The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1991-01-15 Airport Advisory Board Initial Meeting Memorandum/Packet i CITY OF DANIA INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Dania Airport Advisory Committee FROM: Robert F. Flatley, City Manager RE: Initial Meeting Announcement DATE: January 15, 1991 The first. meeting of the Dania Airport Advisory Committee will be held on Wednesday evening in the City Commission Chambers at 7 : 30 P.M. , January 23, 1991. I have prepared a loose-leaf notebook with summary documents in preparation for this initial organizational meeting. If you have any questions, please call me at 921-8700, Ext. 201. nd Attachment cc: Dania City Commission o�z HE of �w�,.; �.� CITY OF DANIA Phone: s21.8700 I P.O. BOX 1708 DANIA,FLORIDA t� 33004 �LO � December 18 , 1990 Sen. Howard Forman Chairman Broward County Legislative Delegation Broward County Governmental Center 115 South Andrews Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Dear S an: Enclosed please find twenty-nine copies of Dania' s resolution opposing the de-annexation of property from Dania around the airport. This item is scheduled for presentation to the Broward Legislative . Delegation on December 20, 1990. The City of Dania will be represented to read this resolution into .the record. Sincerely, Robert F. Flatley City Manager RFF:clb enclosures • RESOLUTION NO. 123-90 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DANIA, FLORIDA, TO EXPRESS OPPOSITION TO A LOCAL LEGISLATIVE ACT FOR THE DE-ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY FROM THE CITY OF DANIA; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the city commission of the City of Dania, Florida, has been informed that Broward County is submitting to the Broward County Legislative Delegation a local bill to de-annex from the City of Dania certain parcels of property lying in and around the existing Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood Airport in Dania; and WHEREAS, the City Commissioners of the City of Dania are concerned about the effects that such legislation will directly have upon the tax base of our city and indirectly upon our city's ability to successfully complete mediation on currently proposed community impacts as a result of the expansion of the airport south runway; and WHEREAS, a study relating to these impacts has not been done and the amended Part 150 studies required for the approval of the expansion of the airport south runway have not begun. 1 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION CITY C C SSION OF THE CITY OF DANIA, FLORIDA: Section 1. That the City Commission of the City of Dania, Florida, does hereby express to the Broward County Legislative Delegation its strong opposition to the approval of an local 9 PP� rr Y f bill relating to de-annexation of property from the City of • Dania, even though the lands sought to be de-annexed lie within the airport boundaries or adjacent thereto, until all studies have been carried out and the Regional Planning Council arbitration and mediation completed with the necessary FAA approvals obtained for the planned airport runway expansion. Section 2. That a copy of this resolution be furnished to the Broward County Legislative Delegation and other appropriate persons as directed by the city manager. Section 3. That this resolution shall be in force and take effect immediately upon**.its passage and adoption. PASSED and ADOPTED on this llth day of December 1990. • Z-, �YOR - tOMM S Ig0ER ATTEST: 'CITY CLERK - AUDITOR t:l APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS BY: C. eZ&4.A._ FRANK C. ADLER, CITY ATTORNEY Resolution No. 123-90 c ,CV��•1 CO) of f © 1 O _ W 400 Too Z N r 2 s'!I: ■ j O W I•a""��'•n► ••i.,- ' ski+f4�� 2 . �. -`'\'. i - -—-• - _ . Coll it � C ' , ,' 'r• ' ; ` .'� = =,_�' 1t!`�.`_• j ! r•={�ii'7�••,�r•!'�•7)1_ x 37, Alt ram. ¢ mot. - ;d a. ! Q i ......- -t- J• �-.. O i�!��-•rr-� "ram• a s.a '•a+.0 I •a .a t• Q --- ,• tC) V �•r• ' a !,a-"t..■i� 1l��I�f•r-`j..�5_•i.aTi�a��! J1 i'^ � •� ( 1 r LTZ - aq 1 i•1 ■ a iIL•:3 a 1 • ter- �i•w a - �-,V'��• l 1 'y=s.l �`r„�rj••i a 1i'Li � i■ ■ K 's Z - ''L` I hs. of: ;^•` :1 ja a-.••• ••r=a•••)�••s ■-�_�- �� t... Q �•■�f-+.-o i� jr.ir Ia• �r.,•%I• '� �e3; ` • �1•Jrr' • f ii i t •� idea —.. �.-,7 1:. za�oaataa 'v.5� aN D U. •tom• _t!" as s •j! — Lu Jill .•r= 1: -s / / •�•+w"iri = 0!'y• a_. ^-.r- al- ■'ir y a y, �_k;r ■ay•a ;l/ = r� fiji - ~ aAaa�•aa! a i lax� a 3.r.�• a� -ulft .r�s' mow- •• •. / :-'/ j J � � , I , ' �•.--r a as td _sa - • �.•f �aa•sy�• i•! �� 1 -\:� , •'a ] �t. t��1 �r f} ` a�.� .��.--V■�■ _y��j +s}.• � • y r � g( ae7-ra - yf. •�i �;1 OR ~ ; a a i<•�'- .:J- �„(�3 (} ■ a or :.�`- -, •i - r r �a_=ice` ••i(-_�.'t -~• . • ' y :�f�:� * •n, �� •�:► _ a .�,sra... +s s a ,■�if i9'kLc S�'a.,�ai1 r,•• 7 r#7-� ! [��Y"`. - _ 11 G •Ci •�. �, .rJ/`1 S ,�a i M a;- it i.eT•1�! ' •_��■T t*■i iio 'J ; • I 1 J • ( _ Tr►'' y►�r • > a�•� _j Nefto :. •'a.O oil a• �i • a�.a..Sa••-r.i��y io29 __,� �) _ _ ••�� ' _�.. _sa ♦. -� r.p �.- •ria•T as as Olt ' as __,..�J�_ �'"1 p ': J r+ i. E'■ y a 1 411 I * = 3 is e. cc oil Li GROOM now :w --.--_-�-- _ • a.••• .ram" fI f S •.• ••a.•�a r t■'Lit; •fir�fa�' �-�f. a •�1• i •-R'--a"l a■O/s�on t aY�i�.+.- i �iG i « •mow. r■a■[i' ya•■ S + •r K. =•• �• 1� ` .•• vow Zk ii��il t .!i � rr i a�•11 ■n� T:_. .4 .aa• _• .� .. " -`::'� ... fair i ,..• I .� : �'s�� '� 1 .. ■ice �.(� r .�a �i -.t .ts—..9•,,. } ■ _ ~ ! I• J! ,. 1 r • i ,�i■, •rr.tll t. -.ax�■or 1 I r j W � 1` a r i �.`'•. Y�aa� ![ •�a.,i(1 r� ,�,� ■ �+ s� i ` ..r i .• t-+r- � y!!s ■ H 3.� • • ! a II • �,'' • �+ r I 4 ro & O aw sof I - O is. ,•.i• j Je • ,� r � Z .' �..- �lr�_ a O i i r I '^• �• •■ a••f Rif oat •�� • _. � +J """`'TT '`� ,i7r(_�'6 _. _'sr Iv •n:�- tt _ �'°"' 'm f•aiU.1 J r; e 40. •••+.\ ♦:' - 4 i 1 ,r--3 Jj!• �� }sue LL r�al1r�► •'• f i • I- r�--s-s s >>l` r Sol Im r RESOLUTION NO. 95-90 • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DANIA, FLORIDA, IN SUPPORT OF DELAYING THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS RELATING TO THE AIRPORT RUNWAY SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT; RESCINDING THE PUBLISHED NOTICE FOR NOVEMBER 1, 1990, AND DECEMBER 18, 1990, PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER THE ISSUANCE OF A DANIA DEVELOPMENT ORDER; ALLOWING FOR ADDITIONAL REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL STAFF REVIEW IN COORDINATION WITH FORT LAUDE.RDALE AND DANIA; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Dania requests the South Florida Regional . Planning Council to defer the public. hearing process on the Airport south runway expansion until current data, updated from 1980, is available; and WHEREAS, recent discussions with Broward County, the Airport, - Fort Lauderdale and the City of Dania should continue on issues that have not been resolved to date; and WHEREAS, a mitigation program to assist all residential properties within the existing and projected 65 LDN noise control lines, regardless of location, should be in place prior to the constructed expansion of the south runway; and WHEREAS, a permanent noise monitoring system should be installed with a minimuim of five stations placed within the City of a Dania; and WHEREAS, a preferential runway program should be in place as well as a night curfew and only stage III airplanes for the south runway; and WHEREAS, a public information program should be undertaken to inform affected residents of .'the potential impact on their ResolutionNo, 95-90 a • .. •-wf a 1a.• �j.a r'...i qi a. ,�-:.:,r %y•. J �:qC15+ ir.tsa, J-rit..•ti.r '.=a;•.i'..1+a.• '. -n. :ate.•. .• - •• � • f i.'a i Y itiS-•....��ir. 7•r JM�� ,�`:•v r�,:s•it!.�Ti•S•tf•F •./.�.y"a;.i'�. �'•, .j..r.r�T f �:.�•�ry!�~j�•.t�•tr.,,~i"-��•�. �, „ _ ti � . '�.•. • '•� •°t ,z 4v ..•a�.4i,s.s' ! -•.:• v� i�^f� -•�,..�:'`�v�?a•r,�S7•i•►4�i/i�a J.'L... • nei hborhoods• and neighborhoods; WHEREAS, the Airport should complete an Environmental Impact Statement and amend its Part 150 study based on current, but as yet unavailable, data. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF. THE CITY OF DANIA, FLORIDA: Section 1. That the official public hearing notices for . November 1, 1990, and December 18, 1990, be rescinded and readvertised at a later date. . Section 2. That ongoing discussions of ' g g pertinent issues continue with co • th appropriate parties in attendance. Section 3 That the public be informe d ed through advertised public meetings of the issues and status of the construction program for the south runway. • Section 4. That this resolution shall be in force and take effect immediately upon its passage and adoption. PASSED and ADOPTED on this 25` day of September 1990. ttAIOR - COMMISSI ER ATTEST: t CITY CLERK' - AUDITOR APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS BY: FRANK C. ADLER, CITY ATTORNEY Resolution No. DANIA'S POSITION PAPER AND STATUS REPORT REGARDING THE FORT LAUDERDALE/HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SOUTH RUNWAY EXPANSION PROJECT INTRODUCTION in August, 1981, the Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airport ("The Airport") completed a development of regional impact analysis that set in motion the terminal and service route expansion. In October, 1987 , a noise study was completed (FAR Part 150 Study) and approved in August, 1989. In August, 1988 , the Airport and the State of Florida agreed to a preliminary development agreement as amended that • allowed the extension of Runway 9L/27R without completion of a substantial deviation. In July, 1989 , the Airport applied for substantial deviation to the DRI. The triggering events for the substantial deviation were the extension of 9L/27R (completed under the preliminary development agreement and before submitting the substantial deviation) and the extension of Runway 9R/27L, including changing the use to a commercial runway. A.r The substantial deviation must be reviewed by the South Florida Regional Planning Council (SFRPC) . A series of SFRPC staff meetings were held attempting to reach an agreement regarding the conditions of the substantial deviation. The Airport, Broward County, the City of Dania, the City of Fort Lauderdale, concerned citizens and SFRPC staff attended. 1 The last South Florida Regional Planning Council staff meeting was September 17 , 1990. The issues discussed related to noise mitigation. Th s ie are , "sfo (-4) . j *ajbj� at6a*AVwf disagreementc * A curfew or preferred runway system * Aircraft use restrictions * Mitigation of the existing impacted residential properties. * Mitigation of future impacted residential properties. DANIA'S POSITION: • Dania has three (3) general goals. First, to preserve the tax base of the City of Dania; Second, to remove the unacceptable noise impact of Dania residents or immediately commence a program to protect property values (condemnation or purchase assistance) ; and Third, to protect the environment in the City of Dania. 1. DANIA'S TAX BASE: Paragraph 15 of the SFRPC proposed conditions provides: The applicant and each effected municipality shall conduct the following activities designed to reach a fair and equitable agreement with regard to any fiscal or environmental impact produced on these municipalities by this substantial deviation (the airport runway expansion program) prior to filing any court action. 2 I I • ati n Negoti o Stage The parties shall undertake good faith efforts to negotiate an agreement. Negotiations shall commence g 9 g no later than 30 days after issuance of the last of the three development orders required by this project (Broward County, City of Fort Lauderdale and City of Dania) . This issue date shall be referred to herein as the latest date of issuance. If resolution is not reached by 90 days after the latest date of issuance, the process shall advance to Stage 2. This p g does not prohibit the parties from advancing to Stage 2 mediation at a point prior to 90 days after the latest date of issuance. Mediation Stage If Stage 1 negotiation is inconclusive by the end of 90 days after the latest date of issuance, or if the parties agree to advance to Stage 2 mediation prior to 90 days after the latest date of issuance, the affected parties will work with a mediator. This mediator shall be mutually acceptable to the parties . and shall have recognized expertise in the role of mediator. For example, a mediator may be selected from the roster of the Florida Growth Management Conflict Resolution Consortium. The parties shall make good faith efforts to reach an agreement with the help of the mediator. If resolution is not reached by day 60 of Stage 2 mediation then any of the parties may initiate litigation. 2. NOISE MITIGATION: The Airport refuses to address mitigation of the present noise impact to Dania residents other than in the FAR Part 150 Study. The Part 150 Study provides mitigation under a "purchase assurance program" . This program is not funded and has a schedule spanning 30 years. The Airport plans to expand. The noise impact of Dania • residents will also be expanded. Dania opposes expansion of the airport until an acceptable mitigation program is in effect. ' 3 I Numerous Dania residents are presently subjected to unacceptable noise levels (greater than 65LDN) . Dania' s goal is to remove the unacceptable level of noise from residential II properties or immediately commence a program to purchase the properties. can accomplish thesees. The following actions p goals: Remove The Unacceptable Noise: * Establish a preferred runway system or curfew that prohibits the use of Runway 9R/27L and Runway 13/31 during the evening and night time hours (7 :00 p.m. to 7 :00 a.m. ) , except for emergencies. * Establish use restrictions on the number and type of aircraft utilizing the airport to withdraw _ e contours onto airport property * A combination of 1 and 2 to withdraw the contours onto airport property. Mitigate The Unacceptable Noise: * Install a permanent noise monitoring system on a priority Y bases. * date the FAR Part 150 Study. .Y * As a result of 1 and 2 and the single event noise contours, condemn or purchase all residential properties subject to unacceptable noise (greater than 65LDN or a single event of 70DBA) . •' * Establish a land use plan for all airport affected properties. ' 4 • 3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: An environmental assessment is unacceptable. There has. been no Environmental Impact Statement conducted on the airport expansion program. Dania deserves a complete EIS. • 5 day. _.: south on Interstate Kaplan fire as James Carpenter Averill,79,sat .cause of the volatile chemicals h( u'll see the 95 near Commercial Boulevard, came bleeding inside his vehicle. '' :.�� `+ ' works with: :' #,gyro k• r • ' "u n,"a burnin -van"and saw a' man . +Y. po a g ,-rus *. ., k ."I saw the guy bleeding really badly-t .The accident,', aboback of- one sign I; - trapped inside.-The c hed,van had is the;van.I thought about not stoppping when Averill s van-struck the struck the back of a Iumber.truck on the..• because'I get sick at the sight ofrblood,',.' truck that had slowed;pdown.z The pas highways said Kaplan, of ami LakesWu!l h senger,side,of.the van was nearly ible Agas.K( 1 t i 1 ~�. tIF r l• :l ��'`�i 1" T.7 •i�i I i '..0"p�h�" '1' T. R gh• Y T, f� ; ,.•`� ►'1►�. •♦�s•..Fl.•. 1 ,�^ l' ._.}f 1r ,.,CW .../.».:.li4f�+ih! j! r+•-';C•`... 1.^!. *3. •° �f'vT••'.y .".•�•w rb% rw `cry of'♦ '��'�b�. .aY q, .,,tar'�t,,,,IA�N�.S �xW�t. ''�s . .;9..•i . _4. i n..`♦(�^s,.. . o_ n an -' "'33 '��*r -_ P y' B Ui1. x ed u � �� unwa . .. ate No street clo-z ,W�* `1 Y r•�, , y ti ti♦J MAKE� x i '� s �.� '4tr� v" � • �a i,.�'onstree Tin ksn �- .._. C t,tf,� t.�� •FI 'ij.tP� +7`.. L;,cJ,'ft' A.15r e?�,f {r - our OWD. lit- !: = r�?: ?..t=?'C'->�.1 S'4 y,:-_may.. '•1 ba PEMBF = low-cost r ivice � me.. Wu _ Hall haveie � .� : .► .. �{ say the pr( ova BV VICKI MICA_ SH to the tow II! �i Commkz ��p�J.. -,►-•r.. w yf t'P x. :, staff wr{t�-'FSrs� w,neat. :• xt`.>`- . , Frank Bat ne Watch : . A.long-planned expansion of the.south runway at son's plan. Port*Lauderdale•Hollywood International Airport . a project t rack de ers`x swill be stopped if the airport cannot guarantee affect- 5.5 acres i ies and agfi ed:residents an attractive selling price for their f r. - Each of tt ;tic diet `homes,' airport Director George Spofford said on s "If we b • y tb:YLa •mow,. ,rinse rate � Tuesda ome pe F rear as last b: The plan was t proposed to offset the effects of the .. : +{4 r to[the U.S i Bronx. ,r runway expansion on the neighborhood west of the air- opment]tc re you all' port between Griffin Road and the Dania Cutoff .�� .t't want to Canal:. t. F;t, �. t pro ject ou loot if they 'v Thousands of homes in the Griffin Road area could A are built c )rhoodN1*1 t be.affected by noise from the commercial jets that make it w :ogle who 4 would use the expanded runway. _ Schwart �: , : 4: ;, The south runway is now used for private airplanes hood to de p1e whin::= and corporate jets. The airport wants approval to a or- '' lengthen the runway about 6,000 feet to accommodate If this ' x larger,planes, a plan that would involve moving the 7xwi ; Staff photo/EUOT J.SCHECHTE be creatln ems with �who a cutoff canal. r '. }. 'x Y. .. '_> in s. It's a gg :. ay.ADd.� ��►'` . Spofford said he intends to"guarantee residents in _'' - `� } • r, velo r h• t live neat the Griffin Road area an amount comparable to what In Kin S name ' J la a: �� en,just like the price would`have been before airport officials be- '__ ,. _ `- P Ymg ' f'', about the ex ansion. = = places. W1 r an airport... gan talking p ,•,< ,,- -- Supporters of'changing name of Pompa ants and i off F eraff" "I don't know how you do it,but there's got to be a_ _ r ' +# „, no s Hammondville Road to"Martin Lu-� bly live it 'M " f way to recognize that property values have declined. .e price you'A.-;.�� During a meeting on Tuesday of staff members of the' ther King'lr. Boulevard.march to Crt only have a f=•- - South Florida Regional PlanningCouncil officials Hall on Tuesday. Please see story. 7B V if'this ~ from Dania and Fort Lauderdale. aid the plan should Y , ". have included, neighborhoods, on all sides of the hborhaa airport. can ev "You're leaving the residents"of Dania and Fort Lauderdale in the same situation 20 ears from now," Cou..11, s'etSru es' ., o� k said Ed Curtis,:an aviation attorney representing Dania:}; and offic {; 8 TOM LASSITER ' Curtis has argued that homeowners should not bear , >< f } s :� Y registerec the cost of airport expansions,which are designed to ;' start water , .; *, "[The li bring money and business into the county.,f' FORT LAUDERDALE The Broward County edies, an( Airport officials have not established the' area Commission on Tuesday'set standards for the hun :. tion," Co = that will be affected by noise.from the expansion,nor dreds of family homes across the county that provide cars advc ,.. are they sure how far west the proposed purchase-as- day care for children,a service that until now has seen One sir o` w sistance plan might go.The airport is also hoping that little regulation._ ;_ �i.a ,2: t: last year titer` 3W^p a greenbelt—a$5 million sound barrier of trees and- Home child care is intended fora small number of pinned bE shrubs.' will reduce the noise.to residents in north children,and operators had been required only to reg- crib,Plar east Dania.: _.;� ister with the county,submit to a criminal background, The chi r. The airport plans to update a federal noise study be- check and take a three-hour safety course.Now,they=. care oper 4 percent fore the end of 1991.That study will be used to deter- will have to be licensed and meet the standards adopt-` a daily W � # mine how mkny residents will be eligible for purchase ed on Tuesday. assistance: w About 400 operators are registered with the county, ,e� • -;.}"h+u .,f J�K�� '�'�t ;.'C '.1J�., .2 , ,b ,.. ,. c � .��' .v :Yt1•'i�a*s_ . :► �� $'3: *^t.,,�.` i A .#iC ,�i•.�'�^L�1 r1 y...+: ..,,L tL'.`tii`=hw l.:7:.i.�e;.:'.:�4-;.^^',NS."v:.j 00 aw�ao�H fo ? f�o -co°C�oc:x � o foofs �AsO aX'�''��CA?c=Gy7A��7 OwRA�'+��wO'pC:�'•.tdr�n.. �`•a�+1�QC Ov!i�Av'A1,,Or��AC��fS�Dy�ti-v^,'�ti�,,.oq O►..�CA F�Ow3 cO��►a.w3i fAo'Oy My-�y w_wA^f Ca.�'.C�fyBD.'OyoCtt w�pAr<�l,fAn0•��sD..?��CQ°• ', yynyp O 5:44 < oo` . a D �wH�aw�AA�o�f�o A s •. • 1C\V O O ("A S� w° fJ °e `' .0 ° ^^ =ey d w A "" , An'<O &w ~ fw OO asAa -? , =010 xS. � wC D r a. ~� O �aGAr..`OSfO/�a`A ealaD+::�A:'5N'a+ w'!J+�'Aa�7�"�AS,O,;* ^a.o.^.tiy ° w • '<= .yeg.. ^Oo � fa A,<S < SS a OCD w Em e C m ^aaA`Eo-"^O we wOoyO90 + O!O�+ y./O�uy � A O.AA •� O S-o 3Sp� yOSwS < "= m O$ cAc p U. O -� p. Fym 7} A a� ArM a fnOCt7 ai fp:�G1 c< fnCCp.„0,CAA.-A.►�Sf0'gD•4.�t3�=•KrA�a+.o:t.�Awp.v.gai;.A�A0^a 1.AM.5t^L.}�..yt �A'cO f�pfw<Daotp S•�O`Aj�wTaw,Asa<aOap,�A-I► a+srSf�nAp Ao< E•t•CrnAa ►�t 0•0'0�.ad»`,,a.•p'A+;�O�>'SAS aApf S'•ev:��w�:;�-n•1�Ot5 pp�`,",OAa«°'5_w'ON(►0t'O3Qir'�°'►^SGyf.0 0. O 5-w gttt. .7�ApO�ocCcCafenA osaq .O A O AQA �Ss ` aa00So ff Da•a A R. .O. <w pa o d ^OSx .r N0ow~8 P. �. �P.on OO .SO Q ^ pin D R. O X0 ca O gC a OG.< cOA,Sto, p a AO c mx-^'►.p CGy ••yS'�Trs.», am0f�� SO0C ':^<A Ad x 0z's ► *-MR A ell fDw SNSOM aw O wDoD�, _ �O _ s A `•G A w�'.fP d.0< r.lD C 8 M A 7 _ �,A•, •.v, w s,ar`SAooAA �A ' ^. «;$ oa gc - ofo ^•A��n� ao goo de°• � o^^A %vA `< fKi��y ��' - ." '°g. o�'� o fao�m c°fxoo�a'�.a, v; a �S y°° A 0...>...... �.�UM O I=M�aO� S(1c�v, �fpaC� W►p+.A`�'A . OA�.a7 w afo f<�m�S . ,+y'w .. °mfo -°i ''w`<13 o�oa: Q�F14. _ � r•»wary�•a 4'afo •�•°;rO. �`party fop. =o cn fD O IT y th a^OA OA a y^ O7 a fE C' A S F 9 �.1► A D �Q�q vA d C K 0 0 Ofp OQ Q h pOfE0r3 ^M v, a n� AS •fnw c '+aOArn -310 = O S O VA,wwA A y c aw a c.p;8 -' •vi po S o _a•.;• pp E w EA ' ,... c w OQ 7C•7C-A o O K o y'" ,Cy,faE oNo°A' ° rAyr °» f9 w o�A3°<� o•H cgmgc '<O f G' �i'C`C N n0•f 0.3 w :!MU)w o R - �Q .,...:: � O = Q O O +° m O �Q C O 23 O c O m m Q }, 3 O x p•y �t M � k . SW3 m >a AVE A a CL RAVENSWOOD RD. ••�, -0h m•a _ CD S m x O 3 _a v . i.. 3 �m CD. £, O o m f N g Q it _� !D i. _ m 3 _/ fi f v CL v O � � a Al n � , _ HMiIiM NENROM/MWW Herald SINE Homeowners fighting mAd over buyouts Second neighborhood fears airport expansion �►PETER 1NNOR18KEY i Herald Staff Writer - Once a prosperous enclave of 600 homes, the Ravenswood neighborhood suffers a swift and final calamity. . WeA-tended lawns ring recently abandoned homes. Rubble sprawls across lots that once held pastel subur- ban ramblers.Along desolate streets,signs stenciled in orange paint mark for destruction the remaining build- "Expansion Expansion of the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood Inter- national Airport transformed Ravenswood to a ghost town last year,and in the tradition of airport-related upheaval,this episode has The county a sequel. Airport officials are created a blight forging ahead with plans to expand the airports south- On our ern runway, an improve- neighborhood . ment that threatens another, more populous and then neighborhood with death by noise. wanted to be "There's no question the proposed expansion able to buy up will eventually bring more our homes at noise,"said jim Reynolds, a spokesman for the prices depressed Broward County Aviation Department. "But the by the blight.' county is committed to doing whatever it can to PAT LAND, help the people affected." president,Ravenswood That claim rings hol- Homeowners'Association low,however,at least to many of the Ravenswood residents still waging negotia- tions and court battles with the county over the forced buyout of their homes.The prices the county has been willing to pay are ridiculously low,some residents say., I I "The county created a blight on our neighborhood and then wanted to be able to buy up our homes at prices depressed by the blight,"said Pat Lang,president of the Ravenswood Homeowners'Association,during a drive through the neighborhood last week. "It's funny to think that a year ago we walked our kids through here trick-or-treating." The Ravenswood experience frightens homeowners in the path of the second planned expansion,and has inspired some hysteria in anticipation of a public hearing Thursday at Dania City Hall. "NOTICE—WE URGE YOU TO COME AND TO PROTEST AGAINST THE TREMENDOUS INCREASE IN AIRPLANE NOISE THAT WILL BE THE RESULT OF THE PROPOSED EXPANSION OF THE SOUTH RUNWAY!"reads one flyer distributed by a homeowners'association. The proposed expansion would extend the south run- way 1,000 feet to the west,a move that would bring larger passenger jets to the runway and over the neigh- borhood bounded by Ravenswood Road to the west,the Dania Cut-off Canal to the north and Griffin Road to the south. While some residents seek to quash the project entirely,many regard the extension as a fait aecompli and are fighting now for night-time flight bans and fair- ness in county-financed bail-out plans. "Most of the residents I've talked to in the Raven- swood neighborhood believe that the appraisal process was erratic and unfair."Dania Vice Mayor Bob Mikes said."The people in the threatened neighborhood have PLEASESEE BUYOUTS,ZBR t e = Hollywood • ortau era . a n er natoIonaAilar" or t f ::. �"�,y",y„�ti';:��..�i .-.�, ;..-• ,��:•:,� _iis _,s :�,t�apx.a Y*r` ,f,• 'S' .�`� r tl, .:- r:. _ �„_ Ac t"� � y c r'!",# ';' :#j r`y �a tdt.J'T k..•y '�. •R'_♦..: n.' � -.. yst::.+y ',.cv s y:, - ' - '�!�. �, f •=h°' -- -t, y..,+•,g y •y t1 .Y '! ='+ ''� -.�tP4e'�'. Y - v4t,1st t e '�✓ :_ �r ._3 ,� N• Ih'> �-ay r ,p��u..`�� .fi 3,i Fv....,f 4 ,r• VI ��.. � ��C' -.o`. r,, *` StrFY' ».� ,µ= v#•r ti�� ;t,s yQ +,tY .y ix f a. � /4� ' t�, �'P'pFit� r'n. �xis+°,• ..,W7 d't't S'l .''w. .g•, �sP"`..-t .. . -°. ';' Gi« v ................ ----------------- Q r lip st It MO 40 r�. _ t , x N. f�-- `---�` l =• r t r. e , T '•r b -d i � I r R lop r � •. � ..�} �,. t. n ugust 197.7 � t�r4r �. .�. .it• '«z y�-7' �'�... �:� ,�v�' 3,,,,,� �".:��:'4,r ?wr!�fi+nx:,r- =•��' �' �i r TELEPHONE(513) 721-1 749 L04 DRUM & BROWN AVIATION CONSULTANTS 290 CENTRAL TRUST BUILDING, C/NC/NNATI, OH/O 45202 AV ► Mr. Lee E. Wagener,, Director Aviation Division Broward County Department of Transportation Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport 290 S.W. 41st Court Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33319 Dear Mr. Wagener: Landrum & Brown is pleased to submit with this letter the summary report of the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport Master Plan Study. The study was undertaken under the Agreement between Broward County and its consultants dated March 3, 1974, as amended, to develop a New Terminal Complex for Broward County. A primary goal of the plan was to develop both commercial and gen- • eral aviation facility plans sufficient to meet future levels of aviation de- mand. The plan indicated a strong need for improvements to access, parking and terminal facilities, as well as coordinated improvements to the terminal airside and airfield facilities. Although the recommendations include sub- stantial improvements to the airport, the plan was accomplished providing balance between access, landside and airside facilities, with continued as- surance of financial feasibility. We wish to acknowledge our appreciation of the assistance we received from all of those who participated in the plan, in particular, your Aviation Division, the Florida Department of Transportation, the airlines and the Federal Aviation Administration. We look forward to a continuing good relationship. Sincerely, LANDRUM & BROWN • TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING DIVISION Of BOOZ•ALLEN d HAMILTON INC. :. :r �� 3 ., TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter No. Title Page No. Table of Contents i List of Exhibits ii List of Tables iii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Background Information I-1 Study Objectives I-2 CHAPTER II FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Findings II-1 Master Plan Recommendations II-7 CHAPTER III AIRPORT REQUIREMENTS Inventory III-1 Aviation Demand Forecasts III-1 Demand/Capacity Analysis III-7 • Facility Requirements III-15 CHAPTER IV DOCUMENTATION & EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PLANS Airfield Alternatives IV-2 Terminal Complex Site Alternatives IV-7 Preferred Terminal Complex IV-14 Environmental Summary IV-25 CHAPTER V AIRPORT PLANS Airport Layout Plan V-2 Terminal Area Plans V-6 Airport Access Plans V-8 Land Use Plan V-12 CHAPTER VI FINANCIAL PLANS Schedule of Developments VI-1 Estimated Cost of the Program VI-2 Economic Feasibility VI-4 Financing Plan VI-7 0 i - LIST OF EXHIBITS • Exhibit No. Title - Page No. II-1 Airport Layout Plan II-8 II-2 Estimated Cost Distribution H-11 III-1 Total Enplanements and Commercial Operations III-6 III-2 Total Air Carrier Peak Hour Demand/Capacity Relationship III-10 III-3 Peak Hour Demand/Capacity/Relationships for Air Carrier Demand Components III-10 IV-1 Runway Development Options IV-4 IV-2 Alternative Terminal Sites IV-13 • IV-3 Alternative Terminal Concepts IV-16 V-1 Airport Layout Plan V-3 V-2 Terminal Area Plan V-7 V-3 Airport Access Plans V-9 V-4 F.A.R. Part 77 V-14 V-5 1995 Noise Impact V-15 VI-1 Funding and Sources VI-10 • ii LIST OF TABLES • Table No. Title Page No. III-1 Enplaned Passenger Forecasts III-3 III-2 Annual Commercial Operations III-4 III-3 General Aviation and Military Demand Forecasts III-8 III-4 Terminal Area Requirements III-13 III-5 Terminal Requirements by Functional Areas III-19 III-6 General Aviation Area Requirements III-22 IV-1 Data Summary Runway Evaluation IV-6 IV-2 Terminal q i al Area Requirements IV-8 • IV-3 Evaluation Summary IV-18 IV-4 Air Quality Analysis Results IV-27 iu i I s M Y•r M"1c+•r{+Z"y i t `"_ p^ y:. rt , 4 4 ,f Itti�. ✓.. M' ' 'r�i r a i •� yTt�`S�wNi'�.5� � �k'� P }¢ n 1► � . .. � s • i�.t k A.ta C�'r� !� } ). 1. P�.• V � , - ' x - 1 ov j� t' r K. X ' rlt ti G CHAPTER I w INTRODUCTION ,we w Y.r .N 1, BACKGROUND INFORMATION f Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (FLL) is one of four r{ air carrier airports in the Southeast Region (Gold Coast Area) of Florida. As recommended by the 1975 Florida Aviation System Plan (FASP) , Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, Key West International Airport, Miami International Airport, and the Palm Beach International Airport have adequate capacity and expansion potentia l to serve the commercial air carrier . needs into the 1990's. Specific findings related to FLL generally concluded: The airport is well located with respect to Broward County • travelers, as well as air travelers from north Dade and south Palm Beach counties. In order for full utilization of the airport to be developed, the airport must expand its present airside and landside facilities. To effectively address the expansion requirements, and to meet the guidelines of Federal financial assistance, a master plan should be immediately initiated. In 1975, a Master Plan Study for FLL was initiated by Broward County. Utilizing the data from the FASP, and recognizing the severity of the prob- lem at landside, Broward County Commissioners initiated a concurrent New Terminal Concept Study, designed to examine detailed alternative landside development options in concert with the Master Plan. The Raster Plan was developed under the guidelines of the Airport • and Airways Development Act of 1970, as amended. The Act established a Planning Grant Program, administered by the FAA, which provides Federal financial assistance to eligible airport planning projects, and establishes specific study guidelines to ensure that a thorough, coordinated, long-range master plan is developed. Under the Federal PGP format, the Master Plan was developed to address the five, ten and twenty-year development plans at FLL. 2. STUDY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Within the Planning Grant Program, the Federal Aviation Administra- tion has established certain objectives that all master plans must meet: • Determine a recommended development plan from among alternatives which represents the best solution for accom- modating forecast demand, giving consideration to opera- tional, environmental and socio-economic factors. Provide an effective graphic presentation of the ultimate development of the airport and of anticipated land uses adjacent to the airport. . Establish a schedule of priorities and phasing for the various improvements proposed in the plan. • Present the pertinent backup information and data essen- tial in establishing the proposed plan. Provide a concise and descriptive report so that the impact and logic of the recommendations can be clearly understood by the community the airport serves and by those authorities and public agencies charged with approval, promotion and funding of the improvements proposed in the airport master plan. • I-2 In order to meet these objectives, the Master Plan Study incorporated • the approach outlined in Advisory Circular 150/5070-6, Airport Master Plans. The approach basically included four steps: Determine airport requirements. Develop and analyze alternative airport development plans and select the preferred alternative. • Develop an airport layout plan. • Determine the economic feasibility of the recommended development program and a plan for financing it. The purpose of this Master Plan was to determine a specific development plan to accommodate the air carrier and general aviation demand anticipated to occur at FLL in the next twenty years. • Although master plan study guidelines recommend the development of an Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR) , such a report was not completed during this initial step of the planning phase. Large demands for Federal financial assistance and limited available Federal funds required that the EIAR be developed q to ed subsequent to the Master Plan. However, to en- sure that the recommendations reflect aviation, environmental and economic factors, significant environmental impacts as well as the aviation and econ- omic factors were studied during the Master Plan. The findings of the Master Plan will be further evaluated in a subsequent Environmental Impact Assess- ment specifically undertaken to ensure that the recommended m ent Report study, p y plan is environmentally acceptable and that no prudent or feasible alterna- tives were prematurely discarded. I-3 In the remaining chapters of this summary, the findings and recom- mendations are summarized, followed by a brief description of the airport requirements, alternative development plans, the recommended airport plans, and the economic feasibility studies and financing plans. For detailed discussions of this material, refer to the TECHNICAL SUPPLEMENT, FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (FLL) MASTER PLAN REPORT, VOLUME H. • I-4 .t �,- •: �' ram! � �'�... - , IF .. , -r. ? u'i `YSt,. •��ti.•�' .aj rj�'c.r- '7•�y�`a,'n�.,t s.wl xti,,,: �1f'Yi _ . .. ah h;� ��••.�.► T j i �'+.�' -R.a .r+,.r t�Y j, .a' ��`S; Y.v.1..'. .��r�},Jt.•n.j� r��1'a� c� ifa ��t� - ! _. •.�. j'.t:_ -•a'.•.�w:.�'';-:i �r- 't •.;.�.' �"f'�-�1 r, 1�%„ /` 'vM a -•{•.- ~ i +�.'i �''�4 .l .or t,. '-It_- r -- - i.. .rt..-i"�t,. �,Y' •.Cy. - �,.. .:.�,� i s.i � .-� fy. •�•� aY r �t+e �' a ti. �Z� r i _ � r.• - w a R♦ � < w a..1 it r ]: 1 • � T .{{ -'o • =•� itt: ^ - f 'v'a{1 r �/•�i ER �t..JC` � - t, t` e! Y'. a wr r. �+ _•'�r;��;.�.r-rs t- * a el A- -'''xa r 2 ? _1 ti • �r _ _ • .r. !.i /. :.r ,' 4 ti., F. V atw.t- r; - +3 4 ..' I y �-•�4'K,�,,ti. , _'.i 1"'` � ,� .• 3•. �' � .y. .- '- - _' �. _ • a `= °� sr FINDINGS=AND rRECOMMtNDA' TIONS. '` ?• "_ �j y+, Y,� <N. rt h a•.w_ r;F- f -. a.^ 4 a=. ') Z .a r. Y - t- • ti,. - 1 � � `s h r��a. t;a r+� t ;. ^_au'o+"++ ♦ rr_ + ti +v t'Y y ) y - T .. 0. - >• -rr, _ >� � +t r 't�� ` ' si _ a t. ~ ... - a •. .Z.t �i }`-t-e�♦��'�+'•si- iz �' ' •• r` � _ 3Y � s +< � -.1"'',:- ,,..tea t. 2 :�• •. •�.1' , ': ��-`,--•.r. _,t •-r. re y(-`�..r��•u. _a - - � � .r � �� y ti.2,�,�,,7�i,E-.�=r,.l- / - l•r'? �� •y i '. Y.�'�ii> tws�t�♦Y'y� s � -- 3 j _ :I r' a • } ,_sr �-y'; ` `at -�.{+'~ � at a ° • -` .i / .a y,Via__ - •- .'• '' Z' .. J L,�� s..-y v I:� - _ i -rr • X',: a qq ti a/fi�d.-•..:v•.>r• •: •.<, 'f� i,• r �+ , _ ,h..1 j ;Y .iti —•,}?. •'-tk,- .b a' S• �� it ' n M`a-►x`• •. t-' �rii,,.o�' `� t y+- , 2 — r j.. to� .fl', ��.' � r,a:�j.. I x' lr.. .t lv t ✓ i .'�'s�° `-- 14 • _ _L.• ., ._ .. .. r-', t�� y �_��{ w -. _ � �+'. ^ -• - 'Ir i 9, �.r"t i;tri r._ �Ks":"S'�f�K�. `ti I,_.r ^j. �. 4`v- y 't• 4 I .:� Y 4,�:'. a .�(' I.' I .y L ayy 1+.. � � y� a '� `.�..* .�► w"i t�� •r" •r!•_ '. „�:-r {•tr t � a�'iat�i� <<S•-�.c•7>;�� .` - - G� ; i''t' .y. F..._ .r l-ti :+.• j:7-,. •� a ;' �. :7t'..�t e.r 4 1 a_`s .. ♦.r %` r. i r••+oea: '�'<? - �• :.-« -t:' '., •"'�:)ir�1 r T i i..''N .,G_..f,. a_- t: ,y. �,a� .rI f. ' .+.. _ _ - •�' �' ...y-y ".• . ti ';+ :1 `'t we�,: a "I' � •j•: :o�t p.�,v..� s3�;f_v�-.,,r. _ 1'S t. � a r+ , .r !.