DRAFT

Fire Station Working Group

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport
DRAFT

Working Group Purpose

To provide a recommendation to the Aviation
General Manager and Atlanta Fire Rescue Chief
regarding Fire Station 32 and a proposed
Landside Fire Station at Hartsfield-Jackson
Atlanta International Airport.

2
DRAFT

Background
▪ As part of the 5-gate extension to Concourse T, it was
proposed that Fire Station 32 be relocated to the west side of
the extended concourse. The relocated station was designed
to accommodate the fire apparatus currently in Fire Station
32.
▪ In order to provide structural fire and EMS response to the
current and planned facilities in the ATLNext program on the
non-secure (landside) portion of the Airport, planning for a
Landside Fire Station was initiated. In coordination with
AFRD, the preferred location is the vacant parcel of land
bounded by Aviation Blvd., Riverdale Rd., and Sullivan Rd.

3
DRAFT

Airport Fire Stations: Apparatus (Staff)

Station 24 (17)
ARFF 1 (2)
ARFF 2 (2)
Engine 24 (4)
Station 32 (12) Mini Pumper 51 (2)
ARFF 3 (2) Ladder Truck 37 (3)
ARFF 4 (2) Med 4 (2)
Engine 32 (4) Squad 42 (2)
Mini Pumper 44 (2)
Med 1 (2)

Station 35 (14)
ARFF 7 (2)
ARFF 8 (2)
Battalion 7 (2)
Engine 35 (4)
Station 40 (15) Med 2 (2)
ARFF 9 (2) Med 5 (2)
ARFF 10 (2) Mobile Command Unit
Station 33 (5) Air 1 (Truck)
Engine 40 (4)
ARFF 5 (2) Engine 35 (Reserve)
Truck 41 (3)
ARFF 6 (2) Battalion 7 (Reserve)
Mini Pumper 50 (2)
Med Capt. EMS (1)
Med 3 (2)
Mass Casualty 49
Stair Truck 48
Foam Truck 45
Decon. Unit
Fire Bus
Ladder Truck 43 (Reserve)

4
DRAFT

College Park Fire Stations

Station 1
Engine
Rescue Unit

Station 2
Battalion Chief
Ladder Truck

Station 3
Ladder Truck (Quint)
Rescue Unit 5
DRAFT

ARFF Response

6
DRAFT

Station 32 ARFF Response

▪ To address the question regarding the need for ARFF response from
Station 32 to meet FAR Part 139 requirements, response times were
calculated and validated
▪ Response times were calculated from Station 24 to the midpoints of
Runways 8L-26R and 8R-26L for the existing 3,000 gallon apparatus and
a 1,500 gallon apparatus
▪ As detailed in the following slides, the FAR Part 139 requirements for
Runways 8L-26R and 8R-26L can be met from Station 24 with both the
3,000 gallon and 1,500 gallon apparatus
Runway 3,000 Gallon ARFF Truck 1,500 Gallon ARFF Truck
8L-26R 2 minutes 26 seconds 2 minutes 18 seconds
8R-26L 2 minutes 41 seconds 2 minutes 29 seconds

▪ It is important to note that Station 32 also houses an engine, mini

pumper, and medic unit for Fire/EMS response.

7
DRAFT

Station 24 Response to 8L-26R (3,000 gallon)

8
DRAFT

Station 24 Response to 8R-26L (3,000 gallon)

9
DRAFT

Station 24 Response to 8L-26R (1,500 gallon)

10
DRAFT

Station 24 Response to 8R-26L (1,500 gallon)

