PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

— I
2/05 m/CIRWWIG

 

 

(‘1'
i

 

A I R P o R T / C o M M U N I T Y

(9251.144
(987%

X

RELATIONSHIPS

Iii (PQF>'

STEVEN GROSSMAN

PLAN B PAPER

DR. J. MULLIN-CONNITTEE CHAIRMAN

SCHOOL OF URBAN PLANNINC/
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

MAY 12'.1977

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page
Foreword .......................................... i
1. Capital City Airport
Introduction --------------------------------- 1
Existing Facilities .......................... 3
Conclusion ................................... 8

II. The Airport and the Community Economy

Introduction ............................... -- 9
Employment ................................... 10
Multiplier Effect ............................ 11
Industrial Growth ---------------------------- 13
Economic Importance of the Airport ----------- 16
Capital City Airport and the

Community Economy ...................... 18
Conclusion ................................... 24
Footnotes .................................... 27
Bibliography --------------------------------- 29

III. Airport Noise and the Community

Introduction --------------------------------- 3o
Non-Urban Locations -------------------------- 34
Flight Procedures ---------------------------- A1
Litigation Remedies .......................... an
Airport Noise and Capital City Airport ------- #8
Conclusion ----------------------------------- 51
Footnotes .................................... 54
Bibliography ................................. 56

IV. Community Control of the Airport and
Surrounding Land

Introduction --------------------------------- 5?
Airport Land Use Control in Michigan --------- 58
Land Acquisition Program --------------------- 62

Conclusion----—~---—-——_—---____--s .......... 68

NNH

¢¢wHH

Nrdh-

NHHNH

 

 

TABLES
Title Page
Statement of Income .................... 5
Labor Force and Employment ............. 20
Demand Forecasts ....................... 21
FIGURES
Title Page
Airport Service Area ------------------ 4
Existing Airport Layout --------------- 7
Existing Noise Contours --------------- 49
Existing Land Use --------------------- 63
Land quuisition and Buffer Zone ------ 66

WED.

In years past. cities had to be located at a seaport
or else they could not economically survive. The airport
has become the seaport of the 20th century. Cities large
and small strive to make the most of their air transport
facilities. In place of the standard industrial park, airparks
are now being developed. In many cases the relationships
between the city and airport have not been fully explored.
Each can have several impacts upon the other. Obviously the
city hopes to obtain economic benefits from the airport but
it can also be negatively impacted by noise pollution and
other externalities.
The airport, depending on its location, is conversely
impacted by the community. If non-conforming uses surround
the airport it might be forced to curtail operations which
would effect the community economy. These relationships.
while perhaps not obvious. are there to be seen. Too few
communities have based their airport plans on incomplete
knowledge of its probable impact and on unrealistic expectations.
The major responsibility for this attitude must be
placed on the professionals in the field who. during the 19603
and early 1970S fostered the idea of the airport as an
economic panecea. This attitude is evidenced by many sources
one being.Aviation and Economic Development prepared by the
Michigan Areonautics Commission in 1969. It stated that:
"Spurred by the rise in business aviation. many communities

around the country are feverishly building new airports. to

D“

aid in bothv attracting new industry and keeping established
firms. Although the business community understands the value
of airports and what they mean to economic growth in the
community. often the citizenry is hesitant about voting new
tax measures to finance airport development or improvement.
primarily because they do not see the direct benefit of an
airport which will act as an economic generator for new
industry. creating more jobs and a greater tax base."

It now appears that the citizenry had the right idea
all along. The rosey picture created by the above quotation
is now being questioned by many experts who are more closely
examining the airport's impact on the community. The
overall picture presents a view of the airport as an important

component of the community economy but by no means the

generator of growth it has been portrayed to be.

The situation in Lansing is typical of many moderately
sized cities across the country. The question of airport
expansion must be answered by a realistic look at what the
airport means to a community and at the interface between
the two entities. Because Lansing's Capital City Airport will
be referred to throughdtthis report, chapter I presents a
brief oventiew of the airport and the existing facilities.
By far. the most important aspect of the airport is its
economic potential and impact on the community. .Chapter II
explores this subject in detail and relates its findings to
Lansing's airport. Economic benefits derived from the
airport do not come free of cost nor is this cost cheap.

Noise pollution and methods of abatement are the primary

~ii—

focus of chapter III with special emphasis given to a Florida
case study. Maintaining a proper airport environment should
be of deep concern to community leaders who expect to benefit,
from the airport. Chapter IV views the means of controlling
the airport environment in Michigan. Both the legal basis
for land use control and its application in the case of
Capital City Airport are discussed.

Taken as a whole, these four chapters represent the most
important areas of community/airport interaction. The
conclusions reached in the various chapters are not always
what one would have expected but they are supportednthe evidence
presented.

This report brings together and focuses the work done
in four courses taken over the past two years. These were:

1. Public Direction of Land Use

2. Airport Planning

3. Regional Economics

a. Regional Resource Development
Concepts from all four courses have been brought into play in
the writing of this report. Both the regional and economic

aspects of the airport have been clarified through these

courses.

The purpose of this paper is to determine the role
of the airport in community life and detail the benefits and
costs of having an airport and its associated facilities. In
particular. the effect of Lansing's Capital City Airport will

be used to highlight these costs and benefits.

iii—

CHAPTER I

CAPITAL gm AIRPoRT
Introductigg

In 1950. there were approximately eight billion revenue
passenger miles provided by the domestic commercial air
carriers, representing travel by some 17 million passengers.
In 1972. the total had grown to 152 billion revenue passenger
miles with the growth in numbers of passengers to 190 million.
Growth such as this has led to an expanding importance of the
air industry as an economic influence upon the urban scene.
Cities of even modest size are incorporating air transport into
their future plans whether it be private or commercial
aviation.

The Lansing area has experienced a rate of growth during
the past decade which is significantly greater thaithat of
the nation as a whole and as the community has grown. so
too has its demand for air transportation. To meet this
demand, the level of aviation activity at Capital City
Airport has risen steadily. Testifying to the rapidly
increasing level of aviation activity is the noticeable
crowding of some of the airport's facilities. Because the
passenger terminal building was operating at its capacity.
an addition to it was made in late 1974.

The following is a summary and description of Capital
City Airport as it exists today. As the airport will be
referred to in all of the following chapters the reader should

familiarize himself with the existing facilities and the

l
f
u

governing body, the Capital Region.Airport Authority. A
more detailed discussion of the Authority and the powers
it uses to run the airport will occur in chapter IV.

A brief overview of the Authority shows that it is a fairly
autonomous body consisting of representatives of Ingham
County. Ingham Township. and the City of Lansing. This
composition is particularly strange in light of the fact
that the airport is located wholly within Clinton County.
Clinton has refused to join the Authority thus saving any
contributions to its Operations but also being left out

of decisions which have a direct effect upon taxable land
within Clinton County. At the present time, efforts are
under way to entice Clinton and Eaton Counties into joining

the Authority.

Existing_Facilities

The basis for this overview of the airport is an inventory
of the existing facilities at Capitaa city Airport. This
inventory shall be borken down into fhe areas as follows:

1. Capital City Airport is an Air Carrier/General

Aviation Airport which serves the Lansing Metropolitan

area.

Ninety percent of all aircraft operations at Capital
City Airport are of the General Aviation type. Eight percent
are commercial carrier operations while two percent are
military and commuter flights. .At the same time. ninety~eight
percent of all revenues are generated through the activities
of the commercial carriers. Figure 111 shows the extent of
the recognized service area. The boundaries of this area
are based on the availability of data rather than actual
service areas. Most of the data compiled by the Federal
government is based on SMSA's which makes this the best
definition from the standpoint of obtaining Federal funds.
It must be remembered that the counties to the north and
west especially use the airport and take advantage of the
services it provides. Table 1.1 is the Income Statement
of the Airport Authority for the year 1975. Under operating
revenues. most of these funds come in from the commercial
carriers. Only a small percentage of leased sites is
attributable to other sources.
4 2. Airfield facilities at Capital City Airport

include three concrete and bituminous overlay runways.

