HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-06-22 Airport Advisory Board Agenda fa AGENDA
3
DANIA BEACH AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
JUNE 22, THURSDAY, 7:00 P.M.
1. ROLL CALL AND SELF INTRODUCTION
2. EXCUSED ABSENCES
3. MINUTES
3.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MEETING MAY 27, 2004.
4. PRESENTATION OF SUB COMMITTEE REPORTS.
4.1 DISCUSSION OF RUNWAY PROJECT, MASTER PLAN UPDATE & PART 150 PROJECT,
EIS UPDATE, TASK FORCE UPDATE, WEB PAGE STATUS.
4.2 NOISE ABATEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING DISCUSSION
4.3 PRESENTATION OF ANY MEMBER RUNUP LOGS
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
6, NEW BUSINESS
7. ADJOURN
A REMINDER FROM THE CHAIR: ALL COMMITTEE MEMBERS WHO ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING SHOULD WRITE
A NOTE TO DANIA CLERK STATING YOU WILL BE ABSENT OR YOU WILL BE CHARGED WITH AN UNEXCUSED ABSENCE.
THANK YOU. SEE YOU AT THE MEETING.
Minutes
City of Dania Beach
Airport Advisory Board
May 27,2004
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jay Field at 7:00 PM.
Members present:
Jay Field Edwin Summer Gary Liedtke
Billy Phipps Irvin Witz Geri Gilyard Ingraham
Claude Davis, Jr.
Members absent:
Zachary Adams Beulah Lair Charlene Scalese
Nancy Stafford Cathy David Karen Gottlieb
Also present:
Suzanne Witz
Beulah Lair and Karen Gottlieb had requested an excused absence., Motion made by
Geri Ingraham, seconded by Gary Liedtke and carried. Billy Phipps requested an excused
absence for the April meeting. Motion made by Gary Liedke, seconded by Geri Ingraham
and granted.
Minutes of the April meeting were presented for approval. One correction was made.
Paragraph 4, line 2 and 3 should read"Edwin Summers nominated Beulah Lair as Vice
Chair". Motion to approve as corrected made by Gary Liedtke, seconded by Geri
Ingraham and carried.
Chairman Field asked Mr. Liedtke and Mr. Summers to report on the May 20" Davie
Airport Advisory Committee meeting. They said Brenda Chalifour had organized the
meeting. The Mayor of Davie and several city commissioners were present and spoke in
opposition of any expansion of the airport. Neil McAllister, attorney with Case&
White, gave an interesting presentation on the EIS which he said will take up to two years
to complete. Attorney Andy Schuster spoke on"Eminent Domain". Broward County
Commissioner Rodstrom was present at the meeting.. Mr. Liedtke said he offered the
support of the Dania Beach Airport Advisory Board and asked that Davie inform the
board of any future meetings.
Chairman Field called attention to the three letters which accompanied the meeting
agenda this month and stated that he would like to have them put on the city's web site.
Mr. Summers will work with Mr. Cook in this regard.
1.
Gary Liedkte said the footprint for the south runway has been established at 8,200 feet.
With this done, he felt some people are far too complacent and warned that it's possible
that now action on the runway could move at a much faster pace than many expect. For
example,the City of Ft. Lauderdale has already sent a letter to the Broward County
Commission asking them to raise the passenger facility charge immediately on each ticket
from $3.00 to $4.50,to aid in the mitigation and also asked them to initiate the sale of
bonds for this purpose.. That letter is presently on file.
It was mentioned that Lori Parrish said the community outreach trailer is scheduled to
open the first week of June. A flyer prepared by the Melaleuca Gardens Homeowner's
Association was distributed in the Melaleuca area, announcing the opening as Tuesday,
June 1 st at 8:00 A.M.
The outline previously prepared by Ed Summers in regard to the role of the advisory
board was discussed. It was felt that people from other affected areas should become
more involved. Beulah Lair and Ann Castro will be asked to contact residents in some of
the other areas. Ed Summers felt someone should follow the progress of the EIS and
agreed to assume that task himself.
It was mentioned that Randy Dunlap, long time advocate for the south runway, was a
speaker at a recent Dania Beach Democratic Club meeting. He announced he is a
candidate for the Broward County Commission. He will be running against John
Rodstrom.
Chairman Field reminded members the Noise Abatement Committee will meet Monday,
June 141"at 6:00 PM The next meeting of the Dania Beach Airport Advisory Board will
be the fourth Thursday of June at 7:00 PM.
Meeting adjourned by Chairman Field at 8:10 PM.
Jay Field, Chairman
Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne Witz
2.
AIRPORT ADVISORY CURRENT MEMBERS
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Appointed Term Began Term Ends
Date Date Date
commissioner
Airport Advisory Board
Gary Luedtke
March 25,2003 March 18,2003 March 15,2005 Anton
4461 SW 34 Drive
Dania Beach,F133312
966-8013
Advisory
Board
Zachary Adams
March 25,2003 March 18,2003 March 15,2005 Anton
837 Argonaut Isle
Dania Beach, FL 33004
(954)921-1610
Advisory
Board
Billy Phipps
March 25,2003 March 18,2003 March 15,2005 Anton
946 Nautilus Isle
Dania Beach, FL 33004
(954)923-0270
Advisory
Board
Claude Davis Jr.
March 23,2004 March 18,2003 March 15,2005 Chunn
128 NW 51'Avenue
Dania Beach, FL 33004
(954)920-3076
Advisory
Board
Vacant
March 18,2003 March 15,2005 Chunn
Advisory
Board
Vacant
March 18,2003 March 15,2005 Chunn
Airport Advisory Board
Beulah Lair
March 25,2003 March 18,2003 March 15,2005 Flury
1433 NW 8 Street
Dania Beach,FL 33004
921-4715
Airport Advisory Board
Jay Field
March 25,2003 March 18,2003 March 15,2005 Flury
4520 SW 30th Way
Dania Beach, FL 33312-5623
962-6335
Advisory
G\docs\boards\catairport.doc
1
AIRPORT ADVISORY CURRENT MEMBERS
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Appointed Term Began Term Ends
Date Date Date
Commissioner
-----------------------------------------------------
Board
Charlene Scalese
March 25,2003 March 18,2003 March 15,2005 Flury
826 NW 13 Avenue
Dania Beach, FL 33004
920-8951
Advisory
Board
Irvin Witz
March 9,2004 March 18,2003 March 15,2005 McElyea
830 NW 71h Avenue
Dania Beach, FL 33004
920-8554
_______Airport Advisory
Board
Nancy(Anne)Stafford
August 12,2003 March 18,2003 March 15,2005 McElyea
4730 SW 29 Terrace,Apt. B
Dania Beach, FL 33312
985-1045
_______________Airport Advisory
Board
Geri Gilyard Ingraham
August 12,2003 March 18,2003 March 15,2005 McElyea
744 SW 2 Place
Dania Beach, FL 33004
925-7403
G\docs\boards\catairport.doc
2
AIRPORT ADVISORY CURRENT MEMBERS
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Appointed Term Began Term Ends
Date Date Date
Commissioner
Airport Advisory Board
Edwin Summers
May 13,2003 March 18,2003 March 15,2005 Mikes
550 SE 13 Street.Apt. 1-206
Dania Beach, FL 33004
926-1058 or cell 817-3689
Advisory
Board
Cathy David
May 13,2003 March 18,2003 March 15,2005 Mikes
4381 SW 34 Lane
Dania Beach, FL 33312
(954)981-8272
_______Airport Advisory
Board
Karen Gottlieb
August 26,2003 March 18,2003 March 15,2005 Mikes
4473 Treasure Cove Drive
Dania Beach, FL 33312
(954)483-5485
G\docs\boards\catairport.doc
3
LE.IGH FISHER ASSOCIATES
Date June 15, 2004
To Tom Jargiello, BCAD
Director of Aviation
From Larry Coleman
Subject BCAD Work Authorization 0420-
Summary of Residential Noise Mitigation Conceptual Cost
Estimates
The "Assessment of Airfield Development Alternatives" report submitted in
November 2003 (the November 2003 Report) included a range of conceptual cost
estimates for residential noise mitigation within areas forecast to be exposed to
noise levels of 65 DNL and above in 2020. The November 2003 Report included
a range of noise mitigation cost estimates for each of eight alternative airfield
development scenarios. The aircraft operation figures supporting that analysis
were derived from the FAA's 2003 Terminal Area Forecast for Fort Lauderdale-
Hollywood International Airport (FLL).
Pursuant to Work Authorization 0420 of the contract between Leigh Fisher
Associates and Broward County, we were tasked with developing similar
conceptual cost estimates for residential areas within the 60 to 65 DNL contour
for Alternative SR-2 (as defined in the November 2003 Report).
We also prepared conceptual cost estimates for mitigating noise exposure in the
60 to 65 DNL contour for two other cases evaluated in the November 2003 report,
namely the Base Case and the Unconstrained Base Case. The results for these
additional cases have been include
d here to provide a frame of reference
add
differentiating the potential mitigation costs associated with (1) accommodating
projected traffic growth at FLL, and (2) the costs arising from the planned
xtension of the South Runwa
e .Y
2
The following provides a brief summary of the process used in developing the
conceptual cost estimates for the various cases, and summarizes the noise
mitigation techniques assumed in the development of these conceptual cost
estimates.
Future Airfield Development Scenarios
As described in the November 2003 Report, noise exposure forecasts were
prepared for the three future airport scenarios as follows:
• Base Case
In this case, there would be no changes to the existing FLL airfield and
current runway use patterns, and traffic would grow to the level forecast by
the FAA for 2020, regardless of aircraft delay levels.
• Unconstrained Base Case
As in the Base Case, no improvements to the airfield were assumed.
However, to better accommodate projected levels of traffic and reduce
aircraft delays, the Unconstrained Base Case anticipates that the FAA would
make much greater use of the Crosswind Runway (Runway 13/31), thereby
shifting noise exposure to areas to the northwest and southeast of FLL.
• Alternative SR-2
On December 9, 2003, the Broward County Board of County Commissioners
approved a preferred development option with project limits consistent with
Alternative SR-2. This alternative is expected to be included as the County's
"preferred alternative" for consideration in the federal Environmental Impact
Statement
resume in the near future. In
EIS process, which is expected to e
(EIS) P
this case, the South Runway would be extended to NE V' Avenue. Runway
use is assumed to be consistent with the Phase 1 operating restrictions the
County has committed to in the Interlocal Agreements with neighboring
cities.
