HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinal Report
I
~
,
Downstate New York
General. Aviation~.-... ..
System Plan t3Jc, ~ ,o~rni ]
LL.....__.h._~ I
i:n;,~:;~::JC,:~P),I!Y;'N A
,.t",',[1\.;" :I1)i-.;;'!)
~_._,,,,--,.,~.,,.=---.........;-~,. ^"'
.
,
::!if;
~
Recommended System Plan
Financial Plan
Implementation Strategy
..
FIN A L
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MARIO M. CUOMO, Governor
FRANKLIN E. WHITE, Commissioner
RECOtIlI!RDED GEREIlAL AVu:rIOR lSIi>u.ft
.
The recamnended general aviation system in the Downstate region was identified after
drllol'ing on a nUDlber of previous work elements. The first key factor in determining the
recamnended system was the selection of a preferred forecast of aviation demand earlier in
the study process. That forecast indicated a potential for an 89 percent increase i.D the
nUDlber of general aviation operations and based aircraft by the year 2005. Anticipated
future demand trends set the stage for developing aviation system needs and appropriate
planning responses.
.
After determining the capacJ.t1.es at system aJ.rports, a second key element of the
study was the identification and evaluation of aviation system alternatives. In this
study phase, two alternative deve10pnent scenarios were developed. The first was a
"Limited Deve1opnent" option designed to be responsive primarily to airport neighbors.
Little or no airport expansion is called for in this alternative. The second was a ''New
Airports" alternative that recognized the need for aviation demand accamnodation in the
Downstate region by proposing two new airports: one on Long Island and one in the Hudson
Vall ey region.
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the process used to select a recommended
general. avfation system and then to describe the recamnended system itself.
To adequately describe the reconmended General Aviation System Plan (GASP), this
chapter was organized as follows:
Selection of Recamnended System
Recamnended System Description
S\mIIaIY
It should be noted that heliports were excluded from this analysis since they are stUdied
in the Downstate Helicopter System Plan. The results of that study will be integrated
into the Statewide System Planning Framework.
Selection of ~ - ....led Syst_
General aviation has proven to be a vital part of a Downstate New York's
transportation infrastructure. ElTidence of this fact has been the increased usage of
general aviation aircraft and airports by businesses in the Downstate over the past five
years. This trend is expected to continue aver the next twenty years and provides a
background for the selection of a recCJllDlended general aviation system in the Downstate.
.
.Other factors considered in deve10pnent of the recommended plan included historical
airport deve10pnent policies at system airports, public perception of aviation in the
region, and the priority ranking of aviation in municipal goverrment decision making.
11
For the Downstate GASP, three procedures were used to select a preferred alternative.
First, the results of the evaluation of alternatives were examined without regard to
policy level input. In the second step, . these results were compared to the stated goals
and objectives of the study. The. third selection method utilized feedback from Technical
Advisory Coomittee meeting's as a basis for choosing a recaiunended alternative. Each of
these methods are described below.
VI-1
ALTtRNATlVES ANALYSIS RESULTS
Findings from the Evaluation of Alternatives provided an important input to the
selection process. In this regard, there were six criteria used in the evaluation
process. These criteria expressed both objective and subjective methods in evaluating the
alternatives. Of the six, two were considered more objective than subjective:
.
Ability to Satisfy Forecast Demand
Evaluation of System Development Costs
w
Another two were considered more subjective than objective:
Evaluation of Environnental Eftects
Sociopolitical Acceptability
And the final two criteria were considered equally objective and subjective in nature:
Evaluation of Airspace Utilization
Evaluation of Surface Access
A SUllDlS%)' of the results of the alternative analysis revealed that four of the six
evaluation criteria favored Alternative l - the "Limited Development" option. Alternative
2 ranked highest in its ability to satisfy forecast demand and tied Alternative l on
surface access ranking. Exhibit VI.l sUllDlSrizes the alternative evaluation ranking.
Exhibit VI.l - SUMMARY OF E.V ALUATION RANKIN;
Evaluation Criterion
Alternative l Rank
Alternative 2 Rank
Ability to Satisfy Forecast Demand
Airspace Util iz ation
Surface Access
EnviroIlDental Effects
System Development Costs
Sociopolitical Acceptability
2
l
l
l
l
l
l
2
l (Tie)
2
2
2
To the greatest extent possible, objective fact was used as the basis for the
evaluation process. However, even using this basis for analysis does not eliminate the
subjective nature of the evaluation procedure. For example, ratings for each cr1terion
may have been quantified to the greatest extent possible, but that does not in itself
permit a decision. Rather, it is the relative pr10rity or weighting of each criterion
that will dete:cnine the selection of a preferred alternative. Thus, if each of the
criteria are weighted equally, Alternative l would be selected as preferred, winning four
of the six rankings with one tie. However, if an alternative's ability to sstisfy
forecast demand is weighted heavily enough by local decision makers, Alternative 2 could
be selected as preferred.
.
r
VI-2
With these options in mmd, the next two sections in this chapter become extremely
important. The first examines the evaluation results in the context of system plan goals
and objectives that were formulated early in the study process. The second section
discusses the input from Technical Advisory Cc:mnittee meetings. Based upon input from
these two areas, the recommended general aviation system plan was developed.
. GOALS AND lJlJECIlVES
. In selecting a recommended plan, both alternatives were examined in the context of
goals and objectives attainment. In this regard, several of the study goals have an
impact on the design and structure of the recOllllllended plan:
Increase the convenience of general aviation air travel to the
population of the region.
Increase the safety and secur1.ty of auport facilities.
Develop a flexible air transportation system that is compatible with
desired land use and econanic policies, plans, and programs.
Minimize the undesirable social and environmental impacts of air
transportation.
Support and maintain airports that ofter alternatives to the use of
large central city airports.
Identify those pnvately owned airports that serve a system role.
Provide for the developnent of airport facilit ies and services in a
manner consistent with the public need and system role of the airport.
Develop the best aviation system that is financially feasible.
These goals can be subdivided into two basic groups: those that advocate aviation
demand accCllllllodation (favoring Alternative 2) and those that protect against undesirable
effects of aviation demand accamnodation (favoring Alternative 1).
Alternative I, as the limited developnent option, would support goals and objectives
that were more concerned with undesirable effects of airport developnent. Alternative 2 -
The New Airports Alternative, on the other hand, would lend greater support to goals and
objectives that stressed aviation demand accamnodation.
.
Study goals that tend to support Alternative I, the "Limited Developnent" option,
more than Alternative 2, include the following:
'II
Develop a flexible air transportation system that is compatible with
desired land use and econanic policies, plans and purposes.
_ The absence of any major airport developnent will limit
compatibility problems near airport areas to those
experienced by the existing system.
land use
already
VI-3
.
Minimiz e the undesirable social and enviromnental impacts of air
transportation.
- the ''Limited Development" option would minimize the undesirable
social and enviromnental impacts of air transportation vis-a-vis
Alternative 2, since less development implies feller impacts.
A third goal advocating the development of the best aviation system that is financially .
feasible could be construed to support either Alternative 1 or Alternative 2, depending
upon the interpretation of the tems ''best aviation system" and "financially feasible".
Because of the lCll#er cost, Alternative 1 is more financially feasible, but because of the <
greater level of service provided, Alternative 2 might be considered a better aviation
system.
Goals that support Alternative 2, the "Nell Airports" option include the follCll#ing:
Increase the convenience of general aviation air travel to the
population of the region.
By adding two -Dl!II airports, this goal will be partially attained.
Elimination of all unserved demand would result in total goal
attaimnent.
Support and maintain airports that ofter alternatives to the use of
large, central city airports.
While both alternatives fulfill this goal to a certain extent,
Alternative 2 works to decentralize aviation activity by adding
two Dl!II airports _ay from the central city airports.
Provide for the development of airport facilities and services in a
manner consistent with the public need and system role of the a3.rport.
This goal supports the selection of Alternative 2 since it has
8IIIaller unserved demand component than Alternative I, and better
serves air travelers in the general public.
Another goal to identify those pnvately Ol#Ded airports that serve a system role is
equally attained in both alternatives in that the same number of privately Ol#Ded airports
.are identified for each development option.
Judging from the study goals that influence the design of the recOlllllleDded system, a
preferred plan is highly dependent upon local policy and decision making inputs. In this
regard, local ofticials can dictate the course of the recommended plan. As demonstrated,
goal satisfaction is exhibited by both alternatives to differing degrees. The actual
selection of a recommended plan must be based in part on the weighting or priority that
each goal carries. As a result of feedback from coordination meetings and discussions
with study reviell team members, Alternative 2 was selected as a preferred alternative with
respect to goal satisfaction.
.
r
VI-4
TECHNICAL AJJlISORY COMMITIEE MEETl]l;S
In addition to considering the stated goals and objectives, the selection of a
preferred alternative considered other factors, as well. At each phase in the preparation
of the system plan, coordination meetings were held with the Technical Advisory Ccmnittee.
As an integral part of the planning proceu, those meetings brought to light several
issues that have been incorporated in the selection process. The IIIOSt substantial and
often repeated comments included:
.
.
Incorporate contingency plans to include the possible closure of
private airports.
Recommend construction of new airports only it demand warrants.
Incorporate the new Southold Site Selection Study results into the
recommended plan.
Define the significance of demand "trigger points" for implementation
purposes.
The first point concerning the incl,usion of contingency plans for the possible
closure of key private airports was adopted as a part of the Implementation Plans chapter.
In this case, the difficulties and financial viability questions pertaining to all
Downstate private airports was examined, as was the possible closure of Stormville
Airport.
The second point concerning the construction of new airports was incorporated into
the Implementation Plans chapter of the study. In this regard, aviation activity
milestones, called "trigger points", were identified that indicate when certain
implementation actions should be taken. Important to the identification of these trigger
points was the inclusion of criteria that ensured efticient utilization of existing
airports.
The inclusion of the Southold Site Selection study was included in the recommended
plan as a part of the Qlntingency Plans, satisfying the third point. In the contingency
analysis, the develoJllll!nt of the Southold site was examinea and linked to the
accamnodation of up to 72 based aircraft.
The fourth point involving the discussion of "trigger points" related to the second
point and was adopted as a part of the Implementation Plan. As mentioned earlier,
aviation demand m:Uestones or "trigger points" are used to indicate the timing of
additional needed airport develoJllll!Dt. These demand milestones are significant and serve
. to enhance the system plan's viability.
The general concensus at the Technical Advisory Committee meetings was that
" Alternative 2 should be adopted as the recaumended system. Qualifications to this
recoamendation focused on the need for local community acceptance of airport develoJllll!Dt
and demonstrated level of aviation activity that would support nei airport developnent.
Members of the Technical Advisory Committee indicated that all available and convenient
public airports should be utilized efficiently before develoJllll!Dt of additional airports
is undertaken.
* * * * * * *
VI-S
.
To summarize the selection process results, it can be stated that three methods of
choosing a recamnended plan were employed. The first utilized an objective approach in
examining the evaluation of alternatives ranking. Under this approach, all evaluation
criteria were given equal weighting values of importance. The results favored Alternative
1 as the preferred system.
The second method of selection relied upon the original goals and objectives of the
study as a basis for selection. Using these goals and objectives in conjunction with
input from coordination meetings and study team members concerning their relative
importance, Alternative 2 was selected as the preferred system.
.
The third method of selection was based upon input from Technical Advisory Committee
Meetings. The general concensus at those meetings was that Alternative 2 should be
adopted as the recommended system. This selection was based upon careful revil!li' of all
study docunents subnitted during the course of the study.
.
Using input from three methods, then, Alternative 2 was selected as the recommended
system. It should be noted that selection of Alternative 2 in no way implies that two new
airports will automatically be constructed. Rather, selection of this alternative gives
the camnunities benefited by new airports an opportunity to examine the comprehensive
feasibility of their developnent. In essence, selection of Alternative 2 ''holds the door
open" for a community, pennitting the freedom of more future choices regarding
transportation accessibility. Selection of Alternative 1 would effectively "close the
door" on those options, thereby limiting the autonomy of local decision makers. .
Re~. _"A"!'i Systeoo Descriptioo.
In previous sections, it was demonstrated that the preferred alternative, Alternative
2, met a majority of the selection cr1.teria to become the recoomended aviation system. As
such, this section describes the various at tributes of the recommended sy stem in terms of
airport facilities and operational characteristics, regional coverage, airspace
configuration, and capital cost estimates.
The recODlDended system was formalized by describing each airport I S general location,
role, p~sical facilities, and timing of developnent. In all, thirty-two airports
constitute the recommended system:
futchess County
- . futchess County
- Sky Acres
- Sky Park
- Stormville
Westchester County
- Westchester County
Orange County
- Orange County
- Randall
- Stewart
- Waxwick
Queens County
- Flushing
- John F. Kennedy
- La Guardia
.
"
Sufl:olk County
- Bayport
- Brookhaven
- East Hampton
VI-6
.
Sullivan County
- M:>nticello
- Sullivan County International
- Wurtsboro-Sullivan County
Suftolk County (Continued)
- Spadsro
El izabeth
L.1. MacArthur
Mattituck
M>ntauk
New Reliever
Republic
Suffolk County
Putnam County
- Mahopac
- New reliever
~
Ulster County
- Kingston-Ulster
- L.H.J.
- Stanton
- Wal lkil 1
Of these airports, fourteen are pr1vately owned, sixteen are publicly owned, and two are
proposed for public development. It should be noted that there are two privately owned,
private use airports located in Suffolk County that should be considered in the
recommended plan if they become available for public use. These airports are
Calverton/Peconic and Gruman/Bethpage and are located ideally to serve the general
aviation demand on Long Island.
AIRPORT FACILI'rIES
Exhibit VI.2 graphically depicts the location of each of the 32 airports in the
recOllDDended general aviation systEm. The two proposed new airports are shown on the
exhibit in a specific location for presentation purposes. In reality, there are no
specific locations identified for these airports. Rather, the task of siting a proposed
airport is left to specific site selection studies. The purpose of a systEm plan is to
identify the general location and need for proposed airports. M:>re definite site
locations are beyond the scope of systEm planning efforts.
Exhibit VI.3 presents a
publicly or privately owned,
airport 1 s rol e in the sy stEm.
8\1D1118%)' describing the type of airport, whether
the annual demand and capacity for each period,
it is
and the
.
Exhibit VI.4 presents a SUlllll8%)' of generalized airport facility developnent
recanmendstions for publicly owned systEm airports. The description and recanmendstions
were taken fran the alternative analysis with input fran coordination meetings and fine-
tuning adjustments not previously shown. The recanmendstions are divided by short,
intermediate, and long-range planning periods. These periods correspond to the 1985-1990,
1991-1995, and 1996-2005 time frames. IncrEmental facility development in those periods
was used to generate capital cost requirEments which are presented in the financial plan.
w
In the context of airport facilities, the two proposed new airports will obviously
require the greatest amount of development, if constructed. Initial recanmendstions 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
general aviation demand at L.I. MacArthur while the purpose of the Putnam County airport
V 1-7
.
MA8EN "i"
THVNTER
MOUNTAIN
1'",
1'..
i
1:~ 'to _
i
)
i
'1
i
" :
", I
, ,/1 T,\... : ":b
...,. \--., ---..1' '_"~
1..../ o..>fo ,
, '
, I .._.
,.-------..1 1'", -1;. i ,_--=----
? l.(
1'" J *,-!i~--,-
/k~---New-P:i;;.m
/ I
/ \
/ \
/~ \
/ \
,
i
,
\
,
AIRPORT ,NOEX
I [UZA8ETH .. STORMVl.l.E
, """TAU< .T DUTCHESS Co.
, EAST HAMPTON 18 SKY ACRES
. MATT1TUCl( .. SKY ""'K
5 SUfFOlK Co. 20 Kl'GSTON'ULSTER
. SPADARO 21 Wf.LLKLL
1 BAOOKHAWEN " 5TAHTOH
. lONG ISlAND MACAAllllR " LHJ
. BAYPORT ,. STEWART
.0 REPU8l.1C " ORANGE CO.
II JOHN F. KENNEDY ,. WARWICK
12 FLUSHtlG " RANDALL
" LA GUAROlA 28 WURTS80RO. SULl.IVAN co.
.. WESTCHESTER co. .. MONTICELLO
15 MAHOPAC '0 SlJU.IVAN CO. INTL
1" GREEN ACRES
/
/
/
'--,
'-"
1'"
1'"
"tie
T
SUSSEX
'to
T
~RllY
RIDGE
TOAAIIURY
~
;~'"
..--~--~-"
-'
-"
"'tz.
,,--~,,-~-
T
GREENWOOD
LAKE
....-
ESSEX CO. Now Coram
T *
+ COMMERCIAL SERVICE
I -t- RlUEVER
l' GENERAl. AVIATION
N T PERIPHERAl. AIRPORTS
I
* NEW AIRPORTS
~. . , . j
l..JO-OO
--
VI-4
.
.
o
,
would be to relieve Westchester County Airport and draw demand from metropolitan New York
away from conjested areas. Another airport that would be desirable to fill a reliever
role would be Spadaro. Unfortunately, there is insufficient land available for expansion
of Spadaro's 17 acre site and thus the airport is eliminated from further consideration.
Exhibit VI.3 - OPERATIONAL AND 0'mER RECOMMENDED SYSTEM AIRPORT OlARACTERISTICS
. Capacity
Airport Name OImership Classification Demand Role
. Dutchess County
Dutchess County
Phase I Public T 128,850 232,100 CS: Non-Primal:)'
Phase II Public T 150,650 232,100 cs: Non-Primal:)'
Phase III Public T 192,300 232,100 CS: Non-Primal:)'
Sky Acres
Phase I Private GU 42,240 152,500 GA
Phase II Private GU 49,520 152,500 GA
Phase III Private GU 64,640 152,500 GA
Sky Park
Phase I Private BU 11,220 115,000 GA
Phase II Private JlU 13, 260 115,000 GA
Phase III Private JlU 17 ,340 115,000 GA
Stormville
Phase I Private JlU 48,000 151,900 GA
Phase II Private JlU 56,800 151,900 GA
Phase III Private BU 74,000 151,900 GA
Orange County
Orange County
Phase I Public T 115,360 168,000 GA
Phase II Public T 132,840 168,000 GA
Phase III Public T 167,800 168,000 GA
.
Randall
.. Phase I Private JlU 46,020 158,400 GA
Phase II Private JlU 56,640 158,400 GA
Phase III Private JlU 81,420 158,400 GA
VI-9
Exhibit VI.3 - OPERATIONAL AND OTHER RECOMMENDED SYSTEM AIRPORT CHARACTERISTICS (Con't.)
