Mag 791 F

01, MAL
AI I I P O I f P LAN
P E N S A C O L A
R E G I O N A L
A I R P O R T
/ 04 ate
r i ty
ti Ai pkui day Ai ti da
G r e i n e r E n g i n e e r i n g S c i e n c e s , I n c .
The preparation of this document was financed in part
through a planning grant from the Federal Aviation
Administration as provided under Section 13 of the Airport
and Airway Development Act of 1970, and from the Florida
Department of Transportation, Division of Planning and
Programming. The contents of this report reflect the views
of Greiner Engineering Sciences, Inc., who is responsible for
the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The
contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy
of the Federal Aviation Administration. Acceptance of this
report by the Federal Aviation Administration 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 Public Laws
91-190, 91-258, and/or 90-495.
Planning Grant Project No. A-12-0063-01
Contract No. DOT-FA-74-S0-8189
Pensacola Regional Airport
Rethiet
A I R P O R T M A S T E R P L A N
* P E N S A C O L A
R E G I O N A L
A I R P O R T
e
r 47/,
M A S T E R P L A N R E P O R T
P E N S A C O L A R E G I O N A L A I R P O R T
Sponsored By
C I T Y O F P E N S A C O L A
FL O R I DA
Prepared By
GREINER ENGINEERING SCIENCES, INC.
TAMPA, FLORIDA - BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
December, 1975
NOTE: The final draft of this report was prepared prior to the expiration of the Airport and
Airways Development Act of 1970 and the accelerated act of 1973 on June 30, 1975. Material
contained in this report reflects Federal laws, policies, and criteria in effect at that time.
A C KN O WL E DG M E N T
A I R P O R T A DVI S O R Y C O UN C I L
Gus Sommermeyer, Chairman Captain Ed Marsh (USN Ret.)
Lou BrownRoger MacDonald
Peter A. DeVries, Director of Comm. Design H. T. Martin
W. H. GriffithS. Turner
J. A. LayW. H. F. Wiltshire
James Loudermilk
C O UN C I L O F T HE C I T Y O F P E N S A C O L A
Robert Brockett, Jr. William H. Northrup
Louis L. Brown* Albert Klein, Jr.*
Dr. V. Paul Bruno*W. L. Paulk
John E. Frenkel, Jr., Mayor ProtemHarold E. Rose*
Cecil E. JonesHo!lice T. Williams
Barney B. Burks, Mayor
C O M M UN I T Y S E R VI C E S C O M M I T T E E
O F T HE C I T Y 'C O UN C I L
*Members of Community Services Committee
CITY O F P E N S A C O L A
Frank A. Faison, City Manager
E. F. Hubacker, Jr., Director of Community Services
Juanita Bryan, Secretary to Director of Community Services
Harry S. Ely, Jr., City Engineer
WE S T FL O R I DA R E G I O N A L P L A N N I N C C O UN C I L
FL O R I DA DE P A R T M E N T O F T R A N S P O R T A T I O N
FE DE R A L A VI A T I O N A DM I N I S T R A T I O N , M I A M I A DO
T A BL E O F C O N T E N T S
P a g e
List of Tables
iv
List of Exhibits
v
Section I - Introduction and Purpose
Preface 1
The Setting 1
Purpose and Organization of This Study 3
Goals of the Study 3
Section II - Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions 4
Recommendations 6
Section III - Socioeconomic Factors
Introduction 9
Population Trends 9
Income and Employment 10
Tourism 11
Summary 11
Section IV - Aviation Forecasts
General 12
Air Carrier Forecasts 13
Passenger Enplanement 13
Peak Hour Passengers 17
Air Carrier Departures 17
Cargo and Mail 18
General Aviation 19
General Aviation Based Aircraft Forecast 19
General Aviation Operations Forecast 20
Military Operations 21
Instrument Operations 22
Busy Hour Operations 22
Consolidated Forecast 23
Section V - Inventory of the Airport
Existing Airfield 24
Existing Pavements 24
Airspace 24
Air Carrier Terminal 27
Air Carrier Service 29
General Aviation Facilities 30
Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning 30
Access 30
Drainage and Utility Systems 33
Summary 33
Section VI - Demand/Capacity Analysis and Facility Requirements
Part 1 - Airfield Requirements 34
Families of Aircraft 35
Wind and Weather 36
Runway Capacity 36
Runway Length and Strength Requirements 40
Air Carrier Runway Length 40
General Aviation Runway Length 41
Runway Strength Requirements 41
Existing Pavements
New Air Carrier Pavements
General Aviation Facilities
i
Part 2 - Navaids and Airspace 42
Navaids 42
Airspace 44
Part 3 - Building Areas 44
Terminal Area 44
Terminal Building 44
General Aviation Areas 47
Electrical Requirements 48
Section VII - Environmental Considerations
Part 1 Existing Conditions 49
Vegetation and Wildlife 49
Biotic Communities 49
Sandhill Pine Forest
Hardwood Hammock
Swamp Forest
Man Dominated
Wildlife 52
Soils and Erosion
52
Hydrology and Drainage 54
Water Quality 54
Air Quality
55
Factors Affecting Air Quality
Existing Ambient Conditions
Acoustic Noise
58
Methodology
Aircraft Mix and Runway Usage
Existing Noise Conditions
Utilities
61
Water Supply
Sanitary Sewerage
Gas and Electric
Telephone
Solid Waste
64
Land Use Compatibility
64
Part 2 - Probable impacts of Airport Expansion 65
Vegetation and Wildlife
65
Soils and Erosion
65
Hydrology and Drainage
65
Water Quality
66
Air Quality
66
Acoustic Noise
68
Utilities
68
Land Use Compatibility
73
Part 3 - Conclusions of Environmental Overview
73
Section VIII - Physical Planning
Part 1 - Alternatives
74
Location of the General Aviation Runway
74
Terminal Area Location
78
Terminal Building Concepts
80
Part 2 - The Plan
80
The Concept Plan
80
The Terminal Area
82
The Terminal
85
Part 3 - Land Use and Access
88
Land Use Controls
88
Purchase of Fee Simple
Purchase of Avigation Easements
Airport District Zoning
Land Use Protection Strategy
90
Land Use Plan
91
Access
91
Section IX- Staging and Financing
Part 1 - Capital Improvements and Staging 93
First Stage Improvements
93
Second Stage Improvements
95
Ultimate Stage Improvements
99
Summary of Staging Programs
104
Part 2 - Historic and Current Financial Operation 107
Operational Policy
107
Analysis of Fiscal Operation
107
Income Generation
112
Part 3 - Projected I ncome and Expenses
114
Income Projections
114
Expense Projections
116
Conclusions
117
Part 4 - Operational Recommendations 118
The Appendix
AHistory of Pensacola Airport
B General Aviation Statistics
CInstrument Operation Forecast
D Busy Hour Operations Forecast Methodology
E Existing Pavement Evaluation
FSurveys
G Origination - Destination Study and Stage Length Assumptions
H Plant and Animals in the Vicinity of the Airport
IAir Pollution Wind Data
JA Discussion of Aircraft Noise
K Correlation Between L10 and NEF
LTerminal Concepts
MAirport Layout Plan Set
Airport Layout Plan
Airspace/Clear Zone Plan
Terminal Area Plan
Terminal Section and Floor Plan
Terminal Perspective
Airport Property Map
L I S T O F T A BL E S
T a ble N o. P a g e
1 Pensacola SMSA Populati on 9
2 Payrolls by Type, Pensacola SMSA, 1971 10
3 E mployment by Major I ndustry Groups 11
4 Hi stori cal Ai r Carri er Acti vi ty 13
5 Hi stori c and Previ ous Forecasts of E nplanements 14
6 Hi story of E nplanernents - Pensacola and E gli n 15
7 Based Ai rcraft per 10,000 Populati on 19
8 Forecast of Based Ai rcraft 20
9 General Avi ati on Operati ons and Based Ai rcraft 20
10 General Avi ati on Operati ons Forecast 20
11 I nstrument Operati ons Forecast 22
12 Consoli dated Operati ons Forecast 23
13 Ai rcraft Mi x Forecast by Percentage 35
14 Desi gn Runway Length Requi rements 40
15 Termi nal Area Requi rements 45
16 Termi nal Bui ldi ng Space Requi rements (1985) 46
17 Termi nal Bui ldi ng Space Requi rements (1995) 47
18 General Avi ati on Requi rements 48
19 Selected Soi ls Characteri sti cs 53
20 E mi ssi ons I nventory Summary 55
21 Major Stati onary Sources of Ai r Polluti on 56
22 Moni tori ng Stati ons i n the Pensacola Area 56
23 1974 Ai rcraft Generated Polluti onal Loadi ng 58
24 Land Uses Adjacent to Ai rport and Noi se Contours 60
25 E xi sti ng Operati ons 60
26 Runway Usage 61
27 Maxi mum Dai ly Constructi on Polluti on Loads 67
28 No Project Alternati ve E mi ssi ons 67
29 Proposed E xpansi on Project E mi ssi ons 68
30 1980 Ai rcraft Operati ons 68
31 Separati on for Parallel Runways 76
32 Termi nal Area Rati ng Chart 78
33 E sti mated Project Costs, Fi rst Stage I mprovements 96
34 E sti mated Project Costs, Second Stage I mprovements 100
35 E sti mated Project Costs, Ulti mate Stage I mprovements 104
36 Termi nal Area Cost 105
37 Termi nal Bui ldi ng Costs 105
38 E sti mated Total Project Costs Summary 106
39I ncome Summary 108
40 Di rect E xpense Summary 109
41 I ncome Summary (Amended) 110
42 Recurri ng E xpense Summary 111
43 Summary of I ncome and E xpenses 112
44 Concessi on I ncome Analysi s 113
45 I ncome Projecti ons
115
46 E xpense Projecti ons 116
47 Net I ncome Projecti ons
117
i v
L I S T O F E XHI BI T S
N umbe r P a g e
1General Location 2
2Previous Enplaned Passenger Forecasts 16
3Enplaned Passenger Forecast 16
4Cargo and Mail Forecast 18
5Flight Activity Forecast 21
6Pensacola Existing Facility 1974 25
7Air Space and Surrounding Airport 26
8Existing Terminal Area 28
9Direction of Travel 29
10Zoning in the Airport Environs 31
11Access to the Airport 32
12Wind Rose (Air Carrier) 37
13Wind Rose (General Aviation) 38
14Biotic Communities 51
15Noise Exposure Forecast (1974) Existing Facilities 62
16ASDS (1974) Existing Facilities 63
17Noise Exposure Forecast (1980) Existing Facilities 69
18ASDS (1980) Existing Facilities 70
19Noise Exposure Forecast (1980) Alternate Configuration 71
20ASDS (1980) Alternate Configuration 72
21General Aviation Runway Alternatives and ASR Sites 75
22General Aviation Runway Separation 77
23Terminal Area Locations 79
24Concept Plan 81
25Geometric/Navaid Layout 83
26Terminal Area Concept (Ultimate Development) 84
27Building Plan and Section Concept 86
28Perspective View Concept 87
29Property Acquisition 89
30Land Use 92
31Stage 1 Development 94
32Stage 2 Development 97
33Intermediate (Stage 2) Terminal Area Concept 98
34Ultimate Development Plan 101
35Ultimate (Phase 1) Terminal Area Concept 102
36Ultimate (Phase 2) Terminal Area Concept 103

I n t r oduc t i on
S E C T I O N 1
S E C T I O N I - I N T R O DUC T I O N A N D P UR P O S E 1
Preface
Aviation plays a dynamic role in local and world development. Not only has the
use of air transportation vastly increased personal communication and broadened business markets,
but the technological advancement in the state of the art itself has compounded socioeconomic
development.
Over the last several decades, the growth of aviation use in the Pensacola area has
increased substantially. Since 1960, while the population of the Pensacola area increased by about
40 percent, the number of passengers at the City's airport increased by more than 400 percent.
In order to accommodate this growth the City has undertaken several studies to plan for the
future development of the airport. This current study, the Airport Master Plan Report, addresses
questions of growth in the area from a socioeconomic standpoint as well as from an air
transportation view, examines the environmental impact of the airport, explores strategies to meet
anticipated demand for air transportation services and develops costs and methods of financing
the recommended projects.
The Setting
The Pensacola Regional Airport is located in northwest Florida within the City of
Pensacola, Escambia County, as shown in Exhibit 1. The airport is owned and operated by the
City of Pensacola and is served by Eastern and National Airlines, which enplaned a total of 195,725
passengers in 1973 with 5,443 air carrier departures. Two fixed-base operations at the airport
provide service to general aviation, which flew 78,643 operations in 1973. Total aircraft operations
at the airport in 1973 were 108,289, including 18,749 military operations. (Detailed statistics
of enplanements and operations at the airport are covered in Section IV of this report.)
The airport was first opened in 1935 when the City purchased 504 acres of land
in a relatively unpopulated area east of the City for $50,000. Since that time the City and
the airport have both grown considerably. (See Appendix A for a historical sketch of the
development of the airport.) Presently, the airport consists of over 1,200 acres and has two
runways suitable for air carrier operations. A complete listing of facilities on the airfield and
a description of the surrounding area are contained in Section V.
Previous studies for the airport include the 1968 master plan, which recommended
the construction of a new parallel general aviation runway and reserved the capability of extending
both runways to an ultimate length of 8,000 feet as well as access road improvements, land
acquisition and the relocation of the general aviation area. This study has served as the basis
for improvement programs at the airport over the last several years.
A question of prime importance which had been raised for several years concerned
the need for a regional airport to serve Pensacola and the Eglin area and the commensurate closing
of the City's airport. 1 Prior to the start of this master plan the City conducted a feasibility
study for the regional airport concept. It was concluded as a result of this study that a regional
airport was not needed and was not feasible for the foreseeable future. 2 It was therefore decided
by the City, with the financial assistance of the Federal Aviation Administration and the Florida
Department of Transportation, to proceed with this study.
7Upper Gulf Coast Regional Air Transportation Study by R. Dixon Speas Associates, April 1970.
2Pensacola Eglin Regional Airport Feasibility Study by J. E. Greiner Company, Inc. for the City of Pensacola,
August 1973.
Charleston
Jacksonville
Gulf of Mexico
50
100
150
200
Scale i n Mi les
..
A
a'''
. s
Key West
GENERAL LOCATION
P EN SACO LA REGI O N AL AI RP O RT
E XHI BI T I
3
Currently, the State of Florida is preparing a state aviation systems plan 3 which will
forecast aviation growth and identify facilities required to meet this growth. At this time the
preliminary forecasts have been prepared for the Pensacola area and have been analyzed in this
study.
pur pos e a n d O r g a n i za t i on of t hi s S t ud
In order to plan for the orderly expansion of the airfield areas and passenger terminal,
the City of Pensacola obtained a planning grant from the Federal Aviation Administration with
additional assistance from the state. The master plan has been prepared, using Federal Aviation
Administration Advisory Circulars and Regulations.
G oa ls of t he S t udy
Prior to the initiation of the study, the City organized an Airport Advisory Council
to provide local input into the planning process. This committee, at monthly meetings, and
the general public, at three public information sessions, have contributed much valuable assistance
in the development of the plan.
A major accomplishment of the Council was the development of a list of goals to
guide the study as follows:
1. Develop airport facilities under sole authority, control, and direction
of City of Pensacola
2. Develop airport facilities to be self-supporting
3. Develop airport facilities to serve present and future airline needs of
Pensacola and surrounding area
4. Develop airport facilities to serve present and future general aviation
needs for Pensacola and surrounding area
5. Develop airport facilities to provide maximum radio, weather, and
navigation aids to flight
6. Acquire additional surrounding land to protect against encroachment
of the airport and to protect the airspace
7. Develop airport site for total utilization and benefit of public including
recreation facilities
8. Develop airport facilities as promptly as possible, but in keeping with
proper design, funding, and need to meet adopted goals.
These goals, federal and state guidelines, input from the airlines, passenger surveys
and surveys of general aviation have served as the basic framework for this study.
3 Florida Aviation Systems Plan FASP "Forecasting and Methodology Report" by Quinton-Budlong, February
1973.
S umma r y of C on c lus i on s
a n d R e c omme n da t i on s
SECTI O N I I
SECTION II - S UM M A R Y O F C O N C L US I O N S A N D R E C O M M E N DA T I O N S 4
Conclusions
As a result of the studies undertaken for the Pensacola Regional Airport, it has been
concluded that all eight (8) of the goals set forth by the Airport Advisory Council can be met
throughout the forecast period.
However, in order to do so, timely decisions must be made and certain policies
regarding operations on the airport must be determined and published.
Conclusions reached in regard to the eight Advisory Council goals are as follows:
1.Develop airport facilities under the sole authority, control, and direction of the City of
Pensacola.
It was determined prior to the commencement of these studies that a new regional
airport was neither practical nor required during the forecast period and that the existing airport
site could adequately be developed to serve the anticipated air traffic throughout the next 20-year
period.
On this basis, the airport is now owned, operated, and improved by the City of
Pensacola. With a knowledgeable and capable Director of City Community Services, who is well
versed in airport management and assisted by a capable staff, there is no evidence that changes
should be made to broaden the ownership or control of the airport.
2Develop the airport to be self-supporting.
Through a review of recent years' income/expense statements and leases granted to
tenants on the airport, it is concluded that the airport can become self-sufficient, provided that:
(a) state and federal grant programs for capital improvements continue over the next several years;
(b) that the level of forecast demand develops; (c) prudent management is continued; and
(d) programs as herein contained are carried out.
3. Develop airport facilities to serve present and future airline needs of Pensacola and
surrounding area.
It has been concluded that the existing airfield has adequate capacity to serve future
airline needs. However, the airfield will need improvements and certainly the passenger terminal
and terminal area must be expanded. Programs for these improvements are set forth herein.
4. Develop airport facilities to serve present and future general aviation needs of Pensacola
and surrounding area.
It is concluded that this goal can be met. It will require expansion of airfield capacity
and reorganization of the general aviation complex. These programs are herein set forth.
5
5. Develop airport facilities to provide maximum radio, weather and navigational aids to flight.
This is partially underway at this time with the programmed relocation of the area
TRACON system to Pensacola Regional Airport and the installation of ARTS II radar. It is
concluded that within the policies of FAA and current technology, all aids to aerial navigation
can be included on the airport.
6. Acquire additional surrounding land to protect against encroachment and to protect the air-
space.
It is concluded that the airport is already being encroached upon and that land
acquisition and compatible surrounding land use zoning must receive immediate attention if the
future of the airport is not to be derogated. However, prompt action is possible. A land acquisition
plan has been outlined as described in Section VIII, Physical Planning.
ZDevelop airport site for total utilization and benefit of public, including recreational facilities.
It is concluded that it is possible to plan the aviation facilities to expand beyond
the next 20-year period and incorporate public use and recreational facilities.
8.
Develop airport facilities as promptly as possible but in keeping with proper design, funding
and need to meet adopted goals.
It is concluded that this can be done through the proper selection of priorities and
concepts of expansion as set forth in this report.
Specific conclusions that lead to the above are:
1. The economic indicators of the area point toward continuing expansion of the
area at a faster pace than for the United States as a whole. The economic recession has not
affected the area as much as it has many other areas of Florida.
2.It is our conclusion that the Florida Airport Systems Plan (FASP), through the
process of allocating unconstrained aviation demands, 1 has:
a. Overstated enplaned passenger forecasts
b. Overstated numbers of future air carrier operations, general aviation
operations and military operations for the airport
c. Overstated enplaned mail tonnage and understated cargo tonnage
d. Projected a reasonable increase in based aircraft
3.Additional operational capacity will be required on the airport and we conclude

this will occur in the 1980-1985 time period.
4.
The airport is rapidly being surrounded and encroached upon by residential and
commercial development, and expansion capability needs to be protected.

1
The FASP process of allocating unconstrained demand was of a preliminary nature and represented Phase I of a
statewide study. Phase II of the FASP is now underway and reflects constrained demand that more accurately
forecasts activity by an examination of local airport conditions.
6
5. Because of growing activity on the airport and heavy use of existing streets
and roads, access to the airport should be improved.
6. The terminal and terminal area will need much expansion and improvement
throughout the forecast period; and
7. The passenger terminal and associated support facilities should remain in the
existing general location.
8. The general aviation facilities area needs to be relocated, reorganized and
expanded.
9. Throughout the forecast period, expanded facilities and operations would have
little adverse effect on the area's environment.
10. Consideration of the communities of interest between Pensacola and other cities
indicated that expanded aviation services are needed and the possibility of longer non-stop stage
lengths from Pensacola exists in the foreseeable future.
11. Now that the airport has reached a recognized position in the community's
economic posture, definite policies and programs are needed for operation of the airport, the
granting of leases and terms, and conditions of leases.
12. Through prudent management control, the airport can become self-supporting
within the premise of continued federal and state assistance for capital improvements programs.
R e c omme n da t i on s
Within the context of the conclusions set forth on the previous pages, which have
been concurred in by the Airport Advisory Council, the following procedural recommendations
are made. These are followed by a listing of recommended improvements for the airport.
P r oc e dur a l
Complete review of the planning and specific programs set forth in
this report.
Accept report or cause revision in accordance with the review.
Submit report and layout documents to Federal Aviation
Administration and State Department of Transportation for approval
and inclusion in NASP and FASP.
Upon approval by FAA and DOT, file applications for federal and
state grants for first improvements projects.
Proceed with design of first-stage improvements projects.
Proceed with zoning and land acquisition.
S pe c i fi c I mpr ove me n t s
7
Specific improvements by staging programs are set forth in Section IX of this report.
These programs include the following recommendations:
1.Property Control
a.Land and easement acquisition - Acquire additional property and/or
easements for the airport by three methods:
(1) Direct purchase of fee simple title.
(2) Purchase of easements.
(3) Purchase of fee simple title, place restrictions in deeds, resell property
for use compatible with airport operations.
b. Zoning - Enact City/County land use and airspace zoning to protect both
the airport and existing surrounding developed areas. THIS RECOMMENDATION CARRIES A
HIGH PRIORITY.
2.Physical Improvements
a. Strengthen both runways and all taxiways. Widen taxiways and design
to standards for wide bodied jet aircraft. Provide extended safety overrun areas.
b. Install additional navigational aids, including VASI and REI LS on runways
7 and 25 and REILS on runway 34. Ultimately install Category 1 1LS and ALS on runway
7 and upgrade runway 16 to CAT II instrumentation.
c. Relocate general aviation and extend utilities to the southeast of runway
34, providing additional area for expansion. This program should be closely coordinated with
the implementation program for construction of Old Spanish Trail so that both access and utilities
will be optimized.
d. Reorganize the present passenger terminal area and construct new facilities
for passengers and cargo.
e. Construct new general utility runway and associated taxiways for general
aviation as use demand requires.
f. Construct new terminal area entrance roads. Relocate 12th Avenue from
its intersection with Summit Boulevard to where it intersects College Boulevard. Then, extend
12th Avenue to phase into Tippin Avenue. This entire segment should be widened between
Summit Boulevard and the intersection of Tippin Avenue with 9th Avenue.
Construct Airport Boulevard (Kilbee Lane) from 9th Avenue to relocated
12th Avenue with a minimum of five lanes.
g.
Construct internal serve/access road from passenger terminal area to the
proposed new general aviation area.
h. Improve drainage of all airfield area.
3. Management and Fiscal
8
a. Develop standards of performance and terms for all categories of leases,
licenses, privilege permits and operations of tenants on the airport.
b. Develop and adopt fiscal and operating policies for the airport.
c. Establish and convene periodically a permanent Airport Advisory Council
to review progress and transmit information to the general public.
S oc i o-E c on omi c Fa c t or s
SECTI O N I I I
S E C T I O N I I I - S O C I O E C O N O M I C FA C T O R S
9
I n t r oduc t i on
Aviation, as a means of transportation and communication is particularly sensitive
to the socioeconomic environment of the area within which it serves. Conversely, aviation
constitutes a resource of the economics of the area and, therefore, exerts an influence on the
social structure of the area.
Past reports on the airport have defined the area served by Pensacola Regional Airport
in several ways. The Greiner 1968 report i used a classic method of influence areas which takes
into account the distance from Pensacola to the next adjacent air carrier airports, the required
surface transportation time from point of departure to the airport and frequency of flights from
the surrounding airports as compared to the subject airport.
In that same year (1968), R. Dixon Speas Associates, in a study of the "Upper Gulf
Coast Regional Air Transportation," conducted surveys and found that enplanements at Pensacola
Regional Airport originated in Escambia, Okaloose and Santa Rosa Counties of Florida, plus
Baldwin, Escambia and Mobile Counties in Alabama. However, 79 percent of the enplanements
came from within Escambia County, Florida; 10 percent came from Santa Rosa County and
8 percent came from Okaloose County.
During the last quarter of 1957, air carrier service was authorized at Eglin Air Force
Base, in Okaloose County, but until the early 1970's the number of schedules through Eglin
and the destinations offered from there were quite limited. Consequently, many
Okaloosa-generated trips came to Pensacola for enplanement. Now, however, Southern Airways
offers greatly expanded service from Eglin and there is cross-generation of traffic to both airports.
People from Santa Rosa and Escambia Counties drive to Eglin for some flights and people from
Okaloose County drive to Pensacola for some flights.
In effect, then, there is an overlapping of the air trade areas served by Pensacola
and Eglin.
P opula t i on T r e n ds
The most recent information available for the area as published by Milo Smith and
Associates, Inc., February 1, 1973, and later used by the West Florida Regional Planning Council
in June of 1974, is set forth in Table 1, together with information on the U.S. population.
T A BL E 1
P E N S A C O L A S M S A P O P UL A T I O N
Year SMSA U.S. % of U.S.
1960 203,376 178,464 ,236 .114
1970 234,075 203,211,926 .115
1975 294,172 217,000,000 .135
1980 327,401 234,000,000 .139
1985 385, 9 02 252,000,000 .153
1990 422,723 270,000,000 .156
1995 452,146
Source: SMSA Figures - Milo Smith and Associates, Inc.
U. S. - U. S. Census Bureau
SMSA - Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area
(Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties)
1Pensacola Municipal Airport Master Plan, J. E. Greiner Company, Inc., 1968.
10
From this table it will be noted that the population of the area is growing at a faster
rate than is the total U.S. population. Although the percentage of total U.S. population remained
almost constant during the 1960-70 period, the first half of the 1970's has seen rapid population
growth in the area. This is undoubtedly due to an immigration from northern areas as experienced
in other sections of the state. The latest figures from "Sales Management Magazine," Survey
of Buying Power, 1974, estimates that in 1973 there were 276,900 people residing in the SMSA.2
This is slightly higher than the forecasts.
I n c ome a n d E mployme n t
The principal source of wage and salary income in the Pensacola area is manufacturing,
as shown in the table below:
T A BL E 2
P A YR O L L S BY T YP E
P E N S A C O L A S M S A , 1 9 71
T ype of A c t i vi t y
P a yr oll
($000)
P e r c e n t
of T ot a l*
Manufacturing
123,366 31.8
Government
83,872 21.6
Trade
74,139 19.1
Contract Construction
42,039 10.8
Transportation and Other Public Utilities
22,818 5.9
Services
22,118 5.7
Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate
16,950 4.4
Miscellaneous
2,252 --
T O T A L
387, 553 1 00. 0
*Figures may not total 100 percent due to rounding.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, County Business Patterns, 1971.
As can be seen, government payroll is the second largest category, with manufacturing
and government accounting for over 50 percent of the total payroll.
This would indicate that the manufacturing and government payroll give the area a
strong economic base.
Table 3 is a breakdown of employment in the Pensacola area.
It is significant to note that 36.8 percent of the 1970 total is made up of manufacturing
related jobs. Since many of the manufacturers in the Pensacola area are producing for nationwide
distribution, manufacturing could become a stimulant to increased air traffic. On the other hand,
retail trade and professional services (38.2 percent of 1970 total) are recognized users of aviation
transportation.
2 SM SA - Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties)
11
T A BL E 3
E M P L O YM E N T BY M A JO R I N DUS T R Y G R O UP
P E N S A C O L A S M S A
N umbe r P e r c e n t
1 9 70 1 9 60 1 9 50 1 9 70 1 9 60 1 9 50
Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries 1,438 1,546 2,595 1.9 2.5 7.0
Mining and Construction 6,519 5,698 2,330 8.7 9.2 6.2
Manufacturing 13,626 12,769 4,875 18.1 20.7 13.0
Production Sector 21,583 20,013 9,800 28.7 32.4 26.2
Wholesale and Retail Trade 15,874 12,095 8.177 21.1 19.6 21.8
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate 2,900 2,181 989 3.8 3.5 2.7
Distribution Sector 18,774 14,276 9,166 24.9 23.1 24.5
Trans., Commun., Other Public Util. 4,953 3,692 2,590 6.6 6.0 6.9
Business and Repair Services 2,148 1,480 785 2.9 2.4 2.1
Personal Services 5,279 6,015 4,301 7.0 9.8 11.5
Entertainment & Rec. Services 623 476 430 0.8 0.8 1.1
Professional & Related Services 12,905 6,201 2,825 17.1 10.1 7.5
Public Administration 9,054 7,960 6,613 12.0 12.9 17.7
Service Sector 34,962 25,824 17,544 46.4 42.0 46.8
Industry not Reported --- 1,544 943 --- 2.5 2.5
T O T A L 75, 31 9 61 , 657 37, 453 1 00. 0
_
1 00. 0 1 00. 0
Source: U.S. Census, as compiled by Milo Smith and Associates, Inc.
Touri sm
Pensacola has the potential of being a primary tourist center in Florida. Pensacola's
location on the Gulf Coast provides beautiful beaches and bays, and the entire metropolitan area
is rich in historical sites and historically significant structures.
Many historical sites in Pensacola reflect its Spanish, British and French settlers. These
include Seville Square, Fort Pickens and Fort Barrancas. The U.S. Naval Aviation Museum reflects
Pensacola's military history back to 1825, when the navy yard was established.
Some of the secondary attractions include Gulf fishing, greyhound racing, sail boating,
golfing, and the transportation museum.
It can be discerned that Pensacola has a potentially great future as a major tourist
center. In order to maximize this potential, every effort must be made to attract these tourists
and provide the necessary facilities to accommodate them.
S umma r y
Pensacola is the home of Naval aviation; its population is increasing at a rate greater
than the total U.S. population; the potential for tourism is strong; and its economic base is strong.
According to an article in the February 17, 1975, Pensacola News, the effects of
the economic recession have not been nearly as badly felt in the Pensacola area as in other parts
of the state. According to Flori da Trend magazine of April 1975, tourism is gaining momentum
within the area and the future trend is for a more diversified, civilian economy, with the area
becoming less and less dependent on military establishments for its primary economic base as
manufacturing takes a greater lead.
All these factors tend to indicate a strong future demand for aviation transportation
in the Pensacola area.
1
S E C T I O N I V
12
A VI A T I O N FO R E C A S T S
G e n e r a l
The forecasting of air traffic growth is at best a tenuous undertaking since so many
parameters or variables affect the results. These variables include population and economic base
of the community, condition of the general economy of the country, airline route structure,
types of aircraft in use, and frequency of schedules and airline promotional efforts to name a
few. The impact of the "energy crisis" is another variable whose long-term implications on air
carrier traffic are not completely clear at this time.
As noted in Section I of this report, the Florida State Department of Transportation
has published the Florida Airport System Plan (FASP) which contains forecasts for all segments
and categories of aviation for the state. These forecasts have been concurred in by the Federal
Aviation Administration and since 1973 have represented the official forecasts to be used in
planning. Within this study, all latest socioeconomic data available were to be reviewed to
determine whether the FASP forecasts should be modified or relocated.
Therefore, the forecasts for all segments of aviation considered the projected population
and economic growth of Pensacola and its surrounding air trade area, and: (1) the national
aviation forecasts, as set forth by the Federal Aviation Administration (used as a basis for enplaned
passenger projections); (2) local forecasts contained in the Florida Aviation System Plan; and
(3) forecasts in other relevant aviation studies. In addition, the results of a series of questionnaires
submitted to the airlines and commercial aviation operators were analyzed and considered in the
forecasts. During the initial phases of this study, contacts and interviews were made with personnel
from local planning agencies, military installations and the Federal Aviation Administration Air
Traffic Control Tower, as well as other agencies knowledgeable about the potential for aviation
growth in the Pensacola area.
The forecast as developed for Pensacola Regional Airport appears on the following
pages. Forecasts have been prepared for enplaned passengers and air carrier operations, general
aviation (based aircraft, local and itinerant operations), military traffic, and cargo and mail. It
should be noted that these forecasts are unconstrained projections.1
Forecasts have been prepared for short, intermediate, and long-range (approximately
5-, 10- and 20-year) periods. These forecasts serve as the basic developmental framework for
the master plan. From them, the relationships between future demand and capacity of the various
component parts of the airport have been established and a schedule of airport facilities
requirements determined. This schedule of requirements has been structured around specific dates.
However, it should be noted, for the long-range requirements, dates are only general in nature,
and no facilities would be constructed until potential demand could be more accurately
demonstrated. Included in this analysis is an examination of a "minimum growth forecast" and
its impact on the planning process.
Unconstrained aviation projections represent the potential aviation market in which all factors that tend to
create aviation demand are used without major regard to constraining circumstances. This method has been
recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration in Advisory Circular 150/5070-6, "Airport Master Plans."
Through the use of the method, the theoretical developmental needs have been determined in accordance with
the total demand potential. Limitations on this demand will be examined in the Demand/Capacity Analysis.
A i r C a r r i e r For e c a s t s
13
As a basis for the forecast review, Table 4 records the historical air
for Pensacola Regional Airport. The 1974 figures reflect the prolonged strike b
carrier information
y National Airlines.
T A BL E 4
HI S T O R I C A L A I R C A R R I E R A C T I VI T Y
Ye a r
A i r C a r r i e r a
De pa r t ur e s
E n pla n e db
P a s s e n g e r s
E n pl.
C a r g o
(T on s )
E n pl.
M a i l
(Tons)
% U. S .
E n pl.
E n pl.
P e r
Fli g ht
1950 5,236 14,779 N.A. N .A. .09 2.8
1955 4,817 39,146 115.0 99.0 .10 8.1
1959 5,763 50,452 232.7 146.7 .10 8.8
1960
1961
5,304
4,932
47,263
43,978
165.7
197.7
147.4 1257..40
.08
8.9
8.9
1962 4,172 43,141 172.0 126.0 .07 10.3
1963 5,247 60,884 163.0 153.0 .09 11.6
1964 c 5,127 67,624 142.4 161.2 .09 13.2
1965 5,355 86,671 143.2 183.6 .09 16.2
1966 5,123 93,502 260.1 305.9 .09 18.3
1967 6,498 133,929 395.9 408.4 .10 20.6
1968 6,393 159,464 577.5 607.9 .11 24.9
1969 6,517 180,477 715.9 706.7 .12 27.7
1970 c 5,209 162,936 646.2 695.6 .10 31.3
1971 c 5,479 168,225 722.8 753.10 .11 30.7
1972 5,448 187,791 656.9 781.29 .12 34.5
1973 5,299 195,775 580.9 880.7 .10 37.0
1974 d 4,040 188,215 531.5 1166.1 .10 46.6
Source:Federal Aviation Administration - Airport Activity Statistics
a The total number of aircraft takeoffs in scheduled and non-scheduled service.
b The number of revenue passengers boarding aircraft, including originating, stop-over and transfer passengers.
C Fiscal year.
d Estimated from management records.
P a s s e n g e r E n pla n e me n t s
Table 5 below lists actual and previously forecasted enplanements for Pensacola
Regional. As can be seen from the table, during the past 20 years the number of enplaned
passengers has increased by more than a factor of 10. In addition, the previous studies indicate
that Pensacola should enplane in the neighborhood of one-half a million passengers sometime
in the 1980's and over one million in the early 1990's. However, there is a considerable range
in the forecasts for any specific year.
14
T A BL E 5
HI S T O R I C A L A N D P R E VI O US FO R E C A S T S O F E N P L A N E M E N T S
Hi stori ca
1 9 68 M a s t e r P la n b
1 9 70 S pe a s S t udy b
FA S P d
FAAe Low Hi gh Hi gh Medi an
1950 14,779 --- --- ---
1955 39,146 --- --- --- ---
1960 47,263 --- --- ---

1965 86,671 --- --- ---
1970 162,936 175,000 180,000 198,000
....
---
1973 195,775 --- --- --- ---
..... ......
1975 --- 290,000 310,000 279,000 342,200 314,800 195,000
1980 --- 400,000 450,000 444,000 585,400 518,100 ---
1985 --- --- --- 670,000 1,011,400 784,700 445,000
1990 --- 1,000,000 1,554,800 1,116,800 ---
1995 --- --- --- 1,350,000
...
--- ---
a Federal Aviation Administration - "Airport Activity Statistics" and Airport Management Records.
b "The Master Plan for Pensacola Municipal Airport," J. E. Greiner Company, June 1968.
C "Upper Gulf Coast Air Transportation Study" Vol. I, R. Dixon Speas Assoc., April 1970.
d "Florida Aviation System Plan," Vol. 2, Quinton-Budlong, February 1973.
e Federal Aviation Administration, "Terminal Area Forecast," 1975-1985, July 1973 (Fiscal Year Data).
Of the four forecasts shown, the FAA forecast reflects a better correlation with actual
happenings to date than the others.
Table 1 illustrated the changes in the population of Pensacola in relation to the United
States. As seen, Pensacola's population relative to the U.S. total has been growing at a faster
rate since the 1940's and this trend is expected to continue through the 1990's. In addition,
the socioeconomic variables influencing growth in enplanements (as discussed in Section III) are
also expected to increase at a faster rate than the U.S. average. Therefore, it could be assumed
that Pensacola's share of enplanements would increase as its population increased relative to the
U.S. population from about 0.10% in 1970 to 0.13% of forecasted U.S. enplanements by 1995.
The FASP contains regional forecasts prepared by a careful examination of the past
relationship between such variables as population, payroll and accommodations as they influence
enplanements of an area (regression analysis), as well as forecasts prepared from an examination
of historical trends in the share of the U.S. total market. These regional forecasts were then
allocated to individual airports in the region.
Pensacola falls into Region I which consists of the four westernmost counties of the
Florida Panhandle: Escambia, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa and Walton Counties. Besides Pensacola
Regional Airport, commercial air service is also provided at Eglin Air Force Base for the region.
The FASP forecasts regional enplanements to grow at a rate of 10.5 percent per year
due to the anticipated growth in tourism and commerce; that is, from an existing (1972) level
of 271,942 total enplanements to 664,400 in 1980 and 1,501,800 in 1990. Based on the statistics
and assumptions contained in the FASP, the forecasts appear valid for the region, but the share
of the market allocated to Pensacola appears to be too high. 2 As stated in the FASP:
2 The FASP process of allocati ng unconstrai ned demand was of a preli mi nary nature and represented Phase I of
the Statewi de Study. Phase I I of the FASP i s now underway and wi ll reflect constrai ned demand that more
accurately forecasts acti vi ty by an exami nati on of local ai rport condi ti ons.
15
Eglin AFB airport has accounted for approximately 25 percent of the commercial traffic
in Region I over the eight-year time span, and in the latter years (1966 to 1969) the
percentage has been steadily near the 25 percent mark. For the purpose of allocating
the forecast of Region I commercial enplanements to the two airports, it will be assumed
that this 25 percent share of enplanements by Eglin AFB shall be maintained through
1990.
However, as can be seen from Table 6, Eglin's share of the market has increased from
the 25 percent average used in the FASP to over 31 percent in 1973. In addition, due to the
recent completion of a new terminal at Eglin, and the route structure and type of service offered
by Southern Airlines (the only air carrier serving Eglin), it appears the share of the market will
increase to about 33 percent by 1990. This would reduce the 1990 Pensacola forecast (median
projections) from the 1,116,800 contained in the FASP to about 993,000 enplaned passengers.
T A BL E 6
HI S T O R Y O F E N P L A N E M E N T S
P E N S A C O L A A N D E G L I N
Ye a r P e n s a c ola E g li n A FB
E g li n A FB
of T ot a l
1962 43,141 15,374 26.27
1963 60,884 15,271 20.05
1964 72,453 21,652 23.00
1965 86,671 26,102 23.14
1966 93,502 33,750 26.52
1967 133,929 45,892 25.52
1968 159,464 54,687 25.53
1969 180,477 59,154 24.68
1970 162,936 65,523 28.68
1971 168,225 73,836 30.50
1972 187,791 84,151 30.94
1973 195,725
% Eglin AFB of Total
Average 1962-1969 24.33
Average 1965-1969 25.07
Average 1966-1969 25.56
Average 1969-1972 28.70
Average 1970-1972 30.04
Source:Federal Aviation Administration - Airport Activity Statistics
Finally, the previous relationship between total U.S. enplanements and the local share
enplaned in Pensacola was examined. The ratio was found to be almost constant since the early
1950's (.10 percent as shown in Table 4).
Exhibit 2 graphically depicts the previous enplaned passenger forecasts made for
Pensacola over the past several years. Also shown are projections based on Pensacola's maintaining
constant percentages (0.10 percent and 0.12 percent) of the forecasted U.S. total enplanements.
Historically, this percentage relationship 3 between U.S. total enplanements and enplanements
generated out of Pensacola has varied only slightly from a low of 0.07 percent in 1962 to a high
of 0.11 percent in 1968 for an average of about 0.10 percent. Over the last several years the
average has risen slightly to 0.11 percent.
3
This relationship is expressed in percentages and equals the part or percentage of total U.S. enplanements that are en-
planed at Pensacola Regional Airport.
HI STORI C FORE CA ' T