The runways are designed to handle 180,0G3flight

operations per year. At the present time theysare

_3_

H'port

1.
WA

0
:

Figure 1
Capital C

‘1

EA

A 5‘.-

AIRPORT SERVlCE

. .. n -\ a ...: u.\o. 1“ :1“?! n”; ..ou‘nn...‘ I ...) foo-..lo \- V . .(i‘. \.. n J. D .....\ I nefm 1“! t a . I .. u . I . u

. . .-
a
.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITT

 

 

DEW

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

. ‘ I
... .321“... 1...! If!

 

 

 

 

 

CAPITAL
crrr AIRPORT

 

 

 

a.-
.. - -

 

 

\
g.

 

.f".

             

 
      
    

.r.

 
        

         

.r

     

   

      

 

     

 

. o. .11..

... '\. I. n d v . . .. .h. -. .

rec). .zvSI (I! . ....» u ..I, I? . . . . .. . .
.5.- u {I :- .... . s ..(Il..A. .73!) .. ..

      

..;......,. .....a. .. . ._ .... .2 .
. ....Amsc I; ...,~ 9.1.7.... -... 41W A. txsi.¥(3?~.l£v. .

. .s . .
. .
1.3).?» . ’4 .44..

... . .... . ...! . . .. . ... .. ...h .
.. ..v . .54.. .....:.. .4. b.3272... 5.}. ..i..14..£{$‘<.55 ...?

.—— .4 ...h .. .. 4
n I

u. . u
. . \.I ..lwhg

t mu:

0]

 

I

.w ......“

Law-3

Table 1.1

CAPITAL REGION AIRPORT AUTHORITY

STATEMENT OF INCOME

... ~——— -.— .“o ——._.--———._‘
--

 

OPERATING REVENUES:
Airfield
Hangers
Terminal
Leased sites
Airline security screening
Other -

Total Operating revenues

OPERATING EXPENSES:
Airfield
Hangers
Terminal
Leased sites
Fire and security
General maintenance
Administrative
Other

Total Operating expenses
Operating income (loss)

TAX REVENUES FROM:
Ingham County
Eaton County

Net income before dc reciation
P

DEPRECIATION:

0n assets purchased with authority funds
0n assets contributed by federal, state
and local governments

NET INCOME FOR THE YEAR
DISPOSITION OF NET INCOME FOR THE YEAR:
Net income

Add credit arising from transfer of depreciation
to contributions

INCOME TRANSFERRED T0 RETAINED EARNINGS

Year ended June 30,

1975

$198 014
17 355
207 236
121 026
50 916

60 002

654 542

33 432
2 644
156 905
533

167 744
79 308
193 540

4229.

639 656

-M

14 893

956 944

7 084

978 921

49 090
_§25 or;

iggLiéi

$604 154

325 677

———-—. *-

504 gig

27 457
l 523
120 525
609

130 374
61 683
172 699
5

514 875

(10 857)

926 343
6 421

sun-.m-

921 907

 

36 018

29.4 iii

———-——.——.

$591 504
large;

ifiiiliil

ounf'n‘ ."‘ ‘ '1" u " -
.-.-.. ».-'. ".1

‘I‘rr.

....--..-- ..v". .u'“'. ".‘Ol"""

operating at this level. Figure 1.2 gives the general

layout Of the physical facilities at the airport.

3. The Capital City Airport Terminal Complex lies

on the south side of the airfield.

The terminal houses all the necessary functions to
operate a commercial carrier airport. It was designed to
handle 150,000 people per year and presently it is handling
300,000 per year.

b. General aviation facilities are found in three locations

at the airport.

Of these three locations. the facilities located at one
site are the Oldest at the airport and in need of replace-
ment. Located next to the primary runwayy these facilities
do not present the most pleasant working environment.

5. Support facilities at the airport include maintenance

and fire/crash/rescue buildings. and fueling facilities.

Much of the equipment used is Old and in need of repair
or replacement. The location of the safety equipment means
that they cannot reach all areas of the airport in a minimal
amount of time. Plans are now being implemented to relocate

these facilities to a more central location at the airport.

-;En.addition to the above facilities the airport
does lease extensive amounts'of land to various groups.
In the area north of the terminal building, several
companies have located office buildings. In the lands
surrounding the runways on the east and south the airport
has leased the land tO farmers to keep the land in
agricultural production. While not extensive. these lands do

bring in some income to the Authority.

-6-

Figure“. 1 ,2.
Capital City Airport

SCHEMATIC LAYOUT OF THE

EXISTING AIRPORT

  

ZOC.<_><
4<m..wzm0

\6 I-Il.nll¢ ‘0‘

\Nc...

\PVD“

ZOE.<_><
Jfiwfimzwu

 

 

 

7.0 EPH...<...._E...2<
4<muz.m0

 

 

'a6349611‘i'lsjokil‘ ..W .
h In

... PIDII:IDWIIKV.IV='DD.$|. Pp
\..
.‘.
.~

7.. ....fl. .....Iu .. . .. ...!t:H..........Iau.1¢1.a.......u.1R:../T
\ . .. . . . ..

. . . . . . ... a 4 . . . .

’ I." I an) I.v .I—I. flit. .HL ub-nr.r.n.in Ir c.15- JP.LH.. 4.3L. L p ..F 4.......

AI...
macaw wofio

 
  

 

 

D
Q. .4
/7. s
.... 1.341341... 1:? .
. . 1.. ... ... c
_

   
    

 

 

 

.ooo. . ..
u. Ijld IV“ I—
”.36“

' .0 I . II, 57-6-. .--.‘9’

 

 

          
         

unto

”$513.00...

mi

_
9
_

Conclusion
This summary of Lansing's Capital City Airport and
its facilities should provide the reader with the necessary
background to fully understand the references made in
succeeding chapters. The~issues to be discussed are extremely
pertinent to the Lansing situation. Lansing is ata pivatol
point regarding its air transport facilities. With expanding
use, all of these facilities will be overtaxed and some
expansion will be necessary. A clear understanding of the
impacts and relationships presented by this expansion
must be obtained for proper decision making.
The conditions found at Capital City Airport can be summed

up as follows:

1. While general aviation make up the bulk of flight
Operations. commercial aviation pays ninety—eight percent of the cost.

2. The three runways are at their rated capacity of
180,000 flight operations/year.

3. Terminal facilities at the airport are operating
at 200 percent of capacity or 300,000 people/year.

4. The airport service should not be limited to the
tri-county area and should those counties north of Clinton County

which make extensive use of airport facilities.

“flAPTER II

TEE. HRPORT AND THE COMMUNITY ECONOMY

Introduction

Until recently. it had been assumed that the airport
was a prime generator of economic growth. This conclusion
is easily reached if one observes any major airport in this
country; IMany types of industry are attracted to an airport
location. These include single-story factories. warehousing.
office buildings and ancillary services which cater to the
airport user. Many of these airports are among the largest
employers in their regions. Employee salaries plus the
multiplier effect of these dollars can provide a huge lift
to any community. In addition to these benefits. the airport
will usually buy many of the commodities it needs from
local suppliers.

In the following sections these economic impacts will
be discussed in more detail. The benefits and costs the
airport will be viewed from an economic standpoint. Through-
out the 19503and 19608 the airport was thought of as the
stimulus which helped a community grow. Some discussion
will be devoted to this point and to why it might be fallacious.
if taken strictly. Finally. the situation at Lansing's
Capital City Airport will be viewedéconomically and some
conclusions as to what the airport means to Lansing will

be drawn.

Employment I

With the growth in air traffic, airports have become
employment centers in their own right. Los Angeles
International, which employed 37,000 people in 1970, is
the second largest employer in Los Angeles County.

