Chapter 9 AIRPORT SYSTEM PLANNING

Chapter 9 AIRPORT SYSTEM PLANNING. Photo creit Dorn McGrath, Jr

Contents Page The Planning Process................................................... 189 Airport Master Planning.............................................. 189 Regional Airport Planning............................................ 191 State Airport Planning................................................ 193 National Airport Planning............................................ 196 General Problems in Airport System Planning............................. 199 Deman as an Inepenent Variable.................................... 199 Plans as Avocacy Documents........................................ 201 Lack of Integration Among Plans....................+........ 202 National Plan of Integrate Airport Systems.............................. 203 The Congressional Manate........................................... 203 Desirable Features of NPIAS.......................................... 204 List of Tables Table No. 48. State Funing of Airport Planning.................................... 49. Review of State Aviation Plans....................................... 50. Estimate Cost of Improvements by General Categories................. 51. National Airport System Plan: System Nees by Program Objectives, 1980-89............................................................ 52. Comparison of National an State Airport System Plans,........... Page 194 195 197 198 200

Chapter 9 AIRPORT SYSTEM PLANNING Given the high cost an long leatime for builing or improving airports, planning is key in etermining what facilities will be neee an in creating programs for proviing them in a timely manner, while making wise use of resources. Planning for airport evelopment requires more than simply scheuling the capital improvements to be mae. Airports are public entities, whose managers interact with many other public an private stakeholers. Airport evelopment plans affect other aspects of community life e.g., through the lan eicate to aviation use or the noise or automobile traffic that the airport generates. The nee for aviation evelopment must thus be weighe against other societal nees an plans. Further, planning cannot be one for one airport in isolation; each airport is part of a network which is itself part of the national transportation system. For these reasons, airport planning involves government at all levels, as well as other public an private organizations. Determining nee an programming evelopment at iniviual airports has become formalize in a process calle airport master planning. While master planning in the full sense is practice primarily by large airports, even the smallest must make use of some elements of the process to prepare for future change. At a level above airport master planning is regional system planning, which is concerne with evelopment of all airports in a metropolitan area. It often involves ifficult political ecisions on evelopment priorities among competing airports. In some cases, this responsibility is assume by a regional or metropolitan planning agency, but many State governments have also taken on the task of eveloping a coorinate system plan for airports serving not only major metropolitan regions but also outlying small communities an rural areas within the State. In some cases, State agencies prepare these plans themselves; in others, they provie technical assistance an review for local planning boies. The role of the Feeral Government in airport planning inclues a broa range of activities. The most comprehensive activity is the National Airport System Plan of the Feeral Aviation Aministration (FAA), which summarizes the evelopment nees of roughly 3,200 airports across the country. At the other extreme, FAA has responsibility to approve, on a project-by-project basis, specific evelopment projects for which airport sponsors are seeking Feeral funs. This chapter escribes airport planning at various levels, with emphasis on the planning process an the problems facing airport planners in general. The final part of the chapter looks more closely at airport system planning from a national perspective an aresses issues that FAA will nee to consier in preparing a new comprehensive planning ocument National Plan of Integrate Airport Systems calle for in the Airport an Airway Improvement Act of. Airport Master Planning At the local level, the centerpiece of airport planning is the master plan a ocument that charts the propose evolution of the airport to meet future nees. The magnitue an sophistication of the master planning effort epens on the size of the airport. At major airports, planning may be in the hans of a large epartment capable of proucing its own forecasts an supporting technical stuies. At such airports, master planning is a formal an complex process that THE PLANNING PROCESS has evolve to coorinate large construction projects (or perhaps several such projects simultaneously) that may be carrie out over a perio of 5 years or more. At smaller airports, master planning may be the responsibility of a few staff members with other responsibilities who epen on outsie consultants for expertise an support. At very small airports, where capital improvements are minimal or are mae infrequently, the master plan may be a very simple ocument, perhaps prepare locally but usually with the help of consultants. 189