Residential Mitigation Options —60 to 65 DNL
Airport operators have employed a variety of approaches for mitigating aircraft
noise exposure in residential areas and/or compensating property owners for the
effects of aircraft noise exposure. The mitigation estimates in the November 2003
Report for areas within 65 DNL contour were based on the assumption that the
County's program would consist of a combination of residential soundproofing
and property acquisition.
3
For the areas within the 60 to 65 DNL noise exposure contour, we developed
scenarios to establish a range of conceptual cost estimates assuming the use of
the following mitigation techniques:
• Property acquisition of permanent residences and mobile homes
• Soundproofing of permanent residences
• Relocation of mobile homes
• Compensation for lost property value attributable to airport noise exposure
• Extending 65 DNL mitigation benefits to residences within the 60 DNL
contour when a neighborhood is divided by the 65 DNL contour
We developed various scenarios comprised of the above mitigation techniques,
with each selected to varying degrees, to define a range of conceptual cost
estimates. These mix-and-match scenarios were based on noise mitigation
experiences at other airports. However, it should be noted that few airports have
extended mitigation benefits to the 60 DNL contour, so these assumptions should
be considered very preliminary. To have a more definitive cost estimate, or to
narrow the range of the estimate, details about the County's mitigation program
would need to be established by the Board of County Commissioners.
The conceptual cost estimates were developed after completing a run of the
Integrated Noise Model for aircraft operations in 2020. This process identified
the noise contour areas that would be subject to a future mitigation program
assuming that such a program reached the limits of the 60 DNL contour.
Corresponding estimates of the number of impacted housing units by type were
identified using U.S Census data and were subjected to unit cost assumptions.
Property values used in the calculations were derived from a March 2003
valuation report prepared by George A. Trask & Associates entitled "Impact of
Alternative Development Programs on Property Values, Fort Lauderdale-
Hollywood International Airport", which was prepared through a subcontractor
from LFA.
Table 1 provides a cross-tabulated summary of the high and low conceptual cost
estimates for mitigation in the 60-65 DNL contour under each case.
Please let me know if you have any questions regarding the assumptions in the
analysis or the summary of results.
4
Table 1
NOISE MITIGATION CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATES
Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport
(in Millions of 2003 Dollars)
Mitigation unconstrained Alternative
Scenario Base Casa Base Case SR-2, South
Runway Case
Within 65 DNL $55 $80 $85
65 DNL Estimate
plus
Lower Estimates
$120 $195 $175
for 60 to 65 DNL
65 DNL Estimate
plus
Higher Estimates $215 $285 $270
for 60 to 65 DNL
LEIGH FISHER ASSOCIATES
(:'o;jt tltanft to it i7,p rl Afanagement
Report
Noise.,.Mitigath.. [Plan
Fart Lat*rdalelw4Wywood
international Airport
June 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Background ....................................................................................................1
ProblemDefinition............................................................................................2
Sources and Availability of Funds .......................................................................3
Timing: Aligning Need with Availability................................................................7
Principles of the Financial Plan...........................................................................8
Potential FAA Concerns Regarding the Use of PFCs for the Noise Mitigation Bank....11
Potential Schedule and Approval Process........................................................... 13
i
BACKGROUND
This report outlines a conceptual framework for financing a Noise Mitigation Bank for
Broward County. The Noise Mitigation Bank is a new concept first introduced in the
November 2003 "Assessment of Airfield Alternatives" report (the November 2003
Report). The November 2003 Report identified the option of increasing the
Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) from its current $3.00 rate at Fort Lauderdale-
Hollywood International Airport (the Airport or FLL) and committing the incremental
PFC revenue to fund the County's noise mitigation programs when such programs
are adopted.
The design objectives of the Noise Mitigation Bank concept included:
1. Define a mechanism to establish a funding commitment by the County for
future noise mitigation programs and minimize the risks associated with
funding these programs principally on the promise of future funding, or on
funding largely controlled by other parties such as airline tenants or the FAA.
2. Develop a funding plan to allow the County to accelerate the implementation
of the noise mitigation program at a rate faster than previously planned and
faster than conventional programs.
3. Identify a funding framework where mitigation funds are "walled off" and not
at risk of being diverted to other Airport expansion projects, including the
direct costs of the planned extension to the South Runway.
The November 2003 Report suggested that the Broward County Board of County
Commissioners (the BOCC) could consider increasing the PFC rate by $1.50 to
$4.50 per enplaned passenger. This measure would be a major step in reducing the
degree of reliance on less certain and less timely federal programs and federal grants
when trying to achieve the BOCC's goals.
In this context, the Noise Mitigation Bank would provide an institutional framework
to clearly account for sources and uses of mitigation funding independent from other
Broward County Aviation Department (BCAD) activities. Also, because the Noise
Mitigation Bank would facilitate a program that accelerates mitigation, the Noise
Mitigation Bank would function as a bridge financing mechanism to the permanent
and more traditional funding plan as it materializes in the future, which is expected
to involve grants, bond proceeds, and other sources.
The purpose of this report is to:
■ Evaluate the relationship between various potential funding sources for future
noise mitigation programs, which include PFCs, landing fees and other user
charges, and grants.
■ Assess how to optimize future revenue streams from these funding sources to
implement the County's noise mitigation programs sooner.
■ Summarize the approvals and processes required to implement the Noise
Mitigation Bank conceptual framework as presented below.
2
■ Document concerns the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) may have if the
County seeks to implement the Noise Mitigation Bank concept using PFCs,
especially given that (1) the Noise Mitigation Bank is a new concept that the
FAA has not encountered at other airports, and (2) the FAA would have to
approve the use of PFCs for the Noise Mitigation Bank.
PROBLEM [DEFINITION
The November 2003 Report evaluated airfield development alternatives assuming the
unconstrained traffic levels in the FAA's 2003 Terminal Area Forecast would be
accommodated. It also assumed that any required non-airfield facilities needed to
serve this demand would be provided. However, it is worth noting early in this
report that increases in the estimated residential noise exposure associated with
forecast growth in aircraft operations at FLL would come from (1) increased use of
existing facilities, and (2) use of planned additional airfield facilities, as described
below.
■ First, a subset of the forecast noise exposure in residential area is simply
attributable to growth in traffic using existing airfield facilities at FLL. The
most recent annual noise contour report for FLL prepared by HMMH indicates
that the federally recognized noise threshold of 65 DNL currently reaches
existing residential areas near the Airport only on a relatively limited basis.
The existing facilities at FLL are capable of handling a certain level of increased
aircraft traffic, since these facilities have not reached a saturation point today.
With such increases in aircraft activity, there will be significant increases in
noise exposure over residential areas, particularly directly west of the existing
North Runway.
■ Second, the planned extension of the South Runway and its use by air carrier
aircraft is forecast to introduce high noise levels in existing residential areas
currently receiving limited aircraft noise from large aircraft. The planned
operating restrictions for the extended South Runway would significantly
reduce the residential noise exposure associated with this project, versus what
the noise exposure would otherwise be, at least during Phase 1 of those
operating restrictions.
The County has commenced a process to define noise mitigation programs to
address the impacts of increased aircraft noise associated with forecast FLL traffic
growth. The cost of these programs is, therefore, not certain at this time. However,
for this task and for other work we have undertaken for the County, we have
developed preliminary estimates of potential costs for mitigation. These estimates
are based on experience at other airports and the fact that the BOCC has approved a
resolution indicating it plans to exceed current federal standards for noise mitigation
eligibility. The following is a summary of these preliminary estimates, all of which
are provided in 2003 dollars.
■ The total cost of mitigation associated with aircraft noise using existing airfield
facilities is estimated to be about $55 million for areas within the 65 DNL
contour and an additional $130 million if mitigation is extended to the 60-65
DNL levels. The mitigation associated with these cost estimates would largely
3
take place west of the North Runway. (If one assumes use of the existing
Crosswind Runway will increase from the levels of occasional use seen
currently, additional noise would be forecast for residential areas northwest of
FLL and, to a lesser extent, to the southeast of the Airport.)
■ The total cost of mitigation associated with aircraft noise using the extended
South Runway during Phase 1 of the operating restrictions is estimated to be
about $30 million for areas within the 65 DNL contour and an additional
$55 million if mitigation is extended to the 60-65 DNL levels. The mitigation
associated with these cost estimates would largely take place south of the
Airport, with a limited amount of mitigation to the west of the South Runway
given the operating restrictions in Phase 1.
■ Together, the growth in aircraft operation and the planned extension of the
South Runway for air carrier operations during Phase 1 of the operating
restrictions has an estimated mitigation cost of$85 million for areas within the
65 DNL contour and an additional $185 million if mitigation is extended to the
60-65 DNL levels, or a total of $270 million on a preliminary basis.
If one assumes these estimates provide a reasonable order-of-magnitude of the cost
of potential mitigation programs for planning purposes, two fundamental questions
remain:
1. Where will the money to fund these programs come from?
2. When will these programs make funds available?
SOURCES AND AvAILABILM OF FUNDS
Sources of Funds
Noise mitigation programs at airports in the United States are generally funded with:
1. Federal grants through the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), which is
funded by federal aviation taxes;
2. PFCs levied and paid locally by passengers using an airport, although PFCs are
subject to various FAA approvals prior to their collection and use; and
3. Other local airport revenues, which include aircraft landing fees or other
revenues of an airport enterprise that may or may not be based on airline
payments.
Few states have grant programs to fund noise mitigation costs, although the State of
Florida does have an effective airport grant program. Given that State of Florida
grants are limited, we have assumed that these grants would be a secondary source
of funds for the purposes of this report. To the extent that these grants materialize
in the future, they would serve to reduce the need to tap one or more of the other
sources.
4
Many airport sponsors tend to limit their commitment to implement noise mitigation
programs to the amount of mitigation that can be carried out with federal grant
funds and the required local match. Federal discretionary noise grants generally
require a local match of 20% at large-hub airports and this local share is frequently
funded from the airport's PFC revenues.
Airlines generally adhere to a view that system-wide taxes paid by aviation users and
passengers to the federal government are"intended"to be the primary source of
funding for airport noise mitigation programs. In practice, adoption of this
perspective would tend to average any particular airport's mitigation costs across the
national aviation system. This would minimize any economic disadvantage to the
particular airport market area by not having it bear the cost burden of local
residential circumstances, which are generally beyond the airport operator's control.
