Chapter 4 – Terminal Facility Requirements and

Alternatives
I. Terminal Facility Requirements
This space is allocated among various functional
needs including space for airlines, security,
Introduction concessions, common areas, mechanical systems,
and administration. The building itself is remarkable in
its character and appeal and captures the spirit of the
This chapter of the master plan converts the forecasted
region’s heritage. However, after having been enlarged
passenger demand levels that were identified in Chapter
several times, creating additional area through a
2 into quantities of terminal facilities that will meet
simple addition would be a challenge that may not
targeted levels of demand at peak periods through the
be cost-effective to undertake. This conclusion is fully
planning period. Once those facilities were identified,
explained in this chapter. To the extent feasible, it is the
a systematic development and analysis of alternatives
goal of the Airport to keep and integrate as much of the
to provide those facilities identified the best approach
existing building as possible.
to providing those facilities, weighed against specific
quantifiable and/or qualitative criteria. These criteria
Terminal Capacity and Facility Requirements
were established through the identification of specific
goals and objectives. These goals, objectives, criteria,
The terminal capacity and facility requirements analysis
and the preferred terminal alternatives will be identified
for Gallatin Field was conducted using forecast
in subsequent sections of this chapter.
information presented in Chapter 2. Depending on the
type of facility being examined the terminal analysis
Existing Terminal Building utilized the forecast number of annual enplanements,
annual passengers or annual aircraft operations to
The role of the airport passenger terminal is to provide obtain the Airport’s projected space requirements. To
a facility which balances present and future needs for determine future space requirements for the terminal,
passenger convenience, baggage handling, airport peak hour demand values were also applied to
operations, ground access, business commerce and determine the level of accommodations necessary to
operational control. The primary objective is to facilitate facilitate passenger traffic during the most critical hour
the movement of passengers and baggage between of the year. After determining the terminal space values,
surface and air transportation modes with a minimum Planning Activity Level (PAL) values were calculated to
amount of time, confusion, and inconvenience. serve as numerical thresholds for Gallatin Field staff to
use in planning additional facilities.
The terminal building at Gallatin Field is a centralized
facility in which processing of passenger ticketing, An airport terminal consists of a complex network
baggage check-in, baggage claim, security screening, of individual elements with different demand levels
and airport boarding are achieved in one building. and capacity requirements. Facility expansion adds
A primary advantage of a centralized facility is the incremental growth to various elements as needed. As
ability of the airport and air carriers to focus efforts in a result, the need for additional facilities does not occur
a concentrated area, thereby minimizing duplication simultaneously with all airport elements. Therefore,
of personnel costs and allowing for the consolidation space deficiencies identified with terminal elements in
of facility and operational equipment. Additionally, a the future may be resolved through space reallocation
centralized terminal provides an airport the ability to rather than through constructing additional space.
consolidate passenger transfer, simplify vehicle and
passenger information systems and provide a common Terminal Requirements
area for passenger services and amenities. As a result,
centralized terminals are typically less expensive to Overall Footprint (SF)
operate than other types of terminals.
Existing 2015 2020 2025
74,422 182,500 209,900 238,800
The existing terminal building, as was identified in
Chapter 1, provides 74,422 square feet of space.
Chapter 4 - 1
The overall size of the terminal is referred to as the or gates. Consequently an emphasis should be
terminal footprint. The size of an airport’s terminal and placed on understanding actual gate demand prior to
amenities provided should correspond to the travel construction and creation of a terminal development
characteristics of the community in which it serves. strategy which provides for easy gate expansion when
Through the experience of planning and designing demand requires.
dozens of terminal buildings, including several since
September 2001 when the focus on aviation security Forecasted demand for Gallatin Field indicates that
became a pre-eminent constraint, aviation architects there will be a doubling of passenger enplanements
on the consulting team for this study have developed during the planning period. At the same time, the
a sophisticated program for determining the overall average seats per departure will remain fairly steady,
space requirements for specific peak hour passenger indicating that the size of aircraft will not increase
levels. Table 4-1 provides the existing breakdown beyond the fleet mix operating currently. Therefore,
of terminal areas, along with the preliminary the number of aircraft that use the terminal gates
recommended areas (for planning purposes rather should also double during the forecast period.
than final design) that will meet the forecasted
passenger demand through 2025. With regard to peaking characteristics, while it might
be expected that the peak demand could be spread
As a general rule of thumb in the post-9/11 era, out to capture capacity at off-peak times, the reality is
terminal design has been providing approximately that the proximity of the hub airports is such that the
300 square feet per Peak Hour Passenger. This is a first arriving flights of the day arrive at the noon-time
variable target number and terminal design will adjust busy hour. The current demand is not sufficient to
that number to meet the specific needs of Gallatin warrant originating early flights from hub airports. The
Field. By comparison, the Airport is accommodating characteristics of the airline schedules is expected to
the estimated peak hour level of 691 passengers with continue the pattern of early morning departures for the
the existing terminal area of 74,422 square feet, or aircraft that remain overnight, followed by their return
108 square feet per passenger. In order to handle at or near the noon peak. This pattern will require the
twice the number of passengers and increase the doubling of gates within the forecast period to meet
area per Peak Hour Passenger, the building will need that peak demand.
to increase significantly beyond double, as indicated Airline Space (SF)
by Table 4-1.
Existing 2015 2020 2025
Specific areas for each functional area of the terminal 33,811 59,933 69,487 78,266
building and surrounding infrastructure are presented 45% 35%
and discussed below. The existing facility is quantified
along with the recommended total quantity for Airline space includes ticket counter area, airline ticket
each planning activity level. Where appropriate, a offices (ATO), outbound baggage make-up areas,
percentage of the overall footprint for the building is inbound baggage stripping and claim areas, and
provided as a comparison to what is provided in the passenger boarding lounges. The current percentage
current building. It is important to note that some of the of total area leased by the airlines is impressive and
existing space allocations fall below recommended provides Gallatin Field with a higher return on the
allowances, which is what causes congestion at available space. However, it also is a trade off as it
peak periods, while others such as the administration indicates that areas such as public circulation and
spaces are appropriately sized. passenger security screening are likely undersized,
with resulting congestion.
Airline Gates
Existing 2015 2020 2025 FAA guidance and averages for terminal buildings
6 10 11 14 indicate that approximately one third of the terminal
space is dedicated as airline space. This percentage
is a reduction of the current utilization by airlines,
An important attribute of an airport passenger but considering the increase in the total footprint this
terminal is the number of aircraft parking positions will result in a significant increase in airline space.
Chapter 4 - 2
Table 4-1 Overall Program
MASTER PLAN TERMINAL FACILITIES REQUIREMENTS
Recommended
Existing Planning Activity Levels
Description MP Addition
Year 2006 2015 2020 2025 2020
Annual Enplaned Passengers 335,700 503,500 587,500 671,500 587,500
Total Peak Hour Passengers 691 815 951 1,087 951
Number of Gates 6 10 11 14 5
Total Terminal Area (Rounded) 74,422 sf 182,500 sf 209,900 sf 238,800 sf 174,300 sf

