southern california airport exploratory study 2 meetings/2018... · 2018-03-15 · executive...

Southern California Airport Exploratory Study 2.0

Tri-County Region:

Orange County Riverside County

San Diego County

Prepared by:

CSUSM FEMBA Class of 2015

CSUSM SAMPLE STUDY - Exhibit 6

1

TABLEOFCONTENTS

EXECUTIVESUMMARY............................................................................................................1

CHAPTER1:TRI‐COUNTYREGION......................................................................................5Introduction............................................................................................................................................................5ResearchQuestions.................................................................................................................................................................6ScopeandLimitations............................................................................................................................................................6Methodology...............................................................................................................................................................................7

DefiningtheGeographicReach.........................................................................................................................8AirportProximity.....................................................................................................................................................................9

DescribingtheTri‐CountyRegion.................................................................................................................11SanDiegoCounty...................................................................................................................................................................11OrangeCounty.........................................................................................................................................................................12RiversideCounty....................................................................................................................................................................14

CurrentAverageAirTraveler.........................................................................................................................15Age................................................................................................................................................................................................17AverageHouseholdIncome...............................................................................................................................................17Education...................................................................................................................................................................................17FrequencyofTravel..............................................................................................................................................................17Race..............................................................................................................................................................................................18Summary....................................................................................................................................................................................18

Tri‐CountyRegionDemographics.................................................................................................................18Population.................................................................................................................................................................................18RacialandEthnicComposition........................................................................................................................................20Education...................................................................................................................................................................................21Socioeconomics.......................................................................................................................................................................21PropensityforTravel...........................................................................................................................................................23

Conclusions..........................................................................................................................................................24

CHAPTER2:AIRPORTBENCHMARKINGSTUDY.........................................................26Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................26ResearchQuestions...............................................................................................................................................................27ScopeandLimitations..........................................................................................................................................................27Methodology.............................................................................................................................................................................28DataCollection........................................................................................................................................................................29

DataAnalysisandResults................................................................................................................................61EnplanementCapacity.........................................................................................................................................................61AirTrafficPatterns(Domesticvs.International)....................................................................................................64EnplanementsperFlight(Domesticvs.International).........................................................................................66RatioofTotalEnplanements(AgainstMetropolitanAreaPopulation).........................................................68


2

AirTrafficProjections..........................................................................................................................................................70Conclusions..........................................................................................................................................................73

CHAPTER3:GROUNDTRANSPORTATION....................................................................75Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................75ResearchQuestions...............................................................................................................................................................75ScopeandLimitations..........................................................................................................................................................76Methodology.............................................................................................................................................................................76

PrivateTransportation.....................................................................................................................................77Introduction.............................................................................................................................................................................77StateRoute76.........................................................................................................................................................................79Interstate5................................................................................................................................................................................82Highway78...............................................................................................................................................................................85Interstate15.............................................................................................................................................................................87EnvironmentalImpacts.......................................................................................................................................................88CapacityManagementforProposedAirport.............................................................................................................90

PublicTransportation......................................................................................................................................91Introduction.............................................................................................................................................................................91COASTER....................................................................................................................................................................................93BREEZE.......................................................................................................................................................................................94MetroLink..................................................................................................................................................................................96CommuterLink........................................................................................................................................................................98Amtrak........................................................................................................................................................................................99EnvironmentalImpacts.......................................................................................................................................................99CapacityManagementforProposedAirport..........................................................................................................100

ParkingInfrastructure...................................................................................................................................102Introduction..........................................................................................................................................................................102ParkingforPrivateTransportation............................................................................................................................104ParkingforPublicTransportationandRemoteParking...................................................................................106

Recommendations...........................................................................................................................................106PublicTransportation.......................................................................................................................................................106PrivateTransportation.....................................................................................................................................................107

CHAPTER4:EMPLOYMENTANDMULTIPLIEREFFECT..........................................110Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................110ResearchQuestions............................................................................................................................................................110Methodology..........................................................................................................................................................................111

AnalysisandResults........................................................................................................................................112ConstructionCostsandEmployment.........................................................................................................................112ConstructionEmployees&Wages...............................................................................................................................113

On‐AirportEmployment................................................................................................................................118


3

ImpactofFreight/CargoonEmployment................................................................................................................122EmploymentCategories...................................................................................................................................................123RegionalEconomicImpact.............................................................................................................................................129

TheMultiplierEffect........................................................................................................................................129OpportunityLossfromAsianMarkets......................................................................................................................132

Conclusion..........................................................................................................................................................134

CHAPTER5:POLITICALCONSIDERATIONS................................................................135Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................135ResearchQuestions............................................................................................................................................................136Methodology..........................................................................................................................................................................136

Analysis................................................................................................................................................................137KeyPoliticalStakeholders...............................................................................................................................................137Benefits....................................................................................................................................................................................141Drawbacks..............................................................................................................................................................................142AlternativestoMCBCampPendleton........................................................................................................................147PoliticalStrategies..............................................................................................................................................................151

OpportunitiesforCollaboration..................................................................................................................153SANDAG...................................................................................................................................................................................153IRP(Inter‐regionalPartnership).................................................................................................................................154SanDiegoTri‐CountyFundingAreaCoordinatingCommittee.......................................................................155OtherPotentialPartnerships.........................................................................................................................................155

Conclusion..........................................................................................................................................................156

INTERNATIONALEXPLORATORYAIRPORTSTUDY2.0CONCLUSIONS............158ServingtheTravelNeedsoftheTri‐CountyPopulation......................................................................158IncreasingAir‐TravelCapacityforSouthernCalifornia......................................................................158BuildinganEfficientandSustainableGroundTransportSystem....................................................159CreatingJobsandBuildingtheEconomy..................................................................................................159

REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................161Chapter1.............................................................................................................................................................161Chapter2.............................................................................................................................................................163Chapter3.............................................................................................................................................................168Chapter4.............................................................................................................................................................172Chapter5.............................................................................................................................................................175


ExecutiveSummary 1

EXECUTIVESUMMARY

The 2013 Exploratory Airport Study (EAS), conducted by the California State

UniversitySanMarcosMBACohortClassof2014, concluded thatSanDiego International

Airportwillbeincapableofhandlingtheregion’sairtravelneedsbeyond2035.SanDiego

InternationalAirport(SAN)currentlyoffers fewoptions for international traveldueto its

shortrunwayandlimitedspaceofexpansion.Thestudyevaluatedthreepotentiallocations

foranewairportwithinSanDiegoCounty.Itconcludedthattheonlyfeasiblelocationfora

newinternationalairportwithinthecountywouldbelocatedonornearthesouthernedge

ofCampPendletoninOceanside.Anewairportwouldrequiresomewherebetween5,000‐

6,000acresalong thesouthernedgeof themilitarybase.This represents less than5%of

125,000acresthatCampPendletonoccupies.

The 2014 Exploratory Airport Study (EAS), conducted by the California State

UniversitySanMarcosMBACohortClassof2015picksupwherethepreviousoneleftoff.It

explores the regional implications of an international airport in Oceanside, California.

Specifically, this report expands the definition of the airport’s reach beyond San Diego

County to include Southwest Riverside and Southern Orange Counties adjacent to the

proposedCampPendletonOceansidelocation.Forthepurposesofthisstudy,thisregionis

referred to as the Tri‐County region and the proposed airport is called the Southern

CaliforniaInternationalAirport(SCIA).Ineffect,thecurrentstudycompletelyreframesthe

conversationfromthelong‐discusseddebateoverwhereanewSanDiegoAirportmightbe

located, to a focusonbuilding an airport to serve theneedsof all of SouthernCalifornia.

TheregionservedbytheproposedSCIAwillstretchfromLosAngelesCaliforniatoTijuana,

Mexico.

Chapter 1 defines the Tri‐County region in terms of its driving distance from the

proposedairportsite.ResidentsofTri‐County–aswellasallSanDiegoCountyresidents–

are underserved compared to national averages in terms of reasonable access to a large

internationalairport. InternationaltravelerswishingtoreachSanDiego,andSanDiegans

wishing to travel internationally, are forced to connect through LAX or other major

international airports. Furthermore, the Tri‐County population is projected to reach 2.7

million – almost as large as the current SanDiego County population – over the next 25

years. A new international airport located in theTri‐County regionwouldprovidemuch‐

neededaccess to international travel for these residents, aswell as convenient access for


ExecutiveSummary 2

internationalbusinessandleisuretravelerstotheregion.Thisalsoprovidesaccesstocross‐

bordertravelerswhocurrentlycommuteformTijuanatoLAX

TheTri‐Countyregionishometoanethnicallydiverse,welleducated,andrelatively

affluentpopulation.Ingeneral,residentsarerepresentativeoftoday’sflyingpublic.Infact,

theyaremorelikelytotravelinternationallythantheU.S.population,yettheyhavelimited

accesstointernationaltraveloptionsintheimmediateregion.CampPendletonishometo

40,000militarypersonnelandtheirfamilies,whowouldalsobenefitgreatlyfromhavingan

international airport to serve their non‐duty air travel needs. The region is also home to

someofSouthernCalifornia’smosticonictouristattractions.Inordertoestimatethesizeof

an international airport in Southern California, the Chapter 2 begins by investigating the

size and capacity of its existing and planned airport infrastructure including LosAngeles

International Airport (LAX), Long Beach (LGB), John Wayne (SNA), Ontario (ONT), San

DiegoInternational(SAN),andMcClellan‐Palomar(CLD). Studiesshowthatthatby2040,

these existing airportswill be insufficient tomeet the demands of the flying public even

afterplannedimprovementsarecompleted.Theywillfallshortofdemandbyanestimated

30‐40millionenplanements.This is approximately the samenumbercurrently servedby

SanFranciscoInternationalAirport(SFO).

The second part of Chapter 2 benchmarks the Tri‐County and San Diego regions

against other major metropolitan areas served by major international airports. These

includeNewYorkCity,servedbyJFK,LaGuardia,andNewarkairports;Chicago,servedby

O’Hare and Midway airports; San Francisco, served by SFO and Oakland airports; and

Dallas, servedbyDallas‐FortWorth andLoveField airports. The analysis highlights that

eachoftheseareasisservedbyasinglemajorinternationalairport(two,inthecaseofNew

York City) aswell as a large airport handling primarily domestic flights. Currently,more

than98percentofflightsintoandoutofSANaredomestic.Withsuchashortrunwayand

no room to expand, SAN (the primary airport for San Diego) cannot accommodate

international traffic. The benchmarking study demonstrates that SAN can and should

remain a vital domestic gateway, much like Midway, Oakland, and LaGuardia; SCIA in

Oceanside,withinjusta45‐60minutedriveforthemajorityoftheregion’spopulation,will

beabletoaccommodateinternationaltravel.

Commuting to and from LAX over long stretches of freeway only exacerbates the

region’stravelandenvironmentalproblems.TheproposedlocationofSCIAisconveniently

situated in Oceanside, California, which is a connecting point for currently underutilized

public transit systems from throughout the region. Chapter 3 investigates planned


ExecutiveSummary 3

improvementsinthepublicandprivatetransportationinfrastructuresthatwillbeneeded

to offer efficient, environmentally friendly, and sustainable access to the airport. The

analysisindicatesthatcurrentandfutureplansfortransportationinfrastructureshouldbe

abletoaccommodatethegroundtransportationneedsofamajorinternationalairport.

Buildingamajorairport isacapital, labor,and time‐intensiveproject. Therecent

expansion of SAN took four years, while the construction of the Denver International

Airport,America’snewest, tooksixyears. However,suchtimeframesare forconstruction

only and do not include additional time required for obtaining government and voter

approvals, bidding, or design. Chapter 4 estimates the regional economic impacts of

buildingandoperatingamajor internationalairport in theTri‐Countyregion.Benchmark

analysis against recent projects indicates that during construction phase, the proposed

airportwillemployasmanyas11,000constructionworkers,manyofwhomwillrelocateto

NorthSanDiegoCounty.Onceopenedand fullyoperational, theairportwill attractmore

hospitality, transport andwarehousingbusiness to the region.By conservativeestimates,

the new airport will bring between 100,000 and 200,000 new offsite jobs to the region.

Thisiscomparabletothe189,000newoffsitejobscreatedbythenewDenverAirport.By

the time SCIA begins operations, new workers could potentially infuse an additional $3

billionto$7billionintothelocaleconomy.

Theneedforanewinternationalairportisclear.Currentandplannedinfrastructure

in Southern Californiawill soon be insufficient tomeet the air travel needs of the flying

public. Thesetravelersalsovoteandlivewithintheregion. Thus,thepolitical influences

and implications on the decision to build the airport require both time and careful

consideration.Chapter5addressestheseconcerns.Therearemanystakeholderswhowill

haveavoiceinwhetherornotthisprojectcanbelaunched.Suchaprojectwouldrequire

agreement among stakeholders including the U.S.Military at Camp Pendleton, San Diego

County voters, local businesses and communities, and many regional and national

government agencies. A series of in‐depth interviews elicited the concerns and interests

fromrepresentativesoftheseparties.Theyareincludedanddiscussedinthereport.

Politicalandpersonal concernsandoppositionaside,all stakeholders interviewed

agree that a new international airportwould provide tremendous benefits to the region.

These benefits include increased air travel, tourism, and business and community

development.Nonetheless,thereareanumberoflegitimateconcernsanddrawbacksthat

willneedtobeaddressedandsurmounted.Themilitaryrepresentsnearlyone‐thirdofthe

economyofSanDiegoCounty.Theyhavebeenandwillremainavitalpartofthelifeofthe


ExecutiveSummary 4

Tri‐County Region. Thus, any discussions concerning the new airport on or near Camp

Pendletonmustnotonlyaddressmilitaryconcerns,butmustseektoenlistthemilitaryas

active partners and beneficiaries of the new facility. The report ends with a series of

recommendations for building upon existing relationships and cooperative efforts among

leadersthroughouttheTri‐Countyregion.Ifproperlyexecuted,theserecommendationswill

helpmaketheconceptofSouthernCaliforniaInternationalAirportareality.


Chapter1:Tri‐CountyRegion 5

CHAPTER1:TRI‐COUNTYREGION

Introduction

The2013CaliforniaStateUniversitySanMarcos(CSUSM)MBAAirportExploratory

Study1.0(EAS2013)concludedthatthesiteforanadditionalinternationalairportinSan

Diegoisbest locatedatMCASCampPendletoninOceanside.Whiletherecommendedsite

for the proposed Southern California International Airport (SCIA) is in North San Diego

County,itisalsoadjacenttoSouthOrangeandSouthwestRiversidecounties.Anewairport

locatedatthissitewillbepositionedtoservethesethreecounties. Therefore, itbecomes

necessarytodefineanddescribethisTri‐Countyregion.

The Tri‐County region can be defined on a variety of dimensions, including

population demographics, regional trends,

and growth patterns. Defining the region’s

geographicboundarywillprovideafocusfor

the 2014 CSUSM MBA Airport Exploratory

Study 2.0 of the proposed airport site. The

respective government agencies and

associations have defined geographic

boundarieswithineachofthethreecounties

for various purposes. For example, Orange

CountyandSanDiegoCountycanbedivided

into north and south sub‐regions.

Population clusters, particularly in the

westernportionRiversideCountycanbeusedtodescriberegionswithinit.TheTri‐County

regionasawholewillbedefinedastheareamadeupofacombinationoftheseestablished

regions fromwithineachcounty.Therefore, theTri‐Countyregion for thepurposeof this

study comprises North San Diego, South Orange, and Southwest Riverside counties as

illustratedinFigure1.1.

The proposed international airport will attract travelers within a reasonable

distancefromtheCampPendletonsite.Thisdistance,orestimatedreach,canbedefinedby

factors such asdrive timesor areaswithunderserved air travel needs. It is important to

evaluateandcomparethecurrentandaveragedrivetimesthroughouttheUnitedStatesand

Figure1.1:Tri‐countygeographicboundaries.



in the Tri‐County region to determine the expected reach of an additional international

airportservingtheregion.Thischapterofthe2014studyexploresthosepossibilities.

In addition to defining a geographic distance surrounding theproposed airport, a

demographicprofileoftheareaisvaluableindescribingtheTri‐Countyregion. Thethree

countieshaveexperienceddifferentpatternsofnoteworthypopulationgrowthinthepast

fewdecades, and specificdemographic groupshavebeenprojected for continuedgrowth

intothefuture.SanDiegodemographicsandgrowthwereexploredbytheEAS2013.Given

anewfocusontheTri‐Countyregion,thisstudywillexpandthedemographicresearchto

includeSouthOrangeandSouthwestRiversidecounties.

ResearchQuestions

Thefollowingresearchquestionswillbeaddressed:

1. What specific geographic boundaries in North San Diego, South Orange, and

SouthwestRiversidecountiesdefinetheTri‐Countyregion?

2. What demographic data provide comparison to the air travel needs of the Tri‐

Countyregion?

3. HowdoesthehistoryandprojectedgrowthofeachcountydescribetheTri‐County

region?

4. HowwilltheproposedairportservetheprojecteddemographicmakeupoftheTri‐

Countyregion?

ScopeandLimitations

Whilethisdocumentaimstocapturecurrentandall‐inclusivedatainexaminingthe

Tri‐County region, limitations occur based on the availability, transparency, and

comparabilityofdata.Forexample,U.S.Censusdataisavailableinten‐yearincrementswith

themostrecentdatasetcompiledin2010.Thisposesachallengeofaccountingforthemost

up‐to‐date demographic data for 2014 aswell as syncing sources other thanU.S. Census

data in analyzing trends. Similarly, ESRI Business Analyst Online (BAO) data supports

currentmunicipalandgovernmentaldatasets,whicharenotalwaysavailableforanalyzing

prioryearsbut rathergrouphistoricaldata intomulti‐yeardatasets todemonstratepast

trends.TheCaliforniaDepartmentofFinance(DOF)projectspopulationanddemographics

for fifty years into the future. However, DOF presents the race/ethnicity demographic

differentlythanESRIBAO.Atableofthedemographicdatafrombothsourcesisincludedin



theappendix.AnalysisoftheU.S.Censussourcedatawasusedtoreconcilethecategorical

differences.

When looking towards the future, projected forecasts represent an educated

prediction,whichmayormaynotbe accurate as futureuntoldeventsmight significantly

impact population anddemographic trends. To account for these issues, the teamused a

trusted and accurate predictor through the use of DOF projections. Additionally, further

researchisneededontheMillennialgeneration,asthisgroupwillbethefutureairtravelers

of 2040. Current research suggests that there are many differences in terms of values,

communication, and technology among the millennial consumers compared to their

predecessorsfromGenerationXandtheBabyBoomergenerations.Inordertosuccessfully

understand and tap into the needs and behaviors of this emerging generation, further

generationalresearchisneeded.

Methodology

TheproposedairportwillbesituatedneartheCampPendletonMarineCorpsBase,

located at the nexus of three counties: San Diego, Orange, and Riverside.

County governmentshavewell‐definedboundariesof sub‐regionswithineach. However,

theTri‐Countyregionthatthisstudyconsidershasnotbeenofficiallydefinedbyanyofthe

three counties. This study proposes definitions for the region along a number of

dimensions using information from various governmental councils such as the Southern

CaliforniaAssociationofGovernments (SCAG)andSanDiegoAssociationofGovernments

(SANDAG).SCAGandSANDAGcreatecomprehensiveplanstoimplementstateandfederal

mandates for transportation, land use, housing needs assessments, air quality, and

community sustainability for regional growth. These government associations provide

informationfordefiningsub‐regionswithintheareaunderstudy.

This study relies on analysis of secondary data sources, including data retrieved

from these governmental councils, from the EAS 2013, and regional Geographical

InformationSystems(GIS).GISisusedtocapture,store,analyze,manage,anddisplaymany

types of geographical data including demographics captured by the U.S. Census Bureau.

CSUSM uses ESRI for geographical data studies. ESRI Community and Business Analyst

modulescreateGISdatamaps through thecompilationofcountyandmunicipaldatasets

fromzipcodes,censustracts,andblockgroups,providingacomprehensiveandconsistent

viewoftheregion.Figures1.1,1.2,1.3,and1.4werecreatedwiththeESRIBusinessAnalyst

Software.TomaximizethebenefitsprovidedbytheGISresources,theteamworkedclosely



withCSUSMGISsubjectmatterexpert,AllenRisley,toestablishconsistentboundariesthat

provideuniformdatasetscapturedandcomparedthroughouttheanalysis.

Forthepurposeofdepictinggrowthtrends,andtoaccuratelydisplaythelandscape

of the Tri‐County region at the estimated time of the proposed airport’s completion, the

teampreparedforecaststodemonstratetheprojectedgrowingandchangingdemographics

oftheregion.TheteamusedexistingforecastdatafromDOFratherthanperformingtrend

analysisofcurrentandpastpopulations.Trendanalysisforgrowthisaninaccurateprocess

andcanleadtodistortedfigures.Agovernment‐planningagencysuchastheDOFprovides

themostreliablepredictionsforregionalgrowth.WhereasU.S.CensusdataunderliesDOF

data,censusdatawasusedtounderstandandreconcilewithESRIBAOdemographicdata.

Secondaryresourcesalsoprovidedthedatausedtomapthegeographicreachofthe

airport. The data were accessed through comparative airport studies and marketing

analysis reports toobjectivelydetermine the targetmarket for air travel to and from the

proposed airport. This defined target market was compared with the region’s

demographics and growth trends to determine the proposed airport’s realistic regional

scope and reach. Additionally, the current and average distances of international and

domesticair travelers to theirclosestairports throughout theUnitedStateswereusedas

benchmarksandconsideredwhendefiningthisreach.

DefiningtheGeographicReach

InordertodiscusstheimpactofaninternationalairportlocatedinNorthSanDiego

County,thegeographicreachofthisairportmustbedefinedandmeasured.Thefirststepin

this process benchmarked thepopulationdensity andproximity tomajor airports across

the United States and California. The geographic reach of LAX, the closest major

international airport to the proposed airport, served as the primary point of such

comparisons.AsthelargestairportinCalifornia,LAXservesasprawlingmetropolitanarea

similar insize to theTri‐Countyregion,and thedrivinghabitsof its customerswill likely

resemble those of the proposed airport future customers making it an ideal model for

comparison.Lastly,theunderservedareasintheTri‐Countyregion,thosebeyondthereach

oftheexistingairportswhoseresidentsmaytravelfurtherduetolimitedairtraveloptions,

wereevaluated.



AirportProximity

Currently, 90% of the United States population lives within 58miles of a major

airport while 90% of Californians live within 43miles (Pearson, M., 2012). However, to

createameasurementmoremeaningfultoSouthernCaliforniaresidents,distanceswillbe

consideredindrivetimes.Therefore,90%ofAmericanslivewithina60‐minutedriveofa

majorairportand90%ofCalifornianslivewithina45‐minutedrive.Furtherexaminationof

thepopulationdensitiesincloseproximitytomajorairportsdemonstratesthattheaverage

Americanliveswithin25milesand30minutes,whileCalifornianslivewithin13milesand

15minutes(Pearson,M.,2012).

AnexaminationofLAXdepartingpassengers reveals that77%originate fromLos

AngelesCounty.Morethan60%ofitstravelersoriginatewithina30‐mileradius,withthe

mostcommonareasoforiginbeingWesternLosAngelesandAnaheim.AminorityofLAX

passengers comes from the surrounding counties, with 13% and 1.5% originating from

Orange and Riverside, respectively (AMPG, 2007). Although the majority of passengers

come from a relatively small radius around LAX, the international hub of Southern

Californiadrawspassengerstravelinguptoapproximatelytwohoursaway.

The percentage of the California population that does not live within an average

drivetimeof45‐minuteswillbecategorizedasresidinginan“underservedarea.”ESRIwas

used to estimate the portion of the Tri‐County region that would be considered

underserved. This exercise identified any sub‐regional areas that are not includedwithin

the average drive time from an

airport,indicatingtheseresidents

maydrive farther to travelbyair

and would therefore expand the

geographicreachoftheproposed

airport. To capture both the

internationalanddomesticneeds

ofairtravelers,eachtypeoftravel

option is evaluated

independently.

Four Southern California

airports provide access for

domestictravel:LAX,JohnWayne

Figure1.2:AirportReachinSouthernCalifornia.



(SNA),Ontario(ONT),andSAN.While

there are additional limited‐offering

airports in the region, only the four

major regional airports will be

evaluated for the purpose of this

research. Using Business Analyst

mappingtools,a45‐minutedrivetime

analysis was applied to these four

airports. Additionally, the proposed

airport location is plottedwith a 45‐

mile radius ring. As displayed in

Figure 1.2, the areas within the

boundary and not highlighted, mostly composed of Riverside County, can be considered

underservedfordomesticairtravel.

Asimilarmethodwasusedtoexamineinternationalairportservicesintheregion.

While ONT and SAN are technically international airports, the number of international

flightsoffered isextremely limited.Therefore,LAX is theonlymajor internationalairport

considered for this analysis. As displayed below in Figure 1., a 45‐minute drive time

boundarywasplottedaroundLAXwitha45‐mileringaroundtheproposedairportsitein

North San Diego County. The result shows that all of San Diego County and Riverside

County,aswellasthesouthernhalfofOrangeCounty,areunderservedforinternationalair

travel.

Inconclusion,theanalysisofcurrentdrivetimeaveragesforairtravelpassengersto

LAX and California population

patternswithin convenientproximity

to an airport, the reasonable

geographic reach of the proposed

international airport canbe expected

to be within a 45‐minute drive time.

However, considering the

underserved areas for international

travel, we expand this scope to the

U.S. average proximity to an airport,

Figure1.3: LAXserviceareaandunderservedarea.

Figure1.4:Drivetimereachoftheproposedairport.



andthereforeconcludethereachoftheproposedairportwilllikelybelimitedbetweena45

to60‐minutedrivetime,asdisplayedbythegreenshadinginFigure1.below.

DescribingtheTri‐CountyRegion

SanDiegoCounty

Asdescribed in theEAS2013,SanDiegoCounty iscomposedofamixtureofboth

urbanandrurallandscapewithanotablemilitarypresence.SanDiegoCountyisthesecond

most populated county in California and the fifth largest county in the United States,

encompassing4,300squaremiles,comparabletothesizeofConnecticut(“SanDiegoCounty

Geography,” 2014). According to the SanDiegoHistory Center (2013), SanDiego County

reacheditspopulationboomattheendofthenineteenthcenturyaftertheTranscontinental

RailroadreachedSanDiego,providingameansoftransportationforinhabitantstoestablish

residential and industrial roots. The county has experienced population growth and is

expectedtosteadilycontinue,accordingtotheCaliforniaDepartmentofFinancepopulation

projections(2014).

Asreportedinthe2010CensusReport,SanDiegoCountyhasatotalof3.1million

residents. By 2040, the Department of Finance projects that the population in SanDiego

Countywillgrowby16.7%toreach3.7millionresidents.Currently,SAN,asingle‐runway

airportlimitedbygeographicalandlogisticalchallenges,servesSanDiegoCountyairtravel.

In 2013 SAN completed a terminal expansion, adding 10 new gates to existing

infrastructure.WhilethisterminalexpansionhasaddedtemporarycapacitytoSAN, ithas

not addressed the geographical or logistical constraints posed by a single runway. As

demonstrated by the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (2006), current

estimates suggest that by the year 2035 SAN will reach maximum capacity and will no

longerbeabletomeetthegrowingairtrafficdemandoftheregion,placingmajoreconomic

strainsontheregion.

SANDAG(2014)clearlydefinestheregionalboundariesofNorthCountyWestand

NorthCountyEast. Thisstudycombinesthesetwosub‐regionstoidentifyandoutlinethe

North San Diego County boundary. This area includes both coastal and inland regions,

including nine incorporated cities. SANDAG’s boundaries are defined according to major

statisticalareasasoutlinedbytheU.S.Census.SANDAGreliesontheseboundariesbecause

theyareconsideredconstantandwillprovideanaccuratetimeseriesanalysiswhilelooking

atbothhistoricalandprojectedtrendsoftheregion.



As recommendedby theEAS2013, theproposed international airport site isbest

suitedatMCASCampPendletoninOceanside,California.CurrentlydomestictraveltoNorth

CountyresidentsisprovidedbyOceansideMunicipalAirportandPalomarMcLellanAirport

in addition to SAN. More importantly, locating an international airport at the proposed

NorthCountylocationsitewillprovideforaccesstoaninternationalairportwithin60miles

(andwithinaone‐hourdrive)ofthemajorityofthepopulationofallofSanDiegoCounty.

Furthermore, strategically locating an international airport centrally inNorth San

DiegoCountywillservetheneedsoftheflyingpublicbeyondtheboundariesofSanDiego

County. The Tri‐County region defined in this study encompasses an area within a 60‐

minutedrivetimetotheairport.WhilethemajorityoftheSanDiegopopulationliveswithin

a60‐minutedrivetothesouthandeastof theproposedairportsite, those livingwithina

one‐hour drive to the north and northeast are residents of Orange and the underserved

population of Southwest Riverside counties – two areas with fast growing populations.

Historically the Tri‐County region has had to choose between LAX or SAN to access

international air travel. When examining the drive times around these international

airports,theTri‐Countyregioniscurrentlyunderserved,providingauniqueopportunityto

provideanewservicetotheregion,aspreviouslydemonstratedinFigures1.3and1.4.

OrangeCounty

Orange County is located immediately north of San Diego County on the Pacific

Coast. Los Angeles County borders Orange County to the north and San Bernardino and

Riverside counties to the east. Spanning just 791 squaremiles, the county is the second

mostdenselypopulatedinCaliforniawithabout3millionresidentsin2010(UnitedStates

CensusBureau).

LosAngelesCounty includedwhat isnowOrangeCounty in1850whenCalifornia

was ceded to the United States. Economic growth and local residents’ pride led to the

formationofOrangeCounty in1889(OCHA,2014). During thatperiod,economicgrowth

wasdependentontherichagriculturallandthatsustainedcattleranchingandmanycrops

including oranges. The expansion of the railroad and development of Newport Bay

commercialshippingportledtoanincreaseintradeoutsideofthecountyandaninfluxof

settlers intothecounty.Existingcommunitiesexpandedandnewtownswereestablished.

Thegrowthofthedemandforcitruswasservedbyhundredsofindividualfarmersrather

thanbigcompanies,whichinitiatedtheaccumulationofwealththatisrecognizedinOrange

Countytoday.



SouthernCaliforniaexperiencedhighlevelsofpopulationgrowthduringWorldWar

II when several newly establishedmilitary bases trained thousands of servicemembers.

The biggest population growth boom occurred in Orange County after the war. Vietnam

refugeeslandedinElToroMarineCorpsAirStationandsettledintheareaalongwithmany

returningservicemembersandtheirfamilies(OCHA,2014). Tourism,manufacturing,and

the service industrybegan todominate the local economy.FollowingKnott’sBerryFarm,

Disneylandopenedin1955makingOrangeCountyaninternationaltouristdestination.The

Anaheim Resort District encompasses Disneyland and the Anaheim Convention Center,

whichopenedin1967andiscurrentlythelargestexhibit facilityontheWestCoast(ACC,

2014).TouristsandbusinesstravelerswithinNorthAmericaoftenarriveanddepartfrom

the Orange County JohnWayne Airport (SNA) situated on 500 acres served by a single

5,700‐footcommercialrunway(OCAIR,2014).

TheSouthOrangeCountyregioncanbedefinedas thegeographicareastretching

south fromthe55Freeway to thecounty'ssouthernborderwithSanDiegoCounty. This

boundary line divides the county along a southwest‐northeast diagonal. Considering the

international travel coverage area described above, only the northern portion of South

OrangeCountyiswithinLAXreach.SNAisincloseproximityfordomestictravel.However,

the southern portion is in the underserved area for international travel. The population

trendsofthecitiestothenorthandsouthofthe55Freewayalsojustifythisboundaryline.

Populationgrowthratesbyjurisdiction,asshownontheCenterforDemographicResearch

mapbelow(Figure1.3),aredrasticallydifferentforcitiestothenorthandsouth.Thecities

of Newport Beach and Irvine, immediately south of this boundary, have had extensive

populationgrowth in thepastdecadewhile thecitiesofCostaMesaandSantaAnato the

immediate north of the 55 freeway have experienced much slower or negative growth

(CDR,2014).



The opening of the proposed airport would imply that the entire growing

population of southern Orange County would live within a 45‐minute drive time of an

international airport. With LAX serving the slower growing population of the northern

regionofOrangeCountyandtheproposedinternationalTri‐Countyairporttothesouth,the

entirepopulationofOrangeCountywillhaveaccesstointernationaltravelservice.

RiversideCounty

Riverside County is the fourth largest county in California in terms of geographic

area.This county encompasses theeasternportionof theTri‐County regionas itborders

northeast SanDiegoCountyand southeastOrangeCounty.During the1980’s and1990’s,

Riversidewas the fastest‐growing county in Californiawith a 76%growth in population.

Since1992,thepopulationofRiversideCountyhasdoubled.Itspopulationismorethanthe

populationsofthirteenstates,includingMaine,HawaiiandNewHampshire.

Recently,growthhasslowed,bringingthepopulationgrowthratebackinlinewith

thestateofCalifornia’saveragerate.TheairtravelneedsofRiversideCountyresidentsare

currently served mainly by Ontario International Airport, a medium‐hub, full‐service

commercial airport that served4.8millionpassengers in 2010.Although this airport has

Figure1.3:OrangeCountyPopulationChangebyJurisdiction



sufficientrunwaylengthforinternationalflights,itislimitedbysmallcustomsfacilitiesand

options for connecting flights. A few major corporations that employ a vast amount of

RiversideresidentsincludePacificBell,AT&T,KaiserPermanente,ThePressEnterpriseCo.,

HUB International Insurance Services, Inc., Abbott Laboratories, University of California

Riverside, and the Millipore Corporation. In addition to these companies, numerous

winerieslocatedinthecityofTemeculahavehelpedfueladditionaljobandrevenuegrowth

forthecounty.

ThedrivetimeanalysiswasusedinconjunctionwithU.S.Censusblockstoestablish

theboundarydefiningtheSouthwestRiversideregion.Censusblocks for thisregionwere

selectedbasedon if theywereeither fullywithin the60‐minutedrive timeareaor if the

majorityoftheblockfellwithinthisarea.Thedefinedregionnaturallyfollowscloselywith

theI‐15corridorasdrivetimesareheavilyinfluencedbyfreewayaccess.Furthermore,the

useofthisdemographicsegmentationisconsistentwithSANDAG’sgeographicdefinitionof

SouthwesternRiverside.

Southwest Riverside is located in close proximity to the I‐15 corridor, a major

transportationarteryconnectingRiversidetoSanDiegoCounty.ArecentSANDAG(2014)

transportationsurveysuggests,“95%ofpersonscommutingintotheSanDiegoregionwere

from the southwestern Riverside County area.” One explanation for the transportation

patternsbetweenthetwoareasincludesthecreationof23%morejobsinSanDiegoleading

uptotheyear2000,whilehousingunitsdisproportionatelygrewbylessthan10%.Housing

pricesinRiversideCountyarecomparablylessthanequivalentoptionsinSanDiegoCounty,

making the commute to San Diego County an attractive option for employment

opportunities. Further studies estimate that 29,000 residents of southwest Riverside

commute into the San Diego region and about half have been doing so for the past five

years. Of the interregional commuters travelling into San Diego County, over 40% are

commutingtojobsinnorthSanDiegoCounty.Onaverage,interregionalcommuterstravel

52 miles for employment, spending 60 minutes traveling to work and 72 minutes

commutinghome.

CurrentAverageAirTraveler

Before describing the current and projected demographic makeup for the Tri‐

County region, it is necessary to understand and define the current average air traveler.

Thiswill establish thedemographicmeasures that represent current air travel aswell as



thedemographicprofileofairtravelers.Thedefinitionofanaverageairtravelerwillcreate

abenchmarkforcomparisontothedemographicsoftheTri‐Countyregion.

Airlinescollectandanalyzemanydatasetspertaining toair travelersanduse the

findings for target marketing, such as advertising space at airports. In addition, some

marketingresearchagenciesspecializeinprofilingairportconsumers.JCDecauxisonesuch

agency that has conductedmarket research on 24 airportswithin theUnited States. The

agencyhasdevelopedademographicprofileofthetypicalairportconsumerateachairport.

ThisstudyreliedontheinformationprovidedbyJCDecauxforacomprehensiveoverviewof

American air travelers within the United States. Of the available airport profiles from

JCDecaux, the team focused on travels through LAX, New York’s John F. Kennedy (JFK),

DallasForthWorth(DAL),andChicagoO’Hare(ORD)ascomparisonairports.Eachofthese

airports provides international travel to and from major metropolitan areas served by

multiple airports. Themain demographic categories comparedwere age, race, education,

householdincome,andfrequencyoftravel.Averagefindingswithinthetargetairportsare

displayedinTable1.1below(JCDecaux).Becausethereisnotan“average”race,thefindings

fromthiscategorywillbediscussedinthesectionbelow.



Airport AvgAge AvgHHI CollegeGradIndex%TraveledByAir

/12moLAX 44 $94,301 151 46%

JFK 44 $105,778 132 49%

DAL 44 $93,387 127 47%

ORD 44 $106,607 147 48%

Average 44 $100,018 139 48%

Table1.1:Demographicprofileofairtravelers.

Age

Aconsistentfindingamongthefourairportsisthattheaveragetraveleris44years

old.Thesupportingdatademonstratesthattheagesarenormallydistributedwithamean

of44years,indicatingthattheveryyoungandtheveryoldarethesmallestrepresentedair

travelpassengers.

AverageHouseholdIncome

ThemeasurementusedbyJCDecauxtorepresentwealthoftheaverageairtraveler

is average household income (HHI). The average HHI for the four sample airports is

$100,018 with relatively low deviations. Considering the high cost of airfares, it is

reasonable to expect ahigherHHIwouldbepositively associatedwithmore frequent air

travel.

Education

Educational attainment of a college degree is represented by an index, indicating

howtheaverageairtravelerateachairportmeasuresagainsttheaverageAmericancitizen.

Withanaverageindexof139,anairtraveleris39%morelikelytohaveacollegeeducation

thantheaverageAmericancitizen.Thismeasureisalsomostlikelyassociatedwithhigher

HHI, which, again, is reasonable to assume a positive relationship to more frequent air

travel.

FrequencyofTravel

To describe the market penetration and reach of the collected data, JCDecaux

providedapercentageofadultsineachDesignatedMarketArea(DMA)whotraveledbyair

inthepastyear.Thisstatisticprovidesadescriptionofairtravelersratherthanadefinition.



Withdataofthisdescribedairtraveler,abenchmarkisestablishedforcomparingtheTri‐

County region’s travel patterns. The findings for each of the DMA’s of the four selected

airportsarethatonaverage48%ofadultshavetraveledbyairinthepastyear.

Race

The percentage distribution of air travelers by race from the selected airports

providesthemostvariation,likelyduetoregionaldifferencesinracialandethnicdiversity.

For example, Hispanics represent the second largest air traveling group, as 31% of the

travelersatLAX,yetonly11%ofthetravelersatDAL.Thelargestpercentageoftravelersat

allfoursampleairportsisWhitewithLAXhavingthelowestat47%andbothDALandORD

havingthehighestat64%.

Summary

Using LAX, JFK, ORD and DAL as comparative airports that best represent the

currentdemographicmakeupoftheTri‐Countyregion,itcanbeconcludedthattheaverage

airtravelerismiddleaged,white,collegeeducated,andispartofamoderatelyhighearning

household.

Tri‐CountyRegionDemographics

While it is notable that each subsection of the Tri‐County has unique differences

related to its respective region, viewing the Tri‐County as a whole will demonstrate the

collectivedemandforaninternationalairportcentrallylocatedinNorthSanDiegoCounty

asanessentialresourcefortheregion.

Population

AsdisplayedinFigure1.6below,theprojectedpopulationgrowthoftheTri‐County

areaisexpectedtosteadilyincrease.By2040,SanDiego,OrangeandRiversidecountiesare

projected to increaseby21%,10%,and58%,respectively. In total, theTri‐Countyregion

populationisprojectedtoincreaseby23%reachingatotalof2.7millionresidentsin2040.



‐

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

ProjectedPopulation

SouthwestRiverside NorthCountySanDiego SouthernOrange Tri‐County

TotalPopulationGrowth

Tri‐County

SouthwestRiversideCounty

NorthCountySanDiego

SouthernOrangeCounty

(2010‐2040) 22.7% 58.0% 20.8% 10.1%Figure1.6:Tri‐countypopulationandgrowthrates.



As displayed Table 1.2 below, the composition of age in the Tri‐County area

demonstrates thebulkof thepopulation isbetween20and59yearsof age.This trend is

projected to remain constant through2040, as49%of thepopulationwill fall in this30‐

year age span.Thepopulation in this target age range is expected to grow13%by2040

whileitwilllose10%oftheoverallshareoftheagedistribution,indicatingthattherewill

beanagingpopulation.

