chapter 2 organizations and institutions

Chapter 2

ORGANIZATIONS ANDINSTITUTIONS

- - -

D

.

Photo credit Federal Aviation Adrnfrtfsfraftoi,1

—

Contents

Airport Ownership and Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Airport-Air Carrier Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Airport-Concessionaire Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Airport-General Aviation Relations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Planning and Development Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Airport Users.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Federal Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .State Aviation Agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Regional Planning Agencies . . . .Other Parties ..,......

Capital Improvement . . . .

Aircraft Noise . . . . . . . . . .Federal ResponsibilitiesMeasurement of Noise.Noise and Land Use. . .Local Noise Abatement

List of Tables

Table No.

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .Programs

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.7.8.

Public Operation of Commercial Airports by Size, 1983.State Funding of Airport and Aviation Programs . . . . . . .Land Use Compatibility With Yearly Day-Night Average

List of Figures

Figure No,3. Effects of Curfewson Transcontinental

. . . . . .

. . . . . .Sound

21232526

272728293131

32

3435353636

Page. . . . . . . . . . . , 22

30.iivei::::: 37

Page,..., . . . . . . . 40

Chapter 2

ORGANIZATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS

A major commercial airport is a huge publicenterprise. Some are literally cities in their ownright, with their own fire and police departments,road systems, powerplants, hotels, restaurants,and even factories, schools, and churches locatedon the property. Administration of these facilitiesis the responsibility of the airport operator, usu-ally a public entity such as a department of citygovernment or a special aviation or port author-ity. Airports, however, also have a private char-acter in that they must be operated in conjunc-tion with airlines that provide air transportationservice and with concessionaires and other firmsdoing business on airport property. This combina-tion of public management and private enterprisedistinguishes the operation of commercial airportsfrom that of wholly public or wholly private. . .——.——.—

‘Portions of this chapter are based on work performed by the Con-gressional Budget Office and published in financing U.S. Airportsin the 1980s, April 1984.

enterprises. In addition, operation of an airportentails interaction with several other parties: gen-eral aviation, the public at large, agencies of local,regional, and State government, the Federal Avia-tion Administration (FAA), and other agencies ofthe Federal Government. Each of these parties ap-proaches airport operation and development witha different set of concerns, responsibilities, andexpectations.

This chapter surveys common types of airportownership in the United States and reviews rela-tionships between the airport operator and air car-riers, general aviation, concessionaires, and otherairport users. The roles of airport users and Fed-eral, State, and regional agencies in airport plan-ning and development are also examined, withspecial emphasis on the intergovernmental and in-stitutional relations involved in building or ex-panding airports. The issue of aircraft noise andits effects on airport operation is also addressed.

AIRPORT OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION

Public airports in the United States are ownedand operated under a variety of organizationaland jurisdictional arrangements. Usually, owner-ship and operation coincide: commercial airportsmay be owned and run by a city, county, or State,by the Federal Government, or by more than onejurisdiction (e.g., a city and a county). In someinstances, however, a commercial airport is ownedby one or more of these governmental entities butoperated by a separate public body, such as anairport authority specifically created for the pur-pose of managing the airport. Regardless of own-ership, legal responsibility for day-to-day opera-tion and administration can be vested in any offive kinds of governmental or public entities:

● a municipal or county government,● a multipurpose port authority,● an airport authority,● a State government, or• the Federal Government.More than half of the Nation’s large and me-

dium commercial airports, and a greater percent-

age of small commercial airports, are operated bymunicipal or county governments (see table 6).A typical municipally operated airport is city-owned and run as a department of the city, withpolicy direction by the city council and, in somecases, by a separate airport commission or advi-sory board. County-run airports are similarlyorganized. Under this type of public operation,airport investment decisions are generally madein the broader context of city- or countywide pub-lic investment needs, budgetary constraints, anddevelopment goals. To raise investment capital,these airports usually rely on one of the two ma-jor forms of tax-exempt municipal bonding: gen-eral obligation bonds, which are backed by thefull faith, credit, and taxing power of the issuinggovernment; and revenue bonds, for which debtservice is paid entirely out of revenues generatedby the airport.z

‘These financing mechanisms are discussed further in ch. 7.

21

—

22 ● Airport System Development

Table 6.—Public Operation of Commercial Airports by Size, 1983

Large Medium Small a

Airport operator Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Municipality or county. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 58 23 49 NIA 61Port authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 21 6 13 N/A 3Airport authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 13 12 26 NIA 31State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .’. 1 4 5 11 NIA 5Federal Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 1 2 NIA o

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 100 47 100 489 100

Some commercial airports in the United Statesarerun byport authorities—legally chartered in-stitutions with the status of public corporationsthat operate a variety of publicly owned facilities,such as harbors, airports, toll roads, and bridges.Multipurpose port authorities run about 21 per-cent of the large commercial airports and 13 per-cent of the medium-size airports. In managing theproperties under their jurisdiction, port authoritieshave extensive independence from State and localgovernments. Their financial independence restslargely on the power to issue their own debt, inthe form of revenue bonds, and on the breadthof their revenue bases, which may include fees andcharges from marine terminals and airports as wellas proceeds (e.g., bridge or tunnel tolls) fromother port authority properties. In addition, someport authorities have the power to tax within theport district, although it is rarely exercised.

About one-eighth of all large, and one-fourthof medium-size commercial airports are operatedby airport or aviation authorities. Similar in struc-ture and in legal charter to port authorities, thesesingle-purpose authorities also have considerableindependence from the State or local govern-ments, which often retain ownership of the air-port or airports operated by the authority. Likemultipurpose port authorities, airport authoritieshave the power to issue their own debt for financ-ing capital development, and in a few cases, thepower to tax. Compared to port authorities, how-ever, they must rely on a much narrower baseof revenues to run a financially self-sustainingenterprise.

State-run airports are typically managed by theState’s department of transportation. Either gen-

eral obligation or revenue bonding may be usedto raise investment capital, and State taxes onaviation fuel may be applied to capital improve-ment projects. Although several States run theirown commercial airports, only a handful of largeand medium-size commercial airports are oper-ated in this way—those in Alaska, Connecticut,Hawaii, and Maryland.

The Federal Government owns and operatestwo commercial airports serving the District ofColumbia and environs—Washington Nationaland Dunes International. FAA manages thesetwo facilities, with capital development financedthrough congressional appropriations and projectcosts recouped by airport landing fees and ter-minal charges. The Federal Government alsolevies user taxes and disburses funds for the cap-ital development of other airports through FAA’sAirport Improvement Program, as discussed laterin this chapter.

Publicly owned general aviation airports maybe owned by a municipality, county, or State, orthey may be the property of one or more of thesejurisdictions but run by a separate public bodyas part of a multiairport system. Over 40 percentof all general aviation airports open to the pub-lic are privately owned. Most publicly owned gen-eral aviation airports (219 FAA-designated re-lievers and 2,424 other genera] aviation airports)are managed either by public operators—munici-palities, counties, States, or independent author-ities—or by private operators who charge for theirservices and remit a portion of their revenues tothe airport owners. Reliever airports often are runas part of local or regional multiairport systems.