AIRLINE SPACE
Ticket Counter Length 120 lf 184 lf 212 lf 240 lf 212 lf
Ticketing & Outbound Baggage 12,065 sf 20,900 sf 24,100 sf 26,800 sf 24,100 sf
Baggage Claim Length 285 lf 356 lf 416 lf 476 lf 131 lf
Inbound Baggage and Claim 11,774 sf 20,310 sf 23,659 sf 27,119 sf 11,885 sf
Passenger Departure Lounges 10,002 sf 18,723 sf 21,728 sf 24,347 sf 11,726 sf

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Security Screening Checkpoint 1,900 sf 15,299 sf 18,194 sf 21,079 sf 18,194 sf
Baggage Screening 2,392 sf 9,330 sf 10,200 sf 11,080 sf 10,200 sf

CONCESSIONS 7,086 sf 9,500 sf 11,000 sf 12,600 sf 11,000 sf

GROUND TRANSPORTATION 2,691 sf 2,700 sf 3,200 sf 3,600 sf 3,200 sf

PUBLIC SPACE
Public Circulation 18,851 sf 63,000 sf 73,600 sf 84,100 sf 64,175 sf
Washrooms 2,327 sf 8,450 sf 9,350 sf 11,140 sf 9,350 sf

AIRPORT ADMINISTRATION 4,424 sf 4,758 sf 4,935 sf 5,641 sf 511 sf

UTILITIES See Note 1 sf 9,516 sf 9,870 sf 11,281 sf 9,870 sf

CURB FRONT
Enplaning Curb 250 lf 379 lf 443 lf 506 lf 443 lf
Denplaning Curb 250 lf 379 lf 442 lf 505 lf 192 lf

PARKING 1,407 sp 1,842 sp 2,123 sp 2,426 sp 2,123 sp

Short Term Parking See Note 1 sp 202 sp 210 sp 240 sp 210 sp
Long Term Parking 776 sp 968 sp 1,130 sp 1,291 sp 1,130 sp
Employee Parking 220 sp 252 sp 294 sp 336 sp 294 sp
Rent-A-Car Ready/Return 411 sp 420 sp 490 sp 560 sp 490 sp
Car Condominiums 180 sp 270 sp 315 sp 360 sp 315 sp

Bold Values are adjusted to account for existing area to be reused.

Note 1: Area not separately accounted in Inventory
Chapter 4 - 3
The increases would be mainly focused in enlarged
operations areas to increase efficiency, enlarged Existing 2015 2020 2025
passenger departure lounges, ticket queuing, and 2,691 2,700 3,200 3,600
baggage claim areas, and expansion areas for entrant 3% 3%
carriers. Ground transportation includes space for car rental
agencies and other ground transportation vendors who
TSA Security Space (SF) provide services to the visiting passengers. The space
Existing 2015 2020 2025 required and/or desired by these concessions is not
4,292 24,629 28,394 32,159 tied to the size of the building but rather to the number
6% 14% of operators leasing space in the terminal. The growth
The passenger screening checkpoint is the most visible indicated captures the off-airport operators who may
evidence of the constraints placed upon terminal wish to have facilities within the terminal building and
facilities since September 11th. Centralized passenger new entrant ground transportation providers.
and baggage screening is a virtual requirement at
airports the size of Gallatin Field. Space for additional Public Space (SF)
equipment and personnel has been extracted from
areas previously dedicated to most other terminal Existing 2015 2020 2025
functions and many retrofit actions had to be swiftly 22,088 71,450 82,950 95,240
undertaken on the fly. The result is congestion at peak 30% 40%
periods, passenger and employee inconvenience, Public space includes waiting areas, general
and constraints on growth within the terminal building. circulation areas, and restrooms. Terminal planning
criteria typically calls for approximately 40 percent of
As can be seen by the table above, applying the industry the terminal building to be public space. Generally
average of 14 percent of the terminal space, meeting speaking, the public spaces provide the passenger the
the demand for 2015 will require approximately 20,000 user-friendly impression since there is plenty of room to
square feet of additional TSA space. This space is separate arriving and departing flows, wide corridors,
a combination of passenger screening checkpoint, and open, friendly spaces to meet arriving passengers.
baggage screening within the baggage make-up area, The trade-off is that the public spaces are not revenue-
and TSA offices. The design of the building addition producing and the proper balance of passenger comfort
may be able to reduce the amount of space required and convenience to revenue must be achieved.
for TSA to meet their mission. However, being a
centralized function, the provision for ample room The space required at the 40 percent level is indicated
for growth will allow for the expansion of concourses in Table 4-1. Much of this space would be provided in
without the need to construct additional space in the the central core of the building, allowing for expansion
central portion of the terminal. of adjacent facilities to cost-effectively meet demand
levels at the end of the planning period and beyond.
Concessions (SF)
Airport Administration (SF)
Existing 2015 2020 2025
Existing 2015 2020 2025
7,086 9,500 11,000 12,600
4,424 4,758 4,935 5,641
10% 6%
6% 2%
Space designated as concessions includes areas
leased by the Airport for food and beverage facilities, gift The space for airport administration is considered
shops, and other general concessions and advertising adequate and not tied to the size of the building. Due
space that produce revenue for the airport. This is an to the administration’s location in the center of the
important feature of the terminal building and sufficient building, any addition to the terminal would not likely
space for concessions, both within the secure areas impact this space and this function can remain intact.
and also outside of the secured areas that are available A small increase is indicated for additional space that
for the meeters and greeters will be required. may be captured during the remodeling process.
Ground Transportation Space (SF)
Chapter 4 - 4
Enplaning and Deplaning Curb (LF) Facility Requirements. Furthermore, the evaluation
Existing 2015 2020 2025 will consider the extent to which the alternative
250 379 443 506 concepts meet stated goals and objectives which
250 379 443 506 were developed by Gallatin Field. These goals and
objectives fall into three main categories: Programmatic
Terminal frontage is a critical element in the Elements, Terminal Site Specific Issues, and User
performance of the Airport’s terminal ground access Friendly Elements. These were further subdivided
system. Congestion at the terminal interface is common into specific evaluation criteria and developed into a
at many airports as a result of curb design deficiencies. matrix that was used to evaluate each initial design
This is because curb design is tied to airport activity concept. The evaluation criteria are:
characteristics such as peak passenger volume,
annual enplanement levels, modes of transportation Programmatic Elements:
accessing the terminal, and curb dwell time. • Ability to meet the set Planning Activity Level
– 1.4 Million Total Passengers – 12 Gates
The current frontage is approximately 500 feet and • Centralize passenger and carry-on baggage
is shown to be evenly split between enplaning and screening and exit lane
deplaning curb. The growth in curb length is shown in • Consolidate baggage screening in-line
Table 4-1 and the increases are tied to the increase “straight-forward” systems (TSA)
in peak hour passengers. The reality, however, is • Streamline check-in/checked luggage process
that the curb will be a function of the type of building (Kiosks, Curbside, Express Freight)
constructed, the amount of existing curb that can be • Improve pedestrian and vehicular interface
captured, and the use of additional dedicated lanes for (exterior)
commercial vehicles and buses. • Accommodate future expansion easily and
economically
Auto Parking (Spaces)
Existing 2015 2020 2025 Terminal Site Specific Issues
1,407 1,842 2,123 2,426 • Minimize building construction phasing
• Maintain significant portion of existing
investment
Auto parking includes short term, long term, employee,
o Apron
car rental ready/return, and car condominiums. Being
o Terminal
an airport with a high number of visiting passengers,
o Roadway and parking
adequate and conveniently located car rental spaces
o Utilities – infrastructure
are a vital factor in the expansion of the terminal building.
• Optimize reuse of existing terminal spaces
Premium short term spaces can also provide additional
• Scalable development
revenue as higher rates can be charged to account for
• Operational efficiency (ticket counter to gate)
added convenience and encourage turnover.
User Friendly Elements
Additionally, “car condos” are a desirable feature for the
• Minimize walking distances for passengers
high value customer, but are not necessarily required
(interior)
to be located within the terminal area as arrangements
• Minimize the pain during construction
can be made to retrieve vehicles and have them brought
• Intuitive wayfinding
to the passenger when needed.
• Concessions conveniently located for
maximum revenue collection
II. Terminal Alternatives • Efficient tug operations
• Minimize vertical movement of passengers
With the Terminal Facility Requirements established, • Minimize vertical movement of baggage
the gross quantities of terminal facilities need to be
developed into alternative concepts. These concepts
will be evaluated systematically to determine the
extent to which the scheme meets the Terminal
Chapter 4 - 5
Figure 4-1 – Scheme 1 - Master Plan Dual Pier

