Wednesday

7 March, 2012

New Yogyakarta
International Airport
Feasibility Study - Final Presentation to DGCA
 Agenda

• Introduction
• Feasibility Study Approach
• Potential New Airport Sites & Selection Process
• Forecast Demand and Land Requirement
• Key Enabling Factors
• Site Selection and Feasibility
• Recommendations
• Next Steps

2
 Project Proponents
• AP1 and GVK.

• MOU between AP1 and GVK signed to establish a new green-

field airport in Yogyakarta.

• MOU signed between AP1 and Governor of Yogyakarta to assist

in the Feasibility and Master Plan studies for the airport.

3
Introduction – Feasibility Study Objective

• The primary aims of the FS are to:

o Identify the most suitable location for the new Airport.

o Obtain in principle approval from DGCA/MOT.

o Obtain in principle approval from the Governor of

Yogyakarta.

o Facilitate the allocation of land by the local government.

4
 Process Overview
• Feasibility Study launched on December 5, 2011 and
completed three months later on March 5, 2012.

• FS jointly carried out by Gadjah Mada University for local

knowledge/expertise and Landrum & Brown for traffic
forecasting, airport planning and to ensure compliance with
international norms and best practices.

• Continuous engagement of stakeholders through multiple

interactions:
o meetings with DGCA
o meetings with Yogyakarta Provincial Officials
o Meetings with Air Force

• Incorporated suggestions and feedback from DGCA,

Yogyakarta Provincial Officials and Airforce to ensure FS result
meets the critical technical, social, and cultural requirements.
5
 Feasibility Study Approach
Drivers of Forecast Broad Facility
Demand & - Low & Land
- Medium
Constraints - High Requirements

Identify
Minimum Screening
Potential Preliminary
Selection to Short
Sites – Long Site Layouts
Criteria List of 2
List of 7

Detailed Recommended
Site Surveys
Evaluation & Site & Key
& Studies Issues
Feasibility

Detailed Site
Selection
Criteria

STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS & PRESENTATIONS

 Potential New Airport Sites

Identify Minimum Screening to

Potential Selection Short List
Sites - Long Criteria of 2
List of 7

Considered sites in all What are Project Screening based on

Yogyakarta Regencies “show stoppers”? YES/NO answer
• Suitable unencumbered land • 2 sites satisfy all the minimum criteria:

• Site Inspection • Gadingharjo, Bantul

• 7 Sites Identified • Temon, Kulon Progo

7
Long List of Alternative
Site Locations

7
6
3

5 4

Site Location Regency

1. Adisucipto Airport Sleman
2. Selomartani Sleman
3. Gading Airport Gunung Kidul
4. Gadingharjo Bantul
5. Bugel Kulon Progo
6. Temon Kulon Progo
7. Bulak Kayangan Kulon Progo
8
 Site Inspection

Adisucipto Airport Selomartani Gading Airport

Gadingharjo Bugel Temon

Bulak
Kayangan
9
 Screening of Long List to Short List
Site Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Adisucipto Gading Bulak

Location Selomartani Gadingharjo Bugel Temon
Airport Airport Kayangan

Land geometry suites runway orientation

(east – west)
1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Sufficient land area available for one long

runway 1.1km x 5.4km
0 1 1 1 1 1 1

Suitable topography (flat land) 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

Ability to avoid critical obstacles 0 1 1 1 1 1 0

Located outside volcanic zone 0 0 1 1 1 1 1

Minimal relocation of residents 0 1 1 1 1 1 0

Compliance with Provincial Law 0 1 0 1 1 1 1

Catchment Area – surface access within 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

one hour

No current mining lease contracts 1 1 1 1 0 1 1

Total 3 8 8 9 8 9 7

Take Forward/Reject × × × ↑ × ↑ ×
Satisfies Minimum Criteria Does not Satisfy Minimum Criteria

10
 Screening of Long List to Short List
Site Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Adisucipto Gading Bulak

Location Selomartani Gadingharjo Bugel Temon
Airport Airport Kayangan

Land geometry suites runway orientation

(east – west)
1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Sufficient land area available for one long

runway 1.1km x 5.4km
0 1 1 1 1 1 1

Suitable topography (flat land) 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