Itisimportanttonotethatthoseindividualsbetweentheagesof20and59in2040

willhavebeenbornbetween theyears1980‐2020.Currentmarketingdatademonstrates

that the average age of an air traveler is 44 years. If the average age remains similar in

2040,

the average air traveler will be from theMillennial generation (born between 1981 and

1996).While current research indicates that theMillennial generation values technology,

information,andconnectedness,itisunknownhowfutureeventswillshapethisgeneration

whowill become the average air travel passengers. Future ongoingunderstanding of the

Millennial generation is needed to both market to and meet the needs of the changing

clientele.

RacialandEthnicComposition

Another characteristic of the Tri‐County

populationthatisimportanttoanalyzeistheracial

and ethnic makeup of the region. The fastest

growingracialgroup in theTri‐County is theAsian

population, projected to increase 34%, or 77,000,

from 230,000 in 2010 to 307,000 in 2040. This is

important to note as this may drive air travel

demand to and from Asia. In addition, the largest

racial group, those self‐identifying as White, is

projected to remain flat throughout theTri‐County

region while experiencing negative growth in

OrangeCounty.

It is also important to note that there will be substantial growth in the Hispanic

population throughout the region. Thosewho self‐identify as ethnically Hispanic are not

Tri‐CountyAgeDistribution

(byshareoftotalpopulation)AgeRange 2010 2040

0‐9 13% 12%

10‐19 15% 12%

20‐29 15% 13%

30‐39 14% 12%

40‐49 14% 13%

50‐59 13% 12%

60‐69 8% 10%

70‐79 5% 9%

80‐89 3% 6%

90‐99 1% 1%

100+ 0% 0%

Table1.2:AgeDemographics.



representedintheracialstatisticsbecausetheymaybeofanyrace.TheU.S.CensusBureau

treats race and ethnicity as separate categories. This ethnic group is projected to see a

population increaseof55%by2040ofwhich82%of this growthwilloccur inRiverside

County.Thislargeincreaseisimportantbecausecurrently31%ofairtravelersatLAXself‐

identify as Hispanic (JCDecaux), demonstrating the importance of meeting the needs of

Hispanicairtravelersinthefuture.

Education

As previously illustrated through the air traveler marketing research, the more

educated an individual is, the

morelikelyheorsheis totravel

byair.In2014,ofthepopulation

over 25 years of age, Orange

County residents have the

greatest percentage of higher‐

level educational attainment at

52%andRiversideresidentshavethelowestpercentageat26%.SanDiegoCountyisinthe

middleat32%.Together,40%ofadults25yearsorolderintheTri‐Countyregionholda

college degree, suggesting that

thiseducatedpopulationislikely

totravelbyair.Whileforecastdataforhigher‐leveleducationalattainmentisnotcurrently

available,itcanbeassumedthatthrough2040educationaltrendswilleitherremainsimilar

tocurrenteducationalattainmentrateorcontinue to increaseasmoreresourcesbecome

availabletoprovideaccesstohigher‐leveleducation.

Socioeconomics

Airtravelismorecostlythanequivalentgroundtransportation,thereforewealthis

avaluabledemographicscharacteristictoconsider.Tostudythefinancialabilityneededto

accessairtravel,ananalysisofhouseholdincomeisuseful.In2014theaveragehousehold

income in SanDiego, Riverside andOrange counties are $90,000, $94,000 and $122,000,

respectively.IntheTri‐Countyregion,theaveragehouseholdincomeis$105,000,and40%

ofthosehouseholdsbringinmorethan$100,000.Thelargestcontributionofwealthtothe

Tri‐Countyregion isattributedtoOrangeCountyresidents,where47%ofthehouseholds

earnmore than $100,000 annually. On average, Orange County households earn $16,000

10%

17%

32%

26%

15%

EducationNoHighSchoolDiploma

HighSchoolGraduate/GED

SomeCollegeand/orAssociate

BachelorDegree

Graduate/ProfessionalDegree

Figure1.7:Tri‐countyeducationdemographic.



more than the averageTri‐Countyhousehold. Current research suggests that the average

U.S.airtravelercomesfromahouseholdearning$100,000.Thisstatisticisinlinewiththe

Tri‐Countyregionwheretheaveragehouseholdearns$105,000annually.Thisimpliesthat

thoselivingwithintheTri‐Countyregionhavethefinancialwherewithaltoaccessairtravel.

Figure1.8:Tri‐countyHHIdemographic.

Similar to average household income, the disposable income measure takes into

accounttheafter‐taxannualincomeavailableforpersonalnecessities,saving,andspending.

Figure1.9.WhiletheaveragedisposableincomefortheTri‐Countyregionis$79,000,North

San Diego, South Orange, and Southwest Riverside County demonstrate averages of

$69,000,$89,000,and$73,000,respectively.Similarly, themediandisposable incomes for

the Tri‐County region is $64,000, while North San Diego, South Orange, and Southwest

Riverside County are $53,000, $75,000 and $62,000, respectively. Looking specifically at

SanDiegoCounty,thereisagreaterlevelofpositiveskew.Themeanis30%lessthanthe

average,demonstratingthattherearesomeveryhighincomesmovingtheaveragenorthof

themedianmeasure. Out of the three regions, Riverside County has the highest share of

annualhousehold incomeasdisposable incomeat77.4%.This ismost likelyattributedto

lowerhousingcostsandstandardsoflivingascomparedtoSanDiegoandOrangecounties.

‐

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

No.ofHouseholds

HouseholdIncome




Figure1.9:Tri‐Countydisposableincomedemographic.

PropensityforTravel

Individuals’propensitytotravelisofparticularinterestwhenanalyzingregionalair

travelneedsandcurrentairtravelbehaviors.Currentairtraveldataprovidesacomparison

of the specified region against the U.S. average, using an index as a comparison tool for

consistency. The total amount spent on airline fares in the Tri‐County region in 2014 is

estimatedatover$617milliondollars,64.1%higherthantheUnitedStatesaverageforthe

same time period. Each individual county in the region is above the U.S. average with

Southern Orange County residents spending 94% more money than the U.S. average.

Additionally, Orange County residents took twice as many than the national average of

three foreign trips by plane in the last three years, which is 97% higher than the U.S.

average. This high level of frequent foreign travel may be attributed to the large and

growing Asian population in the area as well as the highest disposable incomes in the

region.

Beyond international travel, it is important to note people who live in the Tri‐

Countyregionhaveahighpropensitytotravelbyair.Theyexceednationalaveragesonall

studied measures of air travel activity, including: the percentage of residents who took

more than three round trips in the last twelvemonths; the number of domestic trips by

planeinthelasttwelvemonths;andthenumberofforeigntripsbyplaneinthepastthree

‐

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000No.ofHouseholds

DisposableIncome




years. Householdmembers living in the Tri‐County region are 53%more likely than the

averageAmericanHouseholdtobemembersoffrequentflyerprograms.Thirty‐fivepercent

ofhouseholdsarehometoatleastoneresidentholdingapassport,higherthanthenational

average.

2014TravelStatisticsIndex(NationalAverage=100) Tri‐County

SouthwestRiverside

NorthCountySanDiego

SouthernOrange

FrequentFlyerProgramMembers 152.9 142.8 127.2 176.4ResidentsWhoOwnaValidPassport 135.3 140.3 122.8 148.9 Took3+RoundTripsbyPlanein/12mo. 155.1 147.5 121.7 183.9TookanyDomestictripbyplane(scheduled)/12mo 138.7 136.0 116.1 157.4 Took1foreigntripbyplanein/3yrs 131.3 125.8 119.1 142.7Took2foreigntripsbyplanein/3yrs 154.2 134.8 136.3 174.9Took3+foreigntripsbyplanein/3yrs 163.9 126.7 137.7 196.9 AmountSpentonAirlineFares $617,137,615 $84,709,725 $191,045,913 $436,008

IndexforAirlineFaresSpending 164.1 124.0 136.5 193.8Table1.3:Tri‐Countytravelerindex.

Conclusions

With this comprehensive study, it is clear that there is strong demand for both

domesticandinternationaltravelintheTri‐Countyregion.Thisisinspiteofthefactthata

substantialproportionofthepopulationisunder‐servedbyexistingairportsasdefinedby

of drive time. The reach of the proposed airportwill likely bewithin a 45‐minute drive

time.Furthermore, thisstrongdemand is likely torunupagainst limitedsupplyasmajor

airports in the region are expected to reach their operational capacity in the foreseeable

future.

Eachofthethreecountieswill individuallyandcollaborativelycontributevaluable

demographicsthatwilldrive futuredemandforan internationalairportservicingtheTri‐

Countyregion.SouthwestRiversideiscurrentlydeterminedtobeunderservedandyetwill

be a significant factor for the region’s population growth. SouthernOrangeCounty is the

mainsourceofwealth fortheregionandwillalsoinfluenceinternationaltraveldueto its

fastestgrowingandlargestAsianpopulation.NorthSanDiegoCountywillcontributeamix

of population growth, wealth, and ethnic diversity to the region in addition to a solid

infrastructurefortransportationandbusinessdevelopment.



Whileitisevidentthatthereisdemandforanadditionalinternationalairportinthe

Tri‐County region, the complexities of implementing the proposed airport must be

explored. The following chapters will investigate and analyze similar regional airports

throughouttheUnitedStatestoprovidecomparableprojectstobenchmarkthecurrenttask

at hand.With the implementation of a newairport, regional employment factors and the

multiplier effect of such a large‐scale project must be evaluated. Additionally, further

research is needed to quantify the current transportationneeds of theTri‐County region

and how the transportation infrastructuremust be configured to support and sustain an

interregionaltransportationhubinthefuture.Lastly,thepoliticalimpactsandinfluencesof

such a task must be considered in the local context. Successful collaboration amongst

interregionalareaswillbepresentedaspotentialrecommendationsforaprosperousjoint

ventureamongsttheTri‐Countyregion.


Chapter2:AirportBenchmarkingStudy 26

CHAPTER2:AIRPORTBENCHMARKINGSTUDY

Introduction

TheTri‐Countyregionishometoanethnicallydiverse,welleducated,andrelatively

affluentpopulation.Theyarerepresentativeoftoday’sflyingpublic.Infact,theyaremore

likely to travel internationally than the U.S. population, yet they have limited access to

international travel in the immediate region. This chapter begins by investigating the

currentstateandcapacityofitsexistingandplannedairportinfrastructureforthepurposes

of estimating how far it will fall short of future demand. The infrastructure considered

includes the following six airports: Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), Long Beach

(LGB), JohnWayne (SNA), Ontario (ONT), San Diego International (SAN), andMcClellan‐

Palomar (CLD). Studies show that that by 2040, these six will be unable to meet the

demandsoftheflyingpublicevenonceplannedimprovementsarecompleted.Theywillfall

shortofdemandbyanestimated30‐40millionenplanements–aboutthenumbercurrently

servedbySanFranciscoInternationalAirport(SFO).

The second part of Chapter 2 benchmarks the Tri‐County and SanDiego Regions

against othermajormetropolitan areas currently served bymajor international airports.

These include New York City, served by JFK, LaGuardia, and Newark airports; Chicago,

served by O’Hare and Midway, San Francisco, served by SFO and Oakland airports, and

Dallas,servedbyDallas‐FortWorthandLoveField.Eachmetropolitanareahasatleastone

major international airport (New York has two), as well as a large airport handling

primarilydomesticflights.

Withsuchashortrunwayandnoroomtoexpand,SAN(theprimaryairportforSan

Diego) cannot accommodate international traffic. The benchmarking study demonstrates

thatSANcanandshouldremainavitaldomesticgateway,muchlikeMidway,Oakland,and

LaGuardia;SCIAinOceanside,withjusta45‐60minutedriveforthemajorityoftheregion’s

population,willbeabletoaccommodateinternationaltravel.

Increased demand for air traffic into and out of Southern California will provide

growth opportunities within the Tri‐County region. This study analyzes how a new

international airport inNorthSanDiegoCounty can satisfy growingair trafficdemand to

betterservetheregion.Akeyobjectiveistoidentifynewopportunitiesthattheproposed

airport can address in order to maximize air service to the region while minimizing

duplicationofeffortandcannibalizationofotherregionalairports.



Inordertoidentifynewandunmetairtrafficneedsandstrategicallypositiontheproposed

airporttoservethoseneeds,itisnecessarytofirstexaminehowregionalairtrafficdemand

iscurrentlybeingservedbyexistingfacilitiesandthenprojecthowitwillbeservedinthe

future.Therearesixairportsconsideredinthisstudy.Theyinclude:

1. SanDiegoInternationalAirport(SAN)

2. McClellan‐PalomarAirport(CLD)

3. LosAngelesInternationalAirport(LAX)

4. JohnWayneAirport,OrangeCounty(SNA)

5. OntarioInternationalAirport(ONT)

6. LongBeachAirport(LGB)

ThisstudyisdesignedtoprovidecivicandbusinessleadersinSouthernCaliforniawith

a detailed analysis of how the proposed new international airport will satisfy projected

increaseddemand forair traffic toand fromtheregion.Themajorgoalof thestudy is to

identifygrowthopportunities forair travel toand fromtheregionbydefiningtheunique

role that a new international airport will play among other airports serving Southern

California.

ResearchQuestions

Thefollowingquestionswillhelpguidebenchmarkdatacollectionandanalysis:

1. WhatarethecurrenttrafficpatternsintoandoutofSouthernCalifornia?

2. Whataircarriersoperateoutofexistingregionalairports?

3. What demand is not currently being met by regional airports and what future

demandneedstobeaddressed?

4. Howwould the proposed airport expand international air traffic to and from the

region?

5. Basedonbenchmarkanalysisoffourothermetropolitanareasservicedbymultiple

airports–SanFrancisco,Chicago,Dallas,andNewYork–whatconclusionscanbe

drawnabouttheimpactanewinternationalairportwouldhaveonairtraveltoand

fromtheregion?

ScopeandLimitations

Whilethisstudyattemptstoobtainbothcurrentandcomprehensivedataregarding

airtrafficpatternstoandfromtheTri‐Countyregion,itmustbenotedthatlimitationsoccur



basedontheavailability,relevance,andcontemporaneousnessofdata.Furthermore,when

extrapolating information from the available data and projecting future demand, all

forecastsandestimatesrepresenteducatedassumptionsatbest,whichmayormaynotbe

accurate,sinceairtrafficpatternsandconditionswithinSouthernCaliforniaaresubjectto

changeatanytime.Asaresult,estimatesandprojectionsmadehereinareasaccuratetothe

extentpossiblebasedontheinformationavailableatthetimethisstudywasconducted.

Methodology

Usingsecondarydatasources, this studyexaminescurrentair trafficpatternsand

compares themwith projected air traffic patterns over the next 25 years. The aim is to

identify gaps between current and projected needs, and then highlight those gaps as

opportunitiesforpositioningtheproposedairport.Theanalysisproceedsintwophases.

Thefirstphaseanalyzescurrentandprojectedairtrafficpatternsintoandoutoftheregion.

Thisphasewillprovideapictureoftheneedsthatexistingregionalairportsserve,aswell

as future demand to be served. Such a frameworkwill identify gaps between forecasted

demand and the abilities of existing airports tomeet that growing demand. Filling these

gapsshouldbetheprimaryfocusofanynewairportbuiltwithintheregion.

ThesecondphaseinvolvesabenchmarkstudyoffourothermajorU.S.metropolitan

areasservicedbymultipleairports.Thisphaseexamineshowmultipleairportsservingthe

samemetropolitanareaeithercollaborateorcompete tomeetair trafficneedsrelated to

originanddestination(domesticvs.internationaltraffic).Thisanalysiswillprovideinsight

intowhethertherearegaps(unmetneeds)orexcessiveoverlap(leadingtocompetitionand

cannibalization) inmeeting air traffic demand to and from thesemetropolitan areas.The

informationobtainedfromthisbenchmarkstudywillserveasabasisofcomparisonforthe

Tri‐Countyregionandpaintaclearerpictureofhowthenewproposedairportwillinteract

with other airports in the region. The four benchmarked metropolitan areas and their

correspondingairportsinclude:

1. SanFranciscoBayArea

a. SanFranciscoInternationalAirport(SFO)

b. OaklandInternationalAirport(OAK)

c. SanJoseInternationalAirport(SJC)

2. ChicagoMetropolitanArea

a. ChicagoO’HareInternationalAirport(ORD)



b. ChicagoMidwayInternationalAirport(MDW)

3. NewYorkMetropolitanArea

a. NewarkLibertyInternationalAirport(EWR)

b. LaGuardiaAirport(LGA)

c. JohnF.KennedyInternationalAirport(JFK)

4. DallasMetropolitanArea

a. Dallas/FortWorthInternationalAirport(DFW)

b. DallasLoveFieldAirport(DAL)

Thecombinedfindingsofthesetwophasescanthenbeusedtoidentifythebestway

to position the proposed airport in terms of the market segments that it will optimally

serve,aswellastheairtravelservicesthesesegmentsneedmost.

DataCollection

PhaseOne:CurrentandProjectedAirTrafficPatternsIntoandOutofSouthern

California

ThissectionwillexaminehowexistingairportsinSouthernCaliforniaarecurrently

serving air traffic demand to and from the region, and how they will serve projected

demandinthefuture.Sixairportswillbediscussedwhichinclude:

1. SanDiegoInternationalAirport(SAN)

2. McClellan‐PalomarAirport(CLD)

3. LosAngelesInternationalAirport(LAX)

4. JohnWayneAirport,OrangeCounty(SNA)

5. OntarioInternationalAirport(ONT)

6. LongBeachAirport(LGB)

These six airports were selected based on their locations and service to Southern

California.Allsixairportsarewithina90‐mileradiusfromtheproposedairportlocationin

Oceanside.The locationsof theairportsaredepicted inFigure2.1.LAXis locatedfarthest

fromtheproposedairport.TraveltimetoLAXfromtheNorthSanDiegoCountylinevaries

widelybasedontrafficconditions,withanestimateddrivetimeof90minutes.

Thefollowingsectionsexaminetheroleofeachofthesesixairportsinservingthe

air travel needs of Southern California. The discussion includes historical background,

currentoperationsanddemands,andplansforfutureexpansion.



Figure2.1:Mapof regionalairportswithina90‐mile radius (or90‐minutedrive) from theproposedairportlocationinOceanside.

SanDiegoInternationalAirport(SAN)

History

San Diego International Airport (SAN), originally known as San Diego Municipal

Airport,wasfoundedin1928atthedawnofearlyaviation.Itsoonbecamethefirstairfield

toserveavarietyofplanetypes,includingseaplanes.In1934,theairportwasdesignatedas

a permanent international airport by the U.S. Treasury Department. Construction of the

airport’s current runway began in 1967. However, given that the surrounding area is so

heavilypopulated–SanDiegoCountyiscurrentlyhometo3,211,252people(UnitedStates

CensusBureau,2014)–anoisecurfewwasestablishedandhasbeenmaintainedsince1976

toappeaselocalresidents.SANbecamethefirstcommercialairportintheUnitedStatesto



placesuchrestrictionsonlatenightandearlymorningtakeoffs.Althoughflightarrivalsare

allowed24‐hoursaday,departuresareprohibitedbetweenthehoursof11:30PMand6:30

AM(SanDiego InternationalAirport,2014). It couldbeargued that lifting thisrestriction

mightenableSANtoincreasecapacity;however,enactingsuchachangewouldbedifficult

andmighttriggernumerousresidentialcomplaints.

AirportOperationsandDemand

Atpresent,SANcontinuestooperatewithasinglerunwaythatmeasures9,401feet

in length and200 feet inwidth.This single runway, combinedwithSanDiego’s status as

suchapopulartraveldestination,makeSANthebusiestsingle‐runwaycommercialairport

intheU.S.Currently,theairporthasthreeterminalswith51gatesinTerminals1and2,and

four gates at the Commuter Terminal, for a total of 55 gates (San Diego International

Airport,2014).Figure2.2belowprovidesacurrentlayoutofSAN.

Ü

Figure2.1:SanDiegoInternationalAirport.Source:FederalAviationAdministration(FAA).

In2013,SANserved17,710,241passengers(SanDiegoInternationalAirport,2014)

andfacilitated9,075,134enplanements(RITA,2014).Of thoseenplanements,8,736,412–

or96.3percent–weredomestic, andonly338,722–or3.7percent ‐were international.

Thisequatestoatotalof82,027flightdepartures,ofwhich79,497weredomesticandonly

2,530were international (RITA, 2014). From these data, it is clear that although SAN is

designated as an international airport, it functions primarily as a regional airport that

servesthedomestictravelmarket.



Twenty‐twopassengercarriersand fivecargocarriersserved theairport in2013.

Passenger carriers provided service to 59non‐stopdestinations (SanDiego International

Airport, 2014). However, international non‐stop flightswere, and continue to be, largely

limitedtotravelbetweentheU.S.andCanada,theUnitedKingdom,Mexico,andJapan.Asa

result, international travelers flying into or out of the San Diego region cannot obtain a

direct flightandmust first fly intoanothermajor internationalairport toreachtheir final

destinations.Forexample,sinceLosAngelesInternationalAirport(LAX)andSanFrancisco

International Airport (SFO) are the major international airports within California that

providenon‐stopservicetoandfromAsia,atravelerwishingtoflyfromSanDiegotoAsia

(orfromAsiatoSanDiego)mustfirstboardaconnectingflightatoneoftheseinternational

gateways.Likewise,a travelerwishing to fly fromSanDiego toEurope(orEurope toSan

Diego)must firstboardaconnecting flightatamajor internationalairport locatedon the

easternseaboard,suchasNewarkLibertyInternationalAirport(EWR)orJohnF.Kennedy

InternationalAirport(JFK).

ThelargestpassengercarrieroperatingoutofSANin2013wasSouthwestAirlines,

whichcarried38.48percentofpassengers(RITA,2014).Figure2.3providesalistofSAN’s

carriersharesin2013.AlthoughSanDiegoisconsideredafocuscityforSouthwestAirlines,

itisthelargestmetropolitanareaintheU.S.thatisnotanairlinehub.

By2040,SANisprojectedtohaveatotalof15,197,155enplanements,representing

an average annual growth rate of 2.5percent.Additionally, it is projected to rank among

otherairportswiththelargestincreaseinnumberofenplanements(FAA,2014).Bysome

estimates,SANisexpectedtoreachmaximumcapacityasearlyas2030oraslateas2035.

Oncemaximumcapacityisreached,therewillbeanincreaseinbothflightdelaysandflight

Figure2.2:CarriersharesatSANin2013.Source:RITA.



prices. SAN is approximately 35 miles from the location of the proposed airport in

Oceanside.

McClellan‐PalomarAirport(CLD)

History

TheMcClellan‐PalomarAirport(CLD)islocatedinCarlsbad,Californiaandwasbuilt

toreplacetheDelMarAirport.CLDopenedin1959andin1961theairport’ssinglerunway

wasexpandedto4,897feet(DepartmentofPublicWorks,2014).


The airport has one terminal in addition to its one runway. Figure2.4provides a

current layoutof theCLD.TheairportoffersmultipledailyconnectionsbetweenCarlsbad

andLosAngelesviadirectflightsonSkyWest,apartnerwithUnitedAirlineExpress.

Figure2.3:McClellan‐PalomarAirportLayout.

Figure2.5providesalistofCLD’scarriersharesin2013,whichindicatesthat100

percent of the airport’s enplanements are domestic. In 2013, the total number of

enplanementswas51,105(RITA,2014).


BenchmarkingAgainstOtherRegionsServedbyMultipleMajorAirports

Chapter2:BenchmarkingAgainstRegionalAirports 34

Figure2.4:CarriersharesatCLDin2013.Source:RITA.

CLDisprojectedtohaveanaveragegrowthrateof5.7percentbetween2013and

2040. This ismore than twice the average growth rate of all other airports studied. For

example,JohnF.KennedyAirportinNewYorkhasthesecondhighestaveragegrowthrate

inthisperiodat2.8percent,farlessthanCLD(RITA,2014).Tomeetthisprojectedgrowth

rate, CLD has a 2013‐2035 Master Plan. Through the Master Plan and the California

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)/National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review

process,theCountyofSanDiegoandtheFAAwilldetermineifarunwayextensionwillbe

part of future airport improvements (Department of Public Works, 2014). If a runway

expansionatCLDiseventuallyapprovedandcarriedout,itshouldbeconsideredwhether

the airport could potentially handle some of the overflow from SAN in terms of

internationaltravelersflyingoutoftheTri‐Countyregion.CLDis28milesfromSanDiego

International Airport and approximately seven miles away from the location of the

proposedairport.

LosAngelesInternationalAirport(LAX)

History

In July 1927, real estate agent William W. Mines, representing Martin interests

offered 640 acres of the former Bennett Rancho to use as an airport for the City of Los

Angeles.Thereafter, the sitebecameknownasMinesField. In July1928, theCityCouncil

choseMines Field as the location for the City's airport.When the lease was executed in

October1928, the forerunnerofLosAngeles InternationalAirportwasborn(LosAngeles

WorldAirports,2011).Figure2.6providesacurrentlayoutofLAX.




Figure2.5:LosAngelesInternationalAirportLayout.Source:FAA.


The Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) is the primary airport serving the

Greater Los Angelesmetropolitan area,which is the second‐most populousmetropolitan

areaintheUnitedStates.In2012,itwasdeemedthesixthbusiestairportintheworldand

thethirdbusiestinthecountry(Ecquants,2013).WhileLAXisoneofthebusiestairports

in theworld, ithas regional competition for servingdomesticair travelneeds.The listof

domestic competitors includes Bob Hope Airport (Burbank), John Wayne Airport, Long

BeachAirport,andOntarioInternationalAirport.

LAX is a hub for six major airlines. Three of the airlines are major international

carriers,which includeAmerican,Delta, andUnited.Theother three airlines are regional

carriers, which include Alaska, Horizon and Great Lakes. LAX has direct routes to 87

domestic and 69 international destinations. The international destinations include Latin

America, Europe, theMiddleEast, Asia, andOceania (LosAngelesWorldAirports, 2011).

Figure 2.7 provides LAX’s carrier shares in 2013. LAX is 109 miles from San Diego

InternationalAirportandapproximately79milesaway fromthe locationof theproposed

airport.




Figure2.6:CarriersharesatLAXin2013.Source:RITA.

JohnWayneAirport,OrangeCountry(SNA)

History

JohnWayneAirport(SNA)starteditsoperationsasaflyingschoolin1923andwas

formerly known as Eddie Martin Airport, which was founded by aviation pioneer Eddie

Martin.Theairportoperatedasaprivately‐ownedgeneralaviationfacilityuntil1939(John

WayneAirport,2014).In1979,theairportwasrenamedJohnWayneAirport.

In 2007, SNA recorded its highest number of passengers, estimated at about ten

million.In2011,SNAopenedTerminalCaspartof$543millionexpansioninanticipationof

futurepassengergrowth(OrangeCountyRegister,2013).


SNAservespassengersintheOrangeCountyregionandisthethirdlargestairport

inSouthernCalifornia(OrangeCountyRegister,2013)withenplanementsat4.9millionin

2013(FAA,2014).SNAcurrentlyhasthreeterminalswith26gatesandtworunways.The

mainrunwayis5,701feet,whichisoneoftheshortestatanymajorairport intheUnited

Statesandlimits landingofpassengeraircrafts largerthantheBoeing757.Oftravelersto

theairport,95.7percentaredomesticand4.3percentareinternational.Figure2.8provides

a current layout of the airport. In2013, SNA transported43millionpoundsof combined

freightandmail(RITA,2014).




Figure2.7:JohnWayne‐OrangeCountyairportlayout.Source:FAA.

FourteendomesticcarriersserveSNA.Theairport’sbiggestcarriersareSouthwest

Airlines,UnitedAirlines,andAmericanAirlines.SNA’scarriersharesfor2013areshownin

Figure2.9.Southwest,United,andAmericancarry39.37percent,17.59percent,and12.83

percent, respectively (RITA, 2014). SNA is 76miles fromSanDiego InternationalAirport

andapproximately43milesawayfromthelocationoftheproposedairport.

Figure2.8:CarriersharesatSNAin2013.Source:RITA.




OntarioInternationalAirport(ONT)

History

Ontario InternationalAirportwas initiallyestablishedasLatimarField in1923. In

1942,twoconcreterunwayswereconstructedwithfundsprovidedbytheWorksProgress

Administration (LAWA, 2014). In 1946, the airport was renamed Ontario International

Airport (ONT). In the 1950s, ONT experienced dynamic growth given the fact that three

major aircraft manufacturers, including Lockheed, Douglas, and Northrop, had facilities

there(LAWA,2014).

In1998,the"new"OntarioInternationalAirportopened.The$270millionproject

includedtwonewterminals,anewgroundtransportationcenter,anadditionalparkinglot,

anewroadwaysystem,andairfieldimprovements(LAWA,2014).


Ontario International Airport is amedium‐sized hub and full‐service airportwith

commercial jet service. It primarily serves domestic passengers, with annual domestic

enplanementstotalingtwomillionin2013(FAA,2014).ONTcurrentlyhasthreeterminals

with35gatesandtworunways.Themainrunwayis12,200feet(LAWA,2014).Figure2.10

provides a layoutof theairport.Of theairport’s travelers, 98.6percent aredomestic and

only 1.4 percent are international. ONT serves as a major hub for many freight carriers

includingUPS,FedEx,Ameriflight,WestAirandEmpireAirlines.In2013,ONTtransported

940millionpoundsofcombinedfreightandmail(RITA,2014).

Figure2.9:OntarioInternationalAirportLayout.Source:FAA.




Currently, 12 carriers serve ONT. Southwest Airlines is the largest carrier, which carries

59.12 percent of passengers (RITA, 2014). Figure 2.11 provides a list of ONT’s carrier

shares in 2013. ONT is 94 miles away from San Diego International Airport and

approximately60milesawayfromthelocationoftheproposedairport.

LongBeach‐DaughertyFieldAirport(LGB)

History

During the1920’s,aircraftwith flightplans toLongBeachwereactually forced to

landon thebeachduring low tide.After considerable lobbyingandpublicity‐drivenstunt

flights,thefamousbarnstormerEarlS.Daughertygainedcitysupportforanairfield(Long

BeachAirport,2014).In1923,theCityCouncildesignated150acresoflandontheoutskirts

oftownattheintersectionofSpringStreetandCherryStreetforuseasamunicipalairport.

Theairportstartedservicein1925.In1928,thecitybuiltanadministrativehangeraspart

of a strategicmove to entice theNavy to lease the airport and establish aNavalReserve

Airbase.Thepartnershipwith theNavy resulted in the constructionof twonewrunways

andtheannexationofanadditional350acres(LongBeachAirport,2014).


Presently,LongBeachAirport(LGB)iscomprisedof1,166acresandfiverunways,

thelongestbeing10,000feet(FederalAviationAdministration,2014).Figure2.12provides

acurrentlayoutoftheairport.

Figure2.10:CarriersharesatONTin2013.Source:RITA.




Figure2.11:LongBeach‐DaughertyFieldAirportlayout.Source:FAA.

Due to LGB’s close proximity to LAX and strict noise regulations imposed by the

surroundingcommunities,LGBwill remainasmallairport for the foreseeable future.The

airport is under one of the strictest ordinances in the U.S. in terms of airport noise and

number of flights. The FAA only permits 41 commercial flights and 25 commuter flights

daily. In spite of the rigid flight regulations, the airport managed to secure a deal with

economycarrier,JetBlue,toestablishitsWestCoasthubatLGB.JetBluelicenses31ofLGB’s

41 gates and is recognized as an alternative to LAX. Figure 2.13 provides a list of LGB’s

carriersharesin2013.In2010,theairporthad329,808aircraftoperations,whichequates

to903 flightsperday.Of these flights,86percentcomprisedgeneralaviation,10percent

commercial,threepercentairtaxi,andlessthan1percentmilitary.Atthattime,therewere

435 aircraft stationed at the airport, ofwhich 69 percentwere single‐engine, 11 percent

multi‐engine,11percentjet,and10percenthelicopter(BureauofTransportationStatistics,

2014). LGB is93miles fromSanDiego InternationalAirport andapproximately62miles

awayfromthelocationoftheproposedairport.




Figure2.12:CarriersharesatLGBin2013.Source:RITA.

In this section, six regional airportswithin the Southern California are discussed.

Table2.1summarizestheinformationprovidedontheseairports, includingyearfounded,

numberofenplanements(domesticvs.international),anddistancefromthelocationofthe

proposedairportinOceanside.

Region AirportYearOpened

No.Runways

No.TotalEnplanementsin2013(M)

%Intl.Enplanements2013

ProjectedEnplanements2040(M)

DistanceFromProposedAirport(Miles)

SouthernCaliforniaArea

SAN 1928 1 9.08 3.7% 15.20 35

CLD 1959 1 0.5 0.0% 0.13 7

LAX 1928 4 33.09 26.4% 53.62 79

SNA 1923 2 4.58 4.3% 7.99 43

ONT 1923 2 2.00 1.4% 3.26 60

LGB 1923 5 1.44 0.0% 2.43 62Table2.1:Summaryofkey informationonSouthernCaliforniaairports, includingSAN,CLD,LAX,SNA,ONT,andLGB.

PhaseTwo:BenchmarkStudyofFourOtherMajorU.S.MetropolitanAreasServicedby

MultipleAirports

In this section, a benchmark study will be conducted of four other major U.S.

metropolitanareasservicedbymultipleairports,includingSanFrancisco,NewYork,Dallas,

and Chicago. This phase examines howmultiple airports serving the same metropolitan

areaeithercollaborateorcompetetomeetairtrafficneedsrelatedtooriginanddestination

(domesticvs.internationaltraffic).




SanFranciscoBayArea

The San Francisco Bay Area is a diverse region comprised of metropolitan,

suburban, and rural areas that are home tomore than 7.4million people (United States

Census Bureau, 2014). Three major airports serve the area: San Francisco International

Airport (SFO), Oakland International Airport (OAK), and San Jose International Airport

(SJC).Theseairportsmeetbothdomesticandinternationaltravelneedsforthesurrounding

areas.SFO is11miles fromOAK,OAK is30miles fromSJC,andSJC is30miles fromSFO

(RITA, 2014). The presence ofmultiplemajor airportswithin the heart of the Bay Area

provides travelerswith a variety of options for their air travel needs.Despite their close

proximity tooneanother, theywork together collaboratively to satisfyair trafficdemand

intoandoutoftheregion.

The projected average growth rates for the Bay Area airports between 2013 and

2040 are comparable, at 2.4 percent, 2.0 percent, and 2.5 percent for SFO,OAK, and SJC,

respectively.Thesepercentagesare slightlybelow theaveragegrowth rates for theother

airportsexaminedinthisstudy;thehighestgrowthratewas5.7percentforCLD,locatedin

theTri‐Countyarea,andthelowestgrowthratewas1.1percentforLGA,locatedintheNew

Yorkmetropolitanarea.

SanFranciscoInternationalAirport(SFO)

History

SFOopenedin1927asMillsFieldMunicipalAirportofSanFranciscoonleasedland

fromtheMillsestate,thenasSanFranciscoAirportin1931.Inthe1950s,itfinallybecame

knownasSanFranciscoInternationalAirport(SanFranciscoInternationalAirport,2014).


SFO is the largest airport in the Bay Area and is located near downtown San

Francisco. The airport serves over 45 million annual passengers (San Francisco

InternationalAirport,2014)andismadeupoffourlongrunwaysandfourterminalsasseen

inFigure2.14below.Therunwaysrangein lengthfrom7,500feet‐11,870feet.Thefour

terminals consist of threedomestic terminals andone international terminal.The airport

furtheractsasahubforUnitedAirlinesandVirginAmerica.Figure2.14providesacurrent

layout of SFO, including its terminals and two sets of parallel runways, which assist the

airportinmeetingincreaseddemandforinternationaltravel.




Figure2.13:SanFranciscoInternationalAirportLayout.Source:FAA.

SFO offers both domestic and international airport travel and is considered a

gatewaytoAsiaandEurope.Itoffersnon‐stopflightstomorethan34internationalcitieson

29 international carriers and connects non‐stopwith 78 cities in theU.S. on15domestic

airlines(SanFranciscoInternationalAirport,2014).

Asof2013,thenumberofdomesticenplanementswas17,123,296andthenumber

of internationalenplanementswas4,718,958 (RITA,2014).Thus,domesticenplanements

accounted for 78.4 percent of the total number of enplanements, while international

enplanements accounted for 21.6 percent. Of these international enplanements, 45.2

percent involved international travel to Asia and the Middle East with flights to Beijing,

Hong Kong, Taipei, Tokyo, Osaka, Seoul, Shanghai, Chengdu, Manila, and Dubai (San

FranciscoInternationalAirport,2014).

In recent years, SFO has made efforts to target the Asian market by launching a

Chineselanguagewebsite.ThiswebsiteisthefirstwebsiteofitskindofferedintheUnited

States.SanFranciscoMayorEdLeehasstated,“SanFranciscoisaCityofinnovation,andwe




are proud to be the first airport in the U.S. to offer a website in Chinese. SFO’s Chinese

language website further connects our City with China, strengthens the economic and

cultural ties between our two regions, while providing our diverse communities and

travelerswithaneasierwaytomakeourCityandSFOtheirdestinationofchoice.”

Europe is SFO’s second largest international travel destination, with travel to

Amsterdam,Copenhagen,Dublin,Frankfurt,London,Munich,Paris,andZurich,followedby

traveltoCanada,thenMexico/CentralandSouthAmerica,andlastlyAustralia.SFO’smajor

domestic carriers are United, SkyWest, Southwest, American, and Delta airlines, and its

carriersharesareshowninFigure2.15.SFOisahubforUnitedAirlinesandVirginAmerica

Airlines.

Figure2.14:CarriersharesatSFOin2013.Source:RITA.

OaklandInternationalAirport(OAK)

History

OaklandInternationalAirport(OAK)is locatedneardowntownOakland.Itopened

in1927.OAKiscomprisedoftwoterminalsandfourrunways,asshowninFigure2.16.The

runwaysvaryinlength,from3376feetto10,520feet(AirportIQ5010,2014).




Figure2.15:OaklandInternationalAirportlayout.Source:FAA.


OAK provides domestic and international travel, offering flights to numerous

domesticdestinationsaswellasinternationaldestinationsinEurope(Norway,Sweden,and

Portugal) and Mexico (Oakland International Airport, 2014). Currently, 98.4 percent of

OAK’senplanementsaredomestic,while1.6percentofenplanementsareinternational.As

of 2013, the number of domestic enplanements was 48,902,777 and the number of

internationalenplanementswas77,843.OAKservesasamajorhubforFedEx;additionally,

the domestic carriers used most frequently by passengers include Southwest, Alaska,

JetBlue,Hawaiian,andSpirit.Theairport’scarriersharesin2013arehighlightedinFigure

2.17.

By 2040, the projected total number of enplanements is expected to reach

7,701,635.This is almost twice thenumberof 2013 enplanements,which is estimated at

4,968,120(RITA,2014).Tomeettheprojectedincreaseofenplanements,OAKhasaMaster

PlanProject concerning long‐term forecastsprojectedout to2025.Without an additional

runway, the expected increase in enplanements and annual tons of cargo will not be

achievable. However, at this time, an additional runway is not recommended in OAK’s

Master Plan. Some items under consideration include an increase in the total number of




available gates, terminal development, and airfield improvements (Oakland International

Airport,2005).

Figure2.16:CarriersharesatOAKin2013.Source:RITA.

SanJoseInternationalAirport(SJC)

History

TheSanJoseInternationalAirport(SJC),otherwiseknownastheNormanY.Mineta

SanJoseInternationalAirport,openedin1948.TheairportisnamedafteraformerSanJose

mayorwhoservedthreedecadesintheU.S.HouseofRepresentativesandasU.S.Secretary

ofCommerceandU.S.SecretaryofTransportation(MinetaSanJoseInternationalAirport–

SJC, 2014). With his background, Mr. Mineta brought much political support to the

development of SJC. SJC is located in downtown San Jose,which is in the heart of Silicon

Valley. This airport is the smallest of the three Bay Area airports (Mineta San Jose

InternationalAirport–SJC,2014).


SJC is comprised of two 11,000‐foot runways and two terminals that handle

domesticandinternationaltravel.Figure2.18providesalayoutoftheairport.




Figure2.17:SanJoseInternationalAirportlayout.Source:SJCInternationalAirport.

Non‐stop destinations served by the airport include numerous domestic

destinationsand internationaldestinationssuchasGuadalajara,MexicoandTokyo, Japan.

SJC primarily provides domestic service with 96.4 percent of 2013 enplanements being

domesticand3.6percentofenplanementsbeing international.Asof2013, thenumberof

domesticenplanementswas4,280,424andthenumberofinternationalenplanementswas

161,881 (RITA, 2014). SJC’s major domestic carriers are Southwest, Alaska, American,

SkyWest,andUSAirways,asshowninFigure2.19.

