HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-02-06; City Council; 10483; SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS- SANDAG- REPORT| AIRPORT SITE SELECTION STUDYSANDAG REPORT/AIRPORT SITE AB#L~c&&?- TITLE:
DEPT. cc
MTG. 216190 SELECTION STUDY
c 0 .rl
DEPT
CITY
CITY
t'Ja
u rd.
a3 ?u am
dW 3h
sw aJu
ucd N
sa u
*rl a,
Gq-(
.rl U m
ca, OM
urd PI u NG 00 a am 5c mo -rl ou urd a a,c
u (60
Ga, ah m
NS au a,
u m -4
h ua,
rd a,w SN uo u au a,@ u oc 3 .rl N Urn ma, cu -4 .d m 4 .rl a, 0s Gu 3 ow vo
0 cn 1 a 1 N
55 bn
-4 0 3 ce
.?I $
uu
ala,
l4.C
-5
s;
2 2 b a s z 3 0 0
m- CIT * OF CARLSBAD - AGENQBILL *
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Review Report entitled "Sari Diego Air Carrier Airport S
Selection Study" prepared by SANDAG. Instruct Council Men
Mamaux, the City's SANDAG Representative, regarding comments the Council has on the Report.
ITEM EXPLANATION
Attached is the report prepared by SANDAG which analyzes i
potential sites for the relocation of the International Air1
from Lindbergh Field. The report does not recommenc
preferred site. All of the sites have advantages
disadvantages, and it appears that any one of the sites i
feasible alternative. Table 1 of Page 10 of the report i
chart summarizing the evaluation.
SANDAG has distributed the report for comments. Any commc the City Council has will be presented to the SANDAG Boarc Council Member Mamaux when the report is scheduled adopt ion.
EXHIBITS
1. San Diego Air Carrier Airport Site Selection Study
9 0 1 t A
1
1
8 DRAFT FINAL
SAN DIEGO
SITE SELECTION STUDY
I AIR CARRIER AIRPORT
1
3
1.
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I DECEMBER, 1989
Sam Diego 6J ASSOCLATlON OF m-w
401 B Street, Suite 800
4 San Diego, California 921 01
(61 9) 236-5300
Prepared for
the San Diego Association of Governments
Peat Marwick Main &Co.
Post Off ice Box 8007
San Francisco International Airport
San Francisco, CA 941 28-8007
This report was financed with Federal funds from
The Federal Aviation Administration and local funds
bY
I
I MEMBER AGENCIES: Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Be
Lemon Grove, National Crty, Oceanside, Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, Vista and County 0
ADVISORY/LIAISON MEMBERS. California Department of Transportation, U.S. Department of Defense and TijuandBaja 1 B
w a) &
Board of Directors
SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is a public agency formed voluntarily by local governments to assure overall areawide planning and coordination for the San Diego region. Voting members include the Incorporated Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside, Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, Vista, and the County of San Diego. Advisory and Liaison members include CALTRANS, US. Department of Defense,
and TijuandBaja California Norte.
CHAIR: Hon. Lois Ewen
VICE-CHAIR: Hon. Jack Doyle
SECRETARY-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Kenneth E. Sulzer
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Hon. John Mamaux, Councilmember
(A) Hon. Ann Kulchin, Mayor Pro Tern
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Hon. Greg Cox, Mayor
(A) Hon. Leonard Moore, Councilmember
CITY OF CORONADO Hon. Lois Ewen, Mayor Pro Tern
(A) Hon. Michel Napolitano, Councilmember
CITY OF DEL MAR
Hon. John Gillies, Councilmember
(A) Hon. Jan McMillan, Deputy Mayor
CITY OF EL CAJON
Hon. Harriet Stockwell, Councilmember
(A) Hon. Joan Shoemaker, Councilmember
CITY OF ENClNlTAS
Hon. Marjorie Gaines, Councilmember
(A) Hon. Gail Hano, Deputy Mayor
CITY OF ESCONDIDO
Hon. Jerry Harmon, Mayor Pro Tern
(A) Hon. Ernie Cowan, Councilmember
CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH
Hon. John Mahoney, Councilmember
(A) Hon. Henry Smith, Mayor
CITY OF LA MESA
Hon. Art Madrid, Councilmember
(A) Hon. Fred Nagel, Mayor
(A) Hon. Ernest W. Ewin, Councilmember
CITY OF LEMON GROVE
Hon. James V. Dorman, Mayor
(A) Hon. Brian Cochran, Councilmember
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
Hon. Jess E. Van Deventer, Vice Mayor
(A) Hon. Fred Pruitt, Councilmember
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
Hon. Lawrence M. Bagley, Mayor
(A) Hon. Sam Williamson, Councilmember
CITY OF POM'AY Hon. Carl Kruse, Councilmember
(A) Hon. Linda Brannon, Councilmember (6) Hon. Jan Goldsmith, Deputy Mayor
CITY OF SAN DIEGO
Hon. Judy McCarty, Councilmember (A) Hon. Linda Bernhardt, Councilmember
CITY OF SAN MARCOS Hon. Lee Thibadeau, Mayor
(A) Hon. Mike Preston, Councilmember
CITY OF SANTEE
Hon. Jack Doyle, Mayor
(A) Hon. Roy A. Woodward, Vice Mayor
CITY OF SOMNA BEACH
Hon. Margaret Schlesinger, Councilmember
(A) Hon. Richard Hendlin, Deputy Mayor
CITY OF VISTA
Hon. Gloria E. McClellan, Mayor (A) Hon. Bernie Rappaport, Councilmember
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
Hon. Brian Bilbray, Supervisor
(A) Hon. Susan Golding, Chairman
(A) Hon. John MacDonald, Supervisor
STATE DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION (Advisory Member)
Robert Best, Director
(A) Jesus Garcia, District Eleven Director
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
(Liaison Member)
Captain David Schlesinger, USN, CEC
Commanding Officer Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command
TIJUANNBAJA CALIFORNIA NORTE (Advisory Member) Hon. Carlos Montejo Favela
Presidente Municipal de Tijuana
Revised January 4,1990
9 e 1 Uf
rn
1
I
I
8 u
I
I
I
8
I
1 s
I
1
I
D
ERRATA SHEET FOR SAN DIEGO AIR CARRIER AIRPORT SITE SELECTION 8 STUDY
The following list details revisions/corrections to the draft study.
Work Program (page 4): The membership of the Policy Advisory Committee should include
the City of Del Mar, instead of the City of Imperial Beach.
Table 1 (page 10):
on this table for the NAS Miramar options or the East Miramar site.
Table 1 (page 10):
include any information on population impacts in Mexico.
assumes all Stage 3 aircraft.
Table 1 (page 10):
Category 2 endangered species candidate is located on the East Miramar site.
Table 1 (page 10): The California Black-tailed Gnatcatcher a Federal Category 5
endangered species and the San Diego button Celery (Eryngium Aristulatum var. parishii
a Federal Category 1 endangered species candidate have been identified at NAS Mirania
sites A and B.
Figure 1 (page 32):
Table 26 (page 135): The headings should rea
Acres, Floor Area Ratio, Square Feet, Lease Rate Per Square Foot, and 1989 Dollars. I
addition it should be noted that these are gross revenue figures, not net.
The costs of purchasing or relocating NAS Miramar are not shown
The aircraft noise impacts for the Otay Mesa alternatives do not
Also the aircraft noise analysis
The Willowy Monardella (Monardella linoides ssp viminea) a Federa
Site 6 east of the mountains, in the desert, should be added.
Add column headings from left to right.
POINTS OF CLARIFICATION
Chapter 9: Th
regional change in aircraft noise by closing Lindbergh Field was not evaluated. Fc
example, if Otay Mesa is developed as an air carrier airport the helicopter operations r
Ream Field would be changed. Or, if NAS Miramar is developed, the aircraft noise impac
is likely to be reduced in several communities. If Lindbergh Field is closed, the aircra
noise impact to Point Loma would be curtailed.
Chapter 12 (page 130): Tables 22 through 26 estimate the value of the major municip
revenues that would be generated from the redevelopment of Lindbergh Field, once tl
airport has been moved to another site and some current restrictions on the types of lar
uses are changed. The estimates of the revenue that the Airport property could genera
for the Port District are based on gross lease rates for similar existing development type
The lease revenue could be used to finance the redevelopments costs, as well as the COS
incurred in developing a new airport site. This is possible because the Lindbergh Fie
site as a cost of redevelopment does not have to be purchased, and would result in sor
amount of development cost savings to the Port District. However, before t
redevelopment could begin, it would be necessary to change existing Port District poli
with legislation, allowing specific types of development to occur. For example, accordi
to the property manager for the Port District, they are currently restricted by law
leasing office space to only marine related businesses. This restriction would need to
liberalized to include a wide range of businesses.
The forecasted aircraft noise impacts of the three sites were evaluated.
* 0 1 It
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I Planning Activity Levels ......................................... 21
I
I
1
I
1
B
1
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I.. PROJECT INTRODUCTION .............................. 3
1 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND WORK PROGRAM 3
Previous Studies ................................................ 3
Work Program .................................................. 4
2 SUMMARY 9 Ability to Accommodate Long-Range Aviation Demand ............... 9
Airspace Conflicts 9 Aircraft Delays 9 Aircraft Noise Impacts ........................................... 11 Natural Environmental Problems .................................. 11
Capital Costs 11
Airport Access .................................................. 12 Implementation Feasibility ....................................... 12
..................
.....................................................
.............................................. .................................................
...................................................
3 FORECASTS OF AVIATION DEMAND 15 Introduction .................................................... 15 16
Forecasts of Air Passengers from 2020 to 2050 17
Forecasts of Aircraft Operations .................................. 19
.............................
Forecasts of Air Passengers from 1987 to 2010 ...................... ......................
4 SCREENING AND EVALUATION CRITERIA ........................ 25
Goal ........................................................... 25
Objectives ..................................................... 25
Sequence of Analyses 25
Screening Criteria ............................................... 26
Acceptance Criteria 26 Comparative Criteria 26
27
Airspace Interactions 27
Airspace Delays 27
Capital Costs 28 U Implementation Feasibility .................................... 28
............................................ .......................................... ......................................... Evaluation Criteria .............................................. 27
Ability to Accommodate Aviation Demand .......................
Natural Environmental Problems ............................... 27
Aircraft Noise Impacts ........................................ 28
Airport Access ............................................... 28
PART 11-SITE SCREENING .......................................... 31
5 PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF CANDIDATE SITES ................. 31
Otay Mesa .................................................. 31
......................................... ..............................................
................................................
Site Alternatives 31 NAS Miramar ................................................ 31
NAS North Island 31
................................................
.............................................
iii
w v
Offshore Sites ............................................... 31
Additional Sites West of the Mountains .......................... 33
34
PART 111.. EVALUATION OF FINALIST SITES ........................... 39
6 PRELIMINARY AIRPORT CONFIGURATIONS ...................... 39
NAS Miramar Alternative B ...................................... 40 East NAS Miramar .............................................. 40
Otay Mesa Alternative A .........................................
7 AIRSPACE AND AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL ANALYSIS ............... 49
Scope of Analysis ............................................... 49 Methodology aRd Analysis ........................................ 49
Airspace Conflicts ........................................... 50
Visual and Instrument Operations ...............................
Proposed Operations at NAS Miramar Site .......................... Proposed Operations at East NAS Miramm Site ...................... Proposed Operations at Otay Mesa Site ............................. Summary ....................................................... 65
8 AIRCRAFT DELAY ANALYSIS ................................... 71
Demand Forecasts ............................................... 71 Annual Demand .............................................. 71 Demand distributions ......................................... 72
Peak Hour Aircraft Mix ....................................... 72
Weather and Wind Analysis ....................................... 75
Data Sources ................................................ 75 Cloud Ceiling and Visibility .................................... 75
Wind Coverage ............................................... 76 Annual and Peak Hour Aircraft Delays ............................. 81
NAS Miramar ................................................ 81
East NAS Miramar ........................................... 84 Otay Mesa Alternative A ...................................... 84
Otay Mesa Alternative B ...................................... 85
Acceptance Criteria Findings and Recommendations .................
NAS Miramar Alternative A ...................................... 40
44
44 Otay Mesa Alternative B .........................................
50
52
57
57
9 AIRCRAFT NOISE ANALYSIS .................................... 89
Scope and Methodology .......................................... 89 Results ........................................................ 92
10 NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY .......... 101
AND DETAILED FINDINGS ....................................... 101 Methodology .................................................... 102 Historical and Archaeological Considerations .................... 102
EndangeredandThreatened Species ............................. 102 Water Quality ............................................... 102
Air Quality .................................................. 102 DOT Section 4(f) Lands ....................................... 102
Coastal Zone Management ..................................... 103 Wetlands and Floodplains ...................................... 103
iv
e 0 8 If
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
1
1
I
R
1
1
8
1
1
Natural Environmental Findings ................................... 103
Otay Mesa Bi-National ........................................ 108
NAS Miramar 104
East NAS Miramar 107
Conclusions 111
Sourcesof Data 111
11 GROUND ACCESS .............................................. 115 Introduction 115 Access Conditions ............................................... 115 NAS Miramar ................................................ 115
East Miramar 115
Otay Mesa 119 119 I Methodology .................................................... 120
................................................ ...........................................
.................................................... .................................................
....................................................
................................................ ..................................................
Offsite Road Improvement Costs ..................................
12 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS ...................................... 125
Estimated Construction Costs ..................................... 125
Description of Cost Items ..................................... 125
Site Comparisons 127 Summary .................................................... 130 Financial Effects of the Closure of Lindberg Field ................... 130
Summary of Financial Impacts 130 Fiscal Impact Procedures ..................................... 131
Lease Rate Revenues 134
13 LAND USE ..................................................... 139 Introduction .................................................... 139 Airport Development Area 139 Forecasted Air Carrier Noise ..................................... 139
14 EVALUATION OF LINDBERGH FIELD ALTERNATIVES 153
Introduction .................................................... 153 159
Evaluation ofthe Alternatives 159 Evaluation of Obstructions and Airfield Capacity
andDelays .................................................. 160
.............................................
.................................
Sales Tax Revenue ........................................... 132 .........................................
....................................... e ..............
Port District Decisions on the Development of the Airport ............ ....................................
PART IV-ECONOMIC IMPACT . . . rn 167
15 ECONOMIC IMPACT OF A REPLACEMENT AIRPORT ............... 167
Basic Economic Impact Results ................................... Introduction 167 168 ....................................................
V
0 a * I'
I
I
1
I LIST OF TABLES
1 Evaluation Summary 10
2 Forecasts of Air Passengers Through 2010 .......................... 16
3 Forecasts of Air Passengers Through 2050 18
4 Forecasts of Aviation Demand Through 2050 ........................ 20
5 Planning Activity Levels ......................................... 22
6 Acceptance Criteria Summary Evaluation Matrix 35
7 Comparative Criteria Summary Evaluation Matrix ................... 36
8 Annual Aircraft Operations for the Aircraft Delay Analysis 71
9 Monthly and Daily Traffic Distributions ............................ 72
10 Hourly Traffic Distribution ....................................... 73
11 Peak Hour Aircraft Mix Assumptions 74
12 Percent Occurrence of Weather Conditions for NAS Miramar .......... 77
13 Wind Coverage Analysis 79
14 Percentage Use of Highest-Capacity Runway Uses ................... 80
15 Average Annual Aircraft Delays 82
16 Average Peak Hour Aircraft Delays 83
............................................
.......................... I
m .................... I
I
8
1
I
R
I
1
1
I
........... I
...............................
..........................................
...................................
................................
17 Average Daily Aircraft Takeoffs .................................. 90
18 Distribution of Aircraft Operations by Direction of Flow 92 .............
19 Population Exposure to Aircraft Noise ............................. 98
20 Airport Lane Mile Requirements 119
21 Summary of Construction Cost Estimates ........................... 128
22 130
23 Annual Revenue from the Redevelopment of Lindbergh Field 131
.................................. 1
Land Use Mix for Redevelopment of Lindbergh Field .................
..........
vi
W *
24 Annual Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue to the City of San Diego from the Redevelopment of Lindbergh Field ...............
San Diego from the Redevelopment of Lindbergh Field ...............
from the Redevelopment of Lindbergh Field ........................
132
25 Annual Total Retail Sales Tax Revenue for the City of
133
26 Annual Lease Income for the San Diego Unified Port District
135
27 Commercial Airport Site Selection Study Alternative Site.
Airport Development Area ....................................... 140
28 Summary of 60 CNEL . Miramar A ................................. 141
Summary of 65 CNEL . Miramar A Summary of 60 CNEL . Miramar B ................................. Summary of 65 CNEL . Miramar B ..................................
Summary of 60 CNEL . East of Miramar ............................ Summary of 65 CNEL . East of Miramar ............................ Summary of 60 CNEL . Otay A .................................... Summary of 65 CNEL . Otay A .................................... Summary of 60 CNEL . Otay B .................................... Summary of 60 CNEL . East of Miramar ............................
Summary of Direct Expenditures in the §an Diego Region .............
Total Economic Impact on the San Diego Region .....................
Field Under Constrained Conditions ............................... 172
Field Under Constrained Conditions ............................... 174
................................ 142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
169
170
29
30
31 Summary of Airport Activity Based on Operation at Lindbergh
32 Summary of Economic Impact Based on Operation at Lindbergh
vii
e m I 1'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
B
i
4
1
I
1
1
I
D LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Candidate Sites ......................................... 32 Figure 2 NAS Miramar Site Sketch ................................ 41 Figure 3 NAS Miramar Site Sketch ................................ 42 Figure 4 East NAS Miramar Site Sketch ............................ 43
Figure 5 Otay MesaSite Sketch ................................... 45
Figure 6 Otay MesaSite Sketch ................................... 46 Figure 7 NAS Miramar Flight Tracks ............................... 53 Figure 8 NAS Miramar Flight Tracks 54
Figure 9 NAS Miramar Flight Tracks ............................... 55
Figure 10 NAS Miramar Flight Tracks ............................... 56
Figure 11 East NAS Miramar Flight Tracks .......................... 58 Figure 12 East NAS Miramar Flight Tracks 59 Figure 13 East NAS Miramar Flight Tracks .......................... 60 Figure 14 Otay Mesa Flight Tracks ................................. 61 Figure 15 Otay Mesa Flight Tracks 62 Figure 16 Otay Mesa Flight Tracks ................................. 63 Figure 17 Otay Mesa Flight Tracks ................................. 64 Figure 18 Otay Mesa Flight Tracks 66 Figure 19 Otay Mesa Flight Tracks ................................. 67 Figure 20 NAS Miramar Noise Contours ............................. 93 Figure 21 NAS Miramar Noise Contours ............................. 94 Figure 22 East NAS Miramar Noise Contours 95
Figure 23 Otay Mesa Alternative A ................................. 96
Figure 24 Otay Mesa Alternative B ................................. 97 Figure 25 NAS Miramar Environmental Considerations 105
Figure 27 Otay Mesa With 40 MAP ................................. 116
Figure 28 East Miramar With 40 MAP ............................... 117
Figure 29 NAS Miramar With 40 MAP 118
Figure 30 Lindbergh Field ......................................... 154
Figure 32 Lindbergh Field Alternative 2D-3 157
Figure 33 Lindbergh Field Alternative 2F ............................ 158 Figure 34 Passengers Accommodated ............................... 173 Figure 35 Economic Impacts Under Constrained Conditions 175
...............................
..........................
.................................
.................................
.........................
................
Figure 26 Otay Mesa Environmental Considerations ................... 110
...............................
Figure 31 Lindbergh Field Alternative 2D-2 .......................... 156 ..........................
............
viii
0 1 1 .r 0
I
Il
I
I
1
1
I
8
I
I
8
I
I
1
I
1
D
I CHAPTER I
PROJECT BACKGROUND
AND WORK PROGRAM
.$ I ,! 0 0
1
I
I
8
I
I
I
B
I
I
t
I
1
I
u
#
1
Chapter 1
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND WORK PROGRAM
The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is the designated Metropoli-
tan Planning Organization for the San Diego Region. As such, SANDAG has the responsibility to undertake systems-level planning for this region's aviation system and related facilities, including air carrier airports and general aviation airports.
The goal of the %an Diego Air Carrier Airport Site Selection Study" as requested by the City of San Diego, is to identify a preferred site for the development of an air carrier airport to replace Lindbergh Field (San Diego International Airport) over
the long term.
PREVIOUS STUDIES
An airport systems plan, entitled %an Diego Plan for Air Transportation (SANPAT)," was completed in, 1976, and was adopted and incorporated into the Regional Transportation Plan on April 18, 1976.
SANPAT was developed to serve as a guide for airport development within the San Diego region through 1995. It was prepared in sufficient detail to enable the
region's airport owners and operators to carry out definitive master plans for their individual airports. The planning effort was initiated in 1971. The SANDAG Board
of Directors adopted a policy in April 1976 designating Lindbergh Field, with its existing runway configuration, as the site most suitable for serving the commercial air transportation needs of the San Diego region through 1995.
In March of 1981, an Airport Systems Plan Update was adopted by the SANDAG
Board. As a part of the update, four sites and seven alternatives for commercial
aviation were evaluated. They included Brown Field, Carmel, existing Lindbergh
Field, Lindbergh Field with a new parallel runway, Lindbergh Field with a new
northwest-southeast runway, Naval Air Station (NAS) Miramar (civilian use), and
NAS Miramar (shared use). At that time, the Board adopted the following policy:
"Although constrained by its geographic size and environmental impacts, Lindbergh
Field shall continue to be designated as the region's air carrier airport until and unless an adequate replacement facility is developed."
In the 1984 Regional Transportation Plan, the Board elaborated on that policy by stating: "Lindbergh Field should continue to be designated as the region's air carrier airport. If all or a major portion of NAS Miramar is no longer required as a
national defense facility, the use of this facility as this region's air carrier airport should be pursued."
On January 16, 1987, the mayor of the City of San Diego, on behalf of the City Council, requested that SANDAG undertake an evaluation of all potential alterna- tives to Lindbergh Field as the region's air carrier airport.
This report is SANDAG's response to the City's request.
The San Diego Unified Port District, the owner and operator of Lindbergh Field, recently completed an "Airport Development Study." The study was conducted bJi
e
3
W Q
PhD Technologies, Inc. The study evaluated alternative Airport development plans
at Lindbergh Field that would accommodate aviation demand through the year
2010.
Initially, the current project was designed to study only new air carrier site alterna-
tives. However, on the basis of the findings of the Lindbergh Field study, SANDAG modified the scope to include additional evaluations of certain alternatives that were included in the Lindbergh Field study.
WORK PROGRAM
The study was conducted jointly by the SAMDAG staff and KPMG Peat Marwick.
The study was directed by a Policy Advisory Committee; technical assistance was
provided by a Technical Advisory Committee,
The Policy Advisory Committee, appointed by the SANDAG Board of Directors, was composed of elected officials from the Cities of San Diego, Chula Vista, and
Imperial Beach; the County Board of Supervisors; SANDAG; a member of the San Diego Unified Port District Commission; representatives from the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps; and the League of Women Voters. The Technical Advisory Committee included technicians from affected jurisdictions, agencies, interest
groups, and citizens.
Periodic presentations were made to these committees, the SANDAG Board, and various planning groups. A listing of the meetings held during the project is
included in Appendix A.
The consultant team for the study consisted sf the following firms:
KPMG Peat Marwick Airport Consulting Practice (San Mateo, Cali-
fornia), prime consultant
Burns & McDonnell (Kansas City, Missouri), airport site engineering and
cost estimating
Travis, Verdugo, Curry & Associates (San Diego, California), offshore site
engineering and environmental considerations
Regional Science Research Institute (Peace Dale, Rhode Island), econ-
omic impact analyses
4
I I ,f e 0
1
I
I
8
I
I
1
8
8
1
1
1
I
8 u
1
The study was divided into six phases, as follows:
Phase * Phase Description 1 1 Forecast aviation demand
2 Define screening and evaluation criteria to review potential air carrier airport sites
Screen potential sites including reevaluation of analysis of sites reviewed in the 1981 Airport Systems Plan Update, and evaluate
additional alternatives for an air carrier airport
Conduct detailed evaluation of selected sites and prepare final
3 and 4
5 I report.
5
1 II ,? 0 0 a
1
I
I
I
E
I
I
1
I
I
I
t
8
I
8
8
I
CHAPTER 2
SUMMARY
t I It 0 e
I
1
I
I
1
I
i
I
1
II
B
i
1
8
I
I
1
Chapter 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This chapter summarizes the evaluations of the NAS Miramar, East Miramar, and
Otay Mesa airport sites. These five alternatives met the original screening and
evaluative criteria and were advanced to the final portions of the study. Table 1 presents the summary evaluation information.
ABILITY TO ACCOMMODATE LONG-RANGE AVIATION DEMAND
Airport sketches presented in Chapter 5 were developed to accommodate long-range aviation demand of 40 million annual passengers. For the NAS Miramar and East NAS Miramar sites, the level four demand is equivalent to 398,000 annual aircraft operations. FOP the Otay Mesa sites, an additional 100,000 aircraft oper- ations were assumed to represent Mexican operations that would be accommodated at the bi-national site. Therefore, all sites have the ability to accommodate long-range aviation demand.
AIRSPACE CONFLICTS
Operations at the NAS Miramar site and the East NAS Miramar site would produce
minor interactions with Montgomery Field. These interactions would involve departures from Miramar when the two airports are operating in west flow. It
appears that procedures could be developed to minimize the impact of this interac- tion.
At the Otay Mest site, Alternative A operations would have major interactions witk operations at NAS North Island during southeast flow; however, this operational flow would occur infrequently (about 18% of the year). Northwest Operations at Alternative A would require that operations at OLF Imperial Beach be curtailed. With the Alternative B configuration, there would be moderate interactions witF NAS North Island during north flow at Otay Mesa (which would occur about 64% of the year). During western operations on the two east-west runways, for either alternative, operations at Imperial Beach would have to be curtailed. This situatior
would occur about 9% of the year for Alternative A and 17% of the year for Alter-
native B.
The conclusions regarding airspace interactions and aircraft delays, discusser below, have been developed with preliminary weather and wind data for Ota! Mesa. Improved data should be acquired and analyzed to determine the frequenc! of runway use and resulting frequency of airspace interactions and amounts o
aircraft delays.
AIRCRAFT DELAYS
At NAS Miramar, annual aircraft delays would average 3.9 minutes per aircraf operation, when accommodating 3 98,OO 0 operations.