Los Angeles reported a $1.4 billion gross payroll impact
generated by the airport. A report by the Miami Airport
Authority counted 25,000 airport employees with gross
personal incomes amounting to $101.6 million. O'Hare.

which is the sixth largest employer in the Chicago area, has
22,000 employees. They were paid an average wage of $13,000
making them among the highest paid workers in the metro-
politanwarea. They collected nearly $300 million in
salaries equalling nearly one percent of the estimated total
disposable income for all employed persons in the Chicago
SMSA.1 Figures for New York, WashingtOn and Atlanta are

of simmilar magnitude.

It is obvious that the airport once established can
become a major factor in the economic life of the community.
What must be emphasized is the fact that the airport is
established and the communitiegrgrowing at the same time.

In these larger cities. the airport is not seen as a

growth pole. Recently a study on the new Dallas/Fort Worth
airport concluded that "the Regional airport is not seen

as a major impetus to an increase in the growth rate of the
region. but rather as a necessary condition for the continuance
of the current growth rate."2

The employment potential of the airport goes far

10—

beyond its direct employees. A study done by C.E.I.R. Inc.
on New York's airports in 1959 revealed that substantial
employment accrued to industires which were related to

the airport. Purchases by the airports accounted for
secondary employment of 11.000 and a payroll of $61 million
and also an additional n.000jobs in related transport
industries and 20,000 jobs in service industries (ie. hotels.
restaurants).3 While the scale of these figures cannot

be applied to all communities it must be taken as fact that
the airports contribution to employment in the region can

be substantial.

The Multiplier Effect

Much has been written about the role of the employment
“multiplier effect". With reference to airports. the
multiplier has two components:

1. Indirect employmenteAncillary activities
created to serve the airport, the airlines.
or passengers. This includes hoteis. car
runtzl a encir s, caturié't ‘
rental agencies. catering firms. etc.

2. Secondary employment-Service sector activities
such as laundries and grocery stores whose
existence depends on the needs of those
directly employed by or indirectly dependent
on the airport.”

The multiplier accounts for indirect and service
sector activity that would not have otherwise occurred.

1. The location of a major airport in any area will mean the

rapid introduction of a large number ofi new basic jobs, and

11-

a consequent increase in population due to the influx of
workers and their families. This initial increase in basic
workers and their families will create a demand for services
in the form of retailing and other non-basic activities.

and thus an increase in the number of service jobs in

the region. Employees who fill service jobs, together with
their dependent families, will bring about a further increase

in population and SOInénd so on.5

The number of nuns one
'wwishes to pursue is only limited by time and technology.
For the purposes of this paper suffice to say that some
multiplier effect is present.

In a stUdy on the "Economic Impact of the Dallas/
Fort WorfiiRegional Airport on the North Central Texas
Region in 1975". the conclusion was reached that a
multiplier effect of 2.0x for total purchaes and an effect
of 2x for employment was in play. This was done after
the input-output model was run through for eight rounds
of transactions. Many experts say that this multiplier
must be measured against the multiplier obtained if some
other use existed or alternative transport modsswere used.
In addition to being difficult from a quantitative
standpoint. in a very practical sense, for most city-pair
markets today, national or international. business or pleasure
oriented, there are no alternatives.6 There is a strong
dependency upon air transportation which cannot be measured
using the "multiplier effect“ technique. Many of the benefits

are intangible such as city prestige.

~12e«

Industrial Growth

The attraction of the airport environment for industry
is a subject that has been studied but no concrete
conclusions have been drawn. In formulating land use plans
mahy communities have designated land surrounding the
airport as either open space or industrial. The reasons
for this are obvious. Both the noise and traffic generated
by the airport would be detrimental to a residential
environment. yet as will be discussed in another chapter
of this report, many cities have allowed residential land
use tqkeach the borders of its airport.

One of the major arguments for the attraction of the

7

airport is the "infrastructure” argument. Many airports
were built on the urban periphery and improvement in
highway access was essential. Little thought was given to
direct mass transit links to the airport. The projected
demand would not have been sufficient to support such a
link and the distances involved would push costs beyond
the feasible level. To this day very few airports have mass
transit links directly to them, Cleveland being one

of the major cities with such a link. Because of this
emphasis on highway access to the airport, many new and
innovative types of road networks were planned. When
these roadways were planned, they were thought to be
monuments to modern design. and sufficient to meet demand
for at least several decades. This however was not always
the case. The expressway between O'Hare Airport and

Chicago's loop was completed in 1961. By 1963, usage

-13;

exceeded estimates projected to 1980. Perhaps mass
transit would have been a viable alternative at today's
useage levah.

Today, the problems associated with constructing
a mass transit link have been compounded by the fact that
these highway links often passed through undeveloped areas.
This improved access and heightened the potential for

development of that land thus raising land costs substantially.

.The attractiveness for industry was further enhanced when

utilities were installed to meet the airport demand.

These could easily be tapped for other uses. reducing
capital outlays that would otherwise be necessary if these
services were not already available. So, it can be seen
that itigot the airport itself but rather the infrastructure
built to support the airport that exerts a strong pull

on industrial location.

The airport itself will have an impact on the industry
of a community. Industries have shown a tendency to
concentrate around highvolume transfer points such as
O'Hare in Chicago.8 Small airports provide business
aviation with convenient access to the airways. and it
is not uncommon for business locational decisions to turn
on whether adequate facilities are at hand to_accommodate
corporate aircraft.9 In this country alone 18,000
companies praticipate in business aviation activities and many
more regularly use commercial airlines to further their
business interests. The civil aviation industry itself
is an important contributor to the nation's G.N.P2
This contribution to G.N.P. is increasing at a rate

-1u-

2-3 times faster than the G.N.P. of the United States
is increasing as a whole.10

Industries reliance upon air transportation is further
documented by the findings of the Aviation Development
Council of the New York-New Jersey Metropolitan Region.
It revealed that the imposition of a night curfew on
airport operations would have detrimental effects to
several industries. It would mean second day mail delivery
to a majority of pbints which now receive next morning
delivery, diversion of some mail to surface transportation
and serious overloads and traffic congestion during the day.
"The delays in the shipment of air cargo caused by a
curfew would increase considerably the costs of doing
business for innumerable industries because of increased
investment in inventories, greater losses through increased
spoilage and higher costs from increased handling."11
Banks would lose $30,870,000 per year in lost interest and
the Department df Defense would incur higher costs because
of the lack of cheap night flights for its personnel.

That industry utilizes air transportation is
beyond doubt. The above facts prove this out but the
question of the airport as an economic stimulus still
remains unanswered. The follwoing section presents

some arguments against the concept of the airport as‘

a generator of economic activity for the community.

.1 I]-

01

Economic Impprtance of the Airport

Previous sections have presented arguments which seem
to picture the airport as an important element in the
community economic picture. While its importance cannot
be denied evidence indicates that it is not the stimulant
that some people claim. According to the Massachusetts
Port Authority, "Air passenger and air cargo services
are in fact, the catalytic agents providing the stimulus
for a major part of our economic stability and growth."12
This last statement suggests that the airport is an attraction
for industry which would locate in that city anyway.
The idea of the airport as a stabilizing agent rather
than a direct stimulant is worth noting because communities
that rely on the airport for economic growth and on
nothing else could be in for a rude awakening. Because
the airport is neither a source nor a market most industries
would not be attracted to it just for the air transpor-
tation alone.

It can be argued that many airports have been located
on ”development corridors" which were sectors of the city
that were already beginning a growth spurt. The topograph-
ical considerations for airport site selection and low land
prices may have logically encouraged a trend in that direction
with or without the airport. When the airport was built,
improvement of the infrastructure, as discussed earlier,

influenced and further stimulated the process.13 This

line of thinking is quite consistant with observable trends.

-16-

The area surrounding the Detroit-Metro airport was a~
prime candidate for development even before the airport was
built. The infrastructure provided by the airport helped
to speed up the normal development process. The Real
Estate Research Corporation concluded that "growth around
airports is the result of the improved highway networks which
have been built around the airports rather then a consequence
of the airport itself."1u The only induced effect caused A
by airports is the growth of hotel and service establishments
around the airport. This is most evident in the large
metropolitan areas especially New York where the number
of hotels surrounding J.F.K. International has expanded
significantly.