Airport Name Oimership Classification Demand Capacity Role
,
Stewart
Pbase I Public T 183 ,340 250,000 RL
Phase II Public T 214,420 250,000 RL
Pbase III Public T 249,945 2:JO,OOO RL .
Wazwick
Pbase I Public BU 13,520 lU9,900 GA .
Phase II Public BU 40,560 109,900 RL
Pbase III Public BU 4:>,240 1U9,900 RL
1'utDaIl County
Mahopac
Phase I Private BU 12,96u 38,900 GA
Phase II Private BU 15,360 38,900 GA
Pbase III Private BU 15,360 38,900 GA
New Putnam County
Pbase I Public 0 0 RL
Phase II Public T 105,430 250,000 RL
Pbase III Public T 177,200 250,000 RL
Sullivan County
!tlnticello
Pbase I Private BU 1,380 87,200 GA
Phase It Private BU 1,620 87 , 200 GA
Pbal[le III Private BU 2,100 87,200 GA
Sullivan County
International
Pbase I Public T 21,120 140,100 GA
Phase II Public T 24,960 140,100 GA
Pbase III Public T 32,640 140,100 GA
.
Wurtsboro-Sullivan
Pbase I Private BU 84,480 134,600 GA "
Phase II Private BU 100,320 134,600 GA
Pbase I II Private BU 130,240 134,600 GA
VI-10
.
Exhibit VI.3 - OPERATIONAL AND OTHER RECOMMENDED SYSTEM AIRPORT CHARACTERISTICS (Con't.)
Airport Name Qroership Classification Demand Capacity Role
mster Cotmty
Kingston-mster
Phase I Private GO 16,650 113, 000 GA
.
Phase II Private GO 19,800 113 ,000 GA
Phase III Private GO 2;,650 113,000 GA
.
LID
Phase I Public GO 6,210 114,000 GA
Phase II Public GO 7,360 114,000 GA
Phase III Public GO 9,660 114,000 GA
Stanton
Phase I Private BU 2,720 113,000 GA
Phase II Private BU 3,400 113,000 GA
Phase III Private BU 4,420 1l3, 000 GA
Wallkill
Phase I Private BU 2,8;0 114,000 GA
Phase'II Private BU 3,400 114,000 GA
Phase III Private BU 4,400 1l4,OOO GA
Westchester County
Westchester County
Phase I Public T 205,560 210,000 CS: PrimaI)'
Phase II Public T 205,560 210,000 CS: Primary
Phase III Public T 209,900 210,000 CS: PrimaI)'
Queens County
nushing
Phase I Public BU 38,000 149,000 RL
Phase II Public BU 45,000 149,000 RL
Phase III Public BU 58,000 149,000 RL
. J olm F. Kennedy
Phase I Public T N/A N/A CS: PrimaI)'
Phase II Public T N/A N/A CS: PrimaI)'
Phase III Public T N/A N/A CS: PrimaI)'
VI-11
.
Exhibit VI. 3 - OPERATIONAL AND OTHER RECOMMENDED SYSTEM AIRPORX CHARACTERISTICS ( Con 't. )
Airport Name CMnership Classitication Demand Capacity Role
La Guardia
Phase I Public T N/A N/A CS: Prima%)"
Phase II Public T N/A N/A CS: Prima%)"
Phase III Public T N/A N/A CS: Prima%)"
Suffolk County
~
Bayport
Phase I Public BU 13,490 25,700 GA
Phase II Public BU 15,960 25,700 GA
Phase III Public BU 18,240 25,700 GA
Brookhaven
Phase I Public GU 166,000 270,000 RL
Phase II Public GU 210,820 270,000 RL
Phase III Public GU 269,750 270,000 RL
East Hampton
Phase I Public GU 63,620 108,300 CS: Non-Prima%)"
Phase II Public GU 75,380 108,300 CS: Non-Primary
Phase III Public GU 108,100 108,300 CS: Non-Prima%)"
Spadaro
Phase I Private BU 1,470 90,800 GA
Phase II Private BU 1,750 90,800 GA
Phase III Private BU 2,100 90,800 GA
Elizabeth Field
Phase I Public BU 21,900 86,400 GA
Phase II Public BU 21,900 86,400 GA
Phase III Public BU 29,200 86,400 GA
L. I. MacArthur
Phase I Public T 294,740 303,000 CS: Prima%)"
Phase II Public T 296,440 303,000 CS: Prima%)"
Phase III Public T 302,740 303,000 CS: Prima%)"
.,
M!lttituck
Phase I Private BU 20,590 91,200 GA
Phase II Private BU 21,300 91 ,200 GA
Phase III Private BU 21,300 91,200 GA
VI-12
Exhibit VI.3 - OPERATIONAL AND OTHER RECOMMENDED SYSTEM AIRPORT CHARACTERISTICS ( Con 't.)
Airport Name CMnersh1p Classitication Demand Capacity Role
It)ntauk
Phase I Private BU 11,400 105,100 GA
. Phase II Private BU 13,800 105,100 GA
Phase III Private BU 17,400 105,100 GA
.
Republic
Phase I Public T 251,800 270,000 RL
Phase II Public T 269,660 270,000 RL
Phase III Public T 269,660 270,000 RL
Suf f 01 k County
Phase I Public T 229,440 230,000 GA
Phase II Public T 229,440 230,000 GA
Phase III Public T 229,440 230,000 GA
New Coram Reliever
Phase I Public 0 0 RL
Phase II Public BU 41,340 198,600 RL
Phase III Public BU 6/,840 198,600 RL
Legend:
BU a Basic Utility
GU a General Utility
T a Transport
RL a Reliever
CS = Commercial Service
GA = General Aviation
.
.,
VI-13
Exhibit VI.4 - REOlIll1ENDED FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS BY PlIASE
Additional
Primary Rurway Additional Conventional Additional
Length :I: Width Rumray Taxiway Apron Area Hangar 'l'-ba_r Lighting Navaid
Airport/Phase (in ft.) Improvement Improvenent (in s.y.) (in s.f.) (units) ImprOVE!IDerits ImprovEments Miscellaneous Classification
Bayport:
Phase I 2.7/IJ " 120 21.520 2 Beacon Basic Utility
Phase II 2.7/IJ " 120 2./lJO 5 Basic Utility
Phase III 2.7/IJ " 120 2.400 3 Basic Utility
Brookhaven
Phase I 4.325 " 150 34,S80 34 General Utility
Phase II 4.325 " 150 11.520 12 !-LSI ALS General Utility
Phase III 4.325 x 150 Overlay 24.060 29 General Utility
Dutchess County!
Phase I 5,001," 100 Overlay 14.500 Transport
Phase II 5 ,001 x 100 Overlay 1Ext. 27.500 10 HIlL Easements Transport
Phase' III 5.001 " 100 Overlay _.INew 13,000 20 REn.S Easements Transport
East Hampton!
Phase I 4.255 " 75 New 16.111 9 HIlL/HIRL/REn. General Utility
Phase II 4.255 " 75 Stub 1;111 30,000 5 HIlL Genaral Utility
Phase III 4.255 " 75 Overlay 4 General Utility
Elizabeth Field
Phase I 2.850 " 150 1.327 FAPI Basic Utility
Phase II 2.850" 150 New HIlL/REIL Basic Utility
Phase III 2.S50 " 150 Overlay 1,020 1 Basic Utility
FlushinS1
Fhas. I 2.800 " 60 New New 15.800 25 HIRL/HIlL Lend Fill Basic Utility
Phase II 2.800" 60 1.700 9./lJO 1 REn. FAPI Basic Utility
Phase III 2.800 " 60 900 9./lJO 2 Basic Utility
Kingston-Ulster
Phase I 3.250 " 20 Basic Utility
Phase II 3.250" 20 B.sic Utility
Phase III 3.250 " 20 Overlay Overlay 2.000 2,000 S Basic Utillty
LIlJ
Phase I 3.S/IJ " 60 5 HIRL/REn. FAPI Beacon General Utility
Phase II 3.S/IJ " 60 Overlay 1 General Utility
Phase III 4;000 " 75 Ext. /Yiden New 1.200 2 HIRL/HIlL General Utility
L. I. MacArthur1
Phase I 7.000 " 150 Extension Extension 13,525 60 REn. FAPI Transport
Phase II 7.000" 150 Connecting 82.960 30 HIRL Transport
Phase III 7.000 " 150 Overlay 12.300 42 Transport
1 Frcm Airport Master Plan.
Vlt-14 . .
----
.
.
.
.
Exhibit VI.4 - RECXlI+lENDEIl FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS BY PHASE (CDIn'INUEIl)
Additional
Primat:y Runway Additional Conventional Additional
Length x Width lWmIay Taxiway Apron Area Hangar T-bangar Lighting Navaid
Airport/Phase (in ft.) Improvement Improvement (in ..y.) (in a. f.) (unita) Improvements Improvements Miscellaneous Classifies tion
Iilhopac
I'hase I 1,800 '" 651 Less Than BU
Phase II 1,400 '" 651 Less Than BU
Phase III 1,800 '" 651 Less TI1an BU
Mlttituck
Phase I 2,200 '" 130 Basic Utility
Phase II 2,200 '" 130 Basic Utility
Phase III 2.200 x 60 Overlay Basic Utility
M::mtauk
Phase I 3.472 x 85 General Utility
Phase II 3.472 x 85 General Utility
Phase in 3,472 '" 75 Overlay General Utility
t-bntice11o
Phase I 2,976 '" 31 Basic Utility
Phase II 2,976", 31 Basic Utility
Phase III 4,976 '" 31 Overlay
Extension Basic Utility
Orange County
I'hase I 5,000 '" 100 11.055 15,000 54 REIL PAPI Transport
Phase II 5,000 '" 100 7,770 14.700 12 Transport
I'haae III 5.000 x 100 Overlay !lev 13.000 18,900 30 Transport
Rendell
Phase I 2.800 x 26 Basic Utility
Phase II 2.800 x 26 Basic Utility
Phase III 2.800 x 26 Overlay Basic Utility
b:public2
Phase I 6,827 '" 150 108.700 27.000 210 Transport
Phase II 6,827 '" 150 9.300 5,000 10 Transport
Phase III 6,827 '" 150 Overlay Transport
Sky Acres
Phase I 3.885 x 20 Overlay Basic Utility
Phase II 3.885 x 20 Basic Utility
Phase III 3.885 x 20 2.000 5.000 14 Basic Utility
1 Turf Run.lay
2 Fran Airport Master Plan
VI-IS
L
I!xhibit VI.4 - REOOlNNllEll FACILITY IMI'RDvmmrs BY PHASE (Cllm'INUEJl)
Additional
Primaty Rtmway Additional Cot'Nentional Additional
Length x Width Rtmway Taxiway Apron Area Hangar t'-bangar LightinS Navaid
Airport/Phase (in ft.) Improvenent Improvement (in ..y.) (in ..f.) (units) Improvements Improvements Miscellaneous Classification
Sky Park
Phase I 2,666 x 30 Overlay Basic Utility
Phase II 2.666 x 30 Basic Utility
Phase III 2.666 x 30 10 Basic Utility
Spadaro
Phase I 2.200 x 24 Basic: Utility
!'haseII 2.200 x 24 Basic Utility
Phase III 2.200 x 24 Overlay Basic Utility
Stanton
Phase I 2.415 x 23 Basic Utility
Phase II 2.415 x 23 Basic Utility
Phase. III 2.415 x 23 Overlay Basic Utility
Stewart
Phase I l1,SI8x ISO 7.146 REIL PAPI Transport
Phase II 11.S18 x ISO 8,160 Transport
Phase III 11,818 x ISO 10,020 Transport
Stormville
Phase I 3.320 x SO Basic Utility
Phase II 3.320 x SO Basic Utility
Phase III 3.320 z SO Overlay Basic Utility
Suffolk rountyl
Phase I 9,000 x ISO Extension 5,000 IS REIL PAPI Transport
Phase II 9.000 x ISO 5,000 10,000 K.SI ALS Transport
Phase III 9,000 x 150 Overlay 10,565 15 Transport
Sullivan County Int'l
Phase I 6.300 x 150 1,600 17 HI'lL Transport
Phase II 6,300 " ISO 6.300 2 Transport
Phase III 6,300 x ISO Overlay 6,300 7 Transport
l/allkill
Phase I 2.900 x SO Basic Utility
Phase II 2.900 x SO Basic Utility
Phase III 2.900 x SO Overlay Basic Utility
Watwick
Phase I 3.300 x 60 New 5,560 HIIlL Beacon/Land Basic Utility
Phase II 3.300 x 60 NEW 14,200 8 HI'lL Basic Utility
Phase III 3.300 x 60 2.100 20 REIL PAPI Basic Utility
I Fran Airport Master Plan
VI-.i6 . .
,
.
.
.
.
VI-17
,
Other facility recommendations proftered by this plan reflect local master planning
efforts and are incorporated in the twenty-year planning horizons. Examples of these
facility reCOllllllendations include the I1E!iI runway developnent at nushing Airport, the
ruIIoIay realigtllll!nt efforts at Waxwick Airport, and new tax:i>ray developnent at Dutchess
County, East Hampton, L.I. MacArthur, Orange County, Suftolk County, and Westchester
County. Other apron and hangar recamnendations are shown for each airport and should be
considered as the m1l1imum level of improvement. These improvements were recOlllllU!tlded based
upon industry standards discussed in . <hapter V or upon current master planning
recllllllllendations, if available. Changes from these reCOllllllendacions are expected; hC>i'ever,
greater developnent would be preferred over lesser developnent.
.
There are a nUlllber of other facility improvement items that were not included in this
report for a variety of reasons. First, there are many one-time capital developnent items
that vary by airport and are beyond the scope of this study. Other reasons inclUde the-
fact that capital developnent items are site specific or that they can result fran sponsor
preferences. These items cannot be accurately estimated in this study due to level of
detail problems. In any event, the failure of a developnent item to appear in this report
does not imply that it is not eligible for state or federal funding. Rather, it more
likely deals with the problems of local versus regional planning levels of detail.
.
R]J;IONAL 001 EllAGE
To assess hC>i' well the recommended system of airports serves the region in
geographical tems, a set of exhibits were produced that show 45 minute driving time
isochronals overlaid on the recommended system. A 45 minute driving time was used in
confomance with the study's goals and objectives which state that 90 percent of the
region's population should be within 45 minutes of a utility or larger airport. In this
manner, regional coverage provided by the airport system can be identified and planning
alternatives can be focmulated to offset areas of noncoverage, if applicable.
Exhibit VI. 5 depicts cllllulative dr1ving time coverage of each of the publicly owned
airports in the recommended system. The exhibit shows driving time coverage in 0-15
minute increments, 16-30 minute increments, and 31 to 45 minute increments. As shown,
only a small area in the northern portion of the Downstate region is not within 45 minutes
driving time of a publicly-owned utility or larger airport. This depiction was presented
in order to illustrate the reliance of the recommended airport system on private airports.
Exhibit VI.6 depicts the three incremental driving time coverages of both public and
privately owned system airports. As shown, there is almost complete regional coverage by
the system at the 45 minute driving time level once the pr1vately owned airports are
included. Thus, from a regional coverage standpoint, the recommended system 1lI!ets the
study's goals and objectives. Further, it can be stated that even without private airport
inclusion, regional coverage objectives are 1lI!t.
.
..
VI-18
.
-"'"
.
.
I
,
\.
.
J
.
i I I
u ~ ~
s . R
o G ~
.
I~I
'"
~
I
~
>
-'
.
.
_>E
.
I
.
'l,
.
I
I ! I
2
" il ~ .
.
s s .
0 G il
I I I
:: i:
.:: ,
H
>
..
SYSTEM AIRSPACE
The recommended systen nrspace can be descnbed within the following topics:
.
Terminal Visual night Rules/Instrument night Rules (VFR!IFR)
Airspace Util ization.
Instrument Approach Capabilities.
Air Traffic Control Procedures.
.
Tenninal VFRfIFR Airspace Utilization
.
Throughout the systen plan, Visual night Rules and Instrument night Rules airspace
configurations have been presented to describe each airport's tenninal area airspace
system. This systen consists of all facilities, equipnent, and services at the airport
and near airport areas required to safely transfer aircraft fran enroute to teminal area
airspace and subsequent airport landing.
VER airspace reservation areas are designated for the purpose of protecting airport
visual approaches and departure patterns. Encroachment of these airspace reservation
areas by other airports indicate potential problens. The severity of these probl ens ,
however, is a function of:
The degree of airspace overlap;
The ruDWay orientation of adjacent airports;
The nllll1ber and type of aircraft operations; and
The fleet mix.
Exhibit VI.7 depicts the VFR airspace reservation areas for the recOllDllended general
aviation system. As shown in the exhibit, there are only three areas where airspace
reservation areas overlap. These overlaps include:
La Guardia and nushing
L. I. MacArthur and Bayport
Suffolk County and Spadaro
The La Guardia/nushmg overlap presents serious constraints to operational
procedures at nushing. nushing's locational relationship to La Guardia restricts its
airspace utilization tor operations to the west of the airport. Air Traffic Control (ATe)
has created an exclusion area in the Ns York Tenninal O:>ntrol Area (TCA) specifically for
VFR operations at nushing. Occasionally, sane VFR aircraft operating fran nushing will
penetrate the TCA. These problens are closely monitored by ATe and have been attributed
to the limited airspace around nushmg and pilots unfamiliar with the tight airspace
restrictions. At this airport, Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 93, Special Air
Traffic Rules, are in eftect.
.
,
VFR airspace interaction between L. I. MacArthur and Bayport has not been considered
serioua due to low levels of activity associated with Bayport. The same conditions hold
true for airspace overlaps between Suftolk County and Spadaro. Neither of these two
overlaps are expected to pose problems during the planning period.
The IFR airspace conhgurations tor the reCOllDllended systen are presented in Exhibit
VI.S. These airspace reservation areas are in effect during instrument or poor weather
conditions. IFR airspace overlaps indicate a potential for operational conflicts. These
overlaps exist between the following reClJlllllended systen airports.
V 1-21
.
~~
@
@
y
<>ERR'(
OOG<
o
(j)
VFR
AlFtSPACE RESER\ATIOH AREA
ARSPACE RESERVATION Oo'ERLAP
VI-42
NABEN t
YHUNTER
MOUNTAIN
y ~REEN ACRES
AIRPORT INDEX
I ELIZABETH Ii STORMVILLE
. MONTAU< IT IlU1Q<ESS co.
. EAST HAMPTON 18 SO('(..",..
