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.
RPZ Risk Mitigation Strategies 57 drawback to the purchase of development rights, especially in urban areas, is that the cost is likely to be nearly as great as fee simple acquisition. Acquisition of Avigation Easements An easement is a limited property right given or sold by a property owner to a third party for a special purpose. Utility easements, where utility companies are given the right of access to the property to maintain and repair utility systems, are the most common kinds of easements. Typi- cally, avigation easements convey the right to perform aircraft operations over the property, the right to enter the property to clear vegetation to prevent obstacles to air navigation, or the right to cause noise and other effects related to aircraft operations over the property. An avigation easement could also be written to convey to the airport sponsor the right to erect any structures on the property. Such a restrictive easement, however, may cost nearly as much as complete fee simple acquisition. A limited avigation easement merely restricting the heights of structures and other obstruc- tions could be a second-best option where the purchase of a more restrictive easement or fee simple acquisition of the RPZ is not possible. Techniques to Shift RPZ onto Airport Property or Reduce RPZ Size When property acquisition is not feasible and existing incompatible uses or structures cannot be mitigated, it may be appropriate to consider relocating the RPZ onto airport property or reducing the size of the RPZ to reduce the amount of land outside the airport boundary or airport control. This may be accomplished by relocating the runway threshold, moving the RPZ a cor- responding distance. This may be done where more runway length is available than required by the most demanding aircraft. In evaluating this option, the effect of a shorter runway on accident likelihoods should be evaluated. Another approach would be to increase the visibility minimums for the runway approach or to restrict the use of the runway to light aircraft. This approach may not be feasible. Either of these options could be used to reduce the required size of the RPZ. Although any of these tech- niques may be effective in achieving a clear RPZ, all would reduce the usefulness of the runway and would rarely be desirable. They should be considered only as last resorts. Land Use Regulation It is possible in certain cases for an airport sponsor to cooperate with a local land use regula- tory agency to impose zoning controls within the RPZ to mitigate risk to people and property on the ground. The law, however, imposes strict limits on the use of zoning to regulate land use. Zoning cannot be used to so severely constrain potential property development as to constitute an unjust taking of property without compensation. In rural areas with negligible urban develop- ment pressure, it may be possible to zone land within the RPZ for exclusive agricultural or open space use. In such cases, however, the value of the land is likely to be low enough to allow the airport sponsor to purchase the property. In urban areas, the exercise of zoning to prevent any development of the land is at risk of being judged unconstitutional. Nevertheless, zoning in urban areas may be useful in limiting the expan- sion of development that already exists in an RPZ. Zoning provisions may be written to allow exist- ing incompatible uses to remain, while preventing those uses from being expanded or intensified. One zoning technique that can be used to prevent urban development in an RPZ is trans- fer of development rights (TDR). Under TDR, the community is divided into âsendingâ and þÿ R u n w a y P r o t e c t i o n Z o n e s ( R P Z s ) R i s k A s s e s s m e n t T o o l U s e r s G u i d e Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
58 Runway Protection Zones (RPZs) Risk Assessment Tool Usersâ Guide âreceivingâ zones. The TDR code assigns a given amount of development credits, or develop- ment rights (in the form of permissible housing densities or floor area ratios), to property in the sending and receiving zones. Property owners in the receiving zones are able to buy development rights from owners in the sending zones, allowing them to develop to an intensity greater than their initial allocation of development rights. In a TDR scheme, RPZs could be designated as sending zones, giving the property owners an incentive to sell their development rights to owners in receiving zones. In this way, the RPZ could eventually be deprived of all development rights, but the affected property owners would have been fairly compensated for the surrender of those rights through the TDR market. 