In 1991, Congress authorized the collection of PFCs by local airport sponsors, subject
to a number of limitations and the approvals by the FAA referenced above. Since
they became available, PFCs have become the second most important source of
funds for noise mitigation programs. As stated above, PFCs are considered local
funds, but are subject to certain federal approvals and limitations. However, it is
worth noting in the context of the BOCC's goals that airport sponsors can use their
PFCs for mitigation programs exceeding current federal grant eligibility limits,
although approval of such expenditures does require approval by the FAA.
Availability of Funds
The principal sources of funds for noise mitigation programs each have different
levels of risk regarding future availability and do not offer the same degree of control
and flexibility to airport sponsors.
■ Federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP)
AIP grants are subject to periodic program reauthorization by Congress and
annual appropriation legislation, also by Congress. Airports generally receive
formula-driven entitlement funds from the AIP program. (Broward County is
scheduled to receive about $5.6 million in AIP entitlements in federal fiscal
year 2004. If the County were to increase the PFC rate to $4.50, then it would
lose half of these annual entitlement funds.)
Additionally, airports are eligible to receive discretionary noise mitigation
grants, among other discretionary initiatives within AIP. Annually, 34% of AIP
discretionary funds are mandated by Congress to be set aside solely for noise
projects, and noise projects are also eligible for remaining discretionary
funding. Airport operators compete with each other for AIP discretionary funds
for local noise mitigation programs.
While some risks related to reauthorization or non-appropriation exist, AIP has
become a reliable source of funding for airport projects, especially noise
mitigation projects. The greatest risks of relying on discretionary AIP grants to
fund local noise mitigation programs are budget and competitive constraints
on the availability of funds, which can mean local noise mitigation programs
may not be able to advance on their ideal schedule.
5
As a separate matter, Congress and the FAA have established statutory,
regulatory, and policy limitations on how AIP funds can be used by an airport
sponsor. Some of these limitations are driven by the goal of spreading limited
funds over a greater number of airports, while other limitations are driven by
policy and precedent concerns. In practice, AIP funds are generally limited to
noise mitigation within the 65 DNL contour, and discretionary funds are only
made available following completion and approval of a Part 150 Study.
Adopting a program that is primarily dependant on federal grants reduces local
control over (1) when mitigation will be implemented and (2) the extent of
mitigation that may be undertaken.
■ Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs)
At FLL, the PFC rate is currently set at $3.00 per enplaned passenger. In our
November 2003 Report, we suggested that the BOCC consider increasing the
PFC at FLL to $4.50, which is the current limit established by Congress and the
amount charged at most large-hub airports today. The incremental funding
generated by this increase could be committed to underwriting the aircraft
noise mitigation efforts of the County to the extent required to fully fund such
a program in conjunction with other available funding sources. This
incremental funding capacity is considerable, as demonstrated in the following
chart, which shows incremental collections assuming the additional
$1.50 collections were to start on October 1, 2005.
Estimated Cumulative PFC collections from Incremental$1.50
................................
_...._ .
90
40
O 80
70
60
1V1. 0 50
o. �E
tp 40
C
30
20
V
C
0
2006 2007 2008 2008 2010 2011
Fiscal Year'
Note:Increase inenoWned,pas"Me(S based on2004FAATem*mlArea Forecast.
6
■ Airport Revenue
Use of airport revenue directly or indirectly to fund capital projects at major
airports in the United States is often subject to tenant airline approval.
Although the specific terms of each agreement vary, the process generally
involves a "majority-in-interest" approval of(1) any debt to be issued that
may affect airline rates and charges and (2) any capital project over a
moderate size. However, a number of large airports operate under
agreements that have no airline approval rights, or without any airline
agreements at all and, therefore, do not have this constraint.
At FLL, most capital projects are subject to airline approval pursuant to terms
in the Airline-Airport Lease and Use Agreements. These approval processes
are expected to be in place at least through the term of these agreements,
which are collectively scheduled to expire on September 30, 2011. Like
agreements at other airports, the Airline-Airport Lease and Use Agreements at
FLL establishes how costs are recovered from airline rates and charges. In the
case of the planned South Runway extension and noise mitigation programs
that the County may adopt, the net cost, after grants and PFC contributions,
would be included in the landing fee under the current formulas if approved by
the Signatory Airlines.
A common issue in the airline approval process at major airports is whether or
not airport-sponsored debt will be used to fund proposed projects. Usually,
airport revenue bonds are used as the primary debt instrument. Most often,
airport revenue bonds are backed by all future airport revenue on a
consolidated basis, which is the case for the County's Airport System Revenue
Bonds. At large airports, revenue bonds rarely have a general tax backing
from any other local government sources, as is the case at FLL.
At FLL and other major airports, when projects are debt-financed, the annual
debt service is included in the rate base, increasing the level of fees paid by
airport users such as airlines (e.g., landing fees). This tends to align user
payments with the useful life of the project being financed. If projects are not
debt-financed and an airport operator does not have surplus cash to
underwrite additional costs, then the net project costs are often expensed in
the rate base, which tends to lead to higher airline fees in the short term.
The desire to defer rate increases, and the economic logic of having future
users pay for the benefits of projects that tend to have long useful lives, biases
airlines toward favoring debt-financing projects at most airports. The current
economic condition of the airline industry tends to reinforce this inclination,
but has also caused airlines to question projects based on long-term cost
concerns relative to the perceived benefits.
7
TIMING: ALIGNING NEED wrrH FUNDING AVAIL ABiLrry
Without question, uncertainties exist as to when air carrier operations on the planned
South Runway extension might commence and, therefore, when the direct noise
impacts on nearby residential areas would take effect. Hurdles related to the federal
environmental approval processes, the potential for subsequent litigation, the
securing of a funding package for the project, and the need to define the duration of
the design and construction processes all contribute to the uncertainties related to
the schedule for initial air carrier operations on the South Runway and the noise
exposure associated with this new activity.
However, the growth of noise over residential areas resulting from increased aircraft
operations using existing Airport facilities is all but inevitable, so long as current
forecasts of future traffic levels are reasonably accurate. In addition, property
appraisal work completed in 2003 indicated there are current indirect impacts on the
residential property values in the forecast footprint of the highest noise levels in
future years.
Based on the Runway Implementation Plan of February 16, 2004, the Broward
County Aviation Department expects to develop a noise mitigation program for BOCC
consideration over the next eight months. Whether or when these programs will
qualify to receive federal grants in the future is not known because qualifications for
federal grant eligibility vary.
■ At a minimum, the County would have to complete and the FAA would have to
approve a Part 150 study to qualify for certain types of grants in relation to
mitigating the growth of aircraft noise associated with the use of existing
Airport facilities.
■ In addition, for residential areas with higher levels of noise exposure
associated with the planned extension to the South Runway, federal noise
mitigation grants would not be forthcoming until after a Record of Decision
(ROD) on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is rendered for the
project.
■ In either of the situations outlined immediately above, to the extent the
County plans to provide noise mitigation in excess of federal standards, federal
grants should not be assumed to be a source of funds.
■ Where the County plans to accelerate mitigation in advance of when mitigation
may otherwise qualify for federal grants (e.g., before the Record of Decision
on the planned South Runway extension, or more than five years before the
projected onset of direct impacts on residential areas), federal grants should
not be assumed to be a source of funds. While the County may eventually be
able to qualify some of these mitigation expenditures for federal grants, any
such grants would simply serve to reduce the requirements of the initial
sources of funds.
8
PRINCIPLES OF THE FINANCIAL PLAN
Given (1) the varying standards of control, flexibility, eligibility, and approval
associated with the funding sources defined above, and (2) the expectation that the
County's noise mitigation program will have phases with different characteristics and
eligibilities, the following assumptions constitute a set of provisional underpinnings
for the Noise Mitigation Bank financial plan for consideration by the BOCC.
1. Federal grant funds should be designated as (a) recapitalization funds
to keep the Noise Mitigation Bank functional in future phases of
operation and (b) funds to pay off indebtedness used to accelerate
program implementation.
Federal grants are reasonably likely to fund much of the noise mitigation
program cost. However, these funds are only provided on a reimbursement
basis, and the bulk of the funds are likely to arrive considerably later in the
noise mitigation program's life cycle.
2. PFCs should be designated as the primary initial source of funds for
the Noise Mitigation Bank.
With the caveat that only preliminary ranges of estimates of the noise
mitigation program's costs are currently available, and recognizing that the
BOCC will have to adopt a specific program before the cost estimates can be
truly reliable, we estimate the incremental capacity of the $1.50 PFC rate
increase referenced above would be sufficient to cover the majority of the
noise mitigation program costs, especially if collections start soon and future
PFCs are leveraged to meet program cash flow requirements.
However, there are three factors that suggest 100% reliance on PFC revenues
to pay for the non-grant elements of the noise mitigation program would be
unwarranted.
First, PFC collections for this purpose are not exclusively in the control of
the County. Among other procedural requirements established by the
FAA, the County would need to have a PFC consultation meeting with
airlines serving FLL regarding this planned use of PFCs, the airlines may
indicate to the FAA"concurrence"or"non-concurrence"with these plans,
there is a public input process, and the FAA would be required to render a
decision. Realistically speaking, this process would take 6 to 12 months to
implement.
Second, it is not certain that all elements of the noise mitigation program
will be eligible for PFCs, at least initially. (Elements that are not eligible for
PFCs would also not be eligible for federal grants.) For example, it may
not be possible for the FAA to approve PFC expenditures for accelerated
mitigation in areas expected to be affected by future air carrier operations
on the extended South Runway because the FAA will be in the process of
managing the EIS for this runway extension, and EIS approval may have
to come first.
9
Third, the County has not evaluated competing needs for the incremental
PFC capacity currently available. While it is likely some, if not most, of
the pay-as-you-go PFC capacity could likely be used for the initial Noise
Mitigation Bank capitalization, leveraging future PFC capacity for noise
mitigation would reduce the County's capacity to develop other projects.
(The automated people mover is one example of a conceptual project that
may compete for these funds.) Until priorities for the use of future PFCs
are established by the BOCC, one cannot assume that all funds are
available for noise mitigation.
