5,000’Independent Independent See Comment Independent
Triple simultaneous precision instru-
ment approaches for airports below
1,000 feet MSL.
9,000’Independent Independent See Comment Independent
Triple approaches requires indentifica-
tion and clearances of No Transgres-
sion and Normal Operating Zones. No
PRM required.
Source: FAA Order 711065Y Air Traffice Control, FAA Order 8260, 3D United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS), FAA AC 150/5300-13A
Change 1 Airport Design, 2020
1) Table valutes assume runways have a true parallel alignment.
2) Values and conditions provided are general planning values. Actual operating conditions may vary and upon FAA review and approval
3) When runway thresholds are staggered and the approach is to the near threshold, separation can be reduced by 100 feet for each 500 feet threshold stagger.
4) When runway thresholds are staggered and the approach is to the far threshold, separation must be increased by 100 feet for each 500 feet of threshold staggered.
5) The minimum runway centerline separation distance recommended for ADG-V and VI runways is 1,200 feet. Air Traffic Control (ATC) practices, such as holding aircraft
between the runways, frequently justify greater separation distances. Runway with the centerline spacings under 2,500 feet are normally treated as a single runway by ATC
when wake turbulence is a factor.
6) Operations less thatn 9,000 feet require a No Transgression Zone (NTZ)
7) PRM approach must be assigned wehn conducting instrument approaches to dual and triple parallel runways centerlines spaced by less than 4,300 feet.
16L-34R, as that separation is the minimum required for inde-
pendent simultaneous departures, and mixed departure/arrival
operations in IMC conditions between the center runway and a
realigned Runway 17-35.
The analysis provided a deeper understanding of the poten-
tial performance characteristics of a realigned Runway 17-35
using current and emerging Performance Based Navigation
(PBN) technologies. In evaluating the potential of a realigned
runway with various separations from Runway 16L-34R, a
carte blanche approach was taken assuming an entirely new
set of instrument approach procedures would be developed
to support the new runway and, where necessary, missed
approach procedures to Runway 34R could be modified to
achieve 8260.3D (TERPS) triple simultaneous procedure
criteria.
The analysis also examined geospatial considerations, in-
cluding obstacle and terrain impacts from the perspective of
TERPS procedure design criteria, as well as resulting approach
procedure minima for all relevant runway separations for
various types of applicable instrument procedures. The flight
procedure analysis assessed the viability and potential utility
of instrument approaches, missed approaches, and departure
procedures that must integrate with operations on the other
runways in ways that maximize the benefits of—a now paral-
lel—Runway 17-35.
Table 4-3 details at a high level the arrival and departure
capability determined with a realigned Runway 17-35 in IMC at
various levels of separation. Current technologies influence the
capabilities within each level of separation and can sometimes
provide performance benefits attributed to higher levels of
separation within a lower level. Appendix B details the specific
findings of the comprehensive analysis and describes flight
procedure and air traffic control considerations for each level
of separation.
Table 4-4 details the findings of the approach and departure
capabilities at each level of separation. It was found that all
separation levels provide ILS CAT I/II/III approaches in north
and south flows. This would be an enhancement over the ap-
proach capability offered by Runway 17-35 today, providing the
Airport greater all-weather capability and redundancy.
287 288
Table 4-3: Departure and Arrival Capabilities for Realigned Runway
Source: LEAN Corp, 2020. Prepared by RS&H, 2020
Notes: CSPO refers to closely spaced runway operations detailed in FAA Order 7110.308. PRM is precision runway monitor.
EoR refers to an Established on RNP approach.
The results of the analysis found the recommended level of
separation to site the runway to be between 3,000 and 3,600
feet. Separation below 3,000 feet introduces ATC challenges
and dependencies that do not exist today and would substan-
tially reduce the achievable capacity benefits. Overall, 3,000
feet separation was found to provide the best balance between
benefit and impact to east side facilities.
The next higher category of separation, 3,600 to 3,900 feet,
may allow for Established on RNP (EoR) approaches. However,
this is a marginal advantage when compared to the substantial
impacts to east side facilities at that level of separation. Ad-
ditionally, this category of separation only provides additional
benefit during north flow operations. South flow operations
cannot be further improved due to the configuration of the
mountains flanking the Salt Lake Valley. Considering that SLC
is nearly evenly split between time in north flow and south
flow, the potential benefit of gaining an EoR approach is di-
minished by the fact that it can only be applied for use in north
flow.
The 4,300 to 5,000 feet separation window was found to
present substantial challenges with obstacle avoidance and
procedure design. The analysis indicated that flight proce-
dures may be designed to standard at this separation, but the
complexity and extremity of the procedures would not be
recommended for implementation. Thus, the 4,300 to 5,000
feet separation window and beyond are considered unfeasible
at SLC.
A 3,000-foot separation provides the minimum 9,000 feet
separation between the realigned runway and Runway
16R-34L, which prevents the need for additional monitor
controllers for simultaneous operations between the west
(16R-34L) and east runways (realigned 17-35)2. A preferred
concept, illustrated in Figure 4-6, was developed assuming
the center runway was extended to 14,500 feet in length, and
a realigned runway designed to 12,000 feet in length. That
concept assumed the southern thresholds would be aligned
to minimize impacts to the east facilities. With the 2,500 feet
of runway stagger presented in this concept, a separation of
3,000 feet is required.
Table 4-4: Procedure Capabilities for Realigned Runway 17-35
2 Runways separated by at least 9,000 feet prevent the need from having precision radar monitoring (PRM) for simultaneous operations. At SLC this equates to a mini-
mum of 2,845 feet of separation between the center runway and a realigned Runway 17-35. Separation of parallel runways must also account for differences in runway
threshold alignments. Thresholds that are not aligned are considered staggered. For every 500 feet of threshold stagger, runways must be further separated by 100
feet. The realigned runway was studied at a length of 12,000 feet. That length was determined suitable to accommodate the commercial fleet mix at SLC. Considering
Runway 16L-34R is recommended for extension to 14,500 feet, a total of 2,500 feet of stagger would exist between Runway 16L-34R and the realigned Runway 17-
35 if either the north or south thresholds are aligned. Thus, 3,000 feet of separation would be required to account for the 2,500 feet of stagger.
Source: LEAN Corp, 2020. Prepared by RS&H, 2020
Runway
Separation
North Flow South Flow
Arrival Departure Arrival Departure
2,500 Feet to
< 3,600 Feet
ILS CAT I/II/III APP CAT A-E
and all PBN options
2.5-3.0 Degree offset
appraoches possible
Triple Simultaneous Approach
Standard departure
ILS CAT I/II/III APP CAT A-E
and all PBN options
2.5-3.0 Degree offset
appraoches possible
Dual Simultaneous Approach
Standard departure
3,600 Feet to
<3,900 Feet
ILS CAT I/II/III APP CAT A-E
and all PBN options
2.5-3.0 Degree offset
appraoches possible
Triple Simultaneous Approach
Standard departure
ILS CAT I/II/III APP CAT A-E
and all PBN options
2.5-3.0 Degree offset
appraoches possible
Dual Simultaneous Approach
Standard departure
3,900 Feet to
<4,300 Feet
ILS CAT I/II/III APP CAT A-E
and all PBN options
Triple Simultaneous Approach
Standard departure
ILS CAT I/II/III APP CAT A-E
and all PBN options
Dual Simultaneous Approach
Standard departure
4,300 Feet to
<5,000 Feet
ILS CAT I/II/III APP CAT A-E
and all PBN options
Triple Simultaneous Approach
Increased climb gradient
requirement
ILS CAT I/II/III APP CAT A-E
and all PBN options
Dual Simultaneous Approach
Increased climb gradient
requirement
5,000 Feet Plus
ILS CAT I/II/III APP CAT A-E
and all PBN options
Triple Simultaneous Approach
Increased climb gradient
requirement
ILS CAT I/II/III APP CAT A-E
and all PBN options
Dual Simultaneous Approach
Increased climb gradient
requirement
Runway
Separation
North Flow South Flow
Arrival Departure Arrival Departure
2,500 Feet to
< 3,600 Feet
ILS CAT I/II/III APP CAT A-E
and all PBN options
2.5-3.0 Degree offset
appraoches possible
Triple Simultaneous Approach
Standard departure
ILS CAT I/II/III APP CAT A-E
and all PBN options
2.5-3.0 Degree offset
appraoches possible
Dual Simultaneous Approach
Standard departure
3,600 Feet to
<3,900 Feet
ILS CAT I/II/III APP CAT A-E
and all PBN options
2.5-3.0 Degree offset
appraoches possible
Triple Simultaneous Approach
Standard departure
ILS CAT I/II/III APP CAT A-E
and all PBN options
2.5-3.0 Degree offset
appraoches possible
Dual Simultaneous Approach
Standard departure
3,900 Feet to
<4,300 Feet
ILS CAT I/II/III APP CAT A-E
and all PBN options
Triple Simultaneous Approach
Standard departure
ILS CAT I/II/III APP CAT A-E
and all PBN options
Dual Simultaneous Approach
Standard departure
4,300 Feet to
<5,000 Feet
ILS CAT I/II/III APP CAT A-E
and all PBN options
Triple Simultaneous Approach
Increased climb gradient
requirement
ILS CAT I/II/III APP CAT A-E
and all PBN options
Dual Simultaneous Approach
Increased climb gradient
requirement
5,000 Feet Plus
ILS CAT I/II/III APP CAT A-E
and all PBN options
Triple Simultaneous Approach
Increased climb gradient
requirement
ILS CAT I/II/III APP CAT A-E
and all PBN options
Dual Simultaneous Approach
Increased climb gradient
requirement
4.3.4 Runway 14-32 and Adjacent Hot
Spot Alternatives
As discussed in Chapter 3 Facility Requirements, FAA hot spots
HS1 and HS2 locations have had runway incursions in number
and frequency to also be listed on the FAA Runway Incursion
Mitigation (RIM) list. As a RIM location, these hot spots require
changes in airfield geometry to enhance safety and mitigate
chances of runway incursions.
The FAA has categorized airfield geometry that has been found
to increase chances of runway incursions (RI) as geocodes.
The geocodes applicable to HS1 and HS2 are detailed below
in Table 4-5. Alternatives have been developed that work to
eliminate the geocodes associated with the existing airfield
geometry. Additionally, other airfield geometry changes are
introduced that would be required in implementation of the
alternatives to conform to FAA design standards. This includes
Runway 14-32 and its dedicated entrance taxiways being de-
signed to ADG II standards, which supports the critical aircraft
designated for that runway.
An analysis of historical runway incursions at HS1 and HS2 be-
tween 2013 and 2019 was completed to gain a deeper under-
standing of which geocodes specifically were creating issues.
At HS1, it was found that the typical RI’s included deviations
by pilots of small general aviation aircraft crossing the hold-
short line at Taxiway K1 without clearance or departing from
the incorrect runway. The Airport has implemented enhanced
signage, lighting, and painted markings at Taxiway K1; however,
it is likely that pilots may find the intersection confusing due to
the need to denote two runways at one intersection.
289 290
Figure 4-6: Runway 17-35 Realignment Preferred Alternative
Source: SLCDA; RS&H Analysis, 2020
An analysis of historical runway incursions at HS1 and HS2 be-
tween 2013 and 2019 was completed to gain a deeper under-
standing of which geocodes specifically were creating issues.
At HS1, it was found that the typical RI’s included deviations
by pilots of small general aviation aircraft crossing the hold-
short line at Taxiway K1 without clearance or departing from
the incorrect runway. The Airport has implemented enhanced
signage, lighting, and painted markings at Taxiway K1; however,
it is likely that pilots may find the intersection confusing due to
the need to denote two runways at one intersection.
The analysis of historical RI’s at HS2 indicates most were
related to aircraft crossing Runway 16L-34R from Taxiway
Table 4-5: Runway 14-32 Applicable Geocodes
H5, proceeding on Taxiway Q, then missing their directed right
turn onto Taxiway L and subsequently crossing the hold-short
marking for Runway 14-32. Geocodes found to significantly
influence runway incursions at HS2 include Geocode 3 and
7. The distance required to cross Runway 16L-34R from
Taxiway H5 to Taxiway Q is longer than typical perpendicular
runway crossings which allows, and sometimes requires, pilots
to increase taxi speed. The increase in speed and distance is
compounded by the short distance between hold-short mark-
ings on Taxiway Q and the wide expanse of pavement at the
junction of Taxiway L and entrance to Runway 14-32.
HS1 Geocodes Description
Geocode 2 Wrong runway events
Geocode 6 Two runway thresholds in proximity
Geocode 7 Short taxiway (stubs) between runways
Geocode 8 Direct taxiing access to runways from ramp areas
Geocode 12 Taxiway connection to V-shaped runways
Geocode 14 Short taxi distance from ramp/apron area to runway
Geocode 16 Taxiway coinciding with the intersection of two runways
HS2 Geocodes Description
Geocode 3 Wide expanses of taxi pavement entering runway
Geocode 4 Convergence of numerous taxiways entering a runway
Geocode 7 Short taxiway (stubs) between runways
Geocode 13 Taxiway intersect at other than a right angle
Source: FAA Runway Incursion Mitigation Program, RS&H Analysis, 2020
291 292
Alternative 1 – Bring Geometry Up to Standards
This alternative is based on maintaining Runway 14-32 at its current length and reconfiguring the runway end entrance taxiways
to an alignment that meets FAA standards and eliminates the associated geocodes. The HS2 hot spot, at the location of Taxiway Q
and the Runway 14 threshold, is mitigated with a reconfigured Taxiway Q. The configuration eliminates the straight-in alignment of
the current crossing with Runway 14-32 and requires a multitude of 90 degree turns to access Runway 14-32.
Most of the HS1 hotspot geocodes are mitigated as the existing Taxiway J, which is aligned with Runway 34, is removed and run-
way access is provided with a future Taxiway J built to FAA standards. This eliminates the potential for aircraft to line up and depart
from the wrong runway. Geocodes related to the position of Taxiway K1 and the apron remain. These include Geocodes 8 and
14, which are direct access and short taxi distance from the apron to runway, respectively. Options exist to mitigate geocodes at
Taxiway K1 but will require a large reduction in apron space. However, it is expected that the removal of signage at the intersection
related to Runway 14-32 will reduce clutter and pilot confusion.
This option also includes geometry changes to Taxiways P and N to correct for the wide expanse of pavement created by the taxi-
ways converging on the runway, and the runway crossing at other than a 90-degree angle.
The estimated construction cost for this alternative is $18,100,000. Soft costs, including mobilization, environmental docu-
mentation, design, and project administration are estimated to be approximately $4,700,000 for a total project ROM cost of
$22,800,000. This does not include escalation or contingency costs.
Advantages of this alternative include:
• Runway 14-32 remains at its current length of 4,893 feet.
• HS2 hotspot geocodes are fully mitigated.
• HS1 hotspot geocodes are mitigated to the fullest extent possible without impacting the aircraft apron area
adjacent to Taxiway K1.
Disadvantages of this alternative include:
• Taxi flows of commercial passenger aircraft landing Runway 17-35 are slowed due to the geometry changes required for
Taxiways P and N, thereby increasing taxi times.
• A non-standard holding position marking on Runway 14-32 must remain due to the runway’s proximity to Runway 17-35.
• The option requires significant investment.
Figure 4-7: Runway 14-32 Alternative One
Source: SLCDA; RS&H Analysis, 2020
Alternative 2 – Shorten Runway 14-32
This alternative proposes that Runway 14-32 be shortened to 3,510 feet, which is sufficient to support that runway’s critical
aircraft. Taxiway Q is designed similar to that in Alternative 1, albeit, in this alternative a separate taxiway entrance off Taxiway Q
will access the Runway 14 threshold. The reduction in runway length allows for ADG III aircraft to taxi on Taxiway M and Taxiway
Q independently of Runway 14-32 operations. Additionally, the Runway 32 threshold is further separated from Runway 35, which
provides enhanced safety and simplicity as any taxiing aircraft or snow removal equipment on Runway 14-32 will not interfere with
Runway 17-35 operations. Like Alternative 1, Geocodes 7 and 16 remain for HS1 due to the configuration of Runway 17-35, Taxi-
way K1, and the aircraft parking apron.
The estimated construction cost for this alternative is $19,300,000. Soft costs, including mobilization, environmental documenta-
tion, design, and project administration is estimated to be approximately $5,000,000 for a total project ROM cost of $24,300,000.
This does not include escalation or contingency costs.
Advantages of this alternative include:
• HS2 hotspot geocodes are fully mitigated.
• HS1 hotspot geocodes are mitigated to the fullest extent possible without impacting the aircraft apron area adjacent
to Taxiway K1.
• Runway 14-32 operations are fully independent and are not affected by aircraft taxiing on Taxiway Q and M.
• A non-standard hold marking on Runway 14-32 is not needed because there is enough separation from Runway 17-35
that aircraft on the pavement of Runway 14-32 will not interfere with Runway 17-35 operations.
Disadvantages of this alternative include:
• Taxi flows of commercial passenger aircraft landing Runway 17-35 are slowed due to the taxiway geometry changes,
thereby increasing taxi times.
• The option requires significant investment.
293 294
Figure 4-8: Runway 14-32 Alternative Two
Source: SLCDA; RS&H Analysis, 2020
Alternative 3 – Close Runway 14-32
This alternative includes the closure of Runway 14-32 and removal of the runway from the SLC system. Portions of the runway
would be converted to taxiway to keep Taxiway Q and Taxiway P functional. Geocodes 7 and 16 remain at HS1 due to the
configuration of Runway 17-35, Taxiway K1 and the aircraft parking apron.
The estimated construction cost for this alternative is $2,200,000. Soft costs, including mobilization, environmental documenta-
tion, design, and project administration is estimated to be approximately $500,000 for a total project ROM cost of $2,700,000.
This does not include escalation or contingency. It is possible the project cost could be reduced if the project is value engineered
to a minimum effort that sufficiently meets FAA standards and provides a high level of safety.
Advantages of this alternative include:
• HS2 hotspot geocodes are fully mitigated.
• HS1 hotspot geocodes are mitigated to the fullest extent possible without impacting the aircraft apron area adjacent
to Taxiway K1.
• Removal of Runway 14-32 allows expedited taxi of commercial passenger aircraft landing Runway 17 and
transitioning to the terminal area.
• Minimal capital investment required.
Disadvantages of this alternative include:
• Runway 14-32 is primarily used by ATCT controllers to land small cargo feeder aircraft during the evening peak hours. The run-
way would not be available for that purpose and those aircraft would need to sequence into arrival streams for the
primary runways.
295 296
Figure 4-9: Runway 14-32 Alternative Three
Source: SLCDA; RS&H Analysis, 2020
4.3.4.1 Runway 14-32 Hot Spot Alternatives Evaluation
The alternatives developed all work to remove the geocodes
related to the configuration of Runway 14-32 at HS1 and HS2.
Geocode 8 and Geocode 14 remain in place in these alterna-
tives due to the configuration of Runway 17-35, Taxiway K1,
and the proximity of the aircraft parking apron. The master
plan team and Airport management anticipate that with imple-
mentation of any of the alternatives, the Taxiway K1 intersec-
tion will become less confusing as signage and markings will be
focused on alerting pilots of only one runway, as opposed to
two. This is expected to help reduce the number, and likeli-
hood, of future incursions. Options exist to mitigate geocodes
at Taxiway K1 but they require a large reduction in apron
space. Thus, a “wait and see” approach is recommended after
implementation of the preferred option. If incursions continue,
a more refined approach can be developed based on data gath-
ered after the elimination of the other geocodes.
Evaluation of the alternatives required consideration of how
Runway 14-32 is used within the SLC system of runways.
Historical data indicated that in 2018, there were 3,350 annual
operations on Runway 14-32 conducted almost exclusively by
small cargo feeder aircraft landing in the evening. In north flow
during VMC conditions, ATCT controllers explained they use
Runway 32 to land small cargo aircraft, allowing them to sepa-
rate the slow aircraft out from the arrival flows of the primary
runways. This was found to be the main benefit of Runway
14-32 within the SLC runway system.
Examination of cargo schedules for December 2017 and Feb-
ruary 2018, in conjunction with the 2018 commercial airline
schedules, indicated that during the evening commercial pas-
senger aircraft arrival peak, which occurs between 1900 and
2000, four small cargo aircraft arrive at SLC. The primary role
of SLC is to serve commercial cargo and passenger airlines and
large corporate jet activity. Runway 14-32 supports this role by
enabling ATCT controllers to separate small, slow, commercial
cargo feeders from arrival streams of commercial passenger
jet traffic during evening peak arrival flows. However, changes
required to Taxiway P for compliance with FAA standards, as
shown in Alternatives 1 and 2, will increase taxi times for the
thousands3 of commercial passenger aircraft that land each
year on Runway 17 and use Taxiway P to transition to the
terminal area.
The taxi time increase of Alternatives 1 and 2 is quantifiable,
but the impacts associated with integrating slow cargo aircraft
into the primary north flow arrival streams, associated with Al-
ternative 3, is difficult to quantify due to the dynamic nature of
the airspace. Therefore, a comparison of delay or fuel burn was
not completed within this analysis. Instead, known factors were
accounted for including: surplus capacity is available through
the planning period; and slow cargo aircraft are effectively
being integrated into the primary arrival streams during south
flow and IMC conditions. These factors indicate that Runway
32 is not essential within the SLC runway system, but it is
very convenient and provides a tool for ATCT to enhance
efficiency.
The evaluation criteria developed for this analysis are
described below along with a summary of how each alternative
performed. Review of the alternatives with SLC management
resulted in Alternative 3 being chosen as the preferred alterna-
tive. The rationale for Alternative 3 being carried
forward is predominantly related to cost versus overall benefit.
Runway 14-32 is not needed at SLC to provide wind
coverage and does not have an operational level to be support-
ed by FAA AIP funding as a secondary runway. Yet, the runway
deficiencies noted in this evaluation must be corrected in the
near term. Because the runway is not AIP eligible, it is unlike-
ly that FAA will fund the improvements Alternatives 1 and 2
propose to correct the deficiencies. This means SLCDA would
need to fund 100 percent of the project components in either
Alternative 1 or 2 to keep the runway.
While it is desirable to keep Runway 14-32 to provide ATCT an
effective tool for filtering slow cargo aircraft in north flow VMC
conditions, SLC staff determined it was impractical from a
cost/benefit perspective. The large capital investment required
to implement Alternatives 1 or 2 can instead be leveraged
toward FAA AIP eligible projects where that money can allow
for larger projects.
Table 4-6 visually summarizes the evaluation and conclusions
of SLC management and the planning team.
Evaluation Criteria and Assessment:
• FAA Design Standards: Does the alternative correct all relat-
ed deficiencies and conform to FAA Design standards?
͛All three alternatives perform equally.
• General Safety Considerations: Does the alternative have any
remaining safety concerns?
͛Alternative 1 maintains the non-standard hold position
bar on Runway 14-32 due to the proximity of Runway
17-35.
• Airfield/Airspace Efficiencies: How well does the alternative
work to enhance operational efficiency measured by taxi
time and delay?
͛Alternatives 1 and 2 create additional taxi time for
commercial passenger aircraft landing on Runway 17
as design standards require additional turns to taxi
across and around Runway 14-32. However, they aid
airspace efficiency during VMC north flow operations
by allowing the separation of slow cargo aircraft from
the primary arrival flows.
͛Alternative 3 maintains efficient taxi procedures on
Taxiway P but prevents separation of slow cargo
aircraft during VMC north flow operations.
• Long Term Development/Vision: How well does the alterna-
tive integrate with long-term development and the ultimate
vision of SLC?
͛Keeping Runway 14-32 in place reduces the efficiency
of moving commercial aircraft to and from Runway
17-35 and the terminal area. An end around taxiway
(discussed later in this chapter) is proposed in this mas-
ter plan around the Runway 34R threshold. Efficiencies
of that enhancement cannot be fully realized with
Alternatives 1 or 2.
• Cost/Return on Investment: How do rough order magnitude
costs compare between alternatives, and is the return on the
investment equal to, or greater than, the investment itself?
͛Alternatives 1 and 2 are significantly more expensive
than Alternative 3. The investment required for
Alternatives 1 or 2 was deemed to be better spent on
other airfield enhancements that could further reduce
taxi times and delay.
297 298
4.3.5 South End Around Taxiway
At the onset of the master plan, during initial visioning ses-
sions, interest in studying the potential for end around taxiways
(EATs) around Runway 16L-34R was expressed by Airport staff
and stakeholders. An end around taxiway allows aircraft to taxi
around a runway end without interfering with operations on
the runway. Airports construct end around taxiways to improve
aircraft operational flows on the ground. Airports in the United
States that currently have end around taxiways include Dallas
Fort Worth International Airport (DFW), Detroit Metropolitan
Airport (DTW), and Atlanta International Airport (ATL).
End around taxiways are implemented to reduce runway cross-
ings and the risk of an incursion, reduce air traffic controller
workload, provide for more timely and predictable gate arrivals,
reduce fuel consumption and emissions, and to increase run-
way capacity and hourly throughput. EATs can be effective in
reducing delay due to their capabilities in enabling free-flow
taxiing that does not require an aircraft to slow down or stop
and wait to cross a runway.
An EAT was evaluated in this master plan study for application
to both the north and south ends of Runway 16L-34R. The
primary purpose of the EATs in this configuration would be
to allow commercial passenger aircraft landing or departing
on Runway 17-35 to taxi without restriction to and from the
terminal area. Additionally, a south EAT would provide access
to the L Deice Pad without requiring runway crossings. Initial
analysis of EAT placement and function indicated that an EAT
placed on the north end of Runway 16L-34R would not be jus-
tified when considering the future extension of the runway to
14,500 feet. At that length, aircraft landing Runway 35 or de-
parting Runway 17 would require roughly the same amount of
taxi distance to the terminal using a north EAT as they would
using a south EAT. For that reason, a north EAT was eliminated
from further consideration.
A south EAT was brought forward in the study for further
analysis. Additionally, the option of shifting Runway 16L-34R
to north to allow similar traffic flow benefits as provided by
a south EAT was explored. However, it was determined that
option would be highly impractical, if not infeasible, as it cre-
ates numerous issues. To provide independent taxi and runway
operations, the runway complex would need to be shifted
more than 2,500 feet to the north. This would create airspace
conflicts with the south deice pads and adjacent buildings,
dramatically increase cumulative taxi time to the Runway 16L
threshold for departures and require changes to the airspace
procedures at the airport which may not be feasible. Addition-
ally, the shift of the runway north would place it into wetland
Table 4-6: Runway 14-32 Hot Spot Evaluation
3 2018 data indicated 13,131 passenger airline aircraft landed Runway 17. The predominate runway exit and flow for these aircraft is Taxiway P to either Taxiway L or
Taxiway M.
Criteria
Alternative 1
Bring to FAAStandards
Alternative 2
Shorten Runway
Alternative 3
Close Runway
FAA Design Standards
General Safety Considerations
Airfield/Airspace Efficiencies
Long Term Development/Vision
Cost & Return on Investment
Performance Legend Good Fair Poor
299 300
areas and closer to Great Salt Lake, increasing environmental
impacts. For these reasons, that option was discarded, and final
analysis was focused entirely on a south EAT (SEAT) designed
to conventional FAA standards.
The design intent of the SEAT was to provide fully indepen-
dent taxi and runway operations in all weather conditions. This
requires the SEAT be designed to ensure the tail of the design
aircraft does not penetrate TERPS surfaces, approach surfaces
for Runway 34R, and the departure surface and one-engine-in-
operative (OEI) surface for Runway 16L. It was determined
that the SEAT should be designed to accommodate ADG III
aircraft (as well as Boeing 757 aircraft which are ADG IV air-
craft with tail heights just over 45 feet). Accommodating larger
aircraft tail heights requires the SEAT to be placed further
to the south, which increases overall taxi time. In examining
historical data, it was found only a few ADG V aircraft or larger
ADG IV aircraft transition between the terminal area and Run-
way 17-35 (or the GA area) per year. Thus, accommodating up
to ADG III commercial passenger aircraft provides the maxi-
mum needed flexibility for unrestricted operations. That said,
design of the pavement to accommodate the Airport’s ADG V
design aircraft is recommended by the Airport staff to provide
flexibility for those aircraft to operate on the SEAT, albeit with
restricted runway operations. The proposed concept is illus-
trated in Figure 4-10.
Two options were brought forward for final evaluation. A
“do-nothing” option, and the option that proposes implemen-
tation of the SEAT as described. Specific evaluation criteria
were developed for this analysis. Each are described below
along with a summary of how each alternative performed. Re-
view of the alternatives with SLC management resulted in the
option that implements the SEAT as the preferred alternative.
Table 4-7 visually summarizes the evaluation and conclusions
of SLC management and the planning team.
Evaluation Criteria and Assessment:
• Safety: How does the option work to provide a safe
operating environment?
͛The do-nothing option maintains the status quo and
requires crossings of Runway 16L-34R in all weather
conditions and during peak hours. Crossing a runway
is not an unsafe practice. However, reducing runway
crossings reduces chances of runway incursion.
͛The SEAT dramatically reduces runway crossings
on Runway 16L-34R. In practical application, some
crossings will still be conducted during off-peak times
when use of the SEAT is not needed. However, during
peak hours and weather events requiring deicing
operations, the SEAT can eliminate the need to cross
Runway 16L-34R.
͛Analysis of average day peak month operations
indicated roughly 85 daily crossings in 2018 and up to
165 daily crossings in PAL 3 could be eliminated with
use of a SEAT. Respectively, this equates to roughly
27,000 annual crossings in 2018, and 55,000 annual
crossings by PAL 3.
• Efficiency: How does the option increase operational effi-
ciency?
• The SEAT allows ATCT controllers to reduce radio com-
munications and workload, thereby minimizing chances for
miscommunication between aircraft taxiing between the
terminal area and the east runway. Taxi operations will not
require coordination with runway operations. Additionally,
a streamlined process of taxi operation can be developed
using the SEAT which can reduce the need for ATCT ground
control to monitor and guide aircraft over extended periods
of time.
• Delay Impacts: Does the option work to decrease delay?
͛Viewed holistically as part of the SLC airport and
its integration into the NAS, the SEAT will provide
enhanced “gate-to-gate” performance. It works well
to reduce potential taxi delays which creates more
predictable operational outcomes for aircraft on the
ground and in the air.
• Land Use and Wetland Impacts: Does the option
make good use of future land areas and are there
wetland impacts?
͛The area required to build the SEAT consists of previ-
ously disturbed land, portions of the abandoned golf
course, and the canal system that circulates portions of
the airport. The highest and best use of this land is to
serve airport operations, and the SEAT in this location
is a highly qualified use. Minimal wetland areas exist,
besides those related to the canal. As compared to the
option of moving the runway complex to the north,
which is unviable, the SEAT has minimal environmental
impacts and land use constraints.
• Cost Factors: Qualitatively, what are the cost factors of the
option and is it feasible?
͛The cost of implementing the SEAT can be weighed
first by its ability to increase efficiency, and second
by fuel savings from decreased taxi time. The latter
is difficult to quantify due to the dynamic nature of
ground operations and decision making by pilots and
ATC controllers. However, qualitative estimates of the
SEAT’s ability to provide free flow taxi operations and
enhance gate-to-gate performance indicate potential
for a positive rate of return on investment to construct
and maintain.
Figure 4-10: South End Around Taxiway Alternative
Source: SLCDA; RS&H Analysis, 2020
While the current condition requiring runway crossings for
aircraft transitioning between the terminal and Runway 17-35
is a safe, common-place operation, minimizing runway cross-
ings is beneficial as it reduces the chance for runway incursion.
During peak times when radio communication is the highest
and planes are positioning for departure and/or landing, the
SEAT alleviates otherwise necessary coordination of taxi
operations with runway operations. This helps to streamline
operations at the airport which, in turn, reduces risks of
miscommunication, pilot deviations, and runway incursions.
Overall, the safety enhancements and efficiencies gained with
a SEAT support carrying forward the option with recommen-
dation for near-term implementation.
south, outside the runway’s high energy zone.
• Highspeed exits K5 and H6 were identified for future remov-
al. The configuration of Taxiway K5 creates a wide expanse
of pavement on Runway 17-35, does not meet highspeed
taxiway geometry standards, and is not optimally positioned
to serve the corporate jet fleet landing Runway 17. As such,
it is recommended for removal with a replacement high-
speed K5 to be built to the south to also replace K4. H6 cre-
ates a wide expanse of pavement on the Runway 16L-34R
where it meets H5 and H4. Of the three taxiway exits in
that location, H6 was identified as not required as it does
not serve the exit needs of the commercial fleet landing on
Runway 34R. In effort to simplify the area and reduce the
expanse of pavement next to the runway, H6 is recommend-
ed for removal.
• One new highspeed exit is recommended on Runway
16L-34R, between H10 and H11. This highspeed would feed
into the new Taxiway U and V crossfield connectors. The
highspeed exit usage on Runway 16L-34R is expected to
change slightly with the new terminal configuration coming
on-line. When the runway is extended, major shifts in usage
can be expected, and runway exits may need to be modified
to ensure that runway occupancy time (ROT) is optimal. It is
recommended that prior to implementation of the runway
extension, a comprehensive study be conducted to deter-
mine potential impacts and new requirements for runway
exits to support the extension.
• The intersection of the SEAT with Taxiway M was vetted
by ATCT controllers and SLCDA airport management. The
location was found to balance access to Runway 35 and the
L Deice Pad. Additionally, the location provides opportunity
to directly tie Taxiway P into the SEAT. For this purpose, the
portion of Taxiway P on the west side of Runway 14-32 will
be removed, which will reduce the chance pilots might miss
the connection to the SEAT.
4.4.2 Deicing Facilities
Through discussions with SLC management, deicing improve-
ments and future facilities were identified to be carried for-
ward on the airport layout plan and implementation plan. The
conclusions brought forward in this study are as follows:
• Deice truck refill and deice personnel facilities are needed at
the 16L Deice Pad to ensure that pad can remain operational
through extended deice operations. These facilities are rec-
ommended for implementation as soon as possible.
• A new eight-position runway-end deice pad will be planned
for Runway 16R.
• An expansion to the 16L Deice Pad of two positions will
be planned for implementation when Runway 16L-34R is
extended.
• A new five position deice pad between Runway 16L-34R
and the Runway 17 threshold will be reserved along Taxiway
S. The previous ALP depicted this facility on the north side
of Taxiway S. This study found benefit in placing the new pad
on the south side of Taxiway S to maximize the land available
for other uses on the north side of the taxiway.
• The runway-end deice pads serving Runway 16L-34R were
considered for relocation to the west to allow greater sep-
aration between Runway 16L-34R and Taxiway H. As noted
in the facility requirements, current separation between the
runway and the stretches of Taxiway H adjacent the deice
pads is such that there are taxi restrictions on Taxiway H
when ADG V aircraft are landing in low visibility conditions.
These events are rare, and taxiway impacts were deemed to
be insignificant. Thus, the deice pads are planned to remain
in their current location.
301 302
Table 4-7: South End Around Taxiway Evaluation
4.4 AIRFIELD ENHANCEMENTS
This section describes other airfield enhancements brought
forward in this master plan including future deicing pads, high-
speed taxiways, parallel taxiways, and removal of pavements to
correct for non-standard conditions. The configuration, shown
in Figure 4-11, builds on the alternatives described to this
point, and incorporates the south end around taxiway, Runway
16L-34R extension, and the removal of Runway 14-32. Also
shown is the ultimate relocation for 2100 N and N 4000 W
roadways. A relocation of 2100 N is required to accommo-
date the extension of Runway 16L-34R. The ultimate concept
places 2100 N on the northern perimeter of Airport property
adjacent to the power lines and has connection to the devel-
opment west of the Airport. The roadway would conceivably
be the northern limit of Airport development. The relocation of
N 4000 W was originally proposed in previous studies, and as
determined in the cargo analysis described in Section 4.6, was
validated for its benefit in allowing future cargo expansion.
4.4.1 New and Removed Taxiways
New taxiways were required to support the preferred alter-
natives identified in this study, as well as to replace taxiways
that require removal to meet FAA standards. Additionally, the
crossfield Taxiways U and V were carried forward from the
existing ALP. The placement of those taxiways was validated
through analysis of future requirements for concourse and
cargo expansion. The following bullets detail the considerations
for the other taxiway improvements.
• A full length inboard parallel taxiway for Runway 16L-34R,
extending north from the L Deice Pad, was incorporated for
future implementation. This taxiway, Taxiway L, will serve
multiple functions including allowing aircraft deiced on L
Deice Pad to taxi to Runway 17 or Runway 16L without a
runway crossing. It also will provide additional flexibility and
connection for aircraft transferring between the terminal
area and Runway 17.
• Taxiway Q serves as a third option for crossing aircraft be-
tween the terminal area and the east side facilities. However,
Taxiway Q intersects Runway 17-35 in the middle of the
runway’s high energy zone which contradicts FAA design
standards and must be remedied. FAA ATCT controllers not-
ed a need to keep the functionality of Taxiway Q as a third
crossfield option. The solution identified includes removing
Taxiway Q and adding a new crossfield connection to the
Criteria Alternative 1
Do Nothing
Alternative 2
SEAT
Safety - Runway Crossings
Operational Efficiency
Delay Impacts
Land and Wetland Impacts
Cost Factors
Performance Legend Good Fair Poor
The evaluation of terminal concourse expansion was needed
to determine the maximum footprint that should be reserved
for passenger terminal facilities though the planning period and
beyond. Spacing for future concourses ultimately determines
where Taxiway U and Taxiway V, future crossfield taxiway con-
nectors, should be located.
The planning team and Airport management identified the
following planning parameters used for this analysis:
• SLCIA will not plan for a second terminal processor on the
north side of the airport. Land use analysis determined that
terminal landside functions would expand to the south and
terminal airside functions would extend north.
• Future Concourse C and Concourse D would represent maxi-
mum build out. The balanced airfield analysis determined the
airfield may not be able to ever support operations related to
building out of Concourse D. However, that is based on cur-
rent operational characteristics. Thus, for ultimate planning
purposes, planning for a Concourse D was considered, but
with the understanding that other facilities with a useful life
of roughly 50 years could be built within its footprint.
• The crossfield circulation provided today by Taxiway E and
Taxiway F must be maintained. The circulation can be provid-
ed via taxilane, but unimpeded flow from push back opera-
tions was deemed vital.
The intent of the alternatives exercise was not to determine
one preferred layout, but rather to understand the room
required to develop flexible options. Concourse layout alter-
natives were developed using spacing suggested in the 2013
Program Validation & Preliminary Planning Update, and 2017
NCP Program and Preliminary Planning Update developed by
HOK. Those alternatives aided in understanding the limits of
full Concourse D buildout, and a refined ultimate alternative
was identified. The alternatives and key takeaways from the
analysis are described below.
Concourse Alternative 1 - Spacing from 2013
Program and Preliminary Planning Update
The 2013 Program Validation & Preliminary Planning Update
document reflects concourse spacing that Airport manage-
ment initially intended to apply between Concourse A and
Concourse B. That spacing was later valued engineered to a
different standard, but the initial design incorporated dedicated
push back areas that allow unimpeded flow of aircraft on the
parallel taxilanes. Specifically, the initial design allows taxi and
apron depth for ADG V aircraft on one side and ADG IV variants
on the other side of each corridor. Dedicated push back area
was sized to allow all ADG III (and some ADG IV) on the ADG IV
side, and for all ADG IV (and some ADG V) on the ADG V side.
Figure 4-12 illustrates an alternative that applies the 2013
spacing between Concourses B and C, and Concourses C
and D. Applying this spacing between concourses proved
the currently planned positioning of Taxiway U and V could
remain unchanged. However, it was found that the north side
of Concourse D would be limited to only ADG III aircraft but
would have the ability to have some dedicated push back area
adjacent to the ADG III taxilane.
Advantages found in this alternative include:
• Unimplemented crossflow functionality of Taxiway E and F is
maintained, albeit taxiway connection to the parallel runways
and taxiway complexes would require modification.
• All future concourses have flexibility to serve aircraft in size
up to ADG V.
• Location of Taxiway U and V do not require a future siting to
the north which would infringe upon the cargo area.
• Dedicated pushback area is provided for all new concourses.
• Although ADG IV aircraft may become less frequent in com-
mercial use, planning for such provides additional flexibility
for wider spans.
Disadvantages found in this alternative include:
• The north side of Concourse D is limited to only ADG III
aircraft and depending on final design, may not have enough
dedicated pushback area for all ADG III aircraft variants.
• Although not a disadvantage, it was recognized that planning
for dedicated push back between Concourse C and D may
be deemed by some to be excessive. Airlines are using value
engineered solutions, such as what was applied between
Concourse A and B, successfully today and that trend may
continue.
303 304
Figure 4-11: Airfield Enhancements
Source: RS&H, 2020
4.5 TERMINAL CONCOURSE EXPANSION ALTERNATIVES
Concourse Alternative 2 – Spacing from 2017
Program and Preliminary Planning Update
The 2017 Program and Preliminary Planning Update docu-
ment defined the final layout between Concourses A and B
and included a spacing concept between Concourse B and
Concourse C (or what was then defined within that document
as the “North-North Concourse”). That spacing was intended
to keep Taxiway E and Taxiway F fully intact as independent
taxiways. This master plan concept uses that spacing, and the
spacing chosen between Concourses A and B was used
between Concourses C and D.
As can be seen in Figure 4-13, the alternative proved that
Concourses C and D can fit within the future terminal enve-
lope without requiring Taxiway U and V to be moved. This was
achieved with similar spacing applied between Concourses C
and D, as is used between Concourses A and B. Additionally,
the north side of Concourse D would be restricted to ADG III
aircraft and push back would be onto the taxilane. Lastly, by
keeping Taxiways E and F, parallel taxilanes are needed north
of Concourse B and south of Concourse C.
Advantages found in this alternative include:
• Unimplemented cross flow functionality of Taxiway E and F
is maintained.
• Location of Taxiway U and V do not require a future siting to
the north which would infringe upon the cargo area.
• Dedicated pushback area is provided between Concourse B
and C.
• Though ADG IV aircraft may become less frequent in com-
mercial use, planning for such provides additional flexibility
for wider spans.
Disadvantages found in this alternative include:
• The north side of Concourse D is limited to only ADG III
aircraft and no push back area is provided.
• Apron depth on the north side of Concourse C and south
side of Concourse D is less than that proposed in the 2013
layout.
• By placing Concourse C to the north such that Taxiway E and
F remain untouched, additional automated people mover
(APM) structure will be needed which increases cost and
passenger connection times between concourses.
• Concourse C location is pushed further into the north sup-
port facility area, requiring more infrastructure relocation
than if it was sited further south.
• The layout of taxiways and taxilanes between Concourses
B and C is not an efficient use of space. Aircraft must push
back onto taxilanes and taxi to connectors to access the
east/west taxiways.
Preferred Airfield Concourse Alternative
The balanced airfield analysis indicated SLC will reach peak,
or slightly beyond peak capacity, at roughly 1,800 daily oper-
ations. The analysis indicated that level of operations would
equate to a gate requirement of roughly half that of Concourse
C. It is expected that Concourse B will serve demand through
and beyond PAL 3, and that a portion of Concourse C may be
needed immediately beyond this study’s planning period. Thus,
the need for Concourse D is well beyond PAL 3 and may never
be realized due to existing airspace limitations of the Salt Lake
City valley.
A balance between long-range land preservation and facility
relocation must be matched with a pragmatic estimation of
future growth. With this in mind, only Concourse C is being
brought forward as a future condition. The open land area
within the Concourse D footprint can be developed with an
understanding that most buildings have no more than a 50-
year useful life and could be demolished and relocated if ever a
Concourse D is needed.
Figure 4-15 illustrates the Preferred Airfield Concourse Alter-
native. The alternative informs what facilities will need to be
relocated to accommodate a full build out of Concourse C.
Preferred Airfield Concourse Alternative
The balanced airfield analysis indicated SLC will reach peak,
or slightly beyond peak capacity, at roughly 1,800 daily oper-
ations. The analysis indicated that level of operations would
equate to a gate requirement of roughly half that of Concourse
C. It is expected that Concourse B will serve demand through
and beyond PAL 3, and that a portion of Concourse C may be
needed immediately beyond this study’s planning period. Thus,
the need for Concourse D is well beyond PAL 3 and may never
be realized due to existing airspace limitations of the Salt Lake
City valley.
A balance between long-range land preservation and facility
relocation must be matched with a pragmatic estimation of
future growth. With this in mind, only Concourse C is being
brought forward as a future condition. The open land area
within the Concourse D footprint can be developed with an
understanding that most buildings have no more than a 50-
year useful life and could be demolished and relocated if ever a
Concourse D is needed.
Figure 4-15 illustrates the Preferred Airfield Concourse Alter-
native. The alternative informs what facilities will need to be
relocated to accommodate a full build out of Concourse C.
305 306
Figure 4-12: 2013 Program and Preliminary Planning Update Alternative
Source: SLCDA; RS&H Analysis, 2020
307 308
Figure 4-13: 2017 Program and Preliminary Planning Update Alternative Ultimate Concourse Expansion Alternative
Source: SLCDA; RS&H Analysis, 2020
Source: SLCDA; RS&H Analysis, 2020
The facility requirements analysis determined existing opera-
tors in the north cargo area will require expansion of their facil-
ities within the planning period. Additionally, e-commerce driv-
en cargo operations were recognized as potentially requiring
significant land area for future air cargo facility development.
The alternatives analysis for the north cargo facilities includes
consideration of the expansion needs of existing operators
within the planning period, as well as land requirements neces-
sary to accommodate future large-scale facilities. A site anal-
ysis was conducted to validate the location of the north cargo
campus and determine if it fits the Airport’s long-term vision.
Areas depicted in Figure 4-16 were assessed and vetted with
Airport staff and stakeholders. Sites 2 and 3 flank the existing
cargo area, and either would allow cargo to expand into the
site. Sites 1 and 4 are proposed as greenfield developments
where all cargo operations would eventually be relocated.
An evaluation of the development sites was conducted against
set evaluation criteria. Table 4-8 illustrates the conclusions of
the evaluation. The evaluation criteria developed for this analy-
sis are described below along with a summary of how each site
performed.
Evaluation Criteria and Assessment:
• Operational efficiency: How well can efficiency for cargo
operations be maintained at each site?
͛The existing cargo area, and Sites 2 and 3 are centered
between the parallel runways, which allows the
shortest taxi to either runway. This is ideal as taxi times
are minimized.
͛Sites 1 and 4 flank one of the two parallel runways.
Thus, depending on traffic flows, aircraft may require
further taxi to/from the opposite side of the airfield.
Site 4 has an advantage over Site 1 as it sits between
Runway 16L-34R and 17-35.
• Flexibility and expansion potential: Does the site provide
room to grow and flexibility to accommodate different/mul-
tiple cargo operators?
͛Sites 2 and 3 offer the ability for cargo to expand
in place. Independently, each site is limited when
compared to the other sites. Together, however, they
provide room for expansion by existing operators and
can provide space for a large-scale cargo facility.
͛Sites 1 and 4 both offer ample area for future
expansion.
• Financial feasibility: Is development in the site feasible when
considering investment requirements?
͛Sites 1 and 4 both lack taxiway access to the runways
and would incur significantly higher development costs.
͛Development in Site 1 would entail a very large
investment due to the wetland mitigation, utility infra-
structure, roadway, and taxiway connections required.
Site 2 shares these financial implications though they
are estimated to be at a lesser degree.
͛Development in Sites 2 and 3 is the least costly
because utility, roadway, and taxiway infrastructure is
already in place.
• Environmental/sustainability: What implications does devel-
opment in the site have related to environmental impacts
and long-term sustainability?
͛Sites 2 and 3 are near to, and can be tied into, the
existing glycol recovery system.
͛Site 1 is in an area extensively occupied by wetlands.
͛Sites 1 and 4 may require greater taxi distances for
aircraft arriving and departing depending on runway
use, which would correlate to higher emission outputs.
• Ease of implementation: Can the site be ready for devel-
opment in the near-term or are multiple enabling projects
required?
͛Site 2 and most of Site 3 are relatively build-ready.
͛Sites 1 and 4 both lack taxiway access to the runway
end and would require extensive taxiway development.
͛Site 1 would require multiple phases of enabling
projects, including extensive environmental mitigation
and assessment.
͛Site 4 also would require multiple phases of enabling
projects.
• Meets near/long-term requirements: Will the site meet to-
day’s need and satisfy future spatial requirements?
͛Sites 2 and 3 can meet near-term requirements, but
independently they fail to meet long-term require-
ments. Combined, they meet long-term requirements.
͛Sites 1 and 4 meet long-term requirements but fail to
meet near-term expansion requirements due to the
lead time required for the site to be ready to accom-
modate cargo operations.
Overall, Site 4 was found to provide no more benefit than
the current location. Site 1, while closer to the Salt Lake City
Inland Port and the ground cargo operations located in that
vicinity, was found to have sizable implementation challenges.
Wetlands impacts, taxiway infrastructure, Surplus Canal, and
roadway access all posed challenges beyond the potential
benefit offered by the location. As such, the option was
discarded. Sites 2 and 3 were both carried forward, as it was
determined both sites should be preserved for long-term
cargo development.
309 310
Figure 4-15: Preferred Airfield Concourse Expansion Alternative
Source: SLCDA; RS&H Analysis, 2020
4.6 NORTH AIR CARGO ALTERNATIVES
311 312
Spatial programming analysis determined the existing cargo area has enough room to accommodate future expansion needs of
current operators. This assumes the apron would be expanded to the north and south and vehicle parking and maneuvering areas
would be reconfigured. However, it was determined the cargo area must also be able to expand to the west of the area to ensure
improvements are efficient and not cramped. This requires relocation of 4000 W to the west. Figure 4-17 illustrates an expansion
concept including expansion of the existing north cargo facilities, the relocation of 4000 W to the west, and a potential layout for
future cargo development on the west side of the area. The north side of the area is preserved for additional future expansion or a
new large-scale facility.
Figure 4-16: Cargo Site AlternativesTable 4-8: North Air Cargo Evaluation
Source: SLCDA; RS&H Analysis, 2020
Criteria Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4
Operational Efficiency
Flexibility & Expansion Potential
Financial Feasibility
Environmental/Sustainability
Ease of Implementation
Meets Near/Long-term Requirements
Performance Legend Good Fair Poor
4.7 LANDSIDE ALTERNATIVES
This section describes alternatives generated to address
the Airport’s landside needs over the planning period. These
alternatives were developed according to landside planning
objectives and guiding principles determined and refined with
input from SLCDA and key stakeholders. The alternatives
development process also considered airport highest and best
land uses, facility function and intent, and a series of constrain-
ing factors such as geography, environmental impact, and FAA
airfield design guidance. After considering a variety of concepts
to address facility requirements for each specific landside
facility, two comprehensive alternatives were developed and
evaluated. This section describes that process and the resulting
preferred comprehensive landside development plan.
4.7.1 Landside Planning Objectives and
Guiding Principles
The landside system consists of trailing planning elements,
whose location is driven by the orientation and design of the
terminal building, as well as other physical and environmental
constraints. The landside facility requirements analysis focused
on meeting customer level of service standards established by
the Airport and stakeholders during the planning process. That
analysis determined a need to provide additional space for
public parking, rental car facilities, and employee parking.
Secondary issues to be addressed through landside alterna-
tives development include facility organization and design im-
provements that meet safety, efficiency, and overall customer
ease of use. Airport terminal curb roadways were analyzed and
determined to be adequate to serve vehicular demand over the
planning period.
The SLC landside area is land constrained and fits within a de-
fined envelope bounded by the terminal building, I-80, and the
two surrounding runways and adjacent aeronautical land uses
(shown in Figure 4-18). The Airport Redevelopment Plan in-
cludes a new terminal and supporting landside elements which
fit within this same envelope. The organization of the landside
elements was developed approximately 20 years ago in the
preliminary planning for what became the ARP. The landside
envelope is largely filled with the Terminal Drive loop which
surrounds an infield containing most public landside elements.
A band of service roadways (Crossbar, 3700 West, et al.) pro-
vides a secondary network of interconnections mainly for use
by employees and contractors. This overall existing landside
system was based on certain landside planning principles
developed during the early planning for the ARP. Those plan-
ning principles were reconfirmed in this effort, as they remain
relevant to guiding the landside development over the planning
period. The landside planning principles are as follows:
• Provide a common approach experience to all landside des-
tinations.
