chapter 9 airport system planning

Chapter 9

AIRPORT SYSTEM PLANNING

.

Photo credit Dorn McGrath, Jr

Contents

PageThe Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

Airport Master Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189Regional Airport Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191State Airport Planning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193National Airport Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

General Problems in Airport System Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199Demand as an Independent Variable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199Plans as Advocacy Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201Lack of Integration Among Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............+.. . . . . . . 202

National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203The Congressional Mandate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203Desirable Features of NPIAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204

List of Tables

Table No.48. State Funding of Airport Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49. Review of State Aviation Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50. Estimated Cost of Improvements by General Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51. National Airport System Plan: System Needs by Program Objectives,

1980-89 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52. Comparison of National and State Airport System Plans, 1982 . . . . . . . . . . .

Page1 9 41 9 5

1 9 7

1 9 8

2 0 0

Chapter 9

AIRPORT SYSTEM PLANNING

Given the high cost and long leadtime for build-ing or improving airports, planning is key indetermining what facilities will be needed and increating programs for providing them in a timelymanner, while making wise use of resources. Plan-ning for airport development requires more thansimply scheduling the capital improvements to bemade. Airports are public entities, whose man-agers interact with many other public and privatestakeholders. Airport development plans affectother aspects of community life—e.g., throughthe land dedicated to aviation use or the noise orautomobile traffic that the airport generates. Theneed for aviation development must thus be weighedagainst other societal needs and plans. Further,planning cannot be done for one airport in isola-tion; each airport is part of a network which isitself part of the national transportation system.For these reasons, airport planning involves gov-ernment at all levels, as well as other public andprivate organizations.

Determining need and programming develop-ment at individual airports has become formalizedin a process called airport master planning. Whilemaster planning in the full sense is practiced pri-marily by large airports, even the smallest mustmake use of some elements of the process to pre-pare for future change. At a level above airportmaster planning is regional system planning,which is concerned with development of all air-ports in a metropolitan area. It often involves dif-

ficult political decisions on development prioritiesamong competing airports. In some cases, thisresponsibility is assumed by a regional or metro-politan planning agency, but many State gover-nments have also taken on the task of developinga coordinated system plan for airports serving notonly major metropolitan regions but also outly-ing small communities and rural areas within theState. In some cases, State agencies prepare theseplans themselves; in others, they provide techni-cal assistance and review for local planning bodies.The role of the Federal Government in airportplanning includes a broad range of activities. Themost comprehensive activity is the National Air-port System Plan of the Federal Aviation Admin-istration (FAA), which summarizes the develop-ment needs of roughly 3,200 airports across thecountry. At the other extreme, FAA has respon-sibility to approve, on a project-by-project basis,specific development projects for which airportsponsors are seeking Federal funds.

This chapter describes airport planning at vari-ous levels, with emphasis on the planning proc-ess and the problems facing airport planners ingeneral. The final part of the chapter looks moreclosely at airport system planning from a nationalperspective and addresses issues that FAA willneed to consider in preparing a new comprehen-sive planning document—National Plan of In-tegrated Airport Systems—called for in the Air-port and Airway Improvement Act of 1982.

THE PLANNING PROCESS

Airport Master Planning

At the local level, the centerpiece of airportplanning is the master plan—a document thatcharts the proposed evolution of the airport tomeet future needs. The magnitude and sophisti-cation of the master planning effort depends onthe size of the airport. At major airports, plan-ning may be in the hands of a large departmentcapable of producing its own forecasts and sup-porting technical studies. At such airports, mas-ter planning is a formal and complex process that

has evolved to coordinate large construction pro-jects (or perhaps several such projects simulta-neously) that may be carried out over a periodof 5 years or more. At smaller airports, masterplanning may be the responsibility of a few staffmembers with other responsibilities who dependon outside consultants for expertise and support.At very small airports, where capital improve-ments are minimal or are made infrequently, themaster plan may be a very simple document, per-haps prepared locally but usually with the helpof consultants.

189

— — — . . — — .

190 . Airport System Development

While there is considerable variation in the con-tent of the master plan and how it is used, its basicproducts are a description of the desired futureconfiguration of the airport, a description of thesteps needed to achieve it, and a financial planto fund development. The master planning proc-ess consists of four basic phases: 1) airport re-quirements analysis, 2) site selection, 3) airportlayout, and 4) financial planning.’

The first phase, requirements analysis, specifiesnew or expanded facilities that will be needed dur-ing the planning period. This involves catalogi-ng existing facilities and forecasting future traf-fic demand. The planner compares the capacityof existing facilities with future demand, identi-fying where demand will exceed capacity andwhat new facilities will be necessary.

The process of relating future demand to ex-isting facilities and estimating the nature and sizeof needed improvements is complex. It requiresdetailed forecasts, since sizing depends not onlyon the number of passengers and aircraft in futureyears but also on the type of the traffic. For ex-ample, traffic consisting mainly of transfer pas-sengers imposes requirements that are differentfrom those where the majority of traffic is originand destination passengers. Sizing of facilities isalso affected by the distribution of activities through-out the day and by the size and operating char-acteristics of aircraft serving the airport. Thisprocess is simplified by the use of standard rela-tionships between general measures, such as an-nual enplanements, and specific measures, suchas peak-hour passenger demand.