In smaller areas the major importance of the airport is
still that of a connection with the major hub airports of
the metropolitan areas. If it were left to economic viablilty
many of the smaller cities would not receive commercial air
service at all. In the ten year period from 1961-1971
the number of points receiving air service dropped from
729 to h79.15 The airlines which serve these markets

require some sort of government subsidy to maintain service.

Capital City Airport and the Community Economy

The importance of Capital City Airport to the Lansing
region is difficult to quantify. "An airport brings
numerous direct economic benefits to an area. It hires
many employees. It promotes tourist travel to an area.
Industry may locate in the area as a result of having
airport facilities available or the airport may be essen-
tial to the general economic well being of the area
involving all the industry of an area. Construction
employmenttand related services must be considered."16
Considering these factors separately one can see that
Capital City's importance lies in its service potential
for local residents.

The population and income of the area play an important
part in determining what role the airport will play in the
community. Based on the preliminary counts of population
as compiled by the Bureau of the Gensus.the city of Lansing
had a population of 131,546 for the year 1970. This
figure shows an increase of 21.4% from the 1960 census.17
If Lansing's prosperity in business, industry and government
continues at a comparable rate, it is expected that a
population of nearly 200,000 people could be expected by
the year 1990. The activities of the past seven years
may cause this figure to be slightly optimistic but
the overall trend seems to be holding as Lansing rebounds
from the recession of the early 19703.

When considering income, the type of employment

which predominates in an area is of vital importance.

~18-

The character and volume of employment within a community
affects the demand for air transportation. Employment
has three implied effects on demand. These are, the generation
of personal income, the stimulation of net immigration
of population seeking employment opportunities and finally,
business travel requirements are defined by the character
of the industries or institutions within the community.18
7 This last category was the subject of an F.A.A.
study in the mid 19603. This study classified cities into
four distinct groups. These groups were marketing, institutional,
industrial or balanced. Because of both the state government
and Michigan State University, the Lansing SMSA has been 0.-
classified as institutional. In 1972 approximately 27%
of the total labor force in the Lansing SMSA were employed
by the state government. The data presented in table
2.1 does not suggest afijggigiginis occurring.

Per capita income in this area grew by “5% from
196ZP1972. This was nine points above the average
for the United States as a whole. Trends indicate this increase
will continue for the foreseeable future?2 This above
average income augers well for the need for Capital
City Airport. It has been shown that cities in the institu-
tional category have the highest demand and useage for
air transportation.

Looking at Lansing's industrial picture one does not

see any visible effect that the airport has had on

development patterns. The major growth direction is to

-19-

Capital City Airport

PLOYTJENT

yr
A!

LABOR FORCE 8: E

ESTIMATES 1962-1972
FOR THE LANSIUGEAST LAN. xxo SMSA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

60338500 324.com “socSoEEm naumnoza "3.5

.muoxuo? hmfifl Beans was .3373? 230803 .vohoafiounom

.3920...» Hausxaomuma .mfismmmp “cosomaccssuopfi cm 339:: 2378.5 «3305

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

con.wH oom.~fi oom.mH oo¢.ua oov.pfi oom.>fi oom.~fi ooa.pfi OCfl.mfi oom.>H .oom.sH
oo~.w~ ooH.mH oom.mfi oom.- oow.HH oom.aH oom.oH oow.0a coo.0H oop.m oom.m
oom.mm oov.m~ ooa.bm oom.m~ oom.v~ oon.mm oom.HN oom.o~ ooH.mfi ooo.ma oov.>fi
ooH.N com. oom.m oo~.w ooo.w ooo.~ ooo.~ com.“ oom.H coo.“ ooo.fl
oov.mv cos.mo oom.nv ocp.ov counmm oom.om ooh.¢m oofi.nm ooo.~m oo~.om oom.mw
oom.oH oo~.mfi oom.nH ooH.mH oov.va oom.nH ooo.m~ ooN.NH oom.Hu oou.ofl oom.oH
ooo.m oo~.m oom.m . ooH.n oou.¢ oo~.v ooo.n con.” cow.» oov.n oo~.m
oom.mH oom.mH oo~.m~ oou.sfi oom.sfi ooo.pH ooo.mn ooa.nH o0¢.va oom.mu cos.”
oom.n oom.m ocm.n oov.m oo¢.m . oom.m oom.n oom.n oo~.n coo.n oom.m
ooo.v oom.n oov.n oom.m oon.n oom.n oom.m oom.n oom.n oom.n oom.n
oon.m mb0.o oon.m ooo.c ocm.m ooo.m oom.v oov.v oo~.v ooH.v oou.m
oom.~m oo.¢a oom.nm com.a¢ oom.pc oo~.nm ocv.ep oom.vu 005.05 con.mo oc¢.mw
ooo.n oom.m oom.m oom.n oo~.m oow.m oom.n oo~.m oom.m oom.m ooo.n
oov.H oo~.a cow.” com.“ com.“ oom.fl oop.fi ooh.“ coo.“ oom.H con."
oom.om ooo.mm ooo.- ooc.mm oon.mw oow.mm ooo.om oom.n~ oom.HN oop.mfi oofi.md
oom.m con.“ ooo.m oo~.m oom.m oom.m oo¢.m oom.m ooa.~ oop.w oom.m
oom.m oom.~ oom.n oom.m oom.m oom.m ooo.v oow.m oom.m oon.m oov.m
oom.nm oofi.nn .ooo.om ooH.un ooH.nm oom.vm ooH.mn coo.vm oom.a~ ooa.hu oom.m~
oom.om ooo.mn ooc.mn oo¢.ov oom.on oom.pm oom.mm oofi.pm ocu.wm oom.om oo~.mu
.oom.vnH oomnamfi oom.m- oow.~nfi oom.nmfi oom.om~ oop.oflfi oom.HHH oom.mou oom.mm coo.em
".9 m.m m.m m.~ ~.m b.~ m.N «.9 v.” N.v n.v
oom.a oom.m. ooH.m oov.v cos.v com.” omv.n oom.N con.v 00”.» oom.m
oom.omn ooa.pmfi oom.hm~ oom.mmw oo>.bwfi ooo.wva oom.omfi oo».~nn oom.o~H oom.oma oom.>~a
mum” aha” chm“ mama mama hmmfi mama nmaa woo” mmafi mom“

.msmpcsou “0 garden 352 8 use “on .98 25936

\M ”sogofiasm 350 ._

Good
aufim
“saunas
acofinuo>oo
magnum
.2: c 33.5 ”new .oocscma
spank $sz
«UPC. 3330s.:
.35 a ..csfifiou 222.5.
conoshncoo “ocbcoo
mfiugofiacfinsoz

upooo onnduapccoz n

. m

upooo 03930 3&0 .
“coEamsvm covnuuoumcgb
hues—Eons” Homhoofioucoz
momhmsufi H30?

upooo 03930

untagged?
.mflm 3.33m use mask .oumccoz

coach .3an .6 “season.
“coioiaosn

\m 3.3m .393 “So

1 “V

iTable 2.2

:11 City Airport

Caplt

SUMMARY OF AVIATION
DEMAND FORECASTS

000.0
000.0

000

000.000
000.0
000.0:
000.30
000.0
000.0."

004.000
0010a
000.03.

 

000H

.

000.0
000.0

000

000.000

000.0
000.03
000.0:
000.0
000.04

osm.mmm.

000.3
000.000

1

000.0

000.0”
000.0

000

000.000
000.0
000.00H
000.HOH
000.H
000.0H

omm.mom
oss.ss
oom.msm

 

000H

mfi 5 005398 000 000000 mum mmwmo .808 080 03.0 .304.

. ”who“.