• Keep all terminal-related traffic on the right of the airport
entry roadway.
• Keep all parking and rental car traffic on the left of the air-
port entry roadway.
• Provide an intuitive wayfinding system with visual cues for
confirmation.
• Create binary choices at all decision points.
• Provide safe decision and maneuvering distances between
sequential decision points.
• Avoid bypass traffic on any terminal curb roadway.
• Keep highest value landside functions closest to the terminal
building.
• Minimize walking distances for the greatest number of pas-
sengers/customers.
• Provide a simple range of public parking options that provide
the highest level of customer service and the maximum net
revenue.
• Minimize parking shuttle circulation distance, time, and cost.
• Keep service vehicle traffic on independent roadways.
The SLCIA landside is organized in a way that already fulfills
many of these principles. This helped provide a solid starting
point for developing concepts to correct areas of deficiency
and enhance landside functions already performing well.
313 314
Figure 4-17: Cargo Expansion Concept
Source: SLCDA; RS&H Analysis, 2020
4.7.2 2100 North Roadway Realignment
Access to the North Support Area of the Airport is provided
by 2100 North, via Interchange 25 on I-215. A mile west of
2200 West, 2100 North passes through the RPZ for Runway
16L-34R. The airfield alternatives analysis indicates that this
runway could be extended to the north across the existing
roadway, necessitating the roadway realignment. The roadway
realignment must stay out of the future RPZ of the extend-
ed runway, and its alignment should be set to best serve the
evolving land uses in the North Support Area, particularly the
expansion of cargo facilities.
Today, approximately 1.7 miles to the west of Interchange 25,
2100 North transitions to 4000 West at a large radius hori-
zontal curve. To connect the realigned 2100 North with 4000
West opens the question as to whether to keep 4000 West in
its current north-south alignment, or whether to modify it to
be parallel to the runways. A realignment to be parallel to the
runways and extend out to the realigned 2100 North would
likely incur greater impacts on the existing wetlands than
would simply extending it on its current alignment but aligning
the road with the runways does have the advantage of creat-
ing better parcel uniformity in the North Support Area. Either
alignment of 4000 West works with the proposed realignment
of the east-west roadway and can be accommodated in this
plan if the environmental issues are not constraining. The only
change would be the location of the horizontal curve that
would join the two perpendicular roads. Ultimately, determi-
nation of a preferred roadway realignment is dependent upon
a combination of the previously mentioned considerations
and a final preferred land use plan for the northern area of the
airport. The final preferred roadway realignment is represented
on the Airport Layout Plan.
4.7.3 Employee Parking
While there are scattered employee parking lots contiguous
with various employment sites around the Airport, the bulk of
employee parking is provided in two lots at the terminal cam-
pus. These two lots accommodate Airport and tenant employ-
ees working in the SLCIA terminal area. According to landside
planning principles, which desire to keep the highest revenue
generating and valued land uses closest to the terminal and
provide the highest level of customer service to passengers,
the location of employee parking should not take precedence
over customer-oriented facilities in the passenger terminal
area. Therefore, it is best to locate employee parking as close
and operationally efficient to the terminal as possible without
disrupting or displacing customer-focused services. The dis-
tance of employee parking from the terminal at SLC necessi-
tates shuttling operations for terminal area employees.
Terminal area employees are categorized as primarily work-
ing in either the non-secure area or the secure area. While
employees can, and often do, serve roles in both areas of the
terminal, their workday typically begins in a specific location on
either the non-secure or secure side and thereby necessitates
security screening for only a segment of the employee pop-
ulation entering the terminal and concourses. There are two
possible methods that can be used to perform these screening
requirements, including:
• Option One - Screen employees requiring secure-side access
at a TSA security screening checkpoint (SSCP) in the termi-
nal building.
• Option Two - Screen employees requiring secure-side access
at the employee parking lot prior to entering a secure shuttle
bus and drop off in a secure location at the terminal or on
the ramp.
Screening at the terminal building TSA SSCP for airport and
tenant employees is a routine practice and there are already
facilities and procedures in place to perform this process. The
procedures for screening employees at the employee parking
lot would be the same although the equipment may differ. Em-
ployees screened prior to entering a secure shuttle bus would
remain within the secure bus as it transitions from the non-se-
cure employee lot through access gates to the secure airside
environment to the final secure terminal/apron drop off/pickup
destination.
Each employee screening option differs in how it may be imple-
mented through the employee shuttling operation. If screening
occurs at a designated terminal building TSA SSCP, secure
and non-secure employees can co-mingle on a single shuttle
bus from the employee lot until they are dropped off on the
non-secure side where only secure-side employees will use the
TSA SSCP to enter the sterile area.
When screening occurs at a single shared employee parking
lot (secure and nonsecure-side employee), employees must be
split between two shuttles, one dedicated to screened employ-
ees to be dropped off on the secure-side of the terminal, and
one dedicated to unscreened employees to be dropped off on
the nonsecure-side of the terminal building. Operational costs
do increase when two dedicated shuttles are used, however,
designated shuttle buses do allow the Airport to separate
non-secure and secure employees into separate parking areas.
Understanding that employee lot location(s) options are
dependent upon preferred shuttling operations, a series of
alternatives were developed which are flexible enough to
implement under any comprehensive landside configuration.
The primary differentiators between each analyzed option are
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for shuttling operations, operating
cost, and vehicle emissions resulting from the shuttles.
The three operationally feasible alternatives for locating and
operating employee parking include:
• Single lot south of the terminal complex with one shuttle
route to the non-secure side. This is how the employee shut-
tle has worked historically.
• Single lot south of the terminal complex with two dedicated
shuttle routes, one for secure and one for non-secure drop-
offs and pickups.
• Segregated secure and non-secure employee parking lots.
The south lot would be for non-secure employees to be
dropped off and picked up in the non-secure area of the
terminal building. The secure employee lot would be located
north of the terminal complex and dedicated for secure-side
only employees.
A fourth option exists but early analysis showed it would be op-
erationally inefficient. It is possible to create a single lot north
of the terminal complex with two dedicated shuttle routes (se-
cure and non-secure), however, this option requires non-secure
employees to be unnecessarily screened. This is operationally
inefficient and adds unnecessary cost. Therefore, this option
was not moved forward as a viable alternative.
Figure 4-19 shows the employee lot location alternatives and
the associated shuttle routes for each option. A total of 40
acres will be necessary to meet parking space requirements
315 316
Figure 4-18: Terminal Area Landside Development Envelope
Source: SLCDA; RS&H Analysis, 2020
To evaluate the employee parking alternatives, certain logical
planning assumptions were built into the analysis. For the north
area, it is assumed that:
• 75 percent of employees require security screening and
would therefore park in the North Lot. This means that 30
acres, accommodating approximately 3,400 spaces (PAL 3),
would be required.
• All secure-side employees will be screened at the lot prior to
riding the sterile shuttle bus to the terminal.
• The busing route for secure-side employees follows 4000
West to the west airside access gate or the closest airport
service road on the airfield via a new secure access point. For
the 4000 West route, this gate is positioned to best serve
the terminal and mid-field portions of the concourses where
employees will be dropped off/picked up.
For the south area, it is assumed that:
• If all employees (secure and non-secure) park in a single
south lot, 40 acres accommodating approximately 4,600
spaces (PAL 3), will be required. This lot can be served by
two bus routes (secure and non-secure). The secure bus
would enter and exit the airside area via Gate 8 located on
3700 West near the intersection of North Temple Street.
• 25 percent of the employees do not require security
screening and can therefore park in the South Lot. This
means that 10 acres, accommodating approximately 1,200
spaces would be required, with the remaining secure em-
ployee parking provided in a North Lot. The shuttle bus for
these non-secure employees would drop off/pick up at the
terminal building on the commercial vehicle curb.
To better understand the operational, financial, and environ-
mental impacts of these alternatives, three key factors were
evaluated, including:
• Shuttle bus trip distances and times
• Annual shuttle system vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
• Annual employee journey-to-work change in VMT
The following sections describe the three alternative employee
parking scenarios in greater detail. Table 4-9 shows analysis of
the evaluated factors for each alternative.
317 318
at 380 square feet per stall. This planning factor accounts for
additional parking lot elements such as two-way circulation
aisles, lighting, and end-of-aisle space for sightlines, bus stops,
safe vehicle movements, and perimeter landscaping.
Only one of the four lots shown in the north area is required
to meet space needs over the planning period. In terms of
operations, each site is equally as viable as the next with negli-
gible differences in operating cost and efficiency. Selection of
a north lot site is dependent upon whether an alternate site
has a higher and better land use, the degree of environmental
impacts, and by overall cost to implement. Of the four sites,
Sites 1 and 3 have the lowest environmental impacts and costs
to implement but may well be in locations with higher and
better uses over the planning period. Alternatively, Sites 2 and
4 have a lower likelihood of being used for a higher land use
but have the highest environmental impact and overall cost to
implement.
4.7.3.1 Employee Parking Alternative One – Single South
Lot Served by One Shuttle Bus
The first option for employee parking is operationally the
simplest and most cost-effective solution. Providing employee
parking in a single location with no on-site screening prior to
busing is how SLCDA currently operates. The only difference
between this concept and the current situation is that the lot
is moved approximately one quarter mile away in order to give
locational preference to customer parking.
Employee Lot Alternative One has the lowest annual shuttle
VMT, headway, fleet size requirement, and overall system cost.
The lot entry point is very close to the current employee lot
site so changes in employee trip lengths are negligible. Em-
ployee shuttling patterns remain as they are in the current lot,
therefore the TSA SSCP would continue to host screening
responsibilities in the terminal. One major downside to this
configuration is travel times for secure-side terminal em-
ployees who must now traverse longer distances in the new
terminal building.
4.7.3.2 Employee Parking Alternative Two – Single South
Lot Served by Two Shuttle Buses
The second option for employee parking is an operational
modification of the first alternative. In this concept, all employ-
ee parking is located in a single lot south of the existing em-
ployee lot, but employees are shuttled to/from the lot via two
dedicated shuttle routes. The first route serves unscreened,
non-secure side employees, and drops off/picks up on the
nonsecure side of the terminal building. The second shuttle
bus system provides transportation for secure-side employees
screened at the employee lot prior to entering the sterile bus.
These secure-side employees can remain sterile for return to
the employee lot via the same shuttle, or they could exit the
sterile area of the terminal, at which time they would either
need to be rescreened at the TSA SSCP to reenter the sterile
area or use the non-secure side shuttle bus to reach the single
south employee lot.
For this alternative, the non-secure shuttling remains the same
as Employee Parking Alternative One, and the new secure-side
shuttling travels roughly the same distance to drop off se-
cure-side employees in the sterile area. Table 4-9 demon-
strates how the overall bus system VMT remains the same as
the fleet is split between the two employee groups. Employee
trip lengths still remain comparable to the current employee
lot.
Figure 4-19: Employee Parking and Busing Route Options
Source: RS&H and Curtis Transportation Consulting, 2020
Notes: The sites shown in maroon correlate to the segregated parking option, with the secure lot on the north side of
the airport, and non-secure lot on the south side. The 10-acre south lot combined with one of the north lot site options
will meet the 40-acre parking requirement.
Table 4-9: Employee Parking Lot Alternatives Key Analysis Factors
Factor
North & South South
North South Total Secure Non-
Secure 1 Bus 2 Buses
Bus route roundtrip lenght (mi.)5.7 4.4 -4.4 4.4 4.4 -
Bus travel roundtrip time (min.)30 23 -26 23 23 -
Fleet size (7 min. headway)4 3 7 4 3 3 7
Total annual miles 312,075 240,900 552,975 240,900 240,900 240,900 481,800
Bus system cost ($8/mi.)$2,496,600 $1,927,200 $4,423,800 $1,927,200 $1,927,200 $1,927,200 $3,854,400
Added employee trip length (mi.)
from West (1.3%)6.3 0.4 -0.4 0.4 --
from South/East (69.1%)2.5 0.4 -0.4 0.4 --
from North (29.6%)-4.0 0.4 -0.4 0.4 --
Overall 0.6 0.4 -0.4 0.4 --
Annual 4,344,00 927,000 5,271,000 2,781,000 927,000 3,708,000 3,708,000
Note: Employee trip lengthening analysis based Airport badging records.
Source: RS&H and Curtis Transportation Consulting, 2020
4.7.4 Employee Parking Evaluation
Employee parking options were evaluated for their ability
to meet Master Plan established performance criteria. This
evaluation is shown in Table 4-10. Each concept performed
equally well in its ability to meet near-term and long-term facili-
ty requirements, meet objectives and planning principles, and
provide a targeted level of service for airport customers. The
key differentiators between the three alternatives lie within op-
erational performance, financial feasibility, and environmental/
sustainability impacts.
Operational efficiency for the alternatives is determined by
overall bus route lengths and travel times, required shuttle
fleet size, and changes in the time and distance employees
make in their journey to work. Alternative One performs the
best for operational efficiency, primarily because it defers all
employee screening to the TSA SSCP which optimizes employ-
ee shuttling operations; however, this does come at the cost
of impacts to terminal TSA screening capacity. Alternative
Two operational efficiency is reduced as TSA screening at the
employee lot introduces complexity to the system with a sec-
ondary SSCP location and necessitates two dedicated busing
routes. Alternative Three performs the worst for operational
efficiency in large part due to the segregation of secure and
non-secure facilities into two completely separate locations on
the Airport.
The flexibility and expansion potential of the alternatives
depends highly on the availability of adjacent land that can be
used for future employee parking. All alternatives are flexible
enough to allow future expansion as necessary for all employ-
ee lot locations. The key differentiator that ranks Alternative
Three above the other two alternatives is the geographic
limitation placed by the canal and the proposed South End
Around Taxiway. Without relocation of the canal and ponds in
the proposed South Lot area, future expansion would be un-
necessarily complex and laid out in an inefficient configuration.
Financial feasibility of each alternative is determined by the
overall capital and annual operating costs of the shuttle bus
system. Alternative One is the least costly to build and operate.
Alternative Two is more expensive due to dedicated employ-
ee busing routes and the initial capital cost to build a security
screening checkpoint. Alternative Three is the highest cost to
operate due to the initial capital cost to build a security screen-
ing checkpoint and the increase in secure-side employee travel
distance by 1.3 miles roundtrip from the other options.
Environmental and sustainability impacts are governed by
the increase or decrease of VMT by the bus system and by
employees traveling to/from the employee parking lot(s). The
rankings shown in Table 4-10 reflect increases in required VMT
for busing and employee journey to work travel distances.
Ease of implementation for the alternatives is driven by the
site(s) ability to quickly begin construction. When NEPA
requirements initiate further review of environmental impacts
at a site, implementation schedules need to account for that
process time. Locating employee parking at sites where con-
struction cannot easily access necessary utilities also impacts
cost and could impact schedule. All alternative sites provide
adequate land to meet employee parking needs through the
planning period. It should be noted that two of the four option-
al employee lot sites in the north area likely impact wetlands
and the options in the south area would likely impact the
surplus canal and ponds. Any project impacting these wetlands
would require an Environmental Assessment.
4.7.5 Preferred Employee Parking Alternative
There are two preferred employee parking alternatives and
implementation of each is dependent upon potential employ-
ee screening requirements instituted by TSA. Under current
TSA screening requirements, the preferred employee parking
lot location is on the eastern half of the former golf course
site, south of Crossbar Road and the canal (see Figure 4-25,
Preferred Comprehensive Landside Alternative). As demon-
strated in Section 4.7.3, Employee Parking, the south employee
319 320
4.7.3.3 Employee Parking Alternative Three – North-South
Split Lots Served by Separate Shuttle Buses
The third option explored for employee parking separates the
non-secure and secure employee lot locations. Non-secure
employees would park in a 10-acre lot south of the terminal
area and would be shuttled to the terminal building without
screening requirements. The secure-side employees would
park in a lot north of the terminal complex accessed via 2100
North. Secure-side employees would be screened prior to
boarding a sterile shuttle bus and dropped off/picked up at
secure-side terminal locations.
As shown in Table 4-9, the key factor analysis of this alterna-
tive estimates shuttle bus system VMT and operating costs are
roughly 15 percent higher than the single south lot alternative
using dedicated shuttles. Employee trip lengths to reach a
north lot also increase by an estimated 1,500,000 miles annually.
Figure 4-20: Preferred 100 Percent Employee Screening Alternative
Table 4-10: Employee Parking Alternatives Evaluation
Source: RS&H and Curtis Transportation Consulting, 2020
Criteria South Only North & South
2 Buses1 Bus 2 Buses
Operational Efficiency & Ease of Use
Flexibility & Expansion Potential
Financial Feasibility
Environmental/Sustainability
Ease of Implementation
Meets Near/Long-term Facility Requirements
Meets Objective and Planning Principles
Provides Targeted Level of Service
Operational and Public Safety
Performance Legend Good Fair Poor
Source: RS&H and Curtis Transportation Consulting, 2020
parking lot using a 1-bus system performs the best under all
evaluation criteria. However, in the wake of the 2015 incident
at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL) involv-
ing an airline employee gun-smuggling ring, TSA has studied
and considered implementing 100 percent physical employee
screening.
If 100 percent employee screening is instituted, this has
significant operational and facility impacts on terminal and
employee parking facilities. This is a primary reason that the
four additional locations were studied north of the SLC ter-
minal complex. Airport staff working group sessions indicated
that locating employee parking and screening in the northern
portion of the airfield offers the ability for secure employee
buses to remain inside the Secure Identification Display Area
(SIDA). Employees would be screened prior to entering the
SIDA (and therefore the bus) at which point the bus could
shuttle the employees to sterile terminal destinations. Figure
4-20 shows the preferred north employee parking lot location
and the secure busing route to Concourse A and Concourse B.
Note the ultimate relocation of 4000 W would traverse though
the eastern portion of the lot. That portion of the lot would be
the third phase built
required at the end of the planning period. By that time, it can
be determined if the roadway realignment will affect the lot with-
in its useful life, and if so, the lot expansion can be reconfigured
and/or potentially expanded to the west.
4.7.6 Landside Facility Alternatives Dismissed from
Further Consideration
A number of facility alternatives were eliminated from consid-
eration during early analysis and evaluation because they did
not adequately meet landside planning objectives and guiding
principles. This section reviews those facilities not carried for-
ward for further evaluation and describes areas where they fell
short of meeting long-term planning goals for SLCIA.
4.7.6.1 Park ‘n’ Wait Lot and Service Center
When considering alternatives for the Park ‘n’ Wait Lot and
the adjacent Service Center, the option of leaving them in their
current locations over the long-term was assessed. This alter-
native was dismissed because the current shared location fails
to meet the following landside planning principles:
• Keep all terminal destinations on the right of the airport
entry roadway.
• Create binary choices at all decision points.
• Keep all parking and rental car destinations on the left of the
airport entry roadway.
• Provide an intuitive wayfinding system with visual clues for
confirmation.
• Provide a simple range of public parking options that provide
the highest level of customer service and the maximum net
revenue.
• Minimize parking shuttle circulation distance, time, and cost.
The current location of the Park ‘n’ Wait Lot and Service Cen-
ter complicates the customer wayfinding experience by placing
an additional service (other than customer-oriented public
parking and rental car) within the terminal loop roadway. Users
waiting to pick up arriving passengers are then required to fol-
low an exit pathway leading away from the terminal, which can
confuse and cause anxiety to drivers unfamiliar with the airport
because it is counter-intuitive to take a route leading away
from their final destination, the terminal curb. The two lots
placement creates a non-binary choice (left to Park ’n’ Wait
and the service center, right to 3700 West) and secondly, the
locations complicate the major weave which takes place in that
section of Terminal Drive. Cars enter on the left from Cross-
bar Road and the return-to-terminal ramp, and cars exit left
to the Park ‘n’ Wait and Service Center, while others exit right
to 3700 West. Simply put, there is too much happening in the
same small area, so the decision points are neither sequenced
nor binary.
Finally, having these ancillary services within the terminal loop
roadway eliminates the space from use as passenger parking.
This pushes passenger parking space further from the terminal
building which results in higher operational costs and lower
customer level of service.
4.7.6.2 Employee Parking
One employee parking option that was dismissed during
alternatives analysis was a concept which keeps the lot in its
current location. The current employee parking lot location
fails to meet the following landside planning principles:
• Keep highest value landside functions closest to the termi-
nal building.
• Minimize parking shuttle circulation distance, time,
and cost.
The land currently serving employee parking is located north
of the canal and within a relatively close proximity of the
airport terminal building. Comprehensive land use analysis
showed that this land could be better used for customer-ori-
ented landside airport facilities. Public parking demand at
SLC has grown and is projected to further increase to a level
requiring all reasonable available space within the landside
facilities area north of the canal. While the lot was an ap-
propriate land use at the time of its construction, keeping
the employee parking lot in its current location now would
prioritize a secondary parking use over the Airport’s primary
purpose of providing a high level of service to customers.
4.7.6.3 Rental Car Remote Service Site
It is possible to replace economy parking spaces with an ex-
pansion of the existing rental car Remote Service Site (RSS),
as shown in Figure 4-21. This option was dismissed as inad-
equate because it fails to meet important landside planning
principles including:
• Keep highest value landside functions closest to the termi-
nal building.
• Minimize parking shuttle circulation distance, time, and cost.
To its detriment, this option prioritizes “back of house” rental
car service activities that do not immediately serve airport
customers. Given how the RSS is used, having it proximate to
the ready-return area does not improve car availability for cus-
tomers. Instead, its presence removes a large area of conve-
nient, customer-oriented parking spaces. Displacing customer
parking from inside the Terminal Drive to outside the loop
roadway complicates the overall Airport parking wayfinding
system, increases parking shuttle route distance, times, and
operating cost, and degrades the customer experience. At the
surface, this option appears to have the lowest capital costs
to implement as it simply replaces surface parking spaces
with new rental car space. However, operational costs to
conduct parking operations would increase as costs to shuttle
passengers increases. For these reasons, this alternative was
eliminated from further consideration.
4.7.7 Comprehensive Landside Alternatives
Unlike most airport master plans, this one was prepared while
a significant new development program, the ARP, was in final
stages of construction. For the landside elements of the ARP,
their planning and significant portions of their construction
took place nearly two decades ago. The roadway system with a
place for garage parking, economy parking, and rental car facil-
ities located within the Terminal Drive loop set the stage for all
alternative concepts developed in this master plan update.
The following two comprehensive landside concepts are natu-
rally compatible with and supportive of the concepts of the fa-
cilities related to the ARP. The two alternatives are designed to
continue the general landside concept that exists today, while
addressing the facility needs over the planning period. Because
these concepts adhere to the general landside planning guide-
lines which led to the current configuration, they work in har-
mony with the new SLCIA terminal to organize and maximize
use of the limited landside area near the Airport terminal. The
ultimate goal of these concepts is to organize airport resources
(land, financial, and otherwise) to provide a safe, efficient, and
high-quality customer experience.
At the core of the two concepts is the idea that the land inside
the loop be allocated to the uses which best serve the cus-
tomers and provide the highest quality service for the most
customers. Ancillary supporting facilities are therefore moved
outside the loop if there is no room for them inside it. Thus, in
both concepts, the convenience/service center is moved to the
321 322
Figure 4-21: Rental Car Remote Service Site Alternatives Not Meeting Planning Principles
Source: RS&H and Curtis Transportation Consulting, 2020
estimated total space allocations is shown in Table 4-11. The
following description of this alternative is organized to provide
a logical flow and order of how the facilities could be imple-
mented.
Employee parking requirements show an immediate need
for additional space. Beginning with design and construction
of new employee parking allows the existing lot to accom-
modate needed public parking as other landside facilities are
implemented. This concept is flexible to incorporate any of the
previously described employee lot configurations but shows
the recommended single south employee lot option. Access to
the south lot is provided via 3700 West by a new bridge over
the existing canal. Alterations to the canal should consider the
impacts to the proposed south employee parking lot bridge.
The existing public parking configuration has a ratio of 2.9:1
surface parking spaces to garage spaces. Landside Alterna-
tive One incorporates more vertical garage parking spaces to
meet overall parking demand within the landside envelop and
decreases that ratio to 1.8:1. This means that, in the future
under this concept, a higher percentage of overall parking at
SLCIA would be provided by the parking garage. Increasing the
ratio of garage parking provides an opportunity to incorporate
hourly parking spaces close to the terminal to serve short-
term parkers. This is important because analysis showed that
roughly 68 percent of garage parkers stayed for less than 1.5
hours and proves that there is customer demand for this type
of parking space.
New vertical parking in this concept is provided by two equally
sized expansions on the east and west ends of the garage.
Each expansion is five bays and five levels. Vehicle parking
space estimates (shown in Table 4-11) incorporate 60-foot
bays, akin to those in the existing garage, for light and air pen-
etration into the structure. Each expansion footprint is approx-
imately 117,000 square feet for an expanded area footprint of
234,000 square feet and a total garage footprint of 585,000
square feet. Public parking is provided on levels 2 through 5 of
the garage and the entire ground level is dedicated to rental
car ready return functions. In this alternative, additional public
garage parking is provided on the 5th level of a rental car quick
323 324
northeast corner of the current employee parking lot on 3700
West, to provide for more Economy Parking. This location also
places these services where they can better serve their primary
users, who are employees, tenants, commercial drivers, and
contractors.
As well, in both concepts, the Park ’n’ Wait is relocated back to
its previous location. Not only does this free up more spaces
for Economy Parking inside the loop, it also:
• Eliminates the traffic congestion and safety issue of the ma-
jor weaving area on inbound Terminal Drive.
• Greatly improves the visibility of, access to, and egress from
the lot, thereby enhancing its utilization.
• Reintroduces the potential use of the lot for security screen-
ing under a Code Red condition, as requested by the police.
With the current employee parking, service/convenience
center, and Park ’n’ Wait all relocated, the development of
concepts centered around how best to utilize the available area
within the Terminal Drive loop. Facility requirements suggested
the need to maximize Economy Parking. Alternatively, the over-
all public parking program could be met with more walkable
(structured) parking, and less surface parking. The tradeoff is in
customer service levels and the customers’ collective willing-
ness to pay for the higher quality of service. These trade-offs
are explored in the two comprehensive landside concepts.
Table 4-11: Comprehensive Landside Alternative One Summary
Figure 4-22: Comprehensive Landside Alternative One
Source: RS&H and Curtis Transportation Consulting, 2020
4.7.7.1 Comprehensive Landside Alternative One
The first comprehensive landside alternative features the
additional garage parking in lieu of the full program of econ-
omy parking. In doing so, it permits non-customer-oriented
facilities (the rental car RSS) to remain inside the loop, as it
was originally planned 20 years ago. This concept contains all
landside facilities within the existing landside programmed land
area, with the exception of the employee parking lot which is
located south of the existing lot in the former golf course area.
The facility layout for this concept is shown in Figure 4-22.
The summary of required land area for each facility and the
Land Use Land Area (sf)Projected Spaces PAL 3
Required Spaces
Surplus/
(Deficiency)
Public Parking
Economy Parking 4,998,000 13,279 16,931 (3,652)
Garage Parking 585,000 7,370 3,884 3,486
Total Public Parking 5,583,000 20,649 20,815 (166)
Employee Parking1
Single South Lot Option 1,589,370 4,589 4,589 0
Split North-South Lots Option 1,664,370 4,589 4,589 0
Rental Car
RAC Ready Return 585,000 2,004 1,958 46
RAC Storage 444,600 5,142 3,0052 2,137
RAC QTA Position 430,000 115 115 0
RAC RSS 1,176,120 ---
Park ‘n’ Wait 78,200 95 95 0
Service Center 77,400 58 58 0
COmmercial Vehicle Staging 160,000 141 141 0
Notes: 1) Land available to accommodate either employee parking option. 2) RAC storage requirements based on off-airport shuttling requirement.
Source: Curtis Transportation Consulting and RS&H Analysis, 2020
turnaround (QTA) and storage garage, which will be described
in more detail in the rental car facilities discussion to follow.
In total, at a planning factor of 360 square feet per space, an
estimated total of 7,370 garage parking spaces will be pro-
vided in this concept. For surface parking, a planning factor
of 330 square feet per space was used, providing a total of
13,279 surface parking spaces over the planning period. Exact
locations for these surface parking spaces will be described
throughout this section. In total, although this alternative
shows a slight deficiency of 166 parking spaces (0.8 percent
deficient) to meet total parking demand over the planning
period, this estimated total is within the errors of our estimates
and the concept meets overall needs of the parking program.
Comprehensive Landside Alternative One meets on-airport
rental car storage requirements through construction of a
new 5-level rental car garage. QTA functions are located on
the ground level and rental car storage takes place on levels
2 through 4. Level 5 in the QTA garage is dedicated to public
parking. Public garage parkers would access the top level of
the QTA via a bridge connecting to the primary public parking
garage. This bridge would be best positioned central to the
terminal gateway building to create a movement corridor capa-
ble of automating passenger movements and reducing overall
walking distances.
The new QTA garage would likely be constructed in three
phases as follows:
• Construct a new wing east of the existing QTA garage.
• Demolish and replace the west portion of the existing
QTA garage with new construction matching the
new east wing.
• Demolish and replace the remaining center portion of the
existing QTA garage to tie into the previously constructed
new QTA garage portions.
Phasing the new QTA garage construction this way would
allow continued operations while the new facility is being built.
In this alternative, the rental car RSS is relocated to the south
end of the existing surface parking lot. The new RSS absorbs
24 acres of land used for surface parking, equating to a loss of
roughly 3,100 parking spaces. An additional three acres is avail-
able for rental car overflow storage in the areas immediately
south of the new RSS location. Once the RSS is relocated, the
old RSS site can be reconstructed for surface parking. This
recovers approximately 2,076 of the surface parking spaces
lost by the RSS relocation for a net loss of 1,024 spaces. As the
RSS is designed, any ability to reduce the overall RSS surface
space would help lessen the overall loss of surface parking
under this concept.
The Service Center and the Park ‘n’ Wait lot are currently
located inside the terminal loop roadway (Terminal Drive). As
previously noted, this concept relocates both facilities to new
locations along the right side of the terminal entry (outside
the terminal loop roadway). The Service Center is separat-
ed from the Park ‘n’ Wait lot and located on approximately
80,000 square feet of the northeast corner of the current
employee parking lot. This area is accessed by the existing
Terminal Drive exit to 3700 West where the entry/exit to
the Service Center would be located. The Park ‘n’ Wait lot
is relocated back to the site of the former Park ‘n’ Wait lot
and covers approximately 80,000 square feet, which includes
25,000 square feet for entry, exit, and landscaping. Entry to
the relocated Park ‘n’ Wait lot would also be accessed by the
exit from Terminal Drive to 3700 West and the exit would
reenter vehicles into the stream of traffic nearing the terminal
curb roadway. Each new location is highly visible, safely acces-
sible, intuitive to users, and adheres well to landside planning
principles.
Relocating the Service Center and Park ‘n’ Wait lot allows for
redevelopment of those sites for additional surface parking
that remains contiguous with the existing surface parking
area. Additionally, unused space west of the relocated RSS
site can be incorporated into the surface parking lot.
The commercial vehicle staging lot remains in its present loca-
tion but expands into open land to the south in order to meet
the 141 space requirements. Total land area for the commer-
cial vehicle staging area is approximately 160,000 square feet.
A common aspect of both alternative concepts is that the
entry to the commercial vehicle staging would revert back
to its original location prior to when the Park ‘n’ Wait lot was
moved, as an exit left from the ramp from Terminal Drive to
3700 West. The location of the entry to the staging area was
built in that location in order to separate out larger, slower
commercial vehicles from POVs and rental cars at the earliest
opportunity. Not only does this reduce traffic on the termi-
nal approach lanes, it improves driver visibility (wayfinding
and orientation) by taking out the larger vehicles, and thus
also improves safety as inbound drivers look to find where
they need to go, and maneuver to get there. Relocating the
entry to the staging area back to its former location off the
exit ramp to 3700 West will also reduce the volume on the
terminal approach lanes enough to avoid having to widen that
roadway during the planning period. Figure 4-23 shows the
roadway configuration for the Park ‘n’ Wait lot and the com-
mercial vehicle staging area entry.
During emergency operations defined by Airport police as
“Code Red”, vehicles entering the terminal curb area must be
rerouted away from the terminal curb. The configuration of
the commercial vehicle staging area allows this to occur, but
the existing road (located immediately north of the staging lot
and south of the light rail station) crossing the light rail tracks
to 3700 West must be either preserved or replaced. This rail
325 326
crossing is the critical link that allows inbound vehicular traffic
to flow away from the terminal curb on 3700 West during a
Code Red exercise.
4.7.7.2 Comprehensive Landside Alternative Two
Comprehensive Landside Alternative Two provides for signifi-
cantly more public parking than Alternative One by removing
the rental car RSS from inside the Terminal Drive Loop. This
increases the number of available economy parking spaces and
reduces the number of required garage spaces. Otherwise, the
landside facilities are located in the same general areas as in
Alternative One.
Public parking in Comprehensive Landside Alternative Two
is provided more so by surface parking in this concept than
in Alternative One. Alternative Two provides total parking at
a rate of 2.6 surface spaces per 1 garage space. This ratio is
higher than Alternative One and nearly as high as the current
allocation ratio (2.9:1). The reason this alternative maintains
a higher surface space to garage space ratio is because, in
this concept, the rental car RSS is relocated to the vacant
land south of the Surplus Canal and northwest of the I-80
and Bangerter Highway interchange. Developing a new RSS in
this location provides more land for SLCIA to provide surface
parking demand throughout PAL 3 than Alternative One. The
facility layout for this concept is shown in Figure 4-24. Table
4-12 shows a summary of facility land areas and vehicle spaces
provided in Comprehensive Landside Alternative Two.
Similar to Alternative One, the current employee parking lot is
converted to public parking. However, a bridge is constructed
over Terminal Drive to connect the inner loop surface parking
to the converted employee lot. This bridge connects all surface
parking together seamlessly, therefore providing singular
access and egress points for public parkers and connecting the
lots for shuttle operation efficiency.
Under this concept, the rental car QTA and storage garage is 4
levels on a 444,600 square feet footprint (same as Alternative
One) but it does not incorporate a 5th level for additional pub-
lic garage parking. The rental car RSS is located on the former
golf course site and, unlike Alternative One, does not decrease
the surface parking area. However, the new RSS in Alternative
Two is 0.5 miles further by service roads than the RSS pro-
posed in Alternative One.
Figure 4-23: Park ‘N’ Wait Lot and Commercial Vehicle Staging Lot Roadway Realignment
Source: RS&H and Curtis Transportation Consulting, 2020
Aside from those key differences, the other proposed facility
elements are identical. These include the Park ‘n’ Wait lot, the
Service Center, commercial vehicle staging expansion, and the
areas inside the terminal loop roadway to be filled in as surface
parking and rental car storage overflow.
4.7.8 Landside Alternatives Evaluation
The landside alternatives were developed to achieve each
landside planning principle and perform well with regard to
evaluation criteria. Criteria used to evaluate each option are as
follows:
• Meets near-and long-term facility requirements
• Meets objectives and planning principles
• Provides targeted level of service
• Operational efficiency / ease of use
• Operational and public safety
• Flexibility and future expansion potential
• Financial feasibility (capital/operating cost, net revenue)
• Environmental / sustainability
• Ease of implementation
Each landside facility is located and designed to meet the
particular needs of the customer it serves. Therefore, different
factors influenced each facility’s degree of success in meeting
specific evaluation criteria. Overall, both landside alternatives
perform well. Table 4-13 shows how each facility performed
relative to each criterion. It should be noted that, while many
of the criteria graded as “fair” performed well, they did not
perform as well as the other alternative. To differentiate an
alternative performing better to meet certain evaluation crite-
ria, the better performing concept was graded “good” and the
weaker concept was graded as “fair”. The key differentiators
as to why one alternative performed better than the other are
identified in Table 4-13 as well.
The key differences between the two alternatives are, 1) How
much surface versus garage parking is provided to meet de-
mand, and 2) Where the rental car RSS is sited. Public parking
and rental car facilities are competing for limited space in
the terminal landside area and trade-offs occur when one is
prioritized above the other. If more surface parking is desired,
then the RSS must be located outside the terminal loop road.
If slightly closer proximity for the RSS is desired, then more
vertical parking must be provided to meet customer demand.
Landside best planning principles place public parking within
the loop road as the higher priority therefore making the RSS
location in Alternative Two the better option from a custom-
er-service perspective. These two elements, public parking and rental car RSS, are the differentiating factors in evaluating the two
landside alternatives. Each landside facility serves a specific purpose within the overall landside system and each facility is influ-
enced by a different set of factors that must be quantified and analyzed individually in order to assign an appropriate performance
grade. These factors vary by facility but include both qualitative and quantitative elements. Qualitative factors considered included
pedestrian walking distance, estimated capital and operating costs, impact to vehicle miles traveled, shuttling time and distance,
and distance to/from dependent facilities.
Pedestrian walking distance relates primarily to the garage parking. Alternative Two limits passenger walking distances from
parking to the gateway building to a maximum of 1,300 feet while Alternative One increases that maximum distance from parking
to the terminal building to approximately 1,850 feet. Those factors aside, it is possible to overcome this challenge with automated
passenger movement systems that can quickly move people to the terminal without requiring considerable walking.
327 328
Figure 4-24: Comprehensive Landside Alternative TwoTable 4-12: Comprehensive Landside Alternative Two Summary
Source: RS&H and Curtis Transportation Consulting, 2020
Land Use Land Area (sf)Projected Spaces PAL 3
Required Spaces
Surplus/
(Deficiency)
Public Parking
Economy Parking 4,998,000 16,316 16,931 (615)
Garage Parking 585,000 6,275 3,884 2,391
Total Public Parking 5,583,000 22,591 20,815 1,776
Employee Parking1
Single South Lot Option 1,589,370 4,589 4,589 0
Split North-South Lots Option 1,664,370 4,589 4,589 0
Rental Car
RAC Ready Return 585,000 2,004 1,958 46
RAC Storage 444,600 5,142 3,0052 2,137
RAC QTA Position 430,000 115 115 0
RAC RSS 1,176,120 ---
Park ‘n’ Wait 78,200 95 95 0
Service Center 77,400 58 58 0
COmmercial Vehicle Staging 160,000 141 141 0
Notes: 1) Land available to accommodate either employee parking option. 2) RAC storage requirements based on off-airport shuttling requirement.
Source: Curtis Transportation Consulting and RS&H Analysis, 2020
VMT is a factor that mostly relates to rental car shuttling to the
RSS and to storage. Because both concepts provide storage
parking in adequate quantities and in the same location as
they currently exist, each alternative performs equally as well.
Both alternatives are a vast improvement over current circum-
stances which require shuttling to off-airport storage locations.
The RSS in Alternative Two is 0.5 miles further along service
roads than Alternative One so it does have a lower overall VMT
which quantified, would depend on the annual number of cars
shuttled to the RSS for service or storage. Assuming 2 percent
of the rental car fleet would require shuttling for service at
the RSS, at PAL 3 projected demand levels, this could create
roughly 28,590 additional annual miles traveled in Alternative
Two verses Alternative One. This additional mileage is very
minor when considering the scale of rental car operations
occurring at SLCIA.
Shuttling time and distances relate to the surface parking lot
shuttles and employee lot shuttles. Employee lot comparisons
are made in Section 4.7.3, Employee Parking. Both alternatives
have a degree of surface parking and will require shuttling
operations. The cost of shuttling is less dependent upon the
spaces provided by both concepts and more dependent upon
the number of routes scheduled and the headways offered by
the Airport to meet a preferred service standard. Alternative
One requires two separate routes to service the two surface
parking lots and Alternative Two can be serviced by one route
because the surface lots are connected by an overpass. There-
fore, between the two concepts, Alternative One is likely to
have the higher operating cost (shuttling) but the initial lower
capital costs (no overpass to build). The rental car RSS in Alter-
native One also takes surface parking spaces farthest from the
terminal, further reducing shuttling distances and times. Over-
all, Alternative One would reduce shuttling times and distances,
but this is due to the fact that less surface parking is provided
in favor of more garage parking.
4.7.9 Preferred Comprehensive Landside
Development Plan
The preferred comprehensive landside development, shown
in Figure 4-25 is the result of stakeholder feedback about
the two concepts. The preferred landside development is,
essentially, Comprehensive Landside Alternative One with the
western portion of the former golf course (where Alternative
Two proposes a replacement rental car RSS) preserved for
ultimate landside use. Preserving this land for future landside
uses alleviates many of the concerns that resulted in lower
evaluation scores for Alternative One when compared to
Alternative Two, especially as it relates to meeting long-term
requirements, following planning principles, and flexibility and
expansion potential.
The rationale behind placing the rental car RSS within the
terminal loop road farthest from the terminal is that the clos-
er the RSS is to the QTA, storage, and ready-return, the less
distance companies have to travel to perform maintenance
and store additional vehicles. This compromise balances
keeping rental car operating costs low while still providing a
high level of service to airport customers through on-airport
surface parking near the terminal. It is anticipated that rental
car operating costs will substantially benefit from an expand-
ed ready-return area and the ability to service and store the
majority of needed cars within close proximity of ready-return
in the expanded QTA. The preferred RSS location also avoids
the requirement for rental car employees to shuttle cars on
public roadways, as it did in Alternative Two, since there is
right-of-way currently established solely for this purpose.
Finally, while this option does not provide the amount of
public surface parking spaces to meet forecast demand levels, it offsets this shortage with walkable structured parking which offers
a higher customer level of service. The key to maximizing customer use of structured parking, and the subsequent revenues will be
setting a simple program and rate structure that encourages airport patrons to use the new garage spaces as opposed to parking in
economy shuttle lots or with off-airport providers.
329 330
Table 4-13: Comprehensive Landside Alternatives Evaluation
Figure 4-25: Preferred Comprehensive Landside Alternative
Source: RS&H and Curtis Transportation Consulting, 2020
Evaluation Criteria Comprehensive Alternatives
One Two
Meets Near/Long-term Facility Requirements
Meets Objectives/Follows Planning Principles
Provides Targeted Level of Service
Operational Efficiency/Ease of Use
Operational & Public Safety
Flexibility & Expansion Potential
Financial Feasibility
Environmental/Sustainability
Ease of Implementation
Performance Legend Good Fair Poor
Source: RS&H and Curtis Transportation Consulting, 2020
The facility requirements analysis identified specific support
facilities that will require relocation and/or expansion in the
future at SLC. These include airline maintenance, airport main-
tenance, ARFF Station #12, the commercial service fuel farm,
and general aviation facilities. Except for GA, these facilities
are all within the planned envelope for a future Concourse C.
While the actual construction of a Concourse C is outside the
planning period, the site of any planned concourse construc-
tion must be cleared prior to implementation. As noted in
Section 4.2, a full Concourse C build out may not be needed
until beyond the planning period. However, it is recommended
that new and replacement facilities be placed outside the Con-
course C site envelope.
This section begins with an overview of the site analysis
conducted for airline maintenance, airport maintenance and
ARFF facilities. The fuel facility was examined separately as its
location is more flexible. Finally, the GA related alternatives are
discussed.
4.8.1 Airline Maintenance, Airport
Maintenance, and ARFF Sites
Four new sites, illustrated in Figure 4-26, were examined for
their ability to accommodate relocation and expansion needs
of airline maintenance, airport maintenance, and the ARFF
Station. Sites 1, 3, and 4 are large enough to support a full
relocation and varying levels of expansion of airline and airport
maintenance, while Site 2 is large enough to support relocation
or partial relocation and expansion.
Site 2 was found to be the only site suitable for relocation of
ARFF Station #12 due to the response time requirements to
Runway 16L-34R and 16R-34L. The other sites were further
examined for their ability to support airline maintenance and
airport maintenance facilities. The evaluation of the sites is
illustrated in Table 4-14. Site 1 performed the worst, primarily
due to its location in an area that contains large amounts of
wetlands and no utility infrastructure nearby making imple-
mentation for any new facility very difficult. Site 1 and Site
4 both would require new taxiways to support airline main-
tenance which increases cost and decreases ease of imple-
mentation. Additionally, airline maintenance in Sites 1 or 4
are furthest from the terminal area, requiring longer drive and
aircraft tow distances, which increases emissions and operat-
ing costs. Site 1 was deemed incompatible overall for airline
maintenance as aircraft would need to be towed across an
active runway, whereas in Site 4, aircraft in tow could utilize the
SEAT (although, because of the very long distance, this is also
impractical). Sites 2 and 3 both performed well. The only areas
where these sites underperformed Sites 1 and 4 was in rela-
tion to the space for future expansion and meeting long term
re quirements. However, if combined, the space constraints are
mitigated. Thus, both Site 2 and Site 3 were carried forward as
the preferred location for airline maintenance, airport mainte-
nance, and the eventual ARFF Station #12 relocation. Airport
maintenance was planned in the last master plan to be even-
tually relocated into Site 4. Site 4 would accommodate that
facility well, although it would require new utility and road way
infrastructure. This study found that existing airport main-
tenance facilities are a mix of old, dilapidated buildings that
require replacement and some newer buildings in good con-
dition. As opposed to fully relocating the maintenance facility
into Site 4 as a greenfield development, which would require
significant expense, replacement infill development within Site
331 332
Figure 4-26: Aviation Support Site Alternative
Table 4-14: Aviation Support Development Site Evaluation
Source: SLCDA; RS&H Analysis, 2020
2 was found to be more practical. Replacement buildings could
be developed near existing buildings, keeping the maintenance
campus consolidated. Additionally, keeping the maintenance
function near the terminal building provides greater efficiency
for workers who service that facility.
4.8.2 Commercial Service Fuel Farm
The current commercial service fuel farm facility is located
with other north support facilities and lies within the footprint
of the future Concourse C. As discussed in the balanced air-
port analysis, build out of a partial Concourse C is not expected
to be needed until the end, or beyond, the planning period.
Additionally, airfield capacity enhancements would be required
to accommodate operational levels that would be associated
with even a half Concourse C build out. Thus, it is likely that
the commercial service fuel farm will be able to remain in its
current location though the planning period, and depending
on initial Concourse C construction, for many years beyond.
However, to account for any change that may require reloca-
tion of the commercial service fuel farm earlier than expected,
relocation sites were analyzed.
Six sites were identified, as shown in Figure 4-27. Consider-
ations for each site include the need for non-secure landside
access for fuel tanker trucks and other personnel to access
the facility. The new facility must tie into the existing pipeline.
infrastructure that connects to the terminal concourses and to
the oil refinery north of SLC. The farther the new site is from
4.8 SUPPORT FACILITY ALTERNATIVES
Criteria Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4
Operational Efficiency
Flexibility & Expansion Potential
Financial Feasibility
Environmental/Sustainability
Ease of Implementation
Meets Near/Long-term Requirements
Performance Legend Good Fair Poor
the existing pipeline, the greater the cost and complexity of
connection. The results of the evaluation, shown in Table 4-15,
determined that Site 3 should be reserved for the relocation of
the fuel facility. Sites 2, 4, and 6 all have wetland impacts great-
er than the others, and being further from the existing pipeline,
will re quire greater infrastructure and incur more cost. Site 1
may be the easiest to implement, but the site is constrained
for future growth and is better suited for other aviation relat-
ed purposes such as airport maintenance facilities. Although
Site 5 per formed well in the evaluation, the land is valuable
real estate for future aeronautical facilities because it has road-
way and taxiway access, and thus should not be used for a fuel
farm. Overall, Site 3 is identified as the preferred site since it is
close to the existing pipeline, has little or no wetland impact,
has room for expansion, and is an appropriate use of the land
in that area. Ease of implementation is the only challenge as a
roadway and utilities would need to be built to serve the site.
Future consideration is required for crossfield connection to
a realigned Runway 17-35. The site may need to be adjusted
and/or a roadway tunnel may be required if future crossfield
taxiways are built to the north.
333 334
4.8.3 General Aviation
The facility requirements chapter identifies a transition in re-
quired general aviation (GA) facilities over the planning period,
as jet-oriented growth, combined with a decline in the number
of smaller aircraft, results in a surplus of T-hangars and shade
hangars, and a significant deficiency of box hangars. In addition
to the facility requirements, a General Aviation Strategy Plan
exists for the SLCDA airport system. The strategy plan devel-
ops a methodology to use the three airports within the system
to maximize efficiency by providing enhanced facilities at South
Valley Regional Airport and Tooele Valley Airport.
The strategy plan finds that enhanced facilities at reliever
airports, combined with adjusting lease rates to fair market
values, can result in an even further decrease in the demand
for market rate T-hangar and shade facilities at SLC than what
is forecasted in the Master Plan. This is expected to result in a
surplus of existing T-hangar facilities that can be redeveloped
to meet demand for box hangars over the course of the plan-
ning period. The Recommended Action Plan proposed in the
strategy plan is being carried forward in this study. Through im-
plementation of the action plan, unneeded T-hangar and shade
hangar facilities can be redeveloped to accommodate forecast-
ed demand of box hangars through the planning period.
SLCDA has adopted a general aviation management policy
that divides the land within the GA area into zones of control
to consolidate leaseholds and future development which will
allow independent management of general aviation facilities
by the existing FBOs at SLC(i.e., TAC Air and Atlantic Aviation).
The policy will allow the FBOs to develop the types of facili-
ties needed to satisfy market demand. Although, this system
is designed to reduce the involvement of SLCDA in the overall
management and future development of GA hangars at the
Airport, it does retain a smaller zone as an area of control for
the SLCDA. The future development required to meet the
facility demands of GA will predominately occur by the FBOs in
Zone 1 and Zone 2. Figure 4-28 shows the three GA leasehold
zones for TAC Air, Atlantic Aviation, and SLCDA.
Figure 4-27: Commercial Fuel Terminal Relocation Sites
Table 4-15: Commercial Fuel Farm Relocation Evaluation
Source: SLCDA; RS&H Analysis, 2020
Criteria Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6
Operational Efficiency
Flexibility & Expansion Potential
Project Cost Considerations
Wetlands Impacts
Ease of Implementation
Meets Near/Long-term Requirements
Performance Legend Good Fair Poor
With Zone 1 and Zone 2 being managed by the respective
FBOs, Zone 3 is the only section of the GA area not currently
within an FBO lease area and is the zone for which SLCDA will
have direct development control. Zone 3 encompasses roughly
1.2 million total square feet, including approximately 280,000
square feet of developable land in its eastern portion, including
a T-hangar ultimately slated for demolition due to structural
deficiencies. To examine the development potential of this
area, a total of three high-level concepts were analyzed includ-
ing concepts for development of a cluster of small box hangars,
development of 30,000 square feet hangars, and development
of large 60,000 square feet hangars. These three concepts
are shown in Figure 4-29. These concepts are based on the
primary objective of having an area of land under SLC control
(and not FBOs) that would allow leases and private develop-
ment of individual corporate hangars for larger aircraft. Since
the General Aviation Strategy Plan recommends that services
and facilities for small general aviation aircraft be provided at
its reliever airports, no small hangar development is proposed
in these concepts.
Ultimately business demands will drive the specific sizing and
development of Zone 3, but larger hangar sizes such as shown
in these alternatives are preferred and would provide viable
hangar layouts.
4.8.4 ARFF Training Facility
An ARFF training facility is a location which provides realistic,
repeatable, and safe training for aircraft rescue and firefighting
operations. For more than 20 years an ARFF training center
existed at SLC until the facility was closed in 2018 due to the
significant costs to operate what had become an aging facility.
However, the benefits of having an ARFF training facility re-
main for the ARFF staff at SLC, as well as firefighters through-
out the region who would use the facility. This Master Plan will
preserve a site for potential development in case the financial
case becomes practicable for an ARFF training facility in the
future.
The previous facility encompassed approximately nine acres
and provided live-fire training. For a future facility, the reserved
site will incorporate space for both live-fire and classroom
335 336
Figure 4-28: General Aviation Leasehold Zones Figure 4-29: General Aviation Zone 3 Development Alternatives
Source: SLCDA; RS&H Analysis, 2020
Source: SLCDA; RS&H Analysis, 2020
337 338
training. This site is forecasted to necessitate approximate-
ly 11.5 acres and considers sufficient space for a burn area,
maneuvering area, pavement for additional special use ARFF
equipment, parking for three ARFF vehicles with airside access,
classroom space with associated furnishings, and landside
parking.
