HomeMy WebLinkAboutExecutive Summary
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Downstate New York
General Aviation
System Plan
~
=--
fD)rn@rnu\VJrn~
lill JAN' I 1989 ~
SOUTH OLD TOWN
PLA~G BO~!!--_ ...
Executive Summary
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The pup_ratioD of tbis docwaent v.. fl.nanced in part thTOUgh . grant frolD. the
Federal Aviation Adrlinbtration (FAA). 'DIe coucst. of tbie report reflact the view. of
the "'- York Shea Departaftlt of TrmlpOrtatioD ed en.. . Auod.tel, Inc., ed do not
nece.....U,. raflect the view. or policy of the FAA. Acceptance of chi_ uport by the FAA
do.. not 1Il. any vay cODltitute . comaitlllent on the part of the United Statel to
participate in any developllleut dapicted herein Dor doel it indicate that eh8 propoa.d
ctevalopullt ia eavirollHOtally acceptable in accordance with applicable public 1_1.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IXllNSTA:rE Imi' YlIIlK
c-.lT AVIArIOIi lillSTUI PIAIf
Prepared For
Rev York State IlepartDeDt of Transportation
Aviation Division
Printed - April, 1988
amss & ASSOCIATES, INC.
AVIATION CONSULTANTS
2363 Chauvin Drive, P.O. Box 22397
Lexington, Kentucky 40502
(606) 269-5312
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXEalTlVE SlRIflI[Y
Introdnctioo
The Downstate New York General Aviation Systan Plan encanpasses fourteen counties in
the region, stretching from Sullivan, Ulster, and Dutchess counties in the north to
Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Bronx, Queens, Kings, Richmond, Westchester, New York, Nassau
and Suffolk counties to the south and on Long Island.
Before the study began, concerns were voiced over the vall.dity of previous
forecasting efforts for General Aviation airports in the region. These airports were
often overshadowed by the large Port Authority Airports in metropo1J.tan New York. A
second issue involved the proposed roles and physical facilities needed at systan airports
in tne Downstate. Another issue involved the identification of funding priorities within
the general aviation system, since the availability of federal funding cannot be assured
in the long-tem.
A final issue that recel.ved attention was the need to provl.de public exposure to the
airport planning and developnent process. In this regard, public perception of aviation
developnent in the region has taken on negative connotations, regardless of the purpose or
need for the improvanents. The systan study is an excellent vehicle that can be used to
acquaint the citlZens of the area wl.th the value of the existing al.rports and their need
for public support.
The Downstate General Aviation System Plan addressed all of these considerations in a
large technical report and produced an objective course of recommended action. The
plan determined the amount of aircraft demand to be accommodated, ascertained the extent
of facility improvements that will be used and can be realistically developed. In
additl.on, the study adaressed the financial feasibility of the recommendations and
provided an action program for implementation. Finally, the study developed a set of
contingency plans that can be used to oftset unexpected occurrences that may atfect the
recommended system. This Executive Summary capsulizes the findings of the Technical
Report.
Goals and Objectives
The goals and objectives of the study were meant as guidelines for the direction and
output of the systan study. Goal s represent conditions to be achieved. They are derived
from values, which are basic drives that govern behavior. Broad goals of the systan plan
incl uded :
Physical
for the
with and
Goals - The physical goals for the aviation systan provl.ded
developnent of facilities and services in a manner consistent
complanentary to, local economic and social developnent.
Environmental Goals-
hamony with both
environment.
Ideally, airport developnent should occur in
the natural envirooment and man-affected
1
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Social Goals - These goals stressed the provision of facilities and
services for all . citizens in a manner that maximizes safety,
efficiency, and opportunity for use.
Economic Goals - Ideally, the avution system should support local and
regional economic goals and plans while providing the flexibility to
accOllllOOdate ne.l opportunities and shuts in develoJlllent patterns.
Public Participation Goals - These goals provided for an open forum on
all aspects of aviation planning within the study area.