7.2 Management of RPZ upon Securing Control After an airport sponsor has control of an RPZ, it is advisable to clear the land of any struc- tures and obstructions, including roads, railroads, pipelines, and utility lines. Sometimes, the complete removal of public infrastructure is not feasible. In those cases, steps can be taken to mitigate the risks to property and people on the ground. For example, burying pipelines and utility lines can be considered. The depression of roads and railroads below the surface eleva- tion may also be appropriate. The creation of earthen berms to protect structures that cannot be relocated is also a possibility, although these can be hazardous to aircraft undershooting or overrunning the runway. 7.3 Factors Influencing Mitigation Measure Selection Several factors may influence the selection of a strategy to deal with risk mitigation in an RPZ. Considerations include the priority of RPZ mitigation in light of other air operation safety needs, the risk of development encroaching into the RPZ, the cost of property acquisition, the avail- ability of funding, and long-term operational needs regarding runway length and instrument approaches. The RPZ_RAT can be used to compare alternatives, especially when full compliance with the FAAâs RPZ guidance is not practically achievable. It makes it possible to evaluate various sce- narios and measure their influence on the safety of the people on the ground. Weighing RPZ Mitigation among Other Airport Safety Needs The priority of RPZ risk mitigation among other airfield and operational safety concerns must be considered before selecting a strategy. Other air operations area safety needs that should be considered include RSA improvements, maintaining airspace clearance, marking and lighting of obstructions, and maintaining proper airfield lighting and markings. In other words, the airport should invest in alternatives that optimize airport safety. The airport sponsor should consider all of these needs in establishing the priority of RPZ risk mitigation. Question: There is a busy highway inside the RPZ associated with one runway end. On the other end, there is a non-standard RSA. Which of the two safety challenges should be given priority from a risk management perspective? Answer: Although policy may mandate attending to one or the other issue first, there is no straight answer from a risk management perspective. The RPZ risk assessment tool (RPZ_RAT) and the RSA risk assessment tool (RSARA) could be used to evaluate and compare risks. RSARA was developed as part of the ACRP Project 04-08 research (ACRP Report 50: Improved Models for Safety Assessment of Runway Safety Areas). þÿ R u n w a y P r o t e c t i o n Z o n e s ( R P Z s ) R i s k A s s e s s m e n t T o o l U s e r s G u i d e Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
RPZ Risk Mitigation Strategies 59 Adaptation of one mitigation measure may have unintended consequences on other elements of the airport system. A holistic approach should be used in analyzing mitigation measures. For example, although implementing declared distances and reducing the landing distance may clear the RPZ from incompatible land uses in one runway end, it may increase the risk of accident on the other end of the runway because of the shortening of the LDA. Of course, the RPZ_RAT can be used to quantify any tradeoffs involving changes in the location and size of RPZs. Potential for Further Development Encroachment If development pressures in the community are such that the RPZ is at risk of being developed for urban use, the airport sponsor should make every effort to purchase the RPZ property before development occurs. After the land has been developed, the cost of acquisition will increase greatly because of the need to acquire buildings as well as land, in addition to potential relocation and demolition costs. Cost of Acquisition In rural or suburban areas experiencing little development pressure, the risk of urban develop- ment in the RPZ may be quite low and the value of property should also be relatively low. In these situations, airport sponsors may make acquisition of the RPZ a high priority, if the financial resources allow. If development pressures in the airport environs lead to rising property values, then it is all the more prudent to purchase RPZ land before prices rise to exorbitant levels. Once the land sur- rounding an airport has become developed to the point that properties near the airport property line have become valued for their development potential, the price of the land may have become extraordinarily high. In cases where the cost of property acquisition is too high to be immediately affordable, the airport sponsor may consider other options for protecting its right to acquire the land when funding becomes available. For example, the sponsor may negotiate an option to buy the prop- erty in the future, or buy a right of first refusal, whenever the property owner decides to put the property on the market for sale. In cases where the land in the RPZ has already been developed, the airport sponsor could consider the purchase of a life estate, enabling the property owner to retain the property for a given period of time (throughout their