_
(FASP 19 2) high
(F AS 1972) med um
_
E li r
-1 1 1 1
. 41 1 1 e lli
12% of U. S.
pi r , , , , 1 'O P I I I P -
. ;1
'
10% of
u. S. E
historic
planeme
...
(SPEAS
s
.
1970)
A N A
. 41
401
ally
1500
1000
500
1500
1000
500
HI STORI C FORE CA
1 99 5 (1,200,000
Nyt.p,Nevost-TS
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
PRE VI OUS E NPLANE D
PASSE NGE R FORE CASTS
E XHI BI T 2
1950196019701980
19902000
E NPLANE D PASSE NGE R FORE CASTS
PE NSACOLA RE GI ONAL AI RPORT
E XHI BI T 3
17
From these comparisons, it has been concluded that all forecasts, with the exception
of the FAA Terminal Area Forecast of 1973, have overstated the potential enplaned traffic for
the airport and further the 1973 FAA forecast was overly conservative.
After thorough review of this analysis with FAA, Florida State Department of
Transportation and the Citizens Advisory Committee, it was agreed that for planning purposes,
a design forecast as shown in Exhibit 3, should be used.
This design forecast was based in part on the reduced FASP forecast and a percentage
of U.S. enplanements, as well as slight reduction to reflect the developmental potential of the
airport and the area. This design forecast anticipates 650,000 by 1985, and 1,200,000 by 1995
as a long-range projection.
Also shown on Exhibit 3 is a "Minimum Growth" forecast. This forecast was based
on the assumption that the Pensacola area would catch up with the U.S. average ratio of population
to enplanements by 1985. From this point on, the ratio wa s assumed to remain constant and
enplanements would only increase as population increased to about 800,000 in 1995. Other
minimum growth forecasts could be developed (for example, a forecast based on catastrophic
consequences of the energy crises) which could indicate even less growth - in fact, even a decline.
However, for long-range planning purposes, the design forecast represents a reasonable
upper limit of potential growth in the Pensacola area. Basing planning on this forecast will insure
that the facilities needed to provide service to the people of Pensacola can be developed on a
timely basis.
Peak Hour Passengers
Forecasts of peak hour passengers are discussed in Section VI, Demand/Capacity Analysis
and Facility Requirements, Part 3, Terminal Building.
A i r C a r r i e r De pa r t ur e s
Directly related to the forecast of enplaned passengers is the number of air carrier
operations needed to serve these enplanements. Table 4 presented historical air carrier activity
statistics for the airport.
The general trend over the last two decades has been toward an increase in passengers
boarding each flight. This trend at Pensacola has increased from less than 10 passengers per flight
in the early '50's to well over 40 passengers in the '70's and is expected to increase even further
through the planning period. The airlines indicate that there is a good likelihood that, in the
future, Pensacola could be served by larger aircraft, in addition to the present B-727 and DC-9's.
The use of these larger aircraft (200-250 seats) would certainly require the number of enplaned
passengers per flight to increase. Based on the introduction of these aircraft into the fleet serving
Pensacola and using basic assumptions relative to potential service, schedules and load factors,
passenger enplanements were converted to aircraft departures.
It should be noted that the FASP forecasts 29,000 departures (58,000 operations) as
a median projection for 1990. This works out to be about 38 enplaned passengers per flight
(based on the 1990 FASP projection of 1,116,800 enplaned passengers) about the number presently
enplaning per flight in Pensacola which appears to be too low a number for the future.
la

mi r mi
um
N M
M E
M E M
N I
a
M I
mr r i l
I N I M E M E
1111
11
II
.1.614.
I I I
I I I
VA
61 1
=a l
E n
'
r i r
r a m
M I M I
NE
-1 1 1 1

I li WI i M I I E S I N
MEM
0
l'
a
04 11111Adg i O N O
I
r atati 1 f i n
i mN M UM W
1
16
9200
84 00
7800
8800
8000
5200
4 4 00
3800
2800
2000
1200
4
08
95 90 85 75SO
YEAR
72
18
Air carrier departures are forecasted to increase from a level of 5,488 departures in
1972 to 8,000 in 1980, 10,000 in 1985, 12,000 in 1990 and 15,500 in 1995. See Exhibit 5
for a plot of the total air carrier operations which are assumed to be twice the number of departures.4
The forecast is very closely in line with the 1970 Upper Gulf Coast Regional Air
Transportation Study, by R. Dixon Speas.
C a r g o a n d M a i l
Forecasting the cargo activity at Pensacola is a very difficult operation at best, due
to two factors. One, the historical cargo enplanement at Pensacola has been very erratic, and
two, the true potential for air cargo is not known since air cargo represents only a minute portion
of all cargo moved by all sources.
Exhibit 4 presents the cargo and mail forecast.
CARGO AND MAIL FORECAST
EXHI BI T 4
After studying the historical cargo ton enplanements at Pensacola and the potential
cargo capacity available from the airline operations forecast, a 10 percent per year increase in
cargo tons enplaned would seem to be a reasonable forecast. This forecast would also be in line
with the short term historical (70-72) increase and would yield a forecast of about 8,500 tons
by 1995. This is not much at variance with the FASP cargo forecast.
4 These figures are considerably lower than those forecasted in the FASP (1980 median forecast of 25,500 operations,
1985 forecast of 39,700 and 1990 forecast of 58,000) due to basic differences in the assumptions concerning type of
equipment serving Pensacola in the future.
MEE M E
I I i ll 11 M E
M
a
M M . .
Am
MTPTI
1 11: 1111
M A I M
1
.
I A
A l
M E UR N M E M
M A I O
M E
v1 41 1
4&
W W I I
n) a.....m.
N M!
Les Elpi l
MEM

9.116 11
mi l
ag i N g
M E E
a
f l
I mp
E M
P 2I 1
I am04 1
t M E
E M E M I T a d
7, : a bi ms
E i ll
REM M I N
9200
84 00
76 00
6 800
6 000
5200
4 4 00
36 00
2800
2000
1200
4 00
6 8
95 90 85 72 7580
YEAR
18
Air carrier departures are forecasted to increase from a level of 5,488 departures in
1972 to 8,000 in 1980, 10,000 in 1985, 12,000 in 1990 and 15,500 in 1995. See Exhibit 5
for a plot of the total air carrier operations which are assumed to be twice the number of departures.4
The forecast is very closely in line with the 1970 Upper Gulf Coast Regional Air
Transportation Study, by R. Dixon Speas.
Car g o andMai l
Forecasting the cargo activity at Pensacola is a very difficult operation at best, due
to two factors. One, the historical cargo enplanement at Pensacola has been very erratic, and
two, the true potential for air cargo is not known since air cargo represents only a minute portion
of all cargo moved by all sources.
Exhibit 4 presents the cargo and mail forecast.
CARGO AND MAIL FORECAST
E XHI BI T 4
After studying the historical cargo ton enplanements at Pensacola and the potential
cargo capacity available from the airline operations forecast, a 10 percent per year increase in
cargo tons enplaned would seem to be a reasonable forecast. This forecast would also be in line
with the short term historical (70-72) increase and would yield a forecast of about 8,500 tons
by 1995. This is not much at variance with the FASP cargo forecast.
These figures are considerably lower than those forecasted in the FASP (1980 median forecast of 25,500 operations,
1985 forecast of 39,700 and 1990 forecast of 58,000) due to basic differences in the assumptions concerning type of
equipment serving Pensacola in the future.
19
The relatively high percentage of manufacturing in Pensacola as discussed in Section
III indicates that this future cargo demand could be realized especially if wide body jet aircraft
service were inaugurated and special container rates or other pricing incentives were available to
shippers and manufacturers.
A study of the historical mail tons enplanement shows that, on the average, mail tons
have increased five percent per year. This trend is expected to continue to a 1995 level of
approximately 2,500 enplaned tons. This is a large deviation from the FASP forecast but mail
volumes are closely related to population and the amount of business conducted in an area. 5 This
has not been found to occur on an exponential basis and it is believed that the FASP has overstated
mail forecasts.
General Aviation
General aviation includes all civil aviation other than certificated air carrier service. It
includes business, pleasure, instructional, aerial application, patrol, surveying and miscellaneous
flying.
In order to analyze the potential growth for general aviation for Pensacola Regional
Airport and determine future requirements, it is first necessary to establish a framework of the
area served. To insure that adequate consideration was made of the impact of general aviation,
information was collected and analyzed for both the Pensacola SMSA and Okaloosa County. This
information is contained in Appendix B.
General Aviation Ba s e d A i r c r a ft For e c a s t
A good indication of the level of general aviation activity at an airport is the number
of aircraft formally based at that airport. Table 7 illustrates the growth in general aviation aircraft
based at the airport over the last several years.
T A BL E 7
BA S E D A I R C R A FT P E R 1 0, 000 P O P UL A T I O N
Ba s e d A i r c r a ft P opula t i on
Ba s e d A /C pe r 1 0, 000
Ye a r
a t P N S P N S S M S A
P opula t i on
1965 52 223,225 2.33
1967 66 213,163 2.85
1972 79 259,039 3.05
Source: FASP, December 1, 1972
The above statistical information was examined with consideration for long-range growth
projections for the total U.S. general aviation fleet. These data were then correlated with forecasts
prepared for the Florida Aviation System Plan on based aircraft. The FASP forecast was obtained
by forecasting the regional general aviation fleet and then allocating the historical percentage of
based aircraft to Pensacola. Our analysis of the latest socioeconomic information and independent
forecasting showed that the FASP was reasonable. Table 8 presents a summary of based general
aviation aircraft.
5 A contract for the carriage of mail by air has recently been awarded by the Post Office Service to an air taxi service.
This is expected to increase total mail enplanements.
T A BL E 8
20
FO R E C A S T O F BA S E D A I R C R A FT
Year
Ba s e d Aircraft
at PNS
P opula t i on
P N S SMSA
Based A/C pe r 1 0, 000
P opula t i on
1975 90 295,172 3.05
1980 123 327,401 3.76
1985 163 385,902 4.22
1990 209 422,723 4.94
1995 240 452,146 5.31
Source: Greiner Estimate and FASP
G e n e r a l A vi a t i on O pe r a t i on s For e c a s t s
Table 9 presents the historical ratio of total general aviation operations to number of
based aircraft. As can be seen, the ratio has been quite consistent.
T A BL E 9
GENERAL AVIATION OPERATIONS AND BASED AIRCRAFT
Ratio of G.A.
Based Aircraft
General Aviation
Operations to
Year
at PNS
Operations
Based Aircraft
1965 52 58,874 1,132
1967 66 72,680 1,101
1972 79 79,979 1,012
Source: FASP, January, 1973
Based upon this information and a review of historical records, it was found that, on
the average, 0.151 percent of the total national general aviation operations occur at this airport.
Another look at the historical operations showed that, on the average, 54 percent of the total
general aviation operations are composed of local flights. This percentage was used to separate
local and itinerant operations from the total general aviation operations forecast.
Local flight operations are defined as those operations performed by aircraft which
operate in the local traffic pattern, within the sight of the tower, or to and from local training
areas. Local flights are usually training flights. Itinerant operations are all operations other than
those listed above, i.e., aircraft on extended training flights or cross-country flights.
From this information, forecasts for Pensacola Regional Airport were developed that
are somewhat lower than those set forth in the 1973 FASP. The forecasts developed are shown
in Table 10 and on Exhibit 5.
TABLE 10
GENERAL AVIATION OPERATIONS FORECAST
Year Ba s e d Aircraft Local
O pe r a t i on s
I t i n e r a n t Total
1975 90 58,300 49,700 108,000
1980 123 77,700 66,300 144,000
1985 163 95,000 81,000 176,000
1990 209 108,000 92,000 200,000
1995 240 121,500 103,500 225,000
Source: Flonda Aviation System Plan
21
265,000
250
cn
D 200
0
cn 150
1 1 1

100
0-
CC 50
cC
0
HISTORIC

, I
TI I EI I I I I I I I I -
I '
7
Pi /
N M
F-
11111
AI R CAfi RI E R
M
I
FORECAST

V#111111
I I I N O i lli lll i a1111111111li g i llai i i i i i i lli i
r a m
I lle
225,000
31,000
9,000
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
FLI GHT ACTI VI TY FORE CAST
EXHI BI T 5
It is recognized that a level of 121,000 local general aviation operations (generally training)
per year greatly exceeds the current total. However, during the late 1950's the airport experienced
local operations (military and general aviation combined) in excess of this level with no serious conse-
quences. Noise from these anticipated operations has been included in the noise analysis in Section
VII.
It must be noted here that these forecasts are for Pensacola Regional Airport and assume
that the other general aviation airports in the area continue in operations and handle the same
percentage of the regional total as they have in the past. See discussion in Appendix B.
Military Operations
As can be seen from Exhibit 5 the past history of military aircraft operations has been
rather erratic, ranging from a high of over 62,500 operations in 1967 to less than 19,000 in 1973.
In projecting military traffic at Pensacola Regional, it is necessary to review the reasoning
behind this reduction in past operations, considering the high numbers of military bases in the
area. This reasoning reveals that, due to the excess capacity available at Pensacola Regional in
the past, the military conducted a great deal of practice (particularly instrument approaches) on
the airport.
22
However, over the last several years this practice has been greatly reduced. Therefore,
projections have accordingly been based upon a more normal relationship of military traffic on
the average civil airports. Accordingly, the projections set forth in Exhibit 5 call for a phasing
down of this activity from the 1967 high to a leveling off at about 9,000 annual operations.
This is considerably below the 54,000 annual operations as set forth in the FASP.
I n s t r ume n t O pe r a t i on s
The instrument operations forecast is presented in Table 11 and is based on statistical
information contained in Appendix C.
TABLE 1 1
I N S T R UM E N T O P E R A T I O N S FO R E C A S T
O pe r a t i on s
Year
Air CarrierGeneral AviationMilitaryTotal

1972 11,133 (100) 11,517 (13) 9,437 (33) 32,087
1973 10,931 (100) 11,276 (14) 6,535 (35) 28,742
1975 11,600 (100) 18,500 (17) 4,300 (36) 34,400
1980 16,000 (100) 30,000 (21) 3,400 (38) 49,400
1 9 85 20,000 (100) 42,000 (24) 3,600 (40) 65,600
1990 24,000 (100) 50,000 (25) 3,600 (40) 77,600
1995 31,000 (100) 59,000 (26) 3,600 (40) 93,600
Note: Figures in parenthesis .0 are percentages of instrument operations
for each class of total annual operations.
Source: Greiner Forecasts.
The instrument operations forecast was made by analyzing the historical instrument
operations to total operations ratio for each type of operation; i.e., air carrier, general aviation,
and military. This analysis revealed that substantially all air carrier operations were instrument
operations, and that the general aviation and military ratio of instrument operations to total
operations for each was very erratic.
By disregarding the peaks and lows, a trend for both general aviation and military
instrument operations becomes apparent. These trends or percentage of instrument operations to
total operations, appears to peak in the 1990 to 1995 time period, with military instrument
operations being 40 percent of total military operations, and general aviation 26 percent of total
general aviation operations.
When applying these percentages to the total forecasts for each class of operation, 93,600
instrument operations are expected in 1995. This represents 35 percent of the total forecasted
operations.
Busy Hour Operations
Although the total annual aviation activity at an airport is a good indication of the
level of magnitude of facilities required to meet this activity, individual elements are better planned
when related to design hour or busy hour operations.6
6 Busy hour operations represent a high level of activity which can be expected to occur at some reasonable frequency.
The Federal Aviation Administration defines the theoretical "busy hour operations" as the total number of aircraft
operations that are expected to occur at an airport, averaged for two adjacent peak hours of a typical peak or busiest
hour of record, but a level of operation useful for planning purposes.
23
Therefore, busy hour operations were forecast for both VFR (Visual Flight Rules) and
IF R (Instrument Flight Rules), by category of major users as detailed in Appendix D. Total VF R
busy hour operations can be expected to increase from 76 in 1973 to 155 by 1995, and IF R
from 23 in 1973 to 44 in 1995.
C on s oli da t e d For e c a s t
Presented in Table 12 are the major findings of this section. Additional detailed statistics
are contained in several of the Appendices.
These forecasts serve as an overall framework or context in which planning for the
airport can be accomplished, and they establish the magnitude of future aviation activity at the
airport. When related to capacity of various facilities needed to meet this forecasted demand for
aviation services a realistic program of facility requirements can be established.
TABLE 12
CO N SO LI DATED O P ERATI O N S FO RECAST
AN N UAL ACTI VI TY
BY CATEGO RY 1973 1980 1985 1990 1995
E nplaned Passengers 195,725 400,000 650,000 1,000,000 1,200,000
Ai r Carri er Operati ons 10,897 16,000 20,000 24,000 31,000
General Avi ati on Operati ons
I ti nerant 39,439 66,300 81,000 92,000 103,500
Local 39,204 77,700 95,000 108,000 121,500
Mi li tary Operati ons
I ti nerant 6,690 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100
Local 12,059 5,900 5,900 5,900 5,900
Total O per ati ons a 108,289 16 9,000 205,000 233,000 26 5,000
I ns tr ument O per ati ons 28,74 2 4 8,34 0 6 5,200 76 ,800 91,100
Busy Hour Acti vi ty
VFR 76 88 118 132 155
I FR 23 25 34 38 44
a See Table 13 for a breakdown of operations by class of aircraft.
nventory of Airport
S E C T I O N V
S E C T I O N V
I N VE N T O R Y O F T HE A I R P O R T
24
The purpose of this section is to inventory the existing facilities on the airport (airfield,
terminal area and general aviation facilities) and surrounding area. In conjunction with the
environmental inventory reported in Section VI, this section will serve as a measure of the existing
level of facilities on the airport and, when compared with the forecasted requirements, will illustrate
potential deficiencies in these facilities.
Existing Airfield
The existing airfield of 1,200 acres and surrounding area are shown on Exhibit 6.
There are presently two active runways on the airport, Runway 16-34 which is 7,000 feet by
150 feet, and Runway 7-25 which is 6,000 feet by 150 feet. A full parallel taxiway system
is also present. Navigational and landing aids on the airport include high intensity lights (H IR L)
on Runway 16-34, medium intensity lights (MIR L) on Runway 7-25 approach lighting system
(ALS-F1), localizer and glide slope facility for Runway 16, FAA air traffic control tower, rotating
beacon, lighted wind sock, segmented circle, runway visual range (RVR), and an anemometer.
Additionally, there is a VOR approximately 8-3/4 miles to the west of the field and
air traffic in the area have the use of the radar approach control facility (RAPCONN) now located
on the Naval Air Station.1
In March, 1975, a visual approach slope indicator (VASI) was installed by the Federal
Aviation Administration on Runway 34 and plans are to soon install Runway End Identifier
Lights (REIL) on the same runway.
Existing Pavements
The existing pavements (aprons, runways and taxiways) at the airport were visually
inspected on March 5 and 6, 1974, as to their condition and were, in some cases, found to
be in need of repair. In addition, the files of the City, the Federal Aviation Administration
and Greiner were examined for recorded information on the subsurface conditions of the pavement.
Preliminary findings of the visual inspection and records 2 research were submitted to the Federal
Aviation Administration and the City. Section VIII of this report contains recommendations
relative to airport pavement strength required to meet the forecasted operations.
A i r s pa c e
The airspace and pattern of airports in the Pensacola region represent a very complex
structure. This is due to the large number of Navy fields used for training, civilian airports,
Air Force fields and the restricted areas, 3 as shown on Exhibit 7.
1 Presently the Federal Aviation Administration and the City are making the necessary plans to expand the control
tower and relocate the radar facility to the Pensacola Regional Airport.
2Memoranda to the files covering the pavement and soils evaluation are reproduced in Appendix E.
3 Restricted areas indicate airspace of defined dimensions identified by an area on the surface of the earth within
which the flight of aircraft, although not wholly prohibited, is subject to restrictions. Restricted areas denote the
existence of unusual hazards to aircraft and penetration of this space without authorization may be extremely
hazardous.
PE NSACOLAE XI STI NGFACI LI TY 1974
E XHI BI T6
ms on
LO GAN
t90 L 36
power
plant
ATMORE
5
RE WTO
92 L 50 U
( 2 5 6 ) -
tor ton
r 2 4 3
( 2 1 2
Jay JAY
250 - 26
00
250)

/
4
lackman
Brownciale
T F
umuckla
nck
4
NOTICE
Alert at I las ceil,ng of 2
feetIL. does
0910801 z ones
MILT
120k
438
:199
NIA ROS
NAVY)
0- 45
CZ eff h r
1530
Tues.- Fr
S
EGLIN A NO 6 3
734 - 80(14
R -2 1 5A
(2331
30-2300
TV300-1700
Federal legal
I%
A
Ns 466 E
(216)(G
123/
fa b.
Y INET
2L 3
4,2581
/A G R YA
TAR
-29 2
S T UD
198
dr
(999)
HITING
TH)
60
(213/ ( 1 2 5 7 )
(217)
683
(603)
UFLEY
NUN
obertsdole
OLF SUMMER
(NAVY)
728 - 28
4L IERTA
NO AMs/A(
C elf hr
AS W HI
H) CT - 2
NAS
SO
210)
kf
Baker
Galliv
6 4 5
(4 9 0)
\ i/ILLE
Al NO 2
ERCE)
OSED)
Liberty
GLENDALE-
DE FUNIAK SP R1
zsoL 32 U-I
EGL1N Al NO 1
227- 75
,2917 ...,
bolt& s
R E S T
s (318)
OWLS HE
FARM (P
130 - 2
Rockhill
1380
(I 00)
" 1.1 t-Aiiii!toa01147e.
.6:9 :F/ A
125
299
(204)
REIMER
82 - 21
See N
for
EGON Al
0 10
4 0
T oy
29 1 5B
O LF
(CL
oint Washington
AI RSPACE AND
SURROUNDI NGAI RPORT
E XHI BI T7
Bay Springs
1250)
sawrn111
Summerdale
27
Alert Area4 A-292 has nearly reached the saturation point. This area contains 23
Navy and 10 civilian fields, including Pensacola Regional within its 2,100 square-mile area, for
an average of 64 square miles per airport available for flight operations. This contrasts with Craig
Training Airspace, to the north of A-292, which has 675 square miles per airport. From the
Navy's standpoint, any new airports within A-292 would be suspect as a hazard to flight safetv.6
The restricted airspace (R-2915A and B, R-2914, and R-2909) is vital to the U.S.
Air Force's mission at Eglin, and there is little likelihood of any of this airspace being made
available for civilian use. Presently, however, there is no major conflict between Air Force
operations and civilian air carrier operations at Pensacola.
The main approach into the Pensacola Area for 1FR (Instrument Flight Rules) flights
is via V-198, 6 This airway passes through A-292. Navy pilots in the early stages of training
(using T-34 and T-28 aircraft) are prohibited from operations on V-198. Later stages of flight
training may transit the airway in a wings-level attitude, if necessary, but pilots are discouraged
from such activity. Military/civilian air traffic conflicts have been worked out through Federal
Aviation Administration coordination.
At the present time, from an overall view of the airspace structure in the region,
there does not appear to be any "surplus" airspace. That is, nearly all of the airspace in the
region is already committed to one form of activity or another, i.e., student training, airways,
restricted airspace, transition areas, 7 and control zones 8 for existing airports.9
A i r C a r r i e r T e r mi n a l
The existing air carrier terminal building and associated area are shown on Exhibit
8. The terminal area includes the air passenger building, a small cargo building, an air carrier
apron large enough for five aircraft and associated taxiways, a passenger parking lot, rental car
storage and maintenance areas, airport maintenance area, fuel farm, and various Federal Aviation
Administration facilities.
Included in the terminal building are operational areas for the two air carriers (Eastern
and National Airlines), ticket counters, waiting areas, restaurant, kitchen, cocktail lounge,
restrooms, rental car counters, and insurance sales booths. The baggage claim area consists of
a covered open airspace in back of the terminal. (See Section VI, Demand Capacity Analysis,
Part 3, Terminal Building, for a discussion of the interim improvement program presently under
construction at the terminal.) Fire, crash and rescue services are provided by stations off both
ends of Runway 16-34 - the instrumented runway.
4
Alert areas indicate areas of airspace that normally contain a high volume of pilot training or unusual types of
aerial activity. Pilots transiting the alert area as well as pilots on training flights are equally responsible for colli-
sion avoidance.
5 Navy Regional Airspace Office, letter dated 10 May, 1973.
6
"V" or "Victor" airways are predicated on VOR/VORTAC navigational aids and are depicted on aeronautical
charts by a "V" followed by the airway number. These airways are numbered similarly to U.S. highways. The
airway system consists of routes designated from 1,200 feet to 18,000 feet Mean Sea Level and are designed to
serve aircraft operation at these altitudes.
7
Transition areas are controlled airspace designed to contain IFR operations during the portion of flight transi-
tioning between the terminal (airport) and the enroute environment.
8
A control zone is controlled airspace from the surface to 14,500 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL) and is normally
a circular area five statute miles in diameter and any extensions necessary to include instrument departure and
arrival paths.
9
Much of this section was taken from the Pensacola-Eglin Regional Airport Feasibility Study by J. E. Greiner
Company, Inc., 1973.
GRAPH, :CLEINFEET
1
29
To assess the feelings of the air passengers using the terminal at Pensacola, a survey
of enplaning passengers was conducted from April 17 to May 13, 1974. The purpose of this
survey was twofold: First, to determine characteristics of the passengers using the airport terminal,
and second, to solicit comments from passengers relative to operations and conditions at the
airport. In addition, automobile traffic counts were made in front of the terminal to relate ground
traffic movements to air traffic.
It was found from the survey that about 70 percent of the air passengers arrived
by private car and 21 percent by rental car. Almost 44 percent of these people left their cars
in the parking lot and carried 1.9 pieces of luggage on the average. Sixty percent of the passengers
used the restaurant, 27 percent, the telephone, and 4 percent insurance. Passengers would like
to see a newsstand added (48%), a gift shop (19%), and a motel at the airport (8%). Complete
details and findings of the survey are contained in Appendix F.
Air C a r r i e r S e r vi c e
Pensacola is served by two air carriers - Eastern Air Lines and National Airlines. 10
Non-stop service is provided by National Airlines to Panama City, Florida, and Mobile, Alabama,
with same plane services (B-727) to 12 other cities via six flights daily. Eastern Air Lines provides
non-stop service (DC-9, B-727) to Atlanta, Georgia, and Birmingham, Alabama, and same plane
services to six other cities via eight flights daily.
Direction of .travel based on ultimate origination/destination information provided by
the Civil Aeronautics Board is shown in Exhibit 9 and indicates the desires to reach cities
independent of the air route taken. Additional information is contained in Appendix G,
Origination-Destination Study and Stage Length Assumptions.
l A r "
1111
11111r
in iama
I I * * 4 l h
Opt
22%
1P 117 114 1f il
l iA . 110 4 117 (
11%
Northeast
19%
Flori
Mid-Atlantic
DI RECTI O N OF TRAVE L
E XHI BI T 9
Far
10 Presently the City is pursuing the possibility of service by Southern Airways through action by the Civil
Aeronautics Board.
30
G e n e r a l A vi a t i on Fa c i li t i e s
The existing general aviation facilities as shown on Exhibit 8 are split between two
Fixed-Base Operators (FBO). Facilities include paved aprons, several large hangars and shops,
tie-down areas and automobile parking lots. There are also three 10-unit "T" hangars.
A survey of pilots using the two Fixed-Base Operators was accomplished during the
same time as the passenger survey (April 17 to May 13, 1974). The purpose of this survey
was to identify the needs of the general aviation users at the airport so that these needs could
be programmed for future planning. Detailed findings of this survey are contained in Appendix
F.
S ur r oun di n g L a n d Us e s a n d Zon i n g .
Land uses in the environs of the Pensacola Regional Airport are shown on Exhibit
6 and consist of a typical developing suburban area with a mixture of uses which include
single-family residential subdivisions, large commercial concentrations Cordova Mall), strip
commercial (along 9th Street), large institutional uses (Sacred Heart Hospital and Pensacola Junior
College), apartment developments, schools, churches, and open and wooded land. The City of
Pensacola has zoned land around the airport to be compatible (commercial and industrial) with
aircraft operations; however, much of the land has continued to be developed residential (permitted
in the commercial and industrial districts). In addition, much of the land impacted by the airport
is not in the City and is not zoned. 11 Existing zoning around the airport is shown in Exhibit
10 (not necessarily actual uses).12
Access
Existing and currently proposed access to the airport is depicted on Exhibit 11. The
major route to the airport from downtown is by way of 9th Street and then to College Boulevard
through the Pensacola Junior College to the airport terminal. Proposed new roads or improvements
include: 13
1 . A i r por t Boule va r d-Ki lbe e L a n e : 9th to 12th - right-of-way cleared, 9th to Davis
Highway - right-of-way dedicated, money for project is in proposed county bond program. If
bonds are sold in the near future, road could be under construction soon and when constructed
this road should be built five lanes in width.
2. 1 2t h S t r e e t - T i ppi n R oa d R e loc a t i on a n d Extension: All but about 300 feet
of right-of-way in the County is dedicated. Project is in bond program with a low priority. The
status of this road project should be upgraded to help relieve traffic on 9th around the area
of the terminal and Junior College.
3. Spanish Trail: Some right-of-way dedicated, State Department of Transportation
is working on design plans and environmental study. Project could be under construction in
1976-1977.
11
With the exception of the area around the University of West Florida, the county has no zoning.
See Section II, Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations, and Section VIII, Physical Planning for Land
Use Recommendations.
13 Source: Peter a De Vries, Director of Community Design and Planning - City of Pensacola.
12
/ c/
E XI S T I N G ZO N I N G
L E G E N D
a.
AO !
AMI NE
.111111MI S
111151111111
'41111111 1111111
'311.111.211
" 11111 111111
111 0111
/ mos s o..
41 . 51 1 1 1 . X. 1
111111I MI
'OMMMMMM
110 16E 11111
I li n i 21 /21 1 0
I MAM
1111E111111
mi en
1 51 R E S I DE N T I A L
C O M M E R C I A L
I N DUS T R I A L
P UBL I C (HO S P I T A L S , C E M E T E R I E S , P A R KS )
6 S C HO O L S
C HUR C HE S
C I T Y BO UN DA R Y
E XI S T I N G P R O P E R T Y
FUT UR E P R O P E R T Y
0. -1 1 1 . 4. 0 I M O M I L ,n n 01 4
zA3
1111111111 MMMMM