The second phase, site selection, is most impor-tant in the construction of a new airport. Whenconsidering the expansion of an existing airport,there is usually less choice about where to locatenew facilities. Requirements for safety areas andclear zones around existing runways and taxi-ways, for example, mean that much apparently

“vacant” land at airports cannot be used for otherpurposes. New facilities can be located only inplaces where they, and the traffic they generate,will not interfere with existing facilities. The siteselection phase for a new airport requires an in-depth analysis of alternative sites, looking closelyat such factors as physical characteristics of thesite, the nature of surrounding development, landcost and availability, ground access, and the ade-quacy of surrounding airspace. The final choiceof one site over others is often quite subjective.For example, there is probably no objective wayto compare the disadvantages of increased noisein some part of the community with the advan-tages of improved air service for the metropolitanarea as a whole. The “right” choice depends onhow decisionmakers weigh various criteria, andit is often a political, rather than a technical,choice.

In the third phase, airport layout, the locationsof planned new facilities are mapped on the air-port site. In this phase, the planner also looks athow the airport will fit into the surrounding com-munity. A land use plan is usually prepared atthis point to show existing and proposed residen-tial, business, and industrial development aroundthe airport and expected levels of aircraft noise.It shows areas which must have protected airspaceand those where building height limitations willhave to be imposed. In addition, the effect of theairport on highway and public transportation sys-tems transit is analyzed. This step is importantnot only for the safety and operational efficiencyof the airport and its compatibility with the sur-rounding community, but for the effect on thelevel and structure of airport operating costs. Fail-ure to recognize the relationships between airportconfiguration and ongoing costs can have lastingeffects on the economy of the airport and itsrevenue-earning potential.

The fourth and final phase, financial planning,is an economic evaluation of the entire plan ofdevelopment. It looks at the activity forecasts ofthe first phase from the point of view of revenuesand expenditures, analyzing the airport’s balancesheet over the planning period to ensure that theairport sponsor can afford to proceed. A corollaryactivity in this phase is preparation of a financialplan, which specifies the funding sources and

-—

Ch. 9–Airport System Planning 191

financing methods for the proposed development—the portions that will be funded through Federalgrants-in-aid, the size and timing of bond issues,the revenue from concessionaire rents, parkingfees, landing fees, and so on.

The steps outlined above often require severalyears to complete, and at most airports, masterplanning is an ongoing and continuous process.By the time the master plan has been drawn up,much of the information may be outdated, andcompilation must begin again. Thus, it is com-mon for master plans to be wholly or partly up-dated on a cycle of 3 to 5 years.

The master plan is most applicable to a rathernarrow planning problem, the development of asingle airport. Planning of a regional airport sys-tem, which addresses problems of a broaderscope, contains many elements in common withthe master planning process. However, regionalplanning is usually less concerned with the detailsof siting facilities at a particular airport than withthe adequacy of service in a given geographic areaand the roles of different airports in meeting futureneeds. While the master planning process is fairlystandardized, at least at larger airports, regionalplanning procedures vary widely among local, re-gional, State, and Federal agencies.

Regional Airport Planning

Regional airport planning takes as its basic unitof analysis the airport hub, roughly coincidentwith the boundaries of a metropolitan area. Theplanner is concerned with air transportation forthe region as a whole and must consider trafficat all the airports in the region, both large andsmall. The practice of regional planning is rela-tively new and has been instituted to deal withquestions of resource allocation and use whichoften arise when the airports in a region have beenplanned and developed individually and withoutcoordination among affected jurisdictions. Re-gional planning seeks to overcome the rivalriesand the jurisdictional overlaps of the various localagencies involved in airport development andoperation. The goal is to produce an airport sys-tem that is optimum with respect to regionwidebenefits and costs.

Thus, regional airport planning addresses onecritical issue usually not dealt with in an airportmaster plan: the allocation of traffic among theairports in a region. This can be a sensitive sub-ject. Questions of traffic distribution involve po-litical as well as technical and economic issues,and they can greatly affect the future growth ofthe airports involved. One airport may be quitebusy while another is underutilized. If traffic wereto continue growing at the busy airport, new fa-cilities would have to be constructed to accom-modate that growth. On the other hand, if someof the new traffic were diverted to an underutilizedairport, the need for new construction might bereduced and service to the region as a whole mightbe improved.

Although a planning agency may decide thatsuch a diversion is in the interest of a metropolitanregion and might prepare forecasts and plansshowing how it could be accomplished, it maynot necessarily have power to implement theseplans. Where airports are competitors, it is prob-ably not reasonable to expect that the strongerwill voluntarily divert traffic and revenues to theother. The planning agency would likely have toinfluence the planning and development processat individual airports so that they will make deci-sions reflecting the regional agency’s assessmentof regional needs.

One way to influence planning decisions isthrough control over distribution of Federal andState development grants. Before 1982, regionalagencies served as clearing houses for Federalfunds under the review process required by Of-fice of Management and Budget Circular A-95.While the award of Federal airport developmentfunds depended mainly on FAA approval of theairport sponsor’s application, the A-95 processrequired that designated regional agencies reviewprojects before the grants were awarded. In par-ticular, the regional agencies were required tocertify that the planned improvement was con-sistent with Federal regulations-for example, en-vironmental regulations.

In July 1982, the President issued Executive Or-der 12372, outlining a new policy for intergovern-mental review of direct Federal grant programs.The purpose of the new policy is to “strengthen

192 ● Airport System Development

1939

1949

1959

1969

1979

Photo credit: Dorn McGrath, Jr.