. MATTIT\JCK " SKY PARK
. SUfRlLK co. 20 I<tfGSTOH-ULSTER
6 SPADARO " WALLKLL
T """'HAVEN Z2 STAIf1O"
8 LOOG I5lAND MACARTIUl 23 LNJ
. 8<<PORT .. STEWART
I. REl'I.Ol.IC .. ORANGE co.
II JOIfl F- KENNEDY '6 WARWICK
" fUJSHr<G 2T RANDALL
13 LA........ '8 WURTSBORO-SULLIYAN co.
" Yl6TCtESTER co. 29 lolONnCELLO
" MAHOPAC .. SULUVAN Co. INTL
,
/
/
y
SUSSEX
oJ,
jZ;;?'\
~--- \!9
l,.---
_------ <J""'
------------
GREEN'NOOO
LAKE
ESSEX Co.
y
NEWARK
Y
PERMANENT IFR AASPACE
ENVIRONMENT
LINDEN"!"
+
-t-
T
Y
*
NEW AIRPORTS
COMMfRCIAL SERVICE
REUEYER
GENERAL AVIATION
PERIPHERAL AIRPORTS
. ,
~
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
MABEN i"
t HUNTER
MOUNTAIN
AIRPORT INDEX
I EUZABETH
2 MONTAUK
, EAST HAMPTON
4 SUFfOLK CO.
5 eROOl<HAVEN
6 LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR
7 REPU9L1C
8 JOHNFJ<ENNEO'f
9 LA GUAROIA
10 WESTCHESTER CO.
"'" PREClSIllN
ARSFJa. RESERVATlON .AREA
?
ClERRY
ROO<
PREClSIllN
ARSPllCE RESERVATOI ,tREA
ARSf'ACf: OVERLAP
.
.
II STORWLLE
12 OUTOiESS CO.
.3 SKY ACRES
14 SKY PARK
15 STfWART
16 ORANGE co.
IT RA/IIlALL
18 WLRTSBOAO'SlU.NAN CO.
19 MONTICEUO
20 5U.lNAH CO_ ~TL
,
,
+- COMMERCIA'- SERVICE
-t- REL.IEVER
1" GENERAL. A"'ATION
? PERIPHERAL AIRPORTS
~. . . *
- NEW AIRPORTS
-
VI-23
,.
.
MOntauk and East Hampton
East Hampton and Suffolk County
Suffolk County and Brookhaven
Suffolk County and Long Island MacArthur
Brookhaven and Long Island MacArthur
Brookhaven and Republic
Long Island MacArthur and Republic
Republic and John F. Kennedy
John F. Kennedy and La Guardia
La Guardia and Westchester County
Orange County and St8l'art
Orange County and Randall
Orange County and Wurtsboro-Sullivan County
Orange County and MOnticello
Randall and St8l'art
Randall and MOnticello
Randall and Wurtsboro-Sullivan County
Randall and Dutchess County
Randall and Sky Acres
MOnticellO and Sullivan County International
MOnticello and Wurtsboro-Sullivan County
Wurtsboro-Sullivan County and St8l'art
St8l'art and StotmVille
St8l'art and Dutches s County
Stewart and Sky Acres
Stormville and Dutchess County
Stormville and Sky Park
Stormville and Sky Acres
Dutchess County and Sky Acres
Dutchess County and Sky Park
Sky Acres and Sky Park
Westchester County and New Putnam County Reliever
Republic and New Coram Reliever
Brookhaven and New Coram Reliever
Long Island MacArthur and New Coram Reliever
.
.
.
.
.
In all, 35 IFR airspace overlaps exist in the recommended system. The most serious
of airspace overlaps are those located within the New York TCA and L.I. MacArthur Texminal
Radar Service Area (TRSA). IFR operations conducted within these areas are safe due to
stringent air traffic control procedures required by the FAA. This area, because of its
high activity and national visibility has been the subject of many FAA studies and
subsequent refinements and upgradings of ATC procedures. The second group of airspace
overlaps are those located in the Hudson Valley area, and shown on the exhibit. Upgraded
ATC facilities and procedures are expected to reduce potential IFR airspace conflicts and ·
delays.
Instrument Approach Capabilities .
Of interest to many general aviation pilots and corporate aircraft owners in the
Ilcwnstate are the number of airports in the region that have, or are scheduled to have,
instrument approach capabilities. An instrument approach procedure is defined as a series
of predete=ined maneuvers for the orderly transfer of an aircraft under instrument flight
conditions fran the beginning of the initial approach to a landing, or to a point fran
which a landing may be made visually.
VI-24
.
Instrument approach facilities give aviation users a flexibility that the visual
flight rules cannot match. Inclement weather conditions - often experienced in the
Downstate - to a large extent restrict VFR flying. Instrument flight rules, halever,
allal pilots to fly using electronic navigational aids in all but the worst weather
conditions. Instrument approach facilities also allow for navigation around or between
natural or manmade obstacles such as towers and hills. They, therefore, are used by
pilots not only for greater flexibility with respect to weather conditions, but also for
the increased safety margin that is provided. Exhibit VI.9 presents a list of airports in
the Downstate that have instrument approaches. All of these facilities are included in
the recamnended aviation system.
.
One recOllllllendation of the systen plan that could possibly impact the IFR airspace
structure is the examination of possible application of LORAN-C RNAl1 in the Downstate for
both enroute and airfield approach operations. Presently, the FAA is considering the
implenentation of a nunber of LORAN-C non-precision instrunent approaches around the
count%)'. Also the FAA is expected to have completed formulation of a process by the end
of 1986 that State goveranents can use to develop LORAN-C non-precision approaches in
accordance with their intra-state systen of priorities.
Exhibit VI. 9 - AIRPORT INSTRUMENT APPROACHES BY TYPE
Map Type of Designated
Airport Index Nunber Instrunent Approach R\lIIIlay
Brookhaven 5 NDB A
VOK 6
Dutchess County 13 n.S, VOR/DME, RNAV 6
VOR A
VOR/DME 24
East Hampton 3 VOR A
RNAl1 10
Elizabeth 1 VOR A
John F. Kennedy 8 n.S, VOR 4L
n.S, VOR 4R
n.S, VOK 13L
n.S, VOR/DME 221
n.s 22R
. n.S, VOR 31L
n.S 31R
VOR A
VOR 13R
.
La Guardia 9 NDB, n.s, VOR 4
NDB, n.S 22
n.s 13
LOG 31
VOR A,B,C
VI-25
.
Exhibit VI.9 - AIRPORT INSTRUMENr APPROACHES BY TYPE (Continued)
Long Island MacArthur 6 NIlIl . ILS 6
,
ILS 24
Mmtauk 2 VOR 6
!bnticello 19 VOR/DME 1
.
Orange County 16 NDB, toC 3
VOR 8
.
Randall 17 NDB 26
VOR 8
Republic 7 NDB 1
ILS 14
toC BC 32
VOll. A
RNAV 19
Sky Acres 14 VOR A
Sky Park 15 VOR 1
Stsart 16 NDB, ILS 9
VOR 27
RNAV 16
Stonnville 12 VOR A
Suffolk County 4 NIlIl, ILS 24
toC BC 6
Sullivan County Int'1- 21 NIlIl ILS 15
VOR/DME 33
Westchester County 10 NDB, ILS 16
ILS, RNAV 34
VOR/DME A
Wurtsboro-Sullivan County 19 VOR A
Legend: .
A,B,C, - No RUIlllay Designated
ILS - Instrument Landing System .
toC - Localizer
LOC BC - Localizer Back Course
NDB _ Non-Directional Radio Beacon
RNAV - Area Navigation
VOR -VHF Omnidirectional Navigation Facility
VOR!DME - VOR with Distance Measuring Fquipnent
V 1-26
.
It is believed that a n\ll1ber of airports in the Hudson Valley region would benefit
fraa the implementation of a LORAN-G program. Where radio navigation and landing aids are
at a minimum, the ground level to all flight levels nature of the low fr81uency LORAN-G
signals allows the airport sponsor caaplete freedaa in the choice of arrival and departure
routes in response to local envirol1llental restrictions or cnteria, and the availability
of approach guidance for all rumlayS.
.
This is not to say that LORAN-G approaches would not be beneficial at the larger
metropolitan airports. Rather, the non-precision approaches supplement precision
approaches, increase the n\ll1ber of possible directions of landing, and facilitates the
implementation of new Standard instr\IIIeUt Departures and New Arrival Routes even at
heavily instrumented airports.
.
Therefore, to adequately assess the potential applications of LORAN-G approaches at
Downstate airports, it is recamnended that the NYSOOT initiate a LORAN-G RNAV evaluation
of the region and state. In this manner, interested airport sponsors could evaluate their
airports' instr\ll1entation needs and work to fulfill those needs in a relatively
inexpensive manner.
Enroute Airspace Utilization
The enroute airspace system for the recamnended general aviation system is composed
of a network of three ailWays or route systems which have been established for air
navigation purposes. These are the Very high Frequency Omi-Range (VOR), jet route, and
area navigation (RNAV) route systems. Although the jet route and area navigation routes
are part of Downstate's airspace system, their operations do not directly interact with
the region's general aviation airports. Therefore, these routes were not considered in
the airspace discussion. Attention was primarily focused on the low al titude, Victor
Ai:IWay System which directly affects operations at the Region's airports.
Pilots utilizing the VOR ai:IWay system are generally navigating to a specific airport
location. Towered airports with heavy traffic loads generally feature published SID's and
STAR's (Standard Instrument Departure procedure and Standard Teminal Arrival procedure)
to facilitate enroute transitioning of IFR aircraft. In the Downstate Region, the
following system airports have these procedures:
La Guardia
L.I. MacArthur
John F. Kennedy
Republic
Westchester County
.
These procedures facilitate Air Traffic Control agreements concerning routine
procedures between ATC tower personnel and Air Route Traffic Control Center
personnel.
handof!:
(ARTCC)
.
Discussions with FAA personnel in the region rerealed that the enroute IFR system is
faced with serious capacity problems over the next 20 years. These problems stem fran the
fact that the New York City air traffic hub is one of the busiest in the entire nation.
The airspace system in the Downstate Region has been built around the camnercial airlines
that use La Guardia, John F. Kennedy, or Newark airports. The anal! general aviation
aircraft have had less preferential treatment in the past, and as a result, have been
given more circuitous routings in order to remove them fraa the heavy jet traffic flow.
VI-27
.
Solutions to these problems are being sought by the FAA in several areas:
.
MIre oft-peak scheduling by airlines
Technological advancea in inst1"Ullentation, ATC computers, and radar
Increased efficiency of ATC system utilization via restructuring
In the past, repeated studies have ShOifIl that O\7erall traffic can grOloT if off-peak
scheduling is employed. The flying public has, for the most part, consistently rejected
these scheduling attempts by airlines. The second event that would increase enroute
system capacity would stem fran technological advances in COIIlputers and radar. In these
instances, separation between aircraft may be reduced fran five miles to four or three
miles, depending upon the error tolerances of new equipment. The third factor to increase
capacity would be a restructuring of the system to reduce or eliminate the influence of
bottleneck areas. The FAA is currently developing a plan for the northeast U.S. that may
involve initiation of new VOR and jet route airways.
"
.
CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT OOSTS
In this analysis, all recanmended system airports were depicted with facility
development schedules. However, capital development expenditures for pr1.vately OifIled
airports were pr0\7ided more for maintenance expenses than for expansion programs. Without
public flDlding of private airport capital development, there is no guarantee that the
private system airports will remain open or will be caIIIIitted to aviation usage O\7er the
long term. Given this uncertainty and the scarcity of private funds, a planning policy
was established that did not rely upon the expansion of privately OifIled airports beyond
their existing capacities. Therefore, for planning purposes, based aircraft and
operational growth at private airports was assigned lDltil either their landside or airside
capacity was reached and then the excess was reallocated to publicly owned airports.
Under these planning assUlllptions, privately owned airports will bear part of the cost
burden of pr0\7iding general aviation access into the region. One weakness to this
planning process is that unexpected closures of private airports could canplicate the
recOllllllended plan by any one of the following means:
Increasing the demand at public airports, which in turn would require
greater capital development flDlds.
Increasing the ''unastiafied" demand canponent,
constraining general aviation access to the region.
thereby further
Increasing the co st to local units of g0\7erDDetlt that may desire to
purchase these airports to maintain general avution access to the
region.
. .
To adequately plan for these possible scenarios, a set of contingency plans were
developed, later in the Implementation Plans chapter, that examine the future ·
possibilit1.es in a planning frSlllEWork where strategies to allevute the ensuing problems
are developed.
Capital development costs for the recOllllllended general avution system were estimated
to total $43,973,200 for the short-range, $32,092,100 for the intermediate range, and
$64,501,900 for the long-range planning period, for a grand total of $140,567,200 for all
VI-28
.
three periods. These cost elements correspond to the facility deve10pnent schedules shown
earlier in this chapter. To calculate facility deve10pnent costs, unit costs were applied
to the required number of units for each planning period.
Several sources were used in the deve10pnent of cost estimates to assure that
relatively accurate costs were derived. These sources included:
.
Building Coast:ructiOll Cost Data: 1985; Robert S. Means Company, Inc.
.
Cost estimates contained in nllllerous Aviation System Plans, including
those for Southern Tier, Neil York, Texas, Oklahana, and Kentuciq'.
Cost estimates used in recent Downstate New York Master Plans.
The costs of maintaining system auports were estimated on the basis of invento%)'
information collected on pavement condition and last date of overlay. Using this
material, periodic overlays, based upon the eftective pavement life were incorporated into
the cost of implementing the recamnended plan. This maintenance cost is large enough to
be considered a capital improvement and is eligible for federal funding. Exhibit V1.10
presents a S\lllllUl%)' of capital deve10pnent costs, by phase, for each of the reccmmended
system airports. All costs are in constant 1985 dollars.
Exhibit V1.10 - RECOMMENDED SYSTEM DWELOPMENT COST BY PHASE (000' S OF 1985 OOUARS)
Airport
Phase I
1985-1990
Costs
Bayport
Brookhaven
Dutchess County
East Hampton
Elizabeth Field
$ 663.4
$ 1,395.8
$ 1,342.2
$ 1,409.0
$ 211.6
Flushing
Kingston-Ulster
LID
L.1. MacArthur
Mshopac
$ 1,522.1
$
$
$
300.3
2,630.0
.
Msttituck
Mmtauk
!bnticello
Orange County
Randall
$
$
$
$ 2,173.7
$
.
Republic
Sky Aores
Sky Park
Spadaro
Stanton
$ 8,435.2
$ 129.0
$ 133.5
$
$
Phase II
1991-1995
Costs
$ 126.5
$ 1,027.4
$ 1,786.2-
$ 1,220.7
$ 339.6
$ 308.4
$
$ 432.5
$ 9,566.8
$
$
$
$ 959.5
$
$ 2,472.8
$
$
$
$
Phase III
1996-2000
Costs
$ 101.0
$ 2,005.5
$ 2,911.4
$ 1,766.4
$ 1,265.0
$ 892.1
$ 444.0
$ 955.4
$ 5,181.3
$
$
220.5
433.5
363.8
$ 3,542.5
$ 226.5
$
$
$
$
$
3,085.8
303.0
120.0
88.5
93.0
Total
Costs
$ 890.9
$ 5,228.7
$ 6,039.8
$ 4,396.1
$ 1,816.2
$ 2,722.6
$ 444.0
$ 1,688.2
$ .17,378.1
$
$
$
$
$
$ 13,993.8
$ 432.0
$ 253.5
$ 88.5
$ 93.0
220.5
433.5
363.8
6,675.7
226.5
VI-29
.
Exhibit VI.10 - RECOMMENDED SYSTEM DEYELOPMENT COST BY PHASE (000' S OF 1985 DOU.ARS)
Phase I Phase II Phase III
1985-1990 1991-1995 1996-2000 Total
Airport Costs Costs Costs Costs
Stewart $ 654.3 $ 215.5 $ 4,939.0 $ 5,808.8
Stormville $ $ $ 468.0 $ 468.0 ..
Suffolk County $ 1,475.7 $ 860.0 $ 5,423.5 $ 7,759.2
Sullivan County
Ioternational $ 293.0 $ 214.0 $ 1,851.5 $ 2,358.5
Wallkill $ $ $ 241.5 $ 241.5
Wa:tWick $ 1,194.3 $ 755.6 $ 474.7 $ 2,424.6
Westchester County $ 10,315.3 $ 2,831.5 $ 11,058.1 $ 24,204.9
Wurtsboro-Sullivan
County $ $ 297.0 $ 120.0 $ 417.0
New Coram $ 2,072.0 $ 1,877.1 $ 656.4 $ 4,605.5
New Putnam County $ 7,622.8 $ 6,801.0 $ 14,470.0 $ 28,893.8
Grand Total $ 43,973.2 $ 32,092.1 $ 64,501.9 $ 140,567.2
.
~
VI-30
.
RPLIEVER AIRFOR:I.'S
.
The Airport and Airway ImprOl1ement Act (AAIA) of 1982 defines a reliever airport as
"an airport designated by the Secretary as having the function of relieving congestion at
a commercial service airport and prOlliding more general aviation access to the OI1eral1
community". The Act defines a commercial service airport as a public facility that
enplanes 2,500 or more scheduled passengers annually. A public-use airport is defined as
any publicly-owned airport, or, any privately-owned airport enplaning 2,500 or more
scheduled passengers annually. Reliever airport criteria appears in a change to FAA Order
5090.3A, concerning the National Plan for Integrated Airport Systems or NPIAS (formerly
the National Airport System Plan).
.
Existing or proposed public-use general aviation airports qualify for reliever
designation if the following criteria are met.
The primary function of the airport is to relieve congestion at an air
carrier airport by prOlliding the general aviation user with a suitable
alternative.
The airport has reached a cu=ent activity' level (or, for a proposed
new airport, is forecast to reach such a level within two years of
be:u;g activated) of either:
50 based aircraft or.
.25,000 annual itinerant operatioris or,
35,000 annual local operations
The reliever airport prOl1ides substantial. instrument training relief
as evidenced by the installation or proposed installation of a
precision instrument landing system or microwave landing system when
the FAA Regional Director has determined that the airport is a
desirable location for instrument training activity.
The airport is located in the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area
(SMSA) served by the relieVed airport:. If the airport is outside the
SMSA, it must accommodate general aviation users from the SMSA at the
minimum activity levels identified earlier.
.
In addition to criteria for the reliever airport, FAA Order 5090.3A presents criteria
for the relieved airport:. To qualify for a reliever airport, the relieved airport must
satisfy the following criteria:
.