Figure2.18:CarriersharesatSJCin2013.Source:RITA.




In 2013, SJC facilitated 4,402,305 enplanements. Similar to OAK, the number of

enplanements out of SJC in 2040 is expected to almost double to 7,406,884 total

enplanements(RITA,2014).SJChasa2011–2027MasterPlanthatconsistsofaprogramof

facility improvements designed to adequately accommodate projected aviation demand

(MinetaSanJoseInternationalAirport–SJC,2014).Seventyspecificprojectdevelopments

arediscussed,suchasrunwayextensions,increasesinnumberofcarriergates,andpossible

expansionofairportfacilities.

ChicagoMetropolitanArea

Two major airports serve the Chicago metropolitan area: Chicago O’Hare

InternationalAirport(ORD)andChicagoMidwayInternationalAirport(MDW).ORDis16

milesfromMDW.SimilartotheairportfacilitiesthatcomprisetheairportsystemintheSan

Francisco BayArea, the Chicago airports alsowork together collaboratively to satisfy air

trafficdemandtoandfromtheregion.

ChicagoO’HareInternationalAirport(ORD)

History

Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORD) officially opened in 1955. ORD

originallyhadfourrunwaysandserved176,902passengersinitsfirstyear.Sincethen,ORD

hasundergonenumerousexpansionstoaccommodateincreasingairtrafficdemand.Itsfifth

runwaywasaddedin1957anditsfirstinternationalterminalopeneditsdoorsin1958.In

the1960s, all scheduledMidwayAirportoperationswere transferred toORD.Withmore

terminalbuildingsandasixthrunway,ORD’spassengertrafficexceeded30million,making

itoneofbusiestairportsintheworld(ChicagoO’HareAirport,2014).

Inthe1970s,ORDgrewsteadilyandaddedaseventhrunway.Deregulationofthe

domesticairlinesystemsignedintolawbyPresidentJimmyCarterin1978allowedORDto

become the nation’s first dual hub airport. ORD provided competitive airfares andmore

service tomoredestinations thananyotherairport in theworld(ChicagoO’HareAirport,

2014).

In1980s,withcompletionoftheSouthCargoArea,ORDbecamethenation'slargest

mid‐continent freight origin and destination market. In the 2000s, the O’Hare

Modernization Program (OMP) was approved, which intended to increase the airport’s

efficiency,capacity,andsafetybymodernizingparallelrunwaylayout.Atthattime,theFAA




providedORD$337millioninfundingfortheinitialphaseoftheprogramand$400million

forthefinalphase(ChicagoO’HareAirport,2014).


ChicagoO’HareAirportiscurrentlythefifthbusiestairportintheworldandsecond

busiest in the U.S., with annual enplanements totaling 32.5 million – or 66.9 million

passengers – in 2013 (FAA, 2014). ORD currently has four terminalswith 189 gates and

eightrunways.Figure2.20providesacurrentlayoutofORD.Amongtheeightrunways,the

longest runway length is 13,001 feet, whichwas extended by 3,000 feet under the OMP

(ChicagoO’HareAirport,2014).Approximately83.6percentofenplanementsaredomestic

and 16.4 percent are international. In 2013, ORD transported 751 million pounds of

combinedfreightandmail(RITA,2014).

Forty‐two airlines serve ORD (JCDecaux, 2014). American Airlines and United

AirlinesmaintainhubsatORD,withAmericanAirlinecarrying26.81percentofpassengers

andUnitedAirlinecarrying22.67percent,ashighlightedinFigure2.21(RITA,2014).ORD

isalsousedbyFedExasitscargohub(ChicagoO’HareAirport,2014).

Currently,ORDservesasthemaininternationalairportintheChicagometropolitan

area, with 5.3million international enplanements in 2013 (FAA, 2014). ORD is 16miles

away from its sister airport, ChicagoMidway International Airport, whichmainly serves

domestictravelers.

Figure2.19:ChicagoO'HareInternationalAirportlayout.Source:FAA.




ChicagoMidwayInternationalAirport(MDW)

History

Chicago Midway International Airport (MDW) officially opened as Chicago

Municipal Airport in 1927 just six month after Charles Lindbergh made his historic

transatlantic flight. In 1928, MDW had 41,660 passengers and 14,498 flights (Chicago

MidwayAirport, 2014). By 1929,MDWwas recognized as theworld busiest airport. In

1949, the airport was renamed Midway International Airport in honor of the Battle of

MidwayduringWorldWarII(ChicagoMidwayAirport,2014).

IncompetitionwithORD,passengertrafficthroughMidwayplummeted60percent

by1961(EncyclopediaofChicago,2014). Afterthederegulationoftheairlineindustryin

1978,MDWhadre‐emergedasahaven for small carriers servingChicagoansandoffered

competitively priced flights (Encyclopedia of Chicago, 2014). In 1991, Midway Airlines,

which operated 72 percent of traffic inMDW, declared bankruptcy and planned to cease

operations later that year. However, in 1992, Southwest Airlines signed a substantial

contract with the City of Chicago, becoming the major carrier at MDW. This contract

prevented the airport from having to cease operations. By 1998, Southwest Airlines

operated102flightsperday(ChicagoMidwayAirport,2014).In2012,Midwayreachedits

highest passenger total in the airport’s 85‐year history, with 19.5 million passengers

(ChicagoMidwayAirport,2014).

Figure2.20:CarriersharesatORDin2013.Source:RITA.





ChicagoMidwayInternationalAirport(MDW)primarilyservesdomestic travelers,

withannual enplanements totaling10.4million in2013 (FAA,2014).MDWcurrentlyhas

threeterminalswith43gatesand5runways.Amongitsfiverunways,thelongestrunway

lengthis6,521feet(ChicagoMidwayAirport,2014).Over97.5percentofMDW’stravelers

aredomesticandonly2.5percentareinternational.In2013,theairporthandled52million

poundsofcombinedfreightandmail(RITA,2014).Figure2.22providesacurrentlayoutof

MDW.

Twenty‐sixdomesticcarriersservedMDWin2013(RITA,2014). Additionally,theairport

serves as a hub for Southwest Airlines, which carried 90.1 percent of MWD’s total

passengers (RITA, 2014). At the present time,MDW’s flights are largely domestic. Figure

2.23providesalistofMDW’scarriersharesin2013.

Figure2.21:ChicagoMidwayAirportlayout.Source:FAA.

Figure2.22:CarriersharesatMDWin2013.Source:RITA.




NewYorkMetropolitanArea

Three major airports serve the New York metropolitan area: Newark Liberty

InternationalAirport (EWR),LaGuardiaAirport (LGA), and JohnF.Kennedy International

Airport(JFK).Theseairportscombinetoformthelargestairportsysteminthecountry.The

distance from JFK toLGA is11miles, thedistance fromLGA toEWR is17miles, and the

distancefromEWRtoJFKis21miles.In2013,thisairportsystemservedarecordnumber

ofpassengers,withatotalof112.5million(PortAuthorityofNYandNJ,2014).LiketheSan

Franciscoareaairports,theairportsinthissystemworkcollaborativelytomeethighlevels

of air traffic demand. The estimated population of this metropolitan area in 2013 was

19,949,502people(U.S.CensusBureau,2014).

NewarkLibertyInternationalAirport(EWR)

History

NewarkLibertyInternationalAirport(EWR),originallyNewarkAirport,openedin

1928. It was operated by the City of Newark, which spent over $8.2 million on its

construction and development. Newark was the first major airport in the New York

metropolitanareaandsoonbecamehometothecountry’sfirstcommercialairlineterminal,

whichwasdedicatedin1935.ThePortAuthorityofNewYorkandNewJerseytookcontrol

oftheairportin1948andhassinceinvestedover$4.3billioninimprovements.EWR,which

isconvenientlylocatedjust14milesfromManhattan,servesanimportantrolefortheNew

York‐New Jerseymetropolitanarea inserving itsdomesticand international travelneeds

(PortAuthorityofNYandNJ,2014).


EWRcovers2,027acresandhasthreerunways,withitslongestrunwaymeasuring

11,000 feet longby150 feetwide.Currently,EWR isoneof thebusiest airports inNorth

America and among the busiest international airports in the world, having served

35,016,236passengers in2013.Theairporthas three terminals,withacombined totalof




over100gates(PortAuthorityofNYandNJ,2014).Figure2.24providesthelayoutofEWR,

includingitsterminalsandtworunways.

In2013,EWRhada totalof17,588,427enplanements,ofwhich11,975,589 (68.1

percent)weredomesticand5,612,838(31.9percent)wereinternational.Thistranslatesto

190,583flightdepartures,ofwhich145,532weredomesticand45,051wereinternational.

By 2040, the airport is projected to oversee 31,514,660 enplanements, with an average

growthrateof2.93percentperyear(RITA,2014).Additionally,EWRisamongthecoreU.S.

airports that are expected to make the largest upward movement in ranking of

enplanements,goinguptworankingsby2040(FAA,2014).

Twenty‐five passenger carriers currently operate out of EWRand serve 160non‐

stop destinations (Port Authority of NY and NJ, 2014). In 2013, United Airlines was the

largestpassengercarrieroperatingoutoftheairport,carrying49.02percentofpassengers

(RITA,2014).Figure2.25highlightsEWR’scarriersharesfor2013.Currently,EWRserves

asahubforUnitedAirlinesandFederalExpress.

Figure2.23:NewarkLibertyInternationalAirportlayout.Source:FAA.



Figure2.24:CarriersharesatEWRin2013.Source:RITA

LaGuardiaAirport(LGA)

History

LaGuardiaAirport(LGA)islocatedintheboroughofQueensinNewYorkCityand

has been known by several different names throughout its history. It is conveniently

situated just eightmiles frommidtownManhattan. In1939,NewYorkCity tookover the

airportand re‐opened it asNewYorkMunicipalAirport‐LaGuardiaField after substantial

reconstruction.Intotal,NYCspentapproximately$40milliononimprovementsinorderto

betteraccommodatetherapidgrowthincommercialtravel.In1947,LGAwasleasedtothe

PortAuthorityofNYandNJ,andremainsundertheagency’scontroltoday.Todate,thePort

Authorityhasinvestedatotalof$1.4billioninairportimprovementsatLGA(PortAuthority

NYandNJ,2014).


LGA covers 680 acres and has four terminals consisting of 76 gates. Figure 2.26

providesalayoutoftheairport.Additionally,LGAhastworunwaysthatareboth7,000feet

longby150feetwide(PortAuthorityofNYandNJ,2014).Atthistime,theairportisamong

the leading domestic gateways for business travel in the U.S., having served a total of

26,722,183passengersin2013.Itcontinuestobethemainbusinessandshort‐haulairport

forNYC(PortAuthorityofNYandNJ,2014).In2013,LGAhad13,381,725enplanements,of

which 12,545,500 (93.8 percent) were domestic and 836,225 (6.2 percent) were

international. This translates to a total of 179,764 flight departures in 2013, of which

163,883weredomesticandonly15,881wereinternational(RITA,2014).By2040,LGAis

expected to facilitate 17,376,436 enplanements (FAA, 2014), at a growth rate of 1.11

percentperyear.



Figure2.25:LaGuardiaAirportlayout.Source:FAA.

Currently,22passengerairlinesserveLGA,withDeltacarrying21.53percentofthe

airport’spassengers(RITA,2014).Figure2.27highlightsLGA’scarriersharesin2013.LGA

isahuboperationforDeltaandafocuscityforAmericanAirlines.

Figure2.26:CarriersharesatLGAin2013.Source:RITA.

JohnF.KennedyInternationalAirport(JFK)

History

Construction of John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), originally known as

New York International Airport, began in 1942. It was built to relieve congestion at

LaGuardia,whichhad already reached itsmaximumcapacity. The airport, also located in

the borough of Queens, took six years to complete and cost the City of New York

approximately$150milliontobuild(PortAuthorityofNYandNJ,2014).JFKfinallyopened



itsdoorsin1948, locatedjust15milesfrommidtownManhattan.Aroundthatsametime,

thePortAuthority ofNY andNJ took control of the airport andhas operated the airport

since then, investing an additional $11 billion in improvements. In 1963, New York

International airport was rededicated in memory of President John F. Kennedy, known

thereafteras JohnF.Kennedy InternationalAirport.Atpresent, JFKairport is responsible

fordrawingroughly$37millionineconomicactivitytotheNewYorkmetropolitanarea.In

2013, the airport served a record number of annual passengers – approximately 50.4

million–andhasbeenrecognized“fordecadesasthePremierU.S.gatewayforpassengers

andcargo”(PortAuthorityofNYandNJ,2014).


Currently,JFKhasmorethan125gatesspreadoutacrosssixterminalsandhasfour

runways. Figure 2.28 provides a layout of the airport, which covers 4,930 acres (Port

Authority of NY and NJ, 2014). The function of JFK is split almost equally between

international and domestic travel. In 2013, JFK facilitated a total of 25,102,233

enplanements, of which 13,001,641 (51.8 percent) were international and 12, 100,592

(48.2percent)weredomestic.Thisequatestoatotalof190,662flightsdepartures,ofwhich

116,868weredomesticand73,794wereinternational(RITA,2014).By2014,thenumber

of enplanements at JFK is expected to be in the vicinity of 43,795,100 (FAA, 2014),

representinganaverageannualgrowthrateof2.76percent.Itcontinuestobethebusiest

airportfacilityintheNewYorkmetropolitanarea(PortAuthorityofNYandNJ,2014).



Figure2.27:JohnF.KennedyInternationalAirportlayout.Source:FAA.

JFK serves as a hub for JetBlueAirways and is also amajor international hub for

AmericanAirlines andDelta. In total, over21passenger carriers serve theairport (RITA,

2014).Figure2.29highlightsJFK’scarriersharesin2013.

Figure2.28:CarriersharesatJFKin2013.Source:RITA.

DallasMetropolitanArea

Two major airports serve the Dallas metropolitan area: Dallas/Fort Worth

International Airport (DFW) and Dallas Love Field Airport (DAL). DFW is 11miles from

DAL.Thesetwoairportscollaboratetomeetairtrafficdemandtoandfromtheregion.

Dallas/FortWorthInternationalAirport(DFW)

History

In 1964, the Civil Aeronautics Board determined that Dallas Love Field and Fort

WorthGreaterSouthwest InternationalAirportwere inadequate forservingtheprojected

futureairtrafficneedsoftheregion.TheBoarddirectedthepoliticalleadersofbothDallas

andFortWorthto identifyacommonsitemutuallyacceptabletobothmunicipalities.The

civic leadersofbothcitiesagreedonan18,000‐acreparcel thatwasequidistantbetween

the two cities. In 1968, construction of the $700 million airport began (Texas State

HistoricalAssociation,2013).

In1974,Dallas/FortWorthInternationalAirport(DFW)openedoperationswiththe

firstflightbeinganarrivingAmericanAirlinesflightforNewYork.Atotalofeightairlines

startedserviceattheairportthatyear.Atthetime,DFWhadthreerunwaysand56gates.

BraniffAirwayswas the largest carrierand flew152dailyoperationsoutofDFW.Figure

2.30providesacurrentlayoutoftheairport.Inthe1980s,bothAmericanandDeltaAirlines

establishedhuboperationsattheairport,butDeltalaterrelocated.Throughoutthe1990s,



AmericanandDeltacontrolled90percentof theair trafficatDFW(TexasStateHistorical

Association,2013).

Figure2.29:Dallas/FortWorthInternationalAirportlayout.Source:FAA.


Positioned at the mid‐point between the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth, DFW

International Airport is the fourth busiest in the world and is the home of American

Airlines, theworld’s largest airline in terms of passengers. Figure 2.31 provides a list of

DFWcarriersharesin2013.Currently,DFWInternationalAirporthas1,800flightseachday

serving60millionpassengersayear.DFWInternationalAirportprovidesnonstopservice

to148domesticand59internationaldestinationsworldwide.

Figure2.30:CarriersharesatDFWin2013.Source:RITA.



In1979, theFederalGovernmentenacted theWrightAmendment. In essence, the

WrightAmendmentprotectedthedomestictrafficatthenewlycompletedDFW,whichthe

Civil Aeronautics Board mandated. In October 2014, the Wright Amendment was fully

repealed.Today, thecompetition is largelybetweenAmericanandSouthwest, rather than

betweenthetwoairports.Moreimportantly,therepealoftheWrightAmendmentprohibits

international flights at Love Field; as a result, the international market represents the

greatestgrowthpotentialforDFW(AviationOnlineMagazine,2012).

American’s strategy states thatAmericanAirlineswill connectLatinAmericawith

Asia and Europe, while DFW reaping the benefits. In line with this strategy, American

initiated routes to Hong Kong and Shanghai in June. Additionally, DFW has recently

announced that Qatar Airways will launch service between DFW and Doha, with Etihad

Airways starting flights to Abu Dhabi. DFW leadership continues to press for a Chinese

airlinetostartpassengerservicetoDFW(BureauofTransportationStatistics,2014).

DallasLoveFieldAirport(DAL)

History

Dallas Love Field Airport (DAL) is owned and operated by the City of Dallas

DepartmentofAviation.ItisnamedafterLieutenantMossL.Love,whowaskilledduringa

training flight in 1913. The construction of the airport was a private venture and not

mandatedby theCivilAeronauticalBoard.The inaugural flight forLoveFieldoccurred in

1917.At that time,DALwas leased to theUnitedStatesArmyasanaeronautical training

base.AfterWorldWarI,DALwasreturnedtocivilianservice,andin1927theCityofDallas

purchased167acresof the field. In1927,DALbegan regularpassenger service.TheCity

purchasedadditionallandin1927andagainin1941,resultinginatotalperimeterof1,300

acres(SouthwestAirlines,2010).

LoveFieldwasonceagainpushed intomilitary service in1942andservedas the

headquarters for the United States Air Transport Command. Due to the expansions

completedbytheArmyCorpofEngineers,LoveFieldwasthelargestairportintheentire

southwest. With the increase in demand for air travel and transport, in 1968 the Civil

AeronauticalBoard(CAB)directedtheCitiesofDallasandFortWorthtoidentifyamutually

agreeduponlocationforanewinternationalairport.Inanefforttosafeguardthesuccessof

the new airport, the CAB worked to enact the Wright Amendment, which directed all

domesticcarrierstomovetothenewDFWAirport.Southwestrefused,filedalawsuit,and



prevailed.TheensuingcompromiserestrictedSouthwestAirlinestosixstatessurrounding

thestateofTexas.


DALcurrentlyhasthreerunways.In2009,theCityofDallasspent$519millionto

replacetheterminalbuildingswithasingleterminalanda20‐gateconcourse(FAAMaster

Records for DAL, 2008). In January 2014, the airport served 654,738 passengers. Figure

2.32providesacurrentlayoutoftheairport.

Figure2.31:DallasLoveFieldAirportlayout.

In addition to Southwest, four other carriers currently serve Love Field. Figure 2.33

provides a list of carriers in 2013, which include Delta, SkyWest, SeaPort, and United

Express.



Figure2.32:CarriersharesatDALin2013.Source:RITA.

DataAnalysisandResults

EnplanementCapacity

InJuly2014,theFAAreleasedareportonairportcapacityprofiles,whichprovidesa

high‐levelassessmentofcurrentandfuturerunwaycapacity.Thereportdefinescapacityas

“the hourly throughput (departures and arrivals) that an airport’s runways are able to

sustainduringperiodsof highdemand, represented as the rangebetween theAirTraffic

Control (ATC) rate and themodel‐estimated rate” (FAA Airport Capacity Profiles, 2014).

According to this study, a comparison of capacity rates for operations at core airports

indicates that SAN has the lowest capacity, with an hourly capacity rate of just 48‐57

operations (including arrivals and departures) as shown in Table 2.2. Figure 2.34 below

showstherangeofcapacityratesatcoreairports.



Table2.2:Capacityprofilesofothermetropolitanareasservedbymultiplemajorairports.Source:RITA.

Figure2.33:Rangeofcapacityratesforcurrentoperationsatcoreairports.Source:FAA.

SAN’slowcapacityisadirectresultoftheairport’ssinglerunway.AlthoughSANis

expected to remain the busiest single‐runway commercial airport in the U.S., it will be

unable to expand or add additional runways due to lack of available land within the

immediatevicinityoftheairport.AshighlightedbyFigure2.35,SANisamongtheairports

expectedtorequireadditionalcapacityby2025,evenaftercompletedimprovements(FAA,

Region AirportCapacityRate(hourly)


SAN 48‐57CLD NotAvailableLAX 167‐176SNA 49‐68ONT NotAvailableLGB 48‐105

BayAreaSFO 100‐110OAK 105‐138SJC NotAvailable

ChicagoArea

ORD 214‐225MDW 64‐84

NYAreaJFK 90‐93LGA 80‐86EWR 94‐100

DallasArea

DFW 226‐264DAL NotAvailable



2007).SNAandLGBwillalsorequireadditionalcapacity.Currently,LAXistheonlyairport

inSouthernCaliforniaexpectedtomeetcapacityafterplannedimprovements.

Figure2.34:Airportsandmetropolitanareasrequiringadditionalcapacityin2025,withorwithoutplannedimprovements.Source:FAA.



Figure2.35furtherhighlightsthatboththeLosAngelesandSanDiegoregions–and

thusSouthernCaliforniaasawhole–willbeunabletomeetdemandforairtravelby2040.

SuchdatasuggeststhatanadditionalinternationalairportintheTri‐Countyregion–with

multiple,longerrunways–willbenecessarytomeetfuturedemand.

AirTrafficPatterns(Domesticvs.International)

In this section, air traffic patterns of 2013 enplanements (domestic versus

international) are compared among other Southern California airports. The comparison

indicatesthatSANprimarilyservesdomestictravelers,whichcomprise96.3percentoftotal

enplanements. Only 3.7 percent of SAN’s enplanements are international. This number is

similartothenumberofinternationalenplanementsatotherregionalairportssuchasSNA

andONT.LikeSAN,theseairportsalsoprimarilyservedomestictravelers,whichcomprise

95.7percentand98.6percentofdomesticenplanements,respectively(refertoTable2.3).

Basedonstudy findings,LAX is thedominant international airport inSouthernCalifornia

with domestic travelers comprising 76.4 percent of enplanements and international

travelerscomprising24.6percent.

Table

2.3:

Percen

tageof

domes

ticand

intern

ational

enplan

ements

in

2013.

Source

:RITA.

Region AirportNo.TotalEnplanements

2013(M)* Domestic Intl.


SAN 9.08 96.3% 3.7%

CLD 0.05 100.0% 0.0%

LAX 33.09 73.6% 26.4%

SNA 4.58 95.7% 4.3%

ONT 2.00 98.6% 1.4%

LGB 1.44 100.0% 0.0%

BayAreaSFO 21.84 78.4% 21.6%

OAK 4.97 98.4% 1.6%

SJC 4.44 96.4% 3.6%

ChicagoArea

ORD 32.53 83.6% 16.4%

MDW 10.41 97.5% 2.5%

NYAreaJFK 25.10 48.2% 51.8%

LGA 13.38 93.8% 6.2%

EWR 17.59 68.1% 31.9%

DallasAreaDFW 29.24 89.0% 11.0%

DAL 4.36 99.9% 0.1%Average 13.38 89% 11%



AsindicatedbythebenchmarkanalysisofothermajorU.S.metropolitanareas,each

of theareasexaminedhasmore thanonemajorairportservingair trafficdemandtoand

fromitsgeographicalreach.Forexample,intheNewYorkmetropolitanarea,bothJFKand

EWR – which are 21 miles apart – serve a much larger percentage of international

passengers(51.8percentand31.9percent,respectively)thandoairportswithinSouthern

California.

Considering the proximity of LAX to SAN – a lengthy 109‐mile journey forweary

travelers – building a proposed international airport roughly halfway in between would

shortenthedistance,aswellastraveltime,toamajorinternationalairport.Furthermore,

theproposedinternationalairport inOceansidewouldprovidegreateraccessibilitytothe

region.Suchimprovedaccessibilitywouldensurethattheareaisevenmoreattractiveand

convenient for potential international travelers to get to, thereby increasing travel to the

region.

Thebenchmarkstudyalsosuggests that there isamissedopportunity for theTri‐

Countyregion.GiventhelimitedinternationalairtraveloptionsprovidedbytheSouthern

California airport system, international travelers to the region are forced to board a

connectingflightatLAXfirst,ratherthantraveldirectlytoSanDiego.Currently,3.7percent

of enplanements at SAN are international. Out of all benchmarkedmetropolitan airports,

theaveragepercentageofinternationalenplanementsis11percent,whichisalmostthree

timesasmanyenplanementscurrentlyfacilitatedatSAN(refertoTable2.2).Fromthis, it



can be deduced that the proposed international airport in Oceanside could potentially

increasethenumberof internationaltravelerstotheSanDiegoareabyaminimumof7.3

percent (average of 11 percent minus the percentage of international enplanements,

currentlyat3.7percent).

EnplanementsperFlight(Domesticvs.International)

In this section, the total enplanements per flight are compared to determine the

aircraft size capacity for each airport. The number of enplanements per flight was

calculatedbydividingthenumberofenplanementsperflight(numberofpeopleonboardan

outbound aircraft) by the number of flights in 2013, for both domestic and international

flights.Table2.4highlights thesecalculations.Onaverage,domesticdepartures fromSAN

carry110passengersperflight.Thisnumberislargerthantheaveragecountperflightof

94passengers.ComparedwithothermajorinternationalairportssuchasLAX,SFO,andJFK

(104,102,and104respectively),thenumberofpassengersthatflightsoutofSANcancarry

is higher than that of other airports. This suggests that SAN’s domestic flights are

approachingmaximumpassengeroccupancyperaircraft.Figure2.36providesthenumber

ofenplanementsperflightacrossothermajormetropolitanairports.

Figure2.35:Numberofenplanementsperflightacrossmajorinternationalairports.

Incontrast,thenumberofenplanementsperflightforinternationalflightsatSANis

134,whichismuchlowerthanothermajorinternationalairportssuchasLAX,SFOandJFK

(191, 192, and176, respectively). Suchdata suggest that the carrying capacities of SAN’s



outboundaircraftsare limiteddue to smalleraircraft size.This is adirect resultof SAN’s

relativelyshort,singlerunway,whichcannotaccommodatelargeraircrafts.

ThebenchmarkstudyalsoindicatesthatanewinternationalairportwithintheTri‐

Countyregionwouldincreaseenplanementcapacity,whichSANiscurrentlymissingouton.

A largernumberof passengersper flightwould actually improve efficiencyby increasing

the overall ratio of passengers to total flights. This potentially translates into higher

revenues per flight given that international flight prices are often higher than domestic

flightprices.



RatioofTotalEnplanements(AgainstMetropolitanAreaPopulation)

Region Airport

No.EnplanementsperFlight(Domestic)

No.EnplanementsperFlight(International)


SAN 110 134

CLD 20 ‐

LAX 104 191

SNA 111 102

ONT 93 112

LGB 107 ‐

BayArea

SFO 102 192

OAK 104 122

SJC 99 130

ChicagoArea

ORD 72 123

MDW 112 75

NYArea

JFK 104 176

LGA 77 53

EWR 82 125

DallasAreaDFW 88 113

DAL 92 ‐

Average 92 127Table2.4:Comparisonofthenumberofenplanementsperflightbyairport,includingdomesticandinternationalflights.

In this section, the numbers of enplanements at each airport and within each

metropolitan area are measured against the local metropolitan population. The ratio of

enplanements is calculatedbydividing thenumberof total enplanements in2013by the

estimatedmetropolitanpopulation(UnitedStatesCensusBureau,2014).Table2.5displays

theresultingratiosforallairportsandmetropolitanareasexaminedinthisstudy.



Region Airport

EstimatedPopulation2013(Millions)

RatioofEnplanementsByAirport

TotalRatioofEnplanementsByMetroArea


SAN 3.21 2.83 2.84CLD Tri‐County:2.21 0.02 LAX

13.13

2.52

3.13SNA 0.35ONT 0.15LGB 0.11

BayAreaSFO

6.443.39

4.86OAK 0.77SJC 0.69

ChicagoArea

ORD9.54

3.414.50

MDW 1.09

NYAreaJFK

19.951.26

2.81LGA 0.67EWR 0.88

DallasArea

DFW6.81

4.294.93

DAL 0.64Average 9.85 1.44 3.85Table2.5:Ratioofthetotalenplanementsagainstthemetropolitanareapopulation.

Astheabovetableindicates,SANhas2.83enplanementsperpersonwithintheSan

Diego metropolitan area. This number is much lower than the ratio of enplanements at

other major international airports, including SFO, ORD, and DFW (3.39, 3.41, and 4.29,

respectively).SuchdataindicatethatSFO,ORD,andDFWtransportmorepassengersfrom

their respective geographic regions than does SAN. However, these findings could be

attributed to a greater number of passengers per flight, since larger airports can

accommodatehigher‐capacityaircrafts.

Incontrast,Table2.5indicatesthattheNewYorkmetropolitanareaistheexception

tothispatternwithacombinedratioofonly2.81enplanementsperperson,comparedtoa

ratioof2.85withintheTri‐Countyregion.However,othermajormetropolitanareassuchas

the Bay Area, Chicago, and Dallas currently enplane more passengers when measured

againstthe localpopulation.ThissuggeststhatSAN’senplanementcapacity is limitedand

that theproposed international airport couldpotentially increase the enplanement ratios

withintheregion.



Currently, CLD and SAN are the only two airports located within the San Diego

metropolitanarea.SinceCLD’senplanementcapacityisnominal(withanenplanementratio

ofjust0.02),SANis–forallintentsandpurposes–theonlyairportoperatingwithintheSan

Diegometropolitanarea.Figure2.37highlightstheratiosoftotalenplanementswithineach

metropolitanarea.

Figure2.36:Ratiooftotalenplanementsagainstthemetropolitanareapopulation.

AirTrafficProjections

In this section, theprojected enplanements are compared. Projected enplanement

data are based on past enplanement trends and were obtained from the FAA’s Office of

Aviation Policy and Plans (APO) Terminal Forecast website. The selected range for data

collectionwas1990 through2040.Theyear1990was selectedbecause itprovidesa25‐

yearlookback;similarly,2040is25yearsintothefuture.

Figure2.38highlightstheprojectednumberofSANenplanementsto2040,broken

out into domestic and international. (See Appendix for projected 2040 enplanements of

otherairportsincludedinthisstudy).Accordingtotheseprojections,theprojectednumber

of enplanements at SAN in 2040will be roughly 15million,which equates to sixmillion

moreenplanementsthantheairportiscurrentlyfacilitating.Thisrepresentsagrowthrate

of2.5percentyearonyear.



SAN—SANDIEGOINTLData:Enplanements

Figure2.37:SANenplanementsforecast(DomesticandInternational).Source:FAA.

OtherregionalairportsinSouthernCaliforniaalsoshowasimilargrowthtrend,as

highlightedinFigure2.39.Amongtheairportsexaminedinthisstudy,LAXisprojectedto

have the largest number of enplanements at 53.6 million by 2040. Based on growth

projectionsofallairportswithinSouthernCalifornia(SAN,CLD,LAX,SNA,ONT,andLGB),

the total number of enplanements is expected to be 82,619,223 by 2040, up from

50,245,811in2013.Withsuchasharpincreaseinannualenplanementsacrossallregional

airportswithinSouthernCalifornia,thedataindicatesthatanadditionalairportintheTri‐

Countyregionwillbenecessarytomeettheprojecteddemand.

Air Carrier

Total International Enplanements



Figure2.38:Enplanementsforecastforbenchmarkedairports,includingdomesticandinternational.Source:FAA.

Table 2.6 shows the average projected growth rate of each airport from 2013 to

2040.SANhasagrowthrateof2.5percent,whichisthesameastheaveragegrowthrateof

allthebenchmarkedairports.However,bycomparingotherdomesticregionalairportssuch

as OAK, MDW, LGA and DAL (2.0 percent, 2.0 percent, 1.1 percent, and 1.8 percent

respectively), it can be determined that SAN has a much higher growth rate than those

airports.AlthoughSANmainly serves thedomesticmarket, thegrowth rate suggests that

SANwillgrowmuchfasterthanotherdomesticairports.

Inaddition,CLDhasthehighestgrowthrateof5.7percent.AlthoughCLDisamuch

smallerairport incomparisontotheotherairportsstudied, ithasthehighestgrowthrate

This suggests that there is increase in air traffic demand in the North County area.

Additionally,alloftheotherregionalairportsservingSouthernCaliforniahavehighgrowth

ratescomparedwithotherregionalairports inothermajormetropolitanareas.SNA,LGB,

SAN,andCLDhaveequalorhighergrowthratesthantheaveragerateof2.5percent.Such

datafurtheremphasizestheneedforanewairportinNorthSanDiegoCounty.



Region AirportAverageGrowthRate2013–2040


SAN 2.5%CLD 5.7%LAX 2.3%SNA 2.8%ONT 2.3%LGB 2.5%

BayAreaSFO 2.4%OAK 2.0%SJC 2.5%

ChicagoArea

ORD 2.3%MDW 2.0%

NYAreaJFK 2.8%LGA 1.1%EWR 2.9%

DallasArea

DFW 2.6%DAL 1.8%

Average 2.5%Table2.6:Comparisonofprojectedenplanementgrowthratesbetween2013‐2040.

Conclusions

ThefirstphaseofthisstudyexamineshowexistingairportsinSouthernCalifornia

are currently serving air traffic demand to and from the region and how theywill serve

projecteddemandinthefuture.TheregionalairportsincludedinthisstudyareSAN,CLD,

LAX,LGB,SNA,andONT,allofwhicharewithina90‐mileradius(or90‐minutedrive)from

the location of the proposed international airport inOceanside. The secondphase of this

studyincludesabenchmarkanalysisoffourothermajorU.S.metropolitanareasservedby

multiple airports, including San Francisco, New York, Dallas, and Chicago. This phase

examineshowmultiple airports serving the samemetropolitanareaeither collaborateor

compete tomeetair trafficneeds.Findings fromtheseareaswere thencomparedagainst

theTri‐Countyregion.

WithSANexpectedtoreachcapacitybetween2030and2035,ithasbeenproposed

that an additional international airport be constructed at the designated location in

Oceanside.ThebenchmarkeddatawasusedtoanalyzecurrentEnplanementCapacity,Air

Traffic Patterns (Domestic vs. International), and Enplanements per Flight, and Ratio of

Total Enplanements (Against Metropolitan Area Population) against SAN. Enplanement

projectionsto2040werealsocompared.



ResultsofthebenchmarkanalysisindicatethatSANiscapacity‐constrained.Thisis

duetothelimitationsofashort,singlerunway.Allotherbenchmarkedairports, including

other regional airportswith lower enplanements per year than SAN, have aminimumof

tworunways.ThecurrenthourlycapacityrateatSAN,includingdeparturesandarrivals,is

thelowestamongallairportsexaminedinthisstudy.SAN’scapacitywillremainlowunless

asecondrunwayisadded.Unfortunately,suchanadditionisnotfeasibleduetolimitedland

availability.Furthermore,otherregionalairports,suchasSNAandLGB,willneedadditional

capacityby2025evenwithplannedexpansions(FAA,2007).

At present, SAN predominantly serves the domestic travel market, unlike other

major airports in the U.S. A primary reason for this is that SAN operateswith a shorter,

singlerunway.Asaresult,SANislimitedinitsabilitytoaccommodatelargeraircraft.Thisis

highlighted by SAN’s lower international enplanements per flight. Such a low number

suggestsSANhasalimitedcapacitytooperatelargeraircrafts.Theproposedinternational

airport–withmultipleand longerrunways–willserveto increasetheregion’sair traffic

capacity.

Furthermore, SAN’s low ratio of total enplanements against the surrounding

metropolitanpopulationindicatesamissedopportunityfortheregion.Assuch,theaddition

ofahigher‐capacityairportwithin theTri‐Countyregionhas thepotential to improvethe

region’saccessibility, therebymaking itevenmoreattractiveandconvenient forpotential

visitors.

Finally, the projected 2040 enplanements indicate that SAN and other airports

withinSouthernCalifornia(namelySNAandCLD)willexperiencethefastestgrowthrates.

Projected growth rates suggest the imminent need for additional air capacitywithin the

region. Based on study findings, the proposed international airport will supplement the

existingairportsysteminSouthernCaliforniaandworkcollaborativelywithotherairports.

SAN will continue to primarily serve the domestic travel market, while the new

internationalairport–with larger facilitiesandmultiplerunways–willhelpalleviate the

heavyburdenplacedonLAXtosatisfytheregion’sinternationaltraveldemand.Evenmore

importantly, the location of the proposed airport in Oceansidewill provide a substantial

growthopportunity in termsof direct air traffic to and from the SanDiego area, thereby

positioningNorthSanDiegoCountyatthecenteroftheTri‐Countyregion.


Chapter3:GroundTransportation 75

CHAPTER3:GROUNDTRANSPORTATION

Introduction

Southern California International Airport will affect automobile traffic in the

surroundingareas,particularlyalongInterstate5, Interstate15,andHighways76and78.

Portionsof these roadwaysarealready congestedandmanyworry that theadditionof a

new airport will only exacerbate the problem. In addition to automobile traffic, the

increaseddemandforpublictransportationservingtheairportneedstobeconsidered.The

accompanying environmental effects of increased public and private transportation also

need to be addressed, as well as additional parking infrastructure to accommodate the

travelingpopulation.Privatevehicleswillrequireparkingatorneartheairport.Travelers

utilizingpublictransportationwillneedparkingsolutionsatpublictransportationhubsso

theycanparktheirvehiclesandreachtheairportbybusorrail.

This chapter examines the anticipated traffic to SCIA and offers sustainable

solutionsformanagingit.Thegoal isto identifycurrentpublicandprivatetransportation

infrastructure and to identify how its various existing elements, and potential new

elements, can be systematically linked to maximize transportation efficiency while

minimizingnegativetrafficandenvironmentaleffects.

This report projects automobile traffic and demand for public transportation and

parkingtoserveSCIAwhenitoperatesatmaximumcapacity.Thiswillbeaccomplishedby

comparingprojectedfuturetrafficwiththeprojectedfuturecapacityforprivateandpublic

transportationintheregion,takingintoaccountcurrentlyscheduledexpansionplans.

The analysis examines existing plans to expand private and public transportation

withintheregion.ItanalysesofallDepartmentofTransportationprojectsslatedtoexpand

highwaysandinterstatestoalleviatetrafficcongestion.Italsoexaminesallcurrentplansto

expand public transportation routes near SCIA. The report discusses the sufficiency of

current public and private infrastructure needed to handle projected traffic and offers

recommendationsforfurtherinfrastructuredevelopment.

ResearchQuestions

Thisreportisdividedintothreesectionswithseparateresearchquestionsrelating

to private transportation including personal vehicles, taxis, and shuttles; public

transportation includingbuses and rails; andparking infrastructure forpersonal vehicles



parking either directly at SCIA or parking elsewhere with the intent to board public

transportationtravelingtoSCIA.Theresearchquestionsareasfollows:

1. ConsideringtheexistingplanstoexpandInterstate5,Interstate15,StateRoute76,

andStateRoute78,whatadditionalplansshouldbescheduledtomeetdemandin

theTri‐Countyregion?

2. What portion of airport passengers will require or prefer public transportation

options,andwhichpublictransportationoptionswillbeappropriatetohandlethe

increaseindemand?

3. With the expansion of private and public transportation in the area, how many

passengerswillrequireparkingsolutionswhetherarrivingatSCIAthroughprivate

transportation,orparkingatpublictransportationtransitcenters?

ScopeandLimitations

SANDAG, Caltrans, and other various transportation sources provided data

regarding current usage for bothprivate andpublic transportation. However, forecasted

data forpublic transportationwas forecastedto2030rather than2040. Thegrowthrate

through2030wasusedtoprojectexpecteddemandforpublictransportationby2040.

Inregardstoprivatetransportation,thenumberofpassengersexpectedtousethe

COASTER andMetrolink in 2040was not projected, rather the number of round trips in

2040wasforecasted.Thisreportthereforecalculatedexpectedpassengercapacityforthe

COASTER,Metrolink andPacific Surfliner bymultiplying thenumber of forecasted round

tripsbythenumberofseatsavailablepertrip.

NorthCountyTransitDistrict’sSPRINTERisexpectedtooperateeverytenminutes

in2040,whereitiscurrentlyoperatingevery30minutes.Althoughdataisnotprovidedon

the expected number of round trips for SPRINTER in 2040, the increase in operations

impliesthenumberofpassengerscouldtripleafter2030. Unreturnedmessageswereleft

withvariouscontactsatSANDAGtotryandgathermissingtransportationdata.

Lastly,datawasunavailable referencingwhereSAN’soriginatingpassengerswere

travelingfrom.Toconservativelyestimatetheimpactonpublicandprivatetransportation,

thisreportinvestigatedthehighestforecastedimpacttoeachtransportationroute.