50 years of development at Los Angeles International Airport

Ch. 9—Airport System Planning ● 193

federalism by relying on State and local processesfor the State and local government coordinationand review of proposed financial assistance anddirect Federal development. . . .“ The intent is togive additional weight to the concerns of State andlocal officials with respect to federally funded de-velopment. State and local governments are en-couraged to develop their own procedures (orrefine existing procedures) for reviewing devel-opment plans and grant applications. Under thenew policy, agencies are to certify that Federalspending is consistent with State and local objec-tives and priorities, instead of certifying that Stateand local projects comply with Federal guidelines,as they did formerly. Federal agencies, such asFAA, are expected to accommodate recommen-dations communicated through the State reviewprocess or to justify refusal to do so.

Some States may choose to continue using thesame regional planning organizations as reviewagencies, while others may create new proceduresand new agencies. The Executive order discour-ages “the reauthorization of any planning orga-nization which is federally funded, which has afederally prescribed membership, which is estab-lished for a limited purpose, and which is not ade-quately representative of, or accountable to, Stateor local elected officials. ” However, States maychoose to retain the same regional agencies-theywere established under State law in the first place—but to change their function to reflect account-ability to State and local rather than Federal offi-cials. It is still too early to tell how these changesin the review procedure will affect the ability ofregional agencies to influence airport planningdecisions.

Much of the regional agency’s success may de-pend as much on negotiation and persuasion ason legal or budgetary authority. Often compro-mises can be reached on a voluntary basis. Forexample, the Regional Airport Planning Commis-sion has been working with the three San Fran-cisco area airports to help each develop a “noisebudget” to comply with California’s strict envi-ronmental laws. Because noise is directly relatedto the level of aviation activity, the noise budgetplan, when completed, will affect future trafficallocation among the airports. Its implementationwill most likely require some diversion of new

traffic growth from busy San Francisco Interna-tional to the other bay area airports.

Even where airports in a region are operatedby the same authority, allocation of traffic be-tween airports may still be difficult. For exam-ple, the Port Authority of New York and NewJersey can implement its planning decision to in-crease activity at Newark by instituting differen-tial pricing, improved ground access, or othermeasures to increase use of that airport. Imple-mentation of the policy, however, depends notjust on control of airport development expendi-tures but also on the ability to influence the activ-ities of private parties —the air carriers and pas-sengers.

Regional airport planning authorities may also,if they have planning responsibility for othertransportation modes, plan for the airport as partof the regional transportation system. Whenmultimodal planning responsibility resides in oneorganization, there is greater likelihood that theplanning agency will consider airport needs inrelation to other forms of transportation in theregion. Also, the regional agency may undertaketo improve coordination between the variousmodes, so that, for example, airport developmentsdo not impose an undue burden on surroundinghighway facilities or so that advantage can betaken of opportunities for mass transit. For thisto happen, however, two conditions are neces-sary: regionwide authority and multimodal juris-diction.

State Airport Planning

According to the National Association of StateAviation Officials (NASAO), there are 47 Stateaviation agencies that carry out some form of air-port planning. In 39 States, these agencies are sub-divisions of the State Department of Transpor-tation (DOT); in the others, they are independentagencies. Several States have an aviation commis-sion in addition to an aviation agency. The com-missions are usually appointed by the Governorand serve as policymaking bodies. State involve-ment in airport planning and development takesseveral forms: preparation of State airport sys-tem plans, funding of local master planning, andtechnical assistance for local planning. Table 48


Table 48.—State Funding of Airport Planning

State Fiscal year Amount

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . .Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Massachusetts. . . . . . . . . . .Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . .New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . .Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . .Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . . .South Carolina. . . . . . . . . . .Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

198319821982198219821982198319821982

1982-83a

198219821982198319821982

1982-83a

19831982~1982

1981-82 b

19821982198219821982

$ 60,0001,255,200

100,00250,00020,000

160,29031,0009,445

180,00018,240

102,87518,525

145,00010,00026,0007,750

30,00033,00025,00068,340

225,000124,000

13,00045,00015,50051,700

TotalC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .$3,024,865

- . . -

1978

1971

1975

1973

1974

1974

1978

1975

1979

1979(based on1975 data)

1974

1980

1979

1975

1977

1976

d

3 years

2 years

4 years

2 years

1 year

2 years

d

6 years

2 years

d

3 years

4 years

d

3 years

d

1983

1981

1983

None

1982

None(forecastsrevised m

1981 )

d

None

None

d

None

None

None

1981

Update nowm progress

d

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

1974-yes1982-no

Yes

d

Yes

Yes

d

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

1979-2000

1981-2000

1975-2000

1983-2000

1975-95

1982-2000

1978-2000

1975-95

1979-2000

1979-2000

1975-90

1980-2000

1977-97

1975-1995

1981-2000

1975-95

Funding

No Statefunding

Funding

None

None

None

No Statefunding

None

None

None

None

None

None

None

None

None

351

600

144

83

685

365

40

344

420

163

73

259

80

251

430

333

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

d

d

d

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

d

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes


dition of airfield capacity to accommodate growthin demand.

While there are surface similarities, SASPs varygreatly in scope, detail, expertise, and planningphilosophy. One State agency director freely ad-mitted that the State system plan was basicallya wish list, prepared primarily because planningfunds were available and the State DOT requiredit. He indicated that the plan was out of date andwould not be updated in the foreseeable futurebecause it has little relevance to the agency’s ac-tual activities. On the other hand, several Stateagencies regard the SASP as a valuable workingdocument that is kept current and serves as aguide in programming and distribution of Statefunds.

In many States, programming of funds is some-what separate from the system planning process.While the SASP may have a long planning hori-zon of 20 years or more, the actual award ofgrants to complete particular projects is on a muchshorter time scale. Some State agencies have de-veloped methods for keeping current files on localairport projects planned for the near term (say 3years). When airports apply for State aid (or re-quest State assistance in applying for Federal aid)the SASP is used to assign priority for grant awardas funds become available. As a rule, only a frac-tion of the projects outlined in the SASP areundertaken.