-' _ i J.'� •a•' ' �.a' _rr )'+' �« {�-^4Lr+I af.�r::.. - i �•- <. :�- / }ai' v Lr r;:f - ! fr.,�.1 a r•^ . a"`t ->��rti.- 1w.� tr+ <X w� yr. �•:+=3 .. > .. r 1 ^♦ • s ��. r ya \ 7►s:i� S- .c. ... _ ,y .3.t:-,a - .� .- r- -�' _ fir►-, CHAPTER H • F • FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FINDINGS To provide a sequenced and logical description of the major findings of the Master Plan Study, the following areas are used as sub-sections of the overall plan findings: Air traffic - where forecasts of passengers and aircraft are provided for the five, ten and twenty-year (long range) time frames. • Demand/Capacity - which describes the ability of the existing facilities to accommodate the forecasts and establishes the baseline for future development. • . Facility Requirements - which describe quantitatively the required facilities. Environmental Considerations - which describe the existing environmental conditions at FLL. Financial Plans - which describe the economic feasi- bility of the proposed development. Each of the major areas are described in the following sections. (1) Air Traffic i The initial step in the Master Plan Program was to develop forecasts of aviation demand for FLL. Inventory data including historical records of aviation activity, socio-economic data about Broward County, and national trends in aviation and business • activity forecasts of aviation activity were developed for use in c ty ty the forecasting process. Forecasts of enplaned passengers and aircraft operations significantly impact the design of facilities and are, therefore, summarized in this section. More detailed descriptions of the forecasts are presented in a later chapter and in VOLUME H, THE TECHNICAL SUPPLEMENT. 1. Enplaned Passengers Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport has been and continues to be one of the fastest growing airports in the nation. Passenger enplanements have grown dramatically since 1968, with exponential growth rates occurring in the years 1967-1973. The following data includes the historical passenger data as well as the pas- senger forecasts. Total Year Passengers i 1967 495,279 1969 1,301,668 1971 2,067,877 1973 3,181,196 1976 4,200,000 Forecasts 1980 6,509,800 1985 8,872,200 1990 1995 15,329,600 As shown in the table, the strong growth trend his- torically exhibited by the airport is expected to continue, but at a slower rate. By 1985, over 8 million passengers are expected to utilize the facility, while over 15 million are forecast in 1995. Of the 4.2 million passengers uti- lizing the airport in 1976. more than 92 percent of the passengers are originating or terminating at FLL, with only 8 percent of the passengers connecting with other • flights. II-2 Detailed analysis of the peaking character istics indicate that due to the Florida tourist season, December is the deplaning peak month while April is the enplan- ing peak month, with more than 50 percent of the annual traffic occurring in the four season months. 2. Annual Aircraft Operations Similar to enplanements, commercial aircraft operations are forecast to increase, but not as signif- icantly as the passenger forecasts. The following data lists historical and forecast values for commer- cial aircraft activity. Annual Air Year Carrier Operations 1969 28,345 1969 51,666 1971 50,423 1973 85,187 1976 89,364 • Forecasts 1980 107,718 1985 132,768 1990 169,091 1995 208,545 The slower growth rate in operations is attributable to the newer and larger aircraft (L-1011 or DC-10) being e fleet and to the higher load factors introduced to the g (from 40 to 60-70 percent) being experienced as a re- sult of the fuel crisis of 1974-75. General aviation forecasts were also developed; however, due to the primary mission of FLL being identified to serve the air carrier traffic, general aviation activity will be constrained to provide facil- ities for commercial activity. H-3 (2) Demand/Capacity Quantitative techniques were used to examine the capability of the existing airport to accommodate future levels of demand. Major findings of the demand capacity analysis included: FLL has sufficient airfield capacity, annual and peak hour, to accommodate forecast levels of demand. In the 1993-1995 time frame, peak 49ur demands will approach peak hour capacity, and in subsequent planning efforts, this near capacity situation should be further studied. Although the airline interim expansion program provided aircraft parking positions, severe defi- ciencies exist in access, parking, curbfront and terminal building facilities. General aviation facilities can be accommodated at • FL L, but in a manner designed to maximize the air carrier development of the airport. Additionally, as development options are identified, expansion requirements for the Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) , and Air- port Surveillance Radar (ASR) , and the fuel farm, airline and air- port maintenance areas, flight kitchens, and other terminal ancil- lary services must be considered. (3) Facility Requirements Incorporating the findings of the demand/capacity analysis with FAA and industry planning standards, the following set of • facility requirements have been identified: II-4 Airfield - Since demand may reach capacity by 1994, capacity improving techniques should be explored. Additional runways, instrumentation levels, and airfield support systems should be analyzed in light of aeronautical, environmental and cost considera- tions. , Terminal - The existing terminal area requires immediate expansion. Deficiencies exist in the following areas: 1976 1985 Existing Requirements Terminal Building 296,160 S.F. 624,820 S.F. Ticket Counter Length 539 L.F. 730 L.F. Bag Claim Length 540 L.F. 875 L.F. Aircraft Parking Positions 26 30 Automobile Parking 4,080 Stalls 7,465 Stalls .. -"Additional instrumentation to runway R will improve the GA runway and enable it to be used to accommodate peak hour demands for selected small air carrier aircraft. GA facilities should be developed • in conjunction with GA forecasts, on an as needed basis. r+. (4) Environmental Considerations To ensure that the appropriate alternative development option has been identified, environmental studies were undertaken to ad- dress local environmental issues. Evaluation items included: Noise - NEF contour and land use analyses w Air Quality - development of pollutant numbers JI and comparison to standards, where appropriate Water Quality - quality impacts as well as an � a evaluation of supply and drainage systems •M . Y j `3 A II-5 F, M - Other considerations included: • - Solid Waste impacts of Regional Plan - Flora and Fauna inventory for endangered • species - Recreational, Cultural and Historic Sites inventory - Archeological examination for archeological findings and designated dig areas. Subsequent environmental studies must be undertaken to improve the analysis and to provide the necessary documentation and public hearing requirements prior to initiating final design and construction activities. (5) Financial Plans The economic feasibility of the recommended airport develop- • ment plan was developed to ensure that throughout the evaluation process, financial feasibility questions were answered. The mag- nitude of the funding requirements for the recommended develop- ments were such that both enplanement and discretionary FAA Federal funds are required to develop the airport. . The $120 million 1985 recommended plan requires approximately $177 mil- lion in total project costs including fees, contingencies and inflation. Using comparative measures of industry accepted ratios, and other similar airport data, the financial program and related rate and charge schedule required to support the improvements was considered feasible. Further studies are required, however, to examine in more detail the financial um- II-6 plications of the recommendations. A lengthy discussion of feasibility and financial planning is found in Chapter VIII, FINANCIAL PLANS, of the TECHNICAL SUPPLEMENT. 2. MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS The recommended development plan for Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood 'r.. International Airport is shown in Exhibit II-1. The plan includes a new terminal complex to the southwest portion of airport property, with a major access link provided via a new interchange with I-95. The major considerations leading to the recommendation included, but were not limited to: . The existing site does not have adequate acreage to expand to the long-range requirements of the airport. • . The location of U.S. 1/A 1A and the FEC railroads constrain expansion to the east. The cost of overpasses required to remove grade crossings contribute significantly to the infeasibility of this expansion concept. In order to provide a balanced system between access. landside and airside, the southwest site must be developed as the air carrier complex. The existing airport site is surrounded by constraints that limit its expansion in several directions. Therefore, the improvements, for the most part, must occur on airport property. The costs associated with providing additional runway capacity through the addition of a new air carrier runway, make the addition infeasible. However, comparison of forecast peak hour operation levels to peak hour runway capacity levels reveal that subsequent planning efforts must examine the runway situation. II-7 1 � p I-VIC' At 14 3 Its ir ice• - y I 1 w G Rz ,e, Daa 27 27 Or 110 till I {: i 7G lit jo .io Ain z ri In light of the above improvements in the areas of instru- mentation and runways, operational plans must be developed to make the best use of the existing runway configuration. Having identified the southwest corner of airport property as the desirable location for development, the terminal concept study identified alternative concepts that could be developed at that site. A number of al- ternative terminal plans were examined using data matrixes and ranking procedures designed to identify the concept that provides the best combi- nation of operational features, convenience levels, environmental feasi- bility issues, and aesthetic factors. (1) Highlights of the Plan The recommended plan includes: Installation of instrumentation on 9R to assist GA • aircraft during bad weather conditions. Construction of a 30 gate airside and landside balanced terminal facility on the southwest side of airport property. Construction of an improved I-95 interchange at Griffin Road to provide direct access with I-95, north and south. Continue to develop the local access system to the airport to support the new interchange concept. Construct appropriate apron and taxiway improve- ments to accommodate air carriers on the southwest side of the field. . Expansion of ancillary facilities on an as needed basis to meet demand of the new terminal. • Expand the airport through 1995 to meet forecast levels of demand. • Staging of the recommended plan was developed to accom- modate anticipated traffic levels while minimizing interruption to airport operations. As shown in Exhibit H-1, the plan included the ability to incrementally expand the terminal area, as well as I provide major expansion potential in the fourth airside unit. 1 i (2) Recommended Plan Costs Total construction costs of the 1995 plan is set at $126 million, reflecting a third quarter 1978 project start date. Using a factor to account for fees, contingencies and inflation, this figure in- creases to approximately $177 million total program costs. Federal funds are expected to be utilized for the apron, taxiway and access • improvement programs.. As shown in Exhibit II-2 approximately p p g pp ately one third of the $177 million is eligible for FAA participation, with the remaining portions to be supplied by airline passengers using the terminal and other (FLADOT) participating agencies. i II-10 • • it • • • • r .' _. am';' 4. -.�.. � €-of 3t-,"^ --.&'C: --� � ar..*F- �i�`._-��*�._�•j�� -c t"gin'L, ` s. .�. c_ � ,• _ � - - _ .. � .wxn'� E- .. e. - _-. � -s�...2 �� s. �/� :fit- •- - � - t� K V an wtv .-fir �f .-. _�_ �{.- t_ •'S��°• �:•F�� ••J' �l� «fit-•.� . I '� TI, a' r Ni I. tit r is CHAPTER III - - ,,l ;• - _. .. :.ems .X-�`'• - _ .-. � "• •, - AIRPORT REQUIREMENTS i • p i•�Y 14 CHAPTER III 'J i AIRPORT REQUIREMENTS �K 4: .x' fn. in a Airport Requirements phase of There are four mayor elements the rp eq the Master Plan: . Inventory Aviation Demand Forecasts Demand/Capacity Analysis Facility Requirements Each of these elements is summarized in the following sections. 1. INVENTORY The inventory element consisted principally of interviews with airport management, airport tenants, local planners and aviation agencies and the collection and review of numerous source data and reference materials. The information gathered is described and reflected throughout the entire study documentation. �I 2. AVIATION DEMAND FORECASTS In general, forecasting of aviation demand is carried out in two steps. First, demonstrated past trends in the growth of demand elements are ex- tended into the future using statistical methods and assumptions about the future. Future trend lines developed in this manner are called projections. BY development ment and examination of a number of such projections, it is possible to identify a growth range within which there is high probability that the actual trend will lie. The second step in the process is judgmental. Through examination of various growth projections for a particular demand element and studies of the general character and economic base of the com- munity served by the airport, a subjective determination is made of the forecast. Y In the Florida Aviation System Plan (FASP), projections of many of the demand elements analyzed for Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport were developed, and were used as a basis of the Master Plan fore- casts. The FASP projections were first reviewed and updated in light of more current historical data, and then refined to the detailed level required for master planning. The techniques utilized to refine the FASP projections • encompassed the two steps outlined above. A summary of the passenger demand forecast is shown in Table III-1. Total enplanements 1/ are anticipated to grow over four times the 1974 level of 1,713,000 to 7,665,000 in 1995. Domestic scheduled enplanements will account for over 90 percent of total enplaned passengers throughout the fore- cast period. Forecasts were also developed for annual commercial aircraft oper- ations 2/ and these operations forecasts are listed in Table III-2 . Commer- 1/ An enplaned passenger is defined as originating passengers plus connecting passengers. 2/ An operation is defined as a landing or a takeoff. • j III-2 TABLE III-1 • Enplaned Passenger Forecasts t FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Enplaned Passengers (0001s) Forecast Element 1974 1980 1985 1990 1995 Domestic Enplanements 1,627.7 3*088.1 4,162.1 5,436.2 6,943.2 by First & Second Level Carriers International Enplanements 19.1 23.0 35.0 53.4 81.3 by First & Second Level Carriers Third Level Enplane- 60.8 107.2 176.6 297.6 501.4 m enis Domestic & International Enplanements by Supple- 5.6 38.6 6204 95.1 138.9 mental Carriers Total Annual Enplane- 1,713.2 3,254.9 4,436.1 5,882.3 7,664.8 ments Peak Month/Average Day/ 1,223 24323 3,166 4,198 5,470 Peak Hour Enplanements 1/ 1/ Data is given as whole numbers not in (000's) . III-3 i TABLE III-2 Annual Commercial Operations FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Commercial Aircraft Operations Forecast Element 1974 1980 1985 1990 1995 Domestic Operations by 63,668 93,939 113,980 142,788 168,464 First & Second Level Carriers International Operations 626 1,253 1,253 1,253 1,879 by First & Second Level Carriers Third Level Operations 14,271 11,273 15,656 22,545 35,071 Domestic & International • Operations by Supple- 134 1,253 1,879 2,505 3,131 mental Carriers Total Commercial 78,699 107,718 132,768 169,091 208,545 Operations Peak Month/Average Day/ 22 30 37 47 59 Peak Hour Commercial Operations III-4 cial operations are forecast to grow approximately 2.7 times 1974 operations through 1995. This large growth rate in commercial levels t g operations g g versus commercial enplanements (fourfold) is attributable to the entry of higher capacity aircraft (i.e. , DC-10, L-1011) into the fleet mix replacing the aircraft in current use (i.e., DC-9-30) at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport. To illustrate the general trends of forecast enplane- ments and aircraft operations, Exhibit III-1 contains a graphic presentation P P of the data. A key element of aviation activity at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood Inter- national Airport is general aviation demand. Two forecasts of general avia- tion demand were developed: unconstrained, or unlimited growth; and con- strained demand. It was recognized that the airport would have insurmount- able problems accommodating the forecast unconstrained general aviation • operations. As such, a limit on growth was assumed by subtracting com- mercial aircraft operations from the estimated annual capacity of the airfield, 456,000 operations, and allocating the remainder to general aviation and military operations. The level of general aviation operations that can be expected is based principally on the number of based aircraft. The term "based aircraft" de- scribes corporate or privately owned aircraft whose owners lease or rent space to hangar or park the aircraft at the airport on a long-term basis. The III-5 EXHIBIT III-1 Total Enplanements and Commercial Operations FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD • INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Total Enplanements 8,000 7,000 0 c 6,000 v C 5,000 �c' 4,000 �o a: w 3,000 2,000 1,000 • O 1974 1976 1980 1985 1990 1995 Total Commercial Operations 250,000 200,000 150,000 c 0 L I, 100,000 O • 50,000 0 1974 1980 198S 1990 199S p - • forecast can be derived b employingan operations per based air- craft o y p p craft factor. This factor includes estimates of the number of operations to be -" performed by the based aircraft as well as aircraft operations performed by ~k 4; other than based aircraft but generated as a result of the airport's availability. In the case of Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, the constrained general aviation operations forecast was defined and a based aircraft forecast was derived by application of operations per based aircraft factors. Opera- tions per based aircraft factors used in the Master Plan included 1980 - 700; 1985 - 800; 1990 - 900. The forecast of constrained general aviation operations and based air- craft, and the forecast of military operations developed for Fort Lauderdale- . • Hollywood International Airport is presented in Table III-3. Forecasts of annual enplaned cargo and mail were also developed and total tonnage of these elements is projected to grow from 0,383 tons in 1974 to 45,160 tons in 1995. Additional information regarding each of these forecasts can be found in VOLUME II, CHAPTER III, DEMAND FORECASTS, of the TECHNICAL SUPPLE- MENT. 3. DEMAND/CAPACITY ANALYSIS The objective of the demand/capacity analysis is to identify present and future factility deficiencies in the airfield, terminal, general aviation and'sup- • III-7 TABU, General Aviatit,. .r_ 1ilitary Demand FORT LAUDERDA:z_a,i,LYWOOD INTERNATIOI;,�„=:40RT 1980 1985 199C --- ----.._. 1995 Constrained General 342,300 317,800 280,91. 241,500 Aviation Operations Military Operations 6,000 61000 - 6,000 • Total Operations 348,300 323,800 286,9V 247,500 Constrained Based 489 397 241 Aircraft Constrained Peak Hour 124 115 1t� 88 GA and Military Oper- ations • III-8 port facility functions. The results of the specific analyses are summarised d ; as follows• 4 x (1) Airfield Using standard industry techniques, an hourly and annual capacity for the existing airfield was determined. The capacity ' is a function of delay and should not be interpreted as an abso- .t t . µ= lute maximum as some additional operations can be accommodated but only with increasing levels of delay. The results of the existing airfield's hourly demand/capacity analysis are shown in Exhibit III-2. As can be seen in this ex- hibit, the capacity of runway 9L/27R, the principal air carrier runway,. when tested with total air carrier peak hour demands • (first, second and third level) will be sufficient to accommo- date the expected demands through 1990. Exhibit III-3 depicts other available options for operating the existing airfield under peak hour demand conditions. The two conditions which are presented indicate the following: Open V Configuration - This configuration sug- gests utilization of both runway 13/31 and 9L/27R during the peak hour and subjecting the configu- ration to various combined segments of peak hour air carrier demands. When tested with total air carrier peak hour demand, the capacity of this con- figuration is deficient by 1993. If only first and second level air carrier demands are tested against this configuration, there is adequate capacity do • beyond 1995. However, in the open V, no general III-9 EXHIBITS III-2 and III-3 a Demand/Capacity Relationships FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD `€ INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 4. EXHIBIT III-2 AIR CARRIER Total Air Carrier 1/ TOTAL 70 Peak Hour Demand PEAK HOUR DEMAND/CAPACITY 60 + RELATIONSHIP PHOCAP: 50 Single Rwy.. 9L/27R �w 40 Projected Peak Hour x 30 Capacity Deficiency a 20 10 Total First, Second & Third Level Air 1/ Carrier Demands • 1980 1985 1990 1995 Year EXHIBIT 111-3 Total Air Carrier Peak Hour Demand PEAK HOUR DEMAND/ 70 (1st & 2nd Level Plus CAPACITY/RELATIONSHIPS 3rd Level Demand) FOR"AIR CARRIER 60 PHOCAP: Open V (13/31 & 9L/27R) DEMAND COMPONENTS 50 PHOCAP: Single R . 9L/2 7R 40 U Projected Peak Hour x 30 Capacity Deficiency a 1st & 2nd Level Carrier 20 Peak Hour Demand 10 1980 1985 1990 1995 Year t 7 aviation demands could be satisfied during the peak ' hour and there are undesirable noise impacts re- "} sulting from the frequent utilization of 13/31 by air carrier aircraft. Sind'le Runway Configuration 9L/27R - As �.., mentioned earlier, when the capacity of the single primary air carrier runway, 9L/27R. is tested r:. with forecast total air carrier peak hour demands, a capacity deficiency occurs in approximately 1989. Whereas, if only first and second level air carrier demands are to be accommodated by 9L/27R,, peak hour capacity is marginally defi- v . cient by 1995. Since runway 9L/27R is the primary air carrier runway, and runway 9R/27L has runway length and instrumentation limitations which preclude its current use as an air carrier facility, the reso- lution of the peak hour air carrier capacity deficiency over the long- term is of initial concern and capacity improvement options should i be explored. The practical annual capacity (PANCAP) of Fort Lauderdale- Hollywood International Airport decreases from its 1975 capacity of 456,000 operations to 409,000 in 1995 due to the increase of wide- bodied aircraft which require greater traffic flow separation. The results of this analysis when compared with forecast operational demands by each segment of traffic indicate that annual capacity will be deficient by approximately 1980; however, by constraining general aviation activity, adequate annual capacity is available to accommodate air carrier and military operations plus a portion of general aviation. In this analysis, a design ceiling of 456,000 annual operations was employed throughout the 20 year planning horizon. III-11 to equivalently evaluate the impact of alternatives on capacity and • delay. These alternatives and their impacts are discussed in the following chapter. (2) Terminal Area The terminal area demand/capacity analysis included a translation of peak hour and annual forecast passengers and aircraft operations into units of comparison with existing facil- ities (i.e. , square feet, square yards, aircraft gates, curb- frontage, roadway lanes, etc.) . The results of this analysis indicated that the terminal building, aircraft apron, automobile parking and roadway are presently deficient in the quantity of space needed to meet the demands of even the earliest planning • year. This reinforces the decision already made by Broward County to implement the present interim expansion program. This program will, to some degree, compensate for the current inadequacy of terminal area until a long range solution can be implemented. Table III-4 details the terminal area requirements i in terms of total acreage needed for the various terminal func- tions. (3) General Aviation The unconstrained general aviation forecasts for Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport indicated a potential for over one million general aviation aircraft operations by 1995. III-12 # � TABLE III-4 p Terminal Area Requirements FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT fY t y' * ` Existing Acreage Required -: Acreage 1980 1985 1990 1995 S . Terminali/ Building 6.80 12.3 14.3 16.4 18.2 Aircraft Apron 30.00 37.4 44.9 53.8 62.8 Automobile?/ Parking 29.95 48.6 65.3 86.3 111.8 Roadway!/ 10.55 17.5 18 18.5 19.0 TOTAL 77.30 115.8 142.5 175.0 211.8 • 1/ Includes terminal proper and concourse. 2/ Includes separate rent-a-car ready and storage lots at grade. 3/ Includes only roadway in terminal area, exclusive of site selected. III 13 The airport's capacity cannot be developed sufficiently to accom- modate this demand for many reasons. The principal reasons in- clude the limited amount of land available, the primary air carrier mission of the airport and the physical and environmental con- straints upon the airport in its present location. As such, the general aviation demand/capacity analysis was based upon the constrained general aviation demands. �- T-hangar and conventional hangar demands are expected to decrease over the 20 year planning horizon. However, T-hangar demand will be in excess of that currently available to beyond 1990. Adequate general aviation ramp, terminal and auto parking space is available to accommodate demand. • (4) Air Cargo Facilities Based on forecast air cargo tonnages and implementation of planning guidelines, air cargo facility space demands will exceed the available cargo facility capacity throughout the 20 year design period. Approximately 2.4 acres are required in 1980, growing to 6.7 acres in 1995; whereas, only 1.8 acres are currently avail- able for cargo processing, storage and handling. (5) Ancillary Facilities Additional facilities for each of the following functions will be • required in order to resolve expected capacity deficiencies or be- . cause of other operational requirements: III-14 Air Traffic Control Tower Crash, Fire and Rescue • Flight Kitchens Aircraft Maintenance Fuel Farm ., 4. FACILITY REQUIREMENTS In this part of the study, present and future facility requirements for the airfield, terminal, general aviation, air cargo and ancillary support fa- cilities were identified. Each of these functional areas are discussed in the following paragraphs. (1) Air_ The airfield demand/capacity analysis recognized that the air hour demand would exceed the capacity of 9L/27R b carrier peak p tY Y 1980. An option exists to prolong the capacity of runway 9L/27R by shifting a portion of third level air carrier demand to runway 9R/27L thus extending the peak hour capacity to meet approx- imately 1994 requirements. However, several other options and considerations which deserve discussion are presented in detail in the Identification and Evaluation of Alternatives chapter and highlighted in the following paragraphs: Do nothing and accept higher delays - by allowing j the airport to continue to operate in its current pattern with increased demands and without any airfield improvements through the design period.. III-15 i I i Shift third level demand to 911 by upgrading the • instrumentation on 9R/27L. This option would extend the capacity of 9L/27R until 1994 or an additional 5 years or 17 years from the publica- tion of this report. • Utilize the open "V" configuration. This config- uration would provide sufficient capacity to accom- modate all air carrier deamnds through 1993; how- ever, there are environmental/noise impacts asso- ciated with this operation which identify it as having questionable practicality. • Provide additional runways. Provision of a second air carrier runway can be expected to resolve the peak hour capacity deficiency through 1995 if ade- quate lateral runway separation, length and instru- mentation can be achieved. In addition, it should be kept in mind that: Aviation demand forecasts are inherently sub- ject to change, especially over a long range 20 year time period. Also, the elements of the demand could change based upon future changes in energy supply, the economy, etc. Finally, aviation is subject to rapidly changing technology, much of which is oriented to in- creasing the capacity of airports with better in- strumentation, aircraft technology, etc. As such, the airfield could operate as it does today during the peak hour until after 1990. This result, however, will occur only with a shift of third level activity to 9R/27L and constraining general aviation activity during the peak hour. Therefore, the airfield facility requirements are subject to the evaluation of • alternatives to determine the applicable airfield layout. III-16 } _} To complement the implementation of a minimal development 3 •program, at least the following developments are required: Runway 9R/27L should be widened ultimately to t,x 150 feet and a non-precision localizer approach should be installed. 4. Adequate taxiways should be added and exist- ing taxiways upgraded to address wide-bodied w (DC-10, L-1011) aircraft needs. 6 Based on the primary air carrier mission at Fort Lauderdale- Hollywood International Airport, which is to serve medium range (1,500 mile maximum) domestic markets, the existing primary runway length of 8,048 feet is adequate with 7,500 feet being the minimal requirement. •In regard to runway and taxiway pavement strength, it will be necessary to upgrade some existing airport surfaces which were designed for lighter aircraft loads than are projected to occur. The findings of the demand/capacity analysis also indicated that the IFR design hour demand will exceed capacity by 1991 and that hourly IFR capacity will have to be unproved in order to ac- commodate forecast IFR hourly demand. Therefore, it is recom- mended that the approach light system to runway 9L be imple- III-17 • mented, as currently programmed and a compass locater be installed at the outer marker to 9L and an RVR be placed on 9L. In addition, it is recommended that runway 9R receive a localizer approach and an approach light system, and runway ends 9R, 27L, 27R, 13 and 31 be provided with Runway End Identification Lights (REIL) . Run- way marking and lighting should also be upgraded in accordance with the instrumentation requirements. Additional supporting facilities, as well as land acquisition or easements may be required as the airfield is further developed. (2) Terminal • Table III-5 indicates that the terminal building requirements will grow from a current level of approximately 293,000 square feet to almost 800,000 square feet by 1995, over a two and one-half fold increase. It is recognized that the existing terminal facility is very deficient and interim expansions have been developed to temporarily accommodate these additional space needs. The deficiencies in terminal space include the ticket counter areas, baggage claim, passenger holdrooms, general circulation, and inbound and outbound baggage processing, and curbfront- age. • III-18 TABLE III-5 Terminal Requirements by Functional Areas 1/ • FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (1976) Existing Functional Square Required Square Footage Area Footage 1980 1985 1990 1995 Airline 181,517 214,420 249,930 285,780 316,880 Public 91,543 209,060 243,680 278,630 308,960 Concessions 8,295 53,610 62,480 71,440 79,220 Management 3,600 2/ 10,1720 12,500 14,290 15,840 • Utility 7=489 48,240 56_230 64,300 71_300 Total 292,557 3/ 536,050 624,820 714*440 792,200 1/ Includes concourse spaces. 2/ Presently separate from existing terminal, not included in existing square footage total. 3/ Includes 3,713 square feet of space which is unassigned. • III-19 (3) Aircraft Gate Positions and Parking Apron The existing terminal area has a capacity .of 26 aircraft parking positions. The gate forecast analysis identified a need for 30 gates by 1985 and 40 by 1995. The mix of gates will also change during the design period. In 1985, 56 percent or 17 of the 30 gates should accommodate wide-bodied aircraft; whereas, in 1995, 62 percent or 25 of the 40 gates should be wide-bodied gates. The total air carrier aircraft apron area will also require addition- al space based on the fleet mix variations and the aircraft apron area operating characteristics, and aircraft apron and taxi-lane clearance requirements. Based on the forecast increase in air- craft size and number of gate positions and limited space for • terminal developments, it was concluded that the power in/push out operation be retained. (4) Auto Parking Auto parking refers to public parking (both long and short- term) , rent-a-car parking (ready and storage) , and employee parking. Parking lot facility requirements were based on an analysis of usage patterns which were analyzed in relation to cur- rent and forecast enplaned passengers. The results of that analy- sis for overall parking demand indicate that total parking require- ments will be approximately 12,770 stalls in' 1995 versus approx- imately 4,080 existing stalls. III-20 Y.. pywv q; +e� (5) General Aviation Facilities Due to the constraints placed on general aviation aircraft activ- ity growth at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, the A general aviation area requirements will also be constrained. t. 0 Table III-6 identifies the required units of each general aviation facility requirement which is necessary to accommodate the con- �M 1 ,. strained demand throughout the design period. Although most of the general aviation facility requirements are getting smaller k�f during the design period, the possibility exists that relocation or } replacement of existing facilities may be necessary in order to I Al implement a practical development plan. ha.� a" (6) Air Cargo Facilities- . n• h As mentioned in the demand/capacity analysis, the existing g car o area acreage, which includes equipment apron, loading ,.n dock, auto parking and buildings, consists of approximately 1.8 acres. Approximately 6.7 acres are required through 1995 to accommodate forecast air cargo demands. (7) Ancillary Facilities ," . The type and quantity of air carrier traffic forecast will : . not necessitate the addition of new fire and rescue facilities to x w meet FAR Part 39 requirements; however, relocation of the CFR 4. building is required for operational reasons. 111_21 1 TABLE III-6 • General Aviation Area Requirements FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD f INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Existing Required Units Units 1980 1985 1990 1995 T-Hangars 84 156 127 100 75 Conventional Hangars (SF) 133,600 78,700 63,500 49,400 41,300 Total Tie-Down (SY) 390,000 2120700 238,200 258,200 284,900 • Local Tie-Down (SY) 350,000 190*400 213,500 233,500 261,600 Itinerant Ramp (SY) 40,000 22,300 24,700 24,700 23,300 General Aviation Terminal Building (SF) 37,800 1/ 7,530 7,265 6,650 5,865 Auto Parking Spaces 700 200 195 175 155 1/ Includes office and lounge areas provided in conventional hangars. III-22 The forecast change in fleet mix and aircraft operations will result in additional consumption of aviation fuel at Fort Lauderdale- Hollywood International Airport. In 1974, the fuel storage require- ment was approximately 1.4 million gallons. By 1995, this fuel storage requirement will be approximately 3.8 million gallons. Flight kitchen acreage requirements will increase from the current 5.3 acres to 8 acres in 1995. The existing air traffic control tower is experiencing line of site problems. In coordination with the development of new air passenger terminal facilities, a new tower location should be identified and contain approximately 2 acres. Additionally, al- ternative sites for the Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR) will be • required. Certificated airline maintenance facility requirements are pro- jected to require 10.8 acres by 1995. The airport requirements analyses identified what facilities are needed to meet forecast demands through the design period. These requirements will be analyzed under various alternative development strategies, resulting in the selection of a development plan, in the following chapter, Identification and Evaluation of Alternatives. • III-23 . I. ,t, -, � i,��,} vie by{�y�t• i^�'��,�'.a .I :.