In coordination with ARFF staff, five sites were identified, as
shown in Figure 4-27. The evaluation process, summarized
in Table 4-16, considers operational efficiency, flexibility and
expandability, costs, impacts to wetlands, ease of implementa-
tion, and the ability of the site to accommodate space required.
Operational efficiency analysis considers airside access for
ARFF vehicles, landside access and parking, public viewshed,
and compatibility with Advisory Circular 150/5220-17B, Air-
craft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) Training Facilities siting
requirements including:
• Outside of all restricted areas noted in AC 150/5300-13,
Airport Design.
• Where smoke and the associated thermal plume will not
hinder aircraft operations or ATC surveillance of the move-
ment area.
• Where the aircraft mockup (e.g., tail height) and support
components (e.g., buildings) will not interfere with naviga-
tional aids.
• Greater than 1,000 ft from residential areas and 300 feet
from airport buildings and public vehicle parking lots.
To increase controllability of the impact of smoke plumes
and reduce environmental impacts, a propane-fired system is
recommended. The preferred site location should also not be
sited in a location desirable for other usage, such as avia-
tion-related or non-aeronautical development and above the
100-year floodplain.
Sites 4 and 5 were discarded due to challenges in providing
airside access across a public roadway and the distance of
the sites from existing utility infrastructure. Sites 1, 2, and 3
were determined to be viable alternatives, but all lack the ideal
combination of airside vehicle service road and landside access
while still preserving future development potential. Although
each of the sites are outside of the ATCT line of sight for the
airfield and the flight path of a realigned Runway 17-35, Sites
2 and 3 would be on the flight path of the existing runway if
a facility is constructed prior to the runway being realigned.
Existing wetlands at Sites 1 and 2 would also require mitigation
prior to construction.
After evaluation, a hybrid alternative was created roughly
between Sites 1 and 2, behind the SLCDA Airport Training and
Activities Center. The hybrid location allows ideal connection
to the airfield and VSR and requires only a short connection to
2200 W or 2100 N roadways. Although an access road will be
needed from the site to 2200 W or 2100 N, the site itself is
remote which preserves opportunities for development better
suited for roadway frontage. It is important to note that the
live-fire training facility must remain more than 300’ from any
other parking area or building, which can be met by the hybrid
site. The proposed location for the replacement ARFF training
facility is also shifted further from both the existing and re-
aligned runway centerline of Runway 17-35 than Sites 2 and 3.
Table 4-16: ARFF Training Facility Site Evaluation
Figure 4-30: ARFF Training Facility Site Alternatives
Source: RS&H, 2020
Criteria Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5
Operational Efficiency
Flexibility & Expansion Potential
Project Cost Considerations
Wetlands Impacts
Ease of Implementation
Meets Near/Long-term Requirements
Performance Legend Good Fair Poor
4.9 NON-AERONAUTICAL LAND USE OPPORTUNITIES
As part of this master plan, undeveloped landside parcels were assessed for their ability to serve as future development opportuni-
ty sites able to accommodate near- and long-term non-aeronautical development without impacting the future aeronautical needs
of the Airport. The results of the analysis identified approximately 140 acres of land that is located within the northeast quadrant
of airport property, illustrated in Figure 4-31.
Other sites were investigated, including the area between I-80 and the passenger terminal area, and the area north of the Air
National Guard base on the east side of the Airport. The facility requirements determined the area between I-80 and the passenger
terminal would be required to remain available for aeronautical purposes, namely for the SEAT and future terminal related parking
infrastructure. The area north of the Air National Guard is ripe for future development and should remain preserved for aeronauti-
cal purposes.
The size of the site can accommodate many large-scale uses including large manufacturing facilities, a research and development
campus, or Airport support facilities. These types of facilities are compatible with the Airport and could be designed to coexist
with airspace limitations. Additionally, the location and configuration of the site accounts for the reservation of land for a realigned
Runway 17-35 northern RPZ. Utility and roadway infrastructure exist in proximity to the site, although not within the site itself.
However, the proximity of utilities and roadway access is advantageous for initial development. With consideration of these factors
combined, it is recommended that the site be designated as non-aeronautical land use.
The reality of achieving development at the Airport will require inducing the market to act. This requires a proactive, planned, and
executed marketing and implementation effort be undertaken by the Airport; otherwise, this area may remain undeveloped into the
future. Forming public/private partnerships, mutually beneficial relationships with institutions such as universities and non-profit
organizations, creating financial and economic benefit programs and packages, and targeting solicitation efforts aimed at attracting
the most synergistic landside development partners for the Airport are all ways the Airport can catalyze development.
339 340
Figure 4-31: Non-Aeronautical Land Use
Soure: Strategy 5 LLC, RS&H, 2020
5
|
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
AN
D
IM
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
AT
I
O
N
5
DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
AND IMPLEMENTATION
341
5.1 INTRODUCTION
In Chapter 3, Facility Requirements, each of SLCIA’s facilities
were analyzed for their ability to accommodate both existing
and future demand over the 20-year planning horizon. Some
facilities were found in need of expansion or upgrade today
to accommodate current demand, while others will require
expansion later. Alternatives were developed in Chapter 4,
Identification and Evaluation of Alternatives, to satisfy the
Airport’s facility requirement needs. A set of preferred
alternatives for various facilities were brought forward
to be included in the Airport’s Development Plan.
For projects related to demand levels, planning activity levels
(PALs) were used to tie expansion requirements to demand,
as opposed to actual years according to the forecast. At the
time of this writing, the world is roughly one year though
the COVID-19 pandemic, and aviation demand is severely
depressed from 2019 levels. A recovery in passenger traffic
to 2019 levels is expected by 2024. Meanwhile, air cargo is
expanding and segments of general aviation have seen growth
nationwide. By using PALs, SLCDA can track demand and plan
for projects accordingly. Additionally, some projects are not
demand related, and are programmed according to priority and
anticipated SLCDA funding capability.
This chapter describes the projects and programs
recommended in this study and organizes them in a
sequence of priority based on PALs, strategic objectives,
enabling requirements, and anticipated funding capability of
SLCDA though the planning period.
5.2 STRATEGIC VISION
The last master plan conducted for SLCIA in 1998 outlaid the
vision for new terminal and concourse facilities. Over the past
two decades the Salt Lake City Department of Airports
(SLCDA) has been focused on formalizing that vision and at
the time of this writing, has finished construction of new
terminal, concourse, and landside facilities. As SLCDA
actively implements its historic Terminal Redevelopment
Program (TRP), this master plan developed a new vision for
the next 20 years and beyond. The focus of this master plan is
finding an ultimate balance of airfield and supporting facilities
to match passenger demand anticipated within and beyond
the planning period.
The last master plan, and the planning for the TRP, consid-
ered land use requirements for an ultimate Concourse C and
D. However, this study found additional airfield capacity is
required to support the traffic demand that would necessitate
a Concourse C, and that a Concourse D may not be feasible
due to the limits of the airspace and land constraints of the Salt
Lake Valley. Yet, the forecast for commercial demand indicates
that Concourse B will be nearly fully utilized by PAL 3, and a
portion of Concourse C may be needed shortly thereafter.
In PAL 3, when the Airport reaches 38 million annual
passengers, it is expected that SLCIA will accommodate rough-
ly 1,300 daily operations. At that point Concourse B will be
nearly fully utilized. With the addition of even a few new gates
in a new partial Concourse C, it can be expected that daily
operations will reach 1,500. At that point, the Airport
can expect five minutes of annualized delay, which is the
threshold at which capacity improvements are needed. Thus,
before SLCDA can construct Concourse C, additional airfield
capacity must be provided.
The primary goal of this master plan MP is to provide guide-
lines for future airport development which will satisfy future
aviation demand and increase airport capacity in a financially
feasible manner, while at the same time being responsive
to the aviation related environmental and socioeconomic
conditions that exist in the community. To achieve that goal,
incremental improvements were identified that increase the
efficiency of the Airport and maximize the usefulness of the
existing runway system.
DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
AND IMPLEMENTATION
Concourse C
Deicing Pad Construction
Runway 14-32
Closure Fuel Farm Relocation
Runway Extension
Subsurface Transmission Line
2100 N
Roadway
Relocation
South End
Around Taxiway
5.3 PROGRAM OVERVIEW
The projects identified in this study are categorized under
an associated program. Each program consists of correlated
projects to be phased toward one objective. The programs
identified are as follows:
• Taxiway U & V Program: This includes three phased projects
to complete both crossfield taxiways. SLCDA and FAA ATCT
deems this program essential to the operational efficiency
of the airfield. The new taxiways will provide flexibility for
moving aircraft between runway complexes without having
to taxi though the passenger terminal area, and provide
redundancy during snow removal operations. The taxiways
are critical to ensuring operational efficiency in all-weather,
all conditions at SLCIA.
• Taxiway L Extension Program: This includes three phased
projects extending Taxiway L to the new threshold of the
extended Runway 16L-34R. These projects link the Taxiway
L Deice Pad to Taxiway S and Runway 17-35 and provide
access to future crossing points of Runway 16L-34R.
• Runway/Taxiway Safety Program: This includes fixing both
airfield hot spots though the implementation of the pre-
ferred alternative to remove Runway 14-32 and Taxiway Q.
SLCDA and FAA have slated this program as high priority as
it directly relates to the safety of the airfield.
• Cargo Expansion Program: This includes projects to expand
current dedicated cargo areas and aprons, as well as provide
new cargo apron and infrastructure. This program is demand
driven, with some projects needed immediately to support
growth in air cargo at SLCIA.
• Deicing Enhancement Program: This includes new deicing
pads adjacent to Runway 16R threshold and Taxiway S, as
well as new facilities to be built on the 16L Pad. The projects
within this program are related to both capacity and strate-
gic decisions related to operational efficiencies. Airline and
cargo carrier needs largely drive the timing of new deice pad
implementation.
• Runway 16L-34R Extension Program: This program includes
projects to enable, and then construct a runway extension
to increase the length from 12,000 feet to 14,500 feet. The
extension will allow long-haul international commercial op-
erations, as well as provide operational take off efficiencies
to all carriers operating at SLCIA by allowing reduced thrust
departures.
• Landside Program: This includes a series of projects se-
quenced to systematically expand public and employee
parking, provide needed rental car operations and storage
space, and optimize the locations of the service center and
cell phone waiting lot. The program includes projects that
are needed today to remedy existing deficiencies in PAL 1.
• Airport Enhancement and Readiness Program: This program
includes projects that increase operational efficiency and
airfield capacity, and ready the Airport for future growth.
This includes the South End Around Taxiway and power line
mitigation. The program also includes projects that enable
construction of a future Concourse C. These projects are
dependent on stakeholder (airport departments and/or
airline tenants) funding capacity and need, and except for
power line mitigation, were not programmed in the CIP.
Power line mitigation is programmed in front of the runway
extension, as it is an enabling project for the completion of
that program. However, power line mitigation is not part of
the runway extension program as it is required even if the
runway is not extended.
The projects and programs identified in this study correlate to
the priorities outlined in Chapter 3 Facility Requirements. The
following details those priorities:
• Priority 1 – address all safety and design deficiencies. This
includes the hot spots adjacent to Runway 14-32, as well as
other taxiway configurations that do not adhere to FAA best
practices.
• Priority 2 – maximize capacity and efficiency of SLCIA. All
the programs defined in this study work towards this priority.
• Priority 3 – utilize demand reduction techniques to delay
major capacity enhancements. The General Aviation Strat-
egy Plan, included in Appendix X, provides recommended
methods to transfer general aviation demand from SLC to
the other two SLCDA general aviation airports.
• Priority 4 - provide additional runway capacity. Projects
related to this priority include the ultimate realignment of
Runway 17-35, which is outside this study’s planning horizon
and therefore not included as a program for implementation.
It is anticipated the next SLCIA master plan, anticipated to
begin in or around year 2030 will define the projects and
overall program for a realigned Runway 17-35.
342 343
Figure 5-1: Strategic Vision
These improvements were studied and vetted though a series of collaborative workshops with Airport leadership and supplement-
ed by the public involvement process. The combined result is a new Strategic Vision for SLCIA. The vision is graphically depicted in
Figure 5-1, which illustrates how SLCDA will balance passenger demand with airfield projects that improve operational efficiency,
enhance safety, and increase overall capacity. The primary tenant of the Vision are projects to enhance ground operations which,
along with improvements of airspace procedures and implementation of modern technologies, will increase efficiency and sub-
sequently capacity. Additionally, the Vision includes the ultimate realignment of Runway 17-35, which is a key component of long
range capacity enhancement to support a Concourse C.
The future depicted in the Strategic Vision graphic is only achieved through incremental development that directly aligns with this
Vision. The implementation of these facility improvements does not have a rigid timeline. They are dependent on growth and de-
mand experienced at SLCIA. Projects should be implemented when demand warrants to allow SLCDA to remain fiscally responsi-
ble and flexible to changing market conditions. Each facility improvement depicted corresponds to an objective, and improvements
to various facilities may begin concurrently. This Strategic Vision serves as a guide for the community and Airport Leadership to
use as passenger demand continues to grow throughout the planning period and beyond.
Developing facility requirements is a foundational element of this and any airport master plan. The resulting facility requirements
were used as the basis for planning future development at the Airport including the development of a long-term airport layout and
an evaluation of alternatives.
345
5.4 SHORT-TERM DEVELOPMENT
The projects identified for short-term implementation are
shown in Figure 5-2. These are projects that will be imple-
mented within a 1 to 5 year time frame post the completion
of this study. Projects brought into the 5 year phase of capital
projects include those identified for need in PAL 1. These
projects include demand related projects such as cargo and
parking lot expansion, as well as projects needed for airfield
safety and optimization.
5.4.1 Airfield Projects
5.4.1.1 Runway/Taxiway Safety Program Projects
The following projects are programmed to be accomplished
together within one construction season. Combined, these
projects address the Airport’s hot spots and provide a safer
airfield configuration. The projects include:
• (1) Remove Runway 14-32: This includes pavement removal
in key areas, and reconfiguration of lighting and markings
at key connection points such as Taxiway P and a new K2
Crossfield connector.
• (2) Construct K2/Q Crossfield Connector: This taxiway
serves as a replacement for Taxiway Q. It must be designed
to accommodate up to TDG 5 aircraft.
• (3) Remove Taxiway Q: The removal of this taxiway
eliminates the mid-runway crossing on Runway 17-35.
The taxiway’s functionality is replaced by the K2
Crossfield Connector.
5.4.1.2 16L Deice Pad Facility Upgrades
• (4) This project includes the construction of facilities cur-
rently lacking at the 16L Deice Pad. This includes restrooms,
deicing truck refill tanks, and associated buildings to house
these improvements.
5.4.2 Cargo Projects
• (5) North Cargo Expansion – This project includes the
apron and taxilane connection for a new cargo apron
planned adjacent to Taxiway B. At the time of this writing,
this project is planned and programed by SLCDA for near
term implementation.
5.4.3 Landside Projects
• (6) Public Parking Phase I / Employee Lot – This project
includes a new employee lot built on the south side of the
Airport upon the land used previously for a golf course. The
current employee lot can then be converted to public park-
ing, with a small portion reserved for the eventual relocation
of the Service Center. Creation of the new employee lot
provides approximately 4,500 employee parking spaces
and allows reprogramming of the current employee lot for
approximately 3,400 public parking spaces.
344
Figure 5-2: Short Term Projects
346
5.5 MEDIUM-TERM DEVELOPMENT
The projects identified for medium-term implementation are
shown in Figure 5-3. These are projects expected for imple-
mentation within a 6 to 10 year time frame. Projects brought
into this phase of capital projects include those identified for
need in PAL 2. These projects include demand related projects
such QTA storage and public parking enhancements, as well as
projects needed for airfield efficiency including the construc-
tion of Taxiway U and V. These and the other projects pro-
gramed in the medium-term are described below.
5.5.1 Airfield Projects
• (7) West Portion of Taxiway V – This is the first project
under the Taxiway U & V program and entails completion of
the western portion of Taxiway V. The project limits remain
north of W 4000 road to not impact the roadway. The
taxiway is planned to accommodate ADG V / TDG V aircraft,
and this initial phase will allow connection to future cargo
development north of the taxiway.
• (8) East Portion of Taxiway V including tunnel – This project
completes the eastern portion of Taxiway V, which includes
a tunnel section to allow 4000 West to connect to the north
support facilities. The tunnel should be designed and con-
structed at a length that allows the future Taxiway U to be
built without any additional tunnel work.
• (9) Full Taxiway U – This project includes the construction
of Taxiway U in its entirety, including tie-ins to Taxiway V.
Taxiway U would also be designed to accommodate ADG V /
TDG 5 aircraft.
• (10) Taxiway S Deice Pad – This project includes a new
5-position deice pad adjacent to Taxiway S for ADG III air-
craft. The new pad will provide enhanced deicing operations
for aircraft departing Runway 17. The planned pad location is
the south side of Taxiway S because it provides the maxi-
mum amount of open area for future development north of
the Taxiway S.
5.5.2 Cargo Projects
• (11) 4000 West Roadway Relocation – This project includes
realigning 4000 West. The new alignment provides addition-
al expansion area for existing cargo facilities to grow to the
west. Additionally, the new alignment ensures the full area
reserved for cargo expansion to the north of existing facilities
is ready for development. This project includes tying the
roadway into the existing alignment of 2100 North.
5.5.3 Landside Projects
• (12) RAC QTA/Storage – This project includes a new, larger
QTA garage to meet rental car quick-turn-around (QTA)
area and rental car storage space requirements. The project
includes a phased rebuilding of the facility to 5 levels. Rental
car fueling and washing facilities are placed at ground level,
and rental car storage is on the next 3 levels above. Public
parking is provided on Level 5. The project is expected to
occur in three phases to mitigate operational disturbances.
First, a new east portion is built. Then, the west portion is
demolished and replaced, followed by the demolition and
replacement of the center portion of the garage
• (13) Public Parking Phase II – RSS Relocation – This project
includes relocation and expansion of the rental car Remote
Service Site (RSS). The RSS lot is moved to the southern-
most area inside the terminal loop road, and the existing RSS
is converted to public parking.
347
Figure 5-3: Medium Term Projects
348
5.6 LONG-TERM DEVELOPMENT
The projects identified for long-term implementation are
shown in Figure 5-4. These are projects planned for implemen-
tation in the 11 through 20 year time frame post the com-
pletion of this study. Some projects are demand related such
as additional cargo expansion, providing more public parking
though relocation of the Service Center and Park ‘n’ Wait, and
expansion of the CV staging. The majority, however, are airfield
projects under the umbrella of the Runway 16L-34R extension
program. That program is driven by market demand and the
goal of operational performance enhancement.
5.6.1 Airfield Projects
5.6.1.1 Taxiway L Extension Program Projects
The implementation of Taxiway L is broken into the following
three projects to be phased incrementally.
• (14) Phase I: This project extends Taxiway L north to Taxi-
way S. Additionally, the portion of Taxiway Q that intersects
Runway 16L-34R is redesigned to be perpendicular to the
runway, allowing for a standardized crossing of the runway
to/from H5. This project is planned for implementation prior
to the extension of Runway 16L-34R to enhance the primary
runway crossing that will be outside the future middle third
“high-energy zone” of the runway when the runway is ex-
tended.
• (15) Phase II: This project extends Taxiway L from Taxiway
S north to allow for a future runway crossing to/from H11.
Once Runway 16L-34R is extended, the current Taxiway
H10 / Taxiway S crossing will fall within the middle third
“high-energy zone” of the runway. Further study will be
needed to determine if crossing at that intersection should
be prohibited, but to plan for that possibility, the Phase II
project provides a crossing at H11 which remains outside the
middle third of the runway once it is extended.
• (16) Phase III: This project extends Taxiway L from H11 to
the new threshold of Runway 16L, thereby completing the
full length parallel taxiway.
5.6.1.2 Other Airfield Projects
• (17) Power Line Mitigation – This project includes relocating
and/or burying the transmission powerlines that are north of
Runway 16L-34R. Successful completion of the project will
prevent airline operators from taking weight penalties and
other operational restrictions on the existing runway, as well
as remove restrictions for larger aircraft that would make use
of the runway after extension.
• (18) 2100 North Realignment – This project entails the
relocation of 2100 North to the northern portion of Airport
property in anticipation of the Runway 16L-34R extension.
• (19) Runway 16L-34R and Taxiway Extension – This project
includes the extension of Runway 16L-34R to the north to a
final length of 14,500 feet. Taxiways G and H are included for
extension to the new runway threshold.
• (20) Taxiway K5 Enhancement – This project includes the
removal of the non-standard K5 and K4 taxiways and replac-
es both with a new high-speed taxiway.
5.6.2 Cargo Projects
• (21) Cargo Apron Expansion – This project is not yet clearly
defined but serves as a placeholder for future apron expan-
sion work. It is expected that one or multiple cargo aprons
will need expansion in the early portion of the long-term
planning horizon.
5.6.3 Landside Projects
• (22) Public Parking Phase III – Service Center Relocation –
This project relocates the service center to the outer portion
of Terminal Drive and fills in the peripheral areas o the
surface lot to meet program requirements. The move frees
up the existing area inside the terminal loop road for public
parking and positions the service center in a more accessible
and appropriate location for its customers
• (23) CV Staging and Park ‘n’ Wait – This project relocates
and expands the park ‘n’ wait lot and increases the size of
the CV staging lot. The roadway entrance to the CV staging
lot will be via a ramp from Terminal Drive to 3700 West.
• (24) Public Parking Phase IV – Garage Parking Expansion –
This project includes two 5-bay garage expansions with 5
levels each. The expansion will allow for rental car ready-re-
turn on the ground level, public parking on levels 2-5 with
dedicated hourly parking on level 2. This project is demand
related but also has business related factors associated with
it. Garage parking is premium space and return on invest-
ment will drive the implementation strategy. As such, SLCDA
may wish to implement this project sooner than the end of
the planning horizon depending on market conditions and
demand levels.
349
Figure 5-4: Long Term Projects
350
The projects shown in Figure 5-5 and described below were
not programmed within a specific time horizon. These projects
are dependent on stakeholder (airport departments and/or
airline tenants) funding capacity and needs and/or will be re-
quired outside this study’s planning horizon. The projects were
not accounted for in the programming of projects detailed in
Section 5.8.
5.7.1 Airfield Projects
• (25) South End Around Taxiway – This project will con-
struct the south end around taxiway, including bridging over
the canals and a connection directly into Taxiway P. The
end around will be constructed to support ADG V / TDG 5
aircraft on the pavement. The design of the end around will
provide unrestricted operations for up to ADG III aircraft.
• (26) 16R Deicing Pad – This project includes an eight posi-
tion deicing pad located adjacent the Runway 16R threshold.
This project is demand related but correlates directly with
operational efficiency. As such, implementation timing should
be coordinated with airline operators. This is anticipated to
occur beyond the planning period.
• (27) Runway 16L-34R High Speed Taxiway Optimization –
This project removes Taxiway H6 and creates a new high-
speed taxiway between H10 and H11. This project isn’t crit-
ical to meeting demand, and the two taxiways programmed
within the project could be split apart in the future and
included in other future projects if efficiencies can be gained.
When Runway 16L-34R is extended, the locations of runway
exits for aircraft landing on Runway 16L could dramatically
change. Thus, consideration of taxiway exit improvements
and future requirements may require changes and adjust-
ments to this project.
5.7.2 Landside Projects
• (28) Rental Car / Public Parking Expansion – This project
includes making use of the former golf course land north of
Terminal Drive and south of the canal. That area of land is re-
served for future landside needs, and depending on demand,
can be used for either rental car storage, public parking, or
both.
5.7.3 Support and Terminal Projects
• (29) ARFF Relocation – This project includes relocating
the ARFF station north to move the building outside the
future Concourse C footprint. Need for a Concourse C is not
anticipated within the planning period, and airfield capacity
constraints may require resolution prior to a Concourse C
implementation. Considering these factors, ARFF relocation
is not needed in the planning horizon. This project is set to
provide guidance and consideration for the future.
• (30) Airport Maintenance Relocation – As described in the
facility requirements chapter of this study, many of the
airport maintenance buildings are reaching the end of their
useful life and are undersized for today’s needs. The majority
of buildings identified for replacement are within the Con-
course C footprint. Thus, relocating them is advantageous
for long-range planning. This project includes the reloca-
tion of these buildings to the north, adjacent to the future
Taxiway U. The new location is adjacent to the rest of the
maintenance campus allowing integration of the facilities.
It is recommended that SLCDA complete a maintenance cam-
pus plan, to include an inventory of building size and condition,
assessment of future requirements, and determine a new
campus layout to integrate with existing buildings within the
area reserved.
• (31) Concourse B Build Out – The full build out of Con-
course B is anticipated to be needed in PAL 3. This project
includes up to a full build out of the concourse. The timing
and extent of this project is recommended for further study
in the next SLC Master Plan, as at that time market demand
and conditions will be clearer for defining the project.
• (32) Fuel Terminal Relocation – The current fuel terminal
is within the future Concourse C footprint. This project is
a placeholder for that time when the fuel terminal must be
relocated for future concourse development and/or when
the fuel facility needs the degree of repair warranting the
cost of relocation.
5.7 OTHER DEMAND DRIVEN PROJECTS
351
Figure 5-5: Other Demand Driven Projects
352
5.8 CAPITAL PROGRAMMING
The projects described in the short- and long-term time frames
were programmed with consideration of SLCDA anticipated
funding capacity. At the time of this writing, SLCDA anticipates
funding capacity of $25M per year for capital projects within
the first 5 years as the Airport recovers from the capital outlay
associated with building the new terminal. Beyond 5 years,
it is anticipated that capital funding capacity will return to
approximately $40M per year, which is typical of years prior to
building the new terminal. Table 5-1 lists the proposed order
of projects.
The order of projects is based on SLCDA funding capacity
per year with consideration of other capital projects already
planned, such as recurring maintenance projects. The order
also is sequenced by priority of the projects and phasing
implications. It is recognized that some years have funding
requirements beyond the target. Those years of high funding
requirements have years with less capital outlay before or after
in effort to allow capital or expense to carry over to the next
year as needed. Cost estimate breakdowns for these projects
are included in Appendix X.
Landside projects in the Landside Program were also estimat-
ed, as shown in Table 5-2. However, aside from the employee
lot which is programmed in Public Parking Phase I, these proj-
ects were not programmed because they are highly depen-
dent on business factors and have different funding arms. For
example, customer facility charges (CFC) is a primary funding
tool for rental car associated projects. SLCDA will determine
how and when to program these landside projects based on
demand, tenant negotiations, and business related policy deci-
sions. Facility requirements analysis demonstrated a need for
near-term development of employee parking, public parking,
and rental car ready-return and storage space. It is recom-
mended these areas are addressed within the short-term years
of the overall program.
Table 5-1: Project Programming
Year Program ROM Project
Short Term 1-5 Years
2021/2022 Cargo Expansion Program $25,000,000 North Cargo Area Expansion
2023 Landside Program $28,400,000 Public Parking Phase I - Employee Lot
2023 Runway/Taxiway Safety Program $1,900,000 Remove Runway 14-32
2023 Runway/Taxiway Safety Program $14,700,000 Taxiway K2 Crossfield Connection
2023 Runway/Taxiway Safety Program $1,100,000 TWY Q Removal
2024 Deicing Enhancement Program $15,000,000 16L North Deicing Pad Facilities Upgrades
Mid Term 6-10 Years
2026 Cargo Expansion Program $8,200,000 Inititial 4000W Roadway Relocation
2027 Taxiway U&V Program $13,100,000 West Portion V Construction
2028 Taxiway U&V Program $26,200,000 East Portion V Construction
2029 Taxiway U&V Program $39,300,000 Full Taxiway U construction
2030 Deicing Enhancement Program $38,300,000 Taxiway S Deice Pad
Long Term 11-20+ Years
2031 Cargo Expansion Program $46,300,000 North Cargo Area Expansion/RON
2032 Taxiway L Extension Program $29,000,000 Taxiway L Extenstion Phase I
2033 Runway 16L-34R Extension Program $25,700,000 Full Roadway Relocation
2034 Airport Enhancement & Readiness Program $40,000,000 Powerline Mitigation
2035/2036 Runway 16L-34R Extension Program $53,000,000 Runway & Taxiway Complex Extension
2037 Runway 16L-34R Extension Program $14,700,000 16L Deice Pad Extension
2038 Taxiway L Extension Projram $14,400,000 Taxiway L Extenstion Phase II
2039 Taxiway L Extension Projram $29,700,000 Taxiway L Extenstion Phase III
2040 Runway/Taxiway Safety Program $8,000,000 Taxiway K5 Enhancement
Demand Driven Airfield Projects Not Programed
Deicing Enhancement Program $107,000,000 16R North Deicing Pad
Airfield Enhancement Program $105,400,000 SEAT Construction
5.8.1 Summary
This analysis indicates that funding will be available to plan, design, and construct the projects identified in the Master Plan. A total
of over $900M capital projects have been identified of which about $90M are programmed in the next five-year period. Additional
advanced planning and environmental analysis is expected as these programs move towards implementation. The funding for the
Runway 16L-34R extension program and certain other projects will require additional refinements and a more detailed cash flow
and source-of-revenue plan once the airlines request these improvements.
This financial analysis is based on the SLCDA anticipated funding capacity and continued FAA support. Based on the assumptions
and the analyses presented herein, the capital plan is considered practicable and it is anticipated that the Salt Lake City Internation-
al Airport will be able to construct necessary aviation facilities over the 20-year planning period to accommodate demand.
353 354
Table 5-2: Landside Project Cost Estimates
The larger programs outlined in the CIP require extensive
advanced planning and environmental study prior to those
projects beginning. Considering those needs, the following
narrative details initiatives recommended in the near-term to
ready the Airport for projects slated for implementation later in
medium- and long-term years. Also detailed are considerations
for the Runway/Taxiway Safety Program, which is the most
critical airfield project to be completed within the near-term
time horizon.
Implementation of the Runway/Taxiway Safety Program
requires close coordination with FAA to determine the timing
and sequencing of closing and removing Runway 14-32 from
service. The following bullets detail considerations and recom-
mendations for that effort:
• Coordinate with FAA ATCT, FAA ADO, and other interest-
ed FAA lines of business to develop a coordinated plan for
removing the runway from service.
• Sequence projects listed in the CIP in a phased approach to
maximize efficiency, reduce costs, and ensure operational
continuity and functionality of the airfield throughout the
implementation of the program.
• Analyze all the projects in the program together in coordina-
tion with FAA to determine environmental process require-
ments.
• Develop an outreach campaign if needed to inform tenants
and other users of SLC of why the runway is being removed,
the timing, and the impacts to operations they can expect.
After Runway 14-32 is removed and the Runway/Taxiway
Safety Program is complete, it is recommended efforts be fo-
cused on the coordination needed for the power line mitigation
project. The mitigation of the power lines north of the airfield
is critical to preserving efficiency of operations at SLC though
the summer months. Today, passenger aircraft must take
weight penalties during hot days depending on their routing
and fuel requirements. The following bullets provide recom-
mendations pertaining to the power line mitigation project.
• Though the project to mitigate the power lines is currently
programed in the long-term time frame of the CIP, it is rec-
ommended the project be moved up as early as possible.
• To be ready for this project to come online earlier than
planned, coordination with the utility companies and other
parties is recommended to begin as soon as 2022. This
coordination can be the next focus of priority after Runway
14-32 is removed from service.
Moving into the medium- and long-term portions of the CIP,
several large programs are planned for implementation, includ-
ing the extension of Runway 16L-34R. A runway extension
can take many years for implementation, and it is recommend-
ed the planning process begin in the near-term. The runway
extension itself has multiple enabling projects and advanced
planning and environmental requirements. These and other
considerations are bulleted below:
• An advanced planning study is recommended in the near-
term to examine and define the runway extension project.
The scope of this master plan study was limited to deter-
mining if a runway should be extended and which runway
that should be. Advanced planning is needed to determine
the specifics of that solution, examine threshold placement,
and study airspace considerations related to environmental
impacts and arrival and departure procedure impacts. The
advanced planning study should be scoped to provide the
information FAA will require prior to the start of the environ-
mental process.
• The environmental process should begin after or near the
completion of the advanced planning study. However, coordi-
nation for both efforts should begin simultaneously with FAA
in the near-term.
• Mitigation of the power lines and the roadway relocation
must be completed prior to the extension of the runway.
These projects may begin years prior to the extension
project. Planning and implementation of these projects can
begin as soon as practical.
5.9 NEAR TERM IMPLEMENTATION PRIORITIES AND CONSIDERATIONS
6
|
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
OV
E
R
V
I
E
W
A
N
D
N
E
P
A
A
P
P
R
O
A
C
H6 ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW
AND NEPA APPROACH
355
6.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
SECTION 1.15 of this Master Plan Update describes the
current environmental conditions at and around in the Airport
in detail. The following subsections summarize the conditions
described in detail in SECTION 1.15 and provides the basis
for determining the potential environmental effects of the
Airport’s Development Plan projects.
6.2.1 Air Quality
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USE-
PA), the Airport, located in Salt Lake County, is in a “mainte-
nance” area for CO and PM10, and in a nonattainment area for
PM2.5, O3, and SO2.4
6.2.2 Biological Resources
There are 28 federally- and state-threatened and- endangered
species with the potential to be found in Salt Lake County, and
22 migratory bird species with the potential to be found at the
Airport.5 6 According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF-
WS), there is no designated critical habitat at the Airport.7
6.2.3 Climate
Activities that require fuel or power are the primary stationary
sources of greenhouse gases (GHGs) at airports. The majority
of GHG emissions at airports are generated by aircraft and
ground service vehicles (GSE); however, the Airport is transi-
tion to all electric GSE by March 2022.
6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW AND NEPA GUIDANCE
The purpose of considering environmental factors in airport
master planning is to assist in evaluating current and future
airport development, as well as provide information that
will help expedite subsequent environmental processing.
FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures, and FAA Order 5050.4B, National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport
Actions, are the FAA’s environmental guidance for aviation
projects/actions to comply with NEPA. However, it is important
to note that while the environmental analysis included in this
Master Plan Update is not in and of itself a NEPA document.
As part of Section 163 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of
2018, certain types of airport non-aeronautical development
projects have limited regulation by the FAA and therefore,
may not be subject to NEPA documentation.1 If a project
is subject NEPA, there are three levels of NEPA documen-
tation depending on the scope of a proposed project and
the potential environmental impacts associated with a pro-
posed project. These include categorical exclusion (CATEX),
environmental assessment (EA), and environmental impact
statement (EIS). FAA Order 1050.1F2 lists actions that the FAA
has found in the past to not normally have a significant effect
on the environment. Proposed projects that fall within the list
found in FAA Order 1050.1F and do not have an extraordinary
circumstance3 can be processed with a CATEX. For proposed
projects that do not fall within the list specified as a CATEX in
FAA Order 1050.1F, an EA must be prepared. At the com-
pletion of the EA, the FAA will issue a Finding of No Signifi-
cant Impact (FONSI) or continue with an EIS. An EIS must be
prepared if the environmental impacts associated with a pro-
posed project are significant impacts that cannot be mitigated
below the established significant threshold. At the completion
of an EIS, the FAA will issue a Record of Decision (ROD).
ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW
AND NEPA APPROACH
1 Exceptions to Section 163: where FAA has regulation to ensure the safe and efficient operations of aircraft or the safety of people on the ground or property as it
relates to aircraft operations, to ensure the Airport Sponsor receives fair market value for the use or disposal of property, if the project is being proposed on property
that was originally purchased with Airport Improvement Program (AIP) dollars, or if the project will be using federal funds.
2 FAA, Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Sections 5-6.1 through 5-6.6.
3 FAA, Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Sections 5-2.
4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Quality Green Book, Utah. Accessed: https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/anayo_ut.html, May 2021.
5 State of Utah Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources, Utah Sensitive Species List. Accessed: https://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/ucdc/ViewReports/sscounty.pdf,
August 2018.
6 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC), Salt Lake County. Accessed: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/HPRQ53L6KFC-
CPNQX6PQUGXVLDA/resources#migratory-birds, August 2018.
7 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC), Salt Lake County. Accessed: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/HPRQ53L6KFC
CPNQX6PQUGXVLDA/resources, August 2018.
6.2.4 Coastal Resources
Utah is not a coastal state. As such, the Airport is not within a
coastal zone. Additionally, there are no Coastal Barrier Re-
source System (CBRS) segments within Airport property.8
6.2.5 Department of Transportation, Section 4(f)
The closest Section 4(f) property to the Airport is the Airport
Trail bike path, a 2.8-mile bike path located in the southern
portion of Airport property (see Figure 1-47).9 The closest
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) site to the Airport
is the Red Butte Canyon Research Area, located about six miles
east of the Airport.10
6.2.6 Farmlands
According to the Natural Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS), portions of Airport property contain farmland of
statewide importance and prime farmland soil types.11 Howev-
er, according to Section 523.10(B) of the Farmland Protection
Policy Act (FPPA), lands identified as urbanized areas by the
U.S. Census Bureau are not subject to the provisions of the
FPPA. The Airport is located in an urbanized area and there-
fore, on-Airport projects are not subject to the FPPA.
6.2.7 Hazardous Materials, Solid Waste,
and Pollution Prevention
6.2.7.1 Hazardous Materials
Aircraft fuel constitutes the largest quantity of hazardous sub-
stances stored and consumed at the Airport. Fuel is stored on
Airport property within a 261,491-square-foot fuel farm and
an additional 10,700-square-foot general aviation fuel farm.
6.2.7.2 Solid Waste
The Salt Lake County Landfill is the only municipal solid waste
landfill located in Salt Lake County.12 This landfill is located two
miles southwest of the Airport. This landfill is not expected to
reach capacity until 2077.
6.2.7.3 Pollution Prevention
The Airport is required under the Airport’s Utah Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (UPDES) stormwater discharge
permit (UPDES Permit #UT0024988, approved on March
14, 2014) to have a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP). The Airport additionally has a Spill Prevention, Con-
trol, and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC).
6.2.8 Historical, Architectural, Archaeological,
and Cultural Resources
The closest National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-listed
historic site is the Fisher, Albert, Mansion and Carriage House
located approximately 1.75 miles southeast of the Airport.13
Additionally, the Fisher, Albert, Mansion and Carriage House is
the closest Salt Lake City Historic Site.14
6.2.9 Land Use
Land uses within the immediate vicinity of the Airport include
open space, commercial, mixed use transit station, single family
and multi-family residential, and agricultural.15 The Airport is
within Salt Lake County, zoned as a Special Purpose District
(specifically an “Airport District”) under the Salt Lake Municipal
Code Title 21A – Zoning.
6.2.10 Natural Resources and Energy Supply
Natural resources (e.g., water, asphalt, aggregate, etc.) and
energy use (e.g., fuel, electricity, etc.) at an airport is a function
of the needs of aircraft, support vehicles, airport facilities, sup-
port structures, and terminal facilities. Rocky Mountain Power
supplies electricity to the Airport. Dominion Energy provides
natural gas services. Salt Lake City Department of Public
Utilities provides water and sewer services. None of the natural
resources that the Airport uses are in rare or short supply.
6.2.11 Noise and Noise-Compatible Land Use
There are residential land uses near the Airport. These areas
may be sensitive to aircraft noise associated with the Airport.
The Airport adopted a Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) in
January 1999 as a result of their completed Part 150 Study
outlining procedures to mitigate the impact of aircraft noise on
non-compatible land uses, such as residential areas. Addition-
ally, the Airport actively implements mitigation measures from
the FAA-approved NCP, such as reducing night-time activity,
utilizing departure tracks which avoid residential areas, etc. See
FIGURE 1-43 for current noise contours for the Airport.
356 357
8 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Coastal Barrier Resources System Mapper. Accessed: https://www.fws.gov/cbra/Maps/Mapper.html, August 2018.
9 Salt Lake City Government, Transportation, Urban Trails. Accessed: https://www.slcairport.com/assets/pdfDocuments/bike_map.pdf, September 2018
10 Land Water Conservation Fund, Utah. Accessed: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58a60299ff7c508c3c05f2e1/t/5b29566eaa4a99e3073
7b026/1529435758782/Utah+fact+sheet+6.13.18.pdf, August 2018.
11 Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey. Accessed: https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, August 2018.
12 Salt Lake County, Utah, Public Works & Municipal Services Department, Landfill. Accessed: https://slco.org/landfill/, September 2018.
13 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NEPAssist. Accessed: https://nepassisttool.epa.gov/nepassist/nepamap.aspx?wherestr=salt+lake+city+airport, August 2018.
14 Salt Lake City, Historic Districts and Buildings, Landmark Sites. Accessed: https://www.slc.gov/historic-preservation/historic-districts-and-buildings/, September 2018.
15 Salt Lake City, Salt Lake City Maps, Zoning. Accessed: http://maps.slcgov.com/mws/zoning.htm, September 2018.
6.2.12 Socioeconomic, Environmental Justice,
and Children’s Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
The Airport is entirely within Census Tract 9800, Block Group
1, which has a population of zero. Therefore, the Salt Lake City,
Utah Metropolitan Area, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau,
was used to describe the socioeconomic and environmental
justice characteristics in the Airport area. The Salt Lake City,
Utah Metropolitan Area has a total population of 1,154,504,
18.34 percent of which are minorities, and 11.14 percent of
which are living below the poverty line. With regards to chil-
dren’s environmental health and safety risks, the closest school
to the Airport is Meadowlark Elementary, approximately 1,500
feet east of the Airport.16
6.2.13 Visual Effects
6.2.13.1 Light Emissions
Various lighting features currently illuminate Airport facilities,
such as the airfield (e.g., runways and taxiways), buildings,
access roadways, automobile parking areas, and apron areas
for the safe and secure movement of people and vehicles (e.g.,
aircraft, passenger cars, etc.).
6.2.13.2 Visual Resources and Visual Character
Structures at the Airport include, but are not limited to, the ter-
minal building, fixed base operators, hangars, and maintenance
buildings. As previously mentioned, the Airport is zoned as an
Airport District and is developed in a manner that is consistent
with this zoning.
6.2.14 Water Resources
6.2.14.1 Wetlands
Wetlands were identified during a survey of Airport property
and have been mapped for future development considerations
(see FIGURE 1-44). Wetlands shown on this figure were deter-
mined to be jurisdictional by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
in 2004; however, jurisdictional determinations are only valid
for a five-year period.
6.2.14.2 Floodplains
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for the Airport area,
there are floodplains within the Airport property (see FIGURE
1-45).17 The floodplains are located in the northwestern, west-
ern, and southern portions of Airport property.
6.2.14.3 Surface Waters
Three canals exist on Airport property: the Surplus Canal, the
North Point Canal, and a city drain. In addition, two unnamed
ponds are in the southern portion of Airport property (see
FIGURE 1-46).
6.2.14.4 Groundwater
Airport property intersects two hydrologic units.18 The western
portion of Airport property is within the Crystal Creek water-
shed (HUC 12 ID: 160202040404) and the eastern portion of
Airport property is within the Jordan River watershed (HUC 12
ID: 160202040405).
6.2.14.5 Wild and Scenic Rivers
There are no wild and scenic rivers or river segments within
the Airport area.19 The closest wild and scenic river, the Snake
River, is over 170 miles northeast of the Airport.20
16 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NEPAssist, Places, Schools. Accessed: https://nepassisttool.epa.gov/nepassist/nepamap.aspx?wherestr=salt+lake+city+airport,
September 2018.
17 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Map Service Center, Flood Insurance Rate Maps 49035C0140E (effective 9/21/2001), 49035C0137E (effec-
tive 9/21/2001), 49035C150G (effective 9/25/2009), 49035C0125G (effective 9/25/2009), 49035C0120E (effective 9/21/2001), 49035C0129G (effective
9/25/2009), and 49035C0139E (effective 9/21/2001).
18 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NEPAssist, Water Features, Watersheds (HUC 12). Accessed: https://nepassisttool.epa.gov/nepassist/nepamap.aspx?where-
str=salt+lake+city+airport, September 2018.
19 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NEPAssist, Water Features, Wild and Scenic Rivers. Accessed: https://nepassisttool.epa.gov/nepassist/nepamap.aspx?wher-
estr=salt+lake+city+airport, September 2018.
20 U.S. National Park Service, Wild and Scenic Rivers Program, Interactive Map of NPS Wild and Scenic Rivers. Accessed: https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1912/plan-your-visit.
htm, September 2018.
For purposes of this Master Plan Update, the level of analysis
described in this section is to advise the Airport of potential
environmental impacts associated with the Development Plan
(see Chapter 4). The following sections identify the key and
applicable environmental resource categories as described in
FAA Order 1050.1F for development projects that are outlined
in the Development Plan and describes the appropriate level of
NEPA documentation for each development project. Environ-
mental resource categories include:
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Climate
• Department of Transportation Section 4(f)
• Farmland
• Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste
• Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural
Resources
• Land Use
• Natural Resources and Energy Supply
• Noise and Noise-Compatible Land Use
• Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, and Children’s
Health and Safety Risks
• Visual Effects
• Water Resources (includes Wetlands, Floodplains, Surface
Waters, and Groundwater,)
Coastal resources and wild and scenic rivers are not included in
this discussion because, as SECTION 6.2 describes in
detail and SECTION 1.2 briefly describes, those resources are
not within or near Airport property and would not be affected
by the development projects. Additionally, only those envi-
ronmental resource categories that could be affected by each
development project are described in the following sections. It
is also important to note that the environmental analysis
included in this Master Plan Update is not in and of itself a
NEPA document.
6.3.1 Runway Development Projects
6.3.1.1 Runway 16R-34L 2,500-foot Extension
This alternative would result in a 2,500-foot extension to the
north of Runway 16R-34L resulting in a total length of 14,500
feet (see FIGURE 4-2). This project would require the relo-
cation of existing high-tension power lines north of Runway
16R-34L to outside of the new Runway Protection Zone
(RPZ).
Air Quality: This project would temporarily increase emissions
from construction vehicles and equipment. A construction
emissions inventory may be necessary for the NEPA documen-
tation associated with this project. Additionally, the change in
aircraft fleet mix combined with the forecast increase oper-
ations at the Airport, may require an operational air quality
emissions analysis for the NEPA documentation associated
with this project.
Biological Resources: Because threatened and endangered
species have the potential to be found at the Airport, a bio-
logical survey may be necessary for the NEPA documentation
associated with this project.
Climate: The project would result in a temporary increase in
emissions from construction vehicles and equipment, and a
permanent increase in emissions as a result of the forecast
increase in aircraft operations and change to the fleet mix. An
estimate of GHG emissions could be included in the construc-
tion and operational emission inventory.
Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Re-
sources: Because this project would include ground disturb-
ing activity on pervious ground, an archaeological survey may
be required for the NEPA documentation associated with this
project.
Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid
Waste: Construction associated with the project would
generate solid waste. Increased operations and enplanements
would also increase the generation of solid waste at the Air-
port. Waste would be handled and disposed of according to
federal, state, and local rules and regulations.
Noise and Noise-Compatible Land Use: The aviation noise
contours are anticipated to change as a result of this project.
It is recommended that the Airport model new noise contours
using the most recent version of the Aviation Environmental
Design Tool (AEDT) that accounts for the runway extension.
However, there are no known noise sensitive resources21 in
the direction of the runway extension.
Water Resources: This runway extension alternative would
encroach upon a 100-year floodplain and a floodplain analysis
may be required. Additionally, a little over two acres of wet-
lands would be affected by this runway extension. Additional
wetland impacts could occur as a result of required chang-
es to the surrounding roadways and taxiways. The Airport
would be responsible for having these wetlands officially
delineated in order to determine their jurisdictional status,
and any appropriate mitigation for potential effects. Assum-
ing that the wetlands are jurisdictional, the Airport would be
responsible for obtaining a nationwide permit or individual
permit, depending on the extent of the potential impacts.
With regards to surface water and groundwater, the project
would increase impervious surface area at the Airport. This
increase in impervious surface would increase the volume of
stormwater runoff; however, the existing stormwater drainage
system is anticipated to be able to accommodate the increase
in stormwater runoff. The contractor would be responsible for
preparing a SWPPP under a UPDES Construction Storm Water
Permit prior to the start of ground disturbing activities, and all
construction activities would be required to comply with the
provisions set forth in that permit.
NEPA Documentation Guidance: The reconstruction, resur-
facing, extension, strengthening, or widening of an existing run-
way can be categorically excluded under FAA Order 1050.1F,
paragraph 5-6.4(e), provided that the project would not cause
significant erosion or sedimentation, would not cause a signif-
icant noise increase over noise sensitive area, or cause signifi-
cant impacts to air quality. Absent extraordinary circumstances
or significant impacts that cannot be mitigated, a CATEX is
anticipated to be the appropriate NEPA documentation for this
project.
6.3.1.2 Runway 16L-34R 2,498-foot Extension
This alternative would result in a 2,498-foot extension to the
north of Runway 16L-34R resulting in a total length of 14,500
feet (see FIGURE 4-2). This project would require the relo-
cation of existing high-tension power lines north of Runway
16R-34L to outside of the new Runway Protection Zone
(RPZ).
Air Quality: This project would temporarily increase emissions
from construction vehicles and equipment. A construction
emissions inventory may be necessary for the NEPA documen-
tation associated with this project. Additionally, the change in
aircraft fleet mix combined with the forecast increase oper-
ations at the Airport, may require an operational air quality
emissions analysis for the NEPA documentation associated
with this project.
Biological Resources: Because threatened and endangered
species have the potential to be found at the Airport, a biolog-
ical survey could be necessary for the NEPA documentation
associated with this project.
Climate: The project would result in a temporary increase in
emissions from construction vehicles and equipment, and a
permanent increase in emissions as a result of the forecast
increase in aircraft operations and change to the fleet mix. An
estimate of GHG emissions could be included in the construc-
tion and operational emission inventory.
Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural
Resources: Because this project would include disturbing per-
vious ground, an archaeological survey may be required for the
NEPA documentation associated with this project.
Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste:
Construction associated with the project would generate solid
waste. Increased operations and enplanements would also
increase the generation of solid waste at the Airport. Waste
would be handled and disposed according to federal, state, and
local rules and regulations.
Noise and Noise-Compatible Land Use: The noise contours
are anticipated to change as a result of this project and it is
recommended that the Airport model new noise contours
that accounts for the runway extension; however, there are no
known noise sensitive resources in the direction of the runway
extension.
Water Resources: Less than one acre of wetlands would be
affected by the runway extension. Additional wetland impacts
could occur as a result of required changes to the surrounding
roadways and taxiways. The Airport would be responsible for
delineating the wetlands and coordinating with the USACE in
order to determine their jurisdictional status, and any appropri-
ate mitigation for potential effects. Assuming that the wet-
lands are jurisdictional, the Airport would be responsible for
obtaining a nationwide permit or individual permit, depending
on the extent of the potential impacts. With regards to surface
water and groundwater, the project would increase impervious
surface area at the Airport. This increase in impervious surface
would increase the volume of stormwater runoff; however,
the existing stormwater drainage system is anticipated to be
able to accommodate the increase in stormwater runoff. The
contractor would be responsible for preparing a SWPPP under
a UPDES Construction Storm Water Permit prior to the start
of ground disturbing activities, and all construction activities
would be required to comply with the provisions set forth in
that permit.
NEPA Documentation Guidance: The reconstruction, resur-
facing, extension, strengthening, or widening of an existing run-
way can be categorically excluded under FAA Order 1050.1F,
paragraph 5-6.4(e), provided that the project would not cause
significant erosion or sedimentation, would not cause a signif-
icant noise increase over noise sensitive area, or cause signifi-
cant impacts to air quality. Absent extraordinary circumstances
or significant impacts that cannot be mitigated, a CATEX is
anticipated to be the appropriate NEPA documentation for this
project.
6.3.1.3 Runway 17-35 4,903-foot Extension
This alternative would result in a 4,903-foot extension to the
north of Runway 17-35 resulting in a total length of 14,500
feet (see FIGURE 4-2).
358 359
21 FAA. (1985). Federal Aviation Regulations Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning, CFR 14, Chapter I, Subchapter I, Part 150, Table 1,
January 18, 1985, as amended.