The relieved airport must serve an SMSA with a population of at least
250,000. persons. or must enplane at least 250,000 passengers annually.
The relieved airport must reach 60 percent of its capacity or have
operated at such a level before being relieved by one or more reliever
airports, or is subject to restrictions that limit activity that would
otherwise reach 60 percent of capacity.
A-1
.'"
Airports not meeting all of the above criteria may be included in the NPIAS as
reliever airports if they are so designated in a State, regional, or metropolitan system
plan and the FAA concurs in that portion of the plan.
There is no definite rule on the number of relievers required for an area. Such a
decision must be based on careful judgment of the activity levels, growth potential, and
8I1ailable sites. The size of a reliever airport is likewise not subject to any particular
rule. Runway length, for instance, should be based on the greatest length required by
aircraft that would be attracted from the relieved airport. Most areas with a need for
relief are rather he8l1ily developed and the reliever airport's ultimate size must be based
on the individual sites and facilities available.
.
.
Potential Reliever Airports
Presently, there are three designated general aviation reliever airports in the
Downstate. These airports and those relieved include:
Relieved Airport
Reliever Airport
. L. I. MacArthur
John F. Kennedy
LaGuardia
Brookhaven
Republic
nushing
Prior to its closure, Ramapo Valley served as a designated reliever for Westchester
County Airport. At this point, Westchester'County is without a designated reliever
airport.
Potential additional reliever airports recanmended in this study include:
Stonnville
Steiilart
Wa:rwick
In a prior evaluation, the NYSDOT identified Stormville Airport as a potential
reliever for LaGuardia. Operationally, Stormville meets the criteria to serve as a
reliever airport. Annual operations in 1985 were estimated at 43,200 with based aircraft
totaling 108. (FAA minimum based aircraft criterion is 50). Because Stormville is in
danger of closure, designation as a general 8I1iation reliever airport may permit or
encourage public acquisition.
In consideration of the above factors it is recommended ,that Stormville be designated
a reliever airport. Rather than relieve LaGuardia, it is further recommended that
Westchester County be designated as the relieved airport. This change should be made in
recognition of the closure of Ramapo Valley, Westchester County's former general lNiation
reliever airport.
.
~
Stewart International Airport is one of the physically larger airport facilities
8I1ailable in the Downstate. Its current activity levels make it eligible to serve as a
reliever airport (127,000 operations predicted for 1987). Stewart's importance in the
Downstate, coupled with its anticipated activity levels has led to its inclusion as a
recommended reliever for the Kennedy/LaGuardia complex. Specifically, the airport to be
relieved would be LaGuardia.
A-2
Another ai%1'ort that will begin to feel the effects of the closure of Ramapo Valley
Ai%1'ort is the Warwick Municipal Ai%1'ort. In this regard. some of the aircraft formerly
based at Ramapo Valley are expected to relocate to Warwick. This relocation process is
expected to help relieve the Westchester County Ai%1'ort in the intermediate and long term
periods. Also. by 1990. Warwick Municipal is expected to have 68 based aircraft. which
meets the FAA activity criteria for reliever ai%1'ort qualifications. For these reasons,
it is recommended that Warwick Municipal. be designated a reliever ai%1'ort. as soon as
. activity levels justify such a designation.
.. '
"
.
A-3
I'INABCUL PLAHS
The capital improvement program for the reccmmended general aviation systl!ll has been
identified by short (1985-1990), intermediate (1991-1995), and long range (1991-2005)
systl!ll needs. These costs and improvements were staged with respect to the forecast
demand capacity relationships to bring all a1.rports to their re:juired systl!ll standards in
the appropriate time frame.
This section evaluates the existing and proj ected sources of funds available to
airport sponsors and assesses the systl!ll plan's financial requirements. The rl!llainder of
the sect ion is organiz ed as follow s.
Financial Requirements
Funding Sources:
Federal Funds
State Funds
Local Funds
Private Funds
Land Use Options
Other State Funds
Development Project Priorities
Summa%Y
Financial BequirelllenU
The financial re:j uirements discussed in this section refer to capital developnent
total capital
In this manner,
their a1.rports
expenditures at systl!ll airports. Further, this section examines
requirements for the recaamended plan, broken down into planning phases.
local airport sponsors can anticipate the capital requirements for
resulting fran plan implementation.
The total cost of developing the rec:OIIIIIIel1ded system of airports in the Downstate has
been estimated at $140.6 million, in constant 1985 dollars. Four sources of funds are
expected to hnance the development program. Projected hnancial requirements from each
of these sources are as follows:
.
$75.7 Million Federal Funds
$ 9.4 Million State Funds
$15.1 Million Local Funds
$40.4 Million Private Enterprise
.
Exhibit VII.1 presents a summa%y of anticipated capital development costs for each
airport in the recaamended plan by time period and expected funding source.
VII-1
.
Exhibit VI!. 1 - RECOMMENDED PLAN DE.VELOPMENT COST BY FUNDING SOURCE ( 000 I S OF 1985 DOIJ.ARS)
Airport Phase I Phase II Phase III Total
Bayport
Facility Costs $ 6b3.4 $. 126.5 $ 101.0 $ 890.9
Funding Source:
Private $ 25.0 $ 62.5 $ 3/.5 $ 125.0
Local $ 83.1 $ 3.1 $ 2.6 $ 88.8
State $ 42.7 $ 4.7 $ 4.7 $ 52.1 .
Federal $ 512.6 $ 56.2 $ 56.2 $ 625.0
Brookhaven
Facility Costs $ 1,39:>.8 $ 1,027.4 $ 2,805.5 $ 5,228.7
Funding Source:
Private $ 425.0 $ 150.0 $ 3b2.5 $ 93/.5
Local $ 86.6 $ 35.3 $ 96.4 $ 218.3
State $ 68.0 $ 22.5 $ 180.5 $ 271.0
Federal $ 816.2 $ 819.6 $ 2,166.1 $ 3,801.9
Dutchess County1
Facility Costs $ 1,342.2 $ 1,786.2 $ 2,911.4 $ 6,039.8
Funding Source:
Private $ 0.0 $ 234.4 $ 3/5.0 $ 609.4
Local $ 382.2 $ 280.0 $ 279.2 $ 941.4
State $ 73.7 $ 97.9 $ 173.6 $ 345.2
Federal $ 886.3 $ 1,173.9 $ 2,083.6 $ 4,143.8
East u-pt0ll1
Faci1 ity Costs $ 1,409.0 $ 1,220.7 $ 1,766.4 $ 4,396.1
Funding Source:
Private $ 228.0 $ 1,026.7 $ 538.8 $ 1,793.5
Local $ 43.3 $ 4.9 $ 30.7 $ 78.9
State $ 130.5 $ 14.5 $ 92.1 $ 23/.1
Federal $ 1,007.2 $ 174.6 $ 1,104.8 $ 2,286.6
Elizabeth Field
Facility Costs $ 211.6 $ 339.6 $ 1,265.0 $ l,81b.2
Funding Source: .
Private $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 12.5 $ 12.5
Local $ 90.2 $ 10.8 $ 31.3 $ 132.3
State $ 9.3 $ 25.3 $ 93.9 $ 128.5 .
Federal $ 112.1 $ 303.5 $ 1,127.3 $ 1,542.9
1 From. Airport Master Plan.
VII-2
Exhibit VII.1 - REOOMMENDED PLAN DWELQPMENT OOST BY EUNDUG SOURCE
(OOO'S OF 1985 DOLLARS (Continued)
Airport Phase I Phase II Phase III Total
nusbin~
Facility Costs $ 1,522.1 $ 308.4 $ 892.1 $ 2,722.6
EUnding Source:
Private $ 186.5 $ 195.5 $ 860.9 $ 1,242.9
. Local $ 33.4 $ 2.8 $ 0.8 $ 37.0
State $ 100.2 $ 8.5 $ 2.3 $ 111.0
Federal $ 1,202.0 $ 101. 6 $ 28.1 $ 1,331.7
KiDgston-Ul.ster
Facility Costs $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 444.0 $ 444.0
EUnding Source:
Private $ 444.0 $ 444.0
Local
State
Federal
LBJ
Facility Costs $ 300.3 $ 432.5 $ 955.4 $ 1,688.2
EUnding Source:
Private $ 87 .5 $ 48.5 $ 37.5 $ 173.5
Local $ 79.4 $ 9.6 $ 23.0 $ 112.0
State $ 10.3 $ 28.8 $ 68.8 $ 107.9
Federal $ 123.1 $ 345.6 $ 826.1 $ 1,294.8
L.r. Ha~
Facility Costs $ 2,630.0 $ 9,566.8 $ 5,181.3 $ 17 ,378.1
Funding Source:
Private $ 199.2 $ 340.0 $ 604.5 $ 1,143.7
Local $ 1,242.9 $ 7,285.8 $ 398.6 $ 8,927.3
State $ 237.6 $ 388.2 $ 835.6 $ 1,461.4
Federal $ 950.3 $ 1,552.8 $ 3,342.6 $ 5,845.7
Hahopac
. Facility Costs $ 0.0 $ $ $
0.0 0.0 0.0
Funding Source
Private
. Local
State
Federal
1 From Airport Master Plan
VII-3
.
Exhibit VI!.l - RECOMMENDED PLAN DElELOPMENT COST BY IDNDI!C SOURCE
(OOO'S OF 1985 DOLLARS (Continued)
Airport Phase I Phase II Phase III Total
Hattituclt
Facility Costs $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 220.5 $ 220.5
Funding Source:
Private $ 220.5 $ 220.5
Local
State .
Federal
lfontauk
Facil ity Costs $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 433.5 $ 433.5
Funding Source:
Private $ 433.5 $ 433.5
Local
State
Federal
lfoaticello
Facility Costs $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 3b3.8 $ 363.8
Funding Source:
Private $ 3b3.8 $ 363.8
Local
State
Federal
0raDge Couaty
Facility Costs $ 2,173.7 $ 959.5 $ 3,542.5 $ 6,675.7
Funding Source:
Private $ 1,367.0 $ 591.0 $ 942.0 $ 2,900.0
Local $ 45.4 $ 20.0 $ 85.5 $ 150.9
State $ 58.6 $ 26.8 $ 193.4 $ 278.8
Federal $ 702.7 $ 321. 7 $ 2,321.6 $ 3,346.0
1 From Airport Master Plan.
.
.
VII-4
.
Exhibit VI!.l - RECOMMENDED PLAN DE.VELOPMENT COST BY EUNDIl'C SOURCE
( 000 I S OF 1985 DOu.ARS ( Cont inued)
Airport Phase I Phase II Phase III Total
Banclall
Facility Costs $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 226.5 $ 226.5
Funding Source:
Private $ 226.5 $ 226.5"
. Local
State
Federal
Ilepublic
Facility Costs $ 8,435.2 $ 2,472.8 $ 3,085.8 $ 13,993.8
Funding Source:
Private $ 3,435.0 $ 275.0 $ 0.0 $ 3,710.0
Local $ 125.0 $ 1,780.7 $ 77 .2 $ 1,982.9
State $ 3/5.0 $ 32.1 $ 231.4 $ 638.5
Federal $ 4,500.2 $ 385.0 $ 2,777.2 $ 7,662.4
Sky Acres
Facility Costs $ 129.0 $ 0.0 $ 303.0 $ 432.0
Funding Source:
Private $ 129.0 $ 303.0 $ 432.0
Local
State
Federal
Sky Park
Facil ity Costs $ 133.5 $ 0.0 $ 120.0 $ 253.5
Funding Source:
Private $ 133.5 $ 120.0 $ 253.5
Local
State
Federal
Spadaro
Facil ity Costs $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 811.5 $ 811.5
Funding Source:
Private $ 88.5 $ 88.5
Local
State
Federal
VII-5
Exhibit VII.1 - REroMMENDED PLAN DElTELOPMENT roST BY WNDIH; SOURCE
(OOO'S OF 1985 DOLLARS (Continued)
Airport Phase I Phase II Phase III Total
Stanton
Facility Costs $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 93.0 $ 93.0
Funding Source:
Private $ 93.0 $ 93.0
Local .
State
Federal
Stsart
Facility Costs $ 654.3 $ 215.5 $ 4,939.0 $ 5,808.8
Funding Source:
Private $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0
Local $ 12.6 $ 11.0 $ 145.0 $ 168.6
State $ 37.8 $ 15.7 $ 3b8.8 $ 422.3
Federal $ 603.9 $ 188.8 $ 4,425.2 $ 5,217.9
Stcnmrille
Facility Costs $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 468.0 $ 468.0
Funding Source:
Private $ 468.0 $ 468.0
Local
State
Federal
Suffolk County1
Facility Costs $ 1,475.7 $ 860.0 $ 5,423.5 $ 7,759.2
Funding Source:
Private $ 187 .5 $ 300.0 $ 187 .5 $ 6/5.0
Local $ 86.8 $ 14.0 $ 130.9 $ 231.7
State $ 92.4 $ 42.0 $ 392.7 $ 527.1
Federal $ 1,109.0 $ 504.0 $ 4,712.4 $ 6,325.4
Sullivan County Int: 'I
Facility Costs $ 293.0 $ 214.0 $ 1,851.5 $ 2,358.5 "
Funding Source:
Private $ 260.5 $ 214.0 $ 27b.5 $ 751.0
Local $ 0.8 $ 0.0 $ 39.4 $ 40.2 .
State $ 2.4 $ 0.0 $ 118.1 $ 120.5
Federal $ 29.3 $ 0.0 $ 1,417.5 $ 1,446.8
VII-6
.
Exhibit VII.1 - RECOMMENDED PLAN DElTELOPMENT roSI BY WNDIlC SOURCE
(000 I S OF 1985 DOLLARS (Continued)
Airport Phase I Phase II Phase III Iota1
Wallklll
Facility Cost s $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 241.5 $ 241.5
Funding Source:
Private $ 241.5 $ 241.5
. Local
State
Federal
Wuvick
Facility Costs $ 1,194.3 $ 755.6 $ 474.7 $ 2,424.6
Funding Source:
Private $ 25.0 $ 87 .5 $ 150.0 $ 262.5
Local $ 80.7 $ 25.9 $ 23.5 $ 130.1
Sta te $ 83.7 $ 49.4 $ 23.2 $ 156.3
Federal $ 1,004.9 $ 592.8 $ 278.0 $ 1,875.7
Westchester County1
Facility Costs $ 10,315.3 $ 2,831.5 $ 11,058.1 $ 24,204.9
Funding Source:
Private $ 3,675.0 $ 2,187.5 $ 1,317 .3 $ 7,179.8
Local $ 415.0 $ 40.2 $ 608.8 $ 1,064.0
State $ 1,245.1 $ 120.8 $ 1,826.4 $ 3,192.3
Federal $ 4,980.2 $ 483.0 $ 7,305.6 $ 12,768.8
WurtBbor~Sillivan Co.
Facility Costs $ 0.0 $ 297.0 $ 120.0 $ 417.0
Funding Source:
Private $ 297.0 $ 120.0 $ 417.0
Local
State
Federal
!few. Cor_
.
Facility Costs $ 2,072.0 $ 1,87/.1 $ 656.4 $ 4,605.5
Funding Source:
Private $ 0.0 $ 6b5.5 $ 246.5 $ 912.0
. Local $ 51.8 $ 148.5 $ 26.1 $ 226.4
State $ 155.4 $ 81.8 $ 29.5 $ 266.7
Federal $ 1,864.8 $ 981.3 $ 354.3 $ 3,200.4
1 Costs from Master Plan with the exclusion of apron, conventional, and I-hangar
costs.
VII-7
Exhibit VII.1 - RECOMMENDED PLAN DElTELOPMENT COST BY EUNDIIC SOURCE
(OOO'S OF 1985 DOLLARS (Continued)
Airport Pbase I Phase II Pbase III Total
Beor PutDaa Co1D1ty
Facility Costs $ 7,622.8 $ 6,801.0 $ 14,470.0 $ 28, 8~3.8
Funding Source:
Private $ 0.0 $ 4,801.5 $ 9,494.5 $ 14,296 .0
Local $ 284.2 $ 75.6 $ 196.6 $ 556.4
State $ 564.5 $ 148.0 $ 325.3 $ 1,037.8 .
Federal $ 6,774.1 $ 1,775.9 $ 4,453.6 $ 13,003.6
Be.... _uded Plan Total.
Facility Costs $ 43,97::1.2 $ 32,092.1 $ 64, 501. 9 $ 140,561.2
Funding Source:
Private $ 10,363.7 $ l1,47b.6 $ 18,565.8 $ 40,406.1
Local $ 3,143.4 $ 9,748.2 $ 2,195.6 $ 15,087 .2
State $ 3,287 .2 $ 1,107.0 $ 4,96U.3 $ 9,354.5
Federal $ 27,178.9 $ 9,760.3 $ 38,780.2 $ 75,719.4
Funding Sources
Four f1D1ding sources have been identified to capitalize the recOllllllended airport
systen plan improvenents. They include:
Federal Funds
State Funds
Local Funds
.
Private Funds
The availability of those sources to fund tile avJ.Stion systen improvenents is
discussed in the follOW'ing section.
.
FEDERAL EUNDS
.
The largest single source of airport developnent funds is the Federal gove1'IllDE!Ilt.
Through the Federal Aviation Administration's Airport Improvenent Progrsm, most airport
deve10pnent itens such as land, ruIlW'sys, taxn..ays, and apron areas are eligible for 90
percent federal participation at public use airports with the exception of the Port
Authority Airports. Because of their status as primary commercial service airports, these
VII-8
.
facilities receive FAA funding for 75 percent of allowable project costs. Reasoning for
this differential is that the larger pnmaxy airports are financially self-sufticient and
thus can afford to fund a greater share of capital improvement costs from local share
revenues.
.
The 97th Congress, in September of 1982, enacted the Airport and Ainrsy Improvement
Act (AAIA) of 1982. This act authorizes federal funds to be spent on developnent,
expansion, and improvement of the nation I s airport and ainrsy system. Similar to the
Airport and Ainray Developnent Act of 1970 as amended, this legislation does not actually
appropriate monies for airport develoPnent; rather, an authorization is granted which may
or may not be fully appropriated to the FAA. The FAA in turn may not ever fully use all
of the appropriated monies for project grants. For example, fiscal 1982 had an
authorization of $450 million. Actual appropriations totaled $450 million, however,
project grants totaled only $405.7 million. Authorizations under the act are as follows:
Fiscal Year
Authorization
Appropriation
Project Grants
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
$
$
$
$ 987,000,000
$ 1,017,000,000
$ 1,017,000,000
450,000,000
800,000,000
993,500,000
$ 450,000,000
$ 804,500,000
$ 800,000,000
$ 925,000,000
$ 925,000,000
$ lt05,716,206
$ 735,996,323
$ 739,160,594
$ 934,783,104
With growing federal deficits, it may be unreasonable to expect full project grants and
appropriations in fiscal years 1986 and 1987.
