National Academies Press: OpenBook

A Guidebook for the Preservation of Public-Use Airports (2011)

Chapter: Chapter 3 - Preservation of Public-Use Airport Research Findings

« Previous: Chapter 2 - Historical Background and Long-Term Data Trends
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Preservation of Public-Use Airport Research Findings." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Guidebook for the Preservation of Public-Use Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14547.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Preservation of Public-Use Airport Research Findings." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Guidebook for the Preservation of Public-Use Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14547.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Preservation of Public-Use Airport Research Findings." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Guidebook for the Preservation of Public-Use Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14547.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Preservation of Public-Use Airport Research Findings." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Guidebook for the Preservation of Public-Use Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14547.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Preservation of Public-Use Airport Research Findings." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Guidebook for the Preservation of Public-Use Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14547.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Preservation of Public-Use Airport Research Findings." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Guidebook for the Preservation of Public-Use Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14547.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Preservation of Public-Use Airport Research Findings." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Guidebook for the Preservation of Public-Use Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14547.
×
Page 16
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Preservation of Public-Use Airport Research Findings." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. A Guidebook for the Preservation of Public-Use Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14547.
×
Page 17

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

10 Characteristics of 200 Recently Closed Public-Use Airports Historical data obtained from the FAA National Flight Data Center identified and documented by name, date, and location every public-use airport in the United States that has closed from 1977 through 2007. 1 Detailed closed airport data was extracted for the years 1997 through 2007, inclusive, and documented that 200 public-use airports had closed in the United States during this 11-year period. This information was matched with facility information from other official historical sources so as to identify and document key airport characteristics for each of the 200 airports. Prevailing adja- cent land uses and land use densities for each of the closed airport locations were assessed using Google Earth imaging to further assess and document those characteristics of closed public-use airports that could be classified as airport closure risk factors. Geographic Location The first characteristic of closed airports to be examined was geographic location. 2 The pur- pose was to check for regional trends or airport closure clustering as a risk factor. Table 3-1 shows the number of public-use airports closed in each state during the 11-year period. For example, 24 airports closed in the state of Alaska during the subject period; 9 airports closed in each of the states of Indiana and Ohio; no airports closed in 10 states. Examination of the information does not reveal any conclusive national or regional patterns as risk factors for airport closures. States such as Alaska, Texas, New York, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania experienced a very significant number of public-use airport closures in 11-year period; however, 19 other states have lost just one or no public-use airport in the same period. Simple regional geography does not appear to be an airport closure risk factor. The research also found that state population was not predictive for forecasting the loss of public-use airports. Runway Lengths The research next sought to determine if there was a relationship between the lengths of an airport’s runways and its potential for closing. Of the 200 recently closed airports, the runway C H A P T E R 3 Preservation of Public-Use Airport Research Findings Q: Is it a good idea to go to the FAA and state aeronautics agency with questions? A: Yes! The FAA and the applica- ble state aeronautics agency can provide airport advocates with important guidance and insights on how to improve and preserve airports. When working to pre- serve an airport it is ESSENTIAL to have the FAA and state aero- nautics agency working with your team.

Preservation of Public-Use Airport Research Findings 11 length before closure could be verified for only 186 airports. Runway lengths for 14 airports cannot be conclusively verified. National runway length data for 4,969 airports was proportion- ally compared against the 186 airports in the pool of public-use airports closed in the 11-year period (see Table 3-2). 3 Nationally, airports with runways of less than 3,000 feet in length make up 22% of the public-use airport inventory. By comparison, 59% of the closed public-use airport pool had runways less than 3,000 feet. Airports with runways of more than 4,000 feet in length consti- tute 51% of the national public-use airport inventory, but only 11% of the closed public-use airport data pool. The observed data indicate that public-use airports with runways of less than 3,000 feet in length have a higher-than-average rate of potential closure. Public-use airports with runways greater than 4,000 feet in length have a lower-than-average rate of potential closure. Public Ownership Versus Private Ownership As shown in Figures 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4, public-use airports under private ownership have a higher-than-average rate of potential closure. Public-use airports under public ownership have a lower-than-average rate of potential closure. 4 It can be concluded that private ownership of a public-use airport tends to be an airport closure risk factor and public ownership of a public-use airport tends to be an airport closure protective factor. Total No. Of Airports Closed In Each State State Name Abbreviated 24 AK 14 TX 13 NY 12 MI 9 IN OH 8 PA 7 AZ CA OK 6 MN MO NV 5 AL IL MA NM 4 KS NC NJ WI 3 CO IA KY LA MS ND TN 2 MD NE WA 1 AR CT FL ID MT SC UT VA WV 0 DE GA HI ME NH OR RI SD VT WY Source: FAA data extracted from FAA National Flight Data Center abandoned airports reports. Table 3-1. Public-use airports closed in each state from 1997 through 2007. Runway Lengths National Public-Use Airport Data Recently Closed Public-Use Airport Data < 3,000 feet 1,109 of 4,969 = 22% 109 of 186 = 59% 3,001 to 4,000 feet 1,332 of 4,969 = 27% 56 of 186 = 30% > 4,000 feet 2,528 of 4,969 = 51% 21 of 186 = 11 % Source: FAA data compiled by AOPA. Table 3-2. Runway lengths.