Ability to avoid critical obstacles 0 1 1 1 1 1 0

Located outside volcanic zone 0 0 1 1 1 1 1

Minimal relocation of residents 0 1 1 1 1 1 0

Compliance with Provincial Law 0 1 0 1 1 1 1

Catchment Area – surface access within 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

one hour

No current mining lease contracts 1 1 1 1 0 1 1

Total 3 8 8 9 8 9 7

Take Forward/Reject × × × ↑ × ↑ ×
Satisfies Minimum Criteria Does not Satisfy Minimum Criteria

11
Long List of Alternative
Site Locations

7
6
3

5 4

Site Location Regency

1. Adisucipto Airport Sleman
2. Selomartani Sleman
3. Gading Airport Gunung Kidul
4. Gadingharjo Bantul
5. Bugel Kulon Progo
6. Temon Kulon Progo
7. Bulak Kayangan Kulon Progo
12
Short Listed Sites

Site Location Regency

4. Gadingharjo Bantul

6. Temon Kulon Progo

13
 Feasibility Study Approach
Drivers of Forecast Broad Facility
Demand & - Low & Land
- Medium
Constraints - High Requirements

Identify
Minimum Screening
Potential Preliminary
Selection to Short
Sites - Long Site Layouts
Criteria List of 2
List of 7

Detailed Recommended
Site Surveys
Evaluation & Site & Key
& Studies Issues
Feasibility

Detailed Site
Selection
Criteria

STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS & PRESENTATIONS

 Aviation Forecast

Drivers of Forecast Broad Facility

Demand & - Low and Land
Forecast - Medium
Requirements
Constraints - High

Issues Scenario Based Major Issues &

Range Drivers

• Role of Airport • Historic Activity • Medium forecast drives

minimum requirements
• Drivers of Econometric • Low, Medium and High Forecasts
Forecast • Preserve opportunity for
• Comparison with Other Forecasts high forecast.
• Constraints to Demand

15
 Role of New Airport
• International world class airport.

• Replacement for Adisutjipto Airport.

• Civilian and commercial use.

• Provide domestic, international and charter air service

for Yogyakarta.

• Primary airport to support the development of tourism,

trade and investment.

• All military and VVIP remain at JOG.

16
 Underlying Demand for Air Travel

• Growing Population

• National and Provincial Economic Growth Forecast and

high Human Development Index for Yogyakarta

• Economic Sectors for Yogyakarta - Tourism,

Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Education & Public
Services

• Historical Aviation Activity Trends

• Catchment Area

17
 Existing Catchment Area

Magelang
1,317,000

Purworejo Klaten
725,000 Sleman
1,137,000
1,054,000

Kulon
Progo
DI Yogyakarta
Bantul
375,000 923,000
3,503,000
Gunung
Kidul Secondary Area
688,000 3,179,000

Yogyakarta
463,000

*Population data based on 2009 BPS data.

 Future Catchment Area

Boyali Sragen
944,000 863,000

Magelang Surakarta
1,317,000 528,000

Klaten Karanganyar
Purworejo Sukoharjo
Sleman 819,000
1,137,000 834,000
725,000 Kulon 1,054,000
Progo
375,000

Bantul
923,000 Wonogiri
Gunung 985,000
Kidul
Yogyakarta 688,000
463,000
 Future Catchment Area

Boyali Sragen
944,000 863,000

Magelang Surakarta
1,317,000 528,000

Klaten Karanganyar
Purworejo Sukoharjo
Sleman 819,000
1,137,000 834,000
725,000 Kulon 1,054,000
Progo
375,000

Bantul
923,000 Wonogiri
Gunung 985,000
Kidul
Yogyakarta 688,000
463,000
 Future Catchment Area

Boyali Sragen
944,000 863,000

Magelang Surakarta
1,317,000 528,000

Klaten Karanganyar
Purworejo Sukoharjo
Sleman 819,000
1,137,000 834,000
725,000 Kulon 1,054,000
Progo
375,000

Bantul
923,000 Wonogiri
Gunung 985,000
Kidul
3,803,000 Yogyakarta 688,000
463,000
2,879,000