Historical federal grants in the Downstate region since 1968 have totaled
$32,675,000. Not included in this total are the following airports:
John F. Kennedy
La Guardia
Republic
Stewart
Both John F. Kennedy and La Guardia are Port Authority airports and subject to ditterent
funding pools. Republic and Stewart airports are State-owned and as such, are not likely
to suffer funding shortfallS.
Federal funding needs over the 20 year planning period not including the two Port
Authority airports and Republic and Stewart, totals almost $62.8 million. This is roughly
twice the amount allocated over the past 17 years. It is optimistic, therefore, to assune
that, in the face of deep federal budget cutting anticipated over the next several years,
all of the funding needs will be met.
.
For the purposes of this system plan it has been assuned that federal funding in sane
form will continue throughout the planning program. As stated above, the new ''balanced
budget" resolution will probably cause cuts in the current program to an as yet unknaro
degree. When the current legislation expires in 1987, it is uncertain what type of
replacement legislation will be implemented. In all likelihood, funding will be continued
VII-9
.
at a lower level, perhaps not including, large primary airports (comuercial service
airports enplaning over 0.25 percent of the nations passengers). Because the federal
government has been funding airport development projects since 1946, it is unlikely that
the program will be entirely abandoned.
Assuming that there is a federal funding program of some reduced nature, it may
becane apparent that not all of the desired capital projects at system airports will be
considered for funding. This implies the need for a pnoritization of funding desires
fran the State's perspective. A uniform priority rating process should be used,
therefore, to rank each of the capital developnent projects in terms of their importance
to the system.
.
STATE FUNDS
In 1967, through the Transportation Capital Facilities Bond Act and the
Transportation Capital Facilities Developnent Act, the State of New York began financial
participation in airport development projects. Eligibility requirements for airport
sponsors and funds were made available through the issuance of bonds authorized by
provisions in the Development Act, given a camnitment of federal participation on the
project. Bonds were issued for amounts up to 75 percent of the non-Federal share of the
project's total eligible costs. The original bond issue totaled $250 million, all of
which has been allocated.
In 1983, the Transportation Infrastructure Rensal Bond Issue was passed by the State
legislature. A total of $25 million was set aside at that time for aviation projects. In
the downstate region, funding under this legislation was as follows:
$2.1 million for Hudson Valley
$1.2 million for Long Island
The Hudson Valley monies are designated for the counties included in this study plus
Columbia County. Therefore, approximately $3.2 million will be available for the system
plan study area. Also, it should be noted that the State funds designated for Long Island
do not include the Port Authority airports.
Historical State grants in the study region since 1968, excluding John F. Kennedy, La
Guardia, Republic, and Stewart airports, totals $7,077,000. Again, it can be stated that
both Kennedy and La Guardia airports are in different governmental funding categories and
that Republic and Stewart (being State-awned) are not subject to the same budgeting
process as are the other system airports.
State funding needs, excluding the Port Authority airports and Republic and Stewart,
totals $8.3 million over the next 20 years. This is only slightly more than has been
funded over the past 17 years. The two prl!\7ious bond issues of 196/ and 1983 have been
totally allocated and unless new bond issues are established or unless the State
authorizes direct funding of eligible shares of future nrport capital improvement
programs, it will be unable to maintain the same level of funding participation. Given
the interest in aviation demonstrated in the past by the State legislators, funding levels
for eligible projects should be achievable.
.
VII-IU
LOCAL FUNDS
.
Local public airport sponsors such as counties, cities, and villages are responsible
for costs associated with airport development projects that remain after Federal and State
shares have been applied. The cost of projects not eligible for Federal or State funding
is paid through local or private funds and is wholly the responsibility of the local
sponsor. This local share of the project is normally 2.5 percent based upon AlP
authorization of 90 percent Federal share and 7.5 percent State share. For the Port
Authority Airports, local share costs total 25.0 percent based upon a 75.0 percent Federal
share and 0.0 percent State share.
.
Local government funding of airport development projects is derived fran three basic
sources:
General Fund Revenues
Bond Issues
Airport-Generated Revenues
Each of these sources is discussed in the follOW'ing sections.
General Fund Revenues
Capital development expenditures fran general fund revenues have been difficult to
achieve in recent years. One reason for this difficulty is the seemingly universal
shortfall in local general fund revenues. Budgetary problems coupled with generally
negative local attitudes concerning the importance of aviation have created an envirorment
where local funding is uncertain. The amount of general fund support for airport
improvement projects varies by airport and is based upon the local tax base, priority of
the development project, historical funding trends and, of course, local attitudes
concerning the importance of aviation.
Although the local share of airport development costs is small, it can significantly
affect a development project. Under existing policies, Federal and State funds cannot be
utiliz ed for airport development without the local share. Local share monies are most
likely to be made available for aviation projects through a reallocation of funds, since
most local governments approach the limit of their revenue base in meeting other
coamunity needs.
.
Bond Issues
Bond issues funding the local share of airport development projects 1III1st compete with
bond issues for other types of cOllllllUllity improvements, school s, higboTays, and sewer
systems. As with the general fund apportiotlllll!llt, bond issues supporting airport
development depend upon the relative priority assigned to such projects by the local
community. Some types of airport development bonds are placed before the public for their
approval or disapproval in special referendlJll8 called bond electi,ons. In addition,
limitations on municipal debt in New York are imposed by state law.
VII-ll
.
'lWo types of bond issues commonly used by municipal authorities are general
obligation bonds and revenue bonds. General obligation bonds are secured by a pledge of
the taxing power of the issuer. Revenue bonds are special obligations of the issuer (as
opposed to general obligations) which are payable solely from the revenues derived from an
income-producing facility. Revenue bonds are SOllletimeS further secured by a first
mortgage on the physical plant or property whose revenues are pledged. These bonds are
called "first mortgage" revenue bonds.
It is generally believed that debt restrictions have not sigpiticantly restrained the
total volume of municipal borrowing. To avoid these limits, special districts can be .
created and nonguaranteed debt (revenue bonds) can be substituted for general obligstion
bonds (full-faith-and-credit debt). The result .typically leads to an increase in the cost
of debt.
A recent development that is expected to negatively impact the use of bond issues is
the proposed renoval of tax exenpt status to interest on municipal bond income. This
proposal, in the tax reform legislation to be considered by the U.S. Congress, would be
damaging to the municipal bond market since yields would be sigpificantly lower after
taxes.
In the Downstate region, bond issues for airport projects other than Port Authority
Airports are expected to be minimal. These expectations are based upon prevalent
attitudes tOW'ard airport development or expansion in the area. Should tax reform
legislation renove the tax exenpt status of municipal bonds, these instrunents would be
even more difficult to use in financing systen airport developnent.
Airport-{;enerated Revenue
Owners and operators of prohtable public airports use operating revenues to fund
the local share of developnent funds. Air carrier airport usually have a much broader
revenue base than do general aviation airports because of commercial air traffic. At au
carrier airports, operating revenues are derived from the airlines, air passengers, and
general aviation. Typical revenue sources at air carrier airports include:
Landing fees
Concessions
Rents and leases
Sales and service
Fuel flowage fees
Aircraft storage fees
Other miscellaneous fees
These revenue sources are available to the sponsors of Port Authority Airports.
General aviation airports, on the other hand, often experience difficulty in
generating revenues sufticient to meet expenses. The revenue base for such airports is
related primarily to the number of based aircraft and the level of activity. The largest
percentage of revenues for general aviation airports is generated from the following
three sources.
.
Hangar rentals and tie down fees
Fuel flowage fees
Other facility and land rentals
VII-12
Airport revenues themselves present only one-halt of the financial picture. These
revenues 1Ill1st be compared to the airport I s operating expenses to determine whether
surpluses will be available to fund the local share of the respective capital development
programs.
.
To adequately plan for capital improvements, airport sponsors in the Downstate region
should prepare revenue and expense forecasts for their respective airports based upon
historical data contained in annual financial statements or airport management records.
This information will petmit an assessment of the need for general fund revenues to
augment airport revenue surpluses. Ad<1itionally, it will permit local sponsors to
detetmine whether or not the proposed capital developnent programs at their airports are
financially feasible.
.
PRlV ATE FUNDS
A final source of funds for airport developnent is the private sector. Currently,
private funds support 14 of the Downstate's 32 recommended system airports. These
airports include:
East Moriches
Kingston-Ulster
LRJ
Mahopac
Mattituclt
Montauk
Monticello
.
Randall
Sky Acres
Sky Park
Stanton
Stormville
Wallkill
Wurtsboro-Sullivan County
.
Because these airports are in the private sector, it was assumed that no major capital
improvements would occur over the planning period. Rather, it is believed that the
airport system will do well to keep t\1ese facilities functioning throughout the planning
period.
.
In addition to the support of privately owned airports, private funding is used for
developnent of some portions of publicly owned airports. In this respect, significant
portions of the recommended developnent prOgrllll consists of conventional hangars and T-
hangar construction that is not eligible for Federal funding participation. These items
are not eligible for Federal funding because they are revenue-producing sources which can
generate rental income for the airport. If a local airport sponsor does not wish to
undertake the responsibility of hnancing, constructing, and managing hangar construction,
a fixed base operator is likely to build these facilities provided he has a long-term
lease agreement and the hnancial market is such that the project is economically
feasible.
.
LAND USE OPTIONS
When possible, airport operators should endeavor to generate additional revenue
through the more intensive utilization of underdeveloped airport property. Obviously,
careful planning 1Ill1st be used in developing non-aviation land uses adjacent to the
airport. However, for many general aviation 81rports, it is the maximization of this land
VII-13
.
that could provide a significant portion of airport operating revenues.
for successful non-aviation uses for airport property include:
Some strategies
Developing warehouse space into professional office use,
Attracting quality restaurants in place of snack bars,
.
Agricul tural use of vacant land,
Industrial park developnent,
Foreign Trade Zone developnent,
.
Pay parking lots,
Encouragement and promotion of flight school developnent, etc.
An example of a non-aviation land use developnent project being implemented within
the Downstate region is at Stewart Airport in Newburgh, New York. In the final planning
stages, an industrial/corporate office park project is being developed to complement
corporate general aviation facilities under developnent in the northeast corner of the
airport. Another example involves the developnent of high-quality restaurant facilities
at Republic Airport in Famingdale. There, a World War I French chateau/aerodrome theme
restaurant has located adjacent to the airfield. These and other such projects serve two
purposes: l) additional revenue for the airport, and 2) the ensurance of c:anpatible
land use activity for that site.
These are only some of the possible uses for underdeveloped airport property. Each
airport 1DIlst, of course, evaluate the worth of current non-aviation land uses, and
detemine it that land could be put to a better, or higher use. Land use options will
vary by airport based upon the intensity of existing use. Airports located in the rural
areas of the Hudson Valley region may have the widest variety of options while airports
located near urbanized areas or on Long Island will have fewer options. The latter should
look to upgrading existing land uses rather than attempt to create new developnent
projects. In any event, each airport DIlst tailor the use of its land according to the
airfield layout, future expansion plans, and the econani.c: conditions in the local area.
If this property is aggressively and wisely developed, airport operators could achieve
greater revenues in the future.
O'nIER STATE FUNDS
Revenues collected by the State of New York, including revenues from the aviation
industry, are contributed to the State's general fund. From the total general fund, the
New York State Legislature decides where these monies will be spent. Of course, the State
Treasury has only a limited amount of funds and must distribute those monies equitably and .
reasonably through the entire State for many different projects. However, if it desires
an adequate and up-tCHiate air transportation system, then New York State must provide
sufficient funds to make the system a reality. If the State Legislature finds that local
governments cannot meet their share of project costs, and views the State's air
transportation aystem as essential to the overall economic developnent of New York, then
funds could possibly be appropriated for direct financing or long-tem bond financing.
VII-l4
One method that the State currently uses to f:Lnance important airport projects is to
refund a portion of the fuel tax generated by the aviation industry. Although tax
increases are not popular, an increase in the fuel tax, linked to decreases in fuel prices
is a palatable alternative. These "sliding scale" fuel taxes have been proposed in other
states as a method of generating additional. revenue.
Another method of generating State revenue to support airport developDl!nt needs is to
propose a property tax on aircraft registered in the State. Although an tmpopular method
of generating revenue among airport owners, this method has been used in other states to
help support development of their airport systems.
.
lleIrelopuent Proj ect Priorities
The basis of the project priority analysis for the Downstate GASP is the system which
is presently used by the Aviation Bureau. The system combines an Airport Importance
Factor (function of airport service area population and airport enplanements and activity)
and a project weight.
A modification of the existing system was required to prepare an Airport Importance
Factor (AIF) for the LID, New Putnam Cotmty, and Wazwick airports (assumes Ramapo Valley
Airport closes, and aircraft are diverted to various airports). The following AIF factors
were used.
Airport
Bayport Aerodrcme
Brookhaven
Dutchess County
East Hampton
Elizabeth Field
TIushing
L1lJ
L. I. MacArthur
Orange Cotmty
Republic
Stewart International
Suffolk
Sullivan Cotmty International
Wazwick
Westchester County
Neil Putnam County
.
AIF
. To Be Closed
56
23
10
18
47
12
Ramapo Valley
Coram
7
16
9
20
21
45
34
8
32
To obtain the final project priority, the AIF is added to a project weight. The
lower the resulting score, the higher is the project priority.
.
VII-15
Exhibit VII.2 - DE.VELOPMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES: 1-5 YEARS
Airport Project Priority
L.I. MacArthur REUS/PAPI 14
L.I. MacArthur lluIuay Extension 15
L.I. MacArthur Taxiway Extension 15
Orange County REUS/PAPI 19
Dutchess County 'lW Overlay 20
nushing New lluIuay (s) 20
nushing New Taxiway s 20
n ushing MIRLS 20 .
nushing MIn.S 20
nushing Land Fill 20
East Hampton REUS 21
Stewart International REILS/PAPI 23
Westchester County New Taxiways 23
Westchester County MITLS 23
Suffolk County REll.S/PAP! 24
East Hampton New Taxiway 33
East Hampton MIn.S 33
New Putnam County New lluIuay 34
New Putnam County Land for Airport 34
New Putnam County MIRLS 34
New Putnam County REUS/PAP! 34
New Putnam County Beacon 34
Suffolk County Taxiway Extension 36
Waxwick Beacon 37
New Putnam County New Taxiway s 41
New Putnam County MITLS 41
Waxwick New Rumi'ay 42
Waxwick MIRLS 42
Waxwick Land for BW Extend 42
East Hampton MIRLS 43
Westchester County Apron Expansion 43
Republic Apron Expansion 44
Dutchess County Apron Expansion 45
nushing Apron Development 47
Elizabeth Field PAPI 50
Orange County Apron Expansion 51
East Hampton Apron Expansion 53
LRJ REUS/PAPI 53
LRJ Beacon 53
Stewart Intt. Apron Expansion 55 .
Suffolk County Apron Expansion 56
Brookhaven Apron Expan'sion 58
Bayport Beacon 59
.
Sullivan County International MIn.S 60
Waxwick Apron Expansion 69
LRJ MIRLS 75
Elizabeth Field Apron Expansion 82
Bayport Apron Expansion 91
VII-1f>
.
.
.
Exhibit VII.3 - DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES: 6-10 YEARS
Airport
Project
Priority
Fl ushing
Orange Co.
Dutchess Co.
MacArthur
Dutchess Co.
Dutchess Co.
MacArthur
East Hampton
East Hampton
New Putnam
MacArthur
Westchester Co.
Republic
Dutchess Co.
Flushing
Wa%Wick
Wa%Wick
Orange Co.
East Hampton
LID
Stewart International
Suffolk Co.
Brookhaven
Elizabeth FLD
Elizabeth FLD
New Putnam
Wa%Wick
Bayport
PAPI/RElLS
REILS/PAPI
Overlay Taxiways
Connecting 'lW
Extend 1W
MIUS
MIRLS
Stub 'lW
MIUS
REILS/PAPI
Apron EXPD
Apron EXPD
Apron EXPD
Apron EXPD
Apron EXPD
New 'lW
MIUS
Apron EXPD
Apron EXPD
Runway Overlay
Apron EXPD
Apron EXPD
Apron EXPD
New 'lW
MITLS/RElLS
New 'lW
Apron EXPD
Apron EXPD
15
19
20
22
25
25
32
33
33
35
42
43
44
45
47
49
49
51
53
54
55
56
58
62
62
67
69
91
.
.
VII-17
Exhibit VII.4 - DE.VELOPMENr PROJECT PRIORITIES: 11-20 YEARS
Airport
Priority
Project
MacArthur
Westchester Co.
Dutchess Co.
Republic
Dutchess Co.
Orange Co.
East Hampton
Dutchess Co.
Suffolk Co.
Brookhaven
Orange Co.
Westchester Co.
Flushing
Sullivan Co.
Elizabeth Field
Orange Co.
LRJ
Stewart Intl.
Suffolk Co.
New Putnam
Brookhaven
LID
LRJ
Warwick
LRJ
Elizabeth Field
Bayport
Overlay Runway
Overlay RUIlWay
REILS
Overlay RUIlWay
Overlay R\Imi'ay
Overlay Runway
Overlay Runway
Extend Taxn.ay
Overlay R\Imi'ay
Overlay Runway
New Taxiway
Apron Expand
Apron Expand
Overlay R\Imi'ay
Overlay R\lmi'ay
Apron Expand
R\lmi'ay Overlay
Apron Expand
Apron Expand
Apron Expand
Apron Expand
Taxiway
MITtS
Apron Expand
MIBLS
Apron Expand
Apron Expand
11
12
13
13
14
20
22
25
25
27
31
43
47
49
51
51
54
55
56
57
58
65
65
69
75
82
91
-..."
In S\lllDlS.ry, the reclllllllle1lded general aviation system is expected to cost a total of
$140.6 million, in constant 1985 dollars. Four sources of funds are expected to finance
the development program. Projected financial requirements from each of these sources are
as follows:
$75.7 Million Federal Funds
$ 9.4 Million State Funds
$15.1 Million Local Funds
$40.4 Million Private Enterprise
In light of historical trends and new federal deficit-cutting spending policies, it
may be difficult to obtain 100 percent of the federal funding requirement. This assllllles
that a rensed federal funding program will be in place after 1981 and beyond. On the
other hand, if historical trends are an indication of future occurrences, State funding
should be achievable. Continued State and local funding is anticipated throughout the
planning period, although the level of such funding cannot be predicted without more
detailed studies.