Each State plan reviewed by OTA tabulatedestimated costs of recommended improvementsand identified funding sources. Funding is almostuniversally identified as the primary constrainton implementation of the SASP, and nearly allcontain a caveat about the availability of funds.While other factors (e.g., noise or availability ofland) may have been considered in the planningprocess, they are seldom cited in the documentsthemselves.

In all States, some sort of consultation, coordi-nation, or review by persons outside the Stateaviation agency, is part of the planning process.Often these are regional economic developmentor planning agencies created by State government.In many cases, airport planning is part of a gen-eral transportation planning process, but meth-ods of interaction and feedback among the modal

agencies and between the State and regional agen-cies are described only vaguely.

Some State agencies are involved in masterplanning activities for local airports, especially ru-ral or small community airports that do not havethe staff to carry out master planning on theirown. State agencies may provide technical assist-ance or actually develop local master plans. SomeStates also participate in airport planning for ma-jor metropolitan areas, although most leave thisresponsibility with the local airport authority ora regional body. In recent years, State participa-tion in planning at the larger airports has shownsome increase, a trend that may be bolstered bycurrent Federal policy that earmarks a share ofannual Trust Fund outlays for State aviationplanning.

National Airport Planning

Airport planning at the national level is theresponsibility of FAA, whose interests are to pro-vide guidance for development of the vast net-work of publicly owned airports and to establisha frame of reference for investment of Federalfunds. These interests are set forth in the NationalAirspace System Plan (NASP), a document re-quired under the Airport and Airway Develop-ment Act of 1970. The NASP is a lo-year planthat is periodically updated by FAA, most re-cently in 1980.

The NASP is not a plan in the fullest sense. Itdoes not establish priorities, lay out a timetable,propose a level of funding, or commit the Fed-eral Government to a specific course of action.Instead, it is merely an inventory of the type andcost of airport developments which might takeplace during the planning period at airports eligi-ble for Federal assistance. It is a tabular, State-by-State presentation of data for individual air-ports, listed in a common format, indicating loca-tion, role, type of service, and level of activity(enplanements and operations) currently and for5 and 10 years in the future. Projected costs ofairport needs in five categories-land, paving-lighting, approach aids, terminal, and other—are shown, also at intervals of 5 and 10 years.

Estimates of need contained in the NASP aredeveloped by comparing FAA national and ter-

Ch. 9—Airport System Planning . 197

minal area forecasts to the present capacity of eachairport. Much of the initial determination of needand the regular updating is performed by FAAregional offices, which monitor changes and de-velopments being carried out at the airports. TheNASP is not a simple compilation of local mas-ter plans or State Airport System Plans, althoughFAA does draw on these documents as sourcesin forming judgments about future needs and pro-spective airport improvements.

The NASP is not a complete inventory of air-port needs. The plan contains only “airport de-velopment in which there is a potential Federalinterest and on which Federal funds may be spentunder the Airport Development Aid Program(ADAP) and the Planning Grant Program.’”There are two necessary conditions in the test ofpotential Federal interest. First, the airport mustmeet certain minimum criteria as an eligible re-cipient for Federal aid, and second, the plannedimprovement at that airport must be of a type thatis eligible for Federal aid. Eligible projects includesuch projects as land acquisition for expansion of

‘National Airport System Plan, Revised Statistics, 1980-1989(Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration, n.d. ), p. iii.

an airfield, paving for runways and taxiways, in-stallation of lighting or approach aids, and expan-sion of public terminal areas. Improvements in-eligible for Federal aid are not included in theNASP—e.g., construction of hangars, parkingareas, and revenue-producing terminal areas thatairports are expected to build with private, local,or State funds. Thus, the total of $12.67 billionin estimated airport needs listed in the NASP forthe 1980-89 period may somewhat underestimatetotal airport need. The estimated cost of improve-ments by general categories of eligible project isshown in table 50.

On the other hand, the NASP probably over-states the amount that will actually be spent onairport improvements over the 10-year period.Many of the projects whose costs are included inthe NASP will not receive Federal funds and manywill not be undertaken at all. Inclusion in theNASP does not necessarily represent Federalagreement to fund a project or local commitmentto carry it out. It is merely FAA’s best estimateof likely future need. The goal of the NASP is toset forth “. . . the type and estimated cost of air-port development considered by the Secretary tobe necessary to provide a system of public air-


ports adequate to anticipate and meet the needsof civil aeronautics . . .“ If and when local spon-sors are ready to undertake projects, they mustapply for Federal funds.

The 1980 NASP relates airport system improve-ments to three levels of need: Level I—maintainthe airport system in its current condition, LevelII—bring the system up to current design stand-ards, and Level III—expand the system.3 In 1980,

the estimated cost of completing the NASP was$12.67 billion between 1980 and 1989. Of thisamount 16 percent was for maintaining the sys-tem, 18 percent for bringing the system up tostandards, and 66 percent for expanding the sys-tem. The distribution of the projected needs fordifferent classes of airports is shown in table 51.