Inventory of Existing Facil ities
The inventory of the existing facilities focused on aviation-related factors that may
affect develoJlllent of the Iloomstate New York general aviation system. Not considered in
this study are he11ports and helipads, privately owned restricted-use a1rports, and
airports with no based aircraft.
In the Downstate region there are 30 public-use, cOIl\Tentional, system airports, and 7
seaplane bases. Of these, 16 of the coIl\Tentional airports are publicly owned; the
remaining 14 airports and all of the seaplane bases are privately owned. lWenty-seven of
the coUV'entional airports have one or more paved runways while the remaining 3 have turf
runways. Exhibit 1 presents the location of each of the system airports in relation to
county boundaries.
Extensive on-site inventories of public-use airports in the study area, combined with
data relevant to aviation planning yielded the following significant findings:
Aviation activity in the region reached a peak in the late 1970's;
experienced a decline in the early 1980's; and has more recently begun
to recover.
Airspace capacity in the Downstate region is currently constrained
since the New York City air traffic hub is one of the busiest in the
nation.
Upgrading of Air Traffic Control systems and a1rspace structure
are needed within the planning period.
Between 197U and 1980, the overall population in the Downstate region
decl ined by over 600,000 persons or approximately 5 percent. Per
capita income hOW'ever, is expected to increase over the next 15 years
by between 29 and 39 percent.
Aircraft noise is the most significant euv1ronmental impact associated
with airports and their develoJlllent.
Most of tne general aviation airports experience operating deficits.
Privately owned airports are hardest hit since they are not tax
exempt and have lunited revenue bases.
2
.
-
-
....
-
-
-
~
1'",
1'"
1"
Cl€RRY
_E
~.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
MAS!N 'X"
'X' !Mm:R
MOUNTAIN
AIRPORT 'NOEJ<
, EUZA8Enl " STORMVlLLE
, MONT,"" '7 CUTCHESS Co.
3 EAST HAMPTON la SKY ACRES
. ..77TUCK ,. SKY PARK
. SUFR)lK Co. ZO KINGSTON-ULSTER
. SPADARO " WALLKl.L
7 8RlOl<"""" " STANiON
a LONG ISl.ANO MACARTHJR " LHJ
. ""'PORT Z4 STEWART
10 REPI.OL< " ORANGE co.
" JOHN II' KENNED"l' " WARWICK
" n........ Z1 RANDALL
13 LAGUAR04A Z8 WURTSBORO- SULLIVAN ca.
14 WESTCHEST[A CO. " MONTICELLO
" MAHOPAC 30 S1J1..UVAH CO. INTL
",
? GREEN ACRES
i
1'~ t. _
i
)
j
'1
i
'- '
", i ..I..
\ ./'1.. -t-,l,..... : ~
1"a-,'-';"'" -..f' .,----j rr t
I" . 16
" ! -
r--------j 1;. -to !./----;;;;.;.;----
1"7
) t
r 15 _-~
, ----===------
.f-- -
/>
" .
,,/ \
/ '.
'X' "-- \,
GREENWOOO f
LAKE ,
!
"
-'"
,
-".
/
/
/
'-.
""
1'"
1'"
1:.
l'
SU9SEX
Y"",1lUlY
~
r----'
./ ~~
.------
-..-
-t;.
"
~
---------
ESSEX co.
Y
1"
,
--
-
I
N
I
j
-+- CClMMERCtAL SERVICE
~ RELlEV!R
T GENERAL AV1ATlON
or PERIPHERAL AIRPORTS
.
Exhibit 1
Existing System.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Vocal public opposition to development projects has impacted the
historical development of the Downstate's aviation system.
These findings and others were used throughout the remaining technical phases. The
inventory of general information pertaining to airport facilities envuolJllental, land use,
and surface access considerations was used extensively during the evaluation of aviation
systems. Historical aviation factors, such as the nunber of based a1.rcraft and operations
at the region's 30 public-use system airports were used in the forecast of aviation demand
phase.