Ch. 2—Organizations and Institutions ● 2 3—

Airport-Air Carrier Relations

From the airlines’ perspective, each airport isa node in a route system, a point for the pickupand transfer of passengers and freight. In orderto operate efficiently, air carriers need certain fa-cilities at each airport. These requirements, how-ever, are not static; they change with traffic de-mand, economic conditions, and the competitiveclimate. Before airline deregulation in 1978, re-sponse to changes of this sort was slow and med-iated by the regulatory process. Carriers had toapply to the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) forpermission to add or to drop routes or to changefares. CAB deliberations involved published notices,comments from opposing parties, and sometimeshearings. Deliberations could take months, evenyears, and all members of the airline-airport com-munity were aware of a carrier’s intention to makea change long before the CAB gave permission.Since the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, how-ever, air carriers can change their routes withoutpermission and on very short notice. With theseroute changes, airline requirements at airports canchange with equal rapidity.

In contrast to airlines, which operate over aroute system connecting many cities, airport oper-ators must focus on accommodating the interestsof a number of users at a single location. Changesin the way individual airlines operate may put

pressures on the airport’s resources, requiring ma-jor capital expenditures or making obsolete a fa-cility already constructed. Further, because air-ports are multimodal hubs, airport operators mustaccommodate many users and tenants other thanthe airlines and must be concerned with efficientuse of terminal and landside facilities that are oflittle concern to the carriers, even though carriers’activities can severely affect (or be affected by)them.

Despite their different perspectives, air carriersand the airport management have a common in-terest in making the airport a stable and successfuleconomic enterprise. Traditionally, airports andcarriers have formalized their relationship throughuse agreements that establish the conditions andmethods for setting fees and charges associatedwith use of the airport by air carriers. Most agree-ments also include formulas for adjusting thosefees from year to year. The terms of a use agree-ment can vary widely, from short-term monthlyor yearly arrangements to long-term leases of 25years or more. Within the context of these useagreements, carriers negotiate with the airport toget the specific airport resources they need forday-to-day operations. For example, under thebasic use agreement, the carrier may conduct sub-sidiary negotiations for the lease of terminal spacefor offices, passenger lounges, ticket counters, andother necessities.

Photo credit” Federal Aviation Adrninisfraf/on

Convergence and competition for airport access

25-420 0 - 84 - 3

24 ● Airport System Development—.

Long-term agreements between airports andmajor airlines have traditionally been the rule.One reason is the long-lived nature of the in-vestments involved. A runway may have an eco-nomic life of a decade or more, a terminal evenlonger. When an airport undertakes such an im-provement for the benefit of the airlines, the air-port may want long-term leases to help ensure thatcarriers will continue to use the facility and helppay for it. At some airports the use agreementsand leases may hold all signatory carriers jointlyand severally responsible for payments; at othersairlines may be individually responsible for im-provements made for their benefit.

As described in chapter 7, which deals with air-port financing, revenue bond buyers lend moneyto the airport to construct a facility, and the air-port authority applies the revenues from opera-tion of the facility to repaying the principal andinterest. To reduce the risk to bond buyers, andthus lower the interest rate, air carriers may agreeto guarantee the airport sufficient revenue to paythe debt. For example, the use agreement may givethe airport the right to charge landing fees to gen-erate sufficient funds to cover operating costs anddebt service.

In the past, investors perceived the major air-lines, who operated as virtual regulated monop-olies with clearly defined markets, as strongerfirms and better credit risks than individual air-ports. In recent years, the perception of airlinesas stable and the airports as risky has begun tochange. Since deregulation, airlines are no longerunder an obligation to serve a particular city, norare they protected from competition by other car-riers. They are free to compete, to change theirroutes, and to go out of business. On the otherhand, certain airports have demonstrated thatthey are creditworthy and have strong travel mar-kets. Regardless of what happens to an individualairline, these strong airports will continue to beserved. In these locations, long-term agreementswith individual carriers have become less impor-tant for airports seeking financing than the under-lying economic strength of the community.

Due to the frequent route changes since dereg-ulation, short-term use agreements and leases arebecoming more common. Although the cost to

the carrier of a short-term lease may be higher,it has the advantage of allowing greater flexibilityfor both the carrier and the airport. A carriertesting a new market may not be able or willingto enter a long-term agreement or to assumeresponsibility for capital improvements until it issure that the market will be profitable. At thesame time, an airport may not want to enter intoa long-term agreement with a new carrier that hasnot yet established a reputation for reliability. Atsome airports, several different kinds of use agree-ments may be in effect simultaneously.

In exchange for guaranteeing sufficient revenuesto service long-term debt, airlines have tradi-tionally assumed some control of, or at least ma-jor participation in, important decisions affect-ing airport operation and capital improvement,especially the latter. In many cases, airports arebound by “majority-in-interest” clauses in theirlease agreements whereby they are contractuallyrequired to consult with the carriers on major cap-ital improvements and must abide by decisionsof the majority of the carriers with whom theyhave long-term agreements. The recent report ofthe Airport Access Task Force, chaired by CABChairman Dan McKinnon, raised the question ofwhether majority-in-interest clauses are anticom-petitive since they might be used by incumbentcarriers to veto airport operator’s plans to buildfacilities for new entrants.3

As with major airport planning decisions, ne-gotiations related to the day-to-day needs of thecarriers have traditionally been carried out be-tween the airport management and a negotiatingcommittee, called a “top committee, ” made up ofrepresentatives of the scheduled airlines that aresignatories to use agreements with the airport.Top committees have been an effective means ofbringing the collective influence of the airlines tobear on airport management.

The nature of negotiations at some airports haschanged radically since deregulation. Under reg-

3“Report and Recommendations of the Airport Access Task Force, ”March 1983, p. 59. The Task Force was directed by Congress, inthe Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, to take a com-prehensive look at airport access problems. Members includedleaders from all segments of the aviation industry.

Ch. 2—Organizations and Institutions 25

ulation, the major carriers-though competitors—had reasonably similar interests and needs. Theydid not really compete on the basis of price, andthe regulatory process guaranteed that no mem-ber of the community could surprise the otherswith sudden changes in operating strategy. Thecarriers’ representatives were a small group of peo-ple who sat on the same side of the negotiatingtable at many different airports. Carriers gener-ally worked with one another in an atmosphereof cooperation and presented a common positionin negotiating with the management of an in-dividual airport.