Features loop. Vehicles approaching the terminal building would

first encounter the departures (ticketing) curb, with the
Scheme 1 is carried forward from the existing Master arrivals (baggage claim) curb constructed in front of
Plan. The principal features of this scheme include the extended portion of the building. The rental car
reutilization of the existing terminal building for concessions would have their offices and counters
ticketing and constructing new ground level space for approximately where they are today.
baggage claim and two new “piers” accessed through
a second level concourse connecting the two together. The general circulation of passengers would have the
These piers would each contain the departure lounges departing passengers starting at the ticket counters,
and gates along with separate concession areas. then proceeding to the second level for passenger
The security screening function would occur on the and carry-on screening, then on to one of the two
second level in Concourse A and the passengers who boarding lounges prior to loading on aircraft via
are departing from Concourse B would walk down the passenger loading bridges or down to ground level
second-level corridor that connects the two together. gates. Arriving passengers would exit the concourses
down to the first level at the central area near the rental
On the landside, the access roadway system would car counters and then to the baggage claim units or
feature a single loop road with all parking within the out to parking/ground transportation.

Chapter 4 - 6
Figure 4-2 – Scheme 2 - Lineal Expansion East, Single Roadway

Features
arrangement as the new portion of the building
Scheme 2 is a new concept that features a reutilization would be constructed on top of the existing entrance
of the existing terminal building for baggage claim and road. New rental car offices and counters would be
constructing new ground level ticketing (departures) constructed in the center (corner) portion of the new
and second level concourse and boarding lounges building, easily accessible by arriving passengers as
in a “linear” fashion that wraps around the entrance they transition from the concourse to the baggage
road to the east and south. This linear concept claim area.
would centralize the security screening in the corner
that is created between the ticketing and baggage The general circulation of passengers would have the
claim curbs. The concourse, boarding lounges, and departing passengers starting at the ticket counters,
concessions on the second level would be on either then proceeding to the center of the building’s second
side of the security checkpoint with equal walking level for passenger and carry-on screening, then on
distances to either end of the concourse. to boarding lounges prior to loading on aircraft via
passenger loading bridges or down to ground level
On the landside, the access roadway system would gates. Arriving passengers would exit the concourses
feature a single loop road with all parking within the down to the first level at the central area near the rental
loop. Vehicles approaching the terminal building would car counters and then to the baggage claim units
first encounter the newly constructed departures or out to parking/ground transportation. The rental
(ticketing) curb, with the arrivals (baggage claim) car ready/return lot would be essentially where it is
curb in front of the existing portion of the building. today, accessed through the west exit of the existing
The parking would be reconfigured from the existing building.

Chapter 4 - 7
Figure 4-3 – Scheme 3 - Lineal Expansion West, Dual Loop Roadway, Central Ticketing

Features the potential confusion of having a single loop road

where the arrival curb appears before the departure
Scheme 3 is a new concept that features a reutilization curb and reduce the amount of traffic at pedestrian
of the existing terminal building for baggage claim crossings. New rental car offices and counters would
and the construction of new ground level ticketing be constructed in the center (corner) portion of the
(departures) and second level concourse and boarding new building, easily accessible by arriving passengers
lounges in a linear fashion to the west. This linear as they transition from the concourse to the baggage
concept would centralize the security screening in an claim area.
enlarged “node” that is created between the ticketing
and baggage claim curbs. The concourse, boarding The general circulation of passengers would have the
lounges, and concessions on the second level would departing passengers starting at the ticket counters,
be on either side of the security checkpoint with equal then proceeding directly to the building’s second
walking distances to either end of the concourse. level for passenger and carry-on screening, then on
to boarding lounges prior to loading on aircraft via
On the landside, the access roadway system would passenger loading bridges or down to ground level
feature dual loop roads with separate parking areas gates. Arriving passengers would exit the concourses
within each loop. The separation of vehicles that are down to the first level at the central area near the rental
accessing either curb frontage is accomplished at a car counters and then to the baggage claim units or
roundabout traffic circle well away from the building. out to parking/ground transportation. The rental car
Signage would direct vehicles to the appropriate ready/return lot would likely be within the smaller loop
loop road. This arrangement is intended to eliminate road.

Chapter 4 - 8
Figure 4-4 – Scheme 4 - Lineal Expansion West, Dual Loop Roadway, West Ticketing

Features would direct vehicles to the appropriate loop road.

This arrangement is intended to eliminate the potential
Scheme 4 is a new concept that is closely related to confusion of having a single loop road where the
Scheme 3, except for a rearrangement of airline/TSA arrival curb appears before the departure curb and
spaces and the location of the ticketing (departure) reduce the amount of traffic at pedestrian crossings.
curb from the center of the building to the west end of The difference between Scheme 4 and Scheme 3 is
the new construction. Scheme 4 features a reutilization the departure loop is further to the west to front the
of the existing terminal building for baggage claim departure curb, rather than in front of the smaller
and the construction of new ground level ticketing central node. New rental car offices and counters
(departures) and second level concourse and boarding would be constructed in the center (corner) portion
lounges in a linear fashion to the west. This linear of the new building, easily accessible by arriving
concept would centralize the security screening in an passengers as they transition from the concourse to
enlarged “node” that is created between the ticketing the baggage claim area.
and baggage claim curbs. The concourse, boarding
lounges, and concessions on the second level would The general circulation of passengers would have the
be on either side of the security checkpoint with equal departing passengers starting at the ticket counters,
walking distances to either end of the concourse. then proceeding first to the center node and then to
Abundant concession space would be provided both the building’s second level for passenger and carry-
on the screened passenger side and the public side of on screening, then on to boarding lounges prior to
the security checkpoint within the central node. loading on aircraft via passenger loading bridges
or down to ground level gates. Arriving passengers
On the landside, the access roadway system would would exit the concourses down to the first level at
feature dual loop roads with separate parking areas the central area near the rental car counters and then
within each loop. The separation of vehicles that are to the baggage claim units or out to parking/ground
accessing either curb frontage is accomplished at transportation. The rental car ready/return lot would
a roundabout well away from the building. Signage likely be within one of the two loop roads.