I MMI LN 1111111/
UN N I MI N I N I UT
1111111121111
V11111111111111111111104 11
111111711.Mm==.191/
! LI R: W -
I VE
kr" '
- zeal
ZO N I N G I N THE AI RP O RT EN VI RO N S
PENSACOLA REGIONAL AIRPORT
EXHI BI T 10
EXHI BI T i i
L E G E N D
A C C E S S R O A DS
I I -I 0
2 I -1 1 0
3 BA YO U BO UL E VA R D
4 A I R P O R T BO UL E VA R D (KI L BE E A VE N UE )
5 M c A L L I S T E R BO UL E VA R D
6 O L D S P A N I S H T R A I L
7 S C E N I C HI G HWA Y
8 S UM M I T BO UL E VA R D
9 9 t h A VE N UE
1 0 1 2 t h A VE N UE
I I T I P P E N A VE N UE
ACCESS TO THE AI RP O RT
33
4. M c A lli s t e r Boule va r d: Some right-of-way is dedicated. No firm date for
completion of this project.
Another road project which has been considered by the Florida Department of
Transportation is the construction of an interchange at 9th and Interstate 10 north of the Airport.
There are considerable design and right-of-way problems associated with the construction; however,
an interchange at this location would provide ideal access from 1-10 to the Airport and surrounding
area.
Drainage , a n d Utility S ys t e ms
The drainage system on the airport was visually inspected and observations were made
during and after periods of heavy rain. In addition, plans of the drainage system on the airport
were reviewed.
As a result, it was determined that there are several areas wherein the drainage system
will need improvement in the future, as the airport and surrounding area expand. However,
at the present time all surfaces on the airport are adequately drained, although piping systems
under the runways and taxiways are reaching capacity. Recently the Scott Field clay pit has
been improved as a drainage retention area for the airport.
In general the electrical system and all other utility systems on the airfield and in
the terminal area are adequate for present demands. The airfield electrical Vault has reached
capacity and it does not appear that it can be expanded in its present location. The high intensity
runway lights (HI R L) on runway 16-34 are reaching the end of their useful life and will need
continuous maintenance or replacement. See Section VI, Electrical Requirements, for additional
information on the electrical distribution system.
Summary
Summarizing the existing airport, there are adequate navigational facilities existing or
proposed for the near future for the present operation. There are adequate number and length
of runways and taxiways to satisfy present demand and weather (wind direction) conditions.
Although airspace administration in the Pensacola area is complex due to the above average level
of military training activity and facilities, there are no major air space conflicts. There are
pavements in need of repair and in the future strengthening will be needed.
Utility and drainage systems are basically adequate to serve the airport, however,
improvements to the electrical vault and HIRL system are in order. The Scott Field drainage
basin is a valuable asset to the airport and must be maintained and expanded as the airport
grows. Existing and currently proposed road improvements will insure access to the airport from
all areas.
General Aviation facilities are suitable for the current level of operations, however,
room for future expansion is limited. Ongoing interim expansion of the air carrier terminal should
greatly improve the congested conditions in the building, but additional improvements will be
needed to meet the long term growth anticipated.
De ma n d/C a pa c i t y A n a lys i s
a n d Fa c i li t i e s R e qui r e me n t s
S E C T I O N VI
S E C T I O N VI 34
DE M A N D/C A P A C I T Y A N A L YS I S A N D FA C I L I T Y R E QUI R E M E N T S
The forecasts, as described in Section" IV, indicate a substantial increase in all segments
of activity for the Airport. In order to accommodate such increases, a considerable expansion
in facilities will obviously be required.
The methodology utilized herein to judge the extent of improvements required included
the following:
1. From the forecasts, determine a long-range facilities requirements
program.
2. From the inventory and analysis of the existing facilities, determine
whether these existing facilities could meet the projected future
requirements. If not, determine what additional facilities would be
required.
3. Consider a s e r i e s of alternatives available to meet the projected
requirements.
4. Select the alternative that most nearly satisfies the technical, managerial,
financial and environmental conditions associated with the projected
airport operations.
5. Develop final planning based on the above parameters.
In following this process to the development of the final plan, it is necessary to keep
in mind that four factors can limit the utilization of the Airport, and planning must reach a
balance between these factors. They are:(1) airspace capabilities, (2) airfield capabilities,
(3) building facilities capabilities, and (4) surface access capabilities. There is no point in providing
a terminal facility for a given passenger demand if it is not possible to provide airfield
(runway/taxiway complex) facilities adequate to meet the aircraft activity demand. Likewise,
it is pointless to provide either of these facilities if there is some restriction on airspace that
constrains airfield use. In addition, environmental constraints may limit the utilization of the
airport as discussed in Section VII.
In order to analyze these features and for ease of presentation, this section has been
divided into three parts. Part 1 covers airfield requirements which include length, number and
strength of runways; Part 2 considers navaids and airspace requirements; and Part 3 includes
building area requirements (both general aviation and air carrier) as well as surface access
requirements.
P A R T 1 - A I R FI E L D R E QUI R E M E N T S
Airfield requirements include the number of runways and taxiways, their orientation
and layout, and their lengths and strengths. The technical factors required for consideration
are: (1) families of aircraft (including critical aircraft) to use the airport and the frequency of
their operations; (2) wind and weather; (3) physical relationship of fixed facilities to each other;
(4) the terrain and topography of the site; (5) surrounding land uses; (6) obstructions affecting
the airport; and (7) airspace.
35
Each of these elements must be considered in order to establish valid requirements
for the future.
Fa mi li e s of A i r c r a ft
Because of the variety of sizes, weights and performance of aircraft now being operated
and those anticipated in the future, the Federal Aviation Administration has classified aircraft
into five groups as follows:
Class A - All large turbojet commercial aircraft.
C la s s B - All medium and small turbojet, all propjet and all reciprocating engine
commercial aircraft except the F-27 and DC-3.
C la s s C All executive jet aircraft, all executive propjet, and all larger multi-engine
executive aircraft.
C la s s D - Light twin-engine and large single-engine general aviation aircraft.
C la s s E - All light single-engine aircraft.
These classifications take into account runway lengths and strengths required. Whether
all classes of aircraft can operate from the same airport is, to a great extent, dependent upon
the total amount of traffic on the airport and the percentage of each class to use the airport
and the configuration of the airfield.
Using these classifications, a breakdown of the operational forecasts presented in
Section IV was made as Shown in Table 13. As can be seen, the vast majority of all operations
are conducted by the smaller classes of aircraft and this condition is assumed to remain constant
through 1995.
T A BL E 1 3
A I R C R A FT M I X FO R E C A S T BY P E R C E N T A G E
C la s s 1 9 73 1 9 75 1 9 80 1 9 85 1 9 9 0 1 9 9 5
A 0 Oa Oa Oa 1 1
9 9 9 9 9 10
15 15 15 16 16 16
DIE 76 76 76 75 74 73
1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00
a L ess than 1%
The largest aircraft presently using the airport on a regular basis is the B-727-200
(Class B). Discussions with the airlines serving Pensacola indicated that, in the near future
(1980-1985), the airport may be served by a second stretch version of the B-727, the B-727-300.
Beyond this time period, the possiblity of using some type of twin-engine, wide-bodied aircraft
(as yet not in production, such as the DC-X-200) to serve Pensacola was discussed. For planning
purposes, it appears prudent to assume that Pensacola could be served by a three-engine
wide-bodied aircraft (Class A) such as the DC-10 or
L-1011 sometime during the twenty-year
study period.
Wi n d a n d We a t he r
36
Current 24-hour wind roses for Pensacola Regional Airport are set forth in Exhibits
12 and 13. The Federal Aviation Administration has set forth a policy which states that airports
should provide runways to cover at least 95% of all winds with crosswind components of 15
miles per hour (13 knots) or less. As shown on Exhibit 12, this coverage is provided by runway
16-34 at the airport. With the addition of existing runway 7-25, coverage is some 99.6%.
For lighter and smaller aircraft, 15 miles per hour crosswind taxes the limits of the
pilot, and it is suggested that 10 miles per hour is a more realistic figure to use. Exhibit 13
shows that over 95% coverage is also provided by the orientation of the existing runways at
the airport for 10 miles per hour.
Future consideration will, therefore, be based upon retention of the existing runway
directions.
Current weather minimums at Pensacola Regional Airport are 200-foot ceiling and
one-half-mile visibility for landings using the I LS system and 300-foot ceiling and one-mile visibility
for take-off.
Weather information available from the National Weather Records Center, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Corry Field, Pensacola, shows that ceilings are below 350 feet 1.5 percent
of the time. Ceilings are below 150 feet 0.6 percent of the time.
R un wa y C a pa c i t y
Runway capacity is dependent upon various factors which are unique to each airport
under study and must, therefore, be identified and isolated. These factors include the type of
aircraft; the configuration of the airfield itself; the types of operations that comprise the total
activity of the airport; wind and other climatological considerations; percent of instrument
operations; and peaking factors. Theoretical capacity has been developed for the present airport
configuration using the methodology outlined in "Airport Capacity Criteria Used in Long-Range
Planning," Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular 150/5060-3A, as follows:
A basic component of this methodology involves a determination of the aircraft mix
at the airport. As can be seen from Table 13, nine percent of the operations at Pensacola are
Class B aircraft; 15 percent, Class C aircraft; and 76 percent, Class DIE aircraft. The aircraft
mix that typifies Pensacola Regional conforms most closely to what the Federal Aviation
Administration describes as the No. 2 mix, which assumes that the total operational pattern of
the airport consists of 40 percent Class D/E, 30 percent Class C, and 30 percent Class B. Therefore,
in order to arrive at an accurate capacity analysis, the capacity measurements will have to be
adjusted to compensate for the discrepancy in aircraft mix.
Normal aircraft mix No. 2 assumes that 30 percent of the operations on the field
are touch-and-go operations. This is not contrary to the actual percentage of touch-and-go
operations at Pensacola and, therefore, no adjustments in capacity due to touch-and-go operations
have been made.
Departures and arrivals are approximately equal during peak hours.
WIND ROSE
AIR CARRIER
DATA FROM:DATA PROCESSING DIVISION OF THE
CITY OF PENSACOLA, FLORIDA
PERIOD:1957-1966
OBSERVATIONS:87,624
CALMS OTO 6.9 MPH: 30.3%
COVERAGE15 MPH
16-3496.3%
7-2592.5%
BOTH99.6%
ALL WE A T HE R
WI ND ROSE (AI R CARRI E R)
E XHI BI T 12
WI N D R O S E
GENERAL AVIATION
DATA FROM:DATA PROCESSING DIVISION OF THE
CITY OF PENSACOLA, FLORIDA
PERIOD:1957-1966
OBSERVATIONS:87,624
CALMS 0 TO 6.9 MPH: 30.3%
COVERAGE 10 MPH
16-3482.8%
7-2573.3%
BOTH9 5. 8%
ALL WE A T HE R
W I N D RO SE (GEN ERAL AVI ATI O N )
EXHI BI T 13
39
Wind also affects airfield capacity. A study of the wind rose for Pensacola Regional
Airport shows that the present airfield configuration will allow operations with 15 MPH wind
99.6 percent of the time. Therefore, the capacity calculations must reflect the fact that no
operations can occur at Pensacola 0.04 percent of the time due to adverse crosswinds.
In addition to aircraft mix and wind direction, the configuration of the runway system
of the airport also has a critical bearing on the capacity. Again, applying Federal Aviation
Administration criteria for capacity analysis, it is established that the configuration of Pensacola
Regional presently fits the description for two runways intersecting at or near the center of each,
known as "Layout L2."1
By thus restructuring the demand capacity formulas to reflect specific data for
Pensacola Regional Airport, a realistic measure of annual 2 and hourly peak capacity can be derived
that indicates that 215,000 operations represent the practical annual capacity (PANCAP). The
PANCAP indicates a theoretical level at which aircraft using the airport could begin to encounter
substantial delays. The practical hourly capacity for VFR operations is calculated to be 95
operations per hour, and the practical hourly capacity for IFR operations to be 60 operations
per hour.
It is generally assumed that, when 80 percent of this capacity is reached (215,000 x
.80 = 172,000 operations), serious consideration should be given to the construction of additional
facilities. Based on the forecasts of total aircraft operations at Pensacola, this should occur
sometime in the 1980-1985 time period using the PANCAP as a criteria. Using practical hourly
capacity (PHOCAP) as a measure, there appears to be adequate VFR capacity on the existing
airport through 1995 and a deficiency in I FR capacity in the 1980-1985 time period.
It should be noted that the hourly demand may presently exceed these figures during
occasional periods but not for any extended time. Also, these capacity calculations are limited
to the number of runways required to meet a calculated demand, and other considerations such
as airspace limitations, and navigational and landing aid systems capacity must also be considered.
(See following sections.)
Once the need has been established for additional runway capacity, the next step
is the determination of what type of facilities will serve the forecasted demand. An examination
of the breakdown of the forecasts by type of aircraft indicate that about 75 percent of the
total operations are expected to be D and E type aircraft which are basically small general aviation
aircraft.
In 1973, of the total 108,289 operations, 78,643 were performed by the smaller type
general aviation aircraft; in 1995, of the forecasted 263,000 operations, 225,000 are expected
to be by this type aircraft.
From these facts it can be concluded that any additional facilities should be designed
to accommodate small general aviation and not necessarily the larger types of aircraft. Assuming
that a new runway was constructed close-in and parallel to one of the existing runways, the
PANCAP could be increased to about 320,000 operations per year and VFR PHOCAP to about
150 operations per hour. This capacity would accommodate the forecasted traffic at Pensacola.
However, assuming that growth continues beyond 1995 and that the 80 percent rule holds,
1 Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular 150/5060-3A, Page 8.
2From Advisory Circular 150/5060-3A:
Capacity of Layout L2= 220,000 PANCAPWind Corrections = 0.996
Mix Correction = 0.985Touch-and-Go Correction = 0
Therefore, Existing PANCAP = 220,000 x .996 x .985 = 215,000 PANCAP
40
additional general aviation facilities would again be needed. (Once again, the runway would be
primarily to serve smaller general aviation aircraft; the existing site at Pensacola appears capable
of handling the demand for air carrier and larger general aviation aircraft for the foreseeable
future.)
Detailed planning requirements for the additional runway at the Regional Airport are
covered below and in Section VIII, Physical Planning. This section address the need to maintain
the existing runway system as well as location requirements for the proposed runway.
R un wa y L e n g t h a n d S t r e n g t h R e qui r e me n t s
In addition to the number of runways required to provide capacity at an airport,
the length and strength of these runways is also important. Length and strength are normally
based upon a critical aircraft or that aircraft which can be expected to use the airport on a
regular basis and which requires the longest runway or the greatest strength of runway or both.
From the analysis of capacity requirements it was determined that a new general
aviation runway would be required in addition to the existing runways. Therefore, two sets
of "critical" runway requirements were examined for air carrier and general aviation.
A i r C a r r i e r R un wa y L e n g t h
The critical aircraft for the next five to ten years will most likely be the Boeing
727-200 for length. (Introduction of wide-body aircraft would probably not require greater length
than the 727-200, and it is anticipated that the 727-300 would have requirements similar to
the 727-200.)
Runway length requirements are a function of many variables such as airline
procedures, Federal Aviation Administration regulations, runway gradient, wind speed and
direction, condition of the runway (wet or dry), evaluation of the runway, and temperature as
well as type of aircraft, payload, and stage length to be flown. Therefore, with this many variables,
an absolute length is difficult to establish. However, for planning purposes, the following take-off
lengths and landing lengths have been established in Table 14 for the 727-100, 727-200, DC-9-30,
DC-10 and L-1011, based upon stage lengths established in Appendix G, Origination-Destination
Study and Stage Length Assumptions.
T A BL E 1 4
DE S I G N R UN WA Y L E N G T H R E QUI R E M E N T S
Aircraft
T a ke -O ff R un wa y L e n g t hs (Fe e t )
For S t a g e L e n g t hs (M i le s )
Landing Runway
Lengths (Feet)
400 800 1 , 000
DC-9-30 7,100' 8, 1 00' 8,500' 5,400'
727-100 5,500' 6, 200' 7.400' 5,100'
727-200 7,500' 8, 800' 9,200' 5,600'
DC-10-10
8,000' 6,000'
L-1011 8,000' 6,000'
Note: For Take-off:
Temperature 870
Elevation 120 MSL
Assumed Runway Gradient 0%
80% Payload Assumed for Each Stage L ength
For L anding:
Assume zero tailwind, wet runway and maximum landing weight.
Source: FAA Order 5325.4 "Runway L ength Requirements for Airport Design."
41
From consideration of these various runway lengths, type of equipment likely to be
used, stage lengths, and from discussions with the airlines serving Pensacola, it appears that a
runway length of 8,000 feet would serve the long-range need of the area with a crosswind runway
of about 90% this length (say 7,000 to 7,500 feet). Any runway extension should occur when
the need can be more accurately demonstrated by the airlines serving the airport. However,3
the Master Plan should preserve the capability to extend the runways.
General Aviation Runway Length
The runway length requirements to serve general aviation can vary substantially since
"general aviation" is not limited to any specific type of aircraft but refers to the use of an
aircraft in other than military or commercial transportation (air carriers, commuters and air taxis)
service. In fact, general aviation aircraft can vary from the smallest single-engine aircraft to large
multi-engine jets normally used by the airlines.
Based on the forecasts the main concern should be to serve on the additional runway
the D and E type aircraft which constitute the vast majority of all operations. The larger general
aviation aircraft can operate off the same runways as the air carriers. Therefore, the runway
should be planned as a general utility runway which will accommodate substantially all propeller
aircraft of less than 12,500 pounds, such as the Beech Twin Bonanza, Cessna 421, de Havilland
Doves, and Piper Twin Comanche. According to Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular
150/5300-4A, the runway would have to be approximately 3,600 feet in length given the altitude
and temperature (120 msl and 87F) to serve these aircraft. Other design features would include
75-foot-wide runway, 40-foot-wide taxiways and 200-foot runway-taxiway separation.
R un wa y S t r e n g t h R e qui r e me n t s 4
Existing Pavements
As reported in Section V, Inventory of the Airport, the existing runway and taxiway
pavements were examined as to their present condition. Based on this visual inspection and
an analysis of existing soils and pavement tests, an evaluation of the existing pavements was
made as to their present strength. Future strength requirements were established from the 20-year
forecast of aircraft operations by type, weight and runway usage. It has been concluded that
the existing runway and taxiways will have to be overlaid to meet calculated strength requirements.
This conclusion was reached through a component analysis of the pavement which
assumes that the old pavement and the new overlay will form a composite pavement structure.
To provide an adequate pavement to meet the forecasted 20-year operations, a 14-inch full-depth
asphaltic pavement would be required. Giving credit to the existing pavement, it as been
determined that an overlay of four to six inches is required immediately to provide necessary
strength. Assuming that the forecast of operations is met, an additional 2-inch overlay would
be required in five to ten years to provide the equivalent full depth strength.
These overlays will be required on all existing runways 16-34 and 7-25, and taxiways
which are intended for air carrier use (727-200 critical aircraft for 1975-1985, and 727-200 and
an occasional DC-10 or L-1011 critical aircraft for 1990-1995).
3
If unforeseen changes in aircraft technology and equipment, or in airline service to Pensacola require additional
runway length over the forecasted requirement, it could be provided in several ways. A clearway, as defined
in FAR Part 1, may be used to increase allowable operating weights without increasing runway length. A run-
way extension with a displaced threshold could provide additional length while maintaining the existing clear
zone. If and when these techniques were used, careful coordination with FAA would be required. See discussions
in "Airport Design Standards" AC No. 150/5335-4, July 21, 1975.
4 References: Asphalt Institute, Series No. 11, Airport Pavements, 1973 and Federal Aviation Administration
. .
42
Much of the existing parallel taxiway system is only 50 feet wide and current Federal
Aviation Administration criteria establish 75-foot-wide taxiways as a minimum for the 727-200
and larger aircraft such as the DC-10. It is, therefore, recommended that, at the same time
the taxiways are strengthened, they should also be widened.
Staging of the overlays for the existing runways and taxiways are discussed in Section
IX.
N e w A i r C a r r i e r P a ve me n t
New air carrier runways (extensions) and air carrier taxiways should be designed for
the aircraft as listed above (14-inch full-depth asphalt). Air carrier aprons should be 13-inch
portland cement concrete with a 6-inch soil cement base.
The proposed new general aviation runway is planned for use by light general aviation
of 12,500 lbs. or less. However, it is recommended that the pavement be designed to support
30,000 lbs. (two inches of surface, 8-inch shell base). This design will insure adequate pavement
strength and simple construction procedures.
The general aviation taxiways and aprons should be designed for 60,000 lbs. aircraft
(3-inch surface, 8-inch shell base). Although this heavy an aircraft (Grumman Gulfstream II) would
not use the general aviation runway, it would use the taxiways between the longer runways and
the fixed-base operations area.
P A R T 2 - N A VA I DS A N D A I R S P A C E
N a va i ds
In addition to the runway/taxiway complex at the airport, the requirements for
navigational aids, landing aids and airspace is also critical. From a review of runway usage, weather
conditions and forecasted operations, the need for various landing and navigational aids can be
established using Federal Aviation Administration criteria.5
Since existing Runways 7-25 and 16-34 are both used by air carrier aircraft, planning
should include all necessary navigational aids needed for this type of operation. In addition,
the Pensacola area, as does much of the Gulf Coast, experiences considerable periods of sea fog
during the fall and winter months. For example, one day during the winter of 1975 the airport
was closed for almost 20 hours due to sea fog conditions.
Immediate considerations should be given to the installation of visual approach slope
indicator (VASI-4) systems on existing Runways 7 and 25 to provide pilots with visual clues
for day and/or night landings under visual flight rule (VFR) weather conditions. In conjunction
with the VASI systems, runway end identifier lights (REIL) should also be considered for the
same runways. REIL's are provided to aid the pilot with accurate identification of the approach
end of the runway.6
5 Requirernetrts based on information contained in Advisory Circular 150-5300-2C, Site Requirements for Terminal
Navigational Facilities, Federal Aviation Administration Handbook 7031.2A, Navigational Facilities and Air
Traffic Control Services, National Aviation System Plan, and from discussion with the Pensacola FAA Tower
Chief.
6 The Air Transportation Association (A TA) of America has recommended VASI's and REI L's for Runways 7,
25 and 34 with high priority for the VASI's on Runways 7and 25, in a letter of May 22,1974, and the VASI's
and REI L's are also programmed in the U.S. Department of Transportation 1972National Airport System Plan.
In March of 1975a VASI was installed on Runway 34 and an REIL is planned by the Federal Aviation Administra-
43
Because Runway 7 is often used by air carriers for landings (about 30 percent of
the time), a CAT 1 7 instrument landing system (1LS) appears justified for this runway. Runway
16 should remain as the preferred landing runway, and Runway 7 as the preferred take-off runway;
however, the provision of an I LS on Runway 7 would increase the flexibility of the airport
during poor weather conditions. As the number of instrument approaches increases (especially
air carrier), the need for this I LS can be justified in the 1980-1985 time period. As part of
this I LS system would be a localizer facility, glide slope facility and an outer marker and a
middle marker. As an additional aid, a medium intensity approach lighting system (MALSR)
with runway alignment indicator lights (RAIL) should be installed with the I LS on Runway 7
to supplement the VASI and replace the REIL. The MALSR is a medium intensity approach
landing system (ALS) which is the standard for I LS operations during CAT I visibility minima.
The existing medium intensity runway centerline light would have to be upgraded to high intensity
runway centerline light.
As a long-range improvement to increase the use of the airport during very poor
weather, the existing CAT I installation on Runway 16 could be ultimately upgraded to CAT
11. 8 As an adjunct to this improvement in the I LS for Runway 16, the approach lighting system
would have to be upgraded to a suitable CAT II system (high intensity approach system such
as an ALSF-2 installation and touchdown zone lights on the runway). 9 Based on the number
of forecasted operations, it does not appear that this upgrading could be justified until the latter
stages of the planning period. (In conjunction with the second pavement overlay of Runway
16-34, it would be economical to install the basic in pavement components of the touchdown
and centerline lights required for CAT II operations. This should be done only if the future
installation of the CAT II system has been justified and programmed at that time.)
Presently underway are preliminary plans to relocate the TRACON (terminal radar
control facility) from the Naval Air Station to the Regional Airport. This will require the
installation of an airport surveillance radar (ASR) at the Regional Airport, the expansion of the
existing control tower and the installation of either ARTS II or ARTS III equipment. This
move will centralize the air traffic control functions handled by the Federal Aviation
Administration for both military and civil aircraft on one location. In addition an automatic
terminal information system (ATIS) would be justified in the 1980-1985 period at which time
the level of annual itinerant operations (100,000) would justify its installation. An ATIS facility
transmits transcribed terminal information to arriving and departing aircraft.
The proposed parallel general aviation runway would require no special navigational
aids since utilization of the runway would be for VFR conditions only with 20:1 approach slopes.
During IFR conditions the amount of general aviation flying normally declines and those operating
would use the instrument facilities on the primary runway without derogating operations.
Such features as the flight service station, control tower, segment circle, etc., already
present on the airport would continue to be required.
7
CAT I (I LS Category I) is an instrument approach procedure which provides for approaches to a decision height
of not less than 200 feet and visibility of not less than 1/2-mile or RVR 2400.
8
CAT II (I LS Category II) is an instrument approach procedure which provides for approaches to minimal of less
than a decision height of 200 feet/RVR 2400 to as low as a decision height of 100 feet or RVR 2400.
9
It should be noted that the existing high intensity runway lights (HI R L) on Runway 16-34 are over 10 years
old and will require repair or replacement to insure efficient operation of the existing CAT I runway.
Airspace44
The airspace and pattern of airports in the Pensacola-Eglin area present a very complex
structure. This is due to the very large number of Navy airfields used for training, civilian airports,
Air Force fields and the restricted areas used for aerial ordnance testing. Military and civilian
air traffic conflicts have been worked out through Federal Aviation Administration coordination.
With the closing of the Navy's Air Station at Ellyson as an active flying field, the
major airspace conflict at the Regional Airport has been removed for the approach to Runway
16 (the existing instrument runway).
The instrumentation of Runway 7-25 as recommended for CAT I operations in the
1980-1985 time period will require additional airspace for Pensacola Regional. It appears that
an instrument procedure could be established for this runway based on information from the
Pensacola Tower Chief. In any case, the recommended program of instrumentation of Runway
7, the addition of a new general aviation runway and the extension of Runway 25 and Runway
34 would have to be approved for their airspace requirements by the Federal Aviation
Administration in a formal airspace review.10
P A R T 3 - BUI L DI N G A R E A S
T e r mi n a l A r e a
As well as requirements for airfield facilities, the need for u landside n facilities must
also be established. Table 15 lists a breakdown of acreages required to support various functions
in the future at the airport. It should be noted that all acreages are approximate and any exact
requirements would be the result of detailed study and negotiations with the users of the facility.
Nevertheless, the relative size of these facilities will permit the planning of the terminal area
and the establishment of general spatial relationships.
Terminal Building
In 1973, Pensacola Regional Airport enplaned about 200,000 passengers through a
terminal building of approximately 18,000 square feet. By observation during peak hours and
by comparison with other terminals enplaning similar numbers of passengers, it becomes obvious
that the existing building is undersized. A review of the passenger survey ll results also indicate
many passengers feel the present building is too small and also desire additional facilities such
as newsstands and gift shops.
Presently underway is a half-million-dollar interim improvements program to the
existing building which will provide some relief by enclosing the concourse and expanding the
baggage and waiting areas. However, areas such as the ticket counter lobby and airline operations
space are not being expanded even though they are also overcrowded.
A more complete study of the airspace in the Pensacola area was made in the Feasibility Study for a Pensacola-
Eglin Regional Airport by the J. E. Greiner Company in 1973.
77Section V. Inventory of Airport.
T A BL E 1 5
45
T E R M I N A L A R E A R E QUI R E M E N T S
1 9 85
A c r e a g e
1 9 9 5
Building Site 6 10
Apron 12 20
Roads 5
6
Public Parking: Spaces Required (800) 6-1/2 (1,100) 9
Employee Parking: Spaces Required (100) 0-1/2 (200) 1
Stack for Taxi, Limousine, Bus 0-1 /2 0-1/2
Ready Rental Cars: Spaces Required (45) 0-1/2 (60) 0-3/4
Rental Car Storage 3 4-1/2
ii 51 -3/4
FA A Fa c i li t i e s
Building Site 0-1/2 0-1/2
Apron 1 1
Parking 0-1/2 0-1/2
2 2
O t he r Fa c i li t i e s i n T e r mi n a l A r e a
Fuel Storage 1 1-1/2
Service Station 1 1
Motel
.
5 5
Roads 10 10
Airport Maintenance 2 2
1 9 1 9 -1 /2
C a r g o A r e a
Building Site 1 2
Apron 0 1
Truck Court 1 2
2 5
T ot a l 57 78-1 /4
Source: Estimates by Greiner Engineering Sciences, Inc.
In order to plan for the future, a list of square footge requirements for various
functions must be established and related to annual and peak hour passengers (presently about
200,000 annual and 200 peak hour enplaned passengers - forecasted to increase to 1,200,000
and 800 respectively by 1995). There are several methods for determining space requirements
based on passenger flow: relationships established in the literature, 12 user requirement forecasts
and experience from the design of similar terminals. A composite of the above methods produces
a "shcipping list" of requirements as shown in Tables 16 and 17. The figures listed represent
the amount of space that should be constructed to insure adequate space for about five years
after the listed date and not the absolute amount required at that time.
It should be recognized that the figures in Table 16 and 17 are sensitive to the type
of terminal concept chosen for development. Exact footage requirements can only be determined
after a concept is chosen and detailed specifications established for tenants of the facility (airlines,
rental car agencies, and other lessees). Discussion of the terminal concept is contained in Section
VIII, Physical Planning.
12University of California at Berkley, Airport Planning and Design, June 1972- unpublished class notes, and
Department of Transportation Aviation Demand and Airport Facility Requirement Forecasts for Medium
Air Transportation Hubs, January 1969.
46
Airline gate requirements were established by assuming a schedule to a reasonable
choice of destinations, an average load factor, an aircraft turn around time and an airline fleet
mix based on the forecast. There are presently five gate positions available on the apron (although
they are seldom needed at the same time), and it is anticipated that six positions will be needed
by 1985 and ten by 1995. Gate position size was set at 180-foot diameter circle (sufficient
for a power in-out for a 727-200). If larger aircraft (DC-10) serve Pensacola, two of these positions
would be required for one aircraft. Smaller aircraft would obviously require less space. Therefore,
any terminal concept should include enough flexibility to serve a variety of aircraft sizes.
T A BL E 1 6
T E R M I N A L BUI L DI N G S P A C E R E QUI R E M E N T S
P E N S A C O L A R E G I O N A L A I R P O R T - 1 9 85
S qua r e Fe e t
A I R L I N E
Ticket Counter (100 LF)
Ticket Lobby
1,000
.
5,000
Operations 25,000
Departure Lounges (6 gates) 6,000
Baggage Claim 5,000
Terminal Waiting Rooms 10,000
S ub T ot a l 52, 000
C O N C E S S I O N S
Dining Facilities 5,000
Kitchen and Storage 3,000
Cocktail Lounge 1,600
News, Novelties, Gifts 3,100
Auto Rental 1,000
Insurance Counter 100
Snack Bar 400
Baggage Lockers 100
Telephones 200
Game Room 400
Display Advertising 100
S ub T ot a l 1 5, 000
C O N VE N I E N C E S
Public Restrooms 1,800
Employee Restrooms 400
Security Office, First Aid 400
VIP, Conference Room 400
S ub T ot a l 3, 000
O T HE R S P A C E
Airport Management
1,000
Concourses
5,000
Mechanical, Circulation, etc. 32,000
S ub T ot a l 38, 000
T O T A L 1 08, 000
S A Y 1 1 0, 000 S . F.
Source: Greiner Engineering Sciences, based on information from University of California at Berkley,
Airport Planning and Design, June 1972 and U.S. Department of Transportation Aviation
Demand and Airport Facility Requirements Forecasts for Medium Air Transportation Hubs,
January 1969.
47
TABLE 17
T E R M I N A L BUI L DI N G S P A C E R E QUI R E M E N T S
1 9 9 5
S qua r e Fe e t
A I R L I N E
Ticket Counter (200 L.F.) 2,000
Ticket Lobby 10,000
Operations 35,000
Departure Lounges (10 gates) 12,000
Baggage Claim 10,000
Terminal Waiting Rooms 20, 000
S ub T ot a l 89 , 000
C O N C E S S I O N S
Dining Facilities 8, 000
Kitchen and Storage 5, 000
News, Novelties,-Gifts 5,400
Auto Rental 1 , 500
Insurance Counter 200
Snack Bar 600
Bag Lockers 200
Telephones 300
Game Room 600
Display Advertising- 200
S ub T ot a l 24, 000
C O N VE N I E N C E S
Public Restrooms 3,200
Employee Restrooms 600
Security, First Aid 600
VIP, Conference Room 600
S ub Total 5, 000
O T HE R S P A C E
Airport Management 1,500
Concourses 8, 000
Mechanical, Circulation, etc. 50, 000
S ub T ot a l 59 , 500
T O T A L 1 77, 500
M Y 1 8Q, 000
$.f.
Source: See Table 16.
General Aviation Areas
General aviation area requirements were established through Fixed-Base Operator
(FBO) questionnaires of future requirements, general aviation pilot survey, and planning guides
which relate facility r e qui r e me n t s to forecasts of based and general aviation operations. As
previously mentioned, a new general aviation runway will be required. In addition, new general
aviation facilities to support the forecasted growth, as shown in Table 18, will also be required.
48
T A BL E 1 8
G E N E R A L A VI A T I O N A R E A R E QUI R E M E N T S
A c r e a g e
1 9 85 1 9 9 5
Fi xed-Base Operators' Lease Plots 30 45
T-Hangars and Ti e-Down 6 8
I ti nerant Apron 8 10
E xecuti ve Hangars 2 4
Sour ce: Gr ein er En gin eer in g Scien ces, I n c.
E le c t r i c a l R e qui r e me n t s
The existing airport primary distribution system is 2400 Volt, 3 phase, 60 Hertz.
Service is provided by Gulf Power Company from a radial 13.2 KV, 3 phase, 60 Hertz aerial
feeder along the south side of College Boulevard. The 13.2-2.4 KV transformers are pole mounted
in the vicinity of the Airport Maintenance Facilities. From this transformer bank the airport
distribution circuit is aerial, 3 no. 4 A.W.G. on wood poles, to a point just west of the existing
airfield lighting vault where it transitions to underground. The underground portion consists
of 3 1/c No. 4 A.W.G., 3 KV cables in a series of manholes and concrete encased ducts running
along the access road to the A.T.C. building.
On-site emergency power for certain essential loads in the A.T.C. building and terminal
building and airfield lighting are provided by a 115 KW, 1 20/208 Volt, 3 phase, natural gas
fueled engine-generator 4ocated on the north side of the A.T.C. building. The 2400 Volt, 3 phase
distribution system is antiquated and is probably operating at or very near its capacity. We
recommend that this system be replaced with a totally underground system of a higher standard
distribution voltage, either 4.16 or 13.2 KV, and if possible to provide loop feed capability for
increased service reliability. In the conversion to a more up-to-date distribution system
consideration should be given to granting Gulf Power Company the required construction and
maintenance easements and allow them to construct, operate, and maintain the distribution system
and bill the various tenants directly.
Further delay in making this conversion will be costly and will result in the installation
of additional equipment, particularly transformers, to serve new loads, which will not be usable
on the new system.
E n vi r on me n t a l C on s i de r a t i on s
S E C T I O N VI I
S E C T I O N VI I
49
E N VI R O N M E N T A L C O N S I DE R A T I O N S
This section provides a general evaluation of the environmental implications resulting
from improvements proposed for the Pensacola Regional Airport. The purpose of This
overview environmental assessment is two-fold.
First, information contained in this section is intended to assist in the determination
of the final development plan. In this sense, the report represents environmental planning as
it is related to and integrated with all other aspects of airport master planning, i.e., physical
and technical planning; financial planning - including socioeconomic planning, forecasting, and
management planning.
Second, this section has been prepared so that it may be efficiently extended into
a complete environmental impact statement in compliance with Section 102(2)(c) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and Section 16(c)(4) of the Airport and Airways Development
Act of 1970. However, it is emphasized that the following assessment is not intended and cannot
be construed as a formal environmental impact statement; the assessment does represent a planning
instrument and preliminary environmental analysis. Nonetheless, all investigations and information
in the assessment will be of value and expedite preparation of the prerequisite environmental
statement. A complete Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR) is currently being
prepared and will be published as a separate report. Information in this overview assessment
will serve as the basis for the EIAR.
Every effort has been made to achieve a thorough and balanced report which will
assist in the master planning process and afford a solid foundation for formal EIS development.
This section has been divided into three parts. Part One examines the existing
environmental conditions on the airport and in its environs; and Part Two examines the probable
impact of airport expansion on the environment and Part Three presents conclusions of the
Environmental Considerations.
P A R T O N E - E XI S T I N G C O N DI T I O N S
Vegetation and Wildlife
Climate, geology, topography, soils, time, and man have combined to influence the
development of the existing biotic communities within the Pensacola Regional Airport (PNS)
project area. The following sections discuss each biotic community in terms of its characteristic
physical environmental factors, biota, and functional role)
Biotic Communities
Four biotic communities were recognized within the project area:
Sandhi!l pine forest
Hardwood hammock
Swamp forest
Man dominated
1
Analysis of the ecological conditions within the project boundary was done with the aid of aerial photographs at
a scale of 1"=
1,000 feet with on-site field verification. Mr. Dwaine Raynor provided excerpts from his thesis cur-
rently being prepared that were an invaluable aid to the completion of this assessment.
50
Communities were named and defined on the basis of dominant plant constituents,
as these are the most readily visible indicators of plant growing conditions, animal constituents
and major limiting factors (See Exhibit 14). Lists of the plants reported from each community
and animals reported from the vicinity are given in Appendix H.
SandhiII P i n e For e s t
The sandhill pine forest is the most common natural vegetation type in northwest
Florida, and it is the predominant vegetational type near the Pensacola Regional Airport. These
pine forests are adapted to well drained, sandy loam hills and ridges that were originally part
of the ocean bottom and dune system of the Gulf of Mexico.
The forest is usually an almost pure, dense stand of longleaf pine (Pinus palustris),
but in areas of disturbance the pines are more scattered and an understory of shrubby oaks
(primarily turkey oak (Quercus laevis) and blue-jack oak (Q. incana)) is present. Other understory
plants include gopher apple (Geobalanus oblongifolius); broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus); wire
grass (Aristide strica); and other assorted herbs, briers, and vines.
The sandhi!l pine forest is a community that is adapted to naturally occurring, periodic
fires. In areas protected from fire by either natural means or man's intervention, the pine forest
will gradually change into a hardwood hammock forest unless the vegetation is periodically
inundated by water.
Ha r dwood Ha mmoc k
The vegetation of the hammock consists of large hardwood trees and shrubs that form
a tight canopy limiting the amount of undergrowth. The hardwood hammocks in the study area
are characterized by live oaks (Quercus virginiana), southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), laurel
oak (Quercus laurifolia), Walter's pine (Pinus glabra), sparkelberry (Vaccinium arboreum), partridge
berry (Mitchella repens), muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), and yaupon holly (illex vomitoria).
Spanish moss (Tillandsia usneoides) is often found hanging from the larger oak trees. A complete
list of the plants reported from the study are listed in Appendix H. Due to the aesthetic appeal
of the hammock vegetation this plant community is in heavy demand for residential development.
Fire is a rare occurrence in the hardwood hammock which serves as another factor in attracting
development to this habitat.
S wa mp For e s t
The third naturally occurring vegetation type found adjacent to the Pensacola Regional
Airport is the swamp forest community. The swamp areas in the vicinity of the study area
are primarily low wet depressions which are inundated by water for extended periods of time.
Inland swamp areas are extremely valuable as water recharge points. The swamp vegetation is
sturdy and acts as a buffer zone.
The swamp trees are generally tall and straight forming a dense shade under a heavy
canopy. The abundant species of the pond swamps in the study area are: black gum (Nyssa
biflora), sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), red bay (Persea borbonia), red maple (Acer rubrum),
red titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), buckwheat titi (Cliftonia monophylla), and virginia willow (Rea
virginicum). In areas that are inundated for most of the year, cypress (Taxodium ascendens)
and saw grass (Caldium jamaicensis) may be found. Other species reported from the swamp
forest are listed in Appendix H.
E XHI BI T14
P SANDHI ... P DC
14 - f i ARO W 000
BI OTI CCOMMUNI TI E S
M a n Domi n a t e d 52
Much of the vegetation in the vicinity of the PNS Airport is man dominated, generally
to accommodated residential development. Plant species present in this fourth vegetational type
often are remnants of the former natural community left as a border around homes and along
streets. In addition, some species indigenous to the study area are used for ornamental purposes,
e.g. dogwood (Cornus florida), southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), and yaupon holly (Hex
vomitoria). Other domestic plants have been introduced into areas which were previously covered
by one of the naturally occurring vegetation types. Included are palm trees (Sabal sp.), cedar
(Juniperus sp.), Camellia (Camellia sp.) and azalea (Rhododendron sp.). Introduced plants may
require an artificial water source or improved drainage to permit them to utilize some areas.