lifetime or for the duration of the economic life of the buildings on the property) before the airport executes the final purchase and acquires title to the property. When the cost of outright acquisition is extraordinarily high, an airport sponsor may also con- sider purchasing less than a fee simple interest in the property. For example, the sponsor could attempt to purchase an avigation easement securing air rights and limiting the amount of develop- ment on the property to uses such as agricultural or open space uses. The airport sponsor could also attempt to purchase development rights to the property, securing the rights to develop the land for urban land uses. It is likely, however, that these less than fee simple acquisition methods would be nearly as expensive as complete purchase of the property in highly urbanized areas. Availability of Funding The availability of funding is important in determining the feasibility of acquiring land in the RPZ. Funding for land acquisition in the RPZ is available through the FAA Airport Improve- ment Program (AIP) (FAA Order 5100.38D, 2014). Eligibility criteria for obtaining AIP funding þÿ R u n w a y P r o t e c t i o n Z o n e s ( R P Z s ) R i s k A s s e s s m e n t T o o l U s e r s G u i d e Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
60 Runway Protection Zones (RPZs) Risk Assessment Tool Usersâ Guide are listed in FAA Order 5100.38D, the Airport Improvement Program Handbook (AIP Hand- book), and include the following: ⢠The acquisition must meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 24, Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition for Federal and Federally Assisted Programs; FAA Order 5100.37, Land Acquisition and Relocation Assistance for Airport Projects; and AC 150/5100-17, Land Acquisition and Relocation Assistance for Airport Improvement Program Assisted Projects. ⢠The land or easement must be necessary for airport purposes within the next 20 years. ⢠In the case of previously acquired lands or easements, the land or easement may be currently used for airport purposes or be necessary for airport purposes within the next 20 years to receive reimbursement funding. ⢠The associated development must be depicted on the FAA-approved airport layout plan. ⢠The airport sponsor must certify that 49 CFR Part 24 requirements are being met. ⢠The Exhibit A (property inventory map) must be updated upon completion of purchase (FAA Order 5100.38D, 2014). As indicated above, property acquisitions are eligible for retroactive funding, allowing an airport sponsor to purchase a property and later apply for reimbursement through AIP funding, provided the stated requirements are met. This can allow an airport sponsor to quickly purchase properties within an RPZ if development pressures threaten encroachment into the RPZ. Question: Your airport is dealing with several incompatible land uses within the RPZs. With insufficient funding to rectify all issues, what is the best way to pick and choose? Answer: From a risk management perspective, one needs estimates of the cost for curing every land use issue as well as their share in reducing the risk. RPZ_RAT provides risks attributed to every land use. With the available funding, choose a combination of incompatible land uses that pose the highest risk, yielding the greatest risk reduction. Long-Term Needs with Respect to Runway Length and Instrument Approaches Reducing the usefulness of a runway by displacing the threshold or raising visibility minimums is often the least desirable strategy for dealing with RPZ encroachment. Nevertheless, it may be acceptable in some very specific circumstances. If detailed demand-capacity and facility require- ments studies have determined that the full runway length exceeds the operational needs of the users and aircraft fleet projected for the airport, it may be possible to displace or relocate a run- way threshold. An example would be a civilian airport converted from a military air installation formerly serving aircraft with longer runway length requirements. Similarly, if detailed study has indicated that long-term use of the airport will not require precision instrument approaches, it may be justified to raise the visibility minimums to at least one runway end to reduce the size of the RPZ. In other cases, a need to enhance an instrument approach by lowering visibility minimums or a glide slope may necessitate displacing the runway threshold to provide adequate obstacle clearances beneath the approach path. This would result in a shift of the RPZ location closer to the airport property, potentially shifting the RPZ away from encroaching development, possibly entirely onto airport property. Question: Does threshold relocation always reduce airport risk? Answer: Relocation of the landing threshold to clear the RPZ of an incompatible land use always reduces the risk in that RPZ. However, it may have adverse effects on the RPZ of the opposite runway. In general, landing on a shorter runway increases the likelihood of a landing overrun for some movements which could result in higher risk on the other end. Whether the reduced risk on one end offsets the increased risk on the opposite runway depends on many factors and may warrant a detailed risk assessment. þÿ R u n w a y P r o t e c t i o n Z o n e s ( R P Z s ) R i s k A s s e s s m e n t T o o l U s e r s G u i d e Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