11
DRAFT

Fire/EMS Incident Locations

12
DRAFT

Fire Station Response by Location

Incident Location

Landside North

Landside South

Concourse D

International
Concourse A

Concourse C
Concourse B
Concourse T

Concourse E

Concourse F

Off-Airport
Rental Car

Domestic
Terminal

Terminal
Center
Station Vehicle

Total
# Type
32 Bicycles 0 0 0 336 159 521 307 244 210 270 288 58 4 2,397

32 Vehicles 101 25 10 1,311 511 1,077 678 46 16 15 14 11 15 3,830

24 All 60 168 22 465 188 380 272 80 77 88 65 44 12 1,921

35 All 7 27 25 87 24 238 42 579 469 659 597 286 3 3,043

40 All 12 32 74 137 58 166 86 243 206 335 230 123 6 1,708

33 All 0 0 3 11 1 4 1 4 2 3 4 0 0 33

Total 180 252 134 2347 941 2386 1386 1196 980 1370 1198 522 40 12,932
Notes:
▪ Data does not include ARFF vehicle responses
▪ All Bike Teams are assigned to Station 32
Source: Atlanta Fire Rescue Department, 2018-2019 Response Data, April 2019.

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport| Fire Station Response Analysis| April 2019 13
DRAFT

Mapped Locations-Stations 32 and 35

14
DRAFT

Station 32 Alternatives

15
DRAFT

Fire/EMS Response Alternatives

▪ Construct Station 32 as designed in the Concourse T
Extension project
▪ Eliminate Station 32 and reassign apparatus to other
stations
▪ Construct a new Fire/EMS station in the west CPTC
area

16
Construct Station 32 as Designed

8/5/2021
DRAFT

Reassign Station 32 Apparatus

▪ AFRD developed the following reallocation plan for apparatus currently

at Station 32:
– ARFF 3 to Station 24
– ARFF 4 to Station 40
– Medic Unit 1 to Station 40
– Engine 32 to Station 40
– Mini Pumper 44 to Station 35
▪ Improvements to convert Station 24 to a dual-sided station
▪ Sprung structure for non-staffed apparatus

Client/Airport Name | Presentation Title | Date 18

 Fire Station 24
UNMANNED VEHICLES
MANNED VEHICLES N

MEDIC 4
SQUAD

PUMPER
MINI
TRUCK 47

42

51
ENGINE 24

ARFF 1

ARFF 2

ARFF 3

Issue: Back vehicles are trapped

4 BAYS
NLVR
by front vehicles. Difficulty
ACCESS getting vehicles in and out of
position.

Beds: Adequate to accommodate additional staff

Bays: Adequate to accommodate additional equipment 8/5/2021
 Fire Station 24- alternative
UNMANNED VEHICLES
MANNED VEHICLES N

4 BAYS
NLVR
ACCESS

MEDIC 4
SQUAD

PUMPER
MINI
TRUCK 47

42

51
ENGINE 24

ARFF 1

ARFF 2

ARFF 3 SCOPE REVISIONS

• Relocates AFRD Employee parking to an enclosed
area in the North Cargo Parking lot.
4 BAYS
• Reconfigures Gate 26 entry/ exit and adds sally
NLVR
port
ACCESS
• Removes existing employee parking to become
Fire Station Apron/ NLVR Access drive.

8/5/2021
 Fire Station 40
UNMANNED VEHICLES N
MANNED VEHICLES

ENGINE 40

TRUCK 41

ARFF 10

ARFF 4
ARFF 9
DECON
TRAILE

FOAM
45

DECON
TRUCK
R

STAIR

UNIT
48
ENGINE 32

PUMPER
MEDIC 3
MEDIC 1

MINI

50

Beds: Adequate to accommodate additional staff

8/5/2021
Bays: Adequate to accommodate additional equipment
 Fire Station 33
UNMANNED VEHICLES N
MANNED VEHICLES

4 BAYS
NLVR
ACCESS

FIRE BUS

AIR

MEDIC

EMS 3
1

5
TRUCK 43
CASUALTY

ARFF 6

ARFF 5
MASS

49

4 BAYS
NLVR
ACCESS

Beds: Adequate to accommodate additional staff

8/5/2021
Bays: Adequate to accommodate additional equipment
 Fire Station 35
UNMANNED VEHICLES
MANNED VEHICLES
N

4 BAYS NLVR
ACCESS
BATTALION 7
RESERVE

BIKE TEAM
TRAILER
PUMPER 44

MOBILE COMMAND

Issue: Vehicles are stored

MINI

outside affecting longevity and

ARFF 7

usefulness
ENGINE 35

ARFF 8

MEDIC 2
BATTAL
ION 7

Potentially add a sprung structure to

ENGINE 35
RESERVE
accommodate unmanned equipment at
Fire Station 35 or purchase sprung
4 BAYS NLVR
structure at Fire Station 40 and relocate
ACCESS
equipment to it.