6.3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Water Resources: Less than about one acre of wetland would
be affected by this runway extension. Additional wetland
impacts could occur as a result of required changes to the
surrounding roadways and taxiways. The Airport would be
responsible for delineating the wetlands and coordinating with
USACE in order to determine their jurisdictional status, and any
appropriate mitigation for potential effects. Assuming that the
wetlands are jurisdictional, the Airport would be responsible for
obtaining a nationwide permit or individual permit, depending
on the extent of the potential impacts. With regards to surface
water and groundwater, the project would increase impervious
surface area at the Airport. This increase in impervious surface
would increase the volume of stormwater runoff; however,
the existing stormwater drainage system is anticipated to be
able to accommodate the increase in stormwater runoff. The
contractor would be responsible for preparing a SWPPP under
a UPDES Construction Storm Water Permit prior to the start
of ground disturbing activities, and all construction activities
would be required to comply with the provisions set forth in
that permit.
NEPA Documentation Guidance: Realignment of an existing
runway is not a project on the list of categorically excluded
projects found in FAA Order 1050.1F. As such, an EA is an-
ticipated to be the appropriate NEPA documentation for this
project.
6.3.1.5 Runway 14-32 Closure and Conversion to a Taxiway
The FAA has identified two hot spots related to the configura-
tion of Runway 14-32 (see FIGURE 4-9) resulting in incursions.
This project would correct the hotspots relating to Runway
14-32 by closing the runway and converting a portion of the
runway to a taxiway. Aircraft traffic would be accommodated
on the other runways at the Airport.
Air Quality: This project would temporarily increase emissions
from construction vehicles and equipment. A construction
emissions inventory may be necessary for the NEPA documen-
tation associated with this project.
Biological Resources: Because threatened and endangered
species have the potential to be found at the Airport, a bio-
logical survey may be necessary for the NEPA documentation
associated with this project.
Climate: The project would result in a temporary increase in
emissions from construction vehicles and equipment. An esti-
mate of GHG emissions could be included in the construction
emission inventory.
Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste:
Construction associated with the project would generate solid
waste. Waste would be handled and disposed according to
federal, state, and local rules and regulations.
Noise and Noise-Compatible Land Use: The noise contours
are anticipated to change as a result of this project, and it is
recommended that the Airport model new noise contours
that accounts for the shifting of aircraft operations to other
runways.
Water Resources: There are wetlands in the area of the
runway. The Airport would be responsible for having these
wetlands officially delineated in order to determine their
jurisdictional status, and any appropriate mitigation for poten-
tial effects. Assuming that the wetlands are jurisdictional, the
Airport would be responsible for obtaining a nationwide permit
or individual permit, depending on the extent of the potential
impacts. The contractor would be responsible for preparing a
SWPPP under a UPDES Construction Storm Water Permit pri-
or to the start of ground disturbing activities, and all construc-
tion activities would be required to comply with the provisions
set forth in that permit.
NEPA Documentation Guidance: Permanently closing a run-
way and using it as a taxiway can categorically excluded under
FAA Order paragraph 5-6.4(cc) at small, low-activity airport.
However, the Airport is not considered a small, low-activity
airport and as such, an EA is anticipated to be the appropriate
NEPA documentation for this project.
6.3.1.6 South Runway 16L-34R End Around Taxiway
This project includes the construction of an end around taxi-
way around the south end of Runway 16L-34R (see FIGURE
4-10) to reduce runway crossings and the risk of an incursion,
reduce air traffic controller workload, provide for more
timely and predictable gate arrivals, reduce fuel consumption
and emissions, and to increase runway capacity and hourly
throughput.
Air Quality: This project would temporarily increase emissions
from construction vehicles and equipment. A construction
emissions inventory may be necessary for the NEPA
documentation associated with this project.
Biological Resources: Because threatened and endangered
species have the potential to be found at the Airport, a biolog-
ical survey could be necessary for the NEPA documentation
associated with this project.
Climate: The project would result in a temporary increase in
emissions from construction vehicles and equipment. An
estimate of GHG emissions could be included in the
construction emission inventory.
Section 4(f) Resources: Construction of this project would
require the Airport Trail bike path, which is a Section 4(f) prop-
erty, to be rerouted. This would constitute a physical use of a
Section 4(f) property and would require coordination with the
FAA and a potential DOT Section 4(f) analysis.
361
Air Quality: This project would temporarily increase emissions
from construction vehicles and equipment. A construction
emissions inventory may be necessary for the NEPA documen-
tation associated with this project. Additionally, the change in
aircraft fleet mix combined with the forecast increase oper-
ations at the Airport, may require an operational air quality
emissions analysis for the NEPA documentation associated
with this project.
Biological Resources: Because threatened and endangered
species have the potential to be found at the Airport, a bio-
logical survey may be necessary for the NEPA documentation
associated with this project.
Climate: The project would result in a temporary increase in
emissions from construction vehicles and equipment, and a
permanent increase in emissions as a result of the forecast
increase in aircraft operations and change to the fleet mix. An
estimate of GHG emissions could be included in the construc-
tion and operational emission inventory.
Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural
Resources: Because this project would include disturbing per-
vious ground, an archaeological survey may be required for the
NEPA documentation associated with this project.
Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste:
Construction associated with the project would generate solid
waste. Waste would be handled and disposed according to
federal, state, and local rules and regulations.
Noise and Noise-Compatible Land Use: The noise contours
are anticipated to expand as a result of this project and it is rec-
ommended that the Airport model new noise contours that ac-
counts for the runway extension; however, there are no known
noise sensitive resources in the direction of the runway extension.
Water Resources: About two acres of wetlands would be
affected by this runway extension. Additional wetland impacts
could occur as a result of required changes to the surrounding
roadways and taxiways. The Airport would be responsible for
delineating the wetlands and coordinating with the USACE in
order to determine their jurisdictional status, and any appropri-
ate mitigation for potential effects. Assuming that the wet-
lands are jurisdictional, the Airport would be responsible for
obtaining a nationwide permit or individual permit, depending
on the extent of the potential impacts. With regards to surface
water and groundwater, the project would increase impervious
surface area at the Airport. This increase in impervious surface
would increase the volume of stormwater runoff; however, the
existing stormwater drainage system is anticipated to accom-
modate the increase in stormwater runoff. The contractor
would be responsible for preparing a SWPPP under a UPDES
Construction Storm Water Permit prior to the start of ground
disturbing activities, and all construction activities would be
required to comply with the provisions set forth in that permit.
NEPA Documentation Guidance: The reconstruction, resur-
facing, extension, strengthening, or widening of an existing run-
way can be categorically excluded under FAA Order 1050.1F,
paragraph 5-6.4(e), provided that the project would not cause
significant erosion or sedimentation, would not cause a signif-
icant noise increase over noise sensitive area, or cause signifi-
cant impacts to air quality. Absent extraordinary circumstances
or significant impacts that cannot be mitigated, a CATEX is
anticipated to be the appropriate NEPA documentation for this
project.
6.3.1.4 Runway 17-35 Realignment and Extension
This alternative would result in the realignment and extension
to the north of Runway 17-35 resulting in a total length of
14,500 feet (see FIGURE 4-2).
Air Quality: This project would temporarily increase emissions
from construction vehicles and equipment. A construction
emissions inventory may be necessary for the NEPA documen-
tation associated with this project. Additionally, the change in
aircraft fleet mix combined with the forecast increase oper-
ations at the Airport, may require an operational air quality
emissions analysis for the NEPA documentation associated
with this project.
Biological Resources: Because threatened and endangered
species have the potential to be found at the Airport, a bio-
logical survey may be necessary for the NEPA documentation
associated with this project.
Climate: The project would result in a temporary increase in
emissions from construction vehicles and equipment, and a
permanent increase in emissions as a result of the forecast
increase in aircraft operations and change to the existing fleet
mix. An estimate of GHG emissions could be included in the
construction and operational emission inventory.
Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural
Resources: Because this project would include disturbing per-
vious ground, an archaeological survey may be required for the
NEPA documentation associated with this project.
Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste:
Construction associated with the project would generate solid
waste. Waste would be handled and disposed according to
federal, state, and local rules and regulations.
Noise and Noise-Compatible Land Use: The noise contours
are anticipated to expand as a result of this project and it is
recommended that the Airport model new noise contours that
accounts for the runway realignment and extension; however,
there are no known noise sensitive resources in the direction
of the runway realignment and extension.
360
Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural
Resources: Because this project would include disturbing per-
vious ground, an archaeological survey may be required for the
NEPA documentation associated with this project.
Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste:
Construction associated with the project would generate solid
waste. Waste would be handled and disposed according to
federal, state, and local rules and regulations.
Water Resources: The south end around taxiway would cross
the Surplus Canal, which runs through Airport property and
is under the jurisdiction of the USACE. The Airport would be
responsible for coordinating with the USACE in order to obtain
a nationwide permit or individual permit and determine any
appropriate mitigation for potential effects. Additionally, the
Surplus Canal is part of the 100-year floodplain and this proj-
ect would encroach upon the floodplain; therefore, a floodplain
analysis would be required. With regards to surface water and
groundwater, the project would increase impervious surface
area at the Airport. This increase in impervious surface would
increase the volume of stormwater runoff; however, the exist-
ing stormwater drainage system is anticipated to be able to ac-
commodate the increase in stormwater runoff. The contractor
would be responsible for preparing a SWPPP under a UPDES
Construction Storm Water Permit prior to the start of ground
disturbing activities, and all construction activities would be
required to comply with the provisions set forth in that permit.
NEPA Documentation Guidance: The construction of a taxi-
way can be categorically excluded under FAA Order paragraph
5-6.4(e), provided that the project would not cause significant
erosion or sedimentation, would not cause a significant noise
increase over noise sensitive area, or cause significant impacts
to air quality. Absent extraordinary circumstances or significant
impacts that cannot be mitigated, a CATEX is anticipated to be
the appropriate NEPA documentation for this project.
6.3.2 Airfield Enhancement Development Projects
6.3.2.1 New and Removed Taxiways
Construction of Taxiways L, P, U, and V as well as a full parallel
taxiway and highspeed exit taxiway for Runway 16L-34R, and
the removal of Taxiways H6 and Q are proposed as part of the
airfield enhancements project (see FIGURE 4-11). Additionally,
Taxiway K5 is proposed for removal and replacement to meet
current geometry standards. See SECTION 4.4.2 for more
details.
Air Quality: These taxiway projects would temporarily increase
emissions from construction vehicles and equipment. A con-
struction emissions inventory may be necessary for the NEPA
documentation associated with this project.
Biological Resources: Because threatened and endangered
species have the potential to be found at the Airport, a bio-
logical survey may be necessary for the NEPA documentation
associated with these projects.
Climate: These projects would result in a temporary increase
in emissions from construction vehicles and equipment. An es-
timate of GHG emissions could be included in the construction
emissions inventory.
Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural
Resources: Because these projects would include ground
disturbing activity on pervious ground, an archaeological survey
may be required for the NEPA documentation associated with
these projects.
Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste:
Construction associated with these projects would generate
solid waste. Waste would be handled and disposed according
to federal, state, and local rules and regulations.
Water Resources: Construction of Taxiways L, P, U, and V
could affect wetlands. The Airport would be responsible for
having these wetlands delineated in order to determine their
jurisdictional status, and any appropriate mitigation for poten-
tial effects. Assuming that the wetlands are jurisdictional, the
Airport would be responsible for obtaining a nationwide permit
or individual permit, depending on the extent of the potential
impacts. With regards to surface water and groundwater, the
project would increase impervious surface area at the Air-
port. This increase in impervious surface would increase the
volume of stormwater runoff; however, the existing stormwa-
ter drainage system is anticipated to be able to accommodate
the increase in stormwater runoff. The contractor would be
responsible for preparing a SWPPP under a UPDES Construc-
tion Storm Water Permit prior to the start of ground disturbing
activities, and all construction activities would be required to
comply with the provisions set forth in that permit.
NEPA Documentation Guidance: The new and removed taxi-
ways can be categorically excluded under FAA Order 1050.1F,
paragraph 5-6.4(e), provided that the projects would not cause
significant erosion or sedimentation, would not cause a signif-
icant noise increase over noise sensitive area, or cause signifi-
cant impacts to air quality. Absent extraordinary circumstances
or significant impacts that cannot be mitigated, a CATEX is
anticipated to be the appropriate NEPA documentation for this
project.
6.3.2.2 Deicing Facilities
Projects associated with deicing facilities at the Airport would
include a new eight-position runway-end deice pad for Run-
way 16R, an expansion to the Runway 16L deice pad between
Runway 16L-34R and the Runway 17 threshold, and potential
relocation of the deice pads serving Runway 16L-34R to the
west (see FIGURE 4-11).
Air Quality: This project would temporarily increase emissions
from construction vehicles and equipment. A construction
emissions inventory may be necessary for the NEPA documen-
tation associated with this project.
Biological Resources: Because threatened and endangered
species have the potential to be found at the Airport, a bio-
logical survey may be necessary for the NEPA documentation
associated with this project.
Climate: The project would temporarily increase emissions
from construction vehicles and equipment, including GHG
emissions. The increase would be temporary and minor. An es-
timate of GHG emissions could be calculated in the construc-
tion emissions inventory.
Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste:
Construction associated with the project would generate solid
waste. Waste would be handled and disposed according to
federal, state, and local rules and regulations.
Water Resources: This project could potentially affect existing
wetlands in the areas where the deicing facilities would be con-
structed. The Airport would be responsible for delineating the
wetlands and coordinating with the USACE in order to deter-
mine their jurisdictional status and any appropriate mitigation
for potential effects. Assuming that the wetlands are jurisdic-
tional, the Airport would be responsible for obtaining a na-
tionwide permit or individual permit, depending on the extent
of the potential impacts. The deicing facilities would increase
impervious surface at the Airport; however, the existing storm-
water drainage system is anticipated to be able to accommo-
date the increase in stormwater runoff. The project would not
increase the amount of glycol-contaminated stormwater runoff
at the Airport; but would provide more efficient and effective
ways to handle glycol-contaminated stormwater runoff. The
contractor would be responsible for preparing a SWPPP under
a UPDES Construction Storm Water Permit prior to the start
of ground disturbing activities, and all construction activities
would be required to comply with the provisions set forth in
that permit.
NEPA Documentation Guidance: The construction of the
deicing facilities can be categorically excluded under FAA
Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-6.4(d). Absent extraordinary
circumstances or significant impacts that cannot be mitigated,
a CATEX is anticipated to be the appropriate NEPA documen-
tation for this project.
6.3.3 Terminal Concourse Expansion
Development Project
The terminal concourse expansion development would include
new building construction, along with taxiway pavement/re-
habilitation, new apron pavement/rehabilitation, new shoulder
pavement/rehabilitation, a new vehicle service road, replace-
ment crossfield taxiways, removal of a fuel farm, and existing
on-Airport structures (see FIGURE 4-15).
Air Quality: This project would temporarily increase emissions
from construction vehicles and equipment. A construction
emissions inventory may be necessary for the NEPA documen-
tation associated with this project. Additionally, the change in
aircraft fleet mix combined with the forecast increase oper-
ations at the Airport, may require an operational air quality
emissions analysis for the NEPA documentation associated
with this project.
Biological Resources: Because threatened and endangered
species have the potential to be found at the Airport, a bio-
logical survey may be necessary for the NEPA documentation
associated with this project.
Climate: The project would result in a temporary increase in
emissions from construction vehicles and equipment, and a
permanent increase in emissions as a result of an increase in
forecast aircraft operations. An estimate of GHG emissions
could be included in the construction and operational emission
inventory.
Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Re-
sources: Because this project would include ground disturbing
activity on pervious ground, an archaeological survey may be
required for the NEPA documentation associated with this
project.
Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste:
Construction associated with the project would generate solid
waste. The addition of new gates to the terminal would also
result in the generation of additional solid waste. Waste would
be handled and disposed according to federal, state, and local
rules and regulations.
Noise and Noise Compatible Land Use: The noise contours
are anticipated to change as a result of this project, and it is
recommended that the Airport model new noise contours
that accounts for aircraft operations associated with the new
terminal concourse.
Water Resources: This project could potentially affect exist-
ing wetlands in the area of the project. The Airport would be
responsible for delineating wetlands and coordinating with the
USACE in order to determine their jurisdictional status, and any
appropriate mitigation for potential effects. Assuming that the
wetlands are jurisdictional, the Airport would be responsible
for obtaining a nationwide permit or individual permit, depend-
ing on the extent of the potential impacts. Additionally, the
construction of the concourse expansion would increase im-
pervious surface at the Airport; however, the existing stormwa-
ter drainage system is anticipated to be able to accommodate
362 363
the increase in stormwater runoff. The contractor would be
responsible for preparing a SWPPP under a UPDES Construc-
tion Storm Water Permit prior to the start of ground disturbing
activities, and all construction activities would be required to
comply with the provisions set forth in that permit.
NEPA Documentation Guidance: Non-aeronautical devel-
opment, such as new service roadways, may not be subject
to FAA approval authority in compliance with Section 163.22
However, if the FAA does have approval authority, the con-
struction of the service road can be categorically excluded un-
der FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-6.4(a). The new building
construction can be categorically excluded under FAA Order
1050.1F, paragraph 5-6.4(h), provided it does not substan-
tially expand those facilities outside of the FAA’s presumed to
conform list (72 Federal Register 41565). The construction,
repair, reconstruction, resurfacing, extension, strengthening, or
widening of a taxiway can be categorically excluded under FAA
Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-6.4(e), provided that the project
would not cause significant erosion or sedimentation, would
not cause a significant noise increase over noise sensitive area,
or cause significant impacts to air quality. Absent extraordinary
circumstances or significant impacts that cannot be mitigated,
a CATEX is anticipated to be the appropriate NEPA documen-
tation for this project. If this project is considered to substan-
tially expand the terminal concourse buildings, an EA may be
necessary.
6.3.4 North Air Cargo Alternatives
There are two preferred alternatives for the future cargo ex-
pansion locations (see SECTION 4.6 for details).
6.3.4.1 Ultimate Cargo Site 2
Future cargo expansion would include new air cargo building
construction along with a new taxiway pavement/rehabil-
itation, new apron pavement/rehabilitation, new shoulder
pavement/rehabilitation, and new roadway and vehicle parking
construction (see FIGURE 4-16).
Air Quality: This project would temporarily increase emissions
from construction vehicles and equipment. A construction
emissions inventory may be necessary for the NEPA docu-
mentation associated with this project. Should the Airport
experience either a change in aircraft fleet mix or a significant
increase in cargo operations associated with this project, an
operational air quality emissions analysis for the NEPA docu-
mentation associated with this project.
Biological Resources: Because threatened and endangered
species have the potential to be found at the Airport, a bio-
logical survey may be necessary for the NEPA documentation
associated with this project.
Climate: The project would temporarily increase emissions
from construction vehicles and equipment, including GHG
emissions, and a permanent increase in emissions as a result of
forecast cargo aircraft operations. An estimate of GHG emis-
sions could be calculated in the construction and operational
emissions inventory.
Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural
Resources: Because this project would include disturbing per-
vious ground, an archaeological survey may be required for the
NEPA documentation associated with this project.
Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste:
Construction associated with the project would generate solid
waste. Operation of the new cargo facilities would result in
an increase in solid waste at the Airport as well. Waste would
be handled and disposed according to federal, state, and local
rules and regulations.
Noise: The noise contours are anticipated to change as a result
of this project, and it is recommended that the Airport model
new noise contours that accounts for the increase in cargo
operations.
Water Resources: This project could potentially affect exist-
ing wetlands in the area. The Airport would be responsible for
delineating the wetlands and coordinating with the USACE in
order to determine their jurisdictional status, and any appropri-
ate mitigation for potential effects. Assuming that the wetlands
are jurisdictional, the Airport would be responsible for obtain-
ing a nationwide permit or individual permit, depending on the
extent of the potential impacts. Additionally, the contractor
would be responsible for preparing a SWPPP under a UPDES
Construction Storm Water Permit prior to the start of ground
disturbing activities, and all construction activities would be
required to comply with the provisions set forth in that permit.
NEPA Documentation Guidance: Non-aeronautical develop-
ment, such as new roadways and vehicle parking, may not be
subject to FAA approval authority in compliance with Section
163.23 However, if the FAA does have approval authority, the
construction of the new roadway can be categorically excluded
under FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-6.4(a). The new cargo
building construction can be categorically excluded under FAA
Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-6.4(h), provided it does not sub-
stantially expand those facilities outside of the FAA’s presumed
to conform list (72 Federal Register 41565). Construction of
vehicle parking associated with the new cargo building can be
categorically excluded under FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph
5-6.4(f). The construction, repair, reconstruction, resurfacing,
extension, strengthening, or widening of a taxiway and apron
can be categorically excluded under FAA Order 1050.1F,
paragraph 5-6.4(e), provided that the project would not cause
364 365
significant erosion or sedimentation, would not cause a signif-
icant noise increase over noise sensitive area, or cause signifi-
cant impacts to air quality. Absent extraordinary circumstances
or significant impacts that cannot be mitigated, a CATEX is
anticipated to be the appropriate NEPA documentation for this
project. If this project is considered to substantially expand the
cargo facilities, an EA may be necessary.
6.3.4.2 Ultimate Cargo Site 3
Future cargo expansion would include a new cargo building
along with new taxiway pavement/rehabilitation, new apron
pavement/rehabilitation, new shoulder pavement/rehabilita-
tion, and new roadway and vehicle parking construction (see
FIGURE 4-16).
Air Quality: This project would temporarily increase emissions
from construction vehicles and equipment. A construction
emissions inventory may be necessary for the NEPA docu-
mentation associated with this project. Should the Airport
experience either a change in aircraft fleet mix or a significant
increase in cargo operations associated with this project, an
operational air quality emissions analysis for the NEPA docu-
mentation associated with this project.
Biological Resources: Because threatened and endangered
species have the potential to be found at the Airport, a bio-
logical survey may be necessary for the NEPA documentation
associated with this project.
Climate: The project would temporarily increase emissions
from construction vehicles and equipment, including GHG
emissions, and a permanent increase in emissions as a result of
forecast cargo aircraft operations. An estimate of GHG emis-
sions could be calculated in the construction and operational
emissions inventory.
Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural
Resources: Because this project would include disturbing per-
vious ground, an archaeological survey may be required for the
NEPA documentation associated with this project.
Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste:
Construction associated with the project would generate solid
waste. Operation of the new cargo facilities would result in
an increase in solid waste at the Airport as well. Waste would
be handled and disposed according to federal, state, and local
rules and regulations.
Noise and Noise-Compatible Land Use: The noise contours
are anticipated to change as a result of this project, and it is
recommended that the Airport model new noise contours that
accounts for the increase in cargo operations.
Water Resources: This project could potentially affect exist-
ing wetlands in the area. The Airport would be responsible for
delineating wetlands and coordinating with USACE in order
to determine their jurisdictional status, and any appropriate
mitigation for potential effects. Assuming that the wetlands are
jurisdictional, the Airport would be responsible for obtaining
a nationwide permit or individual permit, depending on the
extent of the potential impacts. Additionally, the contractor
would be responsible for preparing a SWPPP under a UPDES
Construction Storm Water Permit prior to the start of ground
disturbing activities, and all construction activities would be
required to comply with the provisions set forth in that permit.
NEPA Documentation Guidance: Non-aeronautical develop-
ment, such as new roadways and vehicle parking, may not be
subject to FAA approval authority in compliance with Section
163.24 However, if the FAA does have approval authority, the
construction of the new roadway can be categorically excluded
under FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-6.4(a). The new cargo
building construction can be categorically excluded under FAA
Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-6.4(h), provided it does not sub-
stantially expand those facilities outside of the FAA’s presumed
to conform list (72 Federal Register 41565). Construction of
vehicle parking associated with the new cargo building can be
categorically excluded under FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph
5-6.4(f). The construction, repair, reconstruction, resurfacing,
extension, strengthening, or widening of a taxiway and apron
can be categorically excluded under FAA Order 1050.1F,
paragraph 5-6.4(e), provided that the project would not cause
significant erosion or sedimentation, would not cause a signif-
icant noise increase over noise sensitive area, or cause signifi-
cant impacts to air quality. Absent extraordinary circumstances
or significant impacts that cannot be mitigated, a CATEX is
anticipated to be the appropriate NEPA documentation for this
project. If this project is considered to substantially expand the
cargo facilities, an EA may be necessary.
6.3.5 Landside Development Projects
6.3.5.1 2100 North Roadway Realignment
Should Runway 16L-34R be extended (see SECTION 6.3.1.2),
a portion of 2100 north would pass through the proposed new
RPZ and would need to be realigned (see FIGURE 4-11).
Air Quality: This project would temporarily increase emissions
from construction vehicles and equipment. A construction
emissions inventory may be necessary for the NEPA documen-
tation associated with this project.
Biological Resources: Because threatened and endangered
species have the potential to be found at the Airport, a bio-
logical survey may be necessary for the NEPA documentation
associated with this project.
22 See Section 163 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018.
23 See Section 163 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018.
24 See Section 163 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018.
366 367
Climate: The project would temporarily increase emissions
from construction vehicles and equipment, including GHG
emissions. The increase would be temporary and minor. An es-
timate of GHG emissions could be calculated in the construc-
tion emissions inventory.
Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural
Resources: Because this project would include disturbing per-
vious ground, an archaeological survey may be required for the
NEPA documentation associated with this project.
Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste:
Construction associated with the project would generate solid
waste. Waste would be handled and disposed according to
federal, state, and local rules and regulations.
Water Resources: The road realignment could encroach upon
a 100-year floodplain and a floodplain analysis would be re-
quired. Additionally, this project could potentially affect existing
wetlands in the area. The Airport would be responsible for
delineating the wetlands and coordinating with the USACE in
order to determine their jurisdictional status, and any appropri-
ate mitigation for potential effects. Assuming that the wetlands
are jurisdictional, the Airport would be responsible for obtain-
ing a nationwide permit or individual permit, depending on the
extent of the potential impacts. Additionally, the contractor
would be responsible for preparing a SWPPP under a UPDES
Construction Storm Water Permit prior to the start of ground
disturbing activities, and all construction activities would be
required to comply with the provisions set forth in that permit.
NEPA Documentation Guidance: Non-aeronautical develop-
ment, such as roadway realignments, may not be subject to
FAA approval authority in compliance with Section 163.25 How-
ever, if the FAA does have approval authority, the construction
of the road realignment can be categorically excluded under
FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-6.4(a). Absent extraordinary
circumstances or significant impacts that cannot be mitigated,
a CATEX is anticipated to be the appropriate NEPA documen-
tation for this project.
6.3.5.2 Employee Parking
The South Employee Parking Lot would be located in a new lot
in the southern portion of the Airport near the proposed south
Runway 16L-34R End Around (see Figure 4-25). This south
employee parking lot would use a 1-bus system and would not
include on-site screening prior to busing of employees.
Air Quality: This project would temporarily increase emissions
from construction vehicles and equipment. A construction
emissions inventory may be necessary for the NEPA documen-
tation associated with this project.
Biological Resources: Because threatened and endangered
species have the potential to be found at the Airport, a biolog-
ical survey could be necessary for the NEPA documentation
associated with this project.
Climate: The project would result in a temporary increase in
emissions from construction vehicles and equipment. An esti-
mate of GHG emissions could be included in the construction
emission inventory.
Section 4(f) Resources: Construction of this project would
require the Airport Trail bike path, which is a Section 4(f) prop-
erty, to be rerouted. This would constitute a physical use of a
Section 4(f) property and would require coordination with the
FAA and a potential DOT Section 4(f) analysis.
Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural
Resources: Because this project would include disturbing per-
vious ground, an archaeological survey may be required for the
NEPA documentation associated with this project.
Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste:
Construction associated with the project would generate solid
waste. Waste would be handled and disposed according to
federal, state, and local rules and regulations.
Water Resources: The south employee parking lot has the
potential to affect existing wetlands in the area and would
cross the Surplus Canal, which runs through Airport property
and is under the jurisdiction of the USACE. The Airport would
be responsible for delineating wetlands and coordinating with
the USACE in order to obtain a nationwide permit or indi-
vidual permit and determine any appropriate mitigation for
potential effects. Additionally, the Surplus Canal is part of the
100-year floodplain and this project would encroach upon the
floodplain; therefore, a floodplain analysis would be required.
With regards to surface water and groundwater, the project
would increase impervious surface area at the Airport. This
increase in impervious surface would increase the volume of
stormwater runoff; however, the existing stormwater drainage
system is anticipated to be able to accommodate the increase
in stormwater runoff. The contractor would be responsible for
preparing a SWPPP under a UPDES Construction Storm Water
Permit prior to the start of ground disturbing activities, and all
construction activities would be required to comply with the
provisions set forth in that permit.
NEPA Documentation Guidance: Non-aeronautical develop-
ment, such as an employee parking lot, may not be subject to
FAA approval authority in compliance with Section 163.26 How-
ever, if the FAA does have approval authority, the construction
of the employee parking area can be categorically excluded
under FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-6.4(h). Absent ex-
traordinary circumstances or significant impacts that cannot be
mitigated, a CATEX is anticipated to be the appropriate NEPA
documentation for this project.
6.3.5.3 Preferred Comprehensive Landside Development
The comprehensive landside development includes the follow-
ing projects: public parking, consolidated rental car facilities,
additional public services (Park ‘n’ Wait lot and Service Center),
employee parking (see SECTION 6.3.5.2), commercial vehicle
staging, and future landside expansion (see FIGURE 4-25). All
of the projects, except for the employee parking (see SECTION
6.3.5.2) and the future landside expansion projects, would
occur on existing paved and developed land.
Air Quality: These projects would temporarily increase
emissions from construction vehicles and equipment. A con-
struction emissions inventory may be necessary for the NEPA
documentation associated with these projects.
Biological Resources: Because threatened and endangered
species have the potential to be found at the Airport, a bio-
logical survey may be necessary for the NEPA documentation
associated with this project with the exception of the employ-
ee parking and future landside expansion projects, since these
projects are proposed to be located on pervious ground.
Climate: These projects would temporarily increase emissions
from construction vehicles and equipment, including GHG
emissions. The increase would be temporary and minor. An es-
timate of GHG emissions could be calculated in the construc-
tion emissions inventory.
Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural
Resources: Because the future landside expansion and the
employee parking projects (see SECTION 4.7) would include
disturbing pervious ground, an archaeological survey may be
required for the NEPA documentation associated with this
project.
Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste:
Construction associated with the comprehensive landside
development would generate solid waste. Waste would be
handled and disposed according to federal, state, and local
rules and regulations.
Water Resources: The future landside expansion and the
employee parking projects (see SECTION 4.7) could poten-
tially affect existing wetlands in the area. The Airport would be
responsible for delineating wetlands and coordinating with the
USACE in order to determine their jurisdictional status, and any
appropriate mitigation for potential effects. Assuming that the
wetlands are jurisdictional, the Airport would be responsible
for obtaining a nationwide permit or individual permit, depend-
ing on the extent of the potential impacts. Additionally, the
contractor would be responsible for preparing a SWPPP under
a UPDES Construction Storm Water Permit prior to the start
of ground disturbing activities, and all construction activities
would be required to comply with the provisions set forth in
that permit.
NEPA Documentation Guidance: Non-aeronautical devel-
opment, such as parking areas, may not be subject to FAA
approval authority in compliance with Section 163.27 However,
if the FAA does have approval authority, the construction of
the public parking, consolidated rental car facilities, additional
public services (Park n’ Wait Lot and service center), and com-
mercial vehicle staging can all be categorically excluded under
FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-6.4(h). Absent extraordinary
circumstances or significant impacts that cannot be mitigated,
a CATEX is anticipated to be the appropriate NEPA documen-
tation for this project. The future landside expansion project
may not be subject to FAA approval authority in compliance
with Section 163, depending on the proposed use and if
certain conditions are met.28 However, if the FAA does have
approval authority, the project can categorically excluded under
FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-6.1(b) provided the use of
the land does not trigger extraordinary circumstances and the
proposed land use is a use found in FAA Order 1050.1F as a
categorically excluded use. However, if the proposed land use
is not a categorically excluded action, an EA may be necessary.
6.3.6 Support Facility Development Projects
6.3.6.1 Airline Maintenance, Airport Maintenance,
and ARFF Facility
The relocation and expansion of the airline and airport main-
tenance buildings, as well as relocation of the aircraft rescue
firefighting (ARFF) Station #12 would occur under this project
(see FIGURE 4-26).
Air Quality: This project would temporarily increase emissions
from construction vehicles and equipment. A construction
emissions inventory may be necessary for the NEPA documen-
tation associated with this project.
Biological Resources: Because threatened and endangered
species have the potential to be found at the Airport, a bio-
logical survey may be necessary for the NEPA documentation
associated with this project.
Climate: The project would temporarily increase emissions
from construction vehicles and equipment, including GHG
emissions. The increase would be temporary and minor. An es-
timate of GHG emissions could be calculated in the construc-
tion emissions inventory.
25 See Section 163 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018.
26 See Section 163 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018.
27 See Section 163 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018.
28 See Section 163 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018.
368 369
Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural
Resources: Because this project would include disturbing per-
vious ground, an archaeological survey may be required for the
NEPA documentation associated with this project.
Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste:
Construction associated with the project would generate solid
waste. Waste would be handled and disposed according to
federal, state, and local rules and regulations.
Water Resources: This project could potentially affect exist-
ing wetlands in the area. The Airport would be responsible for
delineating the wetlands and coordinating with the USACE in
order to determine their jurisdictional status, and any appropri-
ate mitigation for potential effects. Assuming that the wet-
lands are jurisdictional, the Airport would be responsible for
obtaining a nationwide permit or individual permit, depending
on the extent of the potential impacts. With regards to surface
water and groundwater, the project would increase impervious
surface area at the Airport. This increase in impervious surface
would increase the volume of stormwater runoff; however, the
existing stormwater drainage system is anticipated to be able
to accommodate the increase in stormwater runoff. Additional-
ly, the contractor would be responsible for preparing a SWPPP
under a UPDES Construction Storm Water Permit prior to the
start of ground disturbing activities, and all construction activ-
ities would be required to comply with the provisions set forth
in that permit.
NEPA Documentation Guidance: Non-aeronautical develop-
ment, such as the airline and airport maintenance buildings,
may not be subject to FAA approval authority in compliance
with Section 163.29 However, if the FAA does have approval
authority, the construction of the relocated airline and airport
maintenance buildings and the ARFF Station #12 can be
categorically excluded under FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph
5-6.4(f). Absent extraordinary circumstances or significant
impacts that cannot be mitigated, a CATEX is anticipated to be
the appropriate NEPA documentation for this project.
6.3.6.2 Commercial Service Fuel Farm Relocation
Relocation of the commercial service fuel farm facility would
occur under this project (see FIGURE 4-27). The relocated fuel
farm would tie into the existing pipeline.
Air Quality: This project would temporarily increase emissions
from construction vehicles and equipment. A construction
emissions inventory may be necessary for the NEPA documen-
tation associated with this project.
Biological Resources: Because threatened and endangered
species have the potential to be found at the Airport, a bio-
logical survey may be necessary for the NEPA documentation
associated with this project.
Climate: The project would result in a temporary increase
in emissions from construction vehicles and equipment. The
increase would be temporary and minor. An estimate of GHG
emissions could be included in the construction emissions
inventory.
Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural
Resources: Because this project would include disturbing per-
vious ground, an archaeological survey may be required for the
NEPA documentation associated with this project.
Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste:
Construction associated with the project would generate solid
waste. Waste would be handled and disposed according to fed-
eral, state, and local rules and regulations. The project would
increase the amount of hazardous materials stored at the
Airport. Additionally, the Airport would need to update is SPCC
plan and SWPPP to account for the project.
Water Resources: This project could potentially affect exist-
ing wetlands in the area. The Airport would be responsible for
delineating wetlands and coordinating with the USACE in order
to determine their jurisdictional status, and any appropriate
mitigation for potential effects. Assuming that the wetlands
are jurisdictional, the Airport would be responsible for obtain-
ing a nationwide permit or individual permit, depending on
the extent of the potential impacts. With regards to surface
water and groundwater, the project would increase impervious
surface area at the Airport. This increase in impervious surface
would increase the volume of stormwater runoff; however, the
existing stormwater drainage system is anticipated to be able
to accommodate the increase in stormwater runoff. Additional-
ly, the contractor would be responsible for preparing a SWPPP
under a UPDES Construction Storm Water Permit prior to the
start of ground disturbing activities, and all construction activ-
ities would be required to comply with the provisions set forth
in that permit.
NEPA Documentation Guidance: Bulk fuel storage facilities
are not a project on the list of categorically excluded projects
found in FAA Order 1050.1F. As such, an EA is anticipated to
be the appropriate NEPA documentation for this project.
6.3.6.3 General Aviation Leasehold Development
Three zones have been identified for general aviation (GA)
development (see FIGURES 4-28 and 4-29). Zones 1 and 2 are
to be managed by the Airport’s fixed base operators (FBO’s)
while Zone 3 will be under direct development by the Airport.
Development is to include new apron pavement/rehabilita-
tion, new building construction, and new roadway and parking
construction.
Air Quality: This project would temporarily increase emissions
from construction vehicles and equipment. A construction
emissions inventory may be necessary for the NEPA docu-
mentation associated with this project. Should the Airport
experience either a change in aircraft fleet mix or a significant
increase in GA operations associated with this project, an oper-
ational air quality emissions analysis for the NEPA documenta-
tion associated with this project.
Climate: The project would temporarily increase emissions
from construction vehicles and equipment, including GHG
emissions. The increase would be temporary and minor. An es-
timate of GHG emissions could be calculated in the construc-
tion emissions inventory.
Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste:
Construction associated with the project would generate solid
waste. Waste would be handled and disposed according to
federal, state, and local rules and regulations.
Noise and Noise-Compatible Land Uses: The noise contours
are anticipated to change as a result of this project, and it is
recommended that the Airport model new noise contours that
accounts for the additional GA operations.
Water Resources: The project would increase impervious
surface area at the Airport. This increase in impervious surface
would increase the volume of stormwater runoff; however, the
existing stormwater drainage system is anticipated to be able
to accommodate the increase in stormwater runoff. Additional-
ly, the contractor would be responsible for preparing a SWPPP
under a UPDES Construction Storm Water Permit prior to the
start of ground disturbing activities, and all construction activ-
ities would be required to comply with the provisions set forth
in that permit.
NEPA Documentation Guidance: The construction of the
new roadway and parking can be categorically excluded under
FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-6.4(a). The new building
construction can be categorically excluded under FAA Order
1050.1F, paragraph 5-6.4(h). The construction, repair, recon-
struction, resurfacing, extension, strengthening, or widening
of an apron can be categorically excluded under FAA Order
1050.1F, paragraph 5-6.4(e), provided that the project would
not cause significant erosion or sedimentation, would not
cause a significant noise increase over noise sensitive area, or
cause significant impacts to air quality. Absent extraordinary
circumstances or significant impacts that cannot be mitigated,
a CATEX is anticipated to be the appropriate NEPA documen-
tation for this project.
6.3.6.4 ARFF Training Facility
The new aircraft rescue firefighting (ARFF) training facility
location was identified for development near ARFF Training
Sites 1 and 2 shown in FIGURE 4-30. A new access roadway
and parking would also be constructed as part of this project.
Air Quality: This project would temporarily increase emissions
from construction vehicles and equipment. A construction
emissions inventory may be necessary for the NEPA documen-
tation associated with this project.
Biological Resources: Because threatened and endangered
species have the potential to be found at the Airport, a bio-
logical survey may be necessary for the NEPA documentation
associated with this project.
Climate: The project would temporarily increase emissions
from construction vehicles and equipment, including GHG
emissions. The increase would be temporary and minor. An es-
timate of GHG emissions could be calculated in the construc-
tion emissions inventory.
Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste:
Construction associated with the project would generate solid
waste. Waste would be handled and disposed according to
federal, state, and local rules and regulations.
Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural
Resources: Because this project would include disturbing per-
vious ground, an archaeological survey may be required for the
NEPA documentation associated with this project.
Water Resources: This project could potentially affect existing
wetlands in the area (see FIGURE 4-30). The Airport would
be responsible for delineating wetlands and coordinating with
USACE in order to determine their jurisdictional status, and any
appropriate mitigation for potential effects. Assuming that the
wetlands are jurisdictional, the Airport would be responsible
for obtaining a nationwide permit or individual permit, depend-
ing on the extent of the potential impacts. The project would
increase impervious surface area at the Airport. This increase in
impervious surface would increase the volume of stormwater
runoff. Stormwater runoff analysis may be needed to ensure
that the new non-aeronautical development can accommodate
the new impervious surface with the existing infrastructure.
Additionally, the contractor would be responsible for pre-
paring a SWPPP under a UPDES Construction Storm Water
Permit prior to the start of ground disturbing activities, and all
construction activities would be required to comply with the
provisions set forth in that permit.
NEPA Documentation Guidance: Non-aeronautical develop-
ment, such as new roadways and parking areas, may not be
subject to FAA approval authority in compliance with Section
29 See Section 163 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018. 30 See Section 163 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018.
370 371
6.4 APPROACHES TO NEPA DOCUMENTATION
This section outlines the NEPA approach associated with the
development projects described in the short term (1-10 years)
period of the Construction Implementation Plan (CIP) (see
SECTION 5.3). Projects included in SECTION 5.4 include proj-
ects in both the short-term and long-term CIP periods; howev-
er, due to the likelihood of changes to project implementation
time frames, the long-term projects are not discussed in this
section. It is recommended that projects connected in function,
place, and/or time be evaluated in the same NEPA document in
an effort to save time and money. Connected actions (projects
that do not have independent utility from another project)
must be considered in the same NEPA document to avoid
segmentation. TABLE 6-1 describes the projects within the
short-term CIP and their appropriate NEPA documentation.
Prior to starting NEPA documentation for a development
project at the Airport, the Airport or its contractor should
coordinate with the FAA Denver Airports District Office (ADO)
Environmental Protection Specialist (EPS) to officially de-
termine if the project qualifies under Section 163 and if not,
determine the appropriate level NEPA documentation (e.g.,
CATEX, EA, EIS).
6.4.1 North Cargo Area Expansion
The construction of the new roadway can be categorically
excluded under FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-6.4(a). The
new cargo building construction can be categorically exclud-
ed under FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-6.4(h), provided
it does not substantially expand those facilities outside of the
FAA’s presumed to conform list (72 Federal Register 41565).
Construction of vehicle parking associated with the new
cargo building can be categorically excluded under FAA Order
1050.1F, paragraph 5-6.4(f). The construction, repair, recon-
struction, resurfacing, extension, strengthening, or widening of
a taxiway and apron can be categorically excluded under FAA
Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-6.4(e), provided that the project
would not cause significant erosion or sedimentation, would
not cause a significant noise increase over noise sensitive area,
or cause significant impacts to air quality. Absent extraordinary
circumstances, a CATEX is anticipated to be the appropriate
NEPA documentation for this project. If this project is consid-
ered to substantially expand the cargo facilities, an EA may be
necessary.
6.4.2 Public Parking Construction
Phase I – Employee Lot
Non-aeronautical development, such as an employee parking
lot, can be approved under Section 163 if certain conditions
are met.33 However, if Section 163 does not apply, the con-
struction of the employee parking area can be categorically ex-
cluded under FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-6.4(h). Absent
extraordinary circumstances, a CATEX is anticipated to be the
appropriate NEPA documentation for this project.
Table 6-1: CIP NEPA Approach
163.30 However, if the FAA does have approval authority, the
construction of the new roadway and parking can be categor-
ically excluded under FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-6.4(a).
The new building construction can be categorically
excluded under FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-6.4(h).
Absent extraordinary circumstances or significant impacts that
cannot be mitigated, a CATEX is anticipated to be the appro-
priate NEPA documentation for this project.
6.3.7 Non-Aeronautical Land Use Development
Project Opportunities
A portion of the north east quadrant of the Airport was iden-
tified for non-aeronautical use to supplement the Airport’s
existing revenue stream (see FIGURE 4-31).
Air Quality: This project would temporarily increase emissions
from construction vehicles and equipment. A construction
emissions inventory may be necessary for the NEPA documen-
tation associated with this project.
Biological Resources: Because threatened and endangered
species have the potential to be found at the Airport, a bio-
logical survey may be necessary for the NEPA documentation
associated with this project.
Climate: The project would temporarily increase emissions
from construction vehicles and equipment, including GHG
emissions. The increase would be temporary and minor. An es-
timate of GHG emissions could be calculated in the construc-
tion emissions inventory.
Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste:
Construction associated with the project would generate solid
waste. Waste would be handled and disposed according to
federal, state, and local rules and regulations.
Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural
Resources: Because this project would include disturbing per-
vious ground, an archaeological survey may be required for the
NEPA documentation associated with this project.
Land Use: The project would need to ensure that proposed
non-aeronautical development was compatible with land use
zoning as well as with FAA regulations.31
Water Resources: This project could potentially affect exist-
ing wetlands in the area. The Airport would be responsible for
delineating wetlands and coordinating with USACE in order
to determine their jurisdictional status, and any appropriate
mitigation for potential effects. Assuming that the wetlands are
31 FAA. (1985). Federal Aviation Regulations Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning, CFR 14, Chapter I, Subchapter I, Part 150, Table 1,
January 18, 1985, as amended.
32 See Section 163 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018.
jurisdictional, the Airport would be responsible for obtaining
a nationwide permit or individual permit, depending on the
extent of the potential impacts. The project would increase
impervious surface area at the Airport. This increase in imper-
vious surface would increase the volume of stormwater runoff.
Stormwater runoff analysis may be needed to ensure that the
new non-aeronautical development can accommodate the new
impervious surface with the existing infrastructure. Additional-
ly, the contractor would be responsible for preparing a SWPPP
under a UPDES Construction Storm Water Permit prior to the
start of ground disturbing activities, and all construction activ-
ities would be required to comply with the provisions set forth
in that permit.
NEPA Documentation Guidance: The release of Federally
obligated land for non-aeronautical development may not be
subject to FAA approval authority in compliance with Section
163.32 However, if the FAA does have approval authority, the
development can categorically excluded under FAA Order
1050.1F, paragraph 5-6.1(b) provided the use of the land does
not trigger extraordinary circumstances and the proposed land
use is a use found in FAA Order 1050.1F as a categorically ex-
cluded use. However, if the proposed land use is not a categori-
cally excluded action, an EA may be necessary.
CIP Year CIP Project NEPA Document
FAA Approval
Authority Per
Section 163
Guidelines
2021/2022 North Cargo Area Expansion CATEX Yes
2023 Public Parking Construction
Phase 1- Employee lot CATEX No
2023 Runway 14-32 Removal
EA
Yes
2023 Taxiway K2 Crossfield
Connection Construction Yes
2023 Taxiway Q Removal Yes
2024 Runway 16L North Deicing Pad Facilities
Upgrades Yes
2026 Initial 4000W Roadway Relocation CATEX No
2027 West Portion Taxiway V Construction
CATEX
Yes
2028 East Portion Taxiway V Construction Yes
2029 East Portion Taxiway U Construction Yes
2030 Taxiway S Deice Pad Construction CATEX Yes
372
6.4.3 Runway 14-32 Removal, Taxiway K2 Cross-
field Connection Construction, Taxiway Q Removal,
and Runway 16L Deicing Pad Facilities Upgrades
The appropriate form of NEPA documentation would be an
EA that combines the Runway 14-32 removal, Taxiway K2
crossfield connection construction, removal of Taxiway Q, and
upgrades to Runway 16L deicing pad facilities projects. These
projects should be combined due to joint utility and proximity
in time. An EA is anticipated to be the required NEPA doc-
umentation for this group of projects because permanently
closing a runway and using it as a taxiway can only be categor-
ically excluded under FAA Order paragraph 5-6.4(cc) at small,
low-activity airports. The Airport is not considered a small,
low-activity airport and as such, an EA is anticipated to be the
appropriate NEPA documentation for this project.
6.4.4 Initial 4000W Roadway Relocation
Non-aeronautical development, such as new roadways and
vehicle parking, can be approved under Section 163 if certain
conditions are met.34 However, if Section 163 does not apply,
the relocation of the roadway can be categorically excluded
under FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-6.4(a).
6.4.5 West Portion Taxiway V Construction, East
Portion Taxiway V Construction, East Taxiway U Con-
struction
The appropriate form of NEPA documentation would be a
CATEX that combines the construction the west portion of
Taxiway V, east portion of Taxiway V, and east Taxiway U. These
projects should be combined due to joint utility and proximity
in time. The construction of the taxiways can be categorically
excluded under FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-6.4(e).
6.4.6 Taxiway S Deice Pad Construction
The appropriate form of NEPA documentation would be a CA-
TEX. The construction of the deicing facilities can be categor-
ically excluded under FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-6.4(d).
Absent any extraordinary circumstances, a CATEX is anticipat-
ed to be the appropriate NEPA documentation for this project.
33 See Section 163 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018.
34 See Section 163 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018.
7
|
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
L
A
Y
O
U
T
P
L
A
N7AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN
373
DATESTEVEN DOMINO, AAE
www.rsandh.com
5215 Wiley Post Way, Suite 510
Salt Lake City, Utah 84116
801-924-8555
RS&H, Inc.
REVISIONS
NO.DESCRIPTION DATE
VICINITY MAPLOCATION MAP
SCALE: NTS SCALE: NTS
INDEX TO SHEETS
SHEET
NUMBER DRAWING TITLE REVISION
DATE
1 COVER SHEET
2 FACILITY LAYOUT PLAN
3 AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN
4 ULTIMATE AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN
5 AIRPORT DATA SHEET - 1 OF 2
6 AIRPORT DATA SHEET - 2 OF 2
7 TERMINAL AREA PLAN
8 GENERAL AVIATION AREA PLAN
9 NORTH SUPPORT AREA PLAN
10 AIRPORT AIRSPACE DRAWING - OUTER VIEW (EXISTING)
11 AIRPORT AIRSPACE DRAWING - INNER VIEW (EXISTING)
12 AIRPORT AIRSPACE DRAWING - OUTER VIEW (FUTURE)
13 AIRPORT AIRSPACE DRAWING - INNER VIEW (FUTURE)
14 EXISTING AND FUTURE PART 77 OBSTRUCTION TABLES
15 AIRSPACE PROFILE RUNWAY 16R-34L
16 AIRSPACE PROFILE RUNWAY 16L (EXISTING)
17 AIRSPACE PROFILE RUNWAY 16L-34R
18 AIRSPACE PROFILE RUNWAY 17-35
19 AIRSPACE PROFILE RUNWAY 14-32 (EXISTING)
20 INNER APPROACH PLAN AND PROFILE RUNWAY 16R
21 INNER APPROACH PLAN AND PROFILE RUNWAY 34L
22 INNER APPROACH PLAN AND PROFILE RUNWAY 16L (EXISTING)
23 INNER APPROACH PLAN AND PROFILE RUNWAY 16L (FUTURE)
24 INNER APPROACH PLAN AND PROFILE RUNWAY 34R
25 INNER APPROACH PLAN AND PROFILE RUNWAY 17
26 INNER APPROACH PLAN AND PROFILE RUNWAY 35
27 INNER APPROACH PLAN AND PROFILE RUNWAY 14
28 INNER APPROACH PLAN AND PROFILE RUNWAY 32
29 RUNWAY PROFILES
30 AIRPORT ACCESS PLAN
31 EXHIBIT 'A' AIRPORT PROPERTY INVENTORY MAP
32 EXHIBIT 'A' AIRPORT PROPERTY INVENTORY MAP
33 NOISE LAND INVENTORY
34 EXHIBIT 'A' AIRPORT PROPERTY INVENTORY MAP
35 EXHIBIT 'A' AIRPORT PROPERTY INVENTORY MAP
36 EXISTING AND FUTURE ZONING
37 EXISTING ON-AIRPORT LAND USE
38 FUTURE ON-AIRPORT LAND USE
39 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
40 CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PHASING PLAN
41 UTILITY PLAN
AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN
FOR
SALT LAKE CITY
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (SLC)
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN
FOR
SALT LAKE CITY
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (SLC)
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
AIP#: 54-9001-1536
AUGUST 2021
8/6/21
374
375375
376376
377
378378
379379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393393
394
395
396396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
5215 WILEY POST WAY, SUITE 510
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116
801.924.8555
WWW.RS&H.COM
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | 2022
SLC
INTERNATIONAL
2 32
This document provides an overview of the findings and
recommendations from the Master Plan study for Salt Lake
City International Airport (SLCIA or Airport). This Master
Plan Update is a roadmap for future development to meet the
needs of the traveling public, the aviation industry, and the
Airport. The Master Plan report should be consulted for additional
information on the technical analyses, assumptions, and
methodologies supporting the findings and recommendations.