Since deregulation, however, the environmenthas been characterized by competition rather thancooperation. Carriers may radically alter theirroutes, service levels, or prices on very shortnotice. They are reluctant to share informationabout their plans for fear of giving an advantageto a competitor. These factors make group nego-tiations more difficult. Some airport proprietorshave complained that, in this competitive atmos-phere, carriers no longer give adequate advancewarning of changes that might directly affect theoperation of the airport. Nevertheless, negotiat-ing committees continue to operate, principallybecause it is essential that there be some mecha-nism for communication between air carriers andairport management. The CAB Task Force notedthat negotiating committees still exert great influ-ence on all aspects of airport operation.4

The days when most major airports are domi-nated by a few large airlines with long-term agree-ments may be passing away. One reason is theproliferation of air carriers since deregulation. Thewide variation in aircraft size and performance,number of passengers, and markets served meansthat different classes of carriers require somewhatdifferent facilities. Commuter carriers, with theirsmaller aircraft, usually do not need the same gateand apron facilities as major carriers. While therewere commuters before deregulation, they arecoming to constitute a larger fraction of users atmany airports. Other new entrants, including “nofrills” carriers, may also have different needs fromthose of conventional air carriers— for example,

41bid., p. 61.

they may want more frequent gate access, but lessbaggage handling. These minority carriers maycome to wield more power in negotiating with theairport for what they need and may challenge ma-jor carriers for a voice in investment decisions atan airport,

Not all aviation experts agree with this analy-sis, at least as an indication of long-term trends.They point out that half of the top 35 hub air-ports owe a majority of their traffic to no morethan two airlines—a near monopoly dominancethat is increasing since deregulation. This leadsthem to foresee that the ultimate effect of deregu-lation will be more, not less, concentration of theairline industry—major carriers and commutersalike, As the weaker competitors drop out or areabsorbed by the stronger, the remaining airlinesmay exercise even greater dominance of certainlarge or medium-size airports that serve as homebase or principal hubs.

Airport-Concessionaire Relations

Services such as restaurants, book stores, giftshops, parking facilities, car rental companies,and hotels are often operated under concessionagreements or management contracts with the air-port. These agreements vary greatly; but in thetypical concession agreement, the airport extendsto a firm the privilege of conducting business onairport property in exchange for payment of aminimum annual fee or a percentage of the reve-nues, whichever is greater. Some airports preferto retain a larger share of revenues for themselvesand employ an alternative arrangement called amanagement contract, under which a firm is hiredto operate a particular service on behalf of theairport. The gross revenues are collected by theairport management, which pays the firm foroperating expenses plus either a flat managementfee or a percentage of revenues.

Revenues from concessions are very importantto an airport. At some, concessionaires and theircustomers yield more revenue to the airport thanairline fees and leases, resulting—in effect—incross-subsidy of air carriers by nonaviation serv-ice concessions.

Parking and automobile rentals are typicallylarge and important concessions at airports. De-


spite growth in the use of buses and other high-occupancy vehicles, the continued importance ofparking and car rental revenues is indicative ofthe symbiotic relationship between the airport andthe automobile. An analysis of revenue sourcesat seven major airports found that public park-ing facilities were the largest nonairline source ofrevenues and that car rental revenues were the sec-ond largest. At two of these airports, the airportoperator’s share of parking and car rental fees(after concession or management fees were paid)constituted a larger revenue source than air car-rier landing fees. 5 At many locations, the park-

‘Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., “Comparative Rate Analysis,Dade County Aviation and Seaport Departments, ” August 1982.

ing and car rental firms operating on the airportare complemented by (or are in competition with)similar services operating off the airport property.

Another important type of concessionaire is thefixed base operator (FBO), who provides servicesfor airport users lacking facilities of their own,primarily general aviation. Typically, the FBOsells fuel and operates facilities for aircraft serv-ice, repair, and maintenance. The FBO may alsohandle the leasing of hangars and rental of short-term aircraft parking facilities. Agreements be-tween airports and FBOS vary. In some cases theFBO constructs and develops his own facilities onairport property; in other cases the FBO managesfacilities belonging to the airport. FBOs also pro-vide service to some commuter and startup car-riers, especially those that have just entered a par-ticular market and have not yet established (orhave chosen not to set up) their own ground oper-ations. The presence of an FBO capable of serv-icing small transport aircraft can sometimes be in-strumental in a new carrier’s decision to serve aparticular airport.

In addition to concessionaires, some airportauthorities serve as landlord to other tenants suchas industrial parks, freight forwarders, and ware-houses, all of which can provide significant reve-nue. These firms may lease space from the airportoperator, or they may build their own facilitieson the airport property.

Airport-General Aviation Relations

The relationship between airport operators andgeneral aviation is seldom governed by the com-plex of use agreements and leases that characterizerelationships with air carriers or concessionaires.

General aviation (GA) is a diverse group. Atany given airport, the GA aircraft will be ownedand operated by a variety of individuals and orga-nizations for a number of personal, business, orinstructional purposes. Because of the variety ofownership and the diversity of aircraft type anduse, long-term agreements between the airportand GA users are not customary. GA users oftenlease airport facilities, especially storage spacesuch as hangars and tie-downs, but the relation-ship is usually that of landlord and tenant. Thereare instances where owners and operators of GA

Ch. 2—Organizations and Institutions ● 2 7

aircraft assume direct responsibility for capital de-velopment of an airport, but this is not common,even at airports where general aviation is a ma-jority user.

It must be remembered that while GA activi-ties make up about half of the aircraft operationsat FAA towered airports, the average utilizationof each aircraft is much lower than that of com-mercial aircraft. There are approximately 210,000GA aircraft, compared to about 4,000 commer-cial aircraft. Most GA aircraft spend most of thetime parked on the ground. Only a small num-ber, usually those operated by large corporationsas a sort of private airline for employees and highvalue goods, are used as intensively as commer-cial aircraft.

Thus, at the airport, the chief needs of GA areparking and storage space, along with facilitiesfor fuel, maintenance, and repair. While an air-liner may occupy a gate for an hour to loadpassengers and fuel, a GA user may need to parkan aircraft for a day or a week while the passenger

conducts business in town. At the user’s homebase, long-term storage facilities are needed, andthe aircraft owner may own or lease a hangar ortie-down spot. In most parts of the country, thechief airport capacity problem for GA is a short-age of parking and storage space at popular air-ports. At some airports in the Southwest and inCalifornia waiting lists for GA parking spaces areseveral years long.

Some airport operators deal directly with theirgeneral aviation customers. The airport manage-ment may operate a GA terminal, collect land-ing fees, and lease tie-downs or hangars to users.At some airports condominium hangars are avail-able for sale to individual users. It is not uncom-mon for corporations with aircraft fleets to ownhangar space at their base airport. Often, how-ever, at least some of this responsibility isdelegated to the FBO, who thus stands as a proxyfor the airport operator in negotiating with theindividual aircraft owners for use of airport fa-cilities and collecting fees.

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT RESPONSIBILITIES

The airport operator is principally responsiblefor planning and development of airport improve-ments, but as in the case of daily operating deci-sions, that responsibility is shared with manyother parties. The airlines and other users, con-cessionaires, FAA, the regional planning author-ity, and the surrounding communities may allhave an influence on planning decisions andsubsequent development.

Airport Users

The users with the strongest voice in airportplanning decisions, especially at large operationalhubs, are the air carriers, who negotiate individ-ually and collectively for short- and long-term im-provements that they believe will facilitate theiruse of the airport. Because carriers often under-write the bonds to pay for capital improvements,they have great influence, and their support iscrucial.