Available Airport Services and Infrastructure The data combination of runway paving (i.e., paved or unpaved), runway lighting, fuel avail- ability, and the availability of runway parallel taxiways was evaluated to assess if the availability of airport services and infrastructure could be predictive of an airport’s potential for closing. 5 Of the 200 airports in the closed public-use airport data pool, only 11 of the airports provided airport services and infrastructure near the time of closing that included the full combination of paved and lit runways, parallel taxiways, and fuel. This data finding is striking considering this is 11 years of data; therefore, it can be reasonably stated that continued provision by a public- use airport of the combination of paved and lit runways, parallel taxiways, and fuel is a signifi- cant airport closure protective factor. Although the full combination of paved and lit runways, parallel taxiways, and fuel tends to be a significant observed airport closure protective factor, the observed effects of the individual components of this combination are incrementally less definitive. Of the airports in the closed public-use airport data pool, 39% had paved runways, 44% had runway lights, 20% had avail- able fuel, and 7.5% had parallel taxiways. 6 From these data we can generally infer that the avail- ability of fuel and parallel taxiways tends to be an airport closure protective factor and that the risk of a public-use airport closing is somewhat inversely proportional to the level of available airport customer services and infrastructure. Adjacent Land Uses The prevailing land uses adjacent to the 200 closed public-use airport data pool were individ- ually assessed using Google Earth. FAA-collected latitude and longitude data published in the annual AOPA Airport Directories was keyed into Google Earth to precisely locate each closed airport and to obtain an overhead aerial view of the airport site. Ground features of most of the closed airports were still recognizable. A limitation of the data in this exercise is that the Google aerial photographs are typically less than 2 years old, although the airports have been closed for an average of 5 years, and some as long as 11. After reviewing the Google overhead aerial photo- graphs, it was concluded that in most cases the prevailing land uses adjacent to the airport loca- tions were unlikely to have changed greatly since the airport closures. Using the Google Earth overhead aerial photographs, prevailing land uses adjacent to the air- port were identified and classified into nine general types of land uses. These classifications were low density development, agriculture, industrial/commercial, undeveloped forest/tundra, medium- density residential, low-density residential, mining, recreation, and water treatment. Table 3-3 provides observed findings. Although development encroachment is cited as a leading cause for the closure of public-use airports in research inter- views, the above data suggests that the impacts of both devel- opment and development density near public-use airports are variable and warrant additional research. Effective planning for compatible land use around airports is critically important— without such planning, severe and potentially permanent land use conflicts can result. Airport Closure Risk Factors Examination of the characteristics of the pool of closed public-use airports suggests that the following are airport clo- sure risk factors: 12 A Guidebook for the Preservation of Public-Use Airports Technical and nontechnical material is readily available from many sources on the topic of land use planning around airports. For example, ACRP Legal Research Digest 5 outlines the legal responsi- bilities of various key people and entities regarding the enforcement and implementation of airport zon- ing and land use planning and is a good source of related information.