61 C H A P T E R 8 Many early adopters within the U.S. airport community have implemented safety manage- ment systems (SMSs). As airport managers begin to consider how to integrate various safety risk management (SRM) programs such as wildlife hazard management, construction safety man- agement, capital risk programs, and RPZ, consistency and standardization in risk assessment and ranking is critical. Chapter 2 provided a brief summary and fundamentals of how to use a typical five-step pro- cess to launch an SRM program. Multiple resources exist that provide detailed theory, con- cepts, and implementation guidance for SMS and SRM, which include but are not limited to the following: ⢠ACRP Report 131: A Guidebook for Safety Risk Management for Airports ⢠ACRP Report 145: Applying an SMS Approach to Wildlife Hazard Management ⢠ACRP Report 147: Climate Change Adaptation Planning: Risk Assessment for Airports ⢠ACRP Report 1: SMS for Airports, Volume 2: Guidebook ⢠ACRP Report 116: Guidebook for Successfully Assessing and Managing Risks for Airport Capital and Maintenance Projects ⢠International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Document 9859 - Safety Management Manual (SMM) To overcome the potential complexities of multiple SRM programs, one solution is to adhere to a single risk ranking and decision-making framework. Figure 8.1 depicts a high-level program and process flow as a means to demonstrate how multiple safety risk programs can be incorpo- rated into a consistent approach. On the left, a sample of potential SRM programs at an airport is shown as part of the regulatory or voluntary efforts. Each SRM program may have unique processes, data sources, electronic tools, methods, or other means to identify hazards. A single risk matrix is selected, tested, and implemented within all airport departments. Regardless of the hazard identification process, all departments use a single risk matrix, includ- ing definitions for severity and likelihood, to assess, analyze, and rank risk. The risk matrix may be as simple or as complex as needed to meet the needs of the airport. It is most effective to begin with a simple matrix and expand it as necessary as it is being tested throughout the organization. Next, risks from different programs are consolidated and prioritized. The value in compiling all risk outputs is to assign proper budget and efforts to the mitigation of the most significant hazards. The risk matrix should be refined enough so that it can meaningfully and accurately categorize hazards and risks from a wide range of spectrum and SRM programs. On the right side of the figure, the management of the risk is delegated to the airport safety program manager or to the individual departments responsible for each hazard if the SMS program is not formally implemented at the airport. Airport Safety Management System (SMS) and RPZ Risk þÿ R u n w a y P r o t e c t i o n Z o n e s ( R P Z s ) R i s k A s s e s s m e n t T o o l U s e r s G u i d e Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Airport Operations Hazard Assessment Tenant Reported Ramp Accident Review and Risk Ranking under Airport SMS Program Wildlife Hazard Assessment Annual Review and Ranking of Multiple Wildlife Hazards Using Software Solution Airside Runway Rehabilitation Construction Safety Assessment Part of FAA Order 5200.11 Formal SRM Program and Report Comparative Safety Assessment of Airside Alternatives Comprehensive Master Planning Project High Risk Hazards 15 to 25 Medium Risk Hazards 5 to 9 Low Risk Hazards 1 to 4 Multiple Airport Safety Risk Management Programs Hazard Analysis and Assessment to Rank Risk Airport Runway Protection Zone SRM Comprehensive RPZ_RAM Risk Ranking Results Climate Change Adaptation Planning Risk Assessment Comprehensive Master Planning Project Consolidate and Prioritize Hazards by Risk Rank (High, Medium, Low) 1 2 3 4 Previously Established Risk Thresholds and Actions Airport Enterprise Wide (SMS or SRM) or Department Managed Mitigations Operations and Maintenance Engineering Planning Construction Grant Management Airport SMS / SRM Management Mitigations (Prioritized by Risk Rank) Managed Centrally or by Department Definitions Risk Matrix Using Standardized Severity and Likelihood Medium High Risk Hazards 10 to 12 Figure 8.1. Disparate hazard analysis and SRM decision making and mitigations. þÿ R u n w a y P r o t e c t i o n Z o n e s ( R P Z s ) R i s k A s s e s s m e n t T o o l U s e r s G u i d e C opyright N ational A cadem y of S ciences. A ll rights reserved.