3. Other Airport revenues, especially aircraft landing fees, should be
used to support bonds that provide noise mitigation program funding,
the proceeds of which should be used on a targeted basis.
Airport revenues are less restricted by FAA rules and regulations than other
Noise Mitigation Bank available sources and are, therefore, best targeted to
(1) fund elements of the noise mitigation program that are not likely to be AIP
or PFC eligible, (2) pay the local share of AIP grant-eligible expenditures for
noise mitigation within the 65 DNL, especially for operations using existing
airfield facilities, (3) provide an irrevocable, back-up funding source for
elements of the program where either eligibility is questionable or eligibility
may not determined until later, (4) fund interest costs and other program
carrying costs, and (5) provide gap funding for program shortfalls, including
shortfalls that arise from any ceiling on PFC contributions once competing
priority PFC uses have been established.
Given that most of the benefits to Airport users associated with FLL's growth
and development of the planned South Runway extension are benefits that will
occur in the future, airport revenue bonds backed by future Airport-generated
revenues are likely to be the most effective way to make use of this source of
funds. In addition, today's airlines and other Airport users will logically be
reluctant to pay for the cost of a program whose benefits are largely in the
future when, at a minimum, the distribution of the benefits among users will
be different and given that some of the current users may not be operating at
FLL at the time the benefits are realized.
4. The Noise Mitigation Bank should primarily be capitalized with pay-as-
you-go PFCs and secondarily with revenue bond proceeds supported
by Airport revenues such as landing fees.
Inevitably, if the Noise Mitigation Bank concept is endorsed by the BOCC, an
initial capitalization plan would need to be adopted. As noted above:
- The nature of the federal grant program and the likely timing of these
funds combine to dictate that AIP grants cannot initially capitalize the
Noise Mitigation Bank
- Elements of the mitigation program may not initially be PFC or AIP eligible
- Airport users should expect to support some of the costs of the program
through fees paid for facilities used at the Airport
10
Pay-as-you-go PFC funding is very flexible, which means this source of funds
can be put into place in parallel with the BOCC's efforts to define a noise
mitigation program. To the extent that the amount of the PFCs needed for the
mitigation program differs from the preliminary estimates, PFC approvals are
easily amended with the FAA to reflect these changes.
Selling revenue bonds to provide funds to capitalize the Noise Mitigation Bank
may require more information than is currently available about the noise
mitigation program's size and the Noise Mitigation Bank's relation to other
Airport System financial requirements. In addition, under the terms of the
Airline-Airport Lease and Use Agreements, the Signatory Airlines would have
to approve issuance of the bonds. The Signatory Airlines may request
information about the overall noise mitigation program that the County intends
to foster before endorsing a bond sale to support it. (However, as discussed
below, there is probably a minimum initial contingent contribution to the
capitalization amount that can be demonstrated as reasonable in response to
such a request.)
5. Noise Mitigation Bank Expiration
Experience with noise mitigation programs at other airports suggests that
these programs exist for many years following commencement. However, the
Noise Mitigation Bank need not exist for the same length of time.
As outlined earlier in this report, the objectives of the Noise Mitigation Bank
are to provide a dedicated funding mechanism to accelerate noise mitigation
implementation, and to deal with an expected mitigation expenditure rate
outpacing the capacity of the permanent funding sources to pay for the
accelerated mitigation (i.e., the materialization of federal grants is not
expected to keep pace with mitigation expenditures). At some point in the
implementation process, the County would be expected to (1) have adopted a
defined program with a specific menu of mitigation remedies available for
residents in each noise exposure zone, (2) have a track record on the
expenditure rates and have a revised total cost estimate for the noise
mitigation program based on responses from people in affected residential
areas, (3) have gained a better understanding of the probably amount and
timing of the noise mitigation grant funds available for FLL, and (4) have
finalized a financing plan for the cost of the South Runway extension, including
the mix of landing fee revenues, other Airport revenues, PFC, and grants to
finance these costs.
Once these things are accomplished, there is no particular reason for the Noise
Mitigation Bank to continue to exist. In fact, as noted below, the FAA would
likely want the County to aggressively manage the Noise Mitigation Bank so
that the risk of PFCs being tied up on an open-ended basis is minimized. Also,
at the point when the items listed above are substantially resolved or known, a
permanent financial plan for the noise mitigation program and the
expenditures for the South Runway extension should be completed. For
example, the interim underwriting of the mitigation expenditures could be
moved to the County's commercial paper program and then refinanced with
revenue bond proceeds, which is a path that is likely to parallel the one used
for financing the cost of the South Runway extension.
11
POTENTIAL FAA CONCERNS REGARDING THE USE OF PFCS FOR THE NOISE
MITIGATION BANK
As contemplated in this financial plan, the County would submit a PFC application to
the FAA to (1) increase the PFC rate to $4.50 from the current rate of$3.00, and (2)
seek project approval for either"Noise Mitigation"or"Funding the Noise Mitigation
Bank".
Noise mitigation projects at large-hub airports such as FLL (and medium-hub
airports) are eligible for PFC funding at the $4.50 level only if they (1) make a
significant contribution"to reducing the effect of aviation noise for people living
near the airport and (2) cannot be financed with funds reasonably expected to be
available through AIP grants. Although the County has yet to define its noise
mitigation program, it is likely that the program would meet the first test regarding
"significant contribution". The second test regarding AIP funding would require the
FAA to think differently about availability of AIP funds by adding a time dimension to
the equation. The noise mitigation bank could be used to fund mitigation in advance
of when AIP reimbursement might otherwise be available, and the County could
reimburse itself with AIP funds. Ironically, mitigation within the 60 to 65 DNL would
meet this second test more readily than mitigation in the 65 DNL, as AIP funding is
not typically available for projects within the 60 to 65 DNL.
Because the County would plan to"dedicate"the increased PFC revenue for noise
mitigation does not mean that the justification of the increase to $4.50 needs to be
based on the mitigation program. The County may elect to justify the increase in the
application to the FAA based on managing or reducing debt for past projects that
meet the criteria for the increase. (Reducing previous PFC obligations would
indirectly create future PFC capacity for the mitigation program.)
With regard to seeking project approval, anairportsponsor can apply for PFC
`
collections for a project on an impose only" or an `impose-and-use basis. Impose
only" approvals allow an airport sponsor to collect PFCs while issues such as
environmental approvals or airspace determinations are resolved. This procedure
eliminates the risk of an airport sponsor foregoing the collection of revenue that
would be used to pay for a future project simply because of technical issues.
Given (1) the Noise Mitigation Bank is a new concept and (2) the County has not
formally adopted a mitigation program that would inform the FAA as to which
elements of the mitigation plan are eligible or not, the County should expect to
initially apply for the collection authority for the project on an "impose only" basis.
This would allow sufficient time to address issues that the FAA might have mitigation
program or the concept of the Noise Mitigation Bank.
Among the issues and management considerations that may need to be addressed
internally and with the FAA during the"impose only" stage are the following:
■ Because this is a new concept, there will undoubtedly be questions that will
arise within the FAA that will need to be addressed, as noted above.
• The FAA approves PFC eligible projects, however, the Noise Mitigation Bank
i not in itself, a project. . The end-uses of the Noise Mitigation Bank funds
s project.
would be for eligible noise mitigation projects, however. So, the County would
need to explain how the end-uses are eligible, at least for an amount of
12
expenditure that is greater than the total amount of PFCs ultimately expected
to be used. (Some of these eligibility questions may not be different than
those encountered when the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
collected PFCs for the AirTrain, which was not a fully defined project, so it
could not be demonstrated at the outset what parts of would be specifically
eligible in the end.) This suggests that the County ought to initially apply for
the Noise Mitigation Bank as an impose-only project while the specifics of the
County's mitigation program are defined and, thereafter, determine what parts
of the mitigation program would be eligible for PFCs.
■ The County may have indirect uses of PFCs for elements of the mitigation
program in advance of when these expenditures actually can be deemed
eligible. An example of this would be accelerated mitigation expenditures in
areas forecast to be affected by air carrier operations on the South Runway
extension, when these expenditures occur before the ROD for the South
Runway extension EIS is issued. The County may have to establish a plan for
replacing any expended PFCs with other Airport revenue if a ROD approving
the extension is not issued, thereby foreclosing the potential eligibility of these
expenditures.
• The FAA would want to see procedures for tracking expenditures associated
with the Noise Mitigation Bank if PFC funds are commingled with other funds
used for mitigation, particularly if the County plans have potential
expenditures for mitigation that is not AIP-eligible.
• Interest earning on fund balances may have to be pro-rated among fund
sources to assure that PFC interest earnings are properly tracked, either to
meet FAA or County accounting requirements
■ Since AIP grants will likely reimburse some PFC expenditures used for
mitigation well in advance of grant payments, the FAA may want to see the
County adopt procedures for amending the PFC collection amount for the
mitigation project on a regular basis, for example annually, to minimize the
risk of over-collection of PFCs for this Noise Mitigation Bank project.
■ If the County applies for PFC funding for the Noise Mitigation Bank on an
impose-only basis, then it would have to apply for use approval within 3 years
of the $4.50 PFC charge effective date, and would have to start spending PFC
funds within 2 years of receiving use approval.
• The County would have to designate alternative projects to be carried out if
the Noise Mitigation Bank does not go forward within the required timeframe.
13
POTENTIAL SCHEDULE AND APPROVAL PROCESSES
If the BOCC endorses the Noise Mitigation Bank concept and this financial plan, then
implementation would require the following steps:
1. The BOCC would need to approve the increase in the PFC rate from $3.00 to
$4.50 per enplaned passenger, subject to completion of an FAA application
and approval process.
2. BCAD would initiate the FAA-defined PFC application process to gain approval
(1) to increase in the PFC rate to $4.50 and (2) on a noise mitigation program
or the Noise Mitigation Bank as an approved project, probably on an "impose-
only" basis. The minimum time for the PFC application process is six months
following the approval action of the BOCC outlined above. A schedule of 9
to12 months from that date would seem more likely, based on past experience
and the need to consult with the FAA on this new concept before the formal
commencement of the application process.
3. Following approval of the PFC application by the FAA, the County would need
to notify the airlines 60-days before collection of the $4.50 PFC could begin.