Chapter 4 - 9
Figure 4-5 – Scheme 5 - Three Sided Terminal, Ground Level Ticketing, Single Roadway

Features
would direct vehicles to the appropriate loop road.
Scheme 5 is a new concept that explores the idea This arrangement is intended to eliminate the potential
of a “three-sided” terminal – or simply one that has confusion of having a single loop road where the arrival
a “T” arrangement that can be expanded any of curb appears before the departure curb and reduce
three ways. Scheme 5 features a reutilization of the the amount of traffic at pedestrian crossings. The
existing terminal building for baggage claim and the difference between Scheme 5 and Schemes 3 and 4
construction of new ground level ticketing (departures) is the addition of extended curb frontage provided by
and second level concourse and boarding lounges the “T” portion of the node. New rental car offices and
in a “T” fashion to the west and south. This concept counters would be constructed in the arrivals (corner)
would centralize the security screening in a much portion of the new building or at the far end of the
enlarged “node” that is created between the ticketing “T”, easily accessible by arriving passengers as they
and baggage claim curbs. The key feature is that the transition from the concourse to the baggage claim
stub portion of the “T” would have the ability to have area.
ticketing curb on one side and baggage claim on the
other. Curb frontage would be available on both sides The general circulation of passengers would have the
of the stub as it wraps around each loop road. The departing passengers starting at the ticket counters
concourse, boarding lounges, and concessions on the located within the “T” portion of the building on the
second level would be on either side of the security ground level, then proceeding up to the second level
checkpoint with equal walking distances to either end to passenger and carry-on screening in the central
of the concourse. Abundant concession space would node, then on to boarding lounges prior to loading
be provided both on the screened passenger side and on aircraft via passenger loading bridges or down to
the public side of the security checkpoint within the ground level gates. Arriving passengers would exit the
central node. concourses down to the first level at the central area
near the rental car counters and then to the baggage
On the landside, the access roadway system would claim units or out to parking/ground transportation.
feature dual loop roads with separate parking areas The rental car ready/return lot would likely be between
within each loop. The separation of vehicles that are the two loop roads accessed from the end of the “T”
accessing either curb frontage is accomplished at portion of the building.
a roundabout well away from the building. Signage
Chapter 4 - 10
Figure 4-6 – Scheme 6 - Three Sided Terminal, Second Level Ticketing, Dual Loop Roadway

Features to eliminate the potential confusion of having a single

loop road where the arrival curb appears before the
Scheme 6 is a variant to Scheme 5, a concept that departure curb. The difference between Scheme 6
explores the idea of a “three-sided” terminal – or and Schemes 3 and 4 is the addition of extended curb
simply one that has a “T” arrangement that can be frontage provided by the “T” portion of the node. New
expanded any of three ways. Scheme 6 features rental car offices and counters would be constructed
a reutilization of the existing terminal building for in the arrivals (corner) portion of the new building or
baggage claim and the construction of new second at the far end of the “T”, easily accessible by arriving
level ticketing (departures) and second level concourse passengers as they transition from the concourse to
and boarding lounges in a “T” fashion to the west and the baggage claim area.
south. This concept would centralize the security
screening in a much enlarged “node” that is created The general circulation of passengers would have the
between the ticketing and baggage claim curbs. One departing passengers starting at the ticket counters
main difference between Scheme 6 and Scheme 5 is located within the “T” portion of the building on the
that the stub portion of the “T” would have the ticket second level, then passing directly through the ticket
counters on the second level and the baggage claim counters that are in an “island” arrangement and
units on the ground level. then proceeding directly to passenger and carry-
on screening in the central node, and finally on to
On the landside, the access roadway system would boarding lounges prior to loading on aircraft via
feature dual loop roads with separate parking areas passenger loading bridges or down to ground level
within each loop. Another difference between Scheme gates. Arriving passengers would exit the concourses
6 and Scheme 5 is that the roadway would be down to the first level at the central area near the rental
elevated to a departure curb on the second level. The car counters and then to the baggage claim units or
separation of vehicles that are accessing either curb out to parking/ground transportation. The rental car
frontage is accomplished at a roundabout well away ready/return lot would likely be between the two loop
from the building. Signage would direct vehicles to the roads accessed from the end of the “T” portion of the
appropriate loop road. This arrangement is intended building.

Chapter 4 - 11
Initial Evaluation of the Schemes Streamline check-in/checked luggage process (kiosks,
curbside, express freight) – Certain technological
The first six schemes were evaluated against the advances in recent years, such as kiosks for check-in,
criteria and summarized in a matrix, as shown in Table have reduced the time spent in the queuing area. This
4-2. Each concept was graded against the criteria reduction in dwell time has a corresponding reduction
with one of three symbols: A dark circle if the scheme in the amount of area required for this function as
meets the criteria, a half circle if the scheme partially the throughput is increased. However, the layout of
meets the criteria, and an open circle if the scheme the building as well as the underlying infrastructure
does not meet the criteria. The score indicated in the needs to be conducive to this type of space-reducing
far right column is the tally of the grades. The top implementation. Since Scheme 1 reutilizes the existing
ranked schemes were slated for further development ticketing area, this will essentially be a remodeling
and refinement. and it is more problematic to implement the required
technological upgrades within that existing space. As
The following discussion provides the evaluation of such it was determined that Scheme 1 fails to meet the
each concept against the criteria and the rationale program. Scheme 4 was determined to only partially
behind each of the scores given to each concept. meet the program requirements due to the lack of
overall depth of the ticketing area.
Programmatic Elements
Improve pedestrian and vehicular interface (exterior)
Ability to meet the set Planning Activity Level - – The arriving and departing passengers should be
Each of the schemes, almost by definition, can be able to efficiently transition to and from the terminal
designed to meet the designated PAL. Full credit was building and the various ground transportation modes.
given to each scheme. The goal is to ensure that there is adequate curb length
and curbside services, limited pedestrian crossing
Centralize passenger and carry-on baggage of traffic and general pedestrian convenience, and
screening and exit lane – Each scheme features an efficient traffic pattern in the lanes fronting the
centralized TSA functions for passenger and carry- building. Scheme 1 was considered to not improve
on screening. This is a by-product of September 11th this interface since the pedestrian is required to cross
screening requirements. Scheme 1 suffers a bit since all lanes of traffic, which includes all vehicles, arriving
the centralized function is not necessarily central to and departing. Scheme 2, although featuring shorter
the two piers, but given full credit since the function walking distances to a centralized parking area, has
takes place in one area. limited curb length along with a single loop road. The
other schemes feature dual loop roads that separate
Consolidate baggage screening – straight forward traffic so that the pedestrian only crosses either
systems for TSA – The intent for this criterion is to arriving or departing traffic. Additionally, the space
have a system that is as efficient for TSA baggage between the traffic loops would offer access to lots
screening as possible and provides a dedicated and without having to cross any lanes of traffic. Schemes
consolidated area out of view of the passengers to meet 1 and 2 were graded with open circles.
their baggage screening mission. Room for growth is
also a key factor. Schemes 1 and 5 had difficulty with Accommodate future expansion easily and
this item; Scheme 1 did not feature a system where economically – Each scheme has the ability to be
the bags went straight behind the ticket counter, but expanded in the future, however Schemes 1 and 2
rather made a turn to reach the TSA area. Since this cause constraint on the aircraft parking apron with
is the only scheme that reutilized the existing ticketing any future additions. For Scheme 1, this constraint
area, options for addressing this issue are limited. is caused by the pier arrangement that would require
Both Schemes 1 and 5 also are boxing in the TSA expansion to move parking positions closer to the
area and that limits growth potential. For that reason runway, or alternatively require the construction
Scheme 1 was given an open circle and Scheme 5 of a third pier. For Scheme 2, the constraint is the
received a half circle. limitation to expansion on the east side of the building.
Considering the abundant land available on the west

