Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 93
94
APPENDIX C
Case Study: Dallas/Ft. Worth International Airport
AIRPORT BACKGROUND meet its FAA Grant Assurances obligation to protect lands in
the airport environs from incompatible development. DFW is
Dallas/Ft. Worth International Airport (DFW) first opened to currently under pressure from local municipalities to update its
traffic on January 13, 1974. It is jointly owned by the cities of policy contours to reflect actual (current) noise conditions, and
Dallas and Fort Worth and is operated by the DFW Airport has committed good faith efforts to provide this noise con-
Board. DFW covers more than 29.8 square mile (18,076 acres), tour update by January 2009. An important question remains
and now has seven runways (Figure C1) (Much of the infor- whether local jurisdictions will adopt updated noise contours
mation in this case study came directly from DFW's Noise for land use planning purposes, which will no doubt result in
Compatibility Office, specifically its memorandum entitled noise-sensitive development closer to DFW.
"Mission Relevance," February 18, 2008.) DFW had 685,491
operations in 2007, making it the third busiest airport in the
world based on operations; with 59,786,476 passengers in OPERATIONAL MEASURES
2007, it was also the seventh busiest based on passengers
DFW has two operational noise abatement measures: (1) a
["Facts about DFW" http://www.dfwairport.com/visitor/index.
Preferential Runway Use Plan, and (2) Area Navigation Flight
php?ctnid=24254 (accessed Sep. 8, 2008)].
Procedures (RNAV).
Aircraft noise was not a serious community issue prior to
The DFW Runway Use Plan was developed following the
the launch of DFW's Airport Development Plan in 1987. In
1992 Final EIS for two proposed runways and other capacity
1990, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the build-
improvements (FEIS Section 4.5.1.1 and ROD Chapter 4).
ing of two new runways and redevelopment of terminals was
The Preferential Runway Use System identified in that plan
released. Neighboring cities challenged DFW Airport on zon-
"provides a hierarchical rating of runway use for arrivals and
ing authority; court tests ensued on the EIS. In 1992, the FAA
departures by aircraft type." This system is used under typical
issued a favorable Record of Decision (ROD), approving
operations conditions and during typical operating hours; addi-
Runways 16/34 East and West. Three cities filed suit to chal-
tional stipulations are applied during late night hours (10 p.m.
lenge DFW's expansion in state and federal courts. In 1993,
to 7 a.m.) (Runway Use Plan 1996). The preferential runway
the Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 348 reaffirming that
use plan for turbojet aircraft is shown in Table C1.
DFW is exempt from local zoning ordinances; the U.S. Court
of Appeals ruled in favor of DFW on the EIS lawsuit, and
At DFW, the FAA has replaced conventional departure
DFW held the ground breaking for Runway 16/34 East. The
procedures, which rely on controller instructions and vector-
ROD on the 1992 Final EIS tasked the Airport to "implement
ing, with RNAV departure procedures. RNAV relies on pre-
an extensive noise mitigation program . . . to mitigate for the
programmed routing and satellite navigation. Deployment of
increased noise levels to residences and other noise-sensitive
RNAV at DFW contributed to FAA's nationwide implemen-
uses." In particular, the ROD required DFW to establish a
tation strategy to develop more precise and efficient arrival
noise and flight track monitoring system to assure communi-
and departure procedures at U.S. airports enhancing airspace
ties that noise would not exceed predicted levels.
efficiency and safety, reducing air emissions, and reducing
delays. DFW was one of the first airports in the nation to use
NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM this departure technology.
DFW has never conducted a formal Part 150 study; neverthe- According to the Air Transport Association, RNAV tech-
less, DFW has a comprehensive noise abatement program, nology increases the number of aircraft departures handled at
which includes operational procedures [most notably prefer- DFW by approximately 14%. RNAV Departure Procedures
ential runway use program and RNAV (area navigation) pro- can be accommodated generally within existing flight corri-
cedures], land use measures (preventive land use planning as dors and using existing approved headings. The use of RNAV
well as mitigation for limited areas), and outreach (a state-of- reduces the overall number of population over-flown. RNAV
the-art noise and flight track monitoring system, and public departure corridors are compressed, which concentrates
outreach facilities). large volumes of aircraft activity over relatively small areas.
RNAV effects on DFW's departure patterns are illustrated
Arguably, the most important element of DFW's noise pro- in Figure C2. Ninety-five percent of DFW's turbojet fleet
gram is the adoption of "noise policy contours" and diligence was equipped to fly the RNAV procedures by 2007. The
on the part of DFW Noise Compatibility Office (NCO) staff to FAA estimates an $8.5 million annual savings with the new
OCR for page 94
95
FIGURE C1 Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport and environs.
procedures, resulting from reduced delays and increased
departure throughput (Marion Blakley, Aviation Today,
May 11, 2007).
Land Use Measures
Built on a greenfield site, there was little noise-sensitive devel-
opment surrounding DFW when it opened. At the time of
DFW's opening, the North Central Texas Council of Govern-
TABLE C1
DFW PREFERENTIAL RUNWAY USE SYSTEM FOR
TURBOJET AIRCRAFT (6:00 A.M. TO 10:59 P.M.)
FIGURE C2 Comparison of conventional departure flight tracks
Flow Type of Activity Rating East West
with RNAV departure flight tracks.