190. Airport System Development While there is consierable variation in the content of the master plan an how it is use, its basic proucts are a escription of the esire future configuration of the airport, a escription of the steps neee to achieve it, an a financial plan to fun evelopment. The master planning process consists of four basic phases: 1) airport requirements analysis, 2) site selection, 3) airport layout, an 4) financial planning. The first phase, requirements analysis, specifies new or expane facilities that will be neee uring the planning perio. This involves cataloging existing facilities an forecasting future traffic eman. The planner compares the capacity of existing facilities with future eman, ientifying where eman will excee capacity an what new facilities will be necessary. The process of relating future eman to existing facilities an estimating the nature an size of neee improvements is complex. It requires etaile forecasts, since sizing epens not only on the number of passengers an aircraft in future years but also on the type of the traffic. For example, traffic consisting mainly of transfer passengers imposes requirements that are ifferent from those where the majority of traffic is origin an estination passengers. Sizing of facilities is also affecte by the istribution of activities throughout the ay an by the size an operating characteristics of aircraft serving the airport. This process is simplifie by the use of stanar relationships between general measures, such as annual enplanements, an specific measures, such as peak-hour passenger eman. The secon phase, site selection, is most important in the construction of a new airport. When consiering the expansion of an existing airport, there is usually less choice about where to locate new facilities. Requirements for safety areas an clear zones aroun existing runways an taxiways, for example, mean that much apparently vacant lan at airports cannot be use for other purposes. New facilities can be locate only in places where they, an the traffic they generate, will not interfere with existing facilities. The site selection phase for a new airport requires an inepth analysis of alternative sites, looking closely at such factors as physical characteristics of the site, the nature of surrouning evelopment, lan cost an availability, groun access, an the aequacy of surrouning airspace. The final choice of one site over others is often quite subjective. For example, there is probably no objective way to compare the isavantages of increase noise in some part of the community with the avantages of improve air service for the metropolitan area as a whole. The right choice epens on how ecisionmakers weigh various criteria, an it is often a political, rather than a technical, choice. In the thir phase, airport layout, the locations of planne new facilities are mappe on the airport site. In this phase, the planner also looks at how the airport will fit into the surrouning community. A lan use plan is usually prepare at this point to show existing an propose resiential, business, an inustrial evelopment aroun the airport an expecte levels of aircraft noise. It shows areas which must have protecte airspace an those where builing height limitations will have to be impose. In aition, the effect of the airport on highway an public transportation systems transit is analyze. This step is important not only for the safety an operational efficiency of the airport an its compatibility with the surrouning community, but for the effect on the level an structure of airport operating costs. Failure to recognize the relationships between airport configuration an ongoing costs can have lasting effects on the economy of the airport an its revenue-earning potential. The fourth an final phase, financial planning, is an economic evaluation of the entire plan of evelopment. It looks at the activity forecasts of the first phase from the point of view of revenues an expenitures, analyzing the airport s balance sheet over the planning perio to ensure that the airport sponsor can affor to procee. A corollary activity in this phase is preparation of a financial plan, which specifies the funing sources an

Ch. 9 Airport System Planning 191 financing methos for the propose evelopment the portions that will be fune through Feeral grants-in-ai, the size an timing of bon issues, the revenue from concessionaire rents, parking fees, laning fees, an so on. The steps outline above often require several years to complete, an at most airports, master planning is an ongoing an continuous process. By the time the master plan has been rawn up, much of the information may be outate, an compilation must begin again. Thus, it is common for master plans to be wholly or partly upate on a cycle of 3 to 5 years. The master plan is most applicable to a rather narrow planning problem, the evelopment of a single airport. Planning of a regional airport system, which aresses problems of a broaer scope, contains many elements in common with the master planning process. However, regional planning is usually less concerne with the etails of siting facilities at a particular airport than with the aequacy of service in a given geographic area an the roles of ifferent airports in meeting future nees. While the master planning process is fairly stanarize, at least at larger airports, regional planning proceures vary wiely among local, regional, State, an Feeral agencies. Regional Airport Planning Regional airport planning takes as its basic unit of analysis the airport hub, roughly coincient with the bounaries of a metropolitan area. The planner is concerne with air transportation for the region as a whole an must consier traffic at all the airports in the region, both large an small. The practice of regional planning is relatively new an has been institute to eal with questions of resource allocation an use which often arise when the airports in a region have been planne an evelope iniviually an without coorination among affecte jurisictions. Regional planning seeks to overcome the rivalries an the jurisictional overlaps of the various local agencies involve in airport evelopment an operation. The goal is to prouce an airport system that is optimum with respect to regionwie benefits an costs. Thus, regional airport planning aresses one critical issue usually not ealt with in an airport master plan: the allocation of traffic among the airports in a region. This can be a sensitive subject. Questions of traffic istribution involve political as well as technical an economic issues, an they can greatly affect the future growth of the airports involve. One airport may be quite busy while another is unerutilize. If traffic were to continue growing at the busy airport, new facilities woul have to be constructe to accommoate that growth. On the other han, if some of the new traffic were iverte to an unerutilize airport, the nee for new construction might be reuce an service to the region as a whole might be improve. Although a planning agency may ecie that such a iversion is in the interest of a metropolitan region an might prepare forecasts an plans showing how it coul be accomplishe, it may not necessarily have power to implement these plans. Where airports are competitors, it is probably not reasonable to expect that the stronger will voluntarily ivert traffic an revenues to the other. The planning agency woul likely have to influence the planning an evelopment process at iniviual airports so that they will make ecisions reflecting the regional agency s assessment of regional nees. One way to influence planning ecisions is through control over istribution of Feeral an State evelopment grants. Before, regional agencies serve as clearing houses for Feeral funs uner the review process require by Office of Management an Buget Circular A-95. While the awar of Feeral airport evelopment funs epene mainly on FAA approval of the airport sponsor s application, the A-95 process require that esignate regional agencies review projects before the grants were aware. In particular, the regional agencies were require to certify that the planne improvement was consistent with Feeral regulations-for example, environmental regulations. In July, the Presient issue Executive Orer 12372, outlining a new policy for intergovernmental review of irect Feeral grant programs. The purpose of the new policy is to strengthen

192 Airport System Development 1959 1939 1969 1949 1979 Photo creit: Dorn McGrath, Jr. 50 years of evelopment at Los Angeles International Airport