• Public-use airports with runways of less than 3,000 feet in length have a higher-than-average risk of potential closure. 7 • Public-use airports under private ownership have a significantly higher risk of potential closure than public-use airports under public ownership. 8 • Public-use airports with few customer services and limited infrastructure are at some increased risk of potential closure. The data generally indicates that the risk of a public-use airport closing is generally inversely proportional to the level of available services and infrastructure. 9 Airport Closure Protective Factors Examination of the characteristics of the pool of closed public-use airports suggests that the following are airport closure protective factors: • Public-use airports with runways greater than 4,000 feet in length have a lower-than-average risk of potential closure. 10 • Public-use airports under public ownership are at less risk of potential closure than public-use airports under private ownership. 11 • Public-use airports with more extensive customer services and better infrastructure are at some decreased risk of potential closure. Public-use airports whose available customer services and infrastructure include the combination of paved runways, runway lights, parallel taxiways, and fuel are at substantially reduced risk of potential closure. 12 Findings from Interviews and Polling A total of 481 people representing 49 states, two Canadian Provinces, and the District of Columbia were interviewed or polled to collect data on (1) what is causing public-use airports to close, (2) what can be done to preserve public-use airports, and (2) other allied data and opin- ion questions. 13 The interview and polling process reached people from all over the United States at broadly differing levels of industry leadership and decision making and from many different professions and user profiles within the industry. People in the interview and polling pool averaged over 20 years of experience in aviation. 14 At the end of the initial interview process, 349 people were interviewed. An additional 55 people were interviewed during the airport case studies. 15 Finally, another 77 people participated in one of two polling efforts and provided suggestions as to what Preservation of Public-Use Airport Research Findings 13 Prevailing Type Of Land Use # of Airports % of Sample* Low-Density Development 51 26 Agriculture 45 23 Industrial/Commercial 30 15 Undeveloped Forest/Tundra 24 12 Medium-Density Residential 19 9.5 Low-Density Residential 13 6.5 Mining 11 5.5 Recreation 4 2 Water Treatment 3 1.5 TOTALS 200 100 percent *Rounded Source: Evaluation of Google Earth satellite imagery. Table 3-3. Types of land use.

could be done to help preserve public-use airports and the general effectiveness of public-use airport business planning and business models. Table 3-4 lists a sample of interview and polling questions along with responses. Findings from the Assessments of State Airport System Plans The research evaluated 10 recent state or regional airport system plans (i.e., plans produced between 2002 and 2008) for statements or indicators of statewide and regional impacts from the closure of public-use airports and the relocation of aircraft. 20 The state airport system plans were 14 A Guidebook for the Preservation of Public-Use Airports INTERVIEW QUESTION OR TOPIC RESPONSES How are you involved in aviation? 15A (Top 5 answers shown) Airport management, FBO, or vendor Pilot or aircrew Consultants, professionals Aircraft owner/operator Government What is causing public-use airports to close? 15B and 15C (Top 5 answers shown) Land use, zoning, value, development No community/political support Noise, environmental issues Costs generally Funding and budget shortfalls What can be done to preserve public-use airports? 15D (Top 5 answers shown) Community education/involvement More funding Better planning/zoning/land use Protective legislation Public ownership/purchase of development rights What are the top 3 problems in aviation today? 15E (Top 5 answers shown) Fuel costs Funding/budget constraints Costs generally Over-regulation Airspace What could be done to make general aviation airports more profitable or self-sustaining? 15F (Top 5 answers shown) More airport business promotion/selling Better airport industry PR/lobbying More flexibility in property development Better rates/charges/fees management Better business planning Are the business models and business plans at most general aviation airports fully effective for the markets and customers they serve? 15G 10% Yes 53% No 37% Maybe/Don't Know Could you support a national airport preservation program that competes for funding with the current airport program? 15H 49% Yes 22% No 29% Maybe/Don't Know Do you expect aviation activity to increase, decrease, or stay the same? 15I 28% Increase 27% Decrease 38% Same 9% Other Are small public-use airports important to the next generation? 15J 87% Yes 3% No 12% Maybe/Don't Know Will airport closures be a problem in the future? 15K 72% Yes 10% No 17% Maybe/Don't Know Would your state or local government spend funds to help preserve a public-use airport? 15L 47% Yes 25% No 28% Maybe/Don't Know Can/should general aviation airports be self-sustaining regarding their capital construction budget? 15M 10% Can 77% Can NOT 13% Maybe/Don't Know Table 3-4. Sample interview and polling questions and responses.