•. 1�.�,r�� T��.�>..r�� t. .. ... ,, .. . :'`y.•1.1 .l. t•< � �r{(t Jlt,♦/1-•`a.- -....r-L ,�I• µ,r x�•��"�.� :J•'4•' K.J ,a t •. _ .'t • ,;r i t•f'. b .-3. i';fy./- 'ai_,i'1•': ./`'1.• • r.CI'y a �. ♦ :h T� �1 �;•f!r •�" 21t•.:� •�`u�l,'a•'T . a. a •` l J �� F•i.�•••• - •' -�..r��1..j(�:�ti.'r!� •,• T''.f.u4i�,r�+�' .y:1,f �� r•r..''�. L 1_•`i•r a.,f• slr' "i•• _ y,�'+ -e�4,�i •� ti ':= t�.C;.��'�d•'t• 't� I„ �� <3's�K ..s'!'"F:" .,••I •lf�'. i,;' � '¢'-_- .� f� • l r ,__ ia�6 a -.,,•"�` Y ay.. �rs� •lf�-*1:�(rj��+.tJ�.•. a.l~'.-i `Ja,.,;.,;i.'� •.�t:}. ' ,�: 'L, � �• ``<,�,.M'- �•.i .•.� .. �•.•a.:." r .�J'�,t�:{� ♦.� _•y r .r 1• .. .}i�w•�: •5.�,y r r• a f'•,a ♦ '; r'...w.. S� _ .CHAPTER +• `� � ,al, j a..c°;;+fy. �,t ,�•-`21 ' j�� -� �ti •y 3.��•t •J. r •1 t � ��.r y a •, r E 1 .��a.?f,' �' �J'••. •{ .t.s�.�.l 1 �'-�,�.'etl •r-•J�'�J - _ . . , y !.. , .L Y. + a i i.J.l',�6''�`'�j'a. �' a `�.�, a.r• w.a i�+�i„k: 7. �. • - >+-r- ►.. r .- y `• t .7- n w! 1.: %y •-+{ t �:'/ �i`�j••'�•7Y�z' r:`r�'�w�". '�._ _ IDENTIFICATION, AND'.EVALUATION Y :, •',K :`��4;;, y;r= ,;, `�•: OF ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PLANS`'' At - - � y� � � -s tf �n,�. . t R-... � tk+ ; j- S 1.i.•a't�tarZ`-� ..,;y,a 1'•�•• - . _ .-. - _ r -,. .lam .- s:i - �• _ .. f �..^F•Y,,-y}l .�+ ~.i.J 1:1.'�" • �I.K 40�.rpr. I .Y- Jet,7;•.wr .1 + �• '�••-�Vt,�1 ate. t Y�r.�i• _ ..� � �,. {•Y .r, �; ��,:� yS ram•t•• •. )_� � r - .. -- �_•�- tom. Y 4 ., �.a•�. f s�`r L lrl�+� J-•'~, i1 - f 'C ♦ �,�y[iw;,�.�.j •'l�"' _t. J t �• -',r ).•�j•-r� a .!� J... 1'��T }l - +' Q•d ----) a. 'IT •'.9�-f1it,-'�+fy1.P.+•�. '• ., ♦ - � i a[ •¢ 'J• +.w .'.'.w F i:Qt,�{,.'}:. . .y. '.sr• f •}•;t•%'�3��l!'.+ytr,K.•}� . �: '• Yi s"< - ` .:'- h l 7:,f`•' �' .;�+,•'.,•_ -r•,� �11'ti'�a.�Y .c<r.!✓w.` - ' :I� L ; -!^• , • .'S .f r{�f•.c•f J. �4.p _ i .•,_:`tJ fi �j1 .. - i. .ice 1 - •` •• ,y. ,� y..- � '� .�j.t � r .. .. _ � ! '. S> �� 'r .. •y•, `;f.-:!f�.,��l.�r•�..a.�`,�J.-' .s � Y:{Ate,•�•,�r � 1. a CHAPTER IV . IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION ` OF ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PLANS Y r 1 The Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport will not be able to accommodate 1985 forecast levels of aviation demand with its existing airside and landside facilities. Indeed, the airport is deficient in most areas of land- side facilities today. This chapter identifies the airfield and terminal com- N- plex alternatives that were evaluated in the advancement of the recommended t airport development plan. The identification and evaluation of alternative development plans were developed and described in three sections: • Identification and Evaluation of Airfield Development Alternatives Identification and Evaluation of Alternative Terminal Complex Sites Concept Identification and the Preferred Terminal Concept The remainder of this chapter will describe the steps mentioned above and the selection of the recommended development plan for both the airfield and termin- al complex, and concludes with a discussion of the environmental impacts of the proposed plan. s4 1. IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF AIRFIELD DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES The main objective of the identification and evaluation of alternatives is to identify alternative development programs that will produce a balanced total z airport facility. To adequately do this, it was necessary to first identify the capacity requirements of the airfield system, and to identify alternative run- way configurations to provide the required capacity. Although the airfield considerations initiated the planning investigations, the effort remained flexible to respond to the equally important landside and access considerations. (1) Preliminary Identification and Evaluation of Airfield • Alternatives The airfield demand/capacity analysis indicated that the existing airfield has sufficient capacity to process levels of peak hour demand through 1994, but additional peak hour air carrier airfield capacity may be required to meet peak hour air carrier demands beyond 1994. Examination of the airport's layout, meteorological and environmental conditions indicated that the airfield capacity could be significantly increased through the addition of a second air carrier runway. IV-2 A siting analysis for a potential new runway identified the • nine alternative airfield configurations shown in Exhibit IV-1. These nine runway configurations were structured in such. a fashion as to explore the consequences of providing the re- quired, as well as desirable, airfield facilities. (2) Analysis of Alternative Runway Configurations To narrow the alternatives list to a feasible set which meet the project's objectives, each alternative was subjected to a qualitative evaluation prior to the final detailed quantitative analysis. Each alternative met the following general objectives: Provide significant improvements in air carrier • capacity. Provide the required capacity and be economically feasible to the airport. Enable the carriers to adequately serve Broward County's markets with the existing and forecast aircraft fleet mix. Minimize adverse environmental impacts on the airport's environs. The criteria used to evaluate the proposed alternative devel- opment plans were: ' Development Costs - Each alternative was evaluated to determine the costs of land acquisition, site prep= aration, pavement, lighting, n avaids and miscellan- eous cost items. IV-3 . j EXHIBIT IV-1 Runway Development Options FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD t INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT rE R.s Alternative A Do Nothing • • Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E � 1 Alternative F Alternative G . } .i. • , •dum�•em� Alternative H Alternative 1 Capacity Requirements - The airfield capacity improve- ment achieved under each alternative runway configu- ration was determined. ,.w Environmental - The limiting environmental constraints ` J on each proposed alternative development plan were determined. The summary results of this preliminary analysis are arrayed in Table IV-1. Results in the preliminary analysis identified two runway configurations to be considered for additional detailed analysis: (1) Alternative A which involves keeping the existing r�. runway configuration and implementing service time reducing * improvements such as the separation of aircraft traffic and the Y•r addition of runway instrumentation, and (2) Alternative B which requires the construction of a new parallel air carrier runway • ~° while retaining the existing air carrier runway 9L/27R and the general aviation runway 9R/27L. (3) Selected Airfield Alternative =; » The detailed alternative analysis indicated that although �Y Alternative B could best provide the needed capacity requirements, Alternative A can serve the forecast demand until approximately 1994 with relatively inexpensive capacity oriented improvements. 4 Due to the high cost of implementing Alternative B and the fact that it will not be necessary until late in the planning period, it r. was recommended that the implementation of a new air carrier IV-5 TABLE IV-1 • Data Summary Runway Evaluation FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Subjective Runway 1995 PHOCAP Capital Costs Environmental Configuration IFR VFR 1976 $ Ranking s A 39 43 $ 888,000 Good B 39 62 13,770,000 Good C 39 62 13,770,000 Good D 47 107 70,350,000 Fair E 39 62 64,490*000 Good 47 107 69,591,000 Good G 39 69 64,490,000 Good H 47 62 78,770,000 Poor 78 107 74,955,000 Poor Iv-6 runway be delayed. However due to the changing environment of the air transportation industry, subsequent planning efforts should again examine the feasibility of the runway. 2. IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE TERMINAL COMPLEX SITES The airlines' interim expansion program completed in December of 1976 represents the no development or do nothing alternative. The existing termin- al site is the logical starting point for beginning the evaluation of additional terminal facilities. (1) The Existing Terminal Complex and Site Analysis of the capability of the existing terminal complex and . site to meet future levels of demand revealed several major prob- lem areas. As shown in Table IV-2, the airlines' interim terminal expansion program cannot meet the full range of facility require- ments to produce a balanced facility; and secondly, the existing airport access system is unable to accommodate the forecast de- mand levels of surface traffic. In summary, the existing terminal complex or the do nothing alternative is unable to serve Broward County's current and forecast aviation demands in its present configuration. IV-7 TABLE IV-2 • Terminal Area Requirements FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT E�. } 1975 Existing with ' r to Interim Landrum & Brown Air Carriers' (Prio Expansion-`- Ex ansion) _ 1985 1995 Interim Expan n (SF) ( (SF) (SF) -------- µ Airlines 88 ,281 281 2490930 3160880 181,517 Public 46,288 243,680 3080960 91,543 Concession 8,170 62,480 791220 8,295 i Airport Mgt. 30600 1/ 12,500 15,840 3,600 1/ Utility 5,829 56,230 71,300 7,489 0 0 0 3,713 Unassigned - Total 3/ 152,168 6240820 792,200 296,157 2/ t existing terminal but included in total to reflect 1/ Presently separated from g percentage of space distributions 2/ Does not include 219,370 SF of unassigned ramp area located under the concourses.• proposed interim 3/ F.I.S.F.I.S. not included in totals: existing 19 75 41,400 SF; prop plan 6,148 SF. IV-8 *x ° (2) Expansion of the Existing Terminal Complex Within the Present Site • An analysis of the capability of expanding the present terminal complex, including the airlines' interim facilities expansion in 1976, was a key consideration. It was concluded by this analysis that the present terminal facility could not be expanded to a size sufficient for accommodating future demand. Five significant problem areas were identified including: s,r.. f The land envelope size and shape, Access, Facility requirements size and functional layout, Phasing, and 4 . Cost. �4. A major deficiency relates to the lack of available land of adequate shape and size to meet 1995 requirements. Assuming s - that the present Sunny South general aviation facility is relo- cated, this site is still confined by the building restriction lines of the existing runways and the TVOR unit on all sides but the east, which is bounded by the FEC railroad and U.S. 1/AlA. The cost of relocating the railroad and highway cannot be con- sidered. prudent. Therefore, these fixed boundaries provide approximately 140 acres, of which all are not usable due to the acute angles of the land envelope, and more importantly, due to '' =h the height restrictions placed on the area by the 7: 1 transition- v • •al surface associated with existing runways 9R/27L, 13/31 and ¢. 9L/27R. IV-9 • In addition to the lack of adequate expansion tr is alter- native also involves problems with: An inability to provide adequate ground sct"K particularly in terms of an adequate inte'r*106t'On with U.S. 1/A lA; An inability to expand the present terminal fa tall ities in a manner which would improve th,, organization of the terminal and provide thf- neo- essary space requirements, particularly in t(;rme of adequate curbfrontage; The cost ($127,400,000) of undertaking a program which would not meet the 1995 40-gate requirement. Due to the above problems and in light of a lack of s,dequute land, this alternative cannot be recommended as a long rungs solution • to FLL's problems. (3) Evaluation of Alternative Sites for Conc�2Pll--� tl--°n After eliminating from further consideration the expansion of the terminal facilities at the present site, the emphBHis of the eval- uation centered around the identification of alternative sites capable of meeting the 1995 acreage requirements. Within the confines of the preferred runway configuration, this requirement could be real- istically met in five ways. II IV-10 The five alternative sites are illustrated in Exhibit IV-2 and are described below. Development of a new complex on the southwest portions of the airport between existing 9L/27R and 9R/27L runways. Development of a split east-west site which com- bines the existing terminal site with a new south- west site. Development of a split site on the west site involving the southwest site and combined with additional acre- age to the west across I-95. Development of a split site to the east involving the existing terminal and combined with an additional 100 acre site to the east of A lA. Development of a centrally located site between run- ways 9L/2 7R and 9R/2 7L, made possible through the elimination of the 13/31 crosswind runway. The costs and benefits of each of these possibilities is discussed below. 1. Develop a New Terminal Complex in the Southwest Site This site was chosen as the preferred site by this analysis. This site meets necessary acreage require- ments, allows for a single location for terminal develop- ment, and requires the least amount of off-airport site acquisition for terminal building facilities. Due to its close proximity with I-95, Ravenswood Road, and Griffin Road, the access connection between the south- west site and the off-airport roadway system was the best choice of all alternatives in terms of cost and oper- ational capability. 2. Develop a Split East-West Site y The analysis of the east-west split alternative found that, to adequately link the two sites for service and pas- senger flows, a tunnel under the existing crosswind run- _ - x IV-11 way would be required. Cost estimates ranging in the area of $30-$40 million for the tunnel made this alterna- tive i infeasible. Additionally, the acrea• ' a within the g two site envelopes was best utilized by a split two unit terminal concept. The poor operational characteristics of two unit terminals separated by a runway was con- sidered sufficient grounds to eliminate this alternative from further consideration. 3. Develop a Split Site on the West Side V. sq A split site on the west side would require a service and assenger link across I-95. The cost, approximately p $250 million, and operational problems of a site split by a major freeway eliminated this combination of sites from further consideration. 4. Develop a Split Site on the East Side A split site on the east side of the airport was evaluated as inferior to the proposed site, i.e. , the southwest site, for reasons of cost and operational factors. Included as part of this alternative is a people mover systemser- vice roadways which cross over AlA and the FEC railroad • to provide a link into the airside facilities. Estimated costs of this concept are in the area of $220 million. Due to the cost and operational problems, this site was dropped from further consideration. 5. Develop a Central Site l An alternative similar to Alternative 2, previously discussed, was also considered as part of the prelimin- ary alternative identification and analysis, but was dropped from consideration as being aeronautically im- practical. This alternative included the elimination of the crosswind runway 13/31 in order to provide a large envelope between parallel runways 9R/27L and 9L/27R. As illustrated in Exhibit IV-2, this alternative would provide a land envelope of approximately 509 acres. Although this alternative would provide a suitable location for the new terminal complex, the elimination of runway 13/31 would seriously impair the safety of air- field operations, primarily due to meterological condi- tions at ELL. For this reason, detailed discussions with • the FAA and the airlines eliminated this alternative from further consideration. IV-12 j- ,k d e<. - X — ; (( a.i 1 t 'Fi pE r j -i.r ..7j�y�'�.�• l K i �Y � 1 sib :'Z The analysis of each site indicated that the southwest site is • ess the most feasible choice. The site meets the necessary acreage g requirements, it allows a single location for terminal develop- ment, and it requires the least amount of off-airport site acqui- sition for terminal building facilities. In addition, due to the close proximity of the southwest site to I-95, Ravenswood Road and Griffin Road, the access connection between the southwest site and the off-site roadway system is far superior when com- pared to other site locations from both a cost and operational standpoint. 3. CONCEPT IDENTIFICATION AND THE PREFERRED TERMINAL CONCEPT • The Terminal Concept Study, undertaken concurrently with the Master Plan Study, identified a range of terminal concepts that could be developed at each of the five expansion sites. A detailed set of evaluation factors, including passenger convenience, operational considerations, costs, and aesthetic factors were applied to the alternatives to produce a set of four terminal concepts for further study. These concepts, all located within the southwest site land en- velope, are described below: • Concept 10B - This is a satellite type concept including a central iandside building connected to four linear 10-gate airside structures serviced by a people.moving device. • Concept 12C - This is an automated pier type concept con- sisting of two unit terminals of 15 gates each, expandable to 20 each. Passenger access to most -remote piers-was assisted by moving sidewalks. IV-14 e) concept Concept 42B - This modified linear (drive to gat contained two unit terminals of 15 gates each expandable to 20 gates. Passenger access was unassisted by any type of people moving device. concept is very similar to , Concept - This satellite typeP Concept 10B in functional arrangement except that it has dea dual curbfront, one on either side of the central 1 building. Exhibit IV-3 contains an illustration of each concept. As described in the Terminal Concept Study documentation, the four concepts were quantita- tively vel and qualitatively evaluated. A summary of the evaluation is as follows: (1).A Concept Evaluation Summary Table IV-3 outlines the general ranking of the final four concepts. All four of the concepts ranked high in the general • evaluation process, as each concept benefited from previous evaluation steps and refined to address identifiable negative factors. Each of the four concepts met to a degree, all of the evaluation criteria, and the final selection process reduced to ' one which highlighted the strong points of one concept as com- pared to another, rather than identifying negative concepts of each. A general review of the evaluation summary table shows that Concepts 10133 and 12C4 generally dominate 42B1 and 43A2, as neither of these concepts were assigned a fourth position ranking. The selection process which led to a recommendation of 10133 over 12C 4 included the following factors: IV-15 �,.1�Y1t311 1V -S Alternative Terminal Concepts FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Page 1 of 2 714 OEM fix M tow tail • Reference No. - Concept 10B 3 ARL �u 1 x • - ..sir .: �j nr No.R Ct 12C 3 EXHIBIT IV-3 Alternative Terminal Concepts FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Page 2 of 2 weirs rw% 1w oft ss fam k .�rmr K • Reference No. - Concept 42B1 n �rM�! ' �7- wM Reference No. - Concept 43M .- TABLE IV-3 Evaluation Summary FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Rank 1 2 3 4 Operational Effectiveness Taxiway Flow 42B1 Distance 1 OB 3 12C 4 43A2 Delay 1OB3 43A2 12C4 - Apron Operations Flow 42B1 43A2 1OB3 12C4 Gate Area 42B1 43A2 1OB3 • 12C4 Access 10B3 43A2 12C4 42B1 - Expansion Incremental 42B1 12C4 1OB3 43A2 1OB3 42B1 43A2 Seasonal 12C4 Demand/Capacity , Distance 4 2B 1 1OB3 12C4 43A2 Capacity 4 2B 1 1OB3 12C4 43A2 Passenger Convenience 42B1 1OB3 43A2 12C4 , Economics 4281 12C4 1OB3 43A2 - Capital _ M&O 12C4 1OB3 42B1 . 43A2 • 12C4 10B3 42B1 - Revenue Potential 43A2 - Potential 1OB3 12C4 43A2 42B1 Uniqueness IV-18 Orientation - Concept 1OB3, with its single terminal, . is preferable to 12C4 as arriving passengers will more easily orient themselves to the single building concept. Costs - Development and maintenance of the single building concept (10B3) was generally considered desirable over the two building concept of 12C4, however, the addition of the mechanical people mover system highlighted 12C4. Convenience - Passenger processing and convenience in 1OB3 was considered desirable over 12C4, as the al and horizontal mechanical assistance high- lighted h- c g lighted 1OB3. Vertical processing (short-term parking to ticketing/ bag claim area) were incorporated in both concepts, 1OB3 and 12C4. However, the single building concept of 1OB3 eliminates possible duplication of facilities required by 12C4. The single building concept provides the potential of a broader range of concessions, as the two build- • ing concept requires duplication of personnel and facilities. Single building concept of 10B3 provides for better utilization of personnel. The aircraft parking satellites (airside) associated with 1OB3 provides 12 parking positions, as compared to 10 with 12C4. In light of forecast gate require- ments, the 12 gate buildings provides more options with respect to airline placement in the buildings. Concept 12C4 requires immediate acquisition of the Navy property, where 1OB3 can be phased to time development with the acquisition of the property. provides better existing. Concept 10B3 p g access as the automobile processing in the first building must pass the front of the second building, creating higher de- wand loads on access system. i IV-19 yT a k Passengers returning to FLL with Concept 1O133 are assured of returning to the same building, however, with 12C4, a passenger does have the potential of leaving in one building and returning to another. -s. k_. People arriving at the airport to meet arriving .:'. passengers have a single processing facility with =4" Concept 10B3, whereas 12C4 the greeters must a . often make a choice between buildings without adequate information. Concept 1OB3 provides shorter walking distances �fRrK,y�� • than does Concept 12C4. r With these considerations, and in light of the thorough and ex- r haustive evaluation of alternative concepts, the project team rec- ommended Concept 10133 as the preferred selection, with Concept 12C4 dropped from further consideration. r`Y On February 11, 1976, the project team's recommendation was Y {� 11: made to the Broward County Commission and on March 2. 1976. by ♦5 endorsed completing the Terminal 1 vote the Commission en p g a 6 to , =� Study and Airport Master Plan using Concept 1O133. (2) Selected Concept Description The selected terminal concept is a central, multi-level, land- kt side processing facility connected to four 10-gate al rside satellites by a shuttle transfer system similar to the Westinghouse People Mover. Y 4 N^ IV-2O Primary access to the terminal complex is provided by a re- working of the I-95 Griffin Road interchange providing for free moving access from both the North and South on I-95 and the East and West on Griffin Road. Secondary access is provided by maintaining and improving the Perimeter road allowing entrance R.; and exit from local streets on the North and utilization of the ex- istin entrance to U.S. 1. Graphics will be provided at appro- ;t g P 'ate decision points and spaced so the driver can register the � message and react in a routine manner. Upon approaching the terminal, a unique three-level road- way system is provided. The upper roadway adjacent to the ter- minal is the enplaning drive, which is directly adjacent to the curbside in front of the second level. The second level consists of ticketing, major concessions, and shuttle transfer. Two out- board roadways are served by pedestrian underpasses that are connected with the first level which is the bag claim level. The middle drive is the deplaning road with the outboard road being used for public transportation, and rent-a-care, both on the de- planing en # in and enplaning cycle. This provides a curbside of 1,600 P linear feet for each of the peaking cycles and a total of 2,400 feet of curbside. Each of the roadways provide two 10-foot wide lanes, for unloading and three through lanes, each 12 feet wide. IV-21 A short-term parking structure with facilities for parking 4, 2,080 cars is located above this multiple curbside. Access to the parking structure is provided via an up-loop ramp while exiting -loop ramp to a toil plaza. The re- is provided through a down 1_ maining required public parking is provided at grade level in front of the landside terminal building with facilities for parking 2,270 cars. Provision is also made for recirculating from parking to terminal and from terminal to parking. Parking spaces for 305 ''. rental cars are located in front of the building. r: The airside satellite structures contain a shuttle transfer sta- tion, departure lounges, concessions and airlines operations facil- ities. For 1985, three satellites with 10 parking positions at each, for a total of 30 gates, will be provided. Each of these satellites x - can be expanded. The number of 1995 gates available with the p four satellites will be 40. } It is envisioned that the elevated people mover system will ride over a landscaped area from the satellite to the central terminal providing pleasing rovidin a leasin visual impact to the arriving passenger of a ` tropical garden -- an impressive first impression for Fort Lauder- , dale. The parking structure provides cover for the curbside road- E ways and provides short term close-in parking to the terminal t building. Curbside baggage check can be provided in the garage r- t thus greatly expanding the effective curbside length for the sea- sonal peaks. The central terminal is envisioned as a shopping center with sufficient pedestrian traffic to allow this facility to support "Florida" shops and other passenger amenities. The area above the central shopping center is a prime loca- tion for a meeting and convention type hotel. An optional loca- tion could be in the front of the terminal, opposite the roadways. Concept 1OB3 rated the best overall when judged against those key evaluation factors set forth to provide the design param- eters as summarized below. • igh with respect to passenger This concept ranked very h convenience. With the shuttle, walking distances and processing • times are minimized. The concept provides very good passenger orientation and passenger amenity potential while the passenger processes through the system. Within the context of uniqueness, this concept includes the three-roadway system, vertical circulation and a passenger visual approach sequence not found in the other three concepts. With the context of operational effectiveness, this concept ranked very high. Satellite orientation provides maximum effi- ciency between the taxiway and apron concourse system and dual IV-23 �,r•.......•-�--- e T ! �4 I taxiway flow capability was maintained throughout the airfield configuration. 4. y t K' The linear arrangement of wide-bodied aircraft parking 10 positions provides maximum area for service vehicles and the distance between satellites provides dual taxiway capability between each satellite pair. The three-roadway system at land- side provides maximum convenience to passengers entering the ber of decisions to be made prior system and minimizes the num. F :.r to entering the terminal area. With respect to incremental e ansion, this concept provides the most flexibility for both airline gate expansion and airline expansion within the terminal building. With respect to seasonal expansion, the three-roadway system provides additional curbside length during peak seasonal �4 traffic needs. Although this solution is relatively more expensive than two x..., of the others considered, the benefits and features provided in this concept are the best combination of passenger convenience, economics, operational effectiveness and uniqueness. y The central terminal concept provides excellent revenue po- d 4� tential as all persons (passengers, greeters and Godspeeders) ` in the terminal would be exposed to concessions, and maintenance r S+ and operation activities tend to be centralized. F From the total airport complex point of view, this concept ranked high as it provides more than adequate acreage to the south for ancillary facilities, such as air cargo and flight kitchens, that require both landside and airside access. i (3) Other Development Recommendations The selected plan also includes recommendations related to other airport facilities,, such as: Air Traffic Control Tower . Flight Kitchen . Air Cargo General Aviation Fueling { For detailed discussions of these items, refer to Chapter V - AIR- PORT PLANS - for a summary and to Chapter VII - AIRPORT PLANS i of VOLUME H, TECHNICAL SUPPLEMENT. 4. Analysis of the significant environmental effects of the proposed airport development was completed to assess the possible consequences, ' both positive and negative, of the proposed project. Environmental issues i considered include: . Air Quality _ Noise Exposure Water Quality Solid Waste Management • Wildlife and Wildlife Areas Natural, Cultural, Historical and Recreational Areas Tt7-?�i Tre The environmental impact assessment included determination of •stin conditions through on-site inspections, interviews with represent- exl g atives of city, county, state and federal agencies, and through analyses of applicable data, regulations, reports and documents. A summary of the :. findings in each of the areas of environmental concern is presented below. {,su (1) Air Quality t k al s is are re- i an P r.. a air quality y f the tY finding s o q . _ The significant g sented in Table IV-4. The conclusions drawn from this analysis are highlighted as follows: The recommended airport development plan will re- rT° suit in a decrease in total airport-related emissions above those existing today through 1985; however, by 1995 total emissions with the do nothing alterna- tive will be equivalent to 1975 levels• If the recom ed, total airport-related mended plan is implement emissions will be 33 percent less in 1985 and 5 per- A cent greater in 1995. The results of the air quality evaluation show a trend toward overall reduction of airport-related emissions }. y in the near term. For example, with the recommende plan, total airport-related emissions will be reduced from approximately 40,300 tons per year in 1975, to approximately 26,700 tons per year in 1985. This fig- ure will increase to approximately 42,200 tons per year in 1995. The reductions in total emissions are principally due to aircraft and motor vehicle emission control programs• Therefore, there should be no sig- { nificant deterioration of air quality within the airport environs as a result of airport-related activities. "4"~ The recommended airport development plan will not . cause or aggravate a violation of NAAQS for carbon , ` = monoxide at the airport or in adjacent communities. may.. The highest one-hour carbon monoxide concentra- 3 iC= tions which were predicted for the 1995 recommended plan are of the order of 7 to 17 ppm. These projected concentrations are within the national etandard for ".. IV-26 l TABLE IV-4 Air Quality Analysis Results FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 1/ Maximum One-Hour Total Emissions— Concentrations Airfield Scenario (Lbs/Day) (ppm) — Existing 1975 40,300 9-22 Do Nothing 1985 26,700 -- Do Nothing 1995 42,400 7-17 3/ Alternative B 32,200 5-7 • i 1/ Results of emission inventory which includes carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter from aircraft and ground traffic sources. • 2/ Carbon monoxide under typical to adverse meteorological conditions. 3/ Estimated based on 1975 carbon monoxide emissions totals. IV-27 carbon monoxide of 35 ppm and 9 ppm for one-hour and eight-hour maximums, respectively. Air quality conditions will thus improve over existing base- line conditions and applicable Federal and State air quality standards will not be exceeded. Under these circumstances, positive environmental impacts will be achieved through the initiation of the preferred development plan. (2) Noise Exposure Conclusions drawn from the noise analysis were as follows: Existing noise exposure is concentrated in the east- west direction and reflects the preferential use of the existing runway 9L/27R. • Future noise impact of the existing airfield and the recommended airfield development plan indicated the following: Aircraft generated noise will be reduced by 1985 due to the entry of quieter aircraft to the fleet. The NEF analysis of the do-nothing alterna- tive for 1995 indicated noise impact is slightly less, in terms of population and areas than the existing airfield for the equivalent NEF 30 and 40 contour intervals. . . NEF 30 -- Population - 11,825 vs. 15,842 -- Acreage - 7,858 vs. 10,304 . . NEF 40 -- Population - 2,239 vs. 2,225 -- Acreage - 2,249 vs. 3,135 IV-28 The preferred alternative has less noise im- pact than the existing airport through both 1985 and 1995, primarily due to improved engine technology. The net effect of implementation of the recommended develop- ment plan will be to retain the noise impact areas in the same general location as experienced today with a general reduction of noise im- pact to the surrounding airport environs as measured by the NEF methodology. (3) Water Quality The demands for water and production of wastewater effluents, storm water runoff, and liquid maintenance waste are directly re- lated to the growth of airport activity. Therefore, the adverse impact of these needs must be mitigated. The conclusions of the water quality analysis indicates each of the respective areas can be adequately handled. The following major points substantiate t the conclusion: Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport presently receives an adequate supply of fresh water from the City of Fort Lauderdale. The airport has recently been connected to the Broward County system with a 12 inch line. Future fresh water de- mands of the airport can be met from the city and county supply. Waste water from the airport is presently treated at a small secondary treatment plan at the western edge of the airport and discharged into the Dania Cut-off Canal. This plant will cease operation and wastes will be pumped to a regional sewage treat- ment plant. Ca of the regional plant will be Capacity sufficient to meet the future needs of the area, and of the airport. IV-29 Increase of the total impervious surface area of the airport resulting from airport expansion will cause • an increase in storm water runoff. Good civil engi- neering design and construction practices are required to insure the increase in surface runoff will not have a detrimental effect on the area water quality, and any adverse influences are mitigated, to the extent possible. Increased airport operations during future years will re- sult in an increase of liquid maintenance wastes. Good housekeeping and disposal practices included in the de- sign of the facilities will insure that mitigating measures are undertaken to minimize the effects of the increased runoff to the extent possible, and conform to local, state and federal standards. (4) Solid Waste Management The findings of the solid waste management analysis are as follows: • 0 Present airport operations contribute very little to total county solid waste generation. The 1975 waste generation at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood Interna- tional was approximately 3/l0s of 1 percent. , Future airport waste generation is projected to remain relatively low, growing from 3/10s of 1 percent in 1975 to approximately 6/10s of 1 percent in 1995. Although current and future airport solid waste genera- tion will be small in comparison to the county total, the present county disposal system is inadequate and must be expanded to meet projected future requirements. A major action is necessary on the part of the County to insure solid waste disposal capability is maintained. As the airport is only a small generator of wastes, the situation is not made critical through continued airport development and a resolution of the problem for _ • the entire community must be determined. a 4 Y i• Y IV-30 _ (5) Wildlife and Wildlife Areas The results of the wildlife analysis are highlighted as • follows: • Existing wildlife areas in the vicinity of Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport include the airport canals surrounding the airport and a mangrove area east of the existing airport prop- erty. • A wildlife inventory revealed the presence of the Florida Burrowing Owl, included on both the Fed- eral and State list of rare or endangered species. . There is no evidence of any current significant environ- mental effects from airport operations on these wildlife areas or on the wildlife which inhabit these areas. The wildlife populations supported by the airport property are stable. All species, including the Burrowing Owl are seemingly tolerant of airport operations, specifically air- craft noise and mechanical grass mowing. • The airport has been in operation for quite some time, and, with no major construction off-airport, the major impacts to wildlife have already been exerted. Since airport development is proposed to occur essentially with- in current airport boundaries, wildlife impacts will be minimal. (6) Natural, Cultural, Historical and Recreational Areas The conclusions drawn from this analysis are summarized as follows: IV-31 The present land use in the immediate vicinity of the airport is a mixture of developed and undeveloped land. A large amount of vacant land is present, with scattered developments of housing, industrial and a small amount of highway commercial uses along U.S.