Methodology

This report reliedon secondary research to examine transportationneeds for the

Tri‐County regionwhen SCIA operates at a capacity of 30million passengers. TheNorth



CoastCorridorPublicWorksPlan&TransportationandResourceEnhanceProgramReport

(NCCPWP/TREP) issuedby theCaliforniaCoastalCommission in July2014servedas the

main source for addressing planned freeway and railway expansions as well as the

environmentalconcernsarisingfromtransportationexpansions.

California’sDepartmentofTransportation (Caltrans)andSanDiegoAssociationof

Governments (SANDAG) were used to determine current and forecasted demand for

transportationwithin theTri‐County region. Caltrans andSANDAGuse variables suchas

population, income, and unemployment rates in their model when determining the

projecteddemandfortransportation.

Forprivatetransportation,thisreportuseddatafromseveralpublicagencysources

toconstructamodelof traffic toandfromSCIA.Data fromtheCaltransandSANDAGwas

used todeterminewhether theexistingplans to expandhighwaysand interstateswillbe

sufficienttohandle,orifadditionalconstructionisrequired.

Within the Tri‐County region, current demand and capacity for public

transportation, proposed public transportation expansions, and future demand for public

transportationdatawasgatheredfromNorthCountyTransitDistrict(NCTD),Metrolink,the

California Coastal Commission, and Caltrans. Secondary data from the San Diego

InternationalAirportandLosAngelesInternationalAirportwerealsousedtodeterminethe

portionofpassengerswhowillusepublictransportation.

Todetermineparking infrastructuredemand related to SCIA, this reportused the

2013 EAS Report that calculated the needs for parking based on passengers at SAN.

Additionally,theparkingneedsatLAXwasusedtoconstructprojecteddemandforSCIA.

Lastly,demandforparkingwasestimatedusingthe2013EASReportasabenchmark for

parkingneedsbasedonvolumeandpassengersofSAN.Inaddition,parkingneedsforLAX

wasusedtoestimatedemand.

PrivateTransportation

Introduction

Privatevehicletravelischosenby98%oforiginatingpassengersarrivingatLAXor

SAN(MalcolmPirnie,2008).Whileitisdifficulttoprojectwhethertherewillbesignificant

changesinthetransportationmodesinthefuture,itisreasonabletoexpectthatin25years,

manyCalifornianswillstillchoosetotravelbyautomobile.Therefore,preparingadequate



road infrastructure through interstates, highways, and arterial roads to accommodate

vehiculartrafficwillbecrucialtotheoperationsofSCIA.

ThemainthoroughfaresforprivatevehiclesaccessingSCIAincludeStateRoute76

(SR‐76), Interstate5 (I‐5),StateRoute78(SR‐78),and Interstate15(I‐15). SR‐76 is the

only main thoroughfare which would provide direct access to SCIA. The other main

thoroughfareswouldonlyconnect toSCIAbyeitherconnecting toSR‐76or toanarterial

roads.FourarterialroadsplayavitalroleinconnectingpassengerstoSCIA.Theirrolewill

be to traverse the interior roads running off ofmajor routes and includeEl CaminoReal

(ECR),MissionAvenue,BenetRoad,andPacificCoastHighway(PCH).Table3.1showseach

routeandhowitwillservicepassengersinaccessingtheproposedairportsite.Inaddition,

Table3.1indicatessecondaryroutesthatmaybesubstitutedbytravelers.

ArterialRoadsName Connection/Purpose Miles Lanes SecondaryRouteElCaminoReal(ECR) ConnectsSR‐78toSR‐76through

MissionAve.RunsparallelofI‐5;northtosouth

3.2 6(South)4(North)

PacificCoastHighway

MissionAvenue‐A ConnectsECRtoSR‐76 1.0 4 MissionAvenue‐B ConnectsI‐5toPCH.Runs

throughdowntowntoallowaccesstoOceansideTransitCenter[orterminalconnectionstation].

0.6 4

BenetRoad* ConnectsSR‐76toProposedAirportTerminalSite

1.1 2 FoussatRoad

PacificCoastHighway(PCH)

ConnectsendofSR‐78toNorthOceanside.RunsparalleltoI‐5andprovidesaccesstoOceansideTransitCenter[orterminalconnectionstation].

2 2(South)2(North)

I‐5

FoussatRoad* ConnectsSR‐76toSCIATerminalSite

1.9 2 BenetRoad

*‐Requiresnewroadsbebuiltonportionofdefinedroute

Table3.1:Alternateroadstoproposedairport.

Each of the main routes, freeways and highways will be discussed in order of

nearest to furthest from SCIA. Correspondingly, arterial roads will be discussed as they

relatetoeachmainroutewithintheirrespectivesubsection.



StateRoute76

CurrentTrafficConditions

StateRoute76(SR‐76)runseast‐westfor53milesstartinginOceansideattheI‐5,

passing through I‐15PalaandPaumaValley,andendsatSR‐79.Theportion thatdirectly

relates to SCIA lies between the I‐5 and I‐15. Within the Tri‐County region, SR‐76 runs

through the city of Oceanside and the unincorporated community of Bonsall. This area

spansjustover20milesandincludesarecentlyupgradedfour‐laneexpresswayfromI‐5to

SouthMissionRoadandatwo‐lanehighwayfromSouthMissionRoadtoI‐15.Thecurrent

average traffic volume on SR‐76 is approximately 30,000 average daily trips. This is

expected todouble to60,000by theyear2030(CaliforniaDepartmentofTransportation,

2011).Thisispartlyduetotheprojectedpopulationandemploymentgrowthrates.Perthe

2050 Regional Transportation plan, Oceanside’s projected population and employment

growthratesareexpectedtoincrease22%and54%respectively,by2050(SANDAG,2011).

In order to accommodate the projected increases, there have been several

improvementscompletedonSR‐76.Theseimprovementsarebrokenoutbysegment:West,

Middle, andEast.Thewestern segment fallswithin the cityofOceansidebetween the I‐5

andMelroseDrive; in1999 this sectionwaswidened froma two‐lanehighway toa four‐

laneexpressway.ThemiddlesegmentislocatedbetweenMelroseDriveandSouthMission

Road.Thewideningof thissegmentofSR‐76toa four‐laneexpresswaywascompleted in

2012.Additionalimprovementsinthemiddlesegmentincludeinstallingsignalizedandfull

accessintersectionstoimproveroadwayfunctionality,addinganewtwo‐lanebridgeover

theSanLuisReyRiverforeastboundtraffic,reconfiguringtheexistingSanLuisRiverBridge

forwestbound traffic, and replacing both Bonsall Creek and Ostrich Farm Creek Bridges

(TransNet,2013).

PlannedDevelopmentandGrowth

TrafficvolumesalongSR‐76areexpectedtodoubleby2030to60,000daily trips.

Usingthesameprojectedgrowthratefor2030,the2040trafficvolumescouldbeashighas

100,000daily trips.Traffic problems related to the current growthprojections shouldbe

mitigatedbycompletingthelastsegmentoftheSR‐76expansionproject.Thelastsegment,

calledtheEastsegment,isdividedintothreephases.ThefirstphaseupgradedtheSR‐76/I‐

15interchangetoincludeanadditionaleastboundlane.Inaddition,twonewloopon‐ramps

werebuilt foreasieraccess to I‐15 (TransNet,2013).Thesecondand thirdphasesbegan



constructioninOctober2014towidenSR‐76intoafour‐lanehighwayfromSouthMission

RoadtothenewlyupgradedI‐15interchange(TransNet,2013).ThefinalphasesoftheEast

segmentareexpectedtobecompletedby2017.Whenfinished,thewholeexpansionproject

will provide a consistent four‐lane highway for the Tri‐County region that will alleviate

difficultiesrelatedtocurrentandfutureprojectedtrafficvolumes.

SCIAwillhaveasizeableimpactonSR‐76relativetocurrenttrafficvolumes.Based

on the location of SCIA, SR‐76would be the only east‐west highway thatwould provide

access to the airport. Although the current and planned expansions along SR‐76 are

projected to meet an increase in traffic volume of 60,000 daily trips in 2030, these

expansions might not be able to support the additional demand created from the new

airport.

SCIA is projected to serve 30M passengers. In order to calculate the expected

increaseintrafficvolumesthenewairportwillcreate,anaverageoforiginatingpassengers

betweenSANandLAXwasused(seeTable3.2). In2008,SANhad17.7Mpassengersvisit

theairport.Ofthosepassengers,8.4million(47%)originatedfromSanDiegousingeither

private of public transportation (Malcolm Pirnie, 2008). Of the 67M passengers that

traveledthroughLAXin2011,62%originatedfromtheLAarea(UNISONConsulting,2012).

Using 55% as the average of these figures, SCIA will create an increase of 16.4 million

passengersayear,or45,000dailytripstothearea.Currently,98%oftheairporttrafficis

coming fromprivate transportation versus just 2% frompublic (seeTable3.2). Per the

SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), future expansions on public

transportationareexpectedtoincreaseridershipasawaytodecreasecongestiononmajor

highways. By making public transportation a more attractive alternative, we are

anticipating public transportation to increase from 2% to 10%. Therefore, the projected

traffic volumes for private transportation would increase by 40,000 average daily trips,

whilepublictransportationwouldincreaseby4,500passengers.



Current SAN/LAX Passengers LAX SAN

Number of passengers (2013) 66,667,619 17,710,241

Originating Passengers 62.0% 47.2%

Average % Originating Passengers 55.0%

Private Transportation 97.0% 98.8%

Public Transportation 3.0% 1.2%

Average % Private Transportation 97.9%

SCIA Projected traffic increase

Anticipated

Transportation % 2040

Number of Passenger at new airport 30,000,000

AVERAGE LAX & SAN Originating Passengers 54.6%

Projected Private Transportation (per day) 90.0% 40,396

Projected Public Transportation (per day) 10.0% 4,488

TOTAL Increase 44,884 Table3.2:Projectedtrafficincrease.

Addingthistotheprojectedtrafficvolumeof100,000basedonpopulationincrease

createsaforecastof140,000dailytripsin2040.However,mostairporttrafficwilltraverse

onlyasectionofSR‐76,predominantlytheportionbetweenI‐5andtheproposedairport.

AlthoughthisisalargeincreaserelativetoSR‐76’scurrentprojectedtrafficvolume,

the current and future expansions of SR‐76 to a four‐lanehighwaywill alleviate possible

congestion fromthenewairport.Otherpossibleexpansions tobeconsidered tomeet the

demand for SCIA include adding a high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane and implementing

rapidbustransit(BRT).Thesearehighfrequency,limitedstoptransitservicesthatutilize

express laneson thehighway (TransNet,2014). I‐15 recently incorporated thenewBRT

systemwithpositiveresults,andtheI‐5expansionplansonimplementingtheBRTsystem

aswell.

ArterialRoadAccesstoandfromSR‐76

Inaddition to the increase inhighway traffic,arterial roadsrequireconsideration.

ReferencingTable3.1,therearethreearterialroadsoffSR‐76thatwillbeaffected.Twoof

them, Foussat and Benet, will be the main access points into SCIA. These roads are not

consideredoptimalmainaccesspointsintoaninternationalairport,sincetheyrunthrough

residential neighborhoods. One possible solution is to extend Benet and Foussat Road

aroundtheneighborhoodsthereforebypassingresidentialcomplaints.Theseroadsshould



bewidenedandextendedtomeetthedemandofthenewairportastheywouldbeessential

toprivatetransportationaccess.

Interstate5


Interstate5(I‐5)willallowSCIApassengerstotravelsouthfromOrangeCountyand

north from San Diego County, to SR‐76. The amount of airport traffic will increase as it

approachesSR‐76,andtheI‐5toSR‐76junctionwillhavethemostcongestion.

Forclarity,whendiscussingtheimprovementsrequired,thesegmentofI‐5passing

throughOrangeCountywillbecalled“OCSection,” forOrangeCounty.ThesegmentofI‐5

throughtheCoastalCorridorofNorthernSanDiegoCountywillbereferredtoasthe“NCC

Section.”

The OC section is comprised of 32 miles of I‐5 running from North Harbor

Drive/SouthCampPendletoninOceansideuptotheI‐405/I‐5splitjustsouthofIrvine,CA.

In 2012, there were 267,000 daily trips on this section (California Department of

Transportation–District12[CADOTD12],2012);SeeAppendixC.2.However,18.5milesof

this section run thru Camp Pendleton and have minimal traffic access on and off the

interstate. With so few entry‐and exit points along this segment and no commercial or

residential activity, the immediate traffic impactwithin theOCsectionwillbeminimized.

Still, the OC section services many commuter and private vehicle drivers. The route is

primarilymadeupofthreegeneral‐purposelaneswithportionsoftheOCsectionincluding

fourgeneralpurposes lanes, fourplusonehighoccupancyvehicle (HOV)or carpool lane,

andafewmileswithfourplustwocarpoollanes.

TheNCC section runs 27miles along SanDiego’s coastline fromLa Jolla toNorth

Oceansideandspanssixmiles inland. Its I‐5routeruns fromLa JollaVillageDrive inSan

Diego to Harbor Drive in Oceanside and contains eight general‐purpose lanes (four

northboundandfoursouthbound).Thesouthernportion(northofI‐5/I‐805mergeinSan

Diego to south of Manchester Avenue in Encinitas) also includes HOV lanes in each

direction.WithintheNCC,I‐5servesastheprimarytransportationcorridorwithmorethan

700,000dailytrips(Caltrans&SANDAG,2014).

The areas surrounding each section of I‐5 are expected to experience substantial

populationgrowthby2040with30%(CADOTD12,2012)growthinOCand23%(Caltrans

& SANDAG, 2014) in NCC. Such population growth is expected to changes the daily trip



valuesfrom267,000to325,000alongtheOCsection,andfrom700,000to910,000,along

theNCCsection.

TotackleexpectedgrowthwithinbothOCandNCCsections,governmentagencies

havemade several plans and proposals over the last four years. These plans range from

addingHOVlanes,increasingpublictransposition,buildingmoreparkandridesaswellas

newpedestrianandbikepaths.

TheOCsection,runbyDistrict12oftheCaliforniaDepartmentofTransportation,is

addressingthisissuebyaddingatleastoneHOVlanealongtheentire20.5‐mileroutenorth

ofCampPendleton,norththroughtheSR‐73‐I‐405split.Thiswillbeaccomplishedthrough

widening the highway and access ramps where HOV lanes do not currently exist. The

projectbegan in2012and isexpected to last through2022. Ithasbeendesigned to curb

congestionandaccommodategrowthneedsthrough2045.

InJuneof2010,NCCPWP/TREPbeganreleasingprojectproposalsandoutlinesto

thepublic.Theresultoftheircommissionisaplantobeimplementedoverthenext30‐to‐

40 years that includes widening I‐5 to accommodate four new Express Lanes, double

trackingof theLosAngeles‐SanDiego‐SanLuisObispo rail corridor (LOSSAN), enhancing

bustransitservice,aswellaspedestrianandbikepaths.

Theplanistocreatean“8+4”system;thisincludeseightgeneral‐purposelanesand

fourExpressLanes.TheNCCPWP/TREP’sreportstates that thishighwayalternativewas

selectedas it represents thesmallest footprintanalyzed thatcouldstillachieve the travel

improvement goals set forth for the project. In addition, this alternative was highly

desirableasitisendorsedastheappropriatehighwayalternativemodelinSB468.1.

BypursuingaprojectthataddsmorelanesonanexistingfreewayNCCPWP/TREP

sets forth some challenges and great opportunities. With four general purposes lanes

alreadyheadingbothnorthboundandsouthbound,themaininfrastructureadditionisthat

oftwoHOVorExpressLanesoneachsideofthefreeway.AsHOVlanesareadded,accessto

1 SenateBill468(SB468)istheresultofacollaborativeeffortinvolvingSANDAG,Caltrans,andtheCaliforniaCoastalCommissiontoensureprojectdesignandmitigationmeasuresareincludedintheNCCPWPtoaddresscoastalpublicaccess,habitatrestorationprojects,environmentalconcerns,andcommunityenhancements.Additionally,SB468requiresthatSANDAGandCaltransbelimitedtonothinglargerthanan8+4alternative,andstatesthatallfeescollectedfromsingleoccupancyvehicles(SOVs)utilizingtheExpresslanesbeusedtowardfundingfuturetransitserviceandoperationsintheNCC(Caltrans,&SANDAG,2014).



them will need to be considered. NCC PWP/TREP’s plan also addresses that concern

throughtheinstallationoftwoDirectAccessRamps(DARs)andIntermediateAccessPoints

(IAPs) so that HOV lane travelers will have easy access on and off I‐5; DARs are ramps

allowingentranceonandoffdirectlytoandfromHOVlanesinthecenterofthefreewayand

IAPs are lanes that transitionaccess fromgeneralpurpose lanes intoHOVs tohelp avoid

congestionforcarsgettinginandoutofHOVlanes

SimilartoNCCPWP/TREP’splantoadjustforgrowthandcurrentbottlenecks,the

mostchallengingaspectsrelatedtobuildingnewprivate transportation infrastructure for

SCIAwillbefindingnewlandorroomtowidenlanes.Itisprojectedthatanewairportin

Oceansidewill add40,000daily trips to the combined I‐5 sectionswithin theTri‐County

region. Although this number isminimal, compared to current and projected volumes, it

mightpresentsubstantialimpactsonalreadyhighvolumeperiodsoftimesuchasrushhour

andFridays.

TheproposedprojectsbyDistrict12fromtheOCsectionandNCCPWP/TREPinthe

NCC provide adequate improvements to accommodate not only future population and

business growth, but also the additional growth of the proposed airport. The only

modificationsthatshouldbeconsideredareextendingHOVlanes fromSR73downsouth

throughthe18.5milestraveledthroughCampPendletonaswellastheadditionofaDirect

AccessRampinnorthOceanside;preferablyatI‐5/SR76connectionorMissionAve.Adding

moreHOVlanesintheOCsectionwillfurtherensurethattheadditionaldailytripscreated

bythenewairportwillnotaddcongestion.

ArterialRoadAccesstoandfromI‐5

Arterial roads stemming off of the I‐5 will also play a vital role in connecting

passengers to the proposed airport. Whether it is through public transit or via private

vehicles,poorly‐plannedsurfacestreetswillfrustrateandevendelaytravelersontheirway

to SCIA.Within the NCC, the twomain arterial roads that will assist in the efficiency of

transportationarePacificCoastHighway(PCH)andElCaminoReal(ECR).

Evenwiththesemaincitystreetsbeingpopularalternatives,theaddedtrafficfrom

thenewairportwillrequiretheadditionoflanestoallowmoreaccess.Currently,thePCH

sectiondefinedinTable3.1showslittletonogrowthpotentialasthefour‐laneroadislined

withstore‐frontbusinessesadjacenttopedestriansidewalks.



ECRislocatedfurthereastinOceansideandhasroomtogrowwithinitsfourlane

section.IncreasingECRuptosixlaneswillhelptoensureadequateflowforcrosstrafficof

travelersoriginatingoffofECRorcuttingacrossfromtheSR‐78toSR‐76.

Mission Avenue, another arterial road, stemming off of the I‐5 and headingwest

boundoffersanopportunitytoconnecttravelerstoamasspublictransitsystem.Aparkand

ridemaybe created forpassengers toboardapublic transitwhich could then take them

directly to a terminal. Alternatively, travelers could take public transit to this location,

eithervia trainorbus,andthentakeaprivatecommercialvehiclesuchasa taxiover the

shortremainingdistancetothenewairportterminal.Whatevertheformoftravel,Mission

Avegeographicallyoffersanexcellentopportunitytomeldmultipleformsoftransportation

efficiently.

Highway78


Highway 78 (SR‐78) runs east/west between I‐5 and I‐15 through four cities,

Oceanside,Vista,SanMarcos,andEscondidowithjustoverhalfamillionpeoplelivingalong

thecorridor.Overthespanof16.5mileswithsixgeneralpurposelanes,thisroutecurrently

has143,000dailytripswithalargeportionoftrafficoccurringduringrushhour(Parsons

Brinckerhoff, 2012). In 2011, 25% of the furthest eastbound section of this route was

namednumber12outofthe50worstcommutesinAmerica(TheDailyBeast,2011).Since

thattime,SANDAGandtheCityofSanMarcoshaveworkedcloselytowidenoff‐rampsand

overpassesaswellasaddaccesslanesneartheNordahlRoadexitandtheI‐15interchange.

Such changes have made the route move more quickly but have not fully remedied the

problem.Theremedyhasnotworkedfortworeasons:itonlyaddressesthelast4.2milesin

theeastboundsideofSR78andpopulationcontinuestogrowwithintheNorthSanDiego

Countycommunitiessurroundingthefreeway.

Based on a SANDAG study in 2012, the population along the SR‐78 Corridor is

expectedtogrow21%by2050(ParsonsBrinckerhoff,2012).Thissuggeststhatdailytrips

bythattimewillbenearly173,000.Tohandlethishighervolumeoftrafficandcurbexisting

bottleneck concerns, both the NCC PWP/TREP and SANDAG have completed studies

offeringmultiplealternativesassolutions.TheNCCincludestheI‐5/SR‐78Interchangeand

has thereforebegunexploringoptions for improving this connection.Although this study

waspublishedin2014,therewasnoonealternativerecommended.Insteaditwouldbeleft



upto laterplanningbytheNorthCoastalCommissiontodecidethebestsolutionasother

portionsoftheproposedNCCPWP/TREPplanareimplemented.

Addressingmore of the concerns of congestion and over capacity throughout the

entire16.5mileroute,SANDAGpublishedits2050RegionalTransportationPlan(RTP)in

2012 proposing the addition of two new HOV lanes with toll rates for SOVs (single

occupancyvehicles)onSR‐78.Thefinalrecommendationendedwiththeplanbeingputon

hold until further analysis could be made. This was primarily due to excessive costs of

buildingandmanaging the toll lanes.Analysisof the toll lanesshowedthatalthough tolls

would help to recoup some costs and provide funds for long‐term maintenance, loan

interestandoperatingcostswouldstillruntoohigh.

However, the overall plan to add HOV lanes across the entire span of SR‐78will

likelyhavepositiveimplicationsforanewairportaswellasresidentsandcommutersofthe

SR‐78corridor.DoingsowouldchangeSR‐78toa6plus2(3generaluseand1HOVineach

direction).The HOV lanes will help ease the flow of traffic, promote public/group

commuting, andwould be good for the environmental. However, it should be noted that

suchaproposedplan,withkeepingtheHOVlanesdoubledupastolllanesforSOVs,ranges

from$917millionto$1.1billioninbuildcosts.Thesecostsdonotincludeanytypeofdirect

access ramps (DARs) – something that may be a strong consideration for access to El

CaminoReal(ECR)asanarterialroadtotheproposedairportsite.

The addition of a new airport in Oceanside will cause demand to increase

moderately,withdailytripsonthisrouteincreasingupwardsof19%moredailytripsifall

new traffic createdby the demandof the airportwere to traverse SR‐78 (seeTable 3.2).

Suchanincreasewouldamountto213,000dailytripsintheworstcasescenario.However

the minimum increase is likely to be an only 2% increase totaling daily trips to

approximately176,000intheyear2050.Therefore,thebestalternativetoSR‐78’spotential

trafficflowdemandistorecommendSANDAG’splanforcreatingHOVlanesthroughoutSR‐

78.Operatingcostsshouldbesupplementedbyadditionaltaxrevenuesfromtheproposed

airport.Furthermore,theseHOVrouteswillnotonlyenhanceprivatevehicletravelbutalso

allowpublic transit touseof theHOVlanesasexpress lanes.TheaspectsofDARsonthis

route,althoughhelpfulinheavilycongestedareas,maynotbethebestfitforSR‐78.Assuch

they arenot recommended for additions to theSR‐78 in support of anewairport at this

time.ThisisprimarilybecausetheyworkbestwhentwoHOVlanesexistandthenumberof

dailytripsdonotwarrantmorethanoneHOV.Iffurtherexpansion,suchaswideningSR‐78



to addmore general purpose lanes, occurs thenDARs and a secondHOV lane should be

considered.

Interstate15


Interstate15(I‐15)runsfor50mileswithintheTri‐Countyregion.Thisincludesthe

portionoftheI‐15fromSR‐56uptotheI‐15/I215split.In2012,trafficvolumesalongthis

arearangedfrom197,000to312,000vehiclesdaily(TransNet,2014)withthemostheavily

congested areas fallingbetweenSR‐56up throughSR‐78.Before the recent addition of 4

express lanes, the large volumeof traffic caused averagedelaysofup to45minutes.The

completion of the 20‐mile Express Lane Project included additional express lanes, the

implementation of rapid bus transit (RBT) with direct access ramps (DARs) and

intermediateaccesspoints(IAPs).TheprojectspannedfromtheSR‐78inEscondidodown

to the SR‐163 in SanDiego. The express laneswere completed in 2012 and include four

HOVlanesintheI‐15median.Theseimprovementshaveloweredthetraveltimefrom45

minutesto30minutesbetweenSR‐78andSR‐163.Inaddition,averagespeedshaverisen

from30MPHand40MPH,tomorethan60MPH(SANDAG,2013).

Theprojectwasdivided into three segmentswith thenorthandmiddle segments

includedintheTri‐Countyregion.Thenorthsegment,fromCentreCityParkwaytoSR‐78,

costatotalof$187M.Thefundingfortheseimprovementscamefromseveralsourceswith

60%fromfederal,14%fromstate,and23%fromTransNet(TransNet,2014).Themiddle

segment,fromSR‐56toCentreCityParkway,costatotalof$467M.Fundingforthemiddle

expansion included 21% from federal, 3% local, 68% state, and 7% from TransNet

(TransNet,2014).Completionofthemiddleandnorthernsegmentsoftheproject,including

theimplementationofbusrapidtransportationtotalednearly$1B(SANDAG,2013).About

$1M a year is recouped from solo drivers using the new express lanes through the

FastTrackprogram(SANDAG,2013).

Inadditiontocompletingtheexpresslanes,theexpansionoftheI‐15interchangeto

SR‐78was recently completed in2012.This sectionof the interstate isheavily congested

creating severebottlenecksduringmorning and afternoon commutinghours.Theproject

widened the connector on‐ramp from I‐15 to west‐bound SR‐78. The previous delay

averagedaround14minutes,andwouldhaveincreasedto30minutesby2030ifnoaction

hadbeentaken(TransNet,2014).



Therecentadditionoftheexpresslanesandrapidbustransitsystemareexpected

toreducethecurrentandprojectedcongestion,but the there isstillaneed forcontinued

expansion.Populationandemploymentgrowthbytheyear2030alongI‐15areexpectedto

reach 31% and 25% respectively (SANDAG, 2013). The area between Escondido and

Riverside is expected to reach growth rates even higher due to the opportunity for

expansion. These growth rates will result in increased travel demand on the I‐15 with

projected2030trafficvolumesreachingamaximumof365,100vehiclesperday(California

DepartmentofTransportation,2009)..Usingthesameprojectedgrowthratefor2030,the

2040trafficvolumescouldbeashighas400,000dailytrips.Thisequatestoa28%increase

intrafficvolumebasedonthehighestcurrentvolume.Duetotherecentcompletionofan

expansion,therearecurrentlynomajorapprovedexpansionprojectsontheI‐15.

AlthoughtheimpactofanewairportinOceansidemainlyaffectsI‐5andSR‐76,I‐15

willcertainlybeaffectedaroundSR‐76andSR‐78interchanges.Usingaworstcasescenario

per Table 3.2, assuming all traffic runs through the I‐15, the new airport will create an

additional40,000additionaldailytravelers. Withprojectedvolumesat400,000,thisadds

anincreaseofjust9%.Basedonthisassumption,noadditionalexpansionswillbeneeded

inordertocompensateforSCIA.Withthatinmind,theI‐15willneedtoexpandbasedon

projected growth. The traffic increases along I‐15 will come from population growth

whether or not an airport is built. This growth is expected to cause lots of congestion.

Additionaltrafficfromthepassengersflyingoutoftheairportwilladdtotheproblem,but

asaproportionoftheoverallgrowthintraffic,itisverysmall.The2050RTPemphasizes

the increased expansion of public transportation projected in the next thirty years.

Therefore,themostefficientwaytomaintaintrafficlevelswouldbetoincreasetheamount

ofDARsandIAPsalongtheI‐15,makingbustransportationmoreconvenient.Forexample,

there are currently five transit centers along the I‐15 located at Miramar College, Sabre

Springs/Peñasquitos, Rancho Bernardo, Del Lago, and Escondido. Creating additional

transitcenterswithdirectaccessroutes inareasthatareheavilycongestedsuchastheI‐

15/SR‐78 interchange would increase the use of public transportation and therefore

obviate the use of private transportation. Further, adding an additional HOV lane should

alsobeconsideredwhenaddingadditionalDARstocompensateforheavierbustraffic.

EnvironmentalImpacts

With the continued approval of TransNet in 2004, a new program called

EnvironmentalMitigationProgram(EMP)wasimplemented.Theprogramsupportshabitat



conservation plans including that of the SR‐76 expansion (Caltrans, 2014). This program

implemented several techniques to minimize environmental impacts. For example,

directionalfencingandtheconstructionofanimalunder‐crossingswereimplementedinall

sectionsoftheexpansion.Areviewofthedatacollectedtodatesuggeststhecombinationof

directional fencing andwildlife crossingsmay be reducing vehicle‐wildlife collisions and

allowing for wildlife movement across SR‐76 (Caltrans, 2014). Medium‐to‐large species

using the wildlife crossings include the badger, bobcat, coyote, raccoon, striped skunk,

desert cottontail and opossum. In addition, bio‐filtration swales/strips and newdrainage

systemswere constructed tomitigate stormwater run‐off (Transnet, 2011).These filters

use plants in channels to capture and degrade pollutants carried by stormwater runoff.

Thesefiltersalsoreducethevolumeofrunoff(Caltrans,2014).

Inadditiontolandandwildlifepreservation,airqualityisafocusforenvironmental

impacts.ThecurrentandplannedexpansionsonSR‐76,aswithalltransportationactivities,

arerequired toconformto theguidelinespursuant to176(c)of theFederalCleanAirAct

(42USC§7506(c))asoutlinedinthe2050RTP.Further,transportationactivitiesmustnot

createnewairqualityviolations,worsenexistingviolations,ordelaytheattainmentofthe

NationalAmbientAirQualityStandards(NAAQS)(SANDAG,2011).

The Coastal Act governs environmental impacts near and around the proposed

airportsiteasitfallswithintheNorthCoastalCorridor.Airqualityislikelythelargestarea

ofconcernasamajorityofvehiclesomitsome typeofemission.For theNCC,CoastalAct

Section30253(d)codegovernsairquality.However,allstandardswithinthiscodesection

followthebroaderStateofCaliforniaregulationsandthereforeairqualityprincipleswillbe

thesameforallmajorroutesdiscussedwithinthisreport.Inadditiontoairquality,other

environmentalimpactstoconsiderarerunoff/waterqualitycontrolandcoastalsightline

issues,governedbyCoastalActsections30230and30251/30253(b).

The quality ofwater in the rivers, streams, and lagoonswithin the NCC is vitally

importanttomanyecosystemsaswellastorecreationalusers.Runofffromroadscancause

contaminationofthesewatersources.Therefore,allroadinfrastructurewillneedtocomply

withCaliforniaregulationsforstormwateranddrainagealongsidethemainroutes.

RegardingtheCoastalActsection30251and30253(b),newormodifiedstructures

alongtheNCCmustnotcreateanytypeofobstructionofcoastalviewsandmustblendinto

thenatural landscapealong theSanDiegoCoastline.Although theNCCextends inland for



sixmiles,most structure compliance regulationsdonot apply if a structure is notwithin

sightofthecoastlineorcanequallyviewthecoastlinefromitsownlocation.

Beyondairandwater,wideningexistinginfrastructurealongI‐5ratherthanbuildingnew

roads is expected to minimize immediate impact on natural habitats of wildlife residing

within open spaces. Leaving natural areas untouched as much as possible is a positive

solutionforbothbudgetandtheenvironment.

CapacityManagementforProposedAirport

Overthenextthirtyyears,theTri‐Countyregionisexpectedtoseemajorincreases

inpopulationandemploymentgrowth.These increaseswilldirectlyaffect thenumberof

drivers on the road creating the need to properly plan and develop the current private

transportationinfrastructure.Manyexpansionshavealreadybeencompleted,suchastheI‐

15 express lane project and the widening of SR‐78/I‐15 and SR‐76/I‐15 interchanges.

Further, several expansion projects are approved and already in construction, orwill be

under construction to alleviate future traffic volumes. Themajor expansion in the future

willbethe2010NCCPWP/TREPproposalthatincludeswideningI‐5toaccommodatetwo

express lanes on each side. In addition, current construction is underway along SR‐76 to

complete a four‐lanehighway on each side from I‐5 to I‐15. Based on the 2050RTP, the

currentandplannedexpansionsareprojectedtoadequatelyservetheincreasingdemand.

PossibleimprovementsincludeincorporatingadditionalHOVlanesandincreasingDARsto

providemoreconvenientpublictransportation.

Althoughtheseplannedexpansionsdonottakeintoconsiderationtheconstruction

ofanewairport,itisexpectedthattheseimprovementswillbeabletohandletheincrease

in traffic volume with minimal impact. This is because the greatest impact of the new

airportwillbealongI‐5andSR‐76.Therearecurrentplansformajorexpansionsonbothof

them.Theestimatedimpactofthenewairportisexpectedtoberoughly40,000additional

dailytrips.Thisequatestoa4–11%increaseontheI‐5(seeTable3.3).Whiletheincrease

is amore substantial percentage for SR‐76 at 29%, current construction is underway to

minimize impact. In both cases, the addition of an HOV lane and BRT system should be

adequate additions to compensate for the new airport. Finally, with the push for more

public transportationoptions, it isexpected thatpublic transportationwillhaveagreater

impact on alleviating traffic congestion. Although current public transportation is vastly

underutilized with just 2% of current LAX and SAN transportation modes, it can be

estimatedthatwithimprovements,thatwillincreaseto10%basedonplannedexpansions.



Table3.3:Estimatedincreaseindailytripsperroad.

PublicTransportation

Figure3.1:Maprepresentingpassengerrailservicesandstations.

Introduction

Public transportation for the Tri‐County region includes North County Transit

District(NCTD),OrangeCountyTransportationAuthority(OCTA),andAmtrak.

NCTD provides public transportation for the North San Diego County region and

operatesvarioustypesoftransportationservicesincludingBREEZE,SPRINTER,COASTER,

LIFT, and FLEX. For the purpose of this study, we will concentrate on the first three.

Route MaxCurrent Planned%Increase withAirport

%Increase

76 30,000 100,000 233% 140,000 29%5 700,000 910,000 30% 950,000 4%78 143,000 173,000 21% 213,000 19%15 312,000 400,000 28% 440,000 9%



COASTERisacommutertrainforNorthSanDiegoCountythattravelsnorthandsouthwith

thenorthernmoststopinthecityofOceanside,andthesouthernmoststopSanDiegoSanta

FeStation.TheSPRINTERisaneast‐westcommutertravelingfromthecityofEscondidoto

the city of Oceanside. The BREEZE is a bus service operating throughout the North San

DiegoCountyregion(NorthCountyTransitDistrict[NCTD],2013).

OCTA provides public transportation for Orange County and parts of Riverside

County.ThisstudywillfocusonMetrolink’sOrangeCountyline(OCline)andInlandEmpire

‐OrangeCountyline(IE‐OCline);botharecommutertrains.TheOClinetravelssouthand

north connecting the southernmost station, Oceanside, to the northernmost station, Los

AngelesUnionreflectedinTable3.4.Thisstudyfocusesonlyontheroutesstoppingatthe

Oceansidestation.TheIE‐OClinesrunsbothnorthandsouth,aswellaseastandwest.This

linehasatotalof15stopsbetweentheOceansideandSanBernardinostations.

Amtrak provides train service throughout California, with the Pacific Surfliner

servicingareaswithintheTri‐Countyregion.ThePacificSurflinertravelsnorthandsouth

fromtheSanDiegoSantaFeDepotstationtotheSanLuisObispostation.Thisstudyfocuses

onlyonroutesthatstopattheOceansidestation(OrangeCountyTransportationAuthority,

[OCTA],2014).

AspartoftheinitiativeproposedbytheNCCPWP/TREPtoincreasethepercentage

of travelers using transportation modes other than single occupancy vehicles (SOVs),

improvements in a variety of travel modes are being considered including connectivity

betweenthevarioustraveloptions,whichcouldleadtoashiftfromSOVstocarpoolingand

othermeansofmassivetransportation.



CURRENT PLANNED

2013AnnualCapacity

2013DailyRoundTrips

2040AnnualCapacity

2040DailyRoundTrips

NCTD COASTER 5,621,000 11 10,220,000 20

SPRINTER 10,269,440 31 30,808,320 93

METROLINK OrangeCountyLine

(OceansideStopOnly) 1,927,200 5 2,698,080 7

InlandEmpireOrangeCountyLine 2,023,560 7 4,047,120 14

AMTRAK

AmtrakSurfliner 3,179,880 11 5,203,440 18

Table:3.4:Publictransportationcurrentcapacityandforecastedcapacitywithplannedexpansions.

COASTER

As of 2013 the COASTER served over 1.6million passengers, operating 22 trains

daily,or11roundtrips (NCTD,2013).TheCOASTERstopsat the followingeightstations

from north to south: Oceanside, Carlsbad Village, Carlsbad Poinsettia, Encinitas, Solana

Beach,SorrentoValley,SanDiego‐OldTown,andSanDiego‐SantaFeDepot.TheCOASTER

currentlyoperateswithsevenlocomotiveseachofwhichcancarryuptofivecoachesand

eachcoachhasaseatingcapacityof140passengers(J.Dunning,personalcommunication,

October 22, 2014). Therefore, the maximum current capacity is just over 5.6 million

passengersannually.

TheCOASTERoperatesalongtheSanDiegoCountyportionoftheLOSSANcorridor.

Along this portion of the corridor, Amtrak,Metrolink, andCOASTERoperate onmainly a

singletraintrack.Becauseofthis,theCOASTER’soperationscheduleisdependentuponthe

operationschedulefortheMetrolinkandAmtrak.Thisleadstotwoproblems. Thefirstis

longerCOASTERcommutetime,whichiscurrentlybetween25and45minutes(J.Dunning,

personal communication, October 22, 2014). The second problem is increased emissions

sincetheCOASTERmustidlewhenitiswaitingforanothertraintopass(CaliforniaCoastal

CommissionSanDiegoArea,2014).

Toenhanceservicetimeandreliability,andtoreduceemissions,therearecurrent

planstoadddouble‐trackingatthefollowinglocationsontheLOSSANcorridorwithinthe



SanDiegoCounty:SanDieguitoDelMar,SanElijoLagoon,MoonlighttoSwamiinEncinitas,

BatiquitosLagooninCarlsbadandEncinitas,CarlsbadVillageandEastBrooktoShell(NCC

PWP/TREP).Thedoubletrackingisexpectedtocost$5.6B(SANDAG,2011).Inadditionto

addingasecondtrackatCarlsbadVillage,thereareplanstostraightenacurvethatisalso

expected todecreaseoperating times. Lastly, thereareplans for theOceanside station to

addathirdtracksinceitisaconnectionpointfromtheMetrolinktotheCoasteraswellas

the Pacific Surfliner, and to extend the boarding platform and pedestrian crossovers

(CaliforniaCoastalCommissionSanDiegoArea,2014).

By the year 2040, the COASTER is expected to operate 20 round trips during

weekdays,anincreasefromthecurrent11roundtrips.Fiveoftheroundtripsareexpected

toconnecttheMetrolink’sOrangeCountylinetoOceansideandtwoareexpectedtoconnect

the Inland Empire Orange County line to Oceanside (California Department of

Transportation,2013).TheplannedcapacitiesarereflectedinTable3.4.

BREEZE

The BREEZE is a bus service that operates 164 vehicles covering 30 routes from

Escondido to Oceanside, as well as coastal areas (North County Transit District [NCTD],

2014). The BREEZE offers connections to other transportation lines such as SPRINTER,

COASTER,MetrolinkandAmtrak.

The BREEZE has an annual ridership of 8.3 million passengers with a weekday

average ridership of 26,200 passengers (NCTD, 2014).While there are some busses that

havecapacityforonly19passengers,themajorityofthemcanseat38riders(ByllShelton,

NCTD,personalcommunication,September16,2014).

OneoftheproposedimprovementsincludestheBusRapidTransit(BRT).Thisisa

route proposed in the SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan, which combines

stations,enhancedvehicles,IntelligentTransportationSystems(ITS),andapriorityrunning

ways into a premier rubber‐tire transit alternative with fast, frequent, and high‐quality

service.ThefirstplannedrouteisRoute653,whichisscheduledtotakeeffectnolaterthan

2035.Thisroutewillservethehigh‐densityMidCityresidentialarea incentralSanDiego

andthePalomarAirportbusinesspark,specificallyfromLaJollaVillageDrivetojustnorth

ofLomasSantaFeDrive.Thisrouteisscheduledtorunat15‐minuteintervalsduringpeak

hours.Whilethisistheonlyroutecurrentlyproposed,otherbusrouteswillbeabletouse

theExpressLanesalongthewidenedI‐5corridor.Theseoperationswillbecomplemented



bythedirectaccessrampsandtheenhancedpark‐and‐ridefacilitiesbeingproposedbythe

NCCPWP/TREP.