from the states of Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, and Pennsylvania and provided a widely differing mix of population density, eco- nomic bases, prevailing weather, and terrain. The review and assessment of state airport system plans identified the following key points and findings: • A total of 38 public-use airports had closed in the 10 study areas. Of these 38 closed airports, only five airport closures were identified in the respective plans as having potentially significant statewide or regional impacts. These airports were Aurora Airpark and Fort Collins Downtown airports in Colorado, Atlantic City Municipal/Bader Field and Marlboro Airport in New Jer- sey, and Richards-Gebaur Memorial Airport in Missouri. Only 13% of the public-use airports closed in the reviewed state airport system plans generated significant airport system impacts. • Privately owned public-use airports are often at greater risk of closure than publicly owned air- ports. In Iowa, since 1974, 38 public-use airports have closed; 35 of these public-use airports were privately owned. In Pennsylvania, since 1974, 52 airports have closed; 45 were privately owned. • Privately owned public-use airports appear to be at increased risk of closure during times of generational shift. There may or may not be someone willing and able to continue operating a family-owned public-use airport business at the time of a generational shift. • Public-use airports not taking federal airport aid grant funds, and consequently not subject to federal airport aid grant assurances, are at increased risk of closure than are those which have accepted federal airport aid grant funds. • Entities that have taken federal airport aid grant funds, and are thus subject to airport aid grant assurances, may still act to allow grant assurances to expire so as to be free from the restric- tions of grant assurances. For example, Atlantic City allowed its 20-year-long grant assurances for Atlantic City Municipal/Bader Field to expire. Upon the expiration of the grant assurances, the airport was permanently closed. • Public-use airports in areas of high growth and high land values are at increased risk of clo- sure. The risk factor here is conversion and redevelopment of the airport property into a land use perceived by decisionmakers as closer to the highest and best use of the airport property. • A dwindling number of airport-based aircraft, declining airport traffic, or deteriorating air- port facilities can indicate an increasing risk of airport closure. • The closure of a public-use airport with unpaved runways, minimal infrastructure, or infrastruc- ture in poor condition may often have little or no significant impact on a state’s airport system. • A significant negative consequence of the closure of public-use airports is the relocation of airport-based aircraft to other public-use airports where there may or may not be equivalent available aircraft storage facilities and capacity. Of particular concern is the loss of hangar space. • Airport system plans collected from several states (i.e., Colorado, New Jersey, and North Dakota) appear to suggest that preservation of privately owned public-use airports may be less costly than building new, or redeveloping other existing, public-use airports to accommodate aircraft displaced by closure elsewhere. • Post-9/11 airspace restrictions and airspace security zones are restricting airside access to some public-use airports and such restrictions can put such facilities at risk of permanent closure. Findings from Airport Case Studies Eight airport case studies collected new information and tested and validated information col- lected in other parts of the research. 21 The case study airports were • Arlington Municipal Airport, Arlington, Washington State (open and operational) 22 • Atlantic City Municipal Bader Field, Atlantic City, New Jersey (permanently closed) 23 • Blaine Municipal Airport, Blaine, Washington State (permanently closed) 24 Preservation of Public-Use Airport Research Findings 15

• Branson Airport, Branson, Missouri (open and operational) 25 • Houston Gulf Airport, Houston, Texas (permanently closed) 26 • Merrill C. Meigs Field, Chicago, Illinois (permanently closed) 27 • Santa Monica Airport, Santa Monica, California (open and operational) 28 • Skypark Airport, Bountiful, Utah (open and operational) 29 The findings and conclusions derived from the case studies are generally consistent with the findings and conclusions derived from other portions of the research. Airport closure risk and airport protective factors that clearly manifested themselves in the various airport case studies were as follows: • Omission or Inclusion in the Local Economic Vision – Failure of an airport to be a part of the local economic vision increases the risk of airport closure as demonstrated at Bader Field, Blaine Municipal, Houston Gulf, Meigs Field, and Santa Monica airports. – When an airport successfully becomes a part of the local economic vision the risk of airport closure is greatly reduced as demonstrated by Arlington Municipal and Branson airports. • Local Land Values. High local land values or a rapid increase in local land values which increases the relative value of airport land for other land uses is a significant threat to an airport. This was clearly demonstrated at Bader Field and Houston Gulf airports. • Customer Base and Airport-Based Aircraft Numbers. The lack of a substantial customer base or a substantial number of airport-based aircraft can be a precondition to an airport closure as demonstrated at Bader Field and Blaine Municipal airports. • Airport Services Dwindle. A dwindling in airport services can be a precondition to an airport closure as demonstrated at Bader Field and Blaine Municipal airports. • Business Succession/Continuity Planning. The apparent lack of in-place long-term owner/ operator business succession or business continuity planning to provide for the continuation of the airport business puts an airport at greater risk of closure as demonstrated at Houston Gulf Airport. • Generational Shift. Times of owner/operator generational shift can put an airport at greater risk of closure as demonstrated at Houston Gulf Airport. • Grant Obligations. In-place federal or state grant obligations are essential elements in pre- serving public-use airports, either permanently or temporarily, as demonstrated at Bader Field, Meigs Field, Arlington Municipal, and Santa Monica airports. • Incompatible Land Uses. Adjacent or encroaching incompatible land uses create political pressures for airport closures as demonstrated at Bader Field, Houston Gulf, and Santa Mon- ica airports. • Desired Alternative Land Uses. When airport property is wanted for alternative land uses, this increases the risk of airport closure as demonstrated at Bader Field, Blaine Municipal, Houston Gulf, Meigs Field, and Santa Monica airports. • Airport Neighbor Dissent. Significant dissent by airport neighbors increases the risk of air- port closure as demonstrated at Bader Field and Santa Monica airports. • Political Opposition. Significant local political opposition to an airport increases the risk of airport closure as demonstrated at Bader Field, Blaine Municipal, Meigs Field, and Santa Mon- ica airports. • Noise, Air Quality, and Environmental Issues. Significant airport noise, air quality, or envi- ronmental issues increase the risk of airport closure as demonstrated at Bader Field and Santa Monica airports. • Public Relations and Marketing. Aggressive public relations and marketing is beneficial as demonstrated at Arlington Municipal and Branson airports. 16 A Guidebook for the Preservation of Public-Use Airports