VII-18
.
/
.
The one area of greatest uncertainty involves the $40.4 million in pnvate enterprise
funding. This level of funding amounts to an average of over $2.0 million annually.
Currently, there is no reliable prediction method for determining whether or not those
funding needs will be met.
.
Theoretically, if federal funding needs are met and it local values favored the
prioritization of aviation issues, the recamnended plan could be financially feasible.
What is unlmown at this time is whether federal funding legislation will be renel'ed in
1987. Also unlmown, and beyond the scope of this study, is an in-depth examinstion of the
abilities of airport sponsors to meet the local funding share requirements for airport
capital improvements. This information will result from independent studies of each
airport and its associated commutl1ty I s f1.Illlncial characteristics.
.
From a financial planning standpoint, there are at least three areas in the plan
assumptions where financial wealmesses exist. The h.rst wealmess is the re1unce upon
full federal funding of eligible capital improvement projects. In anticipation of federal
funding cuts, a prioritized ranking of capital projects should be drawn up. These
projects, then, would support basic operational requirements at system airports and
maintain general aviation access to the Downstate.
The second wealmess is the reliance upon private funding to support hangar
development and pr~vate airport development. In this regard, there are 010 schools of
thought. The first is that if a project is needed, that need will be translated into
economic terms and those in need will pay for the needed facilities. It follows then,
that if the facilities are not constructed, there was not enough demand for them in the
first place. Another school of thought says that certain. facilities should be
undezwritten by the public sector as a type of utility that will never be directly paid
back, but that will indirectly sti.m.11ate economic activity in other areas. In any event,
funding of hangar development in the region has not been a problem in the past and is not
expected to be a problem in the future. Funding of private airport operating deficits and
capital development requirements, however, is another matter. Without some assistance
from the public sector, some of the pnvate facilities in the region may be closed. The
closure of key privately owned system airports is examined later, in the context of their
effects upon the recommended system.
The third wealmess is that actual nrport development costs will almost certainly be
higher than those outlined in this report. One reason for this is that the scope of the
study only considers large development items. Special one-time improvements, minor
improvements, or certain types of maintenance projects were not included in the
development cost calculations. These projects will ditfer in size and scope. The end
result is that airport-specific projects combine to increase the actual funding
requirements in the Downstate study area.
.
Another reason that projected costs may be lower than actual future expenditures is
due to the use of 1985 constant dollars. Since development costs were estimated in 1985
dollars, .development projects tmdertaken in future years are likely to cost more in
inflated dollars. This does not affect the analysis since revenues will also be
proportionately higher, due to inflation. An inflation factor was not used in the
analy sis since it is primarily a product of government fiscal policy. Because of this
uncertainty, selection of an inflation rate is little more than a guess. Thus, the
financial analysis was conducted using 1985 dollars which eliminsted inflationary effects.
.
VII-19
.
Dll'LI!IIlIITArOR PLAB
This chapter describes strategies that airport sponsors and local officials can use
to implement the goals, objectives, and recOlllllleIldstions of the system plan. In addition,
Appendix A presents recommendstions for reliever airport designations in the Downstate.
Development planning for major public facilities, such as urports, requires careful
. consideration of the local implications of the airport location and type of facilities as
well as the scheduling of development. In areas where implementation problems may occur
or can be predicted to occur, a set of contingency plans were developed that can be used
. by airport sponsors and regional planners to oftset impacts of unexpected developments.
In addition to contingency plans, this Chapter discusses legislative recanmendstions
and other implementation activities. Legal recommendstions deal primarily with airport
cammmity land use compatibility issues in terms of government control. The discussion of
implementation activities focuses upon demand milestones or "trigger points" as a means of
regulating the rate of implementation actions. Each of these topics are discussed below.
Coat:ingency Plana
In any type of planning where predictions of future activity are involved, there is a
margin for error. It is the purpose of this section to enumerate a set of contingency
plans that will establish flexibility in the Downstate General Aviation System .Plan.
Scenarios that concern the changes to forecast demand were not enumerated here.
There are a variety of reasons why the predicted levels of activity may or may not reach
or exceed their forecasts. Econanic recession, fuel embargos, war, and alternative energy
development scenarios are factors that could either increase or decrease the level of
demand at system airports throughout the study area. Differences between predicted and
actual demand levels do not mean that the plan is bad; rather, they only indicate a need
to adjust the timing of recommended improvements. Therefore, it the actual activity
levels in 1988 are equal to those predicted for 1990, the recommended improvements should
be accelerated by two years. Similarly, if the actual levels are below predicted demand,
the recommended improvements should be delayed by the appropriate nunber of years.
There were three pr1lDSry scenarios identified as either likely or capable of
occurring within the planning horizon. These scenarios included:
Constrained Development at Public Airports
Closure of Private Airports
.
Addition of Other Airports to System
.
These scenarios deal mainly with facility recommendstions of the plan. If the
recOllllleIldstions are not implemented, the plan may become ineffective unless it has the
ability to adspt to changing situations. Contingency planning provides the flexibility
necessary for the continued viabil ity of the study.
VIII-1
.
CONSTRAINED DElTELOPMENT AT PllBUC AIRPORTS
The first scenario involved constrained development at publicly-owned airports. Th1S
would simply mean that for some reason, recamnended airport development at publicly owned
airports was not implenented. Given the political climate in the region and prev10us
local area opposition to airport development projects, this scenario is the most likely to
occur.
.
The constrained development scenario, while applicable to all airports in the
recanmended system, has its greatest impact on the two nell'ly proposed reliever airports.
Well organized local resistance to the development of e1ther proposed a1rport may halt or
postpone their development. S"ch events would have serious repercussions to the future
general aviation systen in the Downstate.
.
Under the worst case situation, neither of the two proposed reliever airports (Coram
or Putnam County) would be developed. Such a scenario would result in the implenentation
of Alternative 1 - The Limited Development Alternative by default. Because extensive
description of Alternative 1 was presented in the alternative analysis, this section will
only discuss highlights of differences between the recommended plan and Alternative 1.
Areas of discussion include:
Ability to Satisfy Forecast Denand
Airspace Utilization
Systen Development Costs
As discussed in the alternative analysis, Alternative 2 showed a distinct advantage
over Alternative 1 in terms of its ability to satisfy forecast general aviation denand.
In this regard, the recOllllDl!11ded systen can accommodate almost 490 based aircraft more than
Alternative 1. General aviation denand relief provided by the proposed nell' airports in
the recOllllllellded systen is as follows:
Nl!ii' Putnam County Airport - Th1S S1rport would relieve Westchester
County Airport of 291 based aircraft by the year 2005. The airport
would also absorb 70 relocated S1rcraft fran Ramapo Valley.
Nl!ii' Coram Area Airport - This airport would relieve Long Island
MacArthur of 128 based aircraft by the year 2005.
Thus, an inability to develop the two proposed airports in the Recanmended Plan will cause
the "unsatisfied denand" component to increase from 434 based aircraft to 923 based
aircraft.
.
In terms of airspace utilization, the inability to develop the two proposed new
airports would have a more positive effect. For Visual Plight Rules (VFR) airspace, no
appreciable differences would be experienced. For Instrument Plight ll111es (IFR) airspace,
however, there would be potentially four fewer IFR airspace reservation area overlaps:
,
Westchester County and Nl!ii' Putnam County Reliever
Republic and Nell' Coram Reliever
L. I. MacArthur and New Coram Reliever
Brookhaven and New Coram Reliever
VIII-2
Relevant graphics depicting these overlaps were presented earlier in Chapter V, the
Identification and Evaluation of Aviation Systen Alternatives, in Exhibits V.8 through
V.ll.
In the event that the two proposed new airports are not developed, capital cost
estimates for the Recanmended Plan will be significantly less than anticipated. Total
systen development costs for the Recommended Plan were estimated at $140.6 million. The
impacts of not developing the two proposed new airports, will lower capital developnent
costs $33.5 million to $107.1 million overalL.
.
.
Planning Strategies for Constrained Development at Public Airports
There are 010 basic planning strategies that can be explored in coping with possible
constrained deve10pnent at public airports. The first is that of the "do-nothing"
approach where no attempts are made to of net the planning changes. The second approach.
is to examine alternate methods of increasing systen capacity without the construction of
two new systen airports.
The "Do-Nothing" Approach
The "Do-Nothing" approach is sanewhat of a misnaner in that attempts will have been
made to construct two new airports in the Downstate region. Only after those attempts are
rejected, for whatever reasons, would further activity be discontinued. Under this
approach, State and local officials would accept the implenentation of Alternative 1 by
default. This acceptance would imply a greater lIIlaatisf1ed demand component than is
expected in the recanmended systen.
From a planning standpoint, the only mitigating factor to such an approach would be
an unexpected lower level of future demand, relative to the forecast. On the other hand,
a greater than expected level of future demand would exacerbate anticipated demand
accanmodation problens, given a do-nothing approach.
Alternate Demand Acc:ommodation Approaches
One method that could be used by Downstate aviation planners to increase regional
demand accCllllllOdation would be to coordinate with adjacent state roT's for the utilization
of peripheral airports. Thus, if the proposed Putnam County Reliever were not developed,
airports such as Danbury Municipal in Connecticut, or Greemrood Lake and Sussex airports
in New Jersey could be examined for possible use by New York-based general aviation
eoncems.
.
The present forecast outlook indicates that Danbury Municipal will have surplus
capacity of 75,200 operations and 137 based aircraft by the year 2005, assuming the
addition of a parallel runway and precision instrument approach. Greemrood Lake, on the
other hand is anticipated to have a surplus capacity of 147, roo operations and 252 based
aircraft. Similarly, Sussex Airport is forecast to experience a surplus capacity of
31,700 operations and 47 based aircraft. Maximum utilization of these airports by New
York aircraft owners and pilots should serve to reduce the lIIlaatisf1.ed denand component by
291 based aircraft, assuming the proposed Putnam Reliever is not constructed.
.
VIII-3
. -
NYSooT ofticials may desire to coordinate planning efforts with Connecticut and New
Jersey aviation planning representatives to enhance regional aviation demand
acCOllllllOdation. Through such joint planning, ad<1i.tional capacity may be included in
peripheral airports, thereby further mitigating demand aCCQlllDOdation problems in the
Downstate.
Better utilization of airports outside of the Downstate region may help aviation
matters in the Hudson Valley area, but it will not help demand accCllDllOdation problems on
Long Island. One method of increasing demand accCllDllOdation on Long Island if the new
Cora Airport is not constructed involves the purchase of privately Oiitled airports in the
area by local units of govermnent. Although this strategy has been used in the past (the
purchase of Bayport to relieve L.I. MacArthur) it may not be likely to be used again.
However, if, for example, either of the two Grumman Airfields were to be offered for sale,
investigations should be conducted as to the purchase feasibility.
.
.
CLOSURE OF PRlV ATE AIRPORTS
Another likely scenario in the Downstate region is the closure of a n\llllber of
privately Oiitled airports. In this regard, Sages, Ramapo Valley, and Coram have closed
during the study process. Mahopac has been recently sold to a land developer and will be
closed when proper zoning changes are made. Currently, Stormville Airport is on the
market and other private airports may follow if the prices offered are high enough.
To adequately deal with the topic of closure of private airports, this section is
organized as follows:
.
Private Airport Viability
Impacts of Private Airport Closure
Strategies to Offset Closure of Private Airports
Private Airport Viability
Privately Oiitled airports face lD1ique problems that threaten their long-term
viability. In general, the problems that are voiced IOOst often by private airport owners
include the following:
Rising liability insurance costs
Increased operating and maintenance costs
Lack of adequate capital flD1ding
Tax assessment problems
Increasing land values adjacent to the airports
Public opposition to airport development
Lack of interest for public takeover
Inequitable competition from public airports
.
.
The rising costs of liability insurance are not exclusive problems of the aviation
industry. However, these costs, coupled with increasing operations and maintenance costs
have caused a long term shortage of private airport cash reserves. Thus, if a runway
needs significant repair, there may be no option but to close the airport because the
maintenance dollars just aren I t there.
VIII-4
Most private airport owners can not consider airport expansion due to a lack of
adequate capital funding. In this regard, there are no public monies available for
privately owned airpoFts unless they are designated reliever airports. Presently there
are no private airports serving as designated relievers in the Downstate. As a result,
maintaining the airport in order to keep it open is the primal)' mission of private airport
Qil1ers.
..
The few private airports that have undertaken improvements or expansions fwd county
or 1ID1nicipal tax assessors re-evaluating their property with the end result being higher
tax burdens. Adding to these tax problems are the steadily increasing land values of
property adjacent to many private airports.. This land appreciation works to indirectly
increase the airports' tax burden. Private airport owners see development encroaching on
their airports and rather than fight the econanic battles of keeping the airport open,
they will eventually sell the airport or convert the land to other more prohtable uses.
.
Private airports in the Downstate that have been faced with hard econanic choices and
have chosen to sell or convert the airport land use, have seldom been approached by local
units of govermnent desiring to take over the airport. This is primarily due to
widespread public opposition to airport development or expansion that exists in the
region. The owners of both Ramapo Valley and Coram airports have approached their
respective municipalities in hopes of selling their airports and maintaining the aviation
land use. In both cases the owners' offers were rejected.
Finally, most prl.vate airport OIiners believe that they are at an unfair disadvantage
in competing for aviation business against publicly owned airports. These owners believe
that because they ma:intain landing strips that are open to the public, they are
essentially functioning as a public airport. HOIiever, unlike public airports they mst
pay taxes, they are ineligible for public capital development monies, and they receive no
annual operating budget as do most publicly OIiUed airports. All of these factors threaten
the long term viability of privately owned airports in the Downstate, and in other parts
of the country as well.
Impacts of Private Airport Closure
The impacts of closure are discussed below. These impacts are based upon a "Do-
Nothing" approach to the closures. It should be noted that transfers of based aircraft
between private airports could not be assumed, since public funds are not generally
available for expansion of prl.vate facilities. Later in the analysis several proactive
strategies to offset the impacts of private airport closures are discussed. Contingency
plans for the closures were formulated on the basis of several possible scenarios:
.
Closure of Stormville only
Closure of Stormville and MahopaC
Closure of Stormville, Mahopac, and no development
of the Putnam County Rel iever
~
Each of these possible occurences are discussed below.
vrII-5
.
Closure of Stonnville Only
The Stormville Airport is located in a mostly rural area several miles fran
Stonnville. The possibility exists that this airport would be converted to some type of
residential development. Should this occur, there are a nmber of based aircraft that
would be displaced.
If Stormville were to close and no other unexpected system a1.rport closure were to
take place, a total of 185 based aircraft would be allocated to the new Putnam Reliever.
Thus, all 185 forecast aircraft for Stonnville could be absorbed into the recommended
system of airports. Total costs associated with the closure of StoJ:IIIVille are as follows:
.
Airport
No Closure
Closure
Stormville
New Putnam
$ 468,000
$ 28,893,800
$ 0
$ 31,453,500
Total
$ 29,361,800
$ 31,453,500
As shown, the closure option is $2,091,700 more costly than the "no closure" option.
On a system-wide basis, the breakdown of funding by source of eligibility is as follows:
Funding Source
Recanmended Plan
Recommended Plan
with Closure Option
Private
Local
State
Federal
$ 40,406,100
15,087,200
9,354,500
75,719,400
$ 41,605,700
15,143,300
9,418,800
76,491,100
Total
$ 140,567,200
$ 142,658,900
Closure of Stonnville and Mshopac
Another possible occurrence is the closure of both StoJ:IIIVille and Mahopac at some
point during the planning period. This action would result in a nmber of aviation system
development changes. First, with respect to based aucraft allocations, the following
differences could be expected:
.
Dutchess County -
New Putnam
42 aircraft fran Stonnville
32 aircraft from Mshopac and
143 from Stonnville
~
Development costs associated with the possible closure of Stonnville and Mshopac vis-
a-vis the Recommended Plan at affected airports are as follOWS:
VIII-6
Airport No Closure Closure
Mahopac $ 0 $ 0
Stonnville 468,000 0
Dutchess County 6,039,800 7,251,600
New Putnam 28, 8~3, 800 31,600,500
.
Totals $ 35,401,600 $ 38,8:>2,100
"
As shown, it will cost the public airport system $ 3,450,500 more to accCllllllOdate aviation
demand without the Mahopac and Stonnville a1rports. One reason for the significant
increases in costs is that under the Recanmended Plan, these airports receive no public
funds for development. Upon closure, aircraft that would have based there are then
absorbed into the public airport system and are reflected in terms of increased costs to
the system.
On a sy stem-wide basis, the breaklllJW11 of ditferences in funding source el igibility is
as follows:
Funding Source
Re~,,"",..nded Plan
RecOlllllle1lded Plan
with Closure Option
Private
Local
State
Federal
$ 40,406,100
15,087,200
9,354,500
75,719,400
$ 42,501,600
15,268,900
9,444,800
76,802,400
Total
$ 140,56/,200
$ 144,017,700
Closures of Stormville, Mahopac and
No Development of the Putnam Reliever
A very real possibility for the Hudson Valley portion of the Downstate Region is the
closure of both Stormville and Mahopac and no development of the proposed Putnam County
Reliever. Should these occurrence develop during the planning period, the consequences to
general aviation in the Downstate would be signiticant.
"'"
In terms of based aircraft accClllllOdation, Dutchess County would be expected to
relieve excess demand. A total of 61 aircraft fran Stonnville would be reallocated to
. Dutchess County and lmsatisfied demand over and above that included in the Recamnended
Plan is as follows:
VIII-7
.
.
Westchester County
Ramapo Valley
Stomville
Mabopac
- 291 aircraft
70 aircraft
- 124 aircraft
42 aircraft
Total
527 aircraft
Thus, should both closures and the no developnent option for the New Putnam Airport
occur, the Recanmended System would have an unsatisfied demand of 961 aircraft system-
wide. With this level of unsatished demand, it is possible that a number of airports in
the Hudson Valley region would receive IDOre reallocated demand than anticipated at this
point. This could occur it aircraft owners were willing to dnve more than 60 minutes
from their residences to an airport to base their aircraft.
~
..