Ch. 9 Airport System Planning 193 feeralism by relying on State an local processes for the State an local government coorination an review of propose financial assistance an irect Feeral evelopment.... The intent is to give aitional weight to the concerns of State an local officials with respect to feerally fune evelopment. State an local governments are encourage to evelop their own proceures (or refine existing proceures) for reviewing evelopment plans an grant applications. Uner the new policy, agencies are to certify that Feeral spening is consistent with State an local objectives an priorities, instea of certifying that State an local projects comply with Feeral guielines, as they i formerly. Feeral agencies, such as FAA, are expecte to accommoate recommenations communicate through the State review process or to justify refusal to o so. Some States may choose to continue using the same regional planning organizations as review agencies, while others may create new proceures an new agencies. The Executive orer iscourages the reauthorization of any planning organization which is feerally fune, which has a feerally prescribe membership, which is establishe for a limite purpose, an which is not aequately representative of, or accountable to, State or local electe officials. However, States may choose to retain the same regional agencies-they were establishe uner State law in the first place but to change their function to reflect accountability to State an local rather than Feeral officials. It is still too early to tell how these changes in the review proceure will affect the ability of regional agencies to influence airport planning ecisions. Much of the regional agency s success may epen as much on negotiation an persuasion as on legal or bugetary authority. Often compromises can be reache on a voluntary basis. For example, the Regional Airport Planning Commission has been working with the three San Francisco area airports to help each evelop a noise buget to comply with California s strict environmental laws. Because noise is irectly relate to the level of aviation activity, the noise buget plan, when complete, will affect future traffic allocation among the airports. Its implementation will most likely require some iversion of new traffic growth from busy San Francisco International to the other bay area airports. Even where airports in a region are operate by the same authority, allocation of traffic between airports may still be ifficult. For example, the Port Authority of New York an New Jersey can implement its planning ecision to increase activity at Newark by instituting ifferential pricing, improve groun access, or other measures to increase use of that airport. Implementation of the policy, however, epens not just on control of airport evelopment expenitures but also on the ability to influence the activities of private parties the air carriers an passengers. Regional airport planning authorities may also, if they have planning responsibility for other transportation moes, plan for the airport as part of the regional transportation system. When multimoal planning responsibility resies in one organization, there is greater likelihoo that the planning agency will consier airport nees in relation to other forms of transportation in the region. Also, the regional agency may unertake to improve coorination between the various moes, so that, for example, airport evelopments o not impose an unue buren on surrouning highway facilities or so that avantage can be taken of opportunities for mass transit. For this to happen, however, two conitions are necessary: regionwie authority an multimoal jurisiction. State Airport Planning Accoring to the National Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAO), there are 47 State aviation agencies that carry out some form of airport planning. In 39 States, these agencies are subivisions of the State Department of Transportation (DOT); in the others, they are inepenent agencies. Several States have an aviation commission in aition to an aviation agency. The commissions are usually appointe by the Governor an serve as policymaking boies. State involvement in airport planning an evelopment takes several forms: preparation of State airport system plans, funing of local master planning, an technical assistance for local planning. Table 48

194. Airport System Development Table 48. State Funing of Airport Planning State Fiscal year Amount Arizona................. Arkansas................ Connecticut............. Floria.................. Georgia................. Hawaii.................. Illinois.................. Kansas................. Louisiana............... Maine.................. Marylan................ Massachusetts........... Michigan................ Mississippi.............. Montana................ Nebraska................ New Hampshire.......... New York............... North Dakota............ Pennsylvania............ Rhoe Islan............ South Carolina........... Tennessee.............. Utah.................... Vermont................ Virginia................. 1983 1983-83 a 1983-83 a 1983 ~ 1981-82 b $ 60,000 1,255,200 100,00 250,000 20,000 160,290 31,000 9,445 180,000 18,240 102,875 18,525 145,000 10,000 26,000 7,750 30,000 33,000 25,000 68,340 225,000 124,000 13,000 45,000 15,500 51,700 Total C..............................$3,024,865

-.. - 1978 1971 3 years 1983 1981 1979-2000 1981-2000 Funing No State funing 351 600 1975 2 years 1975-2000 Funing 144 1973 4 years 1983 1983-2000 83 1974 2 years 1975-95 685 1974 1978 1975 1 year 2 years (forecasts revise m 1981 ) 1974-yes -no -2000 1978-2000 1975-95 No State funing 365 40 344 1979 1979 (base on 1975 ata) 6 years 2 years 1979-2000 1979-2000 420 163 1974 1975-90 73 1980 1979 3 years 4 years 1980-2000 1977-97 259 80 1975 1975-1995 251 1977 1976 3 years 1981 Upate now m progress 1981-2000 1975-95 430 333