At airports where one or two carriers accountfor the majority of operations, decisions about air-

port development are sometimes dominated bythe needs and interests of those carriers. For ex-ample, there can be little doubt that AtlantaHartsfield was designed to serve the route struc-tures of Delta and Eastern Airlines—hub-and-spoke systems with a high volume of transferpassengers. On the other hand, the design ofDallas-Fort Worth was greatly influenced by thetype of service Braniff and American Airlines ex-pected to provide there —long-haul origin-destina-tion service, with little need for transfers withinthe airport. This design has been the source oflandside congestion in recent years as carriers havemade greater use of hub-and-spoke route struc-tures that require passengers to change planes.Major improvements are being undertaken at theairport to enlarge passenger waiting areas and im-prove internal traffic circulation.

Some “minority” carriers, even though they aresignatories to the long-term agreements, may nothave strong negotiating positions. For example,most airports are dominated by passenger carriers,even though revenues from cargo carriers may

28 . Aiport System Development

Photo credt: McDonne// Douglas

Air cargo moves mainly at night

make a significant contribution to the airportbudget. Air cargo carriers have different facilityneeds, e.g., they need ramp space and room forsorting cargo rather than gate space and terminallounges. In some cases, cargo carriers have beenunable to interest the majority of carriers in under-writing airport bonds to build cargo facilities, andthey have been forced to undertake developmentprojects on their own, even though they are alsopaying landing fees that are used to underwritedevelopment of passenger facilities.

General aviation, because of its disaggregatenature, is another group that often has little tosay in the airport planning process. However,aviation interest groups, trade associations, andfixed base operators may sometimes help to pres-ent the position of GA users to the airport op-erator.

Federal Government

The Federal Government is a major participantin airport planning and development. FAA ad-ministers Federal grants to airports for planningand for capital improvements. Since 1970, thesefunds have come from the user-supported Airportand Airway Trust Fund. In 1983, planning grantfunds authorized under the Airport ImprovementProgram amounted to about $8.8 million, andcapital development grants to almost $800 million. b

Federal funds may be spent only for certainclasses of projects. In general, eligible projects arethose for construction or improvement of facil-ities directly related to the use of aircraft—i.e.,runways, taxiways, and ramps. In recent years,

bSecond Annual Report of Accomplishments Under the AirportImprovement Program, Fiscal Year 1982 (Washington, DC: FederalAviation Administration, May 1984).


eligibility has also been extended to include com-mon-use areas of passenger terminals and otherairport buildings related to the safety of personsor the provision of services to airport users. Fed-eral funds cannot be used for the construction ofrevenue-producing facilities such as hangars andautomobile parking areas or for building accessroads off the airport property.7

It has been suggested that the availability ofFederal funds at a favorable matching ratio hasencouraged airports to concentrate on those typesof improvements which are eligible for Federalaid. The Federal share for eligible improvementsranges from 70 to 90 percent depending on typeof project; but since airports make many improve-ments without Federal aid, the Federal share ofall capital investment at airports constitutes lessthan 40 percent. g This percentage is even less atlarge airports, where Federal monies often makeup less than 10 percent of the capital improve-ment budget. However, many operators of largeairports believe that Federal funding is importantfor financing improvements that they feel areneeded, but which the air carriers are reluctantto pay for.

FAA also influences airport operational deci-sions because it owns and operates the air trafficcontrol system, including the air traffic controltower, navigational equipment, and landing aidsat the airport itself. Airport improvements whichrequire installing, moving, or upgrading thisequipment have to be approved and carried outby FAA. Safety and operational standards for air-ports are also established by FAA. Airport facil-ities built with Federal funds must be designed inaccordance with these standards, which are pub-lished in the Federal Aviation Regulations or inFAA Advisory Circulars, manuals, and handbooks.

Finally, FAA does airport system planning. TheNational Airport System Plan (NASP), a 10-yearplan which was published in 1977 and updatedin 1980, includes those airports that meet FAA’scriteria of “national importance. ” In 1982 therewere 3,203 such airports. The NASP is not a com-pilation of individual airport development plans.

714 CFR 151.8Public Works Infrastructure: Policy Considerations for the 1980s

(Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office, April 1983), p. 106.

Rather, it is a summary of projected improve-ments for each airport eligible for Federal aid, pre-pared by FAA based on information provided byindividual airports, state agencies, and FAA re-gional offices.

State Aviation Agencies

Forty-seven States have aviation agencies. Mostare within State departments of transportation,although eight are independent agencies or com-missions. State authority and activity vary wide-ly. All the States with aviation agencies providesome State financial assistance to airports. In mostcases this aid is primarily for capital improve-ments, although a few States make funds avail-able for high-cost operations and maintenanceitems such as snow removal equipment.9 In ad-dition, many State agencies provide some tech-nical and planning assistance, particularly tosmaller airports. Some States carry out ongoingplanning programs for a statewide airport system,complete with year-by-year scheduling for im-provements at individual airports, In many cases,States also install and maintain navigation equip-ment and landing aids.

Some State governments have planning and de-velopment responsibilities as owners and opera-tors of airports. Baltimore-Washington Interna-tional is owned by the State of Maryland, forexample, and Honolulu International is owned bythe State of Hawaii. In general, however, mostof the State-owned airports are general aviationrather than commercial service airports.

States provide much less airport developmentmoney than either the Federal Government or thelocal airport operators. As shown in table 7, Statespending in 1982 for airport construction and im-provement projects totaled $276 million. Thisaverages $5.5 million per State, but the actual dis-tribution is highly skewed. Table 7 shows that 25States spent less than $1 million each; 12 Statesspent between $1 million and $5 million, and 5spent between $5 million and $10 million. FiveStates—Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois,and New York—spent over $10 million for air-

‘National Association of State Aviation officials, DataBank 1983(Washington, DC: NASAO, 1983), p. 2.


