Regional Airport System Plan Update - Nov 1994
Click HERE for graphic.
Regional Airport System Plan Update
San Francisco Bay Area
1994
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Joseph P. Bort Metrocenter
101 Eighth Street
Oakland, CA 94607-4700
510-464-7827
FAX: 510-464-7848
TDD/TTY: 510-464-7769
Approved by the Regional Airport Planning Committee (RAPC)
January 31, 1994
Approved by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
July 27, 1994
REQUIRED STATEMENT
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
The following statement is provided as required by Paragraph 429.a
of Federal Aviation Administration Order 5100.38, Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) Handbook:
"The preparation of this document was financed in part
through a planning grant from the Federal Aviation
Administration as provided under Section 505 of the
Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982. The contents
do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy
of the FAA. Acceptance of this report by the FAA does
not in any way constitute a commitment on the part of the
United States to participate in any development depicted
therein; nor does it indicate that the proposed
development is environmentally acceptable in accordance
with appropriate public laws.
Table of Contents
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1.2 Critical Aviation Issues for the Region. . . . . . . . 1-3
1.3 General Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5
1.4 General Plan Recommendations and Policy Basis. . . . .1-11
1.5 Detailed Airport-Specific Recommendations. . . . . . .1-14
1.6 Plan Implementation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-23
2. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
2.1 Historical Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
2.2 Relationship Between the RASP and Other Plans. . . . . 2-2
2.3 Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
2.4 National and State Aviation Trends . . . . . . . . 2-5
2.5 Regional Aviation Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-10
3. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
4. INVENTORY AND CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4.2 The Regional Airport System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2
4.3 Airport Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4
4.3.1 Commercial Service Airports. . . . . . . . . 4-5
San Francisco International Airport . . . . . . . 4-5
Metropolitan Oakland International. . . . . . . . 4-5
San Jose International. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6
Buchanan Field (Concord). . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7
Sonoma County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7
4.3.2 General Aviation Airports. . . . . . . . . 4-9
4.3.3 Military Airports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8
Naval Air Station Alameda . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8
Hamilton Field. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9
Moffett Field. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9
Travis Air Force Base. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9
4.3.4 Special-Use Airports . . . . . . . . . . . .4-10
4.3.5 Private-Use General Aviation Airports. . . .4-10
4.4 Based Aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-10
4.4.1 Commercial Service Airports 4-10
4.4.2 General Aviation Airports. . . . . . . . . .4-10
4.4.3 Military Airports. . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-11
4.4.4 Special-Use Airports . . . . . . . . . . . .4-11
4.5 Airport Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-11
4.5.1 Commercial Service Airports . . . . . . . .4-11
i
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Table of Contents September 9, 1994
4.6 Capabilities/Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-13
4.6.1 Airside Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-14
4.7 Constraints. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-15
4.7.1 Airspace Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . .4-16
4.7.2 Environmental, Physical, and Political
Constraints. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-19
San Francisco . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-19
Oakland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-19
San Jose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-20
Concord . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-20
Sonoma County . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-21
McAteer-Petris Act and BCDC
Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-21
4.8 Airport Plans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-21
4.8.1 Airport Master Plans . . . . . . . . . . . .4-21
San Francisco . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-21
Oakland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-23
San Jose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-24
Buchanan Field. . . . . . . . . . . . .4-25
4.8.2 Other Plans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-25
5 AVIATION DEMAND FORECASTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
5.1 Passenger Activity Forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
5.1.1 Review of Previous Forecasts . . . . . . . . 5-1
MTC Forecasts (1980 and 1985) . . . . . 5-2
Existing Airport Master Plans . . . . . 5-3
1986 FAA San Francisco Hub Forecast . . 5-3
1991 FAA Aviation Forecast. . . . . . . 5-4
1990 FAA Terminal Area Forecast . . . . 5-5
1989 California Aviation System Plan
(CASP) by Caltrans. . . . . . . . . . . 5-5
5.1.2 Air Travel Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5
International Travel Growth . . . . . . 5-6
Domestic Travel Growth (O&D and
Connecting) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6
Maturation of Markets . . . . . . . . . 5-6
Airline Yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6
Demographics and Per Capita Air Travel. 5-7
Telecommunications. . . . . . . . . . . 5-7
5.1.3 Forecast Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7
5.1.4 Selected MTC Regional Airport System
Plan Forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9
ii
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Table of Contents September 9, 1994
5.2 Air Cargo Forecasts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10
5.2. Review of Previous Forecasts. . . . . . . . . . . .5-10
1980 MTC Forecasts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-10
Existing Airport Master Plans . . . . . . . . . . .5-11
1986 FAA San Francisco HUB Forecasts. . . . . . . .5-11
1990 FAA National Forecast/ 1990 FAA Denver Hub
Forecast. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-11
1990 Boeing World Air Cargo Forecast. 5-11
California Aviation System Plan (CASP) Update . . .5-12
5.2.2 Air Cargo Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-12
5.2.3 Air Cargo Forecasts. . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-14
5.3 General Aviation Forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-16
5.3.1 Forecasts of Pilot Activity. . . . . . . . . .5-18
National Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-18
Private and Student Pilots. . . . . . . . . . . . .5-23
Commercial Pilots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-24
Growth Projections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-25
Comparison Between California and the Bay Area. . .5-27
5.3.2 Aircraft Operations and Based Aircraft Forecasts .5-28
Based Aircraft Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-28
6 AIRPORT SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES DEFINITION. . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
6.2 Air Carrier System Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4
No Build Alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4
Airport System Management (ASM) Alternative . . . . 6-5
Airport Carrier Airport Master Plans Alternative. . 6-6
Airport System Optimization Alternative . . . . . . 6-8
New Technology Alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9
6.3 General Aviation System Alternatives . . . . . . . . . .6-10
No Build. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-10
General Aviation Airport Master Plans . . . . . . .6-11
General Aviation Airport System Operation . . . . .6-11
6.4 Discussion of Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-13
7 AIR CARRIER AIRPORT SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION. . . . . . 7-1
7.1 Summary of Alternatives Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
7.1.1 Evaluation Summary for Air Carrier Airports. . 7-1
iii
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Table of Contents September 9, 1994
7.2 Air Carrier Alternatives Evaluation Methodology. . . . . 7-9
7.2.2 Evaluation Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . .7-13
Passenger Market Share. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-13
Passenger Splits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-14
Changes in Aircraft Size and Load Factor. . . . . .7-15
Passengers per Operation. . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-16
Peak Hour Operations as a Percentage of Total Annual
Operations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-17
Gate Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-18
7.3 Evaluation Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-20
7.3.1 No Build Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-20
7.3.2 Airport System Management (ASM Alternative. .7-24
7.3.3 Master Plans Alternative . . . . . . . . . . .7-28
7.3.4 System Optimization Alternative. . . . . . . .7-31
7.3.5 System Optimization Alternative. . . . . . . .7-34
7.3.6 New Technologies Alternative . . . . . . . . .7-37
7.3.7 Civilian Use of Alameda NAS and Moffett NAS. .7-40
8 GENERAL AVIATION ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . 8-1
8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1
8.2 Description of General Aviation Alternatives . . . . . . 8-1
8.2.1 No Build Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1
8.2.1 Master Plans Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . 8-2
8.2.3 System Optimization Alternative. . . . . . . . 8-2
8.3 General Aviation Alternatives Evaluation Methodology . . 8-3
8.3.1 Evaluation Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3
Airside Capacity (Runways). . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3
Operations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3
Landside Capacity (Aircraft Facilities) . . . . . . 8-4
Distribution of Demand and Supply . . . . . . . . . 8-4
Noise Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-4
Compatibility with Local Government Land
Use Planning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-4
Capital Cost. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-4
Bay and Wetland Fill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-5
Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-5
Operations Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-5
Emergency Response. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-5
iv
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Table of Contents September 9, 1994
8.3.2 Evaluation Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-7
Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-7
Allocation of Based Aircraft. . . . . . . . . . . . 8-9
Data Sources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-10
8.4 General Aviation Alternatives Evaluation Results . . . .8-12
8.4.1 No Build . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-13
8.4.2 Master Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-14
8.4.3 System Optimization. . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-16
9 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1
9.1 Air Carrier Airports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1
9.2 General Aviation Airports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1
Appendix A Spreadsheet Analysis for air carrier airport
alternatives for years 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005,
and 2010
Appendix B Summary of Focus Groups
Appendix C Regional Airport Planning Committee Membership nd
Study Participants
Appendix D Excerpts from ACCESS -- Models of Airport Access
and Airport Choice for the San Francisco Bay
Region, by Greig Harvey and MTC, Revision 2,
December 1988.
v
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Table of Contents September 9, 1994
List of Exhibits
Exhibit# Exhibit Title Page
1.1 Demand/Capacity Comparisons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6
1.2 Ground Access Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9
1.3 Community Noise Impact Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . .1-10
1.4 Recommended Airport Traffic Shares . . . . . . . . . . .1-12
1.5 2010 Recommended Air Carrier System Plan -
High Forecast. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-16*
1.6 2010 Recommended Air Carrier System Plan -
Low Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-16*
1.7 2010 Recommended GA System Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . 1-19*
4.1 The Airport System: Public Use Facilities. . . . . . . .4-2*
4.2 Towered Airports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-3*
4.3 Helicopter Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-3*
4.4 Air Cargo Airports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-4*
4.5 Special Use Airports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-9*
4.6 ne Airport System: Public and Private Use Facilities . .4-9*
4.7 Regional Highways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10*
4.8 Rail Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10*
4.9 Distribution of Based General Aviation Aircraft
by County (1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10*
4.10 Air Carrier Passenger Enplanements (1990). . . . . . . 4-11*
4.11 Air Carrier Operations (1990). . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11*
4.12 Operations Breakdown by Air Carrier Airport (1990) . . 4-11*
4.13 Distribution of Air Cargo (Tons, 1990) . . . . . . . . 4-11*
4.14 Distribution of General Aviation Operations by County
(1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11*
4.15 Type of Airspace by Airport. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-18*
4.16 Airspace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-18*
4.17 Public Use Airports Inventory. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-21*
5.1 Comparison Of Previous Passenger Forecasts . . . . . . .5-1*
5.2 1980 MTC Passenger Forecast vs Actual. . . . . . . . . .5-2*
5.3 Historic Passenger Enplanements. . . . . . . . . . . . .5-3*
5.4 MTC/RAPC Selected Regional Passenger Forecasts . . . . .5-9*
5.5 Regional Passenger Forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-9*
5.6 San Francisco Passenger Forecasts. . . . . . . . . . . .5-9*
5.7 Oakland Passenger Forecasts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-9*
5.8 San Jose Passenger Forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-9*
5.9 Concord Passenger Forecasts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-9*
5.10 Sonoma County Passenger Forecasts. . . . . . . . . . . .5-9*
5.11 O&D, Connecting, and International Passengers. . . . . .5-9*
5.12 Comparison of Previous Air Cargo Forecasts . . . . . . 5-10*
5.13 1980 MTC Air Cargo Forecast vs Actual. . . . . . . . . 5-10*
5.14 Historic Enplaned Cargo (tons) . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-11*
5.15 MTC/RAPC Selected Regional Air Cargo Forecasts . . . . 5-15*
5.16 Regional Cargo Forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-15*
5.17 San Francisco Cargo Forecasts. . . . . . . . . . . 5-15*
5.18 Oakland Cargo Forecasts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-15*
5.19 San Jose Cargo Forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-15*
5.20 Student and Private Pilots (California). . . . . . . . 5-18*
5.21 Commercial Pilots (California) . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-18*
5.22 Active Pilot Population (U.S. Total) . . . . . . . . . 5-19*
5.23 Student Pilot Certificates Issued (U.S. Total) . . . . 5-19*
* Indicates that the exhibit appears after the listed page
vi
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Table of Contents September 9, 1994
Exhibit # Exhibit Title Page
5.24 Student Pilots(U..S.Total) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-19*
5.25 Pilot Certificates Issued U.S. Total). . . . . . . . . 5-19*
5.26 Active Student Pilots by Age (Ages 19-39). . . . . . . 5-19*
5.27 Active Student Pilots by Age (Ages 40-60+) U.S. Total. 5-19*
5.28 Active Private Pilots by Ages (16-39) U.S. Total . . . 5-20*
5.29 Active Private Pilots by Age (Ages 40-60+) U.S. Total. 5-20*
5.30 U.S. Population - Size of age. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-21*
5.31 Student Pilot Certificates Issued Per 10,000
Population. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-21*
5.32 Pilot Certificates Issued (U.S. Total) . . . . . . . . 5-21*
5.33 Active Pilot Population (U.S. total) . . . . . . . . . 5-21*
5.34 Active Commercial Pilots by age(ages 16-39). . . . . . 5-22*
5.35 Active Commercial Pilots by Age (ages 45-74) . . . . . 5-22*
5.36 Recent Trends in Commercial Pilots (U.S. Total). . . . 5-22*
5.37 Airline Transport Certificates Issued (U.S. Total) . . 5-22*
5.38 Number of California Active Pilots - Medical
Class 3 (Ages 16-44). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-23*
5.39 Number of California Active Pilots - Medical
Class 3 (Ages 45-74). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-23*
5.40 Average Hours Flown by California Pilots- Medical Class
3(Ages 16-44). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-24*
5.41 Average Hours Flown by California Pilots- Medical Class
3(Ages 45-74). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-24*
5.42 Change in Active Pilot Cohort over 5 years- Medical Class
3(Ages 2044) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-24*
5.43 Change in Active Pilot Cohort over 5 years - Medical
Class 3 (Ages 45-74) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-24*
5.44 Average Change in Cohort Size over 5 years -
Medical Class 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-24*
5.45 Cohort Model and Average Flight Hours -
Medical Class 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-24*
5.46 Number of California Active Pilots - Medical
Class 2 (Ages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-25*
5.47 Number of California Active Pilots - Medical
Class 2 (Ages 45-74) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-25*
5.48 Average Hours Flown by California Pilots - Medical
Class 2 (Ages 16-44) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-25*
5.49 Average Hours Flown by California Pilots - Medical
Class 2 (Ages 45-74). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-25*
5.50 Average Flight Hours - Medical Class 2 . . . . . . . . 5-25*
5.51 Change in Active Pilot Cohort over 5 years - Medical
Class 2 (Ages 20-24) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-25*
5.52 Change in Active Pilot Cohort over 5 years - Medical
Class 2 (Ages 25-44) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-25*
5.53 Change in Active Pilot Cohort over 5 years -
Medical Class 2 (Ages 45-74) . . . . . . . . . . . 5-25*
5.54 Average Change in Cohort Size over 5 years -
Medical Class 2.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-26*
5.55 Cohort Model - Medical Class 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-26*
5.56 Projected Growth in Pilot Activity (1995-2010) . . 5-27*
5.57 Comparison Between Bay Area and California . . . . . . 5-27*
5.58 GA Aircraft and Pilot Hours (California) . . . . . . . 5-28*
5.59 GA Aircraft Utilization (California) . . . . . . . . . 5-28*
5.60 GA Operations per Hour Flown (California FAA Towered
Airports). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-28*
5.61 Trend in Local GA Operations (California FAA Towered
Airports). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-28*
5.62 Forecasts of GA Operations: 1990-2010 - Bay Area Civil
Airport System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-29*
5.63 Operations per Pilot Hour Flown. . . . . . . . . . . . 5-29*
5.64 Average Annual Fleet Attrition Rate. . . . . . . . . . 5-29*
5.65 Based Aircraft Forecasts: 1990-2010 -
MTC/ABAG Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-29*
* Indicates that the exhibit appears after the listed page
vii
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Table of Contents September 9, 1994
Exhibit # Exhibit Title Page
7.1 Passenger Market Share. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-13*
7.2 Passenger Splits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-14*
7.3 Changes in Aircraft Size and Load Factor . . . . . . . 7-15*
7.4 Passengers per Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-16*
7.5 Peak Hour Operations as a Percentage of Total Annual
Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-17*
7.6 Annual Passengers per gate . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-17*
7.7 No Build Analysis - High Forecast. . . . . . . . . . . 7-20*
7.8 No Build Analysis - Low Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . 7-20*
7.9 Daily Vehicle Miles Travelled. . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-22*
7.10 Daily Vehicle Trips. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-22*
7.11 Daily Vehicle Trips on Bay Bridges . . . . . . . . . . 7-22*
7.12 2010 ASM Analysis - High Forecast. . . . . . . . . . . 7-24*
7.13 2010 ASM Analysis - Low Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . 7-24*
7.14 2010 Master Plans Analysis - High Forecast . . . . . . 7-28*
7.15 2010 Master Plans Analysis - Low Forecast. . . . . . . 7-28*
7.16 2010 System Optimization 'A" Analysis - High Forecast. 7-31*
7.17 2010 System Optimization "A" Analysis - Low Forecast . 7-31*
7.18 2010 System Optimization 'B" Analysis - High Forecast. 7-34*
7.19 2010 System Optimization "B" Analysis - Low Forecast . 7-34*
7.20 2010 New Technologies Analysis - High Forecast . . . . 7-37*
7.21 2010 New Technologies Analysis - Low Forecast. . . . . 7-37*
8.1 Existing Conditions Byron-Hamilton . . . . . . . . . 8-12*
8.2 Existing Conditions Hayward-Nut Tree . . . . . . . . . 8-12*
8.3 Existing Conditions Oakland-Rio Vista . . . . . . . . 8-16*
8.4 Existing Conditions San Cargos-South County. . . . . . 8-12*
8.5 System Plan Alternative 1: No Build -
Byron-Hamilton** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-13*
8.6 System Plan Alternative 1: No Build - Hayward-Nut
Tree** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-13*
8.7 System Plan Alternative 1: No Build - Oakland-Rio
Vista**. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-13*
8.8 System Plan Alternative 1: No Build - San
Cargos-South County**. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-13*
8.9 System Plan Alternative 2: Master Plans - Byron
Hamilton** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-14*
8.10 System Plan Alternative 2: Master Plans - Hayward-Nut
Tree** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-14*
8.11 System Plan Alternative 2: Master Plans - Oakland-Rio
Vista**. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-14*
8.12 System Plan Alternative 2: Master Plans - San Cargos-
South County*. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-14*
8.13 System Plan Alternative 3: System Optimization -
Byron-Hamilton** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-16*
8.14 System Plan Alternative 3: System Optimization -
Hayward-Nut Tree** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-16*
8.15 System Plan Alternative 3: System Optimization-
Oakland-Rio Vista**. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-16*
8.16 System Plan Alternative 3: System Optimization - San
Cargos South County. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-16*
8-17 System Plan Summary of GA System Alternatives. . . . . 8-16*
* Indicates that the exhibit appears after the listed page
** Exhibits 8.5 through 8.16 each include analyses of several
airports, which appear in alphabetical order.
viii
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Background
The Regional Airport System Plan (RASP) is an appendix to the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC's) long-range
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and provides an assessment of
future aviation requirements and suggested improvements for the
nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. The current update is the
first significant revision to the Regional Airport Plan in a number
of years, and will provide recommendations to be incorporated into
MTC's 1994 Regional Transportation Plan update. There is also an
environmental study that describes the impact of aviation
development on community noise, regional air quality, the Bay, and
other important environmental impact areas.
Statutory authority for MTC to prepare the RASP is contained
in California Government Code Section 65080(a), requiring that each
Regional Transportation Plan include aviation facilities. In
addition, California Government Code Section 65081.1 provides that
an updated regional transportation plan must include an airport
ground access improvement program" for the "development and
extension of mass transit systems".
Purpose of the Plan
The purpose of the Regional Airport System Plan is threefold:
1. To assess the long-range requirements for new and improved
aviation facilities in the region, both air carrier and
general aviation.
2. To evaluate tradeoffs in terms of optimizing system
capacity, managing the airport ground access system,
minimizing adverse environmental impacts, and maintaining
compatibility of land uses around airports.
3. To develop public consensus behind proposed improvements.
Goals and Objectives
A. Improve Regional Access to Air Service
1. Provide air passenger facilities that will be convenient in
terms of their location and accessibility for regional air
travelers and airport employees.
2. Provide general aviation facilities that will be convenient
in terms of their location and accessibility for both
business and non-business aircraft owners.
3. Provide improved transit and highway connections to air
carrier and general aviation airports to enable air
travelers, airport employees, cargo shippers, and other
airport users to quickly and reliably make ground access
trips to and from Bay Area airports.
1-1
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 1: Executive Summary September 9, 1994
B. Improve System Safety and Efficiency
1. Support measures to increase runway and airspace
utilization as a means to maximize the use of existing
airfield capacity (e.g., larger aircraft, higher load
factors, better scheduling of airline flights to reduce
runway overload, and technological improvements in the air
navigation system).
2. Ensure that airport system improvements do not compromise
air safety.
3. Ensure that runways, taxiways, and other critical airport
facilities are well maintained.
4. Provide facilities at the airports that improve efficiency
of operation for airport users (e.g., expanded terminals
and additional gates, internal airport circulation roads,
modem cargo facilities, new hangar facilities for general
aviation, etc.).
C. Promote Equity for System Improvements
1. Seek an equitable distribution of airport system benefits
(access to air service in terms of destinations, frequency,
fares, etc.) and impacts (local traffic congestion, noise,
air pollution, and other land use impacts).
2. Develop an airport access system that provides efficient
and affordable ground access from all parts of the Bay Area.
3. Provide an equitable decision-making process in developing
the Regional Airport System Plan.
D. Promote Sensitively to the Environment
1. Minimize regional (and, to the extent possible, local)
community noise exposure.
2. Minimize air pollution from auto and aircraft activity.
3. Minimize energy consumption from auto and aircraft activity.
4. For projects requiring Bay fill or taking of wetlands, seek
solutions that result in no net impact and, further, that
enhance these resources.
5. Ensure safety for people on the ground.
E. Promote Economic Vitality
1. Support air service improvements in domestic and
international markets as a means to stimulate commerce
(business and tourism).
2. Support airport improvements consistent with the regional
plan as a means to foster local economic vitality for
communities around airports.
3. Reduce runway and airspace delays that generate airline
costs and lead to higher air fares for air passengers and
cargo shippers.
4. Maintain land use compatibility around airports to avoid
adverse impacts on future airport operational capabilities.
1-2
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 1: Executive Summary September 9, 1994
1.2 Critical Aviation Issues for the Region
The Need for New Capacity, The defining issue for the Bay
Area's airport system is the adequacy of the existing runways and
airspace to accommodate future growth in air carrier and general
aviation activity. The forecasts of future activity represent the
"best estimate" of probable activity levels, and are usually
presented as a range of values to hedge against inherent
uncertainties in the underlying assumptions. Expansion of existing
air carrier airport runways presents numerous policy issues related
to environmental constraints (community noise impacts, Bay fill,
wetland impacts, endangered species impacts, local traffic impacts,
etc.) that must be carefully weighed in relation to overall
regional benefits. In contrast, development of an entirely new
airport (e.g., in the North Bay) will take years of planning and
public input, will certainly face some amount of public opposition,
will be costly, and may have an equally difficult set of
environmental concerns to address. In contrast to the air carrier
system, reduced activity at the region's general aviation airports
will result in these airports having adequate runway and parking
capacity to meet projected demand over the 20-year planning
horizon. The chief need at these airports is a high level of
demand for enclosed hangar space for based aircraft.
Airport Master Plans. The Regional Airport System Plan has
used existing airport master plans, either adopted or currently
under development, as the basis for much of the planning that has
been undertaken in this update. Proposals from these plans can be
compared to regional goals and objectives as outlined above.
San Francisco Airport's Master Plan was completed and adopted
by the Airports Commission on November 3, 1992; it would add, among
other things, a new international terminal; a new ground
transportation center; a light rail system; and a new access road
system. No new runways are planned. BART has also proposed, and
MTC has programmed partial funding for, a BART extension to the
airport.
Oakland Airport's Master Plan is under way and extends to the
year 2002; the plan does not anticipate the need for a second
parallel air carrier runway in this time frame; several regional
airport plan alternatives presented in the RASP Environmental
Impact Report include a second runway for analysis purposes.
San Jose Airport is also in the midst of a master planning
study, which proposed further terminal expansion, but no new
runways or general aviation facilities; air cargo handling
capability may be restricted due to a lack of space at the airport;
relocation of general aviation is being considered due to runway
capacity constraints.
Travis Air Force Base (AFB) has joint use potential, but it is
not currently necessary to activate this potential; military
operations may increase at Travis in the future as other military
bases are closed around the country and in California; a joint use
agreement with the Air Force has lapsed
1-3
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 1: Executive Summary September 9, 1994
and would need to be renegotiated if civilian air carrier service
is desired in the future.
General Aviation Airports: The general aviation segment of
aviation has been declining, but it is unlikely this trend will
continue; most airports have completed an Airport Master Plan, but
given the aforementioned decline, the impetus to do long range
planning has diminished; priority concerns for most general
aviation airports will be to maintain existing facilities, to
protect against further development encroachment, to provide a
supporting role to air carrier facilities in terms of accommodating
based aircraft and itinerant flight activity, and to add new hangar
space to protect aircraft from weather.
Military Airports: the prospective need for Hamilton (Army)
and Moffett (Navy) airfields have been prominent concerns in
development of the regional airport plan. While Moffett's future
use as an aviation facility is secure under National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA) ownership, the remaining aviation
portions of Hamilton Army Airfield will likely be relinquished to
local jurisdictions for non-aviation uses due to a lack of a local
airport sponsor. Alameda Naval Air Station (NAS), just surplused
by the Department of Defense (DOD), may have an aviation niche, but
its preservation is not critical to the functioning of the regional
airport system.
Ground Access Constraints: Each of the major air carrier
airports will face critical ground access constraints in the
future, which will result in passenger delays, potentially missed
flights, disruption to air cargo delivery, and parking overload.
The regional plan addresses this issue by assessing ways to balance
use of the three major airports, shorten vehicle trips, provide
better transit connections, and improve roadways for more efficient
airport access.
Environmental issues: A detailed assessment of community noise
exposure, air quality, and other environmental impacts associated
with the recommended Regional Airport System Plan is provided in a
separate Environmental Impact Study. Additional environmental
review will also be conducted where required for specific airport
development projects that are described in the Draft RASP.
Generally speaking, technological advancements in aircraft engines
and private automobiles will result in reduced airport community
noise exposure and reduced airport ground access pollution under
all alternatives. Regional noise exposure and ground access
emissions will be further influenced by the regional distribution
of air travel demand around the Bay Area air carrier airports. The
general aviation airport system will not experience significant
changes in noise exposure since the noise characteristics of the
piston powered general aviation fleet is not expected to change
appreciably in the future. In addition, the RASP environmental
study addresses potential environmental impacts on a regional
level. Subsequent analyses for individual airports are expected to
focus more specifically on impacts unique to those local
environments.
1-4
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 1: Executive Summary September 9, 1994
1.3 General Conclusions
The following sections discuss the key findings from the
regional study of aviation requirements and present the background
for the major recommendations.
Aviation Forecasts
For the period 1990 to 2010 projected growth rates and maximum
activity levels for the regional airport system were developed as
follows:
System Component %Growth Max. 2010 Volume
Air Passengers 67-100% 84 million travelers
Air Carrier Aircraft Operations 54-78% 933,000 operations
Air Cargo Volume 108-230% 3.1 millions tons
General Aviation Based Aircraft -3-25% 8,700 aircrafts
General Aviation Aircrat Operations 6-37% 4 million operations
These projections were developed for the purpose of regional
airport system policy planning. Project level planning or design
at individual airports will utilize forecasts developed as part of
the airports' master plans. Individual airport master plans that
are developed subsequent to this Regional Airport System Plan will
contain forecasts that may supersede these.
Air Carrier Airport Capacity
The comparison of existing airport system capacity with future
activity levels is the basis for developing airport system
improvement alternatives and recommendations. The evaluation of
the adequacy of future airport system capacity is contingent on a
number of factors that have been assumed in the analysis and that
represent favorable conditions in terms of optimum use of airport
and airspace capacity. These factors include the following:
1. Significant redistribution of flights between airports
2. Significant growth in aircraft seating capacity and airline
load factors, resulting in the following increases in
passengers per airline operation at each airport:
SFO 78-120 (54%)
OAK 45-75 (67%)
SJC 47-75 (60%)
Travis AFB 75
1-5
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 1: Executive Summary September 9, 1994
3. A six percent reduction in demand at the three major air
carrier airports due to a combination of the following:
continuation of limited airline service at Concord and
Sonoma County general airports, new service at Travis AFB
and/or introduction of California intercity high speed rail
service between Los Angeles and the Bay Area.
4. Diversion of some general aviation flights from air carrier
to other non-air carrier airports.
5. Exhibit 1.1 shows that, under the assumptions discussed
above, the primary air carrier airports (San Francisco,
Oakland, San Jose) can accommodate annual demand in 2010,
except that San Jose Airport will operate at 'unacceptable'
levels of delay. During peak hours, both Oakland and San
Francisco will operate at 'unacceptable' levels of delay
'under Visual Flight Rule (VFR) conditions, Under
Instrument Flight Rule (EFR) conditions, all airports will
operate at "unacceptable" levels of delay during the peak
hours.
Exhibit 1.1
DEMAND/CAPACITY COMPARISONS
(2010 High Forecast - Operations)
Click HERE for graphic.
1-6
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 1: Executive Summary September 9, 1994
6. The primary means for alleviating airport system capacity
shortfalls would be through addition of new runways; some
examples of possibilities include:
a. A new parallel runway at OAK with 700 to 800 ft of
separation from the existing runway would increase
annual capacity by 100,000 operations and VFR/EFR
capacity by 43 and 10 operations per hour,
respectively; this option would affect about 135 acres
of wetland (inboard runway option) or 57 acres of Bay
fill (outboard runway option).
b. New parallel runway at Oakland with 2,500 ft of
separation from the existing runway would increase
annual runway capacity by some 100,000 operations and
peak hour VFR/IFR capacity by 52 and 25 operations
(this options would require 387 acres of Bay fill or
impact 68 acres of freshwater wetland).
c. A new air carrier instrument runway in the North Bay
serving predominantly air carrier activity would
increase annual capacity in the range of 200,000-
250,000 annual operations and VFR/IFR capacity by
between 51 and 50 operations per hour, respectively.
7. Implementation of new FAA procedures and demand management
measures could potentially increase runway capacity by 6-7
percent and decrease peak hour airline operations by 9-10
percent; however, these estimates represent the outer bound
of what can be assumed to be reasonably achievable.
Airport Convenience
If passengers could choose among regional airports based on
access distance alone (assuming equal flight availability), the
following shares would result*:
Airport Market Share
SFO 48.1%
OAK 20.8%
SJC 22.9%
Travis AFB 7.7%
Concord, Sonoma Co. 0.5%
* Based upon the results of MTCs "ACCESS" model.
1-7
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 1: Executive Summary September 9, 1994
If a more realistic flight schedule is assumed for OAK and
SJC, (i.e., passengers only have selected flight destination
options from these airports, generally in the larger air travel
markets), then airport passengers shares would be expected to be as
shown below:
Airport Market Share
SFO 59%
OAK 16.0%
SJC 19.0%
Travis AFB/Rail 5.5%
Concord, Sonoma Co. 0.5%
Air Carrier Airport Terminal Capacity
Total airline gates required at the region's air carrier airports
will increase from 142 in 1990 to between 162 and 210 gates in the
year 2010.
General Aviation Airport Capacity
As a system, Bay Area general aviation airports are currently
operating at about 46 percent of their annual runway capacity and
about 79 percent of based aircraft parking capacity; 2010 forecasts
indicate the region's general aviation airports would operate at
about 59 percent of their annual runway capacity and 87 percent of
their aircraft parking capacity.
Since general aviation facilities are not expected to operate near
their capacity, most airports have the capability to accommodate
additional activity. One key role of these airports will be to
complement the capacity of the air carrier airports by providing
alternative facilities for general aviation users, i.e., to serve
as "reliever" airports for the air carrier airports. Accommodating
a portion of the general aviation activity at these airports will
effectively increase runway capacity by 3.6 million passengers (at
20 passengers per operation); diversion of 21,000 general aviation
operations at Oakland's South Field would effectively increase
runway capacity by 2 million annual passengers (at 90 passengers
per operation). San Jose Airport will require significant
diversion of general aviation based aircraft and VFR/IFR operations
to meet its regional air passenger share. Strategies to achieve
high levels of diversion include airport pricing and development of
attractive and convenient reliever facilities.
A related issue is the need to provide new IFR runway capacity for
the Bay Area airport system, including general aviation airports.
Absent additional IFR capacity, general aviation aircraft will
continue to rely on the air carrier airports for all-weather
operations, aggravating already significant delay problems at these
facilities. A promising trend is the growing number of corporate
general aviation aircraft being equipped with new navigational aids
(Loran C and
1-8
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 1: Executive Summary September 9, 1994
Global Positioning System). This equipment could enable airports
not currently equipped with instrument landing systems to accept
some level of IFR operations.
In the longer term, the region's general aviation airports
could provide suitable sites for selected air cargo activity,
Tiltrotor passenger aircraft for short haul scheduled airline
service, or remote ground access terminals with parking and baggage
check in for the shuttle services to SFO, OAK, or SJC airports.
Airport Ground Access
Daily vehicle trips by air passengers to Bay Area air carrier
airports will increase by 90 percent between 1990 and 2010, and
daily vehicle miles travelled (VMT) by approximately 100 percent.
Accommodating a higher share of regional air travel demand at
Oakland and San Jose airports would result in about 4-8 percent
reduction in airport access vehicle trips and distances. The
higher range of reduction includes the effect of an "tension of
mass transit (BARL) to San Francisco Airport.
Exhibit 1.2
Ground Access Comparisons*
(2010 High Forecast)
No Build Recommended Plan
Daily Daily
Vehicle Daily Vehicle Daily
Miles Vehicle Miles Vehicle
Airport Traveled Trips Traveled Trips
SFO 2.8 106 2.4 88
OAK .7 29 .8 35
SJC .6 34 .6 41
Travis/other .0 0 .09 10
Totals 4.1 169 3.9 174
* Source: MTCs "ACCESS" model
Environmental Issues
Environmental factors are generally favorable with respect to
accommodating additional air passenger and general aviation
activity at Bay Area airports under the Plan proposal:
1. Airline fleet changes will reduce community noise exposure
in the Bay Area from 42.1 acres in 1990 to 18.6 acres in
2010.
1-9
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 1: Executive Summary September 9, 1994
2. Air quality impacts will decline, primarily due to the
reduced automobile emissions for airport access journeys
resulting from the use of lower emitting passenger vehicles.
3. The Bay and its wetlands would not be affected as the plan
does not propose new facilities affecting these natural
resources; the Plan does propose a reevaluation of the need
for a second runway at Oakland Airport at Stage 3 levels of
regional passenger activity, and this runway would have Bay
or wetland impacts.
4. Airport access traffic measured in total vehicle miles of
travel will increase; freeway levels of service adjacent to
each airport would be expected to decrease due to added
airport trips being served by these new airport facilities
(passenger terminal, General Aviation facilities, runways,
etc.).
Site-specific impacts to the Bay and its wetlands, air and
water quality, traffic, and other issues, will be the subject of
subsequent environmental analyses for individual projects.
Exhibit 1.3
COMMUNITY NOISE IMPACT COMPARISONS
(2010 High Forecast)
1990 Existing 2010 No-Build 2010 System Plan
Airport Area* Homes** Area* Homes** Area* Homes**
SFO*** 14.9 5,210 8.7 3,040 7.6 2,660
OAK*** 13.1 590 4.2 190 4.4 200
SJC 11.8 1,600 2.8 380 3.0 400
Subtotal 39.8 7,400 15.7 3,610 15.0 3,260
__________________________________________________________________
Concord 1.4 0 1.4 0 1.4 0
Sonoma Co. 0.9 0 0.9 0 0.9 0
Travis AFB 0 0 0 0 1.3 0
Subtotal 2.3 0 2.3 0 3.6 0
* Area in square miles within the 65 Community Noise
Equivalent Level (CNEL) contour
** Homes within the 65 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)
contour
*** Both Oakland and San Francisco's noise contours include
significant areas over the Bay, Which have no defined non-
compatible residential land uses
1-10
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 1: Executive Summary September 9, 1994
5. Preserving land use compatibility for air carrier, general
aviation, and military airports is contingent on the
success of the local decision-making process involving
airport land use commissions ("ALUC's") and local
jurisdictions; further residential infill and encroachment
of tall structures into the airspace near airport runways
are key concerns.
Airport Improvement Costs
Air carrier airports generally have the financial capacity to
undertake major expansion programs from user revenues, concessions,
and FAA airport trust fund monies; smaller general aviation
airports rely more on federal and state grants for improvements. A
summary of major airport improvement costs for each airport is
contained in Chapter 9 of the main report.
1.4 General Plan Recommendations and Policy Basis
Air Carrier Airports
1. The Plan supports a redistribution of regional air passenger
activity among the air carrier airports to better balance
system demand with capacity, provide more convenient
access to air service for Bay Area residents, and
minimize environmental impacts associated with a 67-100
percent increase in passenger demand between 1990 and 2010.
2. The Plan recognizes the uncertainty in determining when
forecasted levels of passenger activity will actually
occur, and therefore proposes that airport traffic shares
be keyed to specific levels of activity for the Bay Area
as a whole; this approach will enable airport
operators to understand the Plan's expectations for improved
facilities, given the overall level of demand being
experienced by Bay Area airports as a group.
Regional Airport Passenger Shares
The Regional Airport System Plan recommends the following
desired airport traffic shares at each level (stage) of air travel
growth in the Bay Area; the intent of these policy allocations is
to achieve greater passenger convenience, minimize airspace delay,
reduce the number and average length of surface access trips to
airports and resulting vehicle emissions, and minimize total noise
exposure for Bay Area residents. Exhibit 1.4 below displays the
regional airport assignments for the air carrier airports.
Exhibits 1.5 and 1.6 display the entire spreadsheet analysis for
the year 2010 air carrier airport system plan for both the high and
the low passenger forecasts. Stage I is the base activity level
for the regional airports, and represents 1990 conditions.
1-11
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 1: Executive Summary September 9, 1994
EXHIBIT 1.4
RECOMMENDED AIRPORT TRAFFIC SHARES
(Annual Air Passenger Demand, Millions of Passengers)
Click HERE for graphic.
* Refers to the time frames for plan implementation, eg.,
immediate, short, medium, long term.
The traffic shares for Oakland and San Jose reflect the shares
that each airport could achieve given a realistic flight schedule
to major California, other domestic, and international
destinations; it is specifically noted that San Francisco Airport
would continue to provide air service to a number of destinations
that would not be served by Oakland or San Jose airports.
Initiation of new airline service at outlying airports, like
Travis AFB, will depend on actions by local communities to secure
airline commitments and to develop new facilities. The most likely
markets for satellite airport service would be to cities in
Southern and Central California. Initiation of some air service in
the North Bay would result in a more equitable distribution of air
carrier service benefits and impacts compared to the current
situation.
California high speed rail does not yet have an investment
plan that will generate competitive rail service, and major
diversion of air passengers to rail cannot be expected in the
foreseeable future.
The existing Bay Area air carrier airport system is only
marginally capable of handling forecasted peak period demand (given
the planning assumptions discussed above) and will experience
unacceptable VFR and IFR delays during the planning period. As
suggested in this Plan further analysis will be required to
determine the timing and location of new air carrier runways.
Specifically, the Plan calls for a reevaluation of the second
runway option at Oakland Airport at Stage 3 levels of regional
demand. Policies relating to passenger convenience, airspace
management, regional noise exposure and economic benefit would
support development
1-12
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 1: Executive Summary September 9, 1994
of a second runway at Oakland Airport to provide the next major
increment of airport system capacity. Clearly other policies in
the plan would also need to be concurrently addressed, such as
those relating to environmental impacts.
In order to help alleviate traffic congestion on the freeways
and connecting roads to the airport terminals, the three major air
carrier airports should each have an efficient mass transit
connection to provide air travelers with alternatives to use of the
automobile. Because of regional rail agreements and regional
funding constraints identified in the 1994 Regional Transportation
Plan, a connection would first be made to the San Francisco Airport
(BART/CalTrain), and connections to Oakland and San Jose airports
would be dependent on new transportation funding.
General Aviation
Overall, the Plan endorses the Airport Master Plan Alternative
with comments and modifications as explained below. Under the
"high" general aviation forecast of based aircraft, only airports
would reach their based aircraft capacity by 2010 (Concord, San
Carlos, San Jose). No significant runway capacity improvements are
required as airfield capacity would be adequate to meet future
demand. The Master Plan alternative would encourage a proportional
shift of based aircraft and aircraft operations to outlying general
aviation airports; this outcome is desirable in that it creates a
system that directs more flight activity to the least congested
portions of the Bay Area's airspace. The Plan also supports
greater use of these outlying airports for flight training, again
as a means to promote air safety. Another outcome of the Master
Plan alternative would be the fulfillment of a large part of the
demand for enclosed hangar space. Additional issues are discussed
below:
Hamilton Army Air Field (AAF) would be deleted from the Plan
as a regional general reliever airport. Recent solicitations
related to the Army's surplus process show that there is no local
sponsor willing to operate the airport as a general aviation
reliever facility. If the airfield is flooded or developed as
wetlands, the Plan proposes that the acreage created in this manner
be 'banked" as mitigation for possible development of airport
projects elsewhere in the Bay Area subject to agreements between
the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), MTC, the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and federal resource
agencies.
Moffett Field. In recognition of the continuing NASA
operation of this facility for the benefit of federal agencies and
defense contractors, the Plan does not propose any civilian use of
this facility at this time. There is a continuing regional
interest in potential civilian use of Moffett, and this interest
would be activated if and when NASA no longer requires exclusive
use of the facility. 'The context for the regional interest in
Moffett is for a reliever airport or for other civilian uses as
described above under the discussion of general aviation capacity.
1-13
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 1: Executive Summary September 9, 1994
Reid Hillview should be retained as part of the South Bay
general aviation system in that it serves a large population of
users and provides relief to San Jose Airport; alternatively, a
replacement facility with comparable capabilities and more
compatible land use could be developed at another location in Santa
Clara County.
South County could be developed to serve substantially greater
activity than contemplated in the existing Airport Master Plan. As
runway constraints become more critical at San Jose Airport, South
County's Master Plan should be revisited to determine if this
facility could provide for the needed diversion of operations and
based aircraft from San Jose Airport.
1.5 Detailed Airport-Specific Recommendations
San Francisco International (SFO)
SFO would develop additional ground access and passenger
terminal facilities to serve projected passenger and air cargo
growth. This development would take place according to the Airport
Master Plan (adopted November 3, 1992), and would be accommodated
with existing runways. The Regional Airport System Plan supports
the following SFO Airport Master Plan projects:
1. A new international terminal (26 gates). Total airport gates
would increase from 80 to 103.
2. Air cargo development to accommodate cargo associated with
both domestic and international passenger activity.
3. An airport Ground Transportation Center (GTC) served by the
airport Light Rail System (LRS) to reduce terminal area
vehicle congestion.
4. Construction of the Airport Light Rail System to connect
BART and CalTrain to the airport terminals and other sectors
of the airport. In addition, San Francisco International
Airport (SFIA) is committed to fund up to $120 million for
certain transportation improvements contained in an
agreement between SFIA, San Mateo County, and certain
cities.
5. Additional on-airport passenger and employee parking
facilities, with emphasis on accommodating future airport
traffic by mass transit and high-occupancy vehicles (HOVs).
6. Incentives for passengers and employees to use HOVs for
access to the airport. Incentives could include increased
parking fees, and preferential treatment for public transit
and HOVs on airport roadways and at the terminal curbs.
1-14
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 1: Executive Summary September 9, 1994
7. Further reduction in airport noise levels below current
exposure levels will occur by the year 2003 due to a
complete transition to Stage 3 aircraft together with an
off-airport residential sound insulation program as
proposed by the airport. Total area within the 65 CNEL
(Community Noise Equivalent Level) noise contour will shrink
from 14.9 square miles in 1990 to 7.6 square miles by the
year 2010. Total residential units within this noise
contour will decrease from 5,210 in 1990 to 2,660 in the
year 2010. Support airport funding for the sound insulation
program for nearby homes as specified in current
agreements.
8. Annual runway capacity would be adequate to meet demand;
however, peak hour demand would continue to exceed both
IFR/VFR capacity. Depending on the growth in aircraft size
and passenger load factors, existing delay problems during
IFR/VFR weather may or may not be exacerbated. If growth in
passengers at SFO can be accommodated with nearly the same
number of operations (as forecasted in the plan for 2010),
delay will not significantly increase. If these conditions
are not realized, airlines may hold aircraft at the
originating airport or flights may be delayed enroute by the
air traffic control system. Overall, service could become
less reliable during these weather conditions.