196. Airport System Development ition of airfiel capacity to accommoate growth in eman. While there are surface similarities, SASPs vary greatly in scope, etail, expertise, an planning philosophy. One State agency irector freely amitte that the State system plan was basically a wish list, prepare primarily because planning funs were available an the State DOT require it. He inicate that the plan was out of ate an woul not be upate in the foreseeable future because it has little relevance to the agency s actual activities. On the other han, several State agencies regar the SASP as a valuable working ocument that is kept current an serves as a guie in programming an istribution of State funs. In many States, programming of funs is somewhat separate from the system planning process. While the SASP may have a long planning horizon of 20 years or more, the actual awar of grants to complete particular projects is on a much shorter time scale. Some State agencies have evelope methos for keeping current files on local airport projects planne for the near term (say 3 years). When airports apply for State ai (or request State assistance in applying for Feeral ai) the SASP is use to assign priority for grant awar as funs become available. As a rule, only a fraction of the projects outline in the SASP are unertaken. Each State plan reviewe by OTA tabulate estimate costs of recommene improvements an ientifie funing sources. Funing is almost universally ientifie as the primary constraint on implementation of the SASP, an nearly all contain a caveat about the availability of funs. While other factors (e.g., noise or availability of lan) may have been consiere in the planning process, they are selom cite in the ocuments themselves. In all States, some sort of consultation, coorination, or review by persons outsie the State aviation agency, is part of the planning process. Often these are regional economic evelopment or planning agencies create by State government. In many cases, airport planning is part of a general transportation planning process, but methos of interaction an feeback among the moal agencies an between the State an regional agencies are escribe only vaguely. Some State agencies are involve in master planning activities for local airports, especially rural or small community airports that o not have the staff to carry out master planning on their own. State agencies may provie technical assistance or actually evelop local master plans. Some States also participate in airport planning for major metropolitan areas, although most leave this responsibility with the local airport authority or a regional boy. In recent years, State participation in planning at the larger airports has shown some increase, a tren that may be bolstere by current Feeral policy that earmarks a share of annual Trust Fun outlays for State aviation planning. National Airport Planning Airport planning at the national level is the responsibility of FAA, whose interests are to provie guiance for evelopment of the vast network of publicly owne airports an to establish a frame of reference for investment of Feeral funs. These interests are set forth in the National Airspace System Plan (NASP), a ocument require uner the Airport an Airway Development Act of 1970. The NASP is a lo-year plan that is perioically upate by FAA, most recently in 1980. The NASP is not a plan in the fullest sense. It oes not establish priorities, lay out a timetable, propose a level of funing, or commit the Feeral Government to a specific course of action. Instea, it is merely an inventory of the type an cost of airport evelopments which might take place uring the planning perio at airports eligible for Feeral assistance. It is a tabular, Stateby-State presentation of ata for iniviual airports, liste in a common format, inicating location, role, type of service, an level of activity (enplanements an operations) currently an for 5 an 10 years in the future. Projecte costs of airport nees in five categories-lan, pavinglighting, approach ais, terminal, an other are shown, also at intervals of 5 an 10 years. Estimates of nee containe in the NASP are evelope by comparing FAA national an ter-

Ch. 9 Airport System Planning. 197 minal area forecasts to the present capacity of each airport. Much of the initial etermination of nee an the regular upating is performe by FAA regional offices, which monitor changes an evelopments being carrie out at the airports. The NASP is not a simple compilation of local master plans or State Airport System Plans, although FAA oes raw on these ocuments as sources in forming jugments about future nees an prospective airport improvements. The NASP is not a complete inventory of airport nees. The plan contains only airport evelopment in which there is a potential Feeral interest an on which Feeral funs may be spent uner the Airport Development Ai Program (ADAP) an the Planning Grant Program. There are two necessary conitions in the test of potential Feeral interest. First, the airport must meet certain minimum criteria as an eligible recipient for Feeral ai, an secon, the planne improvement at that airport must be of a type that is eligible for Feeral ai. Eligible projects inclue such projects as lan acquisition for expansion of National Airport System Plan, Revise Statistics, 1980-1989 (Washington, DC: Feeral Aviation Aministration, n.. ), p. iii. an airfiel, paving for runways an taxiways, installation of lighting or approach ais, an expansion of public terminal areas. Improvements ineligible for Feeral ai are not inclue in the NASP e.g., construction of hangars, parking areas, an revenue-proucing terminal areas that airports are expecte to buil with private, local, or State funs. Thus, the total of $12.67 billion in estimate airport nees liste in the NASP for the 1980-89 perio may somewhat unerestimate total airport nee. The estimate cost of improvements by general categories of eligible project is shown in table 50. On the other han, the NASP probably overstates the amount that will actually be spent on airport improvements over the 10-year perio. Many of the projects whose costs are inclue in the NASP will not receive Feeral funs an many will not be unertaken at all. Inclusion in the NASP oes not necessarily represent Feeral agreement to fun a project or local commitment to carry it out. It is merely FAA s best estimate of likely future nee. The goal of the NASP is to set forth... the type an estimate cost of airport evelopment consiere by the Secretary to be necessary to provie a system of public air-