4,973,000
 Potential Constraints on Demand
• Rate of Tourism Development

• Ground Transportation

• General Infrastructure

• Competition from SOC

• World economy, further financial crises or higher

oil prices

• JOG not currently identified in Indonesian system

plan as one of five international gateways.
22
Historic Passenger & Aircraft Movements
Passenger Traffic Aircraft Movements
Dom Pax Int Pax Transit Total Pax Dom Int Local Total
1995 1,147,586 0 46,054 1,193,640 20,103 0 0 20,103
1996 1,226,146 12 41,809 1,267,967 19,999 4 0 20,003
1997 1,164,637 152 39,523 1,204,312 19,674 2 0 19,676
1998 510,017 0 47,749 557,766 10,095 0 0 10,095
1999 407,648 174 47,289 455,111 7,659 2 0 7,661
2000 561,925 6 46,074 608,005 8,887 2 0 8,889
2001 722,267 0 84,477 806,744 11,167 0 338 11,505
2002 878,853 0 38,861 917,714 11,652 0 358 12,010
2003 1,438,452 6 42,564 1,481,022 17,009 2 41 17,052
2004 2,349,069 32,745 61,101 2,442,915 26,575 525 2 27,102
2005 2,441,940 46,438 69,884 2,558,262 25,320 632 9 25,961
2006 2,472,239 24,093 67,812 2,564,144 22,506 508 36 23,050
2007 2,548,775 499 49,275 2,598,549 22,472 85 2 22,559
2008 2,660,930 91,491 41,348 2,793,769 23,206 936 8 24,150
2009 3,136,666 188,901 42,661 3,368,228 24,904 1,743 11,247 37,894
2010 3,428,732 206,410 55,208 3,690,350 26,669 1,728 18,060 46,457
2011 4,027,655 209,190 55,171 4,292,016 30,419 1,672 19,125 51,216
Source: PT. (PERSERO) ANGKASA PURA I. Air Force
Flight Training
Average Annual growth in passengers of ~9% since 1995
23
 Forecast Range and Comparison with other
Forecasts

30
Millions

High Case
Medium Case
25 Low Case
24 MAP
Airbus Manufacturers Forecast
Boeing Manufacturers Forecast
20 PTAP-1 Forecast
19 MAP

16 MAP
Total Passengers

15
14 MAP
13 MAP
12 MAP
10

0
2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041

Sources: Landrum & Brown analysis/ AP1 24

 Forecast Summary and Key Facility
Conclusion
Passengers Movements
High Medium Low High Medium Low
2011 4,292,016 4,292,016 4,292,016 32,091 32,091 32,091
2016 7,568,000 7,336,000 6,255,000 56,000 55,000 47,000
2021 11,103,000 9,639,000 7,186,000 80,000 70,000 53,000
2026 14,274,000 11,522,000 8,868,000 99,000 82,000 64,000
2031 17,136,000 13,673,000 10,713,000 115,000 95,000 75,000
2036 20,321,000 16,290,000 12,824,000 131,000 110,000 88,000
2041 23,990,000 19,416,000 14,461,000 150,000 128,000 97,000

AAGR:
2011-2041 5.9% 5.2% 4.1% 5.3% 4.7% 3.8%

• Facility planning will be based on the Medium Scenario.

• Land preserved for the High Growth Scenario.
• Experience in Indonesia suggests one runway can accommodate 150,000 movements.
• Hence, one runway will be sufficient to accommodate the High Forecast.
• 670 hectares is the minimum land requirement

25
 Broad Land Requirement
• Land must be preserved for 2041 high forecast of 24 MAP and 150,000 annual
aircraft movements.

• Approx 670ha of land is required for the new airport (one runway).

• Approx. 400ha additional land may be required in the future for long term
expansion for a second close-spaced runway and supporting landside.