4 5
The previous Master Plan conducted for SLCIA in 1998 set forth the Vision for new terminal
and concourse facilities. Over the past two decades, the Salt Lake City Department of Air-
ports (SLCDA) has focused on implementing that Vision.
As SLCDA actively implements its historic Airport Redevelopment Program (ARP) (Previously
known as the Terminal Redevelopment Program), this study updated their comprehensive
airport facility plan to accommodate the expected growth over the next 20 years. The
emphasis of this study was to find an ultimate balance between the airfield and supporting
facilities to match passenger demand anticipated throughout the planning period.
The SLCIA Master Plan Update (Master Plan) was completed per FAA guidelines and includes
all study elements necessary to develop a comprehensive airport plan that meets forecast
aviation demand for a 20-year planning horizon while ensuring optimum compatibility with
the surrounding community. The planning process includes six key elements: public involve-
ment/stakeholder coordination; inventory of existing conditions; FAA-approved forecast of
future aviation activity; assessment of facility requirements necessary to meet demand;
development and evaluation of alternative options for required facilities; and implementation
and finance planning to describe development phasing, timing, estimated costs, and funding
mechanisms for airport improvements. The final product of the study is the Master Plan
report and an FAA-approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP) drawing set, which serves as a
“blueprint” for proposed airport development.
Introduction 4
Public Involvement 7
Inventory 9
Aviation Activity Forecasts 14
Facility Requirements 17
Balanced Airport 20
Airfield 24
Terminal and Aircraft Gates 26
Landside 27
Cargo and Support 28
General Aviation 29
Environmental Overview 30
Future Development 33
Sustainability 40
Development Costs 42
Strategic Vision 44
INTRODUCTIONTABLE OF CONTENTS
6 7
1998 Master Plan Vision
Master Planning Process
Inventory Aviation Activity
Forecasts
Facility
Requirements
Alternatives
Development
Development
Plan
• Collect Physical and
Operational Characteristics
͛ Airfield
͛ Terminal
͛ Landside
͛Support Facilities
• Review Historical Activity
• Identify Trends
and Relationships
• Forecast Future Activity
• Assess Existing
Facility Capacities
• Determine Future
Facility Requirements
• Identify Alternatives
• Short-List Alternatives
• Refine Alternatives
• Evaluate Alternatives
• Select Preferred
Alternative
• Identify Preferred
Development Plan
• Determine Plan Phasing
• Estimate Project Costs
Public Involvement/Stakeholder Coordination
Stakeholder Scoping Sessions Advisory Committee Airline Working Group Public Workshops Website The Master Plan was prepared by the Salt Lake City Department of
Airports and their consultants. The SLCDA contracted with the firm
RS&H to lead the Master Plan process.
The preparation of this document was financed in part through a
planning grant from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as
provided under Section 505 of the Airport and Airways Improvement
Act of 1982, as amended by the Airway Safety and Capacity Expansion
Act of 1987. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or
policy of the FAA. Acceptance of this report by the FAA does not in any
way constitute a commitment on the part of the United States to
participate in any development depicted therein, nor does it indicate
that the proposed development is environmentally acceptable in
accordance with applicable public laws.
Whose project is this?
According to the FAA, “an airport master plan is a comprehensive study of an airport
and usually describes the short-, medium-, and long-term development plans to
meet future aviation demand.” FAA Advisory Circular 150/5070-6B Airport Master Plans
The master plan process included an inventory of existing conditions at the Airport, a summary
of the forecast of future demand, an assessment of future facility requirements, development
and evaluation of alternatives, and creation of an implementation plan. The demand forecast
and facility requirements indicate that facility upgrades and future development projects will be
needed within the 20-year planning horizon of the Master Plan. Following a detailed evaluation
of required future projects and alternatives, the master plan team formulated a plan for future
development based on a demand-driven, phased approach. The technical analysis was comple-
mented by a thorough public involvement process. The Plan for Future Development reflects
public and stakeholder input received during the public involvement process.
What is a Master Plan?
2019 Existing Condition
8 99
There was 1 Virtual Engagement Room, 3 Public Information Meetings, 7 Airport Board updates, 6 working papers posted, 40 technical meetings, 65 stakeholder meetings,
350 public participants, and over 20,000 hours of planning conducted during the process.
Where can I learn more?
Go to www.slcairport.com/about-the-airport/master-plan/. The website contains links to all the study documentation, including presentations and video.
Did you know…
Visioning 3-20-2018 PIM #1 7-17-2019
PIM #2 Virtual Meeting 7-9-2020 PIM #3 6-17-2021
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Public involvement improves the decision-making process by discussing the needs and interests of participants.
In recognition of the importance of involving the public in the planning process, the Master Plan Update team
implemented a thorough Public Involvement Program to seek public feedback during all phases of the project
and at all key decision points.
SLCDA was one of the only owners of a large airport in the U.S. conducting a master plan during the COVID-19
Pandemic. In an effort to contain the spread of COVID-19, the State of Utah, SLCDA leadership, and Salt Lake City
Mayor Erin Mendenhall followed the guidelines established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),
and decided that Master Plan study efforts and stakeholder engagement would be conducted virtually. In some regards,
the virtual setting created an more equitable and interactive experience for the community and stakeholders to remain
engaged in the planning process.
• Enhance safety by minimizing the potential
for runway incursions
• Determine ultimate terminal and concourse
area requirements
• Determine airfield improvements needed to
increase airport capacity, hourly throughput,
and operational efficiencies.
• Improve operational performance and determine
runway length requirements
• Determine landside parking and rental car
facility requirements
• Identify opportunities to expand corporate general
aviation facilities
• Minimize environmental impacts of proposed
airport development
• Prepare an implementation plan that supports the
financial sustainability of the SLCDA
The SLCIA Master Plan analysis was guided by several committees: A Technical Advisory Committee, a Policy Advisory
Committee, an Airport Staff Working Group, and the Airport Board Advisory Group. Each committee was comprised of
stakeholders representing a broad spectrum of interests. Entities participating in the master plan study included: airport
users, airport tenants, aviation service providers, air carriers, general aviation organizations, the FAA, state and local planning
organizations, environmental interest groups, airport staff, and elected and appointed officials representing local municipalities.
Before beginning the master plan analysis, multiple visioning meetings were held with stakeholders to identify critical
issues that needed to be resolved during the study and establish goals and objectives to be included in the final recommenda-
tions. The most important goals and objectives are listed below.
10 1110
INVENTORY
SLCIA is owned by Salt Lake City Corporation (SLC) and managed by the SLCDA. SLCIA is the largest
Airport in Utah and provides commercial air carrier service for Utah, southeastern Idaho, and south-
western Wyoming. The SLCIA is an economic engine for the community that provides invaluable air
transportation services for the government, corporations, recreation and tourism industries, and the
public. The Airport allows travelers within the intermountain region to connect easily to communities
throughout the United States, Europe, and Asia.
To establish the baseline of conditions as they existed at the beginning of the master plan study, an
inventory of all existing facilities, financial data, aviation activity levels, operational procedures, design
standard compliance, and environmental characteristics was performed. The status of existing
conditions establishes the reference point from which all master plan analysis is compared.
The FAA designates SLCIA as a Large Hub airport because it enplanes (boards) more than 1 percent
of all revenue passengers enplaned annually in the United States. In 2017, the Airport enplaned
11,515,639 million passengers (24 million total passengers) and accommodated 325,093 aircraft
operations. SLCIA provides approximately 373 average daily departures to 98 non-stop
destinations. The Airport is situated on over 8,239 acres of land located 6 miles west of the
central business district of Salt Lake City, immediately adjacent to the wetlands of Great Salt Lake.
The Airport is served by a single, multi-level main terminal that was constructed in 2020. The
terminal is supported by two parallel concourses, Concourse A and Concourse B, currently
accommodating 47 aircraft parking positions for narrow- and wide-body commercial aircraft that
could be expanded by 16 additional gates..
The Airport has two parallel air carrier runways, (16R-34L and 16L-34R), a non-parallel air carrier
runway (RW 17-35), and a small general aviation runway (14-32). The runways are supported by an
extensive system of taxiways and aprons that provide access between the runways and various airport
functional elements including the terminal and concourses, general aviation hangars and tie-downs,
cargo facilities, airline support buildings, and military services.
SLCIA maintains a comprehensive arrangement of support facilities to sustain all forms of aviation
activity, including domestic and international commercial air carriers, cargo, military, corporate
aviation, helicopter, small/light general aviation aircraft, commercial aircraft parts manufacture and
assembly, and air carrier aircraft maintenance and repair.
• Central Utility Project, Gateway Center, Parking
Garage, Terminal and portions of New Concourses
A and B construction continues .
• Break ground on New Concourse B-west.
• Completion of Gateway Center, Parking Garage,
Terminal, New Concourse A-west.
• Demolish existing parking garages and former
Terminals 1 and 2 / former Concourses A and E.
• New Concourse B-west opens
• New Concourses A and B-east construction
• Former Concourses B an C demolished
• Project completion
2018-19
2020
2021-24
12 13
1911
A cinder-covered landing strip in
Salt Lake City used for site of Great
International Aviation Carnival.
1926
Two passengers accompany Western Air
Express mail bags on an eight-hour mail
delivery flight to Los Angeles.
1933
Salt Lake City builds the first
airport administration
building on the airport property.
1960
Terminal One is dedicated
and opened to the public.
1978
Terminal Two is completed
and open to the public. This
houses Western Airlines.
1999
A new air traffic control tower is
opened on the airfield and the Air-
port recieves interal renovations.
2016
Completion of Car Service Center and Quick
Turn Around. New Concourse A
added. Demolished former rental car service
facilities and portions of Concourse E.
1920
Salt Lake City purchases 100 acres sur-
rounding the landing strip. The resulting
airfield is called Woodward Field.
1930
Woodward Field is renamed “Salt Lake
City Municipal Airport”. The Airport now
consists of 400 acres, 11 hangars and
two gravel runways.
1943
The U.S. Air Force establishes a
training base at the Airport.
1968
The Airport is renamed “Salt Lake
City International Airport”.
1995
A third air carrier runway,
Concourse E, and the Inter-
national Terminal were built.
2014
Salt Lake City’s Airport Redevelop-
ment Project (ARP) begins.
2017
Central Utility Project, Gateway
Center, Parking Garage, Terminal
and Portions of New Concourses A
and B constructed. Park and Wait
and Touch n’ Go opened.
1920, United States Postal
Service begins air mail
service to Salt Lake City.
1922, Unger
Aviation opens at
Woodward Field.
1925, A.R. Thompson
purchases businesses
and sponsors aerobatic
shows at the airport.
1926, Western Air Express
begins scheduled passenger
service from Salt Lake City
to Los Angeles.
1927, Charles Lindbergh
visits Woodward Field in
the “Spirit of St. Louis”.
1931, United Airlines authorizes flight
service at Salt Lake City between
New York and San Francisco.
1943, A third runway is
added to Salt Lake City
Municipal Airport.
1943, Salt Lake City
Municipal Airport II
opens to accomodate
Air Force trainees.
1953, Construction
begins on future
Terminal One building.
1950, All three
runways are upgraded
to accomodate the
largest commercial
jet aircraft.
1957, 42 regularly scheduled
weekday departures occur at
the airport: 15 on Western,
17 United, and 7 Frontier.
1960, United 720s begin
operations at Salt Lake
City Municipal Airport.1978, The west
runway and taxiway
systems are extended.
1978, A new Executive
Terminal is completed.
1981, Terminal One receives
update and expansion.
1984, Terminal Two receives
update and expansion.
1982, Salt Lake City
International Airport
becomes hub for
Western Airlines.
1998, United Parcel Service
opens new processing facility in
the north cargo complex.
1998, SLCDA completes
its Master Plan Update.
2002, Salt Lake City hosts the
2002 Winter Olympic Games.
2009, Runway deicing
project begins.
14 151415
AVIATION ACTIVITY FORECASTS
The forecast of aviation demand provides a basis for determining future facility
requirements including the type, size, and timing of aviation development.
Consequently, the forecast influences virtually all phases of the planning process.
The forecast of aviation activity demand includes:
• Annual passenger boardings
• Annual landings and take-offs
• Annual cargo tonnage
• Annual airfield capacity and delay
Derivative forecasts were also prepared to provide greater detail regarding peak
hour aviation demand, number of domestic and international passengers, and
number of aircraft operations by operational type (commercial, cargo, military,
and general aviation).
The baseline year of the Master Plan Forecast was 2017, and activity was
forecast through 2037. The forecast of aviation activity for the planning horizon
was presented at three planning activity levels (PALs). PALs represent future
levels of activity used to assess facility requirements. PALs are not tied to
specific years and could occur earlier in time or later in time than forecasts
predict, depending on actual rates of growth over time.
Annual Passenger Boardings
Total enplaned passengers (passengers boarding aircraft) are forecast to grow at an average annual rate of 2.1 percent during the planning period. Total passengers
include enplaned, deplaned, and transit (passengers remaining on aircraft) passengers. Total passengers are forecast to grow from approximately 23 million
passengers in 2017 to 37 million passengers at PAL 3.
Annual Cargo Tonnage
Total cargo tonnage is forecast to grow at an average annual rate of 2.36 percent during the 20-year planning period. Total cargo tonnage is forecast to grow from
approximately 382 Million pounds in 2017 to 745 Million pounds at PAL 3.
Annual Aircraft Landings and Take-offs
Annual landings and take-offs are forecast to grow at an average annual rate of 1.4 percent. Total landings and take-offs are forecast to grow from approximately
325,000 landings and take-offs in 2017 to 435,000 landings and take-offs at PAL 3.
Annual Airfield Capacity and Delay
Airport capacity is the number of aircraft an airport system can accommodate in a period of time (e.g., hourly, daily, annually). As an airport reaches its capacity,
there is an increase in the number of aircraft delays. At SLCIA, the average annualized delay increases exponentially as aircraft landing and take-offs increase
towards maximum capacity. An inflection point is expected at around 1,800 daily operations at which time peak hour delay may exceed the industry standard
five-minute threshold of acceptable delay. Through PAL 3, SLCIA is forecasted to remain below the five-minute threshold.
Existing Conditions
Terminal Area
North Cargo and Support
South Cargo and Support
General Aviation
Utah Air National Guard
16 17
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
8
,
0
0
1
,
0
0
0
1
,
2
0
0
1
,
4
0
0
1
,
6
0
0
1
,
8
0
0
2
,
0
0
0
2
,
2
0
0
2
,
4
0
0
Airfield Capacity
A
n
n
u
a
l
i
z
e
d
D
e
l
a
y
p
e
r
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
m
i
n
)
2018 PAL2 PAL3
Annualized Delay
Threshold of 5 Minutes
Estimated Critical
Inflection Point
Arrival
Departure
Overall
Number of Daily Operations
500,000
460,000
420,000
380,000
340,000
300,000
2
0
0
9
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
7
2
0
2
1
2
0
2
5
2
0
2
9
2
0
3
3
2
0
3
7
Aircraft Operations
A
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
325,000
480,000
435,000
395,000
High Case Scenario Forecast
Base Case Forecast
Low Case Scenario Forecast
Historical
1,300,000,000
1,100,000,000
900,000,000
700,000,000
500,000,000
300,000,000
Air Cargo
T
o
t
a
l
A
i
r
C
a
r
g
o
(
l
b
s
)
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
7
2
0
2
1
2
0
2
5
2
0
2
9
2
0
3
3
2
0
3
7
382,000,000
1,097,000,000
745,000,000
518,000,000
High Case Scenario Forecast
Base Case Forecast
Low Case Scenario Forecast
Historical
Year
High Case Scenario Forecast
Base Case Forecast
Low Case Scenario Forecast
HistoricalP
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
s
49,000,000
44,000,000
39,000,000
34,000,000
29,000,000
24,000,000
19,000,000
14,000,000
9,000,000
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
9
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
7
2
0
2
1
2
0
2
5
2
0
2
9
2
0
3
3
2
0
3
7
Passengers
23,100,000
43,600,000
37,300,000
32,800,000
Year Fiscal Year
18 191819
Annual Operations
Passengers
Hourly Throughput
Runway Length
Airfield Meels FAA Standards
Terminal Capacity
Terminal Roadways
Parking and Rental Car Spaces
Dedicated Air Cargo
Support
325,000
24 Million
355,000
28 Million
385,000
32 Million
435,000
38 Million
2017 PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
C
a
r
g
o
L
a
n
d
s
i
d
e
T
e
r
m
i
n
a
l
A
i
r
f
i
e
l
d
P
A
L
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
Future airport facility requirements, including the type, size, and quantity, are dependent on future aviation activity levels projected in the aviation
demand forecasts. The need for new or expanded facilities is often driven by capacity shortfalls that leave an airport unable to accommodate
forecasted growth or desired levels of service using existing facilities.
The requirements for new or improved facilities can also be driven by other circumstances, such as updated FAA standards or other regulatory
agencies, an evolving strategic vision for the airport, the replacement of inadequate facilities, or the desire to introduce new services and facilities.
The facility requirements analysis uses the forecast aircraft operation and passenger enplanement demand levels to define PALs, which trigger the
need for investment to accommodate that user demand and maintain an acceptable level of service. The combination of these factors and the
analyses conducted provided the basis for the assessment of future facility requirements.
The adjacent figure represents the future facility needs. The bars shown for each major component indicate the predicted level of customer service
experienced by tenants and users throughout the planning horizon. They also give an indication of when capacity-enhancing efforts should be initiated
to accommodate demand. Three main colors are shown in the figure. The green-shaded areas indicate that facility space and/or configuration are
adequate to meet demand and desired service expectations. Yellow-shaded areas indicate where demand is nearing capacity. Red-shaded areas
indicate when a deficit occurs for the respective facility. Note that each facility deficiency is not dependent on the others, and some metrics may be
reached sooner than others. For example, if cargo operations grow faster than passenger enplanements, then cargo parking positions may need
attention before the capacity deficit in the passenger terminal needs to be addressed.
Concourse C isn’t required by PAL 3, but the need for an initial phase of Concourse C may be required just beyond this study’s planning horizon.
Additional airfield capacity is expected to be required to support traffic demand associated with even a partial Concourse C build-out.
Future Facility Requirements
20 21
990 1,050 1,150 1,220 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,720 1,850 2,000 2,130 2,290 2,450 2,630Daily Ops
Annualized
Average Delay
Annual
Enplanements
(in milliions)
Aircraft Gates 94 102 115 180140
11.5 14.2 15.7 17.2 18.7 20.5 22.5 24.7 27.1 29.7 32.6 35.8 39.3 43.1 47.3
C
o
n
c
o
u
r
s
e
B
C
o
n
c
o
u
r
s
e
C
C
o
n
c
o
u
r
s
e
D
5 Min 10 Min
SLC Master Plan Horizon Critical Inflection Point
1,800 daily ops | 115 gates
PAL 3
1,300 daily ops | 87 gates
The last master plan provided the vision for a new terminal area complex that would bring a world class
terminal to Salt Lake City. Over the past two decades, the SLCDA has been focused on formalizing that vision,
known as the Airport Redevelopment Plan (ARP). SLCDA has finished the first phase of the vision with con-
struction of a new 78-gate passenger terminal facility, rental car center, central utility plant, elevated roadway
system, and new parking garage. These new facilities move SLCIA into a new era of global connectivity. The
ARP was designed for near-term build out of two concourses, Concourse A and Concourse B. The ARP also
included planning for a future third concourse to meet long-term demand, which could add another 62 gates
for a total of 140. To properly plan for ultimate requirements, the Master Plan examined a 180-gate terminal
complex which would include full build out of Concourses C and D.
A comparison of SLCIA with other large hub airports brought into question whether the three-air carrier
runway system has the throughput capacity to support a 180-gate terminal complex. The Master Plan under-
took an effort to ensure the terminal complex and airfield, and other support facilities will be in balance with
each other over the long-term. The first part of the analysis reevaluated an additional west parallel runway
(currently shown on the ALP) as the next major capacity enhancement project. That option was compared
to realigning existing Runway 17-35 to be parallel to the other north-south parallel runways. After extensive
airfield and airspace simulation analysis, it was determined that the realignment of Runway 17-35 provided
the best return on investment, while minimizing environmental impacts. An airfield capacity analysis deter-
mined that the three parallel runway system and airspace can handle 1,400 daily operations. This assumed an
industry accepted annual average delay of five minutes per operation.
The airfield capacity was then compared to the aircraft parking capacity if concourses were incrementally ex-
panded to ultimately four concourses. The forecast horizon for this study was 20 years, and planning activity
levels (PALs) were established throughout the planning horizon. PAL 3 roughly equates to the end of the 20-
year horizon. At PAL 3, passenger demand at SLCIA is projected to reach 32 million annual passengers and
1,300 daily operations, requiring 87 gates. Full build-out and utilization of Concourse B with 93 gates would
equate to 1,400 daily operations, which balances with the long-term airfield capacity.
BALANCED AIRPORT
22 23
With the mountainous terrain surrounding the Airport, it is unlikely major airfield capacity
enhancements, like another runway, could be accommodated at SLCIA due to the constrained
airspace. However, it is possible that future air traffic control and aircraft performance technol-
ogy will provide some incremental increase in airfield capacity. In addition, SLCIA could accept
higher delay levels comparable to airports like Chicago O’Hare and Atlanta. Both would increase
the throughput capacity of the airfield and allow full utilization of additional gates. It is estimated
that acceptance of a higher delay would allow the airfield to accommodate 1,800 daily opera-
tions and a total of 115 gates. For this reason, the Master Plan recommends that SLCIA maintain
the flexibility to build Concourse C in the long-term.
Likewise, the Master Plan does not recommend keeping Concourse D as part of the ultimate
terminal layout because airspace and airfield operational limitations would occur before another
concourse would be needed. The benefit to SLCDA is that the airport support and FAA facilities
north of the terminal in the general area of where another concourse might otherwise be locat-
ed, do not have to be relocated in the 20-year planning horizon. As facilities in this area reach
their useful life, SLCDA will have to decide whether to rebuild in this area or relocate to a new
area. The Master Plan identifies areas for these facilities to be relocated.
A B C D
94 140
(+46)
180
(+40)
Future Building Future Taxiway Future Aprom Future Vehicle Roadway
24 2524
AIRFIELD
The airfield at SLCIA consists of runways, taxiways, apron areas, deicing pads, navigational aids, vehicle service
roads, and support facilities. The Airport currently has a four-runway airfield with all four runways generally orient-
ed in a north-south configuration. Runways 16L-34R and 16R-34L are parallel 12,000-foot runways that flank the
terminal complex. Runway 17-35 is 9,596 feet long, separated from Runway 16L-34R by roughly 3,000 feet to the
east, and is slightly canted from the two parallel runways. A fourth runway, Runway 14-32, is 4,893 feet long and
serves small general aviation and cargo aircraft. Runway 14-32 is located between Runways 16L-34R and 17-35.
Runway 14-32 has two “Hot Spots” identified by the FAA as having a greater potential for runway incursions.
The Master Plan evaluated Runway 14-32 for wind coverage, capacity, and usefulness and determined it should be
removed. The FAA has slated the removal as a high priority because it directly relates to the safety of the airfield.
Runway 16L-34R is recommended to be extended from 12,000 feet to 14,500 feet to improve operational take-off
efficiencies created by allowing reduced thrust departures which, as an added benefit, reduces carbon emissions.
This extension will also improve the performance capabilities of long-haul international commercial aircraft, making
these routes more financially feasible. Construction of a dual crossfield taxiway connection (Taxiways U and V) be-
tween Runways 16L-34R and 16R-34L facilitates safer and more efficient movement of cargo traffic, relieves con-
gestion from the terminal area, and ultimately enables the development of Concourse C. Taxiways U and V will also
provide taxi routing redundancy during snow removal operations which is critical to ensuring operational efficiency
and overall airfield operational capacity in all weather conditions at SLCIA.
A full-length inboard parallel taxiway for Runway 16L-34R extending north from the L Deice Pad was incorporated
for future implementation. This taxiway will serve multiple functions, including allowing aircraft deiced on L Deice
Pad to taxi to Runway 17 or Runway 16L without requiring a runway crossing. It will also provide additional flexibility
and connection for aircraft taxiing between the terminal area and Runway 17-35.
A South End-Around Taxiway (SEAT) is proposed to reduce runway crossings and the risk of runway incursions,
reduce air traffic controller workload, provide for more timely and predictable gate arrivals, reduce fuel consump-
tion and emissions, and increase runway capacity and hourly throughput. The SEAT will allow commercial passen-
ger aircraft landing or departing on Runway 17-35 to taxi to and from the terminal area without crossing Runway
16L-34R. Similarly, aircraft taxiing between the terminal and the L Deice Pad can use the SEAT instead of crossing
Runway 16L-34R. Use of the SEAT will decrease, or potentially eliminate, runway restrictions during
crossing operations.
Runway 14-32 has two FAA hot spot locations and numerous non-standard geometry challenges. The runway accommodated 3,350 annual aircraft
operations in 2017, which is only 1 percent of total aircraft operations at SLCIA. The predominant users of the runway are small cargo feeder
aircraft landing in the evening. The Runway is unnecessary in the SLCIA runway system to meet FAA-defined wind coverage requirements and thus
is not eligible for federal funding assistance. This means the entire cost of corrective solutions would be paid by SLCDA. Through engagement with
SLCDA staff and stakeholders, it was determined the cost to correct the runway hot spots outweighs the benefit the runway provides to the airport
system. With this conclusion, the final solution brought forward for implementation is the removal of Runway 14-32.
Runway 16L-34R is recommended to be extended because it would improve departure capacity for all users by allowing intersection departures
and would reduce environmental impacts by accommodating reduced thrust take-offs. This translates to less noise and lower carbon emissions.
An extension to 14,500 feet would also provide a greater payload range offering improved passenger service for the community. Runway 16L-34R,
which is the airport’s primary departure runway, was validated as the runway to extend to 14,500 because no other runway in the airport system
can be extended and provide reduced thrust take-off advantages on a consistent basis due to terrain constraints.
Why should Runway 14/32 be closed and Runway 16L-34R be extended?
Taxiway V & URunway 16R-34L
2100 North
Runway 16L-34RSouth End Around Taxiway
Runway 14-32
Runway 17-35
Taxiway E & F
26 27
SLCIA’s landside facilities provide commercial passengers access to the terminal
building. Additionally, the landside system provides ground access to all airport facilities
for airport employees, tenants, and other airport users. The landside system at SLCIA
begins at numerous regional access points stemming from roads, rail, and pedestrian/
bicycle paths. These regional access points connect to on-airport circulation roadways,
the terminal building, a SLCIA TRAX station, parking facilities, and rental car services.
Like the terminal building and concourses, the landside airport facilities under con-
struction during the master plan were considered existing.
Most of the roadway segments will operate well throughout the planning period, pro-
viding levels of service A-C. However, the area is constrained within a defined envelope
bounded by the terminal building, I-80, and the two surrounding runways and adjacent
aeronautical land use. Moving forward, SLCDA must remain diligent in optimizing their
limited space to maximize safety, efficiency, and ease of use for their customers.
Access to the North Support Area of the Airport is provided by 2100 North, via
Interchange 25 on I-215. A mile west of 2200 West Street, 2100 North Street pass-
es through the existing runway protection zone (RPZ) for Runway 16L-34R. Before
Runway 16L-34R can be extended to 14,500 to improve aircraft take-off performance,
2100 North will need to be realigned. The roadway realignment must stay out of the
future RPZ of the extended runway. Its alignment should be set to serve the evolving
best land uses in the North Support Area, particularly the expansion of cargo facilities.
Additional public and employee parking and improving rental car facilities are the
primary and immediate focus for SLCDA. To meet future needs in PAL 3, the public
parking in the terminal campus needs to increase from 14,000 to over 20,000 spaces.
To obtain this increase in public parking, SLCDA will expand the parking garage, add
additional surface parking, and relocate the rental car services stations. These improve-
ments would increase the parking positions by about 50 percent while maintaining the
highest level of customer service. Lastly, the preferred employee parking lot location is
on the eastern half of the open space, south of Crossbar Road and the canal.
Ideally, all rental cars would be stored at SLCIA, near the customer, to minimize/elim-
inate wait times. Given the competition for land at the terminal campus, this may not
be feasible over the life of the airport. Nonetheless, more on-airport rental car storage
spaces are needed and have been programmed into the development of a combined
Quick Turn-Around (QTA) and storage garage facility.
In 2012, SLCDA initiated the first construction phase of the new passenger terminal
and Concourse A. In 2017, Concourse B began construction. Since these projects were
underway when this Master Plan began, the terminal and both concourses are consid-
ered existing at the onset of the study. The new passenger terminal is located west of
the former passenger terminal facility and is scheduled for completion in 2024. Level
1 of the new terminal building houses many of SLCIA’s support functions. A significant
portion of Level 1 is used for Federal Inspection Services and is occupied by Customs
and Border Protection. This includes areas for international arrival document control,
two international baggage carousels, and customs inspection services. Terminal Level
2 holds the TSA security screening checkpoint, accommodating 14 security screening
lanes and a large passenger queuing area. The south end of Terminal Level 2 contains
eight sloped-bed, baggage claim units and two additional baggage claim units for over-
sized items. Terminal Level 3 supports departing passenger services, including pas-
senger ticketing and check-in facilities. The Gateway Building is a two-story accessory
structure attached to the parking garage and connected via two pedestrian sky bridges
to the terminal building. The sky bridges allow movement between the terminal and
Gateway buildings and completely removes the need for passengers to cross any curb
roads. The Gateway Building contains rental car customer services and includes rental
car counters and queuing space, rental car offices, public circulation, and restrooms.
Concourse A is 3,700 feet long and contains “bump-out nodes” to provide additional
space for vertical circulation, terminal support functions, and public restrooms. Con-
course A is oriented linearly in an east-west configuration and directly connected to
the terminal at its mid-point, divided into east and west halves. The western half of
Concourse A has 25 gates. Six of the gates on the north side of Concourse A are
also designated for international flights. The eastern half of Concourse A has 22
gates, bringing the total Concourse A gates to 47. Concourse B is a satellite concourse
located approximately 1,100 feet north of the terminal building, in an east-west
orientation parallel to Concourse A. While Concourse B is only 2,250 feet long, it is
similar in design to Concourse A. Together, Concourse A and B provide SLCDA with
78 aircraft gates. Future expansion beyond 2024 is programmed for Concourse B
to extend facilities in the same linear pattern to the east and will include 16
additional gates.
This Master Plan also anticipated constructing a third parallel satellite concourse north
of Concourse B. This new east-west oriented Concourse (C) would mirror the existing
concourses, be connected via tunnel extensions, and would be located 1,800 feet north
of Concourse B.
An imbalance between the capacity of the new terminal complex and the existing
airfield infrastructure became evident early in the planning process when it was
determined that the terminal could support more airline gates than the airfield and
airspace could efficiently serve. The analysis indicated that a third concourse (140 total
gates) could be accommodated, but a fourth concourse (180 gates) may result in
more hourly operations than the existing airfield and constrained airspace could
effectively accommodate.
TERMINAL AND AIRCRAFT GATES LANDSIDE
New Pavement New Building New Vehicle
Service Roadway
Public Parking Consolidated Rental
Car Facilities
Additional Public
Services
Employee Parking Commercial Vehicle
Staging
Future Landside
Expansion
Terminal Concourses A, B and Future C
28 2928
Air cargo at SLCIA includes the movement of freight and mail. Over 380 million pounds
of cargo move through the airport annually. The majority of cargo facilities are located
near the approach end of Runway 16L. This area currently accommodates three primary
tenants (UPS, FedEx, and DHL).
E-commerce is accelerating quickly and has become an increasingly important part of
global trade. SLCIA is poised to capitalize on this global cargo boom due to its undevel-
oped aeronautical land in prime locations (which is not true of most other airport cargo
hubs), its runway lengths, and its central location in North America. With the expected
growth in air cargo, each operator requires additional room for expansion. In addition, new
cargo tenants are anticipated in the short-term, which will also require new dedicated
facilities and more apron for aircraft parking.
Other aviation support facilities are located adjacent to the north air cargo facilities. These
facilities include an air traffic control tower, aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF), airline
support, fuel facilities, aircraft de-icing, airport maintenance, and snow removal equipment
storage. The long-range need for Concourse C will require relocating ARFF Station #12,
the fuel storage area, and airline maintenance facilities. However, airport maintenance
(and snow removal) facilities should be expanded to the north of the Concourse C enve-
lope as soon as practical to accommodate near-term needs.
Aircraft deicing enhancements were determined to be necessary to improve aircraft
ground movements during poor weather conditions. This includes new deicing pads
adjacent to the Runway 16R threshold and Taxiway S and new facilities on the 16L
deicing pad. These enhancements will reduce aircraft delays and optimize airline and
air cargo operator performance, thereby increasing overall capacity.
CARGO AND SUPPORT GENERAL AVIATION
SLCIA serves a wide variety of general aviation aircraft users, including corporate, law enforcement, fire rescue, medical air evacuation, recreational, flight training, air charters,
government aviation, and military aviation. General aviation facilities at SLCIA are located along the east side of the airfield.
SLCDA also manages two additional airports, South Valley Regional (U42) and Tooele Valley (TVY). Because SLCDA manages a system of airports, the future development of
general aviation facilities at SLCIA must balance matters of land use management, operational compatibility, and financial responsibility with consideration to the primary needs
of all airport users, as well as strive to enact solutions that support the full range of GA aircraft in the most efficient and cost-effective manner. Throughout the planning period,
SLCIA is expected to experience:
• Increasing demand for corporate general aviation activities
• Expanding airspace requirements for commercial aviation and small general aviation aircraft that increase airspace congestion and ground
delays as a result of mixing in aircraft with slower operating speeds and greater separation requirements
• Increasing safety regulations designed to minimize runway incursions caused by small general aviation aircraft at large hub airports
Given the future opportunities and space constraints along the east side of the airfield, economics and market forces will support demolition of smaller T-hangars to provide
sufficient space to meet the projected demand of corporate aviation. To meet the growing demand, SLCDA will provide enhanced facilities and services at both U42 and TVY
to attract and support amenities desired by the smaller general aviation aircraft at their reliever airports.
Future Expansion New Runway New Taxiway
New Apron New Building New Roadway
30 3130
Environmental
Resource Description
Air Quality
The Airport is in a maintenance area for Carbon Monoxide (CO) and
Particulate Matter-10 (PM10), and in a nonattainment area for
Particulate Matter-2.5 (PM2.5), 8-Hour Ozone (O3), and Sulfur Dioxide (SO2).
Biological Resources There are federal- and state-threatened and –endangered species, and
migratory birds in the Airport area. There is no critical habitat at the Airport.
Climate There are greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions produced at the Airport.
Coastal Resources The Airport is not within a coastal zone and there are no Coastal Barrier Re-
source System (CBRS) segments within airport property.
Department of Transporta-
tion Act, Section 4(f)There is one Section 4(f) property on airport property.
Farmlands The Airport contains farmland of statewide importance and prime farmland
soil types.
Hazardous Materials,
Solid Waste and Pollution
Prevention
The Airport is considered a hazardous waste site.
SLCDA is required under its Utah Pollutant Utah Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (UPDES) stormwater discharge permit (UPDES Permit
#UT0024988, approved on March 14, 2014) to have a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP). SLCDA additionally has a Spill Prevention,
Control, and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC).
Salt Lake County Landfill is the only municipal solid waste landfill in
Salt Lake County.
Historical, Architectural,
Archaeological and
Cultural Resources
There are no known historic resources located at the Airport.
ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW
The Master Plan environmental review process included evaluation of existing and
future airport development and provided information to assist SLCDA in expediting
subsequent environmental processing.
The Master Plan documented the existing environmental conditions on and
surrounding SLCIA in accordance with FAA’s resource categories identified in
FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures. Potential
environmental impacts associated with the alternatives were considered through
the alternatives evaluation process and informed the plan for future development.
The SLCDA will assess the environmental impacts of individual development
projects, and determine which projects will be subject to review under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). To assist SLCDA with determining which projects
will likely be subject to NEPA documentation, a NEPA strategy was generated to
ensure connected actions (projects that do not have independent utility from
another project) are included in the same environmental documentation, and
projects that are connected in place and/or time are also considered in the same
NEPA analysis. This results in a more comprehensive environmental review and
assessment and optimizes SLCDA resources.
The completed Master Plan does not authorize SLCDA to begin construction of
recommended development projects since many projects require environmental
analysis to be performed in accordance with the NEPA. For example, such analysis
is required on FAA-funded projects before approvals from the FAA and other
regulatory agencies can be issued. Before the environmental analysis can begin,
the Airport would need to reach triggering demand levels that establish a need,
and additional technical analysis and preliminary engineering would also be required.
It is only after environmental approvals are obtained that final design could begin.
32 333233
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
The Master Plan study is comprehensive, intending to create an Implementation Plan that provides recommendations for relative timing and
sequencing of future facility improvements. After preparing the forecast of aviation activity and evaluating facility requirements, multiple
conceptual plans were developed to describe the infrastructure improvements that could be implemented to meet forecasted demand, FAA design
standards, and other facility needs. Each concept depicted various locations and alternative configurations of the proposed facilities. Airport staff,
tenants, and other stakeholders, including the public, considered the various concepts and selected preferred solutions for each facility.
The preferred solution for each facility was combined into a comprehensive preferred alternative. The plan for future development identifies
short-term (0 to 5 years), mid-term (6 to 10 years), and long-term (11 to 20 years) projects. The division between short-, mid-, and long-term
projects was established through an evaluation process based on priority, need, and the SLCDA Vision. The following priorities were established
to guide the sequencing of the projects in the Implementation Plan:
• Priority 1 – Address all safety and design deficiencies
• Priority 2 – Maximize the capacity and efficiency of SLCIA
• Priority 3 – Utilize demand reduction techniques to delay major capacity enhancements
• Priority 4 – Provide additional runway capacity
It is essential to recognize that the project implementation schedule is approximate and dynamic. Short-term projects are needed to meet existing
demand or accommodate forecasted activity within PAL 1. Mid- and long-term projects are expected to be necessary after the short-term proj-
ects are implemented and accommodate additional forecasted demand in the later years of the planning period. Many of the long-term projects
will undergo further analysis regarding their ultimate configuration and timing as demand continues to increase and technology associated with the
processing of passengers and aircraft evolves.
The following phased approach describes the projects needed during the short-term, mid-term, and long-term phases of airport development.
Environmental
Resource Description
Land Use Future development plans would occur entirely on airport property; therefore,
would be compatible with surrounding land uses.
Natural Resources and
Energy Supply
Electricity is supplied to the airport by Rocky Mountain Power, natural gas is
supplied by Dominion Energy, and water and sewer is supplied by the Salt Lake
City Department of Public Utilities. None of the natural resources or energy
supplies used at the Airport are in rare or short supply.
Noise and Noise-
Compatible Land Use
There are no noise-sensitive land uses within the updated DNL 65 dBA
noise contour.
Socioeconomics, Environ-
mental Justice, Children’s
Environmental Health and
Safety Risks
The Airport is located within the Salt Lake City, Utah Metropolitan Area, as
defined by the U.S. Census Bureau.
Visual Effects
Light emissions at the airport currently result from airfield, building, access
roadway, parking, and apron area lighting fixtures required.
The visual resources and visual character of the Airport currently includes the
terminal building, fixed base operators, hangars, and maintenance buildings.
Water Resources
The airport property does contain wetlands.
There are 100-year floodplains located on airport property.
Three canals exist on airport property: the Surplus Canal, the North Point
Canal, and a city drain. In addition, two unnamed ponds are in the southern
portion of airport property.
The airport property is within the Crystal Creek and Jordan River watersheds.
The airport property does not contain any wild and scenic rivers.
34 3534
Projects in the short-term phase of airport development focus on modifications
to the airfield that enhance airport operational safety. These projects address
changes in runways and taxiways needed to reduce the potential for runway
incursions and comply with current FAA airport design standards. The Airport
also requires additional gates to handle the number of aircraft and passengers
during peak hours. Concourses are currently being expanded to meet gate park-
ing requirements through the planning horizon. The passenger security screening
checkpoint will need to be enhanced to meet future demands. The terminal and
concourses are new facilities which will provide high levels of customer service.
Expansion of employee parking will be necessary to meet current demand. In addi-
tion, the Short-term Phase 1 identifies secondary priority projects needed to meet
current levels of demand and the immediate needs of airport tenants. Short-term
projects include expansion of cargo facilities, increases in general aviation tenant
space, and apron capacity for corporate aircraft. This is driven by an increase in
jet aircraft through the planning horizon. Lastly, airport maintenance facilities will
require expansion and replacement of aging buildings.
Short-Term
Enhance Airfield Safety and Expand Support Facilities
1
2 3
4
5
Remove Runway 14-32
Taxiway K2 Crossfield
Connector
Taxiway Q Removal
North Cargo Expansion
Public Parking Phase I -
Employee Lot
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Short-Term (0-5 Year) Projects
36 3736
Mid-Term
Improve Airfield Operational Efficiency and Expand Landside Capacity
Mid-term projects are focused on meeting forecasted demand in passenger enplane-
ments and aircraft operations by providing new facilities to improve the efficiency of
airfield operations and increase landside vehicle parking and rental car capacity. Airfield
efficiency will be improved by developing additional taxiways and deicing facilities to
provide new infrastructure that can be used during peak times. Mid-term develops a
second crossfield taxiway system (Taxiways U and V) between the cargo support area
and existing concourses and a new deicing pad to serve operations on Runway 17-35.
Taxiways U and V and the Deicing Pad on Taxiway S will provide alternative taxi routes
to improve aircraft circulation and ensure efficiency during snow removal operations on
Taxiways E and F. Landside capacity is proposed to be expanded by reconfiguring south
deice pad, public parking and rental car operations. Additional rental car storage and
quick turnaround (QTA) facilities will be developed in a new parking structure adjacent
to the parking garage and rental car service sites will be relocated to the southern por-
tion of land within the terminal loop roadway. Lastly, 4000 West Street will be realigned
to provide additional expansion area for air cargo.
Runway 16L Deice Pad
Facility Upgrades
West Portion of Taxiway V
East Portion of Taxiway V
with Tunnel
Full Taxiway U
Taxiway S Deice Pad
Initial 4000W Roadway
Relocation
RAC QTA/Storage
Public Parking Phase II -
RSS Relocation
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Mid-Term (6-10 Year) Projects11
7
9
8
10
121313
6
38 3938
Long-Term
Expand Airfield and Landside Infrastructure to Meet Demand
This phase addresses the need to meet the highest levels of forecasted demand
in passenger enplanements and the operational needs of air carriers. The long-term
phase increases landside capacity by expanding the existing parking garage to the
east and west and further expands surface public parking lots within the existing
terminal loop roadway.
Runway 16L-34R is proposed to be extended from 12,000 feet to 14,500 feet to
improve operational take off effiencies created by allowing reduced thrust depar-
tures which, as an added benefit, reduces carbon emissions. This extension will also
improve long-haul international commercial operations. The runway extension is
supported by a parallel taxiway system and an expanded aircraft deicing pad.
Several enabling projects, such as relocating 2100 North Street and relocating
power transmission lines, will be required before the runway can be extended.
Taxiway L Extension Phase I
Taxiway L Extension Phase II
Taxiway L Extension Phase III
Power Line Mitigation
2100 North Realignment
Runway 16L-34R and
Taxiway Extension
Taxiway K5 Enhancement
Cargo Apron Expansion
Public Parking Phase III -
Service Center Relocation
CV Staging and Park ‘n’ Wait
Public Parking Phase IV -
Garage Parking Expansion-
South End Around Taxiway
16R Deicing Pad
RWY 16L-34R High-Speed
Taxiway Optimization
Rental Car / Public Parking
Expansion
ARFF Relocation
Airport Maintenance
Relocation
Concourse B Build Out
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
Long-Term (11-20+ Year)
Projects
24
2423
22
22
28
25
20
14
27
31
30
29
21
15
26
19
16
18
17
18
40 4140
To be a leader in the community and airport
industry by preserving and enhancing Salt Lake
City Department of Airport’s financial, human,
natural, and energy resources.
EconomicViability OperationalEfficiency
NaturalResource
Conservation Social
Responsibility
Waste
Materials
Natural Resources
Water Use Conservation
Energy
Tenants
Noise
Air Quality and Climate Change
Community
(Employees, Tenants, and Passengers)
SUSTAINABILITY
SUSTAINABILITY
SLCDA has been a leader in sustainability planning, operations, and implementation. The focus of this
Master Plan is to take a holistic approach to sustainability through a commitment to enhancing the
Airport’s economic viability, operational efficiency, natural resource conservation, and social responsibility.
SLCDA’s primary goal is to continue being a leader in the community and airport industry by preserving
and enhancing it’s financial, human, natural, and energy resources.
SLCDA emphasizes implementing sustainability practices establishing the following goals:
• Energy - Reduce total energy use and demand of the SLCIA and increase
renewable energy generation on SLCIA property.
• Air Quality and Climate Change - Reduce criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gas
emissions to improve public health and reduce environmental impact.
• Water Resources - Assist in the region’s efforts to sustain its water resources for
current and future generations.
• Recycling & Material Management - Reduce waste generation and increase
diversion from landfills.
• Planning & Building Design - Promote green building, energy efficiency, and
operational efficiency.
• Community Health & Safety - Maintain a safe and healthy environment for
passengers, employees, and the community.
These practices, and many other projects (whether labeled as sustainability projects or simply projects
that yield environmental gains), have produced documented, real-world environmental benefits.
While the development of Master Plan alternatives was primarily focused on addressing identified facility
shortfalls, all alternatives consider and incorporate sustainability elements. Each project was examined
relative to SLCDA’s four sustainability goal areas (energy, water, emissions, and waste) to determine
qualitative benefits and opportunities. SLCDA is committed to incorporating these sustainability aspects,
and others yet to be identified, into the design of these projects upon implementation, as deemed
financially realistic. As Master Plan components are identified for more detailed planning and coordination
in the future, the construction and financial feasibility of incorporated sustainability concepts will be
thoroughly analyzed for each individual project.
Project Energy Conservation Air Quality and Climate Change Water Resources Waste Recycling Energy Efficiency Community Health and Safety
Examples of Sustainability
Aspects
Incorporate efficient
lighting and energy efficient
equipment. Use low-E glass,
Capture ambient lighting,
Renewable Energy.
Improved operational
efficiencies, Encourage
low emission vehicle use,
Heat-Island Reduction,
Reduce Vehicle Miles
Traveled, Electric Vehicle
Charging Stations
Harvest rainwater, Use
permeable pavements,
Install low flow fixtures,
Stormwater protection
(SWPPP and BMP Imple-
mentation), Recover and
recycle deicing fluid, Incorpo-
rate native plantings
Reuse and salvage
resources, Use of recycled
materials, Facilitate recycling
through design, Construction
waste recycling,
asphalt milling, Utilize low
embodied carbon materials,
Balanced earthwork
Promote green building,
energy efficiency, and
operational efficiency,
LEED certification, Envision
Sustainable Infrastructure
Framework
Enhance passenger
experience, Procure local
materials, Install electric
vehicle charging stations
in public parking projects,
Protect wetlands
Airfield Projects
Remove Runway 14-32 x x x x x
Deicing Pads Facilities Upgrades and Expansions x x x x x
Taxiway U, V, and L Construction x x x x
4000W & 2100N Roadway Relocation x x x x x x
Runway 16L-34R and Taxiway Complex Extension x x x x x
South End Around Taxiway Construction x x x x x
Public Parking Improvements x x x x x
Parking Garage Expansion x x x x x
Powerline Mitigation x x x x
North Cargo Area Expansion / RON x x x
42 4342
Year Program ROM Project
Short-Term 1-5 Years
2022 Cargo Expansion Program $ 25,000,000 North Cargo Area Expansion
2023 Runway / Taxiway Safety Program $ 1,900,000 Remove Runway 14-32
2023 Runway / Taxiway Safety Program $ 1,100,000 TWY Q Removal
2025 Landside Program $ 30,000,000 Public Parking Phase I - Employee Lot
Mid-Term 6-10 Years
2026 Deicing Enhancement Program $ 11,000,000 16L North Deicing Pad Facilities Upgrades
2028 Taxiways U&V Program $ 30,000,000 4000 W Realignment and Tunnel Construction
2029 Taxiways U&V Program $ 26,500,000 Full Taxiway V Construction
2030 Taxiways U&V Program $ 40,000,000 Full Taxiway U Construction
Long-Term 11-20+ Years
2031 Runway 16L-34R Extension Program $ 25,700,000 Roadway Relocation Phase I
2032 Airport Enhancement & Readiness Program $ 40,000,000 Powerline Mitigation
2033 Runway 16L-34R Extension Program $ 53,000,000 Runway & Taxiway Complex Extension Phase II
2037 Runway 16L-34R Extension Program $ 25,000,000 16L Deice Pad Extension
2038 Taxiway L Extension Program $ 15,000,000 Taxiway L Extension Phase I
2039 Taxiway L Extension Program $ 30,000,000 Taxiway L Extension Phase II
Demand Driven Airfield Projects Not Programed
Deicing Enhancement Program $ 107,000,000 16R North Deicing Pad
Airfield Enhancement Program $ 105,400,000 SEAT Construction
Source: RS&H Analysis, SLCDA, 2021
Note: All costs in 2020 dollars. ROM (Rough Order of Magnitude) costs include construction costs, and soft costs at the following percentage of construction:
Design 10 percent; CA/Admin/QA/QC 10 percent; Contingency 30 percent.
DEVELOPMENT COSTS
The projects described in the short-, mid- and long-term time frames were programmed
considering SLCDA’s anticipated funding capacity. SLCDA anticipates a funding capacity of
$25M per year for capital projects within the first five years as the Airport recovers from the
capital outlay associated with building the new terminal. Beyond five years, it is anticipated
that capital funding capacity will return to approximately $40M per year, which is typical of
years before building the new terminal. The adjacent table illustrates the development costs
for proposed facility improvements. The order of projects is based on SLCDA’s funding capaci-
ty per year, considering other planned capital projects, such as recurring maintenance projects.
The order is also sequenced by priority of the projects and phasing implications. It is recog-
nized that some years have funding requirements beyond the target. Those years of high fund-
ing requirements have years with less capital outlay before or after in an effort to allow capital
or expense to carry over to the next year as needed.
This analysis indicates that funding will be available to plan, design, and construct the projects
identified in the Master Plan. A total of over $900M in capital projects has been identified,
of which about $58M are programmed in the first five-year period. This financial analysis is
based on the SLCDA anticipated funding capacity and continued FAA support. Based on the
assumptions and the analyses presented herein, the capital plan is considered practicable, and
it is anticipated that the SLCDA will be able to construct necessary aviation facilities at SLCIA
over the 20-year planning period to accommodate demand.
44 4545
Concourse C
Deicing Pad Construction
Runway 14-32
Closure Fuel Farm Relocation
Runway Extension
Subsurface Transmission Line
2100 N
Roadway
Relocation
South End
Around Taxiway
STRATEGIC VISION
The 1998 Master Plan study set forth the path for new terminal and concourse facilities. This 2021 Master Plan’s strategic vision strikes a strategic
balance of airfield and support facilities improvements to match passenger demand anticipated within and beyond the planning period.
This strategic vision illustrates how SLCDA will balance passenger demand with airfield projects that improve operational efficiency, enhance
safety, and increase overall airfield capacity. The primary objective within this vision is to optimize ground operations and improve airfield and
airspace capacity.
Additionally, this strategic vision includes preserving land for the ultimate realignment of Runway 17-35 to create a third parallel runway. The Master
Plan analyzed the potential performance characteristics of a realigned Runway 17-35 using airside modeling software paired with airspace capacity
analysis. Analysis results supported the realignment of Runway 17-35 to achieve a level of separation between 3,000 and 3,600 feet east of Runway
16L-34R. Anything less would introduce air traffic control challenges and dependencies that do not exist today and would substantially reduce the
achievable capacity benefits. Overall, 3,000 feet separation provided the best balance between benefit and impact to east side aeronautical facilities.