At East NAS Miramar, annual aircraft delays would average 1.0 minutes per air
craft operation, when accommodating 398,000 operations. I
9
3 a x
.s! 3 t; a
c
*z t $13; E Ea 2
d g$ W : $4 L9 52 u 0 E
~ or $
m m - sy Y w no :
i&$
6 3
2 2
v) 5 8
2
4
0)
.a CI
e $ 2
E 'f. 2
g
z
c 0 & d 4 Y ahw& 'ZaZ ** 0,
a a ",$,- &9;;6'3 eq 2E &
-0 -
83-2 ga Ed, gz.., a w e
!$z a$
hgg? 6 ->G gw e BE B- Fz $ Ys, g
cdd.2 a 20D-b pi 5 - .2 ; .E
Q CIfl ow 020 E fiSB!l q::*sg =-. zug -2.2. szEi .5 0 .C z'a?..2 - .p2 guz-s O co: flQ 3;:: ass a_ :E $3 flG5 zmo 8486 a$%; %&(a' Ea.c EEPfl -aO
%u 33 2s;g Zg4.Z +;g g&p$ g$a 4'ot* m-r( *om Gg: 3 g
22 4 9zs d, 0' z!lz fib? 2 !!$ 8-52 E%;;s$ @E ;-zm 5% L :: ;$
w-4 0 2.g2 E Bzz $gz$ 2g.g $x*; Ba M 2; ;;" 2p - .a 0 asafl; a =:u B+J -2.2; 2-0 e
gao,.~ zg;: gzzg #7*3 $*zzz z:fl e Oq 'a
Sf $2 a;:; fl"2'ti k$%; ,aaz-gg -=.; !pp yg8 g :gj;g ZiZ.5 z2zg Z228L 282 C2SZ Z85 3
Gd 3s &
ab, f 2;; 8.s e BE fiz B pJ 5 2so a wee gaos gh;
91 ';" t 2 .it e;:; 2:s oewa ga Z- za M "'2 *.2~ oaw 5 w ; s .? 2
2;- gsa, g p 22 m*a rn.2-w ma .&bpi gr; ww -hoc oU0J B&:g ,,** gzoc twos' ;gasa ;';g 'Om
@fl 3g 5- 'SO-.o_ q,om% guZ-3 oawcw as: Y5-z ass a_
+w $426 c--mo) ij.FIr:g 2g.Z -2- 23: g 21 .5g
3 ." -0, a0 gz ~(d0.n :ti2 ww -._ g-v $60- +gga 2% gCu 0 "o) Gh 3; 2p s'aQ.0) cla wu,a z&-g Swot4 - 30 c
UY El:
m & d U .. 0) 2 2 ai? 4.. gu x wM 2 .;
S -bG c 'FI -2 0- .n .n
::!.a ;;Q.u old" b 08 cI a g2 3;j ea: '5 ago$ shma mmod ow - c) .-an% mum-s &%::.E *gB asfl a_ -5 0
gu .5g ux EE
d m i. w g ads A
*o - p zz goaa wa .!E 01 ; a- cuz w2
.SS$ 22s e wo
UO ET
amo.2 c=*o $3 flag3 U:.I*~ -m- iflea mo msze &L.$*a 2328 Z%do)i. w0.I 4m-H *ua 3
.f
.E U g - +a .g .J
w 0
e :ea $a:
i!'
a gtia
oz4 *=a 8" 22.2 gi L
<Q(d C gi s u c1
rw; s;;;*g $2
IS m g m m
m (d
m
e bs U
.a *
CI
- g2 .C :I w i? - 4 =-a -@I u %;$-
!j a* i!c *zg! x
u ooa c1 si? a
23 0 .R P 3
-
Y
-a c) - +I
a fl U2-
1 w D* ' e
B
I
8
1.
1
II
1
8
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
At Otay Mesa Alternative A, annual aircraft delays would average 8.2 minutes per
operation, when accommodating 498,000 operations.
At Otay Mesa Alternative B, annual aircraft delays would average 5.7 minutes per
operation, when accommodating 498,O 0 0 operations.
AIRCRAFT NOISE IMPACTS
Aircraft noise impacts were estimated in relation to 1986 land use and planned 2010 land use. Listed below are the impacts relative to 1986 land use--it would be anticipated that if one of the sites were designated as a site for a future air carrier airport, actions would be taken to minimize the growth of noise impacts in the vicinity of the site.
In the vicinity of the NAS Miramar site, 857 persons would be exposed to noise
levels in excess of 65 CNEL if Alternative A were selected. About 19 persons
would be exposed to noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL if Alternative B were selected.
In the vicinity of the East NAS Miramar site, no persons would be exposed to noise
levels in excess of 65 CNEL.
In the vicinity of the Otay Mesa site, 2,149 persons would be exposed to noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL if Alternative A were selected. About 52 persons would be exposed to noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL if Alternative B were selected.
NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
At NAS Miramar, numerous vernal pools exist and some endangered species are believed to exist at those locations. It is not known whether an airfield configura-
tion could be devised to avoid all of the pools. A detailed environmental study
At East NAS Miramar, there are no known major environmental problems; however
the U.S. Navy has designated a portion of the site as a Natural Research Area and
is planning an inventory of plant and animal species in the area. Upon completion
of this inventory, better information will be available on the natural environmental
problems that would be associated with development of an airport on the site.
At Otay Mesa, the only known potential problems relate to two vernal pools. A
major portion of the site has been extensively modified by agricultural activity and
property development; therefore, on such property, few natural environmental
impacts are likely to be found.
CAPITAL COSTS
Capital costs were estimated in 1988 dollars.
At NAS Miramar, it would cost about $1.3 billion to develop the airport if Alterna- tive A were selected. It would cost about $1.4 billion to develop the airport if
Alternative B were selected.
At East NAS Miramar, it would cost about $3.1 billion to develop the airport.
1
a
I would be required.
11
e T
At Otay Mesa, it would cost about $2.2 billion to develop the airport if Alternative
A were selected. It would cost about $1.8 billion to develop the airport if Alterna-
ive B were selected.
AIRPORT ACCESS
At NAS Miramar, it would cost about $144 million in 1988 dollars to construct highway facilities. The average travel time to the airport would be about 35 minutes.
At East NAS Miramar, it would cost about $276 million to construct highway facil-
ities. The average travel time to the airport would be about 36 minutes.
At Otay Mesa, it would cost about $368 million to construct highway facilities. The average travel time to the airport would be about 48 minutes.
IMPLEMENTATION FEASIBILITY
At NAS Miramar and at East NAS Miramar, the U.S. Navy aircraft operations would have to be discontinued.
At Otay Mesa, a binational agreement with the Mexican government would have to be consummated dealing with airport and airways development and operations.
12
, w U,' 0
I
b
8
I
B
I
1
I
8
1
I
I
I
0
I
I
e
I: CHAPTER 3
FORECASTS OF
AVIATION DEMAND
f w IC ' 0
1
1
I
c
I
I
1
8
I
I
1
1
3
I
@
1
I
Chapter 3
FORECASTS OF AVIATION DEMAND*
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents forecasts of aviation demand for the San Diego region (1) in
chronological terms through the year 2050 and (2) in terms of "planning activity levels." The forecasts of air passenger demand through 2010 were prepared by the
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), as reported in the SANDAG Working Paper, "Aviation Demand Forecasts, 1987 to 2010, Lindbergh Field, San Diego," dated November 1988.
Forecasts of air passenger demand from 2020 to 2050 were prepared by SANDAG after the working paper was issued, as described herein. The forecasts of aircraft operations demand from 2010 through 2050 were prepared by Peat Marwick on the basis of forecasts of aircraft operations prepared for the San Diego Unified Port
District Airport Development Study (ADS)** as described subsequently.
The forecasts of air passenger demand in this report represent future trends in
'tunconstrained" demand. That is, the forecasts were made without regard to poten-
tial airport capacity constraints, on the assumption that ais carrier airport capacity would be provided at a replacement airport for Lindbergh Field. On the other hand,
the forecasts of aircraft operations prepared for the Port District ADS were based
. on assumptions about the airline aircraft fleet and airline service that respond "tc
the increasing capacity limitations at the airport [Lindbergh Field] in the future."*
The forecasts of aviation demand in this report reflect historical aviation activitj data and expected future trends in demand in the San Diego region. Many factors will influence overall trends in the future growth of aviation demand in San Diego, such as national and local economic conditions, domestic and international airline
service, and air fares. Because of the variability of these factors, it can be expected that there may be year-to-year variations over time from the trenc forecasts presented in this report.
The airport planning process must be responsive to both overall forecast trends anc variations from the trends. In light of the uncertainty inherent in long-range
demand forecasts, a "planning activity level" approach was used in the San Diegc
Air Carrier Airport Site Selection Study. This approach places primary emphasis or
specific future activity levels and secondary emphasis on the exact year at whicl
I
* See Peat Marwick, "Forecasts of Aviation Demand through 2050," November
1988, for more detailed information on the forecasts.
** P&D Technologies, "Technical Report 2, San Diego Unified Port District,
Lindbergh Field Airport Development Study, Demand Forecast," July 1988.
P & D Technologies, "Technical Report 2, San Diego Unified Port District,
Lindbergh Field Airport Development Study, Demand Forecast," July 1988 page 3-31.
*
15
0 v
those levels would be reached, in comparison with a more traditional planning
approach that uses time-dependent forecasts only. The planning activity levels
presented in the final pages of this chapter provide the principal reference for the project.
FORECASTS OF AIR PASSENGERS FROM 1987 TO 2010
Table 2 presents the forecasts prepared by SANDAG of certificated airline and commuter airline air passengers at Lindbergh Field from 1987 through 2010. Annual air passenger demand (enplanements and deplanements) is forecast to nearly
double from about 10.1 million annual passengers (MAP) in 1987 to about 19.8 MAP
in 2010. assengers were accommodated at
Lambert-St. Louis International Airport in 1986.
The forecast of air passengers is based on a time series regression model that
relates the number of annual air passengers to specific years. To provide further background in predicting future air passenger demand, additional regression Table 1 models were developed using historical relationships between air passenger demand and short-term (1987-1990) and long-term (1990-2010) economic and demographic 'trends. The model that best related air passengers to specific years was used to develop long-term air passenger growth rates.
For comparison, about 19.7 million 4
TABLE 2
FORECASTS OF AIR PASSENGERS THROUGH 2010
San Diego Air Carrier Airport
Site Selection Study
1987-201 0
These forecasts have been prepared on the basis of the information and assumptions given in the SANDAG Working Paper. The achievement sf any forecast is depen- dent upon the occurrence of future events which cannot be assured.
Historical Forecast
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 - ---- 1987
Millions of annual
passengers MAP)^ 10.1 11.7 13,7 15.8 17.8 19.8
a. Total passengers (enplanements and deplamements).
Source: San Diego Association of Governments, "Aviation Demand Forecasts,
1987-2010, Lindbergh Field, San Diego," Working Paper, November 1988.
1 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) "Airport Activity Statistics, 1986."
16
r w B,' e
@
8 c.
I
c
I
8
P
I
c
8
3
I
8
1
R
FORECASTS OF AIR PASSENGERS FROM 2020 TO 2050
Air passenger demand forecasts from 2020 to 2050 were prepared by SANDAG using the same methodology that was used for the forecasts through 2010.
Air passenger demand is forecast to increase from about 10.1 MAP in 1987 to about
19.8 MAP in 2010 and 35.4 MAP in 2050. For comparison, about 35.4 million pas-
sengers were accommodated at Los Angeles International Airport in 1986, accord- ing to FAA Airport Activity Statistics.
Table 3 presents (1) the annual growth rates of air passengers through 2050 that were estimated using the regression of air passengers over time, (2) the resulting projections of air passengers, and (3) the average annual growth rates of air pas- sengers for each 10-year period from 2010 through 2050. The annual growth rates for individual years are projected to decline from about 2.6% per year in the year
2000 to about 1.1% per year in 2050. The average annual growth rate for 10-year periods is forecast to decline from about 3.0% for the period ending in 2000 to
about 1.2% for the period ending in 2050.
n
8
17
v
TABLE 3
FORECASTS OF AIR PASSENGERS THROUGH 2050 San Diego Air Carrier Airport
Site Selection Study
1987-2050
These forecasts have been prepared on the basis of the infoi?mation and assumptions given in the SANDAG Working Paper. The achievement of any forecast is depen- dent upon the occurrence of future events which cannot be assured.
Annual Average annual growth
growth rate rate for 10-year
for individual Air Passengersa period ending Year years (millions) in the year shown
%
%
2000 2.6 15.8 3.0
2010 2.1 19.8 2.3
2020 1.7 23.7 1.8
2030 1.4 21.6 1.5
2040 1.3 31.5 1.3
2050 1.1 35.4 1.2
1987 11.2%b 10.1 -
1990 4.1b 11.7 -
a. Enplanements and deplanements.
b. Growth rates for 1987 to 1990 are based on a short-term growth rate model
(see Appendix A of sourced report).
Source: San Diego Association of Governments, "Aviation Demand Forecasts,
1987-2010, Lindbergh Field, San Diego," Working Paper, November 1988, and communication to Peat Marwick, November 1988.
18
i w I\ * 0
B s
I
I z
I
P
1
I
I
@
1.
I
8
I
li
il
I
FORECASTS OF AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
Forecasts of aircraft operations through 2050 were developed by Peat Marwick on
the basis of (1) projections of air passengers by SANDAG, (2) forecast relationships between the number of air passengers and the number of aircraft operations at Lindbergh Field through 2010 prepared for the Port District ADS, and (3) assump- tions about the future trends in airline service and about the composition of the
airline aircraft fleet for the period between 2020 and 2050, considering uncon-
strained airport capacity.
2 Table 4 presents the forecasts of annual air passengers, average load factors, average seats per aircraft, average passengers per aircraft operation, and the resulting forecasts of aircraft operations.
2 Average load factor is the ratio of the average number of passengers per ail carrier and commuter aircraft operation to the average number of seats per ail carrier and commuter aircraft operation.
19
a, > Q, z 0
Q,
.a
a e
a X
Q,
c,
+
5 ._ C
C Q, 2 0 m ._ 0 E3 rnQl &.d z Ck 2 2 0 3 aa Ea 0 gc,
PC o
c,v)
ZL ag :2 k g n.%h c~ h e43 a0
* wggg zz z.2mo g$ ,.: w na.,, g z%& s4c, 2 p2g 55 c4t9il-c .Q s 82 $ZZ 5g
:a
e&+
e,
+I*
*g : 02
PV 5;
u 2s 4
w +E
hC
a& s 8; cL E' n ooo_o 0, ,.a 8 E: oomm 00 Q,u 2 !p 2; n c .a cc1 J
.a oz LI c,c + G2 -2 v1 s ,u c
5s c,
mm-c PI m m
===7 =
===? =
===! =
tls aY m v! 00 :::A emrl : N
===7 =
::XI :
# s9 PI Q! W W rl Q, El v) 00
I/ rl PI
%j PI PI
z$l Nm rl PI
:I Q, co
f/ m co
q rl d v) to PIaYdcdc mmN 0 ; 82ZB"cs.
ea mm
0,0,0,O 0 >Q i Ej
m m 0ov)m mmrl 00 W 3% 5 $;
$g 5 3;
E: p 0,0,90 0 g2 -2 It;
# O,o,o,o 0 .gg 5 &
.: g % z: ;*g LO -25 4% 62s;
00_90 0, g3 &hoc mmrl Q, .C1 g; ul i
tho ;=c A-2 av)*-, ; cl *.z gEf ooN,PI % 0 =%2 gz$ & gg g c y5&p+'c cQ,: bQ,2 ma rC mk E mEo1
c, i rlcQ,.2Q,ge 5'3 0 N c9 zy ??To 5 c ;pggnq
8 95 00 9 m 0 N mm rl Q,
04 042
omrl e .E 2 = m m OQ, c EA q 3 .I
E?< % Q,f %%
IC
oomm 00
# c99 00 s dc 2 00 N Nv)
0000 0 c,^ Q,
a- 0
MW
N m
00 c,rlcu';
00Nbm 0
N N n: a3gi E= .a
8 59 -c c'! m m N rlm rl PI
0000 0 8 59 m s
uamw m
rl N
N Q, N rlm -c W
00 *- #
W A dm
rl N Q, QJB?F;
ko
a$
aa 46- c, s4
cg a*
a v) VI ss b
gS 'c ."
9 *- sz 3 2 v)L Q,&s4.s
+In 2: g.2p 0% 2 % g5 82 2z % %E &E +I c, g g3 ka ,h
$5 2% $ ;$ $$ "*f:oon c *- 62 Za 2 2-2 45 c
ale & Q,
c: 0 kc c 0 oal sw
+v) c, 22 2 :: Q,d E d
ma
2 0 E a+
.= 9 2k .f:cuC3E
+I&
Q,h
= +I*= *+I; E" Ogs9fiE:
Q, 243zz3: C os0 ovo
4 a s+oeaaa a .,9c=&- 2 ZOarlcFrE
5 2s VV
sg
Q)Q,- or
nn Nm
v) 0) rn st;
"00,
dc8
4 - 1, f 0
@
I
I
B
I
It
1 s
#
1
li
I
I
I.
I
8
t
PLANNING ACTIVITY LEVELS
As described at the outset of this chapter, the planning activity level (operation) approach places primary emphasis on specific activity levels and secondary emphasis on the projected dates of attaining those activity levels.
Four planning activity levels were defined for this study to bracket the projections
of activity through 2050 and beyond, as shown in Table 5. The planning activity
levels encompass the demand forecast for the long-term future.
Preliminary estimates of airfield capacity and aircraft delays were made using the
FAA Runway Capacity and Annual Delay Models. The estimates of aircraft delays were used to estimate preliminary airfield requirements.
The first planning activity level corresponds to 1987, when there were about 10
million annual passengers and 198,000 total aircraft operations at Lindbergh Field.
The second planning activity level corresponds to 20 million annual passengers anc'
290,000 annual aircraft operations. On the basis of the trend forecasts presented ir the previous section, the level of 20 million annual passengers would be reached ir about 2010. For preliminary planning purposes, it is estimated that two paralle runways having at least 700-foot lateral spacing should be provided to accommo.
date aircraft operations corresponding to the 20 million annual passenger planning
activity level.
The third planning activity level corresponds to 30 million annual passengers an(
358,000 annual aircraft operations. (For comparison, approximately 29 millior
annual passengers were accommodated at Newark International Airport in 1986 according to FAA Airport Activity Statistics). On the basis of the trend forecast$
the level of 30 million annual passengers would be reached in the period betwee
2030 and 2040. For preliminary planning purposes, it is estimated that two paralle runways having at least 4,300-foot* lateral spacing should be provided to accom
modate the aircraft operations at the third planning activity level.
The fourth planning activity level, with 40 million annual passengers and 398,OO annual aircraft operations, would be expected to occur sometime after 205C Approximately 38 million passengers were accommodated at DalladFort Wort International Airport in 1986, according to FAA Airport Activity Statistics. Fo
preliminary playing purposes, it is estimated that three parallel runways, having a least 4,300-foot lateral spacing between two of the runways, should be provided t accommodate the aircraft operations at the fourth planning activity level.
The forecasts of aircraft operations for the planning activity levels are shown i Table 5.
@
3 With 4,300-foot lateral spacing between parallel runways, simultaneous ind pendent parallel instrument approaches could be conducted to both runways. Wi
7OO-foot lateral spacing, only one instrument approach can be achieved.
21
a& cu- Oh
22 5% zz ."os a2
a2 k5;
sg !iP
Q,5
5G .5 2;
C% Q,L -- >a2 .c "6 2. .E! 2 E3 SZ €E wo 2a a,
23% $2 m 442 pc, .-
*,gg 52 C c, * :&c ccd a 0
4 eug *.% C O.5 Q, 2 ;q gg EL cs I.& -2 -5 -- c
zn f-:
28
Q,
.CI
1
+a
4 Q, >
h
> +
.CI
w 3d.s .20 +c Kl
cu
aQ,
CrQ, Ok 3 VJcl .- 1
0
CC
z- nk
5g
czi Ok
Q,
ms a0 gg
Q, E
rn
*E E" r&zYI, gf- 6 $2 a,
0000 o,o,o,o 0 0, .g:~s~~~g~3-~
=% -5 =:Oa
**- 30 Q, so ~~VJF),VJCddVJO
0000 0 (d $+Fag $Z$? %
5; zzz k;
m
-I 0
0 oo*- * Q,cu3B,(dP,1 3 ..a mmd Q, n0~~~n~4~-~ m crc $1 -
E
a- ++ 30 c- (d O&+b
2 OA
g%d.s **s- acA z2.-
0 oooo 0 ~33c~an3: 21 oolnm 43 %o*aaa 4ml-I lf3 .233gs4g3+-z
E% Z2Z4 Lcu VJ
0000 0
m o,o,o,o 0, - firn%VJ$ g3 g)
m i* rncl cacl osgg
q EJ comc-m j 0 &ozz
E-c
+
6, ip -= 0.5 a.2 0 e,
0, o,o,o 0, h rn 0 WJ
b 222
0000 0 33Zg
EJ w $22
.:a 0 0000 0
z:tsy mmd Q,
2 : 2
+ 4 b, o,-, 0, ", c L
Rh mc-wc- m
06 0 mwcr)Q, 43 ggj
P-l-Iuazr a& 22 oa
d - 2%
00
EJem v-i
e,
.GI
h
R
03 n
a+
cc 90 oa P1 c 0
0, a2 -rn
-0
2 0 .- + +
0 C 0 .2 L
az
%Q =%
am: cum g.2pJ L *s
E
-n a
.M
cl .5 + P rnQ
+a. c4 5 (d $82 G5 h LL.5
%La E ii.; 4: 0
avo .2Q, %? IVESS 1& .C.l .- z 2; 1% Sq6g-g Q,=a b 0-
;F5
ad S&&l L .- 0 02 -;ksac
Hk c
'fig 4 Loa c 0s ecrr
Q, * i$
s!
CI 2 0 .CI 3 L
+ a Q, L
6 5 tx
4 w I, c e
I
8
I
I
R
I
t
I
fi
I
I
1
I
I
I
li
B
CHAPTER 4
SCREENING AND
EVALU AT10 N I CRITERIA
4 w D, t 0 c
Y
8
I
I
I
c
1
U
I
1c
1
I
4
I
1
D
Chapter 4
SCREENING AND EVALUATION CRITERIA
This chapter presents the goal, related objectives, sequence of analyses, and
screening and evaluation criteria to be used in comparing candidate sites for the
development of an air carrier airport to replace Lindbergh Field.
GOAL
The goal of the Air Carrier Airport Site Selection Study is to identify a preferred site for the development of an air carrier airport to replace Lindbergh Field over the long term. The preferred site will provide the air carrier airport capacity necessary to serve future demand for domestic, international, and commuter avia-
tion through approximately the year 2050. Serving the future aviation demand will, in turn, enable the San Diego region to realize the economic benefits associated
with growth in commercial aviation.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives for the selection of a preferred site are to maximize:
Policy-maker and public support
Likelihood of successful implementation
The ability to accommodate aviation demand
Airport compatibility with community development plans
Safety for the passenger and the residents
And to minimize:
Adverse environmental impacts Capital costs
Aircraft delay costs and airspace conflicts
I Airport access travel times and costs
SEQUENCE OF ANALYSES
Forecasts of aviation demand for the year 2010 and beyond were developed in term: of a number of "planning activity levels," as described in Chapter 2. The ability oj each site to accommodate the activity associated with each of the planning activit! levels provided the principal reference for subsequent analyses.
The candidate sites were evaluated in two stages--a preliminary screening stagt
(accomplished in Phases 3 and 4) and a detailed evaluation stage (accomplished i
Phase 5). The preliminary screening criteria were used to (1) examine candidat
sites on the basis of the most critical factors affecting new airport developmen and (2) identify a smaller number of candidate sites for detailed evaluation. Th
detailed evaluation criteria resulted in the selection of a preferred site for an ai carrier airport to replace Lindbergh Field.
During the preliminary screening stage, sites were evaluated on the basis of "accep tance" and "comparative" criteria. Acceptance screening criteria represented th
25
0 -
minimum requirements that each candidate site must satisfy to qualify for further evaluation. Comparative screening criteria were then applied to all candidate sites
that met the acceptance criteria.
During the detailed evaluation stage, the criteria used to evaluate surviving sites
were more comprehensive than those used in the earlier stage. Generalized airport layout sketches and facility requirements were prepared to facilitate the evalua- tions in this stage.
SCREENING CRITERIA
Acceptance Criteria
To be considered for detailed evaluation, it was a requirement that sites meet minimum acceptance criteria or they would not receive further consideration. The
acceptance criteria used in the evaluation are as follows:
Ability to Accommodate a Minimum Airfield Configuration--Sites must
be able to accommodate two parallel air carrier runways having suffi-
cient lateral spacing to serve independent visual arrivals and departures.
Airspace Obstructions-Sites must have bidirectional (east-west) instru- ment approach and departure capability for at least one runway, consi- dering Federal Aviation Administration obstacle clearance criteria.
Environmental Considerations--Sites must not have major existing or potential natural environmental problems for which there would be no reasonable opportunities for mitigation.
must meet minimum criteria specified by the Secretary of the Navy with
regard to adverse impacts on the mission of the naval air station under
consideration and of its assigned military units.
Military Compatibility--Joint-use or shared-use sites on Navy property
Comparative Criteria
The following were the criteria used for comparing sites during the screening stage:
Ability to Accommodate Aviation Demand--Sites were compared in
terms of the capacity of the proposed runways to accommodate the
planning activity levels of passenger, aircraft, and cargo demand under
acceptable levels of aircraft delays.
Airport Access--Sites were compared in terms of airport access travel
times from selected major activity centers and concentrations of popula-
tion and employment. The general physical feasibility of improving
access roads was evaluated.
Site Preparation Costs-Sites were compared in terms of qualitative indicators of extraordinary site preparation costs.
26
9 w 1, ’ e
B
#
I
E
I n
I a
I
B
I
1
I
I
1
#
Aircraft Noise Exposure--Sites were compared in terms of potential
aircraft noise exposure relative to current and planned land use patterns,
and all incompatible land uses were identified. The new airport should be able to operate 24 hours a day without use restrictions.
Compatibility With Development Plans--Sites were compared in terms of compatibili ty with local com munity development plans, transportation
plans, and utility development plans. I
EVALUATION CRITERIA
The criteria listed below were used during Phase 5 of the study to evaluate the
screened sites in greater detail. Many of these criteria were similar to the screen- ing criteria but required more detailed quantitative and qualitative analyses. Airport sketch plans and facility requirements were prepared to permit the addi- tional analyses.
Ability to Accommodate Aviation Demand
Sites were compared in terms of the capacity of the proposed runways to accom- modate the planning activity levels of passenger, aircraft, and cargo demand under acceptable levels of aircraft delays.
Airspace Interactions
Screened sites were evaluated in terms of potential airspace interactions between aircraft operations at a new airport and those operations at other airports in the San Diego region. The evaluation was based primarily on current air traffic control (ATC) procedures and systems, but the effect of potential improvements to tht ATC procedures and systems was also considered.
Aircraft Delays
Aircraft delays for each of the designated planning activity levels were evaluate( 3 for all screened sites.
Natural Environmental Proble rns
Natural environmental impacts, including the following, were evaluated for al
screened sites:
Historical and archaeological considerations
Endangered and threatened species
Water quality
Air quality
DOT Section 4(f) lands Coastal zone management Wetlands and floodplains
27
W
Aircraft Noise Impacts
Screened sites were evaluated in terms of aircraft noise impacts, using the FAA
Integrated Noise Model to develop California Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) 60, 65,
and 75 contours. Potential noise abatement procedures were also considered.
Capital Costs
Capital costs of land acquisition and potential airport development (in 1988 dollars) were estimated.
Airport Access
Screened sites were evaluated in terms of (1) the airport access travel times and
distances from major activity centers and concentrations of population and employ-
ment and (2) the costs of required road improvements. The geographic distribution of population and employment, and the availability of access facilities, were eval- uated on the basis of 2010 forecasts and plans.
Implementation Feasibility
Screened sites were evaluated in terms of (1) the ability to develop an airport on the site in a timely manner--taking into account institutional, legal, financial, and environmental considerations; and (2) the flexibility to react to future changes in the aviation and economic environment. Problems and opportunities related to U.S. Navy sites and sites involving joint arrangements with the Government of Mexico
were also considered.
28
1 w 1. % a
#
Ir
I
I
1
I
t
1
ll
I
I
CHAPTER 5 ). PRELIMINARY
SCREENING 01 I. CANDIDATE SITE!
I
1
I
II
t
1 w 4 *I 0
8
P
T
E
t r
c
I a
I
B
B
I
II
B
I
I
1
Chapter 5
PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF CANDIDATE SITES
SITE ALTERNATIVES
A total of thirteen alternatives for airp rt development, at ten different sites, were identified for the screening analysis? This section describes the site alterna-
tives that were identified; Figure 1 shows those site locations.