4. In parallel with the steps listed above, the County would seek approval from
the Signatory Airlines to issue Airport System Revenue Bonds to provide a
targeted amount funds to capitalize the Noise Mitigation Bank. These funds
would be used to complement PFCs and future AIP grants. Based on past
experience with the airline consultation and approval process and the
requirements of the Airline-Airport Lease and Use Agreements, this process
would probably take three to six months, which is likely to be less time than
the PFC amendment process.
5. An important step in accessing AIP noise program discretionary funds for noise
exposure related to increased aircraft use of existing facilities at FLL is
approval by the FAA of a Part 150 study. The County has not formally
commenced this process yet, and we do not have information about the
duration of the process that would lead to approval. Based on our experience
with Part 150 studies at other airports, we believe this process will take longer
than the PFC amendment process summarized above.
6. To access AIP grant funds for the planned extension to the South Runway, a
Record of Decision on the EIS would be required. We do not have an updated
schedule for this process at this time.
T.
pz s ((ig
F a Kg 3 ri k st s^s f&.F�S Y
s
r
> g @ s
�YT y � r `•£ ? �3 r �.a'� ,�?x S irza��. �f
F ? s'S k� "�'�� �f�4`,g�g�. .xs✓SF:�.gs��:� s r}s�t� � r
.i'r
L.�.`
:-r as z
RD
COUNTY
-----------
��k5
£ g
suppleme n. � � � �
Fon � r�a, �� � �
int r I Airnort
dune
LEIGH FISHER ASSOCIATES CIVIL-CADD
("onsultants to Airport Management e::rzrawwx;.
1
BACKGROUND
This report is submitted to the Broward County Aviation Department (BCAD)
pursuant to Work Authorization 0408 of the contract between Leigh Fisher Associates
and Broward County. The work plan submitted to BCAD indicated that supplemental
noise exposure maps would be developed to allow the Broward County Board of
County Commissioners (the BOCC) to assess policy alternatives offering the potential
to reduce residential noise exposure from the levels forecast for Alternative SR-2 in
the November 2003 report"Assessment of Airfield Alternatives" (the November 2003
Report).
The November 2003 Report documented forecast noise exposure arising from aircraft
operations at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (the Airport or FLL) in
2020 using the FAA's 2003 Terminal Area Forecast, which is an unconstrained
forecast of aircraft operations and passengers. For development alternatives that
would extend Runway 9R/27L (the South Runway), residential noise exposure was
forecast both with and without planned operating restrictions.
The November 2003 Report also documented forecast residential noise exposure in
2020 for cases where no new improvements are made to the FLL airfield. The
information provided in the November 2003 Report indicated that under any scenario
considered, traffic growth would cause significant increases in residential noise
exposure over the levels experienced today.
This report summarizes technical results from the evaluation of certain operational
and policy alternatives hypothesized to reduce residential noise exposure, assuming
(1) that the South Runway is extend as described in Alternative SR-2, and (2) the
planned operating restrictions on the extended South Runway are implemented. In
particular, the following concepts were evaluated to estimate the potential to reduce
residential noise exposure relative to the results documented for Alternative SR-2 in
the November 2003 Report:
1. Relocate the primary flight tracks for eastbound aircraft landing on the North
Runway (Runway 9L/27R) and westbound take-offs from the North Runway so
that these flight tracks follow I-595 to the maximum extent feasible.
2. Conduct nighttime aircraft landings and take-offs over-water when wind,
weather, and traffic levels permit using either the North Runway or the South
Runway, assuming that the Alternative SR-2 extension is a given.
3. Enhance the use procedures for the South Runway to a level beyond what is
reflected in the agreements with neighboring cities, such as in the City of
Interlocal Agreement between the County and the City of Dania Beach, with
the purpose of reducing the level of forecast noise exposure in residential
areas.
4. Limit the number of passenger terminal gates at FLL to indirectly manage
airfield demand with the goal of reducing overall noise exposure and the level
of noise exposure forecast for adjacent residential areas.
FLL900
2
The following are worth noting:
■ Each of these four potential noise mitigation concepts can be considered and
evaluated independent of the other three. However, Concept #3 and
Concept #4 have some overlap in that managing airfield demand by restricting
terminal development may reduce overall noise, which could benefit some
residential areas.
■ The first three concepts listed above require negotiations with and approval by
the FAA and cannot be implemented unilaterally by Broward County.
■ The fourth concept, limiting or managing the development of passenger
terminal facilities, could be adopted as a policy of Broward County as owner of
the Airport without the requirement for formal FAA approvals.
■ If the BOCC finds the results of Concept #1 or Concept #2 worth pursuing as
a method of reducing noise over residential areas, then implementation would
likely require inclusion of either concept in the current FAA Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) process or a separate, new FAA EIS process.
■ If Concept #4 were adopted as a method to manage growth of aircraft
landings and take-offs, then these reduced levels of activity could result in the
extended South Runway alternative comparing less favorably with other
alternatives that are likely to be considered when the current EIS process is
re-started.
FLL900
3
1. RELOCATION OF FIGHT TRACKS
As documented in the November 2003 Report, the forecast growth in aircraft
operations at FLL and the increase in use of the North Runway for landings in east
flow conditions, which occur about 80% of the time, are projected to increase noise
over residential areas along the current flight tracks. In particular, largely
independent of the issues related to the planned South Runway extension, overflight
noise exposure in the Town of Davie's residential areas is forecast to increase
substantially by 2020 due to increased traffic using FLL.
The concept of relocating the primary over-land flight tracks for the North Runway to
an alignment closer to I-595 arises from the fact that the Rotated Crosswind Runway
Alternative (also documented in the November 2003 Report) shows an area of
reduced residential noise exposure. This amounts to about a 75% reduction in
residential acreage within the 65 DNL contour and about a 20% reduction within the
60-65 DNL contour when compared to Alternative SR-2.
The comparatively lower forecast noise levels associated with the Rotated Crosswind
Runway Alternative occur because:
1. An area within one mile south of the I-595 right-of-way and east of University
Drive has less residential acreage than do the areas under the current
primary flight track.
2. A residential area immediately west of Florida's Turnpike and under the
current primary flight track is forecast to be substantially within the 65 DNL
contour in 2020. Moving the flight tracks to the heading of the Rotated
Crosswind Runway Alternative centerline would remove almost all of this
residential area from the 65 DNL contour in 2020. This area would likely still
be in the 60 DNL contour in 2020 under the Rotated Crosswind Runway
Alternative, however.
Currently, the primary over-land flight tracks to and from the North Runway are
aligned with the centerline of the North Runway for about 3 to 8 miles from the
Airport boundary for landings, and 3 to 6 miles from the airport for take-offs. As a
point of reference, the Florida Turnpike is about 3 miles from the end of the North
Runway and Pine Island Road is about 6 miles from the runway end. In practice,
depending on weather conditions and traffic levels, substantial variability from this
primary flight track is recorded.
Analytic techniques used to develop noise contours as an input to the FAA's
Integrated Noise Model account for the variability of flight tracks based on observed
flight patterns from radar data. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the arrival and departure
tracks developed for noise modeling at FLL based on radar data collected for the
Broward County Aviation Department's noise modeling system. To the extent that
accepted variations from the primary tracks can be reduced in number and can be
relocated over less populated areas, the forecast of acreage of residential areas
within any noise contour level (e.g., 60 DNL or 65 DNL) can be reduced.
The November 2003 Report did not evaluate comparative aircraft noise exposure for
areas less than the 60 DNL level among the alternatives reviewed. However,
throughout the community outreach meetings and during briefings for the BOCC
FLL900
4
associated with the November 2003 Report, questions were posed about the
potential to reduce residential area overflights both for DNL contours and single-
events, and for areas outside the 60 DNL contour. Also, there was a general
recognition in comments received that (1) the I-595 right-of-way already has higher
ambient noise levels than along the current primary flight tracks, which may make
aircraft noise less perceptible in these areas than is currently experienced in
overflight areas of Davie, (2) there are more commercial and institutional uses along
I-595 than there are under the current flight paths, particularly when one looks
beyond the 65 DNL contour, and (3) the potential may exist to reduce single-event
noise levels through modified flight tracks, particularly in evening and at nighttime
hours, even if such an action would not materially affect the shape of the overall
noise contour at the 60 DNL and higher levels.
As part of this task, we were asked to develop a conceptual approach and departure
flight tracks for the existing North Runway that would produce noise exposure results
as close as possible to those shown for the Rotated Crosswind Runway Alternative.
To complete the noise exposure assessment, the following assumptions were made.
1. Based on experience at other airports and accepted air traffic procedures near
certain noise-sensitive airports, the most significant known constraint to
implementing a modification to the flight tracks associated with the North
Runway is a requirement that aircraft landings be on a "straight in"final flight
path once aircraft are three to four miles from the end of the runway. (Many
airports have landing and take-off flight tracks that are not directly aligned
with the centerline of runways for a variety of reasons, including among other
things air traffic control procedures and noise abatement purposes.)
The conceptual I-595 flight track for aircraft landing on the North Runway in
east flow conditions is shown in Figure 3. Patterned after similar approach
procedures employed at other airports, it was assumed that this procedure
would be used under visual conditions when the weather is clear (about 85%
to 900/o of the time). Under poor weather conditions, the standard straight in
procedure would be followed. Also, as illustrated in Figure 3, as is common
under actual operating conditions, it was assumed that there would be
variation in the point where pilots turn onto the final path and align with the
runway centerline.
2. With regard to take-offs from the North Runway when the Airport is operating
in west flow conditions, which occur 20% of the time, there are fewer
restrictions on the development of potential alternative flight tracks. Based
on departure tracks seen at other airports, an alternative primary departure
track was defined for this evaluation (see Figure 4).
FLL900
5
Summary of Results
To assess the potential changes in noise exposure resulting from these concepts, the
noise contours were prepared out to the 55 DNL level, as shown in Figures 5, 6,
and 7. IF the primary flight tracks shifted as described above, the following changes
in the forecast contours would change as follows:
• For eastbound landings to the North Runway, which occur 80% of the time,
residential areas inside Davie Road would not be able to be relieved of
overflight noise by landing aircraft.
■ Given the need of aircraft to have some distance to turn from the I-595 flight
track to the final approach to Runway 9L, overflights of the residential area
immediately west of University Drive could be reduced but not eliminated.
An increase in overflights would occur in the Nova Southeastern University
campus.