An ecologically interesting area occurs in a small block just southeast of the airport
along and on each side of the proposed Spanish Trail (Exhibit 14). In this area are several
small ponded swamps that are surrounded by a forest that is a mixture of an old sandhill pine
forest and a hardwood hammock dominated by large live oak trees. Also present are several
homes with their associated man dominated tracts that give evidence for the aesthetic appeal
of this area.
Wi ldli fe
Most animals that utilize the study area range freely between the different community
types, except for the restrictions imposed by ponded areas and areas of extensive urban
development. Commonly occurring animals include the robin (Turdis migratorius), mourning dove
(Zenaidura macroura), mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), cardinal (Ricehmondina cardinalis), gray
squirrel (Scuirus carolinensis), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), and raccoon (Procyon
lotor). Numerous reptiles and amphibians are also present on the study area, particularly in low,
wet areas.
The only rare or endangered species that should be expected on the study area is
the red-cockaded woodpecker (Dendrocopus borealis), and it has been seen recently in the general
area.
S oi ls a n d E r os i on
The Pensacola Regional Airport is located in the Coastal Plains Province, a major
physiographic division of the United States. Throughout the area, the topography is generally
gently rolling, but areas between streams form terraces that are broad and flat.
A preliminary study of the soils and geologic conditions in the project area was
accomplished by utilizing aerial photographs in conjunction with a literature search. Background
information concerning soil and geologic conditions was obtained from the publication, Soil Survey
Report for Escambia County, Florida (1960), prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Soils in the project area are primarily of the Lakeland-Eustis association. Areas
occupied by these associations consist of flat to gently sloping soils on broad ridges, and of
moderately steep soils near drainageways.
53
The Lakeland-Eustis soils which dominate the area, have a sandy or sandy loam surface
layer and a friable loamy fine sand or loamy sand subsoil. These soils are usually rapidly drained;
however, in some areas surface drainage may . become slow due to low relief.
These associations have severe agricultural restrictions because of their limited
absorptive capacities, acidic character, and the low level of plant available nutrients due to
oxidation and leeching.
A minor soil found in the area was the Klej series.
Table 19 presents selected soil characteristics of the various series encountered in the
project area. These characteristics summarize the primary engineering features of the soils - their
moisture holding capacity, natural drainage, depth of water table, permeability, and their
shrink-swell potential.
T A BL E 1 9
S E L E C T E D S O I L S E R I E S C HA R A C T E R I S T I C S
Available Moisture
Depth to
Seasonally
N a t ur a l S hr i n k/S we ll Holdi n g Capacity In Permeability High Water
Dr a i n a g e P ot e n t i a l Water/Foot of Soil In/Hr. Table pH
Eustis Somewhat low 0.8 10+ 10+ 5.0-6.0
Excessive
Lakeland Somewhat low 0.7 10+ 10+ 5.0-6.0
Excessive
Klej Somewhat low 0.9 5-10 10+ 4.5-5.5
Poor
Source: So Survey Report for Escambia County, Florida (1960)
A large percentage of the soils in the study area fall within the "man-made" category.
This results from previous airport construction and residential development where original soils
were disturbed and fill material provided. This fill material does not exhibit any uniform
characteristics so it cannot be evaluated.
The degree of erodibility is affected by numerous conditions (i.e., climate, existing
ground cover); however, two principal factors override other considerations.
These are:
Erodibility varies inversely with the size of the soil particles where grains are not
cemented or held by a cohesive bond, and
Erodibility varies directly with the ground slope up to approximately 20 degrees,
increases non-linearly thereafter, reaching a maximum at approximately 40 degrees,
and then decreases.
The Eustis-Lakeland soil series found in the area are predominately of the level to
gently sloping phase (0-5% slope) which, coupled with their excellent permeability and large particle
size, indicates absence of an erosion problem at this time.
Hydrology and Drainage
54
The existing 1200-acre Pensacola Regional Airport is located on a small plateau
bordered by Carpenter Creek and Bayou Texar on the west and Escambia Bay on the east.
Carpenter Creek flows southeastward, of the airport it terminates in Bayou Texar, an estuary
of Escambia Bay.
Rainfall statistics for the area show that the mean annual rainfall is 59.69 inches.
However, annual rainfall has varied from 28.68 inches to 90.41 inches during the past 40 years.
The maximum 24-hour rainfall was 17.07 inches in October 1934.
Existing storm runoff facilities at the airport consists of network of inlets and concrete
pipe which outlet through 42 and 84-inch pipes into the Scott Field Storage Basin. This retention
basin has recently been enlarged to hold 57 acre-feet of water and is designed to contain all
storm runoff from a 50-year storm. Water is released from the retention basin directly into
Bayou Texar through a 30-inch pipe.
Water Quality
Water courses and bodies in the vicinity of the existing Pensacola Regional Airport
include Carpenter Creek and Bayou Texar to the west and Escambia Bay (a northern reach of
Pensacola Bay) to the east. The quality of water in these three distinct systems is significantly
affected by the volume and quality of surface stormwater runoff. Of particular importance to
this study is the stormwater runoff from the Pensacola Regional Airport facility.
All stormwater runoff from the airport surface area 1200 acres). is collected,and
retained in the Scott Field Storage Basin. Rentention of storm runoff provides for the settling
of suspended solids and at least partial removal of dissolved contaminents by biological action.
Nutrients such as nitrates and phosphates, and oxygen demanding materials like B.O.D. and C.O.D.
are assimilated and metabolized by autotrophic and heterotrophic organisms in the retention pond.
Water is released from the Scott Field Storage Basin to Bayou Texar which in turn
discharges into Pensacola Bay. The water quality of the bayou, being an important tool for
assessing the status or potential of the sensitive bayou exosystem, has been studied recently by
several research and consultant groups. 2 An evaluation of the bayou water quality based on data
collected from these various studies was formulated into the following conclusions by HDR, 1974.3
"In the past four years, very little improvement has been shown in the water of Bayou
Texar. Oxygen demand levels are quite high, even showing an increase between the
sampling done by the Florida Department of Pollution Control and the University of
West Florida. Suspended solids indicate large fluctuations which are likely caused by
climatological or tidal conditions. Levels of nitrogen are considerably higher than those
found in Pensacola Bay. Concentrations of phosphorus are higher than would reasonably
be expected, but large fluctuations occur, depending upon the climatological and
productivity conditions. The study done by the University of West Florida indicated
that sediments play an important role in the phosphorus levels in Bayou Texar.2
"Concentrations of organic material and suspended solids found in stormwater runoff
were quite high in comparison to the background conditions. Also the concentrations
of suspended solids in the stormwater runoff were quite high in comparison to the
biochemical oxygen demand. This indicates that significant quantities of inert materials,
such as clays, cilts and sand, are present in the runoff.
2Bayou Texar Restoration Study, (Undated, circa 1975) Henningson, Durham and Richardson, Inc., prepared for
Intergovernmental Program Office.
3 Determination of a Nitrogen-Phosphorus Budget for Bayou Texar, Publication 17, 1972, Gerald A. Moshiri,
Water Resources Research Center, University of West Florida.
55
"Nutrient concentrations in the stormwater runoff are higher than background conditions
in Bayou Texar and Carpenter's Creek. Nutrient levels of Bayou Texar are quite high
and reflect a buildup of nutrients.
"Bacteriological data indicate many extremely high total coliform counts (MPN),
considering p there are no conventional point discharges of domestic wastes into
Carpenter s Creek or Bayou Texar. These are most likely the result of accidental sewage
spills from the Pensacola sewer system and from septic tank discharges within the basin.
These recorded bacteriological values are generally the highest during dry weather,
indicating that there is a diluting factor during the stormwater runoff. Bayou Texar
is classified by the Florida Department of Pollution Control as a Class Ill water. This
classification calls for MPN of less than 1,000 per 100 ml on an average basis and
less than 2,400 per 100 ml on an individual sample basis. Because these values have
been exceeded so frequently, Bayou Texar is presently regarded as unsuitable for
water-related recreation activities.' 4
It must be noted that, although the runoff from the PNS Airport contributes to the
water quality of Bayou Texar, the above conclusions about the status were not formulated with
data collected after the Scott Field Storage Basin was redesigned and enlarged. Therefore, it is
not possible to assess the probable enhancement produced through retention of this contributing
segment.
Air Quality
The principal air pollutants resulting from airport and aircraft operations are:
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Hydrocarbons (HC)
Nitrogen Oxides (N0x)
Photochemical Oxidants (Ozone)
Sulfur Dioxide (S02)
Particulate Matter
The Pensacola Regional Airport is located in Escambia County and is within the
Northwest Florida Interstate Air Quality Control Region (AQCR). Table 20 provides an emissions
inventory for Escambia County. Major stationary sources of air pollution in the Pensacola vicinity
were identified in Table 21. Table 22 lists locations of state air monitoring and sampling stations.
T A BL E 20
E M I S S I O N S I N VE N T O R Y S UM M A R Y (T O N S /YE A R )
N or t hwe s t R e g i on
Carbon
Monoxide Hydrocarbons
N i t r og e n
O x i de
S ulfur
O x i de Particulate
Fuel Combustion 771.76 1,190.88 20,050.01 22,344.99 4,063.52
Process Emissions 9,825.11 4,124,68 634.36 14,238.82 29,011.70
Solid Waste
Disposal 1,276.37 130.25 20.24 5.89 14.92
Transportation 253,315.89 49,787.76 36,179.09 1,796.78 3,173.23
Power Plants 326.51 353.54 9,866.41 20,518.75 7,087.54
Miscellaneous
Area Sources 31,315.70 6,438.23 735.59 0 6,256.93
TOTAL 29 6, 831 . 34 62, 025. 34 67, 485. 70 58, 9 05. 23 49 , 607. 84
Source: State of Florida Air Implementation Plan. Florida Department of Pollution Control, Tallahassee, Florida,
1972.
4 Bayou Texar Restoration Study, 1974, In Manuscript Henningson, Durham and Richardson, Inc.
T A BL E 21
M A JO R S T A T I O N A R Y S O UR C E S O F A I R P O L L UT I O N
56
A n n ua l E mi s s i on s (T on s )
S t a t i on a r y S our c e A ddr e s s C O HC N O x S O 2 P a r t i c ula t e
Argo Chemical Division 118 E. Fairfield Dr. 64.2
American Creosote Works, Inc. South J Street 37.5
Armstrong Cork Company 300 S. Myrick 64.2
E. M. Chadbourne, Inc. 4375 McCoy Drive 154.0 41.6
Dixie Grading and Paving 1825 Hollywood Drive 67.5
Gulf Power Company North, along Gover-
nor's Bayou 16,861.5 470.6
St. Regis Paper Company Cantonment 12.25
Tenneco Chemical, Inc. 407 S. Pace Blvd. 539.50
Source: State of Florida Air Implementation Plan. Florida Department of Pollution Control, Tallahassee, Florida,
1972.
T A BL E 22
M O N I T O R I N G S T A T I O N S I N T HE P E N S A C O L A A R E A
M a j or P ollut a n t s M on i t or e d
S t a t i on
1 9 73 1 9 74-Ja n ua r y t hr oug h Jun e
S O 2
A r i t h. M e a n
Ug /m 3
N O 2
A r i t h. M e a n
Ug /m3
P a r t i c ula t e
A r i t h . M e a n
Ug /m3
S O 2
A r i t h. M e a n
Ug /m 3
N O 2
A r i t h. M e a n
Ug /m3
P a r t i c ula t e
A r i t h. M e a n
Ug /m3
L e on a r d &
Halifax,
Pensacola 15.1 63a 8.3 15a
75a
Ellyson
(N.A.S. 18.6 b 8.2a 44a
University
of West
Florida 17.7c 33.5 61a 32.6 12.7a 49a
Source: Computer printouts supplied by the Florida Department of Pollution Control, Tallahassee, Florida, 1972.
a April, May, June only
b February through June
cAugust through December only
57
The Northwest Florida Interstate AQCR consists of ten counties in Florida, the region
is primarily agricultural, except for Pensacola and the surrounding military installations. The
Northwest Florida Interstate AQCR is classified as priority III for CO, and NOx pollutants and
priority I for S02, hydrocarbons, photochemical oxidants and particulate pollutants. The reason
for priority I classification for S02, hydrocarbons, photochemical oxidants and particulate
pollutants is because of the Alabama portion of the Region.
Priority I classification indicates the pollutant levels exceeding the air quality standards
while priority III indicates pollution levels well within the standards.
Transportation is one major source of air pollutants in Escambia County. The State
of Florida Air Implementation Plan, published in January 1972, indicated that in 1970
approximately 73 percent of total air pollution in Escambia County was generated by
transportation sources. In the same report it was indicated that only 0.67 percent of the total
pollution in Escambia County was generated by aircraft.
Aircraft emissions, particularly jet exhausts, are highly visible against the light
background of the sky. This leads to the assumption that aircraft operations contributed heavily
to the air pollution. However, aviation operations contribute comparatively little pollution--only
3.3 percent, of total emissions in the United States. Further, pollution from jet engines has
been steadily reduced over the past twelve years due to advances in technology. A program5
to reduce smoke was developed to retrofit engines already in use. The engine selected for this
program was the Pratt and Whitney JT-8D, which powers the tri-engine Boeing 727 and the
twin-engine Douglas DC-9.
Conditions will further improve as a result of new EPA standards to control aircraft
emissions. These regulations are announced by the EPA Administrator in the Federal Register,
July 17, 1974, and December 28, 1973.
Factors Affecting Air Quality
The total volume of the atmosphere available for air contaminant dispersion is
significantly influenced by local meteorological and topographical factors. The meteorological
and topographical factors in this area prevent any general long period pollution conditions.
Wind directions are influenced locally by inland pressure systems and sea breeze effect
near the coast. Concurrently prevailing wind directions are somewhat erratic but, in general,
follow a pattern of northerly in winter and southerly in summer. The Summary of Local Wind
Data collected by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Environmental Data
Service between 1967 and 1971 at Pensacola Airport are given in Appendix I, Air Pollution Wind
Data.
Mixing depths provide a measure of the volume within which pollutants may mix
without restriction. In the Pensacola area, mixing depths are generally unlimited except during
early morning periods of radiation inversion. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
publication, "Mixing Heights, Winds and Potential for Urban Air Pollution Throughout the
Contiguous United States," indicates a mean annual morning mixing height of 620 meters and
a mean annual afternoon mixing height of 1,110 meters in the area.
5 In June, 1973 a program which had begun in 1970 to remove smoke from some 3,000 airline jet engines was 98
percent completed (JT-8D). This type of engine covers the most widely used short and medium range air
carriers which constitute 70 percent of all scheduled domestic flight operations.
58
The temperature structure determines the stability of the atmosphere. In Escambia
County monthly average temperatures range from the lower 60's in winter to the lower 80's
during summer months.
In addition to the transport and dilution of pollutants, precipitation also has an effect
on ambient concentrations. The average monthly rainfall in the area ranges from 1.5 to 9 inches
maximum precipitation occurring during the summer months.
The State of Florida Air Implementation Plan, dated January 1972, stated that due
to the general pattern of terrain and trade wind circulation, meteorological conditions that
aggravate air pollution do not often occur in Florida. The air over the state is usually sufficiently
unstable, a condition conducive to the development of cumulus clouds and thunderstorms, to
disperse pollutants to higher levels in most locations.
Existing Ambient C on di t i on s
Ambient pollutional loadings originating in the airport area result from five sources.
These are:
Ambient emissions
Heating plant emissions
Service vehicles emissions
Passenger and employee traffic on-site
Through-traffic on major roads off-site
Analysis was made of the existing aircraft-generated pollutional loadings in the airport
area. (For purpose of this analysis, 1974 was used as the base study year.) 1974 aircraft-generated
pollutants are listed in Table 23.
T A BL E 23
1 9 74 A I R C R A FT G E N E R A T E D P O L L UT I O N A L L O A DI N G
lbs /da y
Ye a r
C O HC
N O
S O 2P a r t i c ula t e s T ot a l
1974
(Existing
Condition)
7,9631,0659361209110,175
Source: Greiner Estimates
In summary, ambient conditions in the vicinity of the airport are good. The
meteorology and topography of the area are conducive to pollutant dispersion. Transportation
is the primary source of air pollution in the Northwest Florida Interstate AQCR with
aircraft-generated pollution in this region being only 0.67 percent of the total pollution in Escambia
County.
Acousti c Noi se
The following provides a discussion of the acoustic noise 6 generated by aircraft at
the Pensacola Regional Airport. The discussion includes:
6 See Appendix J for a general statement on noise entitled "A Discussion of Aircraft Noise."
59
Methodologies employed in the evaluations;
Documentation of criteria established;
Present and future aircraft mix and runway distribution;
Description of existing and predicted future noise within the airport's influence area.
Methodology
The evaluation of existing aircraft-generated noise exposure was based on two
methodologies: The Noise Exposure Forecast (NE F), and the Aircraft Sound Description System
(ASDS).
The Noise Exposure Forecast was developed by the U.S. Department of Transportation,
Transportation System Center, and published in revised form in June 1972. This aircraft noise
evaluation model combines the quantitative and qualitative effects of various impact parameters
and represents the results in the form of noise exposure contours. The parameters involved include
aircraft mix, runway configurations, flight path descriptions, number of operations per day, and
time of day (that is, daytime or nighttime). The noise contours which result from this analysis
are expressed in NEF values. Due to the relationship to established criteria, two NEF contours
are generally plotted: NEF 40 and 30. Table 24 provides a narrative description of the acoustic
noise impact for the relatively quiet NEF values below 30, for the transition from NEF 30 to
40 and the high influence of noise exposure resulting from NEF levels greater than 40.
Although using basically the same parameters as the NEF, the Aircraft Sound
Description System differs considerably in its approach to quantify aircraft noise exposure. The
ASDS analysis is oriented to using A-weighted sound pressure levels in decibels as used for many
transportation and stationary noise evaluations. Further, it states the exposure in units of time.
This is accomplished by determining the time of exposure in excess of a pre-established 85 dBA
level.
The ASDS provides a more quantitative approach to evaluation of noise exposure,
while the NEF is more qualitative. For example, the NEF includes in its methodology a subjective
weighting of day versus night operations. Further, the ASDS provides a specific noise (dBA)
level for a specified period of time.
For a more complete discussion on aircraft noise, see Appendix J and for a comparison
between aircraft noise measurement and other transportation sources, see Appendix K.
Aircraft Mix and Runway Usage
The existing aircraft mix at the Pensacola Regional Airport consists of both commercial
and general aviation traffic. Table 25 indicates the number and type of aircraft which presently
use the facility.
Aircraft T ype
Daytime OperationsN i g ht t i me O pe r a t i on s
DC-9
727
General Aviation Jet (Lear)
Commercial Prop
General Aviation Prop
Total
11
11
25
190
33
244
46
T A A L E 24
60
L A N D US E S A DJA C E N T T O A I R P O R T S A N D N O I S E C O N T O UR S
N oi s e E x pos ur e
For e c a s t
(N E F) Va lue s
Remarks
30 Few activities will be affected by aircraft sounds, although building designs for
especially sound sensitive activities such as auditoriums, churches, schools, hospitals,
and theatres should consider sound control in areas close to the airport. Detailed
studies by qualified personnel are recommended for outdoor amphitheatres and like
places of public assembly in the general vicinity of the airport.
30-40 Activities where uninterrupted communication is essential should consider sound
exposure in design. Generally, residential development is not considered a suitable
use although multi-family developments where sound control features have been
incorporated in building design might be considered. Open-air activities and outdoor
living will be affected by aircraft sound. The construction of auditoriums, schools,
churches, hospitals, and theatres and like activities should be avoided within this
zone where possible.
40 Land should be reserved for activities that can tolerate a high level of sound exposure
such as some agricultural, industrial, and commercial uses. No residential developments
of any type are recommended. Sound sensitive activities such as schools, offices,
hospitals, churches, and like activities should not be constructed in this area unless
no alternative location is possible. All regularly occupied structures should consider
sound control in design.
Source:Federal AVation Administration, Airport Master Plans, AC150/5070-6 (Washington, D.C.: Government
Printing Office, 1971), Table 3, p.47)
T A BL E 25
E XI S T I N G O P E R A T I O N S
Source: Greiner estimates based on ATC Records.
Runway usage, provided in Table 26, indicates that Runway 16 is the primary direction
of take-off and approach and handles 46 percent of the traffic. All approaches and departures
were assumed straight for Runways 7 and 25. Approaches on Runways 16 and 34 were assumed
straight in; however, on take-offs, aircraft were assumed to make a right or left turn approximately
10,000 feet from beginning of the take-off ro11. 7 All turns were assumed to have a one-mile
radius.
Although 75 percent of all jet operations occur during daytime hours, 25 percent
of 9 jet flights occur at night. The jet flights (primarily the night jet flights) provide the greatest
acoustic noise influence of all aircraft operations.
7 Runway usage information generalized, based on discussion with Pensacola Tower Chief.
61
T A BL E 26
R UN WA Y US A G E a
R un wa y
LandingsTake-Offs
16
2719
34
1010
7
816
25
55
50%50%
Source: Greiner estimates based on ATC Records.
a Percent of total daily operations.
E x i s t i n g N oi s e C on di t i on s
Exhibits 15 and 16 visually provide NEF and ASDS contours for present conditions
at the Pensacola Regional Airport. The NEF 30 contour lies approximately two miles beyond
the end of Runways 16 and 34 and two and one-half miles beyond the end of Runways 7 and
26. The slightly shorter distance of exposure on Runways 16 and 34 results from turning
movements on those runways. These turning movements create wider exposure bands along 16/34
than along 7/25.
Exhibit 16 provides contours indicating areas exposed to zero, one, five and ten minutes
of an 85 dBA noise level daily. The predominance of landings on Runway 16 is indicated by
the distance that the one minute contour extends beyond Runway 16 (approximately 3 miles).
The one minute contour extends approximately 1-1/2 to 1-3/4 miles from the other runway
thresholds.
The ASDS and NEF contours can be used as a basis for detailed environmental
evaluation by relating to land use and zoning maps, as well as description with respect to noise
sensitive areas. Further, those contours can be used as a tool in initiating land-use restrictions
within the airport's influence area. More specifically, the land within the NEF 40 contour should
be reserved for uses tolerant of high levels of noise exposure (agricultural, industrial, and
commercial uses for example). Land between the 30 and 40 contour lines should not contain
such activities as residential, school, church, or hospital unless noise control features are
incorporated in building design.
Ut i li t i e s
Wa t e r S upply
The airport is served by existing 6- and 12-inch mains of the Pensacola water supply
system. The existing on-site water distribution system consists of a 6-inch and smaller main
serving the terminal complex. There is no elevated storage on the airport site, but the city
has a 1,000,000-gallon elevated storage tank within 1 mile of the airport that provides an ample
supply for peak usage and fire protection demands. Present water usage is approximately 460,000
gallons per day.
The City of Pensacola's water supply is obtained from 24 deep wells. Each well
has a capacity of 2.9 million gallons per day (mgd), which gives the system a total capacity
of 69.6 mgd. There are plans to add at least two additional wells to the system.
o
NOI SE E XPOSURE FORE CAST (1974)
E XI STI NG FACI LI TI E S
EXHI BI T 15
S C A L E I N M I L E S
0
.a
1
-4,
' .401 1110
our s
MI N .
0
1
P1
,/ 0
ASDS (1974) E XI STI NG FACI LI TI E S
EXHI BI T 16
64
S a n i t a r y S e we r a g e
The Pensacola Regional Airport is connected to the municipal sewage system. The
sewage is treated at the Northeast Sewage Treatment Plant, and the effluent is discharged into
Escambia Bay. Currently, this plant is overloaded, and no more connections will be allowed
until the system is upgraded. In total, Pensacola treatment facilities have a design capacity of
18.5 mgd and a current flow of 13.6 mgd.
G a s a n d E le c t r i c
Gas service to the airport is provided by the city via direct pipeline from United
Gas Company. The gas is used in the terminal for heating, cooling and food preparation. A
6-inch main serves the airport with 2-inch connections to the main terminal building and to the
hangars.
The electrical requirements of the airport are presently met by the Gulf Power
Corporation of Pensacola through connections to the Eastgate Substation located approximately
one mile north of the airport. This substation is designed so that it can be enlarged as electrical
consumption increases. Currently, the airport uses about 130,000 kwh of electricity per month.
T e le phon e
Telephone service is provided to the airport by the Southern Bell Telephone Company.
Special circuits are provided for the FAA and the airlines, and car rental agencies are connected
directly to their rental- offices in downtown Pensacola. In addition, local business lines are
provided.
Solid Waste
The Pensacola Airport is served by the Municipal Sanitation Department. Trash,
garbage and paper are placed in 5 dumpster containers located at various places throughout the
terminal area. The containers range from 1 to 6 cubic yards (c.y.) in size and total 20 c.y. The
disposed material is collected twice per week and amounts to an estimated solid waste generation
of 40 c.y. of uncompacted solid waste per week. An additional estimated 3 c.y. of solid waste
is collected by airport personnel from litter and private hangars not served by the city collection.
Using a compaction ratio of 1/3 (based on simple truck and landfill compaction
techniques, it is estimated that the weekly airport solid waste generation would approximate 14
c.y. of compacted material. The city landfill should have no problem disposing of this material.
L a n d Us e C ompa t i bi li t y
Land use in the vicinity of the Pensacola Airport is largely residential in character.
Several grade schools, a shopping center, Pensacola Junior College, Lavellet Office Park and Sacred
Heart Hospital are located near the airport, but all are away from areas receiving a high level
of sound exposure.
In the near vicinity of the airport some open, forested tracts remain; however, most,
if not all of these areas are receiving pressure for residential development. If encroachment on
the airport continues, new developments can be expected to experience higher sound exposure.
It is suggested that this open, forested land, at least that off the ends of the runways, be purchased
and left as open space.
Existing land uses and zoning around the airport are shown on Exhibit 10.
P A R T 2 - P R O BA BL E I M P A C T S O F A I R P O R T E XP A N S I O N
65
Although detailed, quantified estimations of the effects of airport expansion have not
been made, a general assessment of the probable effects has been made. Throughout Section
VIII, Physical Planning, the environmental consequences of alternative development strategies were
considered. These included location of the proposed general aviation runway, runway extension
and terminal area. In addition, the development of the Concept Plan in Section VIII reflects
environmental input developed below. Facilities, such as buffer zones and storm water retention
areas, are included in the plan. Other factors, such as siting of the general aviation area to avoid
the valuable swamp forest areas reflect the inclusion of environmental input into the airport
planning process.
The probable impacts described below are limited to the proposed plan described in
Section VIII for sake of clarity.
Ve g e t a t i on a n d Wi ldli fe
Expansion of the PNS Airport may result in the loss of some sandhill pine forest
habitat along the southeastern edge of the airport if the general aviation runway is built as presently
planned (See Section VIII). However, the forests in the vicinity of the airport are the focus
of strong pressures for residential or industrial development and may be cleared or altered regardless
of any expansion plans for the airport. It could be expected that the pressures for industrial
development would increase with expansion of the airport. It has been proposed that areas adjacent
to the airport property that may experience high noise exposure be purchased to restrict residential
encroachment and held as buffer zones. If this were done, permanent wildlife habitat in the
area would be assured.
Soils and Erosion
There is always the threat of erosion during the period of construction when soils
are exposed. Although the erosion threat is judged to be small because of the shallow slope
present in the construction area, temporary erosion control measures will be used as conditions
warrant. All runoff will be directed to the Scott Field drainage retention basin.
Hydr olog y a n d Dr a i n a g e
As the airport is expanded, the drainage system will be expanded to assure that all
runoff water will continue to be collected and retained in the Scott Field Storage Basin. This
storage basin has the capacity or can be expanded to retain the expected increased runoff.
In order to confine any spills of oil and fuels, grease traps and fuel separators should
be installed in the drainage system or at the outlet of the basin. The basin should also be
managed to insure its maximum usefulness by enlarging its storage capacity as required, by shaping
and grassing the sides and bottom of the basin and by constructing temporary dikes to separate
the area that is actively being mined from that area intended to hold runoff.
Wa t e r Qua li t y
66
The water quality of Bayou Texar and Escambia Bay should be affected very little
by the airport expansion. However, it is important that the Scott Field Storage Basin be managed
to allow the maximum settling of suspended solids. Retention basins and seepage ponds will
be constructed on the airport as part of the expansion program to control the volume of runoff
before it reaches the Scott Field Basin and eventually the Bayou.
A i r Qua li t y
Both short-term construction and operation of the expanded facility will affect ambient
air conditions. However, existing 1974 pollution levels in the airport and its vicinity will be
reduced by 1980, 1985, and 1990 as Federal emission standards on aircraft are fully effective.
Pollutant concentrations reaching adjacent commercial and residential areas are estimated to be
with and below Federal, state, and county standards for health and safety.
Air pollution during the construction period may be generated by the following
sources:
Open burning
Construction equipment operations
Private vehicles used by construction workers
Open burning operations are subject to state and county law and regulations. Burning
is only permitted during favorable weather conditions which facilitate maximum dispersion of
pollutants. Information obtained from construction companies experienced in clearing and open
burning operations, indicate that a maximum of 2,000 pounds of material can be burned per
acre per hour. Pollutants produced by open burning this amount of cover can be reduced by
the following measures.
Transporting all debris to a control location determined as optimum in terms of
on-going activity, topography, distance from sensitive areas, etc.
Burning in a controlled manner during favorable weather conditions and when moisture
content of material is minimal.
Utilization of a forced draft method which increases combustion efficiency while
reducing pollutants released into the atmosphere.
These steps should minimize impact from open burning procedures. Further, it is
emphasized that open burning represents isolated episodes of extremely brief duration subject
to rigid controls. Open burning operations represent a short-term impact which will not affect
annual pollutional loadings. By burning under maximum dispersion conditions, pollutants will
be rapidly dispersed and not adversely affect the health or safety of human, plant, or animal
life.
Daily pollutional loads produced by clearing and construction activities depend upon
several parameters. These include the type, number, and emission rates of various construction
machines and trucks and the daily private vehicle traffic of construction personnel.
67
Based on comparable projects, an estimate of pollution loads from construction was
developed as shown in Table 27. It can be seen that private vehicles used by construction workers
only represent 5.6 percent of the project's total daily pollutional construction load. Total
pollutional load generated from all construction sources will be 0.3 tons per day. This represents
an increase of less than one percent in total regional pollution. Further, this impact is of short
duration and will terminate with the completion of the project.
T A BL E 27
M A XI M UM TOTAL DA I L Y C O N S T R UC T I O N P O L L UT I O N A L L O A DS
I bs /da y
P ollut a n t s
C on s t r uc t i on
M a c hi n e s
Ve hi c ula r
T r a ffi c
CO 176 21
HC 29 3
NOx 290 5
SO2 21 0.20
Particulates 11 0.30
T ot a ls 527 29 . 5
Source: Greiner Estimate
The results of the air pollution inventory indicated that expansion of the Pensacola
Regional Airport will not adversely affect the air quality in its vicinity, with the assumption
that Aircraft Emission Control standards announced by the EPA in the Federal Register July
17, 1973 will be met on schedule.
Gross pollutional loadings are shown in Tables 28 and 29 for existing and no project
and expansion for 1980, 1985, and 1990. The aircraft emissions are tabulated to include
3,500-foot altitude for climbout, and 3,500-foot altitude for touchdown. These figures take into
consideration increased aircraft traffic and decreased pollutant emissions resulting from Federal
controls.
The air quality investigation concluded that airport expansion will not increase gross
pollutional loadings and, in spite of increased airport traffic, aircraft emissions from the project
will decrease from existing levels by 80 percent in 1980, 79 percent in 1985, and 75 percent
in 1990.
T A BL E 28
N O P R O JE C T A L T E R N A T I VE E M I S S I O N S
I bs /da y
Ye a r C O HC N O x
S O 2 P a r t i c ula t e s T ot a l
1974 7,963 1,065 936 120 91 10,175
1980 1,283 199 630 154 121 2,387
1985 1,200 184 609 201 155 2,349
1990 1,475 235 763 231 176 2,860
Source: Greiner Estimate
T A BL E 29
P R O P O S E D E XP A N S I O N P R O JE C T E M I S S I O N S
I bs i c la y
Ye a r C O HC
N O S O 2 P a r t i c ula t e s Total
1980 1,100 170 530 154 122 2,076
1985 1,070 167 524 200 156 2,117
1990 1,269 198 623 230 177 2,497
Source: Greiner Estimates
A c ous t i c N oi s e
Runway usage in 1980 was considered the same as present; however, total air traffic
was increased. Total jet operations were anticipated to increase by 57 percent from 38 to 63
operations daily. Night jet traffic was expected to increase from 9 to 14 operations daily. Table
30 provides projections of all aircraft operations in 1980.
T A BL E 30
1 9 80 A I R C R A FT O P E R A T I O N S
A i r c r a ft T ype
Da yt i me O pe r a t i on s
NighttimeOperations
DC-9
17
6
727
17
6
General Aviation Jet
15
2
Commercial Prop
44
8
General Aviation Prop
295
52
T ot a l
388
74
Exhibits 17 and 18 provide NEF and ASDS contours for anticipated 1980 operations
with no modifications or additions to present runway configurations. Exhibits 19 and 20 also
show 1980 NEF and ASDS contours, however, a general aviation runway was added parallel to
existing Runway 16/34 and 1,000-foot extensions placed on Runway 25 and Runway 34.
The increase in aircraft operations will extend NEF contours to from 3 to 3-1/2 miles
beyond the runway thresholds. The ASDS contours indicate a slightly lesser increase with the
one-minute contour extending approximately one-half mile. It should be noted that the proposed
extension of Runway 25 and Runway 34 and the parallel general aviation runway has little
influence on overall noise exposure. However, the parallel runway shifts the NEF 40 contour
slightly, increasing the area exposed immediately adjacent to the airport. The ASDS contours
provided in Exhibit 20 also indicate the influence on the immediate airport area of the large
number of general aviation flights using the new parallel runway.
Utilities
The City of Pensacola currently has the resources to provide utility services to an
expanded airport facility in all areas except sanitary sewerage. No additional sewerage connections
will be permitted in the airport vicinity until the Northeast Sewerage Treatment Plant is connected
to the main Pensacola sewerage system or the plant is upgraded.
1
0 1
P I
NOI SE E XPOSURE FORE CAST (1980)
E XI STI NG FACI LI TI E S
EXHI BI T 17
01 UM
/Went '
0
1
P
ASDS (1980) E XI STI NG FACI LI TI E S
E XHI BI T 18
SCALE IN MILES
0 1
------
N O I SE EXP O SURE FO RECAST (1980)
ALTERN ATE CO N FI GURATI O N
0P EN SACO LA REGI O N AL AI RP O RT
E XHI BI T 19
y
0 MI .
0
1
0 MI N .
/ #
ASDS (1980) ALTE RNATE
CONFI GURATI ON
E XHI BI T 20
L a n d Us e C ompa t i bi li t y
73
The combination of increased airport size and residential encroachment will cause some
residences and the Grace Lutheran Church to be exposed to high sound exposures by 1985.
The planned airport expansion is not expected to disrupt established community patterns, have
any effect on areas of unique interest, or derogate from important recreational areas.
See Section VIII, Physical Planning, which addresses the questions of land purchase
and potential displacement of people and businesses, as well as suggests methods to insure
compatibility between the airport and land uses in its environs.
P A R T 3 - C O N C L US I O N S O F E N VI R O N M E N T A L O VE R VI E W
Although this section was not written to completely fulfill the requirements of a
detailed Environmental Impact Statement per Section 102(c) of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 and Section 16(c) 4 of the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970, several
conclusions can be reached about the environmental consequences of continued operation and
expansion of the Airport.8
Previous parts of this section of the report have assessed the environmental impact
of the proposed expansion as discussed in Section VIII. Impacts on air quality, water quality,
wildlife and vegetation are anticipated to be minimal. Impacts on historical or archeological
sites are not anticipated, and as described in the socioeconomic inventory and forecast section
of this report, expansion of the Airport is in keeping with the anticipated growth of the
community.
Impacts associated with aircraft noise and conflicts with surrounding land uses may
have greater consequences in the future. However, at many Citizens' Advisory Council meetings
and at three public information sessions these issues were discussed and no major objections were
raised relative to the proposed plan on an environmental basis. Provisions, such as land purchases
and zoning, have been recommended and incorporated in the plan to minimize any adverse impacts.
Alternatives to the proposed plan have been previously considered in a number of
reports. The most recent, a feasibility study for a new regional airport to serve the Pensacola-Eglin
area, concluded that no sites were available in the area which would not require the restructuring
of the airspace or the closing of existing fields and that a regional airport was not feasible.9
A "do nothing" or maintenance of the status quo is a non-solution. As was previously
mentioned, the Pensacola area is anticipated to grow over the next twenty years and this growth
will require comparable growth in all facets of transportation, including aviation. Based on the
facts that the City of Pensacola has a major investment in the existing facility and that there
is minimum negative environmental impact on the community as witnessed by the results of
the public hearings, the Consultant concludes that the expansion of the Airport in its present
location is the optimum long-range solution to provide air transportation access to the Pensacola
region.
8 A statement is currently being prepared to comply with these requirements.
9 Feasibility Study, Pensacola-Eglin Regional Air Carrier Airport, for City of Pensacola, by J. E. Greiner Company,
Inc., 1973.
P hys i c a l P la n n i n g
S E C T I O N VI I I
S E C T I O N VI I I - P HYS I C A L P L A N N I N G 74
Implicit in the goals outlined by the Airport Advisory Council (See Section I) for
the Pensacola Regional Airport was the understanding that the existing site should be developed
to its full potential to serve all segments of aviation. In light of these goals and in accordance
with the facilities requirements determined in Section VI, a program of improvements has been
planned which will insure an adequate balance between aviation needs, community goals, and
financial capability.
Four major areas are examined in this section: (1) the location of the general aviation
runway, (2) the location of the terminal area, (3) the choice of a terminal building concept,
(4) land use and (5) access.
Planning is an iterative process and the five areas enumerated above were examined
by this process. However, for ease in explanation, each of the areas is here discussed by subject.
P A R T 1 - A L T E R N A T I VE S
L oc a t i on of t he G e n e r a l A vi a t i on R un wa y
Section VI established the need for a new 3,600-foot-long, light duty general aviation
runway to provide additional capacity on the airport in the 1980-1985 time period. With the
high percentage of general aviation operations forecasted over the planning period, the need to
retain both existing runways after the construction of the new general aviation runway for air
carrier use was investigated. The Consultant recommends that existing Runway 7-25, as well as
Runway 16-34, be maintained and improved for air carrier operations because: (1) it serves
as a crosswind runway for both air carrier and general aviation operations, (2) it provides an
increase in PANCAP over a single pair of parallel runways, (3) it is currently used and will be
used in the future for noise abatement procedures (takeoffs from Runway 7 over Escambia Bay)
and it provides backup service if Runway 16-34 were to be shut down for an emergency or
maintenance.
Once the need for and type of new facility required to meet a specific demand is
determined, a location for that facility must also be determined. The orientation of this new
runway is substantially set by the existing layout since construction of a new major runway
is not required. In order to increase capacity and to insure compatibility and ease in air traffic
control procedures the new runway should parallel one of the existing major runways. The best
wind coverage (which is more critical for lighter aircraft) is the northwest-southeast direction.
In addition, the northwest-southeast runway (16/34) is the instrumented runway; therefore,
paralleling this primary runway would give best wind coverage and minimize crossing conflicts
with the instrumented runway. Paralleling on the west side would cause conflicts with the planned
terminal area (see discussion under terminal location alternatives) and would entail serious problems
with the clay pit and drainage retention areas shown on Exhibit 21 (location 1).
Assuming that the runway should be built on the east side of Runway 16/34, there
are three general possibilities shown on the exhibit: the first shows the new runway crossing
existing Runway 7/25 (location 2); the second shows it entirely in the northeast quadrant (location
3); and the third shows it entirely in the southeast quadrant (location 4).
GE NE RAL AVI ATI ON RUNWAY
ALTE RNATI VE S ANDASRSI TE S
E XHI BI T21
ALT. 3
ASR. SI TE
76
Consideration for the longitudinal location was based on many factors which included
best use of available land, conflicts with existing and planned navaids, 1 operational considerations,
construction problems, ground vehicle access to associated general aviation facilities and
surrounding land use. For example, locations 2 and 3 cause problems with existing and planned
navaids; location 2 would cause more problems during construction, but would make best use
of available land. The conclusion of this analysis was that location 4 optimized the development
of the airport considering all factors.
A simultaneous consideration with the longitudinal placement was the lateral separation
of the new runway from the existing runway. The range of these possibilities for location 4
are illustrated on Exhibit 22 and vary from 700 feet (4A) to 4,300 feet (4B) separation The
table below lists the full range of possibilities and their consequences.
T A BL E 31
S E P A R A T I O N FO R P A R A L L E L R UN WA YS
R E M A R KS S E P A R A T I O N (Fe e t )
Minimum FAA, allows same direction VFR operations during
daylight based on AC/5330-2A
Separation shown on 1968 Master Plan for Pensacola Municipal
Airport
Minimum separation for dual lane runway increase in capacity
from Report No, FAA-RD-74-80, May, 1974.
Airline suggested minimum separation
Minimum for opposite direction operations simultaneous VFR
operations during daylight from AC/5330-2A
Wake turbulance no longer problem for close parallels from
AC/90-23D
2,800Opposite direction operations, simultaneous VFR sunset to