In addition, the RASP supports the following projects that are not
part of the SFO Airport Master Plan but which would support its
ground access and capacity enhancement programs:
1. A BART extension to SFO.
2. Initiate multiple actions to increase VFR and IFR
capacity, including incentives for airlines to increase
aircraft size, and to spread peak-period arrivals and
departures, and consider capacity controls (such as slots)
for California Corridor traffic. In addition, the following
FAA initiatives? are supported in the Regional Airport
System Plan, but only to the extent that they can be
pursued without any compromises to airport or aircraft
safety:
a. staggering aircraft for dependent converging arrivals
so that air traffic controllers can verify instrument
approach arrival spacing using a converging runway
display aid;
__________________________
1 "IFR" refers to Instrument Flight Rules, used in inclement
weather.
"VFR" refers to Visual Flight Rules, used in good weather.
2 "Near Term Capacity Initiatives", September 1992, by the FAA
Office of System Capacity and Requirements
1-15
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 1: Executive Summary September 9, 1994
b. allowing simultaneous operations on wet intersecting runways
while maintaining the level of safety experienced on dry
runways;
c. applying quiet bridge charted visual flight procedures to
Runway 28R used by newer generation aircraft with onboard
Flight Management System computers;
d. application of simultaneous Instrument Landing System (ILS)
and Localizer Type Directional Aids (LDAs) procedures.
1-16
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 1: Executive Summary September 9, 1994
Oakland International (OAK)
1. Accommodate demand with existing runways; reassess the
need for development of a second parallel air carrier runway
when the airport reaches Stage 3 demand levels (10.6 million
annual passengers).
2. Terminal expansion from 21 gates to 34 gates, as outlined in
the 2002 Development Plan, with 40 gates required by the
year 2010.
3. IFR capacity problems during peak hour would occur sometime
after Stage 2 demand levels are reached if no new air
carrier runway is built.
4. Develop additional air cargo capacity according to the 2002
Development Plan.
5. Improve the North Field runway system to serve as a reliever
airfield if South Field is unavailable.
6. Reduction in noise exposure compared to today's levels will
occur. Total area within the 65 CNEL noise contour will
shrink from 13.1 square miles in 1990 to between 4.4 and 5.2
square miles in the year 2010. Total residential units
within this noise contour will decrease from 590 units in
1990 to 200 units in the year 2010.
7. Improve the terminal curbs and airport roadway system to
accommodate future traffic demands. Provide additional
passenger and employee parking both on and off the airport.
8. Construct a fixed guideway transit system to connect Oakland
Airport with the Coliseum BART station. This system should
be planned, designed, and developed consistent with the 2002
Development Plan, and should be undertaken subject to the
approval of the parties to the MTC Regional Rail Extension
Program.
9. Improve off-airport roadways to provide more convenient and
predictable access for passengers, employees, air cargo
traffic, and general aviation users. These would include
the 98th Avenue Improvement Project and the Airport Roadway
Project.
10. Consider high-speed ferry service between Oakland and San
Francisco airports to provide greater passenger flight
choices and scheduling convenience.
1-17
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 1: Executive Summary September 9, 1994
San Jose International (SJC)
1. Expand terminals as considered in Master Plan Alternative 6
from 31 gates to up to 51 gates.
2. Improve ground access to San Jose Airport per Santa Clara
County T2010 Transportation Plan recommendations,
including: Rte 87 highway improvements and a new Skyport
interchange; improve connections between airport
terminals and the Santa Clara LRT (Light Rail Transit)
system and CalTrain. Also, evaluate the feasibility of
connecting Central Expressway and De La Cruz Boulevard to
the airport parking lots for airport users to bypass US-
101 and to provide public transit more direct access from
the Santa Clara CalTrain station; and identify locations
within Santa Clara County with the highest -concentration
of airport users for public transit and/or private
service options. In addition, provide additional employee
and passenger parking as considered in Master Plan
Alternative 6.
3. San Jose will have significant IFR airfield capacity
problems due to the presence of general aviation
activity at the airport.
4. Annual operations (air carrier and general aviation) exceed
runway capacity, requiring that a portion of GA traffic be
relocated to a reliever airport elsewhere in Santa Clara
County. (Higher performance general aviation, eg.,
corporate, etc., which comprises some 25 percent of the
general aviation airport activity at SJC, will remain).
5. At a minimum, approximately 210,000 annual operations
and 600 based aircraft would need to be relocated to
ensure adequate runway capacity for air carrier use.
Providing reliever airports with IFR capacity would
represent the most optimum form of new capacity.
6. Develop additional air cargo facilities as considered
in the Airport Master Plan Alternative 6.
7. Develop airspace management strategies similar to those
outlined above for SFO.
8. Total area within the 65 CNEL noise contour will decrease
from 11.8 square miles in 1990 to 3.0 square miles by
the year 2010. Total residential units within this
noise contour will decrease from 1,600 units in 1990 to 400
units in the year 2010. Continue neighborhood sound
insulation program.
1-18
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 1: Executive Summary September 9, 1994
Sonoma County and Concord (Buchanan Field) - Air Carrier Service
Preserve existing facilities and airline access agreements to
enable continuation of limited commercial service.
High-Speed Rail / Tiltrotor
1. High-speed rail may become an alternative to air
travel, primarily in the California Corridor. Existing
air passenger traffic in this corridor (some 12
million annual passengers) constitutes about 30 percent of
the total Bay Area regional air travel market. The
passenger capacity provided by this rail system would help
balance air travel demand with Bay Area airport system
capacity.
2. If a high-speed rail system is found to be feasible, support
the planning for conveniently located intermodal air
passenger stations for the high speed rail system to tie
into the Bay Area's regional transit systems (BART and
CalTrain).
3. While tiltrotor technology is still being discussed, its
future application to commercial airline service is
problematic. Nevertheless, the system plan supports the
monitoring of tiltrotor development.
Military Airfields and General Aviation Airports
The following system plan actions refer to the four existing
military airfield facilities and specified general aviation
airports:
Travis AFB / New Air Carrier Airport
1. Based on the regional air passenger forecasts prepared for
this plan, the region could reach critical activity
levels approaching peak-hour airfield capacity between
the years 2000 and 2005. Additional runways will need to
be considered at existing airports, or Travis AFB or a
new fourth air carrier airport will need to begin at least
limited service in that time frame in order to provide some
air traffic relief for SFO, OAK, and SJC.
2. Determine the level of community and airline interest in
establishing limited commercial airline service (e.g.
California Corridor) at Travis AFB. Also examine its
potential as an IFR reliever airport for SFO and OAK
commercial airline flights during instrument conditions.
1-19
Click HERE for graphic.
Sources:
FAA 5010 Master Records
CALTRANS Public Use Airport Inventory (1993)
Contact with airport managers
Airport Master Plans
County Assessor Records
Click HERE for graphic.
Sources:
FAA 5010 Master Records
CALTRANS Public Use Airport Inventory (1993)
Contact with airport managers
Airport Master Plans
County Assessor Records
Click HERE for graphic.
Sources:
FAA 5010 Master Records
CALTRANS Public Use Airport Inventory (1993)
Contact with airport managers
Airport Master Plans
County Assessor Records
Click HERE for graphic.
Sources:
FAA 5010 Master Records
CALTRANS Public Use Airport Inventory (1993)
Contact with airport managers
Airport Master Plans
County Assessor Records
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 1: Executive Summary September 9, 1994
3. If sufficient interest is demonstrated, update the Travis
AFB Joint Use Feasibility Study (1976) to address the
following:
a. The listing and future Department of Defense (DOD)
status of Travis
b. Potential effects on Travis' mission
C. Market analysis and refined air travel forecasts
d. Airfield and airspace capacity
e. Landside capacity
f. Local and regional access
g. Noise impacts and compatible land use
h. Operational issues related to military/civil joint use
i. Future property requirements (if any)
j. Generalized construction impacts
k. Airspace interactions with other airports (e.g.,
Buchanan Field)
l. Identification and analysis of alternative methods for
developing and operating the civil portion of the
airport
M. Military-civil airport joint use agreement
4. The overall intent of the above mentioned actions is to
explore joint use of the Travis AFB facility, not to
displace any existing or possible future military activity.
5. As currently envisioned in the regional airport plan, a
joint use airport at Travis AFB would have an annual
capacity to initially serve I million to 2 million annual
passengers, and eventually up to 3 million annual
passengers or more. This volume of passengers would be
attainable well within the current airfield's operational
capacity (approximately 340,000 operations) allowing for a
continuation of the current level of annual military
operations (140,000) combined with an initial 25,000
annual civil aircraft operations. Even with 3 million
annual passengers, the current airfield at Travis would
still have significant unused annual capacity, and could
accommodate additional military or civil operations.
Transit access to other parts of the Bay Area for
Travis passengers could include the Capitol Corridor
intercity rail service, "press bus service, and
dedicated shuttle service to major North Bay communities.
6. Preserve and strengthen current land use
controls necessary for compatible military/commercial
operations.
7. Skaggs Island has been proposed as a potential site for a
new air carrier airport. The site, which lies along
state Highway 37 near the north shore of San Pablo Bay,
has both opportunities and constraints. This Regional
Airport System Plan has not undertaken an exhaustive
study of the Skaggs Island site, nor has it attempted to
locate other potential new airport sites.
1-20
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 1: Executive Summary September 9, 1994
Moffett Field
1. The Naval Air Station at Moffett Field has been
declared excess by the Department of Defense and has
been taken over by NASA.
2. Other non-NASA tenants using the airfield will
continue to include several high technology
companies performing work for NASA, the Army,
Navy and National Reserves, the National Guard, and
other government agencies. The use of Moffett Field
will likely be limited to these users in the foreseeable
future.
3. As a reliever airport for San Jose, Moffett Field does not
appear to offer any enhanced instrument capability
during IFR conditions because of airspace conflicts
associated with its proximity to San Jose airport.
4. Use of Moffett Field for a broader spectrum of aviation
activity, including GA, should be left open for
consideration in the future to the extent that it does
not significantly conflict with the nature or requirements
of federal operations at Moffett.
5. Moffett Field is retained in this plan as a general aviation
reliever airport. As such, the BCDC should also retain
the site's designation as an "airport priority use area" in
its San Francisco Bay Plan. In implementing this
policy, MTC will discourage any action that would
interfere with the airfield's ability to fulfill this role.
Alameda Naval Air Station (NAS)
1. As a result of recent Base Closure Commission action,
Alameda NAS has been surplused by the Navy, which will
vacate the site in 1997. Although it offers some
potential opportunities for civil aviation use, there are
also constraints to its potential development to provide
passenger, air cargo, or general aviation service.
2. Alameda NAS has the potential to become a site for tiltrotor
airline service if this aircraft becomes viable for
commercial use in the future, or as a heliport for
corporate or other use.
3. Expanded use of Alameda NAS for civilian operation could
create airspace conflicts with Oakland due to the
proximity of the two airfields.
Hamilton Army Air Field (AAF)
1. Hamilton AAF was identified in the 1990 Regional
Airport System Plan as a general aviation reliever
airport, largely due to the instrument capabilities of the
existing runway,
1-21
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 1: Executive Summary September 9, 1994
which could augment the much-needed IFR capacity of
the Bay Area airport system. The use of Hamilton AAF
for future general aviation activity has been envisioned
as one strategy for diverting general aviation instrument
operations away from overly congested air carrier
airports during the 7-12 percent of the year when the air
carrier airport system experiences a critical capacity
shortage during poor weather. Substantial investment
would be needed to upgrade the airport for civilian use
at this time, considering the limited infrastructure
that actually is usable for airport purposes.
2. Hamilton AAF is not needed to provide general
aviation aircraft parking or runway capacity for the
Bay Area general aviation system, as this system
will have excess capacity in 2010.
3. Hamilton AAF has been proposed as an alternative to
further development of Gnoss Field by some aviation
interests based on the belief that the airport offers
superior aviation capability; however, Marin County
continues to invest in Gnoss Field.
4. Under current Department of Defense plans, the airfield
will be surplused in 1995, and no entity has applied to
use Hamilton as an airport.
5. There is active consideration of restoring the liked portion
of the airfield to wetland.
6. Given the above considerations, it is appropriate to
consider revising the Regional Airport System Plan,
and consider alternative means by which Hamilton
AAF might benefit the regional airport system, which will
continue to experience capacity shortfalls in the future.
In this context, this airport system plan proposes that if
all or portions of the airfield are returned to Bay or
wetlands, this restored area should be 'banked" as
mitigation for future enhancements to regional airport
system capacity. These enhancements have not been
defined, but could take the form of a new runway
at Oakland Airport, a new airport runway in the North
Bay, or construction of a crosswind runway at Gnoss
Field for purposes of safety. Because of the large
area involved, the mitigation proposal would create more
Bay or wetland than would likely be required for the
actual airport improvement projects. Such an approach
would require further discussion between MTC, BCDC,
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and potential
airport project sponsors, to define the nature of such an
agreement.
Reid-Hillview Airport
Preserve Reid-Hillview Airport as a general aviation reliever
airport or develop equivalent airport capacity elsewhere within
Santa Clara County.
1-22
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 1: Executive Summary September 9, 1994
1.6 Plan Implementation
This section lists actions that need to be taken for
implementation of the Regional Airport System Plan. Some of these
actions can be undertaken by MTC, while others will require the
cooperation and actions of other agencies. In addition, the
section includes recommended future planning studies that will
assist the region in implementing the system plan.
To review MTC's responsibilities: MTC prepares a long-range
Regional Transportation Plan for the Bay Area that includes the
Regional Airport System Plan. This airport system plan outlines
the long term development requirements of the general aviation and
air carrier airports in the region. MTC is required by statute to
review and ensure that airport ground access projects that are
seeking federal and state funding assistance are consistent with
the Regional Transportation Plan before approving grants for these
funds. MTC also programs funds for various highway and transit
projects through the federal Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) after reviewing, scoring, and prioritizing projects submitted
by the county congestion management agencies (CMA s). Also, for
general aviation airports, MTC assists the state in prioritizing
projects that are to be funded using federal and state aviation
funds.
The Bay Area airport operators determine priority projects
necessary to implement their airport master plans, and generate
funding for these programs through airport revenues and federal and
state grants. Noise abatement programs are also developed for each
airport under state law.
Planning for ground access and public transportation to
airports is a joint responsibility of the airports, congestion
management agencies, local jurisdictions, Caltrans, transit
agencies, and MTC.
The air traffic control system is operated by the FAA, which
manages the use of Bay Area airspace.
The quantity, quality, and price of air service are determined
by the airlines. Also, changes in airline fleet composition are
dictated by federal noise regulations and airline marketing and
service objectives.
Land use development around airports is regulated by local
jurisdictions such as cities and counties, which consider county
Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) plans in making land use
decisions. The Bay Conservation and Development Commission has
permitting authority over airport plans which require fill in Bay
waters or wetlands located within the agency's areas of
jurisdiction, or which make a substantial change in the use of any
water, land, or structure within the agency's areas of
jurisdiction. In addition, a BCDC permit would be required for any
change of use within the 100-foot shoreline band, any activity in a
priority use area as designated in the Bay Plan, as well as any Bay
fill for other purposes.
1-23
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 1: Executive Summary September 9, 1994
Various state and federal agencies could be involved if
airport development requires the taking of wetlands or has
potentially adverse impact on any endangered species.
Within this context of planning and operating
responsibilities, those activities that are most appropriate and
relevant for MTC to undertake are listed below:
1. In cooperation with the air carrier airports, refine
the timing of future airfield and landside capacity
improvements and costs.
2. Review airport master plans and project funding
applications for consistency with the Regional Airport
System Plan.
3. Reactivate the Bay Area Study of Aviation Requirements
(BASAR) as a forum for the three major air carrier
airport operators to evaluate and recommend actions
that will improve regional airspace capacity. Airspace and
airfield capacity will be the critical constraints in
the next 20 years and absent improvements, passenger and
air cargo delay will increase to unacceptable levels.
BASAR should develop its own work scope and obtain
outside technical assistance to evaluate promising
strategies to alleviate airspace constraints in the
region, and seek FAA funding for such analyses.
4. Determine the level of interest in proceeding with further
planning for commercial airline service at Travis AFB and
explore funding options for such planning.
5. Program federal flexible ISTEA (Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991) funds for high
priority ground access improvements as recommended
by the airports and county congestion management
agencies. Seek separate funding for airport ground
access projects in future re-authorization bills from the
Aviation Trust Fund.
6. Through MTC's programming role for Bay Area general
aviation airports, ensure that the critical airport
infrastructure is adequately maintained, and the airport
approach zones and runway protection zones are protected
through land acquisition where feasible.
7. Support Airport Land Use Commission actions that
protect airports from further encroachment that would
create noise, safety, or operational problems.
8. Continue to participate in the Northern California
Airspace Users Working Group for general aviation
airspace issues; consider consolidation of BASAR and
the general aviation airport managers group.
9. Encourage the three major air carrier airports to work
with the appropriate general aviation airports in their
sectors of the region (Peninsula, South Bay, and East
Bay) to
1-24
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 1: Executive Summary September 9, 1994
ensure adequate future capacity to handle general aviation
traffic displaced by the growth in air carrier and air cargo
activity, including development of institutional
arrangements to allow the air carrier airports to provide
financial support for general aviation reliever airports;
support the concept that all airports in Santa Clara County
should be operated as a system.
10. Continue to maintain airport databases necessary for
future planning, such as the Regional Air Passenger
Survey and Airport Activity and Noise Trends reports.
Recommended Future Planning Studies
MTC should support and participate in the following studies and
actions:
1. Reactivate the BASAR as described above, with the
purpose of addressing regional airspace constraints and
developing consensus on proposed solutions among the
Bay Area airport operators, airlines, FAA, and other
interested parties.
2. Update the MTC Air Passenger Survey in 1995, as a first step
in the next revision of the Regional Airport System
Plan. Consider initiating an Air Cargo Survey.
3. Update the regional airspace capacity plan for the air
carrier airports within the context of a single terminal
airspace environment.
1-25
2 INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents historical background about previous
airport system planning efforts in the San Francisco Bay Region;
defines the relationships between the Regional Airport System Plan
and other plans; describes the process used to develop this 1994
Regional Airport System Plan Update; and discusses national, state,
and regional aviation trends. The trends discussion is important
to the process for two reasons. First, it provides an
understanding of the forces which are shaping the aviation industry
and therefore the regional airport system. Second, it provides
context for future regional airport system planning which goes
beyond mere forecasting.
2.1 Historical Background
Efforts to provide a systematic regional perspective to
planning the region's airports were begun in the late 1960s, with
the original Regional Airport System Study (RASS) completed in
1972. In 1975 MTC received an FAA grant to update the 1972 Regional
Airport System Study. The original regional airport plan, as it
came to be called, was updated using a two-phase process. Phase I
consisted of a review of each of the underlying components of the
plan.
The primary focus of Phase I was to identify overall regional
airport system planning issues, provide information, provoke
discussion, identify differing viewpoints, and aid the Regional
Airport Planning Committee (RAPC) in establishing a sound base of
information. From that base, RAPC was charged with establishing
the relative importance of the issues in the Bay Region and making
recommendations to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) for future airport
plan revisions.
Phase 2, begun in 1976, was a more detailed technical
analysis. It also resulted in the production of a number of
separate reports and the North Bay Aviation Study. These reports
were synthesized in three final summary documents published in
April, 1980: the Air Carrier Airports Final Report, the General
Aviation Airports Final Report, and the Summary Report. That
update of the Regional Airport Plan (RAP) is referred to as the
1980 Update. In addition to the items listed above, the 1980
Update included an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which was
prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). The 1980 Update has served as the primary planning
document for directing the development of the regional airport
system since 1980.
One of the more important resources for previous regional
airport system planning efforts has been the "Air Passenger
Survey." Since 1975 MTC has conducted air passenger surveys every
five years at San Francisco International, Metropolitan Oakland
International, and San Jose International Airport. . The survey is
used by MTC, airports, ABAG, and others for airport system
planning, individual airport master planning, development of new
air service, provision of improved regional ground access, and
planning and design of passenger facilities.
2-1
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 2: Introduction September 9, 1994
2.2 Relationships Between the RASP and Other Plans
The Regional Airport System Plan (RASP) is one of several
planning documents which address airport system development in the
San Francisco region. Other plans include MTC's Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP), the California Aviation System Plan
(CASP), the FAA's National Plan for Integrated Airport Systems
(NPIAS), and the individual master plans for airports in the
region.
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)
The Regional Airport System Plan (RASP) is an appendix to the
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), as is the Regional Seaport
Plan. The RTP represents the regional transportation policy and
investment perspective of MTC. The RTP includes a Policy Element,
which establishes regional goals and objectives; an Action Element,
which defines specific transportation improvements and programs;
and a Financial Element, which identifies the funding for the
Action Element.
The RTP is a state and federally mandated document designed to
ensure that transportation improvements in the Bay Area are planned
with a comprehensive view of the transportation system, land use
plans, and environmental issues. The RTP is adopted by the
Commission and revised every year as appropriate.
California Aviation System Plan (CASP)
The RASP has a much less structured relationship to the CASP
than to the RTP. The CASP is prepared by Caltrans with input from
the FAA, regional airport planning agencies (such as MTC),
individual airports, and a number of other public agencies, user
groups, and the general public. The MTC Regional Airport System
Plan is not adopted by the State, nor does it become a formal,
integral part of the CASP. The RASP and CASP need to be
consistent. Their authors (MTC/ABAG and Caltrans) need to have an
ongoing dialogue regarding airport roles, overall airport system
development, airport master planning, airport improvement projects,
airspace issues, capital improvement programming, airport impacts,
and a number of other airport planning issues. To meet these
objectives, the RAPC has had continuous Caltrans representation
throughout the RASP planning process. Elements of the CASP have
been used as resources in preparing the RASP. In turn, the RASP
will be used by Caltrans in its continuing program of state
aviation system planning.
National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS)
Section,504(a) of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of
1982 (P.L. 97-248) requires the Secretary of Transportation to
publish a national plan for the development of public-use airports
in the United States. The NPIAS is that plan. It draws upon
local, regional, and state planning
2-2
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 2: Introduction September 9, 1994
studies, including the RASP. Nearly all the region's public use
airports are included in the NPIAS. SFO, OAK, SJC, CCR, and ST'S
are designated as *primary and commercial service' airports. San
Carlos, Half Moon Bay, and Gnoss Field are designated relievers for
SFO; Concord, Hayward, Napa County, and Livermore are relievers for
OAK; and Palo Alto, Reid Hillview, and South County are relievers
for SJC. The other airports are designated as general aviation
airports.
Individual Airport Master Plans
Numerous individual airport master plans have been used as
resources during the preparation of the RASP. These plans have
provided valuable information regarding physical facilities,
policies, forecasting, airport-specific development plans,
environmental impacts, traffic and ground access issues, and
landside and arced capacity. During the course of the RASP update,
the master plans for SFO, OAK, and SJC were in the process of being
updated, thus providing an opportunity for interaction during the
numerous planning efforts. San Francisco's master plan update was
approved in November 1992. As of early 1994 San Jose is continuing
toward a completion date in late 1995, and the plan for Oakland is
nearing completion after being redefined as a "10-year Airport
Development Program."
2.3 Planning Process
Work on the current Regional Airport System Plan Update began
in 1991. As with previous planning efforts, the process was
directed by MTC staff with ongoing oversight by the RAPC. An
airport consulting team provided the technical analysis under the
direction of both MTC staff and RAPC. This study was funded by
grants from the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
The RASP planning process involved preparation of a set of
goals and objectives; an airport system inventory and capacity
assessment; aviation forecasts; definition and analysis of airport
system alternatives; selection of a system alternative; preparation
of the new system plan, including capital improvements program and
recommendations for future planning studies and ongoing planning
activities; and completion of an environmental study. Two parallel
tracks were taken for the RASP: one for the air carrier airport
system and a second for the general aviation airport system. Prior
to beginning work on the actual system plan, nine focus groups were
formed to help the planning team identify critical issues, collect
input about these issues, and provide overall direction to the
planning process.
2-3
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 2: Introduction September 9, 1994
Focus Groups
One of the first steps in the current planning process was to
solicit a broad range of input from around the region on a wide
variety of topics related to aviation. This took the form of a
series of 'focus groups" which met in late 1990. The results of
the focus groups are presented in Appendix B of this document.
Nine groups were formed as follows:
Focus Group 1: Airport Management
Focus Group 2: Government and Civic Leaders
Focus Group 3: Bay Area Frequent Flyers
Focus Group 4: Residents Near Airports
Focus Group 5: Pilots
Focus Group 6: Environmental Activists and
Authorities
Focus Group 7: South Bay Frequent Flyers and
Residents
Focus Group 8: Area Business Leaders
Focus Group 9: Airline Representatives
Summary of Key Findings
The following summary was taken from the Focus Group Results
Report published in February 1991, and reproduced in full as
Appendix B of this document.
Focus groups with a wide range of Bay Area
constituencies with an interest in the Regional Airport
System revealed the following findings:
- There was widespread demand for information and
strong action - and little awareness of the 1980
Regional Airport Plan (RAP).
- MTC and the RAP update should anticipate increases
in demand, and decide whether or not to facilitate
redistribution or reallocation of demand.
Consumers say they would make greater use of OAK
and SJC if it were more convenient and affordable.
- Ground access is perceived to be the most critical
issue facing the system in the near term.
Specifically, this includes Improved access to
airports and improved intermodal connections.
- There is widespread recognition of the need and
desirability of mining environmental impacts, also
acceptance that this will constrain growth. But
no clear priorities or consensus on trade-offs is
apparent.
2-4
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 2: Introduction September 9, 1994
* There is broad agreement on the 'vital role' of GA and
Reliever Airports, but little positive action is expected:
* Preservation is the real issue (not
facility enhancement). The importance of
preserving facilities will be even greater in
the future, as system capacity falls
behind growing demand.
* Most agree that use and development of
existing airport facilities makes sense,
and that development is also in the interest
of the major airports. Yet there Is strong
political opposition locally and little
expectation for positive action.
* Key opportunities include Hamilton Air
Base, Reid-HillView and Moffett Field.
* People generally perceive the airports to be a key asset to
the region, contributing to both the economy and the overall
quality of life. And they want action to preserve these
benefits.
Regional Airport Planning Committee (RAPC)
The Regional Airport Planning Committee provided continuous
review throughout the planning process. Approximately 18 RAPC
meetings were held between January 1991 and the completion of the
plan in early 1994. A list of RAPC members who participated in
this process is included as Appendix C at the end of this plan.
Also included in Appendix C is a list of the MTC/ABAG staff
participants and the consulting team.
2.4 National and State Aviation Trends
In the past 10 years the worldwide aviation industry has
undergone unprecedented growth and change. The growth has occurred
in nearly all sectors: passenger traffic, air cargo volumes,
general aviation activity, airline route structure, investment in
new aircraft, and investment in airport infrastructure. The change
has come in many forms: the end of airline regulation; the
emergence of the hub and spoke route structure and development of
superhub airports to support these routes; the emergence of the
regional airlines; the rise and fall of several major airlines;
banner years of airline profits mixed with years marked by
disastrous losses; the approval of the Passenger Facility Charge
('PFC'); the phaseout of Stage B aircraft; the emergence of
environmental concerns; privatization; and a growing uncertainty
about what the future will bring.
2-5
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 2: Introduction September 9, 1994
Successful completion of a long range regional airport system
plan requires that the planning effort be formulated around a
thorough understanding of the forces that cause these changes in
the aviation industry. With this knowledge the planning effort can
produce achievable goals and objectives and focus on issues which
must be addressed. The following are anticipated trends in
aviation which will have some affect on the future of the region.
Although some may be minor all must be considered.
1. Globalization of air travel/growth of international segment.
The international segment, while currently a small proportion
of air passenger traffic, will grow much more rapidly than the
domestic segment, eventually rivaling it in size. The "open skies'
policy toward international trade and travel (North American Free
Trade Agreement -"NAFTA" -- is a good example) has created the
potential for new opportunities for U.S. airports to participate in
the globalization of the aviation industry. This will have
important implications for the region, which is poised to capture a
large share of the growing international travel market. In the
future, international air carriers serving Bay Area airports will
increasingly provide 'through" flights which will connect the U.S.
with Latin America, Canada, Asia, and Europe, using Bay Area
airports as international gateways. A critical function of the
regional airport system (although this role may primarily be filled
by SFO) in the coming decades will therefore be to provide for the
integration of international and domestic passenger facilities
which create a 'seamless" process for moving passengers and cargo
through the airports.
2. Increased emphasis and concern for environmental quality.
Within the last 10 years environmental concerns have
increased. Airport operators are regularly required to address a
wide range of community issues such as airport noise, air quality,
traffic congestion, water quality, economic impact, wildlife and
wetlands. Airport operators are finding it necessary to undertake
lengthy and detailed environmental studies including major citizen
involvement elements as a prerequisite to airport growth and
development. This trend is destined to continue in the future, and
will create major changes in the airport planning process
nationwide.
3. Continued growth of regional carriers.
The market for fast, safe, convenient, and comfortable air
travel in the range of 200-500 miles is still growing. In the
coming years this market will spawn additional growth in regional
carriers using the latest aircraft technology, such as the Canadair
Regional Jet (RJ), BAe 146 series, the BAe ATP, the Brasilia, and
the Fokker 50 and 100. The airlines, however, are still looking
for new aircraft which can be operated at less cost on these thin
routes. The airlines say there are currently no acceptable 60-80
seat jet aircraft which offer reasonable passenger comfort and
which can be economically operated in the 2-3 hour range. Regional
carriers will be tightly allied with the national carriers in
providing connecting service and code-sharing
2-6
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 2: Introduction September 9, 1994
agreements. (Code sharing is a term for affiliations between
commuter/regional airlines and major air carrier airlines who share
computer reservation systems, making it easier to book passengers
on connecting flights).
4. New non-stop service will emerge to augment multi-stop
routes through hubs in major markets.
As the nation's superhubs reach saturation, the airlines will
turn to scheduling flights on direct long-haul routes between major
markets where there is sufficient passenger demand (and airline
profit) for these point-to-point routes. As an example, United may
currently provide eight daily flights from Seattle to San Francisco
and 15 daily flights from San Francisco to Los Angeles, future
passenger demand for non-stop service between Seattle and Los
Angeles may make it feasible for United to add several new daily
non-stops between Seattle and Los Angeles, eliminating the
intermediate stop in San Francisco. From a passenger standpoint
these new nonstop routes (which would overfly SFO) would provide
improved service, greater convenience, and reduced travel time.
From an airport and airline industry standpoint, the non-stop
routes would provide some relief for overtaxed capacity at many
existing large hub airports and result in some reduction in system
wide delays. In San Francisco, this would provide additional
operations capacity, allowing United (and other carriers) to
enhance existing service out of SFO and/or add new spoke routes to
additional markets such as Reno, Salt Lake City, Fresno, Medford,
and Boise.
In large metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles, the airlines
will provide more service to outlying airports, such as Long Beach,
Ontario, Burbank, and Orange County to avoid the congestion at LAX.
Such routing will also enable the airlines to take advantage of the
currently under utilized airfield capacity in these locations,
provide a variety of destinations to passengers, reduce airport
access travel times, and further reduce congestion and delay at the
major hubs. The local equivalent, of course, are Oakland and San
Jose providing relief for San Francisco.
5. Cargo growth will continue but aviation will remain
primarily a passenger aircraft industry.
With the economic pressures on the air cargo sector, it will
become more tailored to manufacturers' and retailers' needs for
just-in-time delivery, damage control, express delivery advantage,
and split location production. The San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose
region, with its sea-air links, will retain a strong position in
the shipping industry. Historically, the bulk of air cargo has
been carried in the bellies of passenger aircraft, rather than on
all-cargo aircraft. Oakland is an exception to this trend, with
most of its cargo being composed of overnight express mail carried
by non-passenger all cargo aircraft. These trends are anticipated
to continue indefinitely. In addition, since the concept of
developing large air cargo airports does not appear to be feasible,
most air cargo will be processed at existing multi-use airport s.
2-7
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 2: Introduction September 9, 1994
6. Passenger traffic will continue to increase to more than
double current levels before the OS' curve maturation of the
world-wide market takes effect.
It is inevitable that the worldwide aviation market will
eventually reach maturity, after which time overall growth is
expected to level off. Until that time, passenger and air cargo
activity will continue to grow, although at declining growth rates
over time. Developing nations will contribute a large share of the
remaining growth in the worldwide passenger travel market before it
matures.
7. New technology is not the solution to the nation's airport
and airspace capacity dilemma.
Although many new technologies are being developed, few will
have any significant impact within- the next 20 years. While some
technological developments are being discussed, such as 1,000-seat
airplanes, a high-speed civilian transport (HSCT) for long haul
transoceanic routes, tiltrotor aircraft for short routes; and
improvements in avionics and air traffic control, the bulk of
current technological research is related to refining current
aircraft designs. In sum, the most we can expect from these
efforts will likely be larger versions of today's aircraft with
more fuel efficient, quieter engines. Examples include
technological enhancements and stretched versions of the Boeing
747, 757, 767, and 777; the MD-11 and MD-12; and the Airbus A330
and A340 airframes.
One major reason for this is the cost and overall feasibility
of research and development required to bring truly new technology
into production. Two major considerations in assessing the
feasibility of new technology are the strength of the general
economy in supporting the development of prototypes and their
implementation to full-scale production, and the desire of the
aviation industry to fund such technology in light of their need to
be profitable. It is possible, however, that a new set of aircraft
noise standards will emerge in the next 20 years, forcing the air
transportation industry to develop even quieter aircraft. In
addition, rising fuel and other operating costs combined with
potential fuel shortages, and the need for cleaner running engines,
could increase the industry pressure to develop more fuel efficient
and less polluting engines.
8. Creative new funding and development approaches must be
found.
As with most other public infrastructure nationwide, airports
are experiencing a gap between the level of funds available and the
amount of funds needed for airport development, operation, and
maintenance. New methods of financing airport development,
operation, and maintenance are being created. These include
increases in locally-generated funding, user fees such as passenger
facility charges (PFCs), public-private partnerships, and a growing
movement toward privatization. The most notable current example of
this trend is private involvement in terminal development at
Toronto.
2-8
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 2: Introduction September 9, 1994
9. Contrary to some opinion, the continued development and
expansion of the worldwide telecommunication industry may
actually increase the demand for air travel.
Some believe the massive growth in the worldwide
telecommunication industry will cause a concurrent reduction in air
travel, citing the decline of the nation's passenger railroads
after construction of the interstate highway system and the
emergence of fast and relatively inexpensive air transportation.
Telecommunications advancements are increasing the total level on
worldwide communication between people and nations, breaking down
trade and cultural barriers, and causing an increasing demand for
travel, particularly at the international level.
10. The overall health of the U.S. and global economies, and
particularly the health of the airline industry, may have
an important impact on future airport development
programs.
Airport sponsors, while in need of increasing capacity, will
need to be particularly sensitive to the economic health of the
airlines serving them. The overall poor health of the airline
industry in recent years has caused the airlines to be increasingly
concerned about airport capital programs which place major
financial burdens on them. Already under significant financial
pressure from fare wars, competition with airlines operating under
Chapter 11 protection, and requirements to replace older noisier
aircraft with stage 3 airplanes, the airlines are objecting to
large new airport capital investment programs. Airports, in
developing their master plans and subsequent capital improvement
programs, must be increasingly sensitive to the potential financial
impacts those programs may have on air carriers. A related concern
for airport planning is the affect that the airlines' poor economic
health is having on aircraft orders. With the recent cancellation
of large numbers of aircraft orders and options, the future airline
fleet composition is uncertain, making it difficult for airports to
know how to meet demand. This complicates the assessment of runway
capacity and noise trends.
11. The intermodal aspects of airport operation development will
continue to draw attention and demand new methods to
resolve airport access issues.
Surface access to airports has become a major issue is our
nation's urban areas. Although much attention has been spent
studying airfield and passenger terminal capacity issues, the issue
of how to get passengers and cargo to and from the airport
efficiently has only recently reached the public agenda. In large
urban areas where many of the nation's busiest airports are
located, saturated freeways and surface streets are making airport
access increasingly difficult. As this congestion increases, and
as the public's collective consciousness evolves toward accepting
various forms of public transit, new and innovative ideas are
emerging. More and more airports are seeing the wisdom of planning
for multi-modal access. examples include the planned BART
extension to SFO and the proposed AG (Automated Gaiety System)
between BART and the Oakland airport. In planning for the regional
airport system of the future, regional ground transportation links
will take on increasing importance.
2-9
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 2: Introduction September 9, 1994
2.5 Regional Aviation Trends
During the past 20 to 30 years the San Francisco region has
seen significant changes in the aviation system. Between 1960 and
1990 the region's population grew from 3.6 to about six million.
During this same time frame the regional air passenger activity
grew from five million annual passengers to nearly 43 million, an
eight-fold increase. In 1960 San Francisco had established its
regional dominance, capturing 92 percent on the total regional
passenger market. At that time Oakland had captured 7 percent, and
San Jose had I percent of the market. Between 1960 and 1970
Oakland and San Jose began to increase their shares of the regional
market. By 1970 their shares had grown to 12 and 9 percent
respectively, leaving San Francisco with 79 percent. During the
1970s San Francisco again experienced strong growth, and increased
its market share from 79 to 80 percent. From 1970 to 1980
Oakland's traffic slowed while San Jose grew strongly, and by 1980
San Jose (with II percent) had surpassed Oakland (9 percent).
Between 1980 and 1990 additional changes occurred. With the
strong growth in overall passenger traffic and the emergence of
regional carriers, Concord and Sonoma County established scheduled
passenger service in 1986 and 1985, respectively. By 1990 Oakland
had re-established its former market share at 12 percent. San
Jose's passenger traffic continued to grow, fueled by the success
of "Silicon Valley" businesses and American Airlines' hub
operation, bringing its share of regional traffic to 16 percent.
San Francisco continued to grow, but by 1990 its market share
slipped to 71 percent.
A review of regional urban development, regional
transportation system development, and airport system development
over the past three decades reveals a number of significant trends:
Passenger Trends
Aside from temporary, localized plateaus in traffic growth,
all airports have seen strong and continuous growth in the past 30
years. Regional population growth has been equally consistent
throughout the period. In addition, the regional economy had been
historically strong until the early 1990s, when the sluggishness of
the national economy and the drop in activity in "Silicon Valley"
began to cause a regional economic downturn, which continues.
While the regional surface transportation system has seen
significant development and capacity expansion, traffic has grown
and congestion has continued to increase. This has been caused by
numerous factors, including the geography and urban development
patterns-of the region; significant population and employment
growth; the presence of major physical constraints to
transportation system development (such as the Bay); the cost of
transportation system improvements; and a wide range of
environmental and political constraints.
2-10
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 2: Introduction September 9, 1994
Because of the problems caused by airport delay, congestion
of the regional ground transportation system, and the increasing
difficulty getting to the airports (particularly San Francisco),
the region's air passengers have begun to look for airport
alternatives. Airlines have begun to recognize the demand for more
convenient air service, and have established major air carrier
operations (some with low cost fares) at Oakland and San Jose.
San Francisco has established its dominance in the
international market, and in 1990 captured 95 percent of the
region's international passenger activity.
Air Cargo Trends
Regional air cargo activity has been consistent with national
and worldwide air cargo trends with very strong growth over the
past 10 years. From 1980 to 1990 total regional cargo volumes
increased from 200,000 enplaned tons to over 480,000 enplaned tons,
an average annual compound growth rate of over 9 percent.
Nationally, the annual growth for this same time period was also
about 9 percent, while worldwide air cargo (freight and mail)
volumes have grown by an average annual rate of 8 percent for the
20 years between 1970 and 1990.
Locally, San Francisco has seen strong air cargo growth, boosted
by its increasing role in the international marketplace. Between
1980 and 1990 air cargo activity at SFO grew by a total of 64
percent. San Francisco's air cargo has historically been a mixture
of traditional cargo, airline belly cargo, and overnight express
cargo. Oakland has created its niche in the overnight express
cargo market with the development of the Federal Express Metroplex,
which has seen meteoric growth (4600 percent) from 1980 to 1990.
Since 1990 Oakland has continued to see very strong growth in air
cargo activity, giving rise to an adjusted cargo forecast for
Oakland (see chapter 5: Aviation Demand Forecast). Although
Oakland has a mix of traditional, airline belly, and express cargo,
the vast majority of its cargo is overnight express cargo carried
by all cargo carriers such as Federal Express and UPS. San Jose
also saw strong cargo growth in the 1980's, with an eight-fold
increase, most of which was carried by airlines as belly cargo.
General Aviation Trends
In the past 10 years the general aviation sector of the
aviation industry, both locally and nationally, has experienced a
general decline. Rising purchase and operating costs, the lack of
new GA aircraft production, and increasing airspace congestion and
complexity have combined to cause a long-term decline in most
general aviation activity (primarily recreational and discretionary
flying). The one area of GA that has continued to grow is
corporate GA, which appears to be less sensitive to the factors
which have caused the general decline.
2-11
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 2: Introduction September 9, 1994
Several other regional general aviation trends over the past 10
years are notable:
1. There has been a steady decline in the number
of student, private, and commercial pilots.
2. Between 1986 and 1990 the number of commercial pilots
has shown a slight growth trend.
3. Since 1983 the number of airline transport
certificates for pilots ages 25-34 has increased.
As the existing active commercial pilot population
ages and retires, the market for new pilots will
create a market for additional pilot training activity.
This demand is expected to establish a lower boundary for
general aviation pilot training activity.
4. The number of regional GA based aircraft has
stagnated during the past 10 years, while the
number of total operations and total hours flown
have both declined. As a result, aircraft
utilization (measured in total hours flown per year
and in number of operations per based aircraft) has
declined. This trend is not just regional, but
statewide. As an example, GA aircraft utilization for
the state of California declined from 200 hours per
year in 1980 to about 150 hours per year in 1988.
5. Since 1980 several public use airports have been
lost to public use or closed. These include Santa
Rosa Air Center, Fremont, Antioch, Morgan Hill,
Vacaville, Vaca Dixon, and Smith Ranch. In addition,
the region's military airfields have seen pressure to
close, with Hamilton and Moffett Field, and Alameda
NAS all being declared "surplus/excess".
6. As a result of past closures and the continued
possibility of additional GA or military facility
closures, one of the important issues facing the
general aviation and military communities is the
preservation of existing airport facilities. As
activity at the three major air carrier airports
increases, there will be increasing pressure for
general aviation activity at those airports to
relocate to other less congested GA airports. The
region's general aviation reliever airport system will
therefore become even more important in the future.
7. Planning for the region's general aviation
airports will likely need to focus on
preservation of existing facilities, compatible land
use planning, protection of runway approaches,
airspace concerns, noise abatement, airport facility
maintenance, safety and security issues, the need
for new hangars, storm water runoff, and the shift
in activity growth from recreational users to corporate
users.
2-12
3 GOALS & OBJECTIVES
A. Improve Regional Access to Air Service
1. Provide air passenger facilities which will be convenient in
terms of their location and accessibility for regional
air travelers and airport employees.
2. Provide general aviation facilities which will be convenient
in terms of their location and accessibility for both
business and non-business aircraft owners
3. Provide improved transit and highway connections to
air carrier and general aviation airports to enable air
travelers, airport employees, cargo shippers, and other
airport users to quickly and reliably make ground access
trips to and from Bay Area airports
B. Improve System Safety and Efficiency
1. Support measures to increase runway and airspace utilization
as a means to maximize the use of existing airfield
capacity (e.g., larger aircraft, higher load factors,
better scheduling of airline flights to reduce runway
overload, and technological improvements in the air
navigation system)
2. Ensure that airport system improvements do not compromise
air safety
3. Ensure that runways, taxiways, and other critical airport
operating facilities are well maintained
4. Provide facilities on the airports that improve efficiency
of operation for airport users (e.g., expanded terminals
and additional gates, internal airport circulation roads,
modem cargo facilities, new hangar facilities for general
aviation, etc.)