NAS Miramar
Three alternative uses of NAS Miramar were considered in Phase 3:
-
NAS Miramar Shared-use--Civilian and military use of both airspace and
runways
NAS Miramar Joint-use--Civilian and military use of airspace but sepa
rate use of runway and taxiway systems
NAS Miramar Civilian-use Only--Civilian use of the entire facility
Otay Mesa
Two alternative uses of Otay Mesa were evaluated:
Brown Field only
Bi-national (Brown Field and Tijuana Airports)
NAS North Island
The mayor of San Diego, in a letter to SANDAG (January 16, 1987) formall requested that NAS North Island be considered as a possible site to replac Lindbergh Field.
Offshore Sites
Potential off hore si es were evaluated in a 1972 Comprehensive Planning Organ- zation (CPO) study> Of the seven sites evaluated in the CPO study, three sit1 were selected for re-evaluation as part of this study:
J
* See Peat Marwick "Preliminary Screening of Candidate Sites," February 1989, fc
more detailed information on the screening evaluation.
5 CPO was the predecessor of SANDAG. ' Comprehensive Planning Organization, Wan Diego Offshore Airport," San Dieg California, March 1972.
31
0 -
FIGURE 1
CANDIDATE SITES
1 NASMIRAMAR
2 NAS NORTH ISLAND
3 OFFSHORE
3A Silver Strand
38 South Bay West
3C South Bay East 4 OTAY MESA
5 Other Sites West of Mtns.
5A. Northeast of Bonsall
58 West of Rincon
5C West of Ramona 5D East Miramar
Springs
This map was produced by the
ASSOCLUIOS OF GO\'EKShLESTS
32
I c I,% 0
1
3
1
I
I
a
I
1.
E
8 c
1
I
3
f
t
#
1
Silver Strand--Located on and west of the U.S. Naval Amphibious Base.
South Bay West--Located west of Silver Strand State Beach and the U.S. Naval Communications Station.
South Bay East--Located in the southern portion of the San Diego Bay, west of the City of Chula Vista.
Silver Strand and South Bay West were the two highest ranked sites from the 1972
CPO study. South Bay East was ranked lower than other sites and had been re-
jected because of airspace considera ons; however, the airspace criteria and assumptions were different in this study and the site warranted reevaluation.
Additional Sites West of the Mountains*
Additional sites west of the mountains were identified by Peat Marwick on the basis of the topography of the sites. Sites were considered viable for consideration if (1) the land uses were not residential, extensively developed commercial or industrial, or park lands; yd (2) the topography of the site was relatively level. Four site: +were identified:
fi
Northeast of Bonsall
West of Rincon Springs
West of Ramona"
East NAS Miramar
'l The earlier study indicated that there would be airspace interactions wi'
Lindbergh Field; in this study, Lindbergh Field is assumed to be closed.
8 For the purpose of this study, "west of the mountains" was generally defined i areas west of the Agua Tibia, the Aguanga, the Volcan, and the Laguna Mountains.
9 Two additional sites were also identified on the basis of topographical conside
ations but were eliminated by SANDAG staff because of land-use consideration Those sites were ''West of Lower Otay Reservoir" and "West of Penasquitos."
lo The "West of Ramona" site is located west of the existing Ramona Airport.
33
0 w
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The candidate sites were evaluated in terms of the acceptance criteria presented in
Chapter 3. As a result of these evaluations, the following are the Consultant
Team's findings and recommendations based on the preliminary acceptance criteria
screening:
Site Findings Recommended action
Northeast of Airspace obstruct ions Do not consider further Bonsall
West of Airspace conflicts with Do not consider further Ramona NAS Miramar
West of Airspace conflicts with Do not consider further Rincon Springs NAS Miramar
Otay Mesa-- Airspace obstructions Do not consider further
Brown Field only
Offshore site-- Major environmental concerns Do not consider further
Silver Strand and military incompatibility
Offshore site-- Major environmental concerns Reserved for subsequent
South Bay West consideration only if
recommended alternatives
prove infeasible
Offshore site-- Major environmental concerns Dol not consider further South Bay East
NAS North Island Major environmental concerns Dol not consider further and military incompatibility
NAS Miramar-- Military incompatibility Do not consider further
Shared-Use and airspace concerns
NAS Miram=-- Military incompatibility Do not consider further
Joint-Use and airspace concerns
NAS Miramar-- Meets acceptance criteria Continue evaluations
Civilian-Use
OdY
East NAS Miramar Meets acceptance criteria Continue evaluations
Otay Mesa-- Meets acceptance criteria Continue evaluations
Bi-national
An evaluation matrix of the acceptance criteria screening analysis is presented in Table 6.
34
w B ,' 0
P
1
I I North of Bonsall Yes No n.e. n.a. N
I West of Rincon Springs Yes No n.e. n.a. K
@ Brown Field only Yes No n.e. n.a. b
b Offshore site--South Bay East Yes Yes No n.e. P
E 1 civilian-use only Yes Yes No No b
(I (common runways) No No n.e. No 1
TABLE 6
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY EVALUATION MATRIX
San Diego Air Carrier Airport Site Selection Study
Meets acceptance criteria Reco
Sites Airfield Airspace Environmental Military for P
West of Ramona Yes No n.e. n.a. N
Otay Mesa--
Offshore site -- Silver Strand Yes Yes No No b
Offshore site--South Bay West Yes Yes No n.e. n
NAS North Island--shared- use, joint-use, or
NAS Miramar--shared use
NAS Mirarnar-joint-use (separate runways) No No n.e, No 1 E NAS Miramar--civilian-use only Yes Yes Maybe' Maybeb B East NAS Miramar Yes Yes Maybe' Maybeb
Otay Mesa-Bi-national yesb Yes' Yes Yes
n.8. = not applicable n.e. = not evaluated
a. =
I
I
E
1
R
Site reserved for further consideration if the recommended sites prove infeasible
5. A site east of the mountains is also reserved for possible future consideration.
Major institutional problem; institutional evaluation necessary.
Biological field assessment required.
I b. =
c. =
Sources: Peat Marwick and SANDAG, September 1989.
35
0 w
Table 7 presents a summary evaluation matrix of the findings of the comparative screening analyses. In Table 6, the number 1 under each criterion indicates that the alternative is the most favorable of the three alternatives, and the number 3 indi-
cates that the alternative is the least favorable. These preliminary rankings were for information purposes only and did not indicate that one site is preferred over
another at this point in the study.
Experience in previous site selection studies has shown that there is no predeter- mined formula for weighting different criteria or ranking the preferred site for a new airport. Rather, the relative rankings provide guidance for technical and policy
analyses presented in subsequent chapters.
TABLE 7
COMPARATIVE CRITERIA SUMMARY EVALUATION MATRIX
San Diego Air Carrier Airport Site Selection Study
Ability to Site prepara- Potential Compatibi
accommodate Airport tion cost aircraft with devel demand access considerations noise ment pla
NAS Miramar--
Civilian-use only 3 1 2 3 3
East NAS Miramar 1 2 3 1 2
Otay Mesa--
Bi-national 2 3 1 2 1
Note: The number 1 indicates the most favorable ranking relative to the other sites for ( criterion. These preliminary rankings are for information purposes only, and do indicate that one site is preferred over another overall.
Source: Peat Marwick, September 1989.
36
c R ,I 0
8
It
it
b
1
t
1 r
1
il. L
I
t
I
t c
I
1
CHAPTER €
PRELIMINARY
AIRPORT
CONFIGURATION!
B. 6 0 w
1
II
I
.I
I
I
T
1
E.
I
t
I
I
t
e
1
1
Chapter 6
PRELIMINARY AIRPORT CONFIGURATIONS
Two alternative airport configurations were developed to display different
approaches to planning an airport at both NAS Miramar and Otay Mesa; only one
alternative was developed for East NAS Miramar.
Sketches of preliminary airport configurations were intended to illustrate the following features of the sites:
Runways
Terminalarea
Cargo and maintenance areas
* Principal on-airport access roads
0 Airport boundaries
1
The airport configurations shown in the sketches were assumed to be feasible for development and construction, although they may differ in performance. The sketches should be considered only as preliminary examples of the ways in which a
new airport might be configured. (In subsequent master planning of an airport at a
selected site, other configurations might be found to be more desirable than those
shown in this report.)
Runways were configured to support, to the maximum extent possible, the planning activity level of 40 million annual passengers (398,000 annual aircraft operations), It was estimated that at least three parallel runways would be required--two ol which would be used for simultaneous aircraft arrivals in instrument flight rule: (IFR) weather conditions.
Runway length requirements were calculated (1) for the controlling aircraft (thc current B-757 aircraft requires the longest runway) and (2) for the longesl great-circle nonstop domestic route ancitipated (Boston). Runway lengths of 9,OOC feet were selected. In addition, one runway 12,000 feet long was included on al: sites to permit B-747 departures to Hong Kong.
Runway orientations shown on the sketches were developed using available winc data and noise abatement considerations. In subsequent studies, additional winc
data for the East NAS Miramar or the Otay Mesa sites (if selected) should bc collected and analyzed to confirm the feasibility of the orientations proposed (Adequate wind data for these sites were not available to make final decisions 01 runway configurations.)
The areas designated for the terminal and the cargo and maintenance facilitie
conform to the estimated space required to accommodate the 40 million annua passenger planning activity level.
.
39
w w
NAS MIRAMAR ALTERNATIVE A
The NAS Miramar Alternative A airfield (Figure 2) was developed essentially on the
site of the existing military airfield. The proposed three parallel runways were
oriented in an east-west direction to (1) avoid, as much as possible, the vernal pools
on the field; and (2) permit aircraft departures to the west from a northern runway to follow a flight track that would avoid overflying residential areas. Access to the site would be from Highway 1-15.
NAS MIRAMAR ALTERNATIVE B
The NAS Miramar Alternative B airfield (Figure 3) was designed to minimize air- craft noise over residential areas to the west by moving the airfield as far east as possible. As shown, the three parallel runways were oriented in an east-west direc- tion; this direction was also chosen for noise abatement reasons. The eastern limit of the airfield was dictated by airspace obstruction considerations (terrain) to the east of the site. To construct the airport on this site, Highway 1-15 would have to be relocated to the east, then access to the site would be from Highway 1-15.
EAST NAS MIRAMAR
The East NAS Miramar airfield (Figure 4) was located just west of West Sycamore
Canyon, which places the proposed airport as far from populated areas as possible--considering terrain restrictions to the east. The three parallel runways are shown in a northeast-southwest orientation to permit two aircraft arrival streams from the east. Access to the site would be from planned State Route (SR)
125, which would be to the east of the site. An access route could also be con- nected to 1-15.
40
cc 00 E.' - .-
E
1
1
.I
g , r
4
I .,
i
I
t
t
t
,#
8.
D
1
______-- -----
,'
1 41
c, .= a)-
42
cc 00
QV) - .- t ,*
B
fi'
I c 2
1
E r
I
t 1,
.t!
I
t
T
1
1 w 43
0 w
OTAY MESA ALTERNATIVE A
The Otay Mesa Alternative A airfield (Figure 5) includes Brown Field and land south
of Brown Field and north of the Mexican border. General aviation operations that currently take place at Brown Field were assumed to be relocated to another air-
port--only a nominal volume of general aviation operations were assumed to take place at the new airport.
Three parallel runways are shown in a northwest-southeast orientation. One of those runways could be used for aircraft arrivals from the southeast in IFR weather
conditions.
A fourth runway was oriented in a north-south direction. I[t was assumed that this
runway could permit a second (converging) aircraft arrival1 stream from the south
during weather conditions in which the ceiling and visibility would be below visual approach conditions but would still permit use of visual separation by tower con- trollers. The locations of the runways would permit the existing terminal building at Tijuana International Airport to remain in operation.
A fifth runway on the approximate alignment of the Brown Field runway was included, as was the existing runway at Tijuana International Airport. These two runways would be used when winds would be too strong to1 permit using the other runways. U.S. access to the site would be from SR 117. A road through the airport could be planned to accommodate vehicular traffic to and from the Otay border crossing between the United States and Mexico.
OTAY MESA ALTERNATIVE B
The Otay Mesa Alternative B airfield (Figure 6) includes Brown Field and land south
of Brown Field and north of the Mexican border.
Three parallel runways were oriented in a nopth-south direetion. Using this runway configuration, two aircraft arrival streams would be possible from both the north and the south during IFR weather conditions.
A fourth runway was located approximately on the alignment of the existing Brown Field runway to permit operation of the airport when winds would not permit use of the north-south runways. The existing runway at Tijuana International Airport was included for use with strong east or west winds. The locations of the runways would permit the existing terminal building at Tijuana International Airport to remain in operation.
U.S. access to the site would be from SR 117, A road through the airport could be planned to accommodate vehicular traffic to and from the Otay border crossing.
44
45
46
w il ,* 0 a
1
I
1
!!
t
JI
'li
e
3
i
CHAPTER 7 57 AIRSPACE AND
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL I ANALYSIS
1
8
t
1
@
U E )* 0
b
t
II
t
8
0
0 s
t
I
E
#
I
I
?
Y
Chapter 7
AIRSPACE AND AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL ANALYSIS
The three candidate air carrier airport sites were analyzed from the standpoint oi airspace and air traffic control (ATC). Airspace and ATC implications for the thref
sites were developed on the basis of discussions with the Manager of the FAA Sar
Diego Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) facility and on various tech-
nical analyses by Peat Marwick. The San Diego TRACON, located at NAS Miramar
is responsible for the control of air traffic within the $an Diego terminal arei I airspace.
SCOPE OF ANALYSIS
The scope of the airspace and ATC analysis was limited to an examination of thi potential close-in airspace and ATC interactions among existing San Diego are1 airports. An in-depth examination of regional and en route airspace implication (e.g., Los Angeles and Arizona), including effects on airport or airspace capacit:
It is recognized that major changes in both the en route and terminal area airspacc structure would be required to accommodate a new air carrier airport at any of thc candidate sites. Further analysis would be required by the FAA to identify thc required changes and to determine their feasibility.
It should also be recognized that airspace and ATC analyses are somewhat subjec
tive and uncertain with regard to (1) the interpretation of published guidelines ani rules; (2) their acceptance to pilots, air traffic controllers, and airspace and proce dures development specialists; and (3) their effect on the safe and efficient opera tion of the ATC system. In addition, the development, deployment, and effective ness of future advances in ATC technology and procedures are also uncertain Therefore, the results of this analysis should be viewed in the context of thes uncertainties.
METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS
Potential airspace interactions of candidate sites with existing airports wer analyzed on the basis of:
0 and aircraft delay, was beyond the scope of this analysis.
.I
Published instrument procedures
Guidelines contained in FAA Handbook 7400.2, "Procedures for Handlin Airspace Matters"
Criteria contained in FAA Handbooks 7110.65, "Air Traffic Control," an
8260.3B, "United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedure
(TE RPS)"
Discussions with the Manager of the FAA San Diego TRACON
49
m w
Certain consideratio Phase 3 and 4 report.
Airspace Conflicts
For purposes of this analysis, airspace interactions were rated as minor, moderate, or major. These terms are defined as follows:
pertaining to the analysis are described in Appendix A of the Tl
Minor: andlor aircraft delays.
Moderate: Interactions that would affect aircraft delays but would result in
less than one-for-one airspace capacity trade-offs.
Major: Interactions that could result in one-for-one (or greater) capacity
trade-offs and could result in relatively high levels of aircraft delay.
Interactions that would have negligible effects on airspace capacity
Interactions rated as minor or moderate did not, in and of themselves, result in the conclusion that a particuIar site is unacceptable. However, sites were considered
13 unacceptable if major airspace interactions would occur frequently and could not be
eliminated or substantially mitigated by changing the existing procedures or remov-
ing the constraints. For example, the East NAS Miramar site would have major and
frequent airspace interactions with NAS Miramar. Therefore, this site would not be
acceptable from an airspace/ATC standpoint, unless NAS Miramar were closed or
greatly curtailed.
Generalized arrival and departure flow diagrams were prepared for the candidate sites in accordance with the above criteria. These diagrams are conceptual illus- trations of the aircraft routes that might be used; they should not be construed as depicting the actual flight tracks. They represent situations that would occur on a relatively frequent basis. Other less frequently occurring situations were analyzed but are not included here. For these situations, no airspace problems were identi- fied that would occur frequently.
Where existing flight routes and traffic patterns would overlap or would have less than the recommended or required lateral spacing from new routes, judgments were made on the basis of discussions with the San Diego TRACON Manager as to whether it would be feasible to resolve such interactions by using vertical separa- tion, changing existing procedures, or removing the constraint by closing a nearby airport or canceling a procedure.
Visual and Instrument Operations
Two main cases were analyzed for each of the candidate sites: visual operations
and instrument operations. For visual operations, it was assumed that "visual approaches" could be conducted. A visual approach is a procedure whereby an
aircraft on an IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) flight plan (upon ATC authorization)
proceeds to the airport using visual means--in lieu of coinducting an instrument
approach procedure.
'I Peat Marwick, "Commercial Airport Site Selection Study for the San Diego Region--Preliminary Screening of Candidate Sites," February 1989.
50
r *' e a
I
1.
8
li
b
E
9
I
I r c
I
Q
t
?
1
I
I
The pilot of an aircraft conducting a visual approach must have the precedinl
arriving aircraft or the airport in sight. The procedures and weather condition required to conduct visual approaches vary from airport to airport.
Visual approaches can normally be conducted at an airport when the cloud ceiling i
at least 500 feet above the minimum radar vectoring altitude (which is, in turn
1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within 3 nautical miles of the flight path), ani the visibility is at least 3 to 5 nautical miles (5 miles is normally desired although C miles is the stated minimum).
Because pilots conducting visual approaches can maintain their own separation fron
other arriving aircraft (on the same or parallel runways) more simultaneous arriva
operations and smaller spacings between arrival aircraft can be achieved. Thus, tht
capacity of an airport is greater when visual approaches can be conducted particu.
larly when simultaneous visual approaches can be conducted to parallel runways tc
which simultaneous instrument approaches are not feasible.
When weather conditions do not permit simultaneous visual approaches to paralle
runways, it may be possible to conduct simultaneous precision instrument approad
and "offset" approach procedures, Le., approaches that would be guided by a local her direction aid (LDA) until the airport is in sight. Such procedures can be con- ducted when there are slightly lower cloud ceiling and/or visibility conditions than would be required for visual approaches.
Airport operational capacity would be higher when these procedures could be con- ducted, but weather minimums would also be higher. For example, at Lambert-St, Louis International Airport, simultaneous instrument landing system (ILS) and LDA
approaches may be conducted to parallel runways separated by 1,300 feet when the
cloud ceiling is as low as 600 feet and the visibility is as low as four miles. SimilaI procedures may or may not be feasible at one or more of the candidate sites.
The principal capacity benefits of the offset approach would occur at sites where
simultaneous instrument approach procedures to parallel runways would not be
feasible. Diagramatic illustrations for simultaneous straight-in and offset proce-
dures are introduced below for some candidate sites where such procedures could be
most beneficial. It has been assumed that such procedures could be conducted with
conditions as low as 800-foot ceilings and two-mile visibility. However, an FAA
study would be required at each specific site to determine feasibility and weather
minimums for such procedures.
51
a w
PROPOSED OPERATIONS AT NAS MIRAMAR SITE
Generalized flow diagrams for operations at a new NAS Miramar airport having three parallel east-west runways (Alternatives A and B) are presented on Figures 7 through 10. As shown on the figures, two independent instrument departure streams using the required 15 degree course divergence appear feasible in either west or east flow.
During west flow, instrument departures that turn left from the southernmost
runway would not be independent of instrument departures from the Montgomery
Field. However, it appears that procedures could be developed to minimize the impact of this interaction. Other operations are discussed below:
West Flow, Visual Approaches--As shown on Figure 87 three arrival streams appear feasible when weather conditions would permit simul- taneous visual approaches. Arriving pilots could conduct visual approaches to the north runway and straight-in instrument approaches or charted visual approach procedures to the center runway. The south runway could be used by commuter or smaller aircraft arrivals. Arrivals on the south runway inbound from the north would need to cross over the center of the airfield to enter a downwind leg--thereby providing separ-
ation from other arrival flight tracks.
0 West Flow, Simultaneous "Offset" Approaches---Simultaneous precision
instrument approaches would not be feasible during west flow. However,
as shown on Figure 9, it may be feasible to conduct simultaneous
straight-in instrument approaches and offset approaches from the east
when weather conditions are too low to permit simultaneous visual approaches, but are still high enough to permit 'the simultaneous proce- dures. An FAA study would be required to determine the feasibility and weather minimums for such procedures.
West Flow, Instrument Approaches--As shown on Figure 10, when weather conditions would not permit simultaneous visual or "offset" approaches, only a single instrument arrival stream would be feasible to
the west. As noted in the preliminary screening, conducted under Phases 3 and 4 of this study, two simultaneous instrument arrival streams would not be feasible because high terrain would preclude radar vectoring south of the final approach course to protect the %o transgression zone" between the two final approach courses. It might be possible to conduct "staggered" approaches to the airport under these conditions; Le., air- craft would approach the airport on parallel approach paths to two
parallel runways and would be separated from one another by 2 nautical miles. Staggered approaches could result in some increase in capacity,
compared with a single approach path.
East Flow, Visual Approaches--As shown on Figure 11, when weather
conditions would permit simultaneous visual approaches, three arrival
streams appear feasible to the east. Similar to the west flow case de-
scribed above, the northern and center runways would be used for straight-in operations; commuter or smaller aircraft arrivals from the
north would cross over the airport midfield to enter a south downwind leg to land on the southern runway.
52
v) Y
- ~ .. >'
53
v
54
w,*
A
Y
I
I
I
4,
8
i r
5
I
I P
8
3
f
E 55
D ?
. . -\ 2. . TT-
~ 3. .i
,, .- .
56
w 1; 0
3
I; Q L
@
I
f
1 e
.sE'
i!
T
1
Lt
E
I
East Flow, Instrument Approaches--Two simultaneous precision instru ment approaches appear feasible to the east. Y PROPOSED OPERATIONS AT EAST NAS MIRAMAR SITE
For this site to be viable from an airspace standpoint, NAS Miramar would need t
be closed; assuming closure, airspace interactions with other airports would b
minor. As noted in the preliminary screening study, bidirectional simultaneou, instrument approach and departure capability appears feasible to two paralle east-west runways. To accommodate simultaneous instrument approaches from thc east, it would be necessary to place the arrival runway thresholds to the west o
West Sycamore Canyon because of high terrain to the east,
West Flow, Visual Operations--As shown on Figure 11, three arrival an(
three departure streams appear feasible when weather conditions woulc
permit simultaneous visual operations.
West Flow, Instrument Operations--As shown on Figure 12, two simul
taneous instrument arrival streams and two instrument departure stream appear feasible when weather conditions would not permit simultaneou
visual operations. During periods of high departure demand, three depar
ture streams appear feasible.
East Flow, Visual Operations--As shown on Figure 13, three arrival anc three departure streams appear feasible when weather conditions woulc permit simultaneous visual operations.
PROPOSED OPERATIONS AT OTAY MESA SITE
Two airfield alternatives were analyzed for the Otay Mesa site:
Alternative A: Three northwest-southeast runways, one north-south runway,
one east-west runway (approximately on the alignment of thc Brown Field runway), and the runway at Tijuana Internationm Airport .
Three north-south runways, one east-west runway (approxi- mately on the alignment of the Brown Field runway), and the runway at Tij uana In t ern8 t ional Airport .
Operations and airspace interactions for the two alternatives are discussed below:
Alternative B:
Alternative A-Generalized flow diagrams for this alternative are illustrated
on Figures 14 through 17.
During a frequently occurring northwest flow (see Figures 14 through 16), the
departure stream to the west would have major interactions with Outlying Field (OLF) Imperial Beach operations. OLF Imperial Beach could not be operated simultaneously with this flow at Otay Mesa. Major interactions would
also occur with NAS North Island operations. ATC procedures might be devel- oped to mitigate this effect. B
57
, ,-. -
58
c
"2 .j
59
60
F v)
I’ ’
I
1
4 >A c
4,
I e
1
E
4
%’
1
L’ 11
C
1
I
4
, . \.’
- ._.. - _.._.
I 61
m,+
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I, .:
, . e: 'I* .. .,~ .--.
$
I 63
r . %.
, ,-. - . .- - ..
’ i... .
.. , .
W I;' 0
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
During southeast flow (see Figure 171, arrivals would have major airspace interac.
tions with NAS North Island. This flow would, however, occur infrequently. I' might be possible to revise approach procedures to NAS North Island to mitigatt
these interactions. Using southeast flow, arrivals would have minor to moderate B interactions with NAS Miramar.
Alternative B--Generalized flow diagrams for Alternative B are illus. trated on Figures 18 and 19. During north flow, the westerly departurt
stream would have moderate interactions with NAS North Island opera. tions. Aircraft routings and ATC procedures would need to be developec to assure vertical separation. A more in-depth analysis would be neces-
sary to quantify the effects of these interactions and to examine poten-
tial mitigation measures.
Alternatives A and B, West Flow--For periods of the year having hig€
winds from the west, the realigned Brown Field runway and Tijuanr
International Airport runway would be used. It appears that (1) visual 01
nonprecision approach procedures from the east could be devised, and (2 departure procedures from the two runways could be devised that woulc avoid major airspace interactions with NAS North Island. OLF Imperia
Beach could not be operated simultaneously with this flow at Otay Mesa.
SUMMARY
On the basis of these analyses, all three sites appear to be acceptable from an
airspace/ ATC standpoint.
65
.<
Ds'
I
1
I I
1
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
i
I
__. -
b -,
41
I ,_I.
I 67
- U*' * I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
i
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I CHAPTER 8
AIRCRAFT DELAY
ANALYSIS
.I I' e
I
I
I
1
II
1
1
I
I
8
1
I
1
I
If
Chapter 8
AIRCRAFT DELAY ANALYSIS
This chapter describes an analysis that was performed to estimate the aircraf delays that would result at the alternative airport sites. The delays were estimate1 using the FAA Runway Capacity and Annual Delay Models, which were developel and validated for the FAA by Peat Marwick.
DEMAND FORECASTS
The demand forecasts used in the aircraft delay analysis are described below. 1 Annual Demand
Aircraft delays were estimated for the five annual aircraft operations "cases shown in Table 8. These five cases (labele A through E) roughly approximate th planning activity levels used in this project.
The operation of an airport at the Otay Mesa site would require the accommodatio of demand for Tijuana International Airport in addition to the basic U.S. domesti and international demand for a San Diego air carrier airport. Therefore, the tw demand sources must be combined when considering an airport at the Otay Mes site. For example, as shown in Table 8, the Case E annual demand for the Ota
Mesa site is assumed to be 100,000 operations greater than the 398,000 operatior for the NAS Miramar and East NAS Miramar sites.
pz
TABLE 8
ANNUAL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS FOR THE AIRCRAFT DELAY ANALYSIS
San Diego Air Carrier Airport
Site Selection Study
Annual aircraft operations
NAS Miramar and East NAS 1 Case Miramar Sites Otay Mesa site
A 291,500 341,500
B 3 08,000 370,500
338,OO 0 413,000
368,000 455,500
C
D 1 E 398,000 498,000
Source: Peat Marwick, September 1988.
'I2 The cases were selected to estimate delays for more demand levels than tl three planning activity levels used in the overall project.