003.80 05 3 mfiomfis 003030 3.8000 >69 02 .. mumsomsom H 9.30 \H

000
000.0

000

000.000
000.0
000.00H
000.00H
000.H
000.0H

oms.ssm

.00H.0

000.000

 

00 0a

000
03.0

000

mom.sms
ma¢.s
mom.sm
www.mm
smm.m
ssfi.sfl

msm.msfl
Hms.s
sss.omfl

 

.Nssfi

380 Has .3... mcssssso
$20.00 00.30 ME» 05300020
.850

000.803. £03030. fimuocmo 030m

\H

3030300 1308 .
0.3002 .
\msoflwfié 3.3000 3000
\msoflsg0. 33:00 "28.35:
30300 HQ .4200 .

3..“th .50. 00300000 033800 .
mZOHB<mmEO

. 030.0 .

00300000002 0 338E000 H200 .
00300000 0000800

. 0000200043 000403950

-91 ..

4“

the south of Lansing, directly away from the airport.
Industries have located near the airport but strong
development pressures do not exist at the present time.
Sam Burns, former head transportation planner for the
Tri-County Rgional Planning Commission, views the
airport as just another element in Lansing's economic picture.
This view is shared by Mr. Russell Brown. the airport manager.

If the airport is not the economic stimulant that some
suggest in Lansing . than its role must be related to the
peOple it serves. In addition to the institutions described
above the airport does pump valuable dollars into the com-
munity. Assuming the 65% of Administrative, maintenance
and”fire and security expenses are payroll related then
in 1975 the airport contributed $286,385 in employee
earnings. Using a multiplier of 2.h which was described
in an earlier section a figure of $687.32h is obtained.19
While this is not a major factor in Lansing's total economy
taken through many rounds it could be significant.
Additionally, this figure represents only airport employees.
An equal if not greater number of employees obtain their
income from the airport by working for the airlines or
commercial enterprises located in the terminal. Adding
to this is the dollar amount of supplies the airport and
related service industries purchase from area realators.
All of these factors put together indicate a significant
role played by the airport in Lansing's economy.

The Airport Authority likes to stress the point that
industrial pressures will be increasing. This increase-

is not due to any airport related activities however, it

-22-

has come about because of the intended construction of

1:69 just north of the airport. Once again the problem of
distinguishing between airport induced growth and infra-
structure induced growth crops up. It is safe to say in
this instance that historical data indicates the increase
in industrial activity is related to the highway construction.
Also this industry will not be new industry. but industries
that are either relocating within Lansing or industries
that were coming to Lansing anyway. The development
pressure in south Lansing will probably diminish somewhat
once the highway has been opened.

Attitudes such as that expressed in a Lansing Planning Board
Report in 1972 must be reversed. This report was a
development plan for the airport area. Citing other
publications it concluded that the major impact of an airport
was to Keep capital in the area and also attract new
capital to the area. It says citizens must be educated
as to the benefits an airport can bring so they will agree
to put up funds for airport expansion. In professional
circles this attitude seems to be changeing towards a
realization of what the actual role of the airport is.

The real task is to educate the politicians and planners
so that they will not misdirect public funds_to achieve goals

which are not realistic.

h!!|f‘l_!!f\fiq! (KT-AT:- Iva ‘:\IF",,\YT‘/

n .
- ..l L’..‘I \

EAQTLJMMJHA.NHCLHGAN 45a93

-23-

S 9

Conclusion

In reviewing the preceeding sections. the controversy
over the role an airport plays in a community's economic
structure appears to be better defined than previously thought.
The two schools of thought are:

1. The airport acts as a stimulant to
economic growth by attracting new industy

to the area and helping to retain old ones.

2. The airport is but one of many ingrediants
in the overall economic picture of the
community. It exists because the market for
its services exists.

It is the conclusion of this section that from all the
data available the second school of thought seems to correspond
to reality.

Industrial growth around airports had been used as
the major argument for the airport as a stimulant. On
the surface this appears to be a logical argument but one
must look deeper. Industrial location is primarily a
function of cost. There are basically three types of
industries when thinking of industrial location. These
are raw material oriented. market oriented and footloose
industries. Footloose industries can locate in just
about any area as long as some advantage exists for doing so.
An increasing number of industries is this country are of
the footloose type. One of the major costs of locating
a new plant is the host of utilities and transportation

links. generally highway. If an industry can reduce these

egg-

it

costs by locating in an area where these services exist then
it will do so. This explains to a large extent why airports
attract industry. The infrastructure already exists for the
airport and can easily be tapped into.

Most of these areas were already growing and the
airport just added another reason to locate there. On
a regional level. no study has shown that airports attract
industries from outside the region which would not have
located there anyway. What the airport does do is guide
and channel growth away from certain areas which otherwise
would have experienced some form of industrial growth.

In addition to directing growth the airport, especially
large hub airports. contribute many dollars into the
community economy. Even in a community the size of Lansing
with its small airport, the annual dollar contribution to
the local economy can be estimated at somewhere over $1.5

family
million per year. At an average annual income of' 12,36723
per year. this means that 1301familiesdemive their income
from the airport. These figures are if anything conservative.
The larger the airport. the larger its contribution to
the local economy.

Industry has come to rely on air transportation for
many services. These include quick and efficient cargo
handling. passenger services and mail and other communication
delivery. The airport must be viewed as a necessary item
of the entire economic package which a community can offer

an industry seeking to relocate. Just havhu; an airport will

-35-

I“

not be enough because many communities have airports.

"Air transportation is but one of the many essential services
required for the functioning of a modern industrial society."20
Most communities seem to realize the importance of the airport.
”Difficult as it may be to measure precisely these economic
benefits and costs, the public decision to build airports and
subsidize airlines where necessary, expresses the public
judgement that the community benefits outweigh the social
costs."21 While the airport is not a panecea for economic
development it does have an important role to play in

maintaining a healthy community economic structure.

9A-

3.
u.

5.
6.

7.

10.

11.
12.

13.
14.

15.

16.
17.

FOOTNOTES

Department of Housing and Urban Development. Major
Airports and Their Effects on Regional Planning,
0.8. Government Printing Office, Washington.D.C.. 197u. p.7.

George P. Howard. "The Airport Environment-Economic
Impact on the Community". in Airport Economic Planning.
George P. Howard, editor, MIT Press. Cambridge. Mass..

1974' p° 576-

Op Cit 1: p. 70

iibid: p. 80

op cit 23 p.578.

deNeufville, Richard and Yajima. Takaski. "Economic
Imapct of Airport Devtelopment", 12th Annual Meeting,
Transportation Research Forum, Richard B. Gross 00.,
Oxford, Indiana, 1971, p.123.

S.S. Colker, “A Consultant's View of the Structure of
Community Airport Planning", 11 h Annual Meeting,
Transportation Research Forum. Richard B. Cross Co.
Oxford, Indiana, 1970, p.164.

Stratford, Alan H., Airports and the Environment,
St. Martin's Press. New York. 197b, p.28.

op cit 2: p.578.

op cit 73 p.123.

op cit 1; p.9.

0p cit 7; p. 123.

Josgph F. Vittek Jr., "Air Service to Small Communities".
15 Annual Meeting, Transportation Research Forum.
Richard B. Cross Company. Oxford, Indiana, 197A, p.h07.
op cit 9; p.170.

Lansing Planning Board. Development Plan-Capital City
Airport Study Area, Lansing, Mi, 1972, p.3.

27-

18.

19.

20.
21.
22.
23.

Capital Region Airport Authority. Capital City Airport
Master Plan—Vol.fiI;, Lanshg. Mi., 1976, p.B-7.

Capital Region Airport Authority, AnnualiReport-
Fiscal Year Ennded June 30, 1975, p.11.

op cit 2; p. 580.
op cit2; p.B-8.

Office of Economic Expansion, County and Regional Facts:
Lansing Region. p.55.

'50

-(2‘

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

Capital Region Airport Authority, Annual Report-
Fiscal Year Ended June 30;_1925.