OtherproposalsthatareintendedtopromoteashiftinhowSanDieganstravelfrom

singleoccupancyvehicles(SOV)tomoreenvironment‐friendlymodalitiesincludeenhanced

busservicealongtheCoastHighway;thiseffortisdesignedtoreducevehiclemilestraveled

(VMT)andairpollutants.Partoftheseenhancementsincludefewerstops,dedicatedtransit

lanes, traffic‐signal priority for buses as well as short dedicated lanes approaching

intersectionsthatwouldallowbusestoadvancetotheintersectionaheadofothervehicles

stoppedattrafficsignals.Busesservicingthisareawouldoperateyear‐roundat10‐minute

frequenciesthroughoutthedaytoprovideahigher‐qualityservicethatwouldcomplement

theexistingnetworkoflocalbusroutesalongthecoastalcorridor.Theseenhancementsare

expectedtobeginoperationsbetween2021and2030(NCCPWP/TREP).

Accordingto theNCCPWP/TREP,ExpressLanesandDirectAccessRamps(DARs)

arebeingplanned tohelpprioritize service forHighOccupancyVehicles (HOV), buses as

wellasothertypesoftransitvehicles.

TheplanenvisionshavingtwoHigh‐OccupancyVehicle(HOV)orExpressLanes in

eachdirectionoftheI‐5.Theselanesaremeanttogiveprioritytocarpools,vanpools,and

buses reducing travel times and encouraging single riders to engage in ridesharing.

However,becauseitisexpectedthatalargenumberoftravelerswillcontinuetouseSOVs

astheirformoftransportation,theNCCPWP/TREPproposesthatExpressLanesbeopened

to SOVs through a fee to ensure that excess capacity of these lanes is not wasted. The

revenues generated from SOV utilization of Express Lanes would be allocated for future

transportationimprovementprojects.

TheDARsproposedby theNCCPWP/TREPare intended toallowhighoccupancy

vehicles(HOVs)directaccess intotheExpressLanesfromovercrossingsortunnels.DARs

are planned to be located near Voigt Drive in San Diego and Manchester Avenue in

Encinitas.

SPRINTER

TheSPRINTERisalightrailservicethatrunsfromEscondidotoOceansidewith15

stations along the route. This line also offers connections to other public transportation

linessuchasBREEZE,COASTER,Metrolink,andAmtrak.

The SPRINTER has an annual average ridership of 2.4 million passengers, and a

weekdayaverageridershipof8,300.TheSPRINTERoperatesa fleetof12 lightraildiesel



multipleunitpassengertrains,eachwithcapacityfor226passengers(NCTD,2014). Two

trains can operate together providing a seating capacity of 452 (NCTD, 2013). The

SPRINTER operates every 30minutes and has 31 roundtrips. With a maximum seating

capacityof452,thenitsannualcapacityisover10millionpassengers.

AccordingtotheSANDAG2050RegionalTransportationPlanpublishedinOctober

2011, planned improvements to the SPRINTER include double tracking the rail lines to

increasethefrequencyofservice,addinglimited‐stopexpressserviceswiththeSPRINTER

Express,andextendingtheservicetosouthEscondido.

The double tracking project foresees grade separations at El Camino Real, Vista

Village Dr, Melrose Dr, Mission/San Marcos stations and two additional locations. The

doubletrackingrailwithservicefromOceansidetoEscondidoisbeingreferredtoasRoute

399whiletheSPRINTERExpressisbeingreferredtoasRoute588.

TheDoubleTrackingRoute399andtheSPRINTERExpressRoute588areexpected

tobeinoperationby2030offeringserviceevery10minutes.Withroutesoperatingevery

10minutes rather than the current 30minutes, according toNCTD, the SPRINTER could

serveup to30.8millionpassengersonce theplannedexpansion is complete as shown in

Table3.4.

The objective of extending the SPRINTER to south Escondido is to provide

connections along the I‐15 corridor between Escondido and downtown San Diego.

According to the SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan, the BRT services would

complementtheextendedSPRINTERservice.

MetroLink

OCTA’sMetrolinkprovided rail service toover4.4Mpassengers in2013.Of those

passengers, theOrange County line provided commuter rail service to over an estimated

2.5M passengers and Metrolink’s Inland Empire Orange County line served over an

estimated1.3Mpassengersin2013(OCTA,2013).AppendixC.4referstothecalculationsto

estimatethenumberofpassengersontheOCandIE‐OCline.

TheOrangeCountylinestopsatthefollowinglocationsfromnorthtosouth:Irvine,

LagunaNiguel/Mission Viejo, San Juan Capistrano, San Clemente, San Clemente Pier, and

Oceanside.TheInlandEmpireOrangeCountylineincludesthesestopsbutitcontinueseast

to West Corona, North Main Corona, Riverside La Sierra, Riverside Downtown, and San

Bernardino.BeforethislinereachestheWestCoronastation,itstopsatTustin,Orange,and

AnaheimCanyon(OCTA,2014).



TheOrangeCountylineoperates19trainsdailyduringtheweek,ofwhich10stop

in Oceanside. The Inland Empire Orange County line operates 14 trains daily during the

weekallofwhichconnectedintoOceanside.Duringtheweekend,fourtrainsareoperating

on the Orange County line and four trains are operating on the Inland Empire Orange

Countyline(CaliforniaDepartmentofTransportation,2013).

According to theMetrolinkFleetPlan2012,Metrolinkuses fourdifferent typesof

rail cars. The typesand the respective seating capacity include theSentinelGen1which

seats149,theSentinelGen2whichseats140,theSentinelGen3whichseats141,andthe

Guardian Fleet which seats 132. For a conservative estimate the seating capacity of the

GuardianwillbeusedtoestimatetheseatingcapacityavailablefortheOrangeCountyline

andInlandEmpireOrangeCountyline.Withanaverageof471passengerspertrainonthe

OrangeCountyline,anaverageoffourcarspertrainwouldbenecessarytoaccommodate

thesepassengers.Withanaverageof320passengerspertrainontheInlandEmpireOrange

County line, an average of 3 cars per train would be necessary to accommodate these

passengers,Table3.5reflectsthesecalculations.

Metrolink

OCLine IE‐OCLine

2013AnnualPassengers 2,525,873 1,300,761

2013Avg.DailyPassengers 6,920 3,564

Avg.No.WeekdayTrains 19 14

Avg.No.WeekendTrains 4 4

No.AnnualTrains 5,360 4,060

Avg.No.DailyTrains 14.7 11.1

Avg.No.PassengersperTrain 471 320

Avg.No.CarsperTrain 3.6 2.4

Avg.No.CarsNeededperTrain 4 3

Table3.5:Calculationstoestimatethenumberofcarspertrain.

ThecalculatedcapacityfortheOrangeCountylinewhichstopsinOceansideisover

1.9million.Thisisbasedon10dailytrips,withanaverageoffourcarsentailing132seats,

operatingfor365days.ThecalculatedcapacityfortheInlandEmpireOrangeCountylineis



over2millionpassengers.Thebasisforthisestimationis14tripswithanaverageof3cars

entailing132seats,operatingfor365days.

TheplanneddevelopmentswithintheOrangeCountyregionincludeapassingtrack

between Laguna Niguel and San Juan Capistrano, a third main track along an 8.5 mile

stretchinIrvine,andadoubletrackatbetweenSanOnofreandPulgas.Theseprojectsare

estimatedtocost$26.8million,$17million,and$36millionrespectivelyandthesechanges

willallowforincreasedcapacityaswellasenhanceservicetime(CaliforniaDepartmentof

Transportation,2013).

By 2040, Metrolink’s Orange County line anticipates a total of 20 round trips of

which sevenwill stop at theOceanside station. The InlandEmpireOrange County line is

expectedtooperate12roundtrips,allofwhichwillstopattheOceansidestation(California

DepartmentofTransportation,2013).SevenstopsfortheOrangeCounty lineprovidesan

estimated capacity of over 2.6 million passengers and 14 stops for the Inland Empire

OrangeCounty lineprovides anestimated capacityof over4millionpassengers (refer to

Table3.4).

CommuterLink

PeoplefromsoutherncitiesinRiversidewillalsobenefitfromhavinganairportin

the region. Due to the increased population growth in southern Riverside County, the

implicationsoftrafficgeneratedfromthiscommutemustbeaddressed.

TheonlypublictransportationservicethatconnectsRiversideCountytoSanDiego

CountyisCommuterLinkviaroute202operatedbytheRiversideTransitAgency(RTA).

CommuterLinkRoute 202 connects theMurrieta/Temecula area to theOceanside

Transit Center fromwhich passengers canmake subsequent connections to other public

transportationlinesifneeded.Currently,thisrouterunsonweekdaysonlytransportingan

average of 6 passengers per trip. (RiversideTransit Agency, 2014). CommuterLink buses

have a seating capacity of 27 passengers, which indicates that this route is being

underutilized.TheRiversideTransitAuthority(RTA)suggeststhatinmanycases,avan‐size

vehiclecanmeetthedemandforthisroute.

ThisrouteisaconcernfortheRTAasitrepresentsacostlyoutlierwiththehighest

subsidyperpassenger.Route202incursasubsidycostof$18.56perpassengerboarding.

AccordingtotheRiversideTransitAgencyService,whileroute202playsasignificantrole

byprovidingconnectionsbeyondRTAserviceareas,thehighcostsofthisservicewarrants

considerationofmorecost‐effectivealternatives.



Amtrak

Amtrak’sPacificSurflinercurrentlyoperatesthreetrainsinbothOrangeCountyand

SanDiego County,with one additional train during theweekdays in Orange County. The

PacificSurflinerincludesthesamestopsastheCOASTERandOrangeCountylines,withthe

exceptionofthestationatSanClemente.In2013,Amtrak’sPacificSurflinerhad2.7million

passengers,whichisanaverageofapproximately7,413passengersdaily(Amtrak,2013).

Since the Pacific Surfliner operates along the same tracks as the COASTER and

Metrolink’s Orange County line, the plans for double tracks and other rail improvements

addressedintheCOASTERsectionandMetrolinksectionapplytoAmtrak’sPacificSurfliner.

Again,thegoalfortheseplanneddevelopmentsistoincreasecapacity,decreasetraveltime,

reduce emissions, and upgrade the tracks to keep up with faster trains (California

DepartmentofTransportation,2013).

According to the Pacific Surfliner South Corridor Service Development Plan, the

PacificSurflinerisexpectedtooperate18dailyroundtrips,fourofwhichwillhavelimited

stops. Estimated capacity for the Pacific Surfliner in 2040 is over 5.2million passengers;

plannedcapacityissummarizedinTable3.4.Thisisbasedonanestimatedthreecarsper

train,assumingasimilarseatingcapacityastheMetrolink’scars(CaliforniaDepartmentof

Transportation,2013).

EnvironmentalImpacts

TherailsystemsdiscussedrunalongtheLOSSANCorridortravelingthroughOrange

County’s and San Diego County’s coastal region. Therefore, when these projects were

initially considered, approval from theCoastal Commissionwas needed tomove forward

with therailupgradeplans.Concernshavebeenaddressedregarding therunoff fromthe

constructionprojectsaswellastheunavoidablefillimpactstothewetlands.TheCalifornia

CoastalCommissionreleasedtheNorthCoastCorridorPublicWorksPlan&Transportation

and Resources Enhancement Program (California Coastal Commission San Diego Area,

2014)reportinJune2014regardingtheproposedprojectsfortherailenhancementsand

theprojects’environmentaleffectonthecoastalregion.

The proposed rail service enhancement projects were determined after

consideration for various alternatives were review. The projects selected had the least

negative impact to the surrounding environments. The Resource Enhancement and

Mitigation Program (REMP) was put in place to provide environmental benefits such as



restoringandenhancingnaturalcoastalregionswhichactuallyenhanceandgainhabitatsin

areassuchas theBatiquitosandLosPeñasquitosLagoons.Theenhancements includethe

expansion of bridges to improve the water flow leading to a more self‐sustainable

environment. REMP also includes funding for maintenance of these lagoons and for a

Scientific Advisory Committee which monitors the mitigation process (California Coastal

CommissionSanDiegoArea,2014).

Furthermore,theproposedrailenhancementprojectarerequiredtominimizerisk

byensuringstructural integrityandstability,andtoreducetherisk fromarise inthesea

level. The proposed projects include monitoring devices to sensor ground movement as

wellasaplantominimizeconstructionrunoff.

Currently, the waterways have all been adversely affected by urbanization so

without the proposed rail projects, these waterways would continue to be damaged.

However, the proposed rail projects help through habitat restoration projects, aswell as

throughreductioninemissionsbypromotingpublictransportation,hopefullyloweringthe

numberof vehicles on the road. If theproposed rail project didnotmove forward, there

wouldbeinconsistencieswiththeCoastalActpolicies30210‐30213,30252(publicaccess),

30230,30231(marinebiologyandwaterquality),30250(concentrationofdevelopment),

and 30253 (air quality). The proposed project will be monitored throughout the

developmentphasessoREMP isbasedon the latestdata, suchassea level rise,andmost

innovativetechnologies(CaliforniaCoastalCommissionSanDiegoArea,2014).

CapacityManagementforProposedAirport

As mentioned in private transportation section, of the 66.6 million passengers

served by the Los Angeles Airport (LAX) in 2011, 62% originated from (LAX) (UNISON

Consulting, 2012). Of the 17.7 million passengers served by the San Diego International

Airport in 2008 (SAN) 47% originated at SAN (Malcom Pirnie, 2008). This provides an

averageof54.61%ofpassengersbetweenLAXandSANwhooriginatedat thoseairports.

Additionally,only3%fromLAXusedpublictransportation(UNISONConsulting,2012)and

only1.2%usepublictransportationatSAN(MalcomPirnie,2008)providinganaverageof

2.1%oforiginatingpassengersusingpublictransportation.

According to thePacificSurflinerReport, theplanneddevelopmentwill lead toan

expected48%weightedaverageincreaseinridershipin2040versusnodevelopmentalong

the tracks on the Coastal Corridor (California Department of Transportation, 2013).

AppendixC.7showstheweightedaverageincreasecalculation.Sincethisexpectedincrease



inridership isbaseduponcommuters,notairlinepassengers,weconservativelyestimate

10% of originating passengers will use public transportation rather than the current

averageof2.1%. Assuming10%oforiginatingpassengerswillusepublic transportation,

thisestimatesanadditional4,488passengersperdayor justover1.6millionpassengers

annuallyasisshowninTable3.2.

Table3.6:Calculatesthecapacityusedin2013foreachrailline.

Currently, public transportation is being underutilized. On average, 23.4% of

capacity is used for the SPRINTER which travels east of the proposed airport, 49.3% of

capacity is used for the rails traveling south of the proposed airport which include the

COASTER (NCTD, 2013) and Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner (Amtrak, 2013), and 73.7% of

capacityisusedforrailstravelingnorthoftheproposedairportwhichincludeMetrolink’s

Orange County line and Inland Empire Orange County line (Metrolink, 2013). Table 3.6

reflectsthecapacityusedin2013foreachrailservice.Sincewedonothavedataavailable

forthenumberofpassengerswhowouldtraveleithereast,south,ornorth,wecanconsider

theworst case scenario that thesepassengerswouldall travel inonedirection. If all1.6

million passengers traveled east, this would only be 5.3% of 2040 capacity for the

eastbound rail, 2.2% of 2040 capacity for the southbound rails, and 13.7% of the

northboundrails.ThesecalculationscanbereferencedinTable3.7.

According to the Pacific Surfliner South Corridor Service Development Plan,

forecastedrailridershipisexpectedtoincreasebutnotatagreaterratethantheforecasted

CAPACITYUSED2013

2013AnnualPassengers

2013AnnualCapacity

CapacityUsed(%)

NCTD

COASTER 1,629,196 5,621,000 29.0%

SPRINTER 2,400,000 10,269,440 23.4%

METROLINK

OrangeCountyLine 2,525,873 3,661,680 69.0%

InlandEmpire‐OrangeCountyLine 1,300,761 2,023,560 64.3%

AMTRAK

AmtrakSurfliner 2,705,823 3,179,880 85.1%



increaseinrailcapacity(CaliforniaDepartmentofTransportation,2013).Since,thepercent

of capacity used is not expected to considerably change, the planned improvements to

publictransportationwouldbeabletohandletheforecasted1.6millionannualadditional

passengersfromtheproposedairport.

ParkingInfrastructure

Introduction

The SCIA will require substantial parking options for passengers parking at the

airport, or passengers parking at public transportation hubs. The proposed parking

infrastructurewillneedtotakeintoaccounttheinitialneedsofthegrowingpopulation,as

wellasthegrowingneedsasthenumberoftravelersincrease.

ParkingInfrastructureatOtherAirports

Estimates for parking needs at SCIA were established using other international

airports throughout theUS.When compared to airports such asDulles andGeorgeBush,

San Diego International Airport has a high number of passengers per parking spaces as

showninTable3.8.

2040CAPACITYEFFECTFROMPROPOSEDAIRPORTTRAVELERS

10%ofOriginating

AverageCapacityUsed

AIRPORT

IMPACT

EastofSCIAAdditionalRiders 5.3% 23.4%

SouthofSCIAAdditionalRiders 10.6% 49.3%

NorthofSCIAAdditionalRiders 13.7% 73.7%

Table3.7:Theaveragecapacityusedin2013forrailstravelingeast,south,ornorthandthepercentageof2040capacityusedifall10%oforiginatingpassengerswoulduserailstravelingeithereast,south,ornorthoftheproposedairport.



Airport Passengers ParkingSpaces Passengers/Spaces

DullesAirport 22,600,000 20,000 1130

GeorgeBush 40,000,000 25,000 1600

LosAngeles 64,000,000 16,000 4000

SanDiego 17,710,000 3,800 4661

PHL 30,770,000 19,000 1619

SCIA 30,000,000 19,000 1579

Table3.8:Comparisonofparkingspacesamonginternationalairports.

The lack of parking at SAN can partly be explained by the availability of parking

throughoutdowntownSanDiego,andtheyear‐roundweatherbeingconduciveforfurther

walking–orridesharing–fromdistantparkinglocations.

The location of SCIA positions it away from a large downtown setting, making

nearby parking facilities less attractive alternatives for handling the parking passengers.

SCIAwillneedparkinginfrastructuresdeliberatelydesignedforairportpassengers.

SCIAParkingInfrastructure

At its totalcapacity,SCIAneedstopreparetosupport30M.This isverysimilarto

Philadelphia Airport (PHL) which had 30.77M travelers 2012. PHL offers has 19,000

parkingspaces.Therefore,SCIAshouldhavespacereservedforthesamenumberofparking

spaces.WhiletheratioofpassengerstoparkingspacesismuchgreaterthanDullesAirport

orGeorgeBush,itisconsiderablylowerthanLAX.

ParkingInfrastructureDesign

AccordingtoSection6792of theZoningOrdinance,eachparkingspotshouldbea

minimumof9feetwideand18feetlong(largerforhandicapaccessiblespots).Thisallows

astandardfullsizevehicletopark.Ifparkingstructuresofferone‐wayaisles,awidthof12

feetisneeded,or24feetforatwowayaisle.

Table 3.9 shows the requirements for parking design from the San Diego County

ParkingDesignManualandFigure3.2showsthegeometricshapeslistedinthefirstcolumn

inTable3.9.



Figure3.2:Shapeofaparallelparkingangle.

ParkingforPrivateTransportation

UsingPHLasabenchmarkforSCIA,thespecificationsforparkingspacesareshown

inTable3.10.

Widthofonespace: 9’

Table3.9:Requirementsforparkingdesign.



Lengthofonespace: 18’

TotalSq.Ftperspace: 162sq.ft.

Spaces: 19,000

Acres: 71(3,078,000SF)

Single‐story: 71acres

Two‐story: 36acres

Three‐story: 24acres

Four‐story: 18acres

Five‐story: 15acres

Table3.10:Parkingspacesspecifications.

Table3.11:Acreagerequired.



This does not take into account logistical infrastructure such as ramps, gates, or

bufferareasbetweenparkingandotherstructures.Italsoassumessingle‐storystructures,

sotheacreagecanbedecreasedasreflectedinTable3.11.

Logically, parking spaceswill be separated intomultiple structures, eachwith its

own entrance, exit, and payment booths.Onepossible strategy in this regard is to locate

someparkingstructuresoffsite.

ParkingforPublicTransportationandRemoteParking

Since SCIA won’t be located in a downtown area, the traffic will increase

significantlyintheimmediateareasurroundtheairport,onSR‐76.Becauseofthis,itwillbe

advantageousto locatesomeparkingstructuresaway fromtheairport,allowingtravelers

toparkoff‐locationand takepublic transportation(suchasbusordedicatedtrain) to the

airportterminal.

In thisscenario, someof theparkingstructuresmightbe located in theOceanside

area,allowingpassengerstoparkinOceansideandtakeabusortraintoSCIA.Thiswould

alleviatetrafficintheimmediatearea.

Recommendations

PublicTransportation

TheproposedimprovementsincludedintheNCCPWP/TREParedesignedtocope

withtheexpecteddemandduetothenormalpopulationgrowthintheregionby2040.We

propose that other initiatives be put into place to accommodate the addition of a new

internationalairportandtoreduceenvironmentalimpact.AlongwiththeNCCPWP/TREP,

weproposethat furtheraccommodationsaremadetotheexisting infrastructureandthat

additionalprojectsarepursuedtoencouragetravelerstousemasstransitratherthansingle

occupancyvehicles.

While the addition of a second track, or double track, throughout the entire rail

corridor has been accepted as ameans to increase capacity, other design improvements

shouldbeconsidered. Forexample,currently thereare twooptions for thedesignof rail

crossings: at‐grade and trench tracking. At‐grade rail crossings cause temporary road

closures impacting local circulationofvehicles,pedestrian, andbike traffic (CarlsbadCity

Counsel,2014). Inaddition, it createsnoiseandairquality impacts,and isgenerally less

safethantrenchrailcrossings.Implementingtrenchrailcrossingspullstracksoffofservice



street levels creating less congestion at arterial roads and allowing for continuous traffic

flow. Further, trench rail crossings use bridges to allow for safer pedestrian crossing.

Finally, it also lowers emissionsdue to less idle time from temporary road closures. For

these reasons, despite the fact that trench rail crossings are significantlymore expensive

than at grade crossing, it recommended that trench rail crossings are considered. It is

important to consider that future SCIA passengers may be composed of more

environmentallyconsciousgenerations.Furthermore,sustainabilityisofincreasingconcern

intheUnitedStatesandespeciallyinthewesternregion.Becauseofthis,thereishopethat

morepeoplewouldbewillingtouseconvenientpublictransportation,makingtrafficinthe

Tri‐Countyregionmoremanageable.Thisshouldbeleveragedinfuturedevelopments.The

habitsoffuturegenerationsmaybedifferentfromthoseofcurrentairportpassengers.

To overcome some of the aversions to public transportation, improving parking

facilities at transit centers should make travelers feel confident leaving vehicles for an

extended period of time. Offering overnight parking at competitive rates may cover

operationalcosts,andincentivizeairportpassengerstousepublictransportation.

TheOceansideTransitCenter isa central junction forvariouspublic transportation lines.

Forthisreason, itrepresentsanopportunitytoprovideimprovedlinkagesamongvarious

transportationmodesandSCIA.Thisaddstotheattractivenessoflocatinganinternational

airportintheOceansideareaasthemasstransitinfrastructuretoserveitisalreadyinplace

withplanstoimproveit.Themissingingredientwouldbeadirectconnectionbetweenthe

Oceanside Transit Center and Southern California International Airport. This could be

accomplished not only through bus services and bus lanes, but perhaps even through a

dedicated monorail that would be an environmentally friendly system that would not

exacerbate current or future road traffic. Such a system could extend to offsite parking

structuresandreducetrafficcongestionintheimmediateareaofSCIA.

Another alternative is a dedicated shuttle bus to transport passengers from the

Oceanside Transit Center to the SCIA terminal. Due to the amount of traffic already

experiencedinthisareaandthetrafficgeneratedasaresultoftheairport,adedicatedlane

shouldbemadeavailableespeciallyforbuses.

PrivateTransportation

In addition to public transportation infrastructure, new access roads need to be

created inorderprovideaccess to SCIA.Currently, thereare twoarterial roadsoff SR‐76

thatcouldbeexpandedtoreachthenewairport;BenetRoadandFoussatRoad.Theseroads



wind throughneighborhoods and arenotmeant for thehigh volumesof traffic that SCIA

would create. Therefore, four alternatives are recommended. Each recommendation

includesaseparatecheck‐in/parkingsitenotattachedtothemainairportandareshownin

Figure3.3.Shuttleswouldtaketravelerstoandfromthecheck‐inpointtotheairport.

The location of site 1 (11.8 acres) is directly adjacent to LOSSAN rail tracks

providing seamless connections. In addition, this location offers easy access for bus lines

andprivatevehicles.Site1wouldalsobenefittheCityofOceansideasamethodtocleanup

seedy areas of town. Although this may prove to be a challenge as there are multiple

residential and commercial lots to be acquired. Other challenges include difficulty in

traversing over/under the I‐5 overpass, maneuvering construction around ecological

preserves,andcreatingampleparkingwithlimitedspace.

Thelocationofsite2(37.8acres)isdirectlyaccessiblefromSR‐76andverycloseto

I‐5access.Inaddition,thelandisundeveloped.Thechallengewiththislocationisaslight

gradeandsurroundingecologicalpreserveswhichcreatedifficultyforconnectingroadsfor

shuttlestoandfromtheairport.

Figure3.3:Recommendedcheck‐in/parkingsite.



Thelocationofsite3(43.2acres)hasthebenefitofdirectaccesstotheairportwith

no penetration of ecological preserves. The current businesses in this location include

cementandsalvageyardsandmaybeeasilypurchased.Despitethisareabeingonahill,itis

effectively terraced, allowing for less intensive and costly construction. The challenge for

thissiteistheneedtoextendorconstructanaccessroadfromSR‐76.

Thelocationofsite4(86.7acres),anolddriveinmovietheater,whichisusedfor

swapmeetsaswellastravelingeventsthatcouldeasilyberepurposed.Location4provides

directaccesstoSCIAandisalsodirectlyadjacenttoSR‐76.Inaddition,itiseasilyaccessible

throughFoussatRoad.Oneissuewiththislocationislargeresidentialareastothewest,but

canbeeasilybemitigated.


Chapter4:EmploymentandMultiplierEffect 110

Chapter4:EmploymentandMultiplierEffect

Introduction

This chapter examines the regional economic effects of the proposed Southern

CaliforniaInternationalAirporttobebuiltonornearCampPendletoninNorthSanDiego

County. According to the Airports Council International – North America (ACI‐NA),

“America’s commercial airports are powerful economic engines generating billions of

dollars in annual activity, and supporting millions of good, stable jobs” (“The Economic

Impact of Commercial Airports”, 2014). Approximately 9.6million jobs are supported by

airportsintheUnitedStatesand1.3millionpeopleworkatU.S.commercialairports.This

equates to approximately 7% of the jobs in the U.S. All U.S. airports combined have an

output of $1.1 trillion, representing about 8% of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP).

Airportsareimportantresourcesfortravelersandanevenmoreimportantengineforcities

andstatestosupportjobcreationandgrowth.

Thefollowingsectionsanalyzethedirectemploymentopportunitiesbroughtabout

by construction and on‐airport activities. Then, itwill expand to consider the impacts of

indirect and induced employment and economic development on sectors served by and

servingtheairport.

ResearchQuestions

Thisreportaddressestwobroadresearchquestions:

1. Howwill thenewairportaffect employmentwhile it isbeingbuilt andwhen it is

operational?

2. Howwill the jobscreatedaffect the localeconomyand the local, stateand federal

taxbases?

Buildinganewinternationalairportwillbringthousandsofconstructionjobstothe

region. This report estimates the number of construction jobs created during the

construction of the airport facility, aswell as the costs of construction, including payroll.

With this information, the local economic impact from the construction project on local

housing, foodandentertainmentproviderswillbeestimated,aswill stateand federal tax

contributions.



Once built, the fully operational airport will employ thousands of new onsite

employees.Examplesincludepilots,security,immigration,customs,air‐trafficcontrol,flight

attendants,vendors,andotherairportemployees.Thisreportestimatestheleveloftheon‐

airportemploymentthatwouldbegeneratedbytheproposedairport.Beyondcommercial

air travel, the proposed airport will also play a vital role in cargo transport, generating

additionalcargo‐relatedemployment.Thereportprojectsthenumberofcargo‐relatedjobs

createdbythenewairport.Itthenassessestheeconomicimpacttheseemployeeswillhave

onthelocaleconomy,aswellthelocal,state,andfederaltaxbases.

Establishing a large international airport in North County would greatly impact

small businesses and create an influx of new businesses, including hotels, gas stations,

retail,parking,autorentals,amongothers. The increase inbusiness forexistingandnew

companies will continue to fuel the economy, eventually generating enough revenue for

businesses to expand. This surge of jobs creates is expected to increase spending,

stimulatingeconomicgrowthandemploymentopportunitiesinotherindustries,therefore

establishingthemultipliereffect.Thisreportalsoestimatestheresultingimpactonthelocal

economysurroundingthetargetedregion.

Methodology

The teamconducted secondary researchusingmultiple resources andbenchmark

studies. The benchmarks for direct employment are the airports in cities with similar

demographics and geographic characteristics that have been built within the last few

decades. In particular, The Denver International Airport (DIA) is the most recent

internationalairportthathasbeenbuiltandwillbeusedasamajorreferencetoassessthe

demandforconstruction,aswellastheimpactofconstructionemploymentintheregion.

The current San Diego International Airport recently underwent a large terminal

expansionproject thatwasalso considered in theanalysis.The averagehourlywage and

annualsalaryofconstructionworkersinSanDiegowasfoundthroughTheBureauofLabor

Statistics. The Business Analyst Online tool from ESRI’s arcGIS software was used

extensively to examine the spendinghabits of residents andhousing availabilitywithin a

five‐mile radius of the proposed airport site. This helped to estimate the local economic

impactoftheworkersexpectedtotraveltotheregiontoworkontheairportconstruction

project.

AsurveyofthemajorairportsinCalifornia,conductedbytheAppliedDevelopment

Economics(ADE),helpedestimatethedirectemploymentimpactontheregion(Appendix



4.1).Accordingtothisstudy,thecurrentemploymentatallthemajorairportsinCalifornia

isestimatedat117,000(EconomicImpactStudyofCaliforniaAirports,2013).Thedetailed

employmentimpactsfromvariousjobcategoriesattheproposedairportwerestudied.The

report also consulted the recent economic impact studies, prepared for the neighboring

airports,asbenchmarksagainstwhich tomeasureandestimate the futuregrowthrateof

employmentatthisairport.

Using insights from other employment impact studies, statistical model software

such as Crystal Ball and statistical methods such as regression were used to model and

forecast personnel needs for a new airport. A recent study shows that the correlation

coefficient between on‐airport employment and total number of passengers is as high as

0.95.Thisshowsahighcorrelationbetweenthetwofactors.Thiscorrelationcanbeutilized

to estimate the employment statistics from the total number of passengers. Crystal Ball

software,whichisanapplicationsuiteforpredictivemodeling,forecasting,simulationand

optimization,isusedtoestimatethetotalnumberofpassengersforthenewairport.

Inordertoestimatethenumberofbusinessesrequiredtosupportthenewairport’s

operations, a benchmark airportwasneeded for comparison. SanFrancisco International

Airport(SFO)wasselectedduetoitsoperationalsimilaritiestotheproposedairport.The

Business Analyst Tool ESRI’s arcGIS software was used to map out the number of

businesses in the area surrounding the airport. Contrasting the amount of business

surroundingSFOwithitspopulationproducedaratiothatwasusedtogaugethepotential

off‐airport employment growth around SCIA. The softwarewas also used to retrieve the

averagedisposableincomeforthepopulationnearSCIA.This,alongwithnumbersfromthe

San Diego Tourism Authority, was used to estimate the possible cash flow back into the

localeconomy.

AnalysisandResults

ConstructionCostsandEmployment

Todeterminethenumberofemployeesneededduringtheconstructionphaseofthe

newairportproject,datafromtheDenverInternationalAirportbuildandtherecentGreen

Buildprojectat theSanDiegoInternationalAirportwereused.TheGreenBuildproject is

themost recent upgrade to the San Diego International Airport, completed in 2013. The

GreenBuild project included numerous substantial upgrades to Terminal 2, including 10



newgates,adual‐levelroadwayforseparatinginboundandoutboundtraffic,enhancements

tocurbsideservicesandsecuritycheckpoints,andmanynewdiningandshoppingoptions.

Thisprojectwas completedon timeandunderbudget.According to theGreenBuild fact

sheet,atotalof7,000constructionworkerscompletedtheprojectoverfouryears(Historic

$900Million,2013).

The Denver International Airport was opened in 1995 after six years of

construction. This project is themost recent full construction project of an international

airportintheUnitedStates.TheDenverInternationalAirportconsistsofsixrunways,three

timesasmanyastheproposedairport.DIAemployed11,000constructionworkersforthat

project.

Whencomparingtheemploymentandconstructiontimeframesforthetwoprojects

used for benchmarking, it seemed reasonable to assume approximately 11,000 workers

would be needed, and a ten‐year construction timeframe, for the proposed airport.

AlthoughDIAislargerthantheproposedairport,itwasbuiltfromthegroundup,muchlike

theproposedairportwillbe.Sincetheproposedairportisalsoinaslightlymorepopulated

area, and would necessitate close involvement with the United States Military, the

prediction that the project would take ten years was used. This conservative estimate

includes additional time for negotiations between the Military, federal, state, and local

officials andorganizations. Regarding employmentnumbers, the SanDiego International

Airport’sGreenBuildprojectwassmall incomparisontothebuildingofDIAbutrequired

over 60% of the DIA’s construction employment. Due to this, and the fact that the

constructionoftheproposedairportwillbefarlargerthantheGreenBuildproject,having

11,000constructionworkersseemedrealistic.

ConstructionEmployees&Wages

Projected construction costs were used from the EAS 2013 report. Those

projectionswentthroughtheyear2030.Forthecurrentproject,itisassumedtherewillbe

a construction start date of 2030with a completiondate of 2040 (10 years). To find the

projected construction costs over the 10 year period, the projected cost in 2030 of

$19,983,456,136wasinflatedandamortizedoverthe10years.Theamortizationchartsare

in Appendix 4.2. Table 4.1 shows the comparisons of the three airport projects. Initial

constructioncostswerecalculatedin2013dollarsandadjustedto2040dollars.



According to theGreenBuild project fact sheet, 45%of the cost of the SanDiego

International Airport upgradewent to local and small businesses (Historic $900Million,

2013).SincetheproposedairportisrelativelyclosetotheexistingSanDiegoInternational

Airport, itwould be easy to assume thatmany of the same local construction companies

couldbeused for theproposedairport constructionproject.Using themorerealistic cost

assumption from the table, the 2.5% inflation rate, approximately $10billion of the total

construction cost will go to local and small construction and support businesses. This

supportstheassumptionthat45%oftheconstructionworkers(4,950)wouldbelocal.The

other 55%of the constructionworkers, or6,050workers,wouldbe transient employees

whomayrelocatetotheregionforthedurationoftheproject.

In2013, therewereapproximately46,150constructionworkers in theSanDiego‐

Carlsbad‐San Marcos region (May 2013 OES, 2013). These workers earned an average

wageof$25.38perhourandanaverageof$52,780peryear (OccupationalEmployment,

2014).With the assumption that 11,000workerswould be employed over 10 years, the

average payroll cost for the construction project would equal approximately $11 billion.

Thiswascalculatedbyadjustingthe2013annualwagetotheequivalent2030wagevalues,

usinganinflationrateof2.5%peryear.Appendix4.3showsthebreakdownofwagesand

payroll costsover theyears2030‐2040.Theaverageconstructionworker for thisproject

wouldmakeperyear$91,142onaverage,overthetenyears.

Taxes,After‐TaxIncomes,andOutwardEconomicContributionofConstruction

Usingthesalarydata,thetaxrevenuesgeneratedbythisprojectandtheafter‐taxincomeof

the construction workers as individuals and collectively whole, can be calculated. The

California state income tax for thewages paid to the employees of the proposed airport

constructionprojectwouldbe9.3%plus$2,240annually(2014CaliforniaTax,2014).The

averagefederaltaxeswouldequalabout19%,or$17,495(2013TaxTable,2013).Table4.2

representsthebreakdownof theaverageannualsalarytotheamountspaidtowardtaxes

Project YearstoComplete

No.OfEmployees

ConstructionCost(2013)

2040CostEstimation

SANGreenBuild 4 7,000 $907,000,000 $1,766,654,616DenverInternationalAirport 6 11,000 $7,337,228,346 $14,291,453,506

*SouthernCaliforniaInternationalAirport

10 11,000 $7,251,341,284 $22,493,501,189Inflation:2.5%

*Estimated Table4.1:ConstructioncomparisonsbetweentheSAN GreenBuild,DenverInternationalAirportandtheprojectedairport.



andtheamountleftoverasafter‐tax‐income.Thesetaxcalculationsonlytakeintoaccount

state and federal taxes and do not include specific individual’s filing differences and/or

deductions.Also, in thisreport “After‐Tax‐Income” isused torefer toallof theremaining

incomeaftertaxesarededucted.

Individual Total %ofAnnualSalary

Avg.AnnualSalary $91,141.80 $1,002,559,800.00 ‐

CaliforniaIncomeTax $10,715.90 $117,874,871.40 12%

FederalIncomeTax 17,494.75 $192,442,250.00 19%

After‐Tax‐Income $62,931.15 $692,242,678.60 69%

Table4.2:Break‐downofstateand federaltaxesandafter‐tax‐income foran individualandtotalemployees.

According to this table, California can expect almost $118 million in additional

incometaxrevenuefromtheprojectperyear.Similarly,theUnitedStatesgovernmentcan

expectover$192millionintaxrevenuefromtheprojectperyear.Thisequatesto31%of

the individual construction worker’s annual income being spent on taxes. The local

community can expect over $692 million to potentially be spent on housing, food,

entertainment,etc.bytheconstructionworkers,peryear.

Figure 4.1 shows the values for an average construction worker’s annual

expenditures by percentage and dollar amount. Four categories of expenditures were

studied:foodanddrink(includingalcohol),entertainment,housing,andother.InSanDiego,

annualpersonalexpenditurepercentagesforthosecategorieswere13.3%,4.8%,38%and

56%respectively(ConsumerExpenditures,2013).



Tofactorinthemultipliereffectoftheconstructionworkers,ESRI’sarcGISsoftware

wasusedtomapouta1,3,and5‐mileradiusboundaryaroundtheapproximatesiteofthe

proposed airport (Appendix 4.4). This allowed for specific data collection in regards to

businesslocations,employee,andpopulationexpendituresandhabits.Table4.3showsthe

number of food/drink and entertainment businesses and employees directly affected by

annual expenditures from the construction workers. These values are from 2014. These

values are expected to increase as a result of theopeningof theproposed airport before

2040. Figure 4.2 and Figure 4.3 show the arcGIS maps representing the food/drink

businesses and the entertainment businesses within the 1, 3, and 5 mile radius of the

proposedairportlocation,respectively.

PercentageofAfter‐tax‐Income

AmountofAfter‐tax‐Income Businesses Employees

Food/Drink 13.30% $8,369.84 463 5599Entertainment 4.80% $3,020.70 229 1361Table4.3:Thenumberofbusinessesandemployeespotentiallyaffectedbyaconstructionworker’safter‐tax‐incomewithinafivemileradiusoftheproposedairport.

$8,369.8413% $3,020.66

5%

$23,913.8438%

$27,626.7744%

Food/Drink

Entertainment

Housing

Other

Figure4.1:Approximatepercentageanddollarvalueofafter‐tax‐incomeexpendituresperconstructionworkerperyear.



Figure4.2:Foodanddrinkbusinesseswithina1,3,and5mileradiusofproposedairportlocation.

Figure 4.3:Entertainmentbusinesseswithina1,3,and5mileradiusofproposedairportlocation.

Itisprojectedthat55%oftheconstructionemployeeswillbetransient,orfromout

of the area, andmay need housing options close to the proposed airport site. Figure 4.4

shows the saturation of rental units within the 5‐mile radius of the proposed airport

location.Figure4.5showstherangeofaveragerentalpriceswithinthe5‐mileradiusofthe

proposedairportlocation.