C. Promote Equity for System Improvements
1. Seek an equitable distribution of airport system benefits
(access to air service in terms of destinations,
frequency, fares, etc.) and impacts Local traffic
congestion, noise, air pollution, and other land use
impacts)
2. Develop an airport access system which provides efficient
and affordable ground access from all parts of the Bay
Area
3. Provide an equitable decision process in developing the
Regional Airport Plan
D. Sensitive to the Environment
1. Minimize regional (and, to the extent possible, local)
community noise exposure
2. Minimize air pollution from auto and aircraft activity
3. Minimize energy consumption from auto and aircraft activity
4. For projects requiring Bay fill or taking of wetlands, seek
solutions which result in no net impact and, further,
which enhance these resources
5. Ensure safety for people on the ground
3-1
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 2: Introduction September 9, 1994
E. Promote Economic Vitality
1. Support air service improvements in domestic and
international markets as a means to stimulate commerce
(business and tourism)
2. Support airport improvements consistent with the regional
plan as a means to foster local economic vitality for
communities around airports
3. Reduce runway and airspace delays which generate airline
costs and lead to higher air fares for air passengers
and cargo shippers
4. Maintain land use compatibility around airports to
avoid adverse impacts on future airport operational
capabilities
3-2
4 INVENTORY AND CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter documents the existing physical, operational,
environmental, and policy conditions for each airport in the
system, and for the system as a whole. In addition, the chapter
presents information on the constraints and capabilities of the
airports, and the airport system. These constraints and
capabilities directly affect the system's ability to meet current
and future aviation demand in the region.
Physical conditions data includes such items as airport
ownership, location, and size; number and length of runways;
airport classification; number and of aircraft based at the
airport; amount of passenger terminal facilities; and whether an
air traffic control tower is present. Operational conditions data
includes items such as total annual and peak-hour operations';
operations split between air carrier, commuter, and general
aviation; annual passenger enplanements; and annual air cargo
volume. Environmental conditions data includes general information
about the natural and human environment near each airport,
including such items as noise-sensitive land uses, wildlife
habitat, and wetlands. Policy conditions information includes
current airport master plan, capital improvement program, and other
policy opportunities and constraints that affect the development
and operation of individual airports and the airport system as a
whole.
Finally, the chapter presents information about the technical
constraints and capabilities that affect the airport system. These
include items such as landside (vehicular access and parking,
terminal, and related facilities) and arced (aircraft parking,
taxiways, and runways) capacity and regional airspace.
The detailed airport system inventory includes all public-use
and military airports in the region. Private-use airfields are
also included, but in less detail, primarily because there is
considerably less information available about private-use airport
facilities than public-use airports. This inventory also contains
information about public-use and military airports that have been
closed or are inactive, such as Hamilton Field and Fremont Airport.
Although currently closed or inactive, these facilities have been
considered in planning for the regional aviation system.
This chapter catalogs current data (in most cases 1990) on the
physical facilities and operations at the airports under
consideration. Historic data on operations, passengers, air cargo,
and based aircraft for the period 1980 through 1990 is included in
Chapter 5 (Historical Airport Data). Those data were developed to
document trends and to assist in the preparation of the aviation
system forecasts (see Chapter 5). The system will first be
characterized, with reference made to the 1980 MTC System Plan to
identify major changes in the past decade. A look at the
facilities and operations for the year 1990, including a capacity
analysis, is then presented to give an idea of what there is to
work with today, and what the immediate areas of concern are. This
information will be the basis for alternatives development and
analysis.
4-1
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 2: Introduction September 9, 1994
Much of the information used in this inventory was derived
from The California Aviation System Plan (Element 1: Inventory,
published August 1990), which is presently being updated by the
California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics.
Other data sources included the most recent individual airport
master plans and capital improvement programs, current and historic
FAA Airport Master Records (FAA 5010 forms), FAA activity
statistics, and through direct contact with the individual
airports. The most current information available has been used.
In most cases this represents conditions in the year 1990.
A survey of planning documents provided by the airport
operators as well as field visits provided first-hand information
about site-specific conditions which could impact future capacity.
The inventory data were then verified by a follow-up survey, which
gave the airports an opportunity to be involved in the MTC planning
process.
4.2 THE REGIONAL ART SYSTEM
The regional airport system includes some 26 public-use civil
airports, 4 military airports, 2 special-use airports, and 21
private-user facilities. Of the 26 public-use airports there are 5
with commercial airline service, while the other 21 are general
aviation airports. There are 12 public-use airports which
currently have helicopter activities and/or services. These
include all 5 of the commercial service airports and 7 general
aviation airports. Following is a list of all these airports in
the airport system. Airports with FAA Air Traffic Control towers
are indicated by an asterisk (*). Facilities serving primarily as
gliderports are designated with a "G." Please refer to Exhibit 4.17
for the complete airport system data inventory.
Commercial Service Airports
San Francisco International* San Jose International*
Metropolitan Oakland
International* Sonoma County*
General Aviation Airports (public use)
Buchanan Field (Concord)* Marin Ranch Rio Vista
Byron Napa County* San Carlos*
Cloverdale Municipal Nut Tree Santa Rosa Air
Center**
Gnoss Field Oakland Sky Soaring (G)
(North Field)*
Half Moon Bay Palo Alto* Sonoma Sky Park
Hayward Air Terminal* Parrett Field Sonoma Valley
Healdsburg Municipal Petaluma Municipal South County
Livermore Municipal* Reid-Hillview* Closed
4-2
Click HERE for graphic.
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 2: Introduction September 9, 1994
Military Airports
Alameda NAS* Moffett Field
(NAS)* Hamilton Field Travis AFB*
Special-Use Airport Facilities
Commodore Center Seaplane Base (Private)
Crissy Heliport (Closed)
Private-Use Airports
Antioch Hummingbird Haven** Sea Ranch
Blake Inglenook Ranch 7-M Ranch
Calistoga Airpark Maine Prairie Travis AFB Aero Club
(Closed - G)
Delta Marin Vacaville Gliderport
(G)**
Fremont (closed) Meadowlark Vaca-Dixon**
Garibaldi Moskowite **Closed
Graywood Mysterious Valley
There are 4 military airfields in the 9-county area, which are
publicly owned but have restricted access. Travis AFB had a joint-
use agreement with Solano County which provided for commercial
airline service, but that agreement expired in 1992. Private-use
airports are acknowledged because there may be the option for
public use and/or acquisition. An example of such an acquisition
is in Clark County, Nevada, where the County acquired a closed
private use airport which now serves as a reliever for McCarran
International Airport in Las Vegas.
Helicopter/rotorcraft facilities are part of the aviation
system, and are projected by national trends to be an increasingly
important component of the national air transportation system in
the future. There are two categories of these facilities: (1)
heliports, which are areas with full services available, and (2)
helistops, which are pads strictly for takeoffs and landings.
There are currently no publicly owned, public-use heliports in the
study region. The downtown San Francisco heliport (referred to
above as Crissy Heliport), located on the waterfront, is closed.
Only four of the public-use airports have designated helicopter
takeoff-landing areas. A number of private heliports and helistops
dot the region. These facilities are owned and used by various
groups including hospitals, corporations, and the media. In
addition, there are several publicly owned police and military
rotorcraft facilities, which have limited access by the public.
4-3
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 2: Introduction September 9, 1994
The one independent seaplane base in the region, Commodore
Center in Marin County, changed from a public-use facility to a
private facility at the end of March 199 1. It is currently used
for training and sightseeing. A second seaplane facility is
planned adjacent to San Francisco International Airport.
More than ten years have passed since the last MTC Regional
Airport Plan revision, and many changes have occurred in the system
since that time. The number of facilities has increased. Some
have shifted in of ownership and category of use. The 1980 plan
recognized 3 commercial airports, 17 public-use general aviation
airports, and 11 private general aviation airfields (discounting
small airstrips), and four military airfields. Since 1980
scheduled passenger service has also been provided at two general
aviation airports: Sonoma County and Buchanan Field. There has
been a reduction in the number of public helicopter landing areas
located at fixed-wing facilities, while the region has seen a net
increase in the number of medical heliports and helistops. The
same four military facilities remain today.
4.3 AIRPORT FACILITIES
This section is devoted to discussion of the physical
facilities at each airport, and is divided into the following
groups: commercial service airports; general aviation airports;
military airports; and heliports. The location of public use
airports in the nine county system is shown in Exhibit 4. 1. The
Public Use Airports Inventory in Exhibit 4.17 lists a number of
facility characteristics for the public-use airports in the system.
This includes the airport size in acres, airport class, number of
runways, length of the longest runway, instrument approach, whether
there is an air traffic control tower, and the rotorcraft
facilities on site. The facilities allowing for helicopter
activity have been categorized as such. Those with designated
takeoff/touchdown landing pads have the number of helicopter
takeoff/landing areas recorded. Those with helicopter operations
but no designated helicopter landing areas are indicated by the
term "ops" under the heading of 'Rotorcraft Facilities'. Where
there are helicopters based at the airport, they are listed as such
in the based aircraft section of Exhibit 4.17. Characteristics of
the various airport facilities are illustrated in Exhibits 4.2 -
4.5, including towered airports, helicopter facilities, airports
with air cargo traffic, and special use airports (primarily
gliderports).
Ground access to the airport facilities is an important
component of the system of physical facilities. Airports in the
region are served by infrastructure supporting various ground based
modes. The regional highway network is the most extensive access
system, reaching all of the general aviation airports in addition
to the air carrier airports. Regional highways are illustrated in
Exhibit 4.7. Public transit access is less readily available to air
travellers as shown in Exhibit 4.8 which outlines rail transit
routes in the region. Metropolitan Oakland International Airport
has a.bus link to the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) rail system.
4-4
Click HERE for graphic.
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 2: Introduction September 9, 1994
4.3.1 Commercial Service Airports
San Francisco International Airport
From what began in 1926 as a modest 160-acre site located well
outside the city, San Francisco International Airport has grown to
claim a total site of some 5,270 acres. The site, located on the
west shore of San Francisco Bay, consists of both upland and
submerged saltwater bayland. The airfield system occupies
approximately 1,700 acres, land partially consisting of reclaimed
tidelands. Undeveloped areas are several and include: the Bayshore
Parcel, 180 acres sited near the freeway; the San Bruno Interchange
Parcel, 18 acres west of the United Airlines maintenance hangar;
the North Field Parcel, a 150-acre parcel on the north field, north
of Flying Tigers and JAL airfreight operations; and the East Field
Parcel, a crash-fire-rescue practice area accessible by taxiway C.
San Francisco International Airport has two sets of
intersecting parallel runways: 28R-10L, 11,870 feet; 28L-10R,
10,600 feet; IR-19L, 8,901 feet (with a 600-foot displaced
threshold); and IL-19R, 7,001 feet. Each is 200 feet wide. They
are surfaced with asphalt concrete. Three of the four runways are
equipped with Instrument Landing Systems (ELS). An air traffic
control tower is situated in the center of the main terminal
building.
San Francisco International is the dominant airport in the
region, serving over 70 percent of the total regional passengers in
1990. Not surprisingly, it has by far the largest passenger
terminal complex in the region. There are 2.6 million square feet
of space serving 80 gates in the passenger terminal, which is
configured as six piers. There are also nine remote aircraft
hardstands (apron areas away from the terminal where aircraft can
park). The north terminal contains two boarding piers, and the
south terminal has four, including the international terminal. The
buildings surround a central public parking facility which has
6,800 stalls.
Air freight facilities utilize about 90 acres at San Francisco
International, and provide for 34 aircraft parking spots. General
Aviation fixed base operators (FBO's) can accommodate 40 based
aircraft, and there are six private GA parking places. The
passenger terminal can accommodate some 80 commercial jet aircraft
at second-level passenger loading bridges. Numerous support
facilities also occupy space at San Francisco International
Airport.
Metropolitan Oakland International
With its simple beginning as a dirt strip in 1921 the
Metropolitan Oakland International Airport has evolved into a four-
runway commercial service airport occupying some 2,600 acres of
upland and wetland adjoining the east side of San Francisco Bay.
The airport has experienced rapid growth in the past few years, and
in 1990 served 13 percent of the region's passengers. Oakland
airport is laid out almost as two separate airports, with
commercial service occurring at South Field and general aviation
activities occupying North Field.
4-5
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 2: Introduction September 9, 1994
South Field consists of a single transport category runway,
Runway 11-29, 10,000 feet in length and 150 feet in width plus its
parallel taxiway. North Field has three runways: 9R-27L, which is
6,212 feet long and 150 feet wide; 9L-27R, which is 5,452 feet long
and 150 feet wide; and 15-33, a short crosswind runway which is
3,366 feet long and 75 feet wide. There is one designated
helicopter takeoff/landing area.
Oakland's passenger terminal complex has two unit terminals
containing 20 second-level aircraft gates as well as one ground
level loading gate. Terminal One also includes one international
arrival gate and a recently expanded international arrivals
building large enough to accommodate a 747. 'The international
arrivals facilities can process 500 peak hour arriving passengers.
Surface vehicle parking at the passenger terminal can accommodate
some 6,300 vehicles.
Having become the region's hub for overnight small-package
cargo, Oakland has a large area (some 64 acres) devoted to air
cargo activity, including the Federal Express Metroplex facility
and an apron area used for belly cargo, both located west of the
terminal building. Another 55 acres of air cargo development is
anticipated by the year 2002.
Oakland's North Field is one of the region's largest and
busiest general aviation facilities, with a capacity of 640 based
aircraft, and occupying 980 acres.
Oakland has two air traffic control towers. One, serving
South Field, is located within passenger terminal 1. The second,
which serves North Field, is located adjoining the cross airport
dike.
San Jose International
San Jose International Airport occupies some 1,050 acres
adjoining the Bayshore Freeway on the north and the city of Santa
Clara on the west. There are three parallel runways, one used for
air carrier aircraft, one used for commuter and general aviation
aircraft, and one used primarily by general aviation. The general
aviation runway, 11-29, is 4,600 feet long and 100 feet wide. The
air carrier center runway is designated 12R-30L, and is 10,200 feet
long and 150 feet wide. The commuter/general aviation runway,
designated 12L-30R, is 4,419 feet long and 150 feet wide.
With the recent completion of the new Terminal A, San Jose now
has two unit terminals (A and C) with a total of 31 gates. Of
these, all 15 at Terminal A are second-level loading bridges, while
all 16 at Terminal C are ground-level gates. A combination of
surface and structured parking provides some 8,250 total parking
spaces at the passenger terminal.
San Jose is also a busy general aviation airport, with 625 existing
based aircraft. The general aviation facility also includes the
San Jose jet center, the San Jose State University aviation
programs, and several other FBO and support activities.
4-6
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 2: Introduction September 9, 1994
San Jose currently has a limited amount of space available for
air cargo. Approximately 7 acres of dedicated air cargo apron is
located at the northeast corner of the airport. This area, which
has no building space, is used for all-cargo and express mail
activity. Belly cargo associated with airline operations is
handled at the air freight building south of Terminal C.
Buchanan Field (Concord)
Ground was broken in 1942 for an airport to serve Contra Costa
County. Before construction could be completed, though, the
federal government stepped in and built two runways to serve the
war effort. Today, Buchanan Field has two pairs of parallel
runways on a 530-acre site located near Concord, California.
Runway 19R-IL is the primary runway, 4,400 feet in length and
150 feet in width. The other major runway, 14L-32R is 3,951 feet
long and 150 feet wide. Each has a 600-foot minimum safety area.
Runway 1R-19L is 2,768 feet in length and 75 feet in width, and
Runway 14R-32L is 2,800 feet long and 75 feet wide. The runway
surfaces are asphalt concrete.
The primary runway and that lying parallel to it are equipped
with medium intensity runway lights (AURL), and 19R-IL has runway
end identifier lights (REIL) as well. The other runways are not
lighted. Non-precision landings are guided onto runway 19R-IL by a
visual approach slope indicator (VASI). A terminal building
provides processing facilities for the based airlines, and there is
an air traffic control tower.
In addition, there are three designated helicopter
takeoff/landing areas at Buchanan Field identified on the taxiways.
Two are located on the east side of the airport, and one is placed
on the west side.
Sonoma County
Sonoma County Airport has served Santa Rosa, California, and
nearby communities since 1939, with interim service for the U.S.
army during World War II. It currently occupies 940 acres.
Two crossed asphalt concrete runways support general aviation
and air carrier activity. Runway 14-32 is the primary runway,
5,115 feet long, 150 feet wide, and ILS equipped. Runway 1-19,
5,002 feet long and 150 feet wide, has no lighting system but is
non-precision landing equipped with a Very High Frequency Omni
Range Station (VOR). There are four designated helipads and a
dedicated helipad lighting point.
The airport has an air traffic control tower, and a small
terminal for commuter and air carrier traffic.
4-7
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 2: Introduction September 9, 1994
4.3.2 General Aviation Airports
The airport s in the general aviation group by definition do
not host scheduled air carrier or commuter service, and also do not
have air cargo activity. Most of the facilities accommodate
private or corporate aircraft and limited air taxi service.
The general aviation airports are generally much smaller than
the commercial use airports. A few GA airports, such as Hayward
(543 acres), Napa County (735 acres), Livermore (5 10), and Santa
Rosa Air Center, which is now closed (500), compare in acreage with
Buchanan Field (578 acres), but most are between 50 and 250 acres.
General aviation runway lengths generally range between 2,000 and
3,500 feet, which is typical for the size and design aircraft
attracted to utilize these airstrips. Three airfields have
significantly longer runways: Half Moon Bay (5,000 feet), Hayward
(5,024), and Napa County (5,931). These airports could accommodate
smaller commercial passenger jets such as the Boeing 727 and 737,
and MD-80 series aircraft. Santa Rosa Air Center (now closed) has
a 7,000-foot runway, a length which could possibly accommodate
larger air carrier aircraft such as the Boeing 757. Precision
instrument approaches are possible at very few general aviation
airports, and the majority have no air traffic control tower.
Exhibit 4.17 lists the airports in each category.
4.3.3 Military Airports
Four military installations maintain airfield facilities in
the region. These are the Naval Air Station at Alameda, located
near Oakland in Alameda County; Hamilton Field in Marin County;
Moffett Naval Air Station in Santa Clara County; and Travis Air
Force Base, southwest of Sacramento in Solano County.
Naval Air Station Alameda
The NAS at Alameda contains 2,479 acres of property owned by
the U.S. Navy: 1,521 acres upland, and 958 acres of submerged
tideland in San Francisco Bay. In addition, 155 acres are leased
from the City of Alameda.
Naval Air Station Alameda provides support services to Naval
aviation facilities. Berthing space at two piers accommodates
aircraft carriers, and ship maintenance is also accomplished at
Alameda. The Naval Air Rework Facility Alameda allows for repair
and revamping of Navy jet and turboprop aircraft.
The airfield has two crossed US-equipped runways: one 8,000
feet in length, 200 feet in width; the other 7,200 feet long, 200
feet wide. Two helicopter landing areas are provided. The
airfield' at Alameda NAS includes 469,700 square yards of aircraft
parking apron and seven aircraft maintenance hangars. There is an
air traffic control tower on site.
4-8
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 2: Introduction September 9, 1994
Hamilton Field
Hamilton Field, formerly Hamilton Air Force Base, is owned and
operated by the United States Army. It has been surplused by the
military, and will be officially vacated in 1995. The airfield is
no longer actively used by the Army.
A single 8,000-foot runway is located on the site, and
numerous large aircraft hangars are present on the site. The
housing and support buildings at the base once used by the Army
still exist, but are largely vacant. There is no air traffic
control tower.
Local ballot measures regarding the future of the airfield
have shown that the majority of voters did not support future civil
use.
Moffett Field
Moffett Field (formerly called Naval Air Station Moffett
Field) was an airfield used primarily by Navy antisubmarine
aircraft to patrol Pacific Coast waters. In 1992 the portions of
the airfield and landside support facilities used by the Navy were
excessed by the military, and will be vacated by 1994. The entire
airfield facility has been given over to the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA), which will operate the facility in
the future. Other future users will include the Ames Research
Laboratory, which has supported NASA on the site for many years,
and a number of other government and private companies who have
related government contracts and derive direct benefit by being
located on or adjoining the airfield.
The 2,263-acre site has two parallel runways separated by 625
feet and fully instrumented. One is 9,200 feet long and 200 feet
wide; the other is 8,124 feet long (7,517 feet with displaced
threshold) and 200 feet wide. There are four aircraft maintenance
hangars and 472,300 square yards of aircraft parking apron.
There is an air traffic control tower in continuous operation at
Moffett Field.
Travis Air Force Base
Travis Air Force Base is an active military airfield. For
example, the base was heavily used to transport military personnel
back from the Persian Gulf conflict. The base has two parallel
11,000-foot runways and significant passenger processing
facilities. Travis' military mission is expected to continue, and
may be expanded.
4-9
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 2: Introduction September 9, 1994
4.3.4 Special-Use Airports
The facilities in this category provide services for aircraft
which are unique. The Commodore Center Seaplane Base is located in
southern Marin County. It has a 10,000-foot takeoff/landing area
length. San Francisco's public-use heliport, which is not active
at this time, is located on a pier at the waterfront near
Fisherman's Wharf.
4.3.5 Private-Use General Aviation Airports
Most of the private general aviation airports in the region
are airfields made up of a short, unpaved runway without
navigational aids, and minimal aircraft storage and other support
facilities. Public use and private use facilities in the airport
system are shown together in Exhibit 4.6.
4.4 BASED AIRCRAFT
This section presents based aircraft and fleet mix data for
the four groups of airports in the system. A complete set of
numbers is provided in the data summary table, Exhibit 4.17. The
distribution of the total based aircraft by county is then
illustrated in Exhibit 4.9.
4.4.1 Commercial Service Airports
Most of the air carrier airports in the region are home to a
significant number of general aviation aircraft. Concord, with
635, and San Jose, with 525, have the greatest number of based
aircraft. Sonoma County Airport has 454 based aircraft. Oakland,
which has lost significant numbers of based general aviation
aircraft in the past 10 years, now has 366 based aircraft, all of
which are located at North Field. San Francisco, the exception to
the above statement, has very few based general aviation aircraft
(29), as most of the airport is devoted to passenger and air cargo
activities. Of the five commercial service airports in the region,
San Jose is perhaps the dominant corporate/business airport, having
the greatest number of twin-engine piston-powered aircraft,
business jets, and rotorcraft.
4.4.2 General Aviation Airports
The number of based aircraft at the general aviation airports
varies widely by facility. Several airports have over 600 based
aircraft, most of which are single-engine piston airplanes. Only
Hayward and Livermore have more than one based jet aircraft. Gnoss
Field has one; the balance have none at all. The small number of
rotorcraft in the system are based at a few GA airport locations
across the region, including Hayward, Gnoss, Napa County, Half Moon
Bay, and Livermore. At Sky Soaring, a prominent gliderport, 20 of
the 23 based aircraft are gliders. Few of the public-use GA
airports have based gliders, except Byron, which has 24 gliders in
the mix of based aircraft.
4-10
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 2: Introduction September 9, 1994
Hayward Air Terminal has the largest number of twin-engine
aircraft, while Oakland has the most jets and rotorcraft. Of the
30 based jet aircraft in the system Oakland has over 68 percent
(34), while Hayward has some 18 percent of the total system's
multi-engine GA aircraft (114 of 636). This reflects these two
airports importance to corporate and business aviation users. The
chart below, Exhibit 4.1, displays the distribution of general
aviation based aircraft by county, and clearly shows the dominance
of Alameda and Santa Clara counties.
4.4.3 Military Airports
The aircraft based at the military facilities are quite varied
in and capability. The number may change at any time due to the
state of the national defense. NAS Moffett Field, for example,
functions primarily as a base and practice field for pilots of the
P-3, the Lockheed Orion antisubmarine aircraft. Thus of the over
121 based aircraft, about 74 are the P-3. Sixteen of these based
aircraft are helicopters. NAS Alameda is home to some 56 U.S. Navy
aircraft, including approximately 16 Douglas A-4 Skyhawks, attack
aircraft carried shipboard, 13 of the Vought A-7 Corsair II, also
an attack jet, and 10 Douglas KA-3B Skywarriors, which are
refueling aircraft. The total includes 12 based helicopters.
Hamilton Field currently has no based aircraft. Though it is used
by the U.S. Coast Guard, they do not base any vehicles there.
4.4.4 Special-Use Airports
The Seaplane Base in Marine County, Commodore Center, has three
based aircraft.
4.5 AIRPORT ACTIVITY
Information about airport activity was collected for the year
1990 to document current levels and to provide a basis for
forecasting. Airport activity information listed here includes
enplaned passengers, annual aircraft operations, peak hour
operations, and annual air cargo volume. The data is detailed in
Exhibit 4.17.
4.5.1 Commercial Service Airports
The five commercial service airport s enplaned 21.4 million
passengers in 1990. San Francisco International Airport enplaned
15.2 million passengers, which is 70.8 percent of the region's
total. San Jose enplaned 3.4 million passengers (15.8 percent of
the region's total) and Oakland enplaned 2.7 million passengers
(12.8 percent). Buchanan Field and Sonoma County enplaned 50,000
and 65,765 passengers, respectively, accounting for the remaining
0.6 percent of the region's total annual passengers. The
distribution of passenger enplanements is illustrated in Exhibit 4.
10.
4-11
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 2: Introduction September 9, 1994
In 1990 San Francisco had over 430,000 operations. Most of
these were either commercial passenger flights or air cargo
operations. Although this still made SFO the busiest airport in
the region, its share of the region's total operations was only 65
percent, compared to its nearly 72 percent of the region's total
passengers. Two factors may account for this: (1) many of SFO's
international and other longer distance flights use larger
passenger capacity aircraft; (2) SPO flights tend to have higher
load factors. In other words, SFO serves more passengers on more
flights with larger aircraft at higher load factors.
San Jose saw a total of 95,778 air carrier operations in 1990
(19.5 percent of the region's total), while Oakland South Field had
74,000 (15.1 percent of the total for the region). Concord, with
1,285 operations, accounted for 0.3 percent of the total, and
Sonoma County, with 439 operations, had 0.1 percent of the region's
total. Exhibit 4.11 shows the distribution of air carrier
operations by airport.
The following chart, Exhibit 4.12, displays the breakdown of
total 1990 operations by of service for the five commercial
airports. San Francisco has the highest volume of operations
overall, and serves the greatest number of commuter and air taxi
flights as well. Most of the operations at Buchanan Field and
Sonoma County are clearly devoted to general aviation, with some
regional traffic and proportionally few air carrier movements per
facility.
Air cargo activity for the year 1990 is concentrated at San
Francisco and Oakland, with nearly 94 percent of the region's total
air cargo processed at these two airports. The primary difference
between the two is that most of San Francisco's cargo is belly and
traditional air cargo, while Oakland has focused on overnight
small-package cargo operations, as witnessed by the large presence
of Federal Express. Between 1990 and 1992 Oakland has seen a new
trend in air cargo: the emergence of 2nd and 3rd day air service,
as well as direct distribution of manufactured goods. As a result,
total cargo volumes at Oakland have grown by some 62 percent in the
last two years. San Jose processes less air cargo (some 60,000
tons, or about 6 percent of the region's total). Concord and
Sonoma County have very little air cargo activity, levels mostly
attributable to local demand for overnight package services such as
Federal Express and UPS. The distribution of air cargo volume by
airport is illustrated in Exhibit 4.13, for the year 1990.
A few of the facilities have significant levels of operations.
Hayward, Livermore, and Reid-Hillview had over 200,000 operations
each in 1990. Gnoss, Napa County, Nut Tree, San Carlos, and South
County have over 100,000 annual movements. Others, such as Byron,
Cloverdale, Parrett Field, Rio Vista, and Sonoma Sky Park, have
fewer than 20,000 annual operations. These airports also have
small numbers of based aircraft. Exhibit 4.14 shows the
distribution of general aviation operations by county. Comparison
with Exhibit 4.9, illustrating the based aircraft distribution by
county, is somewhat revealing. Santa Clara County has the greatest
percentage of based aircraft, but does not match the number of
general aviation operations in Alameda County.
4-12
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 2: Introduction September 9, 1994
4.6 CAPABILITIES/CAPACITY
This section of the airport system plan presents generalized
information about current airport facility capacity as determined
by reviewing existing facilities, activity levels, and capacity
data from current airport master plans. Comparison of existing
facility capacity and existing levels of demand then made it
possible to assess the individual airports' ability to accommodate
future growth in activity. The capability analysis includes Arced
Facility capacity and Landside Facility capacity. Arced facility
capacity measures include peak hour runway capacity and annual
runway capacity (expressed as annual service volume). Landside
facility capacity measures include based aircraft capacity,
passenger terminal capacity, and air cargo capacity. While
generally accepted methodologies exist for determining runway
capacity, similar methods for determining overall passenger
terminal or air cargo facility capacity are not readily available.
This an analysis therefore relies heavily on data obtained from the
individual air carrier airports.
4.6.1 Arced Facilities
Airport arced capacity may be limited by a number of factors,
including runway capacity, taxiway capacity, or gate capacity. The
FAA has established standards for in and lateral separations of
aircraft, which take into account air traffic control capabilities,
fleet mix, and airfield configuration, and these affect the arced
operational capacity. Operational constraints on the airfield also
include the length of the runways and the structural integrity of
their pavement system. Larger aircraft need relatively lengthy
runways, and repeated utilization by heavier aircraft will demand
substantial runway strength.
The annual service volume for each airport is a measure of
capacity generally dependent on the number of runways. The figure
varies by airport, however, based on the runway configuration,
spacing between runways, of lighting and instrumentation, and
other factors. The capacities at the commercial service airports
in the region thus differ widely. Oakland and San Francisco have
the highest annual capacities, each at or just in excess of 500,000
operations per year. The air carrier runway at Oakland has an ASV
of 240,000 annual operations. San Jose can accommodate 355,000
operations annually, and Concord and Sonoma County have service
volumes of approximately 300,000 operations each. The number of
commercial flights in a year is restricted by a number of
variables, including the length and strength of the runways and
fleet mix considerations. The annual air carrier operations
capacity (expressed as annual service volume) is identified for the
major commercial service airports. Both Concord and Sonoma County
have significant limitations placed upon commercial air carrier
service in consideration of the neighboring community, evidenced by
their annual air carrier operational capacity relative to the
annual service volume. Total peak hour capacity is noted as
another constraint on the airport. throughput. Both the capacities
in VFR and IFR conditions have been mentioned because dramatic
reductions occur when an airport is operating under instrument
flight landing procedures during severe weather conditions. San
Francisco exemplifies this significant change as it moves from 105
aircraft per hour VFR to 53 aircraft IFR. Similarly, San Jose has
its
4-13
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 2: Introduction September 9, 1994
airspace capacity restricted to a single instrument approach during
IFR conditions.
As a region the general aviation airports are currently
utilizing about two-thirds of the total annual arced capacity
(annual service volume). This condition varies, however, from
airport to airport. Some small facilities with low levels of
activity are operating at less than 10 percent of their annual
runway capacity. These airports are Cloverdale and Rio Vista.
These airports also combine for only six based aircraft. Other,
larger airports are using much more of their runway capacity,
including Livermore at 90 percent and San Carlos at 68 percent.
The other general aviation airports range from 25 percent to 55
percent of their annual runway capacity.
4.6.2 Landside Facilities
Landside activity limitations include the passenger terminal
size, number of auto parking spaces, vehicular access, and
aircraft parking capacity. To date insufficient research has been
done to establish standards for passenger terminal capacities.
Current estimates from the three large commercial service airports
indicate their total annual passenger capacity to be about 31
million for San Francisco, 8.5 million for Oakland, and 10.9
million for San lose. San lose has a terminal capacity shortfall.
Terminal C is operating above design capacity, with functions
located at non-terminal building sites. San Francisco
International has insufficient domestic and international terminal
capacity. The passenger terminal at Oakland has immediate baggage
handling and security shortfalls, but with the recent addition of
five new gates has an adequate terminal capacity availability.
Ease of vehicular access and auto parking are also important
capacity considerations. Measures include on-site roadway level of
service and curbside congestion. Roadway level of service is a
measure of traffic flow conditions designated by the letters A
through F, with A the highest level or best condition on the scale.
San Jose enjoys an excellent level of service on its airport
roadways. They are lacking in on-airport rental car parking,
however. Oakland has considerable congestion at the passenger
loading/unloading areas. Terminal access roadways at San Francisco
International are inadequate in the peak periods when congested
conditions develop around the terminal curbside, but seem to have
sufficient long-term and short-term public parking space.
Regional access is being improved by the work of Caltrans on U.S.
Highway 101.
The based aircraft capacity at these facilities is 'ample, for
the most part. Sonoma County and Concord have room for 850 and 800
based aircraft, respectively, with Oakland and San Jose at about
the same levels in the 600-700 aircraft range. Oakland is at 62
percent of its based aircraft capacity and San Jose is feeling some
pressure, currently operating at over 87 percent of its based
aircraft capacity. San Francisco shows a great departure from this
provision of space, with only 46 general aviation based aircraft
places available (the 30 existing based aircraft represent 65
percent of capacity). All of these commercial facilities except
San Francisco
4-14
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 2: Introduction September 9, 1994
International Airport thus can currently support based general
aviation activity in addition to their current level of demand.
The general aviation element of the airport system is currently at
just under 70 percent of the total based aircraft capacity. Those
airports having the highest occupancy rates are Livermore (106
percent), Palo Alto (85 percent), Hayward (83 percent), and San
Carlos (76 percent). At the other end of the spectrum are Rio
Vista, at 25 percent of capacity, Half Moon Bay at 26 percent, and
Napa County at 40 percent.
Of more importance than total system capacity, however, is the
regional distribution of available capacity in relation to demand.
Santa Clara County, for example, had a total of only 446 based
aircraft vacancies in 1990. Alameda County's airports also face
congestion at Hayward and Livermore (combined 93 percent of
capacity), while Oakland North Field has some room to grow,
currently at 62 percent of based aircraft capacity.
4.7 CONSTRAINTS
Previous sections outlined existing airport facilities, levels
of airport activity, numbers of based aircraft, and the airports'
physical capability/capacity to accommodate current and future
demand. There are additional factors beyond the airports' physical
capacity, however, which place limitations on how much activity
can/will take place at each airport. These constraints are
airspace, environmental, physical, and policy.
Airspace constraints relate to regional airspace issues. The
nine-county region contains over 50 airports, which in 1990
generated over 4 million operations. This translates to almost
11,000 operations in the region every day. The region's five
commercial service airports enplaned over 21 million total
passengers in 1990, making it the sixth busiest region in the
nation. With this level of aviation activity the regional airspace
is congested and complex. From an air traffic standpoint all of
the region's airports are interrelated, and affect each other. In
planning for the total airport system it is therefore necessary to
evaluate the airspace environment.
Environmental constraints as discussed here are those related
to the natural environment, including such things as wildlife,
wetlands, and San Francisco Bay. Two of the major commercial
airports, Oakland and San Francisco, are situated on the Bay, and
host a variety of wildlife. Development at Oakland is also
affected by the presence of non-Bay wetland areas. Wetlands exist
to a lesser degree at other airports as well. Construction of new
runways would affect wetlands or require Bay fill.
Physical constraints may be manifested in a variety of ways,
including such things as limited airport size or the presence of
physical barriers to growth such as highways, railroads, rivers, or
buildings.
4-15
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 2: Introduction September 9, 1994
Policy constraints include noise, safety, and other community
compatibility issues. Neighborhoods affected by overflight noise
will be reluctant to support growth which win promote substantial
increases in commercial aircraft activity, and the noise which may
come with that activity. Terminal expansion, for example, may be
viewed by communities as a vehicle for encouraging more flights
with the additional passenger processing capability, and opposed as
strongly as runway capacity increases. Other constraints on
airport utilization include restrictions placed upon air traffic
due to community concerns.
These constraints have historically shaped the growth and
development of the entire regional airport system, and will
continue to do so in the future. This section identifies
limitations on current operations and addresses factors potentially
constraining future airport development and growth. These
constraints are discussed in some detail for the individual
commercial service airports and more generally for the military,
general aviation, and special-use airports.
4.7.1 Airspace Constraints
Safety is the greatest concern in aviation and to maintain
safe conditions limitations have been imposed by the FAA in order
to manage the regional airspace. New technological advancements,
when developed and implemented, may allow for more aircraft to be
safely processed within the terminal areas.
There is a substantial amount of interaction among the
operations at the numerous airports in the region, requiring an
established user's hierarchy for normal (non-emergency) conditions.
The air traffic pattern at San Francisco International is dominant
because the volume of air carrier traffic generated as a percentage
of the total is so much greater than that of the other airports,
and traffic associated with other facilities must conform. The
operations at military facilities in the region can cause flight
delays into and out of nearby commercial airports as the FAA
recognizes the importance of United States defense requirements.
Civil flights will have to yield to military operations. The
proximity of Alameda NAS to Oakland will affect Oakland operations
though a minimal number of interruptions will occur in a year.
There are several other conflicts due to their proximity. In
instrument conditions, conflict between aircraft simultaneously
approaching Hayward and Oakland will result in a delay to those
using Hayward Air Terminal. Flight in the region is regulated by
various controls and restrictions identified by the FAA. These may
hinder flight in the region.
Controlled airspace is identified.in the following ways:
- Terminal Control Areas (TCA) [permission and
communication required, speed restricted] (these areas
are now referred to as "Class B Airspace")
- Terminal Radar Service Areas (TRSA) [no permission
required, communication required, speed restricted]
- Airport Radar Service Areas (ARSA) [permission
required, speed restricted]
4-16
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 2: Introduction September 9, 1994
(these areas are now referred to as "Class C Airspace")
- Control Zones [permission required, contact required
IFR, speed restricted] These zones are now referred
to as "Class D Airspace')
- Control Areas Permission required, contact required
IFR, speed restricted]
- Transition Areas [permission required, contact required
IFR, speed restricted]
- Continental Control Areas Permission and
communication -required EAR, speed restricted]
- Positive Control Areas [entry prohibited VFR,
permission and communication required IFR]
Special Use Airspace includes:
- Alert Areas (no permission to enter,
communication required IFR, speed restrictions]
- Controlled Firing Areas (speed restricted]
- Military Ops Areas [restricted entry)
- Prohibited Areas [no entry permitted]
- Restricted Areas Permission required, speed restricted]
- Warning Areas [communication required IFR]
In the study region, San Francisco is a Terminal Control Area
("Class B airspace"). Oakland and San Jose are Airport Radar
Service Areas ("Class C airspace").
The chart in Exhibit 4.15 indicates the type of airspace for
airports in the study region. Exhibit 4.16 displays a map of the
regional airspace.
4-17
Click HERE for graphic.
4-18
Click HERE for graphic.
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 2: Introduction September 9, 1994
4.7.2 Environmental, Physical, and Political Constraints
Future growth will be limited by development constraints on
site, quantified here. Other constraints on facility expansion
will be noted for the major commercial airports and the others for
whom the issue is quite significant.
San Francisco
The San Francisco International Airport plays an important
role in the community, and in working toward being a good neighbor
has had to restrict its activities in several ways. Regulation has
long been instituted at San Francisco International to control the
noise affecting the community. Most recent noise abatement
regulation was instituted in 1988 by the Airports Commission, and
restricts airport noise by requiring conversion by operators to
quieter Stage 3 aircraft and limiting nighttime use by aircraft
other than Stage 3
Additionally, SFO is constrained by the absence of sufficient
land area for a new runway and passenger terminal development. The
airport is landlocked by the Bayshore Freeway (Highway 101) to the
west, and San Francisco Bay to the north, east, and south. Any
major new runway development would likely involve Bay fill. The
president of the San Francisco Airport Commission has stated in a
letter to BCDC dated June 15, 1993 that the airport (SFO) has no
foreseeable need or plans for additional runways that would require
fill in San Francisco Bay. There are a number of undeveloped areas
on site, identified already in the facilities section of this
chapter, which could be used for support facilities. Future
development at the airport is limited to these parcels or to
redevelopment of existing facilities.
Oakland
Metropolitan Oakland International Airport has no curfew and
no limit on the number of daily or annual operations. It does
enforce noise abatement procedures to reduce noise impacts on the
residential communities around the airport.
Although Oakland airport has considerable land area which
could accommodate development of passenger, air cargo, general
aviation, or other facilities, the airport has significant areas of
environmentally sensitive property. These areas have created
development constraints at Oakland in the past. These include
habitat for endangered species at the west end of runway 11-29;
scattered wetland areas throughout the airport; several open water
areas; and scattered wildlife habitat related to these wetlands.
Although these areas do not significantly constrain passenger
terminal development, they may limit the long-term development of
air cargo, aircraft maintenance, and other support facilities.
In addition, Oakland is constrained by the presence of San
Francisco Bay to the southeast, southwest, and northwest of the
primary air carrier runway. Extension of this runway would
4-19
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 2: Introduction September 9, 1994
involve Bay fill. Construction of an additional air carrier runway
at South Field would involve either Bay or wetland fill, or both.
The Port's current 2002 Airport Development Plan does not foresee
the need for a new parallel air carrier runway at projected levels
of activity in this plan. Rather, that plan primarily includes
landside development projects (such as passenger terminal
expansion, new parking , roadway improvements, and new air cargo
facilities) seeking to achieve a balance between landside and arced
capacity. In the longer term, the regional airport system plan has
identified a need for additional runway capacity somewhere in the
region, either at one of the three existing air carrier airports or
at Travis AFB or a new North Bay site.
San Jose
San Jose International Airport has established a number of
operational restrictions to address the noise and safety issues,
and to reduce the airport's impacts on adjoining communities. In
addition to noise abatement Right tracks and arrival and departure
procedures, San Jose has established a curfew which limits the
hours of airport operation. The airport is closed between the
hours of 11:30 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. This reduces the total amount of
daily activity at the airport, and also creates some congestion
during the morning hours. If continued into the future, the curfew
will constrain activity at the airport and cause increased
congestion within the available operating time envelope.
San Jose International Airport is located within an intensely
developed urban area and operates on an extremely limited site.
The 1,050-acre site is not sufficient to accommodate all aviation
demands. As a result, future development will involve difficult
choices between competing sectors, including passenger facilities,
air cargo development, and general aviation.
Because of its location and limited size, San Jose is highly
constrained by existing development. The runway system is limited
in length by the Bayshore Freeway (Highway 101) on the north and
Interstate 880 on the south. To the west and east the airport is
limited by urban development and the Guadalupe River, respectively.
The passenger terminal area is also highly constrained by the size
and shape of the land available between the runways and the airport
access road and the river. In addition, the presence of high-rise
towers in the vicinity of the airport will constrain the airport
in its planning for facility improvements and operational
expansion.
Concord
Nestled in the northern part of Contra Costa County, Buchanan
Field has, by County policy, placed limitations on both its general
aviation and commercial airline capacity. The total number of
based aircraft is limited to a maximum of 850 spaces, a level
forecasted in the Master Plan for the year 2005. Along with this
restriction on growth of general aviation activity, air carrier and
commuter airline service are limited. Air carrier service is
capped by policy at 7 flights daily, and the commuter service is
held at a similar level, leaving the enplaned passenger
4-20
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 2: Introduction September 9, 1994
potential at less than 180,000 in the year 2010, according to their
Master Plan. Pavement strength and runway length will create their
own restrictions on air carrier possibilities, they have noted.
Physical restraints prevent runway extension.
Sonoma County
The County of Sonoma has placed restrictions on its airport
operations and facilities development in order to meet its goal of
safe and compatible air service. Commercial air carrier flights at
Sonoma County Airport, involving commuter and scheduled airline
service, are restricted in number and in combination by the County.
In addition, the County has set policies which set limits to
physical improvements at the airport. The current runway (5,000
feet) cannot be lengthened, and current runway strength (95,000-
pound limit on gross takeoff and landing weight) cannot be
increased. Because of this weight limit, large air carrier
passenger jets (such as 737 and MD 80 series, which have maximum
takeoff weights of 135,000 to 150,000 lbs) cannot use the airport
for scheduled service.
McAteer-Petris Act and BCDC Constraints
The McAteer-Petris Act (Title 7.2 of the California Government
Code) and Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) policy
allows for some Bay fill for airport capacity enhancement projects,
but such fill must be the minimum amount necessary, and the fill
would only be allowed if there are no feasible upland alternative
for these projects.
4.8 AIRPORT PLANS
4.8.1 Airport Master Plans
The master plans of each airport have been reviewed to
identify future improvements and anticipated facility expansion by
airport. Examination of their capital improvement programs (CIPS)
will provide clues to the funding levels and areas in which they
are focused. Plans and policies of agencies at varying levels of
government who may effect future change are also identified.
Detailed information about the regional air carrier airports'
master plans is provided, with a summary of general aviation
airport plans.
San Francisco
San Francisco International Airport plans to accommodate
future growth by expanding and improving passenger and cargo
processing facilities and maintenance facilities. Less emphasis
has been placed on airfield modifications. Their Master Plan,
completed in November of 1989, identifies various improvements for
initiation in the near term, Fiscal Years 1988-1996, and the
4-21
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 2: Introduction September 9, 1994
long term, Fiscal Years 1997-2006.
NEAR TERM
Terminal
- The International Terminal will be replaced by a new
facility with a consolidated airport administration space.