Chapter 4 - 12
side of the building, to constrain the scheme on the Roadway and Parking – Scheme 1 was the only
east would not meet the intent of this item. Scheme 1 scheme to receive full credit for this criterion as the
was not considered to meet this criterion and Scheme existing roadway and parking infrastructure remain
2 was given half credit. virtually unchanged. Scheme 2 received no credit as
the new construction would be built across the existing
Terminal Site Specific Issues roadway and even infringes on the existing parking
lot, especially during construction. All other schemes
Minimize building construction phasing – This criterion received half credit as some impacts are unavoidable
addresses the ability for each scheme to be phased to accomplish the dual loop roadway concept.
without a great deal of temporary facilities or disruption
to passenger or airline convenience. Scheme 1, which Utilities (underground infrastructure) – For very similar
is the only scheme to retain the existing terminal reasons to the roadway impacts, the existing utilities
building for the ticketing function, fails to meet this are disrupted due to their location under the roadway
objective since temporary ticket counters and airline that fronts the existing terminal building. The scores
space would be required during the renovation of the were therefore identical to those for the previous
building. The construction of the other schemes would criterion.
entail the completion of replacement ticket counters
and airline office space, which could then be opened Optimize reuse of existing terminal spaces – This
and used during the conversion of existing ticketing to criterion attempts to judge how well the various
baggage claim area or other uses. schemes reutilize the existing building in the future
condition. Scheme 1 was marked down since the
On the apron, Scheme 1 would require the second pier existing spaces would need to be heavily re-worked
to be completed and the entire concourse extended to provide the required depth for all of the necessary
back to the terminal building prior to any expansion functions, plus the addition of the pier on the apron side
of the existing building. TSA functions would also would impact the existing structure visually, especially
need to be temporarily relocated and concession during construction. Schemes 2 through 4 were
areas would also be significantly disrupted. For these given full credit as the existing building would remain
reasons, Scheme 1 was found to not meet the program pretty much unchanged, except for the relocation of
objectives. ticketing to the newly constructed addition. Schemes
5 and 6 were marked down due to the fact that the
Maintain significant portion of existing investment highly efficient Three Sided Terminal concept includes
– This criterion was given a significant amount of baggage claim units, which would call into question
weight and is reflective of the fact that the existing the relevance of having baggage claim in the existing
building and the attendant infrastructure has a great terminal at all, although the existing building would be
deal of value and should be preserved to the extent available for future expansion. Schemes 1, 5, and 6
feasible. The weighting is accomplished by having five were each found to only partially meet the program
separate subcategories that were given equal weight criteria.
in the tally. The following five criteria directly relate to
maintaining the existing investment: Scalable development – The notion of scalable
development calls upon a number of issues and
Apron – Unlike Schemes 2 through 6, Scheme 1 attempts to answer the question “How much needs to
requires the construction of new terminal spaces on be built right away?” This is a very important criterion
a significant amount of existing parking apron. This since it offers options to the Airport should interim
apron would be lost as complete demolition would be steps toward full build out of the recommended
required to prepare for the building and concourse scheme be desired or even necessary to meet funding
construction and would need to be replaced. Scheme requirements. The success of the scheme depends a
1 was considered to not meet the program criteria. great deal on the location within the building of the
various functions. The more that required functions
Terminal – All schemes were given full credit for are able to be clustered or centralized, the less total
keeping the terminal building. A follow-on criterion footprint is required in the initial development. Scheme
judges the optimization of such re-use.
Chapter 4 - 13
1 suffers because so much construction needs to curb and ticket counter, through security, and on to
occur before the concept functions at all. The second the farthest gate. The best way to accomplish this is to
pier needs to be fully operational prior to commencing have the ticketing area, baggage claim, and passenger
any work on the existing terminal building. There is no screening centralized relative to the gates. Scheme 1,
8-gate option to this scheme. with the long corridor between the checkpoint and the
second pier creates long walking distances. Similarly,
In a different way, Scheme 4 is also not scalable Scheme 4 has the ticket counters on the west end of
since the required functions are spread throughout the building, which creates longer walking distances
the footprint. The full west extension to the building is to get to the central checkpoint. These schemes were
required to achieve the minimum ticket counter, airline considered not to meet this program objective, while
offices, and TSA baggage screening area. The second the other four schemes achieved the objective.
level – the boarding lounges, gates, and concession
areas – would be either built out and not leased or Minimize the pain during construction by carefully
would not be built at all and a later costly project to considering phasing – The best schemes under this
add the second story and gates would be required. criterion allow for the construction of the addition to
occur independently from the operation of the existing
Scheme 3 is a good example of scalable design as building and then simply connect the two together.
the required functions for the ticketing, airline offices, Schemes 1 and 2 do not allow for this. Scheme 1 would
baggage screening, baggage make-up, passenger require the complete construction of the distant pier
screening, and concessions are centralized, and prior to moving all aircraft operations to that pier while
yet expandable. The new construction can occur the existing building is significantly enlarged. There
independently of the operation of the existing terminal would be multiple disruptions to the normal operations
and then simply connected. If needed to meet funding of the terminal as the construction proceeds. Scheme
constraints, the west extension with additional gate 2 would require the rerouting of the entrance road
capacity can be added at a later time without impacting prior to breaking ground on the addition to the east.
the essential function of the terminal. Even the dual These two schemes were given no credit under this
loop roadway can initially be a single loop connecting criterion while the other four were considered to not
to the existing access road without needing to build cause significant phasing “pain”.
the interchange and roundabout. For these reasons,
Scheme 3 was the only scheme to receive full credit. Intuitive wayfinding – The ability to “follow one’s nose”
rather than constantly having to refer to signage is a
Operational efficiency – The intent of this criterion good test of a user friendly terminal. A very common
was to gauge the efficiency, primarily for the airline arrangement for terminal buildings with single-level
personnel, in moving from the ticket counter to the roadways is to encounter the departure curb first
aircraft. The key indicators are walking distances and the arrival curb second. Arranging the building
and the general movement of baggage. The basic opposite to that is counterintuitive. Schemes 1 and
test was the maximum distance between the farthest 2 were given full credit based in part on maintaining
ticket counter and the farthest gate position. The best this relationship. The dual loop road arrangement was
schemes will focus the ticketing activity equidistant conceived to counter this wayfinding issue. Vehicles
from the end gates, strong features of Schemes 5 and are separated into arrival and departure traffic well
6. Schemes 1 and 4 fail since the ticketing occurs on away from the building via a roundabout. Once on
the end of a linear building, well away from the most the correct loop road, the correct curb will always be
distant gate. the first (and only) one. A neutralizing factor is that
signage is required to assist the driver in deciding
User Friendly Elements which loop road to select – that decision cannot be
made by “following one’s nose”.
Minimize walking distances for passengers (interior) –
Minimizing walking distances is one of the most basic Another measure of intuitive wayfinding on the ground
ways to make a terminal building user friendly. The key level is being able to see the baggage claim area from
metric is to measure the distance from the departure the ticketing lobby and vice versa. This allows the