Airport Safety Management System (SMS) and RPZ Risk 63 As the above example describes, airport SRM programs are diverse and unique, and they are often in various stages of development. Creating an integrated SRM can be as simple as agreeing on responses to high, medium, and low risk ranking or as complex as identifying specific staff to oversee hazards and risks within each department and rolling up findings. Regardless of the tool or the process used to analyze and assess the hazard and potential risk, the most important aspect of the program is consistency. Integration of the RPZ_RAT into an existing SRM program provides an additional layer of safety awareness and guidance. The tool offers a means to enhance decision making by providing quantitative identification and analysis of hazards imposed by various land uses and resultant calculated risk. These risk results can be incorporated into an airportâs safety and operational priorities and provide the means for negotiating safety changes within the surrounding com- munity as well as with airport stakeholders, such as airlines. The following provides a hypothetical practical example that an airport may face following the sequence depicted in Figure 8.1. 1. Multiple Airport SRM Programs. Airport XYZ is a progressive and information technology proficient organization that has developed multiple safety programs as part of the proactive compliance strategies, through individual department initiatives, and as an enterprise-wide safety awareness effort. The airport has a fairly autonomous management structure due to its size and complexity; therefore, department leaders have been encouraged to research and acquire software solutions to assist in specific safety initiatives. Specifically, Operations is implementing a wildlife hazard management software and Planning is in the midst of a master planning update that triggers RPZ analysis. 2. Hazard analysis and assessment. The airport implements SMS and has integrated its key elements such as a standardized risk matrix, definitions, and thresholds for decision making. Airport XYZ does not have a dedicated SMS Manager but multiple leaders and staff participated in SMS training and are familiar with core SMS concepts, specifically SRM. For airport-wide hazards that cross lines of business, representatives from key departments collaborate on hazard identification and assessment, risk ranking, mitigations, and monitoring. 3. Establish risk thresholds and actions. Airport XYZ assigned a staff member in every department to write a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and to document the SRM decision-making process. Copies of the SOP were distributed to additional department staff involved in the SRM efforts for continuity and compliance. The SOP author was also assigned to conduct ongoing assessments and audits of the process to ensure standards were being used and to serve as a subject matter expert in cases where departments required assistance. 4. Mitigations managed centrally or by department. When risks are ranked and mitigations are developed, the department manager assigns staff and budget to begin the effort. At times, multiple mitigations are necessary and require collaboration among various departments. Annually, department leaders meet to review and assign funds to a safety risk mitigation budget line item. As part of the budgetary review, a summary of hazards, risk determination, and mitigations is compiled and presented by each department leader. Collectively, the group discusses SRM successes and challenges and refines the type and frequency of mitigations as well as best practices to manage the Airport's overall risk to ensure continuous improvement and to ensure the most effective use of budget and staff. þÿ R u n w a y P r o t e c t i o n Z o n e s ( R P Z s ) R i s k A s s e s s m e n t T o o l U s e r s G u i d e Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