There are approximately 31,300 rental unitswithin the 5‐mile radius. The rental

unitsonCampPendletonwerenotconsideredbecausenon‐militarypersonnelwillnotbe

entitledtorentthem.Totalunitsfromsegmentsthatweremorethanhalfwayoutsideofthe

5mile radiuswere eliminated from consideration.Of the remaining units, approximately

6,000 are expected to be vacant in the area, projected for the year 2019. Assuming the

current Vacant Rental Unit to Total Rental Unit ratiowill be the same in 2030, it would

meanapproximately19%ofthetotalrentalunitswouldbeavailableatanygiventime.The

averagerentforthisareawas$1,411.Therentalunitsandaveragerentarecurrentfigures.

Although the areawithin the 5‐mile radius is relatively densely populated andmay only

haveaslightincreaseintotalrentalunitsby2030,itwouldbeexpectedthatrentalprices

wouldgrowapproximately3%peryear(SanDiegoHomePrices,2014).Thatwouldequate

toanaveragerentof$2,264in2030.



Figure4.4:Rentalunitswithina1,3,and5mileradiusoftheproposedairportlocation.Thelightestcolorsrepresenttheleastsaturation;darkestcolorsrepresentthemostsaturation.

Figure4.5:Averagerentalpriceswithina1,3,and5mileradiusfromtheproposedairportlocation.Thelightestcolorsrepresentthelowestprices;darkestcolorsrepresentthehigher

On‐AirportEmployment

RegressionAnalysis

This sectiondiscusses regression analysis that examines the relationshipbetween

on‐airport jobs and thenumberof totalpassengers. CrystalBall, a statistical tool, is also

usedtopredictthenumberoffuturepassengersfortheproposedairport.

Table4.4showsthenumberofon‐airportemployeesandthenumberofpassengers

peryear for tenmajorU.S.airports fromacrossseveralstates. This table shows323,912

employees work on‐site compared to around 412.65 million passengers flown through



them suggesting that around 785 on‐airport employees are required for every million

passengers. The fourth column of this table shows the density, which is defined as the

numberofpassengersservedbyoneemployee.WiththeexceptionofSAN,theothernine

airports show an average density of 1,296 whereas SAN has a density of 3,291. This

informationclearlyrevealsthatSANemployeesareservingmorethandoublethenumber

ofpassengersthanmanyothermajorU.S.airports.Clearly,SANseemstobeunder‐staffed

andhashugepotentialintermsofon‐airportemployment.

Regressionanalyzestherelationshipbetweenon‐airportemploymentandnumber

ofpassengersandassesseswhether,and towhatextent, theyare linearlycorrelated.The

number of passengers is an independent variable‐ y, and number of employees‐ x, is a

dependentvariable.Theslopeoftheindependentvariable,m,definesthenumberincrease

inyforeachadditionalunitincreaseinx.So,y=mx.Itshouldbenotedthatthesamplesize

for this regression analysis of national airports and the subsequent analysis of California

airportsareverysmall.

Airport EmploymentNoofPassengers/Year Density

ChicagoO'HareInternationalAirport(ORD) 53,459 66,883,271 1,251LosAngelesInternationalAirport(LAX) 59,000 66,667,619 1,130Dallas/FortWorthInternationalAirport(DFW) 60,000 60,436,266 1,007JohnF.KennedyInternationalAirport(JFK) 36,620 50,423,765 1,377SanFranciscoInternationalAirport(SFO) 33,580 44,944,201 1,338NewarkLibertyInternationalAirport(EWR) 19,700 35,016,236 1,777PhoenixSkyHarborInternationalAirport(PHX) 32,870 40,341,614 1,227ChicagoMidwayInternationalAirport(MDW) 15,302 20,491,422 1,339SanDiegoInternationalAirport(SAN) 5,381 17,710,241 3,291OaklandInternationalAirport(OAK) 8,000 9,742,887 1,218

Total=323,912 Total=412,657,522Table4.4.Summaryofon‐airportemployment‐totalnumberofpassengerrelationshipforfewmajorU.S.airports.

Forthepurposesofthisstudy,thenumberofairportemployeesisregressedbased

onthenumberofpassengersyieldingtheANOVAtableshowninAppendix4.5.ThisANOVA

table shows that the correlation coefficient, ρ, between passengers and the number of

employeesisaround0.965.Thatrepresentsahighcorrelationbetweenthesetwovariables.

TheteamalsoinvestigatedwhetherornotthisstrongcorrelationalsoholdsforCalifornia

airports.Totestthis,fiveCaliforniaairportswereselectedandanotherregressionanalysis



wasperformed.Table4.5 shows these fiveairportsand their representativeemployment

statistics,alongwiththetotalnumberofpassengersfortheyear2013and2012.

EmploymentPassenger2013

Passenger2012

GrowthRate

LosAngelesInternationalAirport 59,000 66,667,619 63,688,121 4.7%

SanFranciscoInternationalAirport 33,580 44,945,760 44,399,885 1.2%

SanDiegoInternationalAirport 5,381 17,710,241 17,250,265 2.7%

OaklandInternationalAirport 8,000 9,742,887 10,040,864 ‐3.0%

JohnWayneAirport 5,400 9,232,789 8,857,944 4.2%

SanJoseInternationalAirport 2,987 8,783,319 8,296,174 5.9%

SacramentoInternationalAirport 3,290 8,685,368 8,910,570 ‐2.5%

Table4.5.Summaryofemployment‐totalnumberofpassenger relationshipforfewCaliforniaairports

For the regression analysis, the total passenger amounts from 2013 were used,

yieldingtheANOVAtablesasshowninAppendix4.5(secondandthirdtables).Thesetables

showanevenstrongercorrelationbetweenpassengersandthenumberofemployees,with

theρbeing0.988. This impliesthattheprojectedon‐airportemploymentforSCIAcanbe

foundbydividingthetotalpassengerbythedensityfactor.

TofindoutthenumberofpassengersforSCIA,weconsideredSANasabenchmark

airport because of its proximity to the proposed SCIA airport. Currently SAN has one

runway, whereas the proposed SCIA will have two runways. It is presumed that the

proposed SCIA airportwill eventually serve almost twice the number of passengers that

SAN is capable of handling at its full operational capacity, however this will not be

immediate.Forthepurposeofthisstudy,itwasprojectedthatSCIAwilloperateat133%of

SAN,in2040.CurrentlySANisrunningat63%ofitsoperationalcapacityanditwillreach

anoperationalcapacityconstraintlevelby2030.ByestimatingwhatSAN’spassengerrate

wouldbe in2040, if it had the capacity for thedemand, couldhelpus to estimateSCIA’s

projectedpassengernumber.

ToestimateSAN’spassengernumber in2040we followedtwoapproaches. In the

firstapproach,thegrowthrateofpassengersfromyear2012to2013forthefiveCalifornia

airportsismeasured,asshowninTable4.6andthen,theaveragegrowthrateiscalculated



subsequentlywhichcomesouttobeas1.9%.Usingthisaveragegrowthrate,weestimate

SAN’spassengernumberin2040as,

=passengersin2013* 1 (1)

Accordingtoourassumption,thetotalnumberofpassengersofSCIA, ′willbe:

1.33 ∗ (2)

Following this approach, was calculated to be 38,981,029 passengers. Dividing

thisnumberbythenationaldensity,wefindtheprojectedon‐airportemploymentatSCIA

tobe30,078.

Inthefirstapproach, it isassumedthatSAN’saveragegrowthratewillremainthe

same for the next 27 years. However, thatmight be unrealistic due to other factors (i.e.

economicboomordown‐turn).Thisleadsustothesecondapproachwherethepassenger

growthrateRforSANisassumedtobearandomvariablehavinganormaldistribution.The

standard deviation σ, and mean µ, was calculated for this random variable using the

passengerdataforSANfromtheyear2006to2013.ThisdataispresentedinTable4.6.

Year Passenger

2006 17,481,9422007 18,336,7612008 18,125,7012009 16,974,1722010 16,889,6222011 16,890,7222012 17,250,2652013 17,710,241Table4.6:PassengernumberforSAN.

Assuming that the number of passengers at year is where the amount at the

previousyear 1was ,thegrowthrate,R,iscalculatedas:

/ (3)

Usingthisequation,themeangrowthrateisfoundtobeas0.24%.Nextwecalculate

thevarianceofthegrowthrateusingthefollowingequation:

σ∑

(4)

Here,Nisthetotalnumberofyears forwhichtheactualdataarecollected, inour

caseitiseight.Solvingthisequation,wefind tobeas0.0011011.Thestandarddeviation,

σ,wasthencalculatedasthesquarerootofthisvalue,whichis3.32%.CrystalBallsoftware



wasusedatthispointtopredictthepassengervalueofSANin2040usingtheσandµthat

we calculated in the aforementioned section, thus finding the passenger number to be

27,111,250. Using equation 2, SCIA passenger value ′ equals 36,057,962. Dividing this

value bynational density tells us that the on‐airport employment at SCIAwill be around

27,823. This second approach is slightly more conservative, estimating 2,250 fewer

projectedemployeesthanwhatwasfoundbythefirstapproach.

Takingtheaverageof thesetwoapproacheswecanpredict that theprojectedon‐

airportemploymentatSCIAwillbearound28,950.

ImpactofFreight/CargoonEmployment

According to a study prepared by the California Airport Council (CAC) in 2011

(AnnualReport,2011), thecommercialairportsofCaliforniaaccountedforthemovement

of almost 3.5million tons of air cargo. CAC also published in 2013 that in all California

airports, around 117,398 employees were employed of whom 10,068 were directly

involvedinaircargooperations.Thisinformationsuggestsaround8.58%oftheon‐airport

employmentisactuallyrelatedtotheair‐cargorelatedactivitiesinCalifornia.

In2013, SAN reached itsmaximumcapacity for air‐cargo tonnage. Theproposed

airportisaround30milesnorthofSAN.Itisreasonabletoexpectthatthenewairportwill

beexpectedtohandlemuchoftheunmetcargohandlingneedsofSAN.Moreover,theair‐

cargotrafficpatternsatSANandOntarioInternationalAirportoverthelastfewyearsshow

thatcargooperationissignificantlyincreasinginSouthernCalifornia.Thiscouldbearesult

of the rapid population and business growth in this region. Because SCIAwill be in the

samegeographicallocation,itwouldhavetheabilitytotransportalargeshareofSouthern

California’scargo. Table4.7showsthecargo(inmetrictons) in2012and2013forafew

majornorthernandsouthernCaliforniaairports,presentingtheaveragegrowthofaircargo

transportas0.13%.However,inafairlyrecentstudy(AirCargoTrafficinCalifornia,2014)

prepared by the Institute of Transportation Studies, the University of California Irvine

predictsthatthetotalair‐cargotrafficinCaliforniawillincreaseatanaveragerateof5.9%

duringtheupcomingyears.Assumingthat8.58%oftotalon‐airportemploymentisactually

dedicatedtocargooperation,Table4.7wasalsousedtoestimatetheaveragecargorelated

employment figure for the fiveCaliforniaairports studied.This resulted inapproximately

347employeesper100,000metrictonsofcargotransport.



AirportsCargo2013

Cargo2012

IncreasefromYear2012

CargoRelatedJobs

LosAngelesInternationalAirport 1,747,284 1,780,998 ‐1.9% 5060

OaklandInternationalAirport 484,092 481,280 0.6% 686

OntarioInternationalAirport 417,790 412,661 1.2% 659

SanFranciscoInternationalAirport 363,793 380,791 ‐4.5% 2880

SanDiegoInternationalAirport 148,541 141,233 5.2% 523Table4.7:Air‐cargostatisticsforfiveCaliforniaairportsfortheyear2012and2013

IntheUS,aroundfour‐fifthsofall‐air freight iscarriedbyall‐cargocarrierswhere

onlyaroundone‐fifthisgenerallycarriedbypassenger/cargocombinationcarriers.FedEx

andUPSare the twoall‐cargocarriers thatdominate theparcelbusiness. Inrecentyears,

these two companies have extended their hub‐and‐spoke model and established more

regionalmini‐hubs. Ontario airport is one of the newly‐establishedmini‐hubs,which has

increased Ontario’s air‐freight and air‐freight related employment, in recent years. Our

proposed airport will have two runways, similar to Ontario airport, thereby providing

comparableair‐trafficcapacity.Theproposedairportsite isnotdenselypopulated,which

decreases theprobabilityofhavinganight curfewat theproposedairport.Havingample

runway‐space and connectivity tomajor highways aremajor factors that FedEx andUPS

considerwhileestablishingamini‐hub.Byofferingthese features, theproposedairport is

poisedtoforgestrongpartnershipswithFedExandUPS,therebyensuringahugeair‐cargo

relatedoff‐airportemploymentopportunity.

EmploymentCategories

To help understand the economic effects SCIA would have on the Tri‐County

region’s employment, California’s existing airports were examined, as well as the

employment opportunities each created. The CAC created an employment survey

requesting information regarding the airport employment by job categories (operations,

customersservice,concessions,maintenancesecurity,administration,etc.),anddistributed

it to all the airportswithin their council. According to their study, they found that there

were a total of 117,273 people working at commercial airports within California. The

surveyalsoincludedquestionstohelpidentifyvariousairportfunctionsandthenumberof

employeeswithineach category,whichwasused inaneffort to further examine thenew

employmentopportunities that SCIAwould create. Table4.8 illustrates the categories of



on‐airport jobstypicalofmostairports. Thevastmajorityof themmaybecategorizedas

loworun‐skilledpositions.Itshouldbenotedthatmanyoftheseon‐premiseworkersare

notdirectemployeesofairports.Rather,theyareemployeesoftheairlines,cargocarriers,

vendors,federal,localandstatelawenforcementagenciesthatservetheairport.

AirportFunction TotalJobs %ofemployees PositionTypeCustomerservice 19,772 16.9% UnskilledOther 12,874 11.0% UnskilledGroundtransportation 12,024 10.3% UnskilledCargoOperation 10,068 8.6% UnskilledSecurity 9,854 8.4% UnskilledFixed‐baseoperations 9,121 7.8% UnskilledGroundsupport 8,986 7.7% UnskilledRetail/restaurants 8,277 7.1% UnskilledAircraftmaintenance/repair 7,816 6.7% SkilledAdministration 6,619 5.6% UnskilledTerminalpersonnel 6,452 5.5% UnskilledCatering/airlinemealpreparation 2,821 2.4% UnskilledAirtrafficcontrol 2,589 2.2% Skilled

Total 117,273 100% 15%SkilledSource:ADE,Inc.;datafromCaliforniaairportsurveydataprovidedbyEconomicImpactStudyofCaliforniaAirportspublishedMarch1,2013

Notes:Whensurveyresponsesweredeemedincomplete,themissingdatawasfiledusingaveragesfromthecompletedsurveys.Incaseswheremoredetaileddeterminationscouldnotbemade,thejobswereclassifiedasotherfunctions.

Table4.8:CaliforniaAirportSurveyFindings

TotalOn‐SiteJobsbyAirportLocation

Based on the information in Table 4.8, airport jobs relating directly to aviation

(aircraftmaintenance, ground transportation, fixed‐base operations, ground support, and

cargo operations) represent almost 41% of on‐airport employment. Airline personnel

accountsforroughly25%ofon‐sitejobs,makingtheairlinesthesecondlargestcreatorof

on‐site jobs, including catering/airline meal preparation, customer service, and terminal

personnel. Federallycommissionedpersonnel(securityandairtrafficcontrol)andother

administrative positions compile 16%, while retail and restaurants make up 7.1%. The

remaining 11% fall under the “other” category. This is where positions which proper

categorizationfromthesurveycouldnotbedeterminedwhereplaced.

WhileTable4.8providesa generaloverviewof theemployment ratios foron‐site

airport employment throughout California, a closer look at a comparable California



internationalairportwasnecessarytogetamoreaccuratelookoftheemploymentneedsat

SCIA.Figure4.6providestheemploymentdistributionforSFOemployees,accordingtoan

interviewoftenantsandairportadministratorsthatwerecollectedforthe2013Economic

ImpactStudyofSFO.

SFO was chosen as a benchmark because its current operation size and scope is

similartowhatSCIAisprojectedtobeby2040.SCIAisprojectedtohavetworunwaysand

twoterminals fullyoperational. SCIAwillbe located inacentralareabetweenSanDiego

County and Orange County. It will have the capability of and the expectation to handle

internationalflights,specificallytoandfromtheAsianPacificregion.

Figure 4.6 shows that at SFO, passenger airlines and passenger ground

transportationconstitutethe largestemploymentcategoriesaccountingfor47%and17%

3,0229%

15,78347%

2,3517%

5,70917%

5,03715%

6722%

1,0073%

Admin,Government,&Security9% PassengerAirlines47%

AviationSupportServices7% PassengerGroundTransportation17%

Concessions15% FreightTransportation2%

Construction3%

Figure4.6:NumberofEmployeesandSFODistributionofOn‐AirportJobs.



ofon‐sitejobs,respectively.Concessionsaccountfor15%,andadministrative,government,

andsecuritywillaccountfor9%.Thesearefollowedbyaviationsupportat7%.Thereare

distinct differences inwages dependinguponpositions held, particularly between skilled

and unskilled workers. To further examine the economic effects these newly created

positionswouldhaveintheTri‐Countyregion,anaveragepayscaleneedstobeestablished.

AirportRevenues,Expenses,andPayroll

To better understand the employment opportunities and wages that will be

generatedbythecreationandoperationsofSCIAin2040,therevenuegenerationmustalso

beexamined.Appendix4.6,4.7,and4.8showthe2013fiscalyearIncomeStatementsfor

SanDiegoInternationalAirport,LosAngelesInternationalAirport(LAX),andSanFrancisco

InternationalAirport.Table4.9 illustrates that revenuesgeneratedbyeachvaried froma

lowof$1.8billion(SAN) inrevenuesupto$9.5billion(LAX). Thethreeairportsshowed

similarpatterns inexpensesand thepercentageof totalexpenses related topayroll. The

densityforeachoftheairportswascalculatedbaseduponthenumberofpassengerseach

airport serves compared to the number of personnel employed, accounting for the large

range in payroll percentages. At SAN,where the density is substantially lower than the

national average, payroll only accounts for 21% of expenses. LAX, who had the second

lowest density out of the 10 examined earlier in the study, had a payroll accounting for

nearly40%.

Revenues Expense Payroll Density

SAN 1,774,978,140 1,267,963,990 71% 380,924,640 21% 3,291

SFO 7,263,000,000 3,849,000,000 53% 2,392,000,000 33% 1,338

LAX 9,467,930,000 6,650,330,000 70% 3,717,080,000 39% 1,130

Averages 6,168,636,050 3,922,431,330 64% 2,163,334,880 35% 1,791

Table4.9:2013FiscalYearRevenue,Expenses,andPayroll.

Todeterminethevalueofwagesthatwillbere‐circulatedinthelocaleconomy,two

approacheswill beused. In the first approach, the2013average revenueof threemajor

California airports is calculated, as well as the average salary expense. The payroll

percentageisthencalculatedandtheappropriateinflationratesfactoredin. Accordingto

Table4.9theaveragerevenuegenerationandrecirculation,asof2013,is$6.2billion. An

average of 35% of this, or roughly $2.2 billion, is expensed to salaries and benefits.



Assumingthatannualsalesremainedconsistentandthecostof inflationoverthenext25

yearsremainsatapproximately2.5%,acentralized internationalairport inCaliforniawill

generate annual revenues of $13 billion. Using this approach, if the payroll and benefits

weretocontinueatanaverageof35%oftotalexpenses,theaveragepayrollandbenefits

expensewillnearlydoubleto$4.3billionby2040.Therecirculationofon‐sitewageswill

haveadramaticimpactonthelocaleconomy.

Inthesecondapproach,thesamethreeairportswereexamined,takingintoaccount

theirannualsalaryexpensesaswellas their2013employmentnumbers. Thenumberof

employeesisdividedintothesalaryexpenses,tocalculatetheaveragewageperemployee,

again,factoringappropriateinflationrates.Thiscalculationprovidestheprojectedaverage

wageperemployeein2040,whichisthenmultipliedbytheprojectednumberofemployees

that was calculated in the regression analysis – thus providing the projected payroll

expense for on‐site airport employees. According to the data collected from the 2013

Annual Financial Reports, SAN has 5,381 on‐site employees, SFO has 33,580, and Los

AngelesInternationalAirport(LAX)hasaround59,000. Comparingthenumberofon‐site

personnel each airport employedwith their respective payroll and benefit expenses, the

averagewage per employee ranged from $63,000 to $71,223 depending on the location,

with a mean of $68,342. Table 4.10 provides a breakdown of the average wages per

employee.Itisimportanttonotethatthisfigureisanoverallaverageofallemployeesand

does not take into account the wide range and variations in pay based upon skill and

position.

Airport No.ofEmployees Salaries&BenefitsAverageWageperEmployee2013

SAN 5,381 $380,924,640 $70,791LAX 59,000 $3,717,098,000 $63,002SFO 33,580 $2,392,000,000 $71,233SCIA* 28950 $1,978,508,947 $68,342Table4.10:AverageOn‐SiteEmployeeWage.Continuingwiththeearlierassumptionthatinflationwillaveragea2.5%increase,

yearoveryear, for thenext27years,Table4.11 shows theanticipatedaveragewageper

employeein2040is$133,116.



UsingtheregressionanalysisandtheprojectednumberofpassengersforSCIAthat

werediscussedearlier,Table4.12showsthattheprojectednumberofairportemployeesin

2040 would be 28,950. Using this projected number of employees and factoring in the

expectedaverageyearlysalaryearnedperemployeeasseen inTable4.11, it isprojected

that in2040,SCIA’scombinedyearlywageswouldbe$3.8billion. Theresultsof the two

approachesshowedestimatedwagesofairlineemployeesfor2040tofallbetween$3.8and

$4.3billion.Therefore,fortheremainderofthissection,anestimated$4billonwillbeused

forsimplicity.

Taxes,After‐TaxIncomes,andOutwardEconomicContributionofOn‐Airport

Employees

The same approach that was used in estimating the after‐tax income for

constructionworkerswasusedtodeterminetheafter‐taxincomeforon‐siteemployeesat

SCIA.ThetotalCaliforniastateincometaxwouldberoughly12%or$15,974annually,and

the federal taxes would average 19% or $25,292 annually. Table 4.13 shows the

breakdownof thesetaxesandshowstheremainingafter‐tax incomefor theaverageSCIA

AirportAnnualWages(AverageperEmployee)2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

SAN 70,791 72,560 74,374 84,148 95,206 107,716 121,871 137,886LAX 63,002 64,577 66,191 74,889 84,730 95,864 108,462 122,715SFO 71,233 73,014 74,839 84,674 95,800 108,389 122,632 138,747SCIA* 68,342 70,050 71,802 81,237 91,912 103,990 117,655 133,116*Projectionsbasedonaveragesoftheairportwageslistedabove

Table4.11:ProjectedWageIncreaseswithAnticipatedInflationestimatedat2.5%

Airport 2013 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040On‐airportEmployment:Approach1 18,175 18,517 18,866 20,711 22,736 24,044 26,892 30,078

On‐airportEmployment:Approach2 18,175 18,218 18,280 18,893 20,043 21,813 24,338 27,823

ProjectedOnAirportemployment* 18,175 18,367 18,573 19,802 21,389 22,929 25,615 28,950

*takenfromaverageoftwoapproachesdiscussedintheregressionanalysisTable4.12:ProjectedemploymentgrowthforSCIA(in5yearincrements).



employee,andthecombinedaftertaxincomeforallemployees,availabletobespentinthe

Tri‐CountyRegion.

Individual TotalYearlyWages %ofAnnualSalary

Avg.AnnualSalary $133,116 $3,853,708,200 ‐‐‐

CaliforniaIncomeTax $15,974 $462,444,984 12%

FederalIncomeTax $25,292 $732,204,558 19%

After‐tax‐Income $91,850 $2,659,058,658 69%

TotalTaxes 31%

*Taxcalculationsonlytakeintoaccountstateandfederaltaxesanddonotincludespecificindividual’sfilingdifferencesand/ordeductions

Table4.13:Breakdownofstateandfederaltaxesandafter‐tax‐incomeforindividualsandtotalon‐siteairportemployeesperyear.

RegionalEconomicImpact

AirTravelamongCurrentResidentsoftheTri‐CountyArea

The proposed location for SCIA in the Oceanside/Carlsbad region will allow

convenientaccessfrominterstates5and15andstateroutes78and76,connectingtheTri‐

Countyregion.Currently,theareaishometoroughly2.2millionresidentswhoareforced

to traveldistances inexcessof30miles to reachdomesticairports likeSANandOntario,

and greater distances, up to 100 miles, to reach LAX, Southern California’s only major

internationalairport.Asdiscussedinchapteroneofthisstudy,theincomefortheaverage

airport traveler is approximately $100,000 in 2013. Assuming that after tax income is

about69%ofgross,andprojectingahigherlevelduetoinflationinfutureyears,wewould

expectadditionalmultipliereffectsoftheairportastheTri‐Countyregiontravelingpublic

willbespendingmoreofitsestimated$1.5billionintraveldollarsclosertohome.

TheMultiplierEffect

ThecreationofanewinternationalairportintheTri‐Countyregionwillbringina

largenumberofpeople,bothtravelersandon‐airportemployees.Inordertosupportthese

twogroups,newbusinesseswillneedtobecreatedintheareasurroundingtheproposed

airport.ThisportionofthestudyexaminesthepotentialgrowthofemploymentintheTri‐

Countyareaoncethenewairportisfullyfunctional,anditestimatestheeventualimpactto

theregionaleconomy.



Because SCIA is projected to become the main international airport, rather than

SAN,thissectionofthestudyusedSFOagainasthecomparableairporttobenchmarkupon.

Asstatedearlierinthereport,SCIAisalsoanticipatedtohavesimilaroperationsasSFO,in

terms of scope and size. To explore SCIA’s potential economic development, the area

surroundingSFOwillbeparalleledtotheTri‐Countyregion.

UsingESRI’sarcGISBusinessAnalystOnlinetool,anoutlineoftheareasurrounding

SFOwas created to outline the region containing the neighboring, supporting businesses

(Figure 4.8). The area within the 30‐mile constraint was examined and its business

summary datawas extracted and ordered byNAICS code (Table 4.14). This included the

numbers of all major business types and their employees in San Francisco’s mature

employmentmarket.

Figure4.8:RegioncontainingbusinessessupportingSFO.



Businesses Employees

ByNAICSCode Number Percent Number Percent

Agriculture,Forestry,Fishing&Hunting 1,444 0.4% 5,236 0.2%

Mining 135 0% 1,677 0.1%

Utilities 294 0.1% 7,393 0.3%

Construction 23,210 5.9% 106,112 4.2%

Manufacturing 13,205 3.3% 255,103 10.1%

WholesaleTrade 15,134 3.8% 100,872 4%

RetailTrade 29,262 7.4% 302,017 12%

Transportation&Warehousing 6,365 1.6% 61,491 2.4%

Information 11,070 2.8% 120,662 4.8%

Finance&Insurance 17,946 4.5% 120,320 4.8%

RealEstate,Rental&Leasing 15,826 4% 70,155 2.8%

Professional,Scientific&TechServices 58,731 14.9% 329,320 13%

ManagementofCompanies&Enterprises 1,130 0.3% 4,792 0.2%

Administrative&Support&Waste

Management&RemediationServices46,440 11.8% 172,843 6.8%

EducationalServices 8,348 2.1% 142,335 5.6%

HealthCare&SocialAssistance 28,427 7.2% 224,152 8.9%

Arts,Entertainment&Recreation 6,279 1.6% 34,734 1.4%

Accommodation&FoodServices 16,287 4.1% 144,515 5.7%

OtherServices(exceptPublicAdministration) 32,453 8.2% 125,664 5%

PublicAdministration 2,718 0.7% 196,654 7.8%

UnclassifiedEstablishments 59,803 15.2% 1,078 0%

Total 394,507 99.9% 2,527,125 100%

Table4.14:TypesofsupportingbusinessesnearSFO

Table 4.14 above illustrates the various businesses that are supported by an

operationalairportbutallofthemdonotdirectlysupporttheairport’soperations.Twojob



classifications from the list seem most directly related to supporting the airport:

Transportation & Warehousing, and Accommodations & Food Services. These two

categoriesaccountfor2.4%and5.7%ofthetotaljobswithinthe30‐mileradiusofSFO.In

total,theyaccountfor206,006jobs.WithanexpectedleveloftrafficonparwithSFO,itis

reasonabletoexpectthatasmanyas206,006jobswithinthesetwosectors,manybutnot

allofwhichwillbenew,willbeneededtoserveSCIA.CurrentlyintheSCIAarea,thelocal

hotelindustry,forexample,ismadeupprimarilyofsmallmotels. Theopeningofamajor

airport will undoubtedly attract more Accommodations & Food Services and

Transportation &Warehousing businesses to the local region. Thus, it is reasonable to

expect, by conservative estimates, that the new airport will bring between 100,000 and

200,000 new offsite supporting jobs to the region. This number compares well to the

183,878newoffsitejobscreatedwhentheDenverAirportbeganoperations(TheEconomic

ImpactofDenverInternationalAirport,2013).

Aside from the number of off‐airport jobs that SCIA will create, the induced

economic impactwilldescribe theamountofcash flow fromtheemployeesback into the

localeconomy,therebyestablishingthemultipliereffect.Assumingthattheaveragesalary

for these new hospitality and transport businesses is $50,000 (in 2013 terms), and that

69%istheaftertaxincome,theadditionalmoneycirculatedinthelocaleconomybythese

newemployeescanrangefrom$3billionto$7billionadditionaldollars(Table4.15).

AverageSalary $50,000

NewJobs 100,000 200,000

TotalIncome $5,000,000,000 $10,000,000,000

PercentageofIncomeAfterTaxes 69%

AfterTaxIncome $3,450,000,000 $6,900,000,000

Table4.15:Multipliereffectintolocaleconomyfromaccommodationsandfoodservicesandtransportationandwarehousingjobs.

OpportunityLossfromAsianMarkets

WiththetravelingmarketfromChinagrowingrapidly,SanDiegofacesasignificant

opportunitylossiftheydonotdevelopanairportwithrunwayslargeenoughtohandlethe

larger international aircraft. In 2013, the non‐profit organizationVisit California invested

$4.5million in efforts to capture theChinesemarket alone.This sectionwill evaluate the



dollar amount that San Diego risks to lose due to the lack of an upgraded international

airport.

In the “China Ready” presentation provided by Visit California and the SanDiego

TourismAuthority,theweeklyairliftfromChinatoCaliforniawasoutlined(Table4.16).

Airport Airline Flights* Seats* CitiesServed

LAX AirChina 14 4,330 Beijing

American 7 1,667 Shanghai

ChinaEastern 7 2,254 Shanghai

ChinaSouthern 7 3,542 Guangzhou

United 7 1,466 Shanghai

SFO AirChina 7 2,239 Beijing

ChinaEastern 7 1,848 Shanghai

United 16 5,598 Beijing,Shanghai,Guangzhou

TOTAL 72 22,944

*AverageWeekly

Table4.16:AirliftfromChinatoCalifornia.

AccordingtoTable4.16,thereisaweeklyaverageof72flightsand22,944seatsto

CaliforniafromChina.Thisequatesto864flightsand275,328Chinesetravelersyearly.The

Beijing K&D Consulting Company created the Chinese Visitors to California report that

states12%of theChinese travelers toCalifornia go to SanDiego.Table4.17outlines the

potentialrevenuefromChinesetravelerstoSanDiego.

TheChineseMarket

TravelerstoCalifornia 275,328

PercentgoingtoSanDiego 12%

TravelerstoSanDiego 33,040

AverageSpendingperTraveler $2,500

TotalSpendinginSanDiego $82,600,000

Table4.17:AnnualspendingbyChinesevisitorsinSanDiego



With33,040ChinesetravelerstoSanDiegospending$2,500pervisit(ChinaReady,

2014), San Diego stands to lose $82.6million annually in economic opportunity revenue

withoutanairportthatcanhandlelargerscaleinternationalaircraft.

Conclusion

Although an exhaustive project to build a new international airport, the influx of

jobs and wages will benefit the community. The after‐tax‐income that the construction

workersalonewouldbringtotheeconomyis$692million.Once inoperation, theon‐site

employment will create around 30,000 new jobs bringing average salaries of $133,000.

After taxes, this puts another $4 billion back into the local economy each year. Also, the

airportwillcreateanimmediateimpactofover200,000jobsinsupportindustries,andup

to$7billionworthofsalariesbeingre‐circulatedintotheregion’seconomy,enablingnew

business opportunities and employment growth. There is also a substantial opportunity

fromAsian visitors,with the potential of over $82 billion being spent in the region, as a

resultofanewinternationalairport.


Chapter5:PoliticalConsiderations 135

CHAPTER5:POLITICALCONSIDERATIONS

Introduction

A new international airport in North San Diego County will serve a great unmet

need for travel to and from the region and presents many opportunities for economic

growth.However,anundertakingofsuchmagnituderequiresthecooperationofmanykey

stakeholdergroupsthathavevestedinterests–andpotentiallygravemisgivings–tosucha

project.Thischapteridentifiesthesekeystakeholdergroupsandtheirparticularconcerns,

whichhavethepotentialtocreatemanypoliticalobstaclesthatwillneedtobeovercomeif

theprojectistoevenbegin.

The2013CSUSMMBAExploratoryAirportStudy(2013EAS) identified influential

stakeholders at the city, county, state, and federal levels. Included among them were

OceansideCityCouncil,SanDiegoCityCouncil,SanDiegoCountyRegionalAirportAuthority

(SDCRAA), Caltrans, Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission, Navy/Marine

Corps, and environmental groups. The next phase of this project analyzed strategies for

addressingtheconcernsofthesestakeholdergroups.

Beyond those stakeholders identified in the 2013 EAS, there are other important

stakeholders at the federal, state, county, and municipal levels that will weigh in on

decisionsaffectingtheairportproject.ExamplesincludetheGovernorofCaliforniaaswell

as the state delegation to the U.S. Congress, county and city governments. Beyond

governmental organizations, local civic organizations, industry groups, and chambers of

commerce of impacted cities in North San Diego. The 2014 EAS study expanded to

encompass the Tri‐County Region, including Southwest Riverside, and South Orange

counties. Keystakeholdergroupsfromtheseregionsneededtoidentifiedandincludedin

thisstudy.

Themajor objectives of this project were to identify the key stakeholder groups,

assesstheirmajorconcernssurroundingthebuildingofanairportattheproposedlocation,

anddevelopstrategiesandmethodologiestoaddressthoseconcerns.

Thus,theprojectproceededinthreestages:

1. Identifyingkeyinfluencegroups,

2. Interviewingappropriaterepresentativesofthosegroups.

3. Identifying existing cross‐county partnerships and recommending strategies for

buildinguponthem



ResearchQuestions

Thisstudyansweredthefollowingquestionsfromtheperspectiveofstakeholdergroups:

1. Whoarethekeypoliticalstakeholdersatfederal,state,andregionallevels?

2. WhataretheattractivefeaturesofbringingamajorinternationalairporttotheMCB

CampPendletonarea?

3. Whatarethedrawbacks?

4. Whatarethealternatives?

5. Whatpoliticalstrategiescaninfluencethekeystakeholders?

Methodology

Primarydatawascollectedfromasampleofkeystakeholderswhowillaffectandbe

affected by the proposed airport project. Using in‐depth interviews based upon the five

questions listed above, the goalwas to identify and analyze patterns of common appeals

andconcernsacrossstakeholdergroups.

Many secondary sources were used to further study the political impact an

internationalairportwouldhaveon thecommunity. Therehasbeenhigh interest in this

area for a number of years allowing the study to reap the benefits of abundant prior

research.

Combining both types of data allows for a greater breadth of information while

providingthemostin‐depthcoverageofbenefits,drawbacksandalternativestobuildingan

internationalairportintheMCBCampPendletonarea.Theanalysisprovidesthebasisfora

setofrecommendationsthatcomesattheendofthereport.

DataCollection

Themajority of the datawas gathered by interviewing key political stakeholders

and asking a set of questions designed to effectively utilize limited time restrictions,

maintain consistencyandmaximize thevalueofdata. Wheneverpossible, the interviews

wereperformed inperson;however,due to complications in the stakeholders’ calendars,

someoftheinterviewswerecompletedoverthephoneorviaemail.



DescriptionoftheSample

The interviewees consisted of a sampling of representatives from the business

community, chambers of commerce, governmental agencies, and political organizations.

The Office of Community Engagement at CSUSM has close ties with many organizations

throughout the Tri‐County region. The team consulted the Vice President of Community

Engagementto identifytheinitial listof intervieweestocontact. Therewereatotalof24

interviewsconsistingofapproximately35individuals.Someoftheindividualsinterviewed

were at the front line level,while a greater numberheld positions at the executive level.

The titles ranged from Clerk to Senior Policy Advisor to Vice Chairman. Although the

samplewasquitediverse,manyoftheopinionsexpressedweresimilarinnature.

Analysis

Detailed answers to the interviewquestions are provided inAppendix4. For the

purposesof reporting, the followingsectionsareorganizedaccording to the fiveresearch

questionslistedabove.

KeyPoliticalStakeholders

Accordingtotheinterviewees,therearemanystakeholdersinvolvedinthebuilding

ofaninternationalairport;however,withouttheapprovalofkeypoliticalstakeholders,no

suchprojectwillcometofruition. Theprimaryinterviewdatacollectedduringthisstudy

revealedapatterninperceivedkeypoliticalstakeholdersforbuildinganewinternational

airportnearMCBCampPendleton. Theprimaryinterviewdataindicatedthekeypolitical

stakeholders include: themilitary atMCBCampPendleton, SanDiegoCounty voters, and

thesurroundingcommunitiesnearthevicinityoftheproposedbuildinglocation.

Beyond thekey stakeholders identified, theprimary interviewdata also indicated

other important stakeholdersat the federal, state, county,andmunicipal levels. Included

among these were the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Congress, the Base

RealignmentandClosure (BRAC)Commission,CaliforniaDepartmentof FishandWildlife

(CDFW),SanDiegoCountyofSupervisors,andTri‐Countyregionalbusinesses.

MilitaryatMCBCampPendleton

It is no surprise that the Marine Corps, a branch of the military at MCB Camp

Pendletonisoneofthekeystakeholdersandthebiggestpoliticalbarrierforbuildinganew

international airport at MCB Camp Pendleton. The majority of respondents from the



primaryinterviewdataidentifiedthemilitaryasakeystakeholdercitingthefactthatthey

ownandareactivelyrunningmilitarytrainingandoperationsontheland.

Accordingtothe2013EAS,thelandisownedbythefederalgovernment.Thisland

is currently under the jurisdiction of the House of Representatives Armed Forces

Committee, which has authority over the Department of Defense (DoD). The DoD holds

authority over all branches of the military, including the Marine Corps, which is an

organizationwithintheDepartmentoftheNavy.

The primary interview data revealed a pattern among respondents indicating a

unique and important feature of MCB Camp Pendleton is that it is home to the largest

military amphibious training grounds. Due to the base’s close proximity to Southern

California’s coast, this gives the Marine Corps a unique opportunity to conduct this

specialized training. In addition, there are tens of thousands of Marines at the base,

justifyingtherequiredspaceforairandgroundtraining.

Severalrespondentsfromtheprimaryinterviewdataalsoindicatedthespecialized

trainingMarinesreceiveatMCBCampPendletonisessentialtonationalsecurityandwest

coast military readiness. Although there are objections to the plan for an international

airport from ranking officers atMCB CampPendleton, theDoD policy ofmilitary airfield

states that formalproposals are consideredby theDoDandas long as theydonot cause

problems with airspace/traffic control, traffic mix, military activity, civil aircraft

equipment/aircrew qualification, facilities, security, manpower, finance, or the

environment,theinclusionoftheinternationalairportisstillaviableoption.

SanDiegoCountyVoters

Respondentsfromtheprimaryinterviewdataalsoindicatedthepublic,specifically

SanDiegoCountyvoters,askeystakeholders intheproposedbuildingofan international

airportatMCBCampPendleton. Allpoliticsaredrivenby thevoters;politiciansdowhat

thevoterssay.Voterswanttoknowtheyhaveavoiceandplayaroleindecidingthefuture

of their communities. Politicians need to conduct interviews, gather data, analyze the

information,anddeterminewhat thevoterconsensus is regarding thecommunity,and in

thiscase,thedevelopmentofaninternationalairportatMCBCampPendletonwouldlikely

gotoballotforapproval.

Accordingto theMCBCampPendletonwebsite,morethan77,000retiredmilitary

personnel reside within a 50‐mile radius of MCB Camp Pendleton and enjoy all the

privileges toBase recreation facilities, commissary, exchange, andmedical services. This



amount of retiredmilitary personnelwouldhave a significant impact on voter views. In

ordertogainsupportfromthevoters,developersandplannerswouldhavetogivevoters

compellingreasonswhytheinclusionofaninternationalairportwouldbebeneficialanda

plan tonot interferewith theircurrentprivileges. If there isnosupport fromvoters, the

CityCouncilwillbelesslikelytosupporttheproject.