Chapter 4 - 14
passenger to orient themselves within the building. the other pier. For this reason, Scheme 1 received
Schemes 5 and 6 provide excellent wayfinding no credit for this criterion. The other concepts, while
characteristics as each element of the building having centralized baggage makeup areas, were
appears exactly where one expects to find it and one marked down based on the offset baggage stripping
flows nicely into the next. Scheme 4 fails to meet this area locations.
objective, while Scheme 3 was deemed to partially
meet this objective. All other schemes received full Minimizes vertical movement of passengers – The
credit. vertical movement of passengers is a requirement
when the ticketing and baggage claim functions are
Concessions conveniently located – Concessions, on the ground floor and the passenger screening and
including restaurants, gift shops, and snack shops departure gates are on the second floor. To a certain
are not only a convenience to the passenger, they extent, this is unavoidable unless the departure curb
are a significant source of revenue for the airport. is elevated. Scheme 6 features the elevated roadway,
With the changes in security regulations that prevent which allows for full credit for this criterion. Each of the
non-ticketed passengers from entering the secured other schemes received half credit.
areas, concession opportunities for the passengers
who are expected clear security earlier, as well as for Minimizes vertical movement of baggage – The vertical
the meeters and greeters are a vital element. Having movement of baggage was identified as a selection
a centralized area for concessions is also preferred criterion since baggage systems must be capable of
so that a single operator is not attempting to operate transporting baggage to another level. Considering the
multiple concessions. fact that many travelers have odd-sized luggage such
as skis, guns, and golf clubs that are more difficult to
Scheme 1 is not a concept with a centralized area. transport via conveyors, it is a much simpler system to
With multiple departure lounges, the concession keep the luggage on the same level. Scheme 6, which
spaces are divided. A mitigating factor is that it may benefits the passenger by initiating travel on the same
be possible to retain the existing restaurant/lounge on level as the checkpoint and gates, also requires the
the second floor, however, given the split concessions, baggage to change levels via conveyors. As a result,
this scheme was not given credit. Scheme 6 was marked down for partially meeting the
program criterion while each of the other five schemes
Scheme 6 was also marked down since the central received full credit.
node on the upper level is used for ticketing and space
is less available for concessions on that level. For that Summary of Evaluation Criteria
reason, Scheme 6 only partially meets this program
objective. Table 4-2 provides the summary of each scheme’s
evaluation against the criteria as discussed above. The
Efficient tug operations – This user friendly criterion three top scoring schemes were identified as Scheme
is geared toward the airline employee that operates 3, Scheme 5 and Scheme 6 and this evaluation was
the tugs to move baggage to and from the aircraft. presented to the Gallatin Airport Authority. Based on
Efficiency is maximized by centralizing the baggage the information presented, these top ranked schemes
makeup area in relationship to the aircraft parking were to be carried forward for further development.
positions. Scheme 1 features the baggage makeup The following section details the resulting two schemes
area within the east pier, which necessitates longer that evolved from this evaluation.
tug distances for those airlines that operate out of

Chapter 4 - 15
Table 4-2 Evaluation Matrix
Scheme 3 - Lineal Scheme 4 - Lineal Scheme 5 - Three Scheme 6 - Three
Scheme 2 - Lineal Expansion Expansion Sided Terminal, Sided Terminal,
Scheme 1 - Master
Description Expansion East, West, Dual Loop West, Dual Loop Ground Level Second Level
Plan Dual Pier
Single Roadway Roadway, Central Roadway, West Ticketing, Single Ticketing, Dual
Ticketing Ticketing Roadway Loop Roadway

See Figure 4-1 See Figure 4-2 See Figure 4-3 See Figure 4-4 See Figure 4-5 See Figure 4-6

Programmatic Elements:
Ability to meet the set Planning Activity Level – 1.4 Million
Total Passengers – 12 Gates      
Centralize passenger and carry-on baggage screening
and exit lane      
Consolidate baggage screening in-line “straight-forward”
systems (TSA)      
Streamline check-in/checked luggage process (Kiosks,
Curbside, Express Freight)      
Improve pedestrian and vehicular interface (exterior)      
Accommodate future expansion easily and economically      
Terminal Site Specific Issues

Minimize building construction phasing      

Maintain significant portion of existing investment:

-Apron      
-Terminal      
-Roadway and parking      
-Utilities – infrastructure      
-Optimize reuse of existing terminal spaces      
Scalable development      
Operational efficiency (ticket counter to gate)      
User Friendly Elements

Minimize walking distances for passengers (interior)      

Minimize the pain during construction      
Intuitive wayfinding      
Concessions conveniently located for maximum revenue
collection      
Efficient tug operations      
Minimize vertical movement of passengers      
Minimize vertical movement of baggage      
Total Score: 8.0 14.5 18.0 14.5 17.5 17.5

Chapter 4 - 16
Concept Refinement • Single vs. multiple parking lots
• Future expandability
The initial evaluation of the Programmatic, Terminal • Intuitive wayfinding
Site Specific, and User Friendly elements of the original
concepts yielded a limited number of differentiators. Scheme A – The “T” Concept
These alternative approaches were refined and
reflected into two new competing schemes that were The “T” concept carries forward the theme from the
developed from the three top ranked finalists. The two original Schemes 5 and 6, which is a three-sided
basic approaches were the Linear Concept based on terminal that can be expanded on each of the three
Scheme 3 and the “T” or Three-Sided Concept based sides. Also featured is the dual loop roadway with an
on Schemes 5 and 6. elevated portion at the departure curb and multiple
parking lots. For long range planning purposes, a
The “T” concept was redesignated as Scheme A suggested location for a parking structure is also shown.
(Figure 4-7) and the Linear concept was redesignated Summarizing the evaluation criteria for this terminal
as Scheme B (Figure 4-8). The key features that concept, the marks were high for the Programmatic
differentiate the two schemes are: Elements and the User Friendly Elements, but did
not make the highest marks for the Terminal Site
• Ability to meet the program Specific Issues, most notably the Optimal Reuse of
• Elevated roadway vs. single curb the Existing Terminal and Infrastructure Investment,
• Single vs. dual loop access roadway and Scalability.