Beds: Adequate to accommodate additional staff

8/5/2021
Bays: Relocates some unmanned equipment outside
DRAFT

Construct a Fire/EMS Station West of CPTC

Station Location

Client/Airport Name | Presentation Title | Date 24

 Fire Station 24- alternative
UNMANNED VEHICLES
MANNED VEHICLES N

4 BAYS
NLVR
ACCESS

MEDIC 4
SQUAD

PUMPER
MINI
TRUCK 47

42

51
ENGINE 24

ARFF 1

ARFF 2

ARFF 3 SCOPE REVISIONS

• Relocates AFRD Employee parking to an enclosed
area in the North Cargo Parking lot.
4 BAYS
• Reconfigures Gate 26 entry/ exit and adds sally
NLVR
port
ACCESS
• Removes existing employee parking to become
Fire Station Apron/ NLVR Access drive.

8/5/2021
DRAFT

Comparison of Alternatives

26
DRAFT

Comparison Matrix – Build Station 32

Estimated Construction Cost = $23.2 million (Station and Tunnel)
Advantages Disadvantages

• Maintains T-North Extension schedule
• Retains the current design ($1.1 M in design fees to
date)
• Meets AFRD requirements for the safety and
security of their staff
• Design is 100% complete, priced, permitted, and is
ready to be constructed
• Known cost and schedule for construction.
• Decreases ARFF response times to the West side of
the airfield
• Decreases EMS & Fire response times to the West
side of the airfield and to Concourses A thru D
• Decreases Vehicle Fire response times to parking
deck facilities/lots and ramp areas
• Decreases RCC response times for EMS &
suppression incidents
• Decreases Rail System response times (CONRAC;
MARTA; Bombardier)
• Decreases response times for the Fuel Farm(s)
• Construction Cost is higher than expected at $23.2
M
• Added cost to provide a roadway tunnel through
the concourse
• Eliminates Gate 1 and changes response path to
the Domestic Terminal North
• Station 32 is not required to meet FAA Part 139
ARFF response
• Creates operational issues on the apron space for
United due to the emergency response tunnel
• Constrains Station 32 site with the new gates and
roadway

27
DRAFT
Comparison Matrix – Reassign Apparatus
Estimated Construction Cost = $10 million
Advantages
• Decreases cost
• Eliminates the tunnel providing a continuous
operational area on the apron
• Maximizes current Fire Station facilities
• Makes Station 32 site available for other airside uses
• Removes scope of work of the ARFF 32 from critical
path of T North Construction
• Eliminates all utility and maintenance cost on ARFF
32
Disadvantages
• Increases ARFF, Structural, EMS response times to the
West side of the airfield and Concourses A thru D
• Increases vehicle fire response times to parking deck
facilities/lots and ramp areas
• Increases RCC response times for EMS & suppression
incidents
• Increased Rail System response times (CONRAC;
MARTA; Bombardier)
• Increases risk of losing the ISO Class 1 insurance
rating due to station decommissioning
• Increases risk of losing the Atlanta Fire Rescue
Department’s (AFRD) Accreditation designation
• Requires additional design time and funding to
develop ARFF 32 site to a new use
• Requires some reconfiguration of the Gate design to
eliminate the tunnel
• Requires additional planning, design, and
construction time to accommodate the needs of the
reassigned staff to the other ARFF stations
• Impacts critical path of T North Extension if new
accommodation need to be met prior to existing
station demolition
28
DRAFT
Comparison Matrix – New Fire/EMS Station
Estimated Construction Cost = $21.5 million
($13.5 million: station/$8.0 million: Station 24 exit modifications)
Advantages
• Improves travel time to Domestic Landside (access to
new 78A sallyport)
• Potentially costs less than Station 32
• Provides an alternative location to help maintain the
EMS and Fire response times
• Sustains EMS and Structural response demands
consistent with current service delivery
Disadvantages
• Requires time to design, bid, could impact T-North
Extension if considered enabling work
• Uses a green-field site that has airside/landside
connectivity
• Constrains size of station to be smaller than Station
32
• Increases response time to other emergency types
to the northwest corner of the airfield
• Units assigned to this station will not meet AFRD’s
Standard of Response Coverage travel time of 5:09
29
DRAFT