Capital Region Airport Authority. Capital City Airport
Master Plan-Vol. II. Lansing. Mi.. 1976.

Capital Region Airport Authority. Draft Environmental
Impact Assessment Report-Capital City Airport,
Lansing. Mi. 1976.

Capital Region Airport Authority. Proposed Five Year
Plan. Lansing, Mi.. 1972.

Colker. S.S.,"A Consultant's Vigfi of the Structure of
Community Airport Planning", 11 Annual Meeting.
Transportation Research Forum, Richard B. CrossCompany,

Oxford. Indiana, 1970.

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Major
Airports and Their Effects on Regional Planning.
U.S. Government Printing Office. WaShington. D.C.. 1974.

deNeufville. Richard and Yajima, Takaski. "Economic
Impact of Airport Development", 12th Annual Meeting,
Transportation Research Forum, Richard B. Cross Co..

Oxford. Indiana. 1971.

Foster. Joseph A.. "The Airport a;Community Asset“.
Appraaisal Journal, October, 1969. pp. 543-554.

Federal Aviation.Administration. The Airport-Its
Influence on the Community Economy; United States
Government Printing Office, Washington,D.C.. 1967.

 

Howard, George P.. "The Airport Environment-Economic
Impact on the Community". in Ainport Economic Planning,
George P. Howard, editor. MIT Press. Cambridge. Mass., 1974.

Lansing Planning Board, Development Plan~Capital City
Airport Study Area. Lansing . Mi.. 1972.

Odell, Albert H., "Aircraft Noise and Airport Development".
13th Annual MeetingL Transportation Research Forum,
Richard B. Cross Company, Oxford. Indiana, 1972.

Stratford, Alan H.. Airports and the Environment. St.
Martin's Press, New York. 1974.

Vittek. Joseph F. Jr., "Air Service to Small Communities".

15th Annual Meeting, Transportation Research Forum.
Richard B. Cross Company, Oxford, Indiana, 1974.

-29”

n

CHAPTER III
AIRPORT NOISE AND THE COMMUNITY

Introduction

With the acceptance of the presence of airports within
our communities, the noise problem takes on grave importance.
Most of our present day airports were originally sited on
the periphery of the urban area. Eventually, development
pressures and expansion, unforeseen by most planners,
surrounded and went past the airport areas. The noise
affected area around the airport soon came to include many
types of intensive land uses. The projected high noise
area around John F. Kennedy International Airport in
New York already includes 35,000 dwelling units, 22 public
schools and 36 churches and clubs. Comparable statistics
around L.A. International Airport are 47,000 dwelling units,
33 public schools, 20 churches, 3 hospitals and one college.1

The public outcry against this type of interference has
been intense, but so has the public use of air transportation.
Figures indicate that not only is air transportation a
widely uses modecof transportation but one of the safest
means of transportation for those not using it. Non-
ocoupant fatalities from 1950-1963 reveal thathgir

transportation industry had the best safety record over the

other three major forms of transportation.3

 

Mpdg Fatalities
Automobile 121,853
Busses 4,908
Passenger Trains 12,830
Passenger Aircraft 38

The problem of aircraft noise pollution has been
present since the inception of the aircraft industry.
It was recognized early that noise from aircraft engines
could affect the hearing of pilots and ground crew
personnel, as evidenced by the fact that one of the earliest
investigations conducted by the Army Air Corps, during
W.W. I, related to aviators hearing. One of the earliest
recorded official noise complaints, related to aircraft
operations, occurred in 1928 at which time a farmer wrote
to the Postmaster General stating that low flying aircraft
were disrupting egg production.’4 A similar case, which shall
be discussed in more detail later, was decided by the
Supreme Court some years later.
7 The present gaxwth of commercial aviation can be
traced back to W.W.II. tDuring W.W.II, the extensive
utilization of military aircraft for passenger and freight
transportation provided an impetus to the aviation
industry which laid the basis for the postwar gnowth of
commercial aviation. Several noise related studies were
conducted by the military in the period 1946-1951. These

studies showed that levals between 70 db and 120 db were

-31-

experienced throughout an area of 144 square miles, under
the takeoff and approach zones, when certain large aircraft
operated.5
With the advent of jet aircraft and their introduction
into the commercial sphere of operations. the noise problem
became more severe. In 1951, the Port Authority of New York
issued a regulation forebidding landing or takeoff of jets,
without permission from the Authority. This is extremely
similar to what is now taking place with regard to the
British/French Concorde SST. Early in 1952, the problem
of noise resulted in action within the air transport
industry to develop a "National Air Transport Coordingating
Committee" to consider problems of aircraft noise in
the New York area. The problems New York faced were
shared by an increasing number of cities. Today there are
over 2000 large jet propelled aircraft operating in the
United States fleet, compared with none in 1957. In
1972, these aircraft servmd479 of the nation's
individual major terminals.
The source of the noise pollution, aircraft takeoffs
and landings also rose at an alarming rate. For example,
in 1972 at O'Hare Airport, the nation's busiest, there
were 660,000takeoffs and landings. Miami International
experience 437,000 flights per year. Little wonder that
the noise bothered some people. How many People are
"some"? Approximately sixteen million persons are presently
impacted by aviation noise in the United States, and in

spite of the introduction of quieter new aircraft the number

will continue to grow.

Some type of control had to be established. By
enacting the Noise Control Act of 1972, Congress provided
the Administrator of the EPA with authority to coordinate
Federal noise control activities, Federal research and
development related to noise, and to provide technical
assistance to States in the area of modal codes and laws.7
This act has brought together all the programs which had
previously been under the FAA, NASA and other Federal
agencies. No regulatory agency was set up to specifically
administer these programs and this appears to be the
major fault of the 1972 law. Studies are being conducted
under grants provided by the Act which will hopefully lead
to recommendations concerning the establishment of
strict Federal regulations which will be compatible with
local government control of the airport and its surrounding
environs.

This chapter will deal with methods of diminishing
the impact of Airport noise on the community. The idea
of removing the airport from the urban environment will
be discussed first using a case study from Florida.
Different techniques of landing and taking off have been
developed and these will be reviewed in the next section.
Finally, litigation remedies will be viewed as the last

resort of the community and the individual.

33*

Non-Urban Locations

One of the basic solutions to the noise problem is to
locate jetports as far away from urban areas as is economically
feasible. As regional planning became accepted, many proposals
have been advanced to establish regional airports instead
of every Community having its own separate airport. The

few attempts at regional airports have run into many problems.

The proposed regional jetport in southern Florida is
a good example of one area's attempt to locate an airport
away from urban areas. The need for a new airport was
abundantnly clear to the Dade County Port Authority. As
early as 1949, Miami International, profiting from its end
of the line position for domaiic flights and from south
Florida's good weather and large, uninhabited land and sea
areas. had become an important base for maintenance and
overhaul of commercial airliners and for pilot training.
The first proposal for a new airport occurred in 1952 but
it was not until the mid 1960S that the Port Authority began
to take action.

Part of this need for a new airport was due to the fact
that out of the 437,00 flights per year nearly one quater
of them were for pilot training. These flights were not
well suited to an urban area.nauidxbexmarexsuixablex Even
without these training flights Miami's facilities were
expected to reach the saturation stage by the end of the 19703.8

Thus the search for a new site was begun. Several

factors complicated the search. The Everglades Preservation

-34-

area and Everglade National Park extended for about 100
miles north to south and from 15~40 miles east to west.
The area north and east of this sanctuary was fairly close
to Florida's gold coast region and thUs the problem of
high land values presented itself.

Politics played a key role in the site selection. Most
of the potential Sites were not located within Dade County
but the Authority still wanted complete control of the
airport no matter where it was built. Very few counties
would permit the construction of so sizable a project without
exercising some control over it.