-1/A lA. Recreational and cultural areas in the vicinity of the airport include parks ranging in size from 2.5 acres } to 96 acres, one 38 acre lake, and the Hollywood Indian Reservation. Florida's Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties has revealed two known sites classified as prehistoric glades period midden deposits west of the existing airport property. The bureau stipulates that the areas in question have not been adequately assessed and that an archaeological survey be performed after plans have been sufficiently completed to reduce the land area involved. One historic site has been identified on airport prop- erty and a study will be undertaken during the MAR process to determine the impact of relocating this fa- cility. • The proposed airport development program will not result in disruption or elimination of any significant recreational, historical or cultural areas. These areas which exist in the vicinity of the airport have existed compatibly with airport operations in the past and can be expected to continue to do so in the future. The Com- mandant's House, the historical site within the airport boundary, will require further study as to relocation efforts during the sub- sequent EIAR process. For more technical information and descriptions about the analyses em- ployed to arrive at the conclusions for each of the areas of environmental concern, please refer to Chapter IX of VOLUME II, TECHNICAL SUPPLEMENT. IV-32 l ;l')' J ti.'fi Syr t�.,a ,z •�' '+'•� `w.�`Itl._ ~.�.�' t t r.q e �'�` «, t �i'•+M:- 1 d�ryyr Kc:: •}v-Y' �'.�`�,•.t,Y-r4 -• �2?: '�{�� }.r ., •'�!'�� T t �,A'�•.1,.�•�}�.Ai��+! > r��tN ♦♦♦♦ aa,��- �:... -"Y'!� � - .k 'Y t �,n - ... •tip Y r N, w •�._ ��y�f,��5 t "t`• ��}� -4� � S. ` rt � t .- � .i'7.F� ♦i I 1 µ)3 1 Sri'-n�i"+/ "' .. `� �.. y rYY i w r _r - 'L-. 'Y`��.n".6' �- S*�:f .YtR`, y,..~� ''.s � �vt'"' a'.""'S.. » 4� ' Ec►`r"' +v •ir- ./rf, �y a1._ i+� - ` .+. :fie s`.l.?l f• i M. 1{�;i.K. .t+ n Y"• .n.f t..- ' ' .�` ''�i•. h .� , lGnil �s.y!•-;. -r z+..��'`�=ts �'.i'. _ + �a.t,• o:.+Lil'�.r•,� -k",'� E .�` �s � T� ! ��w �'[ �. i ✓ _t '' t ,}'•aWi ..�.�3Y^a .' ' r v ",�,s�,s i- ? y y� ��i" s•..t•�w�±' v �G a t.' •rr) �y. �'�+ s r r ,s r, •'S .. T��1� `• ��;i4',•,��+S7y;.'rx yr ��t*�it - •{i4t+�Y wetLF� �. �. _ �V..'�s +�,��r - .�,�+:'f«.;�Ml.a f'M�-• :sue 'N':fr �� ,�'�. �'�a :"7 t�` L .,.-..• �,i-r ^". �ltl�'�•y �s'2 h r�� `�� `�� s fit,w�•'''�#w � t 1 �'' '1t•t '.L . 'C +►l �.. 7Y#^_5 f n�� l�;t , � 4 Y��a�FF��,r's ., 19�• �`�-.. • Y �.� � •.,5�� ^"�yam- .+,�\�acZ.. ��.'` T �f• •... i ar•,f 1 •r' ., a�::•w 41;t t `^fi t `� Y� �(Z; r ^.2�� a �r• .- -• ,�ya ♦K _ P1=#�.� x tea.• - h wrr ri �k. si"4..y,' 3�(•'�St '�I'L'• ��" -►}� -. • �i r - r.. i _ #' f•"� N �'- 't 'Y-Si ery� �-� j$ 4 �� tf!.'1e� ry. mt ei " - ,. 'i '1 ti ti''1 �' s t>s ��.. f .I�."'4t.. t.r' t/,� tm r`► `�1 �l�c'"'F'r' i +T: - Y rt �%i-•t1 ` Y '-P r •. 3��•�f.�,.., �--v _ � �i_jf�}yp .. . - 1_ •. - f .R �wl�-�t, gg�L•-'� pia. �rvaA s - i' �: - .. - `r � j' t r'r•� -,� Ly Y �Yr`• 7} s - �,��J,¢.+-,.•N • } ;,-mil�+ .L c r ,% ..a • 'Si 'v ,�a►yam r.,� �.�y♦ �. i �>.�+� %. �� 1 ry q4.1 tEd t .ac c ''y a. t �.��`e 1U''''�....ir f-r..s !f •f«is� �.S`_S'��`'rv�' ;sLi!��'�ac,l,,�,t�•"�. •yi,C•��YK f �ryf-..�.c: _ � yy.'7..,. ti i .� • � .�: r,�w •Y,_V.�- t �W Sj rS 1y, ,y1� •�+�i!`�i:lft1 '♦ f� �,.,`Y+, �`/ri .� yl-1 X �-•' t 1f�t1 �•,i - �• .. _ .. - �� Sk}�'F_�.xs�6��; aY�-,�`K��y¢ r�_rh�w.y �'�..s►4i€ E��:"�t��d '. at �`"= r. r r r "'t a"a- r x� :.'T7Y�,, •.Is ry" w t "`svJ,a . _. c r �,,5�' � - �.�9'� �'-' ems- .. P• • aAn - r •,� rt � t ,fs�...�� .K77 f r " �s r ��f R�ty`i i1.� � •C�' 1 y Y � r t�.'.,�'�'�".,I�r 1�5t�'CR'�}�•��1+%f l•'a 9 S ��'�+..1 ��~•Va i�� +1'i�{r l�fr"" '•.ti'"- SAY X � t+�l� r _ �!....".- `s- -- ,�' _7 - -f• .... .fir. .•L1 •'�•. `r% .. � ..1:.-,...� -_ .- -. a. _.. .. CHAPTER V • AIRPORT PLANS The airport plans package consists of four basic plans: Airport Layout Plan, Terminal Area Plan, Airport Access Plan and Land Use Plan. Of these, the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) is the most complex and the most important. As the only document requiring formal FAA approval in the Master Plan Study, the ALP forms the basis for future expansion of the airport, and is a key supporting document in applications for federal aid in airport construction programs. A brief description of each of the major plans produced is presented below: • Airport Layout Plan - The ALP establishes the configuration of runways, taxiways and aprons; and sets aside areas for terminal facilities. It displays staging of development; loca- tion of important items, such as instrumentation; and gives key dimensions. The ALP is supported by the following additional sheets: - General Data Sheet - Information displayed on the sheet are: -- Vicinity Map -- Location Map -- Wind Rose Data -- Runway Data -- Airport Data • - FAR Part 77 Drawin - This drawing demonstrates that the airport meets the requirements called for in Part 77 of Federal Aviation Regulations. The criti- cal heights with respect to obstructions are displayed for the area surrounding the airfield. Profiles and Clear Zones - Consisting of five sheets these drawings depict plan and profile views of clear zones for all the runways indicating any ob- structions or structures that appear in the clear zones and their elevations. Land Use Plan - The Land Use Plan depict the impacts of the expanded airfield on off-airport land use and is based principally upon the Part 77 drawing and noise exposure forecast contours. Terminal Area Development Plan -- The Terminal Area Plan displays the area designated for terminal expansion and the proposed concept for terminal development. Access Plans - The Access Plans show the major flow of • ground traffic on, around, to and from major airport facil- ities. The Airport Layout Plan, Land Use Plans, Terminal Area Plans and Access Plans are discussed briefly in the following sections. 1. AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN Exhibit V-1, following this page, is the Airport Layout Plan. Prepara- tion of the Airport Layout Plan finalizes all the details of the proposed expan- sion program. The mayor features of the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood Interna- tional Airport expansion program are as follows: • V-2 ff N Ci I i o i oar I I ( 7 Z1 IA -id I : I �'j J I•� 1 ��! r�d IN kf !Z09100.CD f I �� L •�y • ; Ar All eee.�9 .euoce �j O} >x ' • , t I ----- s9` Lt t➢ ,3 3 - 1 . x I EYE �< [ ems a 3 •." r• ! f «Sr fl PIN Is ��„`h}�J.-�"`_ yr.- �` •�� (x aIt iji iL All Al ttse 1,� •, � a. r T i 1 a'� tr.' Is..�� oJ. r`�' -!.Y r ?t•Y ..•__ eK•r`. ►� t'� ' t / C'M rirui.�L� * ( 1 I O ,j �+�,. ��SC,�•S:L.} . y , - ••'4 . � ?'.J:i «�s �Tr �•r:•1r.f"�r'�Y' a.i..":.� ,af-`p.a:��J•'M. � i 1 � t • �I rn..N,�' .r ..��.+•n- . L ,, r.�jau,�t.r,�,. f�� b!,r P.`�.T } K•�'�L - 13 41.,'�ti 11��•RA �A .. r a�.w'A1�"�'" �Z hi; •1��,�4j,�',tt••.i� r'„A•�',.r :ry.N r' I � �I . 'a11a ,Y•tS 1. `S 1k t' '' �'�E'.k.Et`�ifr+',{.'1•� •1i'r'.r. y.r' i n r.ti Y 'rw l7•� I V,� �:..+� •�\ , - _ - ... +R•l�V.tr'il .! �•4�hf y�►'.t�, � �M, r L ' � a. r t ,� �- Y ►J •o th • ,, to , J 2 ►A = •Y�ta'aj .. S.t. f r ry.,�y a .+.'� Z�L`. V i ! O J AI ,-.,a 1� MRT•_ ♦.�^ P - j j• iPj 4 • -VA:n�L 9�1P'. ��i -•`•*•�•. �?•�i,«�►..: a. _'i'r''�fL ? YrS• 'ir\i,':,y]'.i.�[�...'�r`�"i • - - ..c~'a {fix • j.�Y•4 �'.c.M'j•, i! � .['< N^.t,�rl_ •t�;„fib ,,,`• r rj�-.. \ Ix. •r,� .. fL •. ,. 'i;T'lf�L rr�',:; •�i6�>i,,,,,.WL.l'.' 'A' _ �7�- '.�a. L_.._ +s:... a ! •.t: 16 - .} iiy'�{ 3 _ - < �. i• _ >�. ._ - �_,�y�+t• r,�,�a? .�-.��•[+� rR_i_`%r t•r��'L[.O+h.�.•! .F •r.•`L a.•.- - �':i.��.�7'':c. � a �- - r - - _ `.. t..t��'i*`K-,iN��•C ��J"'"Y��L„�,L.7�x>.. S f � Z, r r )� �N �.•. . ,Y,k.. J i � ar �1 _ ,_ �L'1 i."*/�t"1 r! +�'�... f�' .•+.. -' ly a�R/�r a1 -'r-.•\!'�``'t �`,; � ... - • _.i.1�a�' q •i'•jr K•�i��QvQ:af o p •'t t, t•.• _ f ,•t•' _ y�•+�°• f � t�.ea.:a``, is t`s: � ... � i� �.c.�"g Y£w c�w KiXs� .�f• 1 Y�K�CIp�IO�R �''\>��'••'• ..• ��a �• 1 !¢ 1 i , �, d ` t x 1-to CI ?M�%�X q •aIIiSIX dII.+I 7.J.• r f',:�L� ` �' a aY•�j:;r•�:'*'7 �..'. p i �tt •� 1• .tt1,•f^r! ti . 'y n`!r f y .. . - fEy � �`S,a a iSIY Q!$1 1 Q L S$13 It ii i++ "-':� .re..T,•%"' +�., -``'�``•< 1 ,'. a d ��`•,'•` _ 4w =�..' J Y e .2S 4I ... Ji :IR NI1^ -er„:• 4 e(\c. • �•- c.:?ir: .� _ N i ++ « _- t�: Pjia - y., f. r . �� r,ti •i R:R;R!RIfi�R 99kRlf � $ RRS7kft T41 �,.rl' :.j -'��t.� 4. ►� ;er'�-`"� *• � `��\ 1 +� x+t- ''',� ._ { xr =Q !t "�G Sys(', / _ i. r Y r +v r �r4' ..�,)j � Z«.w« •�,. A Z w w«.w« �«..�yr,^.:_ l +1. 3i?�rj.�: .r•�{:�' a �^'��...*` i L i�. vs•.�r•°t � ,g V� � r i.j,�yi. ..r .a - '(•Lr t! • 1- ,..,r •=L —. � r w . �• 5 t 11 F t a:, .��' I Y Y � � �� ' F'•'k';C: � c: � - •i Yr �. q= `[Y 1 lit� k !J y s■ `ti t �7G1 S[I �� rr.'� = ��Sf 3!��i^s�.a:.J l-� � •'«r • • -1 :� _ , '�:C`'i�.."1 r _. : r ~-� Y ;�e e� - � 3e�I e c r• f e�d e i^'>.•4F." .s,- + _ +,..: K••c�d •q'At. i,�' - i w w H J. s i•r'i•w N R i jr w�'w^w •'- -. .• � �^F" _ -4 utyYn i t yyam�' [ �`-_ '. . � ��57�r f4 _: �':vr'�� X�:' ,a t "} '.�•L ��7��CL�r..- - ��'�•rWar'y"d� 'R 3�..f4'�`�t�-'s r_ .. _ - � • r;e•..j �Y.T:.-$ St- 'Z s+ � _t+ri� Ey',. �a�t•�F� ��,y w ,�Zs �t .'� ... tn,,��-.�'�w't'' !Y"` .�-w, ..n; .is.� -.:,.ter -r . �s .a. � 'y}�L�r••criy. a¢1''i. � - 'f7 '^Ti:vi.'W'1•p+i7.l� .�•;" ., ..+ar.•� �rJ� t �.,^aY t xrr;'�� s r'�i�1•s•Y�- V Y vw3. �;- .:•�i I,,s Z't �-R^��-"t�YK `.a�ty, � • i. true Z ''t7.'r•r.t �� - - � ' j .�'�i +'� '`aa+F a•Y�'f!4 a.' +sir•=f+ f- .`�r �tk:t c -3.�� •"- �,'"�.•it•�s"y�,��sx_ v�' �' �' .T.of F -+: � .� i.�tt r �• ~vT� ; -s ``.>��">�.te�-�i/��Lli a ti x.'r£x'L f*+�.q•�ry r r- a � - '- L �t rs= K �r-t r✓•a * •...1. i A'.a�_'ri'e•.y� �."}L yt'•,S. �b'b'i L . _ . _ 1.+Ms •�+~��.�~+yr�.•�A 2 ,- .: - w.t ty.n jt'C•�.�'1t.'�i"• !•k� .S.:. s „ - _ .. a ..r aYa .It��vI \ .R. \'� _ k• `C'F'..��Y_ '` 'v�P ��z to s' r -yit~r „ +^3_ k' a _j •C ff.� �a Y'a�f1�;; `�ra. L•- i3 .' "^/G <�i •�'4^t- 's•� ":�i ;, :� ?'r,'.' + 6 i"(; '3 114 �+•\ { a i _ -%ts3c 'f - L : .s••^ r 1 '!L,r :-7� .$'_ L"ci�,. '-.h. w � -!�. .� t y _ ..4�C�t ,ice � s .+-'�'\• _ - - � �S�•�'��<+xi. +.' .",G...`�Jh� '+1 �":'L�?�-.�L`.e',�,_ ••f+;;:y"��,si.`ie�^��i� 1;.^�"',•�'C Y � � ' ems. r, AF x'r�' .-� -i r.' ' ": �t't „Y'�-3P+ �• aa, j•' '".h*!'.�'� .r t. ,�� •• (��'.l� ,r�; k 1.. �2f`_.L� j`. .`•fin 1.- 1r�.:T`e� 11. 1.1y�,� 4� L M' - w �'a'Y` h ti •V -M� .'I IFI_ •E -0.'. ....Ii., 4r, ;^•1x! _ .. tf92/ -yr r .tii.-'J; Y--;.s.• I w-w1 i{ «O�' i Q�• f. r a-r4' '-'.�l�.i. t , t 'rt y'•'s'�`plidid.�l- Ri7 I c'�1 ifs "*!'Kt+,y,S�•yy a t ''''� - _ P�^�clSx\•�4�a ��zC�'�,•�:L F - - - ^ef�� Ilf1�n �IS�R19�� 5/Y �! ' �,a'��Lfl�1't>�1 ._ ��) _c's".>°Zi K�:$w� of __t 4 `' � �.�'� a ai%[ «' y ad� �,;,�� ✓' - i•tt '�� a�•>~� �.v?ye .� - �� i� a:N 7�S n q �ry�i 3{� s �`3'^�,.!}�� •gF�. �� - _. �.� i W i6 111 u r - '\7f 7 f x - •t'3 f`L. JfL �4 4 f •-1^ �i.., ( \ ; �-. J ��i.'• i�i x i i L _!�Y �i^}:�.ri 'f•:.e 4 a w I'•a N Lr `i W-FIL i7 $ s. * ♦� •. �`4 y /� � ` i Y ' r.'t i�# �:k°�f Y�yN''q' ..;i 1 rtat' � ri �. �'« ,. . : _, ,. t t�i�i�e��t i 4�i Z'�d I� �„ �.fi ��t •=•�'N;y�:�,r ,..f . . _ , - . •_ . 1 i' i x � � ! C t cf� � - w�n R'n p��y N M�I ai� },� i!'Ti"v'•": t 7t ."41 �- ••..'.•' i �. •.�1 x w 6,^lala � 8Ir R,�e��J �"'!! i' L � .-,; - . �M t 4c fh r.w f ` � � :) I^I�,+��C il2,g � ' r~.�� 'f• « Xw��sl}�'T I��S�il uo - 9 - �e.g._r.i•X^o«o� �IS •e'fla�:Y3'�, cZ '• it-, I: �51I Fj ;�� ' i_i,i �-�cue �, ! ;✓�h '1s, - - � '[ .c<,. ,K. ,ti t•+. ry s�f�l�I.�'1•A'3;..!�.i;J 1;.Jr r ��,t .,N- wl k •r ea i .. _ n,�_ - .. ��1 i...:-•...n, �'��I I � r 1 1 1 ': _ � Y •P t. .. ��... c :F "'+��+�s�`�y��4�� 1►i�.!!�"1.w2�'s?'�'-A'-°4�:'�"��;+ai •'�CWI�::.�6kA.-.:� \ � li = . i • t �j �. i•,' .I _ •..1. .1.... . •.a. t t y y� '•�i�jnt'•�t�hadQt-g'LM.S,h�!�fi`Ar}'*; t A new air carrier terminal located on the west side of the airport between the two parallel east-west runways. The terminal development is recommended to occur in stages • with initial occupancy slated prior to 1985. Ultimate ter- minal development includes: - Development of an access interchange off of I-95. - A parking garage and ground level long-term parking. - Four concourses accommodating 40 aircraft gate positions and accessed from the main terminal by a people mover system. The west side of the airport contains the only land envel- ope large enough to accommodate the required terminal developments which require 225-250 acres. Land acquisition and/or avigation easements to develop physical facilities and to protect the airfield from clear zone and building restriction line encroachments on all runway ends. Airfield developments to include the following: Non-precision instrument localizes approach, • runway end identifier lights, and approach light system to runway end 9R. - Widening of runway 9R/27L from 100 feet to 150 feet. - Provision of a medium intensity approach light system on 9L. - Provision of runway end identifier lights on runway ends 13, 31, 27R and 27L. - Widening and strengthening of taxiways to accommodate wide-bodied aircraft loadings. - Addition of exit taxiways on runway 9L/27R to expedite traffic flow. - Relocation of the Airport Surveillance Radar and the Air Traffic Control Tower. • ' V-5 t - Upgrading of the VASI-4 system on runway ends R .° 13 and 31 to VASI-6. Lighted wind cones located near the approach end E of each runway. In addition, sites for the development of general aviation, charter and r ancillary support facilities, such as CFR, cargo area, fuel farms, airline main- tenance, flight kitchens and rent-a-car storage and employee parking are de- noted. Also shown are proposed service roadway and security :fenc=rig develop- ments. 2. TERMINAL AREA PLANS The Terminal Area Plan, Exhibit V-2, is a detailed drawing of the pro- posed terminal development concept. This concept will undergo additional • analysis during the concept development and detailed terminal planning and design work following completion of the Master Plan Study. The Terminal Area Plan shows the proposed concept to be a very aggres- sive concept developed through a thorough analysis of land envelope availability and facility requirements, and the interface of various airport elements of access, terminal, apron and airfield. The major features of this terminal concept are as follows: Vehicular access to the terminal is via a three level roadway system. Short-term structural parking for over 2000 automobiles is provided directly above the roadways and terminal build- ing; whereas, long-term parking is provided at grade. V-6 cla 51 01 /: rK: �w.r 'y: '�.tR ter•. �(wr',��t., .__. - �.•_ -._�.�_ _ h. .__ r3 ssy..l �Cl.,l'(.Y rY !`Y. c ,�._v �Y.•s".r� _._..._ _..i... ��\\\, +tt+ .��4� f�'�r-� ��..<♦ r..�\ air _ � ` \ \ - i r ¢w Mg '' .?- `J' "t:✓ -3a` R:y<`{{at,�� \s it\c•`1 3. y� �`� +� r'��w'v c,- t r}c �sr ��' .e .\•� �Y� X.\Q'�s ° ��'k_ �'t_ � ��d h _T ar {.''ii'R�y r. r >i y...�P\---r•.n mo�it,.,,,�, � -: �'\. i r' '"rYY,R , `[a h♦ttdA• •r,°i.\yv �Z �� Sf _•",Ye.it K i- °' .,' s? •\ >`fi~ts X ;�.,�, x� `�'. � if�3>i'-".��'.;�•@+fig' +f � -. g:" �• `>AA`.`? \ K x \` _ C•%�en ` 2 ty"�i` hy+..•�-h. .''�'R'�- �j" ` -/Y}r J�, t v `L �.•�< 3a �� x+�x:� 1. wa�,��e-�+ � 7^ �3.t �.�',\'� ,. 2 ti � t�ir ai�� i r wr E w,�yeq>�i Mhef�iK- - ..+ys.:•- � i rtiN S �♦:, r �f A�'��yi',y�t.�}��,�1�� } Y�r�"��'j�'T'fs��s�rw v, $�' .'iV +' ,$ � +e .*°;+6�',c, �j d .;r.-, " fn•,, 1'`..t." k• I'.i-v•"t' \i� -. � •"S r: 't'u"'r r ic' �/i� t .:Aar ."�a•'" <•`�'r ...' '/1. iV[. ♦ �� •.., Z}f.Z 4\♦l:Y�\�- d�� 4').•g4F ✓{v ��a �d r w..'�.a Y� /� � A�� 'txA '.�„'.}�,. i1Y•' _iQ �q;:t'`d 3 rv. •'.Ya \`4 v\ � -'\.d k \ - R aY -re.a T^�'Y ^�.•�. � '•:. 4.��+�\`�S4Z�� i.; ...r Y4 �w�1, `:%f°�ki�•t:a;lw"�3 ^•` r•'y�.S' �/ x': {{'� rvt' •{,�.�,'. --,.`r'� 'y�`d-'�`I/C' fi - tt \l t y N, �R.'. .♦�� :w�\� Y tt J:t y�y}Y�,}�`.r > t �Y.a' X+3C.K�jy� •.r -�!} j F ��,5�'• 4R'��,4 a' } g! F"t'vy'��}"� ♦ ` r.'a`�'Vy�r` .~ l t•7r Y � ",t :�:- <+r\`; I '•>.�\a t'4 A4C`,y}x y3 A.,d g f t�♦. J r ,i'•+. \'•.5{/ j1 tr. fir•. j '„ av+ \, 1 and :.-4t... •,:..�4<R - �(, ♦: ''J� <�: _ '�� /i ... ,� w.+i .� p t Y'. t hL a yK �e t .tsd- �S�`�•L'E�.t't /' �^ ;l- !J 4 n'�' 1 •. - a "n t 4'� .r3`% \ { ✓ ✓°94 a �5^ �!� i ..' '�� y�T" r'�� 'F�>�/ ^+... tt: r�'�'.'< i,< k,3.•c�t�} 2 '�'�r`�3'R a�Y d•"�f Y,...�'-{"7/��}S•r��'`�. :.C r�a�- 7.- � c"':.+ iSif - .� F • •4. ^t"'7."p`A�*"' we { „r w �'��yY• "VI.,t\�' „°J�t. n ,L: v{r` ,-t 7 ' ',C' a `d � :}6 ••}.•C'_'_: it '� + s: }r,Y�. r: .;•,#��J�' Ga �1`.: - ( i I • a�' ti. ::. -t`r,<t5.� 3 ,4 �,h ,,. >u`st.a }♦ t`.'yr.'^�k.r •`�; �' w. i d.;,.,,��KK. Y r } \' a. r >x t > _ a y� i•es �..'t'C �. Y� ��jjlI}} ''... X-' �.• �F'Y - .`..:Y+. ' 3 Y.4`.+•}<<y4 r.-F I r1•� X}'.�?I: ';•aSi•�-'1� Y [" _ i t t �� Y'I Ar3r�cx3�L�Y4.*`�4'3. ,,,f�� :,yM•j.T� �✓�io-r�"��'� .{' �-.. :.a.tY.•'r 3 >"., 4N'Y k'*,,�..�,'�S L_ - :��• 7 f i { xi::.<"vbnt' ,,i�: ty� vc.y` 4 �, h "'' .� t{' s 'y� '.�ti1• ^ �:'r•.^ •'ti iv. - .-.�'�� ,\ f �,, :ti ,' t^,XtE x�� yy-..'♦ •t.. w�•v4 t,:; `ia�; s kN'".y4,::•i =.. \ aar R W\- t r:{ ,Ly' S �-3 ,f,Y; ♦ •'r�, a\>.y. ♦y.. , :f' +if ... • '.�i�W �;\ c ;, �"�+�.\w`s�i:�d{�E`�^b�t ��rt. ray ++�7�7..'tt f i x Y i'�+„ •T•�'' '^�'t'e'`a K:}°1c�,,3"' ; S' �-. . �// �. �.+. {.�..� �♦ ,.� r\. i � �._ '�.Y Z-. F. i. y: t•� � �ti, 4,�1-' _;K`� 4fy„S ._ Y v < •' cS' i �'S i ,<, .� _•d� °��,.: �_•.y,,�,�' wy� < 2�.ti �� .,�:;tii i.- '„��;,�.lK• Y :2"h f �'h ..� t + ' 9, rjf w A a � 4"'•,�-\yt�e .TYix < r� t Jw t,:.: �,�:�o�f'.' ..�Y��6'."�� 'M�r sr~i; �,�• ;:.;; �d`. Q'�y._.i".� e� � r h- T4Y`fit, i%Y.ar.- •'^� �� o jx.;i a<.4r.�:.,k `3_Li;�w'�`r i. >x6. �i.'�..<S.-v.t .7 _ •i rto:• � G. .- y� S .:,'�w y{p"\a:. h q�'�'.'k.. 1x4�'��`�^�t h�. `�- ,. g: .n ro �y i i `n: iT +�, fi'ry.d3>.p- ,` rA- „� yAv }�;O-� {.}•.[_` i' fy. :Y -Y_ � i t 1 tom•`.` "i a `.,�'�,y \%.:, , ra'f •.x '`'v' �.'w `•> '� .. -V �i r •' s s•r. }" .,y�,ti. ,"F`r"j rx �, � r.�.c,:, at.. ` _ ..�.' ', 4 g, ,. '�• '.+-� a � ! z"-i��i' S<d) -yk .T��f v Y• ' r�-' i �* -. �.. .;!r.e.>�� s�♦> �.X. '' �- - •I ',Uq,•`•'✓� f6�.°�d4'y�'t S} -Y i:[4r i�7 «� ��'"�,y•r.. : .YC"�1 S �� 1 t''' Y:. -`'a,��0'y -�.9<•. •`..-. �. �[. i 1 1 ��, w '� � � iYa' y° \w.i• a, .3,�'.�ay� .�." `�`�"'e�.�. .!� «.c,r"� r •'� j� . a,. � :vY�r y,d. \u*.'t a...`y.,,�}�R'ri..`�T'•4� r£ >'. � .f. : �° ""E r.� �. +:•: rt :. Y1 p't:: S �„'lt�. ��p J: }}**i.l. .,'x-, t ti Yx �,v h' r 4�: ��-� \? w rj�`C 4�"r-�c�- s S{'�p��w is ..i!*.•: �: .»�kz�� i -?:- :�Y�A,' � o t � '� ��<,� ti,LtN••'�_ rt fjw� � \' .,�d 4a#�s :j % 31�• ° cA°tOY, rt2 y.�~Z".y �. .kt' •�' - � � �, ;-I s`' > ♦ a,y ^-4m. ^7�C1a' �w.•r.. >h• •y` +r\. 4A� I 4`. .'x+`.�.y.•7 �L'i4�� 4.. c'•' •tY�� "�� /�a iw 7 .:. v.Z.iC d'�r, 4� ..: s .•j.g. '�:° ..!lY•.tF -.,�u +rtRl^ � 3�► s P>rV$ _ t. vrt: �. Y'7., 1 f Vs�'• h o n• ..� �� ' oxr `� ^ ra s y\.!�a / �� }�•r'<.i •VY� - Xp tr{vs's�!:l'd'�.{�.� j �S p Y�wI'�J f I + :i.K y<•6. ¢ •a�i"i ti 't r*a„ i r�, x'r //1�' �;:;..� ^��fYM.�j'� 3r.��.�•C al,�yt k.'�*ry�lE•(,��.�.-��a:..: �"•:�• ,J S: � t•.i 'F e. "�� I / t! •:i �� ... x s ro �� .. � sue• - r .< -..� .,. Ul MEXESM-NIN'l �.�_ j7i9��' f;� �y?y��.t`i r��q�yy.�i�.'•°y:'�vi''riY+!t t*!.��ri� A j '' ..••�73"�.. y_f}�{i � '4� ..,� � /l - � t• t fI'i Y;E �# i y j' r ytY •\ 3 !. , <. `% ,`AF.A.�• ..= � 1 el r .ice` ` •, ♦ .\• � t ,sue"' A two-level central terminal concept with vertical circula- tion provides an excellent processing sequence for the traveling public. Enplaning passengers will ride the elevated people mover from the terminal building to any one of the four airside satellites. The satellite configuration provides maximum efficiency for the interface of the taxiway and apron con- course systems- New terminal developments are proposed for charter and general aviation in the existing passenger terminal. The areas for these developments are shown in the Airport Layout Plan. Federal Inspection Facilities for arriving inter- national flights are proposed to be developed in the new terminal; however, if the facilities cannot be appropriately accommodated in the new terminal, they can be developed in the existing terminal, creating two areas for inspection • services. 3. AIRPORT ACCESS PLANS The Access Plan is illustrated in Exhibit V-3 and described in three parts: Existing Access 1885 Access 1885 Access The forecast enplanement levels place special emphasis on peak hour demands and their impact on the access system, as passengers traveling to and from the air port ort will utilize the existing and planned surface transportation systems with � the automobile being the primary mode of transportation. • V-8 l: O T ` e d+, i T T•; I t y;it- - �r Q I } EXHIBIT V-3 Access Plans FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD • INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Page 2of2 ZMTH w 0 rto N p o 0 0© �00 O U&I/AIA —..... OO parking 1-95 O \ O O O��';Z=C�O� C� UN T OM, o 500 loon N RAVENS ROAD I I �� - 1985 S.W.4 H STREET r O� us. i/AIA TO FLORIDA OO parking TURNPI �� O 1.9 \ O \ • ' PERIMETER ROAD o boo ioou N RAVEN8W0 0 ROAD `"'�"� 199 5 The existing access system is composed of a combination of routes, including: U.S. Highway 1/AlA, Griffin Road, S.R. 84, I-95, S.W. 4th Avenue, and the Airport Perimeter Road. The major routes funnel traffic to U.S. 1/A 1A and at the stop light at the intersection of the main entrance to the airport severe flow problems are created during peak periods. Limited relief will be provided by proposed improvements to AIA and loth Street; however, capacity studies have indicated that the improvements, although desirable, are not adequate to solve the access problems in total. As illustrated in Exhibit V-4, the 1985 access plan includes an improved interchange on I-95 at Griffin Road and assumes that the loth Street expansion plans will be completed. Access will be provided to the new terminal complex and include the following: • Access from the southwest Broward County area will be on I-95 and the turnpike (S.R. 84 to I-95, Ravenswood, and U.S. 1/A1A) . Access from southeast Broward County area will likely use U.S. 1 and relocated A lA. Access from the northwest Broward area will use the turn- pike and I-95. Local residents and people with detailed knowledge of the system will continue to use the S.W. 4th Avenue and Air- port Perimeter Road (including proposed relocations) routes. The perimeter road will off-load automobiles from the main access system onto local area streets. Relocation of the southwest edge of the perimeter road is required for operational reasons and should be further studied during the terminal design phase. The 1995 access plan is the ultimate plan identifying a need for a major east/west connection between the airport, I-95 and the Florida Turnpike. The 1995 plan includes improvements to the 1985 plan by recommending an east/ west connector link. As new airport developments take place, the perimeter road system will be relocated to maintain airport security, CFR and maintenance accessibility. 4. LAND USE PLAN The product of the Master Plan in terms of land use consists of an off- airport compatible land use plan concerned with both height restriction (FAR Part 77) and noise impacts. Examination of existing land use patterns, as well as forecast 1990 land uses, indicate that the airport environs will be vulnerable to the development of incompatible land uses. Land use guidelines to prevent development of conflicts in proximity to the airport are presented to ensure that off-airport developments progress in a manner compatible with long-term airport and community interests. As discussed in the Airport Layout Plan narrative, a program of property acquisition and avigation easements is proposed in order to protect the clear zones and approaches to each of the runway ends. These programs are in- tended to protect the runways.from physical encroachments which would reduce or eliminate their operational capabilities during either instrument, non-precision instrument or visual conditions, whichever are appropriate to the applicable runway end. V-12 In order to protect the navigable airspace around Fort Lauderdale- ' height restriction zoning should be revised Hollywood International Airport, he g g to reflect the proposed airfield developments. Restrictions to building and obstacle heights should be in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR,) Part 77 to ensure that Part 77 surfaces are not violated. Exhibit V-4 illustrates the FAR Part 77 surfaces. The purpose of zoning to control off-airport land uses around the air- port is twofold. First, land uses which interfere with aeronautical activities can be eliminated; secondly, land uses incompatible with airport noise can be discouraged. Zoning recommendations have been developed on the basis of FAR Part 77, known land uses which are a hazard to air navigation because of electronic interference, limit visibility, or attract birds, and the impact of aircraft noise based upon Noise Exposure Forecast measurement techniques. Exhibit V-5 presents the resultant land use guidelines developed for Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport. The implementation of these zoning guidelines will be difficult to achieve because of the already existent patterns of development. Under these circumstances, mitigating measures can be initiated to ensure future com- patible developments. These measures include noise abatement procedures, building code revisions for noise attenuation, and the deliberate process-of rezoning. V-13 z . m o of q ! >-CL +' x 0 WQ a ILIQ m. z o LL Atlantic Ocean 22: d» ` • + t %/ 1 h 6 tJ� I CI 9`e I• i f 1 _� �,��'.:.��L/�.:� _1. _� -�if _ i �:. `. V �+.`�-_"• 1 71 7 II i'i'P Jv\ _w I. •4 _ kC Sag _ P . Pf e. •�:- !. ,�. •CeSA ti, a. 99 is W N rt �z•.• F f ...`J Y�'�►^ l'.,_.�_`°.ti°.2!t;1 •✓•.t'.�.•'�,I�,,,i•:. +��'�1��t'�.f�••e ..t�X i�r`G.df ;.Sf ... _ - a. .:t'f.44m-t*'1'O=1T :+ 1 �y.;i�'r!:• :�%::l:".f �. h 4s' ' ��s.s 1►�e++r fv�C 6/�1C I.f ►•` : ;•. .« .. _._... ._..J . t i.y/V►.4�r0�jr'..sM MH•wrw�,Srr��•.. w-• ....+. •.�.....w...+.+., ... .._ .w�..........��..._.+•w�+..r.....:•�+r•�..+rr�!' •.r..+w.iwe. -......w...�...n.....w.w..•.�- • .,.:_y �r1^ +�":r..`��''�?s�.�'�."�'r+.ey+1G{.+1-.�i'�� i; �"„'`+�`t,,i-T'....Cr'„ti*'{"I::'.:s•"' :t�'.� a+...d-..`r,err- '•_ • ' �' '• . .a.-{A►i Y _� .�- .�1' r • Y _•`�t1Si? `A'�=�f.3old �3�j '....SSSSS1, ...s,®;�N'�i�JCQ >r"r-�4•bw''�i=* +DPP►�'ti+o'.•rn+.+q•IlrlMew',rya^►•..,i►je�es�+,•'-,.,R,�r.alri, •t?axa7.+�.,�4Ctl �pUt'%f{►wl�'.. -..�.t^�--.+...-{."e-r• a� mar • .. •- •^-S �-f. •• .. 'a tr 1 S y7�,L '^� r4 . *Y��f'��'a•Y �a:k��7'�'.�•� ,a�.�iti le r ♦..1 ��'S,�,ys S r;' - - j �T'L i. Y '-.ia`aw t"..rk;�•.r_ t r SL.*� 7�*'�i'kl.�'� - -- •.S - '+ f[ !" ..-.. AL CHAPTER VI Ft FINANCIAL PLANS t+—r• _ w i ..r it 4i�nJk.b� _".•,;,fit J:r _ r. r. r i {��r ? .:tt� t 3;�� , •L I �s., r a} � e i ' CHAPTER VI FINANCIAL PLANS This chapter provides a summary of the recommended staging, esti- mated costs, the financial feasibility and a broad financing plan as they are related to the recommended Airport Master Plan program. 1. SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENTS The recommended plan and the staging were developed after forecast demands at the airport were identified. When the recommended plan had been determined, costs for the various elements of improvement or expansion contained in the plan were developed. Elements of the recommended program • and staging are characterized as follows: Phase I - 1979-1982 Airfield aprons, taxiway and fuel farm expansions A new control tower and airport surveillance radar relo- cation Land acquisition and clearing Provide a new cargo building Construction of a new terminal building Providing a parking structure Major roadway expansions and improvements Phase H - 1988-1990 Expansion of the terminal building • Expansion of the parking structure • Apron expansions • Added roadways • Land acquisition i In addition to the major elements listed above, Phase I also includes ancillary construction. Included are bridge structures and toll plazas re- lated to the roadways, landscaping and irrigation, water and sewer work, an air cargo facility, new crash/fire/rescue facilities and a "people mover" system. No major ancillary construction, not directly associated with the listed major items, is planned in Phase H. 2. ESTIMATED COST OF THE PROGRAM To estimate total costs of the recommended program, unit costs of construction were developed. The unit costs represent basic units of each of the elements such as square yards of concrete for the aprons and • square feet of space for the terminal building. The unit costs were then applied to the total units for each element of the development program to estimate total construction costs in terms of 1975 dollars. The result of these determinations produced an estimated cost of $124,750,000 for Phase I and $47,416,400 for Phase H, a total of $172,166,400. Factors representing anticipated cost rise (inflation) , consultant and project representative fees and development costs were then applied to adjust these numbers to reflect that point in time when Phase I is expected to be imple- mented. The combination of factors varies somewhat depending upon the element of the capital program. The largest combination relates to building • construction with lesser factors being applied to the people mover track system and equipment and land acquisition. VI-2 Because of the uncertainty of what impacts there might be in the various components of the escalation factor, costs have been held constant • beyond Phase I. The costs thus derived increase to $177,936,000 for Phase I and $67,945a900 for Phase II, a total of $245,881,900. Some of the elements of the capital program are assumed to be eligible for federal aid under the Airport Development Aid Program (ADAP) . It has further been assumed that those elements which are eligible for ADAP grants will also be eligible for grants provided by the Florida Department of Trans- portation (FDOT) . After giving consideration to potential grants-in-aid from these two sources, the Division of Airport's share of the cost of the recommended program is expected to be about $118,6 79,000 for Phase I and $31,146,500 for Phase II, a total of $149,825,500 or about 61 percent of the total program cost. At the time of developing the financial analyses related to the recommended • program, the 1976 revisions to the ADAP program had yet to be announced. Criteria used, however, were predicated upon the best available information as to the substance of the expected changes, and the maximum amounts which could be available to the Division of Airports. Under these circumstances, it is apparent that funds available to the Division under the enplanement formula would provide only a portion of the anticipated aid. The Division. then, must exert significant efforts to ac- quire the balance of the estimated ADAP grant amounts from the discretionary funds which may be allocated to airports by the FAA. The phasing of the pro- gram will have to be carefully planned and applications for ADAP grants carefully 11 timed in order to realize the maximum in grant funds. , VI-3 3. ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY • The recommended program can be expected to have a major impact on the economic as well as physical properties of the airport. The impact on the economic properties was evaluated to learn whether the airport could reasonably be expected to develop revenues adequate to pay the maintenance, operation and administrative expenses MOW OW together with principal and interest on revenue bonds associated with the recommended program and also provide a reasonable coverage amount over and above the principal and interest amounts. Several factors which could be expected to influence future M,O&A expenses were considered. Those factors include the level of current ex- penses, the impact of inflation and the influence of new or expanded facilities. Expenses in each of the functional areas of the airport during • fiscal year 1975 provided the base for estimating future expenses. In those functional areas which are expected to be affected by the capital program, unit costs in the particular facility were determined. This unit cost was then increased to give effect to the impact of inflation, and applied to the number of units in the particular facility which are estimated to be in service in future years. As with capital costs, the long range impact of inflation is very difficult to estimate; thus, the impact of inflation has only been anticipated until 1982, the year in which Phase I improvements are expected to be placed in service. Thereafter, expenses have been held constant and adjusted only to reflect the impact of new facilities. VI-4 Where a functional area is not expected to be affected by the capital program, unit costs were not developed. Rather, total expenses were in- creased by the expected impact of inflation until 1982 and then held constant. General and administrative expenses are not particularly sensitive to changes in the size of facilities. These expenses have only been increased by the ex- pected ected impact of inflation until 1982 and then they too have been held constant. It has been assumed that the local share of the cost of the improvements will be funded by revenue bonds. For this evaluation, it has been assumed that interest on the bonds would be capitalized for a three year period for Phase I and for a two year period for Phase H followed by a twenty-five year re- tirement period. This matter is discussed in greater detail in the following section which deals with a financing plan. • Revenues are an integral part of the financial feasibility evaluation; therefore, estimates of future revenues were made. Broward County and the airlines have entered into interim agreements which are expected to rem ain in effect until the new terminal and other facilities recommended in • Landing Phase I of the program are placed in service in fiscal year 1982. g fee and terminal building rates which are currently in effect have been pro- jected until that time. Beginning in 1982, a cost of services concept of rate setting has been used to determine required air carrier payments for use of the airfield and the terminal building. This concept of rate setting assumes tha t the air carriers will pay their proportionate share of the cost of providing, VI-5 maintaining, operating and administering those facilities which they use. • Rate base elements which have been used to identify total costs related to the terminal building and the airfield include: • M,O&A expenses • Depreciation based on a 25 year life • Interest on the funds required to provide the facility Coverage on bonds issued to provide the facility A renewal and replacement reserve, and In the case of the airfield, interest on the investment in land. Revenues from concessions were based, generally, on terms of existing agreements until 1982. Beginning in that year, an adjustment has been made to reflect an expanded concessions program, because more space will be available to accommodate concessions activities, and upgraded concessions agreements which could provide a greater rental to the airport. Revenues • from other airport tenants have generally been based on existing agreement conditions, adjusted to give effect to the impact of inflation. As with ex- penses, this latter influence has been reflected only until 1982. Beyond that, only the pressure of differing volumes of air traffic has been reflected; increased passenger volumes in concessions and changing volumes of general aviation aircraft activity in fuel flowage fees, for example. From the foregoing analyses, it was concluded that the capital program is financially feasible. The determination was made after judging the impact upon the air carriers, the principal users of the airfield and terminal building. To make this determination, the amount the air carriers would be expected to pay VI-6 in landing fees and terminal rentals in 1982, the first year Phase I is expected • to be in place, was viewed in two different relationships: an amount per en- planed passenger compared with the per enplaned passenger amount the car- riers are currently paying at other airports and the relationship between these payments and anticipated passenger revenues generated at the airport compared with what the air carriers are paying at the other comparative air- ports. During 1975, at six other airports (Chicago-O'Hare, Dallas-Fort Worth, Los Angeles, Miami, Seattle and Tampa) the air carriers paid amounts ranging from $1.95 to over $6.50 per enplaned passenger in landing fees and terminal rentals. In 1982, the comparable figure at Fort Lauderdale is esti- mated to be $3.39. At these same airports, the air carriers paid in landing fees and terminal rentals, amounts ranging from 2.4 percent to 21.73 percent of the estimated passenger revenues generated at the airport. In Fort Lauder- • dale in 1982, the comparable amount is estimated to be about 4.6 percent. Both of these numbers at Fort Lauderdale, estimated for 1982, are well within the range of amounts being paid currently at these other airports; thus the co conclusion that the program can be afforded by the air car riers and conse- quently is-financially feasible. 