sunrise from AC15330-2A
4,300Simultaneous IFR approaches from AAS-560. September 27,

1 9 74
As can be seen from the table, each increase in separation increases the flexibility
of the use of the total runway system, but cost must also be considered. In order to accommodate
the goal of maximizing the site, it appears that a separation of 1,400 feet would be necessary
for several reasons. This separation best fits the purpose of the additional runway - to handle
small general aviation aircraft - which fly mostly under VFR, daylight conditions. it also allows
for maximum utilization of the I LS on Runway 16/34 because of the flexibility allowed by
opposite direction operations. The Federal Aviation Administration ADO in Miami also indicated
that this would be a minimum separation based on their experiences at other airports in Florida
with close parallel runways.
Greater separations would provide additional advantages. For example, the 2,500-foot
separation would reduce wake turbulence as a problem which would be caused under certain
conditions by large aircraft operating on the existing runway while smaller aircraft were using
the new runway. Conditions when turbulence would be a problem would occur during calm
700
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
2,500
1
By letter of July 25, 1975, the FAA, Chief Airway Facilities Division has proposed a final ASR site as well as an
RT and RR site as shown on Exhibit 24.
GE NE RAL AVI ATI ON RUNWAY
SE PARATI ON
EXHI BI T 22
78
winds or with winds from the west and then only during simultaneous operations between large
and small aircraft. An examination of the frequency of these conditions occuring concurrently
indicates that this would be a situation which could easily be controlled by standard air traffic
control procedures and wake turbulence would not be a major derogating influence.
Greater separations than 2,500 feet would create increased flexibility in operational
procedures but at a greatly increased cost in additional land requirements and taxiway lengths,
and there is no great need for this additional flexibility. Therefore, it is concluded that the
new general aviation runway should be constructed parallel to the southern portion of Runway
16/34 and separated to the east by 1,400 feet. It was also concluded that the area to the
east of the new runway should be developed for general aviation use.
T e r mi n a l A r e a L oc a t i on
Simultaneously with the siting of the general aviation runway was the need to locate
a site for future development of the terminal area. 2 Based on the facility requirements program,
the 1995 terminal area would require about 80 acres. There were three logical choices for a
site large enough to accommodate the terminal area as shown on Exhibit 23. (The area of the
Scott Field retention basin (clay pit) was not considered since the basin is critical from an
environmental standpoint for the continued operation of the airport.)
The three sites were then analyzed by the use of a rating chart as shown in Table
32. A positive one (1) indicated a better feature, a zero (0) an equal feature and a negative
one (-1) a less desirable feature when all three sites were considered. From the results of the
rating chart, it was decided to expand the new terminal area at its present site. It is recognized
that all factors are not equal in weight, however, it was assumed that the site with the highest
rating would be superior to the other sites.
T A BL E 32
T E R M I N A L A R E A R A T I N G C HA R T
Ti T 2 13
New Land Required 1 0 0
Drainage 1 -1 0
Compatibility with off-airport land use 0 -1 0
Access 0 -1 0
Conflict with existing or planned on-airport
land uses and navaids 1 0 -1
Construction Staging Problems -1 1 1
Cost of Taxiwaysa 1 0 -1
Cost of Apronsb 1 0 0
Relocation of General Aviation -1 1 1
T ot a l
4 1 1
a Cost of new 75-foot wide air carrier taxiways and associated work cal-
culated at $14000/ft.
Cost of strengthened and widened existing taxiways and associated
work calculated at $90.00/ft.
Savings of taxiways costs for Ti over T2calculated at $300,000.
b Cost of general aviation apron calculated at $7.00 S. Y.
Cost of air carrier apron calculated at $18.00 S. Y.
Cost to replace existing air carrier apron $1,000,000.
Cost to replace existing general aviation aprons $500,000.
2Defined as the area required to handle commercial air passengers, air carrier aprons and associated features such
as parking, etc. as defined in Table 15- Terminal Area Requirements.
E : R M I N 4?. , L %, A R E A
R UN WA Y E XT E N S I O N
N E W T
I mP fp
TERMI N AL AREA LO CATI O N S
EXHI BI T 23
T e r mi n a l Bui ldi n g C on c e pt s
80
As stated in Section VI of the report, the existing terminal building is presently grossly
undersized and, even with the interior expansion now underway, the facility will not be adequate
in size as measured by industry-accepted standards. Further, the facility was not originally designed
or configured for expansion. A review of Tables 16 and 17 indicates that, within the next 20
years, an expansion of the existing 18,000 square feet to about 180,000 square feet should be
anticipated, a growth factor of 10.
To accomplish such growth, two alternatives are available: (1) develop a complete
new terminal concept and (2) develop a concept that allows gradual growth of the existing facility.
There are numerous terminal facility concepts in use today (see Appendix L ).
However, those concepts employing mechanical people-moving devices, remote aircraft parking
positions and individual processing for each parking position, are not suited to the characteristics
of Pensacola traffic because of the extremely high costs associated with developments of this
type.
After considerable discussion with the Airport Advisory Council, preliminary evaluation
of applicable concepts and initial range-of-costs estimates, it was determined that a unit terminal
approach would be the most acceptable and economical concept for Pensacola. Within the unit
terminal approach, several alternatives are possible. These include one level or two level airline
facilities and apron level or two level concourses for passenger loading.
These alternatives were evaluated by the Airport Advisory Council with the conclusion
that the concept should consist of two one-level passenger processing buildings, each serving six
gate positions in combination with a two-level amenities and service building placed between the
two passenger units. The possibility of future second level loading was considered. It was
concluded that if future traffic and economic growth warranted this provision could be
incorporated into the concept.
PART 2 - T HE P L A N
T he C on c e pt P la n
Based upon the decisions made, a concept for long-range airport development was
structured. This is shown in Exhibit 24. The principal features of the plan are:
N W
Extended boundaries off the east and west ends of Runway 7-25; the south end of
Runway 16-34; the vicinity of proposed McAllister Blvd.; and in the east quadrant
toward proposed Old Spanish Trail.
Both major runways have been extended. Runway 16-34 to 8000 feet by adding
1000 feet to the southward and 7-25 to 7100 feet by adding 1100 feet to the east
end. Both runways have extended safety overruns at each end.
General aviation has been relocated to the east of Runway 16-34 with adequate
facilities for Fixed Base Operations and a separated area for T-hangars and based aircraft
tie down.
Air carrier taxiways and exits have been widened to 75-foot width and fillets added.
Existing taxiway exits to terminal will be sufficient to serve the terminal area.
Gr ei ner ei g neer i ng Sci ences .
C O N S UL T I N G E N G I N E E R S T A M P A . FL O R I DA
CO N CEP T P LAN
P EN 4 ACO LA REGI O N AL AI RP O RT
G R A P HI C S C A L E I N FE E T
EXHI BI T 24
82
A 3600-foot by 75-foot general aviation runway is conveniently located to the general
aviation area. A general aviation taxiway system serves both the new general aviation
runway and the major runway complex.
Lease plots for executive and corporate hangars are shown on the north side of Runway
7-25 toward the east end.
The terminal area has been redeveloped in accordance with the decision to go to
a unit terminal concept.
The Federal Aviation Administration facilities have been expanded and the ASR facility
has been added.
The airport entrance road has been relocated to connect with proposed Airport
Boulevard and airport access from College Boulevard has been cut off. Twelfth Avenue
has been relocated and joins Tippin Avenue to provide additional access to the airport.
McAllister Boulevard is developed and connects into completed Old Spanish Trail.
Access to the general aviation area is provided for by two connections with Old Spanish
Trail, and an internal service/access road to the passenger terminal area.
Drainage on the airport has been supplemented by a series of landscaped drainage
retention ponds, which eventually drain into the major retention pond (clay pit).
Three new possible park or recreational sites have been shown and the existing
recreational area just east of Tippin Avenue has been retained.
These features are explained in more detail in the remainder of this section. The
geometric layout of the Plan and navaids are shown in Exhibit 25.
T he T e r mi n a l A r e a
Exhibit 26 depicts the concept terminal area as it would be at the end of the forecast
period.
Primary access to the passenger facilities is from the entrance parkway connecting
to Airport Boulevard and Twelfth Avenue. This parkway is unidirectional with bypass lanes in
front of the terminal facilities and a return connector so that complete circulation -around the
parking facilities and terminal area is provided.
The parking facilities are divided into short-term and long-term lots. The total number
of parking spaces are in accordance with projections based upon the terminal area surveys reported
in Appendix F. Ready rental cars are provided spaces in front of each of the two terminal
units and lease plots for rental car agencies are provided along the north side of the terminal
area.
Service vehicles would use the designated service road which ties into the main entrance
road.
The existing fuel farm area has been expanded so that the airlines would have adequate
area for expansion of fuel storage.
L 3
-7
R UN WA Y A P P R O A C H DA T A
MO O
,
i L
r n staysow.
< il
N
AN
COMMERCIAL AVIATION/
NOM COMMERCIAL AVIATION
TERMINAL
AREA
A CZ
0 0-i
z
H
<
).
.
g
MOT,
0 T. Mod. 1
111n
Plea
Flael Yews,* 16 11 n
01n by ! N G.. Molar .
111 WW1.
14 11.1
11 n of f s *. n n n
n of pi Th y 1 n .17aollorol
n n by I LOA t t e 1 1 0.
#1104
eismoos
N/ " "
A 130A A A 1144,
14
I C S C A L E I N FE U
RT SITE
e
/\
<i
NNN
l;
,P
4''' \ N,/ -1,..
/ 0
\
\/
444-NI /
I .
T - -
C
\ A /P M A N I T .
' ..i t EN` tAI=. - 9:AiR . STORAGE
/PLOTS \
6-`
TRUCK
APRON
*
CE ROAD
. 7r
:
COURT
TUG
APRON
ti 04
45.
,Sks,
t`
t t 61
12
/ T E R M I N A L
N T R A N C E 2
fRAL
A4ENITIES
ULD
04$8Y,
,
SERV. CT.
FUEL
TRUCK C
L
4
AIRCRAFT APRON AIRCRAFTAPRON
(
TE RMI NAL ARE ACONCE PT
(ULTI MATE DE VE LOPME NT)
EXHI BI T 26
85
A plot has been provided for a new airport maintenance facility for the airport. This
facility would house airport vehicles, provide space for airport operations and maintenance
personnel and a yard for storage of material.
The cargo facility has been removed from the passenger terminal area to a location
where expansion could take place and a cargo apron could be constructed, if needed.
The Federal Aviation Administration facility has been shown in its expanded form
for the inclusion of the TRACON facilities.
Future employees parking is provided for the area now occupied by the airport
maintenance facility (old fire station).
The Army Reserve area has been retained.
Lease plots have been provided for non-aviation commercial facilities, such as a motel,
office facilities, etc.
The terminal facilities provide for 12 aircraft parking positions (gates).
Fire and rescue services would continue to be provided from the two existing stations
off the ends of Runway 16-34.
T he T e r mi n a l
Exhibits 27 and 28 depict the ultimate development of the terminal building.
In the concept, as here presented, each of the two airlines now serving the airport
would be prime tenants of the two airline unit buildings. Should additional airlines be certificated
to serve the area, they would share a unit with a prime tenant.
Each airline unit building would contain one-half of the airline processing space as
set forth on Table 17.
As shown by the section at the lower part of Exhibit 27, the ticket counter and
bag claim area of the airline units would be at ground level. The concourse to the aircraft
waiting area would have a slight ramp upwards so that the waiting area would be at aircraft
floor height. This would allow passengers to enter the aircraft directly through a loading device,
if the use of these devices were economically justifiable at the time.
Toilet facilities and amenities for waiting passengers are provided in the waiting area
and security checks are performed at the top of the ramp section of the concourse.
Within the unit buildings, the maximum walking distance from curb to enplanement
is about 500 feet.
Located centrally between the two airline unit buildings is an amenities building. This
facility would house the airport restaurant, cocktail lounge, news/gifts and other concessions as
well as toilet facilities and lobby seating.
MN
T E R M I N A L C UR BS I DE
,
N O TE:
Secondlevel loadi ng s h owni ns ecti on.
Bui ldi ng lay out adoptable toei th er
f i r s t or s econdlevel loadi ng at concour s e.
S E C T I O N
BUI LDI N G P LAN AN D SECTI O N
CO N CEP T
EXHI BI T 27
srf`ek rt\ 1
tniV
tt
1
(1.414)
0
P ERSP ECTI VE VI EW CO N CEP T
PE NSACOLARE GI ONALAI RP O RT
EXHI BI T 28
88
A second level in this building would house the airport management offices, plus office
lease space.
Mechanical facilities, communications equipment and storage rooms would be provided
in the basement of this building to serve the terminal complex.
The complex would be linked together with a pleasant enclosed passageway with
landscaped courtyards on the airfield side.
This concept allows for expansion beyond the forecast period by providing space at
each end of the unit airline terminals. Additional baggage claim units and additional ticket counter
space could be added as needed.
P A R T 3 - L A N D US E A N D A C C E S S
L a n d Us e C on t r ols
A critical factor in determining the success of the program planned for the airport
involves the control and regulation of land in the airport's environs. This factor is critical because
of the need to regulate heights of structures and control other hazards to air navigation, to minimize
the negative environmental impact of aircraft on surrounding areas, and to provide protection
for public and private property.
There are several approaches to regulate land in the airport environs: (1) purchase
of fee simple title to land and its conversion to compatible uses; (2) purchase of avigation
easements; and (3) airport district zoning. It is concluded that in the case of Pensacola a
combination of the three methods would create a compatible airport - community environment.
P ur c ha s e of Fe e S i mple
This is the most effective and certainly the most expensive method to control land.
However, for close-in areas which receive high levels of aircraft noise and are critical to aircraft
operations this method is mandatory. In recognition of these facts the Federal Aviation
Administration has established guidelines for the purchase of land which is eligible for Federal
assistance. The application of these guidelines for Pensacola is shown on Exhibit 29 . A comparison
of these gui deli nes to the hi gh noi s e zones (N EF 4 -0) 3 forecasted i n Secti on VI I shows that
substantially all this area is enclosed within the FAA eligible land or is presently owned by the
a i r por t .
P ur c ha s e of A vi g a t i on E a s e me n t s
Purchase of fee simple as described above requires that the land be taken off the
tax roles and converted to a compatible use. This is normally not a serious problem for areas
that are not developed, but for many areas around the airport this is not the case and this approach
would require the displacement of businesses, residences and other uses. Purchase of easements
provide an acceptable alternative.
3 Land not suitable for residential construction.
L E G E N D
F A A Detsfreabbs sabeeearnis v000kt i n g
C le de e I I WO . rah4lt 41.1
M M V e un a ha i i li a n a r dor M a da e pa le bad diir Alba
Saleadaphoe* .c// n gopo.
*pp.. Isnate .100 . -0 MOKI nCOO. 41 Poet If?
rope: .eaeve -asistiho Woo.,
LAND .AEEI blI SSTI O N
E-11, Lead a br . a
dbableaadallia,dmellalnee
sobaanaeby vaesall and ob. dlamal
-bel elbiolead *NW be
Lend sehua.o.ebaenbelle Nesse lad shadd
,b0- (111(01. -4ONM71. lend should be
sabsequesal,pavelsmit
Lawd-wheauleolasaaas a dweloped but winch would
-bs-elyialeundas *AA Tho land should be
,emeshmed . dlesosb asaphon weaves obtained a
.it beam*. mode lle . Each parcel would have to be
* am by car boas.
Mose lel All property babbler. are
MM0 and should be used as
qt... only
IP Any bro. larol purchaseWasetnenl
policy shot. be punt. in
conomonon with an arport environs
aon. and land use plan
IMIEFEE
pE rgE 5t-,
Gr ei ner Eng i neer i ng Sdences ,
,i/MAIMPHIC SC ALE IN *Ear
CO N SULTI N GEN GI N EERSTAMP A, FLO RI DA/
P RO P ERTY ACQUI SI TI O N
EXHI BI T 29
90
The purchase of easements over property could establish maximum heights for
structures on the pr ope r t y, eliminate other potential hazards to navigation (lights, smoke,
interference to radio and navigational signals), insure the right of aircraft to fly over or near
the property without fear of legal action due to noise impact or potential safety hazards and
prevent the conversion of the property to uses which may be more incompatible than their existing
use. An alternate method would be the actual purchase of the property and then the sell-back
of the property on the open market with restrictive covenants in the deeds which would contain
the same provisions as the easements.
Although this method would not completely solve the problems, it would prevent
them from becoming worse, alert potential buyers of the impact of the airport, compensate owners
for the "indirect taking" of the property by action of the airport and would not relocate massive
numbers of people and businesses.
A i r por t District Zon i n g
As can be seen in Exhibit 19 of the environmental study, the impact of aircraft noise
will extend some 3 miles from the end of the runways for the NEF 30 contour. Obviously
this entire area would be financially impossible to purchase and, in addition, is not as critical
as land within the NEF 40 contour from an environmental standpoint. However, consideration
should be given to minimize this impact and to eliminate hazards to air navigation.
Recognizing that zoning is not retroactive and is subject to many limitations, it still
appears to be a feasible way to achieve the goal of compatibility between the airport and its
neighbors in the areas not directly purchased.
The zoning ordinance should be structured to accomplish the two goals of
environmental compatibility and safety in air navigation, based upon two different zones. The
first would encompass the area within the 30 NEF contour as shown on Exhibit 19 and the
second Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR Part 77) which define areas critical to air navigation
and establish surfaces which should not be penetrated by ground objects.
Land uses in the 30 NEF contour should be limited to areas of commercial, industrial,
recreational or agricultural uses. Residential uses and places of public assembly should be
discouraged in this area.
L a n d Us e P r ot e c t i on s S t r a t e g y
It is recommended that the City pursue the following course of action to insure
compatibility between the airport and its neighbors:
1. City should purchase fee simple title to the land indicated on Exhibit 29. For
purposes of staging and financial feasibility, the area has been broken down into two phases.
Realistically, the land should be purchased as it becomes available and as funds permit.
2. The City should establish a revolving fund to purchase land and then resell subject
to easements or covenants to insure compatibility for land shown on Exhibit 29 or for other
parcels of critical concern. This revolving fund should be designed and administered to be
substantially self-sufficient after an initial investment by the City.
91
3. In union with the County, an Airport District Zoning Ordinance for noise
abatement and protection of public and private property should be established. This cooperation
between City and County is essential since the impact of the Airport - both beneficial and negative
- is shared by both jurisdictions. The County could take an approach similar to that used to
zone around the University of West Florida. Recent legislation passed in the State of Florida
mandates land-use zoning around airports. It is recommended that the existing joint City-County
zoning committee for height adjacent to the airport be reviewed and its duties expanded to cover
land use zoning also.
LandUs e P lan
Planning for the land on the airport attempts to achieve two basic objectives -
maximization of use of the site for air transportation and compatibility between the airport and
its environs. As shown on Exhibit 30, areas have been established for air carrier operations
and related facilities, for general aviation, non-commercial operations, navaids and drainage areas.4
In addition, large areas have been reserved for buffet' zones or green belts along the airport
boundaries. Areas off the ends of Runways 7, 25 and 34 could be developed as low density
recreational uses or as wooded park sites. The only restrictions would be that the land remain
under control of the airport and that development be guided by the fact of the proximity of
the runways (substantially noise and height limitations).
Off-airport land use planning (and zoning) should reinforce the concepts outlined herein
and consider the important role aviation plays in the community and the tremendous cost of
the investment the City has in the airport. It should be recognized that airports "lie at the
crossing of two systems, to each of which they belong: the air transportation system and the
urban system. To keep the elements of the two systems in balance is the secret of airport
planning."5
Acces s
Access to the airport has revolved around the existing road network and on-going
plans to expand this system. It is recommended that Airport Boulevard (Kilbee Lane) be
constructed as a 5-lane road to provide the needed access into the terminal area. This would
permit closing of College Boulevard at 12th Avenue and remove most of the traffic through
the campus after completion of the rest of airport access road system. The 12th Avenue and
Tippin Avenue project should be constructed to help relieve congestion on 9th Avenue especially
from the north and to clear the extended runway safety area for Runway 7. Old Spanish Trail
as presently proposed by the Florida Department of Transportation will be adequate to serve
the general aviation area.
Bayou Boulevard and especially 9th Avenue will continue to carry most of the
north-south traffic to the airport. For this reason the feasibility of the interchange at 9th and
Interstate 10 should be examined. This interchange has been much discussed for several years
and a definite decision should be made as to its feasibility and need before the right-of-way
is lost.
Tippin Avenue, McAllister Boulevard and Old Spanish Trail when built will provide
a continuous perimeter road around the airport with 12th and Summit Boulevard. Proposed
access roads and the internal airport circulation system are shown on Exhibit 24, Concept Plan,
and Exhibit 30, Land Use.
4 Drainage for the airport was designed to insure an adequate system which would provide for retention and
seepage basins on the airport and eliminate runoff problems from the airport.
5 International Civil Aviation Organization, Manual on Airport Master Planning (Montreal, Canada: ICAO, 1969),
p. xii.
;$.
-

i f f
L E G E N D
A I R FI E L D
1 T E R M I N A L A R E A
C O M M E R C I A L A VI A T I O N
N O N -C O M M E R C I A L A VI A T I O N 1\ \ "1
O P E N S P A C E /G R E E N BE L T
A I R P O R T O P E R A T I O N S
A I R P O R T R O A DS
s =i amma P E R I M E T E R
LAN D USE
1 1 1 1 1 1 A I M I C 'C A L I FP I P UT
EXHI BI T 30
C r e ln e r E n g n e e t i qS de n c e s . ki c
C I S WdI T I US S G M I UN S S A M R O M
S E C T I O N I X
S T A G I N G A N D FI N A N C I N G
P A R T 1 - C A P I T A L I M P R O VE M E N T S A N D S T A G I N G
9 3
The major value of long-term planning is to insure that adequate provisions have been
made for growth and that land use is organized in such a fashion that any expenditures for
capital improvements will become part of a long-term development. It is not practical, nor is
it necessary, to complete all improvements shown in the plan in one program. In fact, under
one of the goals stipulated by the Airport Advisory Council (to develop the airport facilities
to be self-supporting), it would be financially impossible to undertake one massive improvement
program for the 20-year requirements. Recognizing this fact, it has been a sound policy of the
City to construct new airport facilities only as activity demand proves the economic benefit of
making such improvements. It is, however, possible to establish a series of priorities and within
the framework of the forecasts to set these forth in staging programs each of approximately
five years duration.
It should also be pointed out that in using a theory of constructing new facilities
only when demand proves the need, periodic reviews of both the overall plan and the individual
projects in any stage must be made. The City has performed major studies in the past at
approximately five-year intervals and this practice should continue. This will insure that any
new technological changes will be fully considered as airport development progresses.
In general, the investigative work undertaken for this study indicated that priorities
should be established as follows:
1. Insure that all airfield elements are adequate and provide for safe, reliable aircraft
operations.
2. Provide safe, secure and comfortable facilities for the users of the airport.
3. Acquire land as required to assure against incompatible land-use encroachment
and provide noise buffer zones.
4. Expand facilities as required to meet activity demands.
Under this general priority list, 1 it is possible to outline improvement programs for
the stages, consistent with the financial capability to implement the programs. The following
paragraphs set forth the programs on this basis:
Fi r s t S t a g e I mpr ove me n t s (1 9 75-1 9 80) (S e e E x hi bi t 31 )
Overlay both runways and all taxiways, widen taxiways, as required, provide extended
safety overrun areas all runways.
Construct new airfield lighting vault.
Overhaul high intensity runway edge lights Runway 16-34.
Install VASI and REIL systems at thresholds to Runways 7, 25 and REIL Runway
34.
Improve the airfield drainage system.
7Possible changes in funding capability of either the city, state or federal governments may create the necessity
of delaying certain actions until funding is available. However, the sequencing of development action should re-
mah, C ht n i
L a A c qui s
Upg r a de E x i s t i n g HI R L
N e w T a x i wa ys
qui s i t i on
e n de d -Hu
a n A c qui s i t i on
SACRED
HEART
HOSPITAL
L a n A c Ui s i t
STAGE I DEVELO P MEN T
S i t e c qui s i t i on
L a n d A c qui s i t n
S ur plus L a n d
s S t y A r e a
s )('
N e w VA S I -4 & R E I L
N e w C omme r c i a l A vi a t i on A r e a
L a n d A
G ods e pd mod
G R A P HI C S C A L E I N FE E T
EXHI BI T 31
95
Acquire additional land.
Construct new general aviation area including taxiways, access road, aprons and utilities.
Relocate general aviation facilities to new site.
Complete interim terminal building improvements.
At the same time the City is undertaking this program, the relocation of 12th Avenue
and the completion of Airport Boulevard should occur. In addition, Old Spanish Trail must
be open prior to the relocation of the general aviation facilities. Concurrently, the Federal Aviation
Administration intends to move the TRACON facilities to the airport. This requires an expansion
to the Air Traffic Control building and the addition of ASR radar to the field.
The total 1975 dollar cost of the programs set forth for Stage 1 have been estimated
to be $7,989,250. Under the existing ADAP program of the federal government, $5,328,937
of this cost could come from the federal government and an additional $886,403 could come
from Florida State Grants-in-Aid. The City share would then be $1,773,910 including the current
terminal expansion project. The cost estimates are set forth in Table 332
S e c on d S t a g e I mpr ove me n t s (1 9 80-1 9 85) (S e e E x hi bi t s 32 a n d 33)
Complete first increments of new terminal facilities.
Construct new airport entrance parkway and expand parking lots.
Construct new general aviation runway and extend taxiway.
Install I LS and MALSR on Runway 7.
Construct airport maintenance facility.
Continue Land Acquisition Program.
Expand general aviation facilities and executive hangars as required.
Complete overlayment of air carrier runway/taxiway system.
Install basic improvement components of CAT II lighting system (touchdown and
centerline lights) for Runway 16-34 in conjunction with runway overlay.
From Exhibit 33, it will be noted that the intermediate terminal development would
consist of constructing the central amenities building and connecting it with the existing terminal
by an enclosed passage. Since the new building would house the restaurant, kitchen and amenities,
the duplicate facilities in the existing building would no longer be used.
2It is suggested by the Airport Advisory Council that if funding is limited, the following items could be delayed to
the latter part of Stage 1 or even into Stage 2.
a. Overlay of Runway 25 including the widening of its taxiways may be delayed.
b. General Aviation facilities and relocation effort may be postponed.
T A BL E 33
96
E S T I M A T E D P R O JE C T C O S T S - FI R S T S T A G E I M P R O VE M E N T S
P E N S A C O L A R E G I O N A L A I R P O R T (1 9 75 DO L L A R VA L UE )
I t e m
T ot a l
C os t
FA A
E li g i ble
S t a t e 's
S ha r e
S pon s or 's
S ha r e
L a n d A c qui s i t i on (380 A c r e s ) $2, 250, 000 $1 , 687, 500 $281 , 250 $281 , 250
A i r fi e ld C on s t r uc t i on
Overlay RAN 16-34 625,800 469,350 78,225 78,225
Overlay & Widen RAN 16-34
Taxiway System 607,500 455,625 75,937 75,938
Overlay R/W 7-25 550,500 412,875 68,812 68,813
Overlay & Widen RAN 7-25
Taxiway System 589,800 442,350 73,725 73,725
Extend RYW End Safety Areas 18,000 13,500 2,250 2,250
New Airfield Lighting Vault 38,000 28,500 4,750 4,750
VASI & R El LS for RAN's 7,
25 & 34 168,000 126,000 21,000 21,000
Airfield Surveillance Radar By Others --- --- ---
Upgrade HI R L on RAN 16-34 30,000 24,600 2,700 2,700
General Aviation Taxiways 210,900 158,175 26,362 26,362
S ub T ot a l 2, 838, 500 2, 1 30, 9 75 353, 761 353, 763
T e r mi n a l A r e a C on s t r uc t i on
Interim Expansion of Existing
Terminal 500,000 500,000
Expansion of FAA Tower By Others --- ---
S ub T ot a l 500, 000 --- 500,000
One 10-unit T-hangar 150,000 --- --- 150,000
Site Preparation, Aprons 577,400 433,050 72,175 72,175
Relocation of Existing FBO
Facilities 288,500 216,375 36,062 36,063
S ub T ot a l 1 , 1 1 5, 9 00 649 , 425 1 08, 237 258, 238
R oa ds
Access Roads to General
Aviation Area 37,500 28,125 4,687 4,688
Relocation of 12th Avenue By Others --- ---
Airport Blvd. By Others --- ---
_ _ _
Spanish Trail By Others
S ub T ot a l 37, 500 28, 1 25 4, 687 4, 688
M i s c e lla n e ous
Area Drainage System 94,500 70,875 11,812 11,813
Security Fencing 45,000 33,750 5,625 5,625
Water Distribution to General
Aviation Facilities 30,000 --- 30,000
Sanitary Sewers to General
Aviation Facilities 40,000 --- --- 40,000
S ub T ot a l 209 , 500 1 04, 625 1 7, 437 87, 438
T ot a l C on s t r uc t i on L e s s L a n d $4, 601 , 400 $2, 9 1 3, 1 50 $484, 1 23 $1 , 204, 1 27
Administrative Engineering,
Legal & Contingencies 1,137,850 728,287 121,030 288,533
T ot a l C on s t r uc t i on (L e s s L a n d) $5, 739 , 250 $3, 641 , 437 $605, 1 53 $1 , 49 2, 660
T O T A L P R O JE C T $7, 9 89 , 250 $5, 328, 9 37 $886, 403 $1 , 773, 9 1 0
aDoes not include Land or Easements Purchased under Land Revolving Fund
bPresently under construction
L a n d A c qui s i t i on
"N I
AOnfr-
Alop At '14%, ,11.-
4 1"
E-
i f f
I L S L oc
F. B. O . E x pa n s i on
ys t e m
L a n d A c qui s i t i on
SA CRED
11 H64 R
HOSPITAL
STAGE I I DE VE LOPME NT
Geller Bi g neer I ng Sci ences .I nc
C O N S UL T I N G I T I G I N I E N S T A M S FL O W
SOAILSs w rteiE/T
EXHI BI T 32
R T S I T E
T A XI WA Y
C A R
/ /
<
/
NN/
. 04
S T 1 R A G E
P O T S
CENTRAL
A M E N I T I E S
BL DG .
SE RV.
CT.
A I R C R A FT A P R O . N
R E N T A L
L E /S E
xoo.
I N TERMEDI ATE (STAGE 2)
TERMI N AL AREA CO N CEP T
PE NSACOLARE GI ONALAI RPORT
EXHI BI T 33
99
There are several possible alternatives at this point as to what to do with the existing
terminal in order to expand usable passenger space. One would be to strip out the
restaurant/kitchen facilities and move baggage claim from the area now being created in the new
interim building program into the vacated space. This would allow the space now programmed
for baggage claim lobby area to be used for additional enplaning passenger departure lounge.
A second alternative would be to relocate the ticket counters and baggage make-up
into the existing dining/kitchen area and move baggage claim into the present ticket counter
area.
A third alternative would be to demolish the dining/kitchen area and construct a new
ticket counter wing as the start of a replacement building for the existing terminal.
The intent in this phase of development is to utilize the interim improvements now
under construction throughout the useful life.
Other terminal area improvements foreseen for this stage are the relocation of the
cargo area and construction of a new building.
The total 1975 dollar cost of all items except for the terminal has been estimated
to be $4,466,813, under the existing ADAP program $2,998,712 could come from Federal
Grants-in-Aid, and $487,149 could come from Florida State Grants-in-Aid. The City share would
be $980,901, as shown on Table 34.
The total project cost estimated for the terminal area for this stage as shown on
Table 36 is $3,929,750. Of this amount, the City share is estimated at $3,757,266.
Combined with the other Stage 2 costs from Table 34, the total City share for the
1980-1985 improvements would be $4,738,167.
Ult i ma t e S t a g e I mpr ove me n t s (1 9 85-1 9 9 5) (S e e E x hi bi t 34)
Extend runways and taxiways.
Relocate navaids as required by runway extensions.
Additional taxiways to increase airfield circulation.
Construct internal service road.
Expand terminal facilities.
Expand general aviation.
Upgrade Runway 16 I LS from CAT I to CAT II.
T A BL E 34
100
E S T I M A T E D P R O JE C T C O S T - S E C O N D S T A G E I M P R O VE M E N T S
Item
T ot a l
C os t
FAA
E li g i ble
State's
Share
Sponsor's
Share
L a n d A c qui s i t i on (200 A c r e s ) $1,200,000 $900,000 $150,000 $150,000
New Runway 16L-34R 244,200 183,150 30,525 30,525
MALSR Runway 7 By Others --- --- ---
CAT I Instrumentation R/W 7 By Others --