The classification by three levels of need is arefinement added to the latest version of theNASP. It moves in the direction of assigningpriorities to different types of projects instead ofthe earlier practice of presenting needs as a singlesum. FW selected this presentation because pre-vious lump sum projections “often did not lend

— - —3Maintaining the system includes such projects as repaving air-

fields and replacing lighting systems; bringing the system up to stan-dards involves such projects as installing new light systems andwidening runways; expanding the system includes constructionof new airports or lengthening runways to accommodate largeraircraft.

themselves well for use in establishing the fund-ing levels of programs intended to implement theirbroad findings.” The three-level system was de-veloped as a guide to Congress, illustrating how“alternative levels of funding . . . can be basedon relating NASP development needs to threelevels of program objectives.”4

The classification system is somewhat mislead-ing because it is not as hierarchical as it might ap-pear, and the placement of a type of improvementat a particular program level does not necessarilyreflect the priority that will be given a given pro-ject. High-priority projects—i.e., those whichFAA and a local sponsor agree must be carriedout as soon as possible—may not necessarily cor-respond with “Level I“ needs in the NASP. Anexpansion project (Level III) at an extremely con-gested and important airport might be more ur-gent than bringing a little-used airport up to stand-ards (Level II). Thus, if available funds werelimited to 34 percent of total need (the amountneeded to cover Levels I and II) it would not bepossible, nor would FAA intend, to carry out onlyLevel I and II projects and leave a vital Level IIIproject unfunded. In any given year, the actualgrants awarded are used for some projects in eachprogram level.

4National Air-port System Plan, Revised Statistics, 1980-1989, op.cit., p. 6.

Table 51.— National Airport System Plan: System Needs by Program Objectives, 1980=89(total costs In 1978=79 billions of dollars)

Level 1: Level 11: Level Ill:Maintain existing Bring airports up Expand

system to standards system Total

Air carrier . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.28 $1,21 $5.50 $7.99Commuter service . . . . . 0.11 0.11 0.24 0.46Reliever . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.13 0,25 0.62 1.00General aviation . . . . . . . 0.52 0.75 1.95 3.22

Ch. Airport System Planning ● 199

The NASP has been criticized for drawing theFederal interest too broadly and for being moreof a “wish list” than a planning document. Criticshave claimed that it is merely a compilation ofimprovements desired by local and State author-ities and that it does not represent a careful assess-ment of airport development projects that trulyserve national airport needs as distinct from thosethat are primarily local or regional in character.It is true that the plan includes many very smallairports of questionable importance to the na-tional system of air transportation. The criteriafor inclusion in the NASP are minimally restric-tive. The principal ones are: 1) that the airporthas (or is forecast to have within 5 years) at least10 based aircraft (or engines), 2) that it be at leasta 3&minute drive from the nearest existing or pro-posed airport currently in the NASP, and 3) thatthere is an eligible sponsor willing to undertakeownership and development of the airport. Clearly

there are many airports that meet these minimumcriteria. As of the beginning of 1984, there were3,203 airports qualifying for inclusion in theNASP—roughly a minimum of one airport percounty.

Paradoxically, the NASP has also been criti-cized for just the opposite reason: it is too ex-clusive, in that it reflects only FAA’s interpreta-tion of national importance and not those of Stateor regional planning agencies. There are about1,000 airports, not listed in the NASP, that areintegral parts of State and regional developmentplans; and their exclusion means that sponsors orState planning agencies cannot expect Federal aidfor developing these facilities. Table 52 shows acomparison of the airports included in NASP andin State system plans. Only in three cases (Florida,Iowa, and New York) does the NASP includemore airports than the State plan.

GENERAL PROBLEMS IN AIRPORT SYSTEM PLANNINGAirport planning, as practiced today, is a for-

malized discipline that combines forecasting, engi-neering, and economics. Because it is performedlargely by government agencies, it is also a polit-ical process, where value judgments and institu-tional relationships play as much a part as tech-nical expertise. On the whole, airport plannershave been reasonably successful in anticipatingfuture needs and in devising effective solutions.Still, mistakes have been made—sometimes be-cause of poor judgment or lack of foresight andsometimes because of certain characteristics of theplanning process itself. In effect, the process andthe methods employed predispose planners to-ward solutions that may be “correct” for a singleairport but perhaps not for the community, re-gion, or airport system as a whole. As a result,airport plans may take on a rigidity that is inap-propriate in light of changing conditions or a nar-rowness of focus that does not make best use ofresources.

Demand as an Independent Variable

A major problem in the planning process at alllevels is the tendency to treat demand as an inde-

pendent factor. Planners forecast future demandand then use those forecasts to justify the needfor facilities, to frame their design, and to ascer-tain whether there will be sufficient revenue topay for them.

Basic economics indicates that supply and de-mand exist in an equilibrium relationship that ismediated by price. When prices fall, demand in-creases; when prices rise, demand falls. The sys-tem is in equilibrium when price reaches a levelwhere supply exactly equals demand. This basicrelationship holds for airport supply (capacity)and demand, as in other market situations. Pricein this case includes not only monetary trans-actions but also the speed and convenience of airtransportation and the cost of delay. The plan-ning process, however, does not typically ap-proach airport needs from a market perspective.

The predisposition to treat demand as an in-dependent variable in the planning process is il-lustrated by FAA’s guidelines to airport plannerson how to make forecasts in support of masterplans (written in 1971 but still current). After at-tributing the then current “airport crisis” to lowforecasts in the past, the guidelines instruct plan-

25-420 0 - 84 - 14

. . . .