Figure 4-7: Scheme A

Chapter 4 - 17
Scheme B – The Linear Concept the marks were high across the board. The benefits
are especially clear for scalable development, which
The Linear concept carries forward the theme from the assessed the ability for the design to be modified to
original Scheme 3, which features the construction of fit the funding requirements. And in fact, the scalable
a large addition to the west. This large addition will element was further enhanced during concept
become the new center of the terminal building as it refinement by featuring the single loop roadway in
expands to the west, either initially or in a subsequent the initial development, which recognizes that the
construction project. Also featured is a single curb construction of a planned freeway interchange and
with a single loop roadway and a single parking lot roundabout may not be completed at the time the
within the roadway system. terminal is expanded. The design does offer the ability
to evolve into separate loop roadways as the other
Summarizing the evaluation criteria for this terminal elements fall into place.
concept, which was the top overall ranked scheme,

Figure 4-8: Scheme B

Chapter 4 - 18
Conceptual Floor Plans • Meeter/Greeter lobby
• Circulation
The refinement of the schemes included development There is a transitional area denoted by dashed “cut”
of initial floor plans, that will give a sense of scale, lines that depict the limits of the new construction,
adjacency of space and passenger flow, and be used where remodeling of the existing car rental counters
to prepare the preliminary planning cost estimates. The would occur, and where the renovation of the existing
allocation of space meets all program requirements building begins. Within the existing building on the
identified and discussed earlier in this chapter. first floor there would be an expanded baggage claim
area and the existing airport administration spaces,
Figure 4-9 depicts the Scheme A First Floor Plan. including the Bridger Room. The balance of the first
Within the main node on the first floor are: floor would remain available for reuse.

• Operational spaces for TSA offices and to Outside of the building on the ground level there is
perform checked baggage screening parking for buses and one of the parking lots on the
• Airline bag make up area west side and the existing ground level arrival curb
• Car rental counters and parking lot on the east side.

Figure 4-9: Scheme A First Floor Plan

Chapter 4 - 19
Figure 4-10 depicts the Scheme A Second Floor Plan. The transition area between the dashed cut lines
Within the main node on the second floor are: denotes the area that will require remodeling to
connect the new building to the existing terminal.
• Island ticket counters that the passenger would Within the existing terminal building, there would be
pass through after processing renovation to expand the gate and departure lounges,
• Centralized TSA checkpoint essentially recapturing the space now dedicated to
• Concession areas both public and within the the security screening checkpoint and the hallway to
secured area the restaurant and lounge.
• Airline Ticket Offices
• Departure lounges and gates Outside of the building, the elevated roadway and
• Circulation departure curb is depicted on the west side and the
multiple parking lots are depicted on either side as
they appear on the ground level.

Figure 4-10: Scheme A Second Floor Plan

Chapter 4 - 20
Figure 4-11 depicts the Scheme B First Floor Plan. be installed in this area. Within the existing building
Within the main node on the first floor are: on the first floor there would be an expanded baggage
claim area and the existing airport administration
• Airline ticketing and airline offices spaces, including the Bridger Room. The balance of
• TSA operational space for baggage screening the first floor would remain available for reuse.
and offices
• Baggage makeup Outside of the building, the single loop roadway divides
• Rental car & ground transportation counters to separate the arrival traffic (to the right of the trees)
• Meeter/Greeter lobby from the departure traffic (remains in through-lanes
• Circulation left of the trees). The existing parking lot can be seen
along with future parking expansion via additional
The transition area between the dashed cut lines ground level lots within the single loop road as well as
denotes the area that buffers the new construction and a long range location for a parking garage.
the existing terminal. A third baggage claim unit could

Figure 4-11: Scheme B First Floor Plan

Chapter 4 - 21
Figure 4-12 depicts the Scheme B Second Floor Plan.
Within the main node on the second floor are: Within the existing terminal building, there would be
renovation to expand the gate and departure lounges,
• Centralized TSA Checkpoint essentially recapturing the space now dedicated to
• Concession areas both public and within the the security screening checkpoint and the hallway to
secured area the restaurant and lounge.
• Departure lounges and gates
• Meeter/Greeter lobby
• Circulation

Figure 4-12: Scheme B Second Floor Plan

Chapter 4 - 22
Comparative Costs The preliminary cost estimate for the building, including
design, contingencies, new passenger boarding
The costs for the development fall into three main bridges, and an inflation escalator is approximately $62
categories: Million. This proposed building will meet the forecasted
peak hour demand through the planning period.
• Building Costs – including the architectural
design and construction Airside Developments
• Airside Costs – including the construction of
new aircraft parking apron Chapter 3, “Airside Facility Requirements,” addressed
• Landside Costs – including the new site the need for the expansion of the commercial apron
construction costs as well as the reconfiguration to be coordinated with the expansion of the terminal.
of existing infrastructure Concrete and asphalt aprons for the competing
terminal schemes will be discussed in the following
Building Costs paragraphs. A comparison of their uses and costs
are also presented. The size of the apron expansion
For the purposes of this master plan study, the for each alternative varies with the length of building
preparation of estimates for the building employed construction as well as the boarding bridge position
a methodology that computes unit costs per square and size of aircraft docking at the gate. The depth of
foot of space. The estimating has taken into account the apron is dependant on the length of aircraft that
the various types of space proposed for the building can dock at the gate and the length of boarding bridge
according to the unit costs in Table 4-3: provided.
Table 4-3 Square Footage Cost Differences in types of construction materials (for
Cost per instance, concrete versus asphalt) will vary costs
Type of Space
Square Foot considerably. The total pavement thickness required
New Public Space $ 360 to support the aircraft that are expected to utilize the
Remodeled Space $ 390 airport will also affect construction costs. Chapter
Renovated Space $ 175 3, “Airside Facility Requirements,” addressed the
Mechanical System Spaces $ 190 pavement strength of the existing Commercial Apron.
New Back of House Space $ 100 No deficiencies in pavement strength were determined.
New Open / Covered Space $ 50 As a result, the planned pavement sections match that
of the existing commercial apron. The planned concrete
The proportions of the schemes, which were derived portion of the apron includes a 14” depth of concrete.
from the Terminal Facility Requirements, by definition The asphalt section of the apron includes 4” of asphalt
are equal and therefore have equal estimated costs. surface course on 8” of crushed aggregate base course.
Certainly once the full terminal concept development Both pavement sections provide pavement strength in
conducted under terminal design is completed, very excess of the expected pavement loading.
detailed differentiators will be identified that will yield
differences between competing concepts. However, Scheme A (T- Concept)
at the master planning level, this is considered
precise enough to conduct the financial planning that The parking configuration of Scheme A is displayed in
is detailed in a later chapter of this study. Figure 4-7. The ultimate layout of Scheme A provides
5 boarding positions for Design Group III aircraft
The costs for the other categories, however, do vary similar to the 737 and the A320. The two end positions
widely based on the site development, new roadway can be used for large design group IV aircraft such as
construction, apron construction, etc. These categories the 757. In addition to the five (5) boarding positions
will be described, including estimates of their cost in for the larger aircraft, 7 positions for regional jets
the following sections. are provided. The first phase of the terminal under
Scheme A will provide 10 boarding positions, 4 for
larger aircraft and 6 for regional jets.