198 Airport System Development ports aequate to anticipate an meet the nees of civil aeronautics... If an when local sponsors are reay to unertake projects, they must apply for Feeral funs. The 1980 NASP relates airport system improvements to three levels of nee: Level I maintain the airport system in its current conition, Level II bring the system up to current esign stanars, an Level III expan the system. 3 In 1980, the estimate cost of completing the NASP was $12.67 billion between 1980 an 1989. Of this amount 16 percent was for maintaining the system, 18 percent for bringing the system up to stanars, an 66 percent for expaning the system. The istribution of the projecte nees for ifferent classes of airports is shown in table 51. The classification by three levels of nee is a refinement ae to the latest version of the NASP. It moves in the irection of assigning priorities to ifferent types of projects instea of the earlier practice of presenting nees as a single sum. FW selecte this presentation because previous lump sum projections often i not len - 3 Maintaining the system inclues such projects as repaving airfiels an replacing lighting systems; bringing the system up to stanars involves such projects as installing new light systems an wiening runways; expaning the system inclues construction of new airports or lengthening runways to accommoate larger aircraft. themselves well for use in establishing the funing levels of programs intene to implement their broa finings. The three-level system was evelope as a guie to Congress, illustrating how alternative levels of funing... can be base on relating NASP evelopment nees to three levels of program objectives. 4 The classification system is somewhat misleaing because it is not as hierarchical as it might appear, an the placement of a type of improvement at a particular program level oes not necessarily reflect the priority that will be given a given project. High-priority projects i.e., those which FAA an a local sponsor agree must be carrie out as soon as possible may not necessarily correspon with Level I nees in the NASP. An expansion project (Level III) at an extremely congeste an important airport might be more urgent than bringing a little-use airport up to stanars (Level II). Thus, if available funs were limite to 34 percent of total nee (the amount neee to cover Levels I an II) it woul not be possible, nor woul FAA inten, to carry out only Level I an II projects an leave a vital Level III project unfune. In any given year, the actual grants aware are use for some projects in each program level. 4 National Air-port System Plan, Revise Statistics, 1980-1989, op. cit., p. 6. Table 51. National Airport System Plan: System Nees by Program Objectives, 1980=89 (total costs In 1978=79 billions of ollars) Level 1: Level 11: Level Ill: Maintain existing Bring airports up Expan system to stanars system Total Air carrier............ $1.28 $1,21 $5.50 $7.99 Commuter service..... 0.11 0.11 0.24 0.46 Reliever.............. 0.13 0,25 0.62 1.00 General aviation....... 0.52 0.75 1.95 3.22

Ch. Airport System Planning 199 The NASP has been criticize for rawing the Feeral interest too broaly an for being more of a wish list than a planning ocument. Critics have claime that it is merely a compilation of improvements esire by local an State authorities an that it oes not represent a careful assessment of airport evelopment projects that truly serve national airport nees as istinct from those that are primarily local or regional in character. It is true that the plan inclues many very small airports of questionable importance to the national system of air transportation. The criteria for inclusion in the NASP are minimally restrictive. The principal ones are: 1) that the airport has (or is forecast to have within 5 years) at least 10 base aircraft (or engines), 2) that it be at least a 3&minute rive from the nearest existing or propose airport currently in the NASP, an 3) that there is an eligible sponsor willing to unertake ownership an evelopment of the airport. Clearly there are many airports that meet these minimum criteria. As of the beginning of 1984, there were 3,203 airports qualifying for inclusion in the NASP roughly a minimum of one airport per county. Paraoxically, the NASP has also been criticize for just the opposite reason: it is too exclusive, in that it reflects only FAA s interpretation of national importance an not those of State or regional planning agencies. There are about 1,000 airports, not liste in the NASP, that are integral parts of State an regional evelopment plans; an their exclusion means that sponsors or State planning agencies cannot expect Feeral ai for eveloping these facilities. Table 52 shows a comparison of the airports inclue in NASP an in State system plans. Only in three cases (Floria, Iowa, an New York) oes the NASP inclue more airports than the State plan. GENERAL PROBLEMS IN AIRPORT SYSTEM PLANNING Airport planning, as practice toay, is a formalize iscipline that combines forecasting, engineering, an economics. Because it is performe largely by government agencies, it is also a political process, where value jugments an institutional relationships play as much a part as technical expertise. On the whole, airport planners have been reasonably successful in anticipating future nees an in evising effective solutions. Still, mistakes have been mae sometimes because of poor jugment or lack of foresight an sometimes because of certain characteristics of the planning process itself. In effect, the process an the methos employe preispose planners towar solutions that may be correct for a single airport but perhaps not for the community, region, or airport system as a whole. As a result, airport plans may take on a rigiity that is inappropriate in light of changing conitions or a narrowness of focus that oes not make best use of resources. Deman as an Inepenent Variable A major problem in the planning process at all levels is the tenency to treat eman as an inepenent factor. Planners forecast future eman an then use those forecasts to justify the nee for facilities, to frame their esign, an to ascertain whether there will be sufficient revenue to pay for them. Basic economics inicates that supply an eman exist in an equilibrium relationship that is meiate by price. When prices fall, eman increases; when prices rise, eman falls. The system is in equilibrium when price reaches a level where supply exactly equals eman. This basic relationship hols for airport supply (capacity) an eman, as in other market situations. Price in this case inclues not only monetary transactions but also the spee an convenience of air transportation an the cost of elay. The planning process, however, oes not typically approach airport nees from a market perspective. The preisposition to treat eman as an inepenent variable in the planning process is illustrate by FAA s guielines to airport planners on how to make forecasts in support of master plans (written in 1971 but still current). After attributing the then current airport crisis to low forecasts in the past, the guielines instruct plan- 25-420 0-84 - 14

200 Airport System Development Table 52.-Comparison of National an State Airport System Plans, Airports in SASP b Airports in NASP State Total airports Number Percent Number Percent 193 689 224 105 297 312 28 37 514 125 51 & 365 355 376 115 292 160 49 216 291 597 166 393 ; $ 128 52 271 156 486 286 555 674 292 410 161 20 82 162 82 84 c 94 86 297 83 26 4 105 136 17 160 113 92 80 111 73 95 47 39 36 166 141 78 131 119 121 46 12 67 60 81 112 85 126 174 89 195 6 65 84 gl 292 89 63 205 322 90 421 105 51 23 77 191 c 111 42 : 30 84 29 : ; 33 20 28 Totals................... 13.136 4.634 35 3.599 27 44 42 82 100 27 93 11 20 109 33 82 13 25 23 30 63 33 29 60 17 64 24 47 33 63 37 36 23 : : 17 39 15 19 60 22 121 30 79 52 111 58 57 37 38 59 26 40 72 275 56 66 220 56 16 4 126 111 16 38 94 82 : ; 54 60 34 31 32 104 83 75 100 72 76 27 12 40 44 91 78 50 105 104 62 91 6 53 55 78 226 39 13 37 40 25 63 74 18 57 11 25 89 31 19 ;; 26 24 47 21 21 63 15 36 14 45 25 38 23 21 23 ; : 19 27 9 : 15 X 65 z 45 44 21