CommunitynearMCBCampPendleton

Furthermore, respondents from the primary interview data indicated the

surrounding community residents nearMCB Camp Pendleton as key stakeholders. MCB

CampPendletonislocatedinaratherruralareawherethereisonlyonepopulatedareato

its south; however, respondents indicated the proposal of building a new international

airportcouldraiseconcernofnoisepollutionandincreasedtrafficwithinthecommunity.

The inclusion of an international airport would mean more commuter and

pedestriantrafficinthearea,causinglongerdelaysintrafficandadmissiontotheBaseand

proposedairport. OneparticularareaofconcernisthenewNavalHospital,whichisright

along the border of the 65 CNEL level. In order to truly evaluate, itwill require further

studyandanalysis todeterminetheconsequencesofnoisepollutiononthehospital. The

increased automobile traffic and flights will greatly add to the amount of air pollution‐

drastically causingadecline inairqualityand increase innoisepollution. These reasons

maygive communitiesandvoters reasons tooppose thedevelopmentof an international

airport.

OtherStakeholders

Expansionordevelopmentof an airport is a long intricateprocess and involves a

vast numberof stakeholders. Itwouldbenegligent to focusonlyon themilitary atMCB

CampPendleton,SanDiegovoters,andthesurroundingcommunitytomakeanydecisions.

Respondents from the primary interview data stated various agencies and organizations

haveastakeorplayaroleintheproposalanddevelopmentofaninternationalairport.

OnesuchagencyistheFederalAviationAdministration(FAA).WhiletheFAAdoes

not decide if a community should build a new international airport, it does ensure the

proposalmeets the required regulations. After approval, the FAAwouldmanage the air

trafficinthejoint‐useairfield.ArepresentativefromtheFAAstatedthefollowing:

TheFAA isnot thecorrectentity todecidehowacommunity (orregion)can

bestmeetitsaviationdemands.Airportplanningisalocaldecision. Shoulda

localgovernmentalorganizationproposeanewairporttoFAA,ourrolewould



to ensure that theproposalmeetsall required federal standardsandalso to

independentlyevaluatetheproposalundertheNEPA.

InadditiontotheFAAmanagingtheairtrafficandensuringalltherequiredfederal

standards are met, the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission ensures

compliancewith environmental laws, rules, and regulations. With the amount ofmoney

andplanningandgainingsupportfortheinternationalairport,supportersandstakeholders

wouldnotwanttohavewhathappenedatMCASElToroin1999tohappenatMCBCamp

Pendleton.ActivitiesatMCASElToroledtowasteoils,paintresidues,hydraulicfluid,used

batteries, and other wastes to become so abundant that it caused soil and groundwater

contaminationandultimatelytheoperationalclosureofthebase.MCBCampPendletonis

anessentialhubwherevariousfederaldepartmentsandorganizationsgathertoreceivetop

trainingandcannotaffordtoendupontheBRACCommission’slistofclosures.

In keeping with environmental regulations, the CDFW, EPA, and various

conservationagenciesoverseeproposedprojectstoensurethenaturalwildlifeandplants

arepreserved. A simple concernsuchasendangeredshrimp isenough to stopaproject.

Additionally, theCalifornia coast has a large amountof protected coastal land and this is

especiallytrueoftheareaclosetotheproposedlocationoftheinternationalairport.

Politicianswishingtoremaininofficeandretainthesupportofvotersarealsolikely

tobeconcernedwith thewell‐beingof thewildlifeandprotectedcoastalareas. Menand

womenoftheU.S.CongressandtheSanDiegoCountyofSupervisorsneedtoworktogether

to develop plans that would accommodate and alleviate the fears of those on base and

nearby. Regardlessoftheplanthatisdevelopedandfollowed,eachdepartment,office,or

regionwillhavevaryinglevelsofinvolvementandimpactfromtheairport.

When considering a large scaleproject like an international airport atMCBCamp

Pendleton,severalrespondents indicatedtheTri‐Countyregionbusinessesmustalsobea

topicofconcern.Anyprojectthatnegativelyimpactslocalandregionalbusinessesshould

notbeimplemented.Theincreaseinthenumberoftravelersandcommutersarepotential

foranincreaseinbusiness,revvingupthelocalcommunity.Conversely,iftheinclusionof

an airport at MCB Camp Pendleton negatively impacts the business operations at other

airportsintheregion,furtherevaluationoftheprojectshouldbeconsidered.

In a proposed project such as the international airport at MCB Camp Pendleton,

thereareseveralstakeholderstotakeintoaccount.Eachgroupofstakeholdershasreasons



toeithersupportoropposetheproject. Thewaysofconvincingorretainingsupportvary

when interacting and communicating with each of these groups. Based on information

gatheredfromprimaryinterviews,respondentssuggestedthatMCBCampPendletonisnot

an ideal location for the international airport, but provided political strategies that may

convincestakeholdersthattheairportisbeneficialforallthoseinvolved.

Benefits

Therearemanybenefitssurroundingtheproposedlocationforanewinternational

airportthatwillsupportSouthernCalifornia.Thirty‐fiverespondentssharedtheirthoughts

ontheviabilityofthesuccessofthislocation.Thisreporthighlightsthetopicsthattended

tocomeupthroughoutthemajorityoftheinterviews.

AccessibilityandLocation

Morethan87percentof therespondentsbelievedtheaccessibilityand locationof

MCBCampPendletonwouldaddtotheallureoftheairport.TheMCBCampPendletonarea

isapproximatelymidwaybetweenLosAngelesAirport(LAX)andSanDiegoInternational

Airport(LindberghField).ThisallowseasieraccessforNorthSanDiego,SouthOrange,and

SouthwestRiversidecounties.

Theplan to expand theNorthCoast Corridorwill add to the attractivenessof the

locationaswell. According toNichols (2014), theproposedNorthCoastCorridorproject

still faces hurdles, but the freeway and Coaster expansion will provide hope for many

frustratedcommuters. Approximately68percentoftherespondentscommentedthatthe

newairportwouldmeanthatfewerpeoplewouldhavetocommutetoLAXorSanFrancisco

InternationalAirport(SFO)inordertoflyinternationally.Thereducedcommutetimefrom

allalternativeswasaclearbonusformanyrespondentsaswell.

Becausethis locationisabitmoreremotefromresidentialareasthansomeofthe

other locations previously considered, some respondents indicated that there would be

fewerconcernssurroundingnoiseandpollution.Itwasmentionedmorethanoncebythe

individualsinterviewedthatfurtherstudieswouldbeneededtotrulyascertaintheimpact

onthecommunity.

CommunityDevelopment

Morethan80percentoftherespondentsindicatedthatthislocationwouldbenefit

thelocalcommunityinnumerousways.Someofthebenefitswereviewedastheabilityto

attractlargebusinesses,tourists,andothermeansofeconomicgrowthaswell.Thethought



was that larger businesseswould be attracted to the area if therewas amore accessible

airport for shipping and executive travel purposes. Tourismwould grow if there was a

moreaccessibleairportaswell.Thiswouldaidingrowthinamultitudeofareas.Because

internationaltravelerstendtostayintheareaforlongerperiodsoftime,thiswouldalsobe

a benefit for the lodging, restaurant, and entertainment businesses in the surrounding

areas.

BenefitsRelatedtotheMilitary

According to theFederalAviationAdministration (FAA)website (2014), thereare

currently23 jointcivilian/military(joint‐use)airports in theUnitedStates: 12AirForce,

tenArmy,andoneNavybase. Eachof theseairportsareallairbasesrather thanMarine

Corps training bases. Respondents believe that the new airport would provide

opportunitiesandchallengesforthemilitary.Onebenefitoftheproposedlocationbeingon

militarylandisthattheairportwouldtakeuplessthanfive‐percentofthetotalacreageof

MCBCampPendleton.Themilitarybaseislocatedonapproximately125,000acresandthe

proposedairportwouldneed less than fiveorsix thousandacres. Anotherbenefit to the

militaryisthatanaccessgatecouldbebuiltsothattheycouldflytheirpersonnelandcargo

inandoutofthebasewhenneeded.MostofthemarecurrentlyflyingoutofLAXandthatis

viewed by some of the respondents as a bit unkind to our military men and women.

Departing from an international airport located closer to or on base could provide

additionalsecurityformilitarypersonnel.Additionally,about40,000Marinepersonneland

theirapproximate90,000familymemberscouldflyforpersonaltravelwiththisairport.

AirTrafficCapacity

Oneofthemostimportantbenefitstorelayisthefactthatthisairportwillfulfillan

important need. The region is expected to reach capacity in the near future for

international flights and the alternatives are not encouraging. If this airportwere to be

completed before capacity is reached, it would be of great service to all of Southern

California.

Drawbacks

Therespondentsidentifiedmoredrawbacksthanbenefitsofthenewairport.That

is not to say that the cons outweigh thepros; rather that the objectionswerenumerous.

Thismaybesimilartotheeventsin2006whenMarineCorpsAirStation(MCAS)Miramar

wasconsideredasaviableoption. MostoftherespondentsandthesubjectsoftheUnion



Tribune article (Ristine, 2006) are from SanDiego County. Very fewof them responded

positively,althoughtheyclearlydidknowagreatdealaboutthebenefits.Someofthemore

prevalentexamplesarenotedinthePoliticalWillsectionthatfollows.

ManyoftheintervieweesinOrangeandRiversidecountieswerefarmorelikelyto

focus on the benefits of the new airport; however, they seemed to understand the

drawbacksaswell. Thereasonbecomesclearastheinterviewsareexamined. SanDiego

County’seconomydependsagreatdealon itsmilitary installationsandpersonnel. Many

say the economy here is one part tourism, one part commerce, and one part military.

Therefore,theveryideaofmovingoreliminatinginstallationshereseemspatentlyabsurd

tomany,evenifthatisnotwhatisintended.

In identifying the following drawbacks, patterns emerged as to categories of

responses, though a fewoverlap in places. The following is a rough grouping, beginning

withthemostrecurringobjections.

MilitaryObjections

A large number of responses against the proposal have to do with military

preparedness. MCBCampPendletonisthelargestamphibiousmilitarytrainingsiteinthe

U.S.Themilitaryviewpointisthattheonlywayaninternationalairportcouldbelocatedon

thebaseisifthetrainingstops.Ifthetrainingishalted,thebasewillneedtobeclosedor

relocated.Therefore,themilitarywillcontinuethefighttoabstainfromthedevelopmentof

aninternationalairportongovernmentland.

Respondents believe hundreds, maybe thousands, of military jobs would be

eliminated ormoved out of San Diego County if any part of MCB Camp Pendletonwere

converted to a commercial international airport. They believe that such resultwould be

devastating to military families and to the economy as a whole. To illustrate, a similar

situation occurred in SacramentowhenGovernor Schwarzenegger ordered a furlough on

stateworkersin2009and2010.Thousandsoffamiliesmissedoutonbillionsofdollarsof

take‐home pay, most often undergoing a 15 percent per month salary decrease for 18

months.ThiswasparticularlydevastatingtoSacramentoduringtheeconomicdownturn.A

large number of businesses—especially low‐margin businesses like the restaurants that

depend on state worker customers—were forced into bankruptcy as a result. Many

governmentprogramswereclosedasaresultofthisdownwardspiralandthesubsequent

lossoftaxrevenue. AsaCaltransemployee,oneoftherespondentsexperiencedthisfirst

hand,explaininghowterriblydifficultatimethatwasforthewholefamily.Shenervously



joked that shewas consideringmoving to Sacramento’s infamous ‘Tent City’ at the time.

San Diego County is mired in an economic downturn, and residents—especially military

familiesand thepoliticians thatprotect them—fearexactly thatkindofscenario;perhaps

rightly so. Most of the jobs thatwould be created as a result of the proposal would be

temporary. A significant portion of the permanent jobs created would be service jobs,

whichtendtopaymuchlowerthanaverage. Theoverallemploymentcreated,opponents

say,wouldnotbalanceouttheresultinglossofmilitaryjobs.

EconomicConcerns

Aside from theabovementionedmilitary concerns, thenextmostoftendiscussed

was the cost of building an airport of that magnitude, especially given the specific site

chosenbypreviousstudies.Buildinganairportisanexpensiveundertakingtosaytheleast.

Thesiteonwhichthisproposalisbasedissurroundedbymountainswhichwouldhaveto

beleveledatgreatexpense.Theotherquestionseemstobewhetherthenewairportwould

truly increase traffic and income to and from the region, or whether it would just

cannibalize traffic and income from other airports offering no net economic gain for

SouthernCalifornia.

Anotherconcernwasthatitmightbedifficulttoattractforeignvisitorstoanairport

onamilitarybase so close to a failednuclearpowerplant. Theconcern then iswhether

airportadministrationwouldbeabletopositiontheairportasitwouldlike,toprojectthe

image it has in mind. From there, the consideration is whether it would bring enough

revenuetojustifyitshighpricetag.

ResidentOpposition

Themainconcernsforlocalresidentsaretwofold;theyworryaboutnoisepollution

andtraffic.Thesearetheusualsourcesofoppositiontoairportproposals.Nobodywants

airplanestoflyovertheirhomes.OneoftherespondentsfamiliarwithOrangeCountyand

JohnWayneAirport(JohnWayne)notesthatnoiseisthemainreasonmoreplanesdonot

flyoutoftheselocations‐thesamecouldbesaidforLindberghField.JohnWayneisvery

limitedinthatregard,hesaid,andthatproposalstoexpandaremetwithfierceopposition

every time, so nothing gets done. It goes without saying that traffic near a major

international airport can be a nightmare; solutionswould have to be provided. Even so,

residentswouldfighttothebitterendtokeepanairportoutoftheirownbackyard.



EnvironmentalImpact

There are several endangered plant and animal species onMCB Camp Pendleton

thatwouldneedtobeevaluated,andmanyenvironmentalgroupswouldcomeouttofight

against theirdestruction. Aside fromvariousenvironmental groups, thereare alsomany

levels of government guidelineswhen it comes to the environment and its ecology. The

EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)canhaltanyconstructionthatwouldinterferewith

lifeon theendangeredspecies list. Thereareothergroupsandagenciesat the stateand

countylevelsaswellthatoverseeprojectstoprotectendangeredplantsandwildlife.

Anothersignificantconcernmentionedisthatofpollution.Airplanespollutetheair,

the landandthewaterwherevertheyfly; there isnogettingaroundthat. Environmental

groups would have to be convinced that greening would be undertaken to level the net

effect of such pollution. It is also possible that environmental groups might never be

convinced, in which case enough stakeholders would have to be won over from other

stakeholdergroupssoastogoaheadwithouttheirblessing.

AirportSite

Whilesomesawthesecuritybenefitsofco‐locatingacivilianairportonamilitary

base,someoftherespondentsquestionedwhetheritisevenpossibleforacivilianairport

to co‐exist with a military presence as close as would be required in this situation. As

previouslynoted,ithasbeendone.Infact,theFAAhasaJointUsePolicyaswellasalistof

airports that function in such amanner as previously reported in this study. Itmay be

especiallycomplicatedtohaveseparatemilitary‐andcivilian‐operatedcontroltowers,but

itcanbedone.

Thereisalsoaquestionofspace.Someoftherespondentsthinkthereisnotenough

spaceforasecondrunwayasrequiredintheproposal,notingthatthetworunwayswould

havetobesituatedthreequartersofamileapart.

SeveralrespondentsbelievethatthesiteistoofarformostSanDiegoresidentsto

driveto,especiallythosethatlivedowntownorfurthersouth.That,ofcourse,seemstobe

thecasewitheverylocationthathasbeenstudiedovertheyears.Ontheotherhand,some

ofthealternativesthathavebeenproposedareasfareastasthedesertsofImperialCounty

andasfarsouthasTijuana.Theformerwouldbeevenfurther,andthelatterhasalengthy

bordercrossinginbetween.AsinthecaseoftheproposedMCBCampPendletonlocation,

therearemanycompetingviewsoneachoftheseissues.



CivilianSafety

Oneofthebiggestconcernscitedwasthatofciviliansafetybecausethenewairport

will be located so close to artillery ranges. Conversely, civilian safety concerns might

compromisethemilitarymission.Thus,therealchallengeiswhetherthemilitarywouldbe

abletoassureciviliansafetywhilemaintainingitstrainingprograms.Itwasalsostatedthat

theliabilitywouldbetoogreatforthemilitarytoassumeorevenconsider.

Topographywasalsodiscussedasasafetyissue. Theconcernisthatpilotswould

finditdifficulttolandattheproposedsitegiventhesurroundingmountains.Thiswouldbe

ofparticularconcernforlargeraircraftflyinginternationalroutes.Ofcoursepilotslanding

atmanyairportsaroundtheworldfaceadifficultlandingseveralhundredtimesadaywith

no problems. Itwas alsomentioned that one of the benefits of shifting long‐haul flights

awayfromLindberghFieldisthatitavoidstheissueofthedifficultlandingthere.

Anothersafetyconcernistheproposedairportlocationbeingjust22milesfromSan

Onofre’s failednuclearpower station. If anythinghappens to thenuclearwaste thatwill

continue to be stored there indefinitely, the airportmight have to be abandoned. Then

again,somightmostofSouthernCalifornia.

PoliticalWill

The fight overwhere to build a newer and bigger airport in San Diego has been

ragingformanyyearsnow.Ithasalreadylastedmuchlongerthanconstructionanywhere

wouldhaveever taken. That trend is likely tocontinue into the foreseeable future. The

military—visiblythelargeststakeholderofall—hasmadeitverycleartheywillnevergive

upwhat theyseeas thegood fight. In that light, forSanDiegopoliticians tosupportany

proposalthatinterfereswithmilitaryoperationsisanon‐starter.

Per the Union Tribune article (Ristine, 2006) cited earlier, many residents were

quicktooffertheirpointofview.AsJohnChalkeroftheCoalitiontoPreservetheEconomy

putit,“Dealingwithairportsitingissuesisano‐winpropositionforanyelectedofficial.You

aren’t going tomake friends doing it either way.” Former U.S. Representative and later

Mayor of SanDiegoBobFilner said, “Youdon’t tell ourMarines, youdon’t tell our brave

soldiers that we’re taking your base. Readiness, training, preparation, support for our

troops revolves around keeping Miramar as a Marine air station.” U.S. Representative

DuncanHuntersaid,“NowisthetimefortheAirportAuthoritytobecomecreative,toquit

havingasetofblindersonthatalwayspointstowardMiramarandtocomeupwithsome

betteroptions.” U.S.RepresentativeSusanDavisstated,“IthinkSanDieganswantclosure



onthisissue. I thinkthey’dliketoseeLindberghimproved.” Althoughthereweremany

morequotesintheabovecitedarticlethepointhasbeenmadethatthepublicopinionwas

not in favor of an international airport based on MCAS Miramar. The findings are

resoundinglysimilartodayforanairportlocatedatMCBCampPendleton.

AlternativestoMCBCampPendleton

Many of the individuals interviewed suggested that locations other than Camp

Pendletonbeconsideredforlocatingthenewairport,includingthoseexploredinthe2013

EAS, which recommended the MCB Camp Pendleton location as the best site for a new

airporttoalleviatecapacityconstraints. Thetri‐countyareaidentifiedin lastyear’sstudy

certainlywould benefit froman airport located at the nexus ofRiverside, SanDiego, and

Orange counties. Others, including many of the stakeholder groups represented by

respondents,havedifferentideasbeyondthespecificlocationontheMCBCampPendleton

site‐severalofwhicharenearby.Thissectionpresentssomeofthesuggestedalternatives

including: expanding Lindbergh Field, expanding small municipal airports, considering

other military bases in the region, andmoving beyond tri‐county to Imperial County or

moving south of the border. While the EAS 2013 showed that neither of the other sites

wouldbefeasible,thesuggestionsofferedbytheintervieweesareprovidedinthefollowing

sectionsto illustratesomeof theargumentsthatmaybeusedtoopposetheplans for the

CampPendletonsite.

SanDiegoInternationalAirport(LindberghField)

SDCRAAandothervariousgroupshavestatedfurtherexpansionofLindberghField

maybemore feasible and realistic. TheSDCRAAhas stated that theyhavea commercial

passengeroptimizationplan.Theplanisbrokendownintofourmainparts:

1. Fully build out the intermodal transit center (ITC) and North Side Terminal at

LindberghField;

2. PreserveLindberghFieldforcommercialpassengerservice;

3. Up‐gaugeLindberghFieldaircraftfleetmix‐narrowbodyfleet;and

4. Up‐gaugeLindberghFieldaircraftfleetmix‐increasedwidebodyfleet.

WhenitcomestomaximizingtheuseofLindberghField,thereisacurrentplanto

expandtheITC.Thisplanwillaccommodate1.2to1.8millionpassengersandwillfacilitate

the building ofmorepassenger processing facilities such as ticketing, baggage claim, and

security screening stations. There are also large facility improvements planned such as



property acquisitions, expansion of automobile parking facilities, expansion of the

consolidatedrentalcarfacilityandmodificationstotheI‐5ramp.Theprojectedcostofthis

project is somewhere between 1.2 and 1.4 billion dollars; however, this project can be

fundedfromvarioussourcessuchasbonds,privatesources,passengerfacilitychargesand

rentalcarcustomerfacilitycharges.Fundingofthenon‐aviationelementsisunlikelygiven

thecostsandminimaleffectsonairfieldcapacity.

For up‐gauging the narrow body fleet, the airport authority would begin to

encourageair carriers to reduce theuseof regional jetsor smalleraircraft at theairport.

The focuswouldshift tomorenarrowbodytypeaircraftwithanaverageseatcapacityof

140 seats. In order to increase wide body fleets, the airport authority would need to

encourage air carriers to deploy large capacity aircrafts at Lindbergh Field. This would

assumethe future fleetmixwillbecomprisedof737,757,and767aircraftswithat least

halfoftheplanesconsistingof737planeswithanaverageseatingcapacityof180seats.

McClellan‐PalomarAirport(Palomar)

Chambers of commerce members, mayors, and other political stakeholders have

mentioned McClellan‐Palomar Airport (Palomar) and Brown Field Municipal Airport

(Brown Field). These airports are primarily known for private and commercial travel.

Somesaytheseandothermunicipalairportsintheareaareunderutilized,thusexpanding

onthemunicipalairportsmaybeanoption.

Another suggestionwas to optimize the use of Palomarbyproviding facilities for

multi‐carrier passenger service. This alternativewould be implemented through leasing

and pricing strategies. The goal would be to make Palomar appear more attractive for

commercial air service than Lindbergh Field. For this project to become a reality there

wouldfirstneedtobea1,000footrunwayextensionforatotallengthof6,000feet,which

would require a bridge foundation due to the airfield being located on an old landfill

location.Therewouldalsobeaneedforan8,000squarefootpassengerterminalexpansion

to enable the total square footage to reach 27,000. The other part of the plan includes

buildinga2,800spaceautomobileparkingdeck toenable theground levelvehicles tobe

stationedclosebyforpassengers. TheproposedplansatPalomarmaysoundfeasiblebut

furtherstudieshaveshownthatmainlinejetscouldnotusethefacilityduetoirresolvable

FAA runway‐taxiway separation criteria. This constraint would ultimately harm future

development because the fleet would remain restricted to regional jets. More extensive

environmentalreviewandapprovalswouldalsoberequiredforrunwayexpansion.



BrownFieldMunicipalAirport(BrownField)

BrownFieldwas alsomentioned as a site to enlarge rather than entertaining the

costofbuildinganewairport.SimilartoPalomar,BrownFieldwouldrequiremulti‐carrier

passengerservice. Thisscenariowouldrequireanewpassengerterminalbuilding,access

andentranceroadwayimprovements,approximately2,800automobileparkingspaces,and

facilities for certification to include items like security fencing and firefighting facilities.

Therewouldalsobe theneed forvariousutilityupgrades tobecompleted. Furthermore,

theairfieldwouldnotrestrictthetypeofaircraftoperatingatthefacility,butservicewould

mostlikelybeprovidedbyregionaljets.

MCASMiramar,MarchARB,andOffshoreAirport

Both active duty and retiredmilitary leaders have suggested taking another hard

lookatMCASMiramar,MarchAirReserveBase(MarchARB),andthepossibilityofbuilding

anoffshoreairport.

In the 2013 EAS, MCAS Miramar was considered as a potential site for a new

internationalairport. Thestudymentionedthatin2006,SanDiegoCountyPropositionA,

proposed obtaining 3,000 acres of land atMCASMiramar to build a commercial airport.

Thepropositionvoteresultedin62percentopposedto38percentinfavor.MarchARBis

currentlyunderthecommandoftheU.S.AirForceandfacilitatesmilitaryandciviliantravel

on a daily basis. The Base Reuse Plan designates approximately 350 acres of land for

civilianaviationfacilitiesatthesouthernendoftheairfield.Anadditional200acreswestof

the I‐215 is intended to beused for commercial aviation throughamilitary/civilian joint

usearrangement.TheEnvironmentalImpactStatement(EIS)evaluatedtheenvironmental

elementsofthereuseplanandalternativesinaccordancewiththeNationalEnvironmental

PolicyAct(NEPA).

The thought of constructing an offshore airport is not a new idea. In 2009, a

companyby thenameofOceanWorkscreatedaplan todevelopanoffshore international

airport. The 2,000 acre, $20 billion OceanWorks international airportwould resemble a

floatingoilrigwithhotels,restaurantsandshopsnestledunderneaththeactualairport.An

onboarddesalinizationplantwouldsupplytheairport’sneedsandsupplywatertocoastal

cities,whileagiantartificialreefwouldprotectthesurroundingwildlife.Theairportwould

also act as a center of green power, harvesting energy from waves, wind, and ocean

currents.



GeneralAbelardoL.RodriguezInternationalAirport(RodriguezInternational)

Manyother stakeholders have stated that utilizingGeneralAbelardoL. Rodriguez

InternationalAirport(RodriguezInternational)inTijuanawouldbeanotheralternativeto

buildingan internationalairport inNorthSanDiegoCounty. ThroughutilizingRodriguez

International, there is the potential for cross border airport terminals, cross border

facilities, a stronger emphasis on border crossings and a possible joint use through twin

ports.ThiswouldimplyutilizingU.S.terminalswiththeuseofMexicanrunways.

The next alternative suggested was expanding and further utilizing Rodriguez

International. TherearemanyprojectionsthatstateRodriguezInternationalwillincrease

from approximately 2.5 to 7.0 million annual passengers in response to the increasing

demands. Thefirststep inthisproject istofacilitatebordercrossings. Therewouldbea

need to improve the already existing Otay Mesa and San Ysidro international border

crossings. A similar projectwasproposed in 2010 by SanDiegoChamber of Commerce;

however,thatstudywastoincreaseaccesstimesandbordercrossingbutnottopromotea

newbordercrossing.Keyfactorswouldinclude:decreasingbordercrossingtimesbyabout

40 percent from 45 minutes to approximately 25 minutes, increasing shuttle and bus

service to Tijuana from Greater Los Angeles Metropolitan and San Diego locations,

increasing air service to Mexican/International markets, and limiting increases in air

serviceinU.S.markets.

The next step would consist of facility improvements at Rodriguez International

includinganupgradedterminalandconcourses,possiblyincludingitemssuchasimproved

andrefurbishedconcessions,holdrooms,andticketcounters.Anothernecessaryaddition

involved the addition of a new airport bus terminal in order to accommodate additional

passengers originating from theU.S. shuttle bus activity. The projected total cost of this

alternative is approximately 30 million dollars with potential funding from a variety of

sourcesincludingairlinefees,U.S.CustomsandBorderProtection,andprivatedevelopers.

A second utilization of Rodriguez International is the aviation passenger cross

border facility (CBF). This projectwould increase the use of Rodriguez International for

commercialpassengeractivitywiththeCBFallowingaU.S.ticketedpassengerexclusiveand

convenientaccess into theairport. TheCBFwouldoperatesimilarly toanewpedestrian

port of entry andwould include vehicle parking, customs/border control, and a landside

connectionorbridgeintotheairport. Ticketing,securityscreening,andbaggagehandling



would remainon theMexicanside in theexisting terminalbuilding. Auser fee to access

CBFwouldbeappliedtoallusers.

TherehasalsobeentalkofaCrossBorderAirportTerminal.Thiswouldbelocated

ontheU.S.sideofthebordertofacilitateprocessingofU.S.passengersutilizingRodriguez

International;however, it isassumedthat thisapproachwillonlymarginallyalleviate the

mid‐termcapacityconstraintforabouttwoyears.

ExpansionofCentralizedTravel

VariousorganizationsandbusinessownershavesuggestedImperialCountyandthe

expansionofthecentralizedexistingairportsbymeansofhighspeedrailandcoastertravel.

Therehavealreadybeen talksof expanding the I‐5, soonce theairport site is confirmed,

different types of transportation from the various counties will becomemore important

frombothanenvironmentalandtrafficstandpoint.

TheCaliforniaHighSpeedRail(HSR)willcreatetransportationtoandfromvarious

citieswithinSanDiegoCounty.Undercurrentplans,thesouthernendoftheHSRcorridor

will terminate in SanDiego County at the downtown Santa FeDepot or Lindbergh Field.

The HSR will begin closer to the Los Angeles Union Station and Ontario International

Airport.TheHSRcanbeusedasanalternativeorreplacementforintra‐Californiaairtravel

ortoaccessanairportwithinCalifornia.

Therearealso talks inplace toexpand theuseof theCOASTER thatgoes through

SanDiego. TheCOASTER commuter train travels breathtaking coastal scenery as it runs

northandsouththroughSanDiegoCounty,servingeightstationsbetweenOceansideand

downtownSanDiego.Morethan20trainsrunonweekdays,withadditionalserviceonthe

weekends.IttakesaboutanhourtotraveltheentireCOASTERroute.

PoliticalStrategies

Based on the primary interview data collected, as well as the secondary sources

cited, supporters of an international airport atMCBCampPendletonunderstand there is

heavy opposition to the proposal; however, respondents did suggest various political

strategiestowinoverenoughsupportfortheprojectorasimilaralternative. Suggestions

beyondsimplychoosinganotherlocationmustincludepromotingthebenefitstopersuade

voters, and working collaboratively with regional agencies, organizations, and interest

groups.



Nomajorprojectorpublicpolicyinitiativecanbesuccessfullyimplementedwithout

strongsupport fromthepublicandstakeholdergroups. It is imperative toreceivepublic

supportandstakeholderbuy‐in.Achievingthisrequiresclearcommunicationsfocusingon

thebenefits,andmitigatingconcernsoftheproject.Creatingasocialmediacampaignisone

of the quickestways to relay information to voters, especiallywith the advancements in

technology.Thisisparticularlyimportanttothetech‐savvymillennialvoterswhostandto

gainthemostfromanairportslatedtoopenin2040,whentheyaremostlikelytouseit.It

isalsoimportanttorealizethatopponentsoftheprojectwillbelikelytoavailthemselvesof

the same technology. So public debate surrounding amid‐twenty‐first century airport is

likelytotakeplaceintheblogosphere.

A way to find out what is important to voters is to talk with members of the

communities. Supporters must present the project, engage community members in a

discussion,andfindoutthemajorconcerns.Themostcommonconcernswouldmostlikely

becenteredonnoisepollution,airquality,traffic,andgeneralsafety.Oncetheinformation

is analyzed,plannersanddevelopers canworkonways to alleviate those concerns. This

strategywouldneedtobeimplementedmorethanoncetopresentthecaseafteralterations

andattemptstoappeasecommunitymembershavebeendevelopedandincluded.

Severalrespondentsindicatedworkingwithregionalagenciestogainsupportofthe

project. While building support for joint‐use policy seems like an ideal strategy, the

majorityofrespondentsindicatedconcernforciviliansafetywithactivemilitaryoperations.

Inaddition,itisunlikelytheFAAwillgrantapprovalifciviliansafetyisatrisk;however,an

alternative strategy is to build enough regional agency support to petition the BRAC

CommissiontorelocateMCBCampPendleton.

Ifthesestrategiesareunsuccessful,anotheroptionistolookatalternativelocations

orexpandexistingfacilities.Onerespondentrecommendedlookingoffshoreorexpanding

Lindbergh Field. One of the respondents that is currently serving the public from the

primaryinterviewdata,hadaveryclearopiniononthetopicinwhichhestated“Supporting

an international airport at CampPendleton is political suicide.” One of the commanding

officers forMCBCampPendleton,who isalsoopposed to theproject, cited theexpansion

wouldneedasignificantamountofland,causingmoreencroachmentonthetrainingspace.

High ranking officials have strong opinions that are not easily swayed. In that case,

alternative suggestions must be considered. Another respondent suggested to “build it

offshore where there [are not] constant military exercises that could cause injury to



civilians.”Basedonresponsesfromtheinterviewsconducted,thegeneralconsensuscanbe

summarized by a quote from the one of the respondents “You have a better chance at

gettingChargersthananairportatCampPendleton.”

OpportunitiesforCollaboration

Expanding the conversation beyond the borders of San Diego County offers new

opportunities for cross‐county collaboration. The2013EAS selected the CampPendleton

site as themost viable option from among all those considered for the location of a new

international airport within San Diego County. The 2014 study, building upon this

recommendation, realized thatSanDiegoCountywouldnotbe theonlyCounty tobenefit

fromlocatinganairportonthissite.Italsowillbenefitfastgrowingregionsofneighboring

OrangeandRiversideCountiesthat.Akeytomakingthenewairportarealityistoestablish

positivecollaborativeeffortsamongthecountiesaffected,

Fortunately,thereisalreadyarichhistoryofcollaborationamongSanDiego,Orange

and Riverside Counties. By leveraging theses current relationships and partnerships, a

collaborativemodelcouldbeestablishedtoformulateawinningstrategytobuildthismulti‐

countyresource.Thefollowingselectionshighlightsomeoftheexistingcross‐countyefforts

among Riverside, San Diego, and Orange Counties. Each of them exists to address some

concerns thatmay be germane to the discussion of the building of the proposed airport.

Eachshouldbeincludedinanycrosscountydiscussionsconcerningtheproject.

SANDAG

In 2001 the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) recognized the

importanceofregionalcollaborationandcreatedaBordersCommitteetoserveasapolicy

advisoryentity.ThisinterregionalareaincludesOrange,Riverside,ImperialandSanDiego

Counties,. It also recognizes the importance of San Diego’s border with Mexico. The

Borders Committee is responsible for advising SANDAG’s Board of Directors on

interregionalplanning,encouragingcommunicationanddialoguebetweenthe localareas.

(SANDAG,2014A)Additionally,theSouthernCaliforniaAssociationofGovernments(SCAG)

was added to the Board of the Borders Committee to facilitate a full dialogue between

SANDAG and SCAG (SANDAG 2014B). It is important to note that SCAG is currently the

largestCouncilofGovernmentsintheUnitedStates(SCAG,2014a).



Within the past year, this grouphas established anOverallWorkProgramwith a

proposed schedule to discuss the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and

SCAG’scollaborationandlongtermplanning.Additionally,therehasbeenanupdateonthe

Western Riverside Council of Government’s (WRCOG) Interstate 15 Interregional

Partnership(IRP).Thiscommitteeprovidesanexistingcrossregionalplatformasamedium

forpartnership. Certainly, thesegroupsshouldbeconsultedand their insights shouldbe

enlistedandintegratedintoanydiscussionsoftheTri‐CountyAirportproject.

IRP(Inter‐regionalPartnership)

The IRP is a voluntary partnership between multiple public and private sector

organizations spanning Riverside and San Diego Counties. Public organizations such as

SANDAG andWRCOG are heavily involved. Created in 2001, the IRP aims to address the

imbalance of jobs and housing growth between two‐county region. The premise of this

imbalanceisattributedtoagrowingnumberoflongdistancecommuters,whichwillhavea

seriousimpactontransportation,environment,andthegeneralqualityoflifeofresidents.

The long‐termgoal of the Interstate IRP is to reduce thenumber ofwork related vehicle

trips and commuter miles through a committee‐based framework that will facilitate

sustainable landuse. Increasing the availability of employment in areas closer to regions

wherepeoplelivewhilealsoincreasingaffordablehousinginareasclosertojob‐richareas

willrequirefewerpeopletocommutebetweenthetworegions(I15,2014).

Theproposedairportwillhelpinbothregardsbycreatingjobsclosertotheborder

between San Diego and Riverside. The airport would, by the nature of the massive

operations inplaceduringconstructionandthesubsequentsupportingoperations,create

anemploymentclusteratthecenterofthetri‐countyareawhichwould,whileperhapsnot

reducing the number of inter‐county trips, would certainly shorten those commutes and

reducenumberofcommutermilestravelerswouldengagein.

In 2005, the distribution of San Diego and Riverside employment in the

entertainmentandrecreation industrywas68%and32%,respectively.This imbalanceof

employment in the industry suggests that Riverside County is lacking employment

opportunityinthishiskeyindustry.Thisdisparitycouldbehelpedbythecreationofanew

business and industry cluster centered around a new international airport. A large job

cluster would emerge as a result of airport operation related jobs and complementary

industries, such as tourism and entertainment. An international airport further the IRP’s

existingentertainmentandrecreationindustrygoalsbyidentifyingopportunitiestobrand



theTri‐Countyregionwhiledevelopingcomplementarymessagestoreinforcethestrengths

of each respective regionwhile developing an interregional transportation infrastructure

thatwouldprovidetravelersaccess throughouttheregion.Thiscollaborativerelationship

wouldprovideeconomicandemploymentopportunities(I15,2014B).

SanDiegoTri‐CountyFundingAreaCoordinatingCommittee

The SanDiego Tri‐County Funding Area Coordinating Committee, aptly named, is

anotheralready‐existingpartnershipamongRiverside,OrangeandSanDiegoCounties.This

group was formed to encourage integrated regional strategies from managing water

resourcestosecuringgrantfunding.Amainfocusofthiscommitteeistoproactivelyprotect

thecounties fromdroughtwhileprotectingand improvingwaterquality.This framework

not only allows for necessary autonomy while providing interregional cooperation to

improvewaterqualitybutalsoprovidesneededprocessestoaddressanyissuesorconflicts

thatmayemergeamongstthethreeregions(OCPublicWorks2009).

OtherPotentialPartnerships

Similar to theway that concept cars introducenew technology inpotential future

cars, a notion of concept collaboration can be used to introduce potential collaboration

ideasthatwillbesupportedwithanewinternationalairport.Anewairportcouldserveasa

nucleusandanchorfornewmajorbusinessopportunities,asSanDiegoisadestinationof

choiceforleisureandbusinesstravelersalike.

One potential business partner of the region is the NFL’s San Diego Chargers

Footballclub.FormanyyearsSanDiegohasbeenindiscussionswiththeteam,recognizing

the economic importance ofmaintaining the team in the region but have been unable to

secure funding of voter support for a new football stadium. A joint venture could be a

rallying point for the tri‐county areawhile keeping the team in SanDiego and providing

employmentopportunitiesthroughouttheregion.

Another staple of the SanDiego area that could be a potential partner is the San

DiegoConventionCenter.This facility currentlyhasunmetdemandas39.7%ofpotential

customers do not book the San Diego Convention Center because it does notmeet their

spacerequirements.Thisrepresentsa$1billionlossineconomicimpactthattheareacould

be realizing. According to a 2014 Cvent survey, a technology firm used by worldwide

meetingplanners, SanDiegowas ranked fifthon the top fiftymeetingdestinations in the

country.Withmoreconventioncenterspaceandadditionalair travelofferings,SanDiego



could benefit from increased bookings and could also attract larger conventions while

keepingcurrentlargeofferingssuchasComicCon.

Finally, the tri‐county regioncouldgreatlybenefit from joint tourismefforts. San

Diegoiscurrentlyamajortourismdestinationandafullserviceinternationalairportcould

pullfromvisitorsfromSanFranciscoandLosAngeles,tappingintothetourismmarketeven

further.Thiswouldcreateauniqueopportunityfortheareaasatri‐countyTourismBoard

would market local tourism activities. San Diego could focus on the San Diego Zoo, Sea

World, the craft beer industry, and professional sports. Likewise, Orange County could

market Disneyland, Knott’s Berry Farm, Medieval Times and professional hockey and

baseball,whileRiversidecouldfocusonwinetasting,museumsandstateparks.

Conclusion

Thisstudywas intendedtoexplorethepoliticalconsiderationsspanningSouthern

California affecting the possibility of building an international airport at MCB Camp

Pendleton.ThislocationiseasilyaccessibletotheTri‐Countyareacurrentlyunder‐served

by the existing airports that are also expected to reach capacity soon. Several previous

studies indicate that thissitewouldmeetFAAstandardswhileminimizing theresidential

population thatwould be impacted by either noise or pollution. This location provides a

sufficiently largeopenspace thatcanaccommodate large international flights thatcannot

be accommodated elsewhere. Further, this large land mass represents less than five

percentofthetotallandareacontrolledbyMCBCampPendleton.