The realignment of Runway 17-35 is critical to unlocking additional aircraft capacity necessary to support the construction of Concourse C, reduce
airfield delay, and improve airfield operational efficiency.
The strategic vision depicted on the adjacent image is only achieved through incremental development that directly aligns with this long-term strategy.
The implementation of these facility improvements does not have a rigid timeline. They are dependent on the growth and demand experienced at
SLCIA. Projects should be implemented when demand warrants to allow SLCDA to remain fiscally responsible and flexible to changing market
conditions. Each facility improvement depicted corresponds to an objective, and improvements to various facilities may begin concurrently.
Although a realigned Runway 17-35 and Concourse C are not needed within the planning horizon, the plan reserves land area to sustainably
accommodate these future facilities. This ensures that if they are needed and approved through the appropriate federal and local processes in the
future, no other development will complicate or inhibit full implementation. If the activity does not materialize as quickly as anticipated, the
projects remain valid, although the timing of their implementation may change. This strategic vision serves as a pragmatic long-range guide for
the community and SLCDA leadership to use as passenger demand continues to grow throughout the planning period and beyond.
46 47
www. slcairport.com
SLCDA would like to thank the individuals, organizations, and businesses that participated in the master planning process. Input provided by the diverse
range of participants was vital to the development and assessment of alternatives and, ultimately, to the selection of the plan for future development.
The Salt Lake City International Airport will continue to serve an integral transportation role in Utah and the world. Developed through a thorough and inclusive
planning process, the 2021 Master Plan will strategically position SLCIA for the future and assist in continuing to meet its mission to “develop and manage a system
of airports, owned by Salt Lake City, which provides quality transportation facilities and services to optimize convenience, safety, and efficiency for aviation customers.”
NOTES:
5215 WILEY POST WAY, SUITE 510
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116
801.924.8555
WWW.RS&H.COM
v
Salt Lake City International
Airport Master Plan
“An airport master plan is a comprehensive study of an
airport and usually describes the short‐, medium ‐, and long
term development plans to meet future aviation demand.“
‐FAA Advisory Circular 150/5070‐6B Airport Master Plans
What is a Master Plan?
Whose project is this?
The Master Plan was prepared by the Salt Lake City
Department of Airports and their consultants.
The preparation of this document was financed in part
through a planning grant from the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) as provided under Section 505 of the
Airport and Airways Improvement Act of 1982, as amended by
the Airway Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1987.
Public Involvement/Stakeholder Coordination
Stakeholder Scoping Sessions Advisory Committee Airline Working Group Public Workshops Website
•Collect Physical and
Operational
Characteristics
-Airfield
-Terminal
- Landslide
- Support Facilities
Inventory
•Review Historical
Activity
•Identify Trends and
Relationships
•Forecast Future
Activity
Aviation ActivityForecasts
•Assess Existing
Facility Capacities
•Determine
Future Facility
Requirements
FacilityRequirements
•Identify Alternatives
•Short-List
Alternatives
•Refine Alternatives
•Evaluate
Alternatives
•Select Preferred
Alternative
AlternativesDevelopment
•Identify Preferred
Development Plan
•Determine Plan
Phasing
•Estimate Project
Costs
DevelopmentPlan
What was the planning process?
How was your
community
involved?
The SLCIA Master Plan analysis was
guided by several committees and
a thorough public involvement
program was deployed to seek
public feedback during all phases of
the project and at all key decision
points.
How was your
community
involved?
There was 1 Virtual Engagement Room, 3 Public Information Meetings, 7 Airport
Board updates, 6 working papers posted, 40 technical meetings, 65 stakeholder
meetings, 350 public participants, and over 20,000 hours of planning conducted
during the process.
www.slcairport.com/about‐the‐airport/master‐plan/
Introduction
1998 Master Plan Vision Today Being Realized!
Inventory and History
•Central Utility Project, Gateway
Center, Parking Garage, Terminal
and portions of New Concourses
A and B construction continues.
•Break ground on New
Concourse B‐west.
2018-19 2020 2021-24
•Completion of Gateway Center, Parking
Garage, Terminal, New Concourse A‐west.
•Demolish existing parking garages and
former Terminals 1 and 2 / former
Concourses A and E.
•New Concourse B‐west opens
•New Concourses A and B‐east
construction
•Former Concourses B an C demolished
•Project completion
Inventory and History
Aviation Activity
Forecast
The forecast of aviation demand provides a
basis for determining future facility
requirements including the type, size, and
timing of aviation development. Consequently,
the forecast influences virtually all phases of
the planning process.
Aviation Activity Forecast
Aviation Activity Forecast
Aviation Activity Forecast
Aviation Activity Forecast
Facility
Requirements
Future airport facility requirements,
including the type, size, and quantity, are
dependent on future aviation activity
levels projected in the aviation
demand forecasts.
Facility Requirements
Balanced Airport
Existing
Conditions
Solutions
The solutions identified ensure airport
facilities are capable of meeting projected
activity demand levels, are making efficient
and effective use of available airport land
and are meeting FAA airfield design
standards.
Airfield
Terminal and Gates
Landside
Cargo and Support
General Aviation
Environmental Overview
Sustainability
Waste Recycling Energy Efficiency
The preferred solution for each facility was combined into a comprehensive
preferred alternative. The plan for future development identifies short‐term
(0 to 5 years), mid‐term (6 to 10 years), and long‐term (11 to 20‐years)
projects. The division between short‐, mid‐, and long‐range projects was
established through an evaluation process based on priority, need, and the
SLCDA Vision. The following priorities were established to guide the
sequencing of the projects in the Development Plan:
Priority 1 – Address all safety and design deficiencies
Priority 2 – Maximize the capacity and efficiency of SLCIA
Priority 3 – Utilize demand reduction techniques to delay major
capacity enhancements
Priority 4 –Provide additional runway capacity
Future Development
Short Term
Mid Term
Long Term
Development Costs
The 1998 Master Plan study set forth the path for
new terminal and concourse facilities. This 2021
Master Plan’s strategic vision strikes a strategic
balance of airfield and support facilities
improvements to match passenger demand
anticipated within and beyond the planning period.
SLCDA will balance passenger demand with airfield
projects that improve operational efficiency,
enhance safety, and increase overall airfield capacity.
Strategic Vision
Strategic Vision
Thank you
Airspace System
Planning
Aviation Noise
Consulting (DBE)
Land
Development
Airport
GIS
Tower Siting/Airspace
Forecasting
(DBE)
Airport Landside
System
Public Involvement
Program
Simulation Modeling
(DBE)
Airspace
Assessment
Utility/Infrastructure
Coordination
4200
4210
4210
4
2
1
0
4
2
1
0
42104210
4
2
1
0
4210
421
0
421
0
42
1
0
421
0
4220
42
2
0
42
2
0
4220
42
2
0
42
2
0
4220
42
2
0
4220
42
2
0
4220
422
0
4220
4
2
2
0
4
2
2
0
42
2
0
42
2
0
42
2
0
42
2
0
422
0
42
2
0
4
2
2
0
42204220
4220
4220
4
2
2
0
42
2
0
42
2
0
4220
4220
4220
4220
42
2
0
4220
4
2
2
0
4220
4220
4220
422
0
4220
4
2
2
0
422
0
4220
4220
42
2
0
4220
42
2
0
4220
42
2
0
4
2
2
0
4220
4220
422
0
4
2
2
0
4
2
2
0
42
2
0
4
2
2
0
4220
4220
42
2
0
42
2
0
42
2
0
42204220
4220
42
2
0
4220
42
2
0
4220
4220
4220
4220
4220
4220
422
0
4220
4220
4220
4220
4220
4220
4220
4220
42
2
0
4
2
2
0
4220
4
2
2
0
4220
4220
4220
4220
4220
4220
4220
4220
4220
4220
4220
42
2
0
4220
422
0
422
0
4220
4220
42
2
0
422
04220
42204220
4220
4220
4220
4220
42
2
0
4220
42
2
0
4220
4220
4
2
2
0
42
2
0
4
2
2
0
4
2
2
0
42
2
0
42204220
4220
4220
4220
42
2
0
42
2
0
4220
4220
4220
4
2
2
0
422
0
4220
42
2
0
42
2
0
4
2
2
0
4
2
2
0
4220
4
2
2
0
4220
4
2
2
0
42
2
0
42
2
0
4
2
2
0
4220
42
2
0
42
2
0
4220
4220
42
2
0
42
2
0
42
2
0
4220
42
2
0
4220
42
2
0
4220
42
2
0
42
2
0
4220
4
2
2
0
422
0
4
2
2
0
4220 42
2
0
42
2
0
42
2
0
42
2
0
4220
4
2
2
0
4220
42
2
0
4220
4220
4220
42
2
0
4
2
2
0
4220
4220
4220
4220
4220
4220
4220
4220
4220
42
2
0
4
2
2
0
42
2
0
42
2
0
4220
4220
4
2
2
0
42
2
0
4220
4
2
2
0
42204220
4220
4220
4220
4220
4220
4
2
2
0
4220
4220
4220
4220
4220
4220
4220
4
2
2
0
4220
42
2
0
42
2
0
42204220
4220
4
2
2
0
4220
422
0
4220
42
2
0
4220
4220
42
2
0
42
2
0
4220
4220
42
2
0
42
2
0
422
0
4
2
2
0
4220
42204
2
2
0
422
0
42
2
0
42
2
0
42
2
0
4220
4220
4220
4220
4220
4220
4
2
2
0
4220
4220
4220
4220
4220
4220
42
2
0
4220
4
2
2
0
4
2
2
0
4220
4220
4220
4220
42
2
0
42
2
0
42
2
0
4220
42
2
0
42
2
0
42
2
0
42
2
0
4220
4
2
2
0
4220
4220
4
2
2
0
4220
42
2
0
4220
42204220
4
2
2
0
42
2
0
42
2
0
4
2
2
0
42
2
0
42
2
0
4
2
2
0
422
0
422
0
4220
4220
4220
42
2
0
4220
4220
422
0
4220
4220
4
2
2
0
4220
4
2
3
0
42
3
0
4
2
3
0
4
2
3
0
42
3
0
42
3
0
4
2
3
0
42
3
0
42
3
0
42
3
0
4
2
3
0
42
3
0
4230
42
3
0
423
0
42
3
0
423
0
4
2
3
0
4
2
3
0
4
2
3
0
42
3
0
42
3
0
42
3
0
4230
4
2
3
0
4230
4230
4230
423
0
423
0
4
2
3
0
42
3
0
4
2
3
0
423
0
423
0
42
3
0
42
3
0
42
3
0
4230
42
3
0
42
3
0
42
3
0
4
2
3
0
42
3
0
42
3
0
42
3
0
4230
423
0
42
3
0
42
3
0
42
4
0
4
2
4
0
4
2
4
0
42
4
0
42
4
0
4240
4240
4
2
4
0
4240
4240
42
4
0
42
4
0
42
4
0
42
4
0
4240
4240
4240
4240
4
2
5
0
4
2
5
0
4250
4250
4250
42
5
0
4250
4250
42
5
0
42
5
0
42
5
0
4260
STO
P
STOP
STOP
STO
P
STOP
STO
P
N O P A R K I N G
N O P A R K I N G
STO
P
STOP
STO
P
STOP
ST
O
P
STOP
STO
P
STOP
STOP
STO
P
STOP
STO
P
STOP
STOP
ST
O
P
STO
P
STO
P
STOP
STO
P
STO
P
STO
P
STO
P
STO
P
STO
P
STO
P
STO
P
STOP
STO
P
STO
P
STO
P
STO
P
STOP
STO
P
N O P A R K I N G
N O P A R K I N G
N O P A R K I N G
N O P A R K I N G
N O P A R K I N G
N O P A R K I N G
STO
P
STO
P
STOP
STOP
STOP
STO
P
STOP
STOP
STO
P
STO
P
STO
P
STO
P
STO
P
STOP
ST
O
P
STO
P
STO
P
STOP
STO
P
STOP
STOP
STOP
panelS
t
y
l
e
:
L
O
O
K
.
b
s
i
panelN
a
m
e
:
L
O
O
K
panelQ
u
a
n
t
i
t
y
:
1
panelS
t
a
t
i
o
n
:
n
o
n
e
panelM
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
:
0
legendM
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
:
0
panelM
o
u
n
t
i
n
g
:
1
panelW
i
d
t
h
L
o
c
k
:
0
panelH
e
i
g
h
t
L
o
c
k
:
0
margin
A
l
i
g
n
:
9
panelR
o
u
n
d
C
o
r
n
e
r
s
:
1
constru
c
t
P
a
n
e
l
M
o
d
e
:
0
constru
c
t
P
a
n
e
l
s
:
3
6
|
2
4
|
1
8
panelS
i
z
e
s
:
panelS
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
:
2
levels:G
S
C
O
L
O
R
F
I
L
L
|
G
S
B
W
F
I
L
L
|
G
S
O
U
T
L
I
N
E
version
:
2
widthR
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
:
1
heightR
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
:
1
panelS
h
a
p
e
:
0
panelB
o
r
d
e
r
R
a
d
i
u
s
:
1
2
.
0
0
0
chevron
T
i
p
R
a
d
i
u
s
:
1
2
.
0
0
0
chevron
S
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
R
a
d
i
u
s
:
1
2
.
0
0
0
LLOOOOKK
panelS
t
y
l
e
:
L
O
O
K
.
b
s
i
panelN
a
m
e
:
L
O
O
K
panelQ
u
a
n
t
i
t
y
:
1
panelS
t
a
t
i
o
n
:
n
o
n
e
panelM
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
:
0
legend
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
:
0
panelM
o
u
n
t
i
n
g
:
1
panelW
i
d
t
h
L
o
c
k
:
0
panelH
e
i
g
h
t
L
o
c
k
:
0
marginAlign
:
9
panelR
o
u
n
d
C
o
r
n
e
r
s
:
1
constru
c
t
P
a
n
e
l
M
o
d
e
:
0
constru
c
t
P
a
n
e
l
s
:
3
6
|
2
4
|
1
8
panelS
i
z
e
s
:
panelS
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
:
2
levels:G
S
C
O
L
O
R
F
I
L
L
|
G
S
B
W
F
I
L
L
|
G
S
O
U
T
L
I
N
E
version
:
2
widthR
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
:
1
heightR
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
:
1
panelS
h
a
p
e
:
0
panelB
o
r
d
e
r
R
a
d
i
u
s
:
1
2
.
0
0
0
chevro
n
T
i
p
R
a
d
i
u
s
:
1
2
.
0
0
0
chevro
n
S
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
R
a
d
i
u
s
:
1
2
.
0
0
0
LLOOOOKK
panelSty
l
e
:
L
O
O
K
.
b
s
i
panelNa
m
e
:
L
O
O
K
panelQu
a
n
t
i
t
y
:
1
panelSta
t
i
o
n
:
n
o
n
e
panelMa
t
e
r
i
a
l
:
0
legendM
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
:
0
panelMo
u
n
t
i
n
g
:
1
panelWi
d
t
h
L
o
c
k
:
0
panelHe
i
g
h
t
L
o
c
k
:
0
marginA
l
i
g
n
:
9
panelRo
u
n
d
C
o
r
n
e
r
s
:
1
constructPanelMode:0construc
t
P
a
n
e
l
s
:
3
6
|
2
4
|
1
8
panelSiz
e
s
:
panelSta
n
d
a
r
d
:
2
levels:G
S
C
O
L
O
R
F
I
L
L
|
G
S
B
W
F
I
L
L
|
G
S
O
U
T
L
I
N
E
version:
2
widthRo
u
n
d
i
n
g
:
1
heightR
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
:
1
panelSh
a
p
e
:
0
panelBo
r
d
e
r
R
a
d
i
u
s
:
1
2
.
0
0
0
chevron
T
i
p
R
a
d
i
u
s
:
1
2
.
0
0
0
chevron
S
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
R
a
d
i
u
s
:
1
2
.
0
0
0
LLOOOOKK panelSty
l
e
:
L
O
O
K
.
b
s
i
panelNa
m
e
:
L
O
O
K
panelQu
a
n
t
i
t
y
:
1
panelSta
t
i
o
n
:
n
o
n
e
panelMa
t
e
r
i
a
l
:
0
legendM
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
:
0
panelMo
u
n
t
i
n
g
:
1
panelWi
d
t
h
L
o
c
k
:
0
panelHe
i
g
h
t
L
o
c
k
:
0
marginA
l
i
g
n
:
9
panelRo
u
n
d
C
o
r
n
e
r
s
:
1
construc
t
P
a
n
e
l
M
o
d
e
:
0
construc
t
P
a
n
e
l
s
:
3
6
|
2
4
|
1
8
panelSiz
e
s
:
panelSta
n
d
a
r
d
:
2
levels:G
S
C
O
L
O
R
F
I
L
L
|
G
S
B
W
F
I
L
L
|
G
S
O
U
T
L
I
N
E
version:
2
widthRo
u
n
d
i
n
g
:
1
heightRo
u
n
d
i
n
g
:
1
panelSh
a
p
e
:
0
panelBo
r
d
e
r
R
a
d
i
u
s
:
1
2
.
0
0
0
chevron
T
i
p
R
a
d
i
u
s
:
1
2
.
0
0
0
chevron
S
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
R
a
d
i
u
s
:
1
2
.
0
0
0
LLOOOOKK
panelStyl
e
:
L
O
O
K
.
b
s
i
panelNam
e
:
L
O
O
K
panelQua
n
t
i
t
y
:
1
panelStat
i
o
n
:
n
o
n
e
panelMat
e
r
i
a
l
:
0
legendMa
t
e
r
i
a
l
:
0
panelMou
n
t
i
n
g
:
1
panelWid
t
h
L
o
c
k
:
0
panelHeig
h
t
L
o
c
k
:
0
marginAli
g
n
:
9
panelRou
n
d
C
o
r
n
e
r
s
:
1
construct
P
a
n
e
l
M
o
d
e
:
0
construct
P
a
n
e
l
s
:
3
6
|
2
4
|
1
8
panelSize
s
:
panelStan
d
a
r
d
:
2
levels:GS
C
O
L
O
R
F
I
L
L
|
G
S
B
W
F
I
L
L
|
G
S
O
U
T
L
I
N
E
version:2widthRou
n
d
i
n
g
:
1
heightRou
n
d
i
n
g
:
1
panelSha
p
e
:
0
panelBord
e
r
R
a
d
i
u
s
:
1
2
.
0
0
0
chevronT
i
p
R
a
d
i
u
s
:
1
2
.
0
0
0
chevronS
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
R
a
d
i
u
s
:
1
2
.
0
0
0
LLOOOOKK
panelSty
l
e
:
L
O
O
K
.
b
s
i
panelNa
m
e
:
L
O
O
K
panelQu
a
n
t
i
t
y
:
1
panelSta
t
i
o
n
:
n
o
n
e
panelMa
t
e
r
i
a
l
:
0
legendM
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
:
0
panelMo
u
n
t
i
n
g
:
1
panelWid
t
h
L
o
c
k
:
0
panelHe
i
g
h
t
L
o
c
k
:
0
marginA
l
i
g
n
:
9
panelRo
u
n
d
C
o
r
n
e
r
s
:
1
construc
t
P
a
n
e
l
M
o
d
e
:
0
construc
t
P
a
n
e
l
s
:
3
6
|
2
4
|
1
8
panelSiz
e
s
:
panelSta
n
d
a
r
d
:
2
levels:GS
C
O
L
O
R
F
I
L
L
|
G
S
B
W
F
I
L
L
|
G
S
O
U
T
L
I
N
E
version:2widthRou
n
d
i
n
g
:
1
heightRo
u
n
d
i
n
g
:
1
panelSha
p
e
:
0
panelBor
d
e
r
R
a
d
i
u
s
:
1
2
.
0
0
0
chevronT
i
p
R
a
d
i
u
s
:
1
2
.
0
0
0
chevronS
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
R
a
d
i
u
s
:
1
2
.
0
0
0
LLOOOOKK
panelStyl
e
:
L
O
O
K
.
b
s
i
panelNam
e
:
L
O
O
K
panelQua
n
t
i
t
y
:
1
panelSta
t
i
o
n
:
n
o
n
e
panelMat
e
r
i
a
l
:
0
legendMa
t
e
r
i
a
l
:
0
panelMou
n
t
i
n
g
:
1
panelWid
t
h
L
o
c
k
:
0
panelHei
g
h
t
L
o
c
k
:
0
marginAl
i
g
n
:
9
panelRou
n
d
C
o
r
n
e
r
s
:
1
construct
P
a
n
e
l
M
o
d
e
:
0
construct
P
a
n
e
l
s
:
3
6
|
2
4
|
1
8
panelSize
s
:
panelSta
n
d
a
r
d
:
2
levels:GS
C
O
L
O
R
F
I
L
L
|
G
S
B
W
F
I
L
L
|
G
S
O
U
T
L
I
N
E
version:2widthRou
n
d
i
n
g
:
1
heightRo
u
n
d
i
n
g
:
1
panelSha
p
e
:
0
panelBor
d
e
r
R
a
d
i
u
s
:
1
2
.
0
0
0
chevronT
i
p
R
a
d
i
u
s
:
1
2
.
0
0
0
chevronS
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
R
a
d
i
u
s
:
1
2
.
0
0
0
LLOOOOKK
panelStyle
:
L
O
O
K
.
b
s
i
panelNam
e
:
L
O
O
K
panelQua
n
t
i
t
y
:
1
panelStat
i
o
n
:
n
o
n
e
panelMate
r
i
a
l
:
0
legendMa
t
e
r
i
a
l
:
0
panelMou
n
t
i
n
g
:
1
panelWid
t
h
L
o
c
k
:
0
panelHeig
h
t
L
o
c
k
:
0
marginAli
g
n
:
9
panelRou
n
d
C
o
r
n
e
r
s
:
1
constructP
a
n
e
l
M
o
d
e
:
0
constructP
a
n
e
l
s
:
3
6
|
2
4
|
1
8
panelSize
s
:
panelStan
d
a
r
d
:
2
levels:GS
C
O
L
O
R
F
I
L
L
|
G
S
B
W
F
I
L
L
|
G
S
O
U
T
L
I
N
E
version:2widthRou
n
d
i
n
g
:
1
heightRou
n
d
i
n
g
:
1
panelSha
p
e
:
0
panelBord
e
r
R
a
d
i
u
s
:
1
2
.
0
0
0
chevronT
i
p
R
a
d
i
u
s
:
1
2
.
0
0
0
chevronS
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
R
a
d
i
u
s
:
1
2
.
0
0
0
LLOOOOKK
panelSty
l
e
:
L
O
O
K
.
b
s
i
panelNam
e
:
L
O
O
K
panelQuantity:1panelSta
t
i
o
n
:
n
o
n
e
panelMa
t
e
r
i
a
l
:
0
legendM
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
:
0
panelMo
u
n
t
i
n
g
:
1
panelWid
t
h
L
o
c
k
:
0
panelHei
g
h
t
L
o
c
k
:
0
marginAl
i
g
n
:
9
panelRou
n
d
C
o
r
n
e
r
s
:
1
construc
t
P
a
n
e
l
M
o
d
e
:
0
construc
t
P
a
n
e
l
s
:
3
6
|
2
4
|
1
8
panelSiz
e
s
:
panelSta
n
d
a
r
d
:
2
levels:GS
C
O
L
O
R
F
I
L
L
|
G
S
B
W
F
I
L
L
|
G
S
O
U
T
L
I
N
E
version:2widthRou
n
d
i
n
g
:
1
heightRo
u
n
d
i
n
g
:
1
panelSha
p
e
:
0
panelBor
d
e
r
R
a
d
i
u
s
:
1
2
.
0
0
0
chevronT
i
p
R
a
d
i
u
s
:
1
2
.
0
0
0
chevronS
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
R
a
d
i
u
s
:
1
2
.
0
0
0
LLOOOOKK
panelStyl
e
:
L
O
O
K
.
b
s
i
panelNam
e
:
L
O
O
K
panelQua
n
t
i
t
y
:
1
panelStat
i
o
n
:
n
o
n
e
panelMat
e
r
i
a
l
:
0
legendMa
t
e
r
i
a
l
:
0
panelMou
n
t
i
n
g
:
1
panelWid
t
h
L
o
c
k
:
0
panelHeig
h
t
L
o
c
k
:
0
marginAli
g
n
:
9
panelRou
n
d
C
o
r
n
e
r
s
:
1
construct
P
a
n
e
l
M
o
d
e
:
0
construct
P
a
n
e
l
s
:
3
6
|
2
4
|
1
8
panelSize
s
:
panelStan
d
a
r
d
:
2
levels:GS
C
O
L
O
R
F
I
L
L
|
G
S
B
W
F
I
L
L
|
G
S
O
U
T
L
I
N
E
version:2widthRou
n
d
i
n
g
:
1
heightRou
n
d
i
n
g
:
1
panelSha
p
e
:
0
panelBord
e
r
R
a
d
i
u
s
:
1
2
.
0
0
0
chevronT
i
p
R
a
d
i
u
s
:
1
2
.
0
0
0
chevronS
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
R
a
d
i
u
s
:
1
2
.
0
0
0
LLOOOOKK
4433
A22
A20
A18
A16
A14
A10
A8
A4
A5
A7
A9
A11
A13
A15
A17
A19A
A19
A21
A21A
A23
A25
A25A
A12
TUGSONLY
TUGS
ONL
Y
A6
A4
A2
A1
A3
A5
DO N
O
T
ENT
E
R
TUGSONLYTUGSONLY
NOPARKING
NOPARKING
TUGSONLY
A24
DO N
O
TENTER
DO NO
T
ENTE
R
TUGSONLY
TUGSONLY
TUGSONLY
B4
B6
B2
B8
B10
B12
B14
B16
B18
B20
B1
B3
B5
B7
B9
B11
B13
B15
B17
B19
EV
YIELD
YIELD YIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELDYIELD
YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD YIELD
EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEV
EXIT
D1
D3D2
D4
D5
D10D9D8D7D6
D15D14D13D12
D11
C4
C3
C2
C1
C7
C6
C8
C5
C9
FAA SLC F
NON-AERONAUTICAL
DEVELOPMENT
OPPORTUNITY (F)
AVIATION
DEVELOPMENT
(F)
T
R
A
N
S
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
L
I
N
E
S
T
O
B
E
B
U
R
I
E
D
(
F
)
NORTH
PARKING
LOT (F)
ARP (E)
LAT. 40° 47' 18"
LONG. 111° 58' 40"
RWY 16R-34L
LOW POINT
EL. 4223.4'
RWY 16L-34R
LOW POINT
EL. 4222.1'
RWY 14-32
LOW POINT
EL. 4220.9'
RWY 17-35
LOW POINT
EL. 4221.5'
RWY 16R
TDZ EL. 4225.8'RWY 34L
TDZ EL. 4228.8'
HIGH POINT
RWY 16L
TDZ EL. 4230.9'
HIGH POINT (E)
RWY 34R
TDZ EL. 4224.7'
RWY 17
TDZ EL. 4222.2'
RWY 35
HIGH POINT
EL. 4227.2'
RWY 32
TDZ EL. 4226.8'
HIGH POINT
RWY 14
TDZ EL. 4224.8'
RWY 16R/34L 12,000' x
1
5
0
'
(
1
7
4
.
9
4
°
T
R
U
E
)
RWY 16L/34R 12,002'
x
1
5
0
'
(
E
)
1
4
,
5
0
0
'
x
1
5
0
'
(
F
)
(
1
7
4
.
9
6
°
T
R
U
E
)
RWY 17/35 9,596' x 150' (180.00° TRUE)
RWY
1
4
/
3
2
4
,
8
9
3
'
x
1
5
0
'
(
1
5
2
.
9
8
°
T
R
U
E
)
APPROACH RUNWAY
PROTECTION ZONE
1,000'x2,500'x1,750'
APPROACH RUNWAY
PROTECTION ZONE
1,000'x2,500'x1,750'
APPROACH RUNWAY
PROTECTION ZONE
1,000'x2,500'x1,750'
APPROACH RUNWAY
PROTECTION ZONE (E)
1,000'x2,500'x1,750'
DEPARTURE RUNWAY
PROTECTION ZONE
500'x1,700'x1,010'
DEPARTURE RUNWAY
PROTECTION ZONE
500'x1,700'x1,010'
DEPARTURE RUNWAY
PROTECTION ZONE (E)
500'x1,700'x1,010'
PART 77 APPROACH
SURFACE SLOPE 50:1/40:1
1,000'x50,000'x16,000'
PART 77 APPROACH
SURFACE SLOPE 50:1/40:1
1,000'x50,000'x16,000'
PART 77 APPROACH (E)
SURFACE SLOPE 50:1/40:1
1,000'x50,000'x16,000'
PART 77 APPROACH
SURFACE SLOPE 50:1/40:1
1,000'x50,000'x16,000'
PART 77 APPROACH
SURFACE SLOPE 50:1/40:1
1,000'x50,000'x16,000'
N 2200 W
BANGERTER HWY
I-
8
0
(
L
I
N
C
O
L
N
H
W
Y
)
W
2
1
0
0
N
W
N
O
R
T
H
T
E
M
P
L
E
ALSF-2
ALSF-2
ALSF-2
ALSF-2(E)
MALSRMALSR
DE-ICING PAD
DE-ICING PAD
DE-ICING PAD
DE-ICING
P
A
D
PAPI
PAPI
PAPI
PAPI (E)
PAPIPAPI
PAPI
PAPI
ASOS
ASR-9
6
0
0
'
2
6
7
'
APPROACH RUNWAY
PROTECTION ZONE
1,000'x2,500'x1,750'
DEPARTURE RUNWAY
PROTECTION ZONE
500'x1,700'x1,010'
PART 77 APPROACH
SURFACE SLOPE 50:1/40:1
1,000'x50,000'x16,000'
DEPARTURE RUNWAY
PROTECTION ZONE
500'x1,700'x1,010'
APPROACH RUNWAY
PROTECTION ZONE
1,000'x2,500'x1,750'
PART 77 APPROACH
SURFACE SLOPE 20:1
500'x5,000'x1,500'
RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE
500'x1,000'x700'
PART 77 APPROACH
SURFACE SLOPE 20:1
500'x5,000'x1,500'
GA-02
RUNWAY
PROTECTION ZONE
500'x1,000'x700'
DEPARTURE RUNWAY
PROTECTION ZONE
500'x1,700'x1,010'
TU-1TU-5TU-8
TU-11
TU-10
TU-9 TU-7
TU-4
TU-6
TU-13
GA-50
GA-49
GA-52
TU-14
TU-15
TU-16
TU-25
TU-21
TU-20
TU-19
TU-22
TU-23
TU-24
TU-17TU-18
GA-30
GA-01
GA-03
GA-16 GA-15
GA-17
GA-10
GA-14GA-53
GA-29
GA-07 GA-56 GA-58
GA-57
GA-09GA-05
GA-19
GA-20
GA-21
GA-22
GA-25
GA-24
GA-23
GA-28
GA-27
GA-26
GA-08
GA-34
GA-33
GA-32
GA-31 GA-47
GA-11
GA-18 GA-48
GA-46
GA-45GA-44
GA-13
GA-55
GA-38GA-12 GA-36
GA-35
GA-39
GA-40
GA-41
GA-42
GA-43
TU-12
ASOS
CB-11
NS-20
NS-22
NS-24
NS-28
CB-02
CB-03
CB-05
CB-06
CB-04
CB-07CB-08CB-09
CB-10
NS-17
NS-18
NS-19
NS-25
NS-12
NS-1 NS-2
NS-3
NS-4
NS-5
NS-6
NS-7
NS-9
NS-10
NS-11
NS-13
NS-14
NS-15
NS-16 NS-21
NS-26
NS-23
ATCT
SS-07
SS-15
SS-16
SS-06
TWY A
TWY B
TWY G
TWY H
TWY K
T
W
Y
S
TWY
R
T
W
Y
Q
T
W
Y
A
1
T
W
Y
A
2
TW
Y
A
3
TW
Y
A
4
TW
Y
A
5
TW
Y
A
6
T
W
Y
A
8
T
W
Y
A
9
TW
Y
A
1
0
TW
Y
A
1
1
TW
Y
H
2
TW
Y
H
3
TW
Y
H
4
TW
Y
H
5
TWY
H
6
TW
Y
H
7
TW
Y
H
8
TW
Y
H
1
0
T
W
Y
H
1
1
TW
Y
H
1
2
TW
Y
H
1
3
TW
Y
H
1
TWY
H
9
TW
Y
F
T
W
Y
E
TWY F4
TWY F3
TWY F2
TWY F1
TW
Y
M
T
W
Y
P
TW
Y
K
1
TW
Y
K
4
TW
Y
K
3
TW
Y
K
5
TW
Y
K
6
TW
Y
K
7
TW
Y
K
8
TW
Y
K
9
T
W
Y
U
TW
Y
V
TW
Y
W
TWY Y
TWY L1
TWY L
TW
Y
N
TWY
J
N 2400 W
W
5
0
0
S
W
N
O
R
T
H
T
E
M
P
L
E
W
3
4
0
N
W
4
7
0
N
W
6
5
0
N
DELONG ST
S 2300 W
W N
O
R
T
H
T
E
M
P
L
E
I-
8
0
(
L
I
N
C
O
L
N
H
W
Y
)
W
5
0
0
S
IRON ROSE PL
CR
O
S
S
B
A
R
R
D
N 3700 W
UTA RAIL
TERMINAL DR
TERMINAL DR
CROS
S
B
A
R
R
D
U
T
A
R
A
I
L
UT
A
R
A
I
L
I-
8
0
(
L
I
N
C
O
L
N
H
W
Y
)
N WRIGHT BROTHERS DR
CHARLES LINDBERGH DR
HA
R
O
L
D
G
A
T
T
Y
D
R
AM
E
L
I
A
E
A
R
H
A
R
T
D
R
WI
L
E
Y
P
O
S
T
W
A
Y
DO
U
G
L
A
S
C
O
R
R
I
G
A
N
W
A
Y
NEIL ARMSTRONG RD
N 4000 W
W
2
1
0
0
N
W
1
5
8
0
N
W
1
2
0
0
N
W
1
2
0
0
N
N 4030 W
N 3950 W
N 2200 W
W
2
1
0
0
N
N 3200 W
W
2
1
0
0
N
ASR CRITICAL AREA
1
5
0
0
'
R
AS
O
S
CR
I
T
I
C
A
L
AR
E
A
5
0
0
'
R
ASO
S
CRITI
C
A
L
ARE
A
5
0
0
'
R
GS
LOC
GS
LOC
GS
LOC
GS (E)
LOC(E)
GS
LOC
GS
LDA
T
W
Y
A
7
ARP (F)
LAT. 40° 47' 28"
LONG. 111° 58' 45"
GA-51
LLWAS
LLWAS-4
LLWAS-2
LLWAS-5
LLWAS-6
RUNWAY 16R END
LAT. 40° 48'2 8.00" N
LONG. 111° 59' 57.43" W
EL. 4,223.4'
RUNWAY 34L END
LAT. 40° 46' 29.92" N
LONG. 111° 59' 43.69" W
EL. 4,228.8'
RUNWAY 16L END (E)
LAT. 40° 48' 26.83" N
LONG. 111° 58' 36.96" W
EL. 4,229.1'
RUNWAY 34R END
LAT. 40° 46' 28.72" N
LONG. 111° 58' 23.26" W
EL. 4,224.3'
RUNWAY 17 END
LAT. 40° 47' 56.10" N
LONG. 111° 57' 43.46" W
EL. 4,221.7'
RUNWAY 32 END
LAT. 40° 46' 25.52" N
LONG. 111° 57' 47.59" W
EL. 4,226.8'
RUNWAY 35 DISPLACED
THRESHOLD / TDZ
LAT. 40° 46' 24.50" N
LONG. 111° 57' 43.45" W
EL. 4,226.9'
RUNWAY 35 END
LAT. 40° 46' 21.30" N
LONG. 111° 57' 43.45" W
EL. 4,226.8'
RUNWAY 16L END (F)
LAT. 40° 48' 51.43" N
LONG. 111° 58' 39.81" W
EL. 4,231' (EST.)
TDZ/HIGH POINT (F)
SU
R
P
L
U
S
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
C
A
N
A
L
SURPLUS DRAINAGE C
A
N
A
L
D
E
-
I
C
I
N
G
P
A
D
(
F
)
TU-F-1
TU-F-2TU-F-3
TU-F-4
TU-F-5TU-F-6
GA-F-3GA-F-4
GA-F-2GA-F-1
GA-F-10
TU-F-10
NS-F-2
NS-F-3
NS-F-4
NS-F-5
NS-F-6
NS-F-7
NS-F-8
NS-F-10NS-F-9
NS-F-11
NS-F-12
NS-F-13
TW
Y
Z
(
F
)
ROADWAY
TUNNEL (F)
267'
61
5
4
'
UTAH AIR
NATIONAL GUARD
26
7
'
40
0
'
60
0
'
36
'
S
H
L
D
50
'
S
H
L
D
1
6
0
'
TWY L (F)
TWY
H
1
0
(
F
)
TW
Y
K
4
(
F
)
TW
Y
Q
(
F
)
TWY
K
5
(
F
)
TW
Y
H
1
4
(
F
)
TW
Y
H
1
5
(
F
)
TWY G (F)
TWY H (F)
TW
Y
U
(
F
)
T
W
Y
V
(
F
)
4
0
0
'
50
0
'
8
0
0
'
40
0
'
50
0
'
80
0
'
4
0
0
'
5
0
0
'
40
0
'
50
0
'
80
0
'
74
5
'
74
5
'
74
5
'
T
E
R
M
I
N
A
L
A
P
R
O
N
35
'
S
H
L
D
2
5
'
S
H
L
D
TU-F-9
37
1
'
198'
244'
26
6
'
4
6
0
'
CONCOURSE C (U)
APRON (U)
DE-ICING
PAD (F)
4255.0'
4274.4'
4260.1'
4243.7'
4267.2'4242.8'
4240.5'
4248.7'
4254.5'
4246.1'
4247.5'
4252.2'
4240.7'
4257.0'
4251.0'
4261.0'
4257.0'
4239.0'
4240.1'
4241.0'
4248.1'
4252.4'
4256.9'
4253.0'
4258.0'
4259.0'
4252.1'
4244.2'
4233.2'
4235.2'
4250.2'4248.3'
4234.6'
4231.7'
4229.2'
4229.8'
4220.4'
4255.0'
4250.0'4249.1'
4244.5'
4250.3'
4250.7'
4233.8'
4237.2'
4233.3'4237.9'
4234.1'4238.6'
4238.8'
4237.9'
4232.8'
4238.0'
4230.0'
4231.0'
4229.0'
4230.0'
4230.0'
4232.0'
TW
Y
L
2
(
F
)
TW
Y
L
3
(
F
)
T
W
Y
L
4
(
F
)
TW
Y
L
5
(
F
)
AUTO PARKING
AUTO PARKING
TU-F-8
TU-F-7
AUTO PARKING
NS-F-14 NS-F-15
AUTO PARKING (F)
AUTO
PARKING
(F)
AUTO
PARKING
(F)
CARGO APRON
CARGO APRON
TU-2
TU-3
RUNWAY 14 END
LAT. 40° 47' 08.58" N
LONG. 111° 58' 16.47" W
EL. 4,224.7'
GA-F-5GA-F-6GA-F-7
GA-F-8 GA-F-9
NS-F-16
NS-F-17
APPROACH RUNWAY
PROTECTION ZONE (F)
1,000'x2,500'x1,750'
DEPARTURE RUNWAY
PROTECTION ZONE (F)
500'x1,700'x1,010'
PART 77 APPROACH (F)
SURFACE SLOPE 50:1/40:1
1,000'x50,000'x16,000'
W
2
1
0
0
N
(
F
)
N 4000 W (F)
ALSF-2(F)
LOC(F)
PERIMETER RD (F)
PAPI (F)
GS (F)
DE-ICING PAD (F)
NS-F-1
TWY A (F)
TWY B (F)
CARGO
APRON
(F)
CONSULTANTS
SHEET NUMBER
REVISIONS
DATE ISSUED:
REVIEWED BY:
DRAWN BY:
AEP PROJECT NUMBER
SHEET TITLE
DESIGNED BY:
DESCRIPTIONNO.DATE
5215 Wiley Post Way, Suite 510
Salt Lake City, Utah 84116
801-924-8555
RS&H, Inc.
www.rsandh.com
224-0039-000
AIRPORT
LAYOUT
PLAN
OF
SALT LAKE CITY
INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT
SALT LAKE CITY, UT
DSC
TJM
TJM
N
0 900'900' 450'
MAGNETIC DECLINATION
11° 14' EAST
ANNUAL CHANGE 0° 6' WEST
OCTOBER, 2020
NOTES:
1. ALL LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE COORDINATES ARE IN NORTH
AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAD 83).
2. ALL ELEVATIONS ARE IN NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF
1988 (NAVD 88).
3. ALL ELEVATIONS ARE EXPRESSED IN FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL
(MSL).
4. ROADWAY AND RAILROAD ELEVATIONS INCLUDE TRAVERSEWAY
ADJUSTMENT (23' RAILROADS I 17' HIGHWAYS I 15' PUBLIC ROADS I
10' PRIVATE ROADS).
5. STANDARD PERIMETER FENCE IS 3 STRAND 8' BARBED WIRE
FENCE.
6. BUILDING TABLES CAN BE FOUND ON SHEET 6.
7. ADDITIONAL TAXIWAY INFORMATION AND DIMENSIONS CAN BE
FOUND ON THE AIRPORT DATA SHEET, TERMINAL, GENERAL
AVIATION AREA PLAN AND NORTH SUPPORT AREA PLAN.
N/A
EXISTINGDESCRIPTION FUTURE
N/APACSN/A
N/A
100 N/A
EXISTINGDESCRIPTION FUTURE
N/A
N/A
EXISTINGDESCRIPTION FUTURE
N/A
PROPERTY LINE
RUNWAY SAFETY AREA
RUNWAY OBJECT FREE AREA
RUNWAY OBSTACLE FREE ZONE
PRECISION OBSTACLE FREE ZONE
RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE
TAXIWAY OBJECT FREE AREA
35' BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE
PART 77 SURFACE
AIRFIELD PAVEMENT (ASPHALT / CONCRETE)
AIRFIELD PAVEMENT TO BE REMOVED
BUILDINGS
BUILDINGS TO BE REMOVED
ROADWAY/PARKING (UNPAVED)
ROADWAY/PARKING (ASPHALT / CONCRETE)
ROADWAY/PARKING TO BE REMOVED
ARP
BEACON
WINDCONE
LOCALIZER/GLIDE SLOPE CRITICAL AREA
TREES
FENCE
CANAL
DRAINAGE DITCH
GROUND CONTOURS
NGS MONUMENT
EXISTINGDESCRIPTION FUTURE
N/A
/
/
N/A
N/A
3
AIRPORT LAYOUT
PLAN
AUGUST 2021
41
SUBJECT TO LETTER DATED:
FAA CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
DENVER AIRPORTS DISTRICT OFFICE
DATED:
AIRSPACE CASE NO:2021-ANM-1252-NRA
August 10, 2021
August 10, 2021
v
Salt Lake City InternationalAirport Master Plan
“An airport master plan is a comprehensive study of an
airport and usually describes the short-, medium-, and long
term development plans to meet future aviation demand.“
-FAA Advisory Circular 150/5070-6B Airport Master Plans
What is a Master Plan?
How was your
community
involved?
There was 1 Virtual Engagement Room, 3 Public Information Meetings, 7 Airport
Board updates, 6 working papers posted, 40 technical meetings, 65 stakeholder
meetings,350 public participants, and over 20,000 hours of planning conducted
during the process.
www.slcairport.com/about-the-airport/master-plan/
Introduction
1998 Master Plan Vision Today Being Realized!
Aviation Activity
Forecast
The forecast of aviation demand provides a
basis for determining future facility
requirements including the type, size, and
timing of aviation development. Consequently,
the forecast influences virtually all phases of
the planning process.
Aviation Activity Forecast
Aviation Activity Forecast
Aviation Activity Forecast
Aviation Activity Forecast
Facility
Requirements
Future airport facility requirements,
including the type, size, and quantity, are
dependent on future aviation activity
levels projected in the aviation
demand forecasts.
Facility Requirements
Balanced Airport
Solutions
The solutions identified ensure airport facilities are capable of meeting projected activity demand levels, are making efficient and effective use of available airport land and are meeting FAA airfield design standards.
Airfield
Terminal and Gates
Landside
Cargo and Support
General Aviation
Environmental Overview
Sustainability
Waste Recycling Energy Efficiency
The preferred solution for each facility was combined into a comprehensive
preferred alternative. The plan for future development identifies short-term
(0 to 5 years), mid-term (6 to 10 years), and long-term (11 to 20-years)
projects. The division between short-, mid-, and long-range projects was
established through an evaluation process based on priority, need, and the
SLCDA Vision. The following priorities were established to guide the
sequencing of the projects in the Development Plan:
Priority 1 –Address all safety and design deficiencies
Priority 2 –Maximize the capacity and efficiency of SLCIA
Priority 3 –Utilize demand reduction techniques to delay major
capacity enhancements
Priority 4 –Provide additional runway capacity
Future Development
Short Term
Mid Term
Long Term
The 1998 Master Plan study set forth the path for
new terminal and concourse facilities. This 2021
Master Plan’s strategic vision strikes a strategic
balance of airfield and support facilities
improvements to match passenger demand
anticipated within and beyond the planning period.
SLCDA will balance passenger demand with airfield
projects that improve operational efficiency,
enhance safety, and increase overall airfield capacity.
Strategic Vision
Strategic Vision
SLCIA Fleet Mix
SLCIA Concourse Length
SLCIA Concourse Spacing
Walk Distance
Thank you
Airspace System
Planning
Aviation Noise
Consulting (DBE)
Land
Development
Airport
GIS
Tower Siting/Airspace
Forecasting
(DBE)
Airport Landside
System
Public Involvement
Program
Simulation Modeling
(DBE)
MARY A. LYNCH
Airspace
Assessment
Utility/Infrastructure
Coordination
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Sam Owen, Policy Analyst
DATE: October 11, 2022
RE: FY23 Budget Contingency for
Department of Airports
ISSUE AT A GLANCE
Council Members expressed some hesitation during the FY23 annual budget hearings about
an airport proposal to pave over existing open space for purposes of creating a new parking
lot near the entrance of the international airport campus. Council Members approved a
budget for the airport, but held contingently any funds related to this proposed new parking
lot pending additional information. (The airport’s park and wait parking lot expansion was
not affected by the contingency.)
Council Members asked the airport to return with practical, near-term solutions that would
reduce the need for parking at the airport with an eye toward reducing new hardscape for
airport facilities not directly related to aircraft operation (the Council conveyed no reservation
about runway expansion, for example).
The Council asked the airport to provide description of collaboration with other agencies such
as the regional public transit provider, Utah Transit Authority (UTA). Whether collaboration
with other agencies or other measures outside the airport campus will help reduce the
employee parking demand is effectively one subject of the briefing.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: October 11, 2022
Public Hearing:
Potential Action: October 18, 2022
Page | 2
GOAL OF THE BRIEFING
The Council could review information provided by the Airport and consider the airport
request to release FY23 funding related to a specific parking lot expansion. The request is
separate from follow-up items in the current draft airport master plan proposal.
POLICY QUESTIONS
The transmittal indicates UTA is exploring supplemental and alternative transit in the service
areas relevant for airport employees.
Council Members might wish to ask these questions:
A. What are the top impediments that airport employees might experience if
any one were to select a commute by public transit?
B. Given the transmittal’s zip code analysis showing geographic
concentrations of airport employees, are there “hot spots” where service
gaps could be remedied with timely implementation of any combination of
public transit measures addressed in the transmittal and in this report.
C.What is the threshold number for airport employee transit adoption that
mitigates the need for parking on-site so much that planned parking
facilities could be delayed, scaled back or shelved entirely?
Furthermore, Council Members might ask that future airport master planning
documents include an assumption basic level of transit adoption such that parking
facilities assessments include this factor and are responsively tailored to meet demand,
given a level of transit adoption.
D. What are some opportunities for collaboration with the Utah Transit
Authority (UTA) to increase transit to use to and from the Airport? For
example, use of airline tickets as transit passes, improved transit lines on
major thoroughfares, etc.
E. The Council might request the administration bring options for
accelerating or further supporting collaboration on a Westside mobility
hub, in order to bring it to operation more quickly.
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Utah Transit Authority (UTA) provides public transit service to the airport for thousands of
passengers and airport employees. One transit project on the horizon for airport access is bus
service enhancement along 5600 West. The bus service would intersect with connections to
east-west transit service, from North Temple in Salt Lake City to 9000 South (outside SLC).
Page | 3
At least one Council Member asked whether regional parking facilities along or near 5600
West (going south outside SLC) could be developed or encouraged. The incentive for
construction and operation of these parking facilities would be increased off-site parking
capacity for the traveling public, and as a large scale accommodation for airport employees
traveling to work. Travel from these parking facilities to the airport for employees would be a
focus of transit enhancement in relation to these parking facilities.
Relatedly, Council Members might wish to ask the department about whether different types
of employees could receive an incentive not to use airport on-site parking. For example,
maybe airlines or concessionaires could attempt to motivate employee parking off-site.
The airport noted a number of regional transit planning opportunities that airport planning
staff could be involved with.
The transmittal mentions a westside mobility hub current in a study phase and funded
through UTA and the city. Elements of the mobility hub are said to include 24-7 bus service
that connects to the airport, as well as other multimodal connections including TRAX.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Transmittal
9/16/2022 Update
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
SLC-Master Plan Capacity Analysis
2
SLC-Employee Parking Lot
3
Daily Peak employee
occupancy
Employee Lot
Capacity
Percent
Capacity
Monday 5/2/2022 2833 3432 83%
Tuesday 5/3/2022 2796 3432 81%
Wednesday 5/4/2022 2802 3432 82%
Thursday 5/5/2022 2829 3432 82%
Friday 5/6/2022 2815 3432 82%
Saturday 5/7/2022 2623 3432 76%
SLC-Future Employee Parking Demand
4
Existing Peak Parking Demand
2833 Stalls Additional Parking Demand –Phase 2 -1276 Stalls
Additional Parking Demand –Phase 3 & 4 -1250 Stalls
Parking Projects
Future Projects
6
Sustainable Infrastructure –
Making Parking lots an Environmental Asset
•Institute for sustainable infrastructure –
Envision certification
•Zero emission transportation hub –Renewable
electricity, electric buses and primary
employee EV lot.
•Advanced stormwater infiltrating/filtering
technologies
•Public transit connections –bus, bike, on-
demand
•Public education opportunities –water
conservation, energy, sustainability
RPZ
Solar Panels
Wetlands
Wetlands
Wetlands
Employee
Screening Facility
Possible Transit Hub
End Around Taxiway
Future Projects
7
Employee
Screening Facility
Secure Bus Route
to Concourses
SLC Employees –Zip Code Density Map
8
SLC Employee –Terminal Shift Schedule
9
2,000 employees
4-5 am to 12-1pm
(early shift)
1,000 employees
6-8am to 2-4pm
(morning shift)
1,500 employees
11am-2pm to 7-10pm
(afternoon shift)
1,200 employees
3-10pm to 11pm-6am
(late shift)
SLC Employee Transit Mobility Options
10
84116 Zip Code –Rose Park Area –507 Employees
•Transit to Work –40 minutes –Arrival -5:30 am
•Transit from Work –40 minutes –Departure 11:10 pm
•Transit -1 hour 20 minutes round trip
•Driving -16 minutes round trip
84128 / 84120 / 84119 Zip Code –West Valley (1,076 Employees)
•Transit to Work -1 hour and 40 minutes –Arrival –5:40 AM
•Transit from Work –1 hour and 30 minutes –Departure 11:20 pm
•Transit –3 hours 10 minutes round trip
•Driving –25 minutes round trip
Current Transit Use and Advancements
Current Initiatives
•In 2021 the Airport TRAX system was utilized 620,000
times for arrivals and departures.