Developnent costs associated with the possible closures of Mahopac and Stomville,
and the no-development option for the Putnam Reliever vis-a-vis the Recanmended Plan are
as follows:
Airport
No Closure
Closure
Stomville
Dutchess County
Warwick
New Putnam
468,000
6,039,800
2,424,600
28,893,800
o
7,644,700
3,183,400
o
Totals
$ 37,826,200
$ 10,828,100
As shown, it will cost $ 26,998,100 less under a closure option. Thu
weighed against the lack of general aviation access to the region.
basis, the breakdaom under both scenarios are as follows:
lesser cost must be
On a system-wide
Funding Source
Recanmended Plan
Rec:ommendedPlan
with Closure Option
Private
Local
State
Federal.
$ 40,406,100
15,087 ,200
9,354,500
75,719,400
$ 26,737,600
14,703,700
8,401,100
63,726,700
..
Total
$ 140,567,200
$ 113,569,100
~
VIII-8
.
Strategies to Offset Closure of Private Airports
There are several of methods available to oftset the closure of privately OII1led
airports. Presented above were analyses of what would happen if no actions were taken to
offset these closures. The consequences of the Do-Nothing strategy were discussed in
tenns of demand accOOllllOdstion and cost. Presented in this section are three methods of
keeping privately OII1led airports open and useful to the aviation systen. These methods
include purchase options, tax abatenent, and protective zoning. Each are discussed below.
Purchase Option
.
One option for which wide support may be dirficult to gain is the purchase option.
Under this scenario, State and local units of government in association with the FAA would
work together to purchase key pr1.vately OII1led airports threatened with closure. These
airports would then become public facilities and their longevity could be more readily
assured.
One of the biggest problens associated with the purchase of private airports is that
the government, often times, llDJst compete with private developers for airport property.
The costs of such competition are high and local units of government are reluctant to
spend their limited resources on such ventures. Also, unless there is good camnunication
between airport OII1lers and public ofticials, the sale of airport property to private
developers may be in its final stages before local off icials are alerted.
In the Ilolrostate region, consideration should be given to the public acquisition of
Stormville Airport if it is threatened with closure. Both LID and Coram airports were
not identified as key to the recommended systen in their current roles. lioIorever, these
airports are on the market and should be considered by local units of government. Coram
is a restricted use airport with low activity levels forecast. lioIorever, its location,
relative to L.I. MacArthur, may make it valuable if it could be converted to a small
reliever facility. LID, is a moderately active airport with a forecast of 31 based
aircraft by the year 2005. Before these airports are converted to other uses,
investigations should be made concerning the feasibility of public purchase.
Tax Abatenent
Often, financial and econanic circumstances dictate an a1.rport OII1lers decision to
convert airport property to other more profitable uses. Contributing to these decisions
are burdensome tax rates assessed on pr1.vately OII1led a1.rports.
There is currently an important provision of the Real Property Tax LlN stating that
municipal airports, not situated within the corporate limits, are exempt from taxation if
agreed to by the governing board of the taxing agency.
.
.
It is recommended that the airfield portion of privately OII1led public-use 81.rports be
included in the tax exenption. Since the airfield acts as a public use facility, private
airport owners argue that there is no dirference existing between their airfields and tax-
exenpt lIlUIlicipal airports. These owners, however, are willing to psy taxes on
commercially developed portions of their airports. Because of the prevalent home-rule
practice in New York State, such a lSll' may be difficult to pass, however, the benefits
derived from greater general aviation access to the region would tend to ofrset the loss
of tax revenues.
VIII-9
.
Protective Zoning
Another method of protecting pnvate airports is through zoning. The types of zoning
controls available to lDlits of goverIlllel1t are discussed later in the legal recCJlllllendations
section of this report. However, it can be stated here that private airports,
particularly those in the mid to upper Hudson Valley region, can still be protected from
incanpatable land uses via zoning controls.. Such controls, obviously, are not universally
applicable or desirable, however, the alternative exists if local units of government
desire to use it.
.
ADDITION OF O'lllER AIRPORTS TO 'lllE SYSTEM
Presently, there are possibilities that other airports will be added to the system.
These potential system airports include the following:
.
Southold
Bethpage and Cal verton
Each of these potential system urports and their impacts on the RecOllllllended System are
described in the following sections.
Southold
A site selection study was performed recently that examined the feasibility of
developing an airport in the Town of Southold in Sufl:olk County. This study concluded
that an airport can be developed outside the village of Cutchogue on the north side. of
Long Island.
The airport's primary ruDi'ay is recOllllllended to be built at an initial length of 3,000
feet and an ultimate length of 3,600 feet to acctlllllOdate single-engine and li.ght twin-
engine aircraft. If it is feasible to construct a secondary or crosSli/ind ruDi'ay, it
would be constructed with an overall length of 2,loOO feet initially and lengthened to an
ultimate size of 2,900 feet. The airport is rec:ommended to be equipped with a non-
precision instrument approach, mediUlll intensity ruDi'ay lights (MIRL), precision approach
path indicators (PAPI), and ruDi'ay end identifier lights (REU).
This airport would be capable of acctlllllOdating 72 aircraft and would cost $ 5,229,000
to develop. Construction of this urport would reduce the osystem-wide \msatisfied demand
component of 434 aircraft to 362 aircraft. Development of this airport, therefore, would
in no way conflict with the recOllllllended system and should be encouraged. Recent
developments, however, indicate that it may be politically infeasible to develop this ~
airport and thus, the study recOllllllendations. have not been adopted.
.
Bethpage and Calverton
Grumman Aircraft Manufacturing owns two restricted airports on Long Island. The
Bethpage airport has a 6,000 I X 200 I lighted paved ruDi'ay. The Calverton facility has two
ruIlIi'ays, one 10,000' x 200', and a second measurmg 7,000 x 200. Lighting at both
airports includes ruDi'ay lights and a beacon.
VIII-lO
It is possible that these two airports may be opened for public use at scme time
during the planning period. AsslJlling both facilities were capable of accamnodating a
minimum of 100 aircraft, total unaatisfied demand could decrease frcm 434 to 234 based
aircraft. One potential conflict with the recommended system involves airspace
interaction between the Bethpage airport and Republic. AsSlJlllI1g that these operational
problems could be worked out by ATe, public acquisition or use of these airports is
recOllllllended, if they beccme available.
SUMMARY
..
To SUlIIII8rize, the most signiticant event that would alter the recOllDllended plan would
be .the constrained development scenario at public airports. Given the political climate
in the region and previous local area opposition to airport development projects, this
scenario is most likely to occur under a worst-case situation where neither the Coram nor
Putnam County airports would be developed. The impacts of not developing the two proposed
reliever airports will lower capital development costs by $33.5 million to $107.1 million
overall. However, this decrease in costs must be we1.ghed against a total unaatished
demand of 923 aircraft and associated general aviation access problems to the region.
To offset the impacts of the worst-case scenario, it was recOllDllended that
coordination efforts be made with Connecticut and New Jersey aviation planning officials
for mAY;"""" utilization of peripheral a1.rports such as Danbury Municipal in Connecticut
and GreeIlli'ood Lake and Sussex airports in New Jersey. That will aid in demand
accommodation for the Hudson Valley region but not for Long Island. To ccmbat aviation
demand aCCQllIlodation problems on Long Island, possible purchase of privately owned
airports such as Coram, or the public use of either of the Grumman airports would help.
Other contingencies that will impact the system are the closure of Mahopac and/or
Stormville. Closure of the Stormville Airport will mean an increased system development
cost of $2.1 million for a total cost of $142.7 million. Closure of StoIlllVille and
Mahopac will increase total facility costs by $3.5 million to a total of $144.0 million.
In addition to these options, a very real possibility for the Hudson Valley portion of the
Downstate is the clo sure of both StOIlllVille and Mahopac and no development of the proposed
Putnam County reliever airport. Under this scenario, costs will decrease $27.0 million to
$113.6 million, while unaCCOllDllOdated demand is increased by 527 aircraft to 961 aircraft.
To help offset these impacts, proactive planning measures were recommended that
include the public purchase of key private airports that are faced with closure, tax
abatement, and zoning controls. In addition, greater public lIIi'areness of the value of
general aviation would help gain support for avution related expenditures of public
funds.
.
In addition to these impacts, there is a possibility that other airports will be
added to the system. These airports include Southold, Bethpage, and Calverton. Adding
the Southold Airport would decrease unaccommodated demand by 72 aircraft to 362. The
addition of Bethpage and Calverton airports assuning a basing capacity of 100 aircraft,
would decrease unaccOllllllOdated demand to 234 based aucraft. If found to be feasible, the
development and public use of these airports should be encouraged.
.
VIII-11
.
Legal Re...-...-nclati.ons
Improvements to existing airports or development of new facilities requires careful
review and consideration of lalS and land use policies that may affect the success of
future airport operations. ('.r...mnn; ties that hlll7e failed to plan for compatible airport
environs hlll7e often fallen victim to the consequences of conflict between the airpo.rt and
its neighbors. The emphasis in this element then, is on the legal options llI7ailable to
State and local governments to ensure a continustionof adequste local llI7iation service,
as well as to provide for airport/cammmity compatibility. Compatibility planning
techniques fall into two broad categories: airport operational controls and land use
development strategies The first represents mLtigation measures that can be undertaken .
to reduce airport/ community conflict, while the second are generally employed as
preventive measures to potential problems.
OPERATIONAL CONTROLS
Operational controls for the purpose of airport compatibility planning is the
responsibility of the airport operator. HOIl'ever, in the case of publicly owned nrports,
it is generally the local county or community in which the airport is located, in
cooperation with the FAA, that dictates airport operational policy. ThLS being the case,
there are a nlllllber of airport operational restrictions that may be implemented to mitigate
the impact of aircraft noise on the local cammmity. These restrictions include the
follOll'ing:
.
Preferential Rumiay Usage
Ground Run-Up Restrictions
Aircraft Bans
Partial Curfew/Ban
Noise Abatement Profiles
Noise Abatement Tracts
Noise Emission Levels
Training Restrictions
Displaced Landing Thresholds and Takeofr Points
Capacity Limits
.
These restrictions would be used at airports sueb as Westchester County, Republic,
L.r. MacArthur, and others with existing land use compatibility problems. A discussion of
these restrictions follOll's.
Preferential Runway Usage
.
The preferential ruIlW'ay system is based on the concept of optimizing ruIlW'ay
utilization under airport layout constraints to minimize population impacts by taking
advantage of uneven population distribution around the airport. Depending upon the size
of the airport, and its ruIlW'ay confLgllration, certain ruIlW'ays may be situated in a more
noise sensitive area than others. A potential method for minimiz ing noise impact is to
utilize a particular nmway for takeofts and/or landing purposes that will generate the
10000est noise level over the least populated land areas. Notably, Republic Airport uses
preferential nmway designations.
..
VIII-l 2
Ground Run-Up Restrictions
Run-up noise activity is associated with ground maintenance and repair of aircraft.
Limitations can be made on times of day and/or positions on the airfield where engine run-
ups can be made for power check purposes. Run-up noise restrictions instituted by an
airport or political jurisdiction can deal with restrictions in the geographic area where
run-up may occur, the time of occurrence, the duration of J:UIl-UP events, aircraft type
permitted, and/or the permissible noise emission level.
Aircraft Bans
.
This restriction may apply to the type of aircraft that is permitted to operate at
arry given airport. The criteria for restriction can vary from the urcraft weight, engine
type, type of aircraft, or manufacturer/model. For example, the FAA noise standard FAR
Part 36, "Noise Standards, Aircraft Type and Aixworthiness Certification" prescribes the
maximum noise emission standards that aircraft 1III1st meet in order for the FAA to issue
"type certificates" and/or "aixworthiness certificates". The permissible emission levels
have become more stringent over time. Aircraft not certified under FAR Part 36 (aircraft
receiving type/operating tests have not demonstrated compliance with the Part) are termed
"Stage 1" aircraft. Aircraft meeting the earlier, less stringent standards are termed
"Stage 2"; aircraft meeting the more recent, more stringent standards are termed "Stage
311.
}bst turbojet and other large aircraft produced after 1974 already meet at least
Stage 2 standards. Another regulation, FAR Part 91, Subpart E, requires that essentially
all turbojet air carrier aircraft with more than 100 passenger seats be in compliance.
Part 36-based restrictions could be adopted in several forms, including the banning of
Stage 1 or Stage 2 operations, or both. In this regard, both Westchester County and
Republic airports have banned certain types of aircraft.
Partial Ban/Curfew
This option prohibits the use of
periods or on portions of the airfield.
aircraft ban.
certain types of aircraft only during certain
This is a less restrictive variation of a total
Noise Abatement Profiles
.
Noise abatement .flight paths offer significant opportunities for noise mitigation
where distribution of residential population and other incompatible land uses are uneven.
The glide slope refers to the angle of the aircraft along a path as it comes to land. For
noise abatBllent purposes, the steeper the angle of the glide slope, the less noise is
generated in potentially noise sensitive areas. Another factor in takeoff and landing
profiles is the poIIer setting. Takeofr and landing profiles and their attendant poIIer and
flap settings can be adjusted so as to offer relief to close-in or more distant noise
sensitive areas.
.
Flight altitude is another important factor in airport sound propagation and the
impact on airport camnunities. Political jurisdictions have dealt with the issue in some
situations by establishing a minimum flyover altitUde permitted for certain, or all,
categories of aircraft. Frequently, these altitude restrictions sre applied to nighttime
hours of operations.
VIII-13
.
Noise Abatement Tracts
A flight track is a pattern set up around each ruBiay for use by approaching and
departing aircraft. Use of this technique would involve prescribing unique flight tracks
for departures and/or arrivals to avoid overflight over noise sensitive areas.
Modifications of the flight track can be useful in positioning the aircraft in space
relative to ground or land uses. .
Noise Em1ssion Levels
.
This technique deals with the actual noise levels that a political jurisdiction may
impose upon aircraft. Typically, this involves a peak noise level applicable to any
individual aircraft operating beyond the airport boundaries, usually as a part of a
takeoff or landing procedure. With this option, noise emissions frail every operation must
stay within the limits measured at one or more positions. These limits may be expressed
in tenns of single events and/or integrated over time.
Training Restrictions
Aircraft may be prohibited frail making practice takeofrs and approaches, often
referred to as "touch and goes", or limited to certain times of day.
Displaced Landing Thresholds
With this option, aircraft are made to use a point on the rumray displaced from the
physical end so that the approach trajectory will place the 81rcraft higher above noise
sensitive properties.
Capacity Limits
This refers to a limit on the capacity of aviation services expressed in terms other
than aircraft slots. Such capacity limits may be expressed in tenns of based aucraft or
annual number of operations that the airport may process.
ux;AL CONSIDERATIONS
It must be noted that although local airport proprietors are "vested with the power
to promulgate reasonable, nonarbitrary and non-discr1lllinatory regulations that establish
acceptable noise levels for the airport and its immediate environs", the FAA has been '
delegated exclusive responsibility by Congress for regulating aircraft noise pursuant to
the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended by the Noise Control Act of 1972. This act
preempts state and local control. Th1s fact was substantiated in a decision handed down .
by the United States District Court in New York against the Westchester County Board of
Legislators attempt to place a curfew on all night flight operations at the Westchester
County Airport. Under a suit by the Federal goverIllll!tlt and other interested parties, the
District Court held that the County I s curfew was ".. . unreasonable, arbitrary,
discriminatory and over broad exercise of power by the county.. .". The curfew was
therefore eliminated.
VIII-14
Nevertheless, in an unrelated court action concerning the implementation of certain
operational restrictions, the Westchester County Legislators won an out of court
settlement with the FAA to have flnal say over the Westchester County Airport's future
developnent. Specifically, a March 1985 settlement grants Westchester County the right to
decide when, if ever, a larger passenger terminal will be built. Thu, in turn, is
expected to guarantee the County indirect control over the nmber of flights in and out of
the airport for a number of years.
.
Another example of utilizing operational controls to mm1llllZe COIIIIII111ity/airport
incompatibilities is the use of a NYIlOT mandated comprehensive noise abatement program for
Republic Airport. The noise abatement program is comprehensive in that it includes
aircraft operational measures, airport design measures, as well as aircraft noise
performance standards. The keystone to this program is the Preferential Runway Program
that limits the use of Runway 14-32 to minimize residential area flyover.
.
There is currently under consideration by the FAA a proposal that would mandate
specific Federal policy to local access and capacity policies at public use airport in the
U.S. In an attempt to eliminate ad hoc use restrictions by local airport authorities at
hubs and other airports, which TlJZ'f produce inconsistent or undesired results fran a
national perspective, the FAA believes that a comprehensive policy should be developed.
The FAA, therefore, proposes to set restrictions in the following areas as they relate to
airport access and capacity: 1) provision of ai.rport facilities; 2) runway and taxillay
use; 3) terminal and landside facility use; and 4) environmental impact management.
Approval of this proposal would severely limit the nlDber of options local airport
operators, ie., city or county authorities, could utilize for the purpose of managing
noise at local airports. In the area of terminal and landside facility use, the FAA
suggests that airport operators should provide "landside facility capacity consistent with
capacity of runway s and taxiIiay s. "Future grant as surance TlJZ'f reflect this concept ". The
implementation of a preferential runway program, such as the one at Republic, may be
jeopardized by this new policy.
In the context of the Downstate General Aviation System,
more emphasis on eliminating incompatible land uses rather than
of the aircraft noise, as is presently the case. It TlJZ'f be
airport I ccmnunity compatibility, for camounities to consider
techniques as transfer of developnent rights, land acquisition,
hazard zones for areas around existing airports.
this developnent TlJZ'f place
in controlling the source
wise, then, for future
such land use developnent
and establishment of noise
LAND USE DEVELOPMENT STRATEX;IES
.
Airports are an important factor in ccmnunity growth and developnent and represent a
significant investment of public resources. Once an airport is located, it is not easily
moved and, therefore, any airport site mst remain operational for many years. Airport
planning, then, demands that considerable consideration be given to the surrounding
airport environment. In a relatively undeveloped environment, planning should be geared
tOilard preventing the developnent of those land use activities that are incompatible with
airport operations and that TlJZ'f jeopardize the airport's viability.
.
A good illustration of the need for a comprehensive nrport area developnent strategy
is the Kingston-Ulster Airport, located near the Hudson River in Ulster County. Although
the airport is situated in a relatively open rural area, the southeast end of the runway
is constrained by a bridge abutment, limiting use of that end of the runway. To the
VIII-15
.
northeast, a residential subdivision was allowed to develop immediately off the end of
Ruuriay 15, eliminating any room for expansion and setting up conditions for COIlIIlUIIity
noise complaints. In addition, there is a 200 foot tower approximately 600 feet west of
the Ruuriay 15 approach, representing a potential height hazard.