Response Time Objectives

Response Turnout Time Travel Time

NFPA 1710
Fire/Special Ops 1 minute 20 seconds 4 minutes
EMS 1 minute 4 minutes
AFRD 2019 Risk Assessment
Fire/Special Ops 2 minutes 3 seconds 5 minutes 9 seconds
EMS 1 minute 50 seconds 5 minutes 9 seconds
Sources: NFPA® 1710, Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and
Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments, Section 4.1.2.1; AFRD 2019 Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover

30
DRAFT

Station Response Time Comparison

Retain Station 32 vs Reassign Apparatus
Station T Midpoint A Midpoint B Midpoint

Construct 32 0:57 1:20 1:53

Reassign to 5:06 5:31 6:48

24
Reassign to 7:07 7:32 8:03
40

Station West 1:57 2:15 3:36

of CPTC
Source: AFRD Drive Time Assessments(drive time in minutes : seconds)

31
DRAFT

Landside Fire Station

32
DRAFT

Landside Fire Station

Landside Fire Station

One Ladder Truck
One Engine
One Mini Pumper
One Medic Unit
One Reserve Vehicle

13 Firefighters per shift

33
DRAFT

Landside Fire Station Response Coverage

34
DRAFT
Landside Fire Station
Estimated Construction Cost = $28.3 million
Advantages
• Improves Standard of Response Coverage outside
the secured area (Atrium, parking decks, South
Cargo, Tech Campus, Delta GO)
• Provides additional capacity for Airport Fire/EMS for
anticipated growth in ATLNext (hotel, parking)
• Provides storage for additional vehicles that might
not be used frequently but are necessary to meet
operational needs
• Increases structural response to 3 Engines and 3
Trucks without exhausting all resources
• City of Atlanta stakeholders protected by AFRD and
not primarily dependent upon College Park’s
availability
Disadvantages
• Construction Cost
• Loss of "green-field" site that will not be impacted
by a closely spaced sixth runway
• Reduced Fire and EMS response coverage within
the SIDA to augment required services Landside
development
• Landside development may be hindered due to
inadequate fire protection service levels
• Limits of City of College Park resources will not be
able to meet the airport’s growth
35
DRAFT

Working Group Recommendations

36
DRAFT

Working Group Recommendations

▪ Build Station 32 as designed in the T North Extension project for the following
reasons:
– The greatest proportion of Fire/EMS calls are to the Domestic Terminal and
Concourses T, A, and B and Station 32 is positioned in the vicinity of that
demand
– Elimination of Station 32 significantly increases Fire/EMS response times to the
areas of greatest demand
– Four to six minutes of additional travel time from Stations 24 and 40
– Growth of the Airport is generally to the west and the elimination of Station 32
concentrates stations on the opposite side of the Airport as the growth
– Savings with other alternatives do not include costs associated with delay of
the T North Extension

37
DRAFT

Working Group Recommendations

▪ Continue development of the Landside Fire Station for the following reasons:
– Increased landside development with ATLNext, including increases in parking
capacity, new hotel and office development, and roadway traffic volumes
– Increased O&D traffic through the Domestic Terminal
– Limited College Park Fire Department capabilities
– Airport City development within College Park will place additional demands on
College Park Fire Department