5,400m
AIRFIELD

1,100m
TERMINAL PRECINCT
AVIATION AVIATION
COMMERCIAL SUPPORT SUPPORT COMMERCIAL

500m
COM COM

1,500m
26
Enabling Factors & Stimulants of Demand
• Infrastructure
o World-class international
airport
o Ground Access Infrastructure:
o Improve Yogyakarta to
airport road & rail access
o Improve east/west
connectivity
o Toll road planning
o Coach services
o Tourism infrastructure
o Military radar relocation
(Temon site only)
o General infrastructure
• Marketing
o Consolidate regional
activity
o Aviation route
development
o Tourism Authority to
increase Yogyakarta
tourism program
• Agreements
o Asean Open Skies policy
and bilateral agreements
o Civil and military
airspace restructuring
o Adjacent land use
protection

27
 Feasibility Study Approach
Drivers of Forecast Broad Facility
Demand & - Low & Land
- Medium
Constraints - High Requirements

Identify
Minimum Screening
Potential Preliminary
Selection to Short
Sites - Long Site Layouts
Criteria List of 2
List of 7

Detailed Recommended
Site Surveys
Evaluation & Site & Key
& Studies Issues
Feasibility

Detailed Site
Selection
Criteria

STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS & PRESENTATIONS

 Assessment of Shortlisted Sites
Extensive Field Investigation:

Site Surveys & Studies • Reconnaissance Survey

• Topographical Survey
• Soil investigation

Preliminary Airport Layouts:

• One runway layout and t-shape area
Preliminary Site Layouts
• Overlaid on 2 short listed sites
• Include Site Survey Features

Criteria and Assessment:

Detailed Site Selection • Criteria Based on DGCA Guidelines
Criteria • Detailed assessment of each criterion at each
site for the minimum one runway layout

29
Site Surveys and Studies

30
Gadingharjo Minimum Site Requirements
Runway Alignment 13/31 31
Temon Minimum Site Requirements
Runway Alignment 11/29 32
 Short List Evaluation Criteria
Regional Development
• Compatibility with Transportation Plans
• Compatibility with Provincial Spatial Plan
Land Availability
• Ease of getting rights to use the land
• Land available for long term expansion
• Ability to remove vital infrastructure
Operational Suitability
• Obstacle Limitation Surfaces
• Air Navigation
• Hazards
Socio-Economic & Culture
• Minimise Community Disruption
• Minimise Impact on Social Fabric
• Economic Benefits
Sites are scored 1, 2 or 3, (3 the highest score) against each criterion.
Natural Environment
• Aircraft Noise
• Impact on Flora and Fauna
• Construction Equipment Impact
• Natural Disaster Risk
• Impact on Aquatic Quality
Airport Access
• Improved Travel Time
• Ability to Upgrade Roads
• Rail Access
Technical Aspect
• Topography (Cut and Fill)
• Soil Bearing Capacity
• Infrastructure (Utilities)
• Hydrology
Comparative Financial Assessment
• Maximize Growth Potential
• Major Cost Differential Factors
33
 Regional Development

JJLS Road
relocation

GADINGHARJO TEMON
• New airport not mentioned in Regional • Regency Spatial Plan for Kulon Progo states
Spatial Plan but not precluded. the expectation for a new airport.

• No major roads affected. • Provincial Road realignment required.

34
 Regional Development
Evaluation Criteria Gadingharjo Temon

Compatibility with Provincial Spatial Plan 2 3

Compatibility with Transportation Plans

3 2

• Regency Spatial Plan for Bantul does not state a new airport,
nor is it prohibited.
Gadingharjo • Proposed location is defined for tourism/agricultural land uses
• There is no major conflict with the transportation plan.
• Regency Spatial Plan for Kulon Progo states the expectation for
a new airport.
Temon • South Provincial Road (JJLS) is impacted by the proposed
location of the new airport.

• Temon scores higher for compatibility with the Regency Spatial Plan.
• Gadingharjo scores higher for compatibility with Transportation Plans.

35
 Land Availability – Residential Relocations

GADINGHARJO TEMON

• 2,240 residential houses are • 670 residential houses are

impacted at the Gadingharjo site. impacted at the Temon site.

36
Paku Alam Land in Temon
• 18% land within the Temon site is
Paku Alam land vs. 5% Sultan land
in Gadingharjo.

37
 Land Availability – Potential for second close
spaced runway
Temon Gadingharjo

Military radar

Coastal protection area

Buffer area

Coastal protection area

Buffer area • Land is available for a 2nd runway
at both sites. Temon requires land
Relocation of Radar required reclamation.

38
 Land Availability
Evaluation Criteria Gadingharjo Temon

Ease of getting rights to use the land 1 2

Land available for long term expansion 2 1

Ability to remove vital infrastructure 3 2

• 5% of the land is Sultan Land.