Overlay Runway 16R-34L 339,900 254,925 42,487 42,488
Overlay R/W 16R-34L T/W System 154,000 115,500 19,250 19,250
Overlay Runway 7-25 291,000 218,250 36,375 36,375
Overlay R/W 7-25 Taxiway System 152,000 114,000 19,000 19,000
Touchdown and C/L Lights
(CAT II), Runway 16 216,750 177,735 19,507 19,508
S ub T ot a l 1,578,950 1,199,760 1 89 , 844 189,846
Additional Sites and Aprons 100,000 75,000 12,500 12,500
R oa ds
Terminal Area Road Network 452,800 339,600 56,600 56,600
Graphics 25,000 --- --- 25,000
S ub T ot a l 477, 800 339,600 56,600 81,600
Expansion of Area Drainage
System 37,400 28,050 4,675 4,675
Relocate Rental Cars 120,000 ---
_ _ _
120,000
Airport Maintenance Facilities 250,000 --- --- 250,000
S ub T ot a l 456, 200 64,650 10,775 380,775
T ot a l C on s t r uc t i on L e s s L a n d $2, 61 3, 450 $1,679,010 $269,719 $664,721
Administration, Engineering,
Legal and Contingencies 653,363 419,752 67,430 166,180
T ot a l P r oj e c t (L e s s L a n d) $3, 266, 81 3 $2, 09 8, 762 $337,149 $830,901
T O T A L P R O JE C T $4, 466, 1 83 $2, 9 9 8, 762 $487, 1 49 $980,901
NOTE: See Table 36 and 37for terminal area costs.
Within this stage, it is anticipated that the second airline terminal building, apron
and related facilities would be constructed. Exhibit 35 depicts the terminal area as it might appear
upon completion of the second unit but prior to complete rebuilding of the existing unit. However,
as traffic demand dictates, toward the end of the ultimate planning stage, the existing unit might
be completely rebuilt and the terminal area completed as shown on Exhibit 36.
The total costs for this stage, excluding terminal expansion, are estimated to be
$2,420,869 in 1975 dollar values, as shown on Table 35. Of this amount, the City share would
be $299,450 under current ADAP and State programs.
0
\A,
e r c i a l A vi i on E x
C omme r c i a l A vi a t i on E x pa n s i on
E x pa n s i on
N e w T a x i wa y
r i me t e r . , $e r vi R oa d
(T r e e s T o R e m -P os s i ble P a r k S i t e
e ma i n -
/
s s i ble P a r k
ULTI MATE DEVELO P MEN T P LAN
C oe ln e r E n g n e e r i n DS de n c e s , I n c .
C O N S UL T I N G E N G I N E E R S T A N K FL O R I DA
60 n 1 4. 1 1 1 1 1 4 S C A L . E M k
EXHI BI T 34
RT SITE
TERMINAL
NTRANCE
GATE
LOBBY
N
40
0))
iN
404
N./ \
0+ N/ /f /N
N
-.;
N\
NN /
N
N \
N.
44
4
4-
N N.A N
\ 41 N
REN AL CAR XA/P P A A I N T .
/ LEASEPLOTS \
C
CENTRAL
AMENITIES
BLDG.
SE RV
CT.
FUEL
TRUCK
.--SERVICE C
AIR CRAFT APRON
AIRCRAFT APRON
C
TAXIWAY
r ULTI MATE (P HASE 1)
loo.
00' 30 0
EXHI BI T 35
+ 4 .
R T S I T E
44.
A /P M A I N T .
A L C A : a : R A -G E
L E A S E I P L O T S
T R UC K N z_
A P R O N
C O UR T
T UG
A P R O N
P A R KI N G
C '')
;4 4 '
S HO R
A R
G A T E
L O BBY
C E N T R A L
A M E N I T I E S
S L O G .
S E R V. C T .
FUE L
T R UC K C
A I R C R A FT A P R O N A I R C R A FT A P R
O . ---
T A XI WA Y
HA.
ULTI MATE (P HASE 2)
EXHI BI T 36
104
T A BL E 35
E S T I M A T E D P R O JE C T C O S T S - UL T I M A T E S T A G E I M P R O VE M E N T S
T ot a l
C os t
A DA P
E li g i ble
S t a t e 's
S ha r e
S pon s or 's
S ha r e
Extension of R/W 34L with Taxiways $700,900 $525,675 $ 87,612 $ 87,613
Extension of R/W 25 with Taxiways 723,100 542,325 190,387 90,388
Relocate VASI and REI LS R/W's
34L, 25 38,000 28,500 4,750 4,750
New Taxiways 112,000 84,000 14,000 14,000
Upgrade R/W 16 I LS to CAT II 72,295 59,280 6,507 6,508
S ub T ot a l 1 , 646, 259 1 , 239 , 780 203, 256 203, 259
Additional Sites and Aprons 100,000 75,000 12,500 12,500
R oa ds
Airport Perimeter Road 167,900 125,925 20,987 20,988
T ot a l C on s t r uc t i on C os t s 1 , 9 36, 69 5 1 , 457, 580 239 , 555 239 , 560
Administration, Engineering,
Legal and Contingencies 484,174 364,395 59,890 59,890
T ot a l P r oj e c t C os t s $ 2, 420, 869 $1 , 821 , 9 75 $29 9 , 445 $ 29 9 , 450
NOTE: See Tables 36 and 37for terminal area costs.
The terminal expansion for this stage is estimated to be $5,163,750 as shown on
Table 36. The City share of the costs would be $3,831,891. The total City share of the Ultimate
Stage Improvements would then be $4,131,341.
S umma r y of S t a g i n g P r og r a ms
The staging programs for the airport have been set forth in accordance with the
priorities listed at the beginning of this section. Emphasis is placed upon maximizing aviation
safety in line with short-term traffic demands and then undertaking programs to reestablish land-use
patterns and acquire land to protect the airport for long-range development.
A particular concept for terminal expansion was selected by the Advisory Committee
because it allows for expansion of facilities while taking full advantage of improvements now
being made. Obviously, as additional terminal expansion is required, the concept must be refined
and coordinated with the tenants and users of the facilities. Flexibility is inherent in the concept
and insofar as possible, the staging of improvements has been set forth in a logical sequence,
consistent with the forecasts.
For more ease in comparing the cost estimates for the various stages, Table 38 combines
the individual staging estimates.
vow
T A BL E 36
T E R M I N A L A R E A C O S T S
105
I N T E R I M (S T A G E 1)
Interim Improvements to Existing Terminal
(ongoing) $ 500,000
I N T E R M E DI A T E (S T A G E 2)
Site Preparation $15,000
Air Carrier Aprons 142,700
Automobile Parking 165,100
Landscaping 50,000
Cargo Terminal 210,000
Terminal Buildingb 2,561,000
S ub T ot a l $3, 1 43, 800
Contingencies, Engineering, Legal and
Administrative 785,950
T ot a l $3, 9 29 , 750
FAA's Share (Site Preparation and
Aprons) $147,844
State's Share (Site Preparation and
Aprons) 24,640
Sponsor's Share 3,757,266
UL T I M A T E S T A G E S (P HA S E 1 & 2)
Site Preparation $10,000
Air Carrier Aprons 1,117,700
Automobile Parking 240,100
Landscaping 50,000
Cargo Terminal & Aprons 240,000
Terminal Buildingb 2,473,200
S ub T ot a l $4, 1 31 , 000
Contingencies, Engineering, Legal and
Administrative 1,032,750
T ot a l $5, 1 63, 750
FAA's Share (Site Preparation and
Aprons) $1,141,594
State's Share 190,265
Sponsor's Share 3,831,891
G R A N D T O T A L S P O N S O R 'S S HA R E - A L L S T A G E S $8, 089 , 1 57
aDoes not include area drainage and relocation of 12th Avenue
b See Breakdown of Terminal Building Costs next sheet.
T A BL E 37
T E R M I N A L BUI L DI N G C O S T S
I N T E R I M (S T A G E 1 )
Expand Existing Terminal $ 500,000
I N T E R M E DI A T E (S T A G E 2)
Central Amenities Building 2,061,000
Expansion and Renovation of Existing Terminal 500,000
T ot a l (L e s s O pt i on s ) $2, 561 , 000
UL T I M A T E S T A G E (P HA S E 1 & 2)
Additional Single Level Concourse and Unit 1,973,200
Optional Cost for Elevated Concourse and Hold Rooms (250,100)
Optional Cost for Provision of Future Elevated Concourse (83,400)
Expansion and Renovation of Existing Terminal Building 500,000
T ot a l (L e s s O pt i on s )
$2, 473, Z00
r t A all%eer A 1
ti cc,la nes .
106
T A BL E 38
E S T I M A T E D P R O JE C T C O S T S - S UM M A R Y
P E N S A C O L A R E G I O N A L A I R P O R T (1 9 75 DO L L A R VA L UE S )
1 s t
S t a g e
2n d
S t a g e
Ult i ma t e
S t a g e T ot a l
A i r fi e ld I mpr ove me n t s
Runway Strengthening $1,176,300 $ 630,900 $ 1,807,200
Taxiway Strengthen & Widen 1,197,300 306,000 1,503,300
Extend. Safety Overruns 18,000 --- 18,000
Lengthen Runways & Taxiways --- --- 1,424,000 1,424,000
Runway Lighting 30,000 216,750 72,295 319,045
Lighting Vault 38,000 --- --- 38,000
Navaids 168,000 --- 38,000 206,000
General Aviation Runway --- 244,200 --- 244,200
2, 838, 500 1 , 579 , 450 1 , 646, 29 5 6, 064, 245
T e r mi n a l I mpr ove me n t s
New Buildings 2,061,000 1,973,200 4,034,200
Existing Building 500,000 500,000 500,000 1,500,000
Aprons 175,700 1,127,700 1,288,400
Roads 477,800 --- 477,800
Cargo Buildings & Aprons 210,000 240,000 450,000
Furnishings & Landscaping 50,000 50,000 100,000
Parking Lots 165,100 240,100 405,200
500, 000 3, 621 , 600 4, 1 31 , 000 8, 252, 600
G e n e r a l A vi a t i on I mpr ove me n t
Relocation of Facilities 438,500 438,500
Site Development 577,400 100,000 100,000 777,400
1 , 01 5, 9 00 1 00, 000 1 00, 000 1 , 21 5, 9 00
R oa ds
Access 37,500 37,500
Internal
167,900 167,900
37, 500 1 67, 9 00 205, 400
M i s c e lla n e ous I mpr ove me n t s
Drainage 94,500 37,400 131,900
Water Distribution 30,000 --- 30,000
Sanitary Sewage 40,000
40,000
Relocations 120,000 120,000
Maintenance Facilities 250,000 250,000
209 , 500 456, 200 22, 500 688, 200
4,601,400 5,757,250 6,068,695 16,427,345
Contingencies 460,140 575,725 606,870 1,642,735
5, 061 , 540 6, 332, 9 75 6, 675, 575 1 8, 060, 080
Administrative, Engineering,
Test & Legal 677,710 863,588 910,054 2,451,352
T ot a l C on s t r uc t i on P r oj e c t $5, 739 , 250 $7, 1 9 6, 563 $7, 585, 61 9 $20, 521 , 432
L a n d 2, 250, 000 1 , 200, 000 --- 3, 450, 000
T O T A L C O S T
$7, 9 89 , 250 $8, 39 6, 563 $7, 585, 61 9 $23, 9 71 , 432
A DA P E li g i bi li t y $5, 328, 9 37 $3, 1 46, 606 $2, 9 63, 569 $11,439,112
S t a t e E li g i bi li t y 886, 403 51 1 , 789 489 , 71 0 1 , 887, 9 02
S pon s or 's C os t $1 , 773, 9 1 0 $4, 738, 1 67 $4, 1 31 , 341 $1 0, 644, 41 8
107
PART 2 - HI S T O R I C A N D C UR R E N T FI N A N C I A L O P E R A T I O N - P E N S A C O L A R E G I O N A L
A I R P O R T
O pe r a t i on a l P oli c y
The Pensacola Regional Airport is operated by the City of Pensacola under the
organizational control of the City Department of Transportation and direct management of the
Director of Transportation. On site, day to day management coordination is exercised by the
Airport Supervisor.
Until the last several years, the accounting system utilized by the City did not provide
for easy separation of total airport accounting from other business of the City. Although revenues
could fairly easily be identified by cost centers, it has proven most difficult to allocate direct
expenses to similar cost centers and other allocated City support of the airport was not attempted.
Recently, the City has undertaken a full study of its financial status conducted by
Mr. Logan Browning. As a result of these studies, a recommendation has been made to restructure
the City accounting procedures into an Enterprise Fund accounting system. Under this proposed
system, both direct operating costs and indirect City support costs can be allocated to specific
airport cost centers.
Capital expenditures on the airport have previously come from three sources: (1)
Bond issues, (2) borrowing from the City Utility Deposit Fund, and (3) general airport revenues.
Needed amounts from these sources were transferred to the airport Construction
Account in order to complete specific projects. The present amount outstanding against the
airport and due to the Utility Deposit Fund is approximately $540,000. The intent has been
to refund these monies to the Utility Deposit Fund at the time a future airport improvement
bond issue was sold.
Presently a capital improvements program is underway to expand the terminal building
at the airport. This expansion program has been considered an interim improvement which would
provide relief from the overcrowded conditions in the facility yet conserve large capital expenditure
until it was determined whether a complete new facility should be constructed. These renovations
commenced in CY 1974 and are funded from utility deposit funds and will be reimbursed by
a future bond issue.
A n a lys i s of Fi s c a l O pe r a t i on
Recognizing that self-support is desired for the Pensacola Regional Airport, a review
of the existing fiscal operation was conducted prior to forecasting future revenues and expenses.
Since the financing of capital improvements is a major concern for all airports, the amount of
annual excess of income over expenses becomes the measure of the capability of making such
improvements under the self-support premise.
Income and expense summaries for fiscal years 1972, 1973 and 1974, as taken from
the City of Pensacola, Department of Transportation income and expense records, appear on
Tables 39 and 40 respectively. The expense summary, Table 40, contains only the direct costs
associated with the airport operations and does not attempt to allocate these costs to the operations
as shown on Table 39.
108
T A BL E 39
I N C O M E S UM M A R Y
1 9 71 -1 9 72 1 9 72-1 9 73 1 9 73-1 9 74
Airfield Area
Air Carrier Landing Fees
Eastern $ 51,230 $ 53,077 $ 39,044
National 50,144 49,704 38,365
Other Landing Fees 863 719 ----
Fuel Sales Net 14,476 14,955 28,584
Ramp Fees ---- ---- 1,757
116,713 1 1 8, 455 1 07, 750
Ha n g a r a n d Bui ldi n g A r e a
Hangar Rental
T-Hangars 7,319 7,548 7,293
F BO Hangar
Werhan/NW Fla/Hangar One
Pensacola Avia./Aeromotive 6,000 1,500 3,750
Commercial Industrial
Cargo Building
Eastern 960 960 960
National 960 960 960
Ground Site Leases
Government
Weather Service 1,800 1,800 1,800
FAA 16,562 19,955 20,200
Fixed Base Operation
.
Pensacola Avia./Aeromotive 6,961 10,414 14,187
Werhan/NW Fla/Hangar One 17,462 5, 789 2,658
58, 024 48, 9 26 51,808
T e r mi n a l Area
Airline Rental
Eastern 6,088 6,088 6,088
National 5,936 5,936 5,936
Auto Rentals (+ % Sales)
Hertz 30,962 40,514 47,305
Avis 29,193 32,335 36,196
National 32,778 32,256 34,371
Other Rentals
Holiday Inn 187 187 187
1 05, 1 44 117,316 1 30, 083
S ys t e ms a n d S e r vi c e s
Utilities (Power) 5,723 5,717 4,668
C on c e s s i on s
Airport Parking 40,000 60,994 49,092
Parking Meters 18,615 21,091 21,906
Restaurant & Lounge 23,151 24,289 26,363
Advertising 2,655 2,975 492
Ground Transportation 4,823 8,730 8,230
Flight Insurance 1,800 793 1,244
Pay Toilets 1,147 1,187 815
Storage Lockers ----
---- 78
Telephones
81 3 812 587
Airport Taxigate 923 ----
587
Miscellaneous - Shoe Shine Machine 32 ---- ----
9 3, 9 68 120,871 108,807
Service C ha r g e
1 38, 859
T O T A L S
$379 , 563
$550, 1 44 $403, 1 1 6
109
As may be noted from Table 39, the income for 1972-73 reflects a service charge.
During this period, a departure charge was placed on each enplaning passenger. This charge was
later prohibited by Federal action and collection was discontinued. The apparent decrease in
income for the 1973-74 period is largely attributable to the energy crisis of late 1973, with
a decrease in schedules and a prolonged strike by National Airlines during mid-1974.
In reviewing Table 40, it should be noted that, for both the 1972-73 and 1973-74
periods, several non-recurring expense items are included. This would make it appear that annual
costs have increased significantly each year.
T A BL E 40
DI R E C T E XP E N S E S UM M A R Y
A c c oun t s
1 9 721 9 73 1 9 731 9 74 1 9 74-1 9 75
Payroll Expenses 64,465 71,072 84,893
Gulf Power Company 21,880 22,653 22,128
City of Pensacola 7,396 7,758 8,129
Southern Bell 1,121 771 692
Answer Call Inc. 325 375 315
Other Charges () (96) 0 (142)
S ub T ot a l 30, 730 31 , 457 31 , 1 22
Maintenance-Repair of Equip. 254 392 473
Maintenance-Repair of Vehicle 627 407 785
Maintenance-Repair Building
Improvement 2,495 1,620 4,070
Professional Services 1,724 9,212 763
Rentals 85 255 112
Postage et al 22 29 70
Membership Subscription 791 932 967
Maintenance-Repair of Machines 1,198 627 1,168
Office Supplies 317 816 270
Materials for Maintenance and
Repair of Equipment 21 40 0
Fuels and Lubricants 910 948 1,155
Materials for Maintenance and
Repair of B& I 5,398 8,144 7,785
Janitor Supplies 2,668 3,574 3,073
Agricultural Supplies 500 534 303
Minor Apparatus & Tools 143 184 138
Clothing Supplies 150 38 18
Adjustment for Workmen's
Compensation 403 0 0
Workmen's Compensation 1,647 1,644 1,686
Estimated Account for Pension 184 184 230
General Pension and Retirement
Fund 3,965 5,085 6,680
Social Security 2,306 2,277 3,398
Vehicular Equipment
5,249 0
Office Furniture and Equipment
1,835 2,287
Building Improvement Account
15,804 64,013
Improvement Other than Building
4,596 0
Insurance
2,383
T O T A L
1 22, 003 1 66, 9 55 21 7, 842
110
So that a more realistic picture of the airport's annual income/expense experience
may be seen, amended income is shown on Table 41 and expenses are shown on Table 42.
Table 41 reflects the retroactive airline landing fee income for the 1973-74 period,
resulting from recently renegotiated airline contracts and eliminates the special income derived
in the 1972-73 period from enplanement tax.
T A BL E 41
I N C O M E S UM M A R Y (A M E N DE D)
69 -70 70-71 71 -72 72-73 73-74
A i r fi e ld
Air Carrier Fees $ 84,523 $102,447 $101,374 $102,781 $119,338/
Other Fees
863 719
Fuel Sales 8,859 13,439 14,476 14,955 30,341
S ub T ot a l $ 9 3, 382 $1 1 5, 886 $1 1 6, 71 3 $1 1 8, 456 $1 49 , 679
Ha n g a r Bui ldi n g A r e a
T-Hangars $5,452 $7,363 $7,319 $7,548 $7,293
FBO Hangars 6,000 6,000 6,000 1,500 3,750
Cargo 4,480 1,920 1,920 1,920 1,920
U. S. Government 19,210 20,474 18,362 21,755 22,000
FB0 Sales 17,808 18,892 24,423 16,203 16,845
S ub T ot a l $ 52, 9 50 $ 54, 649 $ 58, 024 $ 48, 9 26 $ 51 , 808
T e r mi n a l Area
Rentals
Airlines $ 11,898 $ 12,024 $ 12,024 $ 12,024 $ 12,024
Others 187 187 187 187 187
S ub T ot a l $ 1 2, 085 $ 1 2, 21 1 $ 1 2, 21 1 $ 1 2, 21 1 $ 1 2, 21 1
C on c e s s i on s
Auto Rentals $ 72,331 $ 78,029 $ 92,933 $105,105 $117,872
Auto Parking 40,000 40,450 40,000 60,994 49,092
Auto Meters 12,372 17,191 18,615 21,091 21,906
Restaurant 15,573 17,038 23,151 24,289 26,363
Ground Transportation 2,710 1,001 4,823 8,730 8,230
Other 5,464 6,285 4,715 2,792 2,724
S ub T ot a l $1 52, 243 $1 63, 1 9 6 $T 86, 89 2 $225, 9 76 $226, 679
S ys t e ms & S e r vi c e s
Utilities $5,764 $5,933 $5,723 $5,717 $4,668
T ot a l O pe r a t i n g I n c ome $31 6, 424 $351 , 875 $376, 563 $408, 606 $445, 045
I n c r e a s e 1 1 % 7% 8. 5% 9%
1 Reported income of $77,409 plus $41,929 retroactive from new fee contract.
Table 42, eliminates the non-recurring costs for the 1972-73 and 1973-74 period and
includes allocations of City-incurred costs which the consultant believes to be appropriate. These
allocated costs have been derived from a review of Mr. Browning's proposed allocations plus a
review of costs at other representative airports in the southern part of the country. The expenses
have also been set forth under categorical headings for identification purposes.
111
Under this structuring, it will be seen that annual income has been progressing steadily
for an average increase of 8.9% per year. Recurring expenses have increased about 11% and
7% respectively during the 1972-73 and 1973-74 period.
T A BL E 42
R E C UR R I N G E XP E N S E S S UM M A R Y
71 -72 72-73 73-74
P A YR O L L
Salaries & Wages $ 64,465 $ 71,072 $ 84,893
Overhead 15,958 12,530 11,300
S ub T ot a l $ 80, 423 $ 83, 602 $ 9 6, 1 9 3
UT I L I T I E S
Water & Sewer
Electric 21,880 22,653 22,128
Sanitation 2,718 3,000
Heat 7,396 7,758 8,129
S ub T ot a l 29 , 276 33, 1 29 33, 257
R E P A I R S & M A I N T E N A N C E
Equipment 275 432 473
Vehicles 1,677 1,407 1,785
Buildings 10,793 12,757 14,855
Machinery 1,198 627 1,168
Miscellaneous 1,643 1,818 1,641
S ub T ot a l 1 5, 586 1 7, 041 f$, 9 22
O T HE R E XP E N S E S
Admin. 5,004 13,316 4,854
Comm. 1,007 1,046 1,446
Insurance --- 7,792 9,000
Janitorial Supplies ,2668 3,574 3,073
Fuels & Lubs. 910 948 1,155
Miscellaneous 3,203 477 218
S ub T ot a l 9 , 9 1 2 27, 1 53 1 9 , 746
C I T Y A L L O C A T E D E XP E N S E S
Admin. 11,400 11,992 12,038
F/C/R 110,000 111,570 122,727
Police 27,000 30,000 33,000
S ub T ot a l 1 48, 400 1 53, 562 1 67, 765
T O T A L R E C UR R I N G E XP E N S E $283, 59 7 $31 4, 487 $336, 883
Increase 11% 7%
This is not necessarily indicative of a long-term trend when it is realized that the
direct reported costs (exclusive of allocated costs) were only 6% higher in the 1973-74 period
than in the 1969-1970 period. What is significant is that the annual income at the airport has
increased by 40% in the past five years, while the direct airport expenses have increased by only
29%. Even if allocated costs could fully be documented, it appears that income is increasing at a
faster pace than are expenses.
As previously noted, some capital expenditures for the airport have been taken directly
from the airport fund. These expenditures are shown on Table 40. Over a five-year period
this has totaled $99,132, of which $79,817 represents improvements to buildings, the remainder
being for vehicles, machinery and other improvements.
112
In practice, it would appear prudent to establish a renewal and replacement account
for such items based upon a determination of useful life of the items and then to make allocations
to provide an annual depreciation allowance for them. On this basis it would appear that
approximately $4,000 per year would be appropriate for vehicles and machinery while about
$3,000 per year would cover replacement of furniture and fixtures (building repair and maintenance
has already been accounted for). Such allowances have been made on Table 43, Summary of
Income and Expenses. Fortunately, the $138,859 of "special income" in the 1972-73 period
was adequate to finance the $79,817 of capital improvements made in 1973-74.
In Table 43, years 69-70 and 70-71 are not included because the allocated expenses
are unknown. The line "net operating income" then represents a weighted figure for further
evaluation of financial feasibility of development of the airport.
T A BL E 43
S UM M A R Y O F I N C O M E A N D E XP E N S E S
1 9 71 -72 1 9 72-73 1 9 73-74
Income $379,563 $408,606 $445,045
Recurring Exp. 283,597 314,487 336,883
Net 95,966 94,119 108,162
R & R Allow. 7,000 7,000 7,000
Net Oper. Income 88,966 87,119 101,162
Debt Service 57,050 89,145 90,000
N E T I N C O M E $31 , 9 1 6 $(-2, 026) $1 1 , 1 62
One further cost which must be included in the analysis is the annual debt service
required to pay back previous capital improvements bond issues. This is also included in Table
43. The final line of Table 43, then, represents an accounting of the past several years in terms
of break-even capability. In summary, the statements show that the airport is progressively
advancing income, while holding expenditures to a minimum consistent with escalation of costs
and at the same time absorbing allocated costs.
I n c ome G e n e r a t i on
The successful financial operation of the airport is to a great extent dependent upon
generating revenues through licenses and privilege agreements wherein the return to the airport
is related to activity.
These sources of income represented 88% of total income in the 1973-1974 period.
These income sources are: (1) air carrier landing fees, (2) fuel flowage fees, (3)
Fixed-Base Operations sales, and (4) terminal area concessions.
Recently completed negotiations with the airlines have increased the landing fee
structure appreciably. The new structure is retroactive to January 1, 1974 and accounts for
the large increase in this income shown for the 73-74 period over previous years, as shown on
Table 41. The new structure has been established on annually increasing basis so that future
landing fees will continue to increase.
113
Fuel flowage fees are established in accordance with accepted practice and total income
is a direct reflection of the quantity of fuel sold on the airport.
Fixed Base Operations sales are a reflection of the gross business of the two Fixed
Base Operators which also reflects general aviation activity.
Terminal area concessions include the following:
Rental Car Sales
Parking Lot Sales
Parking Meter Income
Restaurant and Lounge Sales
Advertising Space Rentals
Ground Transportation Sales
Flight Insurance Sales
Pay Toilet Income
Storage Locker Rentals
Pay Telephone Call Charges
No Taxicab Trips
These concession incomes are closely related to the number of annual enplaned air
carrier passengers with the average income per passenger for each concession dependent upon
the characteristics of the community economic profile and the level of service offered by the
concessionaire.
The historic record of concession income is shown on Table 44. From this table
it will be seen that unit income has grown from 840 per passenger in 69-70 to $1.15 per passenger
in 73-74 with a high of $1.20 per passenger in 72-73.
T A BL E 44
C O N C E S S I O N I N C O M E A N A L YS I S
69 -70
P e r
Enpl.
IncomePass.
70-71
Per
Enpl.
IncomePass.
71 -72
Per
Enpl.
IncomePass.
72-73
Per
Enpl.
IncomePass.
73-74
Per
Enpl.
IncomePass.
Auto Rental $ 72,331 .40 $ 78,029 .48 $ 92,933 .55 $105,105 .56 $117,872 .60
Auto Parking 52,375 .29 57,641 .35 58,615 .35 82,085 .43 70,998 .36
Restaurant 15,573 .09 17,038 .10 23,151 .14 24,289 .13 26,363 .13
Advertising 3,793 .02 3,202 .02 2,655 .01 2,975 .02 492 .00
Ground Trans. 2,710 .01 1,001 .01 4,823 .03 8,730 .05 8,230 .04
Other 5,464 .03 6,285 .04 4,715 .03 2,792 .01 2,724 .01
$1 52, 243 . 84 $1 63, 1 9 6 1 . 00 $1 86, 89 2 1 . 1 1 $225, 9 76 1 . 20 $226, 679 1 . 1 4
The total concession income and the individual concession incomes compare favorably
with averages of other airports of similar size. In fact, the unit income for rental cars is
considerably higher than that at other comparable airports.
The analysis shows that income from the various sources is as high as can be expected
for the amount of activity on the airport. There is no doubt that the improvements to facilities
now being completed will increase passenger comfort and, thereby tend to increase concession
use and income.
During the past few years, income from Fixed Base Operations has fluxuated, but,
with the addition of Hangar 1, this situation has stabilized and increases in income can be
anticipated from this source.
114
P A R T 3 - P R O JE C T E D I N C O M E A N D E XP E N S E S , P E N S A C O L A R E G I O N A L A I R P O R T
Operating income and expenses for the estimated time of the initial development period
(five years) are projected in this section. A means to improve the current income and expense
figures, the potential of additional sources of income and the related assumptions used in order
to determine the availability of sufficient net income to finance the airport development are
discussed.
In projecting income and expenses, several assumptions were made as follows:
1. Forecasts as set forth in the Master Plan shall be realized.
2. Minimum additional employees will be required in the first stage of development.
3. Wages, salaries, and fringe benefits will escalate at a rate of five percent per
annum.
4. The new interim terminal addition will become operational in FY-1976 and the
cost of utilities will increase respectively.
5. The cost of utilities, repairs and maintenance, contract services, and other
expenses will increase at a rate of five percent per annum.
I n c ome P r oj e c t i on s
As discussed in more detail below, income projections were made based on heretofore
forecasted enplanements and at an assumed escalation rate of historical figures.
A i r fi e ld: This area is comprised of primarily "Air Carrier Landing Fees." Additionally,
the area is made up of "Other Landing Fees," and "Net Fuel Sales." Air carrier landing fees
were projected strictly on forecasted operations and the recently agreed to landing fee schedule.
When comparing the projected income figures with the historical landing fee income, the difference
may seem extraordinary. In reality, the difference is not extreme when reviewed in light of
the unexpected fuel crises, airline strikes and almost doubling of landing fee charges as previously
discussed.
A token annual income was assigned for the item "Other Landing Fees" to account
for an anticipated actuation of an air taxi service approximately two years from now. Although
$2,000 per year is not a significant amount, it is representative of increased activity.
"Net Fuel Sales" is based on forecasted activity also. In the past, income in this
area has been low due to a difficult time in collecting revenues. A new Fixed-Base Operator
and increased management attention has occurred recently and will assure the income due.
Ha n g a r a n d Bui ldi n g Area: Principal sources of income in this area are T-hangars,
FBO hangars, cargo facilities, government leases and FBO operations. It is anticipated that, for
purpose of projection, the charge per T-hangar unit will increase to $50/month vice $35 and
that the relocation of existing and construction of new facilities will be complete in FY-1978.
The income for the FBO as well as the cargo facilities hangars was determined strictly
from the terms of existing long term leases.
The income from government leases is strictly defined. There will be increased revenue
from expansion of the tower building but this will be offset by the expansion cost. Therefore,
no projection was made.
115
FB0 Operations income was projected on a simple five percent per annum escalation.
T e r mi n a l A r e a : Terminal area income is composed primarily of airline space rental
and auto rental fees.
The projected airline rentals is leased upon the availability of the new terminal addition
in FY-1976 as an additional source of income. For ease of projection, it was assumed that
50 percent of the additional area would be available to lease to the airlines at an average of
$6.50 psfpa.
Auto rental fees were projected on forecasted enplanements at as accepted standard
rate as established by the AOCI Uniform Airport Financial Report.
S ys t e ms a n d S e r vi c e A r e a : The income from utilities was estimated upon new income,
again, from the terminal addition and then it was escalated at five percent per annum.
C on c e s s i on A r e a : The concession area is comprised of a number of items. Each
one was projected based on forecast enplanements.
Income forecast for the next five years is set forth on Table 45.
T A BL E 45
I N C O M E P R O JE C T I O N
74-75 75-76 76-77 77-78 78-79 79 -80
A I R FI E L D
Air Carrier Fees $192,044 $214,090 $252,851 $291,249 $323,118 $ 348,000
Other Fees --- --- 1,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
Fuel Sales 25,000 22,100 23,500 24,800 26,200 27,700
S ub T ot a l $21 7, 044 $236, 1 9 0 $277,351 $318,149 $351 , 31 8 $ 377,700
HA N G A R BUI L DI N G A R E A
T-Hangars $7,500 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 $ 21,600 $ 21,600 $21,600
FB0 Hangars 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 16,500
Cargo 1,920 1,920 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400
U.S. Government 22,000 24,070 25,200 26,400 27,600 28,800
FB0 Sales 21,000 30,000 31,500 33,075 34,725 36,460
S ub T ot a l $ 67, 420 $ 82, 9 9 0 $ 86, 1 00 $ 9 8, 475 $1 01 , 329 $1 05, 760
T E R M I N A L A R E A
Rentals
Airlines $ 12,024 $ 80,000 $ 80,000 $ 80,000 $ 80,000 $80,000
Others 187 500 500 500 500 500
S ub T ot a l $ 1 2, 21 1 $ 80, 500 80, 500 $ 80, 500 $ 80, 500 $80, 500
Concessions
Auto Rentals $120,000 $136,790 $158,141 $181,284 $208,464 $234,640
Airport Parking
Airport Meters
Restaurant 125,000 140,000 164,000 186,000 208,000 232,000
Advertising
Ground Trans.
Other
S ub T ot a l $245, 000 $276, 79 0 $322, 1 41 $367, 284 $41 5, 464 $466, 640
S YS T E M S & S E R VI C E S
Utilities 5,717 10,000 10,500 11,025 11,576 12,150
T O T A L O P E R A T I N G I N C O M E $547, 39 2 $686, 470 $776, 59 2 $89 0, 433 $9 75, 1 42 $1 , 059 , 29 0
1 1 6
E x pe n s e P r oj e c t i on s
All expense items, with the exception of the utility items, have been projected at
an increased rate of five percent per annum. The utilities have been projected at a greater rate
to reflect the additional facilities that will increase utility requirements during the development
period. These projections are shown in Table 46.
Net income available for the next five years is estimated in Table 47. In this table,
income and operating expenses from Table 45 and 46 were used to arrive at net operating income.
Then, debt service and an allowance for renewal and replacement of vehicles and equipment is
subtracted to arrive at net income.
T A BL E 46
E XP E N S E P R O JE C T I O N S
74-75 75-76 76-77 77-78 78-79 79 -80
P A YR O L L
Salaries & Wages $ 89,137 $ 93,594 $ 98,274 $103,188 $108,347 $113,764
Overhead 11,865 12,458 13,081 13,735 14,422 15,143
S ub T ot a l $1 01 , 002 $1 06, 052 $1 1 1 , 355 $1 1 6, 9 23 $1 22, 769 r 1 28, 9 07
UT I L I T I E S
Water & Sewer 11,403 13,340 15,442 17,670 20,245 22,918
Electric 23,234 48,792 51,231 53,793 56,483 59,307
Sanitation 3,500 4,090 4,739 5,423 6,213 7,034
Heat 8,535 17,924 18,820 19,762 20,749 21,786
S ub T ot a l $ 34, 9 20 $ 84, 1 46 $ 9 0, 232 $ 9 6, 648 $1 03, 69 0 $1 1 1 , 045
R E P A I R S & M A I N T E N A N C E
Equipment
Vehicles
Buildings
Machinery
Miscellaneous
S ub T ot a l $ 20, 9 1 8 $ 21 , 9 64 $ 23, 062 $ 24, 21 5 $ 25, 426 $26, 69 7
O T HE R E XP E N S E S
Admin. $ 14,000
Comm. 1,518
Insurance 9,450
Janitorial Supplies 3,400
Fuels & Lubs. 1,212
Miscellaneous 1,500
S ub T ot a l $ 31 , 080 $ 32, 634 $ 34, 266 $ 35, 9 78 $ 37, 778 $39 , 667
C I T Y A L L O C A T E D E XP E N S E S
Admin. $ 14,495 $ 15,219 $15,981 $ 16,780 $17,618 $18,499
F/C/R 135,000
Police 36,000 179,550 188,527 197,953 207,851 218,243
S ub T ot a l $1 85, 49 5 $1 9 4, 769 $204, 508 $21 4, 733 $225, 469 $ 236, 742
T O T A L R E C UR R I N G E XP E N S E $373, 41 5 $39 , 565 $463, 423 $488, 49 7 $51 5, 1 32 $ 543, 058
117
T A BL E 47
N E T I N C O M E P R O JE C T I O N S
74-75 75-76 76-77 77-78 78-79 79-80
Income $547,392 $686,470 $776,592 $890,433 $975,142 $1,059,290
Expense 373,415 439,565 463,423 488,497 515,132 543,058
N e t O pe r a t i n g I n c ome $173,977 $246,905 $313,196 $401,936 $460,010 $51 6, 232
Less Debt Service 86,943 89,740 92,030 89,600 99,040 95,100
R & R Mow. 7,350 7,700 8,100 8,510 8,900 9,380
N e t I n c ome $79 , 684 $1 49 , 465 $21 3, 039 $303, 826 $352, 070 $411,752
C on c lus i on s
As will be noted from Table 47, no depreciation has been included. Depreciation
in this sense amounts to an allowance for renewal and replacement of facilities as they wear
out. Normal maintenance is already accounted for in the expense statement.
Therefore, the net annual income may either be allocated toward depreciation or may
be used to directly finance the renewal and replacement of facilities.
If the net annual income were used to finance new facilities, it could finance a revenue
bond issue. Based upon an 8% interest rate, for 20 years, with a 1.2 coverage, the proforma
statement indicates that the following amount of revenue bonds could be supported during the
next five-year period.
Year Bonds Sold Amount of Bonds
1975-76 $1,222,900
1976-77 1,743,100
1977-78 2,485,900
1978-79 2,880,600
1979-80 3,368,900
The City share of Stage 1 improvements as set forth in this report are estimated
to be $1,773,900. In addition to this amount, the City managers report of January 27, 1975
indicates the desirability of reimbursing the monies due to the utility deposit found and establishing
the Land Revolving Fund.
Total expenditures for improvements and fund establishment would then be
$2,563,910. It would then appear that in the 1977-1978 time frame complete feasibility for
revenue financing is shown.
There are several alternatives available to the City: (1) Earlier feasibility for the entire
amount could be demonstrated should the City elect to not pro-rate administrative expenses to
the extent herein accounted for; (2) Obtain an open ended bond in which additional bonds can
be sold as actual experience shows capability; or (3) Delay reimbursement of the utility deposit
fund or (4) Obtain a bond issue for the full amount needed wherein only interest is payable
until projects are completed, at which time full debt service commences.
It should be noted that a combination of Stage 1 and Stage 2 improvements, plus
the other items listed in the city manager's report show a total City share of $7,302,077. This
includes the first phase of the new terminal. Although pro forma statements through the Stage
2 time period cannot be stated with reliability, a projection based upon the first five-year rate
of net income expansion indicates that feasibility for Stage 2 could be shown in the early 1980-82
time frame.
118
P A R T 4 - O P E R A T I O N A L R E QUI R E M E N T S
The realization of the net operating incomes depicted in the previous section are to
a great degree dependent upon operating and management policies established for the airport's
administration.
Pensacola Regional Airport for many years operated on an opportunity basis. That
is, whenever an entrepreneur determined an opportunity existed at the airport and the City
recognized an opportunity for aviation through such entrepreneur's location on the airport, an
agreement was made. This is not unusual and many airports continue to operate in this manner.
Now, however, activity at the airport has reached a level where a more standardized
approach must be made if stated goals are to be reached.
In view of the many requests being received for additional tenant space on the airport,
it is recommended that a complete set of tenant standards be developed and used as an
administrative tool of airport management. In line with this recommendation, it is also
recommended that the City commence considering a full-time qualified airport manager to be
assigned to the airport to insure prudent and secure operations.
In 1966, the Federal Aviation Administration issued Advisory Circular 150/5190-1
and in April, 1972 Advisory Circular 150/5190-2A. The first of these deals with "Minimum
Standards for Commercial Activities at Public Airports" and the second deals with "Exclusive
Rights at Airports."
In essence, these publications state that the granting of exclusive rights at any airport
upon which Federal funds have been expended, is prohibited and that the airports facilities and
services must be available on fair and reasonable terms without discrimination.
The first step in establishing a program for policy development is to establish land-use
zones on the airport so that all like tenants will be located in the same general areas and no
one of a tenant group will have a location advantage over any other. This, too, will allow for
the establishment of structural and aesthetic standards within each land-use area.
Such areas have been shown on Exhibit 29 and include the following uses:
a.
Airfield - All the area containing the runway, taxiways, approach-departure areas
and applicable maneuvering and safety areas.
b.
Terminal Area - That area containing the passenger terminal building aprons,
roadways, auto parking lots, air cargo facilities and all functions related to the processing of
passengers and cargo.
c.
Commercial Aviation Area - That area containing fixed-base operations, aprons,
roads and any other facilities for any phase of aviation commercial activity for profit.
d.
Non-Commercial Aviation - Those areas for the housing of aircraft, shops, offices
or other facilities for any phase of aviation wherein these activities are not for profit but are
incidental to a lessee's business.
e.
Non-Aviation Commercial - Those areas designated for commercial activities not
directly related to aviation.
f.
Airport Operations - Those areas on the airport designated for facilities required
to operate and maintain the airport and its navaids.
119
Once these zones or areas are adopted, the development of standards for the airport
must then start with the establishment of a defined list of tenant classifications and a listing
of defined categories of services to be available.
Then, a complete set of operating requirements and standards of performance must
be developed for each tenant classification.
These documents then form the basis for all leases or permits granted on the airport
and when accompanied by a location drawing, a complete description of the premises and
improvements thereon, provides airport management and the tenant a framework for performance.
Of major concern for Pensacola Regional Airport is the provision of such standards
for the commercial and non-commercial zones or areas. It has taken many years of aviation
development at the airport to realize a stable commercial aviation operation as is now conducted
by the two recognized fixed-base operators.
Although maximum activity will be encouraged on the airport by minimizing the
restrictions and regulations placed upon the tenants, it is still necessary to insure that any person
or firm desiring to do business on the premises protect the City and be responsible to the public
served.
It is therefore recommended that under the tenant classifications for occupancy in
the commercial aviation areas, two definitions be used as follows:
1. Full Fixed-Base Operator
2. Partial Fixed-Base Operator
Under these headings, the definitions would be:
Full Fi x e d-Ba s e O pe r a t or
A person, firm or corporation engaged in the sales, renting, basing and
operating aircraft for profit including the repair, overhauling, servicing,
rebuilding or modification of aircraft and including the conduct of any
non-scheduled type of flight operations for commercial purposes. (Note:
this includes fuel sales.)
P a r t i a l Fi x e d-Ba s e O pe r a t or
A person, firm or corporation engaged in the sales, renting, leasing and
operating aircraft for profit including the repair and servicing of the
operator's own aircraft.
Minimum requirements for each of these should include:
1. City license to conduct the business.
2. Surety Bond.
3. Adequate Insurance to indemnify the City from all acts and
operations of the operator.
4. A ground lease of adequate area within the commercial aviation zone
on the airport from which to conduct business and which will
contain operators entire business and customer space.
5. Building and hangar space of sufficient size to house all business
activity and/or sufficient tie-down area for parking and display of
aircraft.
120
6. Certified personnel to conduct the business.
7. Compliance with all applicable building, sanitary and other codes.
8. Compliance with rules and regulations of the airport.
9. Published hours and days of service.
These minimum requirements should be set forth in the leases in detail but the City
should consider each thoroughly before establishing the fees, amount of space, insurance coverage,
prior to incorporating them.
Non commercial aviation consists of a number of aviation uses including executive
aircraft, flying clubs, local based aircraft tie-down or hangaring, police and highway patrol, CAP,
etc. Essentially, two items are of concern to the operation of the airport. These are individual
hangar lease plots and Tee-hangars. In the first case, the individual plots should be leased to
non-commercial operators for the storage and, if appropriate, maintenance of the operators own
aircraft only. In the second case, a unit of a multi-unit hangar is leased for the storage of
one aircraft only. Whether or not an individual owner or corporate owner may maintain the
aircraft in the hangar may become a function of who administrates the Tee-hangar units. In
any case, anyone leasing either a Tee-hangar unit or an individual lease plot must abide by a
set of minimum standards which protect the City and which prohibit the conduct of commercial
services from the hangar unless the lessee has a bona fide commercial operation.
It is recommended that the City give the subject of tenant standards in-depth
consideration and either prepare or have prepared a published document for use in administrating
the airport.
-a
m
z
N O
APPENDIX AA-1
HISTORY OF THE AIRPORT
In 1 935, the City purchased 504 acres of land in the vicinity
of the existing airport.
Clearing of the site was accomplished under federal work
programs of the time and the Aviation Division of the State Road
Department sponsored construction of the original runways.
In 1 936 two runways, 3500 feet x 1 00 feet, were constructed
of mixed-in-place asphalt. The state Aviation Division also installed
wind sock and obstruction lighting during that same year.
The City sponsored the construction of an administration
building which was accomplished under a W.P.A. project and upon its
completion, Pensacola received its first scheduled air service. The
Straughn Shipping Company operated the service under the name of
Atlantic and Gulf Coast Airline. Service was between Mobile,
Pensacola, Tallahassee, Jacksonville and Savannah.
November 1 , 1 938, National Airlines commenced service through
Pensacola.
During World War II, the United States Navy operated the
airport, but continued to allow civil aircraft to operate.
Also during.this period the airfield was expanded to four
runways, each 5000 feet by 200 feet. Parallel taxiways were also
constructed and the runways were lighted with medium intensity
flush-mounted fixtures. In order to accommodate the longer runways,
additional land, was purchased. This increased the acreage to 1 200.
A control tower was constructed and operated by the Navy.
After the war, the airport was returned to the City.
Eastern Air Lines commenced service in September, 1 947.
The present terminal building was dedicated in April 1 952.
In 1 957, high intensity runway lights were installed on
Runway 1 6-34 and the instrument landing system (ILS) was installed.
In 1 960, sequenced flashing lights were installed on the
approach lighting system.
In 1 964 the existing FAA operations building was opened.
Services included: Air traffic control, flight service station,
weather service and facilities maintenance.
A-2
During 1 964, the two existing runways on the airport were
strengthened and the other two runways were phased out.
In 1 964, medium intensity lights were installed on Runway
7-25, the air carrier apron was lighted, all taxiways were lighted
and the entire airport property was enclosed with security fencing.
During 1 965 the following projects were completed:
Two new hangars
Restaurant enlargement and remodeling
Kitchen addition
Expansion of ticket counters
Carpeting
Interior painting
Parking lot
In the 1 966-67 period, Runway 1 6-34 was extended to 6,000
feet and Runway 7-25 was extended to 5400 feet.
In 1 968-69, the runways were extended to their present length
and additional ramp constructed. Other recent projects include the
new security fencing, installation of emergency generator and
purchasing of new Fire/Crash/Rescue equipment.
Currently the terminal building is being expanded. This
project includes the enlargement of the waiting area, revision to
the baggage area and the enclosing of the concourse.
APPENDIX B
B-1
GENERAL AVIATION STATISTICS
This appendix contains the data which served as the basis
for the forecast of general aviation at PNS. Additional information
is contained in Section V - Inventory of Airport.
Tables B-1 , B2 and B-3 present information on general
aviation ownership and type of aircraft. As can be seen the vast
majority of general aviation aircraft are owned by people in the
immediate area of Pensacola.
Exhibit B-1 is a plot of several forecasts made for based
aircraft at PNS. For purposes of this study, the Florida Aviation
System Plan median forecast appeared reasonable and was used.
TABLE B-1
Aircraft Ownership 1 974
By City, County, and Type Ownership
Indiv. Club Corp. Comm. Gov.
Total
Active
Escambia Co.
Century
2 0 0 0
0 2
Pensacola
95
5 30 21 0 1 52
Pensacola Beach
0 0 1 0 0 1
Warrington
2 0 0 0 0 2
99
5 32 21 0 1 57
Okaloosa Co.
Crestview
3 1 1 1 1 0 1 6
Destin 3 0 1 5 0 9
Eglin AFB 2
3 0 0 1 7
Ft. Walton Beach 31 0 6 2 0 39
Mary Ester 2 0 0 1 0 3
Shalimar 3 0 2 0 0 5
Valparaiso 1 0 1 0 1 3
45
4 1 1 1 9
2 82
Santa Rosa Co.
Jay 7 0 0 5 0 1 7
Milton 24 3 0 3
0 30
Gulf Breeze 6 0 0 0 0 6
36
3 0 8 0 53
Source:AOPA
65 (67) 70 73 75 80 85 90 95
HISTORIC FORECAST
68 Master Plan (Avg.)
FASP Median
302R Dixon Speas
300
250
240
250
200 -
150 -
100 -
WA BASED 0,./c FO.13ecAsT,
50 -
228.
us g "FAs e ME DI AN
EXHIBIT B - 1
Aircraft
TABLE B-1
Ownership by Make 1 974
EscambiaOkaloosa
B-3
Santa Rosa
Aero Commander 1 3 0
Air Products 2 1 1
Amateur Built 7
1 1
American Aviation 2 1
1
Beech 1 6 7
2
Bell 3
Bellanca 7 4 4
Boeing 6
Cassutt 0 1 0
Cessna 52 41
1 2
Mooney 4 7
0
Navion 1 1 0
North American 2 0
0
Northwestern
Aeronautical 1 0 1
Pietonpol 1
Piper 45 1 3 28
Pitts 1 0 0
Ryan 0 1 0
Silvair 1 1 1
Smith 1 0 1
Taulorcraft 1 0 0
Universal 3 0 1
1 57 82 53
*Source: AOPA
TABLE B-2
Aircraft by Horsepower
Type and No. of Engines, 1 974
Horsepower Escambia Okaloosa Santa Rosa
0-1 00 38 1 9 22
1 00-over 1 20 63
31
1 57 82 53
Type Aircraft
1 ,2 or 3 Place 54 26
32
4 Place - Over 1 03 56
21
1 57 82 53
No. Engines
Single 1 30 75 49
Twin 27 7 4
1 57 82 53
Source:AOPA
APPENDIX CC-1
INSTRUMENT OPERATIONS FORECASTS
Instrument operations forecasts were made by analyzing the
historical instrument operations to total operations ratio for each
type of operation, i.e., air carrier, general aviation and military.
This analysis revealed that substantially all air carrier operations
were instrument operations, and that the general aviation and military
ratio of instrument operations to each total operations was very
erratic.
By discarding the peaks and lows, a trend for both general
aviation and military instrument operations becomes apparent as shown
in Exhibit C-1 . These trends or percentage of instrument operations
to total operations, although on the increase, appear to peak in
the 1 990 to 1 995 time period, with military instrument operations
being 40% of total military operations and general aviation 26% of
total G/A operations.
When applying these percentages to the forecasts for each
class of operation, 93,600 instrument operations will occur in 1 995.
This represents 35% of the total forecasted operations. Historic
instrument operation information is presented in Tables C-1 , C-2, and
C-3.
An instrument operation is defined as an operation handled
by the terminal traffic control tower for the arrival or departure
at the airport of an aircraft on an IFR flight plan or for the
provision of IFR separation. An instrument approach is an IFR
approach made under IFR weather conditions.
C-3
TABLE C-1
Annual Instrument Operation Statistics
Pensacola Municipal Airport
Year
Instrument
Approaches
Instrument
Operations
Instrument
Operations
Secondary
Airports
Total
Instrument
Operations
1963 1,007
(Military)
1964 1,266 12,361 30,010 42,371
1965 1,314 14,374 40,714 55,088
1966 1,572 15,476 49,696 65,172
1967 1,460 17,299 47,511 64,810
1968 1,285 20,993 65,188 86,181
1969 1,886 26,344 83,140 109,484
1970 1,421 30,238 84,307 114,545
1971 2,706 38,483 84,616 123,099
1972 2,593 35,440 86,179 126,441
1973 2,002 28,742 84,187 123,322
Source: FAA Airport Activity Statistics
TABLE C-2
1965
1966
Total
Historic Instrument Operations
A.C.G.A.MILA.C. G.A. MIL
14,374
15,476
1967 17,299 11,038 3,452 2,809 13,251 27,249 31,663
1968 20,993 13,079 4,295 3,619 13,279 81,970 63,689
1969 26,344 14,746 6,050 5,548 13,616 90,058 65,696
1970 30,238 12,388 8,254 9,596 10,043 90,309 52,716
1 971 38,488 1 2,484 1 1 ,256 1 4,743 1 0,895 79,593 37,653
1972 32,087 11,133 11,517 9,437 11,248 89,311 28,237
1973 28,742 10,931 11,276 6,539 10,897 78,643 18,749
TABLE C-3
Percentage of Instrument Operations
of Total Operations
Total Air Carrier General Aviation Military
1967 12.4 83.1 12.6 8.7
1968 13.2 98.4 5.2 5.6
1969 15.5 100 6.7 8.4
1970 19.7 100 9.1 18.2
1971 23.5 100 14.1 39.1
1972 24.9 98.9 12.8 33.4
1973 26.5 100 14.3 34.8
RATIO OP INSTRUMENT OPERATION TO TOTA1. OPERATIONS
Pensacola Regional A81a0rt7
50
40
30
20
10
65 66 67 68 69 70 7172 73
90 85 75 80
9 6
EXHIBIT C - 1
D-1
APPENDIX D
BUSY HOUR OPERATION FORECAST METHODOLOGY
Two methods were used to forecast busy hour operations
at Pensacola Regional Airport. The first method employed data
and relationships contained in AC 1 50/5060-1 A, Appendix 2, Figure
9 and Appendix 2, Table 2. The second method examined range of
airports with total operations and traffic proportions similar to
Pensacola.
From FAA "Air Traffic Activity - Peak Day and Terminal
Area Relationship" Calendar Year 1 973, the following busy hour *
information was extracted:
1 0 Air Carrier Busy Hour Operations
43 Itinerant Aircraft Busy Hour Operations
1 51 Total Aircraft Busy Hour Operations
1 1 7 Total Instrument Busy Hour Operations
From Appendix 2, Table 2 of "Air Traffic Activity":
Type AircraftVFR %FactorIFR Demand
ALess than 1 %1 .0Less than 1 %
B9%
1 .09%
C
1 8%0.71 2.6%
D & E & Other73%0.1 7.3%
Total 28.9%
Therefore take 28.9% of VFR Peak to get IFR Peak:
1 9751 9801 9851 9901 995

IFR Peak2425343844
* According to the above referenced "Busy hour estimates are
obtained from periodic counts 60 minute duration. These counts
are made during known high activity periods of each traffic
category." The busy hours are better defined as "Peak Hours,"
and represent the occasional high level of activity which may
occur during sports events, fly-ins, etc.
D7 2
Method two employed data contained in "FAA Air Traffic
Activity" for 1 972 and 1 973.
A range of airports with total operations spanning PNS
Forecast and whose AC/GA/MIL traffic proportions are similar
at the various forecasted levels were chosen. From Appendix 1 ,
Table 3, Busy Hour/Annual Operation Relationship was determined
and a graph plotted which spanned the forecast of total operations.
FROM AIR TRAFFIC ACTIVITY, 1 972
Airport Total A/C G/A MIL Busy Hour
Tuscon 1 07,941 26,474 1 56,504 24,963 1 23
Burbank 233,772 30,626 1 91 ,1 40 2,006 1 30
Ontario, Canada 1 43,973 29,863 1 03,61 6 1 0,494 86
Springfield 1 49,588 1 4,297 1 21 ,798 1 5,707 78
Albany 1 41 ,006 42,384 91 ,604 7,01 8 68
Syracuse 1 50,350 45,297 88,743 1 6,31 0 71
Charlotte 1 76,852 63,1 59 1 03,663 1 0,030 77
Raleigh 1 46,61 1 36,350 96,991 1 3,270 79
Akron 1 63,493 1 4,399 1 25,375 22,71 9 1 60
Dayton 1 82,450 56,467 1 25,078 905 1 07
Providence 21 2,1 08 260
Rochester 251 ,1 02 325
Toledo 1 81 ,072 227
21 7 borings four (4) feet deep were taken in 1 944 auger
along all four original runway and taxiways and apron areas. The
boring samples were classified as Type 1 , 2, 3 or 4 material by
particle size as follows.(Source - Robert and Company, Inc.)
SIZETYPE 1 TYPE 2TYPE 3TYPE 4
Retained #20 Sieve
1 1 4 2
Pass #20 - Retained #40 12 7 21 1 5
Pass #40 - Retained #60
30 22 34 22
Pass #60 - Retained #1 40 39 53 25 32
Pass #1 40 - Retained #200 7 9 3 7
Pass #200 - Greater than .01 4 mm 6 4 5 1 0
Smaller than .01 4 mm 5 4 8 1 2
Probable "Old" FAA Classification FA FA FA FA to F3
Probable Present FAA Classification Fl Fl FA Fl to F3
Probable Unified Classification SP-SM SP-SM SM SMto SC
EXISTING PAVEMENT EVALUATION
E-1
April 1 974
The following sources were investigated regarding the
subsurface condition of Pensacola Regional Airport.
1 . Files of the Pensacola Airport Authority
2. Files of FAA in Mi ami , Florida
3. Files of J. E. Greiner Company, Inc., Tampa, Florida
Subgrade information available from these sources is as
follows:
The subgrade under the existing pavement (i.e. only the
runways had been built) to a depth of 2' was Type 2 material. At
other locations and/or at other depths up to 4', the Type 1 through
3 material was most common, although some Type 4 material was present.
were:
E-2
The results of the pavement cores from the above source
R/W 1 6-34 From Present
Station299+00 to 399+00
Corings 75' and 50'Corings on
Rt. & Lt. of CV.Or Near
2211
6.5"6.0 "
4.75"
5.0"
12.50 "
8.5"
Sand Asphalt + Hot
Sand Asphalt +
Plant Mix
Hot Plant Mix

Location
Number
85th Percentile
Thickness
Min. Thickness
Max. Thickness
Type Pavement
R/W 7-25 From Present
Station0+00 to 44+50
Corings 75' Rt. & Lt. of ot,Corings on
Or Near q,
25
1 4
6.4"5.4"
4.75"
5.25"
9.75"
6.75"
Sand Asphalt + Hot
Sand Asphalt +
Plant Mix
Hot Plant Mix