4. FINANCING PLAN Most of the local share of improvements made at the airport in the past has been provided for through internally generated funds. The magnitude of the improvements recommended by the Master Plan, however, VI-7 • is such that another source of funding will be required. For this study, it has been assumed that the alternate source will be revenue bonds which would be solely supported by net revenues generated at the airport. It has been assumed that interest on the bonds would be capitalized for a three year construction period related to Phase I and for a two year construction period related to Phase II and then retired over the next 25 years, thus providing a 28 year bond issue for Phase I beginning in the latter part of FY 1978 and a 27 year bond issue for Phase II beginning in 1988. An interest rate of 8 per- cent has been estimated. Debt service was calculated on a level debt retire- ment basis over the 25 years. It was assumed that the revenue bond ordinance would require an annual 25 percent debt service coverage and feasibility of the program was viewed in that light. Although no revenue bond ordinance now exists A it was presumed that any historical or future earnings test which might control the issuing of parity bonds to accomplish Phase H would be such that revenues earned under the annual earnings test assumed above.would satisfy the requirements. As noted earlier, the cost of the entire program has been estimated to be $245,881,900. The local share of this amount is estimated to be $149,825,500. After giving consideration to internally generated funds, interest on invested bond proceedsprior rior to the need to expend the funds and capitalized interest dug rin construction, an estimated $139,032,000 in bonds would have to be sold. These would be sold in two series as noted: • 1979 $1050611,800 1988 3384200200 VI-8 Exhibit VI-1 illustrates the financial program for the 1985 program. The to half of the exhibit shows the percentage share that each major revenue ro- • P P S �1 pro- ducer on the airport will contribute to total revenue in 1985. The lower half of the exhibit depicts the financial plan for the 1985 program of $177 million, with the bond program supporting 66 percent of the costs, the federal share being 29 percent of the program, and FDOT and other income sources being 5 percent. Based on the economic feasibility analysis and the findings of the bond program analysis, the program is considered to be financially feasible and well within the guidelines of a revenue bond program. However, due to the magnitude of the program, it is suggested that in subsequent design phases efforts be made to keep the costs under control at a minimum, to maximize the project potential of receiving the necessary federal funds. • EXHIBIT VI-1 Funding And Sources FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT phase I (1985) concessions Airport Revenue Source 26% General Aviation B Others 8% Air Carriers 66% a phase I (1985) FAA Enpianement Discretionary B Dts rY Funds Master Plan Funding Sources 29% FDOT Others 596 ' Airport Revenue Bond Program 66% ` w s x. O �-a ,-. `.� U� p � � � � � a _ � � � � � w o �' ' � 1 • V HDM3101A _ 62 C 1 • Subtitle D--Aviation Noise Policy . 2 SEC, 9301. SHORT TITLE. 3 This subtitle may be cited as the ."Airport Noise and 4 Capacity Act of 1990". 5 SEC, 9302. FINDINGS. 6 The Congress finds that-- 7 (1) aviation noise management is crucial to the 8 continued increase in airport capacity; 9 (2) community noise concerns have led to 10 uncoordinated and inconsistent restrictions on aviation 11 which could impede the national air transportation 12 system; 13 (3) a noise policy must be implemented at the 14 national level; 15 (4) local interest in aviation noise management shall 16 be considered in determining the national interest; 17 (5) community concerns can be alleviated through the 18 use of new technology aircraft,. combined with the use of 19 revenues, including those available from passenger 20 facility charges, for noise management; 21 (6) federally controlled revenues can help resolve / 22 noise problems and carry with them a responsibility to 23 the national airport system; 24 (7) revenues derived from a passenger facility charge -HDM3101A ' • 63 • 1 may be applied to noise management and increased .airport • 2 city,ca a ; . p and 3 (8) a precondition to the establishment and 4 - collection of passenger facility charges is the issuance 'S by the Secretary of Transportation of a final rule 6 establishing procedures for reviewing airport noise and 7 access restrictions on operations of Stage 2 and Stage 3 8 aircraft. ' 9 SEC. 9303. NATIONAL AVIATION NOISE POLICY. 10 (a) DEVELOPMENT.--Not later than July 1, 1991t the 11 Secretary of Transportation (hereinafter in* this subtitle 12 referred to as the "Secretary"') shall issue regulations 13 establishing a national aviation noise policy which takes 14 into account the findings, determinations, and provisions of 15 this subtitle, including the phaseout and nonaddition of 16 Stage 2. aircraft as provided in this -subtitle and 17 implementation dates and reporting requirementa consistent 18 with this subtitle and existing law. 19 (b) BASIS.--The national aviation noise policy shall be 20 based upon a detailed economic analysis of the impact of the 21 phaseout date for Stage 2 aircraft on i competition P n the 22 airline industry, including the ability of air carriers to • 23 achieve capacity growth consistent with the projected rate of 24 crowth for the airline industry, the impact of competition 25 within the airline and aircargo industries, the impact an HDM3101A t 64 l nonhub and small community air servicer and h . •t e itapact on new 2 - entry into the airline industry. '3 (c) RECOMMENDATIONS.--Not later than Jul 1 1991 •;• Y . , the . . 4 Secretary shall transmit to Congress recommendations on-- 5 (1) the need for changes in the standards and 6 procedures which govern the rights 9 g is of State and local 7 governments (including airport au thorities) ties) to restrict 8 • aircraft operations for the purpose of limiting aircraft 9 noise • 10 4 2) the need for .changes in the standards and ;�.. 11 procedures which govern law suits by persons adversely Y _ • 12 affected by aircraft noise; 13 (3) the need for changes in standards and procedures 14 _ for Federal regulation of airspace (including the pattern • 15 of operations for the air traffic control system) in 16 order to take better account of -envronmental effects;17 (4) the need for changes in the Federal program %��r�• = 18 prov iding iding assistance for noise abatement planning and 19 programs, includingthe need for greater incentives or • 20 mandatory requirements for local restrictions on the use 21 of land impacted by aircraft noise; 22 (5) whether any changes in policy recommended in 23 paragraphs (1) through (4) should be accomplished through 9 24 regulatory, administrative, or legislative action; and 25 (6) specific legislative proposals necessary for- : Y HDM3101A • 65 1 ' -- -' implementing the national aviation noise policy. • -2 SEC. 9304. NOISE AND ACCESS RESTRICTION REVIE WS, .3 - - (a) IN GENERAL.- 4 (1) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.--The national aviation 5 noise policy to be established under this subtitle shall 6 require the establishment, by regulation, in accordance 7 with the provisions of this section of a national program 8 for reviewing airport noise and access restrictions on • 9 operations of Stage 2 and Stage 3 .aircraft. Such program 10 shall provide for adequate public notice and comment 11 opportunities on. such restrictions. 12 (2) LIMITATIONS ON APPLICABILITY.-- 13 (A) APPLICABILITY DATE FOR STAGE 2 14 AIRCRAFT.--With respect to Stage 2 aircraft, the 15 requirements set forth in subsection (c) shall apply 16 only to restrictions proposed after October 1, 1990. 17 (8) APPLICABILITY DATE FOR STAGE 3 . 18 AIRCRAFT.--With respect to Stage 3 aircraft, the 19 requirements set forth- in subsections (b) and (d) 20 shall apply only to- restrictions that first become 21 effective after October 1, 1990. 22 • -- (C) SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS. Subsections b ( 23 and (d) shall not apply to-- 24 (1) a local action to enforce a negotiated or 25 executed airport aircraft noise or access f • HDM3101A 66 agreement between the airport operator and the 2- aircraft operator in effect on _the date of the : 3 enactment of this Act; 4 (ii) a local action to enforce a negotiated 5 or executed airport aircraft noise or access 6 restriction the airport operator and the aircraft 7 operators agreed to before the date of the 8 enactment of this Act; . 9 (iii) an intergovernmental agreement 10 including airport aircraft noise or access 11 restriction in effect on the date of the 12 enactment of this Act; 13 (iv) a subsequent amendment to an airport • 14 aircraft noise or access agreement or restriction 15 in effect on the date of the enactment of this 16 Act that does not reduce or -limit aircraft 17 operations or affect aircraft safety; 18 (v) (1) a restriction which was adopted by an 19 airport operator on or before October 1, 1990, 20 and which was stayed as of October 1, 1990, b � . Y a 21 court order or as a result of litigation, if such 22 restriction or a part thereof is subsequently 3 ; ', allowed by a court to take effect; and 24 (II) in any case in which a restriction 25 described in subclause (I) is either partially. P y or -NDM3101A 67 l totally disallowed by a court, any new . '2 restriction imposed byan airport operator to ' 3 replace such disallowed restriction if such new . 4 restriction would not prohibit aircraft 5 ' operations in effect as of the date of the ' 6 enactment of this Act; and 7 (vi) a local action which represents p the 8 adoption of the final portion of a program of a 9 ' staged airport aircraft noise or access r . 10 restriction where the initial 'portion_ p tion of such 11 Program was adopted during calendar year• y 1988 and 12 was in effect on the date of the ena ctment of _ 13 this Act. 14 (C) ADDITIONAL WORKING GROUP r 15 EXEMPTIONS.--Subsect ions (b) and (d) shall not apply where the Federal Aviation Administration has r . P or 17 to the date -of the enactment of this Act formed a working group (outside the process established . hed by •19 part 150 of title 14 of the Code of Federal .20 Regulations) with .a local airport operator to examine 21 the noise impact of air traffic control procedure ocedure . 22 changes. In any case in which an agreement rel ating lating 23 'to noise reductions at such airport is entered into 24 between the airport proprietor and an air carrier or 2e air carrier constituting a majority of the air r ' HDM3101A 68 1 carrier users of such airport, subsections (b). and . 2 (d) shall apply only to local actions to enforce such • 3 agreement. 4 (b) LIMITATION ON STAGE 3 AIRCRAFT RESTRICTIONS.--No 5 airport noise or access restriction on the operation of a 6 Stage 3 aircraft, including but not limited to-- 7 (1) a restriction as to noise levels generated on 8 either a single event or cumulative basis; 9 (2) a limit, direct or indirect, on the total number 10 of Stage 3 aircraft operations; . 11 (3) -a noise., -budget or noise allocation program which 12 would include Stage 3 aircraft; 13 (4) a restriction imposing limits on hours of 14 operations; and • 15 (5) any other limit on Stage 3 aircraft; 16 shall be effective unless it has beet agreed to by the -17 airport proprietor and all aircraft operators ox has been 18 submitted to and approved by the Secretary pursuant to an 19 airport or aircraft operators request -for approval in 20 accordance with the program established pursuant to this 21 section. • 22 (c) LIMITATION ON STAGE 2 AIRCRAFT RESTRICTIONS.--No 23 airport noise or access restriction shall include a 24 restriction on operations of Stage '2 aircraft, unless the • 25 airport operator publishes the proposed noise or access- • (C) SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS - Subsections (b) , (c) , and (d) (Stage 2 & 3 Restrictions) Minneapolis - St, Paul ( i ) Seattle - Tacoma ( ii ) Denver ( iii ) Orange County ( iv) Long Beach (v) San Francisco (vi ) (C) ADDITIONAL WORKING GROUP EXEMPTIONS Subsections (b) and (d) (Stage 3 Restrictions) Detroit w • HDM3101A 69 1.. -.restriction and prepares and makes available for public — ..comment at least 180 days before the effective date of .the • 3 restriction-- 4 .- l) an analysis of the anticipated or actual costs . 5 and benefits of the existing or proposed noise or access 6 restriction; 7 . (2) a description of alternative restrictions; and 8 (3) a description of the alternative measures ' 9 considered which do not involve aircraft restrictions, 10 and a comparison of the costs and benefits of such • it alternative measures to the costs and benefits of the 12 proposed noise or access restriction. :. 13 (d) APPROVAL OF STAGE 3 AIRCRAFT RESTRICTIONS.-- 14 (1) IN GENERAL.--Not later than the 180th day after • 15 the date on which the Secretary receives an airport or 16 aircraft operators- request for approval of a noise or ..g 17 access restriction on the operation of a Stage 3 18 aircraft, the Secretary shall approve or disapprove such 19 request. - . 20 (2) REQUIRED FINDINGS.--The Secretary shall not 21 approve a noise or access restriction applying to Stage 3 22 aircraft operations unless the Secretary finds the ? 3 following conditions to be supported by substantial 24 evidence: 25 (A) The proposed restriction is reasonable, HDM3101A 70 1 nonarbitrary, and nondiscriminatory. 2 (B) The proposed restriction does not create an 3 undue burden- on interstate or foreign commerce. . 4 (C) The proposed restriction is not inconsistent 5 with maintaining the safe and efficient utilization 6 of the navigable airspace. 7 (D) The proposed restriction does not conflict 8 with any eAisting Federal statute or regulation. - 9 (E) There has been an adequate opportunity for 10 public comment with respect to the restriction. 11 (F) The proposed restriction does not create an 12 undue burden on the national aviation system. 13 (e) INELIGIBILITY FOR PFC S AND AIP FUNDS.--Sponsors of 14 facilities operating under airport aircraft noise or access 15 restrictions on Stage 3 aircraft operations that first became 16 effective after October 1, 1990, shall not be eligible to 17 impose a passenger facility charge under section 1113(e) of 18 the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 and shall not be eligible 19 for grants authorized by section 505 of- the Airport and 20 Airway Improvement Act of 1982 after the 90th day following 21 the date on which the Secretary issues a final rule under 22 section 9304(a) of this Act, unless such restrictions have 23 been agreed to by the airport proprietor and 'aircraf t 24 operators or the Secretary has approved the restrictions 25 under this subtitle or the restrictions have been rescinded. •HDM3101A 71 � •1 • -.(f) REEVALUATION.--The Secretary may reevaluate any noise . . . : 2 restrictions previously agreed -to or approved under 3 subsection td) upon the request of an aircraft f t, operator able 4 -to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary that 5 there has been a change in the noise environment of the 6 affected airport and that a review and reevaluation _pursuant . 7 to the criteria established under subsection d of t ) the . 8 previously approved or agreed to noise restric tion is _ 9 therefore justified. 10 (g) PROCEDURES FOR REEVALUATION.--The Se. - cretary shall • �.�• 11 establish by regulation procedures and er which reevaluations _ 12 under subsection (f) are to be accomplished. A reev •. aluation • 13 under subsection (f) of a restriction shall not occur less 14 than'2 years after a determination under subsection d has t ) 15 been made with respect to such restriction. 16 (h) EFFECT ON_ EXSTING LAW.--Ex.. . . I_ cept to the. extent 17 required by the application of the provisions of this • 18 section, nothing in this subtitle shall be deemed to 19 eliminate, invalidate, or supersede-- . 20 (i) existing law with res ect to a • . p airport noise or 21 access restrictions by local authorities; 22 ` (2) any proposed airport noise or access regulation • 23 at a general aviation airport where the airport �24 - proprietor has formally initiated a regulatory or 25 legislative process on or before October 1, 1990; and C, • 'HDM3101A - • 72 l (3) the authority of the Secretary to seek and obtain ti 2 such legal remedies as the Secretary considers 3 ' appropriate, including injunctive relief.. 4 SEC, 9305. DETERMINATION REGARDING NOISE RESTRICTIONS ON 5 CERTAIN STAGE 2 AIRCRAFT. 6 The Secretary shall determine by a study the 7 applicability of subsections (a) , (b) , (c), and (d) of 8 section 9304 to noise restrictions on the operations of Stage 9 2 aircraft weighing less than 75,000 pounds. In staking such 10 determination, the Secretary shall consider-- 11 (1) noise levels produced by such aircraft relative 12 to other aircraft; .13 (2) the benefits to general- aviation and the need for 14 efficiency in the national air transportation system; 15 (3) the differences in the nature of operations at 16 airports and the areas immediately surrounding such 17 airports; 18 (4) international standards and accords with respect 19 to aircraft noise; and 20 (5) such other factors which the Secretary deems 21 necessary. 22 SEC. 9306, FEDERAL LIABILITY FOR NOISE DAMAGES. 23 In the event that a proposed airport aircraft noise or 24 access restriction is disapproved, the Federal Government 25 /shall assume liabilityfor noise damages only to th g y e extent . .HDM3101A 73 � . h that a taking has occurred as a d' •erect result of such . 2 - disapproval. Action- for the: resolution of such a .case shall . . 3 - be brought- solely in the United States ' Claims Court. - 4. • SEC. 9307. LIMITATION ON AIRPORT I24PROVEMEN T PROGRAM REVENUEO . 5 under no conditions shall any airport receive revenues 6 under the provisions of the Airport and P Airway Improvement 7 Act of 1982 or impose or collect a passenger facility cility charge 8 under section 1113(e) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 9 unless the Secretary assures that the airport is .. P not imposing .10 any noise or access restriction not in Compliance with this •::16 11 subtitle. 12 SEC. . 9308. PROHIBITION ON OPE RATION OF CERTAIN AIRCRAFT NOT 13 COMPLYING WITH STAGE 3 NOISE LEVELS* • 14 (a) GENERAL RULE.--After December 31 199 . 9, no person may • 15 operate to or from an airport in the United States any civil • 16 • subsonic turbojet aircraft with a maxim . , weight of more than ,. - 17 75,000 pounds unless such aircraft Complies wi s P tb the Stage 3 18 noise levels, as determined by the Secretary. 19 (b) WAIVER.-- 20 (1) APPLICATION.--If, b Jul . y y 1p 1999. at least 85 21 percent of the aircraft used by an air car. rier to provide 22 air transportation comply with the Stage 3 g noise levels, 23 such carrier may apply for a waiver of t he prohibition 24 set for th in -subsection (a) for the remaining 15 or less 25 percent of the aircraft used by the carrier to provide • •HDM3101A 74 • 1 . air transportation. Such application must .be .filed with •2 the Secretary no later- than January 1, 199.9, and must ..3 -include a plan with firm orders for making all aircraft 4 used by the air carrier to provide air transportation to 5 comply with such noise levels not later than December 31, 6 2003. 7 (2) GRANTING OF WAIVER.--The Secretary may rant a _ Y9 8 waiver under this subsection if the Secretary finds that 9 granting such waiver is in the public interest. In making 10 such a finding, the Secretary shall consider the effect 11 of granting such 'waiver on competition 'in air carrier . 12 industry and on small community air service. 13 (3) LIMITATION.--A waiver granted under this 14 subsection may not permit the operation of Stage 2 • 15 aircraft in the United States after December 31, 2003. • 16 (c) COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE.--The Secretary shall, by 17 regulation, establish a schedule for phased-in Compliance 18 with the prohibition set forth in subsection (a) . The period 19 of such phase-in shall begin on the date of the enactment of 20 this Act and end before December 31, 1999. Such regulations 21 shall establish interim compliance -dates, Such schedule for • 22 phased-in compliance shall be based upon a detailed economic 23 analysis of the impact of the phaseout date for Stage 2 9 - 24 /aircraft on competition in the airline industry, including 25 the ability of air carriers to achieve capacity growth - 'HDM3101A 75 - 1 consistent with •the projected rates of growth- for the airline. : 2 industry, the impact of competition within the airline 'and _ 3 . .air cargo industries, the impact -on nonhu b and small . . 4 ' community air service, and the impact P on new entry into the 5 airline industry, and on an analysis of the impact of P . 6 aircraft noise on persons residing near airports, 7 (d) EXEMPTION FOR NONCONTIGUOUS AIR SERVICE.--This 8 section and section 9309 shall not apply to aircraft which 9 are used solely to provide air transportation outside side the 48 10 contiguous. States,, Any civil subsonic - turbojet aircraft with 11 a maximum weight of more than 75,000 pounds which i� s imported 12 intoo -a noncontiguous State or a territory or possession of 13 the United States on or after the date of the enactment of .. 14 this Act may not be used to provide air tra nsportation in the 15 48 contiguous States unless such aircraft c •ompl�es with the 16 Stage 3 noise levels. 17 ley VIOLATIONS.--violations of this 'section. and section 18 9309 and regulations issued to carry out such sections shall 19 be subject to the same civil penalties P and procedures as are 20 provided by title IX of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 for 21 violations of title VI. . 22 (f) JUDICIAL REVIEW.--Actions taken b _ y the Secretary 23/ under this section and section 9309 shall be subject ] to 24 judicial review in accordance with section 1006 of th e 25 Federal Aviation Act of 1958, _ 'HDM3101A 76 1 (g) REPORTS.--Beginning with calendar year 1992, each air 2 carrier •shall submit to the Secretary an .annual report on -the 3•• progress such carrier is making toward complying .with the r 4 requirements of this section (including the regulations 5 issued to carry out this section) , and the Secretary shall 6 .transmit to Congress an annual report on the progress being 7 made toward such compliance. 8 (h) DEFINITIONS.--As used in this section, the following - 9 definitions apply: • 10 (1) AIR CARRIER; AIR TRANSPORTATION; UNITED 11- STATES.--The terms air carrier", **air 12 transportation", and "United States60 have the 13 meanings such terms have under section 101 of the , • 14 Federal Aviation Act of 1958. 15 (2) STAGE 3 NOISE LEVELS.--The term Stage 3 16 noise levels" means the Stage- 3 noise levels set . 17 forth in part 36 of title 14, Code of Federal .18 Regulations, as in effect on the date of the 19 enactment of this Act. 20 SEC. 93099 NONADDITION RULE. 21 (a) GENERAL RULE.--Except as provided in subsection (b) 22 of this section, no person may operate a civil subsonic 23 turbojet aircraft with a maximum weight of more than 750,000 24 pounds which is imported into the United States on or after 25 the date of the enactment of this Act unless-- 'J HDH3101A ~• 77 1 (1) P Stage it complies with the e 3 noise levels or 9 2 (2) it was purchased by the person who. imports 3 the aircraft into the United States under a written 4 contract executed before such date of enactment. 5 (b) EXEMPTION FOR COMPLYING MODI-FICATIONS.--The Secretary 6 may provide an exemption from the requirements of subsection 7 (a) to permit a person to obtain modifications to an aircraft 8 to tweet the Stage 3 noise levels. 9 (c) LIMITATION ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.--For the . 10 purposes of this section, an aircraft shall not be considered • 11 to have been imported into the United States if such 12 aircraft-- 13 (1) on the date of the enactment* of this Act, is 14 owned-- .• 15 (A) by a corporation, trust, or partnership which 16 is organized under the laws 'of *the United States or 17 any State (including the District of Columbia) ; ' 18 (8) by an individual who is a citizen of the •. 19 United States; or 20 (C) by any entity which is owned or controlled by 21 a corporation, trust, partnership, or individual • 22 r described in this paragraph; and 23 (2) enters into the United States not later than 6 24 months after the date. of the expiration of a lease • 25 agreement (including any extensions thereof) between an V • r 'HOM31oiA 78 -11 owner described in- paragraph (1) and a foreign air . • 2 c • arrier. . Airport Noise and Land Use Planning Conflict Resolution Workshop Gregory Bourne and Michael Elliott, PhD Workshop D: Noise Management November 30, 1990 ;` _ 8:30 am Section 1: Overview o/ Public Policy Dispute Resolution WHY DO PEOPLE CREATE CONFLICT OVER PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES? 1 . Feel opportunities for communication are limited or non- existent 2. Feel they are not being heard or understood 3. Feel authorities are not responsive to their concerns 4. Do not want change, or react to institutions not wanting change 5. Desire change faster than institutions can handle change 6. Ulterior motives - smokescreen, delay, only way to be taken seriously 19N Southeast Negotiation Network 1 . i S@ctlon I: Overview of Public Policy Dispute Resolution SOURCES OF DIFFICULTY ASSOCIATED WITH TRADITIONAL DECISION MAKING POLICY DESIGN • Over-reliance on centralized, governmental control. • Ambiguity in what constitutes the public interest. • Facts not clear. • • Preconceptions and misperceptions. • Symbolic and ideological conflict that ignores the specifics of the dispute. • Time and resource consuming. DECISION MAKING • Limited applicability of technical analysis and scientific reasoning to the resolution of political disputes. • Political grid lock in voting In political trade-offs • Lowest common denominator solutions. IMPLEMENTATIQN • Agreement excludes important stakeholder, who blocks implementation. • Legal grid lock. • Agreement falls apart due to lack of commitment. • No follow through on commitments, resources, implementation. 19N Southeast Negotiation Network 1 - 2 Section I: Overview of Public Policy Dispute Resolution MEDIATED NEGOTIATION CONTRASTED WITH TRADITIONAL APPROACHES TO PUBLIC POLICYMAKING Traditional Approa Mediated N eeti tion * crisis situations force policy * early discussion of policy choices options and alternatives * the various interests * face-to-face discussion involved do not have among various parties in a frequent contact, personal setting and format which exchange encourages candor, directness, and greater trust * polarization occurs before * interests are explored rather options can be explored than positions immediately taken * facts are selectively used * experts are used to help and interpreted to support establish and clarify factual partisan positions issues * high visibility often * low publicity and low accompanies public visibility of the group during discourse and debate discussion phases * outcome can include * explicitly collaborative, but frustration and residual does not try to hide distrust of particular groups disagreements, concerns, or and individuals differences of interest no neutral convenors assist neutral convenor assists parties in exploring issues parties, individuals in and negotiating with each identifying issues, clarifying other fact, and exploring options 1989 Southeast Negotiation Network 1 - 3 Section I: Overview of Public Policy Dispute Resolution BENEFITS FROM NEGOTIATION AND AFFIRMATIVE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT 1.Avoid Litigation o Reduce costs o Minimize hassles o Deal with uncertainty through direct intervention o Address substantive issues not just procedural/legal 2. Productive Confrontation o Maintain or improve relationships o Deal with the issues. o Open lines of communication o Just because people disagree does not mean they need to be disagreeable 3.Joint Problem Solving o Meet own interests, others interests and the interests of the community P Let conflict work for you - create the elegant solution 1989 Southeast Negotiation Network 1 -4 Section M Overview of Negotiation Styles KEY ASPECTS OF NEGOTIATION Personal • Interdependence • the need for cooperation in conflict • Altered perceptions • conflict enhances sense of separation • expectations, biases ' • Trust/Openness vs. Deception/Concealment • Subjective Utilities • Tangible Interests • Intangible Interests • Negotiators' Personalities Context • Negotiation Structure • Integrative • Distributive • Constituencies and Representation • Communication and Information Exchange • Bargaining Power 1989 Southeast Negotiation Network N - 2 Section N: Overview of N*9otiation Styles BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE NEGOTIATION Preferences • No mutually advantageous solution exists • Costs of negotiation seem to outweigh the expected benefits • Mutually advantageous solutions are precluded by values and principles • One or more party prefers to continue conflict • One party seeks to use delay as a tactic • One party does not wish to recognize the legitimacy of the other party Process • Inability to start negotiations • Lack of structure to support bargaining • Negotiating with the wrong individuals or groups • Communication failures Attit • Hostility • Personal Bias . • Threats and Accusations • "It's your problem." • Positional Bargaining • Unrealistic expectations • Failure to Consider the Consequences 1999 Southeast Negotiation Network IV, 3 Section M Overview of Negotiation Styies A COMPARISON OF DOWNSIDE RISKS BETWEEN COMPETITIVE AND COLLABORATIVE Cgmietitive: 1. Strong bias toward confrontation, encouraging the use of coercion and emotional pressure as persuasive means: o hard on relationships, breeding mistrust, feelings of separateness, frustration and anger, resulting in more frequent breakdowns in negotiations o distorts communication, producing misinformation and misjudgment. 4 2. Guards against responsiveness and openness to opponent (defensive), thereby restricting access to joint gains. 3. Encourages brinkmanship by creating many opportunities for impasse. 4. Increases difficulty in predicting responses of opponent because reliance is on manipulation and confrontation to control process. S. Contributes to overestimation of return possible through alternatives (court) because focus is not on a relatively objective analysis of substantive merits as standard for resolution. ** self-liquidating ** misses joint gains 1 W9 Southeast Negotiation Network IV- 14 Section N: Overview of Negotiation Styles j i Collaborative: 1. Strong bias toward cooperation, creating internal pressures to compromise and accommodate. 2.Avoids strategies that are confrontational because they risk impasse, which is viewed as failure. 3. Focuses on being sensitive to others' perceived interests: o increases vulnerability to deception and manipulation by a competitive opponent; o and increases possibility that settlement may be more favorable to other side than fairness would warrant. 4. lncreases difficulty of establishing definite aspiration levels and bottom lines because of reliance on qualitative (value-laden) goals. 5. Requires substantial skill and knowledge of process to do well. 6. Requires strong confidence in 'own assessment powers (perception) regarding interests/needs of other side and others' payoff schedule. ** fi rn flexibility 1989 Southeast Negotiation Network IV• 15 Section V• Principled Negotiation FOUR MAJOR ATTRIBUTES OF PRINCIPLED NEGOTIATION from Getting to Yes SEPARATE THE PEOPLE FROM THE PROBLEM FOCUS ON INTERESTS, NOT POSITIONS INVENT OPTIONS FOR MUTUAL GAIN INSIST ON USING OBJECTIVE CRITERIA 1989 Southeast Negotiation Network V• t Section V: Principled Negotiation PRINCIPLED NEGOTIATORS Attitude Toward Peo lie - separate people from the problem - proceed independent of trust - recognize your own "people" problems, not just theirs Clarification of Interests - explore interests (analysis stage) - avoid having a bottom line (BATNA) Desi in of 4 t.iona - develop multiple options to choose from (planning stage) investigate options for mutual gain Criteria for Changing Positions - insist on objective criteria - yi 7 Id to reason, not pressure 19W Southeast Negotiation Network V.2 Section VI: Conflict Diagnosis for Public Policy Disputes TYPICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PUBLIC POLICY DISPUTES • multi-party, multi-issue • complex issues • differing perspectives • .interests based on principles and values and not just on outcomes • loosely knit community and nonprofit interest groups • relationship between disputants is ad hoc • issues not clearly defined • unequal resources, power and expertise • uncertainty r t . i 19M Southeast otiation Network A . i Section VI: Conflict Diagnosis for Public Policy Oisputes SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PHYSICAL PLANNING AND POLICY CONFLICTS Intimate Playing Field • specific location • tangible stakes to specific individuals Interactive Politics • linked issues • politics of • personality positions - power - precedent Politics of Place attachments • pride of place Diversity race/culture/ethnicity • class/income/power • ideology/beliefs J Interconnected Futures shared human resources • status quo and change Amateur Politics self-organizing • unmanaged networks 19W 444utheast Negobadon Netwo - 2 Section VI: Conflict Diagnosis for Public Policy Disputes MULTIPLE PARTIES IN PUBLIC POLICY DISPUTES ress stare le9�s1 -,ahe Co delegates LOcat del tors %.001 bt �e e9is/at. e 9ares . Oort,R,�ttees �rherrs ✓GO;• J� ass that en de! sr c'd/ � ��o QQ�s �an9sessm agates • �C+oGaeP Sys `� `e�ptiP J�� OG,, �f Pdi 00 c c o� etnment he sra °_ C. a, .. y0 Cr p :. � D n, •,. •• XIj Q C C O • The ' planning process h c o, to � ' O C �_ ^ 7 C .. c p�• Q Cr a d p c M 4� ,e •` � � N.N o �► c� �Qa� c Fa A G to 10 `AC v0 Oc a ^ °c 10 .the o� O o` ` IP/c may A4P 0 .o O'ool.PfrPJ:r 1P^� hood v+ot S ' . �'G� c: 9 es . s °od ub1�� •tea a aa,o�a or9anizat .