71
W
Demand Distributions
:‘Tables 9 and 10 show the distributions of aircraft operations that were used in the aircraft delay analysis. Table 8 shows the monthly and daily distributions. Table 9 shows the hourly distribution. These distributions were based on current operations at Lindbergh Field, adjusted to reflect the assumption that demand would not be constrained over the hours of the day.
Peak Hour Aircraft Mix
Table 11 shows the mix of aircraft types forecast during the peak hour for each of
the annual demand levels considered. These mixes were used in the FAA Runway Capacity Model to estimate runway capacities for each airport alternative. The
resulting capacities were then used as input to the aircraft delay analysis.
TABLE 9
MONTHLY AND DAILY TRAFFIC DISTRIBlJTIONS San Diego Air Carrier Airport
Site Selection Study
Percentage of Month annual traffic
January 7.896 February 7.2
March 8.4 April 8.3
8.5
8.5 June
August 8.9
September 8.3 Octobef 8.5 November 8.3 December 8.3
May
July 9.0
10 0.0 96
Number of days Percentage of Type of day in a week weekly traffic
High demand day 3 15.0%
Average demand day 2 14.4
Low demand day 2 13.1
Source: Feat Marwick, September 1989.
72
w 1 .' 0
i
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
i 100.0%
1
1
I
1
I
1
TABLE 10
HOURLY TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION
San Diego Air Carrier Airport I Site Selection Study
Percentage of Percent
Hour daily traffic arrivals'
0-1 0.7% 17%
1-2 0.5 17
2-3 0.0
3-4 0.0
4-5 0.0
5-6 0.3 17
6-7 4.0 0
7-8 7.2 70
8-9 6.5 58
9-10 5.8 44
10-11 5.6 57
11-12 6.5 50
12-13 6.7 44
13-14 6.3 23
14-15 5.4 79
15-16 4.5 47
16-17 7.5 55
17-18 7.0 50
18-19 6.0 47
19-20 5.3 52
20-21 4.7 23
21-22 3.7 69
22-23 3.5 66
23-24 2.3 66
-- -- --
a.
Source: Peat Marwick, September 1989.
The percentage of aircraft operations that are arrivals.
73
w -
TABLE 13.
PEAK HOUR AIRCRAFT MIX ASSUMPTIONS San Diego Air Carrier Airport
Site Selection Study
b Annual
demand levela A B C D Total
Case A 0.6% 1.9% 86.9% 10.6% 100.0%
Case B 0.5 1.5 86.6 11.4 100.0
Case C 0.4 1.3 83.6 14.7 100.0
Case D 0.4 1.2 79.3 19.1 100.0
!Case E 0.4 1.1 76.5 22.0 100.0
Percentage of operations by aircraft class
a. b.
Annual demand levels defined in Table 7,
Definitions of aircraft classes are as follows:
Aircraft class Types of aircraft
A Small single-engine aircraft weighing 12,500 pounds or less (e.g., PA-18, PA-32, C-180, C-207).
Small twin-engine aircraft weighing 12,500 pounds or less and some Lear jets (e.g., PA-31, BE-55, BE-99, C- B
310, C-402, LR-23).
C Large aircraft weighing more than 12,500 pounds and up to 300,000 pounds (e.g., BAE-146, DC-9, B-757, B-
Heavy jet aircraft weighing mare than 300,000 pounds (e.g., L-1011, DC-8-50, 60 series, DC-10, B-747, B-767, VC-10, A-300, Concorde, IL-62),
737, B-727, BAC-11, 5-210).
D
Source: Peat Marwick, September 1989.
74
I ,. 0 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
8
I
8
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
4
WEATHER AND WIND ANALYSES
As described below, weather and wind analyses were performed for the alternativt airport sites.
Data Sources
A computer tape containing weather data for NAS Miramar from January 1964 through June 1988 was obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). From these data, sum- maries were prepared of hourly observations of (1) cloud ceiling and visibility, an(
(2) wind speed and direction.
Weather logs for 1988 and an all-weather wind rose for Tijuana Internatione Airport were obtained from the Mexican Departmento de Meteorologia. Th
weather logs list occurrences when the cloud ceiling was 500 feet or below, or th
visibility was 1 mile or less.
Cloud Ceiling and Visibility
It was assumed that visual approaches would be possible at a new San Diego airpor if the clo ceiling is at least 2,600 feet and visibility is at least five mile
(2,600&5).' Pilots performing visual approaches are responsible for ensuring thej own separation from other aircraft, which generally results in smaller separatior than when air traffic controllers must enforce full instrument flight rules (IFZ
radar separations. The use of 2,600h5 and above for visual approaches was assume
for each of the alternative airport sites. This range of cloud ceiling and visibility '
referred to in this chapter as VFRl conditions.
When the cloud ceiling is below 2,600 feet but at least 800 feet, and visibility is le than five miles but at least two miles (referred to in this chapter as VFR2 cond
tions), air traffic controllers must enforce full IFR radar separations betwet aircraft. However, it is still possible to conduct simultaneous approaches to COI
verging runways during such conditions (using visual separation applied from the a %traffic control tower) if the "local" controller can see the aircraft on the conveq ing approaches before they are within three nautical miles of one another.
When the cloud ceiling is below 800 feet or visibility is less than two miles (referrt to in this chapter as IFR conditions), air traffic controllers must enforce full IF radar separations between aircraft and no converging approaches are possible.
l3 Visual approaches are currently possible at both Lindbergh Field and Ni
Miramar when the cloud ceiling is at least 2,600 feet and visibility is at least thr
miles (2,600&3). However, a visibility of five miles represents a more practic
limit for the minimum visibility that will allow the use of a high-capacity ope
ation.
75
W m '
The weather tape for NAS Miramar was used to estimate the percent occurrence of VFRl, VFRS, and IFR conditions at the NAS Miramar and East NAS Miramar sites. These percentages are shown in Table 12. As shown, VFRE conditions occur about
67% of the time at NAS Miramar. The percentage varies from about 79% in
December to about 47% in June.
The percent occurrences of VFR1, VFR2, and IFR conditions at NAS Miramar were
also used for the Otay Mesa site because (1) the Tijuana weather logs did not include the data needed to estimate those percentages, and (2) no other computer- ized data was available for the Otay Mesa site. A representative of the National Weather Service stated that weather conditions at Otay Mesa would be similar to those at NAS Miramar. A representative of the U.S. Navy at NAS North Island provided data indicating that the weather at Otay Mesa is generally better than at
NAS Miramar. However, because no data were available to estimate the frequency of weather conditions the percent occurrences of VFR1, VFR2, and IFR conditions at the Otay Mesa site were assumed to be the same as at NAS Miramar.
NCDC has weather observations for the Otay Mesa site (Brown Field) in manuscript
form. However, there was insufficient time in this project to enter these data into
j a computerized format. For any further study of the Otay Mesa site, it is strongly
recommended that at least five years of weather observations be entered into a
standard computerized weather tape format so that a detailed weather analysis can
be conducted.
Wind Coverage
Wind coverage is the percentage of time that a runway can be used based on (1) the distribution of wind speed and direction at an airport, (2) the orientation of the runway relative to the winds, and (3) the range of crosswind and tailwind in which the runway can be used. Total wind coverage for an airport is the percentage of time that at least one of the runways at the airport can be used.
An analysis was performed to determine the total wind coverage for each of the airport alternatives. The weather tape for NAS Miramar was used to determine the coverage of the NAS Miramar and East NAS Miramar alternatives. For the alterna- tives at the Otay Mesa site, total wind coverages were determined using an all-weather wind rose for Tijuana International Airport (this airport would be incor- porated into an airport at the Otay Mesa site) for the period from January 1957
through August 1965, obtained from the Mexican Departmento de Meteorologia.
Runway use involves (1) the runways that can be used simultaneously at an airport,
(2) the operations (Le., arrivals, departures, or both) that can use each runway, and
(3) the directions in which the runways are used. In performing the wind coverage
analysis, the percentage of time that the most preferred runway use could be
operated was determined first. Out of the time when this runway use could not be operated, the analysis next determined the percentage of time that the second most preferred runway use could be operated. This process was repeated until a percen- tage was determined for the least preferred runway use. Except where dictated by aircraft noise considerations, preferences were based on capacity, with higher-capacity runway uses favored over lower-capacity runway uses.
76
1 ,' , e 0
I
I
8
I
1
1 Annual 67.4 23.3 9.3
I
1
I
1
a
I
I
1
TABLE 12
PERCENT OCCURRENCE OF WEATHER CONDITION8 FOR NAS MIRAMAR
San Diego Air Carrier Airport Site Selection Study
8 Month VFRI~ VFR2b - IF R~
January 76.7% 15.1% 8.2%
March 71.7 21.1 7.2
February 74.4 17.9 7.7
April 71.7 23.3 5.0
May 54.7 36.1 9.2
June 47.3 39.6 13.1
July 66.1 20.8 13.1 I August 64.8 23.6 11.6
September 62.6 25.5 11.9
October 67.8 23.7 8.5 November 73.6 17.6 8.8 December 78.6 14.5 6.9
a.
b.
VFRl-ceiling at least 2,600 feet and visibility at least 5 miles.
VFR2-ceiling below 2,600 feet or visibility less than 5 miles, and ceiling r least 800 feet and visibility at least 2 miles.
IFR--ceiling below 800 feet or visibility less than 2 miles. c.
Source: Peat Marwick, September 1989, based on analysis of National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration data for 1964-1988.
On the basis of FAA Order 8400.9 (dated November 9, 1980, which specifi
national safety and operational criteria for runway use programs, the followii crosswind and tailwind limits were used for the analysis:
Wet runway conditions: crosswind 15 knots or less and tailwind 3 knots
Dry runway conditions: crosswind 20 knots or less and tailwind 5 knots
less (20h5)
The results of the wind coverage analysis are shown in Table 13. As shown, t
runway layouts for all of the airport alternatives have total wind coverages greal
than 98% for wind limits of 15&3, and greater than 99% for wind limits of 20&5.
1 less (15&3)
I
77
0 e
Another important consideration, in addition to total wind coverage, is the percen- tage of time that the highest-capacity runway use can be operated. As shown in Table 13, the alternatives allowing the highest-capacity runway uses to be operated for the highest percentage of time are NAS Miramar and East NAS Miramar, i.e., about 90% with wind limits of 15&3 and 96% with wind limits of 206c5. For the Otay Mesa alternatives, the capacities are very similar far the runway uses with
the two highest capacities. Therefore, the percentages in Table 14 for these sites are sums of the percentages for the two highest-capacity runway uses.
As shown in Table 13, the alternative in which operation of high-capacity runway uses would be most limited is Otay Mesa Alternative A, where the highest-capacity runway uses could be operated about 73% of the time with wind limits of 15&3, and about 81% of the time with wind limits of 206~5.
In the aircraft delay analysis and in the preparation of aircraft noise contours (described in Chapter 8), the "conservative" wind limits of 15&3 were used. Wind limits of 20&5 are currently used at other U.S. airports and might be approved for a new San Diego air carrier airport. Aircraft delays with wind limits of 20&5 would be lower than those estimated in this project.
78
0 TABLE 13
WIND COVERAGE ANALYSIS
San Diego Air Carrier Airport Site Selection Study
Runway Percentage usea
1 ,* 0
8
I
li
8
8
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
Airport and operating direction 15-knot crosswind 2 0-knot crosswind
direction (degrees) 3-knot tailwind 5-knOt tailwind
NAS Miramar West flow 270 90.2% 96.0% East flow 90 9.7 4.0 Total coverage 99.9% loo.o%
East NAS Miramar West flow 250 90.6% 96.5% East flow 70 9.3 3.5 Total coverage 99.9% 1oo.o%
Otay Mesa Alternative A Nor thw esthort h flow 310 54.9% 65.6% 8 and 5
Southeast flow 130 17.8 15.7
Northwest flow 310 15.2 14.4 East flow 80 1.2 0.5 West flow 260 9.1 3.2 North flow 5 0.1 0.1 South flow 185 1.4 0.7 Total coverage 99.7% 100.2%b
Otay Mesa Alternative B North flow 350 64.2% 74.8% South flow 170 14.6 11.9 West flow 260 16.7 11.0 East flow 80 3.3 2.2 Total coverage 98.8% 99.9%
a. At each airport site, runway uses (or flow directions) are listed from most 1 least preferred. Except where dictated by aircraft noise considerations, prc ferences are based on capacity, with high-capacity runway uses favored ovf low-capacity runway uses. As described in the text, the indicated percentagt represent an attempt to maximize operation of each runway use, in order (
decreasing preference.
Total exceeds 100% because of rounding. b.
Source: Peat Marwick, September 1989, based on analysis of National Ocean
and Atmospheric Administration (National Climatic Data Center) da for NAS Miramar and Mexican Departmento de Meteorologia data f 1 Tijuana International Airport.
79
w 4D
TABLE 14
PERCENTAGE USE OF HIGHEST-CAPACITY RUNWAY USES
San Diego Air Carrier Airport Site Selection. Study (percentage of time over a year)
Percentage use of
highest capacity runway uses
15-knot 2 0-kno t
crosswind crosswind 3-knot 5-knot
Alternative tailwind tailwind
NAS Miramar Alternatives A and Ba 90.2% 96.0%
East NAS Miramar 90.6 96.5 Otay Mesa Alternative A 72.7 81.3
Otay Mesa Alternative B 78.8 86.7
a. Operation of the west flow runway use was maximized at the NAS Miramar
site, so as to minimize aircraft noise exposure, even though the capacity of the
west flow would be less than that of the east flow during VFR2 and IFR condi-
tions (see text for definition of these conditions).
Sources: Peat Marwick, September 1989, based on analysis of National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (National Climatic Data Center) data
for NAS Miramar and Mexican Departmento de Meteorologia data for Tijuana International Airport.
80
1 .i 0 0
I
8
I
li
1
1
i
I
I
1
II
I
6
1
I
1
ANNUAL AND PEAK HOUR AIRCRAFT DELAYS
The demand and weather inputs described above were used in the FAA Runway
Capacity and Annual Delay Models to estimate average annual and peak hour air- craft delays for each airport alternative. The annual and peak hour delay estimates are shown in Tables 15 and 16, respectively.
NAS Miramar
The two alternative runway layouts at the NAS Miramar site would have equivalent
capacities. Therefore, delays for the two layouts would not differ. At the highest demand level analyzed (Le., Case E demand of 398,000 annual aircraft operations),
aircraft delays at the NAS Miramar site were estimated to average 3.9 minutes pe>
operation on an annual basis, and 9.6 minutes per operation during peak hours.
The delays in Tables 15 and 16 for the NAS Miramar site were estimated assumin!
that operation of the west flow runway use ould be maximized, so as to minimizc aircraft noise exposure west of the airport.” However, during VFR2 and IFR con ditions, the capacity of the east flow runway use (in which two simultaneous arriva streams could be used) would be much greater than the capacity of the west flok runway use (in which only one arrival stream could be used). Therefore, the delay for the NAS Miramar site could be reduced substantially (e.g., at the highes
demand level, from 3.9 to 2.4 minutes per operation on an annual basis, and fron
9.6 to 4.1 minutes per operation during peak hours) if operation of the east flof
runway use would be maximized during VFR2 and IFR conditions.
e
1
l4 Noise exposure would be minimized in a west flow because departures from tl
north runway could turn right and avoid residential areas west of the airport. In I east flow, arrivals on final approach to the north runway would overfly these re: dential areas.
81
e (I)
TABLE 15
AVERAGE ANNUAL AIRCRAFT DELAYS
San Diego Air Carrier Airport Site Selection Study (minutes per aircraft operation)
NAS Miramar
Annual Alternatives East NAS Otay Mesab demand level' A and B Miramar Alternative A Alternative B
Case A 0.6 0.4 1.0 0.9 Case B 0.7 0.5 1.6 1.4 Case C 1.0 0.6 4.3 3.3
Case D 1.7 0.8 6.8 4.7 Case E 3.9 1.0 8.2 5.7
Note: For evaluation and planning purposes, these delay figures were computed using the ultimate runway configurations. In actuality, construction of runways would be phased to meet demand levels. This analysis evaluated
the capability of a site to accommodate the projected demand. An analysis of staging of runway expansion should he conducted as part of any further study of any of the sites.
a.
b.
Annual demand levels defined in Table 7.
Computed on the basis of inexact weather and wind data as described in the
text. Improved weather and wind data should be collected and analyzed. The use of improved data could change the estimates of delays and the changes
could be material.
Source: Peat Marwick, September 1989.
82
L I ,’ e e
i
8
I
8
1
1 Case E 9.6 2.6 11.3 8.2
1
I
1
I
I
1
1
1
8
1
I
I
TABLE 16
AVERAGE PEAK HOUR AIRCRAFT DELAYS
San Diego Air Carrier Airport
Site Selection Study
(minutes per aircraft operation)
NAS Miramar Annual Alternatives East NAS Otay Mesab
demand levela A and B Miramar Alternative A Alternative B
Case A 1.4 0.9 2.1 1.8 Case B 1.7 1.1 2.9 2.4 Case C 2.3 1.4 * 7.9 5.2 Case D 4.2 1.9 9.6 6.6
Note: For evaluation and planning purposes, these delay figures were compute using the ultimate runway configurations. In actuality, construction o runways would be phased to meet demand levels. This analysis evaluate the capability of a site to accommodate the projected demand. An analysi of staging of runway expansion should be conducted as part of any furthe study of any of the sites.
a.
b.
Annual demand levels defined in Table 7.
Computed on the basis of inexact weather and wind data as described in tt text. Improved weather and wind data should be collected and analyzed. Tf use of improved data could change the estimates of delays and the changt could be material.
Source: Peat Marwick, September 1989.
83
0 a,
East NAS Miramar
As shown in Tables 15 and 16, the East NAS Miramar site was estimated to have the
lowest annual and peak hour delays. For the highest demand level analyzed (Le.,
Case E demand of 398,000 annual aircraft operations), delays were estimated to
average 1.0 minute per operation on an annual basis, and 2.6 minutes per operation
during peak hours.
Otay Mesa Alternative A
Alternative A at the Otay Mesa site was estimated to have the highest annual and peak hour delays. For the highest demand level analyzed (Le., Case E demand of
498,000 annual aircraft operations) delays were estimated to average 8.2 minutes on an annual basis and 11.3 minutes during peak hours. The higher delays, relative to the other alternatives, result from (1) the need to accommodate demand for Tijuana International Airport, in addition to the basic U.S. domestic and inter-
national demand for a new San Diego airport, and (2) a lower percentage of time
that high-capacity runway uses could be operated for Otay Mesa Alternative A.
The highest-capacity runway uses during VFRZ conditions at Alternative A would be
the northwesthorth and southeast flows. The advantage of these runway uses is that they allow two simultaneous approach streams, with the northwesthorth runway use (in which simultaneous converging approaches would be used) relying on application of visual separation from the air traffic control tower during VFRZ conditions. In estimating the delays shown in Tables 14 and 15, operations of the northwesthorth and southeast runway uses were maximized.
Unlike during VFRZ conditions, visual separaPion from the ‘tower could not be used during IFR conditions to operate simultaneous converging approaches in a north- westhorth flow runway use. Therefore, the southeast flow runway use is the only runway use that would allow two simultaneous approaches during IFR conditions. Operation of this runway use was maximized in estimating the delays shown in
Tables 15 and 16.
Because of the lack of wind data for the Otay Mesa site, the winds at the site for
VFR1, VFRZ, and IFR conditions were all assumed to be similar to the all-weather
winds for Tijuana International Airport. The previous two paragraphs described how
these wind data were used to maximize operation of the highest-capacity runway
uses during VFR2 and IFR conditions. Operation of the highest-capacity runway
uses is especially important during VFRP and IFR conditions because controllers must enforce full IFR radar separations instead of permitting visual approaches. It
is possible that subsequent studies involving an analysis of more detailed weather and wind data for the actual Otay Mesa site will show that the highest-capacity runway uses could be operated for greater percentages of time than were assumed in this project.
Another way to increase the percentage of time that the high capacity runway uses could be operated would be to increase the crosswind and tailJoind limits. If wind
limits of 20&5 were used for Alternative A at the Otay Mesa site, average delays at the highest demand level analyzed would be reduced from 8.2 to 6.9 minutes per operation on an annual basis, and from 11.3 to 10.0 minutes per operation during peak hours.
.
84
I *' 0 0
I
1
I
1
8
1
D
0
1
I
I
8
a
1
E
I
8
I
Otay Mesa Alternative B
For Alternative B at the Otay Mesa site, aircraft delays at the highest demand level analyzed (Le., Case E demand of 498,000 annual aircraft operations) were estimated to average 5.7 minutes per operation on an annual basis and 8.2 minutes
per operation during peak hours.
As was the case for Alternative A at the Otay Mesa site, (1) operations of the highest-capacity runway uses were maximized for Alternative B, and (2) subsequent analyses of more detailed weather and wind data for the actual Otay Mesa site might show that these high-capacity runway uses could be operated for greater percentages of time than were assumed in this project.
If wind limits of 20&5 were used for Alternative B at the Otay Mesa site, averagc
delays at the highest demand level analyzed would be reduced from 5.7 to 4.:
minutes per operation on an annual basis, and from 8.2 to 7.0 minutes per operatior during peak hours.
85
@ ,’ e e
I
I
8
4
1
I
I
1
8
8
m
1 CHAPTER 9
AIRCRAFT NOISE I ANALYSIS
I
E
I
1
e
I ,' e e
I
I
B
8
1
I
I
8
8
8
I
8
1
I
I
II
1
Chapter 9
AIRCRAFT NOISE ANALYSIS
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
The FAA's Integrated Noise Model Version 3.9 was used to develop California Noise
Equivalent Level noise data and to plot noise contours for each of the sites. Noise
contours presented in this chapter correspond to the 40 MAP planning activity level. For the NAS Miramar and East NAS Miramar sites, 398,000 operations
correspond to this planning activity level. For the Otay Mesa site, a dditional
100,000 Mexican aircraft operations were assumed to be accommodated.
The data were prepared on the basis of general assumptions regarding forecasl
aircraft types and operations, runway locations and uses, and flight track locations and uses. As such, the contours should be used only as general indicators of the
potential noise impacts from an airport at a particular site. More definitive con- tours could be prepared during a master planning and an environmental planning study of a selected site.
All aircraft in the fleet mix were assumed to be in compliance with Federal Avia- tion Regulations (FAR) Part 36, Stage 3, noise standards, Because of the lack 0' data on specific aircraft likely to comprise the fleet in the future, current aircraf parameters were used. In all likelihood, noise emissions in the future would be of I
lesser nature; therefore, actual noise contours at a new airport would most likely bc
smaller that those developed in this study. At Otay Mesa, it was assumed that a1
aircraft, regardless of national origin, would be Stage 3 by the time that 40 MAP i
reached.
Table 17 presents the primary aircraft takeoff data for the analyses (landings datl are the same as takeoff data). The distribution of activity among the hours of thl
day was not restricted in accordance with an assumed curfew; the distribution WE
developed on the basis of other airports with similar operations but without CUI
fews.
Stage lengths for each aircraft type were selected as appropriate to the destine
tions that would be served.
Table 18 presents the percentage distribution of aircraft operations by the directio of flow that was used to develop the noise contours.
If
1
l5 If the Otay Mesa site is selected for master planning and environmental studie
the Mexican-related demand should be specifically forecast as a portion of the to1 bi-national demand.
89
W *
TABLE 17
AVERAGE DAILY AIRCRAFT TAKEOFFS
San Diego Air Carrier Airport Site Selection Study
NAS Miramar and East NAS Mirarnar:
40 million annual passengers
398,000 aircraft operations
Typical Daytime' Evening b Nighttime' Total Total
aircraft type takeoffs takeoffs takeoffs takeoffs percent
B-747-2 0 0 10.0 2.0 1.5 13.5 2.5%
DC-10-30 60.5 12.0 9.0 81.5 15.1
B-767 56.0 11.5 8.5 76.0 14.0
B-7 5 7 101.0 20.5 15.0 136.5 25.2
MD-82 80.5 16.5 12.0 109.0 20.1
B-7 3 7-3 0 0 28.0 6.0 4.0 38.0 7.0 BAe- 14 6 32.5 6.5 5.0 44.0 8.1
DHC-8 9.5 1.0 0.5 11.0 2.0
DHC-6 9.5 1.0 0.5 11.0 2.0
General aviation
single enginea 1.5 0.5 0.0 2.0 0.4
CNA-441 4.0 1.5 0.5 6.0 1.1
2.3 Lear 35
To tal 401.5 81.5 58.0 541.0 100.0% Percent 74.2% 15.1% 10.7% 100.0%
- 2.5 - 1.5 12.5 - 8.5 -
a.
b. c.
Daytime is defined as an air carrier operaltion between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Evening is defined as an air carrier operation between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. Nighttime is defined as an air carrier operation between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.
90
1 ,' 0 e
I s
1
I
1
I
D
8
I
8
I
I
I
8
I
1
1
TABLE 17 (Continued)
Otay Mesa:
40 million annual United States passengers
498,000 aircraft operations
Typical Daytime Evening Nighttime Total Total
aircraft type takeoffs takeoffs takeoffs takeoffs percer
B-74 7-2 0 0 10.0 2.0 1.5 13.5 2.0%
DC- 10-3 0 60.5 12.0 9.0 81.5 12.0
B-767 56.0 11.5 8.5 76.0 11.2
B-7 5 7 152.4 30.8 21.8 205.0 30.2
MD-82 131.9 26.8 18.8 177.5 26.2
B-7 37-3 0 0 28.0 6.0 4.0 38.0 5.6
BAe-146 32.5 6.5 5.0 44.0 6.5 DHC-8 9.5 1.0 0.5 11.0 1.6
DHC-6 9.5 1.0 0.5 11.0 1.6
General aviation single engine 1.5 0.5 0.0 2.0 0.3
CNA-441 4.0 1.5 0.5 6.0 0.9 1.8 Lear 35 -
Total 504.3 102.1 71.6 678.0 100.0% Percent 74.4% 15.1% 10.6% 100.0%
- 1.5 12.5 - 2.5 - 8.5
Notes: (1) A small number of military operations were assumed to take plac new airport. However, because of the unknown nature of IT aviation, military aircraft were not included in the aircraft mix I develop the noise contours. 0 (2) Totals may not be exact because of rounding.
Source: Peat Marwick, September 1989.
91
rn 8
TABLE 18
DISTRIBUTION OF AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS BY DIRECTION OF FLOW
San Diego Air Carrier Airport
Site Selection Study
Direction Percent
of flow occurrence
NAS Miramar and East NAS Miramar West 94%
East 6
Otay Mesa
Alternative A Northwest 72
Sou theas t 18
West 10
Alternative B North 64 South 15
West 17 East 4
Source: Peat Marwick, September 1989.
To develop the noise contours for NAS Miramar and East NAS Miramar, two airfield configurations were analyzed by computer: a two-runway configuration having a 2,500-foot separation, and a single-runway configuration. Contours generated from these analyses were used to manually develop composite contours for each of the sites and alternatives.
To develop the noise contours-for Otay Mesa, the actual airport layout was used; contours were developed in a single computer run for all runways.
Contours were developed for the 60, 65, and 75 CNEL values. SANDAG staff digitized the contours and estimated the popullation and acreage of various types of land use within the contours.
RESULTS
For the 40 million passenger planning activity level, noise contours are shown on
Figures 20 through 24. Population in San Diego County between 60 and 65 CNEL
and above 65 CNEL is shown in Table 19.
With some alternatives, infrequent patterns of operation would result in overflights
of residential areas that are not shown within the noise contours.