Table 7.-State Funding of Airport and Aviation Programs

. ,AL-IW82 - ‘ -- ‘ -- —

$ 200,75060,355,700

57,752——

100,700,000———

15,581,26850,000

—————

156,729303,434

3,008,291—

5,9&l——

20,000134,531

—131,607

———

20,000250,000

—115,000255,80090,000

2,657,255—————

538,199—————

$164,632,216

——

311,838——

500,000———

77,313,81050,000

————

32,000344,000

19,684,127—————

10,000223,760

27,000—

—25,000

——

407,7283,981,983

49,937—

5 , G—

10,000366,000

22,50040,647

——

103,405.330

402,721—

2,455,248750,000

2,200,000780,000300,000

5,030,500700,000

—454,000

10,269,2291,757,445

635,600—

610,0003,102,549

799,539375,000225,549

1,874,0003,983,500

70,000327,973220,000424,031

———

889,50027,700,00d

7,275,9671,479,000

550,000500,000150,000

1,365,000—

1,133,215143,182

1,600,0002,500,000

230,0008,300

428,000784,745330,951982,900

5,505,137

91,302.781

—

——

1,000,000

—

1,000,000—

————————

1,117,200—

228,471———

18,000————————

—885,004

—100,000

—

—72,600

———

4.421.275

—

—50,000

—25,000

—300,000

—30,000

9,000—

60,000—

100,900196,00027,00026,61822,000

600,000598,000

——

44,000266,292

—35,000

———

75,00020,000

———

59,22122,74930,46660,000

2,000,0612,20037,000

——

25,000—

4.751.446

603,47160,355,700

2,844,838800,000

4,200,000101,980,000

325,0005,030,0002,000,000

92,895,078624,000

10,278,2291,757,445

720,6000

710,9003,487,2781,797,973

23,214,520247,549

2,534,0006,003,600

70,000556,444294,000

1,048,6140

211,6070

889,50027,700,000

7,570,9671,774,000

550,000615,000813,528

5,436,9832,963,6962,040,968

173,6481,785,0002,500,0002,240,000

924,699560,100825,392330,951

1,227,9505,505,137

—1,255,200

60,000——

100,000—

250,00020,000

160,289—

31,000——

9,444—

180,00018,237

102,87618,522

145,000—

10,000—

26,0007,757

—30,000

——

33,000(191 ,Ooo)t

25,000———

68,338225,000124,020

—13,000

—45,00015,50051,700

—

(64,20;t—

391,018,775 3,017,883

SOURCE: National Association of State Aviation Officials, DataBank 1983 (Washington, DC: NASAO, 1983), pp. 9-10,


port development; all of these except New Yorkand Illinois used these funds primarily for State-owned airports. The 28 States that made planningassistance funds available in 1982 spent a com-bined sum of about $3 million. However, about40 percent of this amount was spent by Alaskaalone.

Total State capita] assistance in 1982 for air-ports not owned by the State totaled $91 million.l”Often, these funds provided the State share of fed-erally funded projects. In other cases, State fundswere used where Federal grants were not avail-able for a project.

Despite the small amount overall, the State roleis a vital one, especially for smaller airports. FewGA airports or small commercial service airportshave the in-house staff to make traffic forecastsor to plan facility improvements. In addition, be-cause small airport operators often do not havethe technical expertise to complete an applicationfor Federal assistance, State agencies are activein helping them through this process. Most Stateaviation agencies concentrate their resources onhelping small commercial service and GA airportsbecause they have found that large commercialairports can take care of themselves. Indeed, mostState aviation agencies do not have the staff andexpertise to deal with the details of planning andcarrying out projects at major commercial serv-ice airports. In the case of major airports, the Staterole may simply be to keep informed of develop-ment activities and perhaps to provide some Statematching funds.

State control over the distribution of Federalairport development funds varies widely withState law. In most cases, grants from FAA to air-ports for federally approved projects completelybypass the State agency, Some States, however,have channeling acts which give them some con-trol over Federal funds. In these cases, projectsmust have State, as well as Federal, approvalbefore the grant can be awarded to the airport.In some cases, too, State law requires that theState act as agent for Federal grant recipients, sothat the State receives the funds and passes themthrough to the airport.

IOIbid., pp. 9-10.

Regional Planning Agencies

Many States have created regional planningauthorities that combine planning and develop-ment functions. Regional planning responsibilitiesare sometimes assumed by Councils of Govern-ments or similar associations of municipalities ina metropolitan area. Some regional agencies con-duct extensive transportation and land use plan-ning in their areas of jurisdiction and may be in-volved in plans for siting new airports or forexpanding existing facilities.

Regional agencies are seldom involved in theactual project execution, but they can have greatinfluence over the availability of funds. In someStates, their approval of a master plan or of in-dividual projects is required for the release of Stategrant funds. Often these same agencies are alsoresponsible for approving the release of Federalfunds. Rules for the release of Federal funds formajor projects was formerly governed by Officeof Management and Budget Circular A-9s, underwhich regional agencies were required to reviewmajor projects to certify that they met Federalguidelines on the use of grant moneys by Stateand local governments and to ensure that suffi-cient planning had gone into the project.

This procedure has changed somewhat since therelease of Executive Order 12372. Under the newprocedure, Federal agencies, such as FAA, are stillrequired to consult and cooperate with State andlocal governments in the administration of Fed-eral assistance and development programs, butthe intent is to give the States more latitude indetermining criteria for acceptable projects. Al-though Executive Order 12372 places more em-phasis on State priorities, the effect is still to re-quire Federal, State, and local agreement beforefunds are released for major projects. In manycases, the approval power remains in the handsof the same regional planning agencies which han-dled the A-9s review process.

Other Parties

A commercial airport serves thousands, oftenmillions, of airline passengers Despite their largenumber, however, passengers typically have noformal way to voice opinion on the service beingoffered or to influence future airport plans. How-


Photo credit: Federal Aviation Administration

The wait begins

ever, the passengers’ behavior—in terms of thepreferred hours of travel and the preferred modefor arriving at the airport-will greatly affect howthe airport operates, and passenger behavior isa frequent subject of study by airport planners.Moreover, passengers do have the ability to “votewith their feet” in areas where there is a choiceof airports. Passenger preference is often amongthe reasons that one airport in a region is under-utilized. If utilization of the airport is to be in-creased, the operator or the carriers must improvethose features that passengers object to—e.g., in-adequate groundside access, infrequent flights, orinconvenient parking.

The actions of concessionaires and off-airportfirms offering services on the airport property cangreatly affect airport development. Often thesefirms have little say in the long-range planningdecisions. Where airport facilities do not accom-modate their needs, improvised solutions maycontribute to congestion and delay. For example,the use of high-occupancy vehicles, such as shut-tle buses, for airport access and circulation shouldtend to reduce curbside congestion. However,ground access delays at some airports have ac-tually been worsened by the uncontrolled pro-liferation of private shuttle bus services offered

by car rental firms, hotels, and others to carrypassengers from the terminal to remote locations.In some cases, inviting these firms to participatein an earlier stage of the planning process and de-signing facilities to match the needs of shuttlebuses rather than automobiles might have resultedin better coordination of airport circulation andless curbside congestion.

Nearly all commercial service airports are pub-licly owned, most by municipal governments. Thecity government which is also an airport spon-sor must balance the economic benefits of the air-port against any direct and indirect costs the air-port may impose. The city government is re-sponsible for a number of services which are vitalto the airport but beyond the control of the air-port manager—e.g., highway construction andmass transit access. Elected officials must chooseto allocate funds between projects that might ben-efit the airport and those related to other muni-cipal services such as hospitals, schools, and hous-ing. The airport is seldom the first priority of thecity government.