Table 52.-Comparison of National and State Airport System Plans, 1982

Airports in SASPb Airports in NASP

State Total airports Number Percent Number Percent

193689224105297312

2837

514125

51

&36535537611529216049

216291597166393

; $128

522711564862865556742924101612082

16282

8963

205322

90421105

84c

9486

2978326

4105136d

171601139280

1117395473936

16614178

1311191214612676081

11285

12617489

195d6

6584g l d

292512377

191c

111

42

44—4282

10027931120

10933821325233063332960176424473363373623

: :173915196022

121307952

1115857373859—2640

72275

5666

22056164

126111

16389482

: ;5460343132

1048375

100727627124044917850

1051046291

6535578

2263913

:308429

374025637418571125893119

; ;262447212163153614452538232123

; :1927

9

:15

X65

z454421

: ;332028

Totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.136 4.634 35 3.599 27


ners not to consider possible constraints on avia-tion demand in developing forecasts, except in cer-tain limited cases. Rather, it advises the plannerto focus on the “total demand potential” of theairport:

In the [planner’s] development of [airport activ-ity] forecasts, an unconstrained approach is usu-ally the best approach . . . .

The “unconstrained” forecast represents the po-tential aviation market in which all of the basicfactors that tend to create aviation demand areused, without regard to any constraining circum-stances . . . that could affect aviation growth atany specific airport or location. Using this ap-proach, it is possible to determine the theoreticaldevelopment needs in accordance with the totaldemand potential. For an airport serving an ex-ceptionally high activity metropolitan area, how-ever, potential constraints and alternative meth-ods to reduce them should be considered (emphasissupplied ).5

It is particularly noteworthy that the documentinstructs planners to consider constraints on de-mand solely for the purpose of finding ways toreduce them.

Treatment of demand as an independent vari-able is rooted in the practice of civil engineeringwhen designers have to plan facilities for eventstotally beyond their control. In designing a floodcontrol project, for example, the demand on thefacility is purely a function of natural forces overwhich the planner can exercise no control. De-mand on an airport, however, is not an uncon-trollable natural phenomenon; it responds tochanges in the price of using the airport. For ex-ample, there is presumably some set of marketconditions under which no one would fly betweenthe hours of 5 and 7 p.m., even though this is cur-rently the period of peak demand. Alternatively,if adequate facilities are not provided, some de-mand wiIl be suppressed. No such similar respon-siveness exists in the natural demand placed onflood control facilities.

The costs of sizing the system to serve peak-period demand are very high. To the extent thatpassengers are willing to bear that cost, the in-

‘Airport Muster Plans, Advisory Circular AC 150/5070+5 (Wash-ington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration, 1971), pp. 11, 13.

vestment in facilities to accommodate this demandis a good use of economic resources. Yet, thestructure of the entire system is based on the prem-ise that the passengers are willing to bear the cost,and they are rarely given a choice to save moneyby altering the time of day at which they chooseto fly. While airlines sometimes provide discountsto night passengers or to those flying in slacktravel seasons, these are exceptions. Usually, theprice of traveling at the peak period is no morethan at offpeak periods.

The lack of incentives for traveling during off-peak periods is to some extent a problem reachingbeyond airport planning per se. If airport spon-sors choose not to institute peak-hour prices, plan-ners have littIe choice but to accommodate thatdecision. At the same time, however, the plan-ning process often fails to identify alternatives tosizing facilities for unconstrained peak load. Insome cases such alternatives may be preferableor, at the very least, worthy of consideration inthe planning process.

Plans as Advocacy Documents

While the airport planning process may takeinto account the desires of the community servedby the airport, the master plan itself often has adistinctly advocative flavor. This is perhaps bestillustrated in a passage from the introduction toFAA’s guidelines to airport planners on masterplanning:

. . . This advisory circular recommends pro-cedures to be followed in making the master planstudy of the individual airport and suggests meth-ods of coordinating, organizing, and presentingthe master plan document so that it will be aviable tool for the promotion of airport improve-ments (emphasis supplied).6

Such use of the master plan raises some disturb-ing questions about the process. Should the plan-ning process plan be a medium for promoting aparticular plan for airport development, chosenby the planner or airport operator, who usuallyhas a vested interest in building or expanding theairport? Or should it present a set of optional de-velopment paths for community decisionmakers?If advocacy of development is an appropriate use

bIbid., p. 3.


of the master plan, then should not some forumbe available to weigh airport development againstother community needs and to integrate airportprojects with other community plans?

In practice, the political body with jurisdictionover the airport performs this oversight function,but it is hampered by planning documents thatpresuppose the desirability of airport expansion.The master plan is often quite thorough in pre-senting alternative forms of expansion and in ar-raying the pros and cons of each. It is usuallysilent on the more fundamental questions ofwhether any improvement should be undertakenand what options there are besides airport devel-opment.

Lack of Integration Among Plans

Airport planning at local, regional, State, andFederal levels is not well coordinated and in-

tegrated. To some extent, this arises naturallyfrom different areas of concern and expertise. Atthe extremes, local planners are attempting to planfor the development of one airport, while FAAis trying to codify the needs of several thousandairports which might request aid. Local plannersare most concerned with details and local condi-tions that will never be of interest to a nationalplanning body.

The lack of common goals and mutually con-sistent approach is also evident between Federaland State planning. Over 10 years ago, the Fed-eral Government recognized the need to strengthenState system planning and provided funds for thispurpose under ADAP, and nearly all the StateAirport System Plans have been prepared withFederal funding. However, it does not seem thatFAA has always made full use of these productsin preparing the NASP. The State plans containmany more airports than the NASP, and thepriorities assigned to airport projects by States do

—Photo credit: Aviation Division, County of Los Angeles

Urban encroachment at a GA airport


not always correspond to those of the NASP.While it is probably not desirable, or even possi-ble, for the NASP to incorporate all elements ofthe State plans, greater harmony between thesetwo levels of planning might lead to more orderlydevelopment of the national airport system.