92
1 ,*
I s
I
1
8
4
II
I
1
1
I
8
i
I
8
I
8
1 93
94
1c x’
I
E
I
0
II a
It
4
1
I
1
I
I
1
2
I
1
8 95
%
97 I
W @
TABLE 19
POPULATION EXPOSURE TO AIRCRAFT NOISE
San Diego Air Carrier Airport
Site Selection Study
Number of persons exposed
60 to 65 CNEL Above 65 CNEL
Site - 1986 2010 1986 2010a
NAS Miramar
Alternative A 12,874 29,833 857 5,987 Alternative B - 7,669 24,296 11 9 21
East NAS Miramar 3,516 7,701 0 0
Otay Mesab
Alternative A 20,170 44,199 2,149 20,692 Alternative B 1,359 6,470 52 4,152
a. Based on planned land use as documented in the current SANDAG Series 7 population forecasts. It would be desirable to replan the land uses of unde- veloped property to reduce the future population that would be exposed to noise levels greater than 65 CNEL.
Applies to land uses in San Diego County. No detailed information on land uses
in Mexico was available; however, on the basis of available aerial photographs,
some residential land in Mexico could be within the 65 CNEL contours. Also, for Alternative B, a portion of the Universidad Autonoma de Baja California
could be within the 65 CNEL contour.
b.
Source: SANDAG, September 1989.
98
> 1 ,’ 0 0
@
b
I
8
1
I
II
0
1
IC
I
CHAPTER IC t NATURAL ENVIRONMENl
ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY 8 AND DETAILED FINDING!
II
1
I
I
I
1 ** 0 0
I
1
B
t
I
8
I
1
I
I
I
1
P
I
1
I
Chapter 10
NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY AND DETAILED FINDINGS
This chapter documents the findings from analyses of the natural environmental conditions for each of the candidate air carrier airport sites.
METHODOLOGY
This study of natural environmental conditions was based on information containec
in various planning documents and on environmental impact reports prepared bj local jurisdictions in San Diego County. Information was also obtained from tht
U.S. Department of the Navy for candidate sites on the U.S. Naval reservations
Documentation of the data and sources of information used for the analysis of eacl
site is presented at the end of this chapter.
The environmental analyses presented herein are not intended to fulfill the require
ments of either an environmental impact report (EIR), as required under th
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), or an environmental assessment, a
required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Rather, thes analyses were prepared to (1) identify significant environmental problems, if an> that may be associated with each site and that would withdraw the site from fur ther consideration, and (2) comment on possible mitigation of any environments problems identified.
Normally, under the federal environmental assessment procedures for airpori
outlined in FAA Order 5050.4A, "Airport Environmental Handbook," 20 majc
environmental categories are required to be analyzed. However, for the purpost
of this study, the number of environmental categories analyzed was reduced to tt
following seven, because these are considered to be of the greatest significance f(
evaluating airport sites in the San Diego area:
8
Historical and archaeological considerations
Endangered and threatened species
Water quality LI Air quality
Coastal zone management
Wetlands and floodplains
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966, Section 4(f) Lam
The significance of each of these criteria and the ways in which they were appli in this analysis are presented below.
101
w (u
Historical and Archaeological Considerations
Historical and archaeological considerations include the presence of any historical site that is listed in, or is a candidate for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places. Also, historic sites of local significance were taken into consider- ation. Archaeological considerations included the presence or potential presence of prehistoric American Indian (Amerindian) sites that may be in areas under consider- ation for future airport development. The evaluation took into consideration
whether airfield development could be spatially arranged to avoid the destruction
of any known historic or archaeological sites and, in the case of archaeological
sites, whether the materials contained therein could be properly removed by a trained archaeological team for future analysis.
Endangered and Threatened Species
For this criterion, known or potential presence of endangered and threatened plant and animal species listed on either State or federal lists was determined on the basis of available published data. Because Uhe habitats of either endangered or threatened species are very fragile and can be replicated only with great difficulty, if at all, an identified habitat of either an endangered or threatened plant or animal species should be avoided. Evidence of airport development that could not avoid destruction of an endangered or threatened species' habitat was considered suffi- cient to provide, upon confirmation based on detailed analysis, a basis for elimin- ation of the site from further consideration. Potential opportunities for mitigation were identified when possible. Rare species designated by the State Department of Fish and Game are also identified.
Water Quality
This criterion evaluated the potential impacts that proposed airport development
might have on the quality of surface, subsurface, and estuarine waters.
Air Quality
It was assumed that air pollutive emissions related to aircraft and airport opera- tions would be equal for each of the sites under consideration, because the levels of aviation activity forecast were the same for all sites. However, sites distant from centers of urban development were considered to have a more adverse impact on air quality because of the increased number of motor vehicle miles traveled to reach the sites. The San Diego air basin has been designated as a nonattainment area for both ozone and suspended particulates. This nonattainment designation applies equally to all of the sites under consideration (in the PSan Diego air basin).
DOT Section 4(f)) Lands
Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 provides that the Secretary of Transportation shall not approve any program or project that requires the use of any publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife
and waterfowl refuge of federal, State, or local significance or land of a historic site of national, State, or local significance as determined by the officials having
jurisdiction thereof, unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of
such land and such program or project includes all possible planning to minimize
harm resulting from the use. On the basis of this requirement, any potential airport
102
)I # ,* 0 e
I
1
s c
I
I
8
I
1
t
1
I
4
I
8
site that would either directly require the- taking of park or wildlife or waterfowl
refuges, or would indirectly affect the usability of such parks and refuges should be dropped from further consideration.
Coastal Zone Management
The California Coastal Act of 1976 regulates development within the coastal
zone. The basic goals of the Act are as follows:
Protect, maintain, and where feasible, enhance and restore the overall
quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and artificial
resources.
I
1.
2. Assure orderly, balanced utilization and conservation of coastal zone resources, taking into account the social and economic needs of the people of the State.
Maximize public access to and along the coast to maximize public rec reational opportunities in the coastal zone consistent with sounc resources, conservation principles, and constitutionally protected right, of private property owners.
Assure priority for coastal-dependent and coastal-related developmen
over other development on the coast.
Encourage State and local initiatives and cooperation in preparing proce
dures to implement coordinated planning and development for mutualk beneficial uses, including educational uses in the coastal zone.
The provisions of coastal zone management plans were reviewed relative to all site
within approximately five miles of the coast. All of the finalist sites were mor
than five miles from the coast and did not fall under the provisions of the Coast& Act of 1976.
3.
4.
5.
I Wetlands and Floodplains
Wetlands for the purposes of this analysis were defined as areas that are subject t
either permanent or periodic inundation; included were vernal pools and area adjacent to or in San Diego Bay and the Pacific Ocean. Floodplains are areas tha
are subject to inundation from severe storm events, and have a probability (
occurrence of once in 100 years (100-year floodplains).
NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
The following paragraphs briefly describe the environmental conditions of each si1 and the potential environmental impacts associated with future airport develol ment.
103 e
w e
NAS Miramar
The site is located on the Kearny Mesa; it consists of the existing Naval Air Station airfield as well as undeveloped lands on the Mesa and in San Clemente Canyon south of the airfield.
The northern half of the site has been extensively developed by the U.S. Navy for
use as a naval air station. However, there is a vernal pool complex on the north- west side of the airfield adjacent to Sidewinder Road. The southern portion of the site consists of a series of vernal pool complexes on the mesa immediately to the south of the airfield. The vernal pool complexes north and south of the airfield were described by Ellen Buncher, Department of Biology, San Diego State Univer- sity, in 1986 as the least disturbed groups with the greatest range of species.
Vernal pools are depressions in the soil that fill with water during the winter rainy season, creating a’unique habitat that may contain endangered or threatened plant species. The vernal pools are interspersed with native grass lands, chaparral, Riparian Oak woodland (along the floor of $an Clemente Canyon) and dry-wash
scrub along the upper reaches of San Clernente Canyon west of Interstate 15. There is also a small area of fresh-water marsh on the floor of San Clemente Canyon approximately one and one half miles west of Interstate 15.
The terrain on the Kearny Mesa is relatively flat except for those portions of San
Clemente Canyon that cut through the Mesa. The floor of the Canyon is approxi-
mately 100 feet lower than the average Mesa elevation. According to Navy officials, portions of a lateral to San Clemente Canyon immediately to the south of the airfield have been used as a sanitary landfill site. The depth of the landfill in this lateral canyon was not available.
Figure 25 shows the general locations of known vernal pools and existing and pro- posed landfills, based on information provided by the Commanding Officer, NAS Miramar. A complete inventory of plant and animal species as well as vernal pool locations on the naval air station is to begin in September 1989 and is to be com- pleted by the summer of 1990.
Historical and Archaeological Considerations. There are areas of vernal pool complexes located on the Kearny Mesa north and south of San Clemente Canyon and immediately to the west of Interstate 15. Also in this area are a number of mima mounds.
One of the areas of vernal pools and mima mounds south of San Clemente Canyon
has been designated as the Miramar Mounds Natural Landmark, and has been listed
in the National Registry of Natural Landmarks. The National Registry of Natural
Landmarks includes nationally significant ecological and geological features. The act of designating an area as a natural landmark is not a designation of a DOT 4(f) area; it does not affect the ownership of the area, nor does it dictate the type or
intensity of activity that may be undertaken around the landmark. An analysis of various runway orientations indicates that the NAS Miramar site could be developed as a civil airport without disturbing the Miramar Mounds Natural Landmark.
104
I ”*
I
I ’I:’\
I
1
E
I
il
I
I a c
8$
g
I
4
I
1
t
_________--
105
W 4D
Endangered and Threatened Species. Vernal pool complexes located immediately
south of the airfield (north of San Clemente Canyon) and in the Miramar Mounds
Natural Landmark provide a habitat for San Diego Mesa Mint, an endangered plant
species. Other plant species that may be present in the vernal pools habitat include Orcutt's Bradiaea, San Diego Coyote Thistle, and California Adder's-Tongue Fern.
Animal species may include the San Diego Horned Lizard, Orange-Throated Whip-
tail Lizard, and the Least Bell's Vireo.
The presence of the Orange-Throated Whiptail Lizard, a candidate for the federal list of threatened and endangered species, has been confirmed. The lizard's habitat is along the drainage bottoms and adjacent slopes and ridges of San Clemente Canyon in the southwestern corner of the Naval Air Station. If runways were oriented in a general northwest-southeast direction such as to require crossing the Canyon, they might necessitate extensive fill, Such fill could affect or destroy the habitat of this species. However, existing and proposed landfill in these canyons may already have had an impact on potential habitats. Runways constructed north of the Canyon would probably not affect this potential species habitat.
Runway orientations in either a northwest-southeast or an east-west direction south
of the existing runways would affect various vernal pool complexes on the Naval
Air Station. While it is theoretically possible to replace some of these habitats, airfield construction could result in total destruction and loss of these unique
habitats. Additional studies are required to determine whether there are possible runway alignments that would not adversely affect the vernal pool complexes.
Water Quality. The development of a civil airport on the NAS Miramar site should not significantly impact water quality in the area if proper precautions are taken. Potential pollutants associated with airport operations include residual oil and grease buildup on runway and apron surfaces, rubber buildup on the runways, and fuel spills. The inclusion of special settling ponds and oil skimming ponds in the surface drainage network would prevent these pollutants from contaminating sur- face water supplies.
Air Quality. NAS Miramar would be closest to concentrations of originating passengers and would have the lowest total vehicle-miles traveled, resulting in the lowest net air quality impact of the sites. The operation of NAS Miramar as a civilian airport could increase air pollutive emissions in the airport environs because of the greater number of aircraft operations under civilian use than are currently experienced as a result of military activities. An emissions inventory for
(1) future civil operations and (2) current and future military operations would have to be conducted to determine the increase in pollutive emissions resulting from
civil operations.
DOT Section 4(f)) Lands. There are no designated public parks or wildlife or water-
fowl refuges on the site; therefore, a DOT Section 4(f) deteirmination would not be
required.
Coastal Zone Management. The NAS Miramar site does not fall within five miles of the coast; therefore, coastal zone management considerations would not be required.
106
I ar 0 @
I
I
1
3
I
I
I c
I
I
II
I
@
1
1
I
Wetlands and Floodplains. A small portion of freshwater marsh has been identified on the floor of San Clemente Canyon, which could be affected by a runway complex
oriented in a northwest-southeast direction or by any alignment that requires
canyon fill. If this site is ultimately selected, replacement of this small, fresh- water marsh would have to be considered. In addition, the vernal pool complexes located throughout the NAS Miramar site are classified as wetlands, and they may be difficult to replace or relocate.
Depending upon the runway configuration selected, the imperviously paved surface
of a civilian airport could exceed the current impervious surface of NAS Miramar,
thus increasing stormwater runoff. Care would have to be taken in developing drainage facilities to ensure that storm water runoff does not affect downstream floodplains in San Clemente Canyon to the south, or in Rose Canyon to the north 0' the site. This may require on-site storm water detention ponds to prevent down t stream flooding.
East NAS Miramar
The East NAS Miramar site is located between San Clemente and Sycamorc Canyons. The site occupies land at the far eastern portion of NAS Miramar, an( farther to the east under private ownership. The site is characterized by ver: steep, rugged terrain ranging in elevation from approximately 450 feet to ove
1,000 feet above mean sea level (MSL).
The U.S. Navy designated the southwest part of the East Miramar site as 1 Research Natural Area on December 22, 1988 under the provision of federal law 31
CFR 251.23, "Experimental Areas and Research Natural Areas." The Researcl Natural Area encompasses 2,000 acres. Under 36 CFR 251.23, Research Natura
Areas are to be maintained in a virgin or unmodified condition except where mea
sures are required to maintain a plant community which the area is intended t represent.
Vegetation on the site consists primarily of chaparral. Pockets of inland sage scru
and dry-wash scrub exist in the canyons. Areas of Riparian Oak woodland are foun along the floor of Spring Canyon in the south central part of the site. Because c the rugged nature of the site, there has been little modification by humans, wit the exception of dirt roads and jeep trails traversing the area.
Historical and Archaeological Considerations. There is a possibility prehistori
Amerindian sites might be found in the area, particularly along the floors of th
canyons where water might have been available. Prior to development of this sit(
an extensive archaeological survey would be required and measures taken t
analyze and remove any archaeological materials that might be present.
Endangered or Threatened Species. The inland sage scrub vegetation communi' provides a potential habitat for a number of endangered or threatened plant 81
animal species. Species that might be found in the area include Orcutt's Bradiae San Diego Coyote Thistle, and California Adder's-Tongue Fern. Endangered ( threatened animal species may include the San Diego Horned Lizard, tl Orange-Throated Whiptail Lizard, and the Least Bell's Vireo. A biological asses ment of the area would be required to determine if any of these plant or anim
species are present on the site. I
107
W e
The U.S. Navy plans to conduct a complete inventory of plant and animal species as well as vernal pool locations on NAS Miramar beginning in September 1989.
Because development of the site for an airport would require extensive grading, it can be assumed that virtually every habitat of endangered or threatened species in
the area would be destroyed. If endangered plant or animal species are found, a habitat at some site not affected by the airport development would have to be provided.
Water Quality. The extensive grading required for site development would drasti-
cally alter the surface water runoff patterns of the area. A number of canyons
penetrate into the site and one, Spring Canyon, passes through the site from north
to south. Major drainage improvements would be required to handle surface water runoff from the site. These drainage improvements must include storm water detention ponds, settling ponds, and oil skimming ponds to ensure that surface water runoff from the site does not adversely affect surface water quality down- stream.
Air Quality. Air quality impact would be slightly higher at East NAS Miramar than for the NAS Miramar alternative.
DOT Section 4(f) Lands. There are no publicly owned parks or designated wildlife
or waterfowl refuges located on the East MAS Miramar site. Therefore, DOT Section 4(f) determinations would not be required.
Coastal Zone Management. The East NAS Miramar site is located more than five miles inland from the coastline and, therefore, does not fall under the provisions of either the federal or State coastal zone management acts.
Wetlands and Floodplains. There are no identified wetlands on the East NAS
Miramar site. However, as noted, the massive grading needed at this site and the
development of much of the site in imperviously paved surfaces would increase storm water runoff. On-site detention of storm waters may be required in order to
preclude flooding of drainage ways downstream from the site.
Otay Mesa Bi-National
The Otay Mesa site is located southeast of the San Diego metropolitan area in the
vicinity of Brown Field. The site area under consideration extends from Brown
Field southward across the border, and includes Tijuana International Airport in
Tijuana, Mexico.
The Otay Mesa is a relatively flat area ranging in elevation from 475 feet to 516
feet above MSL. The northern edge of the Mesa drops steeply to the floor of the
Otay Valley (elevation approximately 200 feet above MSL). To the west, the Mesa
surface is dissected by a series of smaller lateral canyons; stream courses feed
southwest to the Tijuana River and northwest to the Otay River. To the east, the Mesa is bounded by the San Ysidro Mountains, which have elevations in excess of
3,000 feet above MSL.
The majority of the Mesa on the American side of the border has been extensively modified by either agricultural activity or such property developments as the Brown
Field Airport, the U.S. Space Surveillance Systems Brown Field Receiver Site on
108
t ** 0 e
II
8
B
the north side of the Mesa, and industrial tracts. Scattered throughout the north side of the Mesa are homes-associated with the aforementioned agricultural acti- vity.
There are several areas of mima mounds located one-half to one mile south of Brown Field. Two vernal pool complexes were also identified on the Mesa. One is approximately one mile south-southeast of Brown Field. The second (and larger)
complex is approximately one and one half miles northeast of Brown Field. In addition, there are a number of small reservoirs scattered across the Mesa surface associated with farming activity. Figure 26 shows the locations of the two known vernal pool complexes.
The Alta School is located adjacent to Brown Field Airport on Otay Mesa Road, and the University of Baja California is located south of General Rodriguez Tijuana
International Airport on the Avenida Calzada del Tecnologico.
Historical and Archaeological Considerations. The Otay Mesa area has been exten- sively modified over the years. Although cultural remains of the San Dieguito, La Jollan-Pauma, and Kumeyaay Indian Tribes have been found throughout the Mesaj
the probability of finding major archeological sites is low. However, before this
area could be developed as an air carrier airport, a thorough archeological examin
ation of the site would have to be conducted to identify any remaining archeolog
ical sites (if any) and to properly remove artifacts.
Endangered or Threatened Species. The extensive modification of the Mesa surfacc has destroyed many or most of the original native vegetation. The two vernal poo complexes and the areas of mima mounds could contain habitats for endangered o threatened species. The coyote thistle (designated endangered by the State o California), prostrate spine flower (designated rare and endangered by th California Native Plant Society), and Otay Mesa Mint (designated rare an endangered by the California Nature Plant Society) have been reported at th vernal pool complex south of Brown Field. Endangered birds that might be found i the area include the the Lightfooted Clapper Rail and the California Least Terr Also, a rare species, the Belding's Savannah Sparrow, might be found in the area. d biological inventory would need to be conducted of the vernal pool and mima moun sites to determine if there are any endangered plant or animal species presen before this site could be developed as an airport.
Water Quality. Surface water drains from the Mesa northward to the Otay Rivf and southwest and south to the Tijuana River. Mitigation measures to prevei surface contaminants such as residual oil, grease, and rubber that build up on ai field and aircraft apron areas would have to be provided to protect adjacent surfac waters. If proper measures are taken, the water quality of the area should not t adversely impacted.
Air Quality. Development of a major civil airport on the Otay Mesa site could ha
a somewhat greater impact on air quality than development on more central
located sites such as NAS Miramar. This is because the Otay Mesa is more rem0
from the centers of originating passengers.
DOT Section 4(f) Lands. There are no designated public parks, wildlife, or wate
fowl refuges identified on the Otay Mesa site. Therefore, DOT Section 4(f) dete
mination would not be needed for this site.
m
0
II
I
I
1
I
E
fi
1
I
I
I
4
C 109
110
E ; 0 0
8
I
1'
I
II
8
1
I
1
I
t
ic
I
I
I
I
t
Coastal Zone Management. The Otay Mesa site is more than five miles from the
coast, and therefore does not fall under the provisions of either the federal or State
coastal zone management acts.
Wetlands and Floodplains. The only wetlands on the Otay Mesa are those associated
with the two vernal pool complexes previously described. Civil airport development
on the Mesa could be designed to avoid disturbance of the complexes, thus protect-
ing these two wetland habitats.
Potentially Sensitive Land Uses. Although not listed as one of the seven environ- mental criteria being used in this analysis, the presence of the University of Baja California immediately to the south of General Rodriguez Tijuana International Airport should be taken into account when analyzing potential airfield layouts for this site. Every effort should be made to ensure that runway orientations do not adversely affect the University campus.
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of the foregoing analyses, the following conclusions regarding envir- onmental considerations were reached by the Consultant Team.
The NAS Miramar site has some potential natural environmental concerns. It is
likely that development on the northern part of the site would pose no problems.
Development on the southern part of the site might be possible if the airport could
be designed to avoid destruction of the environmentally sensitive vernal pool com-
plexes and potential endangered species habitats in San Clemente Canyon. Bio-
logical surveys would be required to make further determinations.
Development of the East NAS Miramar site, because of its rugged terrain, could
also result in potential significant impacts on the environment because of the
current lack of detailed information; more extensive biological and archaeological surveys would be required to make further determinations.
The Otay Mesa binational site appears to have the fewest problems from an environmental standpoint relative to the other sites. There are some environ-
mentally sensitive areas on the Otay Mesa that should be avoided, but overall, they
would probably not preclude development of a major civilian airport at this loca- f tion.
SOURCES OF DATA
"Federal Register," Volume 48, Number 41, March 1, 1983.
"Natural Constraints" section of NAS Miramar Interface Element of Mira Mesa Community Plan, received from Commanding Officer, NAS Miramar on December
13, 1988.
"Mira Mesa Community Plan and Local Coastal Program,'' Planning Department, City of San Diego, March 1981.
NAS Miramar interview with Commanding Officer and Community Planning
Liaison, December 13, 1988.
111
0 ab
"Otay Subregional Plan," City of San Diego, October 7, 1982.
"Spring Canyon Precise Plan," EQD No. 8'6-0221, Draft Environmental Impact
Report, November 1, 1988.
NAS North Island interview with Commanding Officer, Public Affairs Officer, and Base Engineer, December 13, 1988.
Robinson, David L., %an Diego's Endangered Species, Our Vanishing Resources,?'
San Diego County Fish & Wildlife Advisory Commission and the California Depart-
ment of Fish & Game, November 1988.
Letter from Chief of Naval Operations to Commanding Officer Naval Air Station, Miramar, San Diego, California, subject ?'Designation of Research Natural Area at
Naval Air Station Miramar," dated December 22, 1988.
Bauder, Ellen T., "San Diego Vernal Pools, Recent and Projected Losses; Their
Condition; and Threats to Their Existence, 1979-1990," Vol. I., Report and
Appendices 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, Prepared for Endangered Plant Project, California
Department of Fish and Game, September 1986.
Regional Environment a1 Consult ants, "Draft Supple mental Environment a1 Impact
Report for the Otay Subregional Plan, GPA-83-01,'' Prepared for Otay International Center, San Diego, October 7, 1982.
112
av e 0
I
I
E
1
II
I
I
F
J
1
I
Y
I
I v
T
I
CHAPTER I1 1 GROUND ACCESS
c ** * 0 e
T
1
P
I
I
I
I 1
I
I
J
E
1
0
I
I
0
Chapter 11
GROUND ACCESS
INTRODUCTION
Most of the 40 million annual air passengers expected to be served by an expanded relocated regional airport would travel by car between their home, hotel, or place of business and the airport. This ground access travel would make an expandec airport the Region's largest single traffic generator.
Current projections show little excess future roadway capacity so that roads woulc have to be widened to prevent airport related traffic congestion no matter which oj
the three candidate sites were selected.
Good airport transit access would also be essential. An extension of MTDB's lighl
rail system into an airport terminal area would be preferable. Express bus anr
shuttle bus service to nearby light rail stations could also provide a high level o
transit access. In two of the alternatives, potential access by coastal commute
rail scheduled for 1992 would be possible:
While ground access improvements would be required at all of the candidate sites some are better situated than others to minimize ground access impacts. Th purpose of this part of the evaluation is to estimate the construction costs o roadway widenings necessary to accommodate ground access travel at each of th three candidate airport sites.
ACCESS CONDITIONS
Figures 27, 28 and 29 show where the three airport sites would be located j relationship to the Region's freeways, major roads, and light rail lines. Figures through 6 show in more detail how terminal areas for the three sites would acce:
the Region's highway system.
NAS Miramar
Site is clearly the most conveniently located. The site is near the population cent6
of the Region. Airport access roads would connect with 1-15. SR52, 1-805, ar
SR163 are other freeways within a few miles of the NAS Miramar site.
A planned light rail station comes within 2 1/2 miles of the terminal area ai upgraded express bus service is planned for 1-15. One negative for the Nl
Miramar site is that Kearny Villa Road would have to be vacated between Miram
Road and SR163. This road parallels 1-15 and provides an alternative to 1-15 durii
peak com mute hours.
East Miramar
While the Miramar East site is near the NAS Miramar site, its access conditiu would be completely different since it would be connected to SR125 and not 1-3 Most of the Region's population is west of the Miramar East site producing ma circuitous travel. SR125 is being planned as an expressway between 1-8 and 1-1
11
115
Pacific Ocean
:a*a~m~mmmmmmmmm~ 1/2 TO 1 1/2 NEW LANES
1 1/2 TO 2 1/2 NEW LANES
2 1/2 TO 3 1/2 NEW LANES
=------
mmmmm-mm
FIGURE 27 NAS MIRAMAR WITH 40 MAP ADDITIONAL LANE
REQUIREMENTS BY DIRECTION
This map was produced by the
.4S!!KLITIO\ OF GOlER\MEY%
116
June30 1989
nnnaiimnimtiimmm 112 TO 1 112 NEW LANES
1 112 TO 2 112 NEW LANES .------
EAST MIRAMAR WITH 40 MAP
ADDITIONAL LANE
REQUIREMENTS BY DIRECTION
This map was Produced by the
.QSS(KL%TIOX OF G<)\'EKSJlESTs
117 E
Pacific
101111t11111111 112 TO 1 1/2 NEW LANES
-11111 1 112 TO 2 1/2 NEW LANES
FIGURE 29
OTAY MESA WITH 40 MAP ADDITIONAL LANE REQUIREMENTS BY DIRECTION
Thls map was produced by the
AssocL%TIO\ OF GO\'EKSJfEST3
118
June30 iBa9
I ,' 0 0
I
t
It
I
I c
I
1
I
.s
d
I
8
t
1
1
An expressway has lower design standards than a freeway and can accommodate less traffic. SR125 will primarily serve East and South County communities. SR125 will connect with SR52 and 1-8 which would also serve as important airport
access roads. This site would be further from existing and planned transit service
than the NAS Miramar site. The nearest planned light rail station would be about 5
miles to the south in Santee. No express bus service is now planned on SR125 anc
service on SR52 would probably be rerouted.
Otay Mesa
The Otay Mesa site would have good freeway access. The proposed site woulc connect directly to SR905 with 1-5, 1-805 and SR125 in close proximity to the site The fact that the site would be well to the south of the Region's population anc employment centers would be its main access drawback. Also several existing anc
planned roads would have to be vacated or moved if the Otay Mesa site were to bc
built. The terminal area would be about 5 miles from the existing Beyer light rai
station. Several South Bay light rail extensions are in the initial feasibility stud!
stage and could possibly serve the airport more directly. Express bus service on I
805 would be the closest planned express bus service.
OFFSITE ROAD IMPROVEMENT COSTS
Road improvement costs for the three candidate sites were estimated so that th
three sites could be ranked in a systematic manner. Figures 27, 28 and 29 she\
where roads would have to be widened to avoid airport congestion.