Other local governments may be involved in,or affected by, the airport planning process. Manymajor airports are surrounded by several munic-ipalities. Some of these communities may bebothered by noise, automobile traffic, or otherproblems generated by the airport. Other com-munities may control services necessary to oper-ation of the airport. In addition, the interests ofindividuals surrounding the airport may be rep-resented not only by local governments but bypublic interest groups organized around a particu-lar issue. These groups and individuals may bebrought into the airport planning process throughpublic hearings and other means, but their effec-tiveness and degree of participation vary widelyas a function of the receptiveness of airport oper-ators and the aggressiveness with which thesegroups pursue their interests.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT

The most obvious solution to the problem of isting one through construction of new runways,airside delay at a busy airport is to increase ca- gates, terminals, or whatever is needed. Nearlypacity through capital improvements—either by all the major airports in the United States havebuilding another airport or by expanding the ex- gone through at least one period of major capital


improvement, many of them in the late 1960s andearly 1970s to accommodate jet aircraft. As a solu-tion to delay problems, however, construction ofnew airport facilities is not without problems, andairport operators can run into a number of dif-ficulties in attempting major airport constructionor expansion.

First of all, an airport is a system of interdepen-dent parts. Major expansion of one part may ne-cessitate expansion of another. For example, ad-ding new runways and increasing the number ofairside operations will result in the need for newgates and more terminal waiting areas for passen-gers, and possibly larger automobile parking areasand access roads with higher capacity. Becauseof the piecemeal way in which these differenttypes of development may be handled, a bottle-neck is often not eliminated, but simply movedto another point.

Another problem often encountered in expan-sion is the lack of suitable land. Many airportsare closely surrounded by urbanized areas, landthat would be extremely expensive to acquire. Al-though most airports were originally located onthe edge of metropolitan areas, cities have ex-panded over the years to surround many of them.Some of this development, especially commercialand industrial uses, was actually drawn to the areaby the proximity to air transportation. Residen-tial uses often spring up if land use controls areinadequate. Once communities become estab-lished in the vicinity, the airport is often perceivedas a poor neighbor—generating noise, traffic con-gestion, and other annoyances for the surround-ing communities. Residents may oppose plans forairport expansion that would increase any of theseproblems.

This is not to say that expansion of a major air-port is impossible. St. Louis Lambert, for instance,greatly increased airside and terminal capacityover a period of 5 years through development ofan existing location. Improvements includedlengthening existing runways and taxiways, ter-minal expansion, and construction of new gates.A major factor was the Environs Plan, a programto mitigate noise problems by installing sound in-sulation in residential buildings and purchasingproperty to serve as a noise buffer zone.

Chicago O’Hare is beginning a major expan-sion of terminal facilities, which will include con-structing new loading gates and ramp areas andrebuilding parts of the taxiway system. At onetime, construction of an additional runway wasalso considered, but then dropped in later plan-ning stages. Studies indicated that an additionalparallel runway would not provide a capacity in-crease great enough to justify the high cost. His-torically, congestion problems at O’Hare have pri-marily been due to lack of gate space. The newrunway would have required land acquisition andrelocation of buildings. It would also have gen-erated additional noise and led inevitably to con-flicts with airport neighbors.

Expansion is expensive. At St. Louis, the noiseabatement program alone (without which the ex-pansion probably would not have been possible)is expected to cost about $50 million over a 20-year period. The expansion of Chicago O’Hareis expected to cost about $1 billion. Adding thenew runway would have increased the cost by 25percent.

Building a new airport far enough from popu-lous areas to avoid noise problems and to takeadvantage of lower land prices is a desirable alter-native. Ideally, the new airport site should be largeenough to provide both room for growth and ex-tensive buffer zones to protect it from encroachingurban development—a tract of many thousandsof acres. The Dallas-Fort Worth airport covers anarea of 17,600 acres and has agreements protect-ing an additional 4,000 acres; but, even there,noise is an issue as incompatible urban develop-ment moves closer to the airport.

In many metropolitan areas, a suitable tract ofland might be distant from the city center, mak-ing ground access a problem. In selecting a dis-tant site, several questions arise. If a new airportis a supplement to, rather than a substitute for,the existing airport, would passengers be willingto travel that far to use it? Would air carriers bewilling to serve an airport that might attract fewerpassengers than the old airport? That the answerto these questions can sometimes be “no” is dem-onstrated in the case of Dunes and National air-ports in Washington, DC.

— — . .

34 . Airport System Development

Because of the increasing public concern aboutaircraft noise, community reaction against thepossible siting of an airport has presented prob-lems even in relatively underpopulated areas. Theexpansion of Lambert airport was made necessarybecause of the collapse of plans to build anotherairport outside of St. Louis. The vigorous opposi-tion by citizen groups and local governments sur-rounding the proposed new site was a major fac-tor in the decision not to build a new airport. Thisconcern affects not only sites for commercial air-ports but also for GA and relievers airports.

Difficult as it is to find land for new airports,the task is becoming increasingly imperative insome cities. Many observers are pessimistic aboutthe likelihood of constructing new major airports.The FAA, in the 1981 National Airspace SystemPlan, states that: “few new air carrier airports areanticipated and most major airports have limited

AIRCRAFT NOISE

Aviation noise is a fact of life at today’s air-ports and a major, perhaps the major, constrainton airport expansion and development. Citizensliving around airports have complained that avia-tion noise is annoying, disturbs sleep, interfereswith conversation, and generally detracts fromthe enjoyable use of property. There is increas-ing evidence that high exposure to noise hasadverse psychological and physiological effects.People repeatedly exposed to loud noises may ex-hibit high stress levels, nervous tension, and in-ability to concentrate.

Conflicts between airports and their neighborshave occurred since the early days of aviation,but airport noise became a more serious issue withthe introduction of commercial jet aircraft in the1960’s. FAA estimates that the land area affectedby aviation noise increased about sevenfold be-tween 1960 and 1970. Even with this increase, theactual number of people affected by aviation noiseis relatively small. It has been estimated that 6million to 7 million people in the United States(under 5 percent of the population) experience sig-nificant annoyance due to aviation noise; about10 percent of these people live in areas of severe

noise impact .13become a majornities.

Nevertheless,political issue

airport noise hasin certain commu-

New aircraft are much quieter than earlier jets,and the noise levels at the busiest large airportshave been reduced to the point that communityopposition has abated in some instances, Denver,Atlanta, Houston, and Dallas-Fort Worth havebeen able to secure community agreement to pro-ceed with airport expansion projects, includingnew runways. Expansion of terminal buildings,which implies an increase in air traffic, has alsobeen accepted in New York and Chicago. On theother hand, noise levels threaten to increase asjet traffic is introduced at secondary airportsin some metropolitan areas. Santa Ana (JohnWayne) and Westchester County are notable ex-amples of airports where the surrounding com-munities are pressing for curfews and other air-port use restrictions.

Another trend that may intensify the noiseissue is continuation of residential encroachmentaround airports. As more people come to live in

13Norman Ahford and Paul H. Wright, Airport Engineering (NewYork: John Wiley & Sons, 1979).