Location
Number
85th Percentile
Thickness
Min. Thickness
Max. Thickness
Type Pavement
Three borings were taken in 1 960 under the present airport
tower at El.+1 1 2. Two of the borings were 40' deep and the third
was 31 ' deep. The SPT borings indicated medium to dense fine
sand to EL +1 02 and dense sand and sandy clay thereafter.
(F. J. Sindelar, Architect)
E -3
Twelve locations were tested in 1 961 along R/W and T/W
1 6-34 and 7-25. Both runways were 5,000' long at the time. All
locations tested indicated approximately FA Type material under
both present and past FAA classification systems. Two locations
were tested for subgrade compaction. The resulting percent Modified
Proctors were 98.4 and 93.2. (H. A. Wilde and Associates)
Fifteen pavement corings and borings were taken in 1 966
along the 1 6-34 connector which is positioned along abandoned
R/W 29. The cored pavement consisted approximately 2 1 /2" of asphaltic
concrete surface and 4" of sand shell base. The borings were
5' to 6' and revealed fine sand. (J. E. Greiner Company, Inc.)
Eleven borings 1 0' deep were taken in 1 966 in the R/W
and T/W area of R/W 7-25 from approximately Station 50+00 to
55+00. The material obtained was sand and sandy clay. The R/W
in this section was subsequently classified approximately Fl.
(J. E. Greiner Company, Inc.)
Seventeen borings 5' to 1 2' deep were taken in 1 966
in the R/W and T/W vicinity of R/W 1 6-34 from Station 349+00 to
355+00. Sand was recovered and approximately classified FA in these
locations. (J. E. Greiner Company, Inc.)
Four 5' borings were taken in 1 967 near the intersection
of T/W 1 6-34 and the terminal apron connector. The material was
sand classified as FA. (J. E. Greiner Company, Inc.)
Seventeen borings 5' to 1 0' deep were taken in 1 967
in the vicinity of R/W and T/W 1 6-34, Station 290+00 to 301 +00.
The material was generally silty sand and should be classified
approximately as Fl. (J. E. Greiner Company, Inc.)
Nineteen borings 5' to 1 5' deep were taken in 1 967 in
the vicinity of R/W and T/W 7-25, Station 50+00 to 60+00. The
material was sand and silty sand classified approximately as FA.
(J. E. Greiner Company, Inc.)
Three borings 1 5' deep were taken in 1 972 on the southern
end of R/W and T/W 34. The material was sand and silty sand
approximately classified as Fl. (J. E. Greiner Company, Inc.)
11*
E-4
SUMMARY
All the subgrade material has been tested via 1 0-60-270
sieve series instead of the presently required 1 0-40-200 sieve
series. Thus, classifications are approximate. Generally the
subgrade to a depth of 5' consists of a well drained
* medium to
dense sand and silty sand of either FA or Fl classification;
under that lies dense sand, silty sand and sandy clay.
In the terminal area, the top of the subgrade has been
compacted to 1 00% of AASHO T 1 80. The runways and taxiways have
been compacted to 95% of AASHO T 1 80.
The specific locations of the subgrade classifications
FA and Fl are contained in the J. E. Greiner, April, 1 974 pavement
strength survey.
*The runway area is normally very well drained; however, during
extensive storms, the drainage system backs up and the water table
rises until drainage catches up and relieves this situation.
A well drained situation may be assumed for the existing low level
of air carrier traffic since the occurence of an air carrier operation
during poorly drained conditions is infrequent.
I rrAcoi cirnORTIr
PAVEMENT STRENGTH SURVEY
tction
Base
SubbaseThick/Type/Yr.
Surface
Thick/Type/Yr.
Overlay
Thick/Type/Yr.
Total
Thick
Equiv. + Subgr. ++Pavement Strength**
ThickClassSingleDualDual Tan.
R1 -8" P21 2 66 3" P401 66 1 1 1 1 FA 85 1 50 270
R2
71 1
P21 2 66 2" P401 66 - 9 9 FA 45 80 1 40
R3 -1 1 " P21 2 66 3" P401 66 - 1 4 1 4 Fl 95 1 55 280
R4 -8" N.B! 42+63 2" P401 63 1 " P401 66 1 1 1 1 FA 85 1 50 270
R5 -8" N.B! 42+63 2" P401 63 1 " P401 66 1 1 1 1 FA 85 1 50 270
R6 -8" P21 2 68 2" P401 68 4". P40f 73 1 4 1 5 Fl 1 1 5 1 90 345
R7 -8" P21 2 68 3" P401 68 3" P401 73 1 4 1 5 Fl 1 1 5 1 90 345
R8 -8" P21 2 68 3" P401 68 1 1 1 1 FA 85 1 50 270
-
Ti -8" N.B! 42+63 2" P401 63 1 " P401 66 1 1 1 1 FA 85 1 50 1 70
T2 -8" P21 2 66 3" P401 66 - 1 1 1 1 FA 85 1 50 1 70
T3 -8" P21 3 60 2" P401 60 - 1 0 1 0 FA 60 1 1 0 1 95
T4 -8" P21 2 68 3" P401 68 3" P401 68 1 4 1 5 Fl 1 1 5 1 90 345
T5 -6" P21 2 42+68 2" P401 68 - 8 8 FA 30 55 95
T6 -1 0" P21 2 69 4" P401 69 - 1 4 1 4 Fl 85 1 50 270
T7
-
6" P21 2 69 11/ 2" P401 69 - 71 /2 71 /2 FA 25 -
T8 -8" P21 2 68 3" P401 68 - 1 1 1 1 FA 85 1 50 1 70
Al -8" P21 3 60 2" P401 60
.
- 1 0 1 0 FA 60 1 1 0 1 95
A2 -6" P301 69 1 3" P501 69 - 1 3 1 3 RA .75+ 1 75 300
A3 -6" P21 2 63 2" P401 63 - 8 8 FA 30
-
.-
A4 -
6" P21 2 64 2" P401 64
_
8 8. FA 30 - -
kverage of 6" of sand asphalt plus 6" shell - evaluated as 8" equivalent non-bituminous base.
al
sections evaluated as critical according to AC 1 50/5320-6A.
3ituminous pavement th i cknes s over 4" multiplied by 1.5.
Ipproximate classifications.
Prepared by*N. Greiner Company, Inc.
Tampa, Florida
April 26, .1 574
tx1
APRI L, 1974
TB
..
,
/ 0 .
, .....
.
I fN...,
I I
.
.
11
.
.
I I
\
\
I I
\
n
I
\
I I
s. s.
\\
I I \\
I I
%
n
%\ ILS GLIDE I f -.
. ,
NI
I.
1\ .
\
, SLOPE 1
.. ,
SEGMENTED
1 1
. N.N.
..
N .
CIRCLE
,
....
1
355+ 00 350 + IV 3'45+ 00 340100 N335+ 00 330 + 00
` n I bi j S . N ,I 0
f r i
: A R f- b- R 2 -t-l-R4- =INSTRUMENT -RUNWAY--- (N 17
Int
-N

S.'
'

N. N. ..
\ \
. N..
\ :: \
\
TI
TI
604 00
T2
325+ 09
sk - 45+00
Zr
2
\320+ 00 3151. 00
0
0
X
-30+00

-35+ 00
-40+00
- 50+ 00
450 150
600 300 0
1.111
...,
600'./ , -
I .../
n
/ / N. . ..I 6Z3n / ).
/
. /
/ /
/
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ '5'
/
//
5 #.
,
310+ 0, 0 305 +/ 00 300 + 00 295+ 00 290+ 00 ,
,
W) -7060 x 150' R4 (ULT. 8000' x 150' ):
PL AN OF
PE NSACOLA MUNI CI PAL AI RPORT
PAVE ME NT STRE NGTH SURVE Y
60+00
r '10
52
- 55+ 00
TE ss
APPENDIX E
SURVEYS
F - 1
Introduction
A s pa r t of t he M a s t e r P la n n i n g pr oc e s s for t he P e n s a c ola R e g i on a l A i r por t , a s e r i e s
of s ur ve ys wa s c on duc t e d i n or de r t o a s c e r t a i n c e r t a i n fe a t ur e s r e la t i ve t o t he e x i s t i n g fa c i li t y.
T he s e s ur ve ys c on s i s t e d of a n e n pla n e d pa s s e n g e r s ur ve y;a g e n e r a l a vi a t i on s ur ve y;a t e r mi n a l
g r oun d a c c e s s s ur ve y a n d a n a i r por t g r oun d a c c e s s t r a ffi c c oun t .
Purpose
T he pur pos e of c on duc t i n g s ur ve ys a t P e n s a c ola , Flor i da , i s t o e s t a bli s h a r e a li s t i c
ba s e for t he de t e r mi n a t i on of fut ur e fa c i li t i e s r e qui r e me n t s .
T he c ompon e n t s of t he t e r mi n a l a r e : (1 ) a i r s i de , (2) pr oc e s s i n g fa c i li t y, a n d (3)
la n ds i de . A i r s i de r e qui r e me n t s a r e n or ma lly s e t by t he a i r c a r r i e r s s i n c e t he y ha ve e x c lus i ve
us e of t ha t a r e a . T he pr oc e s s i n g fa c i li t y c on t a i n s ma n y mor e fun c t i on s t ha n a i r c a r r i e r
pr oc e s s i n g , a n d t he s i ze of ma n y a r e a s i s de pe n de n t upon i n s t a n t a n e ous a c c e pt a n c y of t he
fa c i li t y a n d t he va r i ous a r e a s of t he fa c i li t y.
O n t he la n ds i de , t he n umbe r of la n e s of r oa dwa y, c ur b le n g t h, n umbe r of a ut o
pa r ki n g s pa c e s , t a x i s t a c ki n g a r e a s , e t c . , de pe n d upon t he r e la t i ve r a t i os of a r r i va l/de pa r t ur e
mode s .
A lt houg h a n y c ha n g e i n t he pa s s e n g e r pr oc e s s i n g fa c i li t y (t e r mi n a l) ma y c ha n g e
pa s s e n g e r ha bi t s , a ba s e for j udg i n g c ha n g e s t o be a n t i c i pa t e d mus t be e s t a bli s he d. E a c h a i r por t
a n d e a c h c ommun i t y i n t he c oun t r y i s di ffe r e n t a n d r e a c t s di ffe r e n t ly.
Dur i n g t hi s s a me pe r i od, i t wa s de c i de d t o ma ke a g e n e r a l a vi a t i on s ur ve y s o t ha t
t he followi n g c ould be obt a i n e d: (1 ) n umbe r of vi s i t i n g a i r c r a ft vs i t i n e r a n t fli g ht s g e n e r a t e d
by loc a l ba s e d a i r c r a ft , (2) oc c upa n c y loa ds of vi s i t i n g a i r c r a ft , (3) s e r vi c e s r e qui r e d by vi s i t i n g
a i r c r a ft .
T hi s i n for ma t i on , whe n s upple me n t e d by g r oun d a c c e s s t r a ffi c da t a a n d by
Fi x e d-Ba s e O pe r a t or s , a n d c on c e s s i on a i r e s , wi ll pr e s e n t bot h t he e n t r e pr e n e ur a n d c us t ome r
vi e ws of r e qui r e me n t s .
Passenger Survey
Dur i n g t he pe r i od of A pr i l 1 7 t o M a y 1 3, 1 9 74 a n e n pla n e d a i r li n e pa s s e n g e r s ur ve y
wa s c on duc t e d a t t he P e n s a c ola R e g i on a l A i r por t . T he pur pos e of t hi s s ur ve y wa s t wo fold:
fi r s t , t o de t e r mi n e c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s of t he pa s s e n g e r s us i n g t he a i r por t t e r mi n a l , a n d s e c on d,
t o s oli c i t c omme n t s fr om t he pa s s e n g e r s r e la t i ve t o ope r a t i on s a n d c on di t i on s a t t he a i r por t .
F-2
The survey was conducted in the holding room after the enplaning passengers had
passed through the security check counter. Each passenger was asked by an interviewer to
fill out a short form while they waited for their flight to be called. A sample form is included
as Exhibit F-1. This "captive audience" survey technique produced very satisfactory results
as to the number of forms returned and insured that the forms were only filled out by boarding
passengers and not by the many "non-passengers" at the airport.
During the period of the survey Eastern Airlines boarded 9,949 passengers and
National Airlines boarded 5,771 passengers for a total of 15,720 enplaned passengers.
Completed survey forms received numbered 6,382, which represented approximately 9,650
boarding passengers or better than a 60 percent sampling for the study period and about a
5 percent sample for a year.
Results of the survey are as follows:**
Question:"How many people traveling with you in your party?"
NO. IN PARTY
RESPONSESNO. OF PASSENGERS
13,9253,925
21,5943,188
33361,008
4157628
527120
O N
636216
More*81567
TOTAL6,1539,652
Assume "More" represents 7passengers
Question:"How did you arrive at the airport?"
MODE
RESPONSESPERCENTAGES
Private Car3,86970%
Rental Car1,16421%
Taxi2765%
Limousine852%
Hotel Courtesy Car1413%
TOTAL
5,535100%
Assume "More" represents 7
P A S S E N G E R S UR VE Y
P E N S A C O L A , FL O R I DA
T E R M I N A L I M P R O VE M E N T S P R O G R A M
1. Flight No. Date
Please circle answers
2. How many people traveling with you in your party?
1 2 3 4 5 6 more
3. How did you arrive at the airport?
Private carrental cartaxilimohotel courtesy car
4. If in private car, did you leave it in parking lot?
Yes No
5. How many people saw you off at the airport?
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 or more
6. How many pieces of luggage did you or your party check at the ticket counter?
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 or more
7. Did you use the services of a sky cap?
Yes No
8. What of the following services did you use in the terminal?
Restauranttelephoneinsurance
9. What additional facilities would you use if available at the terminal?
NewstandGift shopCocktail loungeMotel at the airport
10. Comments to assist us
E XHI BI T F-1
RESPONSESPERCENTAGES ANSWER
Que s t i on : "Did you use the services of a sky cap?"
F- 4
Yes
68313%
No
4,77887%
TOTAL
5,461100%
Question:"What of the following services did you use in the terminal?"
SERVICERESPONSES*
Restaurant2,254
Telephone1,001
Insurance141
None332
Some people responding used more than one service.
Que s t i on : "What additional facility would you use if available at the terminal?"
SERVICERESPONSES*
Newstand2,588
Gift Shop1,183
Cocktail Lounge** 1,969
Motel at the Airport 478
Some people responding would use more than one service.
** C ocktail Lounge opened on the next to last day of the survey.
Que s t i on : "Comments to Assist us?"
Following is a listing by major category of comments received requesting additional
or expanded facilities at the airport.
Would like to see additional or expanded facilities at the Airport.
FACILITY N UM BE R O F C O M M E N T S
Restaurant 1,682
Telephone 632
Insurance 177
Newstand 2,230
Gift Shop 1,050
Motel at the Airport 416
F 5
Que s t i on : "If in private car did youleave it in the parking lot?"
ANSWER RESPONSES PERCENTAGES
Yes 1,829 44%
No 2,337 56%
TOTAL 4,166 100%
Question: "How many people saw you off at the Airport?"
ANSWER RESPONSES NO. OF PEOPLE
0 682 0
1 1,691 1,691
2 736 1,472
3 336 1,014
4 150 600
5 64 320
6 61 366
More* 57 399
TOTAL 3,779 5,862
Assume "More" represents 7persons.
Question:
counter?"
"How many pieces of luggage did you or your party check at the ticket
PIECES RESPONSES NO. OF PIECES
0 839 0
1 2,012 2,012
2 1,684 3,368
3 734 2,202
4 399 1,596
5 151 755
6 101 606
More* 112 784
TOTAL 6,032 11,323
Assume "More" represents 7pieces.
** It should be noted that all people responding to the survey did not necessarily respond
to all questions. Therefore, total responses to each question will not add up to the total
number of survey forms received.
F 6
Negative comments concerning existing facilities or services.
COMMENTSNO. OF COMMENTS
Baggage Service228
Security Check161
Passengers waiting area168
Boarding area - No shelter 160
Ticket Counter158
Following is a list of "general" comments received during the survey.
"Keep it practical. Don't waste money on something which will be out of date
quickly."
"Long lines at airport counter - need extra personnel."
"I think Pensacola has the worst skycap service of any airport that I have seen."
"New terminal building."
"Very satisfactory."
"Nothing, the airport is fine."
"Excellent service."
"Need a larger waiting area at search counter."
"Improve baggage handling, to reduce delay - 30 to 35 minutes is too long."
"The entire airport looks like a poverty stricken area and is a poor reflection on
Pensacola."
"You need covered ramps to airplanes."
"Improve passenger loading area."
"PA system at times inaudible, additional directional signs for passengers leaving
in regard to inspection area."
"Facilities for security check and boarding waiting room inadequate."
O M
F-7
"Build a new airport."
"The airport needs a lot more room for the passengers."
"Complete renovation and remodeling would bring Pensacola's airport up to date
compared with other cities of similar size. Automatic baggage handling a necessity."
"The worst problem at PNS is the congestion at the departure gates and slow security
procedures. Could we obtain a scanner for hand luggage, it speeds the process considerably."
"Get an x-ray machine for security to see through hand luggage."
"Not enough seating outside of security check counter."
"Additional parking facilities."
"More direct flights."
"Remove present and build proper building."
"Need more gates - only one gate for both airlines."
"This airport is dirty, needs to be cleaned up a little. Need larger security rooms
and at least two skycaps."
"Appearance of airport is terrible."
"Seems very disorganized. Could not understand announcements and no sign
indication."
"During peak periods the lines at the ticket counter obstruct movement along the
corridor. Also your entrance doors seem to suffer a beating due to baggage-laden passengers
opening them with their bags. Perhaps an automatic door would solve this."
"Just take a look at Tampa's."
"I think it should be torn down and started over."
F-8
There are a number of relationships that can be extrapolated
from the passenger survey. These relationships are listed below:
People in Party1 .6 People/Party Average
How Arrived Private Car 69.9%
Rental21 .0%
Taxi4.9%
Courtesy Car 2.5%
Limo1 .5%
Did you leave car
in parking lot?43.9% Yes
Number of People
accompanying1 .55 Average People Per Party
Number of Pieces
of Luggage1 .88 Average Luggage Per Person
Used Skycap1 2.5%
Services Used
Restaurant60%
Telephone27%
Insurance4%
Additional Facilities
that would be usedNewstand48%
Gift Shop1 9%
Cocktail
Lounge32%
Motel8%
F-9
General Aviation Survey
During the same period that the passenger survey was being
taken (April 1 7 to May 1 3) a survey of general aviation traffic was
also taken. The purpose of this survey was to identify the needs
of the general aviation public using the airport, so that these needs
may be programmed for future planning.
The general aviation survey was taken at two locations:
1 ) the old Northwest Florida Aviation Facility which was being opera-
ted by the City*, and 2) Pensacola Aeromotive. .Pilots were asked to
fill outthe survey cards at the operations desks of the FBO's. A
sample of the survey card is presented on the next page.
A total of 31 survey cards (See Exhibit F-2) were returned.
Although this is a small number of responses, it is felt that the
survey gives a general picture of the situation and is valid for
planning purposes.
*The City's operation of Northwest Florida Aviation's fueling
facilities caused some confusion in the normal operational
procedures of the FBO's at Pensacola.
GENERAL AVIATION SURVEY
FOR THE CITY OF PENSACOLA
FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Date
I. Aircraft
Number of Passengers (Including Pilot(s))

Make
- Model
II. Your Home Base
CityState
III. Origin Airport
Destination
AirportStateAirportState
IV. Purpose of Trip:Company BusinessPersonal Business
PleasureTrainingOther
kg V.Reason(s) for Landing at PNS: Aircraft Emergency Weather

Termination of lrip Fueling
Maintenance/RepairTraining
Other
VI. Do you require surface transportation?Yes No
If "yes":Taxi Rental Car Private Car
Limo/Bus
VII. What facilities do you require at PNS:Restaurant
Snack Bar
Sleeping RoomsWashup & Shower Areas

Other
VIII. Additional Comments:
E XHI BI T F-2
F-1 1
Results of the survey are as follows:
I. Aircraft
No.%
Single Engine1 855%
Twin Engine Piston927%
Twin Engine Turbo-Prop41 2%
Jet1 T%
Helicopter1 T%
t or
33*100%
Number of Passengers (including Pilots)
No. in Party
ResponsesNo. of Passengers
1 4 4
2 7 1 4
3 7 21
4 6 24
5 1 5
6 3 18
More 3 30
31* 1 1 6
*One survey had no response to this question
F-1 2
Home Base
Origin AirportDestination
Witchita, Kansas
Witchita, Kansas
Minneapolis, Minn.
Hilton Head Isl.,S.C,
Bessemer, Al.
San Francisco, Ca.
Jasper, Ala.
Selma
St. Augustine,Fla.
Jacksonville, Fla.
W. Palm Beach,Fla.
Columbus, Neb.
Gallatin, Tenn.
Omaha, Neb.
Magee, Miss.
Ozark, Ala.
Smyrna, Tenn.
Tallahassee, Fla.
Augusta, Ga.
W. Palm Beach, Fla.
PNS
PNS
PNS
PNS
Atlanta, Ga.
PNS
Tampa, Fla.
Greenville, S.C.
Washington National
Lynchburg, Va.
Atlanta, Ga.
Same
Same
Buchanan, Ca.
Same
Same
Same
Same
Same
Miami, Fla.
Same
Same
Same
Same
Same
Same
Same
Same
PNS
Tallahassee, Fla.
PNS
PNS
Same
PNS
Same
Same
Lynchburg, Va.
Winston-Salem, N.C.
Pensacola
Same
Pensacola
Pensacola
Same
Huntsville, Al.
PNS
PNS
Jacksonville, Fla.
Daytona, Fla.
Columbus, Neb.
PNS
PNS
Same
Blackwell, Al.
Orlando, Fla.
PNS
Same
PNS
PNS
PNS
PNS
PNS
Gulfport, Miss.
PNS
PNS
PNS
Same
PURPOSE OF TRIP
Company Business
Pleasure
Personal Business
Training
Other
Total
RESPONSES
23
7
5
0
1
36*
PERCENT
64%
1 9%
1 4%
0%
3%
1 00%
*Some people responded to more than one purpose
Reason(s) for Landing at PNS
Aircraft Emergency0
Termination of Trip23
Maintenance/Repair1
Weather0
Fueling1 2
Training0
Other4
Some people responded to more than one reason
Do you require surface transportation?
Yes 24No 5
No Response 3
If Yes:
Taxi5
Rental Car1 0
Private Car1 2
Limo/Bus1
What facilities do you require at PNS
Restaurant1 4
Snack Bar8
Sleeping Rooms 6
Washup & Shower Areas 4
Other:
"Good FBO with Fuel and Maintenance"
"Fuel and Maintenance"
"Transportation"
"Fuel"
"Pilot Waiting Room"
"Maintenance - Pilot Lounge - Hangars - Fuel, etc."
"Avionics Shop"
"Tie Down and Fuel"
F-1 4
Additional Comments
"All is fine"
"Need General Aviation terminal with all facilities"
"Service Excellent"
"Better maintenance facilities - (Radio shop - compass Rose)"
"Need compass rose"
"Need two good FBO's - better maintenance facilities -
particularly avionics"
"North ramp's parking space marginal"
"Need compass rose, better restaurant, radio shop"
"Since the City has taken over, the service has been better than
ever (thanks)"
"Maintain an aircraft sales business - several aircraft on the field
need full service"
"The facility on the south ramp appears totally inadequate where
aircraft services such as wash jobs, maintenance, interior
cleaning, tow equipment, unicom and various other accommodations
normally found at a fixed base operation"
"PNS Regional need another FBO with flight training facilities"
APPENDIX GG-1
ORIGINATION-DESTINATION STUDY
AND STAGE LENGTH ASSUMPTIONS
ORIGINATION-DESTINATION
Table G-1 depicts the ultimate origination-destination data
for Pensacola passengers for three periods; 1 960, 1 966 and 1 973, as
taken from the Civil Aeronautics Board's records. From this table
i t can be seen that during this 1 3-year period, market changes have
occurred in City pair interests. Notably, Atlanta, Tampa, Chicago
and Orlando have gained in position while San Francisco, Los Angeles,
New Orleans and Birmingham have lost in position. It should be noted
that four of the top ten cities in 1 973 were cities in Florida and
eight of the top fifteen cities are southern cities. In overview,
between 1 960 and 1 973 longer stage length city pairs have gained in
position indicating a trend toward longer stage lengths.
This information is useful in projecting possible new non-stop
or through service and is also useful in determining stage lengths of
flights used when calculating runway length requirements. By multi-
plying the forecast numbers of passengers by the current percentages
traveling to each city, an estimate is obtained of potential passengers
for each of the cities. Assuming that 1 00 passengers per day in each
direction (73,000 annual passengers) is a valid criteria for non-stop
service, the cities that can justify these services can be estimated.
Table G-2 shows that by 1 995 Atlanta, New York and Tampa can justify
non-stop service based on the forecasted travel desires.
However, the need for service is also tied to the route struc-
tures of the airlines serving Pensacola. For example, passengers
flying to the North are normally routed through Atlanta, even though
this may not be their ultimate destination. In fact, twice the number
i s mof passengers pass through Atlanta in route elsewhere as go there for
their final destination. This contrast between ultimate destination
and on-line destination is shown in Table G-3 and in part, justifies
three non-stops a day to Atlanta presently.
STAGE LENGTH
From a review of the above information it can be seen that
stage length depends, in part, on the travel desires of airline
passengers and the route structure of the airlines. Assuming that
the principal consideration would be travel desires, a non-stop
stage length of 1 ,000 miles could be anticipated (Pensacola-New York
City). More likely, a maximum stage length of 800 miles (Pensacola-
Washington, D.C.) should be considered for long-range planning pur-
poses. Over the short term (1 980-1 985) a maximum stage length of
400 miles would be likely. (This would cover Pensacola-Tampa as
well as Atlanta and Birmingham.)
all
I le
TABLE G-1
ULTIMATE ORIGINATION-DESTINATION COMPARISONS - TOP 15 CITIES
YEARS 1960, 1966, AND 1973
BASED ON 1 0% SAMPLE
1960 Ranking
1960 1966
1973 Ranking
1973
Total
Pass.
Percent
Total
TotalPercent
Pass.Total
Total Enp.
and Dep.
Percent
Total
New York 8,800 9.79 13,080 7.70 Atlanta 34,220 9.73
Atlanta 7,630 8.49 14,780 8.70 New York 22,620 6.43
New Orleans 5,590 6.22 10,080 5.93 Tampa 19,360 5.56
Birmingham 5,440 6.05 2,660 1.57 Chicago 13,570 3.86
Miami 4,650 5.17 9,080 5.35 Miami 12,590 3.57
Jacksonville 4,640 5.16 9,540 5.62 Jacksonville 12,580 3.57
Tampa 4,210 4.69 10,310 6.07 Washington 12,580 3.57
Washington, D. C. 3,520 3.92 5,740 3.38 New Orleans 11,550 3.28
Chicago 2,700 3.00 5,450 3.21 Orlando 10,550 2.93
Philadelphia 2,290 2.55 4,690 2.76 Birmingham 9,360 2.66
Los Angeles 2,110 2.35 4,230 2.49 Philadelphia 9,300 2.64
Boston 2,020 2.25 2,670 1.57 Houston 8,630 2.45
Tallahassee 1,710 1.90 3,190 1.88 Boston 8,210 2.33
San Francisco 1,330 1.48 3,920 2.31 St. Louis 7,570 2.15
Orlando 1,130 1.26 3,890 2.29 Los Angeles 7,490 2.10
Total 57,770 64.28 103,310 60.83 200,180 56.83
Other Cities 32,090 66,560 151,720
Total Passengers
All Communities 89,860 169,870 351,900
94,526 Actual187,004 Actual
391,450 Actual
4.93% Difference9.16% Difference
1 0.1 0% Difference
Source: Civil Aeronautics Board
G-3
TABLE G-2
PROJECTED ORIGINATION-DESTINATION
1 973 Ranking 1 975 1 980 1 985 1 990 1 995
Total Passengers 256,000 450,000 700,000 1 ,000,000 1 ,300,000
Atlanta 25,900 44,000 68,000 97,000* 1 26,000*
New York 1 6,000 29,000 45,000 64,000 84,000*
Tampa 1 4,000 25,000 39,000 56,000 73,000*
Chicago 1 0,000 1 7,000 27,000 39,000 50,000
Miami 9,000 1 6,000 25,000 36,000 47,000
Jacksonville 9,000 1 6,000 25,000 36,000 47,000
Washington, D. C 9,000 1 6,000 25,000 36,000 47,000
New Orleans 8,000 1 5,000 23,000 33,000 43,000
Orlando 8,000 1 3,000 21 ,000 30,000 39,000
Birmingham 7,000 1 2,000 1 9,000 27,000 35,000
Philadelphia 7,000 1 2,000 1 8,000 26,000 34,000
Houston 6,000 1 1 ,000 1 7,000 25,000 32,000
Boston 6,000 1 0,000 1 6,000 23,000 31 ,000
St. Louis 6,000 1 0,000 1 5,000 22,000 28,000
Los Angeles 5,000 9,000 1 5,000 21 ,000 27,000
*Assume 1 00 one-way passengers per day for non-stop service
(73,000 annual passengers)
Source: Greiner projections
TABLE G-3
ULTIMATE AND ON-LINE
ORIGINATION-DESTINATION
1 973 Ranking
Ultimate 0 & D On-Line 0 & D
1 - Atlanta 1 7,1 1 0 42,695
2 - New York 1 1 ,31 0 1 0,840
3 - Tampa 9,680 1 0,640
4 - Chicago 6,785 9,755
5 - Miami 6,285 6,070
6 - Jacksonville 6,290 6,230
7 - Washington 6,290 6,060
8 - New Orleans 5,770 1 5,295
9 - Orlando 5,270 5,41 0
1 0 - Birmingham 4,680 5,620
1 1 - Philadelphia 4,650 4,61 0
1 2 - Houston 4,31 5 7,1 45
1 3 - Boston 4,1 05 4,21 5
1 4 - St. Louis 3,785 3,990
1 5 - Los Angeles 3,700 4,075
Source: Civil Aeronautics Board 0 & D
G-4
APPENDIX H
H-1
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
IN THE VICINITY OF PNS
Amphibians and reptiles reported from the areas adjacent to the
Scientific Name
Common Name
Acris qrvllus
Ambystoma cingulatum
Ambystoma opacum
Anolis carolinensis
Bufo quericus
Bufo terestris
Bufo woodhousei
Chelvdra serpentina
Cenemidophorus sexlineatus
Coluber constrictor
Diemictvlus viridescens
Drymarchon corals
Elaphe guttata
Elaphe obsoleta
Eumeces inexpectatus
Eurvcea lonqicanda
Heterodon simus
Hvla cinerea
Hvla squirella
Hyla vesicolor
Kinosternon subrubrum
Lampropeltis getulus
Lygosoma laterale
Masticophis flagellum
Micrurus fulvius
Natrix sipedon
Natrix taxispilota
Pseudotriton motanus
Rana catesbeiana
Rana clamitans
Rana pipiens
Scaphiopus holbrooki
Sceloporus undulatus
Sistrurus miliarius
Storeria dekavi
Terrapene carolina
Thamnophis sirtalis
cricket fr(
Elatwoods salamander
marbled salamander
green anole lizzard
oak toad
southern toad
Fowler's toad
snapping turtle
six line racerunner
racer
newt
indigo snake 1
corn snake
rat snake
five lined skink
three lined salamander
hognose snake
green treefrog
squirrel treefrog
gray treefrog
mud turtle
kingsnake
ground skink
coachwhip
coral snake
common water snake
brown watersnake
mud salamander
bullfrog
bronze frog
leopard frog
spaclefoot toad
fence lizzard
pigmy rattlesnake
brown snake
box turtle
garter snake
1
Possibly an escapee
H-2
Birds reported from the areas adjacent to the Pensacola Regional
Airport
Scientific Name
Common Name
Actitis macularia
Agelaius phoeniceus
Anas platyrhychos
Casmerodius albus
Cathartes aura
Colaptes auratus
Colinus virginianus
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Cyanocitta cristata
Dendrocopos occidentalis
Dendrocopus villosus
Dendroica coronata
Dendroica pinus
Eudocimus albus
Falco sparverius
Florida caerulea
Grus canadensis
Melanerpes erythrocephalus
Melospiza georgiana
Melospiza melodia
Mimus polyglottos
Mycteria americana
Myiarchus crinitus
Parus bicolor
Parus carolinensis
Passerella iliaca
Pipilo erythrophthalmus
Progne subis
Quiscalus quiscula
Richmondena cardinalis
Sayornis phoebe
Sitta pusilla
Strix varia
Thryothorus ludovicianus
Toxostoma rufum
Turdus migratorius
Zenaidura macroura
Zonotrichia albicollis
1 Rare or endangered species
2 Status of species is undetermined
spotted sandpiper
red-winged blackbird
mallard
common egret
vulture
yellow-shafted flicker
quail
crow
blue jay
red cockaded woodpecker'
hairy woodpecker
myrtle warbler
pine warbler
white ibis
sparrow hawk
little blue heron
sandhill crane
red-headed woodpecker
swamp sparrow
song sparrow
mockingbird
wood stork2
crested flycatcher
tufted titmouse
Carolina chickadee
fox sparrow
towhee
purple martin
grackle
cardinal
phoebe
brown-headed nuthatch
barred owl
Carolina wren
brown thrasher
robin
mourning dove
white-throated sparrow
H-3
Mammals reported from the areas adjacent to the Pensacola Regional
Airport
Scientific Name
Common Name
Didelphis yirginiana
Glaucomys volans
Lasiurus borealis
Mephitis mephitis
Myotis austroriparius
Peromyscus gossypinus
Peromyscus polinotus
Procyon lotor
Scalopus aquaticus
Sciurus carolinensis
Sciurus niger
Sigmodom hispidus
Sylvilagus floridanus
Urocyon cinereoargenteus
Virginia opossum
southern fl y ing squirrel
red bat
skunk
Florida brown rat
cotton mouse
oldfield mouse
raccoon
eastern mole
gray squirrel
fox squirrel
Hispid cotton rat
cottontail
gray fox
H-4
Plants reported from the Sand Hill forest adjacent to the Pensacola
Regional Airport
HERBACEOUS PLANTS AND VINES
Scientific Name
Common Name
Andropocion virqinicus
Aristida stricta
Asclepias sp.
Aster adnatus
Aster linariifolius
Baptisia leucophylla
Berlandiera pumila
Chrysoma pauciflosculosa
Chrysopsis qraminifolia
Cladonia sp.
Clinopodium coccinium
Cnidoscolus stimulosus
Coreopsis sp.
Croton arqyranthemus
Elephantopus tomentosus
Erioqonumtomentosum
Eupatorium capillifolium
Euphorbia sp.
Galactea sp.
Gelsemium sempervirens
Geobalanus oblonqifolia
Geranium carolinianum
Gerardia sp.
Gillardia sp.
Gnaphalium purpureum
Helianthemum carolinianum
Helianthus raduls
Heterotheca subaxillaris
Hibiscus sp.
Hypericum sp.
Latuca sp.
Lespendeza sp.
Liatris spicata
Linaria canadensis
Lonicera japonica
Lupinus villosus
Medicaqo sp.
Oenothera sp.
Opuntia sp.
broom sage
wire grass
milkweed
chain leaf aster
stiffleafed aster
false wild indigo
green eyes
woody goldenrod
golden aster
reindeer moss, lichen
wild basil
spurge nettle
butter daiseV
silver croton
elephantopus
dog tongue
dog fennel
spurge
milk ground pea
yellow jasmine
gopher apple
Carolina geranium
gerardia
red & yellow flower (daisey)
cudweed
rockrose
sun flower
camphor weed
hibiscus
St. Johs's wort
prickly lettuce
bush clover
blazing star
toadf lax
honeysuckle
lupine
medic
primrose
prickly pear
SAND HILL
continued
Pteridium aquilinum
Rhus radicans
Rhnchosia sp.
Rubus trivialis
Rumex acetosella
Seymeria cassioides
Smilax auriculata
Smilax laurifolia
Stellaria sp.
Stillinqia sp.
Tephrosia sp.
Tradescantia sp.
Trilisa odoratissima
Vaccinium stamineum
Yucca filimentosus
Gnaphalium purpureum
bracken fern
poison ivy
dollar weed
dewberry
doch
brownstar
greenbrier
greenbrier
chick weed
stillingia
goats rue
ground itch weed
deer tongue
deerberry
bear grass
rabbit tobacco
SAND HILL
WOODY PLANTS
Scientific Name
Common Name
Amelanchier arborea
Carya glabra
Carya tomentosa
Chrysoma pauciflosculosa
Clinopodium coccineum
Cretaegus spathulata
Diospyros virginiana
Fagus grandifolia
Geobalanus oblongifolius
Hamamelis virginiana
Ilex vomitoria
Pinus clausa
Quercus falcata
Quercus incana
Quercus imbricata
Ouercus laevis
Quercus laurifolia
Quercus margaretta
Quercus stellata
Pinus palustris
Rhus copallina
Serenoa repens
Vaccinium arboreum
Vaccinium elliotii
=.erviceberrv
pignut hickory
mockernut hickory
woody goldenrod
red basil
1 ,awthorn
persimmon
American beech
gopher apple
witch hazel
yaupon holly
sand pine
Southern red oak
blue jack oak
over cup oak
turkey oak
laurel oak
sand post oak
post oak
longleaf pine
winged sumac
.saw palmetto
sparkleberry
blue berry
SWAMP FOREST
Scientific Name
Common Name
H-7
Anisostichus capreolata
Epidendrum conopseum
Epidendrum tampensis
Lonicera japonica
Lonicera sempervirens
Marcantia sp.
Mikania scandens
Nuphar sp.
Orontium aquaticum
Osmunda cinnamomea
Osmunda reqalis
Peltandra sagittaefolia
Penquicula lutea
Polypodium polvpodies
Ponterderia cordata
Rhus radicans
Sarracenia leucophylla
Sarracenia psittacina
Saururus cernuus
Serenoa repens
Smilax qlauca
Smilax laurifolia
Smilax walteri
Spagnum sp.
Tillandsia usneolides
Vitis muscadinia rotundifolia
Woodwardia virginiana
cross vine
green fly orchid
air plant
yellow jessamine
honeysuckle
coral honeysuckle
liverwort
climbing hempweed
small yellow water lily
golden-club, never-wet
cinnamon fern
royal fern
arrow arum
butterwort
resurrection fern
pickerel weed
poison ivy
pitcher plant
parrot pitcher plant
lizzard tail
saw palmetto
saw-brier
bamboo vine
coral greenbrier
peat moss
Spanish moss
muscadine grape
chain fern
SWAMP FOREST
WOODY PLANTS
Scientific Name
Common Name
H-8
Acer rubrum
Aesculus pavia
Asimina parviflora
Chamaecyparis thyoides
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Clethra alnifolia
Cliftonia monophylla
Cyrilla racemiflora
Euonymus americanus
Fagus grandifolia
Gordonia lasianthus
Halesia carolina
Ilex cassine
Ilex glabra
Ilex opaca
Ilex vomitoria
Illicium floridanum
Itea virginica
Liriodendron tulipifera
Lyonia lucida
Magnolia grandiflora
Magnolia virginiana
Myrica cerifera
Nyssa aquatica
Nyssa biflora
Nyssa sylvatica
Osmanthus americana
Oxydendrum arboreum
Persea borbonia
Pinus elliotii
Pinus glabra
Quercus nigra
Rhododendron nudiflorum
Rhus vernix
Robinia pseudo-acacia
Sassafras sassafras
Styrax americana
Symplocos tinctoria
Taxodium ascendens
Taxodium distichum
Vaccinium arboreum
Vaccinium elliottii
Virburnum nudum
red maple
buckeye
pawpaw
atlantic white cedar
button bush
sweet-pepper bush
buckwheat titi, black titi
red titi
strawberry bush
American beech, beech-nut tree
loblollv bay
silverbell
dahoon holly
gallberry
American holly
yaupon holly
purple anise
Virginia willow
yellow poplar
fetter bush
Southern magnolia
.sweet bay
wax myrtle
tupelo-gum
black gum
water tupelo
wild olive
sourwood
red bay
slash pine
Walter's pine, spruce pine
water oak
wild azelea
poison sumac
black locust
sassafras
styrax
horsesugar
pond cypress
river cypress
sparkleberry
blue berry
swamp haw, possum haw
HARDWOOD HAMMOCK
Scientific Name
Common Name
Arundinaria gigantea (tecta)
Asplenium platyneuron
Axonopus sp.
Canex sp.
Lonicera japonica
Mitchella repens
Morus rubra
Panicum sp.
Parthenocissus quinquefolia
Phoradendron serotinum
Polypodium polypodioides
Polystichum acrostichoides
Rhus radicans
Rhus vernix
Smilax auriculata
Smilax bona-nox
Smicax glauca
Smilax herbacea
Smilax laurifolia
Smilax rotundifolia
Solanum sp.
Tillandsia usneoides
Urtica sp.
Vaccinium elliotii
Vitis aestivalis
Vitis rotundifolia
Zephyranthes atamasco
cane
ebony spleenwort
carpet grass
grass
yellow jasmine
honeysuckle
partridge berry
red mulberry
panic grass
Virginia creeper
mistletoe
resurrection fern
christmas fern
poison ivy
poison sumac
greenbrier
greenbrier
greenbrier
greenbrier
greenbrier
greenbrier
nightshade
Spanish moss
stinging nettle
blue berry
fox grape
muscadine
lily
HARDWOOD HAMMOCK
WOODY PLANTS
Scientific Name
Common Name
Aesculus pavia
Asimina parviflora
Azalea sp.
Callicarpa americana
Carpinus caroliniana
Carya glabra
Carya tomentosa
Castanea dentata
Cercis canadensis
Cornus florida
Diospyros virginiana
Fagus grandifolia
Fagus grandifolia
Halesia carolina
Hamamelis virginiana
Ilex cassine
Ilex cassine var. myrtifolia
Ilex opaca
Liquidambar styraciflua
Magnolia grandiflora
Osmanthus americana
Ostrya virginiana
Oxydendrum arboreum
Pinus elliottii
Pinus glabra
Prunus serotina
Prunus umbellata
Quercus laurifolia
Quercus virginiana
Sassafras albidum
Serenoa repens
Symplocos tinctoria
Vaccinium arboreum
buckeye
pawpaw
azalea
French mulberry
ironwood
pignut hickory
mockernut hickory
chestnut
rebud tree
dogwood
persimmon
American beech
beech
silverbell
witch hazel
dahoon holly
holly
American holly
sweetgum
Southern magnolia
wild olive
hop hornbeam
sourwood
slash pine
Walter's pine
black cherry
hog plum
laurel oak
live oak
sassafras
saw palmetto
horsesugar
sparkleberry
APPENDIX I
I-1
AIR POLLUTION WIND DATA
The Summary of Local Wind Data collected by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Environmental Data Service
between 1 967 and 1 971 at Pensacola Airport are given in Tables I-1
through 1 -4. These tables represent the results of Star Computer
Program Analysis. Table I-1 shows the Annual Wind Speed and Direc-
tion Frequency Distribution between 1 967-1 971 ; Table 1 -2, shows
annual relative wind speed and direction frequency distribution
of Pasquill Stability Class E; Table 1 -3 shows annual relative
wind speed and direction frequency distribution of Pasquill
Stability Class E; and Table 1 -4 shows annual relative wind speed
and direction frequency distribution of Pasquill Stability Class F.
It can be stated that Pasquill Stability Class D represents the
daytime worst dispersion conditions and Classes E and F represents
the night time worst dispersion conditions.
Mixing depths provide a measure of the volume within which
pollutants may mix without restriction. In the Pensacola area,
mixing depths are generally unlimited except during early morning
periods of radiation inversion. The U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency publication, "Mixing Heights, Winds and Potential for Urban
Air Pollution Throughout the Contiguous United States," indicates
a mean annual morning mixing height of 620 meters and a mean
annual afternoon mixing height of 1 ,1 1 0 meters in the area.
The temperature structure determines the stability of the
atmosphere. In Escambia County monthly average temperatures range
from the lower 60's in winter to the lower 80's during summer
months.
In addition to the transport and dilution of pollutants,
precipitation also has an effect on ambient concentrations. The
average monthly rainfall in the area ranges from 1 .5 to 9 inches
maximum precipitation occurring during the summer months.
The State of Florida Air Implementation Plan, dated
January 1 972, stated that due to the general pattern of terrain
and trade wind circulation, meteorological conditions that
aggravate air pollution do not often occur in Florida. The air
over the State is usually sufficiently unstable - a condition
conducive to the development of cumulus clouds and thunderstorms -
to disperse pollutants to higher levels in most locations.
TABLE I-1
Annual Relative Wind Speed and Direction Frequency Distribution
at Pensacola Airport, Pensacola, Florida/NAS 67-71
Speed (Kts)
Direction 0 - 3 4 - 6 7 - 1 0 1 1 - 1 6 1 7 - 21 >21 Total
N 2.39 4.1 1 3.51 2.01 .39 .05 1 2.46
NNE 1 .20 2.44 1 .60 .82 .09 .01 6.1 6
NE .89 2.02 1 .47 .70 .08 .02 5.1 8
E NE .67 1 .58 1 .92 1 .05 .1 0 .01 5.33
E .85 1 .94 3.1 6 2.06 .20 .02 8.23
E SE .52 1 .24 2.49 1 .58 .1 3 .02 5.98
SE .56 1 .45 2.31 1 .25 .1 0 .05 5.72
SSE .71 1 .71 2.66 1 .07 .09 .02 6.26
S .88 2.34 4.1 1 1 .82 .20 .1 1 9.46
SSW .45 1 .1 6 2.02 1 .38 .1 2 .02 5.1 5
SW .35 .91 1 .75 1 .68 .27 .03 4.99
WSW .45 1 .1 0 1 .62 .98 .22 .04 4.41
W .91 2.00 1 .70 .76 .1 6 .04 5.57
WNW .79 1 .25 1 .00 .46 .1 1 .02 3.63
NW .87 1 .47 1 .1 6 .86 .1 9 .07 4.62
N N W 1 .1 6 2.1 3 1 .98 1 .20 .33 .05 6.85
Total 1 3.65 28.85 34.46 1 9.68 2.78 .58
Total relative frequency of observations = 1 00.00
Total relative frequency of calms distributed above = 4.68
TABLE 1 -2
Stability Class D
Speed (Kts)
Direction0 - 34 - 67-1 0 1 1 - 1 61 7 - 21 >21 Total
N.1 6.471 .501 .95 .38 .05 4.51
NNE.08.33.73.79 .08 .00 2.01
NE.07.23.72.69 .07 .02 1 .80
ENE.1 0.341 .031 .03 .1 0 .01 2.61
E.1 7.551 .821 .98 .20 .02 4.74
ESE.1 2.401 .261 .41 .1 3 .02 3.34
SE.09.341 .061 .08 .1 0 .05 2.72
SSE.1 0.401 .1 6.95 .09 .02 2.72
S.1 3.451 .601 .55 .20 .1 1 4.04
SSW.07.29.86.92 .1 1 .02 2.27
SW .04.21 .861 .28 .1 7 .02 2.58
WSW.06.1 7.81 .89 .1 8 .03 2.1 4
W.09.26.87.72 .1 5 .03 2.1 2
WNW.05.1 7.48.44 .1 1 .02 1 .27
NW.09.24.48.83 .1 8 .07 1 .89
NNW.1 1 .36.871 .1 5 .33 .05 2.87
Total1 .535.21 1 6.1 1 1 7.66 2.58 .54
Relative frequency of occurrence of D Stability = 43.63
Relative frequency of calms distributed above with D Stability = .55
I
TABLE 1-3
Stability Class E
Speed (Kts)
Direction 0 - 3 4 - 6 7 - 1 0 1 1 - 1 6 1 7 - 21 >21 Total
N .00 .84 1 .45 .00 .00 .00 2.29
NNE .00 .48 .55 .00 .00 .00 1 .03
NE .00 .42 .56 .00 .00 .00 .98
ENE .00 .35 .49 .00 .00 .00 .84
c
1 -1
E
ESE
.00
.00
.46
.26
.60
.1 7
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
1 .06
.43
H
i
Hi
SE .00 .31 .22 .00 .00 .00 .53
--1 SSE .00 .32 .30 .00 .00 .00 .62
S .00 .45 .49 .00 .00 .00 .94
SSW .00 .29 .34 .00 .00 .00 .63
SW .00 .25 .35 .00 .00 .00 .60
WSW .00 .31 .55 .00 .00 .00 .86
W .00 .54 .62 .00 .00 .00 1 .1 6
WNW .00 .30 .33 .00 .00 .00 .63
NW .00 .30 .41 .00 .00 .00 .71
NNW .00 .37 .61 .00 .00 .00 .98
Total .00 6.25 8.04 .00 .00 .00
Relative frequency of occurrence of E Stability = 1 4.29
Relative frequency of calms distributed above with E Stability = 0.00
TABLE I - 4
Stability Class F
Speed (Kts)
Direction 0 - 3 4 - 6 7 - 1 0 1 1 - 1 6 1 7 - 21 >21 Total
N 2.1 2 2.38 .00 .00 .00 .00 4.50
NNE 1 .05 1 .40 .00 .00 .00 .00 2.45
NE .75 1 .1 2 .00 .00 .00 .00 1 .87
E NE .40 .57 .00 .00 .00 .00 .97
E .44 .48 .00 .00 .00 .00 .92
E SE .23 .21 .00 .00 .00 .00 .44
SE .27 .27 .00 .00 .00 .00 .54
SSE .34 .36 .00 .00 .00 .00 .70
S .41 .48 .00 .00 .00 .00 .89
SSW .24 .31 .00 .00 .00 .00 .55
SW .27 .29 .00 .00 .00 .00 .56
WSW .35 .50 .00 .00 .00 .00 .85
W .76 1 .08 .00 .00 .00 .00 1 .84
WNW .69 .66 .00 .00 .00 .00 1 .35
NW .71 .75 .00 .00 .00 .00 1 .46
NNW .98 1 .08 .00 .00 .00 .00 2.06
Total 1 0.01 1 1 .94 .00 .00 .00 .00
Relative frequency of occurrence of F Stability = 21 .95
Relative frequency of calms distributed above with F Stability = 3.57
APPENDIX J
J-1
A DISCUSSION OF AIRCRAFT NOISE
Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF)
Field measurement of acoustic noise is recorded in decibels
(dB) on an A-weighted scale. The A-scale is a frequency-weighted
network which produces a composite value that closely approximates
the response of the human ear. The A-weighted sound level is
accepted as an accurate and practical measure of acoustic noise,
and can be easily determined using any standard sound level meter.
A single-number measure of subjective reaction which can be
computed from physical measurements - perceived noise level - is
now uniformly employed in describing aircraft noise. This number
results from the combination of sound pressure levels in octave or
one-third-octave bands to arrive at a single number description of
the sound in terms of perceived noise decibels, or PNdB. PNdB is
generally specified only for a maximum value of the aircraft noise
during a flyover, without corrections for duration or pure-tone
effects. To correct for both the presence of discrete frequencies
and time history, an effective perceived noise level in decibels,
or EPNdB was established. Noise levels expressed in PNdB can
generally be converted to dBA by subtracting 1 3-1 5 dB.
Discussion, theretofore, briefly centered on acoustic noise
resulting from the approach or takeoff of a single aircraft. However,
it was necessary to determine a method of combining the effects of
noise from a series of aircraft flyovers, and establishing a criteria
which would relate the noise exposure to subjective human response.
Public objections of aircraft noise increase as the interference
with sleep, speech, teaching, recreation, or other activities becomes
more frequent.
As a result, a rational method for projecting the extent of
aircraft noise has been available since 1 962, when the concept of the
CNR - Composite Noise Rating - was adopted. Refinements to this
approach have resulted from studies to develop the NEF - Noise
Exposure Forecast - concept. The basic difference between the two
is that the NEF, in addition to utilizing all the data previously
used in computing CNR's, also uses correction factors for discrete
frequencies (tones) and noise duration.
Although the CNR methodology has been widely used in the past,
the use of NEF contour mapping has become more prominent in recent
years.
The NEF contours define land areas having different land-use
compatibility with respect to aircraft noise; hence, the NEF areas
may be used as a guide to land-use planning and zoning and airport
J-2
development. The NEF contours are based upon the aircraft noise
described in terms of effective perceived noise levels (which
includes corrections for duration and presence of discrete fre-
quencies) plus adjustments for the number of operations for day-
time and nighttime periods. The following table describes suit-
able land uses adjacent to airports.
Aircraft Sound Description System (ASDS)
This discussion of the Aircraft Sound Description System (ASDS)
methodology is taken in part from FAA Report EQ-74-2. It is intended
to provide a brief insight into the background and approach of a newly
developed technique to describe acoustic noise.
The Aircraft Sound Description System predicts exposure to
aircraft noise by describing it in terms of the total amount of time
that sound levels exceed a pre-selected threshold value. As supplied
to airport area analyses then, for any desired location, a noise
exposure quantity is specified which states the exposure as "X" minutes
of total exposure to sound levels in excess of 85 dB(A).
Some of the benefits of dealing with noise exposure as structured
in the ASDS include the following:
The exposure number provides immediate informa-