• 2,240 residential houses and 230ha of paddy fields.
Gadingharjo • Potential for a close spaced parallel runway in the south.
• No vital infrastructure to be relocated.
• Approximately 18% of the land is Paku Alam Land.
• 670 residential houses and 70ha of paddy fields.
Temon • Potential for a close spaced parallel runway in the south, with
significant land reclamation.
• A military radar and associated facilities must be relocated.

• Temon has fewer residential homes, less paddy fields and more Sultan/ Paku
Alam Land.
• Gadingharjo avoids major land reclamation to accommodate potential second
runway if ever required.
• Gadingharjo has no vital infrastructure to relocate.
39
Operational Suitability – Obstacle Limitation Surfaces

GADINGHARJO TEMON

• Both sites have terrain penetrations in the OLS.

• An aeronautical study is required to establish operational procedures
to ensure safety is maintained.
 Operational Suitability – Air Navigation
Existing
• Redesign civil and
military airspace to New airways are required
support commercial to meet airspace capacity
flight activity at the requirements
new JOG international
airport.
 Operational Suitability
Evaluation Criteria Gadingharjo Temon

Obstacle Limitation Surfaces 2 2

Air Navigation 2 2

Hazards 3 3

• Parangndog Hill penetrates outer horizontal surface and is near

to the approach and departure surfaces to the southeast.
• An aeronautical study is required to establish operational
Gadingharjo procedures to ensure safety is maintained.
• Three BTS telecom towers protrude through the OLS.
• Missed approach procedures will consider obstacles to the east.
• No major hazards.
• Menoreh Hill penetrates the inner horizontal, conical and outer
horizontal surfaces, but not in the vicinity of the app/dep path.
• An aeronautical study is required to establish operational
Temon procedures to ensure safety is maintained.
• Two powerlines and 6 BTS telecom towers protrude the OLS.
• Missed approach procedures will consider obstacles to the north.
• No major hazards.

• Both sites have manageable operational issues and score equally

42
 Socio Economic and Culture
• Paddy fields along with mosques, churches, schools and cemeteries will be
relocated/ replaced at both sites.
• Greater paddy field impact at Gadinghardjo.

Landuse - Gadingharjo Public facilities - Gadingharjo

Landuse - Temon Public facilities - Temon

Road relocation
and community
impact
JJLS Road
relocation

• Gadingharjo: 2,240
residential houses
and 6km of local
road realignment.

• Temon: 670
residential houses
Road and 3.5km of
relocation Provincial (JJLS)
road realignment.

44
 Socio-Economic & Culture
Evaluation Criteria Gadingharjo Temon

Minimise Community Disruption 1 2

Minimise Impact on Social Fabric 1 2

Economic Benefits 2 3

• 2,240 residential houses and 6km of local road realignment.

• Main access road widening will impact houses along the roadside.
• 230ha of paddy fields along with mosques, churches, schools and
Gadingharjo cemeteries will be lost.
• More productive land (paddy fields) will need to be converted to
infrastructure.
• 670 residential houses and 3.5km of Provincial (JJLS) road
realignment.
• Main access road widening has less impact – ROW is established.
Temon • 70ha of paddy fields along with mosques, churches, schools and
cemeteries will be lost.
• Primarily unproductive land will be converted to infrastructure.

• Temon scores higher in this category across all criteria.

45
 Natural Disaster Risk
• Both sites are
susceptible to
tsunami risk.
• A 200m tsunami
coastal buffer in
addition to the 100m
abrasion setback is
planned.
• Airport Platform
raised to 7m AMSL.

TEMON

GADINGHARJO

46
 Natural
Environment
• In both cases, some residents will
be affected by noise.
• 5,500m of agricultural irrigation
system to mitigate at Gadingharjo.

Noise map - Gadingharjo

Impacted irrigation in Gadingharjo Noise map - Temon 47

 Natural Environment
Evaluation Criteria Gadingharjo Temon

Aircraft Noise 2 2
Impact on Flora and Fauna 3 3
Construction Equipment Impact 2 3
Natural Disaster Risk 3 2
Impact on Aquatic Quality 2 3

• Some residents affected by noise.