•Salt Lake City Employees averaged 74,000 trips on
public transit per year (prior to 2020 [COVID and
telework])
•The Airport TRAX platform remains one of the top
performing stations in the UTA network
•Public relation campaigns of Tickets for TRAX, Free
Fare February and Clean Air Days also help boost the
public transit popularity
11
Future Goals/Plans
Airport Plans
•Transportation Management Association within Salt
Lake City’s westside businesses
•Collaborate with tenants/airlines for mobility
solutions
•Carpool Incentives
UTA Service Plan
•Improve frequency and hours of service
•Midvalley Connector and 5600 West Service
•Innovative mobility solutions
•Transit hubs/new service near the airport
•Local service improvements
Salt Lake City Master Transit Plan
•Frequent Transit Network
•On-Demand Services
Thank you.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
______________________________ Date Received:
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer
Date Sent to Council:
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August__, 2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Bill Wyatt, Executive Director, Department of Airports
SUBJECT: Salt Lake City Department of Airports (“SLCDA”) and Utah Transit Authority
(“UTA”) Airport Employee Transit Options Consultation
STAFF CONTACTS: Brady Fredrickson, Director of Airport Planning and Capital Programming
DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing regarding Airport fund FY23 budget contingency; Resolution.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution.
BUDGET IMPACT: No impact; Release of previously appropriated funds.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
I. BACKGROUND
As part of City Council’s adoption of the FY23 budget, Council requested that, prior to SLCDA’s
capital expenditure related to parking lots, SLCDA consult with UTA regarding the potential to
expand transit opportunities for City employees, including considerations related to protecting air
quality and encouraging mass transit in collaboration with UTA and other public private partnerships.
Transit opportunities at the SLC International Airport (“Airport”) present complex opportunities
and challenges. The Airport is located five miles from downtown Salt Lake City and covers 8,000
acres. With 20,000 to 30,000 passengers arriving daily, the Airport is a nonstop hub of activity. Over
15,000 people are employed at the Airport, including City employees and as well as airline,
concession, maintenance, and construction employees. Often job opportunities at the Airport may
be an individual’s first job in the United States and Airport employees are some of the most diverse
in Salt Lake City, representing over 130 different countries. Approximately 1,500 Airport employees
live in close proximity to the Airport (Rose Park and West Valley), however, the public transit
network does not currently provide adequate service in comparison to vehicular options.
23
8/23/2022
8/23/2022
Lisa Shaffer (Aug 23, 2022 16:15 MDT)
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
In February of 2021, UTA adopted a Five-Year Service Plan to help guide service based on the best
information available. To help UTA with its service planning, SLCDA gathered the following
information regarding the mobility needs at the Airport:
A. Employment Locations at the Airport
Employees arrive at four primary locations at the Airport: Terminal; South Cargo; General Aviation;
and North Support/Cargo.1
1. Terminal Area:
There are over 5,000 badged employees who work in the Airport terminal. Employees travel from
scattered areas in the region. The following charts shows zip codes where the number of employees
is greater than 60:
1 Many employees also arrive at the Terminal/Construction site, but these employees are largely non-badged and reliable
information regarding the starting point of their commute is not available at this time. Also, all numbers are approximate
and fluctuate from time-to time as employees are hired or depart.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Terminal Employee Counts per Zip Code
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
2. North Support/Cargo Area:
There are 900 badged employees who work in the northern area of the Airport (1200 North/4000
West).2 The following charts shows zip codes where the number of “badged” employees is greater
than 20:
3. General Aviation/Utah Air National Guard (UANG) Area:
There are 655 badged employees who work on the general aviation side of the Airport, plus an
additional 1,400 employees who work at the UANG. There are currently no operating bus routes in
this area, and the westside on-demand service does not cover all of the general aviation and Utah Air
National Guard tenants.
4. South Cargo Area:
There are 350 badged employees who work in the south cargo area of the Airport (200 North to 510
North and 3700 West). With the proximity of this area to the terminal, an additional stop for TRAX
2 An additional 800 non-badged employees work for Delta Reservations, although they are not included in the numbers
for the same reason as the construction employees.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
North Area Employee Counts per Zip Code
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
doesn’t make sense. Planning for future bus stop or an autonomous vehicle along 3700 West may be
possible in the future, especially after 3700 West is no longer utilized as a construction haul route.
B. Employee Schedules
Most Airport employee morning shifts begin at 4:00 am (before the first flight) and evening shifts
end at 1:00 am (after the last flight). Due to track line sharing agreement obligations, the Green Line
service is unable to be expanded to early morning or late evening hours.
The following is a listing of the general operating work schedules at the airport per location:
1. Terminal Area:
• 5,500 Employees
• Start Time 4:00 am – End Time: 1:00 am
2. Northern Operations/Cargo Area:
• 1,700 Employees
• Start Time 4:00 am – End Time: 1:00 am
3. General Aviation Area:
• 2,000 Employees
• Start Time 6:00 am – End Time: 10:00 pm
4. Southern Operations/Cargo Area:
• 400 Employees
• Start Time 6:00 am – End Time: 10:00 pm
II. CITY COORDINATION WITH UTA
Salt Lake City Transportation Division staff coordinate with UTA in a variety of ways that may offer
opportunities for enhanced Airport coordination. For instance, Transportation staff meets weekly
with UTA executive/management staff and UTA attends relevant Engineering design review
meetings. SLCDA and the Transportation Division participate in the SLC Transportation Master
Plan and UTA’s Long Range Transit Plan development.
A. UTA and SLCDA Coordination
UTA and SLCDA have been in close coordination since the inception of the Airport TRAX line.
Below is a list of public transit coordination highlights at the Airport:
• March 2022 – UTA outreach to concessions Airport employees regarding Vanpool
opportunities
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
• December 2021 – Sunday night service was extended to 11:37 PM
• November – February 2021 – Trips to Train – Free boarding with airline tickets
• November 2021 – New TRAX Station constructed at the New SLC Airport and opened
shortly after New SLC Airport opened
• September 2021 – Provided UTA with survey information from tenants, detailing
numbers of tenant employees, work schedules and origin and destination
• October 2017 – Airport sponsored Climate Week – offering free transit passes to
tenants – 470 recorded trips
• April 2016 – Delta-sponsored Safety, Health and Wellness Fair – UTA Outreach to
tenants
• October 2015 – Airport-sponsored Climate Week – offering free transit passes to
tenants – 654 recorded trips
• April 2015 – Airport-sponsored Sustainability/Health and Wellness Fair – UTA
Outreach to tenants
• October 2013 – UTA conducted outreach to Airport concessions employees regarding
TRAX opportunities
• April 2013 - Airport TRAX Line opened. Since 2013, the Airport TRAX Station has
seen a 7% average increase in ridership per year, with approximately 2,000 riders arriving
and departing each day.3
B. FY23 City Transportation Initiatives
Several City transportation initiatives have been in development and were funded in the FY23
budget. These initiatives were in coordination with UTA’s planned investments, as articulated in
UTA’s 5-year plan and supported by the Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan. Several of these
initiatives may increase transit opportunities, and address or create additional potential challenges, at
the Airport:
• Route 1 will begin operating in August 2022, connecting 450 S. Orange Street with the
University of Utah via Redwood, 1000 N. and South Temple.
o The effect of this service change will be greater span and frequency, as well as
increased direct service between the east and west sides of the City, however, at the
expense of expansive geographic coverage into low-density employment areas such
as the Airport.
o Westside UTA On-Demand provides equivalent coverage to routes that are being
discontinued in Rose Park, Ballpark, Poplar Grove, and Glendale.
3 Data collected pre-COVID.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
This service resulted in bus route 519, service to Fairpark, and bus route 520,
service to Rose Park being discontinued.
• UTA Westside On-Demand currently provides corner-to-corner service for trips within
the City’s residential west side and to transit stops and stations. It was launched in
December 2021 and funding was continued in the FY23 budget.
o The service provider can forecast/model ridership potential and approximate costs.
o This may be helpful particularly during low-usage and off-schedule (midnight to 4
am) times, where there is an opportunity to maximize an existing City resource.
• The Westside Mobility Hub, to be located along the North Temple Corridor somewhere
between Fairpark and Redwood Road, is currently under study and has already secured
partial funding through UTA and City sources/grants.
o This facility will provide multimodal connections between micromobility, on-
demand services, TRAX, and several bus routes.
o While not immediate, this near-term facility (2-5 years) will provide a potential pick-
up/drop-off location for shuttle and/or on-demand services and offers the potential
for shared parking/park-and-ride opportunities.
o The future 5600 West bus that will operate 24/7 will utilize this facility and makes a
connection to the Airport.
III. FUTURE CITY COORDINATION WITH UTA
The City and UTA have developed a strong and collaborative working relationship to solve
transportation issues and encourage mass transit, which will ultimately be an essential key for
improving air quality in the Salt Lake Valley. The City and UTA entered into an interlocal agreement
in 2018 where the City funds expansion of certain routes to meet the City’s transportation priorities
(the “Interlocal Agreement”). Council could prioritize routes that would meet the City’s
transportation goals and expand transit opportunities at the Airport through the Interlocal
Agreement. Attached is a memorandum from UTA describing some of the history and recent
coordination between the partners. Below is a summary of longer-term and unfunded transportation
initiatives:
A. UTA’s Future of Light Rail Study
UTA is nearing completion of its Future of Light Rail study, which identifies capital and operational
plans. Salt Lake City Transportation staff is one of many stakeholders involved in the process and
Airport planner(s) can participate in stakeholder meetings or can coordinate with Transportation
staff so that they may be represented in workshops and meetings.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
B. UTA’s Five-Year Service Plan
UTA’s Five-Year Service Plan is a regularly updated plan in which the City has a significant
stakeholder role. If changes to bus service that benefit Airport employees are warranted by ridership
potential and/or sponsored by the City through the Interlocal Agreement, they could be included in
this plan for future implementation. Evaluations and adjustments are conducted on a two-year cycle,
with a new published plan every five years. Airport planner(s) could participate in stakeholder
meetings or could coordinate with Transportation staff so that they may be represented in
workshops and meetings.
C. UTA’s Long-Range Transit Plan
UTA’s Long-Range Transit Plan will launch shortly and provides a more in-depth look at transit for
inclusion in the Wasatch Front Regional Council’s Regional Transportation Plan. The City will be a
stakeholder in this effort, which considers all mass transit modes and the system as a whole. Airport
planner(s) could participate in stakeholder meetings or can coordinate with Transportation staff so
that the unique challenges and opportunities of mass transit at the Airport could be taken into
consideration.
The SLCDA is committed to working in collaboration with UTA and other transit partners to
leverage transit resources and opportunities to address the persistent air quality issues in the Salt
Lake Valley. There are a variety of other benefits to improving transit/multimodal access. Many
businesses in Salt Lake City have experienced high turnover where transit options are limited, and
this likely includes some Airport employers, which increases the costs associated with vacancies,
recruitment, and training. Moreover, multimodal access is an important equity issue, especially to
low- and middle-income workers because transportation is the second largest household expense
and thus has a significant impact on overall household budgets.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Memorandum from Eric Callison, Manager of Service Planning, Utah Transit
Authority, to Salt Lake City Department of Airports, re: Transit Opportunities and
Challenges at the Salt Lake City International Airport (July 18, 2022)
Exhibit B: Resolution
EXHIBIT A
UTA Consultation Memorandum
669 West 200 South
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
ISO 9001:2000, ISO 14001:2004 and OSHAS 18001:2007
July 18, 2022
Transit Opportunities and Challenges at Salt Lake International Airport
Background
Since the opening of the Airport station on the TRAX light rail system, The Utah Transit Authority (UTA)
and Salt Lake City Department of Airports (SLCDA) have collaborated on multiple ridership and
awareness initiatives to benefit patrons and employees at Salt Lake International Airport. Both groups
continue to meet to address ongoing challenges and future needs. This memo summarizes opportunities
and challenges associated with improved transit service to the Airport.
History
UTA TRAX service to the Airport began in April 2013 with the opening of the Airport Line, part of the
Green Line of the TRAX light rail system. Service hours were extended on Sundays in August 2015. In
April 2020, frequency of service and hours were reduced due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Since then, UTA
has gradually restored light rail service to the Airport, restoring 15-minute service on weekdays in
August and December 2020 and restoring Sunday hours of service in December 2021. In November
2021, service began at the newly completed light rail station at the Airport.
During this time UTA and SLCDA have collaborated on a number of events to increase awareness and
ridership on transit, including:
• Sustainability/Health and Wellness Fair, April 2015 (sponsored by SLCDA)
• Climate Week, October 2015 (sponsored by SLCDA)
• Safety, Health, Wellness Fair, April 2015 (sponsored by Delta)
• Climate Week, October 2017 (sponsored by SLCDA)
• Ticket as Fare, November 2021 – February 2022
SLCDA and UTA continue to look for opportunities to increase transit ridership and meet the needs of
Airport patrons, as well as employees of SLCDA, concessionaires, and airlines who work within the
Airport campus.
Planned and Future Transit Improvements
The UTA Five-Year Service Plan outlines multiple improvements to transit service at the Airport and in
the surrounding areas, including:
5600 West Line. New north-south service on 5600 West between the TRAX Red Line and downtown Salt
Lake City, via the Airport and International Center, with connections to east-west transit service
between 9000 South and North Temple
Midvalley Connector. New service between West Valley Central Station and Murray Central Station,
providing improved connections to routes in Murray, Taylorsville, and West Valley City
TRAX Saturday Service. Increased frequency on all TRAX lines on Saturday, from 30-minute to 15-minute
service
669 West 200 South
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
ISO 9001:2000, ISO 14001:2004 and OSHAS 18001:2007
Local Service Improvements. Additional local connections from 3600 West, Bangerter Highway, and 3100
South, as well as increased frequency and connections to the Fairpark, Glendale, Poplar Grove, and Rose
Park neighborhoods on the west side of Salt Lake City.
In addition to these improvements, UTA is exploring the possibility of alternative services to provide
coverage, such as Vanpool, UTA On Demand, and partnerships with transportation network companies
such as Lyft and Uber.
Challenges and Ways Forward
Hours of Operation. Per SLCDA the majority of work shifts at the Airport begin at 4:00 AM and end at
1:00 AM. This is outside the current hours of operation for the TRAX system due to logistical and track
sharing constraints.
The Future of Light Rail study currently in progress includes evaluation of scenarios that provide
extended hours or overnight service to the Airport. Each of these alternatives would require new track-
sharing agreements or acquisition of additional right of way to avoid conflicts with freight movements.
Service to the Airport could also be provided by buses outside light rail operating hours. The new
TechLink Corridor study may also inform future changes to the light rail system.
Resource and Staffing Constraints. Covid-19 and the current labor market have created significant delays
in the implementation of the UTA Five-Year Service plan, meaning UTA does not currently have definite
timelines for service improvements associated with the Airport. UTA efforts to meet the labor shortage
include strategies for increased recruitment and early onboarding, as well as deploying alternative
services as described above.
Airport Circulation. UTA does not provide circulation within the Airport beyond the TRAX Station, but is
open to the possibility of doing so, budget and resources permitting.
Summary
UTA and SLCDA have worked together on a variety of initiatives to improve access and increase ridership
since TRAX service to the Airport began in 2013. UTA plans to improve services to the Airport in the next
few years, based on the availability of resources and staffing. Both agencies hope to continue to work
together to overcome the challenges and constraints that exist and implement improved transit services
for passengers and employees.
Eric Callison
Manager of Service Planning
Utah Transit Authority
ecallison@rideuta.com
669 W. 200 S.
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
www.rideuta.com
EXHIBIT B
Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. __ OF 2022
(A Resolution Approving the Release of Budget Contingency for the Fiscal Year 2022-2023
Budget Relating to the Department of Airports)
WHEREAS, on June 14, 2022, the Salt Lake City Council adopted Ordinance No. 32 of
2022, adopting the City budget, excluding the Library Fund, and adopting the employment
staffing document, for fiscal year 2022-2023 (the “Budget Ordinance”); and
WHEREAS, the Budget Ordinance specified a contingency applying to, among other
departments, the Department of Airports (the “Department”); and
WHEREAS, the budget contingency related to the Department’s fiscal year 2022-2023
budget (the “Budget Contingency”) specified that the Department must consult with the Utah
Transit Authority (“UTA”), in writing, regarding potential efforts to increase transit
opportunities for Airport employees to and from the Salt Lake City International Airport
(“Airport”), prior to any capital expenditure related to parking lots; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to work in concert with UTA to improve transit options to
and from Airport, as well as elsewhere in Salt Lake City, to further the City’s efforts to improve
air quality in the Salt Lake Valley; and
WHEREAS, the Department consulted directly with UTA as well as the Salt Lake City
Transportation Division (“Transportation”) regarding existing coordination and the potential to
increase transit opportunities at the Airport, and briefed City Council regarding the historical,
current, and future opportunities for coordination with UTA; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has examined the consultation and determined the Budget
Contingency should be removed; and
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as
follows:
1. The City Council has determined the Department has met the Budget
Contingency and hereby declares the Budget Contingency is satisfied.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of _________, 2022.
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
By: ______________________________
Dan Dugan, Chair, Salt Lake City Council
Attest:
___________________________
City Recorder
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Approved as to Form:
___________________________
Senior City Attorney
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:October 11, 2022
RE: 856 West 1300 South Zoning Map Amendment
PLNPCM2022-00009
The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map for property located at 856 West
1300 South in City Council District Two from its current R-1/5,000 (single-family residential) zoning to
FB-UN1 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood). The petitioner’s stated objective is to redevelop the
approximately 0.28-acre parcel with six for sale townhomes. A single-family home on the site is proposed
to be removed as part of the development. It reportedly has radon and asbestos issues and is not connected
to the City sewer system.
Nearby parcels are primarily single-family residential, with some Neighborhood Commercial, Open Space,
and Public Lands as shown in the area zoning map below.
Planning staff recommended the Planning Commission forward a negative recommendation to the City
Council. Planning felt the proposal does not meet applicable standards for approval which are discussed in
the Key Considerations section below. The Commission discussed the proposed zoning map amendment
during its August 24, 2022 meeting and held a public hearing at which no one spoke. The Commission
closed the public hearing and voted 7-4 to forward a positive recommendation to the Council.
Commissioners who voted in support of the proposal noted the need for additional housing in the city and
needed area revitalization. Those who voted against forwarding a positive recommendation cited concerns
including a townhome development is out of character with the neighborhood, and potential for the FB-
UN1 zoning district to proliferate in the area where it was not intended to be used.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: October 11, 2022
Set Date: October 18, 2022
Public Hearing: November 10, 2022
Potential Action: November 22, 2022
Page | 2
Area zoning map with the subject parcel outlined.
Note: The Sorenson Center is located at the blue
Public Lands (PL) area at the bottom of the image.
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map amendment, determine if the Council supports
moving forward with the proposal.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The petitioner indicated new residential units would be for sale at an attainable price point. The
Council may wish to ask the petitioner about a range of prices the proposed units are anticipated to
sell for.
2. The Council may wish to discuss the tradeoffs between allowing additional density in this area and
spurring gentrification. In evaluation, the Council may wish to request additional information from
the developer on the types of units such as size and number of bedrooms, and levels of affordability.
3. There is no minimum off-street parking requirement in FB-UN zoning districts. The Council may
wish to ask the petitioner if there are plans for off-street parking in the proposed development.
4. The housing loss mitigation plan recommends the petitioner enter a development agreement with
the City for replacement of at least one housing unit. Does the Council wish to include this as a
condition if the proposed zoning map amendment ordinance is adopted?
5. The Council may wish to ask if the existing home on the property home is occupied and if residents
will be assisted with relocation.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property. No formal site plan has been submitted
to the City nor is it within the scope of the Council’s authority to review the plans. Because zoning of a
property can outlast the life of a building, any rezoning application should be considered on the merits of
changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project.
HOUSING LOSS MITIGATION
Because the proposal includes loss of a housing unit and the planned FB-UN1 zoning designation does not
Page | 3
require residential uses in new developments, a housing loss mitigation plan is required. Section 18.97.130
of Salt Lake City Code outlines three options for housing loss mitigation:
A. Construction of replacement housing
B. Payment of a fee based on the difference between existing housing market value and the cost of
replacement, and
C. Payment of a flat mitigation fee if demonstrated that the costs of calculating and analyzing the
various methods of mitigation are unreasonably excessive in relationship to the rough estimated
costs of constitutionally permitted mitigation.
The petitioner proposes constructing six housing units on the subject parcel, which would satisfy Option A.
The Community and Neighborhoods Department Director approved the housing loss mitigation report and
determined the petitioner should enter a development agreement with the City for replacement of at least
one housing unit to comply with City housing loss mitigation standards in Salt Lake City Code.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Planning staff identified three key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 3-4 of
the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the
staff report.
Consideration 1: Is the FB-UN1 appropriate in the proposed location?
Planning staff believes FB-UN zones are more appropriate in areas of the city that are more densely
populated, closer to shopping, employment opportunities, other daily needs, and within proximity to mass
transit, specifically TRAX.
It is Planning’s opinion that while bus service is available nearby, form-based zoning is not warranted
based on the FB-UN zones.
Consideration 2: Adjacent Land Uses and Zoning
One purpose of form-based zones is to provide appropriately scaled buildings that respect the
neighborhood’s existing character. It is Planning’s belief that uses allowed under FB-UN1 zoning other than
the proposed townhome development would be too intensive and may have a detrimental impact on
surrounding property owners. Some of these potential uses are a bed & breakfast, daycare, congregate care
facility, assisted living facility, government or municipal services facility, or off-street parking.
Consideration 3: City Adopted Master Plans
The 2014 Westside Master Plan states: “All new infill development, whether single-, or two- or multi-
family residential should adhere to the prevailing development pattern in the immediate area.” It is
Planning staff’s opinion single-family attached or other greater density land use is not consistent with the
Plan as adjacent properties are single-family detached residential. However, Planning also noted housing
issues in the city have changed in the years since the Westside Master Plan was adopted, and the need for
additional housing may outweigh stricter adherence to the Plan’s policies.
ZONING DISTRICT COMPARISON
The following table compares some standards of the R-1/5,000 and FB-UN1 zoning districts. Please see
pages 18-19 of the Planning Commission staff report for additional information.
R-1/5,000 (existing)FB-UN1 (proposed)
Building Height Flat Roof: 20 FT 2.5 stories, maximum of 30
FT, measured from established grade
Page | 4
Pitched Roof: 28 FT or Average
height of other principal
building on the block face
Setbacks Front Yard: Average of existing
buildings on the block face
unless otherwise established
by plat. No greater than the
setback of the existing
building.
Interior Side Yard: 4 FT on one
side 10 FT on the other
Rear Yard: 25% of lot depth or
20 FT, whichever is less
Front Yard: Equal to the
average setback of the block
face, where applicable,
otherwise minimum of 10 FT
and maximum of 20 FT
Interior Side Yard: 4 FT
Rear Yard: Minimum 20% lot
depth up to 25 FT
Maximum Building
Coverage
60% of the lot area N/A
Lot Area/Width Minimum: 5000 SF/50 Feet
Maximum: 7500 SF
Minimum: 1500-3000 SF/15-30 FT
ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS
Attachment F (pages 24-25) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map amendment
factors that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. The factors and findings are
summarized below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information.
Factor Planning Division
Finding
Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with
the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as
stated through its various adopted planning documents.
Does Not Comply
Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the
specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance.
Does Not Comply
The extent to which a proposed map amendment will
affect adjacent properties.
Does Not Comply
Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with
the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay
zoning districts which may impose additional standards.
N/A
The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to
serve the subject property, including, but not limited to,
roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire
protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water
supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection.
Complies
DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
In department review of this proposed zoning map amendment, Transportation noted FB-UN zoning does
not have minimum required parking and on-street parking in the area is limited. Public Utilities stated
redevelopment of the property may require additional utility improvements. These would be addressed
during site plan review. Other departments had no objections to the proposed rezone or did not provide
comments.
Page | 5
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
• January 3, 2022-Applications submitted.
• January 27, 2022-Petition assigned to Caitlynn Tubbs.
• May 17, 2022- Petition reassigned to Lex Traughber.
• June 15, 2022-Early notification mailed to property owners and tenants located within 300 feet of
the subject property boundaries.
• June 15, 2022-Planning staff attended Glendale Community Council meeting at which the
petitioner presented his proposal. (The Glendale Community Council submitted a letter dated
March 30, 2022 supportive of the zoning map amendment.)
• August 10, 2022-Property posted with signs for the August 244, 2022 Planning Commission
public hearing.
• August 11, 2022-Planning Commission August 24, 2022 public hearing notice mailed to property
owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject property. Listserv notification of the Planning
Commission agenda emailed. Agenda posted on the Planning Division and State websites.
• August 24, 2022-Planning Commission public hearing at which the Commission voted to forward
a positive recommendation for the zoning map amendment to the City Council.
• August 26, 2022-Draft ordinance sent to the City Attorney’s Office for review.
• September 16, 2022-Planning Division received ordinance from the City Attorney’s Office.
• September 22, 2022- Transmittal received in City Council Office.
Salt Lake City Council // October 11, 2022
856 W. 1300 SOUTHZONING MAP AMENDMEMT
PLNPCM2022-00009
Jordan Atkin,TAG SLC,LLC,has requested to rezone the property
located at approximately 856 West 1300 South as follows:
•Existing zoning -R-1-5,000 (Single-family Residential District)
•Proposed zoning –FB-UN-1 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood
District)
The applicant has indicated that he intends to construct a
townhome style development (Single-family Attached Residential)
of 6 dwellings if the map amendment is approved.
PROJECT REQUEST
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
RECOMMENDATION
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning
Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation
regarding the map amendment request on to the City
Council for consideration.
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
RECOMMENDATION
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
Lex Traughber // Senior Planner
Lex.traughber@slcgov.com
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
________________________ Date Received: _________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: September 21, 2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT: Petition PLNPCM2022-00009
856 W. 1300 South Zoning Map Amendment
STAFF CONTACT: Lex Traughber, Senior Planner
(801) 5356184 or lex.traughber@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council amend the zoning map as recommended by the
Planning Commission.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Jordan Atkin, TAG SLC, LLC, proposes to amendment the
zoning map to change the zoning for the 0.28 acre parcel located at the address above from R-
1/5,000 (Single-family Residential District) to FB-UN1 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood
District) in its entirety. The parcel is currently occupied by a single-family residential dwelling.
This zoning map amendment will facilitate the redevelopment of this parcel into a single-family
attached residential project. The zoning map amendment does not require an amendment to the
Westside Master Plan.
The Planning Commission reviewed the request at a public hearing on August 24, 2022. The
Commission determined that the request will not have a detrimental impact on adjacent
properties and that the City’s infrastructure is adequate to support development at the subject
9/22/2022
9/22/2022
Lisa Shaffer (Sep 22, 2022 09:21 MDT)
location. The Commission voted (7 to 4) to forward a positive recommendation on to the City
Council to amend the zoning map as requested.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
● Early Notification – Notification of the proposal was sent to all property owners and
tenants located within 300 feet of the subject parcels on June 15, 2022. In addition, the
Glendale Community Council (GCC) was also provided notification on June 1, 2021.
● Glendale Community Council – The applicant presented and discussed the proposal to
rezone the property at the GCC meeting on June 15, 2021. Planning Staff was in
attendance. A letter of support from the GCC is attached in the Planning Commission
Staff Report dated August 24, 2022.
● Planning Commission Meeting – On August 24, 2022, the Planning Commission held a
public hearing regarding the proposed zoning map amendment. The Planning Commission
voted to forward a positive recommendation regarding the proposal on to the City Council for
decision.
PLANNING AND HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION RECORDS:
a) PC Agenda of August 24, 2022 (Click to Access)
b) PC Minutes of August 24, 2022 (Click to Access)
c) PC Staff Report of August, 2022 (Click to Access)
EXHIBITS:
1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
3. ORIGINAL PETITION
4. MAILING LIST
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2022
(Amending the zoning of the property located at 856 West 1300 South Street
from R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District to FB-UN1 Form Based Urban
Neighborhood District)
An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to the property located at 856 West
1300 South Street from R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District to FB-UN1 Form Based
Urban Neighborhood District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-00009.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on August
24, 2022 on an application submitted by Jordan Atkin, TAG SLC, LLC, to rezone the property
located at 856 West 1300 South Street (Tax ID No. 15-11-456-016) (the “Property”) from R-
1/5,000 Singl e-Family Residential District to FB-UN1 Form Based Urban Neighborhood District
pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2022-00009; and
WHEREAS, at its August 24, 2022 meeting, the planning commission voted in favor of
forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said application; and
WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the city council has determined that
adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted
by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and
hereby is amended to reflect that the Property identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto shall be
and hereby is rezoned from R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District to FB-UN1 Form
Based Urban Neighborhood District.
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its
first publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________,
2022.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 2022.
Published: ______________.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:__________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney
September 16, 2022
EXHIBIT “A”
Legal Description for the Property to be Rezoned:
Address: 856 West 1300 South
Tax ID No. 15-11-456-016
W 20 FT OF LOT 12 & ALL LOTS 13 & 14 J BOLTON & CO SUB
TOGETHER WITH 1/2 VACATED ALLEY ABUTTING ON N. 8059-
0519 9365-0954,0957 09415-2302
Contains 12,197 sq feet or 0.28 acres more or less.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
3. ORIGINAL PETITION
4. MAILING LIST
1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
856 W. 1300 South Zoning Map Amendment
Petitions PLNPCM2022-00009
January 3, 2022 Petitions received by the City.
January 27, 2022 Petition assigned to Caitlynn Tubbs.
May 17, 2022 Petition reassigned to Lex Traughber.
June 1, 2022 The Glendale Community Council was emailed notification of the
proposal.
June 15, 2022 Early notification mailed to property owners and tenants located
within 300 feet of the subject property boundaries.
June 15, 2022 The applicant formally presented the proposal to the Glendale
Community Council at their regularly scheduled monthly meeting.
Planning Staff was in attendance. The GCC submitted a letter to the
Planning Division dated March 30, 2022 in support of the map
amendment.
August 10, 2022 Property posted with signs for the August 24, 2022 Planning
Commission hearing.
August 11, 2022 Notice of the Planning Commission’s August 24, 2022 Public Hearing
mailed to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the
subject property. Listserve notification of Planning Commission
agenda emailed. Agenda posted on the Planning Division and State
websites.
August 24, 2022 Planning Commission Public Hearing. The Planning Commission
voted to forward a positive recommendation regarding the request on
to the City Council for a decision.
August 26, 2022 Sent a draft ordinance to the City Attorney’s Office for review reflecting
the Planning Commission’s recommendation regarding the zoning
map amendment. Requested review of the draft ordinance.
September 16, 2022 Received ordinance from the City Attorney’s Office.
September 21, 2022 Transmittal submitted to CAN.
2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2022-00009 856 W. 1300 South
Zoning Map Amendment – Jordan Atkin, TAG SLC, LLC, proposes to amendment the zoning
map to change the zoning for the 0.28 acre parcel noted above from R-1/5,000 (Single-family
Residential District) to FB-UN1 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood District) in its entirety. The
parcel is currently occupied by a single-family residential dwelling. This zoning map
amendment change will facilitate the redevelopment of this parcel into a single-family attached
residential project. The subject property is located in Council District 2 represented by
Alejandro Puy.
As part of their study, the City Council is holding two advertised public hearings to receive
comments regarding the petition. During these hearings, anyone desiring to address the City
Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider
adopting the ordinance on the same night of the second public hearing. The hearing will be held
electronically:
DATE: Date #1 and Date #2
TIME: 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: **This meeting will not have a physical location.
**This will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency
Proclamation. If you are interested in participating in the Public Hearing, please visit our
website at https://www.slc.gov/council/ to learn how you can share your comments during
the meeting. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at
(801)535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments
received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record.
If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call
Lex Traughber at (801) 535-6184 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday or via e-mail at lex.traughber@slcgov.com
People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours
in advance in order to participate in this hearing. Please make requests at least two business days
in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at
council.comments@slcgov.com , 801-535-7600, or relay service 711.
3. ORIGINAL PETITION
Updated 8/21/2021
Zoning Amendment
Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance Amend the Zoning Map
OFFICE USE ONLY
Received By: Date Received: Project #:
Name or Section/s of Zoning Amendment:
PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION
Address of Subject Property (or Area):
Name of Applicant: Phone:
Address of Applicant:
E-mail of Applicant:Cell/Fax:
Applicant’s Interest in Subject Property:
Owner Contractor Architect Other:
Name of Property Owner (if different from applicant):
E-mail of Property Owner:Phone:
Please note that additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate
information is provided for staff analysis. All information required for staff analysis will be copied and
made public, including professional architectural or engineering drawings, for the purposes of public
review by any interested party.
AVAILABLE CONSULTATION
If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application, please contact Salt Lake City
Planning Counter at zoning@slcgov.com prior to submitting the application.
REQUIRED FEE
Map Amendment: filing fee of $1,075 plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre
Text Amendment: filing fee of $1,075, plus fees for newspaper notice.
Plus, additional fee for mailed public notices. Noticing fees will be assessed after the application is
submitted.
SIGNATURE
If applicable, a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required.
Signature of Owner or Agent: Date:
SA
L
T
L
A
K
E
C
I
T
Y
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
TAG SLC, LLC 312-550-6381
Jake@tagslc.com
4
856 W 1300 S, Salt Lake City, UT 84104
PO Box 520697, Salt Lake City, UT 84152
4
1/3/2022 | 2:13 PM MST
Updated 8/21/2021
St
a
f
f
R
e
v
i
e
w
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
1.Project Description (please electronically attach additional sheets. See Section 21A.50 for the
Amendments ordinance.)
A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment.
A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned.
List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area.
Is the request amending the Zoning Map?
If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed.
Is the request amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance?
If so, please include language and the reference to the Zoning Ordinance to be changed.
WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION
Apply online through the Citizen Access Portal. There is a step-by-step guide to learn how to submit online.
INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED
______ I acknowledge that Salt Lake City requires the items above to be submitted before my application can be processed. I
understand that Planning will not accept my application unless all of the following items are included in the
submittal package.
4
4
4
4
1/3/2022 | 2:13 PM MST
4. MAILING LIST
OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADDR OWN_CITY OWN_S OWN_ZIP
GS,TK,LLC 5078 S PINEY RIDGE DR WEST VALL UT 84118
KATRINA L RIVERA; CLARA RI 1224 S 900 W SALT LAKE UT 84104
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATIOPO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE UT 84114
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATIOPO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE UT 84114
MICHAEL L ROBINSON 4023 W 4490 S WEST VALL UT 84120
TYLER A THOOMAS 1199 S 900 W SALT LAKE UT 84104
WALTER L MARKHAM 886 W LUCY AVE SALT LAKE UT 84104
GALE NATION; LINDA NATION5122 S WESLEY RD SALT LAKE UT 84117
MATTHEW H STOWELL 561 KEYSTONE AVE RENO NV 56183
SCOTT DAVID RADER; KRYST 4428 S NIELSEN WY WEST VALL UT 84119
JAVIER LOPEZ; ELVA CALATA 1217 S 900 W SALT LAKE UT 84104
AMBER HOLBROOK 1225 S 900 W SALT LAKE UT 84104
DHALIWAL, LLC 1245 S 900 W SALT LAKE UT 84104
STEVEN ERB; SARAH ERB; BR 865 W LUCY AVE SALT LAKE UT 84104
THOMAS M FREESTONE 845 W LUCY AVE SALT LAKE UT 84104
JOHNNY JAY WAKEFIELD 6100 STATUTE ST CHESTERFIEVA 23832
MELVIN D HUEFNER 835 W LUCY AVE SALT LAKE UT 84104
SAMIUELA H TUKUTAU; OFA 823 W LUCY AVE SALT LAKE UT 84104
LAVINIA TUKUAFU; OFA TUK 811 W LUCY AVE SALT LAKE UT 84104
STEVEN ERB; SARAH ERB; BR 865 W LUCY AVE SALT LAKE UT 84104
STEPHEN P PICKARD 862 W 1300 S SALT LAKE UT 84104
NALANI J NAMAUU PO BOX 520697 SALT LAKE UT 84152
DAC VENTURES, LLC 1947 E STAG HILL CIR DRAPER UT 84020
LON E PURCELL; DEANNA PU 838 W 1300 S SALT LAKE UT 84104
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 830 W 1300 S SALT LAKE UT 84104
MAGDALENO L DUARTE 7145 W HUNTER DAWN WY WEST VALL UT 84128
GORDON H LEMMON 7099 S CHERRY TREE LN COTTONW UT 84121
V & K INVESTMENTS, LLC PO BOX 25512 SALT LAKE UT 84125
STEPHEN P PICKARD 862 W 1300 S SALT LAKE UT 84104
SCOTT & SHELLY WUNDERLY 855 W LUCY AVE SALT LAKE UT 84104
STEVEN ERB; SARAH ERB; BR 865 W LUCY AVE SALT LAKE UT 84104
RLDRE 1300 SOUTH 623 E 2100 S SALT LAKE UT 84106
SALT LAKE CITY PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE UT 84114
VU CAO 1785 MAPLE HILLS DR BOUNTIFULUT 84010
BRIAN C ROLLINS; CHELSEY R 847 W 1300 S SALT LAKE UT 84104
ADAM T WILLIAMS; ELIZABET 845 W 1300 S SALT LAKE UT 84104
BILL WOOLSEY; CAROLYN WO 846 W CALIFORNIA AVE SALT LAKE UT 84104
GLENDALE DUPLEX, LLC 3556 S 5600 W # 1 WEST VALL UT 84120
VAWDREY HOLDINGS, LLC 12686 S WHISPER CREEK CV DRAPER UT 84020
VAWDREY HOLDINGS, LLC 12686 S WHISPER CREEK CV DRAPER UT 84020
SALT LAKE COMMNUNITY AC 1307 S 900 W SALT LAKE UT 84104
JULIO HERNANDEZ-OLVERA 1390 W 800 S SALT LAKE UT 84104
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATIOPO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE UT 84114
ANTONIO MONRREAL; OLGA 838 W LUCY AVE SALT LAKE UT 84104
LARRY D SERVOSS; LILIA P SE 832 W LUCY AVE SALT LAKE UT 84104
GEORGE J PEZELY 826 W LUCY AVE SALT LAKE UT 84104
Current Occupant 1216 S 900 W Salt Lake Ci UT 84104
Current Occupant 1240 S 900 W Salt Lake Ci UT 84104
Current Occupant 1250 S 900 W Salt Lake Ci UT 84104
Current Occupant 1195 S 900 W Salt Lake Ci UT 84104
Current Occupant 868 W LUCY AVE Salt Lake Ci UT 84104
Current Occupant 848 W LUCY AVE Salt Lake Ci UT 84104
Current Occupant 871 W LUCY AVE Salt Lake Ci UT 84104
Current Occupant 843 W LUCY AVE Salt Lake Ci UT 84104
Current Occupant 856 W 1300 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84104
Current Occupant 846 W 1300 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84104
Current Occupant 822 W 1300 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84104
Current Occupant 1234 S 800 W Salt Lake Ci UT 84104
Current Occupant 1235 S 900 W Salt Lake Ci UT 84104
Current Occupant 864 W 1300 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84104
Current Occupant 857 W LUCY AVE Salt Lake Ci UT 84104
Current Occupant 804 W 1300 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84104
Current Occupant 1308 S 900 W Salt Lake Ci UT 84104
Current Occupant 1310 S 900 W Salt Lake Ci UT 84104
Current Occupant 839 W 1300 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84104
Current Occupant 857 W 1300 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84104
Current Occupant 858 W CALIFORNIA AVE Salt Lake Ci UT 84104
Current Occupant 879 W 1300 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84104
Current Occupant 823 W 1300 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84104
Current Occupant 815 W 1300 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84104
Lex Traughber 451 S State St, PO Box 145480 SALT LAKE UT 84114-5480
Utah Inland Port Authority & Salt Lake City
contract
HB 443 background
Contract in place by December 31, 2022 that sets out:
•a process on how City-generated property tax increment will be spent;
•a requirement that UIPA consult with City on what the City-generated
increment earmarked for community and environmental mitigation will
be spent on;
•a requirement that the Redevelopment Agency spend the 10% of
increment it receives for affordable housing; and
•a requirement that the City facilitate the efficient processing of land use
applications
Interlocal agreement components
Agrees that these assessments will guide
future expenditure of funds earmarked for
community and environmental mitigation
Identifies a City “NWQ Review Group” of
staff and stakeholders to evaluate potential
projects
Describes process by which the UIPA board
will evaluate potential projects
Requires UIPA Board to hold a public
hearing on a line-item budget with potential
projects before approving
Commits to efficient processing of land use
applications, including 1 FTE
Acknowledges that the parties all desire
certainty on the percentage and use of City-
generated property tax increment
Creates an annual process for the expenditure
of the City-generated increment earmarked for
community and environmental mitigation
Agrees that in year 1, parties will retain
consultant(s) to create assessments on
community impacts, and health impacts
ERIN MENDENHALL CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
Mayor Katherine Lewis
City Attorney
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 501 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486
CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TRANSMITTAL
_____________________ Date Received: _________________
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: _________________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: October 4, 2022
Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, Board of Directors
Dan Dugan, Council Chair
Ana Valdemoros, Redevelopment Agency Board Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Katie Lewis, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Interlocal Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation, the Redevelopment
Agency of Salt Lake City, and the Utah Inland Port Authority
STAFF CONTACT: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Katie Lewis, City Attorney
DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution Approving Interlocal Agreement
RECOMMENDATION: Consider and approve a resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute
the Interlocal Agreement in her capacity as the Mayor of Salt Lake City Corporation and as the
Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Utah Legislature passed HB443 in the 2022 legislative
session, which amended certain portions of Utah Code 11-58, the Utah Inland Port Authority Act.
HB443 amended the Utah Inland Port Authority Act to, among other things, alter the percentage
of Salt Lake City-generated property tax differential that is distributed to the Utah Inland Port
Authority (called “exempt area property tax”). Specifically, under HB443, for a period of 25 years
beginning January 1, 2023, the percentage of exempt area property tax paid to the Utah Inland Port
Authority (“Port Authority”) shall be 25%, plus:
- an additional 40% for the first tax year that begins on or after January 1, 2023, decreasing
2% each year after the 2023 tax year, so that in 2029 the percentage is 28;
- beginning January 1, 2030, and for a period of seven years, shall be 10%;
- beginning January 1, 2037, and for a period of 11 years, shall be 8%;
- and after 2047, shall be 0%.”
rachel otto (Oct 4, 2022 11:11 MDT)
Oct 4, 2022
Oct 4, 2022
During this 25-year period, the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City will be paid 10% of
exempt area property tax to be used for affordable housing, as required under Utah Code 17C-1-
412.
HB443 requires the Port Authority to spend 40% of the exempt area property tax on environmental
mitigation projects within the authority jurisdictional land (“Environmental Mitigation Money”);
and 40% for mitigation projects for communities that are within Salt Lake City and west of the
TRAX (“Community Mitigation Money”). The remaining 20% of the exempt area property tax
may be spent by the Port Authority for economic development projects within the authority
jurisdictional land.
HB443 requires the City, the Redevelopment Agency, and the Port Authority to execute a contract
by December 31, 2022, providing for:
- A process for how the Port Authority is to spend the Environmental Mitigation Money and
the Community Mitigation Money;
- Include a requirement that the Port Authority consult with the City in determining how to
spend the Environmental Mitigation Money and the Community Mitigation Money;
- Require the Redevelopment Agency to spend the 10% of exempt area property tax it
receives for affordable housing; and
- Require the City to agree to facilitate the efficient processing of land use applications
relating to the authority jurisdictional land by providing at least one full-time employee as
a single point of contact for the processing of the land use applications.
The draft contract between the City, Redevelopment Agency and the Port Authority is attached.
This contract is an interlocal cooperation agreement, which must be authorized by the City
Council, Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors, and the Port Authority Board.
The draft agreement does the following:
- Commits the City to designate one full-time employee to serve as an ombudsman and
facilitator for the efficient and timely processing of land use applications relating to the
authority jurisdictional land.
- Acknowledges that the parties all desire certainty on the percentage of exempt area
property tax (as described above) distributed to the Port Authority over the next 25 years,
and this certainty is a material reason to execute the interlocal agreement. Also
acknowledges that the Utah Legislature sets the percentage.
- Creates an annual process for the expenditure of the Environmental Mitigation Money and
the Community Mitigation Money, beginning with the requirement that within a week of
receiving the exempt area property tax, the Port Authority will notify the City of the amount
of money it received.
- During the first year of the agreement, the City and Port Authority will mutually engage
one or more outside firms with national expertise to create a comprehensive health impact
assessment (“HIA”), a traffic assessment (“Traffic Study”), and a community impact
assessment (“CIA”) all of which will serve as master plans to guide future development
plans on the port authority jurisdictional land.
- Each fiscal year, the Port Authority executive team will develop a list of priority projects
to spend the Environmental Mitigation Money and the Community Mitigation Money, in
conformance with the HIA, Traffic Study and CIA.
- This list of projects will be sent to the City’s board of experts, which shall be comprised of
members of City departments, including but not limited to, the Redevelopment Agency,
Planning, Public Utilities, and Sustainability, Mayor’s Office and Council Office, and
stakeholders invested in the City’s Northwest Quadrant including the Audubon Society and
community leaders from adjacent neighborhoods (“NWQ Review Group”). The NWQ
Review Group may also develop a separate list of priority projects for the Environmental
Mitigation Money and the Community Mitigation Money.
- The UIPA executive team and the NWQ Review Group may either submit to the Port
Authority Board a joint recommendation or two separate recommendations of projects to
be funded by the Environmental Mitigation Money and Community Mitigation money.
- The Port Authority Board will approve the budget after a public hearing and the budget
will include line-item approval of projects for the expenditure of the Environmental
Mitigation Money and Community Mitigation Money.
- The UIPA executive team and representatives from the NWQ Review Group will meet
quarterly to discuss whether to recommend mid-year adjustments to the UIPA budget for
the Environmental Mitigation Money and Community Mitigation Money as well as to
develop and adjust priorities for future fiscal years.
- The Redevelopment Agency agrees to use the 10% for affordable housing.
PUBLIC PROCESS: No public hearing is legally required.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Proposed City Council Resolution Authorizing Interlocal Agreement
B. Proposed Redevelopment Agency Resolution Authorizing Interlocal Agreement
C. Draft Interlocal Agreement
RESOLUTION NO. _______ OF 2022
Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation,
Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City and the Utah Inland Port Authority
WHEREAS, the Utah Inland Port Authority Act was amended in the 2022 Utah
Legislative Session to change the percentage of Salt Lake City-generated property tax
differential distribution to the Utah Inland Port Authority (“Port Authority”) and to require
that the Port Authority spend 40% of this property tax differential on environmental
mitigation projects within the authority jurisdictional land (“Environmental Mitigation
Money”) and 40% of this property tax differential on community mitigation projects for
neighborhoods adjacent to the port authority jurisdictional land (“Community Mitigation
Money”).
WHEREAS, Utah Code 11-58-604 requires Salt Lake City Corporation (“City”),
the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake (“RDA”), and the Port Authority to execute an
agreement by December 31, 2022 that provides for the following:
- A process for how the Port Authority is to spend the Environmental Mitigation
Money and the Community Mitigation Money;
- Include a requirement that the Port Authority consult with the City in determining
how to spend the Environmental Mitigation Money and the Community Mitigation
Money;
- Require the RDA to spend the 10% of exempt area property tax it receives for
affordable housing; and
- Require the City to agree to facilitate the efficient processing of land use
applications relating to the authority jurisdictional land by providing at least one
full-time employee as a single point of contact for the processing of the land use
applications.
WHEREAS, the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A
complies with Utah Code 11-58-604 and the City, RDA, and Port Authority desire to
execute the agreement prior to December 31, 2022.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Salt Lake City Council, that
the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement, in the form attached to this resolution as Exhibit A,
is hereby approved.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this ____ day of _____, 2022.
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Dan Dugan, Chair
Attest:
___________________________
Cindy Lou Trishman, City Recorder
Approved as to form:
Katherine Lewis, City Attorney
Katherine Lewis (Oct 3, 2022 14:16 MDT)
EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION
[Attach Interlocal Cooperation Agreement]
1
INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT
THIS INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is dated
_____________, 2022, to be effective on the date the last keeper of records for each Party attests
and files the Agreement (“Effective Date”), by and between Salt Lake City Corporation, a Utah
municipal corporation (“City”), the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, a Utah public entity
(“RDA”), and the Utah Inland Port Authority (“UIPA”), a Utah public entity. The City, RDA, and
UIPA are sometimes referred to individually as “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”
R E C I T A L S
A. During the general 2022 Utah legislative session, the Utah Legislature enacted HB443,
which revised Utah Code §§ 11-58-101, et seq. (the “Inland Port Act”) to change, among
other things, the distribution by Salt Lake County to UIPA, the City and the RDA of exempt
area property tax differential, (defined in Utah law as the portion of property tax differential
generated by a property tax levied by Salt Lake City in the port authority jurisdictional land
(“City Differential”). Specifically, Utah Code Ann. § 58-11-604(6) specifies how UIPA
may spend portions of the City Differential, so long as this Agreement has been executed.
B. A material inducement for the Parties to execute this Agreement is the establishment of
certainty for the Parties and other stakeholders on both (i) the percentage of City
Differential that will be distributed to UIPA over the next 25 years, and (b) ensuring that
the portion of City Differential will be spent by UIPA during the next 25 years to mitigate
environmental and community effects of the inland port on Salt Lake City’s residents.
C. HB443 requires the City, RDA, and UIPA to execute this Agreement no later than
December 31, 2022, to establish this certainty and to create a process for UIPA’s
expenditure of portions of the City Differential and the RDA’s expenditure of the housing
payment.
D. The Parties also acknowledge that establishing certainty on the expenditure of the City’s
Differential can best be achieved by creating a master plan that will become a shared,
agreed-upon framework to guide the UIPA’s decision-making and prioritization of projects
to mitigate the inland port’s environmental and community impacts.
E. HB443 also requires the City and UIPA to execute this Agreement no later than December
31, 2022, to ensure that the City agrees to facilitate the efficient processing of land use
applications related to authority jurisdictional land, including by providing at least one full-
time employee as a single point of contact for processing these land use applications.
F. The Parties desire to enter into this Agreement to comply with Utah law, to establish a
contractual relationship creating certainty on the 25-year distribution of the City
Differential to UIPA and to commit to a process for the expenditure of a portion of the City
2
Differential and the efficient processing of land use applications relating to authority
jurisdictional land.
A G R E E M E N T
For good and valuable consideration, the Parties agree as follows:
1. Efficient Facilitation of Land Use Applications. Pursuant to Utah Code § 11-58-205(9),
the City shall designate one full-time employee who will serve as an ombudsman and
facilitator for the efficient and timely processing of all land use applications, as defined in
Section 10-9a-103, relating to authority jurisdictional land within the City. This City
employee will serve as the single point of contact for UIPA for the processing of such land
use applications and will ensure that the City’s departments are communicating efficiently
to process the land use applications in a timely manner. UIPA may suggest and the City
may consider changes to ordinances and the requirements of the inland port authority
overlay zone.
2. Distribution of Tax Differential. The Parties agree that a material inducement to
executing this Agreement is the establishment of certainty regarding the distribution of the
City Differential for the next 25 years. While the Parties acknowledge that, through
HB433, the Utah Legislature set the percentages of distribution of the City Differential,
this law creates an expectation of certainty for the term of this Agreement. In reliance on
the commitment made by the Utah Legislature under HB443, the Parties expect that for the
term of this agreement, the distribution of the City Differential to the City, RDA and UIPA
shall be as follows:
a. UIPA shall receive, for a period of 25 years, 25% of the City Differential (the “25%
Set Percentage”).
b. UIPA shall receive an additional percentage of the City Differential which shall
decrease over a period of 25 years as follows (the “Decreasing Percentage”:
i. 40% for the first tax year after the effective date of this Agreement,
decreasing 2% for each year so that by 2029, the payment is 28%;
ii. 10 % from 2030 for seven years; and
iii. 8% from 2037 until 2047, at which time the payment of the City
Differential to UIPA shall be 0%.
c. During the term of this Agreement, the RDA shall receive 10% of the City
Differential, which shall be used for affordable housing under Utah Code 17C-1-
412.