■ Combined, the major effect would be to shift the 55 and 60 DNL contours to
the north (1) away from areas in Davie west of Davie Road and (2) to areas
over other sections of Davie and portions of the City of Plantation.
The following table summarizes the estimated changes that would result from this
conceptual change to the flight paths to and from the North Runway.
SUMMARY OF 1-595 FLIGHT TRACK CONCEPT VERSUS ALTERNATIVE SR-2
rDecre,se in Po ulation b DNL LevelIncrease in Po ulation b DNL Level
Community 60-65 >65 TOTAL 60 60-65 >65 TOTAL
Plantation 0 0 050 00 2,350
Unincor orated 0 0 000 0 0 4,200
Fort Lauderdale 0 0 0 0 0 840
Davie 2 985 370 14 27500 2 220 115 9 935
TOTAL 2 985 370 14,275E14990 2 220 115 17 325
Our work scope for this task did not call for a full technical evaluation of modifying
the over-land flight tracks associated with the North Runway. It should be noted
that there are unexplored technical air traffic control issues that could potentially
affect the viability of any proposal to modify these flight tracks, particularly in regard
to any proposal intended to expedite such changes. In particular, the congested
airspace in the area around FLL could affect the degree of difficulty in implementing
any proposal to change current flight tracks.
FLL900
H
•�;, d �,.� .s� �� �..,. 13. � '� ,� is
'� ,�:�� �' � �F i« r4�•3 y,� o
Ore;f
a :: �
C
W 1
-f
a
AY } u
7 x<
T Y _ L.
'r s
32
x
y�
y.Y i. _•�A � 3 �`
y
s �
M: ,s
F �
4-1
,ia. `• 3
s >a^Kml
60 Si
s "�F
w. <
a
} 4;,
I :..
3 r
�4
.aa y �/ sa ��`°� .: �3' s � y '� s tf!'� sz>� i %•� �'aL'ls� •>;: $n��.�.�. .�.
Ems+' R;}rr: R
;pp
w : A' U G
• ems• .z'�`¢� °a�' € +a��eai� r
K
d � :CzoOw
i A �
w _
,
rye
y
Iiji
� gy
w
k
&HAW
es t W 7
1S
?is
er
It
a $5 dag t 3
!
•.'4 � b kY� �x �' ' �A � t h
Y< k
Z
-
r x �
� A
} -6� _:e a'a .y ra .�.� �. :. ( i '.'F3�'s�.x.�• �,
t:
i
Ko�
t x r
IT
'a�\ t � X��',s• s � X 5i
,
i
` �;�' � ,• �'a��"Y`�ifs``''3 fk. 3�: ""A'+i ai "n'
,' i �
� §x•E \ k��sb s �.P 356� s s r- 4> � w` w
'�'• a .� r t i� h• zl• �
$ u
777.
IL
{yy{ i
N�wS•
s4 c k ¢
'R 2 Q a< L: 1 A'• k Z
lu
41,
If
'^A �t�` y,,� � ¢ Sfx3�� �� "R�.x� F3 �9� i$ 4s •.c'f'&*`.-,p'k
a
i
Q
�j
gr. }
s xy 2 a O
fii II 5 � L ': '•� Q, < 'k k � ,5 a S ,CC\�� ��`' A`'� ,� _� C
k + k
s
P
14[ o:.'—
€ U
.per >1a'.. 'as`&�4 d.� �: •x[ } �� � yp
§ E £ k
x^y, 6y,P
Kra
� G
as N
a
S
k �
+D'
x r� w
.se43 ''
LL
cl
Vx
{ k E x
Y�y ryq Z
3• : L `� Za`
it 1�iY° s<E
,5 tE p5' 3 A
0.
�'�� � } �,{.<r c•� i3z d E _,r,��5 •<'�I <.•� 3`,� `°4�' aa`aR..h ,. �
.t
t t
�m vry r 3 .`
LN
4t .w.k �. !k h '�� �:'�: •.;'.i� 4<. r wL 5 3,"wt'•
Y
f� k
k 4
D
3k
zt �:a Lz
F ;,fir ;�` r'Y ���ti_ � `
r � >
E
N
tj
> a *IR
L5 rE�
40
3 �
c
" to { r
` S nuj
a xk t Y1YF E,
111 Kill!
yal-
17
ar
��x.
�y
OV1 Own,
now
law
09
u'
R�
i Q
Z s
Sax � ^:•a # �a ��F ,� `"^ ti�$ �•
� i R
Rr,
x
.y� � '�Y,• +k $.. {,... ask- � s kk'?x4.wx�yac
Ass
ng
Whits"
Wc
KA
15
OR
two
'R Y S •E
R E s�R xt.c L _�a»<*xi F�i�' ,� o i '. "$ as � e, •"; �i"
e
a xa
rk
x t fps '^
Y F uki
i
2 r
..t
lot
7010
ass
in
S kXs anifk'.$r<'e v....w a lop
x-
N
3e<M A.
Room�
R
u r
11,
q &
solo!
X x
CUT
Ri
EW
WH
�+
X
�<
A
,.1
M
\ 8 8
t �y1i� Poona 140 5
is
a.
R ,
�
> FF< � '`i Zvi` '+ '� • 3 - � +p!A `
3"'jr„ > ONYX
�"4 J`i` 8A: 3S gyx'
IMA &y k
. NAY-
M
\ �k
znw x Fk
k, k :f [Ti f �f`
�ti.
Fe
Ing
All
S
¢ Us
t Y> MR
YA ank
. V noA t Skx n � 4'�Y.... S 47
c
" g
K �
Nil
e
sIVA,
tag
�' �C• � �:,^AyyM� 'r,t3� y�ft ,� 'Ra� f�5 � k CT � iJ 6J O W i'^
Wil
¢ t � f•'X 9l�WA 4 � 2'4 i j'
L ,g�
MR
AK
AJ
WT1 e
` spew.
r n: 3a
s
$
5
le
ZN
M.
s ags u n C
ti
a �
h i pL
f Sa 4 a
A,
'4 A't5'
�h
S, R� R t �� X � •t �
k f,:
9
I
i
T
✓Y 'x a \:
I 'Il
a
I ,
Eff
I I
I
.. �A
( VV
Y f p y
S
Z +
13
2. NIGHTTIME OVER-WATER OPERATIONS
A potential measure to be considered in efforts to mitigate the effects of aircraft
noise from overflights in residential areas near FLL is to modify nighttime operating
procedures so that, to the extent feasible, aircraft noise would be redistributed over
the ocean rather than over land for late night operations.
In generating DNL noise contour maps, the FAA defines nighttime aircraft noise as
occurring between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. According to accepted
FAA noise modeling techniques, nighttime noise exposure receives a ten-fold penalty
in the DNL noise contours, thereby increasing the area described as being within a
given noise level. In other words, a nighttime aircraft operation is modeled as if is it
equivalent to 10 daytime aircraft operations to reflect the greater degree of
disturbance experienced during nighttime hours.
Regardless of the technical results for the DNL contours, single-event noise exposure
is usually the primary motivation for looking at alternative nighttime procedures at
most major airports that consider this mitigation method. Our scope of work for this
task called for us to evaluate the benefits of implementing nighttime over-water
take-off and landing procedures for FLL. This type of procedure is known as bi-
directional operations. As examples, this procedure is used at Boston-Logan
International Airport and Los Angeles International Airport to promote over-water
operations at night.
At FLL, the primary effect would be to shift certain nighttime North Runway landings
coming from the west to an over-water approach landing from the east. During
times when such a procedure is in use, take-offs from the North Runway would head
over-water to the east between landings with sufficient spacing, both physically and
time wise, to meet safety requirements.
Because of safety and capacity issues, a bi-directional procedure can only be
available in low traffic and good weather conditions. In particular, per FAA Order No.
8400.9, we assumed that such a procedure would only be employed in hours with
clear weather, a tailwind of less than 7 knots, and a crosswind of less than 15 knots.
Also, based on experience at other airports, the procedure would only be available in
hours with 15 operations (i.e., total take-offs and landings) or less.
A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration database with hourly
observations of weather for a full year was used to estimate the number of nighttime
hours when weather conditions might permit bi-directional operations at FLL. The
forecast of aircraft operations used for the November 2003 Report indicate that only
between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. would scheduled aircraft operations likely be low
enough to allow bi-directional operations to occur. (It is worth noting that system-
wide aircraft delays, arrival delays at FLL due to weather earlier in a day, and non-
scheduled air carrier and general aviation aircraft would likely reduce the available
window of time for bi-directional operations because these events would increase
demand during shoulder hours, most likely between 11:00 p.m. and midnight.)
Summary of Results
The cross-tabulation of data for acceptable wind/weather data conditions and
minimal demand indicates that the maximum potential for bi-directional operations
FLL900
14
would be 65% of the time between the hours 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. over the
course of a year.
Assuming that the bi-directional procedures were implemented to the maximum
extent possible, and assuming FAA and pilot acceptance of the procedure at FLL, we
evaluated the effect of the procedures on the base case Alternative SR-2 DNL
contours. We found that a change in the procedures would produce a reduction in
the DNL noise levels over residential areas by approximately 1 dB within the DNL
contour. In our assessment, this change is not significant in the context of the
accuracy of the noise modeling techniques available.
However, the single-event effects of the procedure would be significant. Figure 8
shows the noise exposure arising from a single aircraft landing on the North Runway
over land for an MD-11 aircraft, which is a common type of all-cargo aircraft. Figure
9 shows the single-event contour shifted to an over-water procedure.
Our evaluation was conducted only to determine the extent of potential benefits of
increasing nighttime over-water aircraft operations. We did not evaluate the
feasibility of these procedures in the context of airspace issues around FLL or the air
traffic control interdependencies of FLL and nearby airports.
FLL900
� N
his
' eAjOC
ire
Town
jot fit
is
e
kid
q \
Rk
sto
MOW
•i
Y 9 Q D
� C
pY ,1'Y'
V F
k
iF
z
n
avia,*k�JKPN
k -
2 � e s �
h>•s3sI'
1.4
Fix:
4-4
R.
MAT
\ G
x
'.k
w Rat
�'�'
i �r,� �;w W
e i A � '
`,�;.•Ds a``ys get �^ M �£ �.�g9 if .�.�
AN
�t r
S 3
Y �
R.