To protect against these types of cOllll1unity-airport conflict and maintain the
integrity of the airport I s function, land use and developnent strategies should be
implemented that not only will limit the developnent of incompatible land uses in the
surrounding area, but also coordinate large scale public improvement projects with airport
developnent. Land use and developnent strategies that should be considered are those that
take advantage of the impact of airports on land developnent, minimize the restrictions
placed on operations by surrounding developnent, and minimize the nuisance potential of
the airport. Coordination of public improvement projects (such as higbiays and bridges)
with airport developnent can also be a strong catalyst for industrial growth.
.
The concept of compatible land use should be based on two sets of criteria. The
first set of criteria is that relating to airport hazards, and the second, to noise
exposure. An airport hazard is defined as any structure or tree or use of land which
obstructs the airspace required for the flight of an aircraft or which obstructs or
interferes with the control tracking and/or data acquisition in the landing, taking off,
or flight at an airport. Noise exposure is based on noise prediction studies that measure
aircraft noise and plot noise contours on a map based on a cumulative day/night sound
level average (Ldn).
Airport hazard areas are defined by the Federal Aviation Administration I s FAIl Part
77, Objects Affecting Ravigable Airspace. FAIl Part 77 defines imaginary surfaces
established in relation to civil or m:Ll.itary airports and of each runway. The size of
each imaginary surface is based on the category of each runway or runway end according to
the type of approach available or planned for that runway or runway end. Any tree or
structure that penetrates one of these imaginary surfaces is defined by FAR Part 77 as an
obstruction to air navigation. Exhibit VIII.l illustrates these imaginary surfaces for
civil airports. The characteristics of military operations and aircraft require different
configurations of imaginary surfaces that are also detailed in FAIl Part 77. In the land
area underlying these surfaces, the political subdivision may control activities such as
electronic and smoke enission .and reflective objects that interfere with aerial
navigation.
The second set of criteria to be applied to the airport area is that based on noise
exposure as def ined by prediction studies. These studies consider the types of aircraft
using, or forecast to use, the airport and their frequency of operation. Computer IIIOdels
are then used to estimate the levels of noise generated. Contours of equal noise
intensity are developed and plotted on maps as shown in Exhibit VIII.2. The Day-Night
Average Sound Level (Ldn) is the noise metric recaumended for expressing cumulative noise
exposure. The Ldn values correlate the reaction of people to noise and, thus, form the
basis for relating aircraft noise to compatible land use.
>
After completion of the noise prediction study, guidelines can be established as to
the permitted uses allowed within noise impacted areas based on their Ldn value. The
results of this analysis are used to prepare an nrport land use ordinance and zoning map.
As an. example, such an ordinance would essentially peIlDit land use, subject to other
zoning restrictions, in areas impacted by less than 65 Ldn. In areas having Ldn levels
from 65 to 75, IIIOSt uses would be peIlDitted subject to certain sound insulation
~
VIII-l6
--,A
it
t~
if"
L~ 40.'
A ~
--.
I;::
;:;1
20: 1 Conical surface
.
(.)
.
Oi_lU__....... .
v............, N-prfti....l..tnI_"'_.,
01_..._ u_ Il_,..wpld"......il,"
r....i._
"- ....'........'"
Uti..... ",," Ulllily VI.ih.;1Ity YloIihillt.
--.. .... -,. lItlooi__ ....i..._ -"
..illty ........... "....
. .... .~"
Width"
....., .
........-
. ..;dlhnl ... ... ... ... I.... . I....
-"
.......
I_e_
Ibdi.....
. ....-... ..... ,... ..... I~'" 10.000 10,OlD
.....
A"",-'
C ....... I.... I.... .... ,.... ..... .....
wichh_....I
. A"",-' ..... ,... ,... 10.000 IO.OOlI ,
..we- ......
, ~~h.~ .., 20:1 tlH 34,1 34,' ,
.'.......,a14__Adooo_._
l'I'ft'io;"';"'"'_.~,""it50,I""'-lo.OOO""""'I_..eddit......a"OOlIIl.
Conic.1 surface
Precision instrument approach
Visual or nonprecision approach
(slope E)
Horizontal surface 1 SO It
above established
airport elevilion
Runwav ~tlflinn
.
(bl
FAA imaginary surfaces for civil airports. (,a) Plan view. (b) Isometric view of A-A.
Exhibit VIII. 1
Typical FAR Part 77 Surfaces
Downstate New York General Aviation System Plan
VIII-17
,) (;
:..J.....
~.~
..' i
\
~
.,;"
-,':::.
.'
'.
\"
,
.,
\\
".~'f
'D.."'~~.
'.
\-
/.
,
,
,
.......
., i
;",,1
i~~LqN
. . '~1 L,lDN'
/.]0 tbN .
"s.L",. 7S'-.LDN
._-~--
; -
i
.:'1.
.1:--_
.
~,:"'-..;:"
......;.
.,
.~.
~'D'O
.. -".
~
.. .:..~
.
.
Exhibit VIII.2
Typical LON Noise Contours
Downstate New York General Aviation System Plan
VIII-18
requirenents. Uses within the 75 Ldn contours would be severely limited. It is important
to note, hOilever, that these criteria would only apply to uses constructed after the
effective date of the ordinance and thst noise contours are to be used only for planning
guidelines and do not represent absolute boundaries of noise tolerance.
In some cases, the zones of airport noise exposure will overlap the safety zones of
the airport hazard area. In such cases the most restrictive provisions of either should
prevail since they do not conflict, but rather, complement each other.
.
Land Use and Development Control Strategies
.
This section will briefly discuss, hssed on the planning criteria previously
identified, the specific land use management strategies that can serve to aid in airport
land use compatibility. To adequately address the subject of development control
strategies, this section is organized as follOils:
Comprehensive Planning
Capital Improvenents
Zoning
Subdivision Regulations
Building Code lbdifications
.
These strategies are geared tOilard local units of government and local and regional
planning agencies as a meanS of promoting airport/camnunity compatible land use.
Comprehensive Planning
Airport planning 1III1st be recognized as an integrated part of local and regional
comprehensive plans. The location, size, and configurations of the a1rport need to be
coordinated with pattems of major land uses in the area, as well as with other
transportation facilities and public services. Within the comprehensive planning
framework, airport planning, policies, and programs 1III1st be more fully coordinated with
the objectives, policies, and programs for the area in which the airport is located. The
social and econcmic impact, together with the environmental effects and airspace
requirements of airport development and operations, can then be evaluated in order to
guide development to make the airport environs compatible with airport operations.
The comprehensive plan, as a guide for future city and county development, should
thus provide the policy guidance for the establishment of the quantitative provisions for
the regulation of land use, building height, safety and noise insulation for inclusion
into zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, and building codes. It is through these
land use and development control tools that conflict can be reduced or eliminated and land
use potential optimized. There are four categories of land use considered most
appropriate to the airport environnent. These categories are:
y
.
Aviation or Airport Related: These are uses which have an incentive
to locate close to an 81rport. Such uses would include air freight
tenninals, aviation research and testing laboratories, airport hotels
and restaurants, and aircraft repair shops.
VIII-I 9
.
Inherently Noisy Activities: There are many industrial processes that
operate IDlder noise levels 80 high as to be little affected by the
incremental increases resul ting from proximity to an airport.
However, these uses can also exacerbate the a~rport noise situation to
surrounding uses in some situations.
.
Indoor Uses Which Can be Protected from
SOlDldproof ing: Such uses may include off ices,
uses, and commercial establishments.
Airport Noise by
indoor recreational
.
Open U ses Involving Few People: In the innermo st areas of approach
zones where overflights occur quite close to the ground, open uses or
those that require relatively little construction can serve as
buffers. These uses would include faxming, golf courses, cemeteries,
or passive recreational areas.
.
In the context of the Downstate region, it is suggested that comprehensive planning
efforts be directed toward a policy of aggressive business and industrial growth, tempered
by the implementation of strict perfoxmance criteria related to existing land use activity
and airport compatibility.
Capital Improvements
A governing body may control the direction of growth by effectively planning the
location of its capital improvements. This can be particularly effective in guiding
developnent into areas where it is desirable, or conversely, in restricting developnent by
withholding such improvements.
A flDlction usually delegated to a planning agency ia the establishment of a program
of capital improvements for a municipality. This would typically entail detexmining the
priority and location of improvements such as utilities, roads, schools, libraries, and
relates directly to land use compatibility. Many of these capital improvements are either
noise generators themselves or are sensitive to noise. A thoughtfully prepared
improvement program can be used to encourage compatible developnent with a concern for
noise, and other-envirotllll!ntal problems.
Zoning
The most common land use control is zoning. Zoning is an exercise of the police
powers of a state or local government which eilables that government to designate the uses
that are pexmitted for each parcel of land. It noxmally consists of a zoning ordinance
that specifies land developnent and use constraints. One of the primary advantages of
zoning is that it may be used to promote land use compatibility while leaving the land in
private ownership, on the tax rolls, and economically productive. Nevertheless, zoning is
subject to change and must be continually monitored it it is to renain an eftective land
use compatibility tool.
.
~
.
VIII-20
Subdivision Regulations
<
Subdivision regulations govero the act of splitting a tract of land into separate
parcels. These regulations typically seek to assure that subdivisions are appropriately
related to their surroundings. When applied to an airport environs situation, these
regulations should require noise impact identification to ensure compatible land use
development. Avigational essements and restrictive covenants accompanying these easements
should also be required on all nE5l'ly-platted property in the airport noise-impacted and
clear zone areas. These easements carry restrictive covenants on all properties subject
to the easement. The covenants are designed to legally notify the owner that the property
is subject to "considerable noise from the operation of aircraft, and is exposed at times
to aircraft noise which mzy infringe upon a resident I s enjoyment of property and may,
dependent upon the degree of acoustical treatment of the dwell ing, affect his heal th
and/ or well being...".
.
The tying together of essements and subdivision approval has been used successfully
by several communities. Prior to the granting of a subdivision request, the developer
must dictate a noise easement over his property to the community. This is tied to the
deed of each lot that is sold within that subdivision. The granting of easements gives
the airport the privilege of making noise without facing court action.
Building Code M:ldifications
Building codes specify ventilation, roan ares, and other housing requirements in the
interest of health, welfare and safety of residents. The building code camronly applies
to both new and existing buildings. Communities should establish minimum acoustical
insulation standards, expressed as Sound Transmission Coefficients (STC), for nE5l' and
existing office or residential dwellings within high noise impact contours.
SlJIIIIlllry
In conclusion, a major pr10rity in eliminating airport-community conflicts should be
the encouragement of compatible development in the vicinity of the airport vis-a-vis well
thought out land use and development strategies. This will help to minimize the econanic
and social costs associated with airport operations or possible airport expansion and,
allow the mn;m;7.ation of the positive impacts airports can have on industrial and
economic development.
PREFEKRED STRATEJ:;Y
Prevention of incompatible development is, of course, the best solution to
airport/community canpatibility. Within the Downstate General ~iation System however,
~ many airports that were once located in the outlying areas of a town or metropolitan
reg~on, such as the Westchester County or Republic airports are, due to urban
encroachment, finding essential expansion to be difficult, impossible, or even
undesirable. For these airports, the prime objective is the amelioration of existing
problems of incompatibility. Shown in Exhibit VII!.3 is a list of Downstate airports
listing a preferred airport/community compatibility strategy for that particular airport.
Choices were made based on the existing realities of that area in which the airport is
located.
.
VIII-21
.
Exhibit VIII.3 - PREFERRED AIRPORT/COMMlJNITY COMPATIBILITY STRATEGIES
Airport Name
Operations
Land Use and
Development Strategies*
Dutchess County
Orange County
Stewart
Wa1:Wick
Flushing
Bayport
Brookhaven
East Hampton
Elizabeth Field
Long Island-MacArthur
Republic
Suffolk County
Sullivan County
International
LID
Westchester County
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
* A1 though land use and development control strategies should be in place around all
airports, it is recognized in this exhibit that some airport env1ronments are
already saturated with incompatible land uses and whose only option is the
mitigation of existing noise prob1ans.
A preferred strategy for ensuring good a1rport/community relations in the Downstate
region is to prepare a Federal Aviation Administration FAR Part 150 Airport Noise
Compatibility Planning Study for each of the region's high use airports. FAR Part 150
Airport Noise Compatibility Planning Program has as its goal, the reduction of existing
and/or projected adverse aircraft noise impacts on the surrounding airport environs to
the greatest extent practical. Program activities include noise monitoring and
operational control alternatives, land use compatibility programs, and FAA coordination of
all selected implementations processes.
Federal financial assistance is available to the airport operator under the Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) for noise compatibility planning on a 90/10 basis, and for
imp1anentation of that planning, on a 00/20 basis. Federal financial assistance is al so
available to units of local govermnent in the area surrounding the airport to carry out
projects in accordance with FAA approved noise compatibility programs. An additional
benefit to an FAR Part 150 study is that certain sanctions are available under Section 107
of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatanent Act of 1979 (ASNA), upon which FAR Part 150 is ~
based, to protect the airport operator from land owner noise suits.
It should also be noted that Congress, through the Airport Improvanent Program, has l
ea:rmarked 81.4 million dollars for each of the fiscal years 1986 and 1987 exclusively for
noise abatenent programs. Much of this funding is presently underutilized. However, it
should be pointed out that AIP funding runs out in 1987 and future sources of funding are
uncertain. Therefore, timeliness of application is of the essence.
VIII-22
.
Presented belOW' in Exhibit VIII.4 is a list of airports in the Downstate region that
have . completed Part 150 studies, those airports that are currently under going Part 150
studies, and those airports that would benefit from the initiation of such a progrlll1.
Exhibit VIII.4 - PART 150 PROGRAMS: FAR PART 150 NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM
Airport NlIlIe Completed UndeNay Suggested
.
Dutchess County X
1 Orange County
Stewart X
WaNick
Fl ushing X
Bayport
Brookhaven X
East Hampton X
El izabeth Field
Long Island-MacArthur X
Republic X
Suffolk County X
Sullivan County
LID
Westchester County X
Imp] -....tion Activities
There are a number of implementation activities that wlll be undertaken by NYSOOT as
a part of the Department I s ongoing Continuous Planning Program. These activities will
ensure that coordination of aviation planning continues lOng after this study is
completed.
As a part of the continuous planning progrlll1, the identification of key aviation
dEmand "trigger points" and special issues that need reappraisal were made. These
funct~ons require some type of implementation act~on and are discussed belOW'.
IDENTIFICATION OF KEY AVIATION DEMAND ''TRIGGER POINTS"
.
Aviation demand trigger points or milestones can be defined as tnose aviation
activity levels that, upon being reached at an airport, will require an implenentation
action by airport sponsors or local ofticials. For example, aviation industry standards
for planning indicate that when a rwway systen reaches 60 percent of its capacity, steps
to increase that capacity should be undertaken. Exceptions to this rule exist where the
costs of undertaking such an action exceed the benefits or the political climate prohibits
airport development. In the Downstate region, the rule-of-thumb trigger points could
essily be moved up to 80 percent of capacity without causing disagreements from airport
sponsors.
)
VIII-23
.
In the Downstate, the most critical decisions in terms of av1.8tion planning, revolve
around the need for new reliever airports. :Because of real estate speculation and land
developer interests in the study area, land available for airport development is quickly
disappearing. Thus, land banking for the eventual need for new airport development should
be undertaken in the first planning phase, while some land is still available. This
action is, of course, contingent upon policy level decisions concerning the econanic and
political feasibility of new airport developnent. In any event, these decisions should be
made as soon as possible.
.
For other airport expansion and developnent actions contemplated in the region that
deal with existing airports, actual aviation activity should be tracked closely. If the
aviation demand falls behind predicted levels or if it is improbable that phase year ,
forecasts will be met, further development activity at that airport should be postponed
until those activity indicators are reached. Conversely, if airport activity exceeds
forecast demand levels, then developnent activities should be implemented on an
accelerated schedule. In this manner, it is possible that Phase I developnent activities
would be postponed until Phase II or vice-veraa.
Guidelines for the identification of trigger points in the Downstate region are
presented in Exhibit VIII.S. It should be noted that these trigger points are not
intended to constrain or prevent airport development desired by airport sponsors. Rather,
they are meant as general planning guidelines in a rule-of-thlJllb context.
Exhibit VIII.S - IMPLEMEN'IATION ACTION GUIDELINES
Implementation Action
Trigger Point
1. Purchase land for ns airport construc-
tion.
Upon decision of local officials to sup-
port new airport developnent.
2. Improve ruIWay system capacity.
When airfield activity exceeds 80 percent
of capacity.
3. Initiate airline terminal expansion.
When terminal utilization exceeds 7.0
enplaned passengers per square foot
annually.
4. Initiate aircraft hangar construction.
:Based upon aircraft owner waiting lists.
REI I>W SPECIAL ISSUES ·
Special issues identified in the regional aviation system plan should be reviewed and ~
analyzed during the implementation stage. Specifically, these issues include:
Whether or not a decision is made to construct the Putnam County
Reliever.
Whether or not a decision is made to construct the Coram Rel1ever.
VIII-24
Inclusion of the effects of peripheral airport development on the
Downstate Systen.
Protection of privately owned airports against closure,
Mitigation of air traffic control and airspace congestion in the
region.
.
The review of these special issues can be used to detennine whether:
,
Solutions presented in the recanmended plan are being implemented and
whether these solutions are judged successful.
New issues have developed that require inclusive in the planning
process.
Issues identified earlier are still applicable to problems in the
region.
These steps, combined with the contingency plans presented earlier in this report,
should provide local officials, NYSroT and FAA with the flexibility necessary to
adequately respond to foreseeable aviation problems in the region. A vital part of
successful implenentation of the plan is establishing and maintaining a dialogue smong the
various agencies involved, the av18tion CO"""'mity, and the general public. Implenentation
of the plan, however, must begin with the local sponsors initiating and partially
financing the systen improvements. The systen plan will succeed only if these local
sponsors know, in advance of their own planning, where they fit in the overall system and
the reasoning and assunptions on which the recommendations for their airports were made in
the recanmended aviation system.
*
*
*
*
*
*
Whether the Downstate General Aviation System Plan produces a systen of airports that
will adequately serve the region depends not solely upon the accuracy of the present
forecasts, but also upon the vigor with which the plan and its recanmendations are pursued
by all people involved. This includes the citizens of local com....tlities, the airport
sponsors, the aircraft owners and pilots, the county officials, the State, and the FAA.
If the system plan is viewed by all concerned as a working tool to guide and direct their
efforts, the Downstate Region of New York will have the airport systen it needs.
.
,.
VIII-25
.