The search finally settled on a site in the Big Cypress
Wilderness, located about 45 miles from Miami and about six
miles from Everglades National Park. About one-third in
Collier County. The primise of residential and commercial
development associated with the jetport overcame the resistence
of the Collier Commissioners. It was envisioned that a city
would develop in the jetport vicinity. Transportation to the
jetport would be handled by a high speed transit system
plus the extension of I~75 into the area.

0
a.

Environmentalists would claim that no consideration was

given to the impact the jetport would have on the environment

of the area. The Port Authoritv did however comply with

$1...
J)
(A
H
c+
.‘
\
"5
’D
1*
$.-
1...!
A
1.
(r-
LJO
O
,5
L)
('1'
P"
'\
\U
L
L—’
,5
m
u
>4
.1.
...}
C-
m
:3
O
n
u)
U
“l
H
v

. fl 1 . , , _
2111. :etméral :Ln.

1. 9

”x, " - .9 fi'/.,. '.. ,1..- '
I‘GJ‘BT‘RI. lilT‘QO’FL. “Co 01. 173.21) ".3t1U.1.!.‘(ZS {ILL-i ‘v 31

LJ

.....L . ’ .1. ,
5})01 b pL‘OJCC of)

‘\

f ' J . . ’ J‘ '7 '. , 1' , r _’\ y f. ‘ H '. L I . - v . 'L '.‘ 5 ‘ '
approved by the L.A.“. JC reasonably consistent HILJ sacs

1

o _ o -.. .. ~
regional plans as planning a; ,

- . V .0 “ ‘1 q ."“x 1.‘ - 1 .r . J'- .' . J ' ‘4' ‘ I‘- "‘ " J .' ‘ ‘ I '-.t \ . .
DlSCUQSLDJb wane dole his; all interests: state an- ederal agen01es.

Due to a lack of environmental concern which was extremely
prevelant in the mid 19603, the usefulness of these discussions
is questionable. In June of 1967 a Park Service offical

wrote the Federal Aviation Administration to say that "the
choice of the new site was very heartening to us."10

The cost of the jetport was expected to exceed one
billion dollars, not counting the cost of the rapid transit
system and the expected Federal contribution would total
$300 million.11 At first the airport would only be used
as a training facility and then as Miami International
became overcrowded, commercial air service would begin.

What finally led to the projects demise was the fact that
the access road and transit line would have to cross through
Federal Conservation Area number three. Robert W. Padrich,
chairman of the Flood Control Districts governing board,
discovered this and immediately became alarmed about the
potential consequences. He called a conference of all
interested conservation groups and soon questions were
being asked of the Port Authority as to its site selection
process. When the Port Anthority admitted that the Big
Cypress site was selected without careful evaluxation
of the environmental vimpact it would have, Support has quickly
withdrawn. q The Governer withdrew his support of the
project and the project was open to challenge under
section 4(f) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964
This meant that all Federal funding could be withdrawn.

By mid~April 1969, an Everglades Coalition of nearly all

of the national conservation groups was demanding that

-35-

construction of the jetport be halted. A Federal investigation
into the impact of the airport was launched. The report
found that the Big Cypress was vital to the Everglades
National Park and that without proper land use controls,
construction of the airport would be highly detrimental.12
By checking the past performance of the governments involved
it became abundantly clear that the prospect of effective
land use controls being instituted was indeed a bleak one.
The study saw three alternative courses of action.
The project could preoceed as planned and the Everglades des-
troyed. The airport could just be used for training flights.
but this would not eliminate development pressures in the
area, and thirdly, an alternative site could be'found.13
On January 15, 1970, representatives ofEDept. of Interior, the
Department of Transportation, the governor's office and the
Port Authority signed the Jetport Pact. It provided
for the abandonment of the Big Cypress site once an
acceptable replacement site could be found, acquired and
then developed to a comparable stage as that of the existing
facility. This could be done at no cost to Dade County.
Construction would then proceed normally.1u
The procedure for finding this new site was not
spelled out and confusion resulted. The second site
selection process suffered from the same handicaps as the
first and then some. The second site was to be selected by
the state with the Port Authority having final approval.

The original airport proposed by the Authority would have

been a truly regional airport. It was hoped that the second

-37...

site would alsodhave this characteristic, but the state

was not set up to consider regional aspects. there was

no regional planning or regional agencies then in existence.
Political factors became more troublesome as the Port

Authority refused to give up any of its powers. A site

was subsequently selected in the northern portion of Dade County.

The one outstanding feature of the site was how poor
a site it was. The noise generated from an airport at
this site would affect 14,000 Miami residents not counting
any future growth that might occur.15 The noise would also
cover recreation areas, schools and churches thus reducing
their value. The site also intruded upon Federal Water
Conservation areas which are crucial in the supply of fresh
water to the enitre southern Florida area. The site was
initially rejected by the Dade County Commissioners but they
gave their consent on the condition that the airport would
be smaller than originally planned and would be merely one
of a constellation of airports within the region serving
similar functions. This put to rest any idea of the jetport
serving as a growth pole and also the lofty plans that were
projected for the jetport.

All of thiIOYfed to the demise of the regional jetport
and all it could have meant to the area. By building the
smaller facility it was not considered that the airport might
have to handle 115 million passengers a year by the year 2000.
It seems apparent that the attitude of the Port Authority
played a major role in the destruction of any hope for

O . o .‘ were
a regional airport in southern Florida. There several

-38-

sites, mostly located north of Dade County, upon which a
regional airport could have been built. Selection of such a
site would have contributed to the growth and stability of
the region.

All the lofty ideals of the original proposal were
abandoned with the selection of the north Dade County site.
The noise problem, which was one of the major reasons for
building a new airport, would not be eliminated. By
locating close to present airports air traffic congestion
would be increased. A smaller airport would not solve
the passenger congestion already existing. Pollution
problems still existed, both air and water.

Several lessons and recommendations can be gleaned
from the Florida experience. If airports are to be heated outside
the metro area it will become necessary to locate outside the
political jurisdiction of the urban area. Regional planning
and even regional government becomes a necessity. At the

or state planning
very least, state regulationskforcing cooperation between
local governments should be enacted. Local governments
constantly view their position as being one of a competitor
with adjacent governments. This buSiness-like sense of
competition is a major stumbling block to regional airports.
To ease the planning process the public should be constantly
involved and full disclosure of all relevant facts should be
made. This would tend to reduce the number of projects
held up due to court suits and other forms of litigation.
The idea of regional airports is a sound one but perhaps

a few years ahead of its time. With a few exceptions

-39...

(ie. Dallas/Fort Worth) regional airport planning is in the
infant stage with much progress necessary.

For many smaller areas the option of building a
completley new facility does not exist. These areas
must rely on other methods to alleviate the noise problem
while retaining their existing facilities. The next
section will deal with certain techniques which can
be implemented by the airlines in the flight operations
to reduce the impact ofi noise of the sunrounding community

during takeoff and landing.

-40-

L—Q‘ f

Flight Procedures
Regulating flight operations is one means of controlling
and/or reducing noise. Takeoff, approach and minimum
altitude are the three variables that can be controlled.
There are at least two distinct types of takeoff
noise problems: noise alongside the runway and noise under
the climbout flight path. They are distinct in that
reducing one generally results in increasing the other.
For most airports, the climbout noise is more critical.
At present there are no F.A.A. controls relating to noise abate-

16

ment takeoff procedures. Several airlines employ different
methods to reduce the effect of noise on the surrounding
areas.

For residential areas very far from the airport,
greater then ten miles, the most beneficial procedure is
generally to climb at the steepest angle possible with
nearly full power. This procedure is used by American and
United Airlines. For areas 2-10 miles from the airport,
the best procedure is to climb steeply and then at an
altitude of 11,500 feet, reduce power to not less than that
required to maintain safe flight in the event of an engine
failure. Power is not reapplied until the aircraft reaches
an altitude of 4,000 feet. Northwest Airlines uses this
procedure and all airlines serving Washington National
Airport use it. It reduces noise approximately 2—7 EPNdb.
A 10 EPNdb decrease would be perceived as a halving of the

o 1 o o o 0
noise level. 7 This procedure Will cause a n01se increase

for about one mile prior to the cutback and then again after

-41-

power is reapplied.