tion to the reader relative to the amount of
time the noise is heard over a prescribed level.
Since the noise level of each event must satisfy
at least a minimum predefined threshold level
some conceptual appreciation of the approximate
"loudness" being dealt with in exposure analyses
is possible.
These particular distinguishing features of the Aircraft Sound
Description System place environmental noise analysis on a basis which
can be comprehended by people who do not have a background in acoustic
noise analysis.
The ASDS methodology differs in three substantial ways from the
traditional manner of dealing with aircraft noise: it is a noise
analysis oriented to using A-weighted sound pressure levels in deci-
bels as used for many transportation and non-transportation noise
sources (referred to as dB(A); it states exposure in units of time;
and it yields information relative to a specific noise level.
As previously stated, ASDS begins with the idea of describing
noise exposure at a point by the amount of time during which noise
levels exceed a pre-selected value. A threshold level of 85 decibels
on the A-weighted sound pressure level scale (85 dB(A) has been
Table 1*
Land Uses Adjacent to Airports (Based on NEF or CNR Noise Contours)
NEFCNRCNR
ValuesValuesZone
Remarks
20-3090-1 001 Few activities will be affected by aircraft sounds, although building designs
for especially sound-sensitive activities, such as auditoriums, churchs,
schools, hospitals, and theatres should consider sound control in areas clos-
est to the airport. Detailed studies by qualified personnel are recommended
for outdoor amphitheatres and like places of public assembly in the general
vicinity of the airport.
30-40 1 00-1 1 52Activities where uninterrupted communication is essential should consider

sound exposure in design. Generally, residential development is not consid-
ered a suitable use, although multi-family developments where sound control
features have been incorporated in building design might be considered.
1-1Open-air activities and outdoor living will be affected by aircraft sound.
jurThe construction of auditoriums, schools, churches, hospitals, theatres, and
UJsimilar activities should be avoided within this zone where possible.
40
1 1 53Land should be reserved for activities that can tolerate a high level of
sound exposure, such as some agricultural, industrial, and commercial uses.
No residential developments of any type are recommended. Sound-sensitive
activities such as schools, offices, hospitals, churches, and similar activi-
ties should not be constructed in this area unless no alternative location is
possible. All regularly occupied structures should consider sound control in
design.
* Taken from report entitled "Airport Master Plans" prepared by the Federal Aviation Administration,
February 1 971 .
J-4
determined to be both meaningful and practicable. Thus, an ASDS
application seeks to calculate, for each point in the airport vicinity,
the amount of time (usually measured in minutes) during which aircraft
noise levels exceed 85 dB(A), given a certain traffic mix and mode
of airport operation.
Typically, an ASDS application consists of several scenarios
(specification of a situation for analysis) reflecting various modes
of operation, present versus future traffic mixes, and so on. Each
scenario consists of a traffic mix, a set of nominal approach and
departure ground tracks, and a scheme by which each operation in the
traffic mix is assigned to a specific track. Normally, the traffic
mix includes all traffic within a 24-hour period.
Once a scenario has been specified, the resulting noise expo-
sure can be calculated by a two-step process. In the first step, the
exposure from each individual operation in the scenario traffic mix
is calculated. The second step combines all the single-event noise
exposure patterns to determine the overall exposure at each point
in
the airport vicinity. Various points which have the same exposure
can then be connected to form contours. These contours then provide
bands of noise which can be used to illustrate the impact of noise
exposure.
REFERENCES
Airport Master Plans, Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, February 1 971 .
Noise Pollution: The Unquiet Crisis, Clifford R. Bragdon, 1 971 .
Alleviation of Jet Aircraft Noise Near Airports, A report of the
Jet Aircraft Noise Panel, Office of Science and Technology,
Executive Office of the President, March 1 966.
Noise Exposure Forecast Contours for 1 967, 1 970 and 1 975 Operations at
Selected Airports, Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Incorporated,
September 1 970.
Aircraft Sound Description System Application Procedures, Department
of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of
Environmental Quality, March 1 974.
APPENDIX KK-1
CORRELATION BETWEEN L 1 0 AND NEF
In evaluating the noise impact on communities due to trans-
portation facilities there has emerged a need to convert from one
noise descriptor to another. For example, a particular community
may be exposed to a discrete noise source, such as an aircraft over-
flight, and a continuous random noise source, such as a highway.
To assess the relative contributions of each source, it would be
helpful and practical to be able to correlate one measure with
another.
In a study l submitted to the Department of Transportation's
Transportation System Center by Dr. L. G. Copley, the relationships
between discrete and statistical noise measures were explored and
developed into a useful form.
Dr. Copley's results with the Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF)
and the L 1 9 measure in dB(A) are discussed here. The L1 0 descriptor,
expressed in decibels on an A-weighted scale, is that level of general
community noise exceeded only 1 0 percent of the time. Community L1 0
levels typically range from 40 dB(A) to 80 dB(A), depending on the
type and location of noise sources. The NEF descriptor is widely
used to assess noise impact from aircraft operations. The NEF value
is the result of a series of adjustments to an effective perceived
noise level (EPNL in decibels) from a single aircraft overflight.
The NEF values are generally expressed as NEF 30 or NEF 40, and
relate to land use compatibility.
It is understood that there is no unique mathematical re-
lationship between L 1 0 and NEF. However, through extensive computer
simulations and data correlations, approximate corresponding values
have been established for a specific set of noise situations.
Dr. Copley concluded that, for a restricted set of noise simulations,
i.e., aircraft flyovers at 1 ,000 feet or more, the L1 0 descriptor (on
an hourly basis) is reasonably well correlated with the NEF measure
(24-hour exposure), within 5 dB(A). The correlation achieved could
be expressed as L 1 0 = NEF + 25, where the distance between the air-
craft and the point of reference is greater than 1 ,000 feet. Under
this condition, an NEF value of 30 would correlate with an L 1 0 level
in the range of 50-60 dB(A) (L 1 0 = 30 + 25 5 dB(A)). Similarly, an
NEF value of 20 would correspond to an hourly L 1 0 level in the range
of 40-50 dB(A).
1
Copley, Lawrence G., "Translation Between Different Community Noise
Exposure Measures," U.S. DOT Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge,
Mass., April 1 973.
APPENDIX L - PRELIMINARY TERMINALL-1
LAYOUT CONCEPTS
Based on the terminal facility requirement set forth in
the report, several building schemes for the terminal at Pensacola
were developed. These schemes considered the total functional
flow of passengers and baggage and other landside and airside
requirements as shown in Exhibits L-1 and L-2. These cycles of
arriving and departing movements illustrate the various components
which must be considered in any terminal concept study. In addi-
tion, specific requirements such as site limitations, airline de-
sires and cost were also considered.
Prior to choosing a concept for the terminal several basic
concepts for buildings were analyzed and presented to the Airport
Advisory Council for their review. Subsequently, these concepts
were then matched to the facility requirement program and spatially
arranged for the optimum layout at the airport. These concept studies
are shown in Exhibits L-3 and L-1 0.
Finally, three concepts were chosen for additional study
and cost estimates prepared. Based on this information, the Airport
Advisory Council recommended the concept described in Section VIII
of this report.
P A S S E N G E R S ---- BA G G A G E
1 1 1 =1 1 n 1
S E R VI C E S
6* T I C KE T
C O UN T E R
C HE C K I N
A I R C R A FT
DE P A R T UR E
L O UN G E
DE P A R T UR E C YC L E E XHI BI T L -1
44, . 1 > e /
c c
S E C UR I T Y
A I R S I DE T E R M I N A L L A N D S I DE
R E M O T E
P A R KI N G
BA G
M A KE -UP
C L O S E I N
P A R KI N G
R E N T A L C A R
A M E N I T I E S
L A N D S I DE T E R M I N A L A I R S I DE
CARGO
4
1
1
1
U
E XHI BI T
\
\
CABI N
CLEAN I N G
L -2
SERVI CES
REMO TE P ARK
4 1114 4 1111%4 4 1
BAG CLAI M
li g .........."
CLO SE-I N i llk
P ARK
Aal
401 1 1 , 741 n
A I R C R A
0, 00 P #I 40 : ;71 1 1 . 1 0
REN TAL
CARS
i
AMEN I TI ES/
/
I (
TRASH, BULK
CURBSI DE / P t & SAN I TARY
P I CK-UP
(P r i vate Car s ,
Taxi , Li mo, Bus ,
A R R I VA L C YC L E
Valet P ar k)
I mmo P ASSEN GERS .... BAGGAGE --
I
Li A/ 1 - r
^- 1
/
2o
_ 4)4
/2
Gc,o
ce01.-e9/ er&/ / 91,
61('/1 7it / v4)1.//
/4972e.)
eet 71 'r , )/
4//47: 41 '
/ ,F.e.,//ei;/7-r
2 /e,,,e/
/e ve /
0. /ear /".01.0
8407 A L /
/V,44
s'ev4 /
Goa'
I-- 4-
...re,ewca
ze&A
mr'
77eXe ia44y
L4.
/ o/ pect,7-.,r7)
/t"
;-"Tie et a ow) 74e,
/ 41 4
Rep.44C)
- 4 11erneA.)7 e0440
--s,Al____.---,957v7fi
cattez _aeha
5
9 .25C fa ;ry,,
1.dalrya-hi .1.6.- up
afies,sc.771.'/.)- 2z ot7-L
.
"jell
eAr'// C,,c),.pec
Z. ,f/..." 4 A-)e ;;E,(evreW'575"7iJi,i e/
1411 fed/ (ei
.ea 7e r/e.,)1
5-"e? /1/e7tir
- )
Key MA p
AJE v4 W7 ,e0 .4a
( )- 24,61)5L
r
,47
/ ' ex. - . $o
t3/,,7
r,
c
e 4 .
.re/TX>1 A;464 77)
a r mI N N I O N I ft e a dli pi e w_
er,,,zyw
7izez1e2eil_Zitk: e_Leac t/ 60)42ef)
.scole /1 . 11 I00
,
I
C /2///)
/2.
e;?#,, ,- es
/14 7 4 . 1-1,/,
/ 4 ,
/
A f
&kJ/4 /, e
r r i. Ode
b2e)
" eb4 10
i t
7 e:/-0 7 /c,/ ZI/P/i4 - 2 Ze Ve -le /e,eoet)
6( 6 /"./O'
L - 7
l< eI Y) AT*
r,iiP ar e;4 4
"TICKET LOB'
/6'
A/c
-- ... /e;;;e1,7it"( r ./, 7'` ,/ ;
e-91.0e4.
/-54 17 . 7 4 .
e Crn, awi cc
crop
04 4 4 e4 A4 4 ,4 1Meas aI P
'.
Z)e . vr e , . . C
Ai TO per .6.."
06797 47e_ Lotlebn'ovre'e
XI 'thew
\ A".e4 f ee0 / t. OP I 1 CA / ; /0 5
7544,64e courn secr iao
aeok
i/ey //"-
-
,CO3)ec es ioni
e. ,g7 c_ 4-
C/0Oft e?) I,P,ce
k_x Z 9(47
f'r t '
I. z o6ev
r Z'C'4
G ei/705
(7-71- e -n 44, Pr ce. ' At - )
:
z'Ajcve,
n
// ."/e'
--- -;'!>;;.: ja, e CC2', c c
4-- ay7, aye .1-7e 0.11 Dr, . /e e
"7,7. /o
4
L-9
C. a 67e.
///- h/-
/V, P ?Z_
4'oet.
/e. ,47:5-' 4)/L4) //06z ee,
/7 A./74r. 1c. 47-
4 r . r sfr'
r 70 N. 10 0
C)
0 es I . 50
/
r LC
6-7, 000
1 /"1 /7. 4
/ /0 O
L-10
..4,"/...?
411.)
:Lf1C.
A
A
77. I eig
.,.----- 45,:er vi e r ee Ad "71' --,-
i
. .
--
- ,. .
h
vre7,diee 4.0
e
I V4()(cK
/ 2)90,714,ie 4,4ie
I I 1
7/iffe Z el
-Service- epee/
e- LEOEL-
S- e/ we. C ;14nril
104//).ie
_See,,
A. 12d,
1../r7der
% 1-1)r ok r 4
eProsind
g,/ . )4t,e" 646-71 /i <77. 0. 04*
-Cc-0/c
4,1ete /
'A t e . 50
L-12
APPENDIX M
AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN SET
A ATI N MAP
I T E
OFFI CI ALAI RPORTE LE VATI ON
8-2WIND COVERAGE 5MPH (in%)
AIRFIELD LIGHTING .....X
E I T ZI G E 1 3=
31 201 21 =1 1 1 M I KM
li =1 1 =1
E M I L =
M E N E M ]
I i i i i 21 1 1 1 . 01 1 1 1 FI N WA I I
if GROSS WEIGHT STRENGTH 11000 lb..) FOR SINGLE(S) DUAL (D)WHEEL GEAR
NOTES:
L FuTuRE ALP BASED UPON ULTIMATE RUNWAY LENGTHS
AS SHOWN ON RUNWAY TABLE.
2. ALL NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE SURFACES CONFORM TO FAA'S
FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS PART 77.
E XI STI NGULTI MATE
(21 MSLSAME
I TE M
DATA RUNW AIR PORT AY D A
3. ULTIMATELY, ALL TAXIWAYS WILL BE LIGHTED AND
CONFORM TO STANDARDS IN FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION ADVISORY CIRCULAR 150/5345-23
ALL TAXIWAY GUIDANCE SIGNS WILL CONFORM TO
ADVISORY CIRCULAR 150/5340-18.
5. ALL AIRFIELD MARKING WILL CONFORM TO FEDERAL
AVIATION ADMINISTRATION ADVISORY CIRCULAR
150/5340-ID.
6 ALL FINAL NAVA1D LOCATIONS SUBJECT TO
VERIFICATION BY FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
AIR TRAFFIC AND AIR FAC1 LIT 1ES.
7. ALL FINAL APPROACH LIGHTING SYSTEMS SUBJECT
TO VERIFICATION BY THE FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION AIR TRAFFIC AND AIR FACILITIES.
A. SURROUNDING LAND USES INDICATED ON PLAN ARE
EXISTING USES, NOT NECESSARILY ZONING CATAGORIES.
ALL WEATHER WIND DATA :
13MPHCOVE RAGE :
R/ VI 16-3996.3%
R/ W7-2392.5%
16-39/ 7-2399.6%
WIND
SOURCE'
LEGEND
GROUND CONTOURS
FENCE (INITIAL/ULTIMATE)
EXISTING ROADS
= = PROPOSED ROADS
- - RIGHT OF WAY/OR PROPERTY LINES
- -- MIN RECOMMENDED AIRPORT PROPERTY (ULTIMATE)
EXISTING AIRPORT PROPERTY (TO BE PHASED OUT
BUILDING RESTRICTION (BRL)/LEASE PLOTS

CRITICAL/SAFETY AREAS
1 1 : 1 EXISTING BUILDINGS
^ EXISTING STORM DRAINS
NAVIGATIONAL AI DS/ FACI LI TI E S
AIRFIELD LIGHTING
r 1197 STAGE DEVELOPMENT
260 STAGE DEVELOPMENT
. ULTIMATE STAGE DEVELOPMENT
TERMINAL AREA (GE E RE PORTFORDE VE LOPME NT)
-1LAND ACQUISITION (REOOMMENDED MINIMUM)
r_ rMn LAND SURPLUS
LAND ACQUISITION (DESIRABLE)
n
9 - .
DATE
G r e i n e r Bi g n e e r i n g S de n c e s , I n c .
C O N S UL T I N G E N G I N E E R S T A R I P k FL O R I DA
AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN
PE NSACOLA,FLORI DA N/
P I I . C 2t e d by MY 1 . M I UM WV* .
O t 51 71 0M t n i WI T O M 1 /1 . T ha l 1 1 1 a n y pr opos e d
N A M : M I A E n wpon ma n t w P oI kc y A c t of 1 9 69 . 1 3/ . 1 s
Wai t7AFI rST-.0.PAR-Ma'. I N S -A T Z CHE CNE DUGH.
PROJE CTMANAGE RT. P. D.
FAAPROJE CTNO.
A- I 2-0063-01
DATE . C. 1975
SHEET NO. OF1.
R/ WI SL-G4R
TI ALULTI ATE
SAME
UTI LI TY SAME
30(5) SAME
.05SAME
863SAME
NONE SAME
BASIC SAME
ONE SAME
SAME
ME ANMAX. TE MP. HOTTE STMONTH
AI RPORTLOCATI ONPOI NT(ALP)
TE RMI NALNAVAI DS
SYSTE MROLE (RASP)
OPE RATI ONALROLE (PLASM
87.4. F
rvEzig'
S-2
8-3
RUNWAY MARKING
NAVIGATIONAL AIDS
OPERATIONAL ROLE M E M =
e . n . n we . . . 2n N owA T
S t e M i e A U.
DATAFROM: RATAPROCE SSI NGDI VI SI ON
OFTHE CI TY OF
PE NSACOLA, FLORI DA
PE RI OD: 1957 -1966
OBSE RVATI ONS: STAR/
CALMS0 TO5.9 9 P0:50.5%
SAME
ta6sMe g...
LE NGTH/ WI DTH
CORRECTED RUNWAY LENGTH
PAVEMENT STRENGTH W
P-2EFFECTIVE GRADIENT (in%)
1>
A__
7= , p 1111
./
0 ACCE PTE D
APPROVE D GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
'bn
1/ 0"4 .: 04 n
ONI I 1 "TO i v
I O W
f.,
a
5.'1
RUNWAY APPROACH DATA VICINITY MAP
E XI STI NGRI GCATE GORY
FUTURE R/ I I I CATE GORY VI SUAL

VISUAL
vi SLI AL
CAT-I
20-I [STI NGAPPROACHSURFACE LOPE
VI SUAL
NONPRE CI SI ON
ROO
CAT-I
CAT-I I
50- I
FUTURAPPROACHSURACE LOPE 3011M i t
ROPOSE DNE WSE NE R LUTI LI TY RUNWAY.
i t 45RE SE RVE ULTI MATE CAPABI LI TV OF5C, I .
NOTES:
THE RE ARE NOOBSTRUCTI ONSTOTNE HORI E ONT L, CONI C LAPPROACH
NDTRANSI TI ONALSURFACE SOTHE RTHANTHOSE I NDI CATE D.
HE I GHTRE STRI CTI ON.0111NSI SI NE FFE CT.
ME TA
9
STATGTE MILES
CLEAR ZONE
TOOO r 7000
1
00
7000 / 1EXISTI NO )
s000' (ULTIMATE)
8000900010000
N E llr _. _
f_ _ ----_ _ ---1
--,
I
1
17", ..[ Ltz
1
! C----)5-') 1
LL 1
STING CL .E"AR ZONE EMS,. CLEAR ZONE
50: I SLOPE34/ I SLOPE
RUNWAY I 6R 34L
sc A L = :::1::'
0000.008000.06 00
EXIST 0 CLEAR ZONE
20'1

eu owe
/
_ _ L_ _ GoA0
/
80009000
li f CX_ ._ _ HSTINEC_ L_ _ _ 4 EAR2ONE/+ t
F-TILTIcItt7ACtoptfEllillil)
ILS LOCALI48 fPROPCTED)

11 17'111
L
FUTuRE CLEAR
34 I SLOPE
1
C.LE ARGUStCCbRZONE
EL 100
EL s e '

JSGIAA7UP A../ 0A5
7000SO.50004000 / 40005000
3600 / 1FUTURE)
CLEAR ZONE
.11 SLOPE
CLEAR ZONE
20 I SLOPE
REVISIONS
C O N S UL T I N G E N G I N E E R S TAMPA, FLORIDA
A P P R O A C H C L E A R ZO N E P L A N
PENSACOLA REGIONAL AIRPOR T
PENSACOLA,FLORIDA
CHECKEDAGA
OJECT MANOME RT.P.O.

DATE. DEC. 575
SHEET NO; ?0F
NONPRE CI SI ON
NONPRE CI SI ON
DESIGNEDPGN./t p n
DRAWN
FAAPROJE CTNO.
AI2-0063-01
L_ EGEND
LLF n E LS
_
" 7,
PENS ACOLAI
R
I
. .,..JR.COLLEGEI I

I 1\
... .
\ \
-,..,
\ \
^\
--__--
EXISTING GROUND CONTOURS
a EXISTING SECURITY FENCE
RELOCATE? SECURITY FENCE
EXISTING FACILITIES TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING BUILDINGS
FUTURE BUILDINGS
1 0=3 INITIAL PHASE OF IMPROVEMENTS
...I INTERMEDIATE DEVELOPMENT
n =M- ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT
ECEON A/L
/ A R
N.
N
N A
\ .
+ 4Ns.P
N
e N VP" ); A- P
NI N4 4,P
\
/
/ / l/
/
/
/ / / / /
,v ---
,// 1,/v
/ ,
/
/ /
II .///
/1 /,/ zz
II I
/ /
\ I 1 -9,,7 / _--------
I ,-------
\
\\
7
0,0
V
I D O XV I N S I
I ' 10000001
" 0
/ TERMINAL
ENTRANCE
DRAINAGE
RETENTION
/
/1
97,
.
TAXIWAY
/
------
I
NO. RE VI SI ONSBY OPDATE
100 o'
39e
GRAPHIC SCALEIN FEET
RUNWAY 7-25
TERMINAL AREA
PE NSACOLA,FLORI DA
DE SI GNE DF.T.1 .L,rLCNE CNE DJ.C.N.
DRAWN PROJE CTMANAGE RT.P.O.
FAAPROJE CTNO.
4-I 2-0063-01
ONTE TDE C, 1,73,
SHEET NO. 2.06 6
CONSULTING ENGINEERS TAMPA. FLORIDA
NO. RE VI SI ONS BY APP. DATE
DESIGNEDF. ISTIt_ . 1150.
DRAWNw JAC
CHECKEDJ.C.N.
PROJECT MANAGERT. P. D.
FAA PROJECT NO.
_ A-12-0063-01
DATE: CEO. 1075
S H CET NO. OF_Sx_
S E C T I O N
G r e i n e r E n g i n e e r i n g S de n c e s , I n c ,
C O N S UL T I N G E N G I N E E R S T A M P A , FL O R I DA
HE E RYHE E ,RY I NC.
ARCHI TE CTS--ATLANTA, GE ORGI A.
BUILDIN PLAN 8, SECTION
CONCEPT
PENSACOLA REGIONAL A I RPORT
PE NSACOLA,F LORI DA.
M E ZZA N I N E L E VE L
o
o4,
?3/ 4,
""Po
` ).
NOTE :
Secondlev I loadi ngshowni nsecti on.
Bui ldi nglayout adoptable toei ther
fi rst or secondlevel loadi ngat concourse.
M A I N L E VE L
T E R M I N A L C UR BS I DE
DATE . DEC.1975
SHE E TNO.5_0P6
FAA RROJECT NO
A- 12-0063-01
REVISIONS APR DATE
G r e i n e r E n g i n e e r i n g S de n c e s , I n c .
CONSULTI NGE NGI NE E RSTAMPAFLORI DA
HEERY /Ek HEERY INC
ARCHITECTS --ATLANTA, GEORG
TERMINAL BUILDING
PERSPECTIVE VIEW
PENSACOLA,FLORIDA,
DEAIGNEDFI R/ I FS
DRAWN
CHECKEDJAM
PROJECT MANAGER TP D.
f r er r or -
onwpi temog y y t.,,to
co n-A 1 W oe 4 ) .
ACQUISITION
"AGREEMENT DATED 29 AUGUST 1947, CANCELLED LEASEHOLD INTEREST IN 502 ACRES
AND CONVEYED IMPROVEMENTS (REG.-16).
"AP-4RESOLUTION (NO. 5-44)" DATED 22 FEEL 1944
1576 ACRES).
ACQUIRED IN FAAP PROJECT -03.
ACQUIRED IN FAA? PROJECT -09
ACQUIRED PARCEL 4-8,94 ACRES IN EXCHANGE
FOR AREA 4-A, 8.5 ACRES.
ACQUIRED PARCEL B-4, 31.4 ACRES IN EXCHANGE
FOR PARCEL 8-5, 27.0 ACRES
r-----t
ETJ
L----1
M E M
.1
EMEZE
LI ZA
L E G E N D FO R A R E A 3
CONVEYED TO MRS. W. E. TOMBLIN S It W. BUILDERS (RES. 26-69)
13 CONVEYED TO Y. M.C.A. RESOLUTION 28-70
=CONVEYED TO G. TRAWICK, RESOLUTION 12-71
EIM CONVEYED TO G. TRAWICK, RESOLUTION 32-70
RETAINED B y CITY OF PENSACOLA
I
: 26-69.
NC
S64"E 1022.51'
14.
564"E 197377'
N 64 W 860'
664W
S 64 E 1 466. 4
APPROACH END R/W
DETAIL - END R/W 7
026.16
SUBLVD
N 8644'W 173.98'
L E G E N D
RELEASES AND DELETIONS
"RELEASE" FOR 56 ACRES DATED 13 JUNE 1956
(PENSACOLA JUNIOR COLLEGE).
'RELEASE" FOR 5 ACRES DATED 27 MAY 1957
(U. S. ARMY RESERVE ARMORY).
LETTER OF CONSENT FOR RELEASE OF 72.02
ACRES, DATED 18 MARCH (970 (SALE).
AREA 4-A, U.S ACRES DEEDED TO L. H. BLANCHARD
IN EXCHANGE FOR ARPG 4-9,94 ACRES.
LETTER OF CONSENT FOR THE RELEASE OF PARCEL 8-5,27.4
ACRES TO BE EXCHANGED FOR PARCEL 8-4, 31.4 ACRES.
2

564 E 500.
0, 00.
NO17'W
COLLE GE BLVD
-to
664W 1366.15
WATE RPUMP
STATI ON
564E 750'
01C '66
NOTE:
THIS MAP DRAW FROM INFORMATION
TAKEN FROM CITY PROPERTY MAP NO.1
DATED 2 MAY 1974. NOREVISIONSBY APP DATE
CONSULTI NGE NGI NE E RSTAMPA, FLORI DA
N75 25'E 70'
Z5.
AREA I -1068. ACRES OWNED IN FEE. DE SI GNE DCITY OF PENSACOLACHE CKE DT.P.O.
DRAWNPROJE CT. MANAGE RMP D.
F APROJE CTMO. DATE :DE C. 1975
4-12-0063-01SHE E TNO. OF_
PROPERTY MAP
PENSACOLA, F LOR IDA

Mag 791 F

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mag 791 F

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

01, MAL

2Previous Enplaned Passenger Forecasts 16

3Enplaned Passenger Forecast 16

4Cargo and Mail Forecast 18

5Flight Activity Forecast 21

6Pensacola Existing Facility 1974 25

7Air Space and Surrounding Airport 26

8Existing Terminal Area 28

10Zoning in the Airport Environs 31

11Access to the Airport 32

12Wind Rose (Air Carrier) 37

13Wind Rose (General Aviation) 38

15Noise Exposure Forecast (1974) Existing Facilities 62

16ASDS (1974) Existing Facilities 63

17Noise Exposure Forecast (1980) Existing Facilities 69

18ASDS (1980) Existing Facilities 70

19Noise Exposure Forecast (1980) Alternate Configuration 71

20ASDS (1980) Alternate Configuration 72

21General Aviation Runway Alternatives and ASR Sites 75

22General Aviation Runway Separation 77

23Terminal Area Locations 79

26Terminal Area Concept (Ultimate Development) 84

27Building Plan and Section Concept 86

28Perspective View Concept 87

33Intermediate (Stage 2) Terminal Area Concept 98

34Ultimate Development Plan 101

35Ultimate (Phase 1) Terminal Area Concept 102

36Ultimate (Phase 2) Terminal Area Concept 103

3.Additional operational capacity will be required on the airport and we conclude

commercial development, and expansion capability needs to be protected.

HI STORI C FORE CA ' T

Air CarrierGeneral AviationMilitaryTotal

2,800Opposite direction operations, simultaneous VFR sunset to

4,300Simultaneous IFR approaches from AAS-560. September 27,

1 9751 9801 9851 9901 995

Hot Plant Mix

Hot Plant Mix

Number of Passengers (Including Pilot(s))

kg V.Reason(s) for Landing at PNS: Aircraft Emergency Weather

Sleeping RoomsWashup & Shower Areas

The exposure number provides immediate informa-

30-40 1 00-1 1 52Activities where uninterrupted communication is essential should consider

OJECT MANOME RT.P.O.

You might also like