F yy
K3
VITRO
00
RivYg
y� x
3'
r y
g
A R
ss.W k
ALL
S 3 s
S N
f
Y R ppwwckWq+F6Y
C YtWF�R�" Y:
4Y«R t
Z
ll
Rii°Yg+,..x7y,�::
` w»g.«�H �yy Y 6��.. _S R��, Pc 4ya•, � 1`�l�: k 1P AS�
vq:i
amok,
MAP WQq VAT
^«Y`k Y•.' �kbY. �'OA•� L: ). � spy
3INMI,
IJ:
� g
K5 t¢ e N 01 tw"
v' Miz
sf Q7Q
9 z • 3�
`; �j.'�. D �.... £• ^'%�a E A'i9F�� F �e_ ) `�Dki
ilk
r
17
3. ENHANCED SOUTH RUNWAY:OPEItATING RESTRICTIONS
The options for abating noise exposure impacts associated with the growth of FLL
and the planned extension of the South Runway generally fall into two groups.
■ First, the County entered into agreements with certain nearby cities that would
establish operating restrictions for large aircraft using the South Runway after
it is extended. These agreements contemplate the loosening of these
restrictions over time in a phased manner.
■ Second, the County plans to adopt programs to mitigate the impacts of noise,
in residential areas forecast to be within the higher DNL noise contours. These
programs are scheduled to be developed concurrent to the EIS process for the
South Runway extension, as documented in the Aviation Department's Runway
Implementation Plan of February 16, 2004.
Regarding the former, the planned operating restrictions for aircraft operations using
the extended South Runway, particularly those incorporated into the Interlocal
Agreement between the County and the City of Dania Beach, substantially reduce
the forecast noise exposure in residential areas near the Airport compared to the
noise exposure levels forecast to occur without these restrictions in place. The
benefits of the operating restrictions are particularly evident during "Phase 1" of the
planned operating restrictions.
The following points summarize the forecast noise exposure results for
Alternative SR-2:
■ With the Phase 1 restrictions in place, areas directly west of the extended
South Runway, particularly north of Griffin Road, are forecast to be largely
outside the 65 DNL contour, although these areas are forecast to be
increasingly overtaken by the 60 DNL noise contour with traffic growth, and
would experience increased single-event overflight noise.
■ The planned restrictions would do little to mitigate forecast noise exposure in
residential areas immediately south of the Airport, both in Melaleuca Gardens
and in the Ocean Waterway Community south and west of the Dania Cut-off
Canal. The noise levels in these residential areas would primarily result from
noise by air carrier aircraft taking off from the South Runway in east flow
conditions. To a lesser extent, landings in less frequent west flow conditions
would add to the noise profile, principally from reverse-thrust engine braking
activities. In 2020, roughly 40% of these residential areas are forecast to be
within the 65 DNL contour and 60% are forecast to be within the 60-65 DNL
level.
■ Moving to Phase 2, Phase 3 or beyond Phase 3 of the planned restrictions will
not materially add to the noise levels in the residential areas immediately
south of the Airport. These reduced restriction phases, if implemented, would
principally increase noise levels west of the extended South Runway. (It
should be noted that the FAA has not formally approved the County's planned
operating restrictions or the processes for reviewing or implementing changes
to them. Customarily, such approvals would only be finalized as part of the
FLL900
18
EIS Record of Decision for the South Runway extension in a form acceptable to
the FAA.)
Without doubt, the construction of any South Runway extension would fundamentally
change the general level of aircraft noise experienced by neighborhoods south and
west of the Airport because of air carrier operations on the South Runway. However,
considerable concern has been expressed about the presence of the 65 DNL contour
limit as a dividing line within the residential areas immediately south of the Airport.
This concern appears to arise from two factors.
■ First, it is customary for airport sponsors to adopt consistent policies to offer
one set of abatement remedies within single neighborhoods, regardless of the
estimated location of forecast noise contour lines.
■ Second, airport sponsors often "round off"their mitigation program eligibilities
so that an entire neighborhood receives the best mitigation remedy made
available for any part of that neighborhood. In other words, if, for example,
property acquisition is used to mitigate noise within the 65 DNL or above, then
property acquisition may also apply to residential areas in the same
neighborhood that are in the 60 DNL contour, regardless of whether such
acquisition is voluntary or not voluntary.
However, in the case of FLL, the forecast that 40% of nearby residential areas
immediately south of the Airport will be within the 65 DNL contour does not
necessarily mean that (1) property acquisition will be required in order to mitigate
noise, or (2) entire neighborhoods will be acquired using the "rounding off"
convention, simply because a portion of a neighborhood is within the 65 DNL
contour. To determine whether or not this would be the result, the BOCC would first
have to adopt a mitigation program with specific remedies made available to areas
with particular noise exposure levels.
It should be noted that, from the FAA's perspective, the development of noise
mitigation alternatives is a local government policy decision as to what levels of
noise exposure are acceptable for local residential areas. The FAA recognizes the 65
DNL level as incompatible for residential uses and, therefore, will establish funding
eligibility for various types of mitigation in these areas, which may or may not
include acquisition. However,,the FAA will generally not determine for or dictate to a
local government, the level of noise exposure acceptable for residential land use.
In this context, we were asked to evaluate new alternatives for reducing the
magnitude of noise in areas immediately south of the Airport, assuming the South
Runway extension is implemented as planned. In particular, we were asked to
determine whether the FAA-recognized 65 DNL level can be contracted so that it is
not forecast to encroach on Melaleuca Gardens and in the Ocean Waterway
Community.
Summary of Results
After examining a range of alternatives in the context of the Phase 1 operating
restrictions already assumed, we determined that the only potentially effective
method for contracting the noise contours south of the Airport would be to limit the
number of air carrier take-offs using the South Runway.
FLL900
19
Prior to this determination, we considered and evaluated other additional restrictions
that theoretically could contribute to contracting the 65 DNL contour in this area,
including, among other things, limiting west flow landings, phased-in usage of the
extended South Runway, and segmenting the air carrier fleet permitted to use the
extended South Runway. None of these additional restrictions materially contributes
to moving the forecast location of the 65 DNL contour line associated with
Alternative SR-2.
In regard to the concept of limiting the number of air carrier take-offs using the
extended South Runway, the following summarize the factors affecting the
Alternative SR-2 contour.
■ The inputs used for the development of the noise contours documented for
Alternative SR-2 in the November 2003 Report assumed that 60% of air
carrier aircraft would take off using the South Runway. This equates to a total
of about 240 air carrier aircraft take-offs (i.e., take-offs plus landings) on an
average day in 2020. Figure 10 shows the noise contours in areas
immediately south of FLL under Alternative SR-2.
■ To contract the 65 DNL contour so that it would not be forecast to materially
encroach on residential areas immediately south of the Airport, air carrier
take-offs on the extended South Runway in 2020 would need to be reduced to
approximately 70 daytime operations on average in 2020. This would a 70%
reduction from the total air carrier operations level assumed in the capacity,
delay, and noise analyses supporting the November 2003 Report. Figure 11
shows the noise contours in areas immediately south of FLL under Alternative
SR-2, with the restriction on the number of annual air carrier take-offs from
the extended South Runway.
In practice, such a concept would require the extended South Runway to have an
"annual ceiling" for air carrier take-offs. Effectively this would function as an
"operational budget" limitation on the FAA. In other words, the FAA's Air Traffic
Control branch would have to agree to manage runway use to target use of the
South Runway for air carrier take-offs to deal with peak loading, such as the
cumulative demand and delay that occurs in bad weather conditions. In theory, this
would allow Air Traffic Control to well exceed the average 70 daily take-off number
whenever operating conditions required this to occur, so long as the annual
"operational budget" was achieved by reducing air carrier take-offs at other times.
The implications of this type of restriction would be significant.
• As mentioned above, the FAA has not yet formally agreed to the planned
operating restrictions contemplated by the County to date for the extended
South Runway. The concept of managing an "operational budget"for annual
air carrier aircraft take-offs on the extended South Runway to a particular
number may not be well received by the FAA, in part due to the precedent-
setting nature of the concept. In addition, there is a risk that any new
proposal to expand the operating restrictions beyond those already contem-
plated to date may cause the FAA to ask for a total re-start of the EIS process
for the planned South Runway extension.
■ It is not certain that any operational ceiling that limits the number of air
carrier operations and, therefore, the capacity and delay reduction benefits of
FLL900
20
the extended South Runway, would allow this project to sustain its positive
benefit-cost assessment, which could affect the availability of federal funding
and, therefore, the viability of the project.
■ The restrictions included in the Interlocal Agreement between the County and
the City of Dania Beach would restrict landings on the extended South Runway
in east flow conditions to aircraft of less than 58,000 pounds during Phase I of
these restrictions. Diverting additional air carrier take-offs to the North
Runway in east flow conditions would create pressure for more landings on the
South Runway in these conditions. As a result, relief from the 58,000-pound
limit may be required to manage delay in the context of forecast traffic levels.
■ In the absence of some other runway capacity enhancement, a limit on the
number of air carrier take-offs on the extended South Runway in conjunction
with a weight-based limit on landings on the South Runway in east flow
conditions would likely increase aircraft delays to a level well into or above the
"maximum acceptable delay range" if the total number of aircraft operations at
the Airport materializes as indicated in the unconstrained forecast. These
increased delays would occur because the North Runway would be, in effect,
operationally saturated before 2020 and could not efficiently accept additional
aircraft diverted to it from an operational ceiling on South Runway take-offs.
To address this secondary effect of North Runway congestion arising from
these restrictions and accommodate forecast traffic without unacceptable
aircraft delay, additional airfield capacity would be needed elsewhere at FLL.
The only identified solution to this problem following the implementation of the
South Runway extension would then be to also advance the North Parallel
Runway concept.
FLL900
f i MM 4/
wx
0 Oil
k � >m�R��eS < � �, •y�
y,. �Y�'♦ �� `�3"�X �°B.%t�, ST,k � 4��^3` � core
a
x
'%#'x"lw:N
.400n, La
iN
R
i
�k�.� ♦'��x. y .. $',�^*K q ?�^k '.,��`Sx 4.c �etly o 4$ 1:.
` th
< � 4A � •ck Yc Via;; ,
cl
3 xv� �,,M a�'x :,��,° �xi•� � � 'F` -'dry � � C
r n F
,
,
Ilk
� _
ts
w
1.54
x E 8
Z^` sue. .wbADt�'�7y�3''b:. ✓!^. �� �/ I
G�Afv k.