• Continuing Infrastructure Investment. An ap- parent lack of or slow down in continuing infra- structure investments can be a precondition to an airport closure as demonstrated at Bader Field, Blaine Municipal, Houston Gulf, and Meigs Field airports. • Infrastructure Finance Tipping Points. The financ- ing of necessary infrastructure replacement and/or rehabilitation can create a financial tipping point with the potential to force the permanent closure of an airport as demonstrated by Skypark Airport. Table 3-5 summarizes the information on the case study airports. Preservation of Public-Use Airport Research Findings 17 Table 3-5. Profiles of the case study airports. Airport Name Open or Closed Ownership Type Airport Size Setting Airport Condition Predominate Users State & Region Bader Field Closed Was Public Mid Sized 2,948' runway Urban Was Fair Was Light & Medium GA, Light Corp. New Jersey North-East Blaine Municipal Closed Was Public Small 2,539' runway Suburban Was Fair Was Light GA Washington North-West Houston Gulf Closed Was Private Mid Sized 5,000' runway Suburban Was Good Was Light & Medium GA Texas South-West Meigs Closed Was Public Mid Sized 3,899' runway Urban Was Good Was Light and Medium GA, Corp. Illinois North-Central Arlington Open Public Large 5,332' runway Mixed Rural Very Good Light & Medium GA, Corp. Washington North-West Branson Open Private Large 7,140' runway Rural Excellent Air Carrier, Corp. Missouri South-Central Skypark Open Private Small 4,700' runway Suburban Good Light & Medium GA, Corp. Utah Mid-West Santa Monica Open Public Mid Sized 4,973' runway Urban Good Light & Medium GA, Corp. California West Coast Case study airports were selected in consultation with the ACRP Proj- ect 03-11 Panel so as to ensure national geographical diversity and include a representative mix of both closed and open airports, public and private airport owner- ship, varying airport sizes, varying airport density settings, varying airport infrastructure conditions, and varying airport user types.

Next: Chapter 4 - Practical Management of 16 Primary Airport Closure Risk Factors »
A Guidebook for the Preservation of Public-Use Airports Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Report 44: A Guidebook for the Preservation of Public-Use Airports describes why public-use airports close and identifies measures and strategies that can be undertaken to potentially help preserve and prevent an airport closure.

The guidebook presents step-by-step procedures on how to identify risk factors that can increase the potential of a future airport closure and how to formulate an effective airport preservation program.

The guidebook also identifies potential groups interested in preserving public-use airports and offers practical checklists for identifying and addressing issues as part of a comprehensive strategic airport planning program in support of preservation efforts.

The guidebook is supplemented by a set of appendices which are available on a CD-ROM included with the printed version of the report.

The CD-ROM is also available for download from TRB’s website as an ISO image.

Links to the ISO image and instructions for burning a CD-ROM from an ISO image are provided below.

Help on Burning a .ISO CD-ROM Image

Download the .ISO CD-ROM Image

(Warning: This is a large file and may take some time to download using a high-speed connection.)

CD-ROM Disclaimer - This software is offered as is, without warranty or promise of support of any kind either expressed or implied. Under no circumstance will the National Academy of Sciences or the Transportation Research Board (collectively “TRB’) be liable for any loss or damage caused by the installation or operations of this product. TRB makes no representation or warranty of any kind, expressed or implied, in fact or in law, including without limitation, the warranty of merchantability or the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, and shall not in any case be liable for any consequential or special damages.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!