64 AirNav website: http://www.airnav.com/ California Department of Transportation (2011). Division of Aeronautics, California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, October FAA (2012). Office of Airports, SMS Desk Reference, June FAA (2012). AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design, §310d, September 28 FAA (2012) Memorandum, Interim Guidance on Land Uses within a Runway Protection Zone, September 27 FAA (2010) FAA Airports (ARP) Safety Management System, Order 5200.11, FAA Digital - Airport/Facility Directory (d-A/FD) website: http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/ digital_products/dafd/search/ FAA (2016). APO Terminal Area Forecast Summary Report, January FAA, 2015 Air Traffic Activity Data System (ATADS) website: http://aspm.faa.gov/opsnet/sys/Airport.asp FAA (2014). Order 5100.38D, Airport Improvement Program Handbook, Appendix Q: Land Projects, September 30 ICAO, International Standards and Recommended Practices, Annex 6 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, Operation of Aircraft, Part I, International Commercial Air Transport-Aeroplanes, and ICAO Doc 9859, Chapter 6 Maryland State Highway Agency Traffic Volume Maps by County website: http://sha.md.gov/Index.aspx? PageId=792 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) maintains National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI): http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ and http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/qclcd/QCLCD?prior=N Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Traffic Volume Maps Website: http://www.penndot.gov/ProjectAnd Programs/Planning/Maps/Pages/Traffic-Volume.aspx#.Vvrh-uIrKUl San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (2014). San Diego International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Table 3-1, pp. 3-5â9, May Weather Underground website: http://www.wunderground.com/history/ References þÿ R u n w a y P r o t e c t i o n Z o n e s ( R P Z s ) R i s k A s s e s s m e n t T o o l U s e r s G u i d e Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
65 A P P E N D I X A Uniform Building Code USE FACTORS FOR DETERMINING SITE POPULATION SOURCE: UNIFORM BUILDING CODE Land Use People/Use Aircraft hangars 500 Auction rooms 7 Assembly Areas: Concentrated Use (without fixed assets): Auditorium Bowling alleys Churches and chapels Dance floors Lodge rooms Reviewing stands Stadiums 7 Assembly Areas: Less Concentrated Use: Conference rooms Drinking rooms Drinking establishments Exhibit rooms Gymnasiums Lounges Stages 15 08 degA eht rof emoH ro emoH sânerdlihC 02 smoorssalC 05 seirotimroD 003 sgnillewD 002 gnikrap egaraG 08 sesu lanoitutitsni ralimis dna ,semoh gnisruN ,slatipsoH 002 stnemtrapa dna sletoH 002 laicremmocânehctiK 05 moor gnidaer yrarbiL 05 moor rekcoL 003 moor tnempiuqe lacinahceM 53 erac yad/nerdlihc rof seiresruN 001 seciffO 05 smoor lanoitacov dna spohs loohcS Skating rinks 50 for rink area; plus 15 for decks þÿ R u n w a y P r o t e c t i o n Z o n e s ( R P Z s ) R i s k A s s e s s m e n t T o o l U s e r s G u i d e Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
66 Runway Protection Zones (RPZs) Risk Assessment Tool Usersâ Guide USE FACTORS FOR DETERMINING SITE POPULATION SOURCE: UNIFORM BUILDING CODE Land Use People/Use Basement 20 Ground floor 30 Upper floor 50 Swimming pool 50 for pool area; plus 15 for decks Warehouse 300 Lobby (accessory to an assembly use) 7 Malls See appendix to chapter 7, U.B.C. All others 100 Storesâretail sales rooms: þÿ R u n w a y P r o t e c t i o n Z o n e s ( R P Z s ) R i s k A s s e s s m e n t T o o l U s e r s G u i d e Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACIâNA Airports Council InternationalâNorth America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAST Fixing Americaâs Surface Transportation Act (2015) FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TDC Transit Development Corporation TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation þÿ R u n w a y P r o t e c t i o n Z o n e s ( R P Z s ) R i s k A s s e s s m e n t T o o l U s e r s G u i d e Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
TRA N SPO RTATIO N RESEA RCH BO A RD 500 Fifth Street, N W W ashington, D C 20001 A D D RESS SERV ICE REQ U ESTED N O N -PR O FIT O R G . U .S. PO STA G E PA ID C O LU M B IA , M D PER M IT N O . 88 ISBN 978-0-309-44607-5 9 7 8 0 3 0 9 4 4 6 0 7 5 9 0 0 0 0 þÿ R u n w a y P r o t e c t i o n Z o n e s ( R P Z s ) R i s k A s s e s s m e n t T o o l U s e r s G u i d e Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.