Ground Transportation
- A Ground Transportation Center (GTC) will be developed to
consolidate ground transportation activities currently
scattered curbside. The new structures, one on each side of
the airport entry road, will be connected to the terminal
area by a Light Rail System (LRS).
Airline Maintenance Facilities
- Existing Pan Am maintenance/administration facility will be
relocated to the north due to construction of new Boarding
Area A.
- An East Field maintenance hangar complex to be located on a
presently undeveloped parcel will allow for consolidation of
aircraft maintenance facilities.
General Aviation Facilities
- Existing GA facilities and the fixed base operators are to
be relocated from the West Field to the East Field in
order to reconfigure air freight operations.
Air Freight
- West Field and North Field apron and ground access will be
restructured to allow for more room to process air freight.
Parking
- Additional short-term public parking will be made available
with the construction of the Ground Transportation Center.
At two sites long-term public parking will be added.
Roadway
- New two-level roadway system will be constructed to serve
the International Terminal and the GTC.
The CALTRANS interchange will better separate incoming
traffic.
Airfield
- Installation of a Microwave Landing System (MLS). In light
of recent shifts in FAA policy, SFO may abandon the MLS
concept and pursue Global Positioning System (GPS)
technology.
4-22
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 2: Introduction September 9, 1994
- Extension of Taxiway L to Runway 19L.
- Extension of Taxiway V to Taxiway L.
- Construction of high-speed exit Taxiway Z at Runway 19L and
Taxiway F.
- Construction of high-speed exit Taxiway Y at Runway 10L and
Taxiway L.
LONG TERM
Terminal
- Replace eastern section of Boarding Area B.
Public Transportation
- Extend LRS to Lot D - long-term public parking .
- If a CalTrain airport station or an SFIA BART station
are placed west of U.S. 101, connect LRS to such
stations.
- Provide LRS station underneath airport parking garage or
in Ground Transportation Center (GTC).
Air Freight
- Added air freight/maintenance facilities in the West Field
area.
- Addition to U.S. Mail processing facility.
Commercial/Office
- Develop commercial office building on site.
Airfield
- Expand South Terminal ramp area to accommodate
reconfiguration of Boarding Area B.
- Realign Taxiways A and B.
Oakland
Oakland's plans involve matching existing arced capacity by
providing a number of landside capacity improvements. The air cargo
market is important to them, as is the general aviation market.
Plans contained in the 2002 Airport Development Program include:
- Expand terminal to 34 gates.
- Construct parking garage.
- Terminal roadway improvements.
- Develop additional 55 acres for air cargo.
- Develop expanded GA apron and tie-downs.
- Construct new ARFF (aircraft rescue and fire fighting)
facility.
- Construct new international arrivals facility.
- Construct BART connection.
4-23
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 2: Introduction September 9, 1994
San Jose
The currently adopted airport master plan and ongoing efforts
to update the Master Plan at San Jose International include
improvements on both the arced and landside of the airport. The
current master plan update is scheduled to be completed by late
1995. The following improvement projects are based on the currently
adopted master plan, recently completed projects, and the maximum
growth alternative currently being considered in the master planning
process. Future airfield and landside improvements are specifically
dependent on which growth alternative is selected in the ongoing
Master Plan Update process.
Airfield
- Extend runway 12L-30R to 11,200 feet.
- Extend runway 12R-30L (completed in 1992)
- Reworking of the taxiways
- Pavement management rehabilitation work on the airfield
- New air traffic control tower on west side (completed in
1993)
Terminal
- Reconstruction of passenger terminal C and construction of
new passenger terminal B.
Parking
- Construct new parking garages.
General Aviation
- Relocation of all GA to west side of airport. Reduce total
number of GA based aircraft.
Air Freight
- New air cargo facilities.
Other
- Installation of a fuel farm.
Roadway
- Terminal area roadway improvements.
4-24
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 2: Introduction September 9, 1994
Buchanan Field
The Buchanan Field master plan is a balanced response to
anticipated general aviation and air carrier/commuter demand. They
have focused their efforts on best utilizing available land on site,
respectful of the existing airport configuration. No runway
extension has been suggested, but there will be work done on the
taxiway system. This master plan was completed in 1988.
Airfield
- Redesign taxiway system leading to Runway 32L and nearby
multi-taxiway intersection. New Taxiway M parallel to Runway
1L-19R.
General Aviation
- Increase GA parking from 629 spaces to 849 based aircraft
parking spaces.
Increase transient aircraft parking from 37 to 69 spaces.
Add other hangar spaces and tie-downs.
Terminal
- Construction of an airline terminal on the west side of the
airport to accommodate 180,000 annual enplaned passengers and
a restaurant. There would be 700 adjacent auto parking
spaces.
Other
- Crash-fire-rescue building.
- A fuel farm.
4.8.2 Other Plans
Sonoma County has closed Santa Rosa Air Center because it was
not compatible with its surroundings. The county is home to a
fair number of the region's based aircraft. Consideration is also
being given currently to the closing of Reid-Hillview in Santa Clara
County.
4-25
5 AVIATION DEMAND FORECASTS
The following text describes the process used in producing the
updated forecasts for passengers, air cargo, and general aviation
for the 1993 Regional Airport System Plan Update.
5.1 PASSENGER ACTIVITY FORECASTS
The generalized approach to preparing passenger forecasts was
to review previous forecasts; document air travel trends both within
and outside the region; establish a forecasting methodology; and,
using that methodology, produce forecasts. These steps are
described below.
5.1.1 Review of Previous Forecasts
In preparing these forecasts the previous aviation forecasts
listed below were reviewed to determine how well they predicted
future activity levels, and whether and how their methodologies
might be applied to the current forecasting effort. Those forecasts
included a variety of local, regional, state, and national efforts
developed over the past 10 years.
1. MTC Regional Airport System Plan Forecasts (1980 and 1985)
2. Current individual airport master plans
3. FAA San Francisco Hub Forecast (1986)
4. FAA National Aviation Forecast (1991)
5. FAA National Terminal Area Forecast (1990)
6. California Aviation System Plan (CASP) Forecast (1989)
Exhibit 5.1 ("MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update -
Forecast Comparison") displays these previous forecasts as well as
historic data (for years 1970 through 1990) for both the region and
the nation. Included are the total annual passenger figures for
each airport, the regional total, and the average annual growth rate
for each five-year period. Because the various forecasts were
prepared at different times, the forecast years did not always match
those required for the current MTC forecast (1995, 2000, and 2010).
In those cases, previous forecasts were either interpolated or
extrapolated, or both.
Accompanying Exhibit 5.1 are a series of supporting exhibits
which graphically display the data. These include historical
comparisons of the 1980 MTC high and low passenger forecasts and
actual activity in the nation and region. In addition, exhibits for
each of the five air carrier airports display historic trends from
1970 to 1990 (where available) and the range of forecasts for each
airport for the years 1995, 2000, and 2010. Also included is a
historic 20-year chart showing total air carrier enplaned passengers
for the Bay Region and the U.S. from 1970 through 1990. This chart
is instructive in displaying the historic volatility of the
industry, and the resulting difficulty in developing forecasts which
are accurate for any individual year of the forecast period.
Nonetheless, the chart clearly shows the growth trend over the 20-
year period,
5-1
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 5: Aviation Demand Forecasts September 9, 1994
which averaged nearly 4.2 percent per year. It also reveals
remarkable similarities between the region and the rest of the U.S..
Exhibit 5.11 breaks down passenger activity at SFO, OAK, and SJC
into the major components of Domestic Origin & Destination (O&D)
traffic, Domestic Connecting traffic, and International traffic.
These data breakdowns by type of traffic and by airport are
necessary in analyzing historic trends in the region and preparing
more accurate forecasts for the future. Knowing simply the total
number of passengers in the region, for example, does not allow
analysis of the complex market share interactions among the region's
airports. Nor do aggregated totals provide the level of detail
needed to build an understanding of the unique roles that the
individual airports play - either in the region or on the route
structures of the airlines they serve.
MTC Forecasts (1980 and 1985)
Previous MTC forecasts employed a linear regression analysis of Bay
Area air travel against U.S. Gross National Product (GNP) and
airline yield. Airline yield was used as a surrogate variable for
the price of air travel. These two factors were intended to reflect
the underlying economic and pricing forces that affect air travel
demand. The 1980 plan included 'high' and 'low' forecasts based on
varying degrees of optimism regarding these forces. MTC's 1980
forecasts included a "High" forecast of 56 million annual passengers
and a forecast of 45 million annual passengers in the region in the
year 1997. The high forecast was based on annual growth rates of
5.8 percent from 1977 through 1987, dropping to 2.7 percent from
1987 through 1997. The low forecast used annual growth rates of 4.2
percent and 2.0 percent for the same two time periods.
To see how well these previous forecasts predicted actual
activity, we looked at the high and low forecasts for 1990 and
compared them with the actual numbers for that year. For 1990, the
MTC high and low forecasts were 46.6 million and 39.3 million total
regional passengers, respectively. The actual regional total for
1990 was 42.8 million passengers, which is almost exactly in the
middle of the high and low forecasts. In hindsight, the MTC
forecasts were very good in bracketing the future level of passenger
activity from 1985 through 1990.
In 1985 MTC staff prepared an updated forecast for passenger
traffic, extending the period to the year 2005. That forecast
showed a high of 58.7 million and a low of 48.7 million annual
passengers for 2005. As shown in Exhibits 5.1 and 5.5, the 1985 MTC
forecasts we the lowest of all those included here.
5-2
Click HERE for graphic.
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 5: Aviation Demand Forecasts September 9, 1994
Existing Airport Master Plans
Existing airport master plans provided another source of
forecasts for the five individual airports. There were two master
plan forecasts: (1) San Francisco (SFO) and Concord (CCR)
"unconstrained"; and (2) SFO and CCR "constrained." The
unconstrained forecasts illustrate the level of activity which can
be expected if there are no major operational or policy constraints
on capacity at SFO and CCR. The constrained forecasts illustrate a
lower level of growth at SFO and CCR due to operational and/or
policy limitations on capacity (airside, landside, and/or airspace)
at SFO, and due to policy limits at CCR. These constraints are
described in more detail in the two airports' master plan documents.
All forecasts for CCR are based on the current Buchanan Field Master
Plan, which was prepared when Concord had regular passenger service.
As of 1993, however, Concord has no scheduled air service. Both the
Concord Master Plan and this system plan assume that scheduled
passenger service will return to Concord in the future.
San Francisco's current master plan was adopted in November
1992, and is currently being used to direct growth and development
of the airport. Oakland's currently adopted airport master plan was
completed in 1978, and is currently being updated. The Oakland
Master Plan Update process has been reoriented as a '10-year Airport
Development Program', which is expected to be completed in early
1994. San Jose's current master plan was adopted in 1980. The
current master plan update processes expected to be completed in
late 1995. Concord's airport master plan summary report was
completed in 1988. Sonoma County's updated airport master plan was
adopted in 1992. In addition, Sonoma County Airport operation and
planning policy is contained within the Sonoma County General Plan.
The Air Transportation Element, which provides policy on the
development and operation of the airport, was last revised in 1988.
The constrained forecast for SFO reduces passenger activity
from the unconstrained forecast level of 55 million to 43 million in
the year 2010, and reduces passenger activity at CCR from 790,000 to
360,000 in the same year. The net effect of these constrained
forecasts is to lower the region's total passenger volume for the
year 2010 from an unconstrained 89.4 million to a constrained 77
million. Although SFO is planning for significant growth in
passenger traffic (much of it international), combining the
individual airport master plan forecasts reveals a future shift in
passenger market share away from SFO and toward OAK and SJC. Under
the unconstrained forecast for 2010, SFO's regional market share
would fall from its 1990 level of 71 percent to 61 percent. Under
the constrained foremast, SFO's share of the region's total
passengers would decrease to 56 percent by the year 2010.
1986 FAA San Francisco Hub Forecast
In 1986 the FAA prepared a forecast for all five of the
region's air carrier airports, known collectively as the "San
Francisco Hub". The FAA periodically prepares these forecasts for
the nation's large urban areas. In other regions, such as Denver
(referred to below in the air cargo
5-3
Click HERE for graphic.
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 5: Aviation Demand Forecasts September 9, 1994
nation's large urban areas. In other regions, such as Denver
(referred to below in the air cargo forecast), the "hub" forecast
includes only a single airport. The San Francisco Hub forecast
included total air passengers and air cargo within the region, and
allocated passenger c forecasts to the five air carrier airports.
Air cargo forecasts were kept at the regional level. The forecast
used 1985 as the base year and included forecasts for the years
1990, 1995, and 2000. The forecast used different average annual
growth rates for each five-year period. At the regional level
annual growth rates were expected to be 4.9 percent from 1985 to
1990, 3.0 percent from 1990 to 1995, and 2.5 percent from 1995 to
2000.
Concord, Sonoma County, and San Jose were predicted to see the
greatest annual growth rates, with Concord and San Jose seeing very
fast growth (21.5 percent and 10 percent per year. respectively)
between 1985 and 1990. San Jose and Oakland, which together
accounted for only 20 percent of the region's passengers in 1980,
were expected to see 50 percent of the passenger growth from 1980 to
2000. SFO, on the other hand, was expected to see the lowest annual
growth rates, with 3.5 percent from 1985 to 1990, 2.0 percent from
1990 to 1995, and 1.5 percent between 1995 and 2000. The forecasts
showed a clear trend of shifting passenger traffic away from SFO and
toward the other airports in the region.
1991 FAA Aviation Forecast
The FAA produces its nationwide aviation forecasts annually,
with the latest document (FAA-APO 93-1) published in February 1993.
This forecast establishes average annual growth rates for the
nation, and includes specific terminal area forecasts for the
nation's 32 largest hubs, including SFO.
Although used here only for comparing passenger forecasts, the
FAA Aviation Forecast document includes a wide range of forecasts,
including passenger enplanements, operations, average aircraft load
factors, fuel consumption, number of passenger aircraft, number of
active general aviation aircraft, and number of active pilots. The
FAA forecast is based on a number of leading economic indicators,
including the Gross National Product, the Consumer Price Index, and
an Oil and Gas Deflator. In addition, the forecasts take into
account other factors such as the overall health of the airlines,
social and demographic trends, and world politics.
The 1991 FAA aviation forecast indicates that average annual
passenger growth rates for the entire nation's airport system will
be 4.0 percent through the year 2002. Between 2002 and 2010 the FAA
National forecast was extrapolated here using an annual growth rate
of 3 percent. Using these annual growth rates produces a regional
forecast of some 84.4 million annual passengers by the year 2010,
approximately 5 million less than the sum of the individual airport
master plans (89.4 million).
If the FAA's average annual growth rates are applied to each of
the region's airports equally, starting from their 1990 activity
levels, SFO would grow to nearly 60 million passengers by
5-4
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 5: Aviation Demand Forecasts September 9, 1994
2010. This is higher than the airport's own forecast as contained
in the airport master plan. San Jose would grow to over 13 million
passengers less than the airport's forecast) and Oakland would grow
to about 11 million in the year 2010 (slightly below the airport's
forecast).
For the forecast period 1989-2005 the FAA aviation forecast
shows SFO passenger traffic growing at an annual rate of 2.1
percent, while the number of annual operations is expected to grow
at a slower annual rate of 1.1 percent. Of the 32 hub airports
included in the FAA Aviation Forecast, only Los Angeles
International and Washington National are expected to have lower
rates of passenger growth than San Francisco International. In
addition, only four other major U.S. airports are forecast to have
slower annual operations growth: Chicago-O'Hare, Atlanta-Hartsfield,
New York-JFK, and Miami. Although the FAA national forecasts may
useful in producing a forecast for the total region, applying the
same growth rate to each of the region's airports does not recognize
the individual growth dynamics of each airport.
1990 FAA Terminal Area Forecast
The 1990 FAA Terminal Area Forecasts (TAF) include annual
forecast figures for each year from 1990 through 1995 and forecast
figures for the years 2000 and 2005. These numbers were then
extrapolated to the year 2010 for comparison here. The terminal
area forecasts, which represent a more detailed analysis of existing
conditions and growth potential at each airport than the national
aviation forecasts, apply different rates of growth for each
airport. Between 1990 and the forecast year 2010 the TAF shows
total annual passenger growth as follows: San Francisco - 48
percent; Oakland -- 92 percent; San Jose - 138 percent; Concord -
408 percent; and Sonoma County -- 32 percent.
1989 California Aviation System Plan (CASP) by Caltrans
The CASP forecasts project the highest growth of all those
reviewed. In the year 2010 the CASP shows the five Bay Area air
carrier airports serving over 90 million annual passengers, a 114
percent increase over 1990 activity levels. Similar to many other
forecasts, the CASP forecast predicts strong growth in the earlier
years, with annual growth rates falling off in succeeding years.
The CASP forecast is similar to the combined forecasts of the
airport master plans in total regional passengers. The CASP
forecast differs from the master plan forecasts, however, in that it
shows more growth at SFO and OAK and less growth at SJC.
5.1.2 Air Travel Trends
A number of air travel trends may affect future air travel in
the San Francisco region. These are briefly outlined below.
5-5
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 5: Aviation Demand Forecasts September 9, 1994
International Travel Growth
Many recent air travel forecasts suggest that international air
travel (and particularly travel to Pacific Rim nations) will be a
rapidly growing market for the next 10-20 years. Although
international traffic accounts for only about 9 percent of all
regional passenger traffic, this segment will provide a strong
growth component, offsetting any weakness in the domestic market.
Domestic Travel Growth (O&D and Connecting)
Underlying some of the air travel growth projections for the
Bay Area may be the effort of airline - "hubbing," which inflates
the actual Bay Area activity figures as connecting passengers change
planes at Bay Area airports. San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose
have each become hub airports to a certain extent (United at SFO,
Southwest at OAK, and American at SJC). As of mid- 1991 connecting
passengers comprised some 11 percent of all passengers in the
region. Federally collected origin and destination (O&D) data
suggests a low rate of growth in local Bay Area O&D air passenger
traffic. Future growth in passenger traffic may be more the result
of increased hubbing by major airlines than to the growth in the
local O&D market.
Maturation of Markets
In the 1970s and early 1980s a number of emerging air travel
markets saw rapid growth. Since then, several of these markets to
and from the Bay Area have matured, and appear to be now
experiencing growth only in proportion to overall population and
economic growth. Much of the growth in the region's O&D travel in
the past decade has been in long-distance markets (especially
international), which are now being served well by an increasing
number of carriers.
Airline Yield*
Experts differ in opinion on whether airlines will be able to
hold future fares down in real terms. The history of air fares has
been a steady downward trend. However, the future may produce
higher fuel and labor costs, which cannot be offset by future
technology and productivity improvements. The impact of a constant
yield assumption in the MTC forecast, as opposed to a declining
yield assumption, would likely be to reduce Bay Area air travel
demand. When combined with an assumption of no significant new
hubbing, these factors would produce low end forecasts.
* The extent to which airlines' revenues exceed costs on each route
5-6
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 5: Aviation Demand Forecasts September 9, 1994
Demographics and Per Capita Air Travel
Demographic hands are important in helping to forecast future
demand, particularly when factors such as discretionary income,
amount of leisure time, and attraction of first-time flyers are
included. Air traffic growth has been boosted by all three of these
factors in the past, but this may change in the future. Slower
population growth, a slowing in the growth in real disposable
income, and a decreasing number of first-time flyers suggest a
slower air travel growth rate in the future.
Telecommunications
Telecommunications, particularly video conferencing, may provide
substitutes for certain of business travel, particularly if economic
conditions worsen and the real cost of air travel increases and is
passed on to the passenger. Since the Gulf War this form of
communication has attracted greater interest.
5.1.3 Forecast Approach
In reviewing previous forecasting efforts, there is clearly a
wide variation in predictions about the future of air travel. Among
those existing forecasts reviewed, the highest passenger forecast
was from the CASP, which predicted over 90 million annual passengers
by the year 2010. The lowest forecast for that year was 71.5
million passengers, predicted in the FAA Terminal Area Forecast. In
view of this uncertainty, it was considered necessary to prepare
more than a single forecast for passenger traffic.
These forecasts therefore represent a range of views of the
future, from high to low. This is consistent with the 1980 MTC
Regional Airport System Plan. Using a range to show possible future
maximum and minimum levels of activity, this 1993 update of the
Regional Airport System Plan will be developed with the flexibility
to respond to this uncertainty about future levels of activity.
After reviewing and evaluating the previous forecasting
efforts, and reviewing trends which may affect future growth,
approaches for producing high and low forecasts were developed. For
the low forecast, a linear regression was developed based upon the
historic relationship between regional passengers and National GNP
and airline yield. It was thought that a forecast based upon these
factors would represent a more pessimistic, 'bottom-line' oriented
view, and would reflect a growing caution within the airline
industry regarding the long-range outlook for growth. This analysis
resulted in a year 2010 forecast of just under 71 million regional
passengers. This is the lowest of all the forecasts reviewed, and
is considered to be the lowest foreseeable forecast of future
aviation activity.
5-7
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 5: Aviation Demand Forecasts September 9, 1994
The high forecast was developed using linear programming
methods by evaluating the historic relationships between regional
passengers and other factors: U.S. passengers, regional population,
and regional employment. Historic correlations between the
dependent and independent variables were generated to determine the
best fit. That analysis showed an extremely high historic
correlation between regional passengers and total U.S. passenger
activity (R squared = .98). From 1970 through 1990 regional
passenger growth has been nearly identical to national growth.
These two trends are shown in Exhibit 5.3.
Using the linear regression model, the level of future regional
passengers is predicted to closely parallel national trends. The
FAA national passenger forecast is based on an annual growth rate of
4 percent between 1990 and 2002. From 2002 to 2010 the annual
growth rate was reduced to 2.6 percent. This was consistent with
forecast growth rates for that time period contained in all the
other previous forecasts reviewed, with the exception of the CASP,
which shows a rate of 3.5 percent per year from 2000 to 2005.
It should be noted that these MTC passenger forecasts are based
on historical relationships, which include past trends regarding
airline hubbing. As such, they do not account for the possibility
of a major new hub operation at either Oakland or San Jose. If
either were to become a major hub, total regional passenger volumes
could exceed the 84 million included in this forecast. As of the
publication of this plan, however, American Airlines had
significantly downsized its San Jose hub, and the level of
connecting passengers at SJC had fallen. In Oakland, Southwest
Airlines has now taken over all of Terminal 2, offering non-stop,
primarily O&D type service. Many major airlines are now reducing
the number and size of their hubs, and rethinking the economics of
hub type operations as compared with the new Southwest Airlines type
of point to point service. Considering recent events at San Jose
and the uncertainty of the nation's hub and spoke system as a whole,
it does not seem likely that the Bay Area Airport system will need
to plan for any major new airline hubs in the foreseeable future.
5-8
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 5: Aviation Demand Forecasts September 9, 1994
5.1.4 Selected MTC Regional Airport System Plan Forecasts
Using the approach outlined above, the total regional passenger
forecast for the year 2010 includes a 'high' of 84,763,333 and a
'low' of 70,621,536. The high forecast falls in the mid-range of
all the previous forecasts described above. It is consistent with
the FAA national forecasts but is not as high as the CASP forecast.
The 'high' forecast also falls between the unconstrained and
constrained forecast from the airport master plans. The 'low'
forecast falls just below the FAA terminal area forecast. When
compared with the other forecasts reviewed above, this GNP trend
forecast is the lowest forecast of future passenger activity. As
such, it is the minimum level of activity around which the region
should plan its system.
Click HERE for graphic.
5-9
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 5: Aviation Demand Forecasts September 9, 1994
5.2 AIR CARGO FORECASTS
5.2.1 Review of Previous Forecasts
Similar to the process used to prepare the passenger forecasts,
the air cargo forecasting effort began with a review of previous
forecasts. Because of the small amount of air cargo handled at
Concord and Sonoma County, these airports were excluded from this
forecast. Existing air cargo forecasts that were reviewed include
the following:
1. MTC Regional Airport System Plan (1980)
2. Current individual airport master plans
3. FAA San Francisco HUB Forecast (1986)
4. FAA National Aviation Forecasts (1991)
5. World Air Cargo Forecast, by Boeing Commercial Airplane Group
(1990)
6. California Aviation System Plan (CASP) Forecast (1989)
7. California Air Cargo Study by Manalytics (1991)
As with the passenger forecasts, the air cargo forecasts include
several exhibits. Exhibit 5.12 displays the numbers associated with
the previous forecasting efforts as described below. It also
contains several national and world cargo forecasts purely for
comparative purposes. In addition, charts are included that present
the historic relationship between U.S. and regional cargo volumes,
and a comparison of the 1980 MTC cargo forecast versus actual cargo
activity. Additional charts display the range of forecasts for each
of the fl= major air carrier airports. Unless otherwise noted, all
references to "tons' in this forecast are to normal U.S. tons (2,000
lbs.).
1980 MTC Forecasts
MTC's air cargo forecasts were based- upon a review of previous
forecasts completed by the FAA; the Air Transport Association (ATA);
aircraft manufacturers; and the air cargo marketing departments of
several major airlines. These existing forecasts produced average
annual growth rates of between 6 percent and 18.5 percent for the
years 1977 through 1997.
MTC's 1980 Regional Airport System Plan forecasts include both
'high' and 'low' forecasts, which, similar to the passenger
forecasts, created a range within which the future growth was
expected to fall. Also similar to the passenger forecasts, actual
regional growth in air cargo between 1980 and 1990 fell between the
high and low 1980 MTC cargo forecasts. For 1990, regional air cargo
totaled 950,000 tons, while the high forecast by MTC in 1980
predicted some 1 million tons and the low forecast predicted 914,500
tons.
5-10
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 5: Aviation Demand Forecasts September 9, 1994
Existing Airport Master Plans
All three airports' existing master plans have detailed
forecasts of air cargo activity. San Francisco's and Oakland's
forecasts have been extrapolated to 2010. As a region, the combined
master plans show future growth of 8.5 percent from 1990 to 1995,
5.6 percent from 1995 to 2000, 5.9 percent from 2000 to 2005, and
6.6 percent from 2005 to 2010. The total volume of air cargo in the
region is expected to be 3,453,221 tons by the year 2010 (see
exhibit 5.12). This is nearly the same as the CASP forecast
(described below).
1986 FAA San Francisco HUB Forecast
This FAA foremast projects the region's total air cargo demand
through the year 2000 using annual growth rates of 4.5 percent for
1990-1995 and 4.2 percent for 1995-2000. The forecast is based on a
continuation of then current (1986) market shares, with SFO
retaining 66 percent, OAK with 25 percent, and SJC with 9 percent.
The FAA Hub forecast shows overall growth in air cargo volumes
growing from 950,307 tons in 1990 to about 1.5 million tons by the
year 2000, a total increase of just over 50 percent.
1990 FAA National Forecast/1990 FAA Denver Hub Forecast
One annual FAA Aviation forecast document does not contain a
forecast of future air cargo traffic. This forecast was therefore
taken from the FAA's Denver Hub forecast, completed in 1990. That
forecast shows air cargo growth from 1990 through 2010 at annual
rates of 4.9 percent for the first 5 years, 4.6 percent for the
second 5 years, and 4.1 percent for the last 10 years (2000-2010).
The forecast shows total regional cargo volumes increasing to 2.3
million tons by the year 2010, a total increase of nearly 138
percent for the 20-year period.
1990 Boeing World Air Cargo Forecast
In 1990 the Boeing Commercial Airplane Group produced a
worldwide forecast of air cargo. The forecast generates annual
growth rates based on total revenue-ton-kilometers (RTKs). This
figure includes a factor (distance in kilometers) which is not
included in the other forecasts. The forecast is therefore
determined by both the weight of cargo as well as the distance it
travels. In this sense, the Boeing forecast is not comparable to
the others. Nevertheless, it is instructive to include it here as a
measure of overall worldwide cargo growth from 1989 to 2000.
Factors affecting growth which were included in the Boeing forecasts
are: U.S. and world economic growth, world exports, world express
and small package market, labor costs, world oil prices and jet fuel
costs, and world air freight yield, among others.
The Boeing forecast includes some historical data for
perspective. From 1970 through 1988, according to the report, the
total world cargo volume grew at an average annual rate of almost 9
percent. The most significant growth occurred between 1985 and
1988, when the average
5-11
Click HERE for graphic.
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 5: Aviation Demand Forecasts September 9, 1994
annual growth was 12 percent. This growth may be partially
explained by the fact that Federal Express began reporting data in
1985. This strong growth was shared by the San Francisco region,
which saw annual cargo growth rates of 14 percent, 19 percent, and
16.5 percent for these same years.
The 1989 to 2000 forecast predicts annual growth of 7.3 percent
from 1989 to 1995 and 5.6 percent from 1995 to 2000. It is called
the 'baseline' forecast. The forecast also includes higher and
lower growth rate projections, reflecting alternative outlooks for
the world's economies. These rates are:
1989-1995 1995-2000
High 8.6% 6.4%
LOW 6.0% 4.9%
Applying the baseline growth rates to the 1990 existing air cargo
volumes in the region produces a regional cargo forecast of 1.8
million tons in the year 2000. This represents a total increase of
87 percent over 1990 volumes.
California Aviation System Plan (CASP) Update
The state has produced two forecasts of air cargo, one (Phase I
report prepared in 1989) which includes SFO, OAK, and SJC, and the
other (Phase 2 prepared by Manalytics, Inc., in 1991) which includes
only SFO and OAK. The first applied an average annual growth rate
of 3.7 percent to the region for the entire forecast period, 1990-
2010. This forecast indicates the region's total air cargo demand
will approach 2 million tons in 2010, with SFO accounting for 66
percent, OAK at 24 percent, and SJC at 10 percent. The Manalytics
forecast shows SFO growing by only 1.8 percent per year, while OAK
grows by 6.0 percent per year through the 20-year forecast period.
5.2.2 Air Cargo Trends
There are a number of factors which may affect air cargo growth
and the distribution of that growth in the San Francisco region in
the coming 20 years. These include worldwide, national, regional,
and local factors and trends. Following are the major factors which
have been considered in the preparation of future air cargo
forecasts for the 1993 Regional Airport System Plan Update. Much of
the world and national trends data was taken from the 1990 Boeing
World Air Cargo Forecast.
1. World air freight will grow more rapidly than mail, though
both will see continued steady growth.
5-12
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 5: Aviation Demand Forecasts September 9, 1994
2. International markets will continue to outpace domestic
market growth.
3. The U.S. airline share of world air cargo volume will
decline slightly from 35 percent in 1989 to 33 percent in
the year 2000.
4. The highest air freight market growth will occur in the
intra-Orient, Europe-Orient, and transpacific routes.
5. The number of small air cargo freighter aircraft will
grow substantially, primarily through conversion of
existing passenger
6. Most 707s and DC8s will be retired from the medium-sized
airplane fleet and be replaced by 757-sized airplanes.
7. U.S. conversion to an all stage 3 fleet will force either an
upgrading of stage 2 aircraft to stage 3 noise standards
or force them out of the U.S. route system.
8. Air cargo activity will remain concentrated at very
busy airports near major population centers where there
is ample capacity available to shippers in the
baggage holds of airliners. [Source: A Feasibility Study
of regional Air-cargo Airports, a report to Congress; by FAA,
August, 1991.]
9. It is appropriate that cargo operations be collocated
with passenger operations at the busiest metropolitan
area airports.... All cargo aircraft operations add little to
air traffic congestion and delay at busy air-carrier
airports.... Cargo operations require the same
expensive airport facilities long runways, highway
access, and support infrastructure) as passenger
operations.[Source: A Feasibility Study of Regional Air-Cargo
report to Congress; by FAA, August, 1991.
10. Joint-use agreements at military airfields or
conversion of surplus, former military airfields may offer
some of the best, least-cost alternatives for multi-use
reliever airports.[Source: A feasibility Study of Regional
Air-Cargo a report to Congress; by FAA August, 1991.]
11. Because of its focus on passenger activity, San Francisco
International will achieve air cargo growth primarily by
providing more belly cargo capacity in passenger
aircraft. Much of this growth will be related to expansion of
the transpacific market.
12. Oakland will continue to see strong growth in all-cargo
activity, particularly the small package and overnight
express component of the air cargo industry.
13. Due to limited airport size, San Jose, like San Francisco,
will rely on increased bellyhold capacity on passenger
aircraft to provide most of its future air cargo growth.
5-13
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 5: Aviation Demand Forecasts September 9, 1994
5.2.3 Air Cargo Forecasts
The 1980 MTC forecasts included high and low forecasts for both
passengers and air cargo. Exhibit 5.14 shows how volatile the
regional and national air cargo industry has been in the past 10
years. Between 1980 and 1990 the cargo industry saw a wide variety
of conditions, including decline, stagnation, and strong growth. In
spite of this volatility, the MTC forecast found accuracy in 1990,
with actual activity falling within the predicted forecast range.
Because of the uncertainty in accurately predicting future air
cargo trends, this MTC forecast also includes 'high' and 'low'
figures, which are displayed in Exhibit 5.15 below. The high
forecast is based on annual growth rates of 5 percent from 1990 to
2000 and 4 percent from 2000 to 2010. The low forecast is based on
annual growth rates of 4 percent between 1990 and 2000 and 3 percent
between 2000 and 2010. The high forecast more closely resembles the
Boeing and FAA National forecasts, while the low forecast is more in
line with the individual airport master plans and the Phase I CASP
forecast. The selected MTC/RAPC forecasts show a continuation of
the airports' current market shares. The MTC Air Cargo Forecasts
shown in Exhibit 5.15 below display forecasts for each of the three
air carrier airports. The basic forecast totals some 2,290,000
total tons for the region in the year 2010. In addition, the
forecast displays a revised high forecast for Oakland airport. This
revised Oakland cargo forecast is the result of significant changes
in air cargo trends in the past two years, and reflects the Port of
Oakland's revised air cargo forecasts published in May of 1993. The
baseline air cargo forecasts for the RASP (shown in Exhibit 5.15)
were prepared in 1991 using historical data through 1990.
Since these baseline cargo forecasts were prepared (1991)
Oakland airport has experienced a strong growth surge in two
specialized sectors of air cargo: (1) direct distribution; and (2)
second and third day delivery services. Between 1990 and 1992
Oakland saw its total air cargo volumes increase by some 62 percent,
reflecting the success of the new cargo service. These new air
cargo services represent significant components in the future growth
of air cargo activities at Oakland Airport. The Port expects these
two sectors to continue to expand, accounting for much of the
previously unforeseen growth. In addition, the Port expects to see
significant growth in international all cargo activity, adding
further optimism to the forecasts.
The Port of Oakland's Updated Air Cargo Forecasts report dated
May 11, 1993 predicts a 10 percent annual growth rate for air cargo
tonnage between 1992 and 2002, and the report's authors (Port of
Oakland and P&D Aviation) predict that air cargo activity may
continue to grow at an annual rate of 10 percent until the year
2010. This growth rate produces a forecast of over 2 million total
tons of cargo in the year 2010 for Oakland. This revised forecast
is displayed in Exhibit 5.15 below.
5-14
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 5: Aviation Demand Forecasts September 9, 1994
The revised forecasts for Oakland do not represent a shift in
regional trends, but rather a significant change in the operational
characteristics of the cargo carriers which serve Oakland. Several
carriers have recently instituted 2nd and 3rd day air delivery
service, and have created a new market for this service. In
addition, a number of carriers have begun offering distribution
services to manufacturing companies, thereby creating an additional
market which did not previously exist. Given the success of these
new markets, the carriers" plans to expand them, and the Port of
Oakland's commitment to serve the carriers, the revised cargo
forecasts for Oakland are included in this RASP as a guide to long
range planning. The Port, in cooperation with the carriers, is
currently planning for the cargo processing facilities needed to
accommodate these forecasts.
Click HERE for graphic.
* Total includes Oakland's revised forecast
5-15
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 5: Aviation Demand Forecasts September 9, 1994
5.3 GENERAL AVIATION FORECASTS
Summary
The general aviation forecasts are based on an analysis of
historical trends in the general aviation sector and recent data on
number of pilots and their flight activity in California. The
analysis of the long-term historical trends in the number of active
student, private and commercial pilots shows that the rapid growth
in general aviation activity in the late 1960s and the subsequent
decline in the early 1980s appear to be largely a consequence of the
government-subsidized flying under the GI Bill flight training
program, that provided financial support to allow veterans to obtain
a commercial Pilot certificate,. More recently, the growth in the
demand for airline pilots has fueled a new growth of pilots
progressing Through the sequence of student, private, and
commercial pilot, as part of obtaining an airline transport
certificate. However, the number of new student pilot certificates
issued each year cannot be explained entirely by those seeking
future employment as professional pilots. Rather, there appears to
be a slight resurgence in interest in flying for non-professional
reasons.
Underlying the changing pattern of pilot activity has been a
significant shift in demographics, that produced a decline in the
number of people in the younger age groups that coincided with other
factors tending to reduce flying in the early 1980s. As the growth
in the number of people in their late teens and early twenties
resumes during the coming decade, there is likely to be a new wave
of entering pilots.
Analysis of the California pilot activity data developed two
cohort models that explained the changing composition of the pilot
population, as the different age groups grow older. ["Cohort" models
analyze population trends by observing groups of people (referred to
as 'cohorts') over time. These groups, or "cohorts", are usually
age groups (such as people ages 16-24, 25-34, etc.)]. It was found
that the flying activity of a given age cohort tended to change in a
consistent way as the cohort aged. Thus, by predicting the future
numbers of entering pilots in the youngest age groups, it appears
possible to forecast fairly accurately how many will still be flying
at any time in the future, and how many hours per year they will
fly. Analysis of national data on pilot certificates issued
suggested that the number of new student pilots per 10,000
population is likely to remain fairly stable, with a slight growth.
Similarly, the number of new commercial pilots is likely to be
closely ed to the growth in the demand for airline pilots, which can
be derived from FAA forecasts of future commercial air traffic.
Using this approach, high and low growth scenarios for entering
pilots were defined, and the corresponding increase (or decrease) in
total hours flown, and hence aircraft operations, was derived.
These show a growth in aircraft operations in the MTC/ABAG region
between 1990 and 2010 of between 6 percent and 37 percent.
5-16
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 5: Aviation Demand Forecasts September 9, 1994
The number of based aircraft was forecast by a similar process
that examined the attrition rate at which existing aircraft are
retired from the fleet and the rate at which new Aircraft are added.
The latter t has changed significantly over the past two decades,
and thus high and low scenarios for the rate of new aircraft
acquisition were developed. The low scenario is based on a
continuation of current rates, while the high scenario is based on
the growth in flying activity projected by the cohort models. The
low growth scenario forecast a slight reduction in the based
aircraft fleet by the year 2010 of around 3 percent, while the high-
growth scenario projected an increase of about 25 percent to around
8,700 aircraft.
The fairly wide range of the forecasts for both aircraft
operations and based aircraft in the region by the year 2010
demonstrate the sensitivity of the complex dynamics of the general
aviation sector to what may appear to be relatively minor shifts in
participation levels. This results both from the very long active
life of an aircraft, as well as the fact that a pilot learning to
fly today could still be flying four or five decades hence.
Introduction
In contrast to air carrier and air cargo activity, which have
shown steady growth over the past ten years, the pattern of general
aviation (GA) activity has been one of stagnation or The central
issue for the development of forecasts of future GA activity is
whether this stagnation will continue, whether an accelerating
decline will set in, or whether recent trends will reverse and
growth will once again resume. This cannot be resolved by analyzing
past aggregate trends. Instead, an attempt must be made to
understand the dynamics of the changes in the general aviation
sector over the past decade, and the implications of those dynamics
for the future.
General aviation activity depends on two or three related
factors: the supply of pilots and the' amount they fly, and the size
and composition of the aircraft fleet. Although data on pilot
activity is not readily available at the level of the Bay Area, much
less within individual counties, an extensive database on active
pilots and hours flown has been assembled at the state level by the
COMSIS Corporation (1990). Under the assumption that Bay Area
pilots are not significantly different from those in other areas of
California, this can be used to develop projections of future growth
(or decline) in total hours flown.
In order to translate a forecast of hours flown into more
conventional measures of g aviation activity, such as based
aircraft or operations, projections are needed of the future of
hours flown per based aircraft, and aircraft operations per hour
flown. Since these ratios are likely to vary considerably by
aircraft type, it is desirable to develop these projections by broad
category of aircraft to allocate the projections of hours flown to
each category of aircraft.
5-17
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 5: Aviation Demand Forecasts September 9, 1994
5.3.1 Forecasts of Pilot Activity
Data on the number of active pilots and their annual hours
flown is available from pilot medical records (COMSIS, 1990), by the
class of medical certificate. The class of medical certificate
usually corresponds to the type of license held, as follows:
Medical Class 1 - Airline Transport Pilot License
Medical Class 2 - Commercial Pilot License
Medical Class 3 - Private or Student Pilot License
Some pilots have a higher class of medical certificate than
required for their license, whether out of aspirations for obtaining
a higher class of license in the future or a desire for a more
rigorous medical examination. Since this is likely to be correlated
with the amount of flying, using medical class to measure hours
flown may tend to underestimate the average number of hours flown by
pilots with a given class of license. However, assuming that this
tendency is fairly stable over time, it should not affect
projections of the growth rate in number of hours flown. The trend
over the 10 year period from 1978 to 1988 in the number of active
pilots in the state by class of medical certificate and class of
pilot license is shown in Exhibits 5.20 and 5.21. Since 1980, the
numbers of student, private and commercial pilots have all shown a
steady decline. Interestingly, the number of pilots holding a
flight instructor rating has remained fairly steady, in spite of the
decline in student pilots.
National Trends
In order to better understand these patterns, it is helpful to
examine the broader national context. National data on the number
of student and private pilots are available from the FAA annual
Statistical Handbook and U.S. Civil Airmen Statistics. Data on the
number of active pilots in each class are available from 1952, as
shown in Exhibit 5.22. It can be seen that the number of active
student pilots at year end rose steadily during the 1950s and 1960s,
reaching a peak in 1968. There was then a slow decline until 1975,
then steady growth until a second peak in 1979. The number
thereafter declined sharply until 1983, then, with minor
fluctuations, grew very slightly until 1986, thereafter declining
until the present.
The number of active private pilots at each year's end follows
a similar pattern, with the peaks shifted a year or more later, as
would be expected, due to the time required to complete student
flight-training. The apparent sharp fluctuations in the mid-1950s
are believed to be due to changes in the FAA definition of active
pilots, rather than any change of activity. An active pilot is
currently defined as a pilot with a valid medical certificate.
Private and student pilots must renew their medical certificates
every two years, commercial pilots every year, and airline transport
pilots every six months. The slight growth in student pilots in the
mid-1980s does not appear to have arrested the decline in active
private pilots during the decade. There also appear to be two
distinct reductions in the number of active private pilots, one in
1973 and one in 1981.
5-18
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 5: Aviation Demand Forecasts September 9, 1994
The former may well be due to the fuel shortage in that year,
while the latter may reflect the effect of the 1981 air traffic
controllers' strike, which restricted the access of general aviation
aircraft to busy airports or other air traffic control services
(such as instrument operations in controlled airspace) for a while.
The pattern of active student pilots is reflected in the number
of student pilot certificates issued each year, as shown in Exhibit
5.23 the surge in student pilots immediately before and after World
War II is dramatic, reaching an all-time high in 1947. Although
military pilots do not need to be licensed by the FAA, it is likely
that many military pilots will be inclined to obtain a civil
certificate on leaving the service. Of particular significance is
the relationship between the number of student and private pilot
certificates issued in a given year, and the number of active
student and private pilots at year end. The number of student pilot
certificates issued and the number of active student pilots at year
end is shown in Exhibit 5.24. The number of active pilots for each
year is approximately 1.6 times the number of certificates issued in
that year, suggesting that on average each student takes about 1.6
years either to progress to the private pilot certificate or become
inactive. However, since the definition of active pilot status is
having flown within the past two years (since the only check occurs
when the medical certificate is renewed every two years), in
practice, many "active" student pilots may have already given up
flying.
The relationship between the number of students and the number
of pilot certificates issued is shown in Exhibit 5.25. This
indicates that only about 40 percent of those issued student pilot
certificates eventually progress to a private pilot certificate.
From 1966 to 1988, on average, about 16 percent of student pilots
obtain their private pilot certificate within one year, while 19
percent take between one and two years, and 6 percent take longer
than two years. From 1966 to 1979, 22 percent of student pilots
obtained their private pilot certificate within one year, while a
further 17 percent took longer than one year. From 1980 to 1988,
these percentages changed to 14 percent and 30 percent,
respectively. Thus it would appear that recent trends are for a
higher proportion of those issued student pilot certificates to
obtain their private pilot certificate, but to take longer doing so.
This most likely results from the ending of the GI Bill flight
training program discussed below.