Photo credit: EPA-Documerica, Michael Philip Manheim

Homes under the approach path to Boston Logan

noise impact areas, the opportunities for annoy-ance increase. Equally important, the public hasbecome more sensitive to the issue, and it hasbecome highly politicized. Airport neighbors havesued airports for mental anguish as well as thereduced property values related to noise exposure.Airport operators have begun to adopt noiseabatement and mitigation measures so as to re-duce their liability and protect themselves in legalproceedings. The noise issue has been instrumentalin slowing or stopping several airport expansionprograms.

Federal Responsibilities

FAA’s role is defined in a 1968 amendment tothe Federal Aviation Act of 1958.14 The amend-ment charges the FAA Administrator to “prescribeand amend such rules and regulations as he mayfind necessary to provide for the control andabatement of aircraft noise and the sonic boom. ”FAA has worked to alleviate noise by controllingthe source—i. e., quieting the aircraft and its en-gine. Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 36establishes noise standards for newly manufac-tured aircraft engines. Air carriers are replacingnoisy aircraft with new ones meeting these stand-ards, so that noncomplying commercial aircraft

1449 LJ. S.C. 1301 et. seq.

will eventually be phased out of the fleet. FAAhas controlled sonic boom by prohibiting super-sonic operations over land by civil aircraft. Mili-tary supersonic flights continue, but in a carefullycontrolled manner.

FAA has established guidelines for measure-ment of noise and suggested a procedure for car-rying out local noise studies and abatement pro-grams. Because FAA also has the authority andresponsibility to control aircraft in flight and toprescribe flight paths, it assists local airport oper-ators in developing noise mitigation proceduresto suit their area.

FAA has been reluctant to impose a specificFederal standard for airport noise, as this mightexpose the Federal Government to liability fordamages if the standard were to be exceeded. Cur-rent policy is that FAA shares responsibility fornoise abatement, but does not bear liability. Re-cent statements by the FAA Administrator andthe Secretary of Transportation have reempha-sized that local governments and airport opera-tors must take the lead in reducing airport noise.On the other hand, FAA discourages the prolifera-tion of stringent local rules which may have a con-straining effect on airport capacity or on interstatecommerce.

Measurement of Noise

There are several methods for measuring air-craft noise and its effect on a community. Thelevel of sound can be measured objectively; butnoise—unwanted sound—is a very subjectivematter, both because the human ear is more sen-sitive to some frequencies than others and becausethe degree of annoyance associated with a noisecan be influenced by psychological factors suchas the hearer’s attitude or the type of activity inwhich engaged. Techniques have been developedto measure single events measured in units suchas dBA (A-weighted sound level in decibels) orEPNdB (Effective Perceived Noise Decibels).These measure the level of noise in objectiveterms, giving extra weight to those sound frequen-cies that are most annoying to the human ear.

In some cases, annoyance is due not only tointensity of a single event, but to the cumulativeeffects of exposure to noise throughout the day.


Methods to measure this effect objectively includeaggregating single event measures to give a cumu-lative noise profile by means of such techniquesas the Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF), the Com-munity Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), and theDay-Night Average Sound Level (Ldn). FM usesEPNdB to measure single event aircraft noise aspart of its aircraft certification process. FAA hasestablished dbA as the single event unit and theLdn system as the standard measure of cumula-tive noise exposure to be used by airports in thepreparation of noise abatement studies.

FAA has suggested, but not mandated, guide-lines for determining land uses that are compati-ble with a given Ldn level. Ideally, residential usesshould be located in areas below 65 Ldn. In thehigh noise impact areas (Ldn 80 to 85 or more)FAA suggests that parking, transportation facil-ities, mining and extraction, and similar activi-ties are the most compatible (see table 8).

Noise and Land Use

The problem of aviation noise is intimately con-nected with the question of land use since one ofthe most effective insulators against annoyingsound is distance. If possible, an airport shouldbe surrounded by a noise buffer area of vacantor forested land, and the private property nearthe high noise impact area (e.g., under approachand departure paths and near aeronautical sur-faces) should be used for activities that are lesssensitive to noise—agriculture, highway inter-changes, manufacturing, and other activitieswhere a high level of ambient noise does not de-tract from performance. Unfortunately, many air-ports are surrounded by buildings devoted to in-compatible activities—e.g., residences, schools,and auditoriums.

Zoning and land use planning are responsibil-ities of local governments. In many cases thesegovernments have been unable or unwilling toprovide mutual protection for airports and resi-dential development. Land is a scarce resource inurban areas; and where there is great demand forhousing and shopping centers, underutilized landaround airports becomes extremely valuable.Even where local governments have enacted zon-ing ordinances to prevent encroachment, devel-

opers have been able to gain waivers. The taxrevenues generated by the higher land uses mayseem more important to city governments thanthe long-range need to protect the airport and theresidential areas from one another. In some cases,local governments trying to enforce zoning ruleshave had them overturned when developers con-tested them in court.

At least part of the problem is ineffective in-tergovernmental cooperation. Few airports are lo-cated entirely within the borders of the munic-ipality that owns and operates the facility.Surrounding municipalities may have conflictingpractices, priorities, and philosophies of govern-ment; and each has separate zoning authority. Forinstance, St. Louis-Lambert Airport is surroundedby 29 municipalities, and Dallas-Fort Worth by10. A municipality that owns an airport perceivesadvantages and disadvantages, and it must weighthe economic benefits of the airport against theproblems of noise. A municipality that merelyborders on an airport may see only disadvantages.Further, because the airport operator has soleliability for damage due to airport noise, somesurrounding municipalities have felt little need toenforce zoning rules when complaints will not bedirected to them but to the municipality that ownsand operates the airport.

Even where sound intergovernmental agree-ments on zoning have been developed, time canerode them. When Dallas-Fort Worth airport wasbeing planned and built, the surrounding munic-ipalities developed agreements on zoning thatwere viewed as models of intergovernmental co-operation and coordination. Over the interven-ing years, there have been changes in local govern-ment, in priorities, and in the local economy.There is now encroaching development such thatDallas-Fort Worth now has noise problems, de-spite its huge 17,600-acre size.

Local Noise Abatement Programs

While aircraft are the source of noise at air-ports, aircraft operators are not liable for dam-age caused by noise. The courts have determinedthat the sole legal liability for aircraft noise restswith the airport operator. The Federal Govern-ment, by law and administrative action, has


Table 8.—Land Use Compatibility With Yearly Day-Night Average Sound Levels

Yearly day-night average sound level (Ldn) in decibels

Land use <65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 >85

Residential:Residential, other than mobile homes and transient lodgings . . . . . . . .Mobile home parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Transient lodgings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . .

Public use:Schools, hospitals and nursing homes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Churches, auditoriums, and concert halls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . .Governmental services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Commercial use:Offices, business and professional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Wholesale and retail—building materials, hardware and farm

equipment, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..., . . . . . .Retail trade—general . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Manufacturing and production:Manufacturing, general . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Photographic and optical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Agriculture (except Livestock) and forestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Livestock farming and breeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mining and fishing, resource production and extraction . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Recreational:Outdoor sports arenas and spectator sports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Outdoor music shells, amphitheaters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nature exhibits and zoos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Amusements, parks, resorts and camps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Golf courses, riding stables and water recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

YYY

YYYYY

Y

YYYY

YYYYY

YYYYY

N a

NN a

2525

YYY

Y

YYYY

YYYfY’Y

Ye

NYYY

N a

NN a

303025Yb

Yb

25

Yb

25Yb

25

Yb

25yLly~Y

Ye

NNY

25

NNN a

NN

30Yc

Yc

30

Yc

30Yc

30

Yc

30Ye

NY

NNNN

30

NNN

NNNYd

Yd

N

Yd

NY d

N

Yd

NYh

NY

NNNNN

NNN

NNNYd

N

N

NNNN

NNYh

NY

NNNNN

preempted control of aircraft in flight. Becausethe Federal Government is immune from suit(without its consent) and because the aircraft oper-ate under Federal regulation, litigants with com-plaints about aircraft noise have no recourse butto the airport operator. Courts have consistently

held that the airport proprietor has the authorityto control the location, orientation, and size ofthe airport and from that authority flows theliability for the consequences of its operation, in-cluding the responsibility to protect citizens fromresidual noise. Litigants have used various ap-

38 Airport System Development

preaches in suing airports and have collecteddamages on the grounds of trespass, nuisance, andinverse condemnation.

Balancing their extensive exposure to liabilityclaims, airport operators have some authority—albeit limited—to control the use of their airportsin order to reduce noise. Basically, any restric-tion of operations at the airport must be non-discriminatory. Further, no airport may imposea restriction that unduly burdens interstate com-merce. The definition of “undue burden” is notprecise, and restrictions at individual airportsmust be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Restric-

Photo credt: Oorn McGr8fh, Jr.

Noise contour map

tions must be meaningful and reasonable—i.e.,a restriction adopted to reduce noise should ac-tually have the effect of reducing noise. Finally,local restrictions must not interfere with safety orthe Federal prerogative to control aircraft in thenavigable airspace.

Under FAR Part 150, airport operators canundertake noise compatibility studies to determinethe extent and nature of the noise problem at agiven airport. They can develop noise exposuremaps indicating the contours within which noiseexposure is greater than a permissible level. Theycan identify the noncompatible land uses withinthose contours and develop a plan for mitigatingpresent problems and preventing future ones. Un-fortunately, the airport operator’s ability to pre-vent future problems is usually very limited.Unless the airport actually owns the land in ques-tion, the authority to make sure it is reserved fora compatible use is usually in the hands of a mu-nicipal zoning commission.

Many of these noise abatement programs al-lowed under current legislation are eligible forFederal aid. They include:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

takeoff and landing procedures to abate noiseand preferential runway use to avoid noise-sensitive areas (which must be developed incooperation with and approved by FAA);construction of sound barriers and sound-proofing of buildings;acquisition of land and interests therein, suchas easements, air rights, and developmentrights to ensure uses compatible with airportoperation;complete or partial curfews;denial of airport use to aircraft types orclasses not meeting Federal noise standards;capacity limitations based on the relativenoisiness of different types of aircraft; anddifferential landing fees based on FAA-cer-tificated noise levels or on time of arrival anddeparture.ls

Ch. 2—Organizations and /institutions 39

FAA provides assistance to airport operatorsand air carriers in establishing or modif ying flightpaths to avoid noise-sensitive areas. In some cases,aircraft can be directed to use only certain run-ways, to stay above minimum altitudes, or to ap-proach and depart over lakes, bays, rivers, or in-dustrial areas rather than residential areas.Procedures may be developed to scatter the noiseover several communities through some “equitable”rotation program. These noise-abatement proce-dures can have a negative effect on airport capac-ity. They may require circuitous routing of air-craft or use of a runway configuration that is lessthan optimum with respect to capacity.

Restrictions on airport access or on the num-ber of operations have an even more deleteriouseffect on airport capacity. One form of restric-tion is the night curfew, which effectively shutsdown the airport during certain hours. Only a fewairports have officially instituted curfews. Onesuch is Washington National Airport, which hasa curfew based on FAA-certificated noise stand-ards. Aircraft with noise ratings over 72 dbA on

takeoff or 85 dbA on approach may not use theairport between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Thiseliminates nearly all jet operations. Some otherairports have reached informal agreements withcarriers to refrain from operations after a certainhour, and some, like Cleveland, impose a curfewby not supplying jet fuel at night.

Air carriers are concerned about the spread ofcurfews as a noise abatement tool because theycan play havoc with airline scheduling and reducethe capacity of the entire national airport system.Imposition of curfews at even two or three ma-jor airports on the east and west coast could re-duce the “scheduling window” for transcontinen-tal flights to only 4 or 5 hours daily (see fig. 3)and would also affect flights within each region.Curfews are especially threatening to air cargooperators, whose business is typically conductedat night. Some see widespread imposition of cur-fews as a burden on interstate commerce, andhence unconstitutional.

Other types of airport access restrictions—excluding certain aircraft types, instituting special

Photo credit: Dorn McGrath, Jr

Land bought and cleared of houses at Playa del Rey, west of Los Angeles

25-420 0 - 84 - 4

—


Figure 3.—Effects of Curfews on Scheduling Transcontinental Service

Departure time Eastbound nonstop ~ A r r i v a l t i m ewest coast 5+ hours and 3 time zones east coast

8

f i

4

Open for10 scheduling nonstops 6

Noon 8

Curfew10 pm—7 amwest coastairports

Midn

10

Midnight

2

4

6

Curfew10 pm—7 ameast coastairports

8

10

Noon

2

3

fees for noncomplying aircraft, or establishinghourly limits based on a “noise budget’’—are sub-ject to the legal tests of nondiscrimination andreasonableness. For example, the ban on jet air-craft instituted at Santa Monica airport was struckdown by the court in 1979 because many new-technology jet aircraft that would have beenbanned by such a rule are quieter than the pro-peller-driven aircraft that would have been al-lowed to operate. A later ordinance by the city,banning operations by aircraft with a single-eventnoise rating of 76 dBA, was upheld. The courtrejected the argument that enforcement of a local

standard violates Federal preemption .16 On theother hand, a Federal court struck down in 1983the curfew-quota system in effect at WestchesterCounty airport in New York. Under that system,an average of only six aircraft with noise ratingsabove 76 dBA were permitted to land between thehours of midnight and 6:30 a.m.


ing those markets. According tomates, such acceleration would benancial means of many airlines.

Federal funds are available to

Boeing’s esti-beyond the fi-

assist airportoperators in soundproofing buildings or buyingnoise-impacted land. Usually, these are extremelyexpensive remedial measures, but a number of air-ports have been forced to undertake them. St.Louis Lambert Airport expects to spend about $50million over the next 20 years under its EnvironsPlan. The airport has soundproofed some build-ings and returned them to public use. In othercases, it has purchased land and resold it for morecompatible use. In some cases, the land was“sterilized,” that is, the buildings were torn downand the land left vacant as a noise buffer zone.

chapter 2 organizations and institutions

Documents