Ch. 9 Airport System Planning 201 ners not to consier possible constraints on aviation eman in eveloping forecasts, except in certain limite cases. Rather, it avises the planner to focus on the total eman potential of the airport: In the [planner s] evelopment of [airport activity] forecasts, an unconstraine approach is usually the best approach.... The unconstraine forecast represents the potential aviation market in which all of the basic factors that ten to create aviation eman are use, without regar to any constraining circumstances... that coul affect aviation growth at any specific airport or location. Using this approach, it is possible to etermine the theoretical evelopment nees in accorance with the total eman potential. For an airport serving an exceptionally high activity metropolitan area, however, potential constraints an alternative methos to reuce them shoul be consiere (emphasis supplie ).5 It is particularly noteworthy that the ocument instructs planners to consier constraints on eman solely for the purpose of fining ways to reuce them. Treatment of eman as an inepenent variable is roote in the practice of civil engineering when esigners have to plan facilities for events totally beyon their control. In esigning a floo control project, for example, the eman on the facility is purely a function of natural forces over which the planner can exercise no control. Deman on an airport, however, is not an uncontrollable natural phenomenon; it respons to changes in the price of using the airport. For example, there is presumably some set of market conitions uner which no one woul fly between the hours of 5 an 7 p.m., even though this is currently the perio of peak eman. Alternatively, if aequate facilities are not provie, some eman wiil be suppresse. No such similar responsiveness exists in the natural eman place on floo control facilities. The costs of sizing the system to serve peakperio eman are very high. To the extent that passengers are willing to bear that cost, the in- Airport Muster Plans, Avisory Circular AC 150/5070+5 (Washington, DC: Feeral Aviation Aministration, 1971), pp. 11, 13. vestment in facilities to accommoate this eman is a goo use of economic resources. Yet, the structure of the entire system is base on the premise that the passengers are willing to bear the cost, an they are rarely given a choice to save money by altering the time of ay at which they choose to fly. While airlines sometimes provie iscounts to night passengers or to those flying in slack travel seasons, these are exceptions. Usually, the price of traveling at the peak perio is no more than at offpeak perios. The lack of incentives for traveling uring offpeak perios is to some extent a problem reaching beyon airport planning per se. If airport sponsors choose not to institute peak-hour prices, planners have littie choice but to accommoate that ecision. At the same time, however, the planning process often fails to ientify alternatives to sizing facilities for unconstraine peak loa. In some cases such alternatives may be preferable or, at the very least, worthy of consieration in the planning process. Plans as Avocacy Documents While the airport planning process may take into account the esires of the community serve by the airport, the master plan itself often has a istinctly avocative flavor. This is perhaps best illustrate in a passage from the introuction to FAA s guielines to airport planners on master planning:... This avisory circular recommens proceures to be followe in making the master plan stuy of the iniviual airport an suggests methos of coorinating, organizing, an presenting the master plan ocument so that it will be a viable tool for the promotion of airport improvements (emphasis supplie). 6 Such use of the master plan raises some isturbing questions about the process. Shoul the planning process plan be a meium for promoting a particular plan for airport evelopment, chosen by the planner or airport operator, who usually has a veste interest in builing or expaning the airport? Or shoul it present a set of optional evelopment paths for community ecisionmakers? If avocacy of evelopment is an appropriate use b Ibi., p. 3.

202. Airport System Development of the master plan, then shoul not some forum be available to weigh airport evelopment against other community nees an to integrate airport projects with other community plans? In practice, the political boy with jurisiction over the airport performs this oversight function, but it is hampere by planning ocuments that presuppose the esirability of airport expansion. The master plan is often quite thorough in presenting alternative forms of expansion an in arraying the pros an cons of each. It is usually silent on the more funamental questions of whether any improvement shoul be unertaken an what options there are besies airport evelopment. Lack of Integration Among Plans Airport planning at local, regional, State, an Feeral levels is not well coorinate an integrate. To some extent, this arises naturally from ifferent areas of concern an expertise. At the extremes, local planners are attempting to plan for the evelopment of one airport, while FAA is trying to coify the nees of several thousan airports which might request ai. Local planners are most concerne with etails an local conitions that will never be of interest to a national planning boy. The lack of common goals an mutually consistent approach is also evient between Feeral an State planning. Over 10 years ago, the Feeral Government recognize the nee to strengthen State system planning an provie funs for this purpose uner ADAP, an nearly all the State Airport System Plans have been prepare with Feeral funing. However, it oes not seem that FAA has always mae full use of these proucts in preparing the NASP. The State plans contain many more airports than the NASP, an the priorities assigne to airport projects by States o Photo creit: Aviation Division, County of Los Angeles Urban encroachment at a GA airport