The number of active student pilots in each age group is shown
in Exhibits 5.26 and 5.27. It can be seen that the reduction after
1980 is less marked for student pilots older than 35, and there is
no apparent reduction in student pilots for the two oldest age
groups until 1990, when all age groups show a noticeable drop. Note
the rise in the numbers of student pilots in the youngest age group
from the ' mid-1960s through the early 1980s, corresponding to the
period of the GI Bill flight training program. It is not clear
whether the sharp increase in student pilots over age 60 in 1965 and
1966 is a data anomaly, or also results from the inception of this
program. The corresponding data for private pilots are shown in
Exhibits 5.28 and 5.29. These show two very different patterns. The
four-age groups younger than 35 appear to grow and decline more or
less together, while the age groups older than 40 show a cohort
effect, with the
5-19
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 5: Aviation Demand Forecasts September 9, 1994
number of pilots in each age group rising to a peak in successively
later years, as the cohorts age. The age group from 35 to 39
appears to show a transition effect, neither reflecting the pattern
of the younger age groups, nor showing the clear cohort effect of
the older age groups.
Effect of the GI Bill Flight Training Program
It is clear from an examination of the foregoing trends that a
significant factor in the number of new pilots during the late 1960s
and '70s was the flight training opportunities presented by the
Education and Training Program of the federal Veterans
Administration (available to veterans under the so-called "GI
Bill"). Under this program, veterans could obtain financial
assistance to pursue flight training at an approved school, either
for vocational purposes (i.e., a career as a commercial pilot) or
"ancillary to the pursuit of another vocation". For most of its
life, the program paid 90 percent of established charges for tuition
and fees for training leading to a commercial pilot's certificate.
To be eligible, veterans had to possess a valid private pilot's
license and meet the medical requirements for a commercial pilot's
license (i.e., a class 2 medical certificate).
While these benefits did not cover student pilot training
(except under some rather limited conditions), the value of the
benefits once a veteran obtained a private pilot certificate were
substantial. Apart from paying most of the cost of some 200 hours
of additional flying necessary to obtain a commercial certificate,
including experience with aircraft with such advanced features as
retractable landing gear and variable pitch propeller, the training
allowed veterans to obtain additional ratings, such as an instrument
rating, that would be of value even if they never flew for
commercial purposes. It could be expected that many veterans would
be willing to pay for their student pilot training out of their own
pockets, in order to take advantage of this program of advanced
training. 'This would be particularly true for veterans who had no
interest (or reason) to take other forms of education or training to
use up their entitlement, such as veterans who already had a college
degree or professional qualifications. A veteran was eligible for
1.5 months of full-time education or training for every month of
service, to a maximum of 36 months. This entitlement was reduced by
one month for each payment to the veteran for flight g of an amount
that varied from $175 in 1971 to $317 by 1981. At the rate in
effect in 1978, one month of entitlement per $288, a veteran with
the maximum 36 months of entitlement could cover $11,500 in
training expenses, which could easily pay for the necessary 200
hours of flight time, even allowing for other instructional costs.
Furthermore, in some cases the training costs were tax deductible,
thus providing additional incentives to fly under this program.
Data on the number of veterans who took advantage of this
program is somewhat obscure, but limited statistics are available
from various publications of the Veterans Administration (VA) and
others. relating to the VA programs. The total number of veterans
who participated in the flight training program under the GI Bill
from its inception after World War H through December 1977 was about
244,600 (VA, 1980). Of these, about 101,500 participated between
June 1966 and June 1973 (Jobs for Veterans National Committee,
1974), while a total of 166,186 enrolled
5-20
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 5: Aviation Demand Forecasts September 9, 1994
in the program between 1967 and its termination in 1981 (information
provided by VA personnel). At the end of September 1977, there were
about 16,300 veterans in the program (VA, 1978). By the late 1970s,
concern was being expressed that the program was largely funding
'avocational' rather than vocational training (Congressional Budget
Office, 1978), and in 1980 Congress reduced the benefits to 60
percent of training. expenses for courses commenced after September
1 of that year, and the following year terminated the flight
training program effective October 1, 1981, except to permit those
already enrolled in a course to complete their training. By 1982 the
number had reduced to about 2,200 and by 1994 it was down
to about 200.
From 1967 to 1981, approximately 790,000 private pilot
certificates were issued, while during this period 166,186 veterans
enrolled in the flight training program. Thus it would appear that
veterans undertaking flight training supported by the GI Bill might
have accounted for about 21 percent of the private pilot
certificates issued prior to 1981. Clearly these numbers only go
part way toward explaining the changes in the number of student
pilots during the past three decades. Presumably, there was also
some attrition of veterans who obtained a private pilot certificate
intending to pursue further flight training, but never did, so the
percentage of new private pilot certificates that might be
attributed to the GI Bill could be somewhat higher.
There are at least two other possible factors related to the
Vietnam war that might explain the dramatic increase in student
(and consequently private) pilots from 1963 to 1968. One is the
number of military pilots being trained during the build-up for the
war, who subsequently (or simultaneously) obtained a civil
certificate, as well as other military personnel with increased
opportunity to learn to fly. The second is an increased interest in
learning to fly by young men facing the draft, whether out of a
genuine desire to serve in air combat or more a desire to avoid
infantry duty. In 1964, 9 percent of active student pilots were
under age 20, while 24 percent were aged 20 to 24. Two years later,
the number of active student pilots under age 20 had more than
doubled to 16 percent of all active student pilots, while the number
of those between age 20 and 24 had increased by 46 percent to almost
42,000, accounting for 25 percent of all active student pilots.
Over this two-year period, the number of active student pilots
between the ages of 35 and 59 increased by only 3 percent from
36,800 to 38,000.
Student and Private Pilot Certificates Issued
The number of active student pilots in the younger age groups
at a national level has been relatively constant since 1983, as
shown in Exhibit 5.22 above. However, the size of the population in
each age group has also been changing over time, as shown in Exhibit
5.30. When adjusted for this change in population size' the number
of new student pilot certificates issued per year per 10,000
population is shown in Exhibit 5.31.The effect of the GI Bill
discussed above can be clearly seen, particularly the effect on the
two age groups between 20 and 29.
5-21
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 5: Aviation Demand Forecasts September 9, 1994
Since 1982, the trend in new student pilots starts has become
much more stable, with the participation rates of the age groups
from 20 to 39 showing similar rates and a steady decline to between
about 5 and 6 per 10,000 by 1990, while the participation rate of
those under age 20 was fairly steady from 1982 to 1985, at around 5
per 10,000, and has risen since then to between 6 and 7 per 10,000.
The noticeable increase in the participation rate of the age group
from 20 to 24 since 1988 may be indicative of a similar trend.
Since the participation rate of the youngest age group has been
historically lower than for the older age groups (at least since
1970), there appears to have been a recent change in the
attractiveness of learning to fly for this age group. One possible
explanation is the recent increase in the number of commercial
aviation jobs indicated by the increase in commercial and airline
transport certificates issued as shown by Exhibit 5.32. While the
trend is too recent to allow any reliable statistical analysis, and
the historical data are too confused by the effects of the GI Bill,
this may allow some reasonable assumptions of the future direction
of this trend, based on the expected future needs of the. airline
industry. This is discussed further in the section on growth
projections.
The number of new private pilots can be computed from the
relationship discussed above, that expresses the number of new
private pilot certificates issued in any year in terms of the new
student pilot certificates issued in the preceding years. It is
assumed that the aggregate relationship is true for all age groups.
In order to determine the number of active student and private
pilots in any year, it is also necessary to know the pilot attrition
rate. Statistical analysis of national age group data resulted in
models of student and private attrition that show that student pilot
attrition in any year is about 34 percent of the student
certificates issued two years before plus 12 percent of those issued
in the preceding two years. Private pilot attrition in any year is
about 9 percent of the active private pilots two years before.
Commercial and Airline Transport Pilots
The number of active pilots holding commercial and airline
transport certificates is shown in Exhibit 5.33. 'Mere has been a
steady decline in the number of active commercial pilots since the
early 1970s, following a period of rapid growth in the late 1960s,
although the decline appears to have bottomed out in 1988 and there
has been a moderate growth in the last two years. In con=t, the
number of active airline transport pilots has grown steadily, and by
1990 was approaching the number of active commercial pilots.
The trends in the number of active commercial pilots by age
group are shown in Exhibit 5.34 and 5.35. It can be seen that there
has been a resurgence of active pilots in the younger age groups
since 1986, reflecting the recent increase in the number of
certificates issued, shown in Exhibit 5.32. Also noteworthy is the
significant increase in active commercial pilots over age 60,
possibly reflecting a growing number of retired airline pilots, who
no longer elect to (or can) maintain the more rigorous Class I
medical certificate requirements for an airline transport
certificate. The recent trends in the estimated number of
commercial certificates issued to pilots in the two age groups from
20 to 29 are shown in Exhibit 5.36, together with the number of
5-22
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 5: Aviation Demand Forecasts September 9, 1994
active pilots in the corresponding age groups. It can be seen that
by 1990 the number of commercial certificates issued each year to
pilots in the age group between 20 and 24 had reached about 40
percent of the number of active pilots in the group at the end of
the year. It can also be seen that the average age at which
commercial pilots are gaining their certificate is increasing,
possibly reflecting the greater time required to accumulate the
necessary flight experience without the financial support of the GI
Bill program. It may also affect changes in the age at which
military pilots are leaving the service, as discussed below.
Many pilots acquiring commercial certificates are doing so en-
route to an airline transport certificate. The recent trends in the
estimated number of airline transport certificates issued to pilots
in the three age groups from 20 to 34 is shown in Exhibit 5.37.
There appears to be,- a 5 to 10 year lag between pilots gaining
their commercial and airline transport certificates, ,suggesting
that almost 85 percent of those pilots gaining commercial
certificates between 5 and 10 years.ago have progressed on to
airline transport certificates. Unfortunately, the effect of the GI
Bill program, which produced a large number of pilots in the early
1980s holding commercial certificates, but with only avocational
interests in flying, makes the true magnitude of this effort
difficult to analyze.
The number of military pilots leaving the service has influenced
the supply of commercial and airline pilots, and will continue to do
so in the future. Data on this has also been difficult to obtain,
particularly the number of such pilots who possess civil
certificates or who take up professional flying careers upon leaving
the service. The Air Force has been undertaking a budgetary program
to reduce the number of pilots, and estimates that some 3,800 pilots
worldwide were separated in fiscal year 1992. That number is then
expected to drop to about 2,400 in fiscal 1993 and 1,400 to 1,500
per year thereafter. Since not all of these will continue flying
professionally, they are not likely to form a very large fraction of
the 15,000 or so commercial certificates currently being issued per
year, although they may well form a larger share of those who
progress to an airline transport certificate.
Private and Student Pilots
The trend in the number of active pilots in California holding
a Class 3 medic- al certificate, by age, is shown in Exhibits 5.38
and 5.39. It can be seen that the age composition of the active
pilot population has been changing over time in the same general way
as the national data for student and private pilots, although the
decline in the number of active pilots in the early 1980S does not
seem as pronounced. As can be expected, a drop in the number of
younger pilots in one year will show up as a reduction in the number
of pilots in progressively older age groups in subsequent years. In
particular, it can be seen that the number of pilots aged 15 to 19
declined until 1984 and has been rising since 1985. The number of
pilots aged 20 to 24 continued to decline after 1985, presumably due
to the delayed effect of the decline in the number of younger pilots
five years earlier. The number of pilots in each age range
increased in successive age groups, reached a peak somewhere between
age 30 and 45 and declined
5-23
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 5: Aviation Demand Forecasts September 9, 1994
thereafter, with the peak age group becoming older over time, as
that group of pilots aged. However, there was an interesting
anomaly with the number of pilots aged 60 to 64, which increased
throughout most of the period, reaching a level in 1987 higher than
the number of pilots in the previous age group five years earlier.
The average hours flown by pilots in each age group is shown in
Exhibits 5.40 and 5.41. In contrast to the number of active pilots,
this appears to be quite stable over time, with some minor
fluctuations. The variation in the average hours flown by the two
oldest age groups is possibly due to effects of the smaller sample
size involved. There appears to be no basis from the data for
assuming that the hours flown by each age group will change
significantly in the future from the average values given in Table
1.
Cohort Analysis
Projections of the number of active pilots in future years can
be obtained from an analysis of the change in the number of pilots
in each five-year cohort as that group ages. The ratio of the
number of pilots in each age group to the number in the previous age
group five years before is shown in Exhibits 5.42 and 5.43. With the
exception of the group aged 20 to 24, this ratio appears fairly
stable over time. The change in the average ratio for successive age
groups is shown in Exhibit 5.44.
Commercial Pilots
A similar analysis was performed for pilots holding Class 2
medical certificates. The number of active pilots in California in
successive age groups is shown in Exhibits 5.45 and 5.46. Compared
to student and private pilots, there is a much lower proportion of
pilots in the 15 to 19 age group, and the number of pilots in each
age group increases significantly until the mid thirties. This is
perhaps not unexpected, given the training requirements and career
orientation of the commercial license. Also clearly apparent from
Exhibit 5.45 is the significant drop in the number of active
commercial pilots in all age groups below 35 between.1978 and about
1985, beginning somewhat earlier in the older age groups. This
pattern is quite different from the cohort effect observed with
student and private pilots, and also apparent to a lesser extent
with commercial pilots above age 40, in which trends in one age
group appear five years later in succeeding age group, and appears
to be largely due to the ending of the GI Bill flight g program.
The average hours flown by pilots in each group is shown in
Exhibits 5.47 and 5.48. These values appear less stable over time
than was the case for student and private pilots, with the average
hours flown by pilots in the age groups from 30 to 45 tending to
increase over time. The age group from 65 to 69 also shows a
distinct increase in hours flown over the period. This
5-24
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 5: Aviation Demand Forecasts September 9, 1994
increase may be a compensating effect for the reduction in the
number of younger commercial pilots, with the older pilots flying
more to meet the demand for commercial flying activities.
Cohort Analysis
The ratio of the number of active class 2 pilots in each age
group to the number in the previous age group five years before is
shown in Exhibits 5.49 to 5.50. With the exception of the two groups
between 20 and 29, these ratios appear to show A fairly steady
change over time. The change in the ratio for the younger age
groups can be explained by the drop in the number of active pilots
in each age group discussed above. The average change in the number
of pilots in each age group compared to the previous age group five
years previously is shown in Exhibit 5.52.
Growth Projections
Forecasting the Trends in Entering Pilots
The national data on the number of student pilot certificates
issued per 10,000 population, shown in Exhibit 5.31 above indicates
that the participation rate for the age group 16 to 19 has been
increasing in recent years from around 5 per 10,000 to around 7 per
10,000. From 1985 to 1988, the number of active medical class 3
pilots in the same age group in California grew from 5.04 to 6.37
per 10,000 population, compared to a national average for active
student pilots that grew from 8.9 to 10.2 per 10,000 population.
The difference is most likely due to the number of student pilots
with Class I or Class 2 medical certificates, due to plans for
professional flying careers. If the growth Class 3 participation
rates in California continued at the same rate until 1990, as
suggested by national data, the. rate then would have been around 7
per 10,000.
This suggests that a low growth scenario might to assume that
the current participation rate of the youngest Class 3 pilots
continues at a constant level of 7 per 10,000 in the future. A high
growth scenario could assume that the increasing trend in the
participation rate for the youngest age group observed since 1985
continues until 1995 and then levels out. This would result in an
increase in the participation rate to around 10 per 10,000
population, a level comparable to that observed in the early 1970s.
Predicting the growth in the number of commercial pilots in the
entry age range (20-24) is more difficult, since this is presumably
driven by the prospects for a professional flying career. This is
likely to be driven by the future balance between demand and supply
of professional pilots. Since a high proportion of new commercial
pilots are apparently progressing to airline transport certificates,
it might be expected that the future growth in new commercial
certificates might reflect the future demand for airline pilots.
Fortunately, this is subject to analysis. The future number of
airline pilots will depend on the amount of airline flying, which in
turn depends on
5-25
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 5: Aviation Demand Forecasts September 9, 1994
are projected to be 9 percent below 1990 levels. The net effect is
to give an increase in total hours flown per year between 1990 and
1995 of about 4 percent, with the growth rate slowing in subsequent
years, until by 2010 the total hours flown per year are projected to
be approximately 6 percent higher than in 1990.
Under the high-growth scenario, there is much more rapid growth
in hours flown by commercial pilots, particularly in the later years
as the higher number of entering pilots appear in older age groups.
By 2010, hours flown by commercial pilots are projected to be 66
percent above 1990 levels. The hours flown by private and student
pilots under this scenario remain constant until 1995, then show a
slow but increasing growth until by 2010 they are approximately 6
percent higher than in 1990. The net effect is to give a steadily
increasing growth in total hours flown of about 1.4 percent per year
until by the year 2000 the total hours flown are projected to be 15
percent above 1990 levels. The net growth rate is projected to
increase thereafter to about 1.8 percent per year, giving a
projection of total hours flown in 2010 some 37 percent above 1990
levels.
Comparison Between California and the Bay Area
Since the forecasts have been developed at a state level, due
to the lack of suitable data at a more local level, it is
appropriate to ask how similar the general aviation activity in the
Bay Area is to that of the state as a whole. A number of comparison
methods have been developed, as shown in Table 5. While the nine Bay
Area counties, perhaps not surprisingly, have fewer airports in
relation to its population than the state, the number of annual
general aviation operations per capita is quite similar to the state
average (0.49 compared to 0.52). Likewise, the number of based
aircraft per capita is slightly less than the state average (I. 17
per thousand population, compared to 1.22). The number of operations
per based aircraft is almost identical, especially for FAA towered
airports.
The characteristics of the traffic are somewhat different,
reflecting the density of the region, and' the resulting smaller
number of non-towered airports (airports with no FAA towers). A
much larger proportion of the general aviation activity (75 percent)
occurs at FAA-towered airports, compared to the state average (52
percent), while the proportion of the general aviation operations at
FAA-towered airports that are local is also higher than the state
average (51 percent compared to 44 percent). This reflects the high
proportion of airports in the region that have FAA towers,
supporting training activities that would tend to use other airports
elsewhere in the state. However, it is clear that these differences
do not suggest that the overall pattern of general aviation activity
in the Bay Area is significantly different from that of the state as
a whole. Thus growth projections developed for the state should
also hold true for the San Francisco Bay Region.
5-27
Exhibit 5.56
Projected Growth in Pilot Activity
(1995 - 2010)
LOW GROWTH SCENARIO
Active Pilots Hours Flown
(Percent growth per year) (Percent growth over 1990)
Medical Class Medical Class
2 3 2 3 Total
(20-24)(15-19)
1989-1990 13 5 1995 9.2 -2.6 3.6
1991-1995 3 0 2000 13.0 -4.9 4.5
1995-2010 0 0 2005 16.8 -7.2 5.3
2010 20.4 -9.0 6.4
HIGH GROWTH SCENARIO
Active Pilots Hours Flown
(Percent growth per year) (Percent growth over 1990)
Medical Class Medical Class
2 3 2 3 Total
(20-24)(15-19)
1989-1990 13 5 1995 13.8 0.0 7.3
1991-1995 6 7 2000 26.8 1.3 14.7
1995-2010 3 0 2005 44.1 2.9 24.5
2010 65.5 5.5 37.0
Exhibit 5.57
Comparision Between Bay Area and California
BAY AREA CALIFORNIA
(1990) (1998)
FAA Towered Airports 11 80
Other Airports 13 874
Total Operations 2,929,000 14,634,000
Percent FAA Towered Airports 75.0 52.3
Percent Local (FAA Towers) 50.8 44.0
Based Aircraft 6,950 34,400
Operations per Based Aircraft 421 425
FAA Towered Airports 419 418
Other Airports 429 433
Population 5,961,000 28,314,000
Annual Operations per Capita 0.49 0.52
Population per Airport 248,000 29,000
Population per FAA Towered Airport 542,000 354,000
Based Aircraft per 1,000 Population 1.17 1.22
Sources: COMSIS/FAA General Aviation Database
RASP Inventory
California Department of Fianance (Population Estimates
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 5: Aviation Demand Forecasts September 9, 1994
5.3.2 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AND BASED AIRCRAFT FORECASTS
During the ten-year period from 1978 to 1988, significant changes
occurred in the relationships between the number of general aviation
aircraft, the number of hours flown and the number of local and
itinerant operations. The trends in the number of hours flown by
pilots with Class 2 and 3 medical certificates and the hours flown
by general aviation aircraft in California are shown in Exhibit
5.53. It can be seen that the two series are generally consistent.
Allowing for commercial and private pilots holding Class 1 medical
certificates, which will increase the pilot hours flown, the number
of pilot hours flown exceeds the number of aircraft hours flown.
This is to be expected, due to both pilots logging hours on two-
pilot flights, whether as pilot and copilot, or during flight
instruction.
The reduction in total hours flown also reduced the number of
hours flown per aircraft, as shown in Exhibit 5.54, since changes in
the size of the aircraft fleet occur much more slowly. The decline
in the amount of instructional flying reduced the ratio of local to
itinerant operations, with a corresponding reduction in the number
of operations per hour flown, due to the much higher number of
landings and take-offs per hour in local flight compared to
itinerant operations. The change in the number of operations at FAA
towered airports per hour flown is shown in Exhibit 5.55, while the
change in the percentage of general aviation operations at FAA
towered airports accounted for by local operations is shown in
Exhibit 5.56. After the reduction in the first half of the 1980s,
these relationships appear to have stab at around 1.65 operations
per hour flown, with about 44 percent of these being local
operations.
Aircraft Operations Forecasts
If these relationships remain stable, then future changes in
hours flown should produce a proportional change in airport
operations, as shown in Exhibit 5.57. Although future growth is
expected to be largely due to increasing activity by commercial
pilots, previous surveys of general aviation pilot activity (FAA,
General Aviation Pilot and Activity Survey, 1976, 1979, 1983, 1985)
suggest that the difference in operations generated per hour flown
between commercial and student/private pilots may not be great, as
shown in Exhibit 5.58. This appears to be due to an increase in the
percentage of local flights by commercial pilots, presumably due to
an increase in their role as flight instructors. However, this
illustrates the complex relationships between the relative numbers
of different types of pilot on the resulting patterns of general
aviation activity.
Based Aircraft Forecast
In the short run, the number of based aircraft is not much
influenced by the levels of general aviation activity. Owners are
much more likely to sell than to scrap an aircraft if they are not
flying it much, and relatively few new general aviation aircraft are
being bought, except for larger corporate aircraft. An analysis of
the age distribution of the current based aircraft
5-28
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 5: Aviation Demand Forecasts September 9, 1994
suggests that new aircraft are being added to the fleet at a rate of
around only 0.2 percent per year. The rate at which older aircraft
are likely to be retired (or are lost due to accidents) can be
assessed from the change in numbers of registered aircraft of the
same model year over time. While this information is not readily
available for all aircraft types, it can be inferred from data for
Cessna 150/152 series aircraft as the 150 series model number
changed almost every year from the early 1960s until the production
was discontinued in 1977. Since each model was given a different
designation letter (e.g. 150, 150B, etc.), the fleet attrition can
be determined from data on registered aircraft in the FAA Census of
U.S. Civil Aircraft. Attrition of relatively new aircraft can be
inferred from data for the 152 series since it was discontinued in
1986. The annual attrition in the number of aircraft of a given
model year as a function of aircraft age is shown in Exhibit 5.59,
together with an assumed attrition function.
Aircraft Utilization and Pilot Activity Trend
Using these relationships for new fleet acquisition and
aircraft attrition, the size of the Bay Area fleet was estimated
through the year 2010, as shown in Exhibit 5.60. This shows the
based aircraft fleet declining by about 3 percent by the year 2000,
leveling out between 2000 and 2005, and increasing slightly
thereafter. The analysis does not take into account aircraft that
might be relocated to or from the Bay Area, or factors that might
change the acquisition or attrition rates in the future. These
factors aside, the based aircraft fleet can be expected to decline
by about 2.7 percent by the year 2010. Under the high-growth
scenario described above, this would result in an increase in
average aircraft utilization to around 205 hours per year. Under
the low growth scenario, average aircraft utilization would increase
to about 160 hours per year. While the latter utilization level
should present no particular difficulty, the level of 205 hours per
year under the high growth scenario corresponds to that achieved in
the late 1970s, when a large number of new aircraft were entering
the fleet. To the extent that the growth in hours flown is being
partly driven by increasing numbers of new pilots, the flight
training schools will need to acquire new aircraft as their existing
fleets age. The aircraft they replace will have many years of
service left, and will remain in the fleet for private or corporate
use. Thus it appears that the based aircraft forecast may not be
independent of the pilot activity projections for the high-growth
scenario.
A high activity growth scenario forecast of based aircraft was
prepared, assuming that the number of new aircraft entering the
fleet increased in proportion to the increase in hours flown. This
gave the higher forecast shown in Exhibit 5.60. Under this scenario,
the based aircraft fleet grows steadily from 1990 at a progressively
increasing rate to around 8,700 aircraft by 2010.
5-29
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 5: Aviation Demand Forecasts September 9, 1994
Sensitivity of Forecast to Varying Assumptions
The forecast growth shown in Exhibit 5.60 indicates the
sensitivity of projections of the size of the future based aircraft
fleet to assumptions about the rate at which new aircraft are added
to the fleet. The low-growth scenario assumed that new aircraft
would be added at rate of only about 15 aircraft per year, while the
high growth scenario assumed that new aircraft would be added
initially at a rate of 1.5 percent of the current fleet (or around
100 per year), rising to a rate of 2.5 percent (or about 175
aircraft per year) by the year 2010.
Even the high growth rate assumptions are significantly less
than the rate of new aircraft acquisition in the 1960s and 1970s,
which reached a rate of about 7 percent per year in 1978 and was
never less than about 1.5 percent. This suggests that future growth
rates could be even higher than assumed for the high growth
forecast.
Summary of General Aviation Airport Forecasts and Findings
- General aviation covers many different activities that are
influenced by very different causal factors.
- Expected future needs for professional pilots appear likely
to spur an increase in the number of student pilots and
flight training activity at a national level.
- Depending on the rate at which new pilots take up flying, the
growth in general aviation aircraft operations (take-offs and
landings) at the Bay Area airports could range from 6 percent
to 37 percent over the next 20 years.
- One current general aviation aircraft fleet is significantly
under utilized to past experience, and very few new aircraft
are being manufactured. The fleet size can therefore be
expected to decline slowly in the near term.
- Over the long term, there could be a resurgence of growth in
general aviation activity, particularly flight training,
which could lead to an increase in based aircraft by 2010 of
up to 25 percent.
- In spite of the recent slow decline in the number of based
aircraft in the Bay Area, there currently exists an unmet
demand for hangar space. Airports lease hangars as soon as
they become available, and owners relocate aircraft to take
advantage of hangars that become available.
- While the current general aviation airport system has excess
aircraft parking capacity, this could change if the based
aircraft capacity at San Jose International Airport is
significantly reduced, and any general aviation airports are
closed.
5-30
6 AIRPORT SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES DEFINITION
6.1 INTRODUCTION
The objective of defining regional airport system
alternatives is not only to identify the range of policy choices
being faced by the region, but also to provide a basis for
evaluating their feasibility as well as their possible consequences.
The set of alternatives should offer a range of visions of the
future, defined in sufficient detail to provide a basis for
comparing them, choosing between them, and identifying the actions
needed to implement them. While these alternatives must be founded
in what is technically possible, they should not be unduly
constrained by existing political or institutional agendas. To
accept such constraints may result in foregoing the best long-term
solution in the interests of short-term expediency. Rather, such
constraints should be recognized in the way the alternatives are
defined and evaluated. The evaluation process should identify
implementation pathways which could actually eliminate current
constraints by building political constituencies for institutional
change, where such change is needed.
Central to this approach is the requirement to quantitatively
evaluate the alternatives, in order to provide a basis for choosing
among them.
The 1990 Apogee Study
A previous study by Apogee Research, Inc., included extensive
focus group discussions with a broad range of airport users,
operators, and the general public. On the basis of these
discussions, six alternative strategic policy approaches were
suggested (Apogee Research, Regional Airport System Plan Update:
Summary of Findings and Policy Alternatives, December 7, 1990).
These alternatives were considered and used in generating the actual
system plan alternatives used in the 1993 Regional Airport System
Plan Update.
The Apogee policy alternatives listed below can be thought of
as providing a strategic perspective on the development of the
regional airport system. While they do not identify the specific
projects and implementation actions that are necessary, they
articulate broad goals for the future of the airport system.
6-1
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 6: Airport System Alternatives Definition September 9, 1994
No New Action -- This policy envisages a continuation of the
status quo, with no significant new capacity and steadily increasing
congestion everywhere. Market forces would tend to shift traffic
growth from SFO to OAK and SJC.
Centralize Aviation Activity -- This policy assumes future
growth to be concentrated at SFO, in order to minimize the spread of
adverse impacts. Resources would be directed at improving ground
access to SFO. Additional Bay fill to increase capacity and reduce
noise impacts would be considered.
Limited Decentralization - This policy anticipates growth at
OAK and SJC by improving ground access to those airports. Capacity
increases at SFO would be limited to increased operational
efficiency, improved ATC technology, and the use of larger aircraft.
Greater Decentralization -- This policy seeks to expand
capacity at other airports in the region, including new airport
sites well outside the urban area, and limits the growth at SFO,
OAK, and SJC.
Alternatives to Aviation -- This policy considers the
development of high-speed rail services or other modes of
transportation as a way to reduce the need for expanding airport
capacity. Resources would be directed at developing intermodal
links, with growth of the existing airports limited by noise
restrictions and opposition to further Bay fill.
Ground Transportation Focus -- This policy would emphasize
improving ground access to all airports and allow the growth of each
airport to be determined by market forces.
6-2
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 6: Airport System Alternatives Definition September 9, 1994
Air Carrier and General Aviation Airports
The regional airport system is not a homogeneous set of
facilities, but rather consists of two broad categories of airports
that serve two very different types of traffic. Of the some 30
airports in the region, a small number, currently five, serve the
needs of the commercial air carriers. The largest, San Francisco
International, handles more air carrier traffic than all the others
combined. While the three largest air carrier airports also serve a
varying amount of general aviation traffic, the greater number of
airports serve only general aviation c.
Because of the widely differing requirements of air carrier and
general aviation activity, and the implications for airport
development, it is useful to consider the two types of airport
separately when defining alternatives for a regional system. Thus,
the complete range of system alternatives will consist of Air
Carrier Airport System Alternatives and General Aviation Airport
System Alternatives. Of course, these two sets of alternatives
interact in some respects, and certain air carrier airport system
alternatives may be more consistent with some general aviation
airport system alternatives. However, by evaluating each set in
terms of how well the alternatives perform for their respective
market, interaction problems can be addressed in selecting between
the alternatives in each set, once they have been evaluated.
The following two sections describe the air carrier airport system
alternatives and the general aviation airport system alternatives.
Each alternative description includes a summary statement, a list of
its major elements, and a list of implications. The implications
are explained at the end of the alternative descriptions.
6-3
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 6: Airport System Alternatives Definition September 9, 1994
6.2 Air Carrier System Alternatives
No Build Alternative
Description
This alternative provides the baseline for comparison of the
other air carrier system alternatives. It is based on the
assumption that no new major additional airside, landside, ground
access, or public transportation capacity is built at the five
existing air carrier airports. It also assumes that no new major
operational actions or other airport system management actions are
taken, either by the airports, the FAA, the airlines, or other
parties. The existing five air carrier airports would continue to
be operated and maintained, with annual funding provided to maintain
the existing airside and landside facilities, but with no
enhancement of capacity. Growth in airport activity (passenger, GA,
and cargo) would be constrained by current airspace and the capacity
of existing facilities (including approved projects). Alternative 1
Am assume that existing construction projects which are contained in
existing approved airport master plans, and which have received
environmental approvals, will be built. These include the following
projects:
1. Extension of runway 12R-30L at San Jose (completed in 1992)
2. Passenger Terminal Expansion at San Francisco (not
including improvements contained in the SFIA Master Plan
approved in November 1993)
3. Minor Bag Claim, Ticketing, Passenger Lobby, and
International Arrival Facility Projects at Oakland. As
of 1993 the bag claim and international arrival
improvements had been completed.
The purpose of including the No Build action alternative is to
allow an evaluation of what would happen if demand continues but no
additional capacity is provided, and to compare this no action
scenario with alternatives which do increase capacity. As this
alternative would include no actions to affect the air travel market
or the existing distribution of supply or demand, the airlines could
take unilateral steps under this alternative to balance supply and
demand at the five air carrier airports. These steps could include
adjusting their schedules, fleet mix changes, and shifting their
service between the airports. For comparison of the air carrier
system alternatives, however, these airlines' actions are not
considered in the no new action alternative.
Elements
A. Only currently approved projects would be developed
B. No other new runway capacity projects
C. No other new terminal capacity or other support facility
projects
D. No other new ground access or public transit
improvement projects designed to serve the airports
E. No regional actions to encourage significant changes in
airline schedules, fleet mix, or
6-4
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 6: Airport System Alternatives Definition September 9, 1994
distribution of traffic among airports
Implications (see also Section 6.4 - Discussion of Implications)
A. Runway/airspace congestion and delay
B. Airport ground access constraints
C. Air fares (supply vs demand)
D. Environmental impacts
E. Airline competition
F. Safety
G. Passenger Convenience
Airport System Management (ASAQ Alternative
Description
The ASM alternative would seek to maximize the effectiveness of
the existing airport system without major new construction by using
a number of system management strategies aimed at matching supply
and demand and making optimum use of existing facility capacity.
This alternative would rely on measures to increase ground side
access and public transit to airports to take full advantage of
existing runway and terminal capacity. In order to relieve
congestion at the three major air carrier airports, some passenger
traffic would be handled at Concord and Sonoma County, and possibly
other airports in the region, within their existing capacity to
accommodate it.
Given the current distribution of airport capacity and demand,
this alternative would inevitably result in some redistribution of
demand among airports. This alternative could possibly result in
greater emergence of individual airport roles among the three major
air carrier airports, such as:
SFO: International and Tourist Traffic
SJC: California/West Coast Corridor Traffic
OAK: East-West Domestic Traffic
Another possible result of this alternative could be reduced
facility duplication (eg. centralization) of certain functions at
one airport. Typical facilities that might lend themselves to
centralization include F.I.S. (Federal Inspection Services,
including immigration and customs) and air cargo. Present examples
of this trend are the concentration of international facilities at
SFO and overnight air cargo activity at OAK.
6-5
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 6: Airport System Alternatives Definition September 9, 1994
Elements
A. FAA Measures to Enhance Capacity, including:
* Revised standards for converging runway operations
* Reduced in-trail separation
* Airspace improvements
* Improved approach and departure procedures
* Improved navigation/electronics
B. Fleet Mix Changes
* Airline shifts to larger aircraft during peak periods,
on heavily traveled routes, at the most congested
airports, etc.
C. Schedule changes/congestion pricing
* Shifts of traffic away from peak periods
E. Construction of off-airport terminals and improved bus
service
F. Improved rail links (BART) to airports
G. Improved links between airports, such as ferry service
between OAK and SFO
H. Divert GA activity away from major air carrier airports
I. Joint use of military airfields (such as Travis AFB)
Implications (see also Section 6.4 - Discussion of Implications)
A. Timing of FAA capacity enhancement measures
B. Airport cooperation
C. Airline cooperation
D. Air fares (supply vs demand)
E. Transit improvements to airports
F. Joint use agreements with military
G. Safety (airport and airspace capacity)
Air Carrier Airport Master Plans Alternative
Description
This alternative would meet identified future demand by
expanding airport system capacity as proposed in the most recent
individual airport master plan concepts. Capacity improvements to
the airside, landside, ground transportation, and public transit
systems would be built consistent with those updated master plans.
According to those currently proposed master plans (OAK and SJC)
regional air passenger market shares would shift as follows:
6-6
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 6: Airport System Alternatives Definition September 9, 1994
Potential Shift in Regional Passenger Market Share
Airport 1990 Market Share 2010 Market Share
SFO 70% 61%
OAK 14% 16%
SJC 17% 23%
* Oakland's 2002 airport development program would result in a 16%
market share for Oakland in that year.
One function of this alternative will be to evaluate whether
the individual airport master plans will efficiently accommodate
regional air travel demand from a capacity and environmental
perspective.
Elements
A. Increased Runway Capacity
* Extension of Runway 11-29 at Oakland to 11,600 feet
B. Increased Terminal Capacity
* New international terminal at SFO
* Major terminal development at OAK
* Development of Terminals B and C at SJC
C. Increased Landside Support Facility Capacity
* Auto Parking
* Terminal curbs and roadways
* Airline support facilities
* Airport support facilities
* Fuel facilities
D. Ground Access/Public Transportation Improvements at SFO, OAK,
SJC
* Improvements to freeways, interchanges, and other
surface streets serving airports
* BART extension to SFO
* Future BART connection to OAK
E. Reduced GA use of air carrier airports:
* Reduced GA operations at OAK
* Reduced GA operations and based aircraft at SJC
6-7
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 6: Airport System Alternatives Definition September 9, 1994
Implications (see also Section 6.4 - Discussion of Implications)
A. Timing and funding of improvements
B. Airspace capacity
C. Runway capacity/delay
D. Funding of transit improvements
E. Environmental impacts/public consensus
F. Impacts on General Aviation (primarily SJC and OAK)
Airport System Optimization Alternative
Description
This alternative would meet forecast regional passenger demand
by construction of some new capacity, but would depart from
Alternative 3 by seeking to optimize the performance of the system
as a whole. This alternative would include redistribution of
regional passenger traffic to optimize the existing airport system
(as well as develop new ones) and better distribute supply according
to the regional distribution of demand. Among the major factors
considered in optimizing the airport system are:
* Passenger convenience
* Airspace utilization
* Airport ground access
* Environmental impacts
* System cost
There are two sub-alternatives for accomplishing this: (1)
major regional airport growth would be either focussed at SFO, OAK
and SJC; or (2) future growth would be decentralized (providing for
growth at a fourth major air carrier airport in the region). The
focused concept would add significant capacity at the existing
airports by construction of new runways at OAK and SJC. This
alternative could result in the following redistribution of regional
passenger market share: SFO: 50% OAK: 25% SJC: 25%. The
decentralized concept would include construction of a fourth major
air carrier airport at either Travis AFB, another existing airport,
or at a new site. This option would also result in a major
redistribution of regional passenger market share. Included as a
possible additional element of this concept would be the development
of additional commuter airline service at Concord, Sonoma County,
and other outlying GA airports.
6-8
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 6: Airport System Alternatives Definition September 9, 1994
Elements
A. Capacity increases at SJC, OAK
* New runway at OAK
* New parallel runway at SJC
B Develop fourth major air carrier airport:
* Travis AFB
* Other existing airport
* New site
C. Develop new\expanded airline service at other airports
(Concord, Sonoma County, Livermore, Napa, etc.)
D. Terminal expansions to support runway capacity growth
E. Ground access/public transit improvements to support airport
growth
F. Airspace/procedures improvements to support airport growth
Implications (see also Section 6.4 - Discussion of Implications)
A. Timing of improvements
B. Funding sources
C. Operating agencies (new airports)
D. Environmental impacts
New Technology Alternative
Description
This alternative would focus on new air and rail technology
alternatives to supplement the existing airport system. This
alternative includes both aviation and non-aviation technology.
Elements
A. Construction of high-speed ground transportation (primarily
for intra-California Corridor Traffic), such as conventional
rail, MAGLEV, or other technology.
This element would reduce demand for air travel by diverting
air passengers to the new ground transportation mode.
B. Application of Tiltrotor aircraft technology
This element would also reduce conventional air travel demand
by diverting air passenger traffic away from traditional air
transport. This element is primarily seen as an alternative for the
6-9
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 6: Airport System Alternatives Definition September 9, 1994
shorter haul air traffic routes, such as those under 500 miles.
This element could also require facility improvements at reliever
airports served by tiltrotor aircraft.
Implications (see also Section 6.4 - Discussion of Implications)
A. Potential markets
B. Practical application
C. Capacity and delay
D. Timing of new technology
E. Environmental impacts
F. Airspace procedures
G. Financing
6.3 General Aviation System Alternatives
No Build
Description
The No Action general aviation alternative provides the baseline
for comparison of the others, and would consist of no increase in
capacity at any of the general aviation airports. Total regional
airport system capacity would be limited by existing airport
facilities at each airport. Existing general aviation airports
would, however, be maintained to provide safe, functional
facilities.
Elements
A. Maintain existing airport facilities
B. Protect airport from encroachment by adjoining community:
* Maintain/enhance land use compatibility
* Maintain height hazard/safety zoning and planning
Implications (see also Section 6.4 - Discussion of Implications)
A. Capacity and delay
B. Safety
C. Financing
D. Noise/land use compatibility
6-10
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 6: Airport System Alternatives Definition September 9, 1994
General Aviation Airport Master Plans
Description
This alternative would meet identified future demand by
developing the general aviation airport system as proposed by the
current individual airport master plans. This alternative would
provide a full range of GA support services, and would have all
necessary navigational aids and instrumentation to provide for the
pilot training needs of the region. These airports could provide
"reliever" facilities and services to handle displacement of general
aviation activities at the large air carrier airports such as SFO,
OAK, and SJC. Although the existing general aviation airport
master plans are prepared independently from the air carrier airport
master plans, one of the critical regional roles which the GA
airports play is as "relievers" for the air carrier airports. As
passenger and cargo activity increase at the constrained air carrier
airports, the relievers are planned to accept certain types of
general aviation activity which is no longer appropriate for the
large commercial airport types. These activities may include
housing based aircraft and fixed base operators (FBO's), aircraft
maintenance, flight service stations, and flight training, among
others. In addition, this alternative could allow for selected GA
airports to be used to meet demand for decentralized commuter
activity close to users homes.
Elements
A. Develop facilities at selected airports to support these
activities
* Runways/taxiways
* Apron/aircraft parking/hangars
* Instrumentation/navigation
* Lighting, FBO facilities, etc
B. Develop facilities for displaced recreational GA at selected
airports
Implications see also Section 6.4 - Discussion of Implications)
A. Funding of improvements
B. Airport/community compatibility
C. Environmental impacts
General Aviation Airport System Optimization
Description
This alternative would expand certain existing GA airports and
develop new GA airports on the periphery of the urban area in
locations where land use compatibility and aviation safety problems
can be avoided or minimized. Because remote sites would be
preferable, this
6-11
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 6: Airport System Alternatives Definition September 9, 1994
alternative could also involve improvements to local streets and
highways to provide ground access to the new airports. Supporting
infrastructure, including sewer, water, power, aviation fuel, etc.,
would also be needed. These new airports could also support limited
passenger service by commuter airlines.
By locating new GA capacity at the edge of the urban area where
community impacts can be minimized, this alternative could provide
for the relocation of existing GA activity from close-in urban
airports, which are either threatened due to existing impacts on the
surrounding urban community or pressured by expanding air carrier
passenger and cargo activity. An example of this concept would be
accelerated development of the improvements planned at Byron
Airport.
Elements
A. Select sites and develop new GA airports in compatible
locations
D. Provide sufficient facility capacity for future GA demand as
well as relocated GA from air carrier and other close-in GA
airports
C. Develop new facilities at specialized airports for
training/business aviation activities and to relieve air
carrier airports
D. Acquire sufficient property and ensure land use
compatibility to protect airport from possible future
urban encroachment
E. Restrict further investment at airports with little
likelihood of achieving community acceptance
Implications (see also Section 6.4 - Discussion of Implications)
A. Timing of development
B. Funding of development
C. Airport operating authority
D. Environmental impact
E. Compatibility/encroachment protection
6-12
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 6: Airport System Alternatives Definition September 9, 1994
6.4 Discussion of Implications
The implications listed under each airport system alternative
are described below. Each list represents some of the major
implications identified. The lists were prepared in part to help
identify the range of criteria to be used in evaluating the airport
system alternatives.
Runway/airspace congestion and delay
This implication relates to how well each alternative meets
existing and future demand. Alternatives which do not provide
capacity improvements sufficient to meet forecast levels of demand
may result in significant congestion and delay on runways, taxiways,
and apron areas, in terminal facilities, on the landside of the
terminals, or elsewhere. Alternatives which do not account for the
structure and capacity of the regional airspace may create airspace
conflicts, with related safety and delay implications. These
implications are discussed separately below.
Airport ground access constraints
Ground access to the region's airports is becoming an
increasingly complex issue. Future increases in air travel demand
at the five air carrier airports will increase the already heavy
strain on the region's existing ground transportation system. At
certain locations near the largest airports, peak hour congestion
and delay creates significant inconvenience to air passengers.