Forecast of Aviation Demand
The
av1.ation
primarily
demand at
forecasts for the Downstate New York study area
demand at the region's airports by the year 2005.
for the general aviation segment of demand and
airports other than the Port Authority a1.rports.
focused upon the
The forecast were
included commercial
growth in
developed
avia tion
In addition to rigorous statistical techniques of forecasting, a judgJllental process
was used to detennine it the forecasts appeared reasonable. Each of the projections was
first examined in the context of the econcmic base of the study area, and then compared to
existing forecasts, where available. Consideration of these factors, ccmbined with
previous forecasting experience at similar airports, led to a subjective detennination as
to the val1.dity of the various projections.
Exhibit 2 presents a summary of airline activity forecasts at non-Port Authority
airports in the study region. Overall, these facilities are expected to handle a total of
6,301,400 passengers by the year 2005 - a 430 percent growth over the 1985 level of
1,458,800. It should be noted that both Stewart and Republic Airports have failed to meet
projected commercial service forecasts.
Exhibit 2 SUMMARY OF FORECAST AIRLINE ACTIVITY ENPLANEMENTS
Airport 1985 1990 1995 2005
Dut ches s County 31,400 34,800 37,300 42, 800
East Hampton 5,400 7,100 9,900 14,600
L.1. MacArthur 402,000 760,000 929,000 1,520,000
Republic 100,5001 135,000 167,100 253,8UO
Stewart 656,000 1,600,000 2,800,000 8,100,000
Westchester County 269,500 299,500 320,9UO 370,200
Regional Total 1,458,800 2,S36,l,(JO 4,264,200 6,301,400
1 1986 estimate.
4
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
General avl.ation is detmed as all civil flying except that classified as airline.
General aviation growth in the Doomstate region is measured by the increase or decrease in
based urcraft and operations at area airports. Exhibit 3 presents a SumDaJ:y of regional
based aircraft and operations forecasts to the year 2005. These forecasts assllllle that
facilities are not a constraining factor. Later in the study, it was learned that
facility constraints were unavoidable and would result in a certain number of
unaccommodated forecast aircraft.
Exhibit 3 - SUMMARY OF GENERAL AVIATION ACTIVITY FORECASTS
1985
1990
1995
2005
Total Based Aircraft
2,882
3,337
3,947
5,135
Total Aircraft Operations
1,930,400
2,229,400
2,604,8uO
3,368,300
As shown, a 78 percent increase in based al.rcraft and 75 percent increase in operations is
anticipated over the 2o-year planning period.
The next technical step in the systen planning process involved the calculation of
airport capacities. The forecast of demand was compared to these capacities to determine
where regional "trouble spots" could be expected to occur in terms of denand
accamnodation.
1\onum,I/Capacity Analysis
Critical to arrj aviation systen is its ability to satisfy current and projected
aviation demand. Airfield capacity, when compared to forecast levels of operational
activity, identifies facility deficiencies and excesses and, therefore, becomes the
essence of formulating systen plan recommendations. Findings resulting fran this
denand/capacity analysis included:
Airfield capacity deficits are expected at Westchester County, L.I.
MacArthur, Republic, and Suffolk County airports.
Landside capacity constraints are expected at Bayport, Mattituck,
Republic, and Spadaro airports.
Because the area around Republ ic is so heavily developed and surrounded by nearby
roads, none of the runway ends meet the runway safety criteria of 1,000' extending from
the end of each runway. Therefore, it is recommended that the al.rport sponsor acquire as
much land as possible as it becomes available. This land can be used for both clear zone
and lands ide development purposes.
Capacity shortfalls at these airports were considered in the Alternatives Analysis.
Where facility improvenents could not be made in terms of capacity expansions, unserved
demand was simply designated ''unaccamnodated''.
5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Alternatives Analysis
As a first step in defining a Regional Aviation Systen, it was necessary to define
the existing systen in relation to the existing ''network'' of nrports. Th1S entailed
selecting the nlllllber and location of the most strategically important public-use airports.
Eligibility criteria used in this selection process included:
Minimum Geographic Coverage Standards - Systen airports should be
reasonably accessible to their users. Th1s standard ensures that
there be a general aviation airport within 45 minutes driving time of
all signiricant population centers in the region.