Ch. 9 Airport System Planning 203 not always correspon to those of the NASP. While it is probably not esirable, or even possible, for the NASP to incorporate all elements of the State plans, greater harmony between these two levels of planning might lea to more orerly evelopment of the national airport system. There is also a lack of coorination between airport planning an other types of transportation an economic planning. This is particularly evient in the case of lan use, where airport plans are often in conflict with other local an regional evelopments. Even though the airport authority may prepare a thoroughly competent plan, lack of information about other public or private evelopment propose in the community (or failure of municipal authorities to impose an maintain zoning orinances) allows conflicts to evelop over use of the airport an surrouning lan. This problem can be especially severe where there are several municipalities or local jurisictions surrouning the airport property. An aitional problem is the lack of integration of airport planning with that for other moes of transportation. An airport is an intermoal transportation center, where goos an people transfer between the groun an air moes. It forms an important link in the total transportation system of a region. The groun transportation system proviing access to the airport can be a significant contributor to congestion, elay, an the cost of airport operation. Yet, airport operators have little authority or influence over ecisions on transportation beyon the airport property line. At the national level, there is also a lack of integrate planning within FAA. There oes not seem to be close coorination between FAA s National Airport System Plan an the National Airspace System Plan. While the two plans are base on the same aviation eman forecasts, they have not been brought uner a common scheule. Nothing has been publishe to show how the airport improvements containe in one plan will interact with air traffic control (ATC) improvements propose in the other. NATIONAL PLAN OF INTEGRATED AIRPORT SYSTEMS The Airport an Airway Improvement Act of (Title V, Public Law 97-248) reflects a strengthene congressional commitment to airport planning. At the regional an State levels, the law eicates 1 percent of Feeral airport evelopment funs for planning, with availability contingent on a emonstrable (not emonstrate) ability to conuct regional planning. As such, the new law provies an opportunity for State governments an regional agencies to institute or expan their planning efforts. The Congressional Manate The act calls for refinement of the national airport planning process by instructing the Department of Transportation to evelop a National Plan of Integrate Airport Systems (NPIAS) by September 1984. The escription of this plan in the legislation makes it clear that the intent is to expan an improve planning at the national level. Specifically, the act calls for integrate airport system planning, which it efines as:... the initial as well as continuing evelopment for planning purposes of information an guiance to etermine the extent, type, nature, location, an timing of airport evelopment neee in a specific area to establish a viable, balance, an integrate system of public-use airports. 7 Planning inclues ientification of system nees, evelopment of estimates of systemwie evelopment costs, an the conuct of such stuies, surveys, an other planning actions, incluing those relate to airport access, as may be necessary to etermine the short-, intermeiate-, an long-range emans that the airport must meet. The policy eclaration points out several ways in which the planning effort is to be integrate. It states that: Public Law 97-248, Title V, $503 (a) (7).

204 Airport System Development... it is in the national interest to evelop in metropolitan areas an integrate system of airports esigne to provie expeitious access an maximum safety.... [an it is in the national interest to] encourage an promote the evelopment of transportation systems embracing various moes of transportation in a manner that will serve the States an local communities efficiently an effectively. 8 From this it is evient that the legislation requires a plan which is integrate in two ways: 1) geographically, in the sense that all airports in a region are to be consiere together; an 2) intermoally, in the sense that planning for the aviation shoul be part of the planning for the regional transportation system as a whole. The requirements of the act will bring FAA s airport planning process into closer relation with metropolitan an regional transportation planning than ever before. Desirabie Features of NPIAS The NPIAS is not scheule for publication until September 1984, an it is not yet clear how FAA will respon. Certainly the task will require either major moifications of the planning process that has prouce the NASP or evelopment of a completely new planning tool to respon to the intermoal an regional aspects of the congressional manate. As an ai to Congress in evaluating the plan when it is release, OTA offers the following general comments about features that woul be esirable in an integrate national airport plan. Comprehensiveness First of all, the NPIAS shoul be truly national in scope. A national plan may not nee to inclue every airport in the country, but it shoul explicitly efine the interest of the Feeral Government with respect to airports of all sizes an purposes. The current NASP has been criticize both for being too broa an for being too exclusive. On the one han, many airports are inclue in the NASP are of scant importance to the national system of air transportation. On the other han, the NASP exclues about 1,000 airports that are Public Law 97-248, Title V, $502 (a) (9) an $502 (b). part of State Airport System Plans or that may otherwise have some regional importance. The ifficulty might be trace to the fact that airports are either in or out of the NASP. A comprehensive system plan may have to efine a hierarchy of Feeral interest, specifying ifferent egrees of importance an eligibility for funing. A complete plan will thus have to start with a careful efinition of a national airport system an the airports that make it up. It is entirely possible that the egree of Feeral interest will not be the same for all types of airports, epening on their size, mission, an locale. In some cases, airports may be of only local or regional importance an of no irect interest to the Feeral Government. However, if the plan is to be comprehensive, these airports shoul be ientifie an perhaps earmarke for consieration in State or regional plans. Comprehensiveness also requires that the NPIAS aress all types of evelopment. Some types of improvements, particularly those to be mae with Feeral funs, will be of chief concern. However, in the interest of completeness, the plan will have to assess total airport system costs, not just those eligible for funing through the Airport Improvement Program. Further, a complete plan will have to consier, from the viewpoint of total system costs, where there are more cost-effective alternatives to investment in new or expane facilities. In aition to projects for accommoating growth, it will be necessary to consier methos for irecting an managing eman growth to fit within existing capacity. Integration The act specifically calls for integrate regionwie planning, but formulation of the NPIAS affors FAA the opportunity to integrate the planning process even further by eveloping a cohesive an hierarchical planning system in which regional or statewie system planning activities are meshe into airport planning at the national level. Further, this broaer concept offers the opportunity to evise a system for coorinating airport planning more closely with system planning for other moes of transportation, at both the regional an national level.