Growing uncertainty about how long it will take to reach the airport
requires passengers to plan greater and greater lead time before
flight departures. The growing problem with airport ground access
results in passenger inconvenience, decreased productivity,
inefficient use of the airport system, and regional environmental
impacts. Some of these related implications are also discussed
below.
Environmental Impacts
All of the airport system alternatives will cause some adverse
impacts on the environment. Alternatives which provide new
facilities to accommodate airport growth will have direct on-site
impacts and impacts such as air quality and noise from the operation
of a larger and busier system. Alternatives which redistribute air
traffic among the region's airports may reduce noise in one area
while increasing it in another. The severity of this noise impact
will be related to factors such as the type, density, and location
of land uses near the airports.
Those alternatives which do not provide for growth, or which
provide insufficient capacity to meet future demand, may cause
indirect environmental impacts resulting from airport congestion and
delay and increased automobile travel to airports.
6-13
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 6: Airport System Alternatives Definition September 9, 1994
Air Fares (supply vs demand)/Airline competition
One of the potential implications of differing approaches to
meeting future demand may be the effect on air fares and airline
competition. Given a free market, if demand far exceeds supply, the
price will rise until a balance of these two factors is achieved.
In addition, the lack of sufficient terminal space can effectively
block out new carriers, reducing competition among airlines. One of
the regional implications of the system plan is therefore related to
the potential effect on competition and ticket prices, and the
related issue of equitable access to the nation's air transportation
system. Lack of airline competition could also affect level of
service and ticket prices.
Safety
One of the implications of regional airport system development
decisions will relate to aircraft safety, both on the ground and in
the air. Growing public concern over safety is in part related to
increasing congestion at airports and in the airspace around them.
As congestion increases, the potential for pilot, air traffic
controller, air navigation, communication, and other system error
increases. With this comes a growing potential for accidents.
Regional airport system alternatives that do not effectively address
existing and future airport or airspace congestion may contribute to
this safety concern.
Timing of improvements or other actions
Timing issues relate to the length of time it may take to
complete site selection processes, environmental approvals,
construction projects, FAA research activities and other actions,
development of new technologies, creation of necessary
organizational structures, and development of the political will of
the region to take action. For example, selection of a site and
construction of a new air carrier airport may ease the region's
congestion, but could easily take 10 years or more to complete. If
this alternative were selected in the plan, it may be also necessary
to include interim measures to meet growing demand until such time
as, the new airport can be built and put into service.
FAA capacity enhancement measures and new technology may also
be elements of the regional plan, but there may be considerable time
before they are implementable. Again, the timing of these elements
in the regional airport system plan is a critical aspect in
evaluating how well they will serve the region.
Airport/airline cooperation
Several- elements of the alternatives will require the
cooperation of both airports and airlines for their implementation.
Examples include shifts in aircraft fleet mix and changes in airline
schedules. As such elements are further defined and evaluated in
the planning process, this
6-14
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 6: Airport System Alternatives Definition September 9, 1994
factor needs to be recognized as beyond the direct control of MTC.
Joint use agreements with the military
Civil use of military airport facilities will require the
development and/or enhancement of joint use agreements with the
appropriate military sponsors and/or participation in the FAA's
Military Airports Program (MAP). As an "ample, until mid 1992
Travis Air Force Base had a civil/military joint-use agreement which
allowed up to 12 daily operations with civil aircraft. As of May
1992, however, that joint use agreement expired. In order to
develop Travis as a significant passenger service facility a new
agreement would have to be drafted and approved. In addition, that
joint use agreement would need to allow significantly more daily
flights than the former agreement (which allowed 12 flights per
day). As a result of the series of military base closures across
the nation in recent months, Travis has had its mission increased,
with levels of activity increased accordingly. In the short term
this would make reinstating a joint use agreement more difficult.
Public transportation improvements to airports
As mentioned above in relation to ground access, airport
expansion and growth in passenger and cargo traffic will put
additional pressure on the region's surface transportation system.
Airport expansion plans must also consider the need for public
transportation system improvements to serve the airport. Specific
examples which are already recognized and under study are a BART
extension to SFO, a future BART connection to OAK, and a future
connection between SJC and the Santa Clara County light rail line.
Funding
Nearly all elements of every alternative will have some cost.
This applies to airport improvements, airspace changes, airline
actions, ground access improvements, and public transportation
projects. The funding implications of specific elements relate to
the overall cost and the timing and availability of funds.
Impacts on general aviation
A number of actions at the five air carrier airports would
depend on significant diversion of general aviation at those
airports to enhance capacity for future growth in air carrier
activity. Significant expansion of passenger and cargo activities
will likely increase the need for GA activities to relocate.
6-15
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 6: Airport System Alternatives Definition September 9, 1994
Operating Agencies
Where joint use facilities or new airports are proposed,
operating agencies would need to be designated or established.
Potential markets Practical application
This applies primarily to the use of new technology. The
effectiveness of new technology to address the region's air travel
demand will be affected by the potential market for and the degree
and timing of practical application of such technology. For
example, the effective use of high speed rail within the California
corridor as an alternative to air travel will be constrained by such
factors as:
1. The portion of the total market which can be diverted from
air to rail.
2. The degree and timing of actual application of the
technology.
3. The relative cost, comfort, speed, and safety of rail travel
as opposed to air travel.
Noise/land use comparability/encroachment protection
A critical issue in evaluating alternatives for the region will
be how well noise and land use compatibility can be achieved or
maintained. It may be possible to accommodate significant increases
in demand at a particular airport, but only at great expense in
terms of impacts to adjoining communities. Thus there will be clear
trade-offs between efficiently meeting future demand and minimizing
human impacts.
A related issue is that of encroachment. If public funds are
to be effectively invested in airport facilities, the public must
provide for the protection of that public investment from
encroachment by non compatible land uses. Both the noise and
encroachment issues can be addressed in part by height hazard and
safety planning and zoning.
6-16
7 AIR CARRIER AIRPORT SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
This chapter contains a brief summary of the air carrier
alternatives evaluation, a more detailed description of the
alternatives evaluation methodology, and a discussion of the
evaluation results.
7.1 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
7.1.1 Evaluation Summary for Air Carrier Airports
Summary of Evaluation Process and Results
The alternatives evaluation process contained three basic
steps: (1) a set of criteria by which to evaluate and compare the
alternatives was developed; (2) a computer model (spreadsheet) to
organize data and help with the evaluation was developed; and (3)
the results of the evaluation were reported. These steps are
discussed in detail in the full text of this chapter, and summarized
below.
Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation criteria were developed by the project team and
reviewed, refined, and approved by the RAPC. These criteria were
then used as the basis for developing the evaluation model. The
criteria were as follows:
1. Airside (runway) capacity and delay
2. Landside capacity: Passenger capacity and gate requirements
Air cargo
Based aircraft
3. Parking capacity
4. Airport access/distribution of supply and demand
5. Air quality
6. Noise impacts
7. Wildlife/wetland/bay fill
8. Construction cost and impacts
9. Economic benefit
10. MTC implementation options
11. Land acquisition requirements
Evaluation Approach
In order to organize the information to be used in the
evaluation process, a spreadsheet approach was developed. In
addition, some input was developed by using MTC's Airport "ACCESS"
model to evaluate airport use based on ground access times and
flight availability. Each evaluation form lists how the alternative
performs relative to Specific evaluation factors.
7-1
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 7: Air Carrier Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
Evaluation Results
The following is a brief summary of the evaluation results for each
alternative in the year 2010.
No Build Alternative
The No Build alternative would result in the following:
1. Current market shares would continue, with SFO dominating the
region.
2. Operations demand would exceed annual runway capacity at
San Francisco and San Jose. At San Jose operations demand
would exceed capacity primarily due to the large
amount of GA activity which is forecast.
3. Oakland, Concord, and Sonoma County would have excess runway
capacity.
4. Peak hour demand would far exceed capacity in Instrument
Flight Rule (IFR) conditions at all airports except
Sonoma County. With the exception of Concord (CCR)
and Sonoma County (STS), delay during IFR conditions
would be unacceptable at all airports.
5. Peak hour demand in Visual Flight Rule (VFR) conditions
would far exceed capacity at SFO, while OAK and SJC
would be at capacity. Resulting delays would be
marginal at OAK and SJC and would reach unacceptable
levels at SFO. CCR and STS would have excess capacity.
6. With no new capacity being added, SFO, OAK, and SJC
would fall far short of annual passenger demand by
the year 2010. Annual demand would exceed passenger
terminal capacity by 17 million to 32 million passengers,
with a total deficiency of between 55 and 80 gates.
Most of this deficiency would be at SFO. Resulting
delay and passenger inconvenience would be significant.
7. At San Jose general aviation based aircraft demand would
exceed capacity.
8. Existing space for air cargo activity would not meet
forecast demand at SFO, OAK, or sic.
9. Vehicle parking demand would significantly outstrip supply at
all airports.
10. With regional market shares unchanged, the No Build
alternative would generate significant levels of daily
vehicle miles travelled Oust over 4 million), total daily
trips (168,000), and trips on the region's bridges (almost
38,000), with resulting impacts on regional air quality
due to vehicle emissions. This alternative would create
the second highest level of vehicular traffic of all the
alternatives, and would likely result in significant
landside congestion and delay.
11. No significant construction, wildlife, wetland, or fill
impacts are associated with the No Build alternative, since
no major construction would be undertaken.
7-2
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 7: Air Carrier Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
Airport System Management (ASM Alternative
The System Management alternative would result in the following:
1. Current market shares would shift, with slight increases at
OAK and SJC, and a decrease at SFO (from 70.7 percent to
64.5 percent).
2. Improvements in the system's capacity will occur
through management methods rather than construction of
facilities.
3. Annual operations demand would exceed annual runway
capacity only at San Jose. If San Jose's GA activity
could be reduced by 21 percent the airfield could
meet annual demand in the year 2010.
4. San Francisco, Oakland, Concord, and Sonoma County
would each have excess annual runway capacity.
5. Peak hour demand would far exceed capacity in IFR
conditions at all but Sonoma County. Except at CCR and
STS, peak hour IFR delay would be unacceptable.
6. Peak hour demand in VFR conditions would far exceed
capacity at SFO, while OAK and SJC would be near or at
capacity. Resulting delays would be marginal at OAK
and SJC and, unacceptable at SFO. CCR and STS would
have acceptable levels of delay in VFR conditions.
7. Annual passenger capacity Landside) at SFO, OAK, and
SJC would fall far short of annual passenger demand
by the year 2010, with SFO having the largest
deficit. CCR and STS could accommodate forecast
passenger demand. Total regional annual demand would
exceed total regional passenger terminal capacity by
12 million to 27 million passengers, with a total
deficiency of between 46 and 63 gates. With SFO
serving 64.5 percent of the region's total passenger demand,
most of this deficiency would be at SFO.
8. At San Jose, general aviation based aircraft demand would
exceed capacity.
9. With air cargo processing space fixed at current levels and
demand continuing to grow, existing space for air cargo
activity would not meet forecast demand at SFO, OAK,
or sic.
10. Vehicle parking demand would significantly outstrip
supply at all airports, with the region facing a total
deficit of nearly 30,000 spaces.
11. With the regional shift in market shares, the ASM
alternative would move the region toward a more efficient
distribution of supply and demand, and would therefore
generate lower levels of daily vehicle miles travelled (3.8
million), total daily trips (166,000), and trips on the
region's bridges (31,000), when compared to the No
Build alternative. The ASM alternative would therefore
result in reduced impacts on regional air quality due
to vehicle emissions. The ASM alternative would
generate about 7 percent less vehicle miles and daily
trips than the No Build option.
12. No significant construction, wildlife, wetland, or fill
impacts are associated with the 'Airport System
Management alternative.
7-3
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 7: Air Carrier Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
Master Plans Alternative
Selection of the Master Plans alternative would result in the
following:
1. Current market shares would shift even more than with
the ASM option, with SFO's share of the regional
passenger market dropping from 70.7 percent (No Build)
and 64.5 percent (ASM) to 61.5 percent for the Master Plans.
2. Annual airfield operations capacity would accommodate
forecast demand at all airports except San Jose, again
due to the high level of GA demand at SJC.
3. Oakland, Concord, and Sonoma County would have excess annual
runway capacity.
4. Peak hour demand would exceed capacity in EAR
conditions at all but Sonoma County. Except at CCR and
STS, peak hour IFR delay would be unacceptable.
5. Peak hour demand in VFR conditions would exceed
capacity at SFO, OAK and SJC. Resulting delays
would be unacceptable at all three airports. CCR
and STS would experience acceptable delay in VFR
conditions.
6. Landside facilities at SFO, OAK, SJC, CCR, and STS
would all be able to accommodate the forecast level of
annual passengers.
7. At San Jose general aviation based aircraft demand would
exceed capacity.
8. Existing and planned space for air cargo activity
would meet forecast demand at SFO OAK, and SJC.
9. Vehicle parking capacity would meet anticipated demand
at SFO and OAK and would fall slightly short of
demand (10 percent) at SJC. CCR and STS would need
additional vehicle parking to meet demand, according to
current master plan documents.
10. With the shifts in regional market shares anticipated in the
Master Plans, this alternative would generate fewer
vehicle miles travelled, total daily trips, and trips on
the region's bridges to SFO, but slightly more to OAK
and SJC (and in the total region), when compared to
the No Build alternative. Total vehicle emissions
generated by surface traffic would be similar to that of
the No Build. The Master Plans alternative generates
the highest level of surface traffic of all the alternatives,
due in part to the fact that it would accommodate more
total annual passenger traffic (89,454,000) than the
forecast level for the other alternatives (84,763,333). Were
this difference in level of passenger traffic equalized,
the Master Plans would generate a level of surface
vehicle traffic estimated to be slightly lower than the No
Build alternative.
11. Significant construction activity would occur at SFO,
OAK, and SJC in order to meet anticipated demand.
This would include major projects to expand passenger
terminals, vehicle parking, air cargo facilities, general
aviation facilities, airport and airline support facilities,
and major surface access improvements (including
proposed BART connections to SFO and OAK).
12. No significant wildlife, wetland, or fill impacts are
anticipated with this alternative.
7-4
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 7: Air Carrier Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
System Optimization "A" Alternative
The System Optimization "A" alternative would result in the
following:
1. Current regional market shares would shift markedly (SFO
would drop from its current 70.0 percent to 50.3
percent), and most new growth and airport development
would occur at OAK and SJC.
2. Annual airfield operations capacity would meet projected
demand at all airports except SJC, which would still
not be able to accommodate all forecast General
Aviation demand.
3. San Francisco, Oakland, Concord, and Sonoma County
would all have excess annual runway capacity through
the year 2010.
4. Peak hour demand would far exceed capacity in IFR
conditions at all but Sonoma County. Except at CCR and
STS, peak hour EAR delay would be unacceptable.
5. Peak hour demand in VFR conditions would also exceed
capacity at SFO, OAK, and SJC. Resulting delays would
be marginal to unacceptable at SFO, OAK and SJC. CCR
and STS would have excess capacity, and peak hour delays
would not be significant.
6. AR five air carrier airports would be able to accommodate
all forecast passenger demand through the year 2010. This
includes all major passenger processing facilities such
as passenger terminal, parking, aircraft gates, and surface
access facilities.
7. At San Jose, general aviation based aircraft demand would
exceed capacity.
8. Because of the amount of passenger growth at Oakland and
San Jose, the existing space for air cargo activity at
these two airports may not meet forecast demand
without conversion of existing general aviation space to air
cargo.
9. Vehicle parking capacity would meet demand at all airports
except Concord.
10. Regional market shares would be significantly altered under
the System Optimization 'A' alternative, with the major
impact being a more equitable regional distribution of
supply and demand than currently exists. This option produces
the second lowest level of total daily vehicle miles
travelled (3.7 million), total daily trips (162,000), and
daily vehicle trips on bay bridges (28,401). This translates
to about 13 percent less traffic impact than the No Build,
and to a similar lower level of potential air quality impact
as well.
11. In addition to the terminal building, vehicle parking, air
cargo, airport support, general aviation, and surface
access construction projects that would occur with the
System Optimization "A" alternative, this option also
includes construction of a new, parallel air carrier runway
at Oakland. Depending on which runway alignment is
assumed (inboard or outboard), as well as the spacing
between the existing and new runway (750-800 or 2,500
feet), there would likely be wildlife impacts, as well as
the potential filling of between 124 and 135 acres of
freshwater wetland, and up to 57 acres of Bay fill.
7-5
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 7: Air Carrier Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
System Optimization "B" Alternative
The System Optimization 'B" alternative would result in the
following:
1. As with the System Optimization 'A' alternative
(described above), option 'B' would significantly depart
from current market shares, with most new growth and
airport development occurring at OAK, SJC, and a new air
carrier airport at Travis AFB.
2. Annual airfield operations capacity would meet projected
demand at all airports except SJC, which would still not
be able to accommodate all General Aviation demand.
3. San Francisco, Oakland, Concord, and Sonoma County
would all have excess annual runway capacity through
the year 2010.
4. Peak hour demand would far exceed capacity in EAR
conditions at all but Travis and Sonoma County. At all
the other airports peak hour IFR delay would be
unacceptable.
5. Peak hour demand in VFR conditions would also exceed
capacity at SFO, OAK, and SJC. Resulting delays
would be marginal to unacceptable at SFO, OAK
and SJC. Travis, CCR, and STS would have excess
capacity, and peak hour delays would be
insignificant.
6. Four of the six air carrier airports would be able to
accommodate all forecast passenger demand through the
year 2010. This includes all major passenger
processing facilities such as passenger terminal, parking,
aircraft gates, and surface access facilities. At
Oakland and San Jose, however, annual passenger demand would
exceed capacity.
7. At San Jose, general aviation based aircraft demand would
exceed capacity.
8. Because of the amount of new passenger activity at
Oakland and San Jose, the existing space for air cargo
activity at these two airports may not meet forecast
demand without conversion of existing general aviation space
to air cargo.
9. Vehicle parking capacity would meet demand at all
airports except Concord, where some 400 additional spaces
are needed.
10. Regional market shares would be significantly altered
under the System Optimization 'A' alternative, with the
major impact being a more equitable regional distribution
of supply and demand than currently exists. This option
produces the lowest level of total daily vehicle miles
travelled of all the alternatives (3.48 million), the second
lowest total daily trips (163,282), and by far the lowest
level of daily vehicle trips on bay bridges (21,221). These
numbers represent some 13 percent less traffic impact
than the No Build, which translates to a similarly lower
level of potential air quality impact as well.
7-6
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 7: Air Carrier Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
11. In addition to the terminal building, vehicle parking, air
cargo, airport support, general aviation, and surface
access construction projects that would occur with the
System Optimization "A" alternative, this option also
includes construction of a new, parallel air carrier runway
at Oakland. Depending on which runway alignment is
assumed, this could create wildlife impacts, as well as the
potential filling of between 124 and 135 acres of
freshwater wetland, and up to 57 acres of Bay fill for a
750-800 foot closely spaced runway parallel to 11-29, and
would entail either 387 acres of Bay fill or 68 acres of
freshwater wetland for a new parallel runway with 2,500
feet of separation from runway 11-29. This alternative
would also include major capacity improvements at
Travis, including expansion of the passenger terminal,
expanded vehicle parking, apron expansion, new airline
support facilities, and improvements to the surface access
system serving the airport.
New Technologies Alternative
The New Technologies alternative would result in the following:
1. Current market shares would continue, with SFO dominating
the region. Traffic volumes at the five existing air
carrier airports would only be reduced by the amount
of traffic which could be diverted to a new high-speed rail
system, non-airport vertiports, or both.
2. Operations demand would exceed annual runway capacity at
San Francisco and San Jose. At San Jose, operations
demand would exceed capacity primarily due to the large
amount of GA activity which is forecast.
3. Oakland, Concord, and Sonoma County would have excess annual
runway capacity.
4. Peak hour demand would far exceed capacity in IFR
conditions at all but Sonoma County. Except at CCR and
STS, peak hour IFR delay would be unacceptable.
5. Peak hour demand in VFR conditions would far exceed
capacity at SFO, while OAK and SJC would be at
capacity. Resulting delays would be marginal at OAK
and SJC and unacceptable at SFO. CCR and STS would
have excess capacity, and would have acceptable
levels of peak hour delay.
6. SFO would fall far short of annual passenger demand by the
year 2010, while the other four airports would
accommodate forecast annual passenger demand. Total
regional annual demand would exceed passenger terminal
capacity by 5 million passengers under the high
forecast, with the total number gates sufficient to meet
regional demand.
7. At San Jose, general aviation based aircraft demand would
exceed capacity.
8. Existing space for air cargo activity would meet forecast
demand at SFO and OAK, but would be insufficient at SJC.
9. With no major new parking facilities being added, this
alternative would experience vehicle parking demand
significantly greater than supply at all airports.
7-7
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 7: Air Carrier Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
10. With regional market shares unchanged, the New
Technologies alternative would generate significant
levels of vehicle miles travelled, total daily trips, and
trips on the region's bridges, with resulting impacts on
regional air quality due to vehicle emissions. These
traffic levels would be similar to, though slightly lower (2
percent), than the No Build alternative.
11. No significant construction, wildlife, wetland, or fill
impacts are associated with the New Technologies alternative
as it relates to increasing airport capacity. The
alternative would, however, generate significant impacts
related to the construction and operation of the new
high-speed rail system connecting central and southern
California. Of primary importance would be impacts
related to right-of-way acquisition and actual
construction of the rail route.
7-8
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 7: Air Carrier Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
7.2 AIR CARRIER ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
The evaluation of air carrier alternatives was a three-step process:
Step 1: Establish a set of evaluation criteria
Step 2: Develop a methodology for evaluating the
alternatives using those criteria
Step 3: Complete the evaluation and report the results
7.2.1 Evaluation Criteria
1. Airside (Runway) Capacity and Delay
Alternatives were evaluated by comparing airspace and airside
(runway) capacity with forecast demand by airport and for the entire
system. The following measures were used:
* Annual operations capacity (Annual Service Volume)
* Peak hour capacity (VFR and IFR)
Delay for each air carrier airport was evaluated using the
following methodology:
Total annual delay
Total annual delay was determined by comparing the forecast
number of total annual operations with the total annual capacity
(defined as annual service volume) of each airport. Where the level
of demand was less than 80 percent of capacity the alternative was
rated as 'acceptable'. Where demand was between 80 and 100 percent
of capacity, the rating was "marginal". If demand exceeded capacity
the alternative was rated as 'unacceptable'.
Peak hour delay
Peak hour delay was determined by comparing the forecast peak
hour demand with peak hour capacity under both VFR and IFR
conditions. Where demand was less than 90 percent of capacity, the
alternative was rated as 'acceptable'. Where demand was between 90
and 110 percent of capacity, the rating was "marginal". If demand
exceeded 110 percent of capacity the rating was "unacceptable".
These peak hour delay measures ("acceptable," "marginal," and
"unacceptable') were generally based upon the following definitions:
"Acceptable": Average aircraft delay of less than 4 minutes
"Marginal": Average aircraft delay between 4 and 10
minutes
"Unacceptable": Average aircraft delay more than 10 minutes
7-9
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 7: Air Carrier Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
The 4-minute average delay is the traditional threshold of
acceptable delay used by the FAA in airport planning. Delays of
more than 10 minutes per aircraft represent conditions of system
breakdown, with serious congestion and passenger inconvenience. The
10-minute level has been set here to represent the point where delay
becomes 'unacceptable'.
Unlike total annual delay as described above, peak hour delay
was considered acceptable at higher demand-to-capacity ratios. This
is because peak hour traffic which exceeds capacity can (and will)
be shifted into adjoining hours of the day, whereas demand which
exceeds annual capacity cannot be shifted into an adjoining year.
Although shifting peak hour demand to adjoining hours (sometimes
called 'spreading the peak') can provide some help in overcoming
airport parking, it is limited by a number of factors. These
include the level of demand occurring during those adjoining hours,
passenger convenience, the willingness of airlines to operate under
these conditions, and others. Diversion of general aviation
activity can also reduce peak hour delays.
2. Landside Capacity
Passenger Capacity and Gate Requirements
Peak hour and total annual passenger capacity was compared with
peak hour and total annual demand. Terminal and support facility
capacity was measured using a number of factors, including:
* Number of gates
* Total terminal size / available land area
* Terminal curb frontage
* Level of service
* Other measures
Air Cargo
The alternatives were qualitatively evaluated as to how well
forecast air cargo demand is accommodated. Additionally, they were
evaluated as to their impact on existing air cargo operations and
facilities.
General Aviation Based Aircraft
GA based aircraft demand was reviewed and compared to based
aircraft capacity using the following measures:
* Aircraft tie-downs
* Itinerant apron
7-10
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 7: Air Carrier Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
* Hangar space
* Total based aircraft
3. Auto Parking Capacity
Parking demand and capacity were evaluated for each airport
under each alternative. Both on-airport and off-airport parking was
included.
4. Airport Access/Distribution of Supply and Demand
Each alternative was evaluated as to the level of vehicular
traffic that would be generated by passenger activity. This
analysis, which included total daily vehicle trips and total daily
vehicle miles travelled to each airport, was derived from the MTC
'ACCESS' model. These data were then used for the air quality
analysis.
In addition, the alternatives were evaluated based on airport
access and how well airports would be served by (or could be served
by) the region's surface and public transportation system. The
"ACCESS" model was run to determine how much regional airport access
traffic could be diverted from private vehicles to transit if BART
connections were constructed to San Francisco and Oakland.
5. Air Quality
Air quality will be affected by the amount of vehicular traffic
to and from the airports, traffic speeds on roadways serving the
airports, traffic volumes and speeds for vehicles operating on the
airport (terminal curbs and roadways), delays experienced by
aircraft on the airfield, and the total volume and peaking
characteristics of aircraft operations.
Under this criterion each alternative was assessed based on the
total amount of air pollution produced (hydrocarbons and carbon
monoxide). Total air pollution was determined by the following:
* Total number of aircraft operations and fleet mix
* Total number of vehicle trips
* Total miles travelled, average speed, and vehicle emissions
factors
* Total air quality impact (aircraft and surface vehicles)
6. Noise Impacts
This criterion established the relative noise impact for each
alternative based on the total area within the noise contours
(acres/square miles) and the amount of noise-sensitive land use
within the contour. The ability to identify land uses within the
noise contours was based on existing
7-11
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 7: Air Carrier Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
published information supplied by the five air carrier airports.
Where this information was not available the noise impact analysis
simply compared the total area within the noise contour for each
alternative.
7. Wildlife/Wetland/Bay Fill
Total amount of wildlife, wetland fill, and bay fill (measured
in acres) associated with each alternative was determined based on
existing data in master plans, EIS documents, etc.
8. Construction Cost and Impacts
This criterion determined the generalized construction cost and
impacts for each alternative and compared the alternatives.
9. Economic Benefit
Existing published information and other sources were used to
develop generalized comparative estimates of total aggregate
economic benefits for each alternative. The following four basic
areas of economic benefit were included:
* Total economic benefit derived from airport construction
(taxes, employment, etc.)
* Economic benefit derived from operations Landing fees, etc.)
* Economic benefit derived from passengers (tourist spending,
etc.)
* Economic benefit derived from overall airport activity
(multiplier effect)
Existing economic benefit data for the air carrier airports in
the region and the state, and data from other sources were reviewed.
10. Implementation
One of the elements of the evaluation process were the options
to implement the alternatives, such as funding and environmental
approval, as well as time frame for implementation. These options
were identified and qualitatively compared.
11. Land Acquisition Requirements
Alternatives were evaluated as to the amount of land
acquisition required to implement them. This primarily applied to
major expansions at existing airports and new airport alternatives.
7-12
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 7: Air Carrier Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
7.2.2 Evaluation Methodology
The evaluation process generated a series of spreadsheet
tables, which collectively display the six air carrier system
alternatives, two forecasts for each (high and low), and five time
frames (1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010). Future airside and landside
demand and capacity, along with resultant delay and environmental
impacts, were determined from the passenger forecast numbers.
A number of assumptions and factors underlie the calculations
of airport activity and impacts. The major ones are passenger
market shares; originating and destination (O & D), connecting, and
international passenger splits (percentages); aircraft size;
aircraft load factors; airport operational parking factors; and gate
requirements. These are listed below, and are displayed in tables
which accompany the text.
Passenger Market Share
"Passenger market share" refers to the relative percentage of
the total regional passenger traffic served at each airport . In
1990 San Francisco served about 71 percent of the total passengers
in the region (30 million out of a regional total of 42 million),
Oakland's market share was 13 percent, San Jose's was just under 16
percent. Concord and Sonoma County each had less than .5 percent.
The inventory and forecast chapters of this report discuss the
historic and current market shares of the five existing air carrier
airports in the region. After analyzing the historic and current
market shares, reviewing the results of the 1990 MTC Air Passenger
Survey, and studying the recommendations of other airport planning
studies and reports, a key issue emerged which needed to be
addressed in this system planning effort: Does the existing
airport system offer an efficient and convenient system of
airport facilities (supply) relative to the regional origins and
destinations of passengers (demand), and considering their mode of
travel to and from the airports.
In order to evaluate a number of market share alternatives,
passenger market shares have been distributed differently for each
alternative. This allowed the evaluation of how the entire air
carrier airport system would perform given a series of differing
assumptions about regional market shares. The passenger market
shares for each alternative were developed using the "ACCESS" model,
which was developed by MTC. These shares are displayed in Exhibit
7.1.
The "ACCESS" model generated four basic passenger market share
scenarios:
(1) Existing 1990 shares -- This scenario allocates future
passenger traffic to the five air carrier airports based on 1990
market shares. This allocation method was used for the No Build
and New Technology alternatives.
7-13
Click HERE for graphic.
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 7: Air Carrier Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
(2) Equilibrated shares -- This scenario allocates passengers
to the region's airports according to an airport choice model,
with flight frequency at OAK and SJC set to levels which are
sustainable by demand at those airports. This allocation method
was used for the Airport System Management alternative.
(3) Master Plan shares -- The existing airport master plans
are constructed around the concept of regional market shares. The
regional market shares contained in the master plans were used for
the Master Plan alternative. These include both unconstrained and
constrained forecasts, each resulting in different passenger
market shares.
(4) Maximum shares -- The scenario allocates passengers to the
region's airports based on the airport choice model (passengers
will choose the airport which is the most convenient, as measured
by travel time to and from the airport). In this scenario, flight
frequencies to all destinations from all three airports were set
at maximum levels, thus equalizing the three airports in terms of
levels of service. This allocation method was used for the
Optimization alternatives "A" and "B".
Passenger Splits
The passenger percentages (splits) at each airport were
developed by dividing total passenger traffic into three categories:
(1) passengers having a domestic origin or destination at an airport
("O&D" passengers); (2) passengers connecting between air carrier
flights at a hub airport ("connecting" passengers); and (3)
passengers with international origins or destinations
("international" passengers). Of the International passengers, some
are 'O&D' and some are "connecting". These splits are shown in
Exhibit 7.2 for the years 1990 and 2010. With the exception of San
Francisco, which will see a slight rise in the percentage of
international passengers, all passenger splits are expected to
remain relatively stable between 1990 and 2010.
The relative number of each type of passenger is important in
planning for airside capacity as well as passenger terminal and
other landside facilities, such as surface access and parking. For
example, an airport having high levels of O&D traffic would require
more auto parking, ticketing, and baggage claim facilities, whereas
an airport with high levels of connecting passengers would not need
these facilities, but would still require airside capacity which
could be devoted to regional O&D traffic.
International passengers, in contrast, require specialized
processing facilities, such as increased levels of passenger and
baggage security, immigration, customs, and other Federal Inspection
Services. Because of the cost to build and operate these special
facilities, there has been some discussion concerning centralizing
these functions at one airport. This would be efficient and reduce
duplication, but would not be as convenient to the region's
passengers. Centralization of the region's international passenger
handling facilities would therefore have both positive and negative
attributes.
7-14
Click HERE for graphic.
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 7: Air Carrier Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
Changes in Aircraft Size and Load Factor
Two of the most important factors which were evaluated in the
alternatives analysis were future changes in aircraft size and load
factors. The combination of these two factors yields the number of
passengers per operation, which is discussed below. Aircraft size
and load factor have the potential for contributing major increases
in worldwide air service capacity in the coming 20 years. The San
Francisco International Airport Master Plan Update, for example,
anticipates that the existing airfield can accommodate an increase
from 30 million annual passengers in 1990 to over 53 million annual
passengers in 2006 without any major runway capacity enhancement
projects. Rather, the plan is built around several major landside
and terminal capacity improvements and the basic assumptions that
average aircraft size and load factors will increase significantly
at SFO in the future.
Indeed, all the alternatives evaluated in this system plan take
into consideration some basic worldwide and national trends in
aircraft size and load factors, using information about existing and
forecast conditions at the region's airports as well as FAA and
industry forecasts.
Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, and the FAA have each prepared
forecasts for average aircraft size and load factors. Both aircraft
manufacturers have aircraft seating size projections for the world
market. These numbers tend to be higher than domestic figures
because of the heavy use of large, wide-body aircraft on
international, transoceanic routes. In order to predict these
factors for the domestic fleet, an analysis of future fleet mix for
the ten major US airlines currently serving the Bay Area was
prepared. These airlines were United, American, Delta, USAir,
Southwest, Alaska, TWA, Continental, America West, and Northwest.
Domestic load factor forecasts for 2000 were derived from the FAA,
and forecasts for the year 2010 were derived from industry sources
and the individual airport master plans.
Based on these data, aircraft size and load factors for SFO are
expected to remain greater than corresponding figures for OAK and
SJC, while figures for CCR and STS will be consistent with their
continued role as general aviation airports, with limited commuter
airline service. The aircraft sizes used in the analysis are
smaller than those in the Boeing and McDonnell Douglas worldwide
figures, reflecting the fact that a large share of the Oakland
market is serving the California corridor, and that San Jose serves
primarily the domestic U.S. market. San Francisco maintains higher
load factors and is served by larger aircraft, consistent with its
role as a domestic and international hub as well as with its sheer
size.
Trends in aircraft size and load factor are illustrated in
Exhibit 7.3. As shown in the exhibit, San Francisco, Oakland, and
San Jose will see increases in both aircraft size and load factors
in the future. These increases are expected to occur under all the
alternatives, including the No Build. This reflects the expectation
that the Bay Area airports will reap the benefits of worldwide and
national trends regardless of local or regional decisions regarding
development of the airport system. Under the Airport System
Management alternative, however, the aircraft
7-15
Click HERE for graphic.
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 7: Air Carrier Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
size and load factors have been increased more than under the other
alternatives. This reflects the attempt to maximize airport system
capacity with the ASM alternative using operational and management
measures by airports and airlines without major construction.
Passengers Per Operation
The concept of "passengers per operation" is not normally used
in airport planning. Instead, the individual measures of aircraft
size (fleet mix) and load factor are used. These factors were
combined here (see Exhibit 7.4) only to simplify the calculations
used in the evaluation model. The number of passengers per
operation is a direct product of aircraft size and load factor, as
discussed above. Passengers per operation for 1990, 1995, 2000,
2005, and 2010 are shown for each alternative in Exhibit 7.4. For
the No Build, Optimization 'A' and 'B', and New Technology
alternatives, the number of passengers per operation is expected to
grow from 95 to 120 at SFO, from 65 to 90 at OAK, and from 47 to 90
at SJC. Under the ASM alternative, these 2010 figures increase to
130, 100, and 100, respectively. For the Master Plans option the
2010 figures are 105 for SFO, 78 for OAK, and 68 for SJC. Under the
System Optimization "B" alternative Travis is assumed to serve 90
passengers per operation, the same figure used for Oakland and San
Jose.
Using the total passenger traffic forecast and the passengers
per operation figures, the evaluation model calculates the
anticipated number of annual air carrier operations required to meet
annual forecast passenger demand. Annual operations demand figures
were then converted into peak hour operations demand for both VFR
and EAR conditions as discussed below.
While most major airlines have current orders for a large
number of small jet aircraft (Boeing 737 and Fokker-100-size), the
ultimate trend is likely to be toward larger aircraft. This is
particularly true for international flights, but it will also be
true for domestic service. The development of the 757, 767, 777,
MD-11, MD-12, and larger Airbus models (A-300, A-330, and A-340)
reflects the aircraft industry's view that larger aircraft will be
among the capacity enhancements needed to meet projected demand.
7-16
Click HERE for graphic.
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 7: Air Carrier Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
Peak Hour Operations as a Percentage of Total Annual Operations
In each of the master plans for the three largest air carrier
airports, an analysis and forecast of peak hour operations was
performed. The peak hour operations are determined by establishing
the peak month, the average day in the peak month, then the peak
hour of the average day. These figures, which are displayed in
Exhibit 7.5, were derived as follows:
Step 1: Begin with total annual operations (derived from
total annual passenger forecast divided by
passengers per operation)
Step 2: Calculate peak month operations as a percentage of
total annual operations (e.g., 11 percent)
Step 3: Calculate average day operations as a percentage of
peak month operations (e.g., 3 percent)
Step 4: Calculate peak hour operations as a percentage of
average day operations (e.g., 10 percent)
Forecasts of peak hour operations used in this analysis
are based on a single multiplier which establishes peak hour
operations as a percentage of the total annual operations. In the
examples given in the four steps above, the single percentage figure
would be:
Peak hour ops = Total annual ops x .11 x .03 x .10
= .00033
The figures in Exhibit 7.5 are the result of applying the above
process (using the individual parking characteristics for each
airport) to the annual operations numbers for each airport. These
factors vary by airport and by alternative. This reflects the fact
that as an airport approaches its peak hour and annual capacity, it
will tend to have several 'peak hours', or peak periods longer than
an hour. As demand exceeds the airport's peak hour capacity, that
demand will either be delayed or will be shifted to alternate time
periods in an attempt to level out the demand to match capacity.
At these types of busy airports, the peak hour (or hours) will
tend to make up a decreasing proportion of the total daily traffic.
Similarly, at smaller general aviation airports, there may not be
any major parking. Peak hour figures as a percent of total annual
traffic may thus be similarly low for both large, congested airports
and lower-use GA facilities. Peak hour activity as a percent of
total daily traffic will tend to be higher at airports which
experience morning and evening parking of O&D traffic or have mini-
hubs which experience two to four banks of flights during the day
but have low levels of traffic between the banks.
7-17
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 7: Air Carrier Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
Gate Requirements
Master plan forecasts of passenger levels and gate requirements
provided the data to establish a passengers-per-gate rule of thumb.
The number of passengers per gate was used in the evaluation model
to derive the number of gates needed. These figures, which display
only SFO, OAK, and SJC, are shown in Exhibit 7.6. As the figures
show, San Francisco is expected to process more annual passengers
per gate (494,000) than either Oakland (400,000) or San Jose
(400,000) in the year 2010. The number of annual passengers
expected to be processed per gate combined with the total annual
passengers generates the number of gates required.
Summary of Evaluation Criteria
The parameters used in the alternatives evaluation process are
listed below:
1. Total passenger forecast (enplanements and deplanements)
2. Total passenger market share ( percent of Bay area total
passengers)
3. O & D passenger forecast
4. O & D passenger market share
5. Connecting passenger forecast
6. Connecting passenger market share
7. International passenger forecast (includes Canada and Mexico)
8. International passenger market share
9. Annual passenger capacity
10. Annual air carrier operations demand (air carrier and
commuter)
11. Annual air cargo operations demand (only all-=go operations)
12. Annual GA operations demand
13. Total annual operations demand
14. Annual operations capacity
15. Peak hour operations demand -- VFR
16. Peak hour operations capacity -- VFR
17. Peak hour operations demand -- IFR
18. Peak hour operations capacity -- IFR
19. Total annual delay
7-18
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 7: Air Carrier Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
20. Peak hour delay -- VFR
21. Peak hour delay -- IFR
22. Number of gates required (air carrier and commuter)
23. Number of gates (air carrier and commuter)
24. Vehicular passenger parking demand (both on- and off-airport)
25. Vehicular passenger parking capacity (both on- and off-
airport)
26. Daily vehicular trips
27. Daily vehicle miles travelled (VATS)
28. Air quality impact (in U.S. tons)
29. Based aircraft demand
30. Based aircraft capacity
31. Noise impacts (acres inside 65 CNEL)
32. Noise impacts (acres inside 60 CNEL)
33. Air cargo demand (in U. S. tons)
34. Air cargo facility demand (square feet)
35. Air cargo facility capacity (square feet)
36. Wildlife/wetland/fill impact (acres)
7-19
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 7: Air Carrier Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
7.3 Evaluation Results
The following results were prepared based on the input
assumptions described above. factors in the analysis include
assumptions about regional market shares, aircraft size, I factors,
and operational parking characteristics for the individual airports.
7.3.1 No Build Alternative
Exhibits 7.7 (high forecast) and 7.8 Low forecast) contain the
spreadsheet analysis for the Build alternative in the year 2010. See
Appendix A for the spreadsheet analysis for 1990, 1995 2000, and
2005.
1. Runway Capacity and Delay
The total system will reach annual runway capacity about the
year 2005. SFO and SJC will above capacity by some 6 percent and 23
percent, respectively, while OAK (operating at 7 percent of
capacity), CCR (at 88 percent), and STS (at 60 percent), win have
excess annual airfield capacity. General aviation is expected to be
a major contributor to total airfield operations demand at San Jose,
with GA comprising almost 64 percent of total airfield demand
General aviation at San Francisco and Oakland* (South Field air
carrier runway), on the other hand, will make up a relatively small
percentage of total annual operations demand (6 percent at SFO and
12 percent at OAK); however, general aviation has a disproportionate
effect capacity and delay. At San Jose the issue of how much
general aviation activity should accommodated in light of increasing
passenger and air cargo demand is being addressed in the Airport
Master Plan Update process. An important issue related to general
aviation in the South Bay is the future of Reid-Hillview Airport,
since discussions have occurred about the possibility of closing
this airport. If it is closed and general aviation is reduced at
SJC there could be major shortage of facilities for general aviation
in Santa Clara County.
Under high forecast conditions total peak hour volumes will
exceed VFR capacities at SFO 1990, OAK by 2010, and SJC by about
2012. By the year 2010, peak hour delays an passenger inconvenience
at SFO would be significant, with VFR demand exceeding capacity b
some 63 percent. This is due to the fact that under the No Build
alternative San Francisco would continue to serve 71 percent of the
total regional passenger demand (the same as its 1 market share).
CCR and STS would not experience any delays during the peak hour in
VFR conditions, but CCR would experience peak hour delays during IFR
conditions.
* The evaluation of air carrier alternatives at Oakland are
based only on South Field, and do not include the runways at
North Field, which are constrained by noise issues.
7-20
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 7: Air Carrier Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
Under the low forecast conditions, total peak hour volumes
exceed VFR peak hour runway capacity at SFO in 1990, and will reach
peak hour runway capacity at OAK in 2010, and SIC between 2005 and
2010. The only change in the performance of the No Build
alternative between the high and low forecast is that under the low
forecast San Francisco's total annual aircraft operations demand
would fall below its annual capacity (to 89 percent), and into the
marginal delay range.
2. Landside Capacity
Passenger Capacity and Gate Requirements
Under the high forecast with the No Build alternative, the five
air carrier airports will reach their combined annual passenger
capacity by 1995. OAK will reach annual passenger capacity about
the year 2001, and SIC will reach its annual capacity in 2005.
Under both the high and low forecast SIC, CCR, and STS will
have sufficient gates to meet demand through the year 2010. Oakland
would have nearly enough gates to meet the low forecast demand, but
would be six gates short of meeting demand under the high forecast.
San Francisco, because it would be accepting most of the forecast
passenger growth and building no new gates, would have a serious
gate shortage by the year 2010: 41 gates short under the high
forecast and 21 gates short under the low forecast. As a total
system the five airports will have a 50-gate shortage in meeting the
high forecast and a 20-gate shortage under the low forecast.
Under the low forecast SFO was predicted to reach passenger
capacity in 1992, while OAK and SIC will not reach capacity until
2006 and 2010+, respectively.
Air Cargo Demand and Capacity
If no new air cargo processing facilities are built at any of
the five air carrier airports in the next 20 years, the existing
airports will not have the capacity to handle the forecast demand
for cargo activity. The existing air cargo facilities at SFO, OAK,
and SIC will all reach capacity by around the year 2000. After that
time cargo demand in the region will not be met unless capacity is
added at other locations, such as Alameda NAS, Moffett Field,
Concord, Sonoma County, Travis AFB, or other airports.
General Aviation Based Aircraft
Of the five air carrier airports, SFO and OAK can accommodate
forecast demand for based aircraft, while SIC, CCR, and STS will
fall short of meeting demand unless additional facilities are built
at these airports.