There is also a lack of coordination betweenairport planning and other types of transporta-tion and economic planning. This is particularlyevident in the case of land use, where airport plansare often in conflict with other local and regionaldevelopments. Even though the airport author-ity may prepare a thoroughly competent plan,lack of information about other public or privatedevelopment proposed in the community (or fail-ure of municipal authorities to impose and main-tain zoning ordinances) allows conflicts to developover use of the airport and surrounding land. Thisproblem can be especially severe where there areseveral municipalities or local jurisdictions sur-rounding the airport property.

An additional problem is the lack of integra-tion of airport planning with that for other modes

of transportation. An airport is an intermodaltransportation center, where goods and peopletransfer between the ground and air modes. Itforms an important link in the total transporta-tion system of a region. The ground transporta-tion system providing access to the airport canbe a significant contributor to congestion, delay,and the cost of airport operation. Yet, airportoperators have little authority or influence overdecisions on transportation beyond the airportproperty line.

At the national level, there is also a lack of in-tegrated planning within FAA. There does notseem to be close coordination between FAA’s Na-tional Airport System Plan and the NationalAirspace System Plan. While the two plans arebased on the same aviation demand forecasts,they have not been brought under a commonschedule. Nothing has been published to showhow the airport improvements contained in oneplan will interact with air traffic control (ATC)improvements proposed in the other.

NATIONAL PLAN OF INTEGRATED AIRPORT SYSTEMS

The Airport and Airway Improvement Act of1982 (Title V, Public Law 97-248) reflects astrengthened congressional commitment to airportplanning. At the regional and State levels, the lawdedicates 1 percent of Federal airport developmentfunds for planning, with availability contingenton a demonstrable (not demonstrated) ability toconduct regional planning. As such, the new lawprovides an opportunity for State governmentsand regional agencies to institute or expand theirplanning efforts.

The Congressional Mandate

The act calls for refinement of the national air-port planning process by instructing the Depart-ment of Transportation to develop a NationalPlan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) bySeptember 1984. The description of this plan inthe legislation makes it clear that the intent is toexpand and improve planning at the national

level. Specifically, the act calls for “integrated air-port system planning,” which it defines as:

. . . the initial as well as continuing develop-ment for planning purposes of information andguidance to determine the extent, type, nature,location, and timing of airport developmentneeded in a specific area to establish a viable,balanced, and integrated system of public-useairports. 7

Planning includes identification of system needs,development of estimates of systemwide devel-opment costs, and the conduct of such studies,surveys, and other planning actions, includingthose related to airport access, as may be neces-sary to determine the short-, intermediate-, andlong-range demands that the airport must meet.

The policy declaration points out several waysin which the planning effort is to be “integrated. ”It states that:

‘Public Law 97-248, Title V, $503 (a) (7).


. . . it is in the national interest to develop inmetropolitan areas an integrated system of air-ports designed to provide expeditious access andmaximum safety. . . . [and it is in the national in-terest to] encourage and promote the developmentof transportation systems embracing variousmodes of transportation in a manner that willserve the States and local communities efficientlyand effectively.8

From this it is evident that the legislation re-quires a plan which is “integrated” in two ways:1) geographically, in the sense that all airports ina region are to be considered together; and 2) in-termodally, in the sense that planning for the avia-tion should be part of the planning for the regionaltransportation system as a whole. The require-ments of the act will bring FAA’s airport plan-ning process into closer relation with metropolitanand regional transportation planning than everbefore.

Desirabie Features of NPIAS

The NPIAS is not scheduled for publication un-til September 1984, and it is not yet clear howFAA will respond. Certainly the task will requireeither major modifications of the planning proc-ess that has produced the NASP or developmentof a completely new planning tool to respond tothe intermodal and regional aspects of the con-gressional mandate. As an aid to Congress inevaluating the plan when it is released, OTA of-fers the following general comments about fea-tures that would be desirable in an integrated na-tional airport plan.

Comprehensiveness

First of all, the NPIAS should be truly nationalin scope. A national plan may not need to includeevery airport in the country, but it should ex-plicitly define the interest of the Federal Govern-ment with respect to airports of all sizes and pur-poses. The current NASP has been criticized bothfor being too broad and for being too exclusive.On the one hand, many airports are included inthe NASP are of scant importance to the nationalsystem of air transportation. On the other hand,the NASP excludes about 1,000 airports that are

‘Public Law 97-248, Title V, $502 (a) (9) and $502 (b).

part of State Airport System Plans or that mayotherwise have some regional importance. Thedifficulty might be traced to the fact that airportsare either “in” or “out” of the NASP. A com-prehensive system plan may have to define ahierarchy of Federal interest, specifying differentdegrees of importance and eligibility for funding.

A complete plan will thus have to start witha careful definition of a national airport systemand the airports that make it up. It is entirely pos-sible that the degree of Federal interest will notbe the same for all types of airports, dependingon their size, mission, and locale. In some cases,airports may be of only local or regional impor-tance and of no direct interest to the FederalGovernment. However, if the plan is to be com-prehensive, these airports should be identified andperhaps earmarked for consideration in State orregional plans.

Comprehensiveness also requires that the NPIASaddress all types of development. Some types ofimprovements, particularly those to be made withFederal funds, will be of chief concern. However,in the interest of completeness, the plan will haveto assess total airport system costs, not just thoseeligible for funding through the Airport Improve-ment Program. Further, a complete plan will haveto consider, from the viewpoint of total systemcosts, where there are more cost-effective alter-natives to investment in new or expanded facil-ities. In addition to projects for accommodatinggrowth, it will be necessary to consider methodsfor directing and managing demand growth to fitwithin existing capacity.