Activity Levels of Ten Based Aircraft or lbre - This
that act1ve network airports are considered for
system.
standard
inclusion
ensures
in the
In addition to these standards, the 1978 Tri-State Regional Aviation System Plan was
examined to ensure that the benefit of previous systen planning analysis was included in
this planning effort.
Having determined
inclusion in system,
subsequent evaluation.
these cr1teria to be the overall guidel ines for an airport I s
the next step was to identify aviation systen alternatives for
The preliminary aviation systen alternatives chosen included:
Limited Development
New Airports Alternative
The "Limited Development" alternative consists of the existing systen of nrport w1th
only minor development projects and groundside improvements. This alternative does not
suggest any major airfield capital projects that would increase nrport operational
capacity. In all, 30 airports were included in the existing systen of airports.
The "New Airports" alternative is composed of expanded existing airports
proposed reliever airports, where necessary. This alternative proposes two new
in addition to the existing systen of 30 airports. A new transport airport in
Putnam County and a utility airport near Coram on Long Island would serve to
unaccommodated a1rcraft demand.
.and new
airports
southern
alleviate
To compare the strengths and wealmesses of the two aviation systen alternatives, six
criteria were used.to evaluate the aviation systems. These criteria incorporated federal,
state and local concerns and represented a comprehensive set of factors influencing
aviation development. They include:
Airport Facility Requiranents - The facilities (I1JIlW'ays, taxiways,
hangars, auto parking space, etc.) that would be necessary to
accommodate av1ation denand according to projected a1rport roles;
Airspace Utilization - Analysis of existing or potential airspace
conflicts that may exist between airports;
Surface Access - Analysis of the highway accessibility of systen
airports;
6
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Land Use and Environmental Effects - Analysis of current or potential
conflicts between a1rports and their surrounding land uses and
environment;
Capital Development Costs - The estimated costs to develop all of the
facilities in the aviation system; and finally,
Sociopol itical Acceptability - Perceptions of the local populace
tCMard the political ramifications of alternative recamnendations.
A matrix analysis was used to quantify the evaluation criteria by alternative. The
alternatives were then cOlllpared on a relative basis, and Alternative 2 - "The New Airports
Alternative" emerged as preferred. The Technical Advisory Committee concurred on the
selection of Alternative 2 as the JOOst responsive plan to aviation demand accamnodation
problems in the region. They also suggested areas where fine-tuning of facility
recamnendations could be made in a recamnended plan.
Be..
-.led GeDeral Aviation Syst_
The recamnended aviation system is described by its cOlllponent parts. In all, thirty-
two airports constitute the recommended system:
Dutchess County
- Dutchess County
Sky Acres
Sky Park
Stonuville
Westchester County
- Westchester County
Queens County
- Flushing
John F. Kennedy
- La Guardia
Orange County
- Orange County
Randall
Stewart
- WaIW1ck
Putnam County
Iilhopac
- New Re11ever
Suffolk County
- Bayport
Brookhaven
East Hampton
El izabeth Field
L.1. MacArthur
Iilttituck
Montauk
New Reliever
Republic
Spadaro
Suffolk County
Sullivan County
- Monticello
Sullivan County International
- Wurtsboro-Sullivan County
Ulster County
- Kingston-Ulster
- L.H.J.
Stanton
- Wallkill
Of these airports, fourteen are privately owned, sixteen are publicly owned, and two are
proposed for public development. Exhibit 4 depicts the locations and role of each system
airport. Of course, John F. Kennedy and La Guardia Airports are primarily a1r11ne
airports, hCMever, there are sOllIe general aviation operations at each.
7
-
-
-
-
1-
CHERRY
RlOGE
co
~.
i
T", 't,
i
)
i
T22 '1
1." i
'- '
"" j
\ /,,1. +2to,.... : ~
1"'-,>----. '---'J '._---;1
/ '
, I
.---------j T25 -t;: i .----.;;;.;--------
? 24 :,(
t,r '
; *'=~" ----- 'X'DANIMIY
..k:-- Now Putnam
/ I
// ~
. \
/' \
'X' / -- \
GREENWOOD (
lAKE ,
!