• P `lance a o`��c, rP�P roe i s oCal taX p ions 4 atk5 anon ea Jr9� r C;,,ociarions Yer ge met Inat�ot;rl �\eoti of✓gJ ass . Sestet PU . Res assoc. �I ea1 a% / nt. o, /t sl �e� es Y groUpS `OC W— theast Negotiation Network -3 Section VI: Conflict Diagnosis for Public Policy Disputes COMPLEX CONTROVERSIES POTENTIAL FOR AFFECTED PARTIES TO BLOCK PUBLIC POLICY DECISIONS POSSIBILITY OF JOINT GAIN AMONGST PARTIES NEGOTIABLE ISSUES POTENTIAL FOR SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION OF FACILITATED CONFLICT RESOLUTION TECHNIQUES i 1989 Southeast Negotiation Network A • 4 r I Section A Conflict Diagnosis for Public Policy Disputes CONFLICT DIAGNOSIS MODEL r' f I. The Structure of the Issues DIMENSION EASE OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION DIFFICULT EASIER sources of conflict social structures procedures for decision making, substantive issues interdependence of single, indivisible linked but divisible the issues issues issues basis of the matters of principle focus on outcomes Interests size of the stakes large small perspectives on differing shared problems perspectives understanding predictability of uncertain, risky shared expectations outcomes t� 19W Southeast Negotiation Network VAI •s Section V1: Conflict Diagnosis for Public Policy Disputes CONFLICT DIAGNOSIS MODEL Il. The Relationships Between the Parties DIMENSION EASE OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION DIFFICULT U EASIER interdependence of zero sum, joint gain, the parties competitive goals cooperative goals continuity of the single negotiations long-term interactions relationship organization of the amorphous or cohesive and parties fractionated, weak strongly led leadership number of parties multilateral bilateral recognition of the ad hoc selection of routine selection of parties participants participants representation of ad hoc repre- highly legitimated parties sentatives with representatives questionable legitimacy experience with inexperienced experienced negotiation negotiators negotiators balance of power unbalanced balanced a M Southeast Negotiation Network A , 6 Section VI: Conflict Diagnosis for Public Policy Disputes CONFLICT DIAGNOSIS MODEL III. The Process of Dispute Resolution DIMENSION EASE OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION DIFFICULT EASIER involvement of third no neutral third trusted, neutral, parties party available powerful third party available approach to competitive cooperative resolution legitimacy of challanged by accepted by resolution process participants participants as legitimate focus of the conflict on personalities on problem solving and positions and interests perceived progress escalating, desire to parties feeling of the conflict retaliate equally harmed, desire to break deadlock deadlines deadlines do not deadlines exist exist agreement agreements based agreements based on nonbinding on binding committments commitments r 19W Southeast Neptiation Network V1 - 7 Section VII: Planning the Pro-Negotiation Phase BASIC ELEMENTS OF THE PRENEGOTIATION PROCESS 1. Assess the structure of the conflict. • issues single, indivisible or linked but divisible? • interests based on principles or outcomes? • stakes large or small? • differing perspectives or shared understanding of problem? • outcomes uncertain and risky or shared expectations? 2. Identify parties with a stake. • groups and individuals who will be affected • groups and individuals who can block agreement • groups and individuals who can block implementation 3. Assess the relationships between the garties. If • interests distributive or integrative? • interactions in a single negotiation or long-term? • parties fractionated with weak leadership or cohesive and strongly led? • number of parties multilateral or bilateral? • parties selected ad hoc or routinely? • inexperienced negotiators or experienced negotiators? •/power unbalanced or balanced? 1W9 SoutheM Negotiation Network V11 - t 'I Section Vll: Planning tine Pre-Negotiation Phase 4. Ensure appropriate representation of the p5jrties, • representatives open to scrutiny • process open to wider participation • emphasis on legitimacy • dealing with recalcitrant participants S. Build the capacity of the represented parties to engage in meaningful negotiation. • provide technical assistance • vertical team bargaining 6. Facilitate more effective communication. • to exchange information • to share perspectives • to identify goals and interests • to shape perceptions • to negotiate - 1989 Southeast Negotiation - Section VII: Planning the Pre-Negotiation Phase 7. Establish an agenda for negotiation. • deal with interests and goals • incorporate activities necessary given the structure of the conflict • delineate negotiations without precluding creative flexibility 8. Qlarify how the negotiation process is to be managed. • availability of neutral third party? • resolution process considered legitimate or challenged by participants? • conflict focused on personalities and positions or on problem solving and interests? • conflict perceived as escalating or parties desire to break deadlock? • deadlines exist or do not exist? 19W Southeast Negotiation Network VU , Section Vill: Planning the Negotiation/Agreement Phase BASIC ELEMENTS OF THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS 1 . Define the issues. • clarify differences in interests, values and perceptions • confront differences in assumptions 2.Generate alternatives for further consideration. • brain storm • expand options • develop new solutions 3. Establish Criteria for Selectina O tp ions. • precedents • comparables • objectives 4.Jointy assess Impacts of alternatives. • joint fact finding • data mediation of existing analysis • design new studies S. Expand options. • mitigation • compensation • linkage to secondary issues . Select options, • evaluate options • build consensus 1989 Souftw otiation Network VIR - t Section M11: Planning the Negotiation/Agreement Phase STRENGTH OF AGREEMENTS Fisher (1978) STRONGER AGREEMENTS WEAKER AGREEMENTS SUBSTANTIVE: Define specific PROCEDURAL: Define the way tangible exchanges (money, or process by which a decision services, etc) that will result is to be made. from negotiations. COMPREHENSIVE. Resolve all PARTIAL. Do not resolve all issues in dispute. issues in dispute. PERMANENT: Resolve issues PROVISIONAL: Temporary or In dispute for all time. trial decisions that are subject to change in the future. FINAL: Include all the details IN-PRINCIPLE: General In their final form. agreements, with details remaining to be worked out. NONCONDITIONAL: Terminate CONTINGENT: Resolution of the dispute without the dispute is conditional upon requirements of future additional information or future conditional performance. performance by one or more parties. BINDING. Parties agree to be NONBINDING: Recommenda- bound and to adhere to the tion to which none of the terms of settlement, often with parties guarantees adherence. consequences identified for failure to follow through. 1989 Southeast Negotiation Network 1 .2 Section VIII: Planning the Negotiadon/Agreement Phase BASIC ELEMENTS OF THE AGREEMENTIIMPLEMENTATION PROCESS 1. Agree in principle, • general framework for agreement • single negotiated text • renegotiate/modify options 2.A ree in practice. • procedural and substantive actions necessary for implementation • .legal structure, current and future ,.; commitments • the general and specific steps required to implement the decision 1 W9 Southeast Nego6aton Network1 - Section M11: Planning the Negotiation/Agreement Phase 3. Establish im lementation responsibilities and check osts. • identify the people who have the power to influence the necessary changes • design an organizational structure (if applicable) to implement the alternatives • establish provisions that will accommodate either future changes in agreement terms or changes in disputing parties 4. Make commitments that work. • establish criteria to be used to measure successful compliance • establish procedures to manage unintended or unexpected problems or violations of the settlement that may arise during implementation • design methods to monitor compliance, and identify monitor(s) • determine monitor's role • whistle blower • enforcer S. Implement the agreement. IM Southeast Negotiation Network Vill•4 Section X Overcoming Barriers to Jolrit Problem-Solving INCENTIVES TO NEGOTIATE Relationship Contracts Legal requirements Legal costs/hassles Uncertainties of litigation Perception of beneficial outcomes ' Agreement superior to no agreement Substance of issues addressed 19N Southeast Negotiation Network Section X Overcoming Barriers to Joint Problem-Solving DEFINITIONS OF NEGOTIATING POWER Bacharach/Lawler - power is based on the dependence of one party on another party Fisher/Wheeler/Bacow - power is based on the impact of possible failure of the negotiations Schelling - power is based on the commitment to a course of action, or on an asymmetry in information 1989 Southeast Negotiation Network X•1 Airport Noise and Land Use Planning Aw- Common Problems Associated With Noise Mitigation Programs Joe A. Carroll Workshop D: Noise Management November 29, 1990 -. 3:00 pm Morela nd A l tob el l i A s so c i ates,Inc. Ccnaon Problems Associated with Noise Mitigation 1) Irate property owners. In order to appropriately handle irate property owners without being issued a prison sentence, you need -public relations oriented employees. 80$ of this job is PE=C RELATIONS. Employees must be flexible in their presen- tations. Never talk "over" a property owner's head. Speak the property owner's language. Keep both your presentation and letters as simple as pos- sible. This employee roust be polite and courteous; never antagonistic. Must be very cool headed. Ewlcyees with these characteristics and the associ- ated experience, are beccing scarce. These employees deal with the public ca y making offers, hearingcounter-offers, coordinating closings, explaining, and usually defending, the program. They are known as Negoti- ators, land Acquisition Officers, Acquisition Specialists, Relocation Spe- cialists and, of course, the Project Manager. This employee should also have a thorough understandiM of the project and it's impact upon the affected property owners and residents. Along with this regairemient comes the necessity of thoroughly knowing and understand- ing the Federal regulations associated with the project. Experience is invaluable in teaching one how to handle irate pr perty Whe ther ether you are making an offer to purchase their home, or respond- ing a noise complaint, you must scallehow beccine their friend. You are a salesman withazt the sales pitch tome in your voice. You roust be willing to hear their side of the story. This may take more time than you would like to spend on one case, but if it will help you achieve your goal, it is time well spent. 2) Neighbors talk. In order to combat this inevitable situation, your program aasst maintain a fair mount of consistency among the benefits and dollar amounts awarded. This is done by a check and balance or monitor and review process. When paying =netary amounts for various property rights, you must have a well thought out appraiser selection process. Appraisers mast be selected based upon the quality of their work. The bigger the program, the more im- portant timeliness is. Politics must be kept out of the appraiser selection process. /The ideal scenario is to allow one ap praiser to appraise all houses in the same neighborhood. This cuts down the amount of variance between apprais- als. The review appraiser is an excellent tool for maintaining consistency. If You are working under a Federally funded program, a review appraisal is required under the Uniform Relocation Act. Even if you don't have Federal Binds allocated to your program, you should. require all appraisals to be reviewed by a qualified review appraiser. MorelandA ltobell iAssociates,l nc. 3) Lawsuits. Proper goal settingand knowledge of the associated regulations is a must for your noise program. Never lose sight of the primary goal of your noise mitigation ]program: convert inompatible land uses into ocsnpatib A land uses. This statement reclaires. that open rxxjotiations take place between the airport sponsor and the property owner when attempting to acquire various property interests. ascroble and justifiable negotiations are all you can offer. Settlements beyond reason are out of your jurisdiction. if your attorney insists on a settlement that you feel is unreasonable, you should insist that the attorney provide the proper file documentation for support of the payment. Settlements supported by recent court decisions, with the associated costs reflected, are excellent means of justification in settle- ments used to avoid lawsuits. Research or attend litigation similar to your potential lawsuit in the same jurisdiction. Until you see it for yourself, you will never fully under- ? le you and your airport can be. M=1edge ..of the principles of real estate valuation is obviously an advan- tage, but nothing can substitute for good, oaam n sense in reaching settle- ments with property owners. , if you end up in court before a jury, the odds are that none of the jurors will have any knc wledge of real, estate valuation principles. Hopefully they will have some semblance of common sense that will form the basis of their decision. (Don't bet on it.) Use Your COM sense to reach a le and justifiable settlement with the propertym Owner and support it with detailed file documentation instead of wasting time and money going to court. 4) Lack of time for detailed documentation. obviously, this is more of a prob- lem in larger noise programs. Forget what you've read the Y'� personal o air- port pe angouter (Pr) was for air port noise mitigation employees! 2 e'longer one puts docummentation off, the more one forgets. EverYUWV must be noted in the parcel file. (i.e. letters, telephone omwersations, Ungs, etc.) It is very easy to put off documentation. The PC makes documentation easy and fast, thereby offer- ing the employee no reason for avoidance. A laptop is preferable clue to it's convenience. Parcel files are tedious and quickly show signs of wear and tear. However, if a PC is unavailable, parcel files are a mist. Hand written documentation s fine. It takes a well organized employee to do an appropriate job of d=men- tation. This type of employee can save you in an audit. As long as the pr -erty owners are treated fair and reasonable, good documentaticr, will support 99% of your actions before the FAA. If you know you have well organized employees that put in a full days work, and your file documentation is still lacking, you need to either hire more employees, or cut back the workload. one or the other must be done, because proper doc;tmyentation cannot be sacrificed: r Moreland Altobel l Associates,Inc. 5) Counter-offers. Counter-offers should be expected. They should came as no surprise. in deal- ing with a pz erty owner and their counter-offer, stress to them that your oonly ily. You,itati o settlement in reaching asettlement is reasonableness and justifica- justify any you reach with a property owner. Accepting a eomter-offer just to get rid of a headache will always come back to haunt you. Negotiations is often a game won with ecmrcn sense. Experience is the best coach. Residential Property negotiations is a good place to get plenty of experience before you tackle ccamercial property. Negotiations on commer- cial property is an entirely different ball game. You are usually faced with the task of negotiating with a ccmercial real estate broker or agent. They make a living negotiating deals on eomtaereial property and therefore usually km all the .tricks, and then some. If you have no experience in t Y � start. ticns, dealing with coamercial property is no place to 'True threat of eumticn must be present when paying relocation benefits. If your goal is to convert e land uses into --c aatible land uses, the threat and use of oad mticn mist be present. 6) Appeals. All appeals must be considered regardless of form. If an independent board is used, it is still the sponsor's responsibility to make sure proper docu- mentation is supplied with the decision. Form letters are not enaxlh and should never apply in documenting an appeal. Therefore, you will have to offer attractive coa)ensation in order to receive adequate work. When starting a project, the marmer in which the initial appeals are ad- will set a precedent known by all. Be especially sure of your deci- sions here and stay as close to the book as possible. If you don't have any recent court awards to point to, you will Probably have to take a strict approach to negotiations. Ibis will require more detail and time in your documentation. 7) Land clearance. (Noose removal, demolition, asbestos abatement) Otherwise known as "A NIGHRO 2E cN AIRPORT sTRE I'," this is often the black sheep of all airport land acquisition programs. lifter the residents move out of the displac event dwelling the trouble be- gins. Vacant houses attract vagrants and vandalism. Residents still living in the neighborhood cca lain about the rapidly deteriorating condition of their neighborhood. For ,house removal projects, try to avoid long periods of vacancy by Per`' forming all preliminary work while the residents are still living in the displacement dwelling (i.e. inspections, contract preparation, bidding MorelandA ltobel l iAssociates,Inc. /A process, contract award and lion) . The idea is to have an executed con- tract in hand before the residents move. The day they move is the day you should submit the notice to proceed with identified work to the contractor. The primary hold up here is that you cannot perform an.acceptable inspec- tion for asbestos cottaining materials (ACMs) until the property has been completely vacated by the residents. This is because an acceptable inspec- tion the consultant to take samples of any material that they feel are suspect ACMs. Therefore, you must get an experienced ACM inspector to visually inspect the inside and outside of each house prior to the moving of the residents. Assure this r that after the residents move, you will send him back out to the dAle.11ing, hopefully the very day they move, and allow them to take samples of the suspect ALCMs. Fbr now however, you need the inspector to give you his or her best forecast as to whether or not your subject house has any ACMs, so that you can include this infor- mation in your bid specifications. If the 'on shows ACMs to be in areas that the housemover will disturb during the move, the AcCMs will have to be removed by a certified asbestos abatement contractor. It is not advis- able to allow the ACM to also have a contract for asbestos abate- ment in the same houses that he or she is inspecting for you. Make sure the liability for any overlooked ACMs is Billy placed on the ACM ins�ec-tor. For your budget's sake, you should hope and pray that ACMs do not have to be physically r�enoved Eton the dwelling in order to move it. If, in fact, ACM removal, s require you will want to have the house moved at any salvage value you can squeeze out of it. If it has no salvage value, demolition is the next alternative, which will cost you money. Therefore, try to give the house away at no cost to the airport, or work out a deal with local fire departments for a training exercise and allow then to burn the house down. This way you sidestep the cost of demolition and are only faced with haul- ing away the foundation and substantially reduced debris. This approach works great for small acquisition pr.ograms add i ng nine or ten houses. However, at Hartsfield, we used this approach on an entire neighborhood of 65 houses. This may sound drastic, but we are talking ng abet cost effective management of your funds. ALLAYS TREAT YOUR GRANT M39EY AS IF IT WERE YOUR OWN. Dependent of course on the r=ber of houses in your project area, Mnitor. ing the land clearance phase of your program can be a full time job. The main reason we had so much trouble with this phase at Hartsfield was be- cause we never had an em plcyse devoted full timme to these duties. Hire Yourself a full time Land Clearance Coordinator. There is too much risk in Phis area to allow these carrtractors to operate without being continuously monitored. Mishandling ing ACMs will at the least result in your airport receiv- ing fines E, -it your State Depaxtrent of Natural , or similar agen- cy. The worst case scenario is, of course, hinge lawsuits. Also, housemovers and demolition contractors are notorious for burying debris on the job site when left unmonitored. Scare day when your airport representatives sit down at the closing table to close the deal on selling your acquired land for redevelopment, you are going to be asked by the purchaser, who will very likely be an experienced land developer, to certify that no debris is bur- ied on site in order to close the deal. This is also the day you will take your Land Clearance Coordinator out to dinner afterwards. 1 MorelandAltobel l Associates,Inc. ip,i VA Your Land Clearance Coordinator.. or whatever you want to call him, must be hest, loyal, of a high moral nature, and well paid. Mly all these ethical characteristics? Because the chances of bribes and kickbacks are ever pres- ent in this area. This employee moist spend approximately 90% of the time in the field away from the office. Therefore, so you don't end up having to monitor your monitor, do ycxir homework before awarding this job to just any ordinary "Joe". Also, since a lot of housemovers and demolition contractors are generally rough around the edges, a hand-nosed personality in your Land Clearance Coordinator is also desirable. Tb operate with housemovers and demolition contractors you must enforce your contract, however, as experience will show you, to the proj- ect you carmot be a bureaucrat. It is probably the closest you will came to a "no win situation". 8) Project ccepleticn time. , Highly motivated employees is the obvious answer to this problem. Dealing with property owners, Federal rules, regulations, and public offi- cials, can easily wear dawn your employees. High quantity goals will even- wally cause employee burn out. 7h,e Noise Program Manager oust constantly seek out ways to motivate their staff employees. Highly motivated employees will obviously enable your program to reach it's goals and ultimate completion in the shortest amount of time possible. As stated earlier, highly motivated employees will usually come at a cost. In most cases monetarily. The easiest way to obtain this type of worker is on contract. The contracted employee/consultant is usually put in a situ- ation of having to provide services prior to receiving pay. Since most workers are motivated by money, project completion occurs faster. Thus, in order to avoid a lack of quality put into the project, the airport sponsor must hire a consultant with proven hands-on experience. Proper planning will head off project delays and program ndments. Part 150 NCP aanernhnents are very time ccrosuming, as are Federal grant amend- ments. 9) Staff employee motivation. Ilaney makes the world go around! (surprise, surprise) There are no two ways around it, cash is the ultimate motivation. This is not a problem for the Noise Program Manager when working with contracted employees. However, it is often a big problem for the Noise program Manager with staff employees. The staff employee is often times limited to a salary that is derived frcSa comparison to similar jobs under the same authority or municipality. These salaries are often inappropriate because the aanparison jobs used to sub- stantiate their salaries usually do not require as much time and detail. In Other weds, the job used to formulate the noise mitigation employee jab description was inappropriate to begin with. Bonus pay is usually nonexis- tent. i 1 MorelandA ltobel 1 iAssociates,l nc. Another form of counpensation is flexible working hours. In this day and age of dual income couples with children, and the single, working flexi- ble hours are an attractive benefit pit,i for the staff employee. Instead of the usual 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM working hours, 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM, or 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM, can be offered to fit owes lifestyle. Four ten hour days, instead of five eight hour days, are also desirable to many workers. Unfortunately, most Admillistrators are frtmt the old school, and are not willing to consi- der these type innovations. The easiest form of motivation is to allow your employees to participate in the decision making process that guides the program. Don't be a dictator. Don't assume you know everything. Listen to your employees, especially the ones that are cut in the field daily. Use them as much as possible. Keep your job descriptions as broad as possible for this very reason. Avoid lengthy staff . Try to get it done in one hour at the maxi- mana. ourage employee participation, but you as the manager mist keep the meeting going in the right direction. Guide your employees into answering their own questions. MAs builds ccnfi- dence which is mandatory in this field. It takes confidence to be at ease with the public in sticky situations. 10) Politics. Politics are unavoidable to a certain degree. jiaa+ever, knowledge of the associated regulations and proper doom entatian will help keep you free of many political hazards. Let the politicians play politics. The Noise program Manager must relay any political situations realized to their superiors. (D=mwTt the fact that you relayed the situation and to whan you relayed it to.) If handled cor- rectly, the situation will be passed along up the ladder until it reaches a politician, or an appointed official that can provide an appropriate re- sponse. In passing this situaticui on. to your supezv:Lsor, be sure to apprise therm of relative program regulations and any prior program actions taken in similar instances. Pop 11 Do not make any oaianents for or against any,politicians that are either in office, or running for office, while conversing with the public. Also, be.careful,when talking to, reporters. A can sink a political candidate quicker anything, which likewise will sink your ship too. The politician is probably in a yacht with a life boat on board, while you are very likely in a rowboat with cement paddles. (YOU LOSE) Try and maintain the support of the local United States Ccngressmen and Senators. Make sure the person responsible for answering cargressicnal {nqd ties is prompt, cantecus, and writing ski I ls. Let the United States Cmxjressmen and Senators make the grant award is to the public. MorelandA ltobell iAssociates,Inc. 11) Wiere to draw the line that separates programs. (ex. Acquisiticn,/relocaticn frcgapurchase assurance) (ex. AcquisiticrVrelocaticn fz-m avigation ) The noise contour line is not necessarily the gospel. Nine times out of ten it shouldn't be. The FAA allows the airport sponsor to cross the line and include contiguous parcels in a program as long as it is done to achieve equity in the neighborhood. In our Ballard Road AcquisitiaVTelocaticn Program in Atlanta, we went we1.1 outside the 75 I do to include close to 75 houses because it was all part of the same neighborhood. It is important to have the input t -rn the local elected officials fraa the subject neighborhood in making this decision. You will have to remind them that you are not asking for their opinion on the validity of Ldn as an accu- rate noise indicator, because they are definitely doing to tell you that your noise curves are u.nderstated. Instead, after making theta well aware of the Federal guidelines, you want their position on the location of the affected neighborhood boundaries. Ideally you will have natural boundaries such as lakes, rivers, or dense woods. The other ideal is an obvious change in the land use. However, since nothing is easy in this business, you probably have wall to wall residen- tial houses for as far as you can see. i c � Airport Noise and Land Use Planning Airport Planning and Noise Control in the United States Clifford R. Bragdon, PhD, AICP November 26, 7990 I, � 9:00 am • II'I ISO- W LM LM 0 ... Q cz 0 •; E 1.. .Ico a co 1 co L �...� LM tz (1) .._ 4-0 �'. 0 .� Q0 Cl) r - i t s r Z f i i i • 4wo %%,R %0-O--l. C* rm 0 a z 0 Wl co JLIJ W J 0 0 00' � c 0 o � 0 ti CO xw . W z W Cl) CO a Q W W V 0 II � N r- • �J V -�J IW W Wco s� cc W t-- O �ZU W • . a co ico d co co -- z • H oc 0 a � H a m U Q H O ', a a o a LLQCC � 1C� 0 a < o C W 2ow G Z . O a s J a m � W Z N � Z O V • r U o � zum ¢ � O' + W F:3 -- a g ° J o U 4 1 CO , •� LLJ --J in AM to CO i W D LLI N LLJ MQ d � Q W co �, --1 N � u Q Z 1 m u 0. W of W O NCO LLJ LLJ T J� C0 O i • 1 t ` • r � C C O 4) _ E FW5E vs O 0 m 'x>► a U > c� >.�+ N a� •(�co � �E Q co z cU Z d •X � c a� z w 4 •cd 0 � 0 � -- � g ,Q >" J W Q U O C C ca 4) a. >, 0.0 w- X 0 alO W ! .� Z7 C.) OQ r., �.... z W C 4) O X �, N 00 ... �. . � � L1. J W C ''♦^^ 0 0 0 �� co 0 00 E O c �• co > U 0 •C .0 ,+� 0 w co :c z d cro 0 — a cis .. W cts (1) •� o C U *a 4� to cl d � > .doe N C c w O .J u- CL u. o U U a . 0. TABLE 1 AIRPORT NOISE CONTROL METHODS: OPERATIONAL RANK ORDER OPERATIONAL CONTROLS AIRPORT COMMUNITIES NUMBER PERCENT If It If 111111 If 11111111 If It It 11 It 11 If 111111 If If It 11 If It If It 1111 If x�i�Y��YR 1 Preferential Runway 139 34.5 2 Ground Runup Restrictions 94 23.3 3 Flight Training Restrictions gl 20.1 4 Noise Abatement Flight Tracks 68 16.9 5 Noise Abatement Profiles 55•' 13.6 - 6 Aircraft Bans 42 10.4 7 Partial Curfew/Ban 41 10.1 8 Noise Monitoring 36 8.9 9 Slots 35 8.7 10 Noise Emission Levels 26 6.4 it Displaced Landing Thresholds & Takeoff Points 24 5. 9 12 Capacity Limits 6 1.4 13 Aircraft Towing 5 1.2 14 Curfews 4 0.9 15 'Operational Fees 3 0.7 Jill ltillill 1111111111 Jill 1111 Jill lilt 111111 It 11 It Jill It lilt It It jtilililitilit It 11 Millis *Percent of Sample (402 Airports) TABLE 2 • AIRPORT NOISE CONTROL METHODS: LAND USE RANK AIRPORT COMMUNITIES ORDER LA14D USE CONTROLS NUMBER PERCENT* 1 Zoning 133 33.0 2 Comprehensive Plan 108 26. 8 3 Land Acquisition 77 19. 1 4 Avigational Easement 49 12.1 5 Noise Disclosure 34 8.4 6 Environmental Impact Review 33 8.2 7 Building Code 32 7.9 8 Capital Improvements 18 4.4 9 Sound Insulation 16 3.9 10 Development Ri4hts 10 2.4 11 Site Design 9 2.2 12 Land Banking 7' 1.7 13 Subdivision Regulations 6 1.4 14 Purchase Assurance 4 0.9 15 Tax Incentives 3 0.7 *Percent of Sample (402 Airports) • 0 0 0 0 0 cn C)Ma r C D C --i> rC- m 0 rA O 0 0— -a -4 r Z C z n y O ->i CArn r M O n z < � 0 o to A co ~ m --� = m z m c m 70 r m m w = m G� CA W N 0 D � r • m cn0 D Z W O • r m Z D m m N V � C C y D m - - D D 0zAb 7D co O N � D m vo C r _v Z O O v m z O Cl) C4 Cl) m � )> m m Cl) C/)N%J Cf) rm r 0 z v c CA � rn TOTAL DOLLAR VALUE SOUGHT (IN. MILLION DOLLARS) ffl m" 0 O O 0 0O O p O 0' O ZO c O � N m r m O mco 9 �o mm v n m > CID G) > --i Z O c°M ft-4 � yco � I • W W � Cl) Co u sv� M m -1 .� m 0 z 0 s C o z r A z y .�.. r� i • Freeway Traffic 80 / %, Aircraft Operations 1 l Urban Traffic 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 ' � 80� \ � 00 75 :%d V 65 1 __ _.._ , �__% • • • • Urban Traffic 1 Traff Freeway ♦�Aircraft r rations • • • • • • 60 ,- ---- - -------- -- • •'�' 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Urban Population in Millions CUMULATIVE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN URBAN AREAS EXPOSED TO OUTDOOR DAY-NIGHT AVERAGE SOUND LEVELS FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES SOURCE: EPA LEVELS L DOCUMENT C CA � w cc N r" m C m mm m z rn rn CT = T m -n 1`- -� M / snow �� Z n 1-00 z rn _ %020 �Q . � v v ° � 6 Z z c Z � � L v CA � rn t ti THE R I RPORT NOISE MOVEMENT: A JOURNRL I ST'S PERSPECTI UE RNNE H. KOHUT PUBLISHER R I RPORT NOISE REPORT R I RPORT NOISE RNO LAND USE PLANNING COURSE RTL O NTR, G R NOU. 279 1990 i Good afternoon. Its a pleasure to be here. for the past two years I haue published a newsletter on the topic of airport noise, and in the course of doing so, I have had the opportunity to talk to many people on all sides of this issue: airport, airline, and city officials, attorneys, pilots, legislators, regulators, and anti-noise activists. I haue been impressed by their concerns and by the compleHity of the airport noise problem. It pits enuironmental needs against economic needs; it pits local concerns against national concerns; and more and more frequently, it pits communities against airports. Iircraft noise is the major inhibitor of airport eHpansion. I don't know that the noise problem will euer be completely soloed, but I think it is necessary that communities feel that all that can be done to control noise is being done before they will support airport expansion projects. The more I couer the airport noise issue, the more i am guided by two quotes: "All politics are local," and "Hell hath no fury like a middle class neighborhood scorned." The first is attributed to Tip O'Neill, and the latter to an editorial writer for the Detroit free Press talking about community reaction to air route changes there. Time and time again, the truth embedded in these quotes is demonstrated in the way noise problems are played out in communities across the country. I would like to discuss today what I think are the important issues to watch in the airport noise debate in the neHt few years. Of course, first and foremost is the impact of the Airport Safety and Capacity EHpansion Act of 1990 which Congress recently passed. It allows airport operators to impose passenger facility charges (head taHes) to fund expansion projects, and sets the framework for a .. n Ilaeat noise policg that could make it uirtually impossible to limit opastmis of Stage 3 aircraft. I think that if DOT is not sensitiue to the needs of some airports for restrictions on Stage 3 aircraft, this legislation could easily backfire. A second important issue to watch is how f AA handles noise problems stemming from air route changes nude to carve out more capacity at eHisting airports. Often this noise hits communities that neuer had ouerfiiahts before and are iocated tar from airoorts. This en route noise is a different animal from noise close into airports and will demand special consideration. Third, is the issue of noise metrics. The Ldn noise metric used by FOR to assess the impact of aircraft noise on the community is under legal attack as is the 65 ldn contour used by FOR as the boundary beyond which it can be assumed there is no significant noise impact. I think these challenges will continue. Effects of National Noise Policy For those of you not familiar with the noise policy provisions of the Airport Safety and Capacity Expansion Act, I will briefly summarize them. • It requires DOT to issue regulations establishing a national noise policy by July 19 1991; • Requires Stage 2 aircraft to be phased out by the end of 1999 (although exemptions can be giuen to allow the final 1S percent of an airline's fleet to operate until the end of 2003); • Grandfathers all noise rules in effect as of Oct. 1, 1990; and exempts noise rules at Minneapolis, Seattle, Denuer, Orange County, Long Beach, Palm Beach, Detroit, Westchester County, and Uan Nuys; • Requires FAR reulew and approval of new Stage 3 noise rules, and transfers the burden of proof that the rules meet stringent criteria from DOT to the airport operator. It also imposes a new criteria for approval of Stage 3 restrictions: they cannot place an undue burden on the national auiation system. This is an as yet undefined term, which critics of the bill fear could be used by DOT to reject any Stage 3 restrictions. • Requires public comment and cost benefit analysis of Stage 2 noise rules, but not DOT approval (This will probably slow down issuance of new restrictions. on Stage 2 aircraft); • Includes a non-addition rule to limit dumping of European Stage 2 aircraft in the U.S.; Requires federal gouernment to assume liability for noise-damages that are a direct result of its dicapproual of a Stage 3 noise rule.., i This final bill differs significantly from the original language introduced by Sen. Wendell Ford, chairman of the Senate Ruiation Subcommittee. That legislation was referred to as an "airline dream i bill." It would have required federal approval of all enisting or proposed noise rules, prohibited any restrictions on Stage 3 aircraft, required DOT approval of restrictions on Stage 2 aircraft, and given the airlines private right to sue directly over noise rules. twUet nnnnln 4L-4 Uit the lobbying efforts by many of the airports that got eHemptions in the bill, anti-noise groups, and Rep. James Oberstar, chairman of the House Auiation Subcommittee, for mounting enough opposition and pressure to bring about the changes in the bill. Some observers also credit OMB with pressuring DOT to require a more balanced bill. Passage of this landmark legislation is the result of a clever legislative strategy devised by the air cargo and airline industries and Sen. ford. By attaching his noise policy bill to PFC legislation, Ford forced the airports and DOT to pay a price to get PFCs, and by attaching the bill to the federal budget, Ford got it through Congress with little debate. But this strategy has created some fallout. The PFClnoise policy, legislation was never subjected to public hearings. It was negotiated in private meetings with the principal players: DOT, the airlines, and ' airport associations. Absent from these meetings were city or state officials, airport neighbors, or others with an interest in the noise policy. Find Ford"s bill ended an effort by Rep. Oberstar to develop noise- policy in the next Congress in a more deliberative manner.So, i think that Sen. Ford's bill has the stigma of being special interest legislation, whether the final version of-the bill represents that or not. Ramrodding it through Congress at the end of a legislative session also angered anti-noise activists, and