Integration

The act specifically calls for integrated region-wide planning, but formulation of the NPIAS af-fords FAA the opportunity to integrate the plan-ning process even further by developing a cohesiveand hierarchical planning system in which re-gional or statewide system planning activities aremeshed into airport planning at the national level.Further, this broader concept offers the oppor-tunity to devise a system for coordinating airportplanning more closely with system planning forother modes of transportation, at both the re-gional and national level.


It is especially important that the NPIAS seekto integrate airport planning with two other ma-jor FAA planning efforts—the National AirspaceSystem Plan (NAS Plan) and the National Air-space Review (NAR). Initial funding for the NASPlan was also approved in the 1982 Airport andAirway Improvement Act. This plan, publishedin early 1982, outlines FAA’s future improvementsto the en route and terminal area ATC systemsover the next 10 years. The NAR is a 42-monthstudy of air traffic procedures, begun in June 1982

as a joint undertaking of FAA and aviation in-dustry representatives. Its objectives are to im-prove the efficiency of traffic flow in the airspacesystem by revising regulations and instituting newprocedures that reflect technological improve-ments in aircraft and air traffic control.

The three segments of the aviation system—airports, ATC facilities, and airspace use pro-

cedures—need to be developed in coordination.Piecemeal development could lead to inefficien-cies, bottlenecks, and misdirected investment. Forexample, it would probably be a waste of re-sources to add runway capacity at an airport ifthe ATC system cannot be upgraded to handlethe additional traffic in that area until severalyears later. Conversely, there is little advantagein seeking to move traffic more expeditiously be-tween airports only to have it encounter delaysin the terminal areas where improvements havenot yet been scheduled or implemented. Integrateddevelopment of airports, ATC facilities, and airtraffic procedures will be necessary to obtain max-imum benefit from any one of the parts and toensure cost-effective investment.

Priorities

Another important consideration will be theidentification of priorities for implementation and

Photo cradlt: Faderal Aviation Admlnlstratlon

Recently completed airfield, terminal, and landside expansion at Los Angeles International Airport

206 Airport System Development

funding by class of airport and type of need. FAAattempted in the latest version of the NASP toclassify needs according to three levels of programobjectives: 1) maintain existing system, 2) bringairports up to standards, and 3) expand the sys-tem. Within these levels, gross estimates of needsfor each class of airport (air carrier, general avia-tion, etc. ) are made. While this classification sys-tem represents a good start, it is still not fullysatisfactory. The NPIAS plan should include ascheme for relating specific types of airport pro-jects to systemwide objectives and assigning pri-orities to specific projects. Such priorities couldaid FAA in evaluating the systemwide effects ofspecific program actions and serve as a guide inthe distribution of capital development funds.

Multiple Planning Horizons

Another desirable characteristic of the planwould be the use of multiple planning horizons.Development of airports is an ongoing processand a given plan of improvements often takes anumber of years to complete. The large-scale in-vestments are often “lumpy,” and a period of in-tense development and heavy investment at anairport may be followed by a lull of several years.The use of several planning horizons-perhaps of5, 10, and 20 years—would aid in integratingshort-term improvements into smoother long-term investment paths at each airport. It wouldalso help to relate improvements at individual air-ports to broader system goals. Given the uncer-tainties of forecasting, long-range projections aresubject to greater error and therefore must betreated more flexibly. Procedures for periodicrevision and updating of the plan would allow forthese longer-range projections and decisions to bereviewed and adjusted. Use of multiple planninghorizons is already a a characteristic of the NASP,which sets out airport-by-airport needs on a 5-and 10-year basis. The horizon might usefully beextended to 20 years, with the latter 10-yearperiod intended as no more than an approxima-tion (or “early warning”) of long-range trends andneed.

Time phasing of improvements is an importantfeature that has been missing in previous FAA air-

port system plans. As a general rule, planned air-port developments should be related to an over-all schedule determined by forecasted growth,expected leadtime, and relationships with the ele-ments of the NAS Plan and the NAR. The devel-opment schedule for all parts of airspace system—airports, ATC facilities, and air traffic procedures—should be tied together in a common planningframework. For example, if under the NAS Planan airport is to receive ATC improvements thatwill increase airside capacity, this should be re-flected in the airport system plan as it may dic-tate other terminal or landside improvements.Conversely, in planning ATC improvements toincrease capacity, implementation should be sched-uled first at those airports where they will havethe most beneficial effect.

It may be well, insofar as possible, to buildthese schedules around “trigger events.” For ex-ample, instead of scheduling improvement atsome airport for a particular year, implementa-tion might be made conditional on passengerenplanements or aircraft operations reaching somespecified level. This approach has two advantages.It provides protection against the inevitable in-accuracy of forecasts, and it allows flexibility inmatching improvements with need.

Coordination and Review

There will be a need for periodic review andupdate. To see that the broadest range of interestsare taken into account, the initial planning andthe review process should be conducted in coop-eration with State, regional, and local planningauthorities and with the aviation community atlarge. The consultative planning technique re-cently employed by FM in the National AirspaceReview and the Industry Task Force on AirportCapacity Improvement and Delay Reduction hasbeen useful not only in helping FAA recognize andaccommodate diverse interests, but also in enrich-ing the planning process. Involvement of otherplanning agencies and private organizations rep-resenting airport users in a continuing dialoguewill ensure that improvements contemplated inthe NPIAS are in harmony with user needs andthe objectives of State, regional, and local avia-tion agencies.