If an international airportwere to be constructed at this location therewould be

manypoliticalhurdlesthatwouldneedtobeclearedfirst. Thestrongestonewouldbeto

findwaystomitigatetheimpacttotheMarinetraininginitiative.Thereisalsotheneedto

minimize potential environmental impacts including pollution and habitat destruction of

thesixteenendangeredplantandanimalspeciesonoradjacenttothesite.

If there is a desire to further pursue the building of an airport at MCB Camp

Pendleton,therearenumeroustasksthatwillneedtobecompleted.Manyitemsthathave

beenmentionedthroughoutthisreportwouldneedtobeaddressedbutthemostpressing

wouldbetohavealloftheneededstudiesdonetodeterminetheviabilityofsuccesspriorto

signinganycontractstomove forward. Therewouldbetheneed forecologicalstudies,a

roadwaystudy,and,whatcouldbetheshowstopper,anenvironmentalfeasibilitystudy.It



wouldbeatravestytomoveforwardwithoutthesupportofthemyriadnumbersofpublic

agencies that have been detailed in this report.


Conclusions 158

INTERNATIONALEXPLORATORYAIRPORTSTUDY2.0

CONCLUSIONSThe2013ExploratoryAirportStudyconcludedthatCampPendletonwouldbethe

onlyfeasiblelocationforsuchafacilitywithinSanDiegoCounty.Thatconclusionservedas

the starting point for the 2014ExploratoryAirport Study 2.0 presented in the preceding

chapters. The analyses presented in this report address numerous ways in which the

projectwillaffecttheregion.TheyrelatetoservingthetravelneedsofresidentsoftheTri‐

County region; increasing air‐travel capacity for SouthernCalifornia; building an efficient

and sustainable ground transport system; and creating jobs and building the economy.

Eachoftheseisdiscussedinthefollowingparagraphs:

ServingtheTravelNeedsoftheTri‐CountyPopulation

TheCampPendletonsiteis locatedinthecenterofTri‐County,whichspansNorth

SanDiego, SouthernOrange, andSouthwestRiversideCounties. Currentlyhome tomore

than 2.2 million residents, the population of the Tri‐County region will increase to 2.7

million people by the time a new airport is constructed. This diverse population shares

manyofthecharacteristicsoftheflyingpublic.However,comparedtonationalaveragesin

terms of distance to an international airport, the population of the Tri‐County region is

underserved.FromtheperspectiveofTri‐Countyresidents,anewairportisneeded.

IncreasingAir‐TravelCapacityforSouthernCalifornia

The new airport will benefit the entire Southern California region beyond Tri‐

County. Even with current expansion plans for air traffic infrastructure, both the Los

AngelesandSanDiegoregions–andthusSouthernCaliforniaasawhole–willbeunableto

meetdemandforairtravelby2040. Itisestimatedthatthesixairportscurrentlyserving

theregionwillfallshortofdemandbyasmanyas30millionenplanements.

The new SCIA will enhance the operations of the recently expanded San Diego

International Airport (SAN). Based on the benchmark study of othermetropolitan areas

served bymultiple airports – aswell as current topographical constraints – SANwill be

unable to handle the level of international travel a city of its size requires. The newly

renovated SAN can and should remain a vital part of the infrastructure servingdomestic

traveltotheCityofSanDiegoandthesurroundingmunicipalities.Thenewairportshould


Conclusions 159

focusprimarily,butnotsolely,oninternationaltravel,providingeasyaccesstounderserved

residentsoftheTri‐Countyregion.Currently,thosewishingtoreachSanDiego,Southwest

Riverside, or Southern Orange Counties from outside the U.S. must first transit through

other international airports. However, the proposed SCIA will provide easy access for

business,tourist,andmilitarypassengersflyinginfromabroad.

BuildinganEfficientandSustainableGroundTransportSystem

OceansideliesatthecrossroadsoftheTri‐Countyregion.Theproposedlocationfor

SCIAisclosetodowntown.Inter‐countybusandtrainlinesmeet inOceanside. East‐west

state routes that connect the two major north‐south interstate highways pass through

Oceanside.Theanalysispresentedinthisreportshowsthatwithplansunderway,roadway

improvementsmaybeadequatetohandleincreasedtrafficonalreadycrowdedfreewaysto

andfromtheairport.Incontrasttoroadways,currentpublictransportationinfrastructure

is vastly under‐utilized in the Tri‐County region and throughout Southern California in

general.Adeliberativeefforttolinkandcreateroadandmass‐transitinfrastructurewillbe

needed to serve the airport in ways that minimize traffic congestion as well as

environmental impact. Increasing ridership should offset the increased demand from

vehiculartrafficonroads.Effortsmustbemadetoincreaseridershipofmasstransitamong

today’sfuelconsciousMillennialconsumerssothattheywillconsidertakingpublictransit

totheairportinthefuture.

CreatingJobsandBuildingtheEconomy

Thenewairport isexpectedtogeneratesome11,000 jobsduring itsconstruction.

This is based upon benchmarking against other recent projects. Once it is built out, and

dependinguponactual,asopposedtoestimatedenplanements,thenewairportisexpected

to employ some30,000workers onsite. Benchmarking against other recently completed

internationalairportssuchasDenver,SCIAhasthepotentialtocreatebetween100,000and

200,000newjobsinrelatedandsupportingindustrieswithintheimmediatevicinity.This

report estimated that themultiplier effect of these new jobs on the local economy could

reach between $3 billion and $6 billion. Additionally, the earnings of the people and

businessesworking at or near the airportwill substantially contribute to the local, state,

andfederaltaxbases.


Conclusions 160

It iseasytobecomeenthusiasticaboutthegreatpotential thatthisairporthas for

servingtheairtravelneedsoftheregionandbuildingitseconomy.However,makingSCIAa

realitywill be challenging.Conversationsanddebate aboutbuildinganewairport in San

DiegoCountyhavebeengoingonfordecades.Therearemanygovernmental,military,civic,

andbusinessgroupsthathavevestedinterests–andgraveconcerns–aboutwhereanew

airportshouldbelocatedandwhatitmightmeantotheregion.Themembersofthe2014

MBA project team met with representatives of various stakeholder groups and have

highlighted their concerns in this report. Without a concerted effort toworkwith these

groups, the debatemight rage on formany years into the future. The first steps toward

realizingthegoalsoftheSouthernCaliforniaInternationalAirportlocatedintheTri‐County

regionwillinvolveaddressingtheconcernsofkeystakeholdersandenlistingtheirsupport.

Beyondovercoming theseobjections, the successof theAirportProjectwilldependupon

building alliances and cooperative efforts among key stakeholders from within the Tri‐

Countyregion,andbeyond.


References 161

REFERENCES

Chapter1

AnaheimConventionCenter.(2014).AbouttheAnaheimConventionCenter.Retrieved

November2,2014fromhttp://www.anaheimconventioncenter.com/

AppliedManagementandPlanningGroup(AMPG).(2007).2006airpassengersurveyfinal

report,LosAngelesInternationalAirport.RetrievedNov10,2014,from

http://www.lawa.org/uploadedfiles/lax/pdf/2006LAXPassengerSurveyFinal.pdf

CaliforniaDepartmentofFinance.(2014).E‐1cities,counties,andthestatepopulation

estimateswithannualpercentchange‐January1,2013and2014(Datafile).

Retrievedfromhttp://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/

estimates/e‐1/view.php

CaliforniaStatistics&Trends.(n.d.).RetrievedNovember12,2014,from

http://industry.visitcalifornia.com/Find‐Research/California‐Statistics‐Trends/

CaliforniaTravelImpactsbyCounty,1992‐2012.(2014).2013preliminarystate&

regionalestimates.RetrievedNovember12,2014,from

http://www.deanrunyan.com/doc_library/CAImp.pdf

CenterforDemographicResearch(CDR).(2014).2000‐2010OrangeCountychangeprofile.

RetrievedOctober29,2014fromhttp://www.fullerton.edu/cdr/demographics/

CityDataonRiverside,California.(n.d.).RetrievedNovember12,2014,from

http://www.city‐data.com/city/Riverside‐California.html#ixzz3FWa1RuJ3

CountyofRiversidePartnership.(n.d.).RetrievedNovember12,2014,from

https://www.sce.com/NR/rdonlyres/1E446BBD‐9D70‐4707‐9865‐

8E0ED004117B/0/SCE2529COUNTYOFRIVERSIDEPARTNERSHIP.pdf

EconomicDevelopmentCorporationofSouthwestCalifornia.(n.d.).RetrievedNovember

12,2014,fromhttp://edcswca.com/about‐us/.http://edcswca.com/about‐us/

ESRIBusinessAnalystOnline(9.3.1)[ComputerSoftware].Redlands,CA:ESRI

Hall,R.(2006).TheSanDiegoregion’sairtransportationfuture(PDFDocument).

Retrievedfromhttp://sdapa.org/download/RyanHall.pdf


References 162

I‐15InterregionalPartnership.(n.d.).Existingconditionsreport.RetrievedOctober26,

2014, fromhttp://www.i15irp.com/ReportsNStudies.aspx

JCDecaux.(2014).USairportsmarket.RetrievedNov10,2014,from

http://www.jcdecauxna.com/airport/airport‐advertising‐

locations.http://www.jcdecauxna.com/airport/airport‐advertising‐locations

JohnWayneAirportOrangeCounty.(2014).Factsataglance.RetrievedOctober29,2014,

from http://www.ocair.com/newsroom/factsataglance.aspx

OrangeCountyHistoricalSociety(OCHS).(2014).AbriefhistoryofOrangeCounty

California. RetrievedOctober21,2014,from

http://www.orangecountyhistory.org/index.html

Pearson,M.(2012).Howfararepeopleonaveragefromtheirnearestdecent‐sizedairport?

RetrievedNov10,2014,fromhttp://www.mark‐pearson.com/airport‐distances/

SANDAG.(2014).Demographics&otherdata:Fastfacts.RetrievedOct17,2014,from

http://www.sandag.org/resources/demographics_and_other_data/demographics/f

astfacts/index.asp

SanDiegoCounty.(2014).Healthandhumanservicesagency:Geography.Retrieved

October27,2014,from

http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/hhsa/statistics_geography.html

SanDiegoHistoryCenter.(2013).TimelineofSanDiegohistory.RetrievedNov02,2014

from http://www.sandiegohistory.org/timeline/timeline2.htm#1887

UnitedStatesCensusBureau.(2010).Stateandcountyquickfacts,OrangeCounty.

RetrievedOctober29,2014,from

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06059.html


References 163

Chapter2

AirportIQ5010.(2010).AirportmasterrecordsandreportsDallasLoveField.Retrieved

from http://www.gcr1.com/5010web/airport.cfm?Site=DAL

AirportIQ5010.(2014).AirportmasterrecordsandreportmetropolitanOaklandIntl.

Retrievedfromhttp://www.oaklandairport.com/media_backgrounder.shtml

Airfields‐Freeman.(2014).Abandoned&littleknownairfields:California:CentralOrange

County.Retrievedfromhttp://www.airfields‐

freeman.com/CA/Airfields_CA_OrangeCo_C.htm

AviationOnlineMagazine.(2012).Wrightamendmentof1979.Retrievedfrom

http://avstop.com/legal/wright_amendment_1979.html

ChicagoO’HareAirport.(2014).Airporthistory.Retrievedfrom

http://www.flychicago.com/OHare/EN/AboutUs/History.aspx

ChicagoO’HareAirport.(2014).Facilitydata.Retrievedfrom

http://www.flychicago.com/OHare/EN/AboutUs/Facts/Facility‐Data.aspx

ChicagoMidwayAirport.(2014).Airporthistory.Retrievedfrom

http://www.flychicago.com/midway/en/AboutUs/History.aspx

ChicagoMidwayAirport.(2014).Facilitydata.Retrievedfrom

http://www.flychicago.com/midway/en/AboutUs/Facts/Pages/Facility‐Data.aspx

ChicagoMidwayAirport.(2014).Airporthistory.Retrievedfrom

http://www.flychicago.com/midway/en/AboutUs/History.aspx

Dallas/FortWorthInternationalAirport.(2012).Dallas/FortWorthAirportfastfacts.

Retrievedfromhttps://www.dfwairport.com/visitor/P1_009559.php

DepartmentofPublicWorks.(2014).McClellan‐PalomarAirportFAQS.Retrievedfrom

http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/dpw/airports/palomar/faq.html

EncyclopediaofChicago.(2014).MidwayAirport.Retrievedfrom

http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/828.html


References 164

TheEnoCenterforTransportation.(2013).AddressingfuturecapacityneedsintheU.S.

aviationsystem.RetrievedSeptember,2014,from

http://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/profiles/

FederalAviationAdministration.(2014).Airportcapacityprofiles.RetrievedSeptember,

2014,from

http://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/profiles/media/Airport‐Capacity‐

Profiles‐2014.pdf

FederalAviationAdministration.(2007).Capacityneedsinthenationalairspacesystem.

RetrievedSeptember,2014,from

http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/publications/reports/media/fact_2.pdf

FederalAviationAdministration.(2014).Aircarrierstatistics.RetrievedSeptember,2014,

from

http://www.transtats.bts.gov/Tables.asp?DB_ID=111&DB_Name=Air%20Carrier%

20Statistics%20%28Form%2041%20Traffic%29‐

FederalAviationAdministration.(2014).Aircarrierstatistics.RetrievedSeptember,2014,

from


20Statistics%20%28Form%2041%20Traffic%29‐

%20All%20Carriers&DB_Short_Name=Air%20Carriers

FederalAviationAdministration.(2014).APOterminalareaforecast2013.Retrieved

October2014,fromhttp://tafpub.itworks‐software.com/taf2013/LoginPage.asp

JCDecaux.(2014).USairportsmarket.Retrievedfrom

http://www.jcdecauxna.com/airport/airport‐advertising‐locations

JohnWayneAirport.(2014).Terminal.Retrievedfromhttp://www.ocair.com/terminal/

JohnWayneAirport.(2014).Generalinformation.Retrieved

fromhttp://www.ocair.com/generalaviation/default.aspx

LA/OntarioInternationalLosAngelesWorldAirports(LAWA).(2014).AirportInformation.

Retrievedfromhttp://www.lawa.org/welcome_ont.aspx?id=1452

LA/OntarioInternationalLosAngelesWorldAirports(LAWA).(2014).Generaldescription.

Retrievedfromhttp://www.lawa.org/welcome_ONT.aspx?id=88


References 165

LA/OntarioInternationalLosAngelesWorldAirports(LAWA).(2014).Factsheet.


LA/OntarioInternationalLosAngelesWorldAirports(LAWA).(2014).Earlyhistory.


LongBeachAirport.(2014).LongBeachAirporthomepage.Retrievedfrom

http://www.lgb.org/

LosAngelesWorldAirports.(2011).LosAngelesInternationalAirportearlyhistory.

Retrievedfromhttp://www.lawa.org/

LosAngelesWorldAirports.(2010).LosAngelesInternationalAirportinformation:General

description.Retrievedfromhttp://www.lawa.org/welcome_lax.aspx?id=40

LosAngelesInternationalAirport.(2013).Economicandsocialimpacts.Retrievedfrom

http://www.ecquants.com/2012_LAX.aspx

MinetaSanJoseInternationalAirport–SJC.(2014).SJChistorytimeline.Retrievedfrom

http://www.flysanjose.com/fl/about.php?page=history/timeline&exp=7&subtitle=

History+|+Timeline

MinetaSanJoseInternationalAirport–SJC.(2014).Monthlyactivityreportfor12/01/2013

to12/31/2013(CalendarYear)[PDF].Retrievedfrom

http://ww.flysanjose.com/fl/about/activity/Dec13CY.pdf

MinetaSanJoseInternationalAirport–SJC.(2014).SJCfastfacts.Retrievedfrom

http://www.flysanjose.com/fl/about.php?page=newsroom/fast_facts&subtitle=Ne

wsro om+%7C+Fast+Facts

MinetaSanJoseInternationalAirport–SJC.(2014).AirportmasterplanforNormanY.

MinetaSanJoseInternationalAirport[PDF].Retrievedfrom

http://www.flysanjose.com/fl/about/improve/overview/MP‐ExecSum11_Cur‐

Master_Plan_Apr2011.pdf

NorthwestChicagoHistoricalSociety.(n.d).O’Harehistory.Retrievedfrom

http://nwchicagohistory.org/nwch_ohare.html

OaklandInternationalAirport.(2014).OAKbackgrounder.Retrievedfrom

http://www.oaklandairport.com/media_backgrounder.shtml


References 166

OaklandInternationalAirport.(2014).OaklandInternationalAirportairlineroutemap.

Retrievedfromhttp://www.oaklandairport.com/routemap.shtml

OaklandInternationalAirport.(2005).OaklandInternationalmasterplan[PDF].Retrieved

from

http://www.oaklandairport.com/masterplan_oak/pdf/masterplan/march2006/Ma

ster_Plan_2006‐03_standard_noapx.pdf

OaklandInternationalAirport.(2014).OAKmasterplanproject.Retrievedfrom

http://www.oaklandairport.com/masterplan_oak/index.shtml

OrangeCountyRegister.(2013).JWAexpandsservices,stillseekspassengers.Retrieved

from http://www.ocregister.com/articles/airport‐377394‐john‐wayne.html

PortAuthorityofNewYorkandNewJersey.(2014).Newarkfacts&information.Retrieved

fromhttp://www.panynj.gov/airports/ewr‐facts‐info.html

PortAuthorityofNewYorkandNewJersey.(2014).HistoryofNewarkLiberty

InternationalAirport.Retrievedfromhttp://www.panynj.gov/airports/ewr‐facts‐

info.html

PortAuthorityofNewYorkandNewJersey.(2014).HistoryofJFKInternationalAirport.

Retrievedfromhttp://www.panynj.gov/airports/jfk‐history.html

PortAuthorityofNewYorkandNewJersey.(2014).JFKfacts&information.Retrieved

fromhttp://www.panynj.gov/airports/jfk‐facts‐info.html

PortAuthorityofNewYorkandNewJersey.(2014).HistoryofLaGuardia.Retrievedfrom

http://www.panynj.gov/airports/lga‐history.html

PortAuthorityofNewYorkandNewJersey.(2014).LaGuardiafacts&information.

Retrievedfromhttp://www.panynj.gov/airports/lga‐facts‐info.html

PortAuthorityofNewYorkandNewJersey.(2014).Airtrafficreport[PDF].Retrieved

from

http://www.panynj.gov/airports/pdf‐traffic/ATR2013.pdf

ResearchandInnovativeTechnologyAssociation(RITA).(2014).Retrievedfrom

http://www.transtats.bts.gov/airports.asp?pn=1


References 167

ResearchandInnovativeTechnologyInnovationAdministrationBureauofTransportation

Statistics(RITA).(2014).Aircarrierstatistics.Retrievedfrom


20Statistics%20%28Form%2041%20Traffic%29%20All%20Carriers&DB_Short_N

ame=Air%20Carriers


Statistics(RITA).(2014).Flightsallcarriers–allairports.Retrievedfrom

http://www.transtats.bts.gov/Data_Elements.aspx?Data=2


Statistics(RITA).(2014).Inter‐airportdistance.Retrievedfrom

http://www.transtats.bts.gov/distance.asp

SanDiegoInternationalAirport.(2014).Airporthistory.Retrievedfrom

http://www.san.org/Education/History

SanFranciscoInternationalAirport.(2014).Airtrafficstatistics.Retrievedfrom

http://www.flysfo.com/media/facts‐statistics/air‐traffic‐statistics

SanFranciscoInternationalAirport.(2014).Factsheetservicebyregion[PDF].Retrieved

fromhttp://www.flysfo.com/about‐sfo/history‐sfo

SanFranciscoInternationalAirport.(2014).HistoryofSFO.Retrievedfrom

http://www.flysfo.com/about‐sfo/history‐sfo

SanFranciscoInternationalAirport.(2014).Pressreleases.Retrievedfrom

http://www.flysfo.com/media/pressreleases/sfo‐announces‐launch‐chinese‐language‐

website

SouthwestAirlines.(2010).AlookbackatDallasLoveField.Retrievedfrom

http://www.blogsouthwest.com/flashback‐fridays‐a‐look‐back‐dallas‐love‐field

TexasStateHistoricalAssociation.(2013).Dallas‐FortWorthInternationalAirport.

Retrievedfromhttp://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/epd01

UnitedStatesCensusBureau.(2014).Populationestimates.RetrievedNovember,2014,

fromhttp://www.census.gov/popest/data/metro/totals/2013/index.html


References 168

UnitedStatesDepartmentofTransportation,ResearchandInnovativeTechnology

Administration,BureauofTransportationStatistics,OfficeofAirlineInformation,T‐

100InternationalSegmentData,SpecialCalculation.(2010).Bureauof

transportationstatistics.Retrievedfromhttp://www.rita.dot.gov/bts

UnitedStatesDepartmentofCommerceUnitedStatesCensusBureau.(2014).American

factfinder.Retrievedfrom

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?sr

c=bkmk

UnitedStatesDepartmentofTransportationFederalAviationAdministration.(2014).

Airportmasterrecord.Retrievedfrom

http://www.gcr1.com/5010web/REPORTS/CRQ.pdf

Chapter3

Amtrak.(2013).Amtrakfactsheet,fiscalyear2013StateofCalifornia(PDF).Retrieved

fromhttp://www.amtrak.com/pdf/factsheets/CALIFORNIA13.pdf

CaliforniaCoastalCommissionSanDiegoArea.(2014).CaltransandSANDAGNCC

PWP/TREP(PDF).Retrievedfrom

http://www.coastal.ca.gov/sd/7.3.14_NCC_PWP_TREP_Staff_Report.pdf

CaliforniaDepartmentofTransportation–District11[CADOTD11].(September2014).

StateRoute76EastSouthMissionRoadtoInterstateI‐15(PDF).Retrievedfrom

http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist11/facts/76east.pdf

CaliforniaDepartmentofTransportation–District12[CADOTD12].(January2011).I‐5

HOVlaneextensionprojectbetweenAvenidaPicoandSanJuanCreekRoad(PDF

Chapter2.5).Retrievedfrom

http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist12/files/I5HOV/DED/2.5%20Traffic%20and%20Trans

portation.pdf

CaliforniaDepartmentofTransportation–District12[CADOTD12](June2012).Interstate

5(I‐5)wideningprojectfromstateroute73(SR‐73)toElToroRoad(PDFChapter

2.5).Retrievedfrom


References 169

http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist12/files/5widening/Chapter_2/2.5_Traffic_and_

Transportation.pdf

CaliforniaDepartmentofTransportationDistrict11.(2014).NorthCoastcorridorpublic

worksplanandresourceenhancementprogram(PDF).Retrievedfrom

http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist11/Env_docs/I‐5PWP/Overview.pdf

CaliforniaDepartmentofTransportation.(2013).PacificSurflinerSouthcorridorservice

developmentplan(PDF).Retrievedfrom

http://californiastaterailplan.dot.ca.gov/docs/Final_2013_Pacific_Surfliner_South_S

DP.pdf

CaliforniaDepartmentofTransportation.(2014).Biofiltrationswales.Retrievedfrom

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/ec/stormwater/biofiltration_swales.htm

CaliforniaDepartmentofTransportation.(2009).I‐15Corridorsystemmanagementplan

(PDF).Retrievedfrom

http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist11/departments/planning/pdfs/systplan/01‐I‐

15CorridorSystemManagementPlanJanuary2009.pdf

CaliforniaDepartmentofTransportation.(2014).I‐15Transportationconceptsummary

(PDF).Retrievedfrom

http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist11/departments/planning/pdfs/tcs/08_I_15TCS.pdf

CaliforniaDepartmentofTransportation.(2011).StateRoute76project–MelroseDriveto

SouthMissionRoad.Retrievedfrom

http://www.keepsandiegomoving.com/Libraries/Lossan‐

doc/2012_SR76__ARRA_Fact_Sheet.sflb.ashx

CarlsbadCityCounsel.(2014).Retrievedfrom

http://www.carlsbadca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=26698

TheDailyBeast.(March7,2011).America’s50worstcommutes.Retrievedfrom

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/03/08/50‐worst‐commutes

americas‐highways‐to‐hell.html

DepartmentofTransportation.(2014).Caltransandthedepartmentoffishandwildlifeurge

motoriststobealertduringwatchoutforWildlifeWeek.Retrievedfrom

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/news/pressrel/14pr093.htm


References 170

MalcomPirnie,Inc.(2008).SanDiegoInternationalAirportexpansion‐sustainability

analysis(PDF).Retrievedfromhttp://nettstrategies.com/wp‐

content/uploads/2012/11/SanDiego_SA_FEB_Complete_Final_Report.pdf

Metrolink.(2012).MetrolinkFleetplan2012–2017(PDF).Retrievedfrom

http://metrolink.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=metrolink_0e45aa65088

f01bf84c11a7cb31dab4b.pdf&view=1

Metrolink.(2013).ComprehensiveannualfinancialreportforthefiscalyearendedJune30,

2013(PDF).Retrievedfrom

http://www.metrolinktrains.com/pdfs/Facts&Numbers/Financial_Reports/Annual

_Reports/SCRRA_CAFR_FY2013.pdf

NorthCountyTransitDistrict.(2014).BREEZEandFLEXfactsheet(PDF).Retrievedfrom

http://www.gonctd.com/wp‐

content/uploads/2014/06/BREEZE%20and%20FLEX%20Fact%20Sheet%20‐

%20January%202014%20‐%20CURRENT.pdf

NorthCountyTransitDistrict.(2014).SPRINTERfactsheet(PDF).Retrievedfrom

http://www.gonctd.com/wp‐

content/uploads/2014/06/SPRINTER%20Fact%20Sheet%20‐

%20January%202014%20‐%20CURRENT.pdf

NorthCountyTransitDistrict.(2013).Comprehensiveannualfinancialreport.Serviceand

activities,18,83(PDF).Retrievedfromhttp://www.gonctd.com/wp‐

content/uploads/2014/06/FY13%20Single%20Audit%20Complete%20Package%

20submitted%20via%20IDES.pdf

OrangeCountyTransportationAuthority.(2013).Comprehensiveannualreport(PDF).

Retrievedfromhttp://www.octa.net/pdf/CAFR‐2013.pdf

OrangeCountyTransportationAuthority.(2014).SouthernCaliforniapassengerrailsystem

mapandtimetables(PDF).Retrievedfrom

http://www.octa.net/pdf/LOSSANSchedule_10614.pdf

ParsonsBrinckerhoff.(May2012).StateRoute78corridorstudy(PDF).Retrievedfrom

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/orip/Grants/final_products/2013/11_SAND

AG_SR78FinalStudyReport.pdf


References 171

RiversideTransitAgency.(2014).ServiceEvaluation–ComprehensiveOperationalAnalysis

(PDF).Retrievedfromhttp://www.riversidetransit.tmdinc.net/pdfs/RTA_COA‐

Service_Evaluation_Final.pdf

SanDiegoAssociationofGovernments.(2011).2050Regionaltransportationplan.

AppendixA2050RTPprojects,costs,andphasing(PDF).Retrievedfrom

http://www.sandag.org/uploads/2050RTP/F2050rtpA.pdf

SanDiegoAssociationofGovernments.(2011).2050Regionaltransportationplan(PDF).

Retrievedfromhttp://www.sandag.org/uploads/2050RTP/F2050rtp_all.pdf

SANDAG.(2011).2050Regionalgrowthforecast(PDF).Retrievedfrom

http://www.sandag.org/uploads/2050RTP/F2050RTPTA2.pdfand

http://www.sandag.org/uploads/2050RTP/F2050RTPTA17.pdf

SANDAG.(2013).TraffichasimprovedintheI‐15.Retrievedfrom

http://www.sandag.org/enewsletter/archives/march2013/feature_5.html

SANDAG.(2014).TransNet.Retrievedfrom

http://www.sandag.org/index.asp?classid=30&fuseaction=home.classhome

TransNet.(2011).StateRoute76project.Retrievedfrom

http://www.keepsandiegomoving.com/Libraries/Lossan‐

doc/SR76_EMP_fact_sheet.sflb.ashx

TransNet.(2013).StateRoute76corridor.Retrievedfrom

http://www.keepsandiegomoving.com/SR‐76‐Corridor/SR76‐intro‐seg34.aspx

TransNet.(2014).TransNetearlyactionprogram.Retrievedfrom

https://www.transnettrip.com/CashFlow.aspx

TransNet.(2014).I‐15Rapidtransitservice.Retrievedfrom

http://www.keepsandiegomoving.com/Libraries/I5‐Corridor‐

doc/CW_TI15_A3_BRT_FactSheet_REV2_FINAL_111414.sflb.ashx

UNISONConsulting.(2012).LosAngelesInternationalAirport2011passengersurvey.

Retrievedfrom

http://www.lawa.org/uploadedFiles/OurLAX/pdf/LAX_Survey_Final_Draft_REPOR

T_2012_08_19.pdf


References 172

Chapter4

AirportsCouncilInternationalNorthAmerica.(2014).Airporttrafficreports.Retrieved

October26,2014,fromhttp://www.aci‐na.org/content/airport‐traffic‐reports

AirportsCouncilInternationalNorthAmerica.(2013).EconomicimpactatU.S.airports

(PDF).RetrievedOctober11,2014,fromhttp://www.aci‐

na.org/sites/default/files/economic_impact_at_u.s._airports‐july2012.pdf

AppliedDevelopmentEconomics.(2013).EconomicimpactstudyofCaliforniaairports.

RetrievedOctober26,2014,fromhttp://www.calairportscouncil.org/wp‐

content/uploads/2012/05/CAC.Employment.Study_.Full_.Report.2013

CAC2011AnnualReport.(2011).Californiaairportscouncil.

CaliforniaDepartmentofFinance.(2013).Newpopulationprojections:Californiatosurpass

50millionin2049(PDF).RetrievedNovember26,2014,from

http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/projections/P‐

1/documents/Projections_Press_Release_2010‐2060.pdf

CDMSmith.(2014).TheEconomicimpactofcommercialairportsin2013(PDF).Retrieved

October11,2014,fromhttp://airportsforthefuture.org/files/2014/09/Economic‐

Impact‐of‐Commercial‐Aviation‐2013.pdf

CityofChicago.(2013).ChicagoO'HareInternationalAirportfinancialstatements(PDF).

RetrievedNovember26,2014,from

http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/fin/supp_info/CAFR/2012

/Ohare2012.pdf

ColoradoDepartmentofTransportation.(2013).TheEconomicimpactofDenver

InternationalAirport(PDF).RetrievedNovember6,2014from

http://www.coloradodot.info/programs/aeronautics/PDF_Files/2013_EconImpact

/2013‐cdot‐eis‐denver‐international‐airport.pdf

DenverInternationalAirport.(2013).ManagingtheenvironmentatDenverInternational

Airport2012annualreport(PDF).RetrievedOctober26,2014,from

http://business.flydenver.com/community/enviro/documents/annualReport2012.

pdf


References 173

Eckert,A.(2014).Chinaready(PDF).RetrievedonOctober24,2014,from

http://industry.visitcalifornia.com/media/uploads/files/editor/SDTA%20China%2

0Ready%20‐%20REV1.pdf

ESRI.(n.d.)Businessanalystonline.RetrievedNovember6,2014,from

http://bao.arcgis.com/

FederalAviationAdministration.(2014).Passengerboarding(enplanement)andall‐cargo

dataforU.S.airports.RetrievedSeptember26,2014,from

http://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/passenger_allcargo_stats/passeng

er/

FinancialReportingDivision.(2013).Comprehensiveannualfinancialreport(PDF).


http://www.lawa.org/uploadedFiles/Investors/LAWACAFRFY2013Final.pdf

FinancialServicesDivision.(2014).Comprehensiveannualfinancialreportfortheyears

endedJune30,2010and2009(PDF).RetrievedNovember26,2014,from

http://www.portofoakland.com/pdf/about/2010_09financialrept.pdf

InternalRevenueService.(2013).2013Taxtable(PDF).RetrievedNovember6,2014,

fromhttp://www.irs.gov/pub/irs‐pdf/i1040tt.pdf

Klophaus,R.(2008).Theimpactofadditionalpassengersonairportemployment:Thecase

ofGermanairports.JournalofAirportManagement,2(3).

NormanY.MinetaSanJoseInternationalAirport.(2013).Comprehensive2012annual

financialreport(PDF).RetrievedOctober26,2014,from

http://www.flysanjose.com/fl/about/financial/ComprehensiveAnnualFinancial

Report'12.pdf

SanDiegoInternationalAirport.(2014).Thegreenbuild.RetrievedSeptember26,2014,

fromhttp://www.san.org/Airport‐Projects/The‐Green‐Build

SanDiegoInternationalAirport.(2013).Historic$900milliongreenbuildexpansionopens

atSanDiegoInternationalAirport.RetrievedNovember5,2014,from

http://sandiegoairport.porternovelli.com/

SanFranciscoInternationalAirport.(2013).SanFranciscoInternationalAirport2013

annualreport(PDF).RetrievedOctober26,2014,from


References 174

http://media.flysfo.com.s3.amazonaws.com/default/downloads/reports/sfoannual

report1213.pdf

StateofCaliforniaFranchiseTaxBoard.(2014).2014Californiataxratesandexemptions.


https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/2014_California_Tax_Rates_and_Exemptions.shtml

TransportationResearchBoardoftheNationalAcademies.(2014).Determinantsofair

cargotrafficinCalifornia.RetrievedfromTRB93rdAnnualMeetingCompendiumof

Papers

UnitedStatesCensusBureau.(n.d.).Americanfactfinder.Retrievedfrom

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?sr

c=bkmk

UnitedStatesDepartmentofLaborBureauofLaborStatistics.(2013).Consumer

expendituresfortheSanDiegoarea.RetrievedOctober26,2014,from

http://www.bls.gov/ro9/cexsand.htm

UnitedStatesDepartmentofLaborBureauofLaborStatistics.(2013).Occupational

employmentandwagesinSanDiego‐Carlsbad‐SanMarcos.RetrievedNovember6,

2014,fromhttp://www.bls.gov/ro9/oessand.htm

UnitedStatesDepartmentofLaborBureauofLaborStatistics.(2013).OESMetropolitanand

nonmetropolitanareaoccupationalemploymentandwageestimates.Retrieved

November6,2014,fromhttp://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_41740.htm#47‐

0000

UnitedStatesDepartmentofTransportation.(n.d.).Researchandinnovativetechnology

administration.RetrievedSeptember26,2014,from

http://www.transtats.bts.gov/Fields.asp?Table_ID=310

Zillow.(2014).SanDiegohomepricesandhomevalues.RetrievedNovember7,2014,from

http://www.zillow.com/san‐diego‐ca/home‐values/


References 175

Chapter5

Baldassare,M.PublicPolicyInstituteofCalifornia,ChiefExecutiveOfficer.Interviewedvia

telephonebyDylanRander.

Barquist,D.Kimley‐HornandAssociates,SeniorPracticeBuilderinLandUse/Urban

Planning.InterviewedviatelephonebyTravisFerreiraonSeptember26,2014.

Burnham,M.&Karras,S.Cushman&Wakefield,ViceChairmanandExecutiveManager.

InterviewedinpersonbyBarbaraSainzandAndreSevilleonNovember3,2014.

Campfield,B.,Li,Y.,&Uke,G.(2013).PoliticalimplicationsofpotentialnewSanDiego

InternationalAirportlocations.Retrievedfrom

http://www.csusm.edu/mba/docs/project_political

Cathey,G.Caltrans,DivisionChiefAeronautics.InterviewedviatelephonebyDylanRander.

Champine,C.SupervisorBillHorn’sOffice,SeniorPolicyAdvisor.Interviewedviatelephone

byBarbaraSainzonOctober31,2014.

Gregor,I.FederalAviationAdministration(FAA),PublicAffairsManager.Interviewedvia

emailbyDylanRanderonNovember5,2014.

Hall,M.CityofCarlsbad,Mayor.InterviewedviatelephonebyTravisFerreiraonOctober1,

2014.

Hansel,G.U.S.Navy,RetiredCaptain.InterviewedviatelephonebyBarbaraSainzon

September10,2014.

I‐15InterregionalPartnership.(2014).Aboutus.RetrievedonOctober30,2014,from

http://www.i15irp.org/I‐15_IRP_Fact_Sheet.aspx.

I‐15InterregionalPartnership.(2014).Travel,tourism,entertainment,andwineries.

RetrievedonOctober31,2014from

http://www.i15irp.org/TravelTourismEntertainmentWineries.aspx.

Jackson,J.CaliforniaStateUniversitySanMarcos,VicePresident,CommunityEngagement.

InterviewedinpersonbyBarbaraSainzonSeptember18,2014.

JacobsConsultancy.(2011).Regionalaviationstrategicplan.SanDiego,CA:SanDiego

CountyRegionalAirportAuthority.Retrievedfromhttp://www.san.org/Airport‐

Projects/Regional‐Aviation‐Strategic‐Plan#134188‐technical‐report


References 176

Jepsen,S.CityofOceanside,CityManager.InterviewedviatelephonebyTravisFerreiraon

October20,2014.

FederalAviationAdministration.(2014).Retrievedfrom

http://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/military_airport_program/joint_use_airports/

Killmeier,L.E.U.S.MarineCorps,CommandingOfficerforMCBCampPendleton.

InterviewedinpersonbyAndreSevilleonOctober6,2014.

MarchJointPowersAuthority.(n.d.).Retrievedfrom

http://www.marchjpa.com/airport.shtml

Myers,M.EconomicDevelopmentCorporationSouthwestCalifornia(EDCSWCA),Executive

Director.InterviewedviatelephonebyBarbaraSainzonNovember3,2014.

Nichols,C.(2014).I‐5Expansiongetsbiggreenlight.:$6Bfreeway,railwideningclearsone

oflasthurdles.Retrievedfromhttp://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/aug/13/I‐

5‐expansion‐widening‐north‐county‐caltrans/all/?print

NorthCountyTransitDistrict.Retrievedfromhttp://www.gonctd.com/coaster

OCPublicWorks.(2009).SouthOrangeCountyIRWMplan.RetrievedonNovember1,

2014,from

http://prg.ocpublicworks.com/DocmgmtInternet/Download.aspx?id=1062.

Owen,T.CarlsbadChamberofCommerce,ChiefExecutiveOfficer.Interviewedinpersonby

TravisFerreiraonOctober2,2014.

Rannals,L.U.S.MarineCorps,DirectorCommunityPlans&LiaisonOfficeatCamp

Pendleton.InterviewedinpersonbyBarbaraSainzonNovember6,2014.

Ristine,J.(2006).LawmakersunitetofightMiramarairportmeasure:Defensebillprovision

maythwartProp.A.Retrievedfrom

http://www.utsandiego.com/uniontrib/20061020/news_1n20miramar.html

Ritter,J.CityofVista,Mayor.InterviewedviatelephonebyDylanRander.

SanDiegoAssociationofGovernments.(2014).AboutSANDAGborderscommittee.

RetrievedonOctober1,2014,from

http://www.sandag.org/index.asp?committeeid=54&fuseaction=committees.detail

http://www.sandag.org/index.asp?committeeid=54&fuseaction=committees%09.d

etail


References 177

SanDiegoAssociationofGovernments.(2014).InterregionalcollaborationwithOrange

County.RetrievedonOctober31,2014from

http://www.sandag.org/index.asp?classid=19&subclassid=103&projectid=240&fus

eaction=projects.detail

SanDiegoInternationalAirport.(2014).Airportdevelopmentplan.Retrievedfrom

http://www.san.org/Airport‐Projects/Airport‐Development‐Plan

Schwartz,A.(2009).OceanWorksInternational:SanDiego’soffshoreairport?Retrieved

fromhttp://www.fastcompany.com/1418997/oceanworks‐international‐san‐

diegos‐offshore‐airport

SouthernCaliforniaAssociationofGovernments.(2014).WelcometoSCAG.Retrievedon

October8,2014fromhttp://www.scag.ca.gov/Pages/default.aspx.

Spehn,D.StateAssemblymemberToniAtkins,SpecialAssistant.Interviewedviatelephone

byAndreSevilleonOctober23,2014.

Sullivan,A.TemeculaValleyChamberofCommerce,President/ChiefExecutiveOfficer.

InterviewedviatelephonebyBarbaraSainzonNovember5,2014.

Teague,C.,CityofDanaPoint,EconomicDevelopmentManager.Interviewedviatelephone

byDylanRander.

Ury,F.CityofMissionViejo,CityCouncil.InterviewedviatelephonebyDylanRander.

Wilschut,K.&Woodson,J.SanDiegoAirportAuthority,Members.Interviewedinpersonby

AndreSevilleandviatelephonebyTravisFerreiraonOctober3,2014.

Wood,J.CityofOceanside,Mayor.InterviewedviatelephonebyTravisFerreiraonOctober

29,2014.


southern california airport exploratory study 2 meetings/2018... · 2018-03-15 · executive...

Documents