As indicated in Table 20, the cost of these road improvements would be substantia
for any of the three airport sites. These costs can be put into perspective by com paring them with the $170 million average annual cost of all state highwa improvements programmed over the next five years. All of these costs are abov that which is planned or programmed in the existing Regional Transportation Pla and Transport at ion Improvement Program. B
TABLE 20
AIRPORT LANE MILE REQUIREMENTS
Cost - t Site Lane Miles
NAS Miramar 36 $144 Million
East Miramar 69 $276 Million
Otay Mesa 92 $368 Million
NAS Miramar's central location minimizes ground access travel and results in tl lowest road improvement costs of the three sites. As shown in Figure 28 the le,
convenient location of the East Miramar site would produce more circuitous trav
requiring improvements on several east-west freeways and almost doubling NP
Miramar costs. Finally, the long distance airport access trips produced by the mol remote Otay Mesa location would require widening over substantial freeway sec
119
w 0
tions in the South Bay area resulting in the highest road improvement costs, about 2
1/2 times NAS Miramar costs.
METHODOLOGY
The first task was to estimate the total number of ground access vehicle trips that would be generated by an expanded airport. Since each airport site is expected to accommodate the same number of air passengers it was assumed that vehicle trips would also be the same for the three sites.
A ratio of the average number of daily vehicles entering and leaving Lindberg Field to the number of air passengers handled by the airport has remained constant at
5400 average daily vehicle trips per 10 million annual air passengers (MAP) between
1970 when there were 3.3 MAP with 18,000 vehicle trips and 1987 when there were
10.0 MAP with 54,000 vehicle trips. This ratio was applied to the projected 40 MAP ultimate air passenger demand at an expanded airport to calculate a baseline daily vehicle trip generation of 216,000. This baseline projection was reduced to a final
trip generation total of 212,000 on the assumption that a new airport would be
served by improved transit that would shift some auto trips to transit.
The next step was to determine where these trips would come from. To do this the
212,000 total vehicle trips were split into two types:
work trips that would be generated by airport employees, and
ground access trips by air passengers
Airport work trips were distributed using SANDAG's standard trip distribution
model which assumes that commuters will attempt to maintain their existing work trip length. Thus an airport at Miramar would tend to draw work trips from Mira Mesa and other nearby communities while an airport at Otay Mesa would draw work trips from Chula Vista and other South Bay communities.
The distribution of air passenger ground access trips throughout the Region was determined with a special procedure. A 1983 SANDAG study of air passenger trip generation derived a relationship between three variables (households, basic employment and hotel employment) and air passenger trips. This relationship was applied to Series 7 2010 growth forecasts of the three independent variables and adjusted to the total number of ground access trips. The resulting distribution of
ground access trips was held constant for all three candidate sites on the assump- tion that residents, businesses, and hotels would generate the same number of airport trips regardless of airport location.
Airport trips were split into peak period (6:OO to 9:00 a.m,, and 3:OO to 6:OO p.m.)
and offpeak period (9:OO a.m. to 3:OO p.m. and 6:OO p.m. to 6:OO a.m.) trips. A 34%
peak period factor and a 66% offpeak period factor observed from SANDAG's 1983 traffic counts at Lindberg field were used to split daily trips by time period.
Finally, airport generated traffic volumes on each roadway segment were deter-
mined by assigning ground access trips to the highway system planned for 2010 in
SANDAG's Regional Transportation Plan. Kearny Villa Road was removed for the
NAS Miramar site and Otay Mesa area roads were removed and realigned for the
Otay Mesa site.
120
8 ,< e 0
D
J
I
t
P 48000 or more 3 1/2 or more 4 c
I
i
8
5
Y
I e
E
R
I
8
Lane mile requirements were determined by categorizing peak period traffic volumes tolfrom each airport site into approximate freeway lane equivalents. Thus, assuming an even demand across the six hour peak period, a freeway lane
could accommodate 2,000 vehicles per hour or 12,000 vehicles per peak period. The following breakpoints were used to determine how many additional lanes would be
needed on each road segment by direction.
Peak Period Volume Lane Equivalents Additional Lane Requirerr
0 - 6000 0 - 112 0
6000 -18000 112 - 1 1/2 1
18000-30000 1 112 - 2 112 2
30000-48000 2 1/2 - 3 1/2 3
The costs of providing additional lanes could vary substantially depending on right- of-way requirements, restrictions imposed by structures such as overpasses, and surrounding land use. An average cost of $4 million per lane per mile was applied
to total lane mile requirements to estimate the ground access cost for each alter- t native airport site.
121
1 e 0
i s
1 c
it
4
8
I
li r
4
Y
I
F
1
#
8
n
CHAPTER 12 1 FINANCIAL IMPLlCATtONS
w a e
p
il
#
Chapter 12
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
The cost estimates presented in this chapter provide comparative costs related t
each site layout and order-of-magnitude costs to build an airport at each of thc
proposed sites. (Costs that are the same for each site are included for budgetar:
The airport site sketches for each of the five configurations at the three propose1 sites provided the basis for the cost estimates.
The estimates include costs of major demolition of existing facilities where appli cable, and construction costs of new facilities. The cost items listed for these site are those of magnitude. More detailed cost estimates would be prepared in subse quent m as ter planning.
The estimated cost for each item was computed by determining the unit 0. measurement, then estimating the unit cost and appropriate quantities. (The uni'
costs and quantities were estimated on a conservative basis to reflect the fact tha'
more detailed estimates generally produce higher costs.)
Because construction dates are uncertain, the costs were based on 1988 dollars
Inflation factors could be applied to these costs to estimate future costs.
After estimating the basic construction costs, six percent for engineering and threc percent for inspection was added. One percent for administration of the projec during design and construction was added to the total cost of construction engineering, and inspection. To this subtotal, 30% was added to provide a contin gency allowance.
Description of Cost Items
The cost estimates described in this chapter include acquisition of land; demolitior of buildings and structures; utilities; a drainage system; paving new airfields; land- scaping; fencing; buildings and parking areas (e.g., control tower, passenger ter- minal, aircraft rescue and firefighting facility (ARFF), vehicle parking, and vehicle maintenance facility); on- and off-airport ground transportation access; and grad-
Land Acquisition. Land acquisition costs were estimated for airport property anc off-airport access roads. Property owned by government agencies was assumed tc be acquired at no cost. Costs for other property were estimated on the basis oi recent sales of developed/undeveloped land, plus an allowance for buildings on the
E planning purposes).
I '
4
.I
1 c
I
il
P
U
I
1
1
b ing.
T site.
125
m (It
Demolition. The building and structure demolition costs were based on the number of buildings on each site and an estimate of the costs involved to demolish each size
and type of structure. These data were converted into a lump sum cost for each
item. A more accurate estimate of demolition costs should be performed after the
site has been selected and a field investigation of all demolition items is perfor-
med. Demolition of other construction, such as pavement, was based on estimates of existing areas. An estimate of the amount of existing utilities at the sites is based on existing development and site use.
Utilities. Cost estimates for utility systems include surrounding the terminal and other proposed airport development areas with connections into existing systems as
described below.
A water main loop, waste storage, and a pump station were included for
each site.
A sanitary sewer line was provided for the airport terminal and other
facilities.
A waste treatment plant was included for use by the facilities on airport
property.
Gas, electrical distribution and substations, lighting, and a telephone system would follow the road system within proposed development areas.
A central boiler plant with equipment and distribution was included with the site estimate.
A microwave landing system was included for each end of the long run- way.
Approach lighting systems were included at the ends of each runway.
One runway was assumed to be equipped with a Category I11 instrument
landing system (ILS) with all associated lighting and navigational aids.
The other runways were assumed to be equipped with a Category I1 ILS.
The aircraft fueling and hydrant system was estimated on a per-gate basis. The
size of a fuel farm was based on an estimate of the total number of gallons required
in storage.
Drainage System. The drainage estimates include realignment of existing drainage
channels where required. The estimate includes large box structures and bridges
for anticipated heavy flows. Area inlets and piping were included for a complete
underground drainage system. The estimated locations of area inlets were assumed
to be in the terminal apron area and the infield between runways and taxiways.
Airfield Paving. The costs for the airfield layout were based on airfield site
sketches. The estimates were compiled from pavement surface requirements for each airport. The three layouts at the NAS Miramar and East NAS Miramar sites have three parallel runways, two of which would be 9,000 feet long and the other would be 12,000 feet long. The Otay Mesa Alternative A. configuration includes three 9,000-foot runways, one 7,700-foot runway, and one 12,000-foot runway. The
126
I *' e a
3i
T
B a
1
I
1 s
P
-I
jii
'c:
I
1
i
I
(II'
Otay Mesa Alternative B configuration includes three 9,000-foot runways and one
12,O 0 0-f oo t run way.
The layouts include a center terminal area (having a configuration similar to that at Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport), allowing apron access from both sides. All of the runways would have parallel taxiways on the side closest to the terminal. The runways adjacent to the terminal apron would have double parallel taxiways; the outside taxiway would serve as an apron taxilane. High-speed exits were
assumed for each runway, along with taxiway connectors at each end.
Landscaping. Landscaping costs associated with access to the landside area of the
terminal (including items such as trees and shrubs) have been prepared.
Fencing. The cost of a perimeter fence providing security for the airside opera-
tions area was estimated. The fence would connect with the terminal at the land- side area and with air cargo and maintenance facilities.
Buildings and Parking. Buildings included in the airport development costing are as follows:
1\
Passenger terminal
Control tower
ARFF
Vehicle maintenance
Parking facilities were estimated on a cost-per-vehicle basis for a public parkinf
garage, public surface parking, and a surface employee parking lot.
On- and Off-Airport Access. The cost of a four-lane access road extending fron
the existing highways, and a loop in front of the terminals (along with widening fo
curbside frontage) was determined. Other roads to provide access to a rental ca
area, public and employee parking lots, cargo and maintenance areas, and an airpor
perimeter road were included in the cost.
Grading. For all but the East NAS Miramar site, the rough grading required fo airport development would be minimal. The quantities listed reflect assumel
elevations for the airfield with cross sections developed to determine estimate
volumes of earth to be graded.
Site Comparisons
A summary of the cost estimates is shown in Table 21.
127
m
$5 Q) "E 2a -2 04
o*amaom*owoa NWW PDN 0 N a~mamom~owae bo00 mm o m
00,
a,Q,,w,o,t-~o,rc*o,~,rc,mb, *awmoNrc*mm{5 wj3- L",eaw, bm, +$ q x
*dOONQ, mm ma v)Nb 0 N m+ - d * * * * *
-4
$2 a sz E 2a +,'-
o*mmdow*oodo 000 ---Id M m owrcwt-omeJmmoe wmm et- W
N,*,Q,,a,N,o,~*o,~,t-*Q,m, NQ,mN*Ndbc*Nmj: o*mrc, -$ 4; 4 2
mw ma emma d
rc rc N * * u+ ii,
2 m m+ rim- rmNd
tff
2 E a Ec
w z- 5; 4L Qrn +a 3s 24
u2 so .- +e t
0
I ~6ammoa*oooo rnbN *w 0 w ' meNoaNot-oa Inbd Lnw m Q, cD~000t-00~Nv) lr,N *, e3 b, w
0, m"SC=N mmt- 4co"e-mc;r mmrc+ z& 4; 4 ? N m+ Nrc
AN m * * tff I14
Etff
b od 2a lk-l u acu G 9 20 z$
g zs mQ)
c E+ g 4.f; kgj -- "E t'F cd
0 mo 22
iamomo~+ooma maw er)m In w
%cy~~Q,~~~ay ",oy moo_ m N, ~uaEmbOmNOo*a- UJmPI bbc VJ 0
* mm*Q,N *amt- N ...*/e md :$/: {g 4 z 2 rl d r( 4e fF+ *
$4 *
4 .- .:E E$
Ea Es -- E'F a
izm qs ZZ
ItaOmaON*OlN~ come *a m d iWNm406W01mcD NWVJ Wte ea
",
m,w**,m*o,a o,m* Q, 0-, b,o3 m,
EE* dt-WeaN drama N m4 mu) -0 + 21; 42 4 2
Q, a
0, 4
d rc + * iff tff cf+
II)
P .-
EE: E 2;: ago .w g .- .z g.5 M c a: & 0, 0 i$.&Q)a*z rnp a 'p3 g
.U P- a%z la$ g c.5 k.2 c 0 ,"Q .E.: 2 E*S*-.-a *- 0z .- 7 YG n" .2 &$ cg ~a~a~~~mooo w, E* 2 s
h 0
Q)m
rn .-c ma= d+t +a P +c $ .f!
u 0 Q,MaahDhDaaM" ." E: CIS c,v)
... a ++ E; akcc.I *a3 0 Q)z t... a Q, 1 Ccr kGq
c
CI
M M a C C a" ;
5
;
a
rn
rn
6
63
! ,' e e
!!!!
z
I
I
II
I d
1 I.
I
.?
1
I
t
4
9
The NAS Miramar Alternative A site would have the lowest construction cost of thc five configurations. Demolition at this site would be about equal to that at NA( Miramar Alternative B, and would be approximately $22 million more than thc demolition costs at both Otay Mesa sites. The NAS East Miramar site would no E require major demolition work.
Utility costs would be similar for the NAS Miraimar alternatives and the two Ota:
Mesa alternatives. However, costs would be approximately $8 to $10 million mor(
for East NAS Miramar because of the rugged tewain and the greater distance fron
existing utilities.
Costs for installing drainage systems would range from $22,865,000 for Otay Mes Alternative A to $34,430,000 for NAS Miramar Alternative B. NAS Miramar Alter native B would require the relocation of a major drainage channel and a new bridge for drainage under the airfield.
The airfield paving costs would be fairly consistent among the three NAS Mirama sites, ranging from $277,823,000 for East NAS Miramar to $283,318,000 for NAI Miramar Alternative A. The Otay Mesa alternatives would be more costly, rangini from $290,758,000 for Alternative B to $314,211,000 for Alternative A. The highe costs of the Otay Mesa alternatives are a result of the fact that they would requirt additional runways to provide wind coverage similar to the Miramar sites.
A lump sum amount of $2,000,000 for landscaping was used for all sites.
Fencing costs would range from $788,000 at East NAS Miramar to $1,595,000 fo:
Otay Mesa Alternative A.
The costs for buildings and vehicle parking lots c)r structures for all five sites woulc be $344,024,000. Differences among the sites are undetermined for this level of detail,
The off-airport access and egress for ground transportation costs range from zerc for NAS Miramar Alternative A to $54 million for NAS Miramar Alternative B. The
costs for the Otay Mesa sites would be less, ranging from just under $3 million to $$ million.
The on-airport access and egress for ground transportation costs range fror
$131,500,000 for NAS Miramar Alternative B to $164,550,000 for Otay Mesa Alter- native A. The high cost at Otay Mesa Alternative A is largely caused by runwaj
and taxiway bridges that must be constructed fori the transportation system.
The site grading costs differ greatly among the sites. The NAS Miramar Alter-
natives A and B would cost the least at about $2,000,000 and $4,800,000, respec- tively. Costs for the East NAS Miramar site ($1,235,200,000) are high because of the major amount of earth moving and rock blasting required. The Otay Mesa
Alternative B site, at $39,580,000, would cost significantly less than Alternative A, at $133,901,000.
D
129
w w
Sum marg
The estimated construction costs of the sites are ranked fxbom the lowest to the
highest as follows:
NAS Miramar Alternative A: $1,329,221,000 NAS Miramar Alternative B: $1,383,203,000 Otay Mesa Alternative B: $1,802,232,000 Otay Mesa Alternative A: $2,211,263,000 East NAS Miramar: $3,066,396,000
FINANCIAL EFFECTS OF THE CLOSURE OF ILINDBERGH FIELD
Summary of Financial Impacts
A determination was made of the redevelopment value of Lhdbergh Field using a
fiscal impact analysis methodology, assuming the airport is relocated to another
site. The amount of land that would be freed up for redevelopment .with the closure
of Lindbergh Field totals approximately 450 acres. The land use assumptions
regarding these 450 acres are used as a tool to estimate the distribution of revenue
to the Port and City of San Diego. Since there are currently no approved plans for the redevelopment of Lindbergh Field by land use type, the mix of development in this analysis is based upon a rational mix of retail, office, hotel/motel, and industrial/R&D space. The revenue estimates are based on specific land use types and would change if the actual distribution of land uses were to differ from this assumed mix. The land use mix, which is used in this section and results from the redevelopment of Lindbergh Field, is presented in Table 22.
TABLE 22
LAND USE MIX FOR REDEVELOPMENT
OF LINDBERGH FIELD
Percent Acres of Total
Roads, setbacks & parks 135.0 30%
Office 90.0 20%
Retail/Mall 67.5 15% Ho tel/Mo t el/Servic e 90.0 20%
15% Industrial/R& D -
450.0 100%
- 67.5
130
I ; 0 0
I
1
iE
@
1
I
I
I
6
F
I
it
I)
I
D
R
I
The City of San Diego would benefit from the redevelopment of Lindbergh Fielc
primarily through increases in two main sources of revenue -- sales tax revenue ant
transient occupancy tax revenue. As shown in Table 23, the redevelopment o Lindbergh Field would provide the City of San Diego with the additional capacity tc collect $1.4 million in sales tax revenue and $11.2 million in transient occupanc:
tax revenue. The annualized total amount of revenue to be realized by the City 01 San Diego is estimated at $12.7 million:
TABLE 23
ANNUAL REVENUE FROM THE REDEVELOPMENT OF LINDBERGH FIELD
City of San Diego
Total Retail Tax Revenue $1,420,478
Total Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue 11,234,700
$12,655,178 Sub-total for City of San Diego
San Diego Unified Port District
Lease Income $572,049,630
San Diego Unified Port District owns the tidelands on which the airport currently
rests. Should the airport activities be relocated to another site, it is assumed that the Port District would develop and lease the 4!iO acres of land in this analysis to
many types of businesses. The total annual lease revenue to the Port District from
the redevelopment of Lindbergh Field is estimated at $572 million, as shown in
Table 23.
Fiscal Impact Procedures
Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue
The primary financial impact to the City from LL change in use at Lindbergh Field comes from transient occupancy tax (T.O.T.) revenue. The analysis assumes that 90 acres of land would be redeveloped as high-end hotels. The transient occupancy tax revenue to the City was based upon an average room rate for high end hotels, and an assumption regarding the number of rooms ‘that would be built per acre was made based on comparable hotels in the area. Comparative hotels at Harbor Island ad a density of approximately 50 rooms per acre. Using this density for the 90 acres to be redeveloped at Lindbergh Field, this would result in a total of 4,500
rooms. At an average room rate of $95.00, and an average occupancy rate of 80%, the daily room revenue was determined to be $342,000. The transient occupancy tax rate is currently 9%, so that the revenue per day would equal $30,780. Table 24
presents the formula used to get these results and shows that the annualized T.O.T.
revenue to the city would total $11,234,700 under this scenario. 1
131
0 0
TABLE 24
ANNUAL TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX REVENUE TO THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO
FROM THE REDEVELOPMENT OF LINDBERGH FIELD
Total Acres of Hotel/Motel 90
Rooms per Acre 50
Total Number of Rooms 4,500
Room Rates at $95.00
$427,500 Maximum Potential Daily Room Revenue
80.00% Average Occupancy
Adjusted Daily Room Revenue $342,000 Transient Occupancy Tax at 9.00%
$30,780 T.O.T. Revenue per day Days per year 365
Annualized T.O.T. Revenue to City $11,234,700
Source: San Diego Visitors and Convention Bureau
Sales Tax Revenue
A second financial impact to the City of San Diego would result from taxable sales generated from the 67.5 acres of retail space allocated under the land use assump- tions. Table 25 presents the formulas used to derive the total retail tax revenue for the City of San Diego from a change in use.
The first step in estimating annual retail sales tax revenue was to translate the number of acres for retail use (67.5) into gross leasable area by multiplying the number of acres by the number of square feet per acre (67.5 x 43,560). The result
is the total amount of square feet of land available for a retail building. Assuming an average floor to area ratio (FAR) or coverage of 31% (see average FAR .31 in Table 24), the total gross leasable area that could be built would be (2,940,300 x .30 = 882,090). The next step was to estimate annual sales tax revenue using average retail sales figures for high-end centers such as Mission Valley, Fashion Valley, University Towne Centre, and Seaport Village as comparables. Retail sales volume
per square foot of gross leasable area averaged $216.45. According to the California State Board of Equalization, .744 of retail sales are taxable. This results
in $161.04 per square foot of gross leasable area ($216.45 x .744 = 161.04) as the
taxable portion of retail sales. Multiplied by the total number of square feet
(882,090) and the sales rate (.01) for the City of San Diego portion of sales tax, gives a total retail tax revenue for the City of San Diego of $1,420,478 (882,090 x
$161.04 x .744 x .01).
132
I' I e 0
b
!
I
i
II
I
1
R
1
t
I
I
T
t
1
I
TABLE 25
ANNUAL TOTAL RETAIL SALES TAX REVENUE FOR THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO
FROM THE REDEVELOPMENT OF LINDBERGH FIELD 1
1. Total Acres at Lindbergh Field 450 Total Acres of Retail 67.5 Gross Leasable Area (GLA) of Retail/Mall 882,090 FAR or Coverage 30.00%
Calculation of Gross Leasable Area (acres * square feet/acre) * FAR :
(67.5 * 43560) * .30 = 8E
Gross FAR Total Retail Leasable or Annual Sales Volumc
2. Comparables Acres sf (GLA)* Coverage Volume of GLA
4 (a) Mission Valley 77 1,332,000 39.71% $196,496,000 $147.
(b) Fashion Valley 85 1,050,000 28.36% 266,350,000 $253.
(c) UTC 66 791,000 27.51% 202,364,000 $255,
$434. (d) Seaport Village - 14 99,000 16.23%
Total or Average 242 3,272,000 31.04% $708,210,000 $216,
3. Taxable Portion of Annual Retail Sales 0.744
4. Average Taxable Annual Sales psf: $161.04
43,000,000
5. Sales Tax Rate - City of San Diego 0.010
6. Total Retail Tax Revenue for City of San Diego at Lindbergh Field
Calculated as follows:
$1,420,478
Gross Leasable Area (GLA) of Retail/Mall 882,090
times Retail Sales Volume psf of GLA $216.45
times Taxable Portion of Annual Retail Sales 0.744 times Sales Tax Rate - City of San Diego 0.010
equals Total Retail Tax Revenue for E City of San Diego $1,420,478
Footnotes: .30 FAR means 30% coverage on the land (Le. if retail land is 1 acre (43,56r then you could build .3 x 43,560 = 13068 sf of retail space.
Sources: * San Diego Traffic Generators Guide ** Seaport Village Marketing Office San Diego Economic Bulletin: Vol. 37, No.8, August 1989 California State Board of Equalization
133
w It
Lease Rate Revenues
There are a total of 471 acres of land owned by the Fort at Lindbergh Field. Twenty acres of land currently under lease to the Marine Corps would revert to the Department of Defense. Lease rate revenues were calculated for the remaining
450 acres at Lindbergh Field to determine the potential annual gross lease income to the Port from a change of use from airport to commercial. Comparable lease rates for the various categories of developments including office, retail/mall,
hotel/motel, industrial/R&D were used to calculate total lease income.
The Port District would be able to lease the Lindbergh Field land to developers who
would find this area desirable because of it's proximity to residential areas, access to the developing downtown San Diego area, and superb waterfront views. The
highest and best use of the property would dictate the ultimate development type
and lease rates that various parcels of land on the site would command, subject to zoning constraints;
Annual lease income for the Port would be generated from office, retail, hotels, and industrial/R&D development. Using the mix of these land uses in Table 25, estimates were made of the total leasable area for each category of development type. The amount of leasable office space was estimated using a typical 9 story office building with a 20,000 square foot floorprint and FAR of 4. The average monthly lease rate ($2.25) was based upon comparable high-end office space rates. Retail and industrial/R&D space was based on an FAR of .30 and an average monthly lease rate of $1.50 and $.75 respectively. In order to calculate the total leasable area in square feet, the FAR is multiplied by the number of acres, and then the number of square feet per acre. The last step, multiplying the average monthly
lease rates for each category of development by the respective leasable area resulted in annual lease income of $572,049,630 (see Table 26). The largest com-
ponent of this revenue was from office space which comprises almost 75% of the
total lease revenue to the Port District.
134
00000 omor(
N,*,%% c*)bOOo -%Y?zz Obmm
mdco ed
I
0 m 2 dr =,
@a b m
I' e 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER 1
LAND US
I e 0
I
i
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chapter 13
LAND USE
INTRODUCTION
Community acceptance of an air carrier airport is dependent upon the fit of the
airport into the host community and its noise impacts to the neighboring communi-
ties. Two land use impacts were evaluated for this study: (1) the number of exist- ing (1986) and forecasted residents (2010) that would be affected by forecastec
aircraft noise; and (2) the acreage that would be necessary to accommodate thc
airport development area (runways, taxiways, terminal and cargo facilities). I AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT AREA
Table 27 summarizes the acreage requirements for the three sites (five alterna-
tives) to accommodate the airport and its support facilities, The table shows that the airport development area acreages range from a low of 3,738 to a high of
6,872. The NAS Miramar and East Miramar alternatives have insignificant acres owned by the private sector; whereas, the Otay Mesa alternatives have 79% and 73%, respec- tively, within private ownership. It should be noted that the existing land uses for Otay Mesa have changed significantly since SANDAG completed its inventory in
1986. Of the 4,000 acre industrial portion of Otay Mesa, nearly 2,500 acres of tentative maps have been approved and more than two million square feet of build- ing permits issued. The Otay Mesa airport development areas cover all of the 4,000 acre industrial area.
FORECASTED AIR CARRIER NOISE
Table 28 shows the number of residents and housing units that would be impacted by the 60 and 65 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) for the alternatives. The most important contour is the 65 CNEL. The state of California.has determined that residential development should not be allowed within the 65 CNEL. A 'review
of Table 28 reveals that the number of residents forecasted to be included within
the contour range from zero for the East Miramar to a high of 20,692 for the Otay Mesa A.
The 60 CNEL land use information is reported because airport operators in Southern California have stated that most of the noise complaints come from individuals that
reside within the 60 CNEL. Like the 65 CNEL information, Table 28 reveals that
the fewest residents would be affected by the East Miramar site; and, the Otay Mesa A alternative would impact the most.
Overall, the Otay Mesa A alternative is forecasted to have the most adverse impact to the existing and future population of the area. These tables do not include mitigation measures like runway curfews at night times to reduce the noise impact. It should also be noted that the impacts are based on the adopted com- munity plans and current aviation Stage 3 technology. The community plans can be changed to reduce the noise impact. Aviation technology could change to lessening the aircraft noise of the air carrier fleet.
Table 28 reports only the number of residents, housing units, and employees within the United States; Mexican information was not available.
The City of San Diego is the only affected land use agency.