7-21
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 7: Air Carrier Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
3. Auto Parking Capacity
Since no additional parking would be built under this
alternative, all five airports would experience a severe shortage of
vehicle parking. The total regional shortage in the year 2010 would
be 28,000 parking spaces under the high forecast, with demand
exceeding capacity by between 50 percent and 74 percent. Oakland
would experience the greatest shortage in terms of the ratio of
demand to capacity (demand exceeding capacity by 74 percent, or
4,685 spaces), while San Francisco would experience the greatest
shortage in terms of absolute numbers (17,000 spaces).
Under the low forecast regional vehicle parking demand would
exceed supply by between 33 percent and 45 percent for the three
largest airports, with total demand exceeding total supply by some
16,000 total spaces for the region. In either case this situation
would create a serious parking problem as well as the need for
alternative forms of transport to and from all five air carrier
airports. Proposed BART extensions to SFO and Oakland could reduce
the number of auto trips by airport passengers and thereby reduce
the need for additional parking at these two airports.
4. Airport Access/Distribution of Supply and Demand
Total daily vehicle miles travelled to SFO, OAK, and SJC are
shown in Exhibit 7.9, while total daily vehicle trips are displayed
in Exhibit 7.10. Total daily trips to SFO and OAK on Bay bridges
generated by each alternative are shown in Exhibit 7.11. The
greatest level of daily trips, daily vehicle miles travelled, and
traffic on Bay bridges would be generated by the Master Plans
alternative while the System Optimization "B" alternative would have
the lowest of all the alternatives.
Under the No Build alternative, total vehicle miles travelled
to all the five airports will reach 4.1 million miles per day.
Among the six alternatives, the No Build alternative generates the
second greatest (after the Master Plans) level of vehicle miles
travelled, and will create greater automobile emissions levels
related to surface vehicle traffic. The No Build alternative will
create the second highest level of passenger trips over Bay bridges
(30,127-37,659) and on U.S. 101 at SFO, with almost 60 million
passengers travelling through SFO by 2010.
An additional concern in evaluating the alternatives is the
potential impact which would occur in generating additional airport-
related traffic on highways adjacent to the airports. These would
include U.S. 101 (the Bayshore Freeway) at SFO, Interstate 880 near
Oakland, and U.S. 101, Interstates 280 and 880, and SR 87 at San
Jose. Although specific highway analyses were not done as part of
this system plan, the numbers in Exhibit 7.10 ("Daily Vehicle
Trips") can be used to estimate the impacts of the airport
development alternatives on adjoining highways. For example,
traffic on U.S. 101 at SFO would likely be greatest under the No
Build alternative and least under the System Optimization "B"
alternative. At Oakland, Interstate 880 traffic would
7-22
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 7: Air Carrier Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
future levels of airline traffic and changes in the airline fleet.
Both these are forecast by the FAA. Indeed, the FAA also prepares
forecasts of the number of airline and commercial pilots, based on
its forecasts of future commercial flight activity. However, the
future number of commercial and airline pilots retiring or leaving
the industry can be projected using a cohort approach from the data
on the number of active pilots by age group discussed above. 'Me
difference between the remaining active pilots and the number needed
by the FAA forecasts then represents the number of new commercial
pilots that will have to be hired.
The results of this analysis suggest that the number of new
airline transport certificates that will have to issued per year
will increase from around 5,900 in 1995 to 8,000 in the Year 2000,
remain at this level until 2005, then increase to around 8,600 per
year in 2010. 'Me resulting number of new commercial pilot
certificates that will have to be issued per year will grow from
about 11,300 in 1995 to 13,100 in 2000, 15,300 in 2005, and 17,100
in 2010. There were about 15,500 new commercial certificates issued
in 1990. Thus it appears that the current entry rate of new
commercial pilots is in excess of the long-term demand, and will
result in an oversupply of qualified pilots. This is likely to lead
to a leveling off or decline in the growth of commercial
certificates issued, particularly for pilots in the younger age
groups. The number of active commercial pilots in the U.S. in the
age group from 20 to 24 has been increasing at around 13 percent per
year since 1987. This clearly cannot continue indefinitely. Thus a
plausible high growth scenario would have this rate drop to 6
percent per year until 1995, then reduce thereafter to 3 percent per
year, the estimated long-term rate of growth in required new
commercial pilots. A corresponding low growth scenario would have
the growth reduce to 3 percent per year from 1990 to 1995, then to
zero growth thereafter.
Forecast Growth in Flight Activity
Using the values of the cohort model coefficients given in
Tables 1 and 3 and the projections of the growth in the number of
pilots in the youngest age groups discussed above, the number of
active pilots in each age group can be projected for successive
future years. Applying the average number of hours flown for each
age group from the data in Tables 1 and 2 then gives the total hours
flown in each year. The results of these calculations are shown in
Table 4, for the four forecast years of 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2010,
expressed in terms of the growth from the hours flown in 1990. The
values for the years 2005 and 2010 should be regarded with some
caution, as any errors in the cohort model will propagate into
successive years. Also, by the year 2010, the number of pilots in
the four age groups from age 15 to 34 will be entirely dependent on
the validity of the projections of the number of entering pilots in
the youngest age group.
Under the low-growth scenario, the annual hours flown by
commercial pilots increase by about 9 percent between 1990 and 1995.
Thereafter, the growth rate reduces to give a further 4 percent
increase in each of the following five year periods, and a further 3
percent growth by 2010. The annual hours flown by private and
student pilots reduce steadily, until by 2010 they
5-26
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 7: Air Carrier Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
be most affected by the System Optimization "A" alternative, which
generates almost 48,000 daily trips, and would be least affected by
the New Technologies Alternative, which generates only half as many
daily trips. At San Jose the Master Plans alternative would likely
have the greatest impact on adjoining roadways, while the New
Technologies alternative would have the least, generating only 75
percent as many daily trips as the Master Plans option. These
traffic patterns are directly related to the regional airport shares
shown in Exhibit 7.1.
In addition to determining the level of passenger-generated
traffic resulting from each alternative, the analysis included a
computer model of passenger mode split based on the 1990 MTC Air
Passenger Survey. That analysis shows that construction of BART
connections to SFO only, to OAK only, or to both SFO and OAK would
result in both daily vehicle trips and daily vehicle miles travelled
(for these two airports) in the mid-range of the six alternatives.
The impacts of the three BART connection options to San Francisco
and Oakland are displayed in Exhibits 7.9 and 7. 1 0.
5. Air Quality
The No Build alternative would produce a total of 60.18 tons of
carbon monoxide per day.
6. Noise Impact
The No Build alternative will reduce noise impact due to the
retirement of older, noisier, Stage 2 aircraft. Total number of
residences within the 65 CNEL noise contour will decline from 7,401
residences in 1990 to 3,199 residences in the year 2010. This falls
in the middle of the alternatives, which range from a high of 3,527
residences to a low of 2,694 residences.
7. Wildlife/Wetland/Fill Impact
The No Build alternative includes no new construction, and
would therefore cause no direct impacts to wildlife or wetlands, and
would require no new fill,
8. Construction Cost and Impact
The No Build alternative will include only the baseline costs
associated with airport improvement projects which are already
funded and approved. These projects are included in all the
alternatives.
As the baseline condition, the No Build alternative would not
involve any construction impacts beyond those associated with
currently approved and funded projects, as discussed immediately
above. These impacts would occur under all the alternatives, and
would not provide the basis for discriminating between the system
plan alternatives under consideration here.
7-23
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 7: Air Carrier Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
9. Economic Benefit
As this alternative would not meet anticipated future air
travel demand in the region, it would have the least economic
benefit of any alternative.
10. Implementation
No specific actions are necessary to implement the No Build
alternative.
11. Land Acquisition
No new land acquisition is required for the No Build
alternative.
7.3.2 Airport System Management (ASK Alternative
The ASM alternative evaluated the potential airside and
landside capacity gains that might be achieved by a variety of
aircraft fleet, airfield, and landside operational and management
measures, but not including any major construction. These included
the following potential actions:
1. Improved air traffic control procedures from FAA
2. Improved navigational aids and lighting systems (MILS, etc)
3. Decreased lateral and longitudinal separations between
aircraft during take-offs and landings during VFR and IFR
conditions
4. Improved apron operations management
5. Improved terminal and gate management
6. Increases in aircraft size
7. Increases in aircraft load factors
8. Voluntary or pricing methods to spread peak hour activity to
non-peak hours
9. Diversion of general aviation activity to other airports
These actions would require the direct involvement of the
airport operators, the airlines, the FAA, and other groups. The FAA
would be responsible for implementing items 1, 2, and 3. Actions 4,
5, and 9 would be the responsibility of the airports. Items 6 and 7
would be taken by the airlines.
One of the key capacity issues in airport planning revolves
around peak hour demand and capacity. Item 8, if it could be
implemented, would provide perhaps the most significant contribution
to improving the operation of the total regional airport system.
This action would be implemented by the airports.
7-24
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 7: Air Carrier Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
Although several of these actions could be taken, it is not
likely that all would be implemented. The objective of the
alternative was to determine the maximum capacity gains possible if
the system was managed differently.
Following are the results of the ASM alternative evaluation:
1. Runway Capacity and Delay
All six air carrier alternatives are based upon the assumption
that some increases in aircraft size and aircraft load factor will
occur regardless of any actions taken by the region's airports.
These are seen as independent industry trends, which will help to
increase capacity and improve the efficiency of the system over
time. These improvements are therefore included as underlying
assumptions for all the alternatives. In addition to those trends,
however, the ASM alternative includes actions aimed at obtaining the
maximum possible service out of the existing airport infrastructure.
The combined affects of measures I through 5 could achieve a 10
percent increase in both airfield and landside capacity. Items 6
and 7 varied by airport, but combined to achieve increases in
passenger capacity of between 8 and 11 percent. In addition, items
8 and 9 resulted in 7-12 percent reductions in operational parking
by improved flight scheduling. It is the combined affects of these
actions that allow the ASM alternative to show significant advances
above the No Build alternative in meeting forecast demand
requirements.
In total, the ASM alternative increases overall system landside
processing capacity from 53 million to 58 million passengers per
year in 2010 (9 percent); increases annual airfield capacity by
130,000 operations (6.5 percent); and decreases peak hour demand by
about 9 percent. In spite of all these gains, the Airport System
Management alternative fails to meet forecast passenger or runway
demand in the year 2010 for either the high or the low forecast.
The sum total gain from all the improvements described above would
bring San Francisco within its annual runway capacity. All other
operational conditions for the ASM alternative do not differ
significantly from the No Build. Clearly, system management
measures would be an important contributor to meeting the region's
future demand, but major capacity improvements in the airside,
landside, and airport access systems would still be required.
2. Landside Capacity
Passenger Capacity and Gate Requirements
The airport system management alternative will result in
slightly improved conditions in the region when compared to the No
Build alternative. This will be the result of efficiencies achieved
through shifts in regional market share, limited increases in
operational capacity, and modest changes in aircraft size and
aircraft load factors. Due to the shifting of demand to OAK
7-25
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 7: Air Carrier Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
and SJC, however, annual landside processing capacities at those two
airports would be reached in the year 2000 under the high forecast
and between 2000 and 2005 under the low forecast. San Francisco
would reach its annual passenger capacity by the mid- to late-1990s.
The ASM alternative would, however, allow SFO to meet demand for a
few years beyond the No Build alternative. Because of the shift in
passenger traffic to Oakland and San Jose, both these airports would
experience gate shortages by the year 2010. Even though some of its
passenger traffic would be diverted to OAK and SJC, San Francisco
would also have a gate shortage by 2010 under both the low forecast
(12 gates) and the high forecast (31 gates). Both Concord and
Sonoma County would have sufficient gate capacity to meet forecast
passenger demand through the year 2010.
Air Cargo Demand and Capacity
The ASM alternative would not provide any new air cargo
facilities, and this alternative would therefore not meet projected
demand for air cargo activity. Although some operational
improvements could be made to improve the efficiency and processing
ability of existing air cargo facilities, including apron space, the
ASM alternative would leave the region without the capability of
meeting regional air cargo demand.
General Aviation Based Aircraft
The ASM alternative is not substantially different from the No
Build in providing for based aircraft. Because some air carrier
activity would be relocated from SFO to SJC, however, there would be
less available runway capacity at SJC to serve general aviation
traffic. The issue of general aviation aircraft basing at SJC,
however, will be determined not so much by the level of based
aircraft demand than on how much land area and runway capacity there
is to accommodate general aviation in addition to other airport
needs.
3. Auto Parking Capacity
The ASM alternative is not substantially different than the No
Build alternative in its provision of vehicle parking . Other
than the modest shifts in regional market share from SFO to OAK and
SJC, the ASM alternative suffers from the same severe parking
shortages as the No Build.
4. Airport Access/Distribution of Supply and Demand
This alternative would slightly reduce traffic on Bay bridges
and U.S. 101 at SFO, but would increase traffic to OAK on 1-880 and
to SJC on U.S. 101, with resulting surface traffic and air quality
impacts in those areas.
The ASM option would generate 3.9 million (high forecast) and
3.2 million ( Low forecast) daily vehicle miles travelled by
passengers. This is 5 percent less than the No Build alternative.
7-26
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 7: Air Carrier Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
Similarly, the ASM would generate some 17 percent less trips
across Bay bridges than the No Build. The total number of daily
trips would not drop significantly under the ASM (only I percent
less than the No Build), but the trips would be shorter, and would
avoid the congestion on the bridges. The ASM alternative takes a
step in the direction toward a more efficient distribution of
regional supply and demand. This is seen as an important benefit of
the ASM alternative as compared to the No Build.
5. Air Quality
The major differences between the ASM and the No Build
alternative in terms of air quality are:
a. The ASM option will produce less total vehicular-related
emissions than the No Build (54.77 daily tons of carbon
monoxide (CO) compared to 60.18 daily tons) due to its
reduction in total vehicle miles travelled (5 percent), and;
b. The ASM option will contribute less new airport
traffic to major congested regional highways (Bay bridges
and U.S. 101) because it redistributes some SFO traffic
to OAK and SJC.
6. Noise Impact
The ASM alternative combined with airline fleet changes will
result in slightly fewer residences within the 65 CNEL noise contour
(3,161 residences) than the No Build alternative (3,199 residences).
Compared with the No Build, the ASM alternative would result in
slight reductions in noise impacts at SFO and slight increases at
OAK and SJC.
7. Wildlife/Wetland/Fill Impacts
The Airport System Management alternative would involve no new
facility construction. Therefore, no additional impacts on
wildlife, wetlands, or Bay fill are anticipated as a result of the
ASM alternative.
8. Construction Cost and Impacts
No major construction costs or impacts would result from the
ASM alternative.
9. Economic Impacts
The ASM alternative would produce slight increases in regional
economic benefits due to its slight increase in capacity.
7-27
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 7: Air Carrier Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
10. Implementation
Implementation of the Airport System Management alternative
will require a coordinated, cooperative commitment on the part of
the airports, the airlines, and the FAA to maximize the efficiency
of the existing airport system infrastructure.
11. Land Acquisition
No new land acquisition is required for airports in the
Airport System Management alternative.
7.3.3 Master Plans Alternative
1. Runway Capacity and Delay
The Master Plans alternative would provide sufficient annual
runway capacity to meet forecast operations demand at all airports
except San Jose, where annual runway demand would exceed capacity by
some 242,000 operations. If general aviation demand were reduced by
this amount (some 86 percent of all GA operations) the airport would
stay within its planned annual capacity. The general aviation
system plan alternatives evaluation (see Chapter 8) discusses where
these GA operations and based aircraft may be relocated. San
Francisco, Oakland, and Concord would each be within 20 percent of
their annual runway capacity (annual service volume), and are
therefore classified as 'marginal" under the total annual delay
category in the evaluation.
During peak hour, however, SFO, OAK, and SJC would all exceed
their hourly runway capacity during both VFR and IFR conditions for
both the low and high forecast. This would result in unacceptable
delays to passengers and airlines.
2. Landside Capacity
Passenger Capacity and Gate Requirements
The current airport master plans would provide for capacity
improvements to meet all air carrier passenger demand through the
20-year planning period. AR gate requirements would be met at each
of the five airports.
Air Cargo Demand and Capacity
Air cargo demand would be met under the Master Plans
alternative at all airports. Although constrained by its small
site, San Jose's maximum growth alternative would meet all passenger
and air cargo demand. However, general aviation demand would exceed
capacity, requiring that
7-28
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 7: Air Carrier Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
a portion of those needs (based aircraft, operations, and support
facilities) be met elsewhere in the region.
General Aviation Based Aircraft
The Master Plans alternative would meet general aviation based
aircraft demand at all airports except San Jose. As with the
analysis of annual runway capacity above, the Master Plan
alternative would be unable to meet San Jose's based aircraft
demand, falling some 66 percent short of that amount needed to meet
all forecast demand. This alternative would result in the eventual
need to divert general aviation based aircraft and operations from
SJC to another airport in the county. In addition, this alternative
could limit the potential for long range air cargo growth at SJC, if
all passenger demands are met.
3. Auto Parking Capacity
All five airports will meet or nearly meet anticipated demand
for vehicle parking for the low and high forecasts in the year
2010. San Jose would require some parking augmentation from off--
airport sources to meet all forecast parking demand (20,000 spaces).
Concord would also need additional parking not now included in its
master plan to meet forecast demand.
4. Airport Access/Distribution of Supply and Demand
The Master Plans alternative would create the highest levels of
traffic on Bay bridges and U.S. Highway 101 at SFO. This
alternative would generate approximately 4.1 million daily vehicle
miles travelled, a .4 percent increase above the No Build
alternative. This alternative would also produce the most daily
trips (177,500), some 5 percent more than the No Build. Similarly,
of the six alternatives being reviewed, the Master Plans alternative
would place the most daily passenger trips on Bay bridges (nearly
40,000), again some 5 percent more than the No Build, and 27 percent
more than the ASM alternative. The Master Plan alternative includes
significant investment in surface and transit access improvements at
all the air carrier airports. Of particular note are proposed BART
extensions to both San Francisco and Oakland.
5. Air Quality
The Master Plans alternative would result in .4 percent more
total daily vehicle miles travelled than the No Build alternative,
with a resulting increase in vehicle-generated emissions. Total
daily pollutants (carbon monoxide) produced under the Master Plans
alternative would be 68.6 tons. Transit access to SFO and OAK, as
discussed in the Master Plans, will provide an opportunity for long
term reduction in total passenger surface traffic, vehicle parking
requirements, and vehicular emissions compared to accommodating the
demand without transit improvements.
7-29
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 7: Air Carrier Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
6. Noise Impact
The Master Plans alternative combined with airline fleet
changes would result in the highest number of residences within the
65 CNEL noise contours, primarily because it would continue to focus
growth at SFO. The alternative would, however, reduce noise impacts
from 7,401 dwelling units in 1990 to 3,527 dwelling units in 2010.
7. Wildlife[Wetland/Fill Impact
The individual airport master plans have included reviews of
potential impacts on wildlife, wetland, and fill. No significant
impacts have been identified as a result of the airport improvements
included in the currently approved master plans. This assumes no
new runway at Oakland, and no new runways elsewhere.
8. Construction Cost and Impacts
Construction impacts related to implementing the airport master
plans include those from the runway extensions at OAK and SJC
(already completed), air cargo expansion at Oakland, and major
landside expansions at SFO, OAK, and SJC.
9. Economic Benefits
The Master Plans alternative would result in the highest
regional economic benefit as measured by total passenger activity.
10. Implementation
Most of the airport improvement projects included in the
current airport master plans will be implemented by the individual
airport operators with funding from the FAA, the airlines, passenger
facility charges (Pfc), parking and other airport-generated
revenues.
11. Land Acquisition
No major land acquisition would be required to implement the
Master Plans alternative.
7-30
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 7: Air Carrier Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
7.3.4 System Optimization Alternative "A"
1. Runway Capacity and Delay
With this alternative, all airports (except San Jose) would have
sufficient annual runway capacity and peak hour capacity in VFR
conditions to accommodate either the high or the low demand
forecast. Oakland would construct a new parallel air carrier runway
at South Field. This would increase the airport's total annual
capacity (annual service volume) from about 240,000 annual
operations to about 340,000 annual operations. San Jose, because of
the high level of general aviation activity forecast, could not meet
the annual operational demand of general aviation. Annual
operations demand at San Jose would exceed annual airfield capacity
by some 150,000 operations in the year 2010. If general aviation
demand could be diverted from San Jose to another airport or
airports, the entire air carrier airport system would operate within
annual airfield capacity under this alternative. Given the improved
distribution of supply and demand at the region's airports, this
alternative would provide enough peak hour VFR capacity to meet both
the low and the high forecast through the 20-year planning horizon
of this study.
Demand and capacity under 'EAR conditions present a different
picture. Even current (1990) demand under IFR conditions exceeds
the hourly IFR capacity that would be provided in the year 2010
under this alternative. By the year 2010 this alternative would
experience a significant capacity shortage during IFR conditions,
resulting in delays at all airports except Sonoma County. No
alternative by itself eliminates these IFR delays. The primary
reason is because all three major airports (SFO, OAK,and SJC) would
lack sufficient distance between parallel runways (4,300 feet) to
allow simultaneous independent IFR operations. This runway spacing
is not feasible given the size, location, and current configuration
of the three existing airports. It its therefore inevitable that
the regional airport system will experience delays during poor
weather conditions. Fortunately, IFR conditions occur a relatively
small percent of the time (7-12 percent), and occurs at different
times at different airports, thus reducing the likelihood of all
three airports having simultaneous IFR conditions.
2. Landside Capacity
Passenger Capacity and Gate Requirements
Under this alternative San Francisco's regional market share
would be reduced from 71 percent to 50 percent, while Oakland's
would increase from 13 percent to 26 percent, and San Jose's would
grow from 16 percent to 23 percent. Improvements to both landside
and airside capacity at both OAK and SJC would be needed. This
alternative would create the maximum level of passenger traffic at
OAK of the six alternatives, and may potentially result in some
limitation of air cargo at OAK, given the limited amount of upland
site available for future development at the airport. Channelling
almost 20 million passengers through SJC, this alternative may also
tend to limit the ultimate (beyond the year 2010) amount of air
cargo growth potential there.
7-31
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 7: Air Carrier Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
In addition, as with the Master Plans alternative, the System
Optimization "A" alternative would eventually require a major
relocation of general aviation activity away from SJC to make way
for passenger growth.
This alternative would provide sufficient gates and other
passenger processing capacity to accommodate the high forecast
passenger demand through the 20-year planning period. Under the low
forecast this alternative would have some excess capacity.
Air Cargo Demand and Capacity
The System Optimization "A" alternative would redistribute air
carrier traffic such that San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose could
accommodate forecast air cargo demand.
General Aviation Based Aircraft
OAK, CCR, and STS would each meet forecast general aviation
based aircraft demand through the year 2010. San Francisco (with a
30 aircraft deficit) and San Jose (with a 517 aircraft deficit)
would not. These aircraft would eventually be displaced to other
airports.
3. Auto Parking Capacity
All vehicle parking demand would be met under the System
Optimization "A" alternative.
4. Airport Access/Distribution of Supply and Demand
Total daily vehicle miles travelled under the high forecast for
this alternative would be 3.7 million, some 10 percent less than
both the Master Plans and the No Build alternatives. The System
Optimization "A" alternative would also generate about 8 percent
less total daily trips to the region's airports than the Master
Plans alternative. This alternative would cause a significant
reduction in passenger-generated traffic on the Bay bridges and U.S.
101 at SFO.
This alternative would necessitate the construction of major
access improvements to Oakland airport, such as the Airport Roadway
project and the planned BART connection, to help ease the potential
congestion on I-880, Hegenberger Road, Airport Drive, and other
roadways serving the airport. Traffic improvements at San Jose
would also be required.
5. Air Quality
This alternative would produce only slightly more pollutants
(carbon monoxide) per day (60.47 tons compared with 60.18 tons) than
the No Build.
7-32
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 7: Air Carrier Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
6. Noise Impact
This alternative, when combined with airline fleet changes,
would result in a reduction in the number of residences located
within the 65 CNEL noise contours from 7,401 residences in 1990 to
2,797 residences in the year 2010. This is the second lowest of the
six alternatives.
7. Wildlife/Wetland/Fill Impact
The System Optimization "A" alternative would involve
construction of a new parallel runway and taxiway at OAK. This
would require the filling of between 124 acres (for the inboard
alternative) and 135 acres (for the outboard alternative) of
freshwater wetlands, and would also include some 57 acres of
saltwater wetlands in San Francisco Bay for the outboard runway
alternative
8. Construction Cost and Impact
System Optimization Alternative "A" would have moderately high
construction costs and impacts when compared with the No Build and
ASM alternatives. These costs and impacts would be similar in
magnitude to the Master Plans alternative, but would focus more cost
and construction impacts at OAK and SIC.
9. Economic Benefit
This alternative would create moderately high regional economic
benefit.
10. Implementation
Similar to the Airport System Management alternative,
implementation of the System Optimization 'A' alternative will
require a coordinated commitment on the part of the airports, the
airlines, and the FAA to maximize the efficiency of the existing
airport system infrastructure.
11. Land Acquisition
No new land would need to be acquired for the System
Optimization 'A' alternative.
7-33
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 7: Air Carrier Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
7.3.5 System Optimization Alternative "B"
1. Runway Capacity and Delay
Under System Optimization Alternative "B" SFO, OAK, CCR, and
STS would each have excess total annual runway capacity through the
year 2010 while SJC would reach annual runway capacity in the year
2000. This is because of the demand for general aviation operations
at SJC. If roughly half this general aviation traffic (140,000
annual operations) could be diverted to other non-air carrier
airports, San Jose would remain within its annual airfield capacity,
though it would still experience marginally acceptable delays during
peak hours.
One of the key underlying assumptions of the Optimization 'B'
alternative is the diversion of passenger and air cargo activity
from existing overcrowded airports (mainly San Francisco) to a sixth
air carrier airport (fourth major air carrier airport). Evaluation
of the results of the "ACCESS" model reveal that a new airport at
Travis will draw only about 8 percent of the total regional
passenger market, or 6.4 million annual passengers in the year 2010.
This would still mean that for SFO, OAK, and SJC, peak hour
capacities would be exceeded during both VFR and IFR conditions,
leading to unacceptable delays.
2. Landside Capacity
Passenger Capacity and Gate Requirements
Optimization Alternative "B" would develop a new civilian air
carrier airport at Travis AFB (sharing existing runway and air
traffic control with military aircraft activity), and redistribute
regional passenger market shares. This option would divert
passenger traffic primarily away from SFO, and to some extent from
Sacramento. In contrast to System Optimization "A", this
alternative would take passenger traffic which would have been
diverted from SFO to OAK and re-divert that traffic to Travis. This
accounts for the difference in Oakland's market share under option
"A' (26 percent) versus under option "B" (21 percent). If service
is developed and flight frequencies maintained comparable to Oakland
and San Jose airports, the new airport at Travis AFB would command
about 8 percent of the total regional passenger traffic in 2010. Of
this 8 percent, about 5 percent is traffic diverted from Oakland and
3 percent is traffic diverted from SFO. This option would provide
enough gates to handle forecast passenger traffic through the year
2010, with Oakland adding some 23 new gates, San Jose adding 18, and
some 20 gates being constructed at Travis.
This option would still result in limits to future air cargo
growth as well as the eventual displacement of much general aviation
activity at SJC.
7-34
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 7: Air Carrier Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
Air Cargo Demand and Capacity
This alternative would meet all forecast air cargo demand.
General Aviation Based Aircraft
General Aviation based aircraft demand would be met at all
airports except SFO and SJC. San Francisco would accommodate 46
aircraft (as provided in the airport master plan), while the based
aircraft forecast shows demand for 76 based aircraft. San Jose
would fall far short of the based aircraft need, with a 2010 demand
of 785 aircraft and a capacity of only 268 (as outlined in the
current master plan).
3. Auto Parking Capacity
Vehicular parking would be provided in the Optimization "B"
alternative at each airport sufficient to meet all forecast demand
through the year 2010 for both the low and the high forecasts.
4. Airport Access/Distribution of Supply and Demand
Total daily vehicle miles travelled for this alternative would
be 3.5 million. This is the most efficient of all the alternatives
in terms of this parameter, generating 15 percent less surface
vehicle, miles travelled than the Master Plans alternative, and 6
percent less than the Option 'A' Alternative. Much of this
reduction is because passengers from Solano, Napa, and Contra Costa
Counties could greatly reduce their airport commute distances.
Option "B" would generate the second lowest number of total daily
airport passenger trips (162,037). This option would result in
reduced regional levels of surface vehicle-generated emissions in
comparison to the other alternatives, and would have the lowest
level of passenger traffic on Bay bridges (21,221) and U.S. 101 at
SFO. With the possible future addition of BART service to both San
Francisco and Oakland, the Optimization "B" alternative has the
potential for even greater reductions in airport generated surface
traffic and related congestion and emissions.
Although the Optimization 'B' alternative would increase
traffic at Oakland and San Jose when compared with the No Build
alternative, it would divert a significant level of traffic away
from San Francisco, thereby reducing total airport traffic and
traffic-related emissions. When compared with the Optimization "A"
alternative, this alternative would generate 20 percent fewer daily
trips to Oakland, diverting them to Travis instead.
5. Air Quality
This alternative would produce 59.95 tons of carbon monoxide
per day, the second lowest of all the alternatives.
7-35
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 7: Air Carrier Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
6. Noise Impact
This alternative, combined with airline fleet changes, would
have the lowest number of residences within the 65 CNEL noise
contours, with the total regional number falling from the 1990 total
of 7,401 residences to 2,694 residences in the year 2010.
7. Wildlife/Wetland/Fill Impact
Some wildlife, wetland, and fill impacts may result from the
future development of Travis AFB into a joint military-commercial
service airport.
8. Construction Cost and Impact
Construction of new access roads, parking, terminal facilities,
and other support facilities at Travis could result in moderately
high construction costs and impacts when compared with the No Build
and ASM alternatives.
9. Economic Impact
This alternative would create moderately high regional economic
benefit.
10. Implementation
Similar to the Airport System Management alternative,
implementation of the System Optimization "B' alternative will
require a coordinated, cooperative regional commitment on the part
of the airports, the airlines, and the FAA to maximize the
efficiency of the existing airport system infrastructure.
11. Land Acquisition
Some land acquisition and/or easements may be needed around
Travis AFB in order to allow for long term commercial service
(passenger flights), to protect approaches, and to prevent potential
noise-sensitive land uses from being developed in currently vacant
land surrounding the airport.
7-36
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 7: Air Carrier Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
7.3.6 New Technologies Alternative
1. Runway Capacity and Delay
This alternative would reduce passenger traffic at all five
airports, although its affect would primarily be felt at SFO, where
total annual passenger traffic would be reduced by some 6 million
passengers in the year 2010. This would help to maintain SFO within
its annual airfield capacity. Oakland, Concord, and Sonoma County
would also be within their annual runway capacity. San Jose would
experience demand in excess of annual capacity, again due to the
high level of general aviation demand.
Under this scenario, SFO peak hour passenger demand would
exceed runway capacity during both VFR and IFR conditions. Oakland
and San Jose would each be within their hourly runway capacities
during VFR conditions, but would not be able to accommodate peak
hour demand during IFR conditions. Peak hour delay during IFR
conditions would be unacceptable for all three major air carrier
airports, as well as Concord. Sonoma County could accommodate both
annual and peak hour demand in all weather conditions.
2. Landside Capacity
Passenger Capacity and Gate Requirements
The new technologies alternative would divert a maximum of 10
percent (8.5 million passengers in 2010) of the region's total
passenger traffic to a high speed rail system linking the Bay Area
and Southern California. This level of traffic would only be
possible if the rail system could be priced competitively, and
operated at cruising speeds of up to 200 U?H. This speed would be
necessary in order to keep travel times between the Bay Area and
Southern California under two hours. Presently about 30 percent of
all traffic from the three major Bay Area airports (12 million in
1990) is bound for the Los Angeles and San Diego areas. Of this
traffic, the New Technology alternative assumes that one third
(between 7 million and 8.5 million annual passengers in the year
2010) can be diverted to a high speed rail system. The New
Technologies alternative then allocates all remaining passenger
traffic (63 million to 76 million annual passengers) to the five
airports based on existing market shares. Of the five airports,
only San Francisco would have insufficient aircraft gates to meet
gate requirements in the year 2010.
Air Cargo Demand and Capacity
In maintaining the 1990 regional market shares, this
alternative would allow for some air cargo growth at SIC, and
significant growth in air cargo at OAK.
7-37
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 7: Air Carrier Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
General Aviation Based Aircraft
All based aircraft demand at the five air carrier airports
would be met under this alternative except for San Jose, which would
still have a capacity shortfall.
3. Auto Parking Capacity
This alternative would provide sufficient vehicle parking
capacity at all five air carrier airports to meet projected parking
demand through the year 2010.
4. Airport Access/Distribution of Supply and Demand
This alternative used existing regional market shares in order
to test how much traffic could be diverted away from the existing
airports, and how well the existing airport system would perform
with the resulting lower passenger demand. The new technology
alternative would reduce traffic at all five airports as compared to
the No Build alternative, but would generate new passenger traffic
between passenger origins and destinations at the new rail stations
or vertiports. The "ACCESS' model was unable to evaluate the New
Technology alternative in the same way as the other alternatives.
Therefore, no figures on vehicle miles travelled or daily vehicle
trips were available from the 'ACCESS" model. The analysis used
here is based on the assumption that total vehicular traffic to the
high-speed rail stations or vertiports will be approximately the
same but slightly less than traffic to the airports.
As the existing airports are somewhat centrally located in
relation to the regional population, it is assumed that the new high
speed rail stations would also be located at sites easily accessible
to the passengers. These stations would also need to be convenient
to passengers in order to compete with air travel. The analysis
shows that total daily trips and vehicle miles travelled would be
slightly less than the No Build alternative. This is the result of
two factors: (1) the new technologies alternative would divert
passenger traffic from the three airports, and trips diverted to the
rail stations or vertiports would likely be shorter than those to
the airports.
There are two reasons for this: (1) the rail stations would
probably be located closer to BART and the regional freeway system
than SFO and OAK, thereby reducing the length of those trips; and
(2) vertiports would likely be located at a combination of
locations, including existing air carrier airports, GA airports, and
other decentralized locations, thus reducing most trip lengths.
Total daily trips and daily vehicle trips at SFO, OAK. and SJC would
therefore each be reduced somewhat as compared to the Master Plans
and No Build alternatives.
Based on the assumption that average trip lengths to high speed
rail stations or dispersed vertiports would be three miles less for
passengers diverted from SFO and five miles less for passengers
diverted from OAK, the New Technologies alternative would generate a
daily total of 4 million vehicle miles travelled under the high
forecast, some 1 percent less than the No
7-38
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 7: Air Carrier Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
Build. A finding of the analysis is that the New Technologies
alternative would generate less traffic on Bay bridges, some 7
percent less than the Master Plans alternative, and 2 percent less
than the No Build alternative (see Exhibit 7.11).
5. Air Quality
The New Technologies alternative would result in the lowest
production of total regional carbon monoxide (56.81 daily tons).
6. Noise Impact
The New Technologies alternative, combined with airline fleet
changes, would have the third lowest number of residences within the
65 CNEL noise contours (3,015 residences), with only the two System
Optimization Options 'A' and "B' being lower.
7. Wildlife/Wetland/Fill Impact
The New Technologies alternative could potentially result in
numerous environmental impacts related to acquisition of right-of-
way and construction of the 300 to 400 mile high-speed rail system.
8. Construction Cost and Impact
This alternative could result in the highest cost of all the
alternatives, primarily because of the cost associated with
construction of the 300-400 mile high speed rail system. If
existing right-of-way were used, both construction cost and impacts
could be significantly reduced.
9. Economic Impact
The New Technologies alternative has the potential to create
the greatest economic benefit, in that it would provide for airport
expansion in the region as well as providing a new transportation
system connecting central and southern California. It is highly
likely that communities located along the rail corridor would
experience economic benefit from the construction and operation of
the rail system. These benefits could increase in the future if
additional passenger traffic were captured by the system.
10. Implementation
Implementation of the high-speed rail or vertiports alternative
would require a number of actions by agencies statewide. These
would include Caltrans, the airports where vertiport service was to
be introduced, the FAA, local governments affected by construction
and operation of the high speed rail system, etc.
7-39
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 7: Air Carrier Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
11. Land Acquisition
The New Technology alternative would likely involve the
greatest amount of land acquisition of all six alternatives. This
land acquisition may be necessary for the high-speed rail right of
way, unless an existing railroad, utility, highway, or other
appropriate right of way can be found. This right-of-way, which
would be in the range of 350-450 miles long, could be very costly,
and may result in some displacement of existing property owners.
Land acquisition may also be needed in the Bay area for construction
of the rail stations and access routes and parking facilities to
serve them.
7.3.7 Civilian Use of Alameda NAS and Moffett NAS
Civilian use of these two military facilities was evaluated in
the regional system planning process as a possible method of
diverting traffic away from Oakland and San Jose. The following are
initial conclusions:
Alameda NAS
1. Has limited potential for some air carrier use due to
airspace conflicts with OAK. Flight paths dictate a
one-for-one tradeoff between flights at OAK and
Alameda NAS. This would limit the potential for any
significant gains in regional capacity.
2. Has limited potential for diverting some all-cargo air
cargo activity away from OAK, particularly considering
the lack of good connections to the regional
transportation system.
3. Has potential obstruction problem from the Bay Bridge
during IFR arrivals under the southeast plan.
4. Has a slight advantage over OAK in terms of land use
compatibility in the immediate area around the NAS.
Noise issues would likely still remain, with possible
major objections from Alameda and other local residents.
Moffett NAS
1. Similar to the Alameda NAS-OAK airspace situation, air
carrier use of Moffett Field would likely also be faced
with a one-for-one operations tradeoff with SJC. This
would limit the potential for any substantial gains in system
capacity, and would increase the complexity of regional
airspace.
7-40
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 7: Air Carrier Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
2. Has good potential for general aviation use, particularly
corporate aviation.
3. Has potential for better land use compatibility than SJC due
to less noise sensitive uses in immediate vicinity.
4. Has good access from U.S. 101, which could be further
improved if needed.
5. Civilian use would conflict with NASA's continued use of the
facility based on current NASA policy.
7-41
8 GENERAL AVIATION ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
8.1 Introduction
This chapter contains three major sections: (1) a brief
description of the general aviation system alternatives that have
been considered; (2) a discussion of the alternatives evaluation
methodology; and (3) a summary of the evaluation results. The
methodology section includes a list of assumptions, a discussion of
the allocation of based aircraft, and a summary of data sources
used. Based aircraft are the key ingredient of the analysis, since
they are the basis of aircraft parking and other support
requirements. In addition, operations demand is derived from based
aircraft.
8.2 Description of General Aviation Alternatives
8.2.1 No Build Alternative
As with the air carrier alternatives, the No Build alternative
for the general aviation system serves as a baseline for comparison
of the Master Plan and System Optimization alternatives. The
underlying premise of this alternative is to evaluate how the
existing general aviation system would perform under future
conditions with no major airport improvements or capacity
enhancements. The No Build alternative therefore consists simply of
the existing airfields as they exist in the base year (1990) with no
improvements. Existing airfield, based aircraft storage, itinerant
aircraft parking, and all other landslide facilities would remain as
they are in 1990, with capacity remaining at current levels.
Only three changes are assumed to be in place under this
alternative:
(1) A slight shift in the regional distribution of
based aircraft demand due to shifts in regional
population and the locations of aircraft owners. This is
reflected in the demand for based aircraft at each
airport.
(2) A shift in the type of based aircraft storage
demand from current conditions, with an increasing
demand for hangar space.
(3) An increase in the average aircraft utilization
over time. This is reflected in an increase in annual
operations per based aircraft from 500 in 1990 to 531 in the
year 2010.
The No Build alternative assumes that San Jose continues to
meet as much GA demand as existing facilities can accommodate; Reid-
Hillview remains open; Moffett Field remains in use as an exclusive
NASA-related facility and not available for use by civil general
aviation; and Hamilton Field is unavailable due to lack of an
airport operator.
8-1
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 8: General Aviation Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
8.2.2 Master Plans Alternative
The Master Plans alternative is a composite plan consisting of
the individual airport master plans for each of the 24 primary
airports in the general aviation airport system. In cases where
there was no current, approved master plan for an airport, demand
allocations (and the resulting need for airport improvements) were
made based on the airport's assumed regional market share as
described above in the assumptions section.
In several cases, this alternative differs from the other
alternatives evaluated in that the anticipated demand (either
operations or based aircraft) at individual airports may be higher
or lower than that assumed under the No Build or System Optimization
alternatives. Higher forecasts in the master plans in most cases
are due to more aggressive master plan policies and development
strategies than those assumed in the other alternatives. Lower
master plan forecasts may be due to constraints placed on the
individual airport for noise control or other purposes.
Key elements of this alternative include the following
assumptions: San Jose reduces general aviation operations and based
aircraft; Reid-Hillview remains open at its current level of
activity; Moffett Field is used by NASA as described above in the No
Build alternative; Hamilton Field will not be available; and most
growth in both demand and supply occurs at the major general
aviation facilities, including Sonoma County, Nut Tree, Byron,
Concord, Livermore, and Hayward.
Because of the low level of general aviation activity at San
Francisco International Airport, SFO is omitted from the GA
evaluation. This alternative contains the same assumptions for
Moffett and Hamilton Fields as in the No Build alternative.
8.2.3 System Optimization Alternative
The System Optimization alternative is based on achieving the
following major objectives:
1 To alleviate congestion at close-in air carrier
airports which operate in restricted airspace, thereby
allowing those airports to better meet passenger and air
cargo demand. This is the function of the general aviation
'reliever' system.
2. To achieve efficient use of existing airport
capacity, concentrating activity at those airports
which can accommodate it without adverse impacts on
neighboring communities.
3 . To effect a more efficient regional balance in the
distribution of based aircraft in relation to aircraft
owners to improve user convenience and minimize
environmental impacts associated with access to and from
the region's airports.
8-2
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 8: General Aviation Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
In order to accomplish these objectives, this alternative
envisages capacity expansion at a limited number of peripheral
airports: Sonoma County, Nut Tree, Byron, Livermore, and South
County (either at the existing South County airport or at a new
airport in south Santa Clara County). Regional airport investment
strategies would be prioritized to favor investment and development
of these airports. Land use control measures would be undertaken to
ensure a wide buffer of airport-compatible land uses around these
airports to safeguard their future growth potential. Under this
alternative San Jose would reduce general aviation; Reid-Hillview
would be retained with its current capacity; and Hayward would
reduce its activity levels by the diversion of flight training and
recreational activity to the peripheral airports. General aviation
activity at Concord and Napa County would expand to the levels
consistent with their master plans.
Moffett Field would be retained in its current status as an
exclusive NASA facility.
8.3 GENERAL AVIATION ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
The evaluation methodology for the General Aviation
Alternatives addressed three issues: the selection of the evaluation
criteria to be used, the assessment of the relative performance of
each alternative under each criterion, and the presentation of the
results of this analysis as a basis for selecting a preferred
alternative.
8.3.1 Evaluation Criteria
Similar to the air carrier alternatives criteria described
above in Chapter 7, the following describes the evaluation criteria
used in evaluating the general aviation system alternatives.
Airside Capacity (Runways)
Airside (runway) capacity, expressed in terms of Annual Service
Volume, was compared to forecast number of annual operations by
airport and for the entire system.
Operations
This criterion measures how well the system provides for safe
and unobstructed operations during a variety of weather conditions.
Measures include:
- Removing and/or making obstructions to airspace (Part 77, p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
s
,
R
u
n
w
a
y
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
Z
o
n
e
s
,
e
t
c
.
)
- Percent of operations at airports with Instrument Landing S
y
s
t
e
m
(
I
L
S
)
c
a
p
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,
t
h
u
s
a
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
l
a
n
d
i
n
g
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
p
o
o
r
v
i
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
8-3
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 8: General Aviation Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
Landside Capacity (Aircraft facilities)
Based aircraft demand was compared to based aircraft capacity,
using the following measures:
- Aircraft tie-downs
- Itinerant apron
- Hangar space
- Total based aircraft.
Distribution of Demand and Supply
This criterion evaluated the extent to which each alternative
meets the needs of general aviation aircraft operators and users, so
as to efficiently utilize both the airport system and the regional
highway system. The regional balance of demand and supply will be
evaluated using two measures:
- The total highway travel time involved in access/egress t
r
i
p
s
t
o
a
n
d
f
r
o
m
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
a
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
a
i
r
p
o
r
t
s
;
- The percent of aircraft owners in each county who are not a
b
l
e
t
o
b
a
s
e
t
h
e
i
r
a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
i
n
t
h
a
t
c
o
u
n
t
y
.