Ch. 9 Airport System Planning 205 It is especially important that the NPIAS seek to integrate airport planning with two other major FAA planning efforts the National Airspace System Plan (NAS Plan) an the National Airspace Review (NAR). Initial funing for the NAS Plan was also approve in the Airport an Airway Improvement Act. This plan, publishe in early, outlines FAA s future improvements to the en route an terminal area ATC systems over the next 10 years. The NAR is a 42-month stuy of air traffic proceures, begun in June as a joint unertaking of FAA an aviation inustry representatives. Its objectives are to improve the efficiency of traffic flow in the airspace system by revising regulations an instituting new proceures that reflect technological improvements in aircraft an air traffic control. The three segments of the aviation system airports, ATC facilities, an airspace use proceures nee to be evelope in coorination. Piecemeal evelopment coul lea to inefficiencies, bottlenecks, an misirecte investment. For example, it woul probably be a waste of resources to a runway capacity at an airport if the ATC system cannot be upgrae to hanle the aitional traffic in that area until several years later. Conversely, there is little avantage in seeking to move traffic more expeitiously between airports only to have it encounter elays in the terminal areas where improvements have not yet been scheule or implemente. Integrate evelopment of airports, ATC facilities, an air traffic proceures will be necessary to obtain maximum benefit from any one of the parts an to ensure cost-effective investment. Priorities Another important consieration will be the ientification of priorities for implementation an Photo cralt: Faeral Aviation Amlnlstratlon Recently complete airfiel, terminal, an lansie expansion at Los Angeles International Airport

206 Airport System Development funing by class of airport an type of nee. FAA attempte in the latest version of the NASP to classify nees accoring to three levels of program objectives: 1) maintain existing system, 2) bring airports up to stanars, an 3) expan the system. Within these levels, gross estimates of nees for each class of airport (air carrier, general aviation, etc. ) are mae. While this classification system represents a goo start, it is still not fully satisfactory. The NPIAS plan shoul inclue a scheme for relating specific types of airport projects to systemwie objectives an assigning priorities to specific projects. Such priorities coul ai FAA in evaluating the systemwie effects of specific program actions an serve as a guie in the istribution of capital evelopment funs. Multiple Planning Horizons Another esirable characteristic of the plan woul be the use of multiple planning horizons. Development of airports is an ongoing process an a given plan of improvements often takes a number of years to complete. The large-scale investments are often lumpy, an a perio of intense evelopment an heavy investment at an airport may be followe by a lull of several years. The use of several planning horizons-perhaps of 5, 10, an 20 years woul ai in integrating short-term improvements into smoother longterm investment paths at each airport. It woul also help to relate improvements at iniviual airports to broaer system goals. Given the uncertainties of forecasting, long-range projections are subject to greater error an therefore must be treate more flexibly. Proceures for perioic revision an upating of the plan woul allow for these longer-range projections an ecisions to be reviewe an ajuste. Use of multiple planning horizons is alreay a a characteristic of the NASP, which sets out airport-by-airport nees on a 5- an 10-year basis. The horizon might usefully be extene to 20 years, with the latter 10-year perio intene as no more than an approximation (or early warning ) of long-range trens an nee. Time phasing of improvements is an important feature that has been missing in previous FAA airport system plans. As a general rule, planne airport evelopments shoul be relate to an overall scheule etermine by forecaste growth, expecte leatime, an relationships with the elements of the NAS Plan an the NAR. The evelopment scheule for all parts of airspace system airports, ATC facilities, an air traffic proceures shoul be tie together in a common planning framework. For example, if uner the NAS Plan an airport is to receive ATC improvements that will increase airsie capacity, this shoul be reflecte in the airport system plan as it may ictate other terminal or lansie improvements. Conversely, in planning ATC improvements to increase capacity, implementation shoul be scheule first at those airports where they will have the most beneficial effect. It may be well, insofar as possible, to buil these scheules aroun trigger events. For example, instea of scheuling improvement at some airport for a particular year, implementation might be mae conitional on passenger enplanements or aircraft operations reaching some specifie level. This approach has two avantages. It provies protection against the inevitable inaccuracy of forecasts, an it allows flexibility in matching improvements with nee. Coorination an Review There will be a nee for perioic review an upate. To see that the broaest range of interests are taken into account, the initial planning an the review process shoul be conucte in cooperation with State, regional, an local planning authorities an with the aviation community at large. The consultative planning technique recently employe by FM in the National Airspace Review an the Inustry Task Force on Airport Capacity Improvement an Delay Reuction has been useful not only in helping FAA recognize an accommoate iverse interests, but also in enriching the planning process. Involvement of other planning agencies an private organizations representing airport users in a continuing ialogue will ensure that improvements contemplate in the NPIAS are in harmony with user nees an the objectives of State, regional, an local aviation agencies.