Airfield Airfield
South Arrivals 1st 17C 18R ments (NCTCOG) developed a forecast set of DNL contours
for future 1985 activity (Figure C3). These contours have been
2nd 17L 13R used over the years as "policy contours" and serve as an impor-
tant factor in minimizing and preventing incompatible land use
3rd 17R 18L
from developing around DFW.
Departures 1st 17R 18L
The NCTCOG contours established the following zones
2nd 17C 18R (see Table C2):
3rd 17L
DFW's NCO takes a number of actions to implement its
North Arrivals 1st 35C 36L responsibilities to restrict the use of land adjacent to or in
the immediate vicinity of the airport to activities and pur-
2nd 35R 36R poses compatible with normal airport operations. Specifi-
cally, the NCO:
3rd 31R
4th 35L · Reviews weekly the meeting agendas for ten local
cities surrounding DFW for potential incompatible land
Departures 1st 35L 36R use proposals and takes proactive measures to influ-
ence local city decisions to ensure compatible land use
2nd 35C 36L
development;
3rd 35R
· Recommends measures to convert incompatible land
use(s) to a compatible land use by means of structure
OCR for page 95
96
FIGURE C3 DNL contours for 1985 operations at DFW (as projected in 1971).
sound attenuation, avigation easements, and public dis- mated 300% to an average of 746 units per year. Devel-
closure requirements. Nearly 4,600 residential units, opments proposed in the Southlake area are shown in
11 churches, and two schools have been made compat- Figure C4; NCO commented on each of these.
ible with airport operations during the past ten years;
76% of which occurred in the past four years. Monitoring and Outreach Measures
· Commented on proposed incompatible developments
over the first 5 years of the past decade involving an Relationships with local communities became contentious
average of 173 units or parcels per year. In the last five during and following DFW's 1992 Final EIS, and the con-
years development pressures have increased by an esti- struction of the eastern-most north/south runway. DFW man-
TABLE C2
NOISELAND USE PLANNING COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES
ESTABLISHED BY NCTCOG
Zone Noise Level (DNL) Comment
C >75 Non-compatible development restricted
B 6575 Non-compatible development permitted,
with modifications (acoustic treatment)
A <65 No restrictions
NCTCOG = North Central Texas Council of Governments.
OCR for page 96
97
FIGURE C4 Southlake land use proposals acted on by the DFW Noise Compatibility Office.
agement designated the NCO the community liaison to restore ested audiences, large and small. This graphic capabil-
trust and reestablish credibility. The following tools are respon- ity has proven, over time, to be a premier tool in further-
sive to this declared responsibility: ing community and stakeholder education, outreach,
demonstrating transparency, and restoring credibility in
· DFW instituted several community forums and out- the context of DFW meeting its Final EIS noise-related
reach programs pursuant to the above referenced legis- mandates.
lation and responsive to the provisions embodied in the · DFW NCO staff often use noise and flight track data
1992 Final EIS. to inform communities about proposed modifications in
· DFW's Noise Center (Figure C5) was established with flight track corridors and application of new technology
aircraft noise and flight track displays. This NCO func- [e.g., RNAV].
tion provides "real time" data presentations to inter- · DFW NCO tracks and responds to its Noise Complaint
Hotline; since 1999, noise complaints have dropped an
average of 20% per year (Figure C6).
· DFW has developed a number of informational brochures
and reports, including: Runway Use Plan, Noise Mon-
itoring Brochure(s), and related informational take-
away(s).
SUMMARY OF PROGRAM MEASURES
OUTSIDE DNL 65
The most recent DNL contours for DFW were prepared in
2002 for the Environmental Assessment of RNAV proce-
dures. Those contours show that the 65 DNL noise contour of
2002 is almost entirely within the airport property boundary.
Figure C7 presents a comparison of DNL 65 contours at DFW
FIGURE C5 DFW Noise Compatibility Center. over time, including: NCTCOG contours prepared in 1971
OCR for page 97
98
FIGURE C6 DFW Noise Complaint Trends, 19952007.
FIGURE C7 Comparison of historic DNL contours at DFW.
OCR for page 98
99
(for 1985 future operations--the policy contour); 1992 con- depicted on the policy contour is well outside the DNL
tours prepared for the Final EIS, and 2002 contours prepared 65 noise contour based on an acoustic contour of today;
for the RNAV Environmental Assessment. hence, DFW protects a substantial amount of land in its
environs that is outside of the current 65 DNL.
As a result, most of DFW's noise program is focused on · A state-of-the-art monitoring system to track noise levels
areas outside DNL 65, including: over time.
· Operational procedures to minimize noise in neighbor- One of the biggest challenges currently facing the airport is
hoods surrounding the airport: FAA has implemented the continued application of policy contours for land use plan-
precision navigation procedures for departure using ning that do not reflect acoustic reality. DFW has committed to
RNAV; this is estimated to improve efficiency and update noise contours by 2009. An important question remains
reduce noise in some areas--all outside DNL 65. whether local jurisdictions will adopt updated noise contours
· Policy contours that limit noise-sensitive development for land use planning purposes, which will no doubt result in
in non-compatible areas. The DNL 65 noise contour as noise-sensitive development closer to DFW.