proved to be the impetus to unite them. The National Airport Watch Group was transformed practically • overnight from an information clearinghouse to an angry coalition of some of the most powerful and politically connected anti-noise groups in the country. The have vowed to fight this bill y g , and are now in the process of deciding g how to challenge it. DOT the airlines and airports all.s p s the are leased with the f� y P anal language g ge and that it represents a fair and balanced policy. From their perspective, I agree. They all got something in the arrangement. The airlines get a date certain for the Stage 2 phaseout, and an ,: extension beyond the 1999 date by which airport operators originally wanted stage 2 aircraft to he phased out of service. the aiso of a great deal of protection for their Stage 3 fleet an y 9 � 9 d a definition of Stage 3 aircraft that includes those hushkitted and reengined (an important issue for the air cargo carriers). The airlines forced DO T in to the business of reviewing noise rules, thus moving the reuiew forum to a place where I think they feel they haue more ability to influence the outcome. They only lost in two places: the did not of action they sought, and the have t y get the private right 9 y o deal with a non addition rule. Airport operators got Pflis and think that the y of out of y9 the hots eat on battles ouer rules on Stage 3. aircraft. They can continue to limit operations of Stage 2 aircraft, and all eHisting noise rules are grandfathered. The Bush admin istration gets a funding mechanism for airport expansion that does not drain the federal coffers, and managed to limit its liability for noise damages to only that inuolued with prohibition of Stage 3 restrictions. DOT, the airlines, and airports trade groups say this legislation d not take away too much local control. It is balanced f 9 does environment, they say. The feel that phasing o air, and pro- _ y p g out the Stage 2 fleet will reduce the number of people impacted by noise and thus paue the way for airport expansion. They base this noise reduction prediction on data showing that the 65 Ldn contours around airports will shrink Stage 2 fleet is phased out. as the But, critics of the bill argue-thaw frequency of flights and the time when they occur are also uery important factors in community annoyance. Phasing out the Stage 2 fleet only to replace it with more Stage 3 operations, especially more at night, will not reduce annoyance. They contend that this legislation will stop airport eHpansionrP ro'ects J dead If communities feel that paue lost control of their ai airports. I agree that frequency of operations and the time of de- when occur are important factors in communityannoyance. I y n they that phasing out the Stage 2 fleet an - y also don't think 9 d increasing Stage 3 operations significantly, will reduce the noise impact noticeably. And I think that trying to tell a community that they are located outside the 65 ldn contour and therefore have no noise problem will not deter community action. After having covered this area for a number ofI can't. image many communities sitting back and acceptinggears f an airport operator's explanation that he cannot do anything about Stage 3 - operations. I think communities will take strong action if they feel that - Stage 3 operations. need to be limited. They will make demands on their elected representative to pressure DOT, seek state or federal legislation to get what they want; and attempt to block expansion projects through referendums, challenging environmental assessments, and making noise a hot local political issue. These are all the tactics anti-noise groups are presently using to get Stage Z aircraft phased out or to change air routes. I also think that some airports will try to negotiate agreements to limit Stage 3 operations in airline leases, and that other airports will be under community pressure to do so. Whether.or not this legislation can be successful in providingmore airport capacity depends, I think, on how sensitiue DOTairports, and . airlines are to the need for Stage 3 restrictions in some communities. if DOT Is going to try to use the criteria of undue burden on the national auiation system as a ineans to block all new Stage 3 restrictions, I think you will see a huge public outcry. if the game becomes telling a community that nothing can be done to limit Stage 3 operations because the law says so, then they will simply moue to change the law. EN ROUTE NOISE R second issue I would like to discuss is that of en route noise. This I think, will be a growing noise problem in the 1990s, and one that has the potential to add thousands of new constituents to the ranks of the anti-noise actiuists, thus increasing their political clout. En route noise is that which occurs in locations beyond the 65 Ldn contour, as far as 30-40 mites from an airport. It is caused by changes In air routes or arrival or departure paths that place aircraft in areas where they have never been before, or increase aircraft actiuitg from long-established levels. En route noise is not as loud in absolute terms as that from aircraft closer to airports. But the key here is that en route noise causes the noise levels in the community to increase Rs airports expand in the coming years, FRR wiil,be forced to make these air route changes for safety reasons and to funnel aircraft in and out of airports more efficiently. FAA has already made air route changes for these reasons in northern New Jersey under its Expanded East Coast Pion; in Beattie under its tour Post Pion; in Detroit. Sacramento, and a few other places. In each of these instances, the air route changes have triggered massive public outcries about the noise, and demands that it be reduced. Consider the reaction of communities in northern New Jersey to the EECP. Towns in rural enuironments as far as 40 miles from Newark, that had low ambient noise backgrounds, suddenly got over flights and started to complain by the thousands. They organized themselues into anti-noise groups and euentually into a state-wide coalition that represents about 200 towns in order to haue more political muscle and to deter what they felt were attempts by FAA to play one community off against the other in terms of who finally got the flyouers. They prodded their legislators to address the issue, and were successful in getting one bill introduced in the state Assembly seeking a Stage 2 phaseout at JFK, LaGuardia, and Newark by the end of 1997; and seuerai bills introduced in Congress, seeking to roll back the noise problem caused by the air route changes. They finally managed to get federal legislation passed requiring the FAA to prepare an Enuironmental Impact Statement on the air route changes and and conduct a safety study of them. It took them three years, but they finally hone made some headway in their efforts to roll back these air route changes. E00 recently made air roufd changes at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, and the same pattern of opposition emerged there. The FAR euentually did conduct an enuironmental assessment of the proposed air route changes, called the Four Post Plan, but it did not look beyond the 65 Ldn contour boundary, and it issued a Finding of No Significant Impact. That finding was challenged bg a group of Seattle neighborhood organizations, and is presently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for consideration. Air route changes at Detroit Metro airport created an anti-noise group there that was successful in forcing a referendum uote on a b 9 p and issue to expand the airport. The referendum failed, but the anti-noise group forced county officials to pressure FAA to study how to alter the air routes. The point I am trying to make here is that communities who feel the are unfairly being dumped on by noise or who are far from air y do not eH ect ports and p much aircraft #noise, will fight strongly to remoue the nalse fr u 11 their eIllllronment. I often hear airport and airlines officials note that people who Hue close to airports have no right to complain because they were "stupid to moue there." Well, that argument, whateuer merit it has, goes out the window with en route noise. At recent hearings before the House Ruiation Subcommittee, Dale McDaniel, FOR deputy assistant administrator for policy, admitted that j FRO "seriously underestimated" the public reaction to air route changes. He said that FRO hoped to auoid the New Jerse eHperience in the future t y by issuing guidance to air traffic specialists to help them assess the impact of air route changes aboue 3,000 feet on the community. He said these guidelines "signal an important first step in building a strong enuironmental reputation for the FAA." The guidance Mr McDaniel was referring to says that an enuironrrierital assessment should be considered when an air traffic change will result in a 5 dB increase in the over all community noise eHposure. • In it guidance, FRO diuides communities into four q categories (quiet 9 suburb, normal suburb, urban, and noisy urban), and has calculated how many new arrivals and departures it would take in each of these environments at carious altitudes to increase the noise leuel by 5 dB For instance, in a quiet suburb, two departures and 65 arrivals b aircraft at 3,000 feet would cause the 5 dB increase. In contrast 68 departures and over 500 arrivals would haue to occur at the same altitude ouer a noisy urban community to cause the same 5 dB increase in the ouerall community noise leuel. It remains to be seen how effectiue this guidance will be in predicting community reaction. CHRLLENGE TO PILLARS Of POLICY Rs airport neighbors assert their presence in the airport noise issue, they are challenging two of the pillars of FRO's noise abatement policy; 1) the use of Ldn, or average day-night sound level, as the best metric to assess the impact of aircraft noise on a community; and, ll the use of 65 Ldn noise contour boundary to demarcate the threshold beyond which it can be assumed that aircraft noise does not significantly impact the community. Ldn is the descriptor FOR uses for enuironmental reviews, but it has been criticized for not taking into account the frequency of over flights or the tone or duration of aircraft noise, and for not considering the peak noise levels that occur from flyovers. Airport neighbors are seeking to have Ldn data supplemented with 9 9 pp single event data or other metrics such as L 10, to get a better indication of the noise impact on the community. Government attorneys recently defended the use of Ldn and the 65 Ldn boundary in briefs filed in lawsuits challenging environmental assessments at Toledo and on the air route changes at Seattle.They contend that NEPA does not require them to look beyond that contour. But a study now underway by FAA may force the agency to reconsider how it complies with NEPA. _ For the past several years, a debate has simmered between FAA and EPA over the entent of noise analysis required under NEPA for airport eupansion projects and the adequacy of Ldn as the airport noise metric. The matter came to a head last summer over the environmental assessment of plans to expand Toledo Express Airport.into an air cargo hub for Burlington Air Enpress. EPA criticized the Fnn's e,nuirorim,er�tall assessment of the project on the grounds that it failed to consider single event noise data, which it says are needed to determine sleep interference from the night cargo actiuitg. EPA threatened to take the matter to the Council on Enuironmental Quality for reuiew. At that point, the FAA agreed to include single event data in some •� ongoing EISs at seven airports, to fund a long term technical study of flue noise analysis issues, and to form an interagency working group (comprised of FAA, EPA, CEO, and Justice department officials) that must complete data analysis by May-June of 1991 and submit joint recommendations on all five issues by July 1, 1991. The flue issues to be studied are: 1) The existence of noise impacts outside 65 Ldn that should be reviewed in an environmental impact statement; 1) The manner in which noise impacts are determined, including �• whether aircraft noise impacts are fundamentally different from other transportation noise impacts; 3) The manner in which noise impacts are described (in other words, the adequacy of Ldn); 4) The range of FRR-controlled mitigation options analyzed; 5) The relationship of the Part 150 process to the EIS process. The results of this study could open the door to changes in the way noise is analyzed in enuironmental assessments. r • Airport Noise and Land Use Planning � Airport Noise Abatement � Alternatives John E. Wesler November 27, 1990 9:15 am AIRPORT NOISE AND LAND-USE PLANNING 27 November 1990 AIRPORT NOISE ABATEMENT ALTERNATIVES The Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program is intended to eliminate non-noise-compatible land uses around airports, insofar as practicable, and to prevent new non-compatible land uses in the future. Somewhat simplistically, these purposes can be achieved through two categories of actions: • Actions which reduce the noise levels on non-compatible land areas to compatible levels (noise reduction); and • Actions which change non-compatible land uses into compatible uses (noise mitigation). A third category of noise abatement actions can also be effective by alleviating airport noise problems through improved community relations (noise management). even though these measures do not reduce non-compatible land uses per se. Each of these three categories includes several alternative noise abatement measures. These measures are not-.mutually exclusive. All of them should be in Part 150 noise compatibility program, and a combina- tion of the most effective selected for implementation. The first step in identifying and evaluating any noise abatement measures, of course, is the development of a noise exposure map (NEBO. A noise exposure map identifies the areas of non-compatible land use around each airport, and focuses analyses of the available alternative measures on those areas. The relative effectiveness of each of the actions may then be evaluated, based on the local needs. Not all of these actions are appropriate at any one airport, of course, because of geographical surroundings, type of air service, extent of adjacent land development, political considerations, and similar local situations. Noise Reduction Measures 1. Tailored flight tracks. Always considering the highest degree of air safety, aircraft approaching and departing airports should be routed over uninhabited or noise-compatible land areas. Typical examples are flight tracks over water areas, industrial parks, and similar non-residential areas. 2. Tailored flight procedures. Again, considering the highest degree of air safety, airplane thrust and flap management procedures should be tailored to allow reduced power over noise-sensitive areas. Air carriers generally follow a standard noise abatement departure procedure, which involves flap and spoiler "clean-up" upon reaching an altitude of 1.000 feet above runway level, followed by thrust reduction (and conse- quent lower rate or climb) until reaching 3,000 feet. This procedure is not always best for different airports and is not necessarily optimum for newer airplanes with high-bypass-ratio engines. 3. Changes in runway location or length. Different runway orientations may • permit less-impacting flight tracks. Lengthened runways may permit heavier (and noisier) airplanes to use more advantageous flight tracks. Lengthened runways can also allow departing airplanes to pass over noise-sensitive areas at higher altitudes. An associated measure is the prohibition of runway intersection takeoffs, in which pilots begin their takeoff roll near the midpoint of a runway, rather than its end. This causes departing airplanes to pass over neighboring communities at lower altitudes than would occur if the entire runway were used. 4. Preferential runway pattern. When operational capacity requirements and weather permit, those runways which least affect surrounding areas may be used as the active runways. If no one runway is clearly preferable for noise reasons, a runway use rotation program may be possible to "spread the wealth" more equitably among all airport communities. 5. Displaced runway threshold. Where runway length permits. movement of the runway threshold farther from the physical end of the runway pavement will bring approaching airplanes along a higher descent i profile, and thus at higher altitudes over communities under the flight path. For the normal 3-degree glide slope, flight path altitude will increase 50 feet for each 1.000-foot displacement of the threshold. At 2 miles from the runway end, however, this amounts to a reduction of only about 0.5 dB under the flight path. 6. Relocated terminal. Relocation of the passenger. cargo. or maintenance terminal farther from adjoining communities will move the associated sources of noise away from noise-sensitive areas. 7. Relocation of engine maintenance run-up areas. Careful location of engine maintenance run-up areas can take advantage of distance and natural sound barriers to reduce community noise. This is especially important, since much of routine aircraft maintenance is accomplished at night. 8. Restrictions on time of engine run-ups. Restrictions on engine main- tenance work to only certain hours of each night can eliminate one source of noise during the remainder of each night. • 9. Construction of sound barriers or enclosures. Where substantial engine maintenance work must be accomplished throughout each night. the construction of barrier walls, berms. or complete "hush house" enclo- sures will reduce community noise levels. Barriers may also be beneficial between taxiways and nearby communities, but have little benefit for the noise from aircraft in flight. 10. Use of reverse thrust while landing. Pilots customarily use reverse engine thrust after touchdown to slow their airplanes to taxi speeds. Such noise sources are normally unnoticed during daytime hours, when they are masked by other noises, but may be intrusive during quieter nighttime hours. Where runway length and weather permit, nighttime restrictions on the use of reverse thrust can reduce that noise. 11. Restrictions on ground movements. Again, during nighttime hours, the use of specific taxiways and powered movement (that is, not towed) � adjacent to nearby communities may be restricted to reduce noise • impacts. Limits on the amount of thrust used for taxiing may also be beneficial. 12. Noise limits on aircraft. Operational noise limits may be imposed on the types of airplanes which are permitted to operate to or from an airport, especially during nighttime hours. Such limits may readily be imposed on the basis of noise certification (Stage 2 versus Stage 3), on the basis of certified noise levels on approach and/or takeoff (based on FAA Advisory Circulars 36-1 and 36-3), or on the basis of actual noise measurements of each operation. This last basis is generally not recommended, however, since it may tend to encourage non-standard operating procedures by some pilots to 'beat the noise box". 13. Noise "budget". This concept imposes a total allowance of noise at an airport, from which fixed portions are allocated among the airport's airplane operators. This measure allows each operator some discretion in staying within his allocation by adjusting the number of daily operations and types of airplanes used, without unduly dictating how he operates. The attached Technical Note #1 discusses this measure in • somewhat more detail. 14. Nighttime use restrictions. Nighttime airport use restrictions can take the form of limits on the number of nighttime operations. limits on the noise level generated by each operation, preferential use of specific runways insofar as weather and safety permit, or complete closure (curfew) of the airport. Complete closure is seldom advisable, however, since this disrupts transportation services to the location. 15. Powerbacks at terminals. Some air carriers have a policy of utilizing their airplanes' engines to push back from terminal loading gates, rather than being pushed back by ground tugs. Although this type of noise is seldom a problem during daytime hours, it may cause unnecessary noise intrusion during quieter nighttime hours. A requirement for the use of tugs at night may be beneficial. 16. Noise-related operating fees. Economists often propose the use of marketplace incentives to achieve environmental goals, such as noise l abatement. One application of this theory is the use of landing fees based on the certificated noise levels of airplanes operated at an airport, to penalize the use of noisier airplanes, or, more appropriately. encourage the use of quieter airplanes. Where nighttime noise is a problem, landing fees may be increased substantially for nighttime operations, also based on noise levels. In practice. landing fee differen- tials must be very large to cause an operator to replace his older airplanes with newer, quieter models. However, differential landing fees can serve to raise funds for other noise abatement measures. 17. Restrictions on training and "touch-and-go" flights. Restrictions may be imposed on training flights to limit this type of operations at an airport. in particular during nighttime hours. "Touch-and-go" flights are especially annoying to some airport neighbors because of their repetitive nature. Noise Mitigation Measures 1. Land acquisition. By acquiring non-compatible land outright, an airport • can convert its use to an aviation-related activity or to a compatible use (industrial, commercial, or recreational). Alternatively, the airport can rehabilitate the acquired dwellings, adding sound insulation, and offer the upgraded homes for sale with appropriate easements attached. 2. Purchase assurance. An airport may assure the owner of non-compatible land a fair sale price, while allowing the owner to arrange his own sale. Such assurances may include dislocation allowances or other incentives for converting the land to compatible uses. 3. Easement acquisition. An airport may reimburse the owners of nearby non-compatible land for the noise intrusions caused by the airport's operations. Payment is normally based on realtors' evaluation of the affected property in comparison with similar properties located away from the airport. The easement guarantees that the property owner will not later sue the airport proprietor for noise damages unless conditions change substantially. • I 4. Re-development of non-compatible lands. This measure may include • incentives other than outright acquisition for redevelopment of non- compatible lands into compatible uses by the current owners, for example, through the encouragement of airport-related commercial development packages. 5. Land-use zoning and noise notices. Through the cooperation of local jurisdictions, land-use zoning restrictions may be imposed on impacted land near airports, and require noise-impact disclosures as part of the advertisement or marketing of land resale. Revised zoning restrictions should include sound insulation standards, at least for new construction. 6. Sound insulation programs. With the owners' cooperation, airports may add sound insulation to impacted dwellings, schools, and other structures to reduce the interior noise effects. Noise Management Measures 1. Noise Abatement/Community Relations Office. The availability of a specific airport office, to which noise complaints and questions may be P rP P q Y addressed, can provide greatly improved community relations. This office can also ensure good relations with the local news media, so that the airport's viewpoints are afforded fair and equal news coverage. It has been said that good public relations are worth five decibels in noise reduction. 2. Noise monitoring systems. Permanently installed noise monitoring systems may provide factual information on the noise levels caused by the airports' operations, and provide trends in those noise levels as proof the effectiveness of noise abatement actions. The attached Technical Note #6 discusses noise monitoring systems in more detail. 3. Community complaint system. A positive system through which noise questions and complaints are investigated and a response provided can also improve community relations substantially. Too often, complaints and litigation arise out of frustration on the part of airport neighbors, • who simply want to feel that they have some recognition of their problem. real or perceived. A reasoned response to their complaints , may not reduce their noise levels in any way, but will assure them that, at least, someone is listening. 4. Community noise abatement committee. A regularly scheduled advisory committee, consisting of representatives of all elements of the aviation industry and neighboring airport communities, can provide an effective forum for discussing noise-related problems and for balancing mitigation actions. This can be especially effective when coverage is also provided by the local news media, so that the efforts which are made receive knowledgeable publicity. Summa_yr Each of these measures requires an effort on the part of airport manage- ment to implement and pursue effectively. A proper balance of these measures can go a long way toward resolving an airport's noise problems. It is the purpose of the Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program to guide this process, and, of course, to provide federal financial assistance in implementing the results. , SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS OF PFC/NOISE LEGISLATION (Prepared by the Airport Operators Council International and the American Association of Airport Executives). Passenger Facility Charge(PFC)Provisions: • A$1,$2,or$3 fee may be imposed by airports on enplaning originating and connecting passengers,with a limit of 2 PFCs per one-way trip.Revenues must be spent at the airport or at another airport controlled by the same entity which imposes the fee. • PFCs will be collected by air carriers and their agents,and will be shown on the passenger ticket • DOT Approval Process: Secretary of transportation must approve or disapprove PFC within 120 days of receipt of applica- tion from an airport.Carriers must be consulted,but shall have no veto power over airport projects. PFC allowed only for identified,eligible airport-related projects to preserve or enhance airport capacity,security,or safety,or to furnish opportunities for enhanced airline.competition,or to mitigate noise. PFCs may be used to pay debt service(e.g.to back bonds)for such projects. • Eligible projects include those currently eligible for federal grant funding,as well as gates and related facilities. • PFC revenues shall not be treated as airport revenues in setting airline rates,fees and charges;thus they shall supplement,not supplant,revenues derived from airlines. • The PFC funded portion of capital costs of projects cannot be included in the rate base for determining airline rates,fees,and charges.(An airport cannot bill airlines for costs covered by PFCs). : An exception is for PFC-funded terminal development,gates and related areas,and other facilities occupied or utilized by canners on an exclusive or preferential basis.In such instances,the occupying carriers must pay rates,fees,and charges that are not less than those paid by carriers using similar facilities. • No State or local government can limit,prohibit,or regulate the ability of an airport to impose,collect,or use PFCs and PFC-derived revenues. • No contract with an air carrier can impair the ability of an airport to impose or use PFCs or PFC-derived revenues. • Large and medium hub airports imposing a PFC will forego up to 50 percent of their AIP passenger(not cargo)entitlements.Such foregone entitlements will go to an AIP discretionary fund,to be distributed by FAA across specified set-asides for non-hub airports(50 percent)and general aviation airports(25 percent), / as well as additional funding for the discretionary fund(12.5 percent earmarked for small hub airports,with the remaining 12.5 percent for any authorized use of the discretionary fund—at least three-fourths of which shall be used for capacity,safety,security,or noise mitigation efforts at primary and reliever airports). • DOT may audit airlines'collection and airports'use of PFC funds.If,after a public hearing,the Secretary determines that an airport has misused PFC funds,he may terminate the airport's authority to impose the PFC,and may set off the airport's future AIP funds,as necessary,to ensure compliance with the PFC provisions of the act. • If,90 days after the Secretary establishes a national noise policy by final rule,an airport imposes a restric- tion on Stage 3 aircraft that first became effective after 10/1/90 which has not been approved b the Secretaryy or agreed to by aircraft operators,the airport may not impose a PFC or receive Alp funds. • An airport cannot impose a PFC or receive AT funds unless the Secret ary assures that the airport is not imposing any noise or access restriction not in compliance with the noise provisions of the act(see below). Timing of PFC A nthority • The Secretary must issue regulations to implement the PFC provisions within 180 days. • The Secretary may not authorize PFCs until he has issued a final rule implementing the noise provisions of the bill,and initiating a rulemaking to study the issue of allocating capacity at the four high density(slot- controlled)airports(Kennedy,LaGuardia,O'Hare,and National).The legislation mandates that both of these actions betaken by July 1, 1991. • Authority of the Secretary to approve new PFCs shall terminate on Sept.30, 1992,if the AT and EAS programs are not funded to their full authorized amounts for 1991 and 1992.(The 1991 DOT Appropria- tions Act provides full funding for these programs for FY 1991 Noise Provisions National Noise Policy The Secretary shall issue regulations establishing a National Noise Policy by July 1, 1991..The Noise Policy shall contain the following elements: Mandator National Fle et eet Phase-out of Stage 2 Aircraft • Subject to the waiver provisions below,no one may operate a Stage 2 civil subsonic turbojet aircraft weighing more than 75,000 pounds to or from any airport in the continental United States(48 contiguous states)after Dec.31, 1999 • Walver An air carrier whose fleet is at least 85%Stage 3 by July 1,1999 may apply to the Secretary for a waiver allowing the continued operation of the remaining 15%or less of its fleet which is Stage 2. Such a waiver may not permit the operation of Stage 2 aircraft beyond Dec.31,2003. The Secretary may grant the waiver if he finds that it is in the public interest.In so doing,he shall consider the effect of such waiver on competition in the airline industry and on small community service. • Interim Rats The Secretary shall,by regulation,establish a schedule for phased-in compliance(with interim compliance dates)beginning on the date of enactment of the Act and ending before Dec.31, 1999. • Reporting ReaLirements Beginning in 1992,each air carrier shall submit to the Secretary annual reports show rg the progress the carrier is making to comply with the phaseout. • Non-addition Rule Stage 2 aircraft may not be imported into the U.S.,except: 1) Pursuant to a written contract executed before enactment of the legislation;or 2) If the Secretary provides an exemption in order to permit a person to modify the aircraft to meet Stage 3 requirements. Federal Review and Approval of New Stagg 3 Restrictions • Subject to specific exemptions,no new(as of Oct. 1, 1990)direct or indirect airport noise or access restriction on Stage 3 aircraft may be implemented unless it is reviewed and approved by the Secretary or all aircraft operators at the airport have agreed to it.The Secretary must approve or disapprove a proposed restriction within 180 days of being asked to do so. i • The Secretary cannot approve a new Stage 3 restriction unless he finds that there has been adequate opportunity for public comment and that the restriction: 1) is reasonable,non-arbitrary,and nondiscriminatory; 2) does not create an undue burden on interstate commerce; 3) is not inconsistent with maintaining the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace; 4) does not conflict with any existing federal statute or regulation;and 5) does not create an undue burden on the national aviation system. • The federal government will assume liability for noise damages based on a constitutional"taking"of property that directly results from the Secretary's disapproval of an airport's proposed Stage 3 restriction. : The Secretary may reevaluate any noise restriction previously agreed to or approved if an aircraft operator demonstrates that there has been a change in the noise environment of the affected airport.Such reevalu- ation may not occur less than two years after approval of the restriction. Notice and-Opportunitx to Comment on New Stage-2 Restrictions • Subject to specific exemptions,no airport noise or access restriction proposed after Oct. 1, 1990 may restrict Stage 2 aircraft unless the airport publishes the proposed restriction 180 days prior to its effective date,and prepares and makes available for public comment at the same time: 1) An analysis of the anticipated or actual cost/benefits or the restriction; 2) A Description of alternative resttictions,and 3) A description of non-aircraft restriction alternatives considered,with cost/benefits of such alternatives compared to those of the proposed restriction. Effect on Existing Law • Except to the extent required by the application of provisions dealing with review/approval of new Stage 3 restrictions and notice for new Stage 2 restrictions,nothing in the Act shall be deemed to eliminate, invalidate,or supersede existing law with respect to airport noise or access restrictions by local authorities. (i.e.,The standards for a court to review a challenge of an existing restriction remain the same as they were prior to the Act.The"grandfathering"of existing restrictions so they are not subject to the processes mandated by the Act does not imply that they are immune to challenge under pre-existing law.] r t Applicability of the Federal ReviewlAI2nroyal or Notice Reguirementc to Restriction's Affecting,,Stage-2 Aircraft Under 75.000 Pounds, • The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine applicability of the review/approval or notice require- ments equue- ments on noise restrictions on the operation of Stage 2 aircraft weighing less than 75,000 pounds.In making such determination,the Secretary shall consider: 1) The noise levels produced by such aircraft relative to other aircraft; 2) The benefits to general aviation and the need for efficiency in the national air transportation system; 3) The differences in-the nature of operations at airports and the areas immediately surrounding airports; 4) International standards and accords with respect to aircraft noise;and 5) Such other factors which the Secretary deems necessary. Report to Congress By July 1, 1991,the Secretary shall transmit to Congress recommendations on the need for changes in standards and procedures for: Local entities to restrict aircraft operations; Law suits by persons adversely affected by aviation noise; — FAA's regulation of airspace in order to better take into account environmental effects,and — Mandatory requirements for local restrictions on the use of land impacted by aircraft noise. The Secretary must also state whether such actions can be accomplished through regulatory,administrative, or legislative action. Airport Noise Fact Sheet aircraft Noise Monitoring System Airport Noise Office Stapleton International Airport Denver, Colorado Introduction NMT Location Map The City and County of Denver has installed an Airport Noise Monitoring Sys- The map on the back of this Fact Sheet tem(ANMS)that measures aircraft noise in the vicnity of Stapleton Interna- has been provided to familiarize the tional Airport. The system also identifies aircraft flight corridors through the reader with the locations of the 17 use of operations data from the Federal Aviation Administration's Automated Noise Monitoring Terminals(NMTs). Radar Terminal System IIIA. Additional equipment in the Airport Noise Of- NMT #1 resides on Stapleton In- fice provides weather information at selected noise monitoring sites and tenational Airport Property near the recordings of pilot/controller radio transmissions. main Crash/Fire/Rescue station (centerfield). NMT #2 is located in Aurora at Boston Elementary School Purpose (136 r%ve. and Boston St.). NhfT#3 The primary purpose of the ANMS is two-fold:1)to better define Stapleton is located at the south entrance(Gate International Airport's contribution to the surrounding noise environment.and 6)of Lowry Air Force Base(Alameda 2) to improve compliance with our noise abatement procedures. Ave.and Fairmont Dr.). NMT#4 is located in Park Hill at Noise Monitoring Smiley Junior High School (26th Ave. and Holly St.). NMT#5 is located in With respect to the first goal,the ANMS continuously monitors noise levels Denver at Manual High School (28th at 17 sites throughout the Denver Metropolitan area. A map depicting the loca- and Gilpin St.). NMT#6 is located on tion of the sites is presented on the back of this fact sheet. Each site was chosen Stapleton just north of the approach for its proadmity to the nominal flight corridors and/or the noise sensitive na- end of Runway 17R. NMT #7 is lo- 0ture of the area being overflown. Additionally,a portable noise monitoring ter- cated in Commerce City at Kemp minal will be used for spot-monitoring and field studies. Elementary School (73rd Pl. and located in c Single-event,hourly, daily,monthly, quarterly, and annual noise level data South Thornton at York Oneida St.). NMT #8 is loc High are recorded for each site. Tabular and graphic reports of this data is produced School (93rd Pl.and York St.). NMT for public distribution on a regular basis. In addition,persons visiting the Air- emen- El Drive#9 is located a at Cherry Dri port Noise Office may receive on-demand reports for noise levels at sites which Lary School Thornton ve El Ave. arc of particular interest to them. and Cherry Dr.). NMT#10 is located at Tarver Elementary School in North Radar Data Thornton (Summit Grove Pkw .. and Steele St.). With respect to the second goal,radar data is received on disk packs from NMT#11 is located in Brighton at the Denver Air Traffic Control Tower two weeks after the recording of a day the Comprehensive Learning Center s , activity. The disk pack is then read and processed by the Airport Noise Office. (8tn Ave.and Skeet SQ. NfvfT#12 is The data retrieved from the disk includes airline/operator identification, located at the headquarters buidling at flight/tail number,time of operation,aircraft type,trajectory over the ground, Barr Lake State Park. NMT#13 is lo- altitude and speed. Adherence to Stapleton's Noise abatement procedures is cated in Montbello at Amesse Elemen- monitored on a daily basis by reviewing this data. Airlines or aircraft operators Lary School located i Scranton Heights NMT who deviate from Stapleton's noise abatement procedures are notified in writ- #14 is located in Morris Heights h ing by the Director of Aviation. Park Lane Elementary School (30t Ave.and Park Lane Dr.). NMT#15 is located at Marrama Elementary Conclusion School in Green Valley Ranch (19100 E.40th Ave.). NMT#16 is located in We believe that the ANMS is a useful tool which will assist in Denver's goal the Tower Triangle Neighborhood at of minimizing noise impacts from Stapleton International Airport until the new Clyde Miller Elementary School(19th airport becomes operational. You are welcome to visit the Airport Noise Of- Ave.and Ensenada St.). NMT#17 is ice which is located above the entrance to Concourse E in Stapleton's main located at Cotton Creek ElementarySchool in Westmi6nster (11100 Vrain Terminal Building. If you would like a detailed presentation,an appointment St.). . can be set by calling 210-1944. r Airport Noise Fact Sheet Aircraft Noise Monitoring System Airport Noise Office Stapleton International Airport Denver, Colorado Introduction NMT Location Ma The City and County of Denver has installed an Airport Noise MonitoringSys- P tem (ANMS)that measures aircraft noise in the vicnity of Stapleton Intrna- has ebeen provided Itoffamiliarizehis liari Sheet bona]Airport. The system also identifies aircraft flight corridors through the reader with the locations the use of operations data from the Federal Aviation Administration's Automated Noise MonitoringTerminal( M 17 Radar Terminal System IIIA. Additional equipment in the Airport Noise Of- Stapleton p- rice provides weather information at selected noise monitoring sites and NMT #1 resides on Stapleton In- recordings of pilot/controller radio transmissions. ternational Airport Property near the main Crash/Fire/Rescue station (centerfield). NMT #2 is located in Purpose Aurora at Boston Elementary School T (13th A've. and B The rims Boston St. . 