Since there are no airports in San Francisco County itself, San
Francisco International Airport (actually located geographically
within unincorporated San Mateo County) was treated as being in San
Francisco County for the purposes of the analysis.
Noise Impacts
This criterion establishes the relative noise impact for each
alternative based on the total area (in acres) within the estimated
65 community noise equivalent level (CNEL) noise contours and
outside the airport property line.
Compatibility with Local Government Land Use Planning
The compatibility of the different alternatives with existing
local government land use planning is related in part to noise
impacts, but clearly goes well beyond the extent of specific noise
contours. Appropriate measures might include the number of airports
that would not be covered by existing approved airport land-use
plans under the alternative, or acres of incompatible land use
within a designated impact area for each airport.
Capital Cost
This criterion compares the land acquisition and construction costs
involved in each alternative.
8-4
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 8: General Aviation Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
Bay and Wetland Fill
The total number of acres of bay and/or wetland fill (if any)
associated with each alternative was determined based on existing
data in master plans, EIS documents, etc.
Air Quality
Under this criterion, the total amount of air pollution
produced in the system by surface vehicle traffic associated with
general aviation operations was assessed for each alternative, based
on total surface vehicle miles traveled and average speed. Since
the total amount of aircraft activity in the region is the same for
each alternative, there is no difference in the air quality impact
due to operation of aircraft across the different alternatives.
Operations Cost
This criterion addressed the expected operating costs involved in
each alternative.
Emergency Response
This criterion looks at the ability of the general aviation
airports in the regional system. to support emergency response
needs, using as a measure the average distance from the nearest
airport of the population in the region. Because of the possible
loss of the Bay and Sacramento River bridges in a major disaster,
the nearest airport will be determined using routes that do not
cross those bridges.
8-5
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 8: General Aviation Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
8.3.2 Evaluation Methodology
In order to evaluate the performance of the different
alternatives, a Demand Allocation Model was developed to estimate
based aircraft at each airport, under both the low and high growth
assumptions identified in the GA forecasts, and given the geographic
distribution of their owners across the region.
Knowing the distribution of the based aircraft, the regional
forecasts of aircraft activity (local and itinerant operations) can
be allocated to airports on the basis of the number of operations
per based aircraft. While this could simply be done using regional
average values of operations per based aircraft, this would not give
a very realistic allocation, since those aircraft that are used more
intensively are likely to be based at the more convenient airports.
Improved activity estimates can be obtained by classifying the
aircraft into use categories, on the basis of aircraft type and
whether privately or corporately owned. Data on use by these
categories is available from FAA aircraft activity surveys.
The number of highway trips generated by each based aircraft
per year will depend on the number of itinerant operations and the
number of local hours flown and the average flight duration. In
general, each training flight will generate two highway trips to the
airport, one for the instructor and one for student. The instructor
may fly several times in one day, or some days travel to the airport
but make no flights at all. Without taking the time to study this
issue in detail, it will be assumed that each training flight
generates two highway access trips, while other flights generate
one. The number of highway trips generated by each aircraft can be
combined with the based aircraft allocation results to determine the
total amount of access/egress travel time and the number of trips
from each analysis zone to each airport.
Using the results of the analysis described above, the
individual airport values for each of the evaluation criteria were
aggregated into region-wide totals for each alternative scenario.
Where qualitative descriptions were used for an evaluation
criterion, the regional summary combines the more significant
comments for the individual airports. The resulting data show the
regional totals for each of the quantifiable criteria for each
alternative scenario, together with supporting tables showing the
airport-level results (see Exhibits 8.1 through 8.17).
8-6
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 8: General Aviation Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
Assumptions
The following assumptions are inherent in the evaluation
methodology:
1. Shift in Regional Distribution of Based Aircraft
The regional distribution of based aircraft is assumed to shift
differently under each system alternative. For the No Build
alternative regional based aircraft distribution will be similar to
the current distribution (1990 Existing Conditions), but will shift
slightly due to forecast shifts in the regional location of aircraft
owners. In general, aircraft ownership has been shifting toward the
North Bay area in recent years, and this trend is expected to
continue. For the Master Plans alternative the region's based
aircraft will be distributed similar to that of the No Build, but
with some changes as contained in the individual airport master
plans. For the System Optimization alternative, more significant
shifts in the regional distribution of based aircraft are expected.
These shifts include those forecast to occur due to changes in the
locations of aircraft owners as well as other direct changes
resulting from policies and programs contained in the system plan.
2. Shifts in Type of Aircraft Storage Demand Toward Hangars
The regional based aircraft demand will shift slightly over
time away from open tie-downs toward covered/enclosed hangars, while
itinerant demand will grow from its current share of 7 percent to 8
percent. The regional distribution of demand among these three
types of aircraft parking for 1990 and forecast for 2010 are as
follows:
Type if Aircraft Storage 1990 2010
Open Tie-downs 56% 52%
Hangars 37% 40%
Itinerant spaces 7% 8%
TOTAL 100% 100%
* Total based aircraft demand consists of open tie-downs plus
hangars. Total aircraft parking demand consists of open tie-
downs plus hangars plus itinerant.
8-7
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 8: General Aviation Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
This assumption is based on information from pilots and airport
operators that hangar space is currently full (the Existing
Conditions spreadsheet shows that of 2,295 hangar spaces, some 2,293
are currently occupied by based aircraft), while open tie-downs are
largely under utilized (based on data collected by CALTRANS and TRA
Airport Consulting in early 1993 the region had only 3,742 based
aircraft using tie-downs, while the region's tie-down capacity was
nearly 5,600 spaces). There is significant anecdotal evidence
throughout the region that new aircraft hangar space is rented very
shortly after it is built, while existing open tie-downs go vacant,
even when there is a price differential between hangar and tie-down
space. This indicates a latent demand for hangar space throughout
the region.
In addition to the above, the alternatives evaluation assumes
that the demand for based aircraft storage space does not include
itinerant aircraft parking. Therefore, the evaluation of based
aircraft demand versus capacity has been done by comparing actual
based aircraft with open tie-downs and hangars. Itinerant parking
positions represent an additional demand which is supplemental to
based aircraft parking demand [* see note at bottom].
3. Forecast of Aircraft Operations for Each Airport
The general aviation element of the Regional Airport System
Plan is built around the forecast of based aircraft and the
distribution of based aircraft throughout the region. The number of
aircraft operations forecast for each airport is therefore derived
from the number and type of aircraft based at that airport. With
the nationwide decline in general aviation activity in the past 10
years, the level of aircraft utilization (amount of time each
aircraft is flown each year) has fallen. In the plan's base year,
the number of annual operations per aircraft for the total region
had fallen to about 500. While forecasts of future GA activity show
increases in both the number of based aircraft and the number of
operations, the growth in operations is expected to grow faster than
the number of based aircraft. This reflects the expectation that
each aircraft will be used more (flown more hours and perform more
take-offs and landings per year) than it is today. With the overall
shift away from recreational and discretionary flying and toward
corporate and business flying, this trend seems appropriate. With
this expectation, the operations forecasts for each airport were
based on the number of operations per based aircraft (OPBA)
increasing from about 500 per year in 1990 to between 511 and 560
per year in 2010. The "total annual operations demand" figures on
line (1) of each spreadsheet (see Exhibits 8.1 through 8.17) reflect
these assumptions.
* [Note: For this reason the figures in lines (10), (11), and
(12) in each spreadsheet add up to more than the total based
aircraft demand shown in line (9). Line (9), which displays
total based aircraft demand indicates the total of open tie-
downs plus hangar demand, but does not include itinerant
demand as shown on line (12). Thus the total based aircraft
demand figure shown on line (9) will equal the sum of lines
(10) plus line (11).]
8-8
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 8: General Aviation Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
Allocation of Based Aircraft
The aircraft location decision depends primarily on the following
factors:
- distance from home or place of business
- availability of hangar space
- hangar/tie-down rental fees.
In addition, the following factors may need to be considered in
the demand allocation process, although they may not be a
significant factor at present:
- availability of tie-downs
- lighting and navigation aids
- runway length and width
- Fixed Base Operator (FBO) facilities.
Presumably the existence (and hours of operation) of a control
tower is also a factor in the decision for at least some owners.
As noted before, every airport in the region currently has
vacant tie-down spaces while no airport has empty hangar space. New
hangars are under construction at Sonoma Skypark and there are plans
to add hangars at Gnoss Field in the near future. While tie-down
space availability is not an issue at present, this may change if
some airports close. The availability of lighting and navigation
aids may be less important for owners of aircraft used primarily for
recreation than for other purposes, while runway length and width
may restrict where larger aircraft can be based. Availability of
FBO facilities may also be a factor in the location of corporate or
business aircraft.
Since every airport has vacant tie-down spaces, this suggests
that (at least in principle) any aircraft owner could choose to base
his or her aircraft at any airport. Classic discrete choice theory
would hold that for any given owner, each airport offers a "utility"
that is a function of its location and other attributes (such as
fees). In addition to direct costs, such as hangar fees, and the
cost of the travel required to get to the airport (including the
value of the time involved), the other attributes discussed above
can be thought of in terms of equivalent costs, even if only as a
measure of the inconvenience of having to go to another airport for
FBO services or not being able to operate at night or in bad
weather.
8-9
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 8: General Aviation Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
Data Sources (see also bibliography)
There are three different data sources that address the
distribution of aircraft and aircraft owners in the region. First,
the FAA distributes a list of aircraft by county of registered
owner. This is derived from aircraft registration data and is
updated annually. The information includes the aircraft
registration number (tail number), the manufacturer and model, and
the address of the registered owner. However, this data set does
not contain the location where the aircraft is based.
Secondly, each airport reports the number of based aircraft in
seven categories (e.g. single engine piston) to the FAA
approximately every year as part of the regular airport inspection
program. These data are available on the FAA Form 5010 that is
maintained for each airport. In addition, airports also maintain
tenant lists that typically include the tail number of the aircraft
and the address of the owner, as well as the specific facility
leased (e.g. tie-down space). However, if a tenant subleases space
to an aircraft owner, the airport may not know (or may not record)
the identity of the aircraft occupying the space. There is
currently no central database of tenant lists, and the information
must be obtained directly from each airport. While airports are
generally willing to provide current lists, these turn over
continuously, and historical data may not have been preserved.
Finally, the County Assessor for each county maintains a list
of aircraft based in the county for property tax purposes. The data
generally includes the tail number, the address of the aircraft
owner, the manufacturer, model and year (to determine the assessed
value), and the location where based (often termed the situs). The
situs may be expressed as an airport, an address, or a parcel number
(from which the location can be determined by reference to the
county parcel map). The Division of Aeronautics of the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) attempts to maintain a
central database of County Assessor aircraft records for all
California counties. However, the files are often in different
formats for each county and are frequently incomplete. Further,
there is believed to be a considerable amount of misreporting of
aircraft location by owners trying to minimize (or avoid) property
taxes.
County Assessor data files for each of the nine Bay Area
counties were obtained from Caltrans and assembled into a
consolidated database. Aircraft manufacturer and model codes were
standardized and aircraft type codes added. Owner zip codes were
checked against cities and a number of incorrect zip codes were
identified and corrected. Owners were classified into several
categories (e.g. individual, corporation, flying club, etc.) based
on the owner name, and an owner type code added to the file.
Aircraft situs location codes were converted to a standard set of
airport codes. Highway travel times to each GA airport from each
regional analysis zone were obtained from the MTC regional highway
network files for 1990 a.m. peak conditions. Since aircraft owner
locations are expressed as postal zip codes, a conversion table was
created to identify the corresponding MTC analysis zone for the
centroid of each zip code area, and a zip code to airport travel
time matrix developed.
8-10
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 8: General Aviation Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
Airport hangar and tie-down rates were obtained from the
Caltrans Division of Aeronautics Public.Use Airport Inventory
database, supplemented with data from a survey of rates at selected
California airports conducted in April 1991 by staff of the
Sacramento County Department of Airports, and data obtained directly
from Bay Area airports.
Projection of the future distribution of based aircraft in the
region requires a methodology to assign owner locations to a
forecast number of based aircraft. In addition to changes in the
distribution of based aircraft across airports, the distribution of
owner locations will presumably also change to reflect regional
changes in population distribution. This future distribution of
aircraft owners was held constant for all three general aviation
airport system alternatives. Forecasts of population, income and
employment at the MTC Super district level at five year intervals to
2010 were obtained from the Association of Bay Area Governments'
Projections '92 series of demographic, economic and land-use
forecasts (MTC, 1992).
8-11
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 8: General Aviation Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
8.4 GENERAL AVIATION ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION RESULTS
Evaluation
The General Aviation evaluation model consists of 17
spreadsheets (see Exhibits 8.1 through 8.17) displaying Existing
Conditions (1990) and High Forecast Conditions (2010) for each of
three system alternatives (No Build, Master Plans, and System
Optimization). Each of the three system alternatives is shown on
four sheets which display the 24 primary general aviation airports
in the region (six airports per sheet). In addition, Existing
Conditions are displayed on a series of four sheets. Finally, the
1990 Existing Conditions and the three system alternatives are all
displayed in summary form on a single sheet for easy comparison.
The spreadsheets display the following key elements of the
alternatives evaluation:
1. Total annual operations demand
2. Total annual operations capacity (annual service volume)
3. % of operations at airports with obstructions
4. % of operations at airports with towers
5. % of operations at airports with ILS (instrument landing
systems)
6. % of operations at airports with precision approaches
7. % of operations at airports with lighting
8. % of operations at airports with air carrier service
9. Total based aircraft demand
10. Tie-down demand
11. Hangar demand
12. Itinerant demand
13. Total based aircraft capacity
14. Tie-down capacity
15. Hangar capacity
16. Itinerant capacity
17. Total highway travel time
18. % unable to base aircraft
19. % of operations at airports with residential units inside the
65 CNEL noise contour
20. % of operations at airports with approved ALUC (airport land
use commission) plans
21. % of operations at airports with incompatible land uses in
the immediate vicinity
22. Capital cost for proposed airport improvements
23. # of airports with potential for requiring bay or wetland
fill
24. Air quality impacts
8-12
Click HERE for graphic.
Sources:
FAA 5010 Master Records
CALTRANS Public Use Airport Inventory (1993)
Contact with airport managers
Airport Master Plans
County Assessor Records
Click HERE for graphic.
Sources:
FAA 5010 Master Records
CALTRANS Public Use Airport Inventory (1993)
Contact with airport managers
Airport Master Plans
County Assessor Records
Click HERE for graphic.
Sources:
FAA 5010 Master Records
CALTRANS Public Use Airport Inventory (1993)
Contact with airport managers
Airport Master Plans
County Assessor Records
Click HERE for graphic.
Sources:
FAA 5010 Master Records
CALTRANS Public Use Airport Inventory (1993)
Contact with airport managers
Airport Master Plans
County Assessor Records
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 8. General Aviation Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
8.4.1 No Build
Under the No Build alternative the existing airport system
would retain its existing airfield and landside capacity while
experiencing a high forecast 25 percent increase in total regional
based aircraft and a 33 percent increase in total regional
operations by the year 2010. Under the low forecast, based aircraft
would actually decrease by 2.7 percent (this is the result of a
combination of attrition of current aircraft and no new demand),
while operations would grow by 6.4 percent. Because the low growth
forecast falls well within even the system's current based aircraft
and operations capacity, the discussion contained herein focuses on
the high forecast. As shown in the Summary of GA System
Alternatives, the overall system will accommodate both the total
based aircraft and operations in either the high or the low growth
forecast. Total based aircraft demand will rise to 7,553 compared
to total regional capacity of 7,891. Operations demand will grow to
just over 4 million annual operations, compared to annual capacity
of 6.6 million operations.
While open tie-downs will be under utilized (capacity will
exceed demand by some 1,400 spaces), hangar space will be at a
premium, with demand exceeding supply by some 1,000 aircraft.
Itinerant aircraft parking capacity (698 positions) would meet the
2010 forecast demand of 604 aircraft. Clearly the most critical
issue in the future related to demand and capacity for any
alternative is how to deal with demand for hangar space. 'ne No
Build alternative would do nothing to address this demand at either
the regional or the local (airport by airport) level.
With no significant shifts in regional demand or capacity, the
No Build alternative performs very much as the 1990 Existing
Conditions airport system when measured by where operations occur in
relation to airport obstructions, towers, ILS facilities, precision
approaches, airport lighting, and air carrier service. Most
operations (95 percent) would occur at airports having approved ALUC
(Airport Land Use Commission) plans, and only 21 percent of all
operations would occur at airports having residential units inside
their 65 CNEL noise contour. The No Build alternative would do
nothing to ease the conflict between air carrier and cargo activity
and general aviation activity at the region's congested air carrier
airports, with 36 percent of all GA operations occurring at these
airports. In terms of safety issues, the No Build alternative also
does nothing to direct GA activity toward airports with control
towers, lighting, ILS (instrument landing system) installations, and
precision approaches, performing just as the 1990 Existing
Conditions system does.
Several airports will experience operations demand levels
exceeding existing airfield capacity under the No Build alternative.
These include Oakland, Palo Alto, and San Jose. In addition,
Livermore would approach its annual operations capacity by the year
2010. Similarly, without any additional aircraft storage capacity
or intervention in regional demand management, the following
airports would reach based aircraft saturation by the year 2010:
Cloverdale, Hayward, Healdsburg, Livermore, Nut Tree, Oakland,
Petaluma, Rio Vista, San Carlos, and San Jose. This is not the
result of the region having insufficient capacity, but of specific
airports
8-13
Click HERE for graphic.
Sources:
FAA 5010 Master Records
CALTRANS Public Use Airport Inventory (1993)
Contact with airport managers
Airport Master Plans
County Assessor Records
Click HERE for graphic.
Sources:
FAA 5010 Master Records
CALTRANS Public Use Airport Inventory (1993)
Contact with airport managers
Airport Master Plans
County Assessor Records
Click HERE for graphic.
Sources:
FAA 5010 Master Records
CALTRANS Public Use Airport Inventory (1993)
Contact with airport managers
Airport Master Plans
County Assessor Records
Click HERE for graphic.
Sources:
FAA 5010 Master Records
CALTRANS Public Use Airport Inventory (1993)
Contact with airport managers
Airport Master Plans
County Assessor Records
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 8: General Aviation Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
experiencing excess demand. The key to this issue is the
inefficient distribution of capacity in relation to the location of
demand throughout the region. The most critical element of this
capacity shortage, however, is in the need for hangars. Airports at
which hangar demand will exceed supply would include: Cloverdale,
Concord, Hayward, Napa County, Nut Tree, Oakland, Palo Alto,
Parrett, Petaluma, Reid-Hillview, Rio Vista (old airport), San
Carlos, San Jose, and Sonoma County. As of 1990 demand for hangar
space at Concord exceeded its hangar capacity. Additional hangars
(80 spaces) are now under construction, which will reduce the
current shortage. These are included in the No Build alternative.
As hangar space at the new Byron airport is completed (this space is
currently under construction, and therefore included in the No Build
alternative), forecast future demand for hangar space in Contra
Costa County is expected to be met.
Only two airports (Oakland and San Jose) are projected to have
65 CNEL noise contours which contain residential units. Three other
airports have incompatible land uses in the vicinity which would be
affected by aircraft overflights and related single event noise.
These are Reid-Hillview, Livermore, and Hamilton Field (if it were
re-opened for civilian GA use). Operations at these five airports
represent 36 percent of the total operations forecast for the region
in 2010.
There are 11 airports which border San Francisco Bay or have
wetland areas in close proximity which could be affected by airport
expansion. These airports are Byron, Gnoss Field, Half Moon Bay,
Hamilton Field, Hayward, Livermore, Napa County, Oakland, Palo Alto,
San Carlos, and Sonoma County. These bay and wetland areas may be
affected by airport improvement actions inherent in the system plan
alternatives. With the No Build alternative, no specific new
development proposals are planned, and therefore, no impacts on the
bay or wetlands are anticipated. The Master Plans and System
Optimization alternatives, on the other hand, could result in some
impacts to these resources.
8.4.2 Master Plans
Between 1990 and 2010 the Master Plans alternative would
increase landside capacity by about 17 percent while experiencing a
25 percent (high) forecast increase in total regional based
aircraft. Given that the region currently has excess based aircraft
capacity, the 17 percent increase will be sufficient to meet future
demand. The key to meeting based aircraft demand, however, is in
providing enough hangar space for based aircraft. While the No
Build alternative would result in a net future deficit of some 1,000
hangar spaces, the Master Plans alternative would provide a
significant increase in hangar capacity, bringing the deficit down
to only 150 spaces in the year 2010. Of the 1,300 additional based
aircraft spaces provided, some 900 would be hangars, a direct
response to demand as expressed by the users.
8-14
Click HERE for graphic.
Sources:
FAA 5010 Master Records
CALTRANS Public Use Airport Inventory (1993)
Contact with airport managers
Airport Master Plans
County Assessor Records
Click HERE for graphic.
Sources:
FAA 5010 Master Records
CALTRANS Public Use Airport Inventory (1993)
Contact with airport managers
Airport Master Plans
County Assessor Records
Click HERE for graphic.
Sources:
FAA 5010 Master Records
CALTRANS Public Use Airport Inventory (1993)
Contact with airport managers
Airport Master Plans
County Assessor Records
Click HERE for graphic.
Sources:
FAA 5010 Master Records
CALTRANS Public Use Airport Inventory (1993)
Contact with airport managers
Airport Master Plans
County Assessor Records
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 8: General Aviation Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
On the airside, existing capacity exceeds demand at the
regional level by some 3.6 million annual operations. This is more
than enough to accommodate the forecast 33 percent increase in total
regional operations by the year 2010. As shown in the Summary of GA
System Alternatives, the overall system will accommodate both the
total based aircraft and operations in the high growth forecast.
Total based aircraft demand will rise to 7,609, compared to total
regional planned capacity of 8,911. Operations demand will grow to
just over 4 million annual operations compared to annual capacity of
6.6 million operations.
Near-term capacity improvements that are part of the airport
master plans alternative include apron expansion at Livermore; apron
expansion at Nut Tree; new aircraft hangars at Napa County; new T-
hangars at Palo Alto; new hangars at Rio Vista; new hangars at
Healdsburg; tie-downs and hangars at Byron as part of the initial
new airport development; and a new air traffic control tower at
South County. In addition, numerous airfield taxiway, runway,
maintenance, lighting, safety, and operational improvements are
planned. No significant airside capacity improvements are contained
in this alternative, as overall airfield capacity is not a major
issue.
South County Airport's Master Plan and environmental approvals,
completed in 1982, call for expansion to accommodate 300 based
aircraft. Beyond that level of development, additional planning and
environmental approvals would be needed. In the longer term, South
County has enough property to accommodate up to a total of 600-800
based aircraft in conjunction with the reduction of GA at San Jose.
This level of growth, however, is not included in the current
Airport Master Plan. The proposed construction of a tower at South
County (included in the airport's capital improvement program) would
increase the airport's ability to accommodate this additional
traffic.
While open tie-downs will be under utilized (capacity will
exceed demand by some 1,500 spaces), hangar space will be at a
premium, with demand exceeding supply by some 150 aircraft. This is
a significant improvement over the No Build alternative, where
hangar demand would exceed capacity by some 1,500 spaces. Itinerant
aircraft parking capacity (737 positions) would meet the 2010
forecast demand of 609 aircraft.
With moderate shifts in regional demand and capacity when
compared to existing conditions and the No Build alternative, the
Master Plans alternative ranks differently in its level of
performance against the evaluation criteria. With the shifting of a
moderate level of GA activity away from closer-in, restricted
airports (such as San Jose, Oakland, and Concord, this alternative
reduces the percentage of GA operations occurring at airports with
towers, ELS capability, and precision approaches. On the other
hand, the Master Plans alternative removes a fairly significant
level of GA operations from airports that are primarily serving air
carrier passenger airlines and air cargo carriers.
Most operations (97 percent) would occur at airports
having approved ALUC plans, and only 22 percent of all
operations would occur at airports having residential units
inside their 65
8-15
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 8: General Aviation Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
CNEL noise contour. The Master Plans alternative would shift some
GA traffic away from air carrier airports, with the result that only
30 percent of all GA operations would occur at these airports. This
compares to 36 percent for the No Build alternative.
By effecting a better regional distribution of demand and
capacity, and by limiting demand at some congested airports, the
Master Plans alternative would result in airfield capacities being
adequate to meet operations demand at all airports except Palo Alto,
which would see annual operations demand of 316,540 compared to
annual airfield capacity of 310,000.
Under the Master Plans alternative, the following airports
would reach based aircraft saturation by the year 2010: Concord, San
Carlos, and San Jose. As with the No Build alternative, the most
critical element of this capacity shortage is in the need for
hangars. Airports at which hangar demand will exceed supply would
include Concord and San Jose.
Only two airports (Oakland and San Jose) are projected to have
65 CNEL noise contours which contain residential units. Three other
airports have incompatible land uses in the vicinity which would be
affected by aircraft overflights and related single event noise.
These are Reid-Hillview, Livermore, and Hamilton Field (if it were
re-opened for civilian GA use). Operations at these five airports
represent 36 percent of the total operations forecast for the region
in 2010.
8.4.3 System Optimization
This alternative envisages capacity expansion at a number of
the peripheral airports, as discussed in Section 8.2.3, and a
reduction in activity levels at Hayward and San Jose. Even if the
development of peripheral airport capacity is adequate to ensure
enough capacity at a regional level for both the high and low growth
forecasts, the distribution of demand in the region may not fully
match the distribution of available capacity, and some airport
owners will find that they are unable to base their aircraft at
their airport.
In order to assess the extent to which the airport system will
be unable to accommodate the preferred distribution of based
aircraft, the regional demand was allocated to airports using the
methodology discussed in Section 8.3.2, with the relative
"attractiveness" of each airport in the model adjusted to reflect
the facility changes anticipated under this alternative, but without
a capacity constraint at any of the airports. The results of this
allocation for the high growth forecast are shown in Exhibit 8.13 to
8.16.
With a few exceptions, the distribution of demand in the region
under this alternative does not change significantly from the no-
build alternative. South County shows the largest gain, attracting
almost 200 more aircraft, while Livermore and Napa each attract
about 100 additional aircraft. Oakland, Nut Tree, San Carlos, and
Sonoma County attract about 50 more aircraft each. The assumed
changes at San Jose attract about 100 fewer aircraft.
8-16
Click HERE for graphic.
Sources:
FAA 5010 Master Records
CALTRANS Public Use Airport Inventory (1993)
Contact with airport managers
Airport Master Plans
County Assessor Records
Click HERE for graphic.
Sources:
FAA 5010 Master Records
CALTRANS Public Use Airport Inventory (1993)
Contact with airport managers
Airport Master Plans
County Assessor Records
Click HERE for graphic.
Sources:
FAA 5010 Master Records
CALTRANS Public Use Airport Inventory (1993)
Contact with airport managers
Airport Master Plans
County Assessor Records
Click HERE for graphic.
Sources:
FAA 5010 Master Records
CALTRANS Public Use Airport Inventory (1993)
Contact with airport managers
Airport Master Plans
County Assessor Records
Click HERE for graphic.
Sources:
FAA 5010 Master Records
CALTRANS Public Use Airport Inventory (1993)
Contact with airport managers
Airport Master Plans
County Assessor Records
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 8: General Aviation Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
If the airports indicated in Section 8.2.3 are expanded to the
levels indicated in their master plans, there will be adequate
regional capacity to handle the low growth forecast., but a
shortfall of based aircraft capacity of some 350 spaces under the
high growth forecast. While this is not a large number in
comparison to the total fleet, and could be fairly easily handled by
modest expansion of other airports (or further expansion of the
peripheral airports), the imbalance between local demand and
available capacity is more acute is some parts of the region.
San Jose and Hayward both have significant shortfalls of based
aircraft capacity, almost 350 aircraft in the case of San Jose and
about 250 at Hayward, while Oakland has a capacity shortfall of
about 150 aircraft. San Carlos has a shortfall of about 100
aircraft, some 25 of which could be handled by Palo Alto. Reid-
Hillview and South County could absorb about an additional 275
aircraft between them, leaving about 550 aircraft that would have to
be displaced from the South Bay and shoreline airports (airports
along the Bay).
Both Livermore and Concord also have based aircraft capacity
shortfalls, almost 200 aircraft at Livermore and a little over 100
at Concord. However, there is adequate planned capacity at Byron to
absorb all but about 50 of these, if the owners would be willing to
relocate.
Most of the region's spare capacity is in the north Bay, with a
significant capacity shortfall only at Nut Tree, which attracts
almost 100 more aircraft than its planned capacity. Petaluma
attracts about 50 more aircraft than its planned capacity, but Gnoss
Field and the other southern Sonoma County airports can easily
handle this. Napa County and Sonoma County airports have a planned
capacity in excess of 100 aircraft more than they would attract if
the other airports were unconstrained.
This suggests that both Livermore and Nut Tree need to expand
beyond the levels envisaged in their master plans, in order to
accommodate the demand under this alternative. Since the principal
unmet demand is in the South Bay, further expansion of the north Bay
airports would only meet the regional demand at great inconvenience
to airport owners. If San Jose indeed reduces the number of based
aircraft to the level envisaged in this alternative, additional
growth in based aircraft will most likely occur at Oakland and
Hayward. If aircraft operations are not to increase proportionally,
it will be critical to find ways to encourage those activities that
generate the most operations per based to relocate to the peripheral
airports.
8-17
9 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT COSTS
9.1 Air Carrier Airports
The following conceptual Capital Improvements Costs were
developed concurrently with the airport system evaluation. This
capital improvements costs table is intended to provide generalized
information regarding the overall timing and magnitude of capacity
enhancement and airport improvements needed. All costs given below
are in thousands of 1991 dollars.
Airport Project Magnitude Cost Stage(s)
SFO Terminal expansion 23 gates $780,000 1-2
SFO Parking Structure as per 850 spaces 15,000 1-2
Master Plan
SFO Surface parking as per 5,000 spaces 19,000 3-4
Master Plan
SFO BART extension Lump Sum 757,000 1-2
SFO Access improvements Lump Sum 40,000 1-2
SFO Airport LRT system Lump Sum 25,300 1-2
SFO Air cargo improvements Lump Sum 148,000 2
SFO Ground Transportation Lump Sum 120,000 1-4
Center
OAK Terminal expansion 10 gates 97,000 1-2
OAK Terminal expansion 9 gates 124,000 3-4
OAK Surface parking 1,000 spaces 2,000 1
(per 2002 Dev. Plan)
OAK Surface parking 1,000 spaces 4,000 3-4
(per 2002 Dev. Plan)
OAK Parking Garage Phase 1 3,400 spaces 59,000 1-2
(per 2002 Dev. Plan)
OAK Parking Garage Phase 2 2,200 spaces 55,000 3-4
(per 2002 Dev. Plan)
OAK BART connection Lump Sum 140,000 3
OAK Terminal roadways/curbs Lump Sum 4,000 1-2
SJC Extend Runway 12L-30R 11,200 8,000 1
SJC Rehab./Extend Runway 11,100 2,000 2
12R-30L
SJC Construct Terminal B up to 20 gates 268,000 1-2
SJC Terminal C renovation up to 16 gates* 106,000 3-4
(currently 16 gates)
SJC Parking structure 9,000 spaces 105,000 1-2
(per Master Plan)
SJC Surface Parking 6,000 spaces 25,000 2-3
(per Master Plan)
SJC Parking structure 4,000 spaces 114,000 3-4
(per Master Plan)
SJC Roadway improvements Lump Sum 13,000 2-3
SJC Air cargo improvements Lump Sum 109,000 1-2
SJC Airport & Airline Lump Sum 69,000 2-4
Maintenance facility
SJC Flight Kitchen Lump Sum 27,000 3
SJC Fuel Farm Lump Sum 1,000 1
SJC Taxiway improvements Lump Sum 22,000 1-2
* replacement and new gates
9-1
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 8: General Aviation Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
Airport Project Magnitude Cost Stage(s)
TRAVIS New aircraft apron 7 positions 3,000 1-2
TRAVIS New vehicle parking 1,000 spaces 3,000 1-2
TRAVIS New vehicle parking 1,000 spaces 3,000 2-3
TRAVIS New vehicle parking 1,000 spaces 4,000 3-4
TRAVIS New terminal roadways Lump Sum 4,000 1-2
TRAVIS Improved highway access Lump Sum 5,000 2-3
9.2 General Aviation Airports
Airport Project Magnitude Cost Stage(s)
Angwin* Runway Extension 500' - 4
Angwin* Acquire Clear Zone Lump Sum - 1
Angwin* Apron Expansion Lump Sum - 4
Angwin* Install Lighted Lump Sum - 2
Wind Cone
Angwin* Overlay Runway 2" x 4,700' $120 2
(* Parrett Field)
Byron Construct Runway 5/23 Lump Sum 2,277 4
Byron Extend Runway 12/30 Lump Sum 2,150 4
Byron Install Fire Protection Lump Sum 1,100 1
System
Byron Finish Hot Spring Road Lump Sum 260 4
Byron Construct Taxilane Lump Sum 160 4
Byron Construct FBO Apron Lump Sum 245 4
Byron Construct Runway 12 Lump Sum 30 4
Runup Area
Byron Construct FBO Access Lump Sum 140 4
Roadway
Byron South Apron Aircraft Lump Sum 800 4
Parking
Byron North T-Hangar Apron Lump Sum 135 4
Byron Apron and Access Taxiway Lump Sum 945 4
Byron Construct Runway 12/30 Lump Sum 3,889 4
Byron Extend Runway 5/23 Lump Sum 635 4
Byron North Apron Lump Sum 700 4
Byron Airport Master Drainage Lump Sum 850 4
System
Byron Perimeter Security Fence Lump Sum 85 3
Byron Construct Rotating Lump Sum - 3
Beacons
Cloverdale Security Fencing Lump Sum 35 3
Cloverdale Pavement Lump Sum 9 1
Restriping/Marking
Cloverdale Medium Intensity Lump Sum 150 2
Runway Lighting
Cloverdale T-Hangar Access Lump Sum 40 4
Taxiways
Cloverdale Runway 14/32 Lump Sum 320 4
Extension
Cloverdale Apron Expansion Lump Sum 80 4
Cloverdale Apron Lighting Lump Sum 40 2
9-2
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 8: General Aviation Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
Cloverdale Seal Coat Runway Lump Sum 56 2
and Taxiway
Cloverdale Acquire Land for Lump Sum - 1
Runway
Cloverdale Construct T-Hangars 4 Units 70 2
Gnoss Field Construct Lump Sum 2,396 4
Crosswind Runways
Gnoss Field Install Lights for Lump Sum 100 2
Existing Ramp
Gnoss Field Land Acq'n for 7.7 acres 916 1
Existing Apron Ext'n
Gnoss Field Environmental 2 386 1
Impact Reports
Gnoss Field Lighting for East Lump Sum 100 2
Side Parking Apron
Gnoss Field Hangars on East Lump Sum 100 4
Ramp
Gnoss Field Southwest Parking Lump Sum 600 4
Apron Extension
Gnoss Field Additional Lump Sum 100 3
Security Fencing
Gnoss Field Extend Five Mains Lump Sum 50 1
to South Ramp
Gnoss Field Land Acq'n for 52 Acres 270 1
Runway and Clear Zone
Gnoss Field Extend Fire Mains Lump Sum 275 1
to East Ramp
Gnoss Field Resurface Runway, Lump Sum 300 2
Taxiway, and Apron
HMB* Construct Runup Areas Lump Sum 22 4
HMB* Overlay Apron Lump Sum 68 2
HMB* Trail to Moss Beach Lump Sum 25 4
HMB* North Tie Downs Lump Sum 100 4
HMB* Parallel Taxiway Lump Sum 1,000 4
HMB* Runway/Taxiway Overlays Lump Sum 1,200 2
HMB* Runup Areas Lump Sum 250 4
HMB* Hangar Bays Lump Sum 800 4
HMB* Fence Lump Sum 200 3
HMB* Access Road to Hangars Lump Sum 150 4
(* Half Moon Bay)
Hayward Lighted Taxiway to Lump Sum 101 4
Runway 28R
Hayward Parallel Taxiway Lump Sum 466 4
Hayward Update Pavement Lump Sum 273 1
Maintenance
Healdsburg Construct Taxiway Lump Sum 197 4
Healdsburg Slurry Seal Lump Sum 45 2
Taxiway, Taxilanes
Healdsburg Water/Sewer System Lump Sum 60 3
Healdsburg Vertical Approach Lump Sum 30 2
Slope Indicator
Healdsburg Security Fencing Lump Sum 19 3
and Lighting
Healdsburg Overlay and Widen Lump Sum 18 9
Runway
Healdsburg Install Radio Lump Sum - 2
Controlled Lighting
Livermore Overlay Aprons Lump Sum 462 2
Livermore Construct Taxiway 1050'x40' 222 4
to Southeast
Livermore Acquire Property 35 acres 2,000 1
West of Airport
9-3
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 8: General Aviation Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
Livermore Construct 8 30'x600' each 966 4
Hangar Taxilanes
Livermore Construct Taxiway 1600'x40' 201 4
to Northeast
Livermore Expand Northeast 98,000 sq. ft. 390 4
Apron
Napa Construct Accessway Lump Sum 231 4
Between Hangars
Napa Reconstruct Service Road Lump Sum 85 4
Napa Reconstruct Portion of Lump Sum 500 2
Runway 18R/36L
Napa Overlay and Extend Lump Sum 440 4
Runway 18L/36R
Napa Extend Utilities to Lump Sum 270 3
Tower
Napa Construct Hangar Spaces 10 280 4
Napa Construct Helicopter Lump Sum 150 4
Parking Area
Napa Remodel Terminal Door Lump Sum 20 3
Napa Fill Cracks on Runway Lump Sum 152 2
18R/36L
Napa Construct Hangar Spaces 24 545 4
Napa Overlay Runway 18R/36L Lump Sum 475 2
Napa Rehabilitate Runway 6-24 Lump Sum 460 2
Nut Tree North Apron Lump Sum 400 4
Extension
Nut Tree Relocate Channel Lump Sum 203 3
and Culvert
Nut Tree Security Lighting Lump Sum 45 2
Nut Tree Perimeter Fencing Lump Sum 51 3
Nut Tree Reconstruct Runway Lump Sum - 2
Nut Tree Extend Runway/ 900 feet 3,500 4
Taxiway
Nut Tree Acq'n of Parcel for Lump Sum 4,200 1
Hangar Dev't
Nut Tree Construct T-Hangars 80 Units 1,200 2-3
Nut Tree Relocate Existing Lump Sum 600 3
Fuel System
Nut Tree Taxiways to New 60' x 25' 300 4
Hangars
Nut Tree Construct Terminal Lump Sum 250 3
Building
Nut Tree Acquire Land East 5 Acres 100 1
of Runway
Nut Tree Acquire Land At 24.064 Acres 500 1
End of Runway
Nut Tree Lighted Wind Sock/ Lump Sum 4 1
Repaint Segmented
Circle
Nut Tree Repair/Repaint Lump Sum 4 1
Displaced Threshold
Markings
Nut Tree Reconstruct/ Lump Sum 38 1
Restripe Airport
Access Road
Nut Tree Slurry Seal and Lump Sum 50 1
Stripe Taxiways in
Hangar Area
Palo Alto Taxiway Overlay Lump Sum 167 2
Palo Alto Apron Lump Sum 1,377 2
Reconstruction
Palo Alto Security Fencing Lump Sum 168 3
Palo Alto Apron Security Lump Sum 156 2
Lighting
Palo Alto Runway and Taxiway Lump Sum 292 3
Drainage
Palo Alto Runway Overlay Lump Sum 251 2
Palo Alto Compliance with Lump Sum 15 3
A.D.A.
Palo Alto Compliance with Lump Sum 50 3
Storm Water Runoff
Palo Alto Rescue/Fire Lump Sum 10 1
Fighting Equipment
Palo Alto Waste Oil Facility Lump Sum 20 3
94
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 8: General Aviation Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
Palo Alto Environmentally Lump Sum 20 3
Acceptable Wash Rack
Palo Alto Portable Aircraft Lump Sum 50 3
Noise Monitor
Palo Alto T-Hangars Lump Sum 500 4
Palo Alto Additional Aircraft Lump Sum 600 4
Apron/Taxiways
Palo Alto Standby Electrical Lump Sum 150 3
Power
Petaluma West Collector Lump Sum 210 4
Taxiway Construction
Petaluma Slurry Seal Runway Lump Sum 39 2
and Regrade Shoulder
Petaluma Slurry Seal Taxiway Lump Sum 24 2
and Regrade Shoulder
Petaluma Coal Tar Apron Seal 76,000 sq yds 196 2
Petaluma Land for Airport Lump Sum - 1
Development
Petaluma Construct T-Hangars 64 Units 1,000 1-2
Reid-Hillview Master Plan Lump Sum 28 1
Reid-Hillview Compliance Lump Sum 30 3
with ADA
Reid-Hillview Compliance Lump Sum 250 3
with Stromwater
Runoff
Reid-Hillview Rescue/Fire Lump Sum 20 1
Fighting Equipment
Reid-Hillview Waste Oil Lump Sum 20 3
Facility
Reid-Hillview Env'tally Lump Sum 20 3
Acceptable Wash
Rack
Reid-Hillview FAR Part 150 Lump Sum 150 1
Noise Study
Rio Vista Master Plan Lump Sum - 1
Rio Vista Entrance Road Lump Sum - 4
San Carlos Slurry Seal Taxiway Lump Sum 77 2
San Carlos Slurry Seal Runway Lump Sum 20 2
San Carlos Construct Apron, Lump Sum 90 4
Relocate Segmented
Circle
San Carlos Master Plan Lump Sum 100 1
San Carlos Construct Parking Lump Sum 300 4
Shelters
San Carlos Underground Lump Sum 150 3
Drainage
San Carlos Southeast Run-up Lump Sum 500 4
and Taxiway Ext'n
San Carlos Purchase Levin Lump Sum 10,000 1
Property
San Carlos Runway Extension Lump Sum 2,000 4
San Carlos Runway Taxiway Lump Sum 300 2
Lighting in Conduit
Schellville* Master Plan Lump Sum - 1
(* Sonoma Valley)
South County Construct Lump Sum 235 3
Sewer System
South County Install Lump Sum 135 3
Potable Water
System
South County Construct Lump Sum 275 1
Water Pipeline
for Fire Prot'n
9-5
MTC Regional Airport System Plan Update
Chapter 8: General Aviation Alternatives Evaluation September 9, 1994
South County Master Plan Lump Sum 175 1
South County Compliance Lump Sum 15 3
with ADA
South County Compliance Lump Sum 75 3
with Stormwater
Runoff
South County Rescue/Fire Lump Sum 10 1
Fighting Equipment
South County Waste Oil Lump Sum 20 3
Facility
South County Env'tally Lump Sum 20 3
Acceptable Wash
Rack
South County Construct 252 Units 3,780 2-3-4
T-Hangers
South County Tenant Lump Sum 40 3
Maintenance
Shelter
South County Perimeter Lump Sum 50 3
Fence Additions
(Security)
South County Runway Ext'n & Lump Sum 1,000 4
Overlay + Taxiways
South County Airport Lump Sum 1,000 3
Terminal Building
South County FAR Part 150 Lump Sum 150 1
Noise Study
South County Landscaping/ Lump Sum 75 4
Irrigation
South County Stand-By Lump Sum 125 3
Electrical Power
South County Air Traffic Lump Sum 2,000 1
Control Tower
South County Perimeter Lump Sum 350 4
Service Road
South County Land Lump Sum 2,000 1
Acquisition
South County Aprons for Lump Sum 350 1
Aircraft
Tie-downs
South County Non-Precision - - 2
Instrument Approach
South County Drainage System - - 2
Improvements
South County Upgrade Runway Lump Sum 300 2
Edge Lighting
South County Fuel Farm - - 3
Expansion
South County Rotating Lump Sum 60 2
Beacon
South County ARFF Vehicle Lump Sum 100 1-2
9-6
Bibliography
Apogee Research, Inc. Regional Airport System Plan Update:
Task Three -- Focus Group Results. Draft Report. Prepared for the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, February 1991.
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Projections - 87.
Forecasts for the San Francisco Bay Area to the Year 2005. July
1987.
Boeing Commercial Airplane Group. 1993 Current Market Outlook: World
Market Demand and Airplane Supply Requirements. Seattle, WA:
March 1993.
California Air Transportation Study A Transportation System for the
California Corridor of the Year 2010. Presented to Professor A.
E. Andreoli by the Senior Design Class, Aeronautical En