I
I
139 1
m
tC c, a
Q, E 2-4 W4
8 88 888888888888 888888 8<< $81 0 bm bNomeommomoo N*"wmm tB e cpc om Q, ea lnd rl
00 Q,Q, u2mo*dobcooQ,wo *acoNooco wmco rlrl dW moo Wb " " dmNNbNrleb doo mnm " mnN N wn d b, mn
NC3 c m 2" 2 " N rl E *
88 888888888888 888888 8<2? $",I z m" Q,dombobrlcado" oocodcocom W e gcc 0, .- + (d
Q, E
om Q, rl lnN d
co 000 00mNco00oNlnoooe mco0ln"mmNN 5"' 0, eab Nb Nln Oewb w eQ,tBcobmemoo
d co mn0, en m m e3 m e-" z, L- 0,oI lnln ln Nrl 0,
p: 4
p:
n 9 !2 4 E E&q
*4s*Iw
Kp:
4wt-r wkz lla
W
88 888888888888 88888$.8<< 8' E 00 000d0~0b0000 NeaOOOO occ
N NO Noobo"odmooo co000000 000 00 w elnw 4 rld m
00 0 Q,
rl d rl
NN W zco Y), 5 2
N 5p m 5 m+s m *4w c, 4 &Zt> (d
> ._
WEE% Lz$
081 g? 88 888888888888 8888888<< 00 0N"rldQ,000b000 000000 ACE: 0 d W 00 dl+ rl
ea NO eaoQ,~meocoL~ooo 000000 boo corn0
mm
bNm@-eu2NQ,m 0,0, a, E%+ 4-4:
4zE 52 z p:
ss
8 88 888888888888 8888888<< OIJ %
mQ,81 0 00 oNN"mmo~mooo 000000 dcc urn
*ln S" an
4544 54 c- 22 b 2-
%z ".a
00 0 d W .2 0) g.$
E 2 L 9)
0 u
d" d n .Y
" 40 "rn~00n00oQ,Oooo oooooo woo 22
bln conan Z? Q,g
Nrlmcobeame4 em0 ma
0," 5*l CJ tX
rng
C,m
Q,.? 2; 8aa. v)
g sot,
3 4 53s a .suu
e- + 0 d
0 m0 Es &o 4- rnz
E: g g: c: .4SS 24
.C( .e a $j ggz p Q,ca7d -,$a Q, .I 1- 2 g
(dQ,OEa h.COEgs Q,oo 2g*g5$~z*giz5E~z qcg$,zL +&& OK Cpmu,t-rr4>op> $W&cnUM+ *ggz
0
c, v)j;ii;I?i:. ,O$E~~$zzr"~z fg I:Z ~O$~E~~O~~ rn 'Ea:: a'" 0 pz --= 2:
Lao cg &dm -\
I 0
I
I
I
I
1 Total Acreage 12714 12714 0 0.0 0
1
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
TABLE 28
SUMMARY OF 60 CNEL
MIRAMAR A
1986 2010 Average
Numeric Percent Numeric
1986 2010 Change Change Change 1 Total Population 13731 35820 22089 160.9 920 Household Population 11328 33417 22089 195.0 920 Group Quarters Population 2403 2403 0 0.0 0 Occupied Housing Units 5314 16384 11070 208.3 46 1 Single Family 2106 2341 235 11.2 10 Multiple Family 3208 14043 10835 337.7 45 1 Mobile Homes 0 0 0 0.0 0
Total Employment 37683 67266 29583 78.5 1233 Civilian Employment 31289 60872 29583 94.5 1233
Total Developed Acreage 3300 4536 1236 37.5 52 Residential 593 987 394 66.4 16 Non-resident ial 2404 3246 842 35.0 35 1986 Freeway 303 303 0 0.0 0 Vacant Acreage 9414 8178 -1236 -13.1 -52 Developable Acreage 1396 171 -1225 -87.8 -5 1 Low density single family 0 0 0 0.0 0 Single family 210 165 -4 5 -21.4 -2 Multiple family 332 5 -327 -98.5 -14 Mixed use 0 0 0 0.0 0 Commercial 182 0 -182 -100.0 -8 Indus tri a1 672 1 -671 -99.9 -28 Unusable Acreage 8018 8007 -11 -0.1 0
1 Household Size 2.13 2.04
Source: San Diego Association of Governments, July 1988
141
W w
TABLE 28
SUMMARY OF 65 CNEL MIRAMAR A
1986 2010 Average A
Numeric Percent Numeric Pt
Change Change Change C 1986 2010 -
Total Population 857 5987 5130 598.6 214
Household Population 857 5987 5130 598.6 214 Group Quarters Population 0 0 0 0.0 0 Occupied Housing Units 446 2696 2250 504.5 94 Single Family 110 164 54 49.1 2 Multiple Family 336 2532 2196 653.6 92 Mobile Homes 0 0 0 0.0 0 Household Size 1.92 2.22 Total Employment 19676 31433 11757 59.8 490 Civilian Employment 15685 27442 11757 75.0 490
Total Acreage 5299 5299 0 0.0 0 Total Developed Acreage 1657 2045 388 23.4 16
Residential 30 135 105 350.0 4
Non-residen tial 1560 1843 283 18.1 12
1986 Freeway 67 67 0 0.0 0 Vacant Acreage 3643 3254 -389 -10.7 -16
Developable Acreage 391 2 -389 -99.5 -16 -1
Low density single family 0 0 0 0.0 0
Single family 10 1 -9 -90.0 0
Multiple family 95 0 -9 5 .- 10 0.0 -4 -1
Mixed use 0 0 0 0.0 0
Com mercial 20 0 -2 0 .- 10 0.0 -1 -1 Industrial 266 1 -265 -99.6 -11 -
..
Unusable Acreage 3252 3252 0 0.0 0
Source: San Diego Association of Governments, July 1988
142
1' e 0
I
I
I
I
TABLE 28
SUMMARY OF 60 CNEL MIRAMAR B
1986 2010 Average
Numeric Percent Numeric
1986 2010 Change Change Change I Total Population 7669 24296 16627 216.8 693 Household Population 5266 2 1893 16627 315.7 693 1 Occupied Housing Units 2525 10579 8054 319.0 336 Single Family 885 1036 151 17.1 6 Multiple Family 1640 9543 7903 481.9 329 Mobile Homes 0 0 0 0.0 0 # Household Size 2.09 2.07 Total Employment 12858 28386 15528 120.8 647 Civilian Employment 10455 25983 15528 148.5 647
Group Quarters Population 2403 2403 0 0.0 0
I Total Acreage 7799 7799 0 0.0 0
1
I
I 1 Unusable Acreage 5201 5197 -4 -0.1 0
I
1
1
1
!
I
I
Total Developed Acreage 1468 2248 780 53.1 33 Residential 288 563 275 95.5 11 Non-residen t ial 1094 1599 505 46.2 21
1986 Freeway 86 86 0 0.0 0 Vacant Acreage 6331 5551 -780 -12.3 -33
Low density single family 0 0 0 0.0 0 Single family 306 279 -27 -8.8 -1 Multiple family 239 0 -239 -100.0 -10 Mixed use 0 0 0 0.0 0 Commercial 97 0 -97 -100.0 -4 Industrial 488 75 -413 -84.6 -17
Developable Acreage 1130 354 -776 -68.7 -32
Source: San Diego Association of Governments, July 1988
143
W - ,
TABLE 28
SUMMARY OF 65 CNEL MIRAMAR B
1986 2010 Average Ai Numeric Percent Numeric Pe Change Change Change C 1986 2010 -
Total Population 19 21 2 10.5 0
Household Population 19 21 2 10.5 0
Group Quarters Population 0 0 0 0.0 0
Occupied Housing Units 6 10 4 66.7 0
Single Family 6 6 0 0.0 0
Multiple Family 0 4 4 91999.0 0 999
Mobile Homes 0 0 0 0.0 0
Household Size 3.17 2.10 Total Employment 16800 24538 7738 46.1 322 Civilian Employment 12809 20547 7738 60.4 322 Total Acreage 5082 5082 0 0.0 0 Total Developed Acreage 1288 1469 181 14.1 8 Residential 0 0 0 0.0 0 Non-residential 1149 1330 181 15.8 8
1986 Freeway 139 139 0 0.0 0 Vacant Acreage 3794 3613 -181 -4.8 -8
Low density single family 0 0 0 0.0 0
Single family 0 0 0 0.0 0
Multiple family 0 0 0 0.0 0
Mixed use 0 0 0 0.0 0
Commercial 3 0 -3 -100.0 0 -11
Industrial 178 0 -1 7 8 -1 0 0.0 -7 -11
Developable Acreage 181 0 -1 8 1 -1 0 0.0 -8 -It
Unusable Acreage 3613 3613 0 0.0 0
Source: San Diego Association of Governments, July 1988
144
I 0 W
I.
1
U
TABLE 28
SUMMARY OF 60 CNEL
EAST OF MIRAMAR
1986 2010 Average
Numeric Percent Numeric
1986 2010 Change Change Change I Total Population 3518 7701 4183 118.9 174 Household Population 1209 5392 4183 346.0 174 Group Quarters Population 2309 2309 0 0.0 0 I Occupied Housing Units 399 1933 1534 384.5 64 Single Family 291 1188 897 308.2 37 Multiple Family 0 637 637 9999.0 27 Mobile Homes 108 108 0 0.0 0 I Household Size 3.03 2.79
Total Employment 2639 3750 1111 42.1 46
Civilian Employment 308 1419 1111 360.7 46
Total Developed Acreage 293 618 325 110.9 14
Residential 58 275 217 374.1 9
Non-residential 70 178 loa 154.3 5
1986 Freeway 165 165 0 0.0 0
Vacant Acreage 8167 7842 -325 -4.0 -14
Developable Acreage 550 225 -325 -59.1 -14
Low density single family 13 5 -8 -61.5 0
Single family 278 172 -106 -38.1 -4
Multiple family 135 32 -103 -76.3 -4
Mixed use 0 0 0 0.0 0
Commercial 17 0 -17 -100.0 -1
Industrial 107 16 -9 1 -85.0 -4
1 Total Acreage 8460 8460 0 0.0 0
I
1
1 B Unusable Acreage 7617 7617 0 0.0 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
Source: San Diego Association of Governments, July 1988
145
W w
1
TABLE 28
SUMMARY OF 65 CNEL
EAST OF MIRAMAR
1986 2010 Average AI Numeric Percent Numeric Pe - 1986 2010 Change Change Change g
Total Population 0 0 0 0.0 0 Household Population 0 0 0 0.0 0 Group Quarters Population 0 0 0 0.0 0 Occupied Housing Units 0 0 0 0.0 0 Single Family 0 0 0 0.0 0 Multiple Family - 0 0 0 0.0 0 Mobile Homes 0 0 0 0.0 0 Household Size 0 0 0 0.0 0 To tal Employment 0 0 0 0.0 0 Civilian Employment 0 0 0 0.0 0 Total Acreage 6927 6927 0 0.0 0 Total Developed Acreage 6 6 0 0.0 0 Residential 0 0 0 0.0 0 Non-residential 6 6 0 0.0 0
1986 Freeway 0 0 0 0.0 0 Vacant Acreage 6921 6921 0 0.0 0 Developable Acreage 217 217 0 0.0 0 Low density single family 0 0 0 0.0 0 Single family 217 217 0 0.0 0 Multiple family 0 0 0 0.0 0 Mixed use 0 0 0 0.0 0 Com mercial 0 0 0 0.0 0 Indus tri a1 0 0 0 0.0 0 Unusable Acreage 6704 6704 0 0.0 0
Source: San Diego Association of Governments, July 1988
146
1. e e
I
1
I
TABLE 28
SUMMARY OF 60 CNEL OTAY A
1986 2010 Average
Numeric Percent Numeric
1986 2010 Change Change Change 1 Total Population 28505 58412 29907 104.9 1246
Household Population 28505 58412 29907 104.9 1246 u Occupied Housing Units 7381 18364 10983 148.8 458
Single Family 4435 9702 5267 118.8 219
Multiple Family 2365 8026 5661 239.4 236 Mobile Homes 581 636 55 9.5 2 1 Household Size 3.86 3.18 Total Employment 3824 12569 8745 228.7 364 Civilian Employ men t 3824 12569 8745 228.7 364
Group Quarters Population 0 0 0 0.0 0
Total Acreage 6736 6736 0 0.0 0
Residential 1182 3095 1913 161.8 80
Non-residential 616 1117 501 81.3 21
1986 Freeway 164 164 0 0.0 0
Vacant Acreage 4774 2360 -2414 -50.6 -101
Developable Acreage 3479 1071 -2408 -69.2 -100 Low density single family 894 0 -894 -100.0 -3 7
Single family 93 1 94 -837 -89.9 -3 5
Multiple family 295 119 -176 -59.7 -7
' Total Developed Acreage 1962 4376 2414 123.0 101
I
1
II
i
I
I
1
1
I
i
I
Mixed use 0 0 0 0.0 0
Com mercial 158 13 -145 -91.8 -6
Industrial 1201 845 -356 -29.6 -1 5 Unusable Acreage 1295 1289 -6 -0.5 0
Source: San Diego Association of Governments, July 1988
147
W w
TABLE 28
SUMMARY OF 65 CNEL
OTAY A
1986 2010 Average A Numeric Percent Numeric Pr
1986 2010 Change Change Change C
Total Population 2149 20692 18543 862.9 773
Household Population 2149 20692 18543 862.9 773
Group Quarters Population 0 0 0 0.0 0
Occupied Housing Units 478 7190 6712 1404.2 280 1
Multiple Family 0 4126 4126 9999.0 172 999
Total Employment 206 11547 11341 5505.3 473 1 Civilian Employment 206 11547 11341 5505.3 473 1 Total Acreage 5353 5353 0 0.0 0 Total Developed Acreage 1404 2826 1422 101.3 59 Residential 113 834 721 638.1 30 Non-residen tial 1205 1906 701 58.2 29
1986 Freeway 86 86 0 0.0 0
Vacant Acreage 3949 2527 -1422 -36.0 -5 9 -
Developable Acreage 2896 1474 -1422 -49.1 -5 9 -
Low density single family 109 0 -109 -100.0 -5 -10
Single family 423 0 -423 -100.0 -18 -10
Multiple family 320 132 -188 -58.8 -8 -
Mixed use 0 0 0 0.0 0
Commercial 567 156 -411 -72.5 -17 -
Industrial 1477 1186 -291 -19.7 -12 -
Single Family 478 3064 2586 541.0 108
Mobile Homes 0 0 0 0.0 0
Household Size 4.50 2.88
Unusable Acreage 1053 1053 0 0.0 0
Source: San Diego Association of Governments, July 1988
148
1' 0 0
I
1
I
1
TABLE 28
SUMMARY OF 60 CNEL OTAY B
1986 2010 Average Numeric Percent Numeric
1986 2010 Change Change Change - I Total Population 277 13915 13638 4923.5 568
Household Population 277 13915 13638 4923.5 568 1 Occupied Housing Units 84 4950 4866 5792.9 203
Single Family 84 2910 2826 3364.3 118
Multiple Family 0 2040 2040 9999.0 85
Mobile Homes 0 0 0 0.0 0 1 Household Size 3.30 2.81 Total Employment 474 4918 4444 937.6 185
Civilian Employment 474 4918 4444 937.6 185 Total Acreage 5921 5921 0 0.0 0 ' Total Developed Acreage 209 4192 3983 1905.7 166 Residential 18 3730 3712 20622.2 155 Non-residential 189 460 271 143.4 11
1986 Freeway 2 2 0 0.0 0 Vacant Acreage 5712 1729 -3983 -69.7 -166
Developable Acreage 4666 691 -3975 -85.2 -166 Low density single family 3262 0 -3262 -100.0 -136
Single family 446 125 -321 -72.0 -13
Multiple family 195 77 -118 -60.5 -5
Mixed use 0 0 0 0.0 0
Commercial 73 19 -5 4 -74.0 -2
Industrial 690 470 -220 -31.9 -9
Group Quarters Population 0 0 0 0.0 0
I
'I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
Unusable Acreage 1046 1038 -8 -0.8 0
Source: San Diego Association of Governments, July 1988
149
4m w
1
TABLE 28
SUMMARY OF 60 CNEL
EAST OF MIRAMAR
1986 2010 Average A
Numeric Percent Numeric PE
1986 2010 Change Change Change - c1
Total Population 52 4152 4100 7884.6 171 2 Household Population 52 4152 4100 7884.6 171 2
Group Quarters Population 0 0 0 0.0 0
Occupied Housing Units 18 1493 1475 8194.4 61 2
Single Family 18 613 595 3305.6 25 1
Multiple Family 0 880 880 9999.0 37 999 Mobile Homes 0 0 0 0.0 0
Total Employment 353 9296 8943 2533.4 373 1 Civilian Employment 353 9296 8943 2533.4 373 1 Total Acreage 4857 4857 0 0.0 0 Total Developed Acreage 1050 2337 1287 122.6 54 Residential 0 734 734 734 31 999 Non-residen t ial 1050 1603 553 52.7 23 1986 Freeway 0 0 0 0.0 0 Vacant Acreage 3807 2520 -1287 -33.8 -54 - Developable Acreage 2941 1654 -1287 -43.8 -54 - Low density single family 630 0 -630 -100.0 -2 6 -10 Single family 66 0 -66 -100.0 -3 -10 Multiple family 37 0 -37 -100.0 -2 -10 Mixed use 0 0 0 0.0 0 Corn mercial 350 137 -213 -60.9 -9 - Industrial 1858 1517 -341 -18.4 -14 -
Unusable Acreage 866 866 0 0.0 0
Household Size 2.89 2.78
Source: San Diego Association of Governments, July 1988
150
I 1. . 0
1
1
1
I
8
1
1
8
1
8
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER 14 I EVALUATION OF
LINDBERGH FIELD
ALTERNATIVES
1' e m
I
8
I
1
1
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
8
I
L
Chapter 1-1
EVALUATION OF LINDBERGH FIELD ALTERNATIVES
INTRODUCTION
In February, 1989, PhD Technologies Inc. published a report for the San Diego Unified Port District on the Airport Development Plan for Lindbergh Field, entitled "Alternative Plans." In that report, a number of alternatives were described and evaluated for future expansion of the Airport.
The goal of the study was "to provide the District with guidelines for future Airport
development that will satisfy demand in a financially feasible manner, while at the
same time resolve the aviation, environmental and socioeconomic issues existing in
the Region." The long-range demand was forecast to the year 2010.
SANDAG requested that an independent review of four of the alternatives be
conducted by Peat Marwick, to assess the capability of the plans to enable
Lindbergh Field to serve as the region's air carrier airport into the future beyond
the horizon studied by P&D. The review was restricted to the plans as studied bj P&D; additional planning to resolve longer-range capacity or operational problem: was not authorized.
In the PhD study, the four long range alternatives were not subjected to detailec planning; more emphasis was placed on the development of an immediate actior plan for Airport expansion. Should any of these alternatives be considered further, improvements in their physical and operational features might be achieved. Thc
alternatives were designated as 2B, 2D-2, 2D-3, and 2F. Alternatives 2B and 21 were dropped from consideration early in the study. Alternatives 2D-2 and 2D-: were studied in somewhat more depth.
In this report, the alternatives are evaluated with regard to physical and opera tional features. Subsequent reports should evaluate airspace obstructions, airfielc
capacity and delays.
Alternative 2B
Alternative 2B is shown in Figure 30. It would involve expansion of the termina
facilities and aircraft gates on the existing terminal platform, construction of 4
new close-spaced parallel runway with a length of 6,000 feet, 700 feet north of thc
existing Runway 9-27, construction of a new linear terminal north of the nev runway, and improvements to access and parking facilities. A new interchange a
Interstate Highway 5 and Washington Street would permit access to the new ter minal area. An on-Airport road would connect the two terminal areas. The pla
would require the acquisition of the entire Marine Corps Recruit Depot (MCRI:
property.
The two runways would be used in visual weather conditions for arrivals and depar tures in either direction of operation. In instrument conditions, only one runwa
8
I could be used.
153
, /’ ci
s
c
0)
UJ 0
- - - n~ 0
am c EN g kg I- =- n agt 2 ggE hi
30: g CIAO LLJU u)
1' 0 W
I
1
I
1
1
I
1
II
8
1
8
1
I
I
a
t
I
1
2
Alternative 2D-2
Alternative 2D-2 is shown in Figure 31. It would involve minor expansion of the existing terminal facilities on the south side of the existing runway, construction of a new concourse on the south side of the existing runway, construction of additional terminal facilities and aircraft gates on the north side of the existing runway, construction of a new taxiway north of the existing runway, and improvements tc access and parking facilities. A new interchange at 1-5 and Washington Streel
would permit access to the new terminal area. An on-Airport road would connecl
the two terminal areas. The plan would require acquisition of a strip of MCRC
property on the north side of the Airport and the USAir leasehold on the south side
of the Airport.
Alternative 2D-3
Alternative 2D-3 is shown in Figure 32. It would involve complete reconstructior of terminal facilities and aircraft gates on the existing terminal platform, con-
struction of a terminal building and an automobile parking structure (but withou' aircraft gates) on the north side of the existing runway, construction of a people mover system to connect the north terminal with the new facilities on the existhi terminal platform, and improvements to access and parking facilities. A net interchange at 1-5 and Washington Street would permit access to the new termina area. No major improvements to the airfield would be accomplished. The pla would require acquisition of the USAir leasehold.
Alternative 2F
Alternative 2F is shown in Figure 33. It would require minor improvements to thl
terminal building and aircraft gates on the existing terminal platform; constructio>
of a new terminal, aircraft gates, and automobile parking facilities north of thl
existing runway; and construction of a new diagonal runway, 7,500 feet in lengt
with an orientation of approximately 12-30. An on-Airport road would connect thl
two terminal areas. The plan would require acquisition of the entire MCRD and thl
USAir leasehold.
When operations would be conducted from east to west, aircraft departures couli
be conducted on both runways but arrivals could be conducted only on Runway 27
When operations would be conducted from west to east, arrivals could be conducte
on both runways but departures could be conducted only on Runway 9.
155
,.
1
ri
d
C
Q) m 0
- - - 2z i
WOI 8 =g t x- 0 pk d za P wwz g -E g
=PC 3 ggJ 0 LA4 cn
1' P
c C -
d
'i
- c C
8
I
1
I
1
8
I
1
I
1
3
I
t
1
I
I
R
sra : EN : "w> b x- c gak ri aa P wwz i ama t 3np ! 22Z-r i &LJU u
,,
I 3 /
i
I; \I
m
\
\ I \ I I \
i i: f
L _____ _-.- - A
157
1
ri C - - Q
5& 5 !!a 8 kg I-
ggs 2 wwz =ma &i an^ 5 a=, 0 E5a u)
m 0
0 -
x- P
E ::e s :r:
158
I ,' e m
I
PORT DISTRICT DECISIONS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE AIRPORT
The Port District has adopted the following policy:
I
I
B
I
R
I
1
1
Q
8
I
8
I
1
8
"The Port of San Diego has the responsibility to operate and maintain San
Diego International Airport, Lindbergh Field. Lindbergh Field will con- tinue to act as the major airport for San Diego County until it is replaced
with a new airport. It is recognized that the geographical constraints at Lindbergh Field make it incapable of accommodating the growth in air traffic which is expected as the San Diego region continues to develop and prosper."
"For planning purposes, it is assumed that an operational replacement airport will not be available for 10 or more years. In the interim, the Port of San Diego has the obligation to provide additional facilities at Lindbergh Field in an effort to keep pace with increasing air travel demands."
"The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is solely respon- sible for siting this region's commercial airport in its role as regional transportation planning agency. Major redevelopment of facilities at Lindbergh Field should not deter the efforts of local government officials
and SANDAG to find an alternative airport site appropriate for the future
of air transportation in the San Diego region, nor should interim construc-
tion at Lindbergh Field be construed as an effort to perpetuate its use
further into the future than is necessary."
The Port District rejected all alternatives which would require acquisition of an]
military land from the United States government. An immediate action plan was adopted which contains some of the features of the alternatives studied by P&D.
EVALUATION OF THE ALTERNATIVES
General @om m en ts
The evaluations were conducted considering the demand estimates for the fou planning activity levels described in Chapter 2.
In the year 2010 (for which P&D forecast 24 million passengers), P&D estimate1 that 63 aircraft gates would be required to accommodate the forecast air Carrie traffic (P&D Technologies, Technical Report No. 6, Table 4-3). No data werl presented on the required number of commuter aircraft parking positions; corn muter aircraft operations were forecast to decrease from 38,000 in 1988 to 30,OO
In this study, Peat Marwick estimated that 84 air carries gates would be require1 for the 30 million passenger planning activity level and 99 gates would be require for the 40 million level. Information on the number of gates associated with eac alternative is given below.
I
I
I in 2010.
159
w e
Evaluation of Physical and Operational Features
The evaluation of physical and operational features included the following factors:
The placement of gates
The number of gates required
Clearances between runways, taxiways, buildings, and parked aircraft
Operations of aircraft related to movements between aircraft gates and runways
Building restriction lines
Clear zones
Location of the air traffic control tower
Configuration and sizing of on-Airport access roads, parking facilities, and terminal building curbside space
The results of the evaluations are as follows; only those items with major apparent
problems in accommodating demand beyond the 20 million passenger planning
activity level are discussed.
Alternative 2B. The plan shows 58 air carrier aircraft gates which does not meet
the year 2010 requirements. Six commuter aircraft parking positions are shown. Currently, 35 air carrier gates are in use. Given the assumption of acquisition of the entire MCRD, it is possible that additional air carrier gates and commuter aircraft parking positions could be located somewhere on the property; however, it was not within the scope of this review to assess this possibility.
The gates on the south side of the Airport are configured approximately the same - as the current Airport; therefore, no significant aircraft movement problems would be expected in the vicinities of those gates.
On the north side, 22 new passenger aircraft gates and 11 cargo gates are shown along a linear set of buildings. When the Airport would operate with arrivals from the west and departures to the east, departing aircraft in queues along the western end of the new northern passenger terminal building awaiting clearance to the runways would block access of arriving passenger aircraft destined to the gates at that end of the building. Similarly, aircraft pushing back from gates at the western end of the new northern concourse would block the taxiing of departing aircraft to their runways. Gate-hold procedures would be required to obviate this problem.
The same effects would take place at the cargo building at the eastern end of the
northern building development when the Airport would operate with arrivals from
the east and departures to the west. However, the cargo gates at that building
would probably not be as actively used as the passenger gates at the western end of the building.
160
I' 0 0
I
I
E
I
I
8
I
1
I
I
I
1-
I
1
I
1
8
1
It would be desirable to have an additional parallel taxiway along the north con-
course. It is not known whether such a taxiway could be planned.
The existing parallel taxiway north of Runway 9-27 that would, with this alterna- tive, be located between the two runways, would not be useable--the two runways would be spaced 700 feet apart and 400 feet is the minimum required separation
between runways and taxiways. The inability to use this taxiway would cause congestion on the taxiway system as traffic increases beyond the 20 million pas-
senger level. It is not known whether the spacing between the two parallel runways could be increased to 800 feet.
At the western end of the airfield, it would be desirable to plan additional taxiways
at the runway ends to permit improved access to the northern terminal building.
At the eastern end of the airfield, it appears that a number of buildings owned by
Convair would have to be removed in order to clear the FAA runway object-free area, which extends 1,000 feet from the runway end and is 800 feet wide. Addi- tional Convair buildings and the general aviation buildings would have to be removed to clear the runway protection zone (proposed by FAA as a replacement term for 'clear zone') for the new runway.
On the existing terminal platform, a number of additional gates were added tc accommodate traffic growth. The supporting access roads on the Airport have beer redesigned, but there are a number of questions regarding the adequacy of the roac
system to accommodate traffic beyond 2010, for example, there may not be suffi- cient curbside capacity adjacent to the new gates at the eastern end of the ter- minal building. Also, traffic from Harbor Island destined to Point Loma apparentlj
would have to travel through the Airport rather than being able to use the clover-
leaf turn that exists at the present time.
Additional planning might develop improved configurations of parking, access, an(
With two separate terminal areas, highway signs would have to be,devised to direc air travelers to the appropriate terminal building. Such signs would-have to bc located at sufficient distances off-Airport to permit drivers to have adequate timc to select the correct route to the building at which their airline is located.