1 primary purpose of the ANMS' ) NM'i'#� is two-fold: o d:1)to better define Stapleton is lots et n to I o d at th International Airport's contribution P a south entrance Gate o tribu i�'P t on t (o the surrounding ding noise environment.and 6)of Lowry Air Force Base(Alameda 2) to improve compliance with our noise abatement procedures. Ave.and Fairmont Dr.). NMT#4 is located in Park Hill at Noise Monitoring Smiley Junior High School (26th Ave. With respect to the first goal,the ANMS continuouslyand Holly St.). NMT#j is located in monitors noise levels Denver at Manual High School and Gilpin St. °O (at 17 sites throughout the Denver Metropolitan area.A map depicting the lots- P )• NMT#6 is locatedd on on lion of the sites is presented on the back of this fact sheet. Each site was chosen Stapleton just north of the approach for its proximity to the nominal flight corridors and/or the noise sensitive na- end of Runway 17R. NMT #7 is lo- ture of the area being overflown.Additionally,a portable noise monitoring ter- sated in Commerce City at Kemp urinal will be used for spot-monitoring and field studies. Elementary School (73rd Pl. and Single-event,hourly, daily,monthly,quarterly,and annual noise level data Oneida SQ. NMT #8 is located in are recorded for each site. Tabular and graphic reports of this data is produced South Thornton at York Jr. High for public distribution on a regular basis. In addition,persons visiting the Air- School(93rd Pl.and York St.). NMT port Noise Office may receive on-demand reports for noise levels at sites which #9 is located at Cherry Drive Elemen- are of particular interest to them. tary School in Thornton (112th Ave. and Cherry Dr.). NMT#10 is located at Tarver Elementary School in North Radar Data Thornton (Summit Grove Pkwv. and Steele St.). With respect to the second goal,radar data is received on disk packs from NMT#11 is located in Brighton at the Denver Air Traffic Control Tower two weeks after the recording of a days the Comprehensive Learnin activity. The disk pack is then read and processed b the 8 Center P y Airport Noise Office. (8th Ave.and Skeel St.). Ni%vff#12 is The data retrieved from the disk includes airline/operator identification, located at the headquarters buidling at flight/tail number,time of operation,aircraft type,trajectory over the ground, Barr Lake State Park. NMT#13 is lo- altitude and speed. Adherence to Stapleton's Noise abatement procedures is cated in Montbello at Amesse EIemen- monitored on a daily basis by reviewing this data. Airlines or aircraft operators ry (�0 Scranton St. . NMT who deviate from Stapleton's noise abatement procedures are notified in writ- to School ) #14 is located in Morris Heights at ing by the Director of Aviation. Park Lane Elementary School (30th Ave.and Park Lane Dr.). NMT#15 is located at Marrama Elementary Conclusion / School in Green Valley Ranch (19100 E.40th Ave.). NMT#16 is located in We believe that the ANMS is a useful tool which will assist in Denver's goal the Tower Triangle Neighborhood at of minimizing noise impacts from Stapleton International Airport until the new Clyde Miller Elementary School(19th airport becomes operational. You are welcome to visit the Airport Noise Of. Ave.and Ensenada St.). NMT#17 is fice which is located above the entrance to Concourse E in Stapleton's main located at Cotton Creek Elements .ti=_ Terminal Building. If you would like a detailed presentation,an appointment School in Westminster (11100 Vra n�=uc pp can be set by calling 210-1944. St.). t Stapleton international Airport Noise Hotline Report First Quarter 1989 Complaints Continue Another New Airport Vote Draws Near _Decline in '89 May loth is the day that the future of the 14,700 aircraft noise impacted resi- dents in the Front Range area will be decided. That is the day that Denver resi- The Noise Hotline recorded 30 f dents will vote on whether or not to move ahead with plans to build the new air- noise complaints for perfirscent quarter of port. Nearly 3,700 of those noise impacted residents are Denver citizens who the This e a 51 percent decrease in will have the opportunity to remove themselves from Stapleton's noise impact. the number of complaints ter o They can approve the construction of the new airport confident that it will sub- received during the first quarter of stantially reduce the noise levels for all residents in the Front Range area. 1988. This decrease in noise com- plaints can be attributed to: The new airport generates less noise than Stapleton because: 1) it is farther • Operations - Air Carrier away from nearly all residential areas; 2)the runways have been configured and P will be used in a manner that reduces the noise impact; 3)the fleet of aircraft operations were down 16.5% will be quieter;and, 4)the major flight corridors have been directed away from as compared to the operations existing residential areas. during the first quarter last To guarantee that the new airport does not become another Stapleton with year. This decline in activity ivity respect to noise,Denver has entered into a comprehensive noise control agree- ly 90 average to a daily depeduction r near- ment with Adams County. This agreement defines the noise performance stand- ards that Denver will maintain. Adams County will be monitoring Denver's ad- • Fleet Mix-The"Fleet Mid'or herence to the noise performance standards on a continuing basis. proportion of noisy versus This is an opportunity to significantly improve the aircraft noise environment quiet aircraft continues to im- for all of the Front Range residents. Denver residents should vote YES on May prove at Stapleton. Nearly 60 16th for a quieter environment! percent of the aircraft operat- (A similiar story appeared in last year's First Quarter Hotline Report urging ing at Stapleton were Stage III Adams County residents to vote in favor of annexing Adams County land to Den- (quiet) jets or propeller ver for the purpose of constructing the new airport. The Noise Office staff is aircraft. This compares to 50 hopeful that this space will be used next year for a progress report on new air- percent for same quarter of last port construction!) year. • Weather - In general, the weather during the first quarter Air Traffic Controllers Briefed favored the preferential run- way use system. This During the week of March 20th,the Stapleton Noise Office staff conducted generated a 23% decrease in daily air traffic controller briefings on Stapleton's noise abatement procedures the amount of time the and the new Aircraft Noise Monitoring System(ANMS). The briefing was con- east/west runways were avail- ducted in the Noise Office. This allowed for a complete demonstration of the able for east departures over ANMS. A videotape of the briefing was provided to the training department of the same period last year. the Air Traffic Control Tower. This tape will be used by the Tower to increase Noise complaints represent a controller awareness of Stapleton's noise abatement procedures. reaction to aircraft noise and do not Air traffic controllers play a vital role in determining the location,duration, necessarily reflect the relative noisi- and intensity of aircraft noise impacts on the communities surrounding ness of any given neighborhood. Al- Stapleton. They do so by choosing the appropriate runway use based on weather though total airport noise continues conditions and by determining where aircraft fly based on the safe and efficient to decline, for the reasons stated use of airspace. Therefore,their awareness of the aircraft noise abatement pro- above, some residents complained cedures for Stapleton International Airport is paramount to minimizing the im- more frequently. This is reflected in pacts of aircraft noise in the Front Range area. the Noise Complaint Location Map on the back;�- age of this report. Monitoring System Fact Sheet inside inside First Quarter Statistics The enclosed fact sheet, which describes Stapleton's new Aircraft Noise Runway Utilization Monitoring System (ANMS), was developed in response to the numerous re- Summary Comments quests for such a document from pilots,airlines,and residents. In addition to a Questions and Answers discussion of the purpose and capabilities of the ANMS,the fact sheet features First QuarterAn Ma a map depicting the location of the 17 Noise Monitoring Terminals. Visits to the Complaintp Noise Office to vicwthe ANMS are encouraged. See the fact sheet and the Ques- tions and Answers section of this report for details. First Quarter Statistics .Number of Complaints 1 st Qlr. cl.a$s Breakdown by City-1st Quarter 190 r Total Number of Noise Complaints 300 300 ore 67 B Total Number of Hotline Callers 81 81 Boulder 6 Brighton 3 , Broomfield 52 Breakdown of Complaints by Time of Dav Commerce City 3 Denver 104 Day Hours(7 a.m.-9:59 p.m.) 242 81.0% Englewood 6 Night Hours(10 p.m.-6:59 p.m.) 22 7.0% Golden 8 Time not identified Northglenn 3 Thornton 47 All Hours 300 100.0% Westminster _I Breakdown by Month TOTAL 300 Jan 65 Feb 96 Mar .= Total 300 Condition Mode.or Tyne of Operation Occuring When Noise Complaints Were Filed: Breakdown by Nature of Complaint 1st Quarter Noise in General 13 •Preferential Runway Use 144 48.0% Unusual Flight Path 3 1 Winds 92 31.0% 70o Loud 2 3 Storms(T-storms,etc.) 0 0.0% Night Disturbance 22 Too Law 22Go Mounds 4 1.0% Rumps 3 1.0% Too Frequent t4 Vibration 13 Training 0 0.0% Not Identified/Unknown _0 Klitaty Aircraft 0 0.0% Runway posed 0 0.0% TOTAL 300 Navigation Aids Out 0 0.0% Instrument Flight Conditions 50 17.0% Other(helicopters,etc.) 1 0.0% Quads 2 1.0% Unexplained —A TOTAL 300 100.0% Runway Utilization 1{Lt N.�77L Ytf �4.a� YLl 1La37� 211.14X VMS 25."% not �.17R LOS a.atx ��*wa lEaEiO / vEe�o t >il a wrnwrs t SK l ,rw„nu 0 O.Nt rwv.0 0 0.00s anw�a 0.001t 4.7a71 Lsas 04.a2s 1.O7z O.sts 7.23ti Oils 1S2Os 2.Sts a.Sas Sf.Ws 5.071► "'x . January,1989 February,1989 March.1989 Source: Federal Aviation Administration Summary Comments Questions & Answers Three hundred(300)noise complaints were registered during the first quarter Q: I would like to visit the new if 1989. This represents a 50 percent decrease in noise complaints compared to Stapleton Noise Office and Aircraft the First quarter 1988,whin 6t?')noise complaints were received. Noise Monitorilrg S,stem but t work The percentage of noise complaints received during preferential runway use during the day. Would it be possible to or 48,o for the first quarter ( ) q 1989 was nearly identical to the first quarter 1988. Thu• visit the Norse Office at night?q ff A: If there is enough interest,the t,•. o Noise Office staff would gladly host a Noise Office tour one or two weeknights per month. If you or a group of your neighbors are inter- tiff x , es ted call us at 270-1944. x Q: Ilive northwest of Stapleton and °•� x feel abused by the Preferential Runway (f Use System (PR US). How about departing aircraft to the east, west, or '• ` south to give me a break? "Jill' ! A: The PRUS (depart to the north, arrive from the east) provides the smallest noise impact of all of the possible runway configurations. are MIT JUN JM f[• .1N° JUL Gus SC/ OCT Nov OCC Monthly noise Complaints-1988 vs. 1ss9 There is no question that overflights are numerous in the neighborhoods northwest of Stapleton. The noise ty one (31) percent of all complaints were received during a period when winds levels of these departures, however, forced a change in runway use. This 7 percent decrease over the same period last are substantially lower than those reflects the more favorable wind conditions this year. noise levels which occur in neighbor- Air Carrier operations declined during the first quarter 1989 with a 16.5 per- hoods east, west, or south of c4,,earnt decrease over the same period last year. Passenger traffic and air carrier Stapleton. One day of departures to operations were lower due to higher air fares,and a sluggish local economy. As a the west produces more noise ex, result,some of the airlines at Stapleton continued to reallocate aircraft operations posure than one month of departures from Denver to other airports. to the north. L"I Q: If aircraft have to depart to the MISS ® ® north, why don't the air traffic control- 3,..� lers send them farther to the north before turning them to the west? r«« A: Airspace and altitude limita- tions. The proximity of Stapleton to the mountains limits the ability of air t«« traffic controllers to safely and effi- ciently move aircraft in to and out of the Denver's airspace. Aircraft •S•• heading to the west coast must tunnel under the airrivals coming in from the «« northwest. The longer aircraft stay ja «° MIN n„ Ju" an ac on a northbound heading,the greater x an w rov Monthly Air Carrie9bperations(Source:FAA) the possibility of airspace conflicts. The first quarter 1989 Noise Complaint Location Map was similar to the Com• If there are any questions you would plaint Location Map for fourth quarter of 1988. This reflects the high use of the like to see answered in this Report, n(eferential runway use system.Noise complaints are likely to increase during the or if you have comments or suggestions, :xt quarter,as warmer,unstable weather affects our runway use and aircraft climb write to us: Stapleton Noise Office, rformance declines. Noise becomes more intrusive as we open windows to ven- %W t e US -Stapleton et o ! NoBld ., Denver, tilate our homes. CO 80207. g I 010a A rr.� s � / s Nowaftw S I ® y c7 L1 J Aw. G v r�sas D L U2%h AM Stapleton International Airport Noise Complaint L a•�Ave, Location Map Time Period: 1st Quarter 1989 Number of Callers---79 L MIA Age, Number of Complaint ❑ 4 - 9 50 - 89 ® 10 - 19 ® 70 - 99 y ® 20 - .29 100 - 149 ® 30 - 49 ® 150 + � 1 I-70 ❑ 0 il,.... AVIL L Age rMr Y ■ an d —L r.w. Y Neu Shid. co emus s Aw. YYii �i Cdr/am I t AMr i.w t Abe.. Aw.2 Gmti ftw 2\ 5 5 L rr..q„.w � ` 1Z twr arr 46 A. Co. ' 5 CALLERS BADE 15 COMPL41NTS OUTSIDE NOISE COMPLAINT LOCATION MAP r SOUNDINFORAfATiON SEA•TAC NOISE MEDIATION BULLETIN JUNE 1989 "third party"who assists the dif- their own consultants; The Sea-Tac Noise Who recommended fering interests in finding agree- ■ The results must be supported Mediation Project this approach? meat In mediation,al[the partici- by all involved and thus be If you have an interest or con- The idea of using mediation to pants work together tQ find_soiu suited for successful imple- cem with aircraft noise caused by develop noise programs for Se- bons that are both acceptable to mentabon. jets and other aircraft using Se- attie-Tacoma International Airport them and meet their needs. attie-Tacoma International Airport, came from a citizens committee The mediation process is volun- then you may be interested in the called the Joint Committee on Air- tary;groups cannot be forced to Who are the players? environmental mediation project craft Overflights. This committee participate. If the groups cannot The following interests are rep- that is currently taking place at grappled with the issue of aircraft agree,neither the mediator nor resented inSea-Tac's mediation another authority will impose a Sea-Tac. noise and decided that the prob- p process: Environmental mediation has tern was so complex that a special solution as part of the mediation a Airport users been used in the Pacific Northwest kind of forum was needed,one process. ■ Airline pilots to resolve complex environmental that would identify and implement ■ Federal Aviation Administration problems. The Port of Seattle and new and innovative programs to ■ Airlines ,r interested parties have en- successfully deal with the problem What are the special a Port of Seattle ed this rtle"thod of expanding of increasing aircraft noise. features of mediation? x Communities (organized by -Tac's noise mitigation and Instead of recommending Special features of the media- large geographic areas) abatement efforts. specific actions or programs,the tion process include the following: IN Part 150/Close-in(area in The Port of Seattle established Committee members recom- - ■ Important decision-makers duded in the Ports Noise Rem- the Noise Mediation project in late mended a process—environ- from the airlines,Port,and FAA edy and Acquisition program 1988 to develop additional noise mental mediation. This approach are involved in the discussions boundaries and other adjacent programs forSea-Tac Intema- was formally adopted by the Port and decisions; neighborhoods) tonal Airport and expects it to be of Seattle Commission in Resau- ■ Citizens have a formal and n North/Northwest(areas north completed by November,1989. lion 3016. equal role in the negotiations; of Sea-Tac) ■ A I decisions are made by con- 0 South/Southwest(areas south sensus; of Sea-Tac) What is the purpose of What is mediation? ■ The Committee as a whole, N Eastside (areas east of lake the Noise Mediation .Mediation is defined as negotia- needing confidence and trust in Washington,including Mercer Project? lions with the help of a neutral the technical experts,select Island) County e purpose of mediation has E 1Gtsap my been adopted by everyone in- Airline Pilots Part 150/Close-in volved caucus subcaucus "To reach a consensus on programs which will mitigate Port of Seattle North/Northwest and/or reduce nole and caucus subcaucus which will be implemented `i NOISE for Seatde-Tacoma Intema Airlines MEDIATION Community Eastside tonal Airport Any noise caucus � COMMITTEE caucus ' subcaucus impact Caused by operation Airport Users South/Southwest `aircraft into and out of caucus �• '� subcaucus attie-Tacoma International 'rport may be part of the FAA Kitsap County negotiations." caucus subcaucus *A professional community coordinator was selected by citizens to assist the subcauses in working effectively together. t v about the negotiations and get organization or would Itke to re- How to get information ideas to take back to the negotia- ceive more information about this There are several ways to get bons. Residents can keep in- process,which promises to bene- Prepared by the information or to get involved. formed through the the Sea Tac fit the entire Puget Sound area, Noise Mediadon Cornlmittee Forum monthly newsletter or by please call Diane Summerhays, Anyone can attend the Mediation public forums. Public Noise Abatement Officer,at General information: attending Committee meetings and learn g p Diane Summerhays about the issues and how the meetings will be held periodically (206)433-5216 or send in the 433-5216 process works. Residents can to up-date interested residents and form below. Community Caucus Meeting participate directly by attending to solicit ideas regarding the nego- For information about the time information: their area's subcaucus meetings. batons. and location of your next area Sheri Ehrgott At these meetings,negotiating If you are interested in a subcaucus call Sheri Ehrgott at 646-09M team members relay information speaker/presentation for your, 646-0933. Port of Seettb Clip and mail for more information Name Organization Address City Telephone ❑ Please add my name to the Sea-Tac Forum newsletter. Mail to: Diane Summerhays ❑ I would like to arrange a speaker/presentation for my organization. Noise Mediation Project Port of Seattle ❑ I would like to know who my community representative is. P.O. Box 68727 Seattle,Washington 98110 SOUND INFORMATION Bulk Rate U.S. Postage PAID Noise Mediation Project Permit No.54 Seattle-Tacoma Seattle,WA International Airport P.O.Box 68727 / Seattle,WA 98J68 Part of Seattle Commission Patricia Davis,President Henry M.Aronson �. Jack Block Paige Miller Jim Wright Executive Director Zeger van Asch van Wiick Director,Aviation Division Andrea Rinker ■ 1 MT OF AIR AM La p� OWN eFACH G Palm Beach County Department of Airports Newsletter Vol.1 Issue 1 APRU 989 Hillcrest Acquisition Relocation r1 $ Funding has been are beginning to make offers on properties located received from Federal :within Phase 3 of the Project. This puts the TheCitizen'sCgmmittee C� Aviation Administration; 'ogram approximately 1 year ahead of schedule. on Aiport Noise(CCAN)was , lw Florida Department of I would like to take this opportunity to established by the Palm Beach `" Transportation and Airport thank the residents for their assistance in,the County Commissioners in 1982.' Revenues to acquire reporting of suspicious activities they have CCAN is an advisory grqup O U � 106 parcels within the - ,witnessed within the neighborhood. Thanks to composed of citizens representing project boundaries. the residents,3 people who had been vandalizing Commission Districts and Profes- At this time we have made the vacant houses,have been apprehended. Due to sional organizations. The chair is 106 offers to purchase property with 102 property your help in conjunction with frequent patrols by Pinky Yount(Commission District owners having signed Agreements to Sell. We have Department of Airports Staff and the City of West 3)and vice chair is William Cudahy., demolished 44 structures to date. You have Palm Beach Police Department,acts of trespassing (Commission District4),Currently_ probably noticed that after the structures are and property vandalism have practically ceased. We the CCAN meets monthly in the; demolished,we fine grade sod and maintain the again remind you,if you see any suspecious aftemoon at 2:OOpm atthe PalmFa vacant lots. The remainder of the acquired proper- activity,report it immediately to the City of West Beach County Department of ties have been bid for demolition and we are Palm Beach Police Department. Airports Conference Rog presently in the process of awarding the contract. Should you have any questions not All meetings are open to the public;ye Palm Beach County has just received answered in this Informational Newsletter regarding and itiltowingthebusinessagenda additional funding from the Federal Aviation the Land Acquisition/Relocation Program,feel free time is made available for public Administration to assist in the purchase of an to contact the Relocation Office at(305)478-7210 comments.Formal mtnutesofeach additional 39 parcels. This funding offer was for clarification. This office is open for your meeting are recorded and accepted by the Board of County Commissioners at convenience Monday through Friday,9:00 a.m. distributed prior to the next the January 10,1989 Board Meeting. Within the 5:00 p.m. monthly meeting. lrormation', . . next few weeks the Relocation Office Staff will —Bruce V. Pelly -Director about these meetings'including begin making offers to residents of these 39 Department of Airports the date and time,can be obtained properties based on the last funding received we by calling Diane Bryant at �} 471-7400.Currentlyten mern6iii' are serving on the CCAN. Noise Monitoring Status Report �a %AP-^'O1A ' Palm Beach k -Order 8400.9,Palm Beach ATC Tower Informal R �rAr C„i International Airport' "%nway Use Program. The function of these noise has one of the most � g ',` nitorin sites is to collect noise data 24 hours a Editor � F x Jerry Allen k§ sophisticated noise day,with a sound level measurement taken every F monitoring systems in second. These samples are then used to generate Assistant Editor the nation valued at z Diane Bryant $329,812. The locations of all these x sites and their E numerical identifiers are shown in Figure 1. a These sites have been ' placed along the flight r a+= �6. Figure 1 paths used at PBIA. The usage of these Palm Beach County Department h flight paths or of Airports, g Building 846 E headings,are assigned by FAA Palm Beach County personnel in the Palm West Palm Beach,Fl,334061491 Beach Tower in E• £� accordance with FAA Noise Monitoring Status Report continued... The noise monitor also stores the maximum sound retrieves the information from each noise site :ry - z level recorded for each event in dBA as well as the night. This information is then placed by the Leq of the event. Up to one weeks worth of noise computer into several databases consisting of` 1-- I{-7{N:TO FM. data can be stored at each site without a loss of event,hourly,daily,and monthly data where itTcan data. Each site has surge(lightning)protection on then be retrieved and analyzed by Department of j•u-{�» the power and phone lines as well as a battery Airports staff. Figure 2 indicates the daily Ldn _ backup in each site to keep the noise monitor average over the measuring period from January 1 running for up to 24 hours in case of power loss. to September 30,1988. _ r _ The central computer at the Department of Airports Y f Figure 2 S t ■ an Leq,which is the AYweighted equivalent continuous sound level a- 10 over the period of one hour. The ij hourly Legs are then used to �` �. ••?- Re u E'St for Proposal generate a daily Ldn Ldn is a daily Leq with a 10 d6 weight gg for all noise occurring at night,specifically IL 0000, 10 P.M.to 7 A.M...-Aircraft Noise - events(i.e.individual aircraft flyover noise levels)are also generated using these measurements every second. Any time th8 noise level rises over 70 dB for minimum of 8 seconds it is considered and aircraft event. Aircraft Noise event I formation includes the noise measurements taken every second from the time the Letters of interest est are invited from projects and be familiar with the Federal Aviation sound level rises above 70 dB until it qualified architectural,engineering,and planning Administration,Florida Department of Transporta- falls back below 70 dB,the number firms to provide professional engineering services tion,Palm Beach County,and all local/regional, of seconds the event tasted,the time for development,validation,and implementation of environmental and planning codes,regulations,and the event started,thetime it ended, a sound proofing and insulation plan for residences laws relating to this type of project. and the time the max mum sound in the vicinity of Palm Beach International Airport. The County will certify a list of qualified level was reached. " This sound proofing project shall be carried out in applicants from those firms or individuals submit- accordance with Federal,State and Local codes, ting responses. The County anticipates making a Statues,Regulations,Ordinances,Policies and final selection from the list of qualified applicants . Planning Procedures. pursuant to Palm Beach County Procedures and The firm or individual selected by Palm Florida Statues in April,1989. Currently there are Beach County ter pg pp-these*professional over 40 municipalities that have established'sound services.W7h'' nte�,into a non exclusive agreement insulation programs for residences,schools and. with Palm beach County Department of Airports. medical facilities located near airports. A program The firnde dividual selected will be expected to is being proposed for Palm Beach County. t?glm Beach County's applicable MBE/WBE For Additional information pertaining to oalsi,fi-d-nsurance requirements. To be consid- this project may be obtained from Mr.Jerry AIIgn, bred the firm or individual must have provided Manager of Planning,Department of Airports, . simhr services on at least two(2)airport related (305)471-7400. Palm Beach COUP q of County CormissiA 'r k... Karen T.Marcus V Ch8 �, Fred Hirscheorge Hoff =Wallace Boatwkh 'Palm Beach County Municipal _ DISTRICT 1 m01STRICT Carol A Robertsz League E Virginia Cangbein h R :a. �. .Anthony Nato ` Carol J.Elmquist,Chair John Roberta x DISTRICTSEconomic. oi,nic' a s� 'Palm Beach County Municipal r1l You "hair : Palm Beach`Coi�it Ron Howard League Q ° E"d :I)ISTRICT 3 , Tom Maynard `WalterJ.Ferrari � William Coda 4, h11 ce Chair florida AerQ Club Carole Phillips � -,.,,Airport Committeeil'BIA � Y ort Affairs Al AM x QISTRICT 4 1 0 Ll JE 1 . ISE Please call: L3 1 42 1 1 6 r2 r A NOISELINE,as part of a citizen response program,was established at PBIA in f984. Operated by the Department of Airports citizens can register aircraft noise complaints on a 24 hour basis. Calls are received during normal working hours from 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.Monday through Friday by a representa- tive of the airport. During other time periods a tape recording system is in place for complaints to be logged. It is the goal of the Department to respond within 72 hours of any complaint. This response usually involves either a follow up phone call and/or a letter. For the period of January 8,1989 to February 10,1989 there were 138 calls. Of this total 103 did not provide sufficient information for the Department of Airports to respond,or did not relate to the subject of airport noise. In addition,31 citizens either received a personal phone call or letter and 3 others were unable to be contacted during this period. The CCAN has requested from the airport a detailed analysis of the complaints,their reasons, geographical location,and methods used to resolve these citizen complaints. This information will be reported in future issues of AIRWAVES. The procedure for making a call to NOISELINE is following the taped message and beep,leave your address,phone number and basic message. Wh'at mis Being Co.nsider ; A position has been created for a Noise Abatement Officer at the De rtrl'I p pa ent of Airports by the County. Advertising for this position is now underway in Palm Beach County through the Personnel Department. Consideration is being given to re-examine the airport noise abatement operational procedures in terms of arrivals and departures for all the runways t at PBIA, by the CCAN Technical Advisory Sub-committee. The CCAN ispoing to review, with proper professional consultation, the present`aircraft operational restrictions in terms of an enforcement mechanism for the possible violation of noise restriction. M An educational workshop is being considered as a means of informing the general i g`about PBIA and their efforts for abating with noise, with an inter- est to c�e.at Qostive and constructive educational dialogue. miscellaneous DID YOU KNOWS ■ PBIA completed the first approved FAA Part 150 Airport Noise and Land Use Compatibility m- Study in the State of Florida,referred to as the Noise Abatement and Mitigation Study fir` (NAMS). . Palm Beach County was the first airport proprietor in Florida to receive Federal funds through the FAA for the acquisition of land to mitigate�aiirpor,related noise. ' PBIA is the first airport in the United States to enact an operational noise-fee program that is applied to aircraft for abating aircraft noiser� - x Approximately$1000,000 a year is collected in noise fe6a from aKtine operators to abate noise in communities surrounding the airport. Considered by many airport proprietors and governmental officials as one of the most suc- cessful programs,nearly 100 organizations representing airports throughout the world,have requested copies and information about the PBIA NAMS Study from the County. ' Interference with television watching is the leading reason in the United States given for being ` 'F. annoyed by noise,including aircraft activity. Many of these complaints occur during daytime hours,particularly when the afternoon"Soap§"are on. - { i Animal noise(e.g.dog barking)ranks within the top four sources of annoyance reported in 0.1 W, community poise surveys. t - _ oNT OF 4j9 A O� O9N Postage 1 '11 eEACH G� Palm Beach County Department of Airports Building 846 Palm Beach County West Palm Beach, FL 33406-1491 I . i n 0. Airport Noise and Land Use Planning Questions Concerning the . pres ent` and r, :fFuture of Noise Mitigatflon Programs Workshop D: Noise Management November 29, 1990 <<. 4:00 pm MorelandAltobel l iAssociates.I nc. Questions. Cq=eniing the Present, and Future, of Airport Noise Mitigation Prog�aas Will Stage III, or possibly Stage IV aircraft relieve the need for noise mi# a- tion Will larger Airport t plans dace the need for noise mitigation proems inside the 75 Idn, such as Acquis ticwT location ? Are there any rational alternatives to the beet busting AcquisitionVTalocat.ion Program? Is the Purchase Assurau r orPurchase Guarantee, oarxxpt feasible? Will avigation ea. hold up in curt? Should the'FAA 90 beycnd the 65 Idn in funding Programs? What is the best for the to ' . way airport prioritize noise mitigation p�eam • participants? What are the pros and cons of having a permanent noise monitori ng ing system in place? Mich is more effective, noise mitigation or noise abatement. can an airport .have one without the other and be successful? i►� If your noise contours expand over an area where you have already administered a noise mitigation program, such as the pmchase of avigation easewnts, and, therefore, put the residents in a hi no ise contour, level, what do you do?