Chapter 4 - 23
The terminal expansion and modifications require Table 4-4: Airside Improvements
the relocation of the existing furthest west boarding
TERMINAL SCHEMES A & B - AIRSIDE
bridge. The existing bridge is served by a tunnel from IMPROVEMENTS
the terminal building. The tunnel, bridge, and rotunda TOTAL COST PHASE I APRON $1,900,000.00
could be relocated to the west to provide an additional
TOTAL COST PHASE II APRON $1,445,000.00
gate prior to ultimate construction of the terminal.
TOTAL AIRSIDE IMPROVEMENTS $3,345,000.00
The terminal length and aircraft parking configuration
for Scheme A will require the Commercial Apron to Landside Developments
be expanded 850’ feet to the west. The first phase
will require a concrete apron 450’ x 150’ and 14,035 The access roads, parking and other landside
square yards of asphalt apron. The existing concrete developments required for each of the competing
portion of the Commercial Apron is 150 feet in width. schemes will be discussed in the following paragraphs.
This width is sufficient for the expected commercial A discussion of their operating conditions and
fleet to utilize and have their landing gear on the associated costs of construction are also included.
concrete portion of the apron. Apron edge lighting
and down lighting will also be necessary. Storm drain Scheme A (Dual Road)
improvements would also be included in Phase I of the
apron construction. Phase II of the apron expansion The dual road system that accompanies Scheme A’s
consists of an additional 400’ x 150’ of concrete apron major advantaged is reducing the number of vehicles
and 8,850 square yards of asphalt apron. Phase II will passing in front of the terminal by splitting them into
also require lighting and storm drain improvements. two loops of traffic. This improves the road system for
pedestrians greatly. The road system is dependant
Scheme B (Linear- Concept) on the construction of the Belgrade bypass road
that is currently being planned. If the bypass road
The parking configuration of Scheme B ( is displayed is not constructed by the time the terminal expansion
in Figure 4-8. The ultimate layout of Scheme B is completed, additional road improvements for the
provides 5 boarding positions for Design Group III main access to the Airport will be required. To enter
aircraft similar to the 737 and the A320. The two end the appropriate loop for arrivals or departures, traffic
positions can be used for large design group IV aircraft will pass through a roundabout located south of the
such as the 757. In addition to the five (5) boarding airport. As discussed previously, this terminal option
positions for the larger aircraft, 7 positions for regional has the airline ticketing located on the second floor.
jets are provided. The first phase of the terminal To accommodate departing passengers the road
under Scheme B will provide 10 boarding positions, 4 system on the west side of the terminal is elevated
for larger aircraft and 6 for regional jets. to the second level. Costs associated with the road
system are displayed in Table 4-5.
The parking configuration in Scheme B is very similar
to Scheme A as a result of the overall length of terminal From the concept shown in Figure 4-7, the option
to be constructed under each scheme is the same. provides 850 additional parking spaces. The total
Therefore the apron required to be constructed and spaces provided under this option would be 1,846,
the associated costs are the same for each option. including existing pay parking lot and employee lot.
The required number of parking stalls as identified in
The layout of the airside improvements are displayed Table 4-1 is 1,842 spaces in 2015 and 2,426 parking
in Figures 4-7 and 4-8 with their corresponding spaces at the end of the planning period. Additional
estimates being included in Table 4-4. parking could easily be provided by expanding the
parking lot to the south. Estimated costs associated
with the road system and parking lots are displayed in
Table 4-5. The estimate includes paving and lighting
of the road system and parking lots.

Chapter 4 - 24
Scheme B Through Road expanding the parking to the south. The parking
structure was addressed to plan for a future location
The road system that accompanies Scheme B’s for its construction.
major advantage is that it can be constructed to use
the existing access road. The construction of the As displayed in each scheme the structure covers
connector road from the Belgrade bypass road to the 63,000 square feet. Planning of parking structures
Airport could come at anytime after the Bypass road is generally suggests to use 325 square feet per stall
constructed. This option does have all vehicle traffic but can vary up to 400 square feet. Assuming 350
passing in front of the terminal. The through road square feet per stall, each floor of the garage would
system is less efficient from the pedestrian standpoint provide 180 spaces. Recent local construction costs
due to the additional traffic the pedestrian is required associated with parking garages indicate the cost
to cross. The costs associated with this option are per stall to range from $16,000 to $18,200. Based on
considerably less than Scheme A. A great reduction $17,000 per stall, each floor of the structure would
in cost is associated with not constructing an elevated cost $3,060,000 to construct.
road system. This option also results in less total
length of roads to construct because all the traffic Selection of Preferred Terminal Alternative
being carried by one road system, rather than split
into two systems. The two final schemes were presented to the Gallatin
Airport Authority for their consideration. At that meeting
The total construction costs for Scheme B can be all objectives, selection criteria, and evaluations were
reduced by $431,000 if the existing access road is discussed as well as the conclusions reached through
used and a new entrance from the bypass road is not the methodical analysis described in this chapter.
constructed.
The preferred alternative selected by this process is
This concept also provides an additional 850 parking Scheme B – The Linear Concept. This scheme is the
spaces similar to Scheme A which could easily be preferred alternative due to the following factors:
expanded to the south to increase parking. Estimated
costs associated with the road system and parking • Scalable Development – The preferred scheme
lots are displayed in Table 4-5. The estimate includes is much easier to match to the available
paving, stormdrain, and lighting of the road system funding stream and offers more flexibility for
and parking lots. future expansion
Table 4-5: Landside Development Costs • Elevated Roadway Costs – The construction of
the elevated roadway is a significant escalator
Landside Development Costs
to the overall estimate of cost.
Total Construction
$22,595,000.00 • Initial Landside Costs – The single loop
Scheme A
Total Construction
roadway is not only less costly, it can connect to
$5,516,000.00 the existing access roadway system and serve
Scheme B
the airport indefinitely. The dual loop roadway
Parking Garage system requires significant initial expenditure
in the second loop road to function.
Both Terminal Schemes depict a parking structure
south of the terminal building. Additional at-grade Subsequent chapters in this study will prepare the
parking can be created by providing parking in the financial plans that will establish the implementation
location of the garage until it is constructed and strategy for the proposed terminal expansion.

Chapter 4 - 25