It would not be feasible to restrict traffic on the connector road between the tw terminal areas to Airport-related vehicles. Congestion related to the use of th road by non-Airport traffic could result.
None of these physical and operational problems are considered to be fatal; the would tend to reduce efficiency and increase congestion at the Airport when traffj levels increase above the year 2010 demand.
Alternative 2D-2. The plan shows 59 air carrier aircraft gates, which does nc meet the year 2010 requirements. This is considered to be a major deficiency ( the plan with respect to its ability to serve the total San Diego demand beyond tl year 2010. In order to serve the 2010 demand with 59 gates, the scheduling ( aircraft would have to be adjusted to reduce requirements during peak hours, I
some gates might have to be shared by two or more airlines. At some point in tin shortly after the year 2010, the gate capacity would be inadequate to accommoda'
I terminal facilities.
161
w 0 L
demand. No commuter aircraft parking positions are shown; however, areas in the
south terminal area could be used for commuter aircraft parking at the present time.
Aircraft gates shown at the proposed new north terminal appear to be too close to the runway--it appears that aircraft fuselages would penetrate the FAR Part 77
surfaces. However, waivers might be obtained because it appears that the aircraft
fuselages would not penetrate the inner-transitional obstacle free zone.
The air traffic control tower is shown on the south side of the airfield. FAA
objects to this location because of the need to view operations at NAS North Island as well as at Lindbergh Field. If another location on the north side of the Airport cannot be found, the tower location would be considered by FAA to be a major deficiency of the plan. Possibly the Tower could be located on top of the northern terminal building.
With the current level of operations, little congestion is experienced in the taxiway area adjacent to the existing concourses. In the future, as activity increases, additional congestion problems would occur when the Airport operates with arrivals from the east and departures to the west. The problems would be created by the need for some arriving aircraft that exist the runway to taxi in the opposite direc- tion from the predominate taxiing direction. This problem could be ameliorated by requiring all arriving aircraft to exit the runway near its west end.
At the proposed new terminal area on the north side of the Airport, access road-
ways appear to be laid out with relatively tight geometry. There appears to be
insufficient curbside to service the north terminal unless a two-level roadway were
constructed to serve a two-level terminal. With this alternative, further planning
might improve the designs of parking, access, and terminal facilities.
With two separate terminal areas, highway signs would have to be devised to direct air travelers to the appropriate terminal building. Such signs would have to be located at sufficient distances off-Airport to permit drivers to have adequate time to select the correct route.
It would not be feasible to restrict traffic on the connector road between the two terminal areas to Airport-related vehicles. Congestion related to the use of the road by non-Airport traffic could result.
With the exception of the number of aircraft gates, none of these physical and operational problems are considered to be major; they would tend to reduce effi- ciency and increase congestion at the Airport when traffic: levels increase above the year 2010 demand. Unless additional planning could devise a way to signifi- cantly increase the number of gates, this alternative is not a feasible plan to accommodate demand beyond the 20 million passenger level.
Alternative 2D-3. The plan shows 59 air carrier aircraft gates, which does not meet the year 2010 requirements. This is considered to be a major deficiency of the plan with respect to its ability to serve the total San Diego demand beyond the year 2010. In order to serve the 2010 demand with 59 gates, the scheduling of aircraft would have to be adjusted to reduce requirements during peak hours, or some gates would have to be shared by two or more airlines. At some point in time
after the year 2010, the gate capacity would be inadequate to accommodate
162
1' 0 m
II:
1
I
1
I
I
IC
I
1
I
1
I
I
1
I
t
demand. No commuter aircraft parking positions are shown, nor does there appear to be adequate space to park such aircraft.
As is the case with Alternative 2D-2, with the current level of operations, little congestion is experienced in the taxiway area adjacent to the concourses. In the future, as activity increases, there may be additional congestion problems when the Airport is operating with arrivals from the east and departures to the west by the need for some arriving aircraft that exist the runway to taxi in the opposite direc-
tion from the predominate taxiing direction. This problem could be ameliorated by requiring all arriving aircraft to exit the runway near its west end.
On the south side of the Airport, a greatly increased number of gates has been
proposed, yet the area for roadways and parking has been significantly reduced.
There appears to be insufficient curbside capacity to service the traffic that would use the terminal when traffic increases beyond the 2010 forecast. Additional
planning might develop improved configurations of parking, access, and terminal facilities.
With two separate terminal areas, highway signs would have to be devised to direc air travelers to the appropriate terminal building. Such signs would have to bc located at sufficient distances off-Airport to permit drivers to have adequate timc to select the correct route.
With the exception of the number of aircraft gates, none of these physical an( operational problems are considered to be major; they would tend to reduce effi ciency and increase congestion at the Airport when traffic levels increase abovc the year 2010 demand. Unless additional planning could devise a way to signifi cantly increase the number of gates, this alternative is not a feasible plan tc accommodate demand beyond the 20 million passenger level.
Alternative 2F. The plan shows 57 akcarrier aircraft gates adjacent to concourse and 9 remote parking positions. This total meets the year 2010 requirements bu does not meet the requirements of the 30 million passenger planning activit level. Eleven commuter aircraft parking positions are shown adjacent to the exist ing terminal area. Given the assumption of acquisition of the entire MCRD, it j possible that additional air carrier and commuter parking positions could be locate
somewhere on the expanded Airport property; more detailed planning would b required to determine the feasibility of providing facilities for the 30- and 46
million passenger planning activity level.
The air traffic control tower is shown on the south side of the airfield. FA
objects to this location because of the need to view operations at NAS North Islar as well BS at Lindbergh Field. If another location on the north side of the Airpo
cannot be found, the tower location would be considered by FAA to be a majc deficiency of the plan. Possibility the tower could be located on top of t€
northern terminal building.
At the end of the proposed new runway, automobiles and other vehicles on Harbc Drive would pass through the runway safety area. According to FAA AC 150/5301
00 (in press at this writing), roadways should be excluded from the runway safe' area, which extends 1,000 feet from the runway end and is 500 feet wide.
8
1
a
163
w e
The number of gates 4t the south terminal area has been increased, but the area and configuration of roads and curbside appears to be roughly the same as at the present time. Congestion might result as traffic approaches or exceeds the levels forecast for 2010.
At the proposed new terminal at the north side of the Airport, the curbside capa- city appears inadequate to accommodate the traffic at that terminal.
Additional, more detailed planning might develop improved configurations of park- ing, access, and terminal facilities.
With two separate terminal areas, highway signs would have to be devised to direct air travelers to the appropriate terminal building. Such signs would have to be located at sufficient distances off-Airport to permit drivers to have adequate time
to select the correct route.
It would not be feasible to restrict traffic on the connector road between the two terminal areas to Airport-related vehicles. Congestion related to the use of the
road by non-Airport traffic could result.
None of these physical and operational problems are considered to be fatal; they
would tend to reduce efficiency and increase congestion at the Airport when traffic
levels increase above the year 2010 demand.
164
1' e
1c
I
E
1
R a
I
I
I
I
I
1
#
I
I
1
I
k k
CHAPTER 45
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF
A REPLACEMEN1 1 AIRPORl
1’ e 0
I
4
4
I
8
I
8
I
I
1 __
I
8
I
I
1
I
I
1
1 )1
Chapter 15
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF A REPLACEMENT AIRPORT
INTRODUCTION
The economic impacts of a replacement airport for Lindbergh Field are based on the fact that, at some time in the future, aircraft delays at Lindbergh Field will
reach levels that will justify moving to a new airport. Beyond that time, if a new airport is not constructed, the airfield would operate under constrained conditions.
With a replacement airport, growing aviation demand would be accommodated in San Diego without a constraint.
The difference between a constrained Lindbergh Field and an unconstrainec
replacement airport creates a differential economic impact on the region. Thc
economic impacts for the two conditions are estimated in terms of employment wages and salaries, and value added, which is a measure of the-contribution of thc Airport to the gross regional product of the San Diego region.
Peat Marwick retained the Regional Science Research Institute to prepare an input/ output model to evaluate the direct, indirect, and induced impacts of Lindbergl Field activity. The direct impacts relate to operations at the Airport and includf the expenditures of both Airport tenants and air visitors. The way in which sue’ expenditures affect the economy of the rest of the San Diego etropolitan are4 constitutes the indirect and induced impacts of Airport activity.
The results are reported for the metropolitan area as a whole, and for 1988 ani
various future years. The results are intended to be interpreted solely in terms o expenditures or dollar flows in the economy related to Airport operations. Thi analysis provides estimates of the impact on a region-wide basis. It was not withi, the scope of this analysis to estimate differential impacts among different sit(
alternatives.
IP
l6 Direct impacts are the impacts that are directly associated with airport ope1 ations, such as wages paid to airport employees, and purchases of goods an
services by airport tenants.
Indirect impacts are the impacts on the industries that are suppliers to the indu
tries experiencing direct impacts. An airline produces direct impacts; an c
company that sells fuel to the airline produces indirect impacts.
Induced impacts are the impacts that affect industries serving households. P
airport employee whose wages are counted as a direct impact buys goods a1 services from various industries; these industries, in turn, buy goods and servici from other industries. The induced impacts are the impacts on the supplying i. dustries.
167
W d
BASIC ECONOMIC IMPACT RESULTS
On the basis of a survey of on-Airport tenants and an analysis of San Diego visitors
using the Airport, direct expenditures related to Airport operations totaled
$996,000,000 in 1988. Of the total, about 70%, or $700,000,000, was spent by air
travelers and 30%, or $296,000,000, was spent by on-Airport organizations. These
results are presented in Table 29. In 1988, there were about 7,400 employees at the Airport.
Using an input/output model developed in this study for the metropolitan area, the multiplier effects that produce the indirect and induced impacts were estimated. In addition to on-Airport employment and air visitor effects, travel agent effects were estimated. Correcting for expenditures that flow to businesses out of the region, the total 1988 economic impact of the Airport was &s follows:
Total employment 35,000 Total wages and salaries $610,000,000 Total value added $1,220,000,000
The Airport's value added is the contribution of the Airport to the Gross Regional
Product of the metropolitan area.
In the future, the economic impact of the Airport will increase as Airport activity
increases. By the time that aviation activity reaches the fourth planning activity level, forecast total air passengers will have increased to 40,000,000--compared with a total of 10,700,000 in 1988. By the fourth planning activity level, the total employment is forecast to have increased from 35,000 in 1988 to 128,000; the total value added is forecast to have increased from $1,220,000,000 in 1988 to
$4,700,000,000, These results are presented in Table 30.
At some time in the future it will become appropriate, for economic and environ- mental reasons, to replace Lindbergh Field as San Diego region's air carrier airport. Because of the many trade-offs that are involved in a transfer of opera- tions to a new airport, it is not possible to define the exact year or the level of airport activity at which the transfer should take place.
However, one indicator of the need to transfer to a new airport is the level of aircraft delays at Lindbergh Field. On the assumption that the airfield capacity at Lindbergh Field cannot be expanded appreciably, aircraft delays will increase along with airport activity. The relationship between aircraft operations and aircraft delays is such that, as operations approach capacity, delays increase at an even faster rate.
Currently, aircraft delays at Lindbergh Field are approximately 1 to 2 minutes per aircraft operation during the year. By the time the second planning activity level is reached (20 million annual passengers and 290,000 aircraft operations), delays could average between 5 and 10 minutes per operation.
168
1' 0 m
I
I
E
b
1
I
P
I
E
I
I
I
1
I
E
1
i
TABLE 29
SUMMARY OF DIRECT EXPENDITURES IN THE SAN DIEGO REGION
San Diego Air Carrier Airport Site Selection Study
1988
Direct expenditures Percentage 1 Airport tenants
Passenger airlines $188,000,000 18.9%
Passenger terminal concessionaires 59,000,000 5.9
Fixed base operators 5,000,000 0.5
San Diego Unified Port District 26,000,000 2.6
Other organizations 18,000,000 1.8
Sub tot a1 $296,000,000 29.7%
700,000,000 70.3% Air visitor expenditures J Total $996,000,000 100.0%
Source: Peat Marwick, June 1989.
169
z E!
3r
ha
a > a
>
0
c
w Li?
of; rn
5 .n c, *5
n: $3 a
ma w+ .- =E+ tii C (d C zti 5oe an zc4 b-xE $ -E
-5 u& sq
d1
.e +
.n c,
m
0 zi2l oa UE
AS
w
0000000 Z%XX
omoo
?3_p-_ ?*o, * * ** mdc ++m
0000000 0000000 %9OZd0 "92
22 x03
2+% 5%
q z z z 0 Q, 0 0
eDm
dm * **
mQ)
++ea
iff
0000 000
-4
;:=\zy Or(O0 %o,
&ri 0 0, m 00 o,o, de4
b
00
%eo ow00
%Oo, 9% msz
, m, PI @- v),
0 00 em * d +@a * **
zm
l-l
eD000000 woooooo
omoo omoo
* cd a, 0, 0 0, 0, 0, 0,
0- 0 0 m W * - *z
2
v) MBg .e 0, -5 8 a" h
C"Q 717~Z~~ bpp~ a
bgg:a 4 Fg
Z%5zggz a30.- "5
(d c, gam H
c,c,c,=a3* VVV~~+-t aaaaaaa &&&+c,*c, .- .- .- aaagggg
d 00 Q, l-l
3,
7 rJ
Y V
H
CI ._ E 2
c, (d Q, PI
E s 33
0 Q I &* >
An average delay of 10 minutes per operation is considered to represent saturation of an airport. If average annual delays are at 10 minutes, delays during peak demand periods and during bad weather could approach 5 to 10 times the annual average. Airlines will then cancel flights, will divert them to other airports during
congested times, and will not endeavor to increase scheduled operations. Con- gested airports such as Chicago-O'Hare International Airport and Hartsf ield Atlanta International Airport currently experience about 10-minute average delays.
It is believed that, from an airline perspective, a new airport would be economically
justified well before saturation occurs. In Denver, for example, an economic analysis indicates that the proposed new airport should enter service when aircraft delays reach between 5 and 6 minutes per operation.
In this study, a transfer of operations is assumed to take place when aircraft opera- tions reach 250,000 per year. According to the aviation activity forecasts, this level of operations should take place in about the year 2000.
Table 31 and Figure 34 present the estimated number of passengers for the uncon- strained and the constrained demand conditions. For the constrained conditions,
passengers accommodated at Lindbergh Field would continue to increase after the constrained point in time is reached. The increase would take place because the
average size of the aircraft would continue to increase, thus permitting more
passengers to be carried for each operation.
At the second planning activity level, an estimated 3 million passengers could no be accommodated if a new airport was not in service. By the fourth plannint
activity level, an estimated 15 million passengers could not be accommodated if I
new airport was not in service.
The data shown in Table 32 and Figure 35 represent the impacts caused by a con strained Lindbergh Field. For the fourth planning activity level, the total vaIuc added not realized without a new airport amounts to $1.76 billion. Over the entirf
planning period, the total value added not realized would be about $53 billion.
I
I
E
#
I
I
I
#
0
E
IC.
1
I
1
E
1
R
0
171
w *
TABLE 31
SUMMARY OF AIRPORT ACTIVITY BASED ON OPERATION AT LINDBERGH FIELD UNDER CONSTRAINED CONDITIONS
San Diego Air Carrier Airport Site Selection Study
Planning activity level Four - - Two Three
Annual passengers not
accommodated (thousands) 3,000 9,0100 15,000
Annual aircraft operations
not accommodated 40,000 108,O 0 0 148,000
Annual air carrier aircraft
operations not accommodated 37,000 10 1,OU) 0 139,000
Source: Peat Marwick, November 1989.
172
0
I
I 1
w e
TABLE 32
SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC IMPACT BASED ON OPERATION
AT LINDBERGH FIELD UNDER CONSTRAINED CONDITIONS
San Diego Air Carrier Airport Site Selectioin Study Dollar amounts in thousands
Planning activity level Two Three Four
Direct em ploy m en t Realized 36,000 48,000 58,000 Not realized 6,000 21,000 35,000
Direct wages and salaries Realized $640,000 $800,000 $960,000 Not realized $110,000 $340,000 $570,000
Direct value added Realized $1,286,000 $1,600,000 $1,923,000 Not real iz ed $23 0,OO 0 $690,000 $1,150,000
To tal employ men t Realized 52,000 66,000 80,000 Not realized 9,000 29,0010 48,000
Total wages and salaries
Realized $970,000 $i,23o,oao $1,490,000
Not realized $170,000 $530,000 $890,000
Total value added Realized $1,950,000 $2,440,000 $2,940,000 Not realized $340,000 $1,050,000 $1,760,000
Source: Peat Marwick, July 1989.
174
ca 0 W
T
1
I
I
R
gz I
1
I 20,000 3
1
1
R
8
I
I c
i
t
4 z
5.0
120,000
B
5
n 4.0 n 100,000 4 W
4
m
3.0 $-
si ai
c h 80,000 22 uo ue -c E?
E.z 20
9; 60,000 &E
n
40,000 a 2
r) Y 0 1.0 a
0 0 Plannin
activlv EMPLOYMENT WAGES AND VALUE ADDED level SALAR I ES
FIGURE 35 El
ECONOMIC IMPACTS UNDER CONS
CONDITIONS
Economic Impact Analysis San Diego Region
uKx)(x124 -Peat Marwick Noven 175
ITEM #111 e 0
L ’.
gomhtern
Airport’
San’Diegom
~ -~~~~ ~
W 0
9 Continued growth in passenger
Continued demand for. and
= Terminal gates needed to handle
traffic. aircraft traffic growth must be
increased from 35 in 1988 to 63
The Port of San Diego has the insufficient supply of. aircnft gates in 2010.
responsibility to operate and maintajn and overnight aircraft parking. . Cargolmail terminal building floor
Insufficient airfield capacity to areas should be increased from the San Diego International .\irport.
provide for aircraft movements present 51.500 SF to 2i3.000 SF Lindbergh Field. Lindbergh Field will continue to act as the major airport for San Diego Count! until it is during peak periods. in 2010.
replaced hIth a new airport. It is 9 Urgent need to provide an In-flight kitchen floor areas should
improved fuel storage facility. be increased from 66.?c@ SF in recognized that the geographical
constraints at Lindbergh Field make it Inadequaq of Harbor Drive to 1988 to 111.c100 SF in 2010. incapable of accommodating gro\rth in air tdtic. which is espected as the accommodate near term forecasts a Aviation fuel storage capacity must
San Diego region continues to develop OT rwonal and airport-related be increased from 3K.Wfl gallons
and prosptlr. traffic. in 1988 to 4,IKKl.WI gt!!nns in 211111. . Insuiiicient terminal capacity to m Public auto parking spaces should For planning purposes it is assumed that an optlntinnal replacement Jiport meet phjsenger demand. be increaszd irom 1.70~) jpaies in
will not bt. available for ten or more = InsuRcient on-airport parking and 19?+ to 12,WI spaces in 2!UO.
years. In tht interim. the Port oi San terminal curbsidi capacity. . Ernplo!ee auto parking spaces must
Continual grokth in demand for air be increased from $70 spaces in Dkgo hs the obligation to prod?
additiona! iaciiities at Lindbergh Field ireight and other airport facilities. 1988 to 1.700 spaces in 21!1!1. in an erhrt to keep pact. itith
intrwing air travel dmanlis. = Regional acct'ss capacity should be
The .ADS addresses the short and long griati! i7tTro.d hy adding a dir;.:t The San Dicg(.l .&<ia!im oi tern needs of all airport usus and it airport conntction to Intersbk Govtmmcjns IS.I\XD.~CI is sold! ddmnines what factors will cniistnin respunsibit. tor siting :his r$iI ID'S thc growth oi tht airport. Yeasures Hfutc 3 st \\'ashington Street.
commeraal airport in its rolr hc that ma! be hk$n tu allctk the airprt . .Airport related ground traffic is
projected to increase from 54.0~10 regional transportation planning to continue tu st~e the San Dicgo
agmc!. hjor redrwlopm<nt oi reginn in the immt.diate future are daily vehicles in 1988 to 118.il00 facilities at Lindbergh Field should no! reiclmntndations ot' tht: study. deter tht, efforts oi local government daily vehicles in 2010.
officials and S.XYD.I\G to find an . Regional access capacity needs to
be greatl! improved by adding a
direct airport connection to
alternate airport site appropriate for the iuturr oi air tnnjpur'iition in the
Interstate Route 5 at Vashington
San Diego region. nor should intenm
construction at Lindtwrgh Field be
construed as an effort to perpetuate its Street.
9 If an alternative airport site for San use further into the future than is necessary. Diego Count! cannot be found
Development Plan 2D-2 is the
preferred long range, contingenq
plan for expanding the airport
provided 48 acres of MCRD
If m alternative airport site for San
Diego County cannot be found
Development Plan 2D-3 is the
preferred alternate long range.
contingency plan if Plan 20-2
cannot be implemented.
9 Annual pwngers are expected to
increase from 11 million in 1988 to
24 million in 2010.
increase from 134.000 in 1988 to
262.000 in ,3010.
decrease from 38,000 in 1988 to
30,000 in 2010.
' General aviation aircraft operations
also are expected to decrease from
24.000 in 198s to 15.0o0 in 2010.
F AIRPORT Airline aircraft operations will
Commuter aircraft operations uill property can be acquired.
, the District retamed
I 1
Fourteen alternate devl e concepts me prepare(
Cittegories. A hvo step
process was employed. evaluation eliminated tr
fourteen alternatives as further consideration. 'I
remaining alternatives M
anaiped and two plans
recommended for devell
are Plan 2D-2 and Plar are illustrated in the aci
layouts and briefly dew
L > in accordance with the TND AND 0
RAFFIC ORECAS'IS
lrndbergh Field, occupying 485
res, is one mile northwest of dor\ntom San bego and is one d the
most conveniently located airports in the nation. The airfield consists of two
runwavap-a main runuay. 200' x 9400:
. and a cross-wind runuay. 75' x 4440'
gates and 5 comm\mn gates. Ownught
12.500 pounds or less. There are huo
passenger tsmjnals containing 30 lpl
hircraft parking frequently exreeds 50 aircraft. Both terminals are located on Requires acquisition of
acres of MCRD propert: the south side of the airport as are all
north parallel taxiwax ai of the air cargo terminals. fuel storage and auh parking The main regional
access artep to the airport is Sorth construchon of a surfac
Harbor Drive. connecbng north and s(
terminal areas.
0 Cross-wind runway 13-31 Recommended phased development of
closed to allow for new 1 the airport is based upon traffic forecasts of pasxngers. cargo. aircraft operations. and ground ehicle traffic. development.
The major acbity forecasts are shown 0 Kek 27 gate terminal to
on the accompan!i% gciphs. constructed in trianglz a
m = Plan 2D2 will cost 5289.4 million
Over 20 years plus the cost d
acquiring MCRD property.
Pian 2D3 will cost $385.3 million
over 20 years
Animmediateastionprogram
devel0Pmnt nheme costing s2i'o
million will permit incremental
Approximatel! $11.0 million is
expansion while defemng larger
new. airport is knonn.
eligible for Federal-aid leaving
$16.0 million to be funded locally.
This estimate does not include
stmaural auto parking
G LAN 2D-2
menb until the schedule for. a for Uf& b light aimaft only wtigh*M
6
Cross-wind runwax 13.
together uith an auto parking closed to allow for ne)
structure and a drect access development.
roadway connection to 1-5. Kew check-in parsengf
Alternate long term contingeno New 4,000,000 gallon fuel storage and cargolmail ternijn
development concepts were designed to facility to be const~~cted m triangle constructed in triangle
am. parking structure and i accommodate the traffc forecasts. Four
design categories of alternatives were . seu. 11 gate cargo,mail temind, devised as follows: access roadway conneci
replacement maintenance hanger, Two satellite concouw . Maximize Use of Existing Facilities and flight kitchen to be constructed with 25 gates to be cor
Within Existing Property in current US. Air ieasehold area. east of East Terminal a.
8 Maximize Use of Existing Facilities 0 Auto parking structures to be connected to north chec
Assuming h'ew Property constructed in south terminal area. terminal via undergroun
Acquisitions . Existing airport roadway system b mover system. = Rebuild Existing Facilities Within be improved. Reconstruction of East '
permit a second parallel Existing Propert! Additional lanes to be added to
Rebuild Existing Facilitres North Harbor Dnve. sew the south teminal
Assuming Sew Property New 4,000,000 gallon fuc
Acquisitions facilib to be constructed
WVES
area.
\A v u - New parkrng stmctures to be . constructed in south terminal UG
Replacement maintenance hanger.
new control tower. and emergenq
rescue building to be constructed
in current US. Air leasehold area.
Existing airport roadmy system to
be improved.
D Additional lanes added to Korth
Harbor Drive
The IAP is designed to provide
incremental improwments consistent
With the long range recommended development program. The IAP
emphasizes expansion of the most critical airport elements-those that
need immediate improvement.
m k pmides an innemental
-w& Terminal expansion to 19 @ks
-West Terminal apron expanslor,
-K~ 2.000.000 @ion fwl storage facilin- in
bangle area .Terminal road and Harbor khd interchange
improvement.
.Mdlbona' hes added to North Harbor
Dnw
it provides the District and
SAND.!& time to determine when a
w airport site can be developed.
expansion of the most critical
16.7 million passengers. These are:
facilities to handle forecast traffic of
'<\\. . . , Immediate Action Plan :'. .. .
r. ..
'1
I, 1 - - 2" - 1 - e c" x 3 0 8 c c
1990 1995 2ooo 2005 20!0
Annual Cargo /Mail-Tons
24
20
.9 L & 16 e 4: 2 12 W.
C 0 = - - 8 E
4
0 1%' 1W5 m 2005 2019
Annual Passengers
300
250
.I t
.I) k 100
1s e
-200 d 150 5
<
1990 m5 2m #KH 2010 0
Annual A: craft Operations
n e - i.
d
h .- -
-u c g t
Daily Vehicle Trips F (Million Dollars)
LONG RANGE CONTINGENCY PLANS
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS 1990-2010
Dewlopment Item Plan 2D.2 Plan 2D-3
Airfield Paiements SI3 11 S 1982 Passenger Terminals 96 61 13994 , . 21 93 21 93 Car oiHa~l Terminal
12 66 12.66 Fl,g t Kitchen - .@.E 0 75 Control Toher
1 95 w Airport Roads
People !loier S\stem 88 SA 80 - p 25 33
Auto Parhing
Regi~nal Access 22 Pn i;n In 08 1QS Maintenance H~~~~
TOTALS Sl89 42L l?sj3?,
0 Adopt Immediate kbon Program
and implement at the earliest . Plan 2D-2 IS the preferred
de\elopment progm for the long
range contmgenq plan should a Auabon Fuel Sjsfem 16 90
new arport site not be awlable for
10 to 15 9a.n This plan depends
upon acquiring about 48 acres of
land from HCRD
negohahons fa11 Plan 2D3 can
sene as the fall back long range
conhngenq plan
.. a
PraCbCal date Emergeno Building 2 70 -. 2nd
L = Does not incl& cos: 01 lad xpulsltlonr
The esbmated total capital costs for the Immediate .4ction Program are summand J in the table belob . If KRD propert! acquisihon ,
IMMEDIATE ACTION PROGRAM
(Million Dollars)
ESTMATED CAPITAL COSTS - 1990-1995
Development Item Amount Federal Aid
West Terminal Building b 13.1 00 .ooO S 3.100.000 WON West Terminal Apron 2.600,000 2.1 00.000
Plan implementabon deals with a
wt dgudelmes for the ordert
md systematic co~ctl
- pmdedforthe
P&D ~hnO!O@h8
Long Range Cor
m_..n_.- .
7- I."
:-u.
tingencyplan 2D-2
E E. rwm*rnrn