-
-
"
-'.
".
t30
'-
-""
/
.I
/
"-
"'"
t"
'X'
SUSSEX
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
""DENY
'X'",""".
MOUNTAIN
AIRPORT INDEX
1 EUZABETM ,. STORMVILLE
, MO.""", " DUTCHESS co.
, EAST HAMPTON " SKY ACRES
. MArTlT\JCO< " SKY PARK
, SUFRX..K Co. '0 KINGSTON-ULSTER
. SPADARO " ....lLKI.L
r 0R00l<1WEN " STANTON
, LONG ISlAND MACAIlTIUl " LHJ
, "'PO'lT 24 STEWART
la ........~ " ORANGE co.
" JOlofolf'1<ENNEOY " WARWICK
.. FLUSHI<G ,r RANDALL
" LA""""" " WURT$8ORO. SULLIVAN co.
.. WESTCHESTER CO. ,. MONTICELLO
" MAHOPAC 30 SULLIVAN co. INTL.
'X" GREEN ACRES
'te
't.
"
.....
-n.
,?,"---,
,/ '.
/1;
_-~ r
-----
[SSEX co.
'X'
-+ COMMERCIAL SfRVlCE
T REUEVER
1" GENERAl AVIAnOH
? PERIPHERAL AIRPORTS
* NEW AIRPORTS
~
,
- -
.
-
-
Exhibit 4
Recommended System
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The closure of Ramapo Valley Airport (in Rockland County) to fixed wing aucraft has
accentuated the need for reliever airport facilities in the region. In the context of
airport tacilit1es, the recommended plan's two proposed new a1rports W111 require the
greatest amount of development if constructed. Initial recommendations are to construct a
Basic Utility general aviation airport near Coram and a Transport class airport in
southern Putnam County. The purpose of the Coram facility would be to relieve L. I.
MacArthur while the purpose of the Putnam County nrport would be to relieve Westchester
County Airport and draw demand away from conjested areas in metropolitan New York.
Other attributes of the recommended system are reflected in the following:
Geographically, almo st every part of the Downstate is within 45
minutes dr1Ving t1me of a system airport.
The airspace
probl ems over
inc1 ude :
system in the Downstate is faced with serious
the next 20 years. Solutions be1ng examined
capacity
by FAA
- ~re oft-peak scheduling by aulines
- Technological advances in instrumentation and ATC computers
Increased etficiency of ATC system utilization V1a restructur10g
Capital developnent costs for the recamnended general aviation system
were estimated to total $43,973,200 for the short range (1986-1990),
$32,092,100 for the intermediate range (1991-1995), and $64,501,900
for the long-range planning period (1996-2005), for a grand total of
$140,567,200 for all three periods.
The next step in the system planning process was to determine how the capital
developnent costs would be funded over the period.
Financial Plans
Four sources of
first three sources
reliever airports.
follows:
funds are expected to finance the capital developnent program. The
are applicable only to publicly owned a1rports and/or privately owned
Projected financial requirements from each of these sources are as
$ 75.7 Million Federal Funds
$ 9.4 Million State Funds
$ 15.1 Million Local Funds
$ 40.4 Million Private Enterprise
With regard to Federal funding, a new program entitled The Airport and Airway
Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1987 replaced the previous funding legislation and
guarantees Federal participation through the year 1992. Even w 1th this funding program,
it may become apparent that not all of the desired capital projects at system airports
will be considered for tunding. This implies the need for a prioritization of funding
desires from the State's perspective. Thus, as part of this system plan, a uniform
priority ratio's process was developed that ranks each of the capital development projects
in terms of their importance to the system.
9
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
With regard to State funding, two previous bond issues of 196/ and 1983 have been
totally obligated but not totally expended. The State must authorize new bond issues or
establish direct funding of eligible shares of future capital improvement programs to
maintain the same level of future funding participation. Given the interest in
aviation demonstrated in the past by the State legislators, funding levels for eligible
projects should be achievable.