3. Process to Determine Expenditure of the 25% Set Percentage and the Decreasing
Percentage. During the term of this Agreement, within a week of receiving the 25% Set
Percentage and the Decreasing Percentage (collectively, the “City Generated
Differential”), UIPA will notify the City of the amount of City Generated Differential it
3
received. UIPA shall spend the City Generated Differential as follows and pursuant to the
process set forth in Section 3(c), below:
a. Environmental Mitigation Projects within the Authority Jurisdictional Land: UIPA
will spend 40% of the City Generated Differential on environmental mitigation
projects in the authority jurisdictional land within the City (“Environmental
Differential”) according to the following:
i. During the first year of this Agreement, the City and UIPA will mutually
engage an outside firm with national expertise in health impact
assessments to create a comprehensive health impact assessment (“HIA”)
analyzing the planned inland port development in the authority
jurisdictional land within the City. The HIA will use a data-based analysis
to evaluate the existing and potential health effects of the inland port
development in Salt Lake City. The parties will use the HIA as a master
plan to guide all future development plans on the authority jurisdictional
land. The HIA will be completed by December 31, 2023, will be reviewed
by the NWQ Review Group (defined below) and approved by the UIPA
board , and will be funded with the Environmental Differential.
ii. During the first year of this Agreement, the City and UIPA will mutually
engage an outside firm with national expertise in traffic studies, including
specifically the impacts on logistics hubs, truck traffic, and railyards on
air quality and traffic in adjacent communities. This outside firm will
create a traffic study using data-based analysis on best practices to
mitigate environmental impacts on communities related to logistics hubs,
railyards, and truck traffic (“Traffic Study”). The parties will use the
Traffic Study as a master plan to guide all future development plans on
the authority jurisdictional land. The Traffic Study will be completed by
December 31, 2023, will be reviewed by the NWQ Review Group and
approved by the UIPA board and will be funded by the Environmental
Differential.
iii. During the term of the Agreement, UIPA will spend the Environmental
Differential in conformance with the HIA and the Traffic Study and will
use the Environmental Differential to mitigate the environmental impacts
on Salt Lake City related to the development of the authority jurisdictional
land. Such environmental mitigation projects may include, but are not
limited to, net zero, electric, or equivalent building; mitigation of truck
traffic; protection of wetlands; construction that supports migratory bird
patterns in and around the jurisdictional land; low water usage; solar or
renewable energy and/or electrification of rail.
4
iv. Expenditure of the Environmental Differential will only occur after the
City and UIPA follow the process described in Section 3(c) below.
b. Mitigation Projects for Communities within the City. UIPA will spend 40% of the
City Generated Differential (“Community Differential”) on mitigation projects
for communities that are within the City; are adjacent to the authority jurisdictional
land; and are west of the east boundary of the right of way of commuter rail used
by the City (“Westside Community”) according to the following:
i. During the first year of this Agreement, the City and UIPA will mutually
engage an outside firm with national expertise in community impact
assessments to create a comprehensive community impact assessment
(“CIA”) for the planned inland port development in the authority
jurisdictional land and the impacts on the Westside Community. The CIA
will use a data-based analysis to evaluate the potential economic,
community, and health effects of the inland port development on the
Westside Community. The parties will use the CIA as a master plan to
guide all future development plans on the authority jurisdictional land.
The CIA will be completed by December 31, 2023, will be reviewed by
the NWQ Review Group and approved by the UIPA board and will be
funded with the Community Differential.
ii. During the term of the Agreement, UIPA will spend the Community
Differential in conformance with the CIA and to mitigate the impacts of
the inland port development on the Westside Community, including but
not limited to, projects that create quiet zones, railroad crossings, new
infrastructure to benefit adjacent communities, apprenticeship programs,
career and youth development, and scholarships for certain careers
associated with UIPA.
c. Process to Review and Identify Expenditures for the Environmental Differential
and Community Differential. During each fiscal year, within 30 days after
receiving the amount of City Differential from the County, the UIPA executive
team will develop a list of priority projects to spend the Environmental Differential
and Community Differential (collectively, the “Mitigation Money”), in
conformance with the priorities of the CIA, Traffic Study and the HIA. The UIPA
executive team will submit any proposed use of Mitigation Money to the City’s
advisory group of experts, which will be comprised of members of City
departments, including but not limited to, the Redevelopment Agency, Planning,
Public Utilities, and Sustainability, Mayor’s Office and Council Office, and
stakeholders invested in the City’s Northwest Quadrant including the Audubon
Society and community leaders from adjacent neighborhoods (“NWQ Review
5
Group”). The NWQ Review Group may develop as separate list of priority
projects to spend the Mitigation Money.
d. The UIPA team and representatives of the NWQ Review Group will meet in May
and seek to develop a joint recommendation to be presented to UIPA’s board. The
Parties anticipate that there will always be more ways to spend the Mitigation
Money than there is money available. If there is no agreement on a joint
recommendation, each shall separately submit their priority of projects to UIPA’s
board. In either case (i.e., whether a joint recommendation is submitted or separate
recommendations are submitted) the submissions shall be made prior to the board
meeting in June in which a public hearing will be held to approve the budget for
UIPA’s next fiscal year which commences July 1. The UIPA executive team and
representatives of the NWQ Review Group agree to meet quarterly (likely in the
months of August, November and February) to discuss whether to recommend mid-
year adjustments to the previously approved UIPA budget for the Mitigation
Money as well as to develop and adjust priorities for subsequent fiscal years,
including by making adjustments to the priorities in the HIA, CIA, or the Traffic
Study to account for changed conditions. In all events, UIPA’s board shall approve
a budget after a public hearing, and such budget will include line-item approval of
projects for the expenditure of the Mitigation Money.
e. Economic Development Activities. UIPA will spend the remaining 20% of the
City’s Property Tax on economic development projects within the authority
jurisdictional land in Salt Lake City. UIPA will use commercially reasonable efforts
to incentivize economic development projects that comport with the HIA, CIA, and
Traffic Study.
4. Use of Housing Payment for Affordable Housing. As required by Utah Code Ann. § 11-
58-604(2)(b)(iii), the RDA agrees to use for affordable housing the payment made by the
County to it pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 11-58-604(4)(c) and such amount shall be
credited toward UIPA’s obligation under 11-58-601(7)(b).
5. Duration and Termination. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective
Date and shall terminate when Mitigation Money is no longer distributed to UIPA under
Utah Code § 11-58-604 but it shall not exceed forty (40) years.
6. Damages for Breach. A Party’s violation of any of the terms of this Agreement constitutes
a breach. The Party that believes that the other Party is in breach shall give written notice
of the alleged breach and the other Party shall have 30 days to mitigate the breach or explain
why it is not in breach. If alleged breach is not remedied or the Parties do not agree that
there is a breach, then the Parties shall submit the issue to non-binding mediation and share
the costs. After mediation, if the Party continues believes that the other Party is still in
breach then it may determine, in its sole discretion, to continue performing under this
6
Agreement but may bring an action and its sole remedies are injunction, mandamus,
abatement, or other remedy to prevent, enjoin, abate, or enforce any relevant provision.
However, no Party is entitled to money damages for any breach determined by a court to
have occurred.
7. Interlocal Cooperation Act. In satisfaction of the requirements of the Interlocal
Cooperation Act, and in connection with this Agreement, the Parties agree as follows:
(a) This Agreement shall be approved by each Party pursuant to Utah Code §11-13-
202.5 of the Interlocal Cooperation Act, including by the Board of the RDA, the
Salt Lake City Council, and the UIPA Board of Directors.
(b) This Agreement shall be reviewed as to proper form and compliance with
applicable law by a duly authorized attorney on behalf of each Party, pursuant to
Utah Code §11-13-202.5 of the Interlocal Cooperation Act.
(c) A duly executed original counterpart of this Agreement shall be filed with keeper
of records of each Party, pursuant to Utah Code §11-13-209 of the Interlocal
Cooperation Act.
(d) Except as otherwise specifically provided herein, each Party shall be responsible
for its own costs of any action taken pursuant to this Agreement, and for any
financing of such costs.
(e) Any Party may withdraw from the joint or cooperative undertaking described in
this Agreement only upon the termination of this Agreement.
(f) No real or personal property shall be acquired jointly by the Parties as a result of this
Agreement. To the extent that a Party acquires, holds, or disposes of any real or
personal property for use in the joint or cooperative undertaking contemplated by this
Agreement, such Party shall do so in the same manner that it deals with other
property of such Party.
(g) No joint board or entity is created through this Agreement.
(h) The functions to be performed by the joint or cooperative undertaking are those
described in this Agreement.
7
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties are executing this Agreement to be effective as
of the Effective Date.
Utah Inland Port Authority, a Utah public
entity
_______________________________
Name:__________________________
Title:___________________________
Approved as to Proper Form and
Compliance with Applicable Law:
______________________________
Lyndon Ricks, Attorney for Utah Inland
Port Authority
Salt Lake City Corporation, a Utah
municipal corporation
______________________________
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
Approved as to Proper Form and Compliance
with Applicable Law:
____________________________________
Katherine Lewis, City Attorney
Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City,
a Utah public entity
___________________________________
Erin Mendenhall, Executive Director
Approved as to Proper Form and
Compliance with Applicable Law:
____________________________________
Katherine Lewis, City Attorney
Attest:
_________________________________
Cindy Lou Trishman, City Recorder
Katherine Lewis (Oct 4, 2022 09:25 MDT)
Katherine Lewis (Oct 4, 2022 09:25 MDT)
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY
RESOLUTION NO. _______________
Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation,
Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City and the Utah Inland Port Authority
WHEREAS, the Utah Inland Port Authority Act was amended in the 2022 Utah
Legislative Session to change the percentage of Salt Lake City-generated property tax
differential distribution to the Utah Inland Port Authority (“Port Authority”) and to require
that the Port Authority spend 40% of this property tax differential on environmental
mitigation projects within the authority jurisdictional land (“Environmental Mitigation
Money”) and 40% of this property tax differential on community mitigation projects for
neighborhoods adjacent to the port authority jurisdictional land (“Community Mitigation
Money”).
WHEREAS, Utah Code 11-58-604 requires Salt Lake City Corporation (“City”),
the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake (“RDA”), and the Port Authority to execute an
agreement by December 31, 2022 that provides for the following:
- A process for how the Port Authority is to spend the Environmental Mitigation
Money and the Community Mitigation Money;
- Include a requirement that the Port Authority consult with the City in determining
how to spend the Environmental Mitigation Money and the Community Mitigation
Money;
- Require the RDA to spend the 10% of exempt area property tax it receives for
affordable housing; and
- Require the City to agree to facilitate the efficient processing of land use
applications relating to the authority jurisdictional land by providing at least one
full-time employee as a single point of contact for the processing of the land use
applications.
WHEREAS, the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A
complies with Utah Code 11-58-604 and the City, RDA, and Port Authority desire to
execute the agreement prior to December 31, 2022.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the
Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, that the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement, in
the form attached to this resolution as Exhibit A, is hereby approved.
Passed by the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, this
day of , 2022.
Ana Valdemoros, Chair
Transmitted to the Executive Director on .
The Executive Director:
does not request reconsideration
requests reconsideration at the next regular Agency meeting.
Erin Mendenhall, Executive Director
Approved as to form:
Katherine Lewis, City Attorney
Attest:
Cindy Lou Trishman, City Recorder’
Katherine Lewis (Oct 3, 2022 14:15 MDT)
EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION
[Attach Interlocal Cooperation Agreement]
1
INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT
THIS INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is dated
_____________, 2022, to be effective on the date the last keeper of records for each Party attests
and files the Agreement (“Effective Date”), by and between Salt Lake City Corporation, a Utah
municipal corporation (“City”), the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, a Utah public entity
(“RDA”), and the Utah Inland Port Authority (“UIPA”), a Utah public entity. The City, RDA, and
UIPA are sometimes referred to individually as “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”
R E C I T A L S
A. During the general 2022 Utah legislative session, the Utah Legislature enacted HB443,
which revised Utah Code §§ 11-58-101, et seq. (the “Inland Port Act”) to change, among
other things, the distribution by Salt Lake County to UIPA, the City and the RDA of exempt
area property tax differential, (defined in Utah law as the portion of property tax differential
generated by a property tax levied by Salt Lake City in the port authority jurisdictional land
(“City Differential”). Specifically, Utah Code Ann. § 58-11-604(6) specifies how UIPA
may spend portions of the City Differential, so long as this Agreement has been executed.
B. A material inducement for the Parties to execute this Agreement is the establishment of
certainty for the Parties and other stakeholders on both (i) the percentage of City
Differential that will be distributed to UIPA over the next 25 years, and (b) ensuring that
the portion of City Differential will be spent by UIPA during the next 25 years to mitigate
environmental and community effects of the inland port on Salt Lake City’s residents.
C. HB443 requires the City, RDA, and UIPA to execute this Agreement no later than
December 31, 2022, to establish this certainty and to create a process for UIPA’s
expenditure of portions of the City Differential and the RDA’s expenditure of the housing
payment.
D. The Parties also acknowledge that establishing certainty on the expenditure of the City’s
Differential can best be achieved by creating a master plan that will become a shared,
agreed-upon framework to guide the UIPA’s decision-making and prioritization of projects
to mitigate the inland port’s environmental and community impacts.
E. HB443 also requires the City and UIPA to execute this Agreement no later than December
31, 2022, to ensure that the City agrees to facilitate the efficient processing of land use
applications related to authority jurisdictional land, including by providing at least one full-
time employee as a single point of contact for processing these land use applications.
F. The Parties desire to enter into this Agreement to comply with Utah law, to establish a
contractual relationship creating certainty on the 25-year distribution of the City
Differential to UIPA and to commit to a process for the expenditure of a portion of the City
2
Differential and the efficient processing of land use applications relating to authority
jurisdictional land.
A G R E E M E N T
For good and valuable consideration, the Parties agree as follows:
1. Efficient Facilitation of Land Use Applications. Pursuant to Utah Code § 11-58-205(9),
the City shall designate one full-time employee who will serve as an ombudsman and
facilitator for the efficient and timely processing of all land use applications, as defined in
Section 10-9a-103, relating to authority jurisdictional land within the City. This City
employee will serve as the single point of contact for UIPA for the processing of such land
use applications and will ensure that the City’s departments are communicating efficiently
to process the land use applications in a timely manner. UIPA may suggest and the City
may consider changes to ordinances and the requirements of the inland port authority
overlay zone.
2. Distribution of Tax Differential. The Parties agree that a material inducement to
executing this Agreement is the establishment of certainty regarding the distribution of the
City Differential for the next 25 years. While the Parties acknowledge that, through
HB433, the Utah Legislature set the percentages of distribution of the City Differential,
this law creates an expectation of certainty for the term of this Agreement. In reliance on
the commitment made by the Utah Legislature under HB443, the Parties expect that for the
term of this agreement, the distribution of the City Differential to the City, RDA and UIPA
shall be as follows:
a. UIPA shall receive, for a period of 25 years, 25% of the City Differential (the “25%
Set Percentage”).
b. UIPA shall receive an additional percentage of the City Differential which shall
decrease over a period of 25 years as follows (the “Decreasing Percentage”:
i. 40% for the first tax year after the effective date of this Agreement,
decreasing 2% for each year so that by 2029, the payment is 28%;
ii. 10 % from 2030 for seven years; and
iii. 8% from 2037 until 2047, at which time the payment of the City
Differential to UIPA shall be 0%.
c. During the term of this Agreement, the RDA shall receive 10% of the City
Differential, which shall be used for affordable housing under Utah Code 17C-1-
412.
3. Process to Determine Expenditure of the 25% Set Percentage and the Decreasing
Percentage. During the term of this Agreement, within a week of receiving the 25% Set
Percentage and the Decreasing Percentage (collectively, the “City Generated
Differential”), UIPA will notify the City of the amount of City Generated Differential it
3
received. UIPA shall spend the City Generated Differential as follows and pursuant to the
process set forth in Section 3(c), below:
a. Environmental Mitigation Projects within the Authority Jurisdictional Land: UIPA
will spend 40% of the City Generated Differential on environmental mitigation
projects in the authority jurisdictional land within the City (“Environmental
Differential”) according to the following:
i. During the first year of this Agreement, the City and UIPA will mutually
engage an outside firm with national expertise in health impact
assessments to create a comprehensive health impact assessment (“HIA”)
analyzing the planned inland port development in the authority
jurisdictional land within the City. The HIA will use a data-based analysis
to evaluate the existing and potential health effects of the inland port
development in Salt Lake City. The parties will use the HIA as a master
plan to guide all future development plans on the authority jurisdictional
land. The HIA will be completed by December 31, 2023, will be reviewed
by the NWQ Review Group (defined below) and approved by the UIPA
board , and will be funded with the Environmental Differential.
ii. During the first year of this Agreement, the City and UIPA will mutually
engage an outside firm with national expertise in traffic studies, including
specifically the impacts on logistics hubs, truck traffic, and railyards on
air quality and traffic in adjacent communities. This outside firm will
create a traffic study using data-based analysis on best practices to
mitigate environmental impacts on communities related to logistics hubs,
railyards, and truck traffic (“Traffic Study”). The parties will use the
Traffic Study as a master plan to guide all future development plans on
the authority jurisdictional land. The Traffic Study will be completed by
December 31, 2023, will be reviewed by the NWQ Review Group and
approved by the UIPA board and will be funded by the Environmental
Differential.
iii. During the term of the Agreement, UIPA will spend the Environmental
Differential in conformance with the HIA and the Traffic Study and will
use the Environmental Differential to mitigate the environmental impacts
on Salt Lake City related to the development of the authority jurisdictional
land. Such environmental mitigation projects may include, but are not
limited to, net zero, electric, or equivalent building; mitigation of truck
traffic; protection of wetlands; construction that supports migratory bird
patterns in and around the jurisdictional land; low water usage; solar or
renewable energy and/or electrification of rail.
4
iv. Expenditure of the Environmental Differential will only occur after the
City and UIPA follow the process described in Section 3(c) below.
b. Mitigation Projects for Communities within the City. UIPA will spend 40% of the
City Generated Differential (“Community Differential”) on mitigation projects
for communities that are within the City; are adjacent to the authority jurisdictional
land; and are west of the east boundary of the right of way of commuter rail used
by the City (“Westside Community”) according to the following:
i. During the first year of this Agreement, the City and UIPA will mutually
engage an outside firm with national expertise in community impact
assessments to create a comprehensive community impact assessment
(“CIA”) for the planned inland port development in the authority
jurisdictional land and the impacts on the Westside Community. The CIA
will use a data-based analysis to evaluate the potential economic,
community, and health effects of the inland port development on the
Westside Community. The parties will use the CIA as a master plan to
guide all future development plans on the authority jurisdictional land.
The CIA will be completed by December 31, 2023, will be reviewed by
the NWQ Review Group and approved by the UIPA board and will be
funded with the Community Differential.
ii. During the term of the Agreement, UIPA will spend the Community
Differential in conformance with the CIA and to mitigate the impacts of
the inland port development on the Westside Community, including but
not limited to, projects that create quiet zones, railroad crossings, new
infrastructure to benefit adjacent communities, apprenticeship programs,
career and youth development, and scholarships for certain careers
associated with UIPA.
c. Process to Review and Identify Expenditures for the Environmental Differential
and Community Differential. During each fiscal year, within 30 days after
receiving the amount of City Differential from the County, the UIPA executive
team will develop a list of priority projects to spend the Environmental Differential
and Community Differential (collectively, the “Mitigation Money”), in
conformance with the priorities of the CIA, Traffic Study and the HIA. The UIPA
executive team will submit any proposed use of Mitigation Money to the City’s
advisory group of experts, which will be comprised of members of City
departments, including but not limited to, the Redevelopment Agency, Planning,
Public Utilities, and Sustainability, Mayor’s Office and Council Office, and
stakeholders invested in the City’s Northwest Quadrant including the Audubon
Society and community leaders from adjacent neighborhoods (“NWQ Review
5
Group”). The NWQ Review Group may develop as separate list of priority
projects to spend the Mitigation Money.
d. The UIPA team and representatives of the NWQ Review Group will meet in May
and seek to develop a joint recommendation to be presented to UIPA’s board. The
Parties anticipate that there will always be more ways to spend the Mitigation
Money than there is money available. If there is no agreement on a joint
recommendation, each shall separately submit their priority of projects to UIPA’s
board. In either case (i.e., whether a joint recommendation is submitted or separate
recommendations are submitted) the submissions shall be made prior to the board
meeting in June in which a public hearing will be held to approve the budget for
UIPA’s next fiscal year which commences July 1. The UIPA executive team and
representatives of the NWQ Review Group agree to meet quarterly (likely in the
months of August, November and February) to discuss whether to recommend mid-
year adjustments to the previously approved UIPA budget for the Mitigation
Money as well as to develop and adjust priorities for subsequent fiscal years,
including by making adjustments to the priorities in the HIA, CIA, or the Traffic
Study to account for changed conditions. In all events, UIPA’s board shall approve
a budget after a public hearing, and such budget will include line-item approval of
projects for the expenditure of the Mitigation Money.
e. Economic Development Activities. UIPA will spend the remaining 20% of the
City’s Property Tax on economic development projects within the authority
jurisdictional land in Salt Lake City. UIPA will use commercially reasonable efforts
to incentivize economic development projects that comport with the HIA, CIA, and
Traffic Study.
4. Use of Housing Payment for Affordable Housing. As required by Utah Code Ann. § 11-
58-604(2)(b)(iii), the RDA agrees to use for affordable housing the payment made by the
County to it pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 11-58-604(4)(c) and such amount shall be
credited toward UIPA’s obligation under 11-58-601(7)(b).
5. Duration and Termination. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective
Date and shall terminate when Mitigation Money is no longer distributed to UIPA under
Utah Code § 11-58-604 but it shall not exceed forty (40) years.
6. Damages for Breach. A Party’s violation of any of the terms of this Agreement constitutes
a breach. The Party that believes that the other Party is in breach shall give written notice
of the alleged breach and the other Party shall have 30 days to mitigate the breach or explain
why it is not in breach. If alleged breach is not remedied or the Parties do not agree that
there is a breach, then the Parties shall submit the issue to non-binding mediation and share
the costs. After mediation, if the Party continues believes that the other Party is still in
breach then it may determine, in its sole discretion, to continue performing under this
6
Agreement but may bring an action and its sole remedies are injunction, mandamus,
abatement, or other remedy to prevent, enjoin, abate, or enforce any relevant provision.
However, no Party is entitled to money damages for any breach determined by a court to
have occurred.
7. Interlocal Cooperation Act. In satisfaction of the requirements of the Interlocal
Cooperation Act, and in connection with this Agreement, the Parties agree as follows:
(a) This Agreement shall be approved by each Party pursuant to Utah Code §11-13-
202.5 of the Interlocal Cooperation Act, including by the Board of the RDA, the
Salt Lake City Council, and the UIPA Board of Directors.
(b) This Agreement shall be reviewed as to proper form and compliance with
applicable law by a duly authorized attorney on behalf of each Party, pursuant to
Utah Code §11-13-202.5 of the Interlocal Cooperation Act.
(c) A duly executed original counterpart of this Agreement shall be filed with keeper
of records of each Party, pursuant to Utah Code §11-13-209 of the Interlocal
Cooperation Act.
(d) Except as otherwise specifically provided herein, each Party shall be responsible
for its own costs of any action taken pursuant to this Agreement, and for any
financing of such costs.
(e) Any Party may withdraw from the joint or cooperative undertaking described in
this Agreement only upon the termination of this Agreement.
(f) No real or personal property shall be acquired jointly by the Parties as a result of this
Agreement. To the extent that a Party acquires, holds, or disposes of any real or
personal property for use in the joint or cooperative undertaking contemplated by this
Agreement, such Party shall do so in the same manner that it deals with other
property of such Party.
(g) No joint board or entity is created through this Agreement.
(h) The functions to be performed by the joint or cooperative undertaking are those
described in this Agreement.
7
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties are executing this Agreement to be effective as
of the Effective Date.
Utah Inland Port Authority, a Utah public
entity
_______________________________
Name:__________________________
Title:___________________________
Approved as to Proper Form and
Compliance with Applicable Law:
______________________________
Lyndon Ricks, Attorney for Utah Inland
Port Authority
Salt Lake City Corporation, a Utah
municipal corporation
______________________________
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
Approved as to Proper Form and Compliance
with Applicable Law:
____________________________________
Katherine Lewis, City Attorney
Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City,
a Utah public entity
___________________________________
Erin Mendenhall, Executive Director
Approved as to Proper Form and
Compliance with Applicable Law:
____________________________________
Katherine Lewis, City Attorney
Attest:
_________________________________
Cindy Lou Trishman, City Recorder
Katherine Lewis (Oct 4, 2022 09:25 MDT)
Katherine Lewis (Oct 4, 2022 09:25 MDT)
TRANSMITTAL- Utah Inland Port Authority
Contract_
Final Audit Report 2022-10-04
Created:2022-10-04
By:Cindy Trishman (cindy.trishman@slcgov.com)
Status:Signed
Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAAbDKiqmzqLbejQQfvaJRg_zzFukLM-6q8
"TRANSMITTAL- Utah Inland Port Authority Contract_" History
Document created by Cindy Trishman (cindy.trishman@slcgov.com)
2022-10-04 - 4:48:32 PM GMT
Document emailed to rachel otto (rachel.otto@slcgov.com) for signature
2022-10-04 - 4:50:17 PM GMT
Email viewed by rachel otto (rachel.otto@slcgov.com)
2022-10-04 - 5:11:35 PM GMT
Document e-signed by rachel otto (rachel.otto@slcgov.com)
Signature Date: 2022-10-04 - 5:11:46 PM GMT - Time Source: server
Agreement completed.
2022-10-04 - 5:11:46 PM GMT
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY of SALT LAKE CITY
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 118 WWW.SLC.GOV · WWW.SLCRDA.COM
P.O. BOX 145518, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5518 TEL 801-535-7240 · FAX 801-535-7245
MAYOR ERIN MENDENHALL
Executive Director
DANNY WALZ
Director
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
Date Received: 9/23/2022
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: 9/23/2022
TO: Salt Lake City Council
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff, Mayor’s Office
Danny Walz, Director of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City
Katie Lewis, City Attorney
Allison Parks, Senior City Attorney
SUBJECT: Eccles Theater Interlocal Agreements
CONTACT: Danny Walz, Director of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City
DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolutions
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt two Resolutions
BUDGET IMPACTS: N/A
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: As part of the joint operation of the Eccles Theater, the RDA,
Salt Lake City, and Salt Lake County entered two separate interlocal agreements in 2013. The first
interlocal agreement creates and sets forth the formation and obligations of the interlocal entity
called the Utah Performing Arts Center Agency (UPACA). The second interlocal agreement, entitled
the “Utah Performing Arts Center Operating Agreement,” details the terms of the management and
operation of the Eccles Theater. When both interlocal agreements were initially executed, the parties
agreed that the UPACA entity would maintain its own policy of insurance for the theater. However,
the parties have since learned that maintaining insurance through the County will generate
significant savings for the parties. To realize these costs savings, both interlocal agreements need to
be amended.
The UPACA Board of Directors voted and approved the amendments to both interlocal agreements
on July 13, 2022. In accordance with the terms of the interlocal agreements and the Interlocal
rachel otto (Sep 23, 2022 15:36 MDT)
Cooperation Act, the City Council may consider approving these proposed amendments through
resolutions. The resolutions attached to this memo include the proposed amended interlocal
agreements. Similar action will need to be taken by the RDA Board of Directors.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Resolution approving an amendment to the Operating Agreement
B. Resolution approving an amendment to the interlocal agreement establishing UPACA
ATTACHMENT A: RESOLUTION
Approving an Amendment to the Operating Interlocal Agreement
ATTACHMENT B: RESOLUTION
Approving an Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement establishing UPACA
RESOLUTION NO. _______ OF 2022
(A Resolution Authorizing the Third Amendment to the Operating Agreement for the
Utah Performing Arts Center)
WHEREAS, the Operating Agreement for the Utah Performing Arts Center
(“UPAC”) was executed between the Utah Performing Arts Center Agency, an interlocal
entity and political subdivision of the State of Utah, Salt Lake City Corporation, a Utah
municipal corporation, the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, a public entity, and
Salt Lake County, a body corporate and politic of the state of Utah (“County”), with an
effective date of March 19, 2013, as amended from time to time; and
WHEREAS, when the Operating Agreement was initially executed, the parties
agreed UPAC would maintain its own policy of insurance, however, the parties have since
learned that maintaining insurance through the County will generate significant savings for
the parties; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8.8 of the Operating Agreement, the parties desire
to enter into the third amendment to the Operating Agreement (“Third Amendment”) to
expand the definition of “Expense” and clarify that the County as the Operator will use
County risk management to handle claims that arise from operations and property damage.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City that the
Third Amendment to the Operating Agreement, in the form attached to this resolution as
Exhibit A, is hereby approved.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this ____ day of _____, 2022.
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Dan Dugan, Chair
Attest:
___________________________
City Recorder
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Approved as to form:
Senior City Attorney
EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION
[Attach Third Amendment to Operating Agreement]
RESOLUTION NO. _______ OF 2022
(A Resolution Approving the First Amendment to the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement
(Utah Performing Arts Center))
WHEREAS, the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement (“Interlocal Agreement”)
setting forth the requirements for the formation and obligations of a certain interlocal entity
called the Utah Performing Arts Center Agency (“UPACA”) was executed between Salt
Lake City Corporation, a Utah municipal corporation, the Redevelopment Agency of Salt
Lake City, a public entity, and Salt Lake County, a body corporate and politic of the state
of Utah (“County”), with an effective date of October 30, 2013; and
WHEREAS, when the Interlocal Agreement was initially executed, the parties
agreed UPACA would maintain its own policy of insurance, however, the parties have
since learned that maintaining insurance through the County will generate significant
savings for the parties; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 15(f) of the Interlocal Agreement, the parties
desire to enter into the first amendment to the Interlocal Agreement (“First Amendment”)
to remove UPACA’s obligations regarding maintaining certain insurance.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City that the
First Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement, in the form attached to this resolution as
Exhibit A, is hereby approved.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this ____ day of _____, 2022.
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Dan Dugan, Chair
Attest:
___________________________
City Recorder
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Approved as to form:
Senior City Attorney
EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION
[Attach First Amendment to Interlocal Agreement]
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:October 11, 2022
RE: Alley Vacation at approximately 925 South 1200 West
PLNPCM2021-00806
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will be briefed about a proposal to vacate a segment of City-owned alley adjacent to the
property at 925 South 1200 West in City Council District Two. The petitioner owns the above-mentioned
property which is located where 1200 West dead ends at the 9-Line trail. The subject alley segment is
approximately 150 feet long and 14-16 feet wide. Alley segments east and west of the subject segment were
vacated in 1981. An east-west alley segment between the 9-Line trail and 900 South is not proposed to be
vacated. (See image below.)
When the 9-Line trail was created, access to the subject alley segment was effectively closed to vehicular
traffic as there is no curb cut. With the trail a few feet away, the alley is essentially unused. The petitioner
stated they plan to use the alley property as a garden if the alley vacation is approved by the Council.
Section 14.52.040 Salt Lake City Code outlines the method of disposition of alley property if a petition is
approved by the City Council. If abutting properties are zoned for low density residential use, the alley is
merely vacated, divided in half and the owners are not charged. However, since the subject alley segment is
at the subdivision edge, the full width of the alley would be deeded to the petitioner. This is discussed in the
Additional Information section below.
This petition was reviewed at the October 27, 2021 Planning Commission meeting and a public hearing was
held. Two people spoke at the public hearing in support of the proposed alley vacation. The Commission
closed the hearing and followed Planning staff’s recommendation by voting 7-1 to forward a positive
recommendation to the Council. The Commissioner who voted in opposition to the recommendation stated
she is generally not in favor with alley vacations.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: October 11, 2022
Set Date: October 4, 2022
Public Hearing: October 18, 2022
Potential Action: November 10, 2022
Page | 2
Aerial image showing subject alley segment in red. Alley segments in blue were previously vacated.
Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division
Photo of alley from where 1200 West dead ends at the 9-Line Trail.
The trail is to the right, with the petitioner’s property left of the alley.
Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division
Goal of the briefing: To review the proposed alley closure, address questions Council Members may
have and prepare for a public hearing.
Page | 3
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. Does the Council have concerns with the proposed alley vacation?
2. The Council may wish to ask why this section of the alley was the only portion not previously
vacated in 1981.
3. The Council may wish to ask whether there would be any concerns if fencing or other landscaping
elements were installed between this property and the 9-line trail.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Alley vacation requests receive three phases of review, as outlined in section 14.52.030 Salt Lake City Code
(see pages 5-7 below). Those phases include an administrative determination of completeness; a public
hearing, including a recommendation from the Planning Commission; and a public hearing before the City
Council.
The Planning Commission staff report provides information relating to the following three key
considerations connected to this alley vacation. A short description of each issue is provided below for
reference. Please see pages 3-4 of the Planning Commission staff report for full analysis of these issues.
Consideration 1: Property Owner Consent
Salt Lake City Code requires signatures of at least 80% of abutting property owners indicating their
support of proposed alley vacations. Property owners abutting the subject alley are the petitioner and Salt
Lake City Corporation. (A property owner to the east of the subject alley segment signed the petition
supporting the vacation, though their property does not directly abut the alley.)
The Administration found it was not necessary for Salt Lake City Corporation to sign the petition as an
abutting property owner because the City’s intent will be known based on the City Council's decision to
approve or deny the alley vacation.
Consideration 2: Policy Considerations
Salt Lake City Code requires alley vacations meet at least one of the following policy considerations:
A-Lack of Use, B-Public Safety, C-Urban Design, or D-Community Purpose.
Lack of use is the primary consideration for the proposed alley vacation. The alley segment is essentially
unused as a public right of way as abutting east/west segments of the alley were previously vacated which
effectively rendered the alley unusable for beneficial public use. Additionally, vehicle access is not possible
as there is no curb cut.
Urban design is the other policy consideration related to this petition. It is Planning staff’s opinion the alley
will continue to deteriorate and remain unmaintained if there isn’t current or potential future use of the
alley segment.
Consideration 3: History and Disposition if Vacated
The subject alley is recorded on the 1909 Burlington 2nd Addition Subdivision plat. It is believed the alley
was used at some point, but adjacent segments were vacated in 1981. According to the City Attorney’s
Office, alleys dedicated as part of a subdivision must be conveyed to property owners within that
subdivision if they are vacated. As this alley is on the perimeter of the subdivision, the entire alley width
would be conveyed to the petitioner if the vacation is approved.
It is worth noting a north/south alley segment that intersects the subject alley would remain open if the
alley vacation is approved. A resident reportedly uses that segment, which is accessed from 900 South as
there is no street access at 1200 West.
Page | 4
City Department Review
During City department and division review of the alley vacation petition, the Engineering Division
expressed opposition, stating “Engineering does not support the closure of a public right of way.”
No objections or concerns were received from other responding City departments or divisions.
Analysis of Factors
Attachment D (pages 13-15 of the Planning Commission staff report) is an analysis of factors City Code requires
the Planning Commission to consider for alley vacations (Section 14.52.030 B Salt Lake City Code). In addition
to the information above, other factors are summarized below. Planning staff found the proposed alley vacation
complies with the factors below. For the complete analysis, please refer to the staff report.
•City Code required analysis: The City Police Department, Fire Department, Transportation Division
and all other relevant City departments and divisions have no reasonable objection to the proposed
disposition of the property.
Finding: Planning staff believes it complies. As noted above, City Engineering objected to the alley
vacation. Other City departments and divisions had no issues with the proposal or did not provide
comments. (Department review comments are found in Attachment F (page 17 of the Planning
Commission staff report).) Planning staff stated “After further scrutiny and review, Planning staff has
found that all other standards are being met and continue to recommend approval.
•City Code required analysis: The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations for closure,
vacation or abandonment of City owned alleys (Lack of Use, Public Safety, Urban Design, Community
Purpose).
Finding: Complies. Planning staff determined the proposed alley vacation satisfies the Lack of Use and
Urban Design policy considerations.
•City Code required analysis: The petition must not deny sole access or required off-street parking to
any adjacent property.
Finding: Complies. The north/south alley segment will remain and provide access to the rear yard.
•City Code required analysis: The petition will not result in any property being landlocked.
Finding: Complies. No property would be landlocked because of this alley vacation request.
•City Code required analysis: The disposition of the alley property will not result in a use which is
otherwise contrary to the policies of the City, including applicable master plans and other adopted
statements of policy which address, but are not limited to, mid-block walkways, pedestrian paths, trails,
and alternative transportation uses.
Finding: The Westside Master Plan discusses importance of mid-block connections. However, the alley
is not needed for this purpose as the 9-Line Trail provides east/west trail access.
•City Code required analysis: No opposing abutting property owner intends to build a garage
requiring access from the property, or has made application for a building permit, or if such a permit has
been issued, construction has been completed within 12 months of issuance of the building permit.
Finding: Complies. No abutting property owners expressed opposition to the proposed alley vacation.
•City Code required analysis: The petition furthers the City preference for disposing of an entire
alley, rather than a small segment of it.
Finding: Complies. Abutting east/west alley segments were previously vacated. The north/south alley
segment would remain, but since there is no remaining east/west continuation of the alley, Planning
staff believes the subject alley would be considered the “entire alley.”
Page | 5
•City Code required analysis: The alley property is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to
residences or for accessory uses.
Finding: Complies. Properties abutting the subject alley do not use it for rear access.
PUBLIC PROCESS
August 13, 2021-Petition received by Planning Division.
August 17, 2021-Petition assigned to Krissy Gilmore, Senior Planner.
August 23, 2021-Notice sent to recognized community organizations. Early notification sent to property
owners and residents within 300 feet.
October 15, 2021-Public hearing notices emailed to those who requested notice. Agenda posted to Planning
Commission website and State public notice webpage.
October 27, 2021-Planning Commission public hearing.
May 17, 2022-Alley vacation legal description from licensed engineer provided by applicant and reviewed
by City Engineering Division.
May 25, 2022-Draft ordinance sent to Attorney’s Office.
August 3, 2022-Final ordinance received from Attorney’s Office.
September 21, 2022-Transmittal received in City Council Office
Salt Lake City Code
The process for closing or vacating a City-owned alley is outlined in Section 14.52 Salt Lake City Code.
14.52.010: DISPOSITION OF CITY'S PROPERTY INTEREST IN ALLEYS:
The city supports the legal disposition of Salt Lake City's real property interests, in whole or in part,
with regard to city owned alleys, subject to the substantive and procedural requirements set forth
herein.
14.52.020: POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FOR CLOSURE, VACATION OR
ABANDONMENT OF CITY OWNED ALLEYS:
The city will not consider disposing of its interest in an alley, in whole or in part, unless it receives a
petition in writing which demonstrates that the disposition satisfies at least one of the following
policy considerations:
A. Lack Of Use: The city's legal interest in the property appears of record or is reflected on an
applicable plat; however, it is evident from an onsite inspection that the alley does not
physically exist or has been materially blocked in a way that renders it unusable as a public
right of way;
B. Public Safety: The existence of the alley is substantially contributing to crime, unlawful
activity, unsafe conditions, public health problems, or blight in the surrounding area;
C. Urban Design: The continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element;
or
Page | 6
D. Community Purpose: The petitioners are proposing to restrict the general public from use of
the alley in favor of a community use, such as a neighborhood play area or garden. (Ord. 24-02
§ 1, 2002)
14.52.030: PROCESSING PETITIONS:
There will be three (3) phases for processing petitions to dispose of city owned alleys under this
section. Those phases include an administrative determination of completeness; a public hearing,
including a recommendation from the Planning Commission; and a public hearing before the City
Council.
A. Administrative Determination Of Completeness: The city administration will determine whether
or not the petition is complete according to the following requirements:
1. The petition must bear the signatures of no less than seventy five percent (75%) of the
neighbors owning property which abuts the subject alley property;
2. The petition must identify which policy considerations discussed above support the petition;
3. The petition must affirm that written notice has been given to all owners of property located in
the block or blocks within which the subject alley property is located;
4. A signed statement that the applicant has met with and explained the proposal to the
appropriate community organization entitled to receive notice pursuant to title 2, chapter 2.60
of this code; and
5. The appropriate city processing fee shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule has
been paid.
B. Public Hearing and Recommendation From The Planning Commission: Upon receipt of a
complete petition, a public hearing shall be scheduled before the planning commission to
consider the proposed disposition of the city owned alley property. Following the conclusion of
the public hearing, the planning commission shall make a report and recommendation to the
city council on the proposed disposition of the subject alley property. A positive
recommendation should include an analysis of the following factors:
1. The city police department, fire department, transportation division, and all other relevant city
departments and divisions have no reasonable objection to the proposed disposition of the
property;
2. The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations stated above;
3. Granting the petition will not deny sole access or required off street parking to any property
adjacent to the alley;
4. Granting the petition will not result in any property being landlocked;
5. Granting the petition will not result in a use of the alley property which is otherwise contrary
to the policies of the city, including applicable master plans and other adopted statements of
policy which address, but which are not limited to, mid-block walkways, pedestrian paths,
trails, and alternative transportation uses;
6. No opposing abutting property owner intends to build a garage requiring access from the
property, or has made application for a building permit, or if such a permit has been issued,
construction has been completed within twelve (12) months of issuance of the building permit;
Page | 7
7. The petition furthers the city preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small
segment of it; and
8. The alley property is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for
accessory uses.
C. Public Hearing Before The City Council: Upon receipt of the report and recommendation from
the planning commission, the city council will consider the proposed petition for disposition of
the subject alley property. After a public hearing to consider the matter, the city council will
make a decision on the proposed petition based upon the factors identified above. (Ord. 58-13,
2013: Ord. 24-11, 2011)
14.52.040: METHOD OF DISPOSITION:
If the city council grants the petition, the city owned alley property will be disposed of as follows:
A. Low Density Residential Areas: If the alley property abuts properties which are zoned for low
density residential use, the alley will merely be vacated. For the purposes of this section, "low
density residential use" shall mean properties which are zoned for single-family, duplex or twin
home residential uses.
B. High Density Residential Properties And Other Nonresidential Properties: If the alley abuts
properties which are zoned for high density residential use or other nonresidential uses, the
alley will be closed and abandoned, subject to payment to the city of the fair market value of
that alley property, based upon the value added to the abutting properties.
C. Mixed Zoning: If an alley abuts both low density residential properties and either high density
residential properties or nonresidential properties, those portions which abut the low density
residential properties shall be vacated, and the remainder shall be closed, abandoned and sold
for fair market value. (Ord. 24-02 § 1, 2002)
14.52.050: PETITION FOR REVIEW:
Any party aggrieved by the decision of the city council as to the disposition of city owned alley
property may file a petition for review of that decision within thirty (30) days after the city council's
decision becomes final, in the 3rd district court.
Salt Lake City Council // October 4, 2022
ALLEY VACATION
925 S 1200 W
PLNPCM2021-00806
•Request to vacate a segment of alley approx.150-feet
long adjacent to 925 S 1200 W.
•The alley is essentially unused as a public right of way
and impassible to travel because there is no curb cut
allowing vehicle access .
•Adjacent sections of the alley were vacated in 1981
•Case law supports full width of alley going to the owners
of 925 S 1200 W.
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
PROJECT REQUEST
Krissy Gilmore // Senior Planner
Kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 445 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145487, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5487 TEL 801.535.7712 FAX 801.535.6269
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
________________________ Date Received: _________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: September 21, 2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT: Alley Vacation at approximately 925 S 1200 W, Petition PLNPCM2021-00806
STAFF CONTACT: Krissy Gilmore, Senior Planner, Kristina.Gilmore@slcgov.com, 801-535-
7780
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follows the Planning Commission’s
recommendation to approve the ordinance to Vacate the Alley located at approximately 925 S
1200 W with the condition that the method of disposition of the alley property shall be consistent
with the method of disposition outlined in Section 14.52.040 – Method of Disposition and Chapter
2.58 City Owned Real Property of the Salt Lake City Ordinance.
BUDGET IMPACT: None.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Jordan and Elizabeth Frandsen, property owners at 925 S 1200 W, are asking to vacate an
approximately 150-foot-long section of platted alley adjacent to the property. The alley is part of
two alleys forming a backward “L” shape, one leg of which runs east/west from 1200 West
Street, and one leg runs north/south from 900 South to the 9 Line Trail. The proposal is to vacate
the east/west alley segment and incorporate the vacant land into the neighboring property. The
total area of the proposed vacation is approximately 2,100 square feet. The remaining east/west
portion of the alleyway was previously vacated in 1981. The north/south portion of the “L” shape
is not included in this petition and would remain open. With their positive recommendation, at
the suggestion of the Attorney’s Office, the Planning Commission recommended a condition that
the method of disposition for the alley shall be consistent with the method of disposition outlined
9/21/2022
9/21/2022
Lisa Shaffer (Sep 21, 2022 16:37 MDT)
in Section 14.52.040 – Method of Disposition and Chapter 2.58 City Owned Real Property of the
Salt Lake City Ordinance.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
•The Planning Division provided a 45-day comment period notice to the Poplar Grove
Community Council on August 23, 2021.
•Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property
owners living within 300 feet of the project site providing notice about the proposal and
information on how to give public input on the project on August 23, 2021.
•The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing for this request on October 27, 2021. By
a vote of 7-1, they forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council for the
proposed Alley Vacation.
Planning Commission (PC) Records
PC Agenda for October 27, 2021 (Click to Access)
PC Minutes of October 27, 2021 (Click to Access)
PC Staff Report for October 27, 2021 (Click to Access Staff Report)
EXHIBITS
1.Chronology
2.Notice of City Council Hearing
3.Petition Application
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. ________ of 2022
(Vacating a portion of city-owned alley situated adjacent to properties located at 925 South 1200
West Street and 929 South Navajo Street)
An ordinance vacating a portion of an unnamed, city-owned alley adjacent to properties
located at 925 South 1200 West Street and 929 South Navajo Street, pursuant to Petition No.
PLNPCM2021-00806.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on October
27, 2021 to consider a request made by Jordan and Elizabeth Frandsen (“Applicants”) (Petition
No. PLNPCM2021-00806) to vacate a portion of an unnamed, city-owned alley adjacent to
properties located at 925 South 1200 West Street and 929 South Navajo Street; and
WHEREAS, at its October 27, 2021 meeting, the planning commission voted in favor of
forwarding a positive recommendation on said petition to the Salt Lake City Council; and
WHEREAS, the portion of alley that is the subject of this petition was dedicated to public
use in the Second Burlington Subdivision plat, recorded in 1909, and is situated on the perimeter
of that subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the general rule prescribed by Utah Code Section 72-5-105 is that abutting
owners on each side of a vacated right-of-way vest with title to half of the width of the vacated
right-of-way, however, as explained in Fries v. Martin, 154 P.3d 184 (Utah Ct. App. 2006), when
a vacated right-of-way is situated on the perimeter of a subdivision, title to the entire width of
that right-of-way vests only in the abutting property owners within the subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds after holding a public hearing on this matter, that
there is good cause for the vacation of the alley and neither the public interest nor any person
will be materially injured by the proposed vacation.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Vacating City-Owned Alley. That an unnamed, city-owned alley adjacent
to properties located at 925 South 1200 West Street and 929 South Navajo Street, which is the
subject of Petition No. PLNPCM2021-00806, and which is more particularly described on
Exhibit “A” attached hereto, hereby is, vacated and declared not presently necessary or available
for public use.
SECTION 2. Reservations and Disclaimers. The above vacation is expressly made
subject to all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities of any and every
description now located on and under or over the confines of this property, and also subject to
the rights of entry thereon for the purposes of maintaining, altering, repairing, removing or
rerouting said utilities, including the city’s water and sewer facilities. Said closure is also subject
to any existing rights-of-way or easements of private third parties.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its
first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this _______ day of
______________, 2022.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
EXHIBIT “A”
Legal description of the unnamed, city-owned
alley to be vacated:
THE FOLLOWING DESCRIPTION IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OFFICIAL SALT
LAKE CITY ATLAS “PLAT 35” AND THE “SECOND BURLINGTON ADDITION”
SUBDIVISION PLAT RECORDED OCTOBER 11, 1909 AS ENTRY NO. 255916 IN BOOK
“F” OF PLATS, PAGE 22.
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 88, SECOND BURLINGTON
ADDITION, AS RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE SALT LAKE
COUNTY RECORDER, AND RUNNING THENCE EAST 148.0 FEET TO THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 88 OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE SOUTH 16.0 FEET;
THENCE WEST 148.0 FEET; THENCE NORTH 16.0 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
CONTAINS: 2,368 SQUARE FEET or 0.054 ACRES.
1) CHRONOLOGY
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Petition: PLNPCM2021-00806
August 13, 2021 Application for an Alley Vacation accepted.
August 17, 2021 Petition PLNPCM2021-00806 was assigned to Krissy
Gilmore, Senior Planner, for staff analysis and processing.
August 23, 2021 Notice sent to Recognized Community Organizations
informing them of the petition. Early notification of the
project was also sent to property owners and residents
within 300 feet of the proposal.
October 15, 2021 Planning Commission public hearing notices emailed to
interested parties and residents/property owners who
requested notice. Agenda posted to the Planning
Commission website and the State of Utah Public Notice
webpage.
October 22, 2021 Planning Commission Staff Report posted.
October 27, 2021 Planning Commission held a public hearing and made a
positive recommendation to the City Council to approve the
proposed alley vacation.
May 17, 2022 Alley vacation legal description from a licensed engineer
was provided by the applicant and reviewed by the City
Engineering Division.
May 25, 2022 Draft ordinance sent to Attorney’s Office
August 3, 2022 Final ordinance received from Attorney’s Office
2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2021-00806– Jordan and Elizabeth
Frandsen, property owners, have initiated a petition to vacate an approximately 150-foot section
of platted alley to the south of their property. The alley is part of two alleys forming a backward
"L" shape, one leg of which runs east/west from 1200 West, and one leg runs north/south from
900 South to the 9 Line Trail. The proposal is to vacate an east/west alley segment and
incorporate the vacant land into the neighboring property. The total area of the proposed vacation
is approximately 2,100 square feet. Information on this proposal can be found in the staff report
prepared for the Planning Commission accessible from this link -
http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/10.%20October/00806.1200%
20W%20Alley%20Vacation.Staff%20Report.pdf
As part of their study, the City Council is holding two advertised public hearings to receive
comments regarding the petition. During these hearings, anyone desiring to address the City
Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider
adopting the ordinance on the same night of the second public hearing. The hearing will be held
electronically:
DATE: Date #1 and Date #2
TIME: 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: Electronic and in-person options.
451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah
If you are interested in participating in the Public Hearing, please visit our website at
https://www.slc.gov/council/ to learn how you can share your comments during the
meeting. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801)535-
7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received
through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record.
If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call
Krissy Gilmore at 385-535-7780 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday or via e-mail at Kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com.
People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours
in advance in order to participate in this hearing. Please make requests at least two business days
in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at
council.comments@slcgov.com , 801-535-7600, or relay service 711.
3) PETITION APPLICATION
August 2, 2021
To Whom It May Concern:
My name is Jordan Frandsen. My wife, Elizabeth, and I recently purchased a home at 925 S 1200 W,
here in Salt Lake City. The property sits at a dead end, abutting the Nine-Line walking path. There is an
alley behind the property, parallel to 1200 W, which is accessible from 900 S. Within the last two years,
the city blocked access to the alley from 1200 W. It is listed as an active public right-of-way, but there is
no way to access it from the street anymore. We would like to request closure of this alley to the
public and officially annex it to our property because it can no longer function as an alley due
to the city’s beautification process. When we moved in, garbage had been accumulating there, as
well as signs of use by unsheltered individuals. If we are able to annex it, we plan to use it as a family
garden and would like to run sprinkler lines to this area, as well as put up a gate at either end. I have
already been working to maintain the area, clearing garbage, weeds and overburdened trees that grew
along my driveway and the alley.
Here is a snap shot of the current zoning map, which has not been updated since the construction of the
curbing and sidewalks to the Nine Line:
Here is a picture of the current access from 1200 W, with the curbing restricting vehicle access to this
property:
measurement is taken) by 151 feet long. Maps taken from
https://maps.slcgov.com/mws/atlasplats-lg.htm
Thank you for taking the time to review this application. My family and I look forward to beautifying this
space once the alley is formally closed.
Jordan Frandsen