• No known flora and fauna issues.
• Volume of soil for replacement is approx 500,000m3.
Gadingharjo • A 200m tsunami buffer in addition to the 100m abrasion setback is
planned. In addition to this buffer, the site is located further inland.
• Roughly 5,500m of agricultural irrigation system must be mitigated.
• Some residents affected by noise.
• No known flora and fauna issues.
Temon • Volume of soil for replacement is approx 150,000m3.
• A 200m tsunami buffer in addition to the 100m abrasion setback is
planned.

• Across the criteria, Temon and Gadingharjo score similarly overall

48
 Airport Access

Existing railway

tollroad

tollroad

proposed railway

Temon Gadinghardjo

• Significant road access improvements required for both

sites but more difficult to achieve at Gadingharjo.
• Good existing rail access in place at Temon.
• Toll road required in medium-long term.
 Airport Access
Evaluation Criteria Gadingharjo Temon

Improved Travel time to Yogyakarta Inner Ring Road 3 2

Ability to Upgrade Roads 1 3

Rail Access 2 3

• Existing travel time by road is ~ 45 minutes (21 km).

• Anticipated improved travel time is ~21 minutes.
• Upgrade to improve travel time requires land acquisition and
Gadingharjo community relocation
• Planned rail access nearby.

• Existing travel time by road is ~ 45 minutes (35 km).

• Anticipated improved travel time is ~ 35 minutes.
Temon • Widening and improvements generally contained within existing
right of way.
• Existing Rail Access nearby.

• With similar road upgrade standards, Gadingharjo provides faster travel times.
• However Temon is easier to upgrade within existing right of way.
• Temon has existing rail network in close proximity.

50
 Technical Aspects
Evaluation Criteria Gadingharjo Temon

Topography (Cut and Fill) 2 3

Soil Bearing Capacity 2 3
Infrastructure (Utilities) 2 3
Hydrology 3 3

• Volume of cut is 13,500m3 and fill is 46,500m3.

• Good soil bearing can be achieved at 2.8m depth on average.
Gadingharjo • Access to utilities satisfactory.
• No river diversions are necessary.
• Volume of cut and fill is nil and 17,000m3.
• Good soil bearing can be achieved at 1.6m depth on average.
Temon • Access to utilities satisfactory and better for electricity and fuel.
• No river diversions are necessary.

• Temon is the better site for technical aspects.

51
Comparative Financial Assessment - Cost
Key Differential Factor Gadingharjo Temon
Land Issues:
• Minimizes cost of land
- Amount of King’s land available  
- Unproductive land available  
• Minimizes community relocation  
• Major road relocation avoided  
Site Condition:
• Minimizes cut & fill  
• Minimizes soil improvement  
Other Considerations:
• No military facilities to relocate  
• Avoids irrigation realignment  
Conclusion: Temon is approximately 20% lower
development cost .
52
 Comparative Financial Assesment
Evaluation Criteria Gadingharjo Temon

Maximize Growth Potential 2 2

Major Cost Differential Factors 1 2

• Good proximity to population areas to capture aviation growth

and realize non-aviation potential.
Gadingharjo • Costs are expected to be approximately 20% higher than
Temon.
• Good proximity to population areas to capture aviation growth
and realize non-aviation potential.
Temon • Development costs are lower.

• With similar revenue potential and lower cost compared to Gadingharjo,

Temon scores higher on comparative financial assessment.

53
 Feasibility Study Approach
Drivers of Forecast Broad Facility
Demand & - Low & Land
- Medium
Constraints - High Requirements

Identify
Minimum Screening
Potential Preliminary
Selection to Short
Sites - Long Site Layouts
Criteria List of 2
List of 7

Detailed Recommended
Site Surveys
Evaluation & Site & Key
& Studies Issues
Feasibility

Detailed Site
Selection
Criteria

STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS & PRESENTATIONS

 Evaluation Matrix
Evaluation Category Evaluation Criteria Gadingharjo Temon
Compatibility with Provincial Spatial Plan 2 3
Regional Development
Compatibility with Transportation Plans 3 2

Land available for long term expansion 2 1

Land Availability
Ease of getting rights to use the land 1 2
Ability to remove vital infrastructure 3 2

Obstacle Limitation Surfaces 2 2

Operational Suitability Air Navigation 2 2
Hazards 3 3

Minimise Community Disruption 1 2

Socio-Economic & Culture Minimise Impact on Social Fabric 1 2
Economic Benefits 2 3