{�A
"wIm
4
W 14, 1
_ k C
MAW
'S
., gyp' "" '''�', �, �y-"�e kw � ��, r'�, '^�•>
4 � y
a ( �3
mw N;� 1R
xx�
V i0
�,� kin ->�" `h 3� F r'�t "�•4 � I@
23
4. PASSENGER TERMINAL DEVELOPMENT
As mentioned above, the November 2003 Report was based on the FAA's 2003
Terminal Area Forecast of aircraft operations at FLL in 2020, which assumes no
major constraints to the accommodation of forecast traffic levels. The November
2003 Report focused on the relationship between (1) developing airfield capacity
sufficient to accommodate forecast demand without unacceptable delay levels, and
(2) the magnitude and distribution of the projected noise exposure that would result
from increased aircraft operations, particularly over residential areas.
As part of the briefing process prior to the BOCC December 9, 2003 vote regarding
the South Runway extension, various questions were asked as to whether the
pending airfield decision represented the last opportunity for the BOCC to discuss
concepts and methods of managing the growth of FLL and the impacts related to this
growth. In these discussions, we indicated that at major airports, non-airfield facility
developments such as passenger terminals, air cargo areas, and general aviation
facilities were important generators of aircraft operations demand, and that
managing these developments can be as, or more, important to managing growth
than managing developments of the airfield itself. Also, we noted that at a number
of airports where airfield improvements fall behind non-airfield facilities develop-
ment, or where airfield improvements do not occur at all, the consequence is often
lengthy aircraft queues, increased air pollution, additional pressure for nighttime
operations, and lower levels of customer service.
As part of this work scope, we were asked to evaluate the relationship between
existing and potential passenger terminal developments and the growth of aircraft
operations at FLL. Our scope did not include an examination of the role of general
aviation, cargo operations, or any segment of demand other than passenger aircraft
using the public terminal complex.
■ Figure 12 shows the relationship between the number of aircraft gates at
major airports and the number of related scheduled aircraft departures by
passenger air carrier airlines, including regional jets and larger commuter
aircraft. (Figure 12 excludes statistics for major mid-continental connecting
hub airports were the number of gates is distorted by the effects of airline
scheduling in these locations.) The statistics indicate a correlation between
the number of gates at an airport and the associated volume of aircraft
operations. As reflected in Figure 12, FLL currently has 57 gates in service
with the number of associated scheduled departures consistent with the line
fitted to the data.
■ Figure 13 illustrates the passenger traffic associated with the number of gates
at each airport. Not surprisingly, the more gates and aircraft operations there
are at an airport, the greater the passenger-carrying capacity of that airport.
In past briefings for the BOCC, we pointed out that the forecast passenger
traffic level for 2020 would make FLL as busy as many of the larger U.S.
airports are today.
■ Figure 14 combines the aircraft operations and passenger data in one chart
using bubble size to indicate passenger volumes.
FLL900
24
To accommodate the 2020 forecast passenger traffic levels, development of
additional facilities at FLL would be required, including airfield, terminal and landside
facilities. The extent to which traffic growth can or should be accommodated and
how facilities could be developed in a balanced way is customarily undertaken as
part of an airport master plan update.
Summary of Results
As called for in this scope of work, we evaluated the implications of constraining
passenger terminal development to the existing gate configuration at FLL (i.e.,
57 gates). Based on (1) the per-gate throughput of FLL prior to the development
of Terminal 1 (i.e., when FLL was demonstrably gate constrained), and (2) the
throughput potential of gates at the more constrained airports in the United States,
we concluded that FLL can accommodate more airline operations and passengers
than today's levels with the existing terminal complex. However, reasonably
expected growth in passenger aircraft operations would likely be limited to 30% to
35% above 2003 traffic levels. Stated another way, airlines would likely saturate the
current FLL terminal complex in the window of 2010 to 2011, if demand continues to
grow and additional gates are not provided.
Worth noting is that the aircraft operations level associated with the existing terminal
complex would generate annual delays above the"maximum acceptable range" of
6 to 10 minutes per average aircraft operation, unless the existing Crosswind
Runway is actively used, as summarized for the Unconstrained Base Case in the
November 2003 Report. Even with the active use of the Crosswind Runway, the
level of aircraft operations in the 2010 to 2011 window would result in delays of
about 8 minutes per average aircraft operation.
Obviously, the total noise generated by aircraft would be lower if total aircraft
operations are constrained by terminal growth limits. We assessed the noise
exposure assuming (1) terminal facilities are limited to the current inventory, (2) the
extension to the South Runway is completed, and (3) the North Runway and South
Runway are used as currently consistent with Phase 1 of the County's planned
operating restrictions.
The difference between the noise contour having constrained facilities and that of the
unconstrained Alternative SR-2 traffic levels for 2020 is shown in Figure 15 for the
65 DNL contour and Figure 16 for the 60 DNL contour.
As shown in these contours, the effective reduction in residential areas exposed to
noise resulting from capping the terminal complex to today's configuration is limited.
The reduction in overall residential acreage resulting from constrained terminal
development while building the extended South Runway is less than 5% relative to
the unconstrained operation associated with Alternative SR-2. The primary reason
that gate limitation results in only a limited relative reduction in the forecast of
residential noise exposure once the South Runway is extended, is that the location of
the South Runway is far more important to how noise exposure is distributed near
FLL than is the marginal loss of 15% to 20% of the forecast aircraft operations
associated with constraining gates. To have a material reduction in residential noise
exposure, the County would need to consider managing the growth of terminal
development and select a runway alternative with less residential noise
consequences than those associated with the South Runway.
FLL900
25
For the purposes of evaluating the effects of constraining FLL terminal facilities to the
existing configuration, we assumed that Alternative SR-2 would be approved by the
FAA and developed by the County. As noted above, in the absence of any develop-
ment of alternative runway capacity, there will likely be an increase in use of the
existing Crosswind Runway. Compared to today, this would cause significantly
greater noise exposure over residential areas northwest and southeast of FLL, as
documented in our November 2003 Report. However, it should be noted that the
annual operations level achievable with the existing terminal complex and gate count
at FLL may not allow aircraft operations to reach a level that would assuredly result
in a favorable Record of Decision by the FAA for the planned South Runway exten-
sion. In other words, at lower, constrained levels of aircraft operations possibly
resulting from constrained passenger terminal development, other airfield develop-
ment alternatives could emerge that produce delays in the acceptable range, less
costly, and expose fewer residential areas to high levels of noise exposure.
However, FLL operating at lower levels of aircraft operations would not be able to
accommodate forecast passenger demand through 2020.
FLL900
m
U
O
I 'C
C
II r N
it N
N
3
0
n
a' 0
O
w
LL
H :3
2
o
N
— N
Q. Q p0 m
Q ~ CO
I _
q �
C
J O C
.O i cd o
♦ ♦ o
CO
CL 0
0 ��+ � Q o
C ea Q to
N co
CL U H E
._ d J m w
O o
L N
L
LL O Q I J O ja
W z. d (O a
♦~
'— <
�+ L _ 0
CV U a. } o
�O Z g a
cc ♦ Q ♦ i r- 0
N C CD♦ O cu c
.� n
D cc
CL cn CL
c�
0 ♦d d c
•E a
C � Y♦ � Q
Q p rn
N m m
N
CL
O
7 C.
V N
N tC
w
yN
C
p U E
O
p O O O O O o
LO N LO CDLO U)
N
(spuesn041 UO
sa.inVedaa}Uejojid lenuud
N
O
O
N
T
� N
O E
m
m
t
r.+
E
U)
C
O
E
O
O
cn
W O o
♦ a
E
0
Q O
c +�-� U
O p ♦ � �
�♦ a
C
_ m p m
N H N♦ ♦ a >
L
°° +r m
M CO
L 0 d CL
N
L fl. 0 co m
•p
ev c a.
W LL. ♦ = a
0) a
C ~ ♦ o
C H Q ♦ a�i
O E
N d ♦ U
� x
.a+ Y ~
Q O to ♦ o ti
♦ ♦ m
a 4) o
0
a
N c m
tv
n w
N0
O
m C-
a ji
• Y
O
V O
O O O O O
O O O O U) ti
p L O L
(V e- e—
(spuesnoy; ui)
s;ueweueldu3 aaBu®ssed lenuud
0
v
I c
m
I
o n c
3 t5
o 0
o
w a
A c
' o
o c"a
ts Q
m AdLL
N m
d N m
i� N N
M r
4+ O
_ C 0.
N
cco
m M
.L+ C
fl. O E
7 c O
r' 0 0_
o L W o
+'' ; (A 05
o
E 0
H d s (D
L O c E
,< O. o r
CL
C co o 0
ea
c
d w D
O a o
L c C
•� = L V O ccN
LL Q o H U
O
O y
'LLL " E w
L 0
V .x E
d
c
im
1 Q oa o
o c
(A v M 4)
m n
CD
co
U.
N Q
C O
Q N O
o m
N 0. M
v
O N
0 N
(j 0
c� E N
N :)
O cn Z
O o O O O O O O o o O O
N O Go (O N O 00 (O N
(spuesnoyl ui)
sempedea usiwid ienuud
is al O
r
UA
lip
j
s ,
[ c
7 m
Q
ThAmpto a"w S�§;e•4 Yn¢ ...
VON
SO
i) S
01
kx
�.
�lh h bb( �
bra'' 1'�
1. '. p k :• � \ S
\-
i
"F
\a\:AS.
(� r
min
r '
ro slhc �3 m,� L:L spay
a<,
aF
s r
d"S s St � iCtii`CA,
S,-,
.\.` - �r`d fi ..t` ¢.<}yk. tea y.. •Y� Z
All
„ Y 2O 3
x
+� :aF 1}a-e'��. 9y, 3g d � l c v.i�SC'rk4s�. Z`c�'e,,� }y ". •'t. i :x'.
Eli .
$N s 4
x
w =
4i
Y
h 3
TUN
s
x`f r ♦ �� �� ..
� I
Y
i
fin, III I'
t
I
F S
i
(i
l it �g
��.A�, t h. k2$,: Il lj� t 2 §q.♦ � '� 'A'�k ,fi�'Xc '� C
5.
ss
C