Airport projects are moving faster than they did even a few years ago due to aging infrastructure and the need to keep pace with travel needs. Funding, operational requirements and increasing construction costs are pushing airports to move from planning to design and ultimately construction on much shorter timelines.
The planning process needs to keep pace.
Traditionally, airport planning has focused on identifying needs, evaluating alternatives and establishing a preferred development concept. Those things remain important, but they are no longer enough. If a project is expected to move quickly into design, the planning effort also needs to consider the engineering and operational realities that will ultimately determine whether the concept works.
That does not mean designing the project during planning. It means getting far enough into the details to answer some important questions before handing the project to the design team.
Are there geometric constraints that affect the concept? Drainage or utility issues? Airspace implications? How will the project be phased? What has to happen first? Most importantly, can it actually be constructed while the airport continues to operate?
These questions have historically been addressed later in project development. The problem is that when they change the project, the design team has to revisit decisions that were supposedly settled during planning. Time is lost, costs increase and, in some cases, the project is effectively planned twice.
There is a better opportunity to connect the two disciplines.
One example is the Project Definition Document, or PDD, process used at multiple airports, including Dallas Fort Worth International Airport. During the PDD for Runway 17L, the planning effort included meaningful engineering involvement and a greater level of technical development than is typical of a traditional planning study. Engineering considerations, project requirements, implementation and phasing were addressed before the project was handed over for design. The project subsequently advanced to 90 percent design in less than six months.
That is an important outcome, particularly for an airfield project of this scale. The design team could move quickly because it was able to build upon the decisions and technical work completed during planning rather than reopen them.
The same principle applies well beyond a runway project.
Phasing, in particular, deserves more attention during planning. Airports do not stop operating while we build. A preferred alternative may look very different once temporary conditions, aircraft movements, construction access and enabling projects are considered. In some cases, understanding how a project will be built may actually change what should be built.
This is where airport planning is evolving. Planning and engineering do not need to become the same discipline, but the line between them should be less rigid.
As project schedules continue to compress, the industry should expect planning to carry a project further toward implementation. The goal is not more planning. It is better-informed planning that allows design to start where planning ended.
Engineers should be able to design the project without needing to replan it first.
Author Bio:
Molly Waller is the CEO and co-founder of Centurion Planning & Design and has more than 27 years of experience in the aviation industry. Her career has focused on airport planning, capital improvement program development and funding strategies, and the development of complex airport projects, with experience at airports across the country ranging from general aviation facilities to large hub airports. She is particularly interested in improving the connection between planning and implementation so that projects can move more efficiently from concept to construction.