Local govenment funding of airport development projects is derived frcm three basic
sources:
General Fund Revenues
Bond Issues
Airport - Generated Resources
General fund revenues and bond issues are applicable only to publicly owned airports.
Airport-generated revenues, on the other hand, are used to offset operating expenses at
both public and private airports. Unfortunately, only a few airports in the IloW'nstate
generate surplus revenues after operating expenses are paid. Thus, except for these few
airports, the local share funding of capital development projects must come from other
sources.
A final source of funds for airport development is the private sector. With regard
to private funding, there are no reliable methods of predicting capital investment.
Although private investment has been used to operate private airports and provide hangar
space at public airports, continuing involvenent of the private sector cannot be
guaranteed.
Overall, it can be stated that the recommended plan for the IloW'nstate region is
financially feasible if funding participation is continued as it has in the past. New
developments in governmental fiscal policy should be watched carefully to determine if
adverse effects will be passed along to aviation interests.
It is possible that not all of the proposed projects will be funded when needed.
Because of this, a prioritized list of development projects was composed that reflected a
number of key projects during the 0-5 year planning phase. These key projects in rank
order are shown in Exhibit 5.
Exhibit 5 - KEY DE.VELOPMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES: 0-5 YEARS
Airport
Project
1. 1. MacArthur
Dutchess County
Westchester County
East Hampton
Suffolk County
Warwick
Westchester County
Republic
Dutchess County
Orange County
East Hampton
Runway and Taxiway Extension
Taxiway Overl ay
New Taxn.ays
New Taxiway and Taxiway Lights
Taxn.ay Extension
New Lighted Runway
Apron Expansion
Apron Expansion
Apron Expansion
Apron Expansion
Apron Expansion
10
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Implementation Plan
Implementation strategies were developed to ensure the practicality and flexibility
of the plan. In this regard, contingency plans, legislative reconnnendations, and
implanentation activities were identif ied.
In areas where implanentation problans could be expected to occur, a
contingency plans was developed that can be used to guide the planning efforts
these problans. There were three primary scenarios identified as either likely or
of occuring within the planning horizon:
set of
around
capable
Constrained Development at Public Airports
Closure of Private Airports
Addition of Other Airports to Systan
By far, the worst impact to the systan would involve a combination of the first two
scenarios. In this regard, the closure of Stormville and Mahopac, along with no
development of the Putnam County reliever would cause the greatest danand accommodation
problans to the system, with a total of 961 forecast aircraft unserved. To avoid these
consequences, strategies should center on providing tax relief to private airports,
controlling development around airports, and considering the purchase of key private
airports that are in danger of closing. .
Legislative reconnnendations focused on land use compatibility planning and controls.
In this regard, there are a number of airport operational restrictions that may be
implanented to mitigate the impact of aircraft noise on local cammmities. Some of the
more common restrictions include:
Preferential Runway Usage
Aircraft Bans
Training Restrictions
Capacity Limits
To determine which strategies will work best for high use airports, a Federal
Aviation Administration FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Planning Study should be
undertaken. These studies have as their goals, the reduction of existing and/or projected
adverse aircraft noise impacts on surrounding elNirons to the greatest extent practical.
There are a number of implanentation activities that will be undertaken by NYSIlOT as
a part of the Department's ongoing continuous planning program. As a part of these
activities the identification of key aviation demand "trigger points" was made. These
danand milestones must be reached before certain implanentation actions are undertaken in
order to prevent over-building the airport systan.
A vital part of successful implementation of the systan plan is establishing and
maintaining a dialogue among the various agencies involved, the aviation community, and
the general public. Implanentation of the plan, however, must begin with the local
sponsors initiating and partially financing the systan improvanents. The systan plan will
succeed only if these local sponsors know, in advance of their own planning, where they
fit in the overall systan and the reasoning and assWlptions on which the recommendations
for their airports were made in the recommended aviation system.
11