38
DRAFT

Appendix
DRAFT

Introduction and Methodology

▪ Data received from Atlanta Fire Rescue Department
– Over 18,000 entries for a one-year period covering March 1, 2018 through
February 28, 2019
– Fields included incident category, incident location, responding unit(s)
– Approximately 60 percent of incidents included lat/long coordinates
▪ This analysis focused on non-ARFF incidents/responses
▪ All Bike Team responses designated as Station 32 but are deployed throughout
the CPTC
– To differentiate between Bike Team response and Vehicle response we
separated that data

40
DRAFT

Fire Station ARFF Responses

Fire Station Number of ARFF Responses

32 106

24 185

35 71

40 154

33 145

Total 268

Source: Atlanta Fire Rescue Department, 2018-2019 Response Data, April 2019.

41
DRAFT

Fire Station Response by Location

Incident Location

Landside North

Landside South

Concourse D

International
Concourse A

Concourse C
Concourse B
Concourse T

Concourse E

Concourse F

Off-Airport
Rental Car

Domestic
Terminal

Terminal
Center
Station Vehicle

Total
# Type
32 Bicycles 0 0 0 336 159 521 307 244 210 270 288 58 4 2,397

32 Vehicles 101 25 10 1,311 511 1,077 678 46 16 15 14 11 15 3,830

24 All 60 168 22 465 188 380 272 80 77 88 65 44 12 1,921

35 All 7 27 25 87 24 238 42 579 469 659 597 286 3 3,043

40 All 12 32 74 137 58 166 86 243 206 335 230 123 6 1,708

33 All 0 0 3 11 1 4 1 4 2 3 4 0 0 33

Total 180 252 134 2347 941 2386 1386 1196 980 1370 1198 522 40 12,932
Notes:
▪ Data does not include ARFF vehicle responses
▪ All Bike Teams are assigned to Station 32
Source: Atlanta Fire Rescue Department, 2018-2019 Response Data, April 2019.

42
DRAFT

Fire Station Incident Response at Concourses

Number of Incident Responses

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

CONCOURSE T

CONCOURSE A

CONCOURSE B

CONCOURSE C

CONCOURSE D

CONCOURSE E

CONCOURSE F

Station 32 Other Station 32 Bikes Station 24 Station 35 Station 40 Station 33

Notes:
▪ Data does not include ARFF vehicle responses
▪ All Bike Teams are assigned to Station 32
Source: Atlanta Fire Rescue Department, 2018-2019 Response Data, April 2019.

43
DRAFT

Fire Station Incident Response at Landside Locations

Number of Incident Responses

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

DOMESTIC TERMINAL

INTERNATIONAL TERMINAL

LANDSIDE NORTH

LANDSIDE SOUTH

RENTAL CAR CENTER

OFF-AIRPORT

Station 32 Other Station 32 Bikes Station 24 Station 35 Station 40 Station 33

Notes:
▪ Data does not include ARFF vehicle responses
▪ All Bike Teams are assigned to Station 32
Source: Atlanta Fire Rescue Department, 2018-2019 Response Data, April 2019.

44
DRAFT

Station 32 as Sole Responder to Incidents

100.0%

90.0%

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

Station 32 % of Total Responses

Note:
▪ Data does not include ARFF vehicle responses
Source: Atlanta Fire Rescue Department, 2018-2019 Response Data, April 2019.

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport| Fire Station Response Analysis| April 2019 45
DRAFT

Fire Station 32 Vehicle Use

Technical Rescue

Information for
Jet Fuel Spilled
Bomb Threat

Firefighter
Hazmat

Other
Vehicle
EMS

Fire
Type
Bicycles 3 2,367 305 11 22 39 27 9

Vehicles 10 3,407 305 11 22 39 27 9

Both 2 455 5 0 0 0 0 0

Note:
▪ Data does not include ARFF vehicle responses
▪ Response vehicles are dispatched with Bike Teams, and the Bike Teams can cancel vehicle response at the incident.
Source: Atlanta Fire Rescue Department, 2018-2019 Response Data, April 2019.

46