Aircraft Noise 2 2
Impact on Flora and Fauna 3 3
Natural Environment Construction Equipment Impact 2 3
Natural Disaster Risk 3 2
Impact on Aquatic Quality 2 3

Improved Travel Time 3 2

Airport Access Ability to Upgrade Roads 1 3
Rail Access 2 3

Soil Bearing Capacity 2 3

Topography (Cut and Fill) 2 3
Technical Aspect
Infrastructure (Utilities) 2 3
Hydrology (Drainage) 3 3

Maximize Aviation Growth Potential 2 2

Comparative Financial Assessment
Major Cost Differential Factors 1 2

Total 52 61

Score 69% 81%

Temon is the best site. 55
 Recommendations - Site
1. Temon is the recommended location for the new
Yogyakarta International Airport.
• Utilising approved evaluation criteria, the Temon site ranks
the highest when compared against all other sites.

2. Approximately 670ha of land is required for the new

airport (one runway).
• Approximately 400ha additional land may be required (a
portion to be reclaimed) in the future for long term
expansion for a second close spaced runway and
supporting landside.

56
Temon Site Requirements

Minimum
670ha

Potential 400 ha long term expansion

57
 Recommendations - Land
1. All stakeholders must understand and agree that the
project is only viable if land is available, and price
reflect current use and excludes speculation.

2. It is vital the 670 ha area be designated for critical

(airport) infrastructure project.

3. Kulon Progo regency government to appoint team

along with project proponents to manage the land
acquisition process. Further discussions to be
undertaken to determine the appropriate acquisition
mechanism.

58
Recommendations – Key New Airport Enabling
Factors – Local Government
1. Improve ground access infrastructure especially the surface
connection between Temon and Yogyakarta CBD.

2. Future toll road planning between Yogyakarta and Temon.

3. Tourism Authority to improve tourism programme and infrastructure.

4. Ensure general infrastructure meets future needs.

5. Redesign civil and military airspace.

6. Relocation of Military Radar.

Active participation by Local Government is absolutely

essential to the success of the New Airport Project
59
 Recommendations – Other Key New Airport
Enabling Factors
1. Redesign civil and military airspace (e.g. new airways) to
support commercial flight activity at the new JOG
international airport. (DGCA/Airforce)

2. Relocation of Military Radar and associated facilities.

(Airforce)

3. Facilitate growth in international traffic through bilaterals

and multilaterals especially future Asean Single Aviation
Market (Open Skies). e.g. JOG to be included as one of the
main hubs of Indonesia. (DGCA/AP1)

4. Marketing efforts by airport operator to include strategies

to consolidate regional activity and facilitate route
development. (AP1/GVK)
60
Access Improvement Recommendations
- Milestones -
Recommended Road Works - Temon

A
A A
FutureToll Road

A
A
A

62
Road capacity improvement

A
 EXISTING
Flyover plan at Gamping Junction

Existing

Proposed Flyover
Recommended Rail Spur - Temon

C1

65
Railway access to Temon Airport
C1

C2
Wojo Station Improvement

C1
 Next Steps
1. DGCA/MOT affirms the selected Temon - Kulon Progo site
through the approval of the Feasibility Study and in the
issuance of an In-principle approval letter to AP1/GVK.

2. Obtain In-principle approval letters from the Governor of

Yogyakarta and Bupati of Kulon Progo Regency of the
selected airport site at Temon - Kulon Progo.

3. Following receipt of In-principle location approval from

DGCA/MOT, Governor and Bupati, AP1/GVK will commence
the master plan study.

4. Continued close interaction and open dialogue with key

stakeholders during the Master Planning phase
o DGCA, Yogyakarta Provincial Officials, Kulon Progo Regency
Officials, Airforce and others.

68
 Next Steps
5. Airport Land
o Local government to legally designate/rezone and
secure the proposed 670 ha land area for the New
Airport.
o Formation of taskforce to manage and execute the
land acquisition process.
o Negotiation and structuring on mechanism for land
acquisition.

6. Seek Governor’s assistance to facilitate the

implementation of the key measures identified for
action by Local Government.

69
Thank You

70