To reduce sideline noise the most beneficial procedure
would be to reduce power from the start of the takeoff role.
This procedure results in lower altitudes and higher noise
levels under the climbout path so it is not good to use
when urban areas are located downrange of the airport.

The best method would be to tailor each approach to the
specific runway and surrounding conditions.

The same situation that exists on takeoffs also exists
on approaches. That is, there are no F.A.A. requirements
but the industry has adopted certain procedures. Most
approaches are made on an electronic Instrument Landing
System Glide Slope. This slope for new installations is
three degrees. Sixtyfive percent of the systems now
existing were built before the three degree standard and
are between 2.5 and 2.9 degrees. A one half degree increase
in approach angles reduces noise 2—3 EPNdb. The high
adjustment cost, approximately $62,000 would appear to be
the main hindrance to the complete changeover of all airports.18

A two segment approach has also been tried. Under
this method the initial decent would be at a steep six degrees.
At an altitude of 1,000 feet the decent gradually decreases
to normal. The noise benefit from this method has been
measured to be as high as 17 EPNdb under the steep portion
of the flight profile. The noise reductions become smaller
as the aircraft gets closer to the airport, becoming 0 when
the transition to the final glide slope is complete. It

would cost approximately $31,400 per aircraft to equip them

-42-

with the inStrumentation necessary to put this approach into
practice. Objections have been raised by the National
Pilots Association as to the safety of the method and the
F.A.A. is presently conducting tests. The construction of
larger runways would also contribute to reducing approach
noise. If planes could land at higher speeds they would
not have to use flaps when approaching and also the use of
reverse.thrust could be avoided upon landing with longer
runways. It appears that several of these approaches once
tested could be used to reduce noise levels. Proper
indoctrination of pilots would be necessary to allow the
safe usnage of all methods.

The present minimum altitude set by the F.A.A. is
1500feet. Increasing this altitude to 3000feet would
reduce noise by 10 EPNdb. This approach has several
disadvantages. It would mean aircraft would have to travel
further to intercept the glide path at a higher altitude.
This could spread noise over a larger area although it would
be at a reduced rate. This higher altitude would also reduce
the area of maneurverability and thus contribute to increased
air congestion. Because of the potential noise relief,
increased minimum altitudes seem to merit further evaluation
through the F.A.A. rule-making process and at this time
the F.A.A. has begun studies and experimentation.

From the discussion of all the methods it can be
seen that noise abatement flight procedures can be instituted
fairly quickly. By themselves they will not solve the noise
problem but taken in conjunction with other steps in a
comprehensive program, they can play a large role.

—43-

Litigation Remedies
Throughout the history of this country, and to a greater
extent in the last twenty years, the court suit has been
the primary means by which private citizens can combat
injustices inflicted upon them. People affected by the
noise generated by airport activities are no exception.
Residences can be severely affected by this noise. Damages
result from noise, vibration and danger or psychological
danger. As the value of homes decreases so does the resulting
damage decrease in dollar value. Areas right next to
runways might be reduced in value to their agricultural values.19
The lawsuit has been the primary tool used to recover
these noise inflicted damages. In 1962 there were over
1000 lawsuitseat 19 different airports. With airports
now within close proximity of residential neighborhoods,
it is not hard to imagine this figure increasing dramatically.
The requested damages out of these 1000 lawsuitas was
$14.5 million. At last count there was more than $200 million
in other outstanding noise lawsuits.2
The course of action most lawsuits pursue is that the
noise of the airport involves a taking. To sue on a nuisance
claim has not proved successful because of the identity of
the defendent. The plaintiff must prove the noise and its
source are a public nuisance and since airports are created
pursuant to statuatory authorization and are public owned it
would be difficult to prove that the public is annoying itself.
Airlines are exempt, because they are regulated and controlled

21

by the federal government. One of the major Supreme Court

cases affecting this type of litigation is the United States
v. Causby. Mr. Causby owned a chicken farm at one end of
a runway and claimed the noise from the airport prevented
his chickens from producing. The Supreme Court ruled in
his favor but stipulated that in order for a taking to occur
the flights must be directly over the subjects property.
Courts have not afforded adequate relief to homeowners
for several reasons: There has been an unwillingness on
the part of the courts to stretch the traditional trespass
and nuisance requirements. There has always been a
certain bias in this country towards industry and free
einterprise. This has come through in many court cases
where the evidence while perhaps not strong, has still
pointed towards the guilt of the aircraft industry and even
then the industry won. It is however difficult to collect
evidence against airports and also there are certain
inadequacies inherrent in private party litigation. A
California Supreme Court recently ruled that a homeownercgnymu;

not sue a city in a class action for nuisance and inverse

condemnation.22 The court found that there was an insufficient

community of interest among the property owners neaa the
airport to warrant their engaging in a class action suit.
This meant that each homeowner would have to sue on an
individual basis and the cost and time involved would prevent
many from doing so. In Alleghany Airlines. Inc. v. Village
of Cedarhurst, the Supreme Court ruled that local controls
over airlines are illegal due to the already existing

Federal controls.

_45-

The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 directed
HUD to study methods to reduce loss and hardship to
homeowners whose property is depreciated in value following
the construction of airports in the vicinity of their homes.23
Some homeowners have tried to collect damages more than once.
They ciaim that increased activity at airports represents
a second taking of their property and are thus eligable to
claim mOre damages. The court ruled that once an airport has
begun operations property owners are given notice not only
of existing activity but of greater activity in the future.

Government must fully realize its responsibility for
noise problem. An airport is presently considered an
economic entity and while this is not totally incorrect
one must look at the social impact of the airport. Govern-
ment intervention is required to secure welfare-maximizing
rather than profit—maximizing behavior. Local governments as
the public sponsors of the airport, must bear the cost of
the taking. In doing so the cost of the noise would be
internalized and could be passed on to the consumer of the
airport service. This job cannot be left to the Federal
government for one major reason. If the Federal Government
became responsible for the noise claims they would also have
to take on the job of planning, building and operating the
airports for which it is responsible.

There are two basic routes that governments can take in
trying to control the noise problem as it effects homeowners.
Enabling legislation encourageing and compelling adequate

land use planning and zoning around airports with provisions

-46-

.‘j~

for enforcement as well as a general r1vis°on of archaic

plginrdnig Enid kfl3fll;hg lalvs auaul.1 aljxyw 1:331]. cosnmlni ties; to

solve much of the noise problem on their own initiative.
The purchases of air and noise rights by local

communities from homeowners would serve several purposes.

It would compensate all owners harmed by noise. This

would reduce claims and thus litigation to a great extent.

By hitting local government in their most vulnerable spot,

the pocketbook, it would lead to proper location of airports

where lease costs would be the lowest. This would also

put pressure on the air industr" to try and perfect a

quieter engine. As long as noise exists and airports are

will continue but the aforementioned solutions would take
a larger share of the litigation out of the courts and thus
save local communitie0 the expense of paying out claims plus
court costs.

In the next section Lansing's respose to its noise
problem will be explored. Chapter IV will look at how
Hichigan has enable its localities to handle the noise

problem in general.

...!37-

Airport Noise and Capital City Airport

The remedies discussed in the preceeding sections
of this chapter are not exclusive of one another. All
can be used in some combination and at Capital City Airport
this is what has occurred.

At the present time the impact of noise from aircraft
operations at Capital City is minimal. No offéirport land is
subject to noise levels greater than 85 db for periods in
excess of five minutes per day. The 85 db figure is the
threshold established by the Federal Aviation Administration
for the testing of airport noise effects. The reason for
this lack of noise impact is that there are a very low
number of jet aircraft operations at the airport presently.
Also. the runways that these operations take plaoeeon
minimize community exposure. The following noise contour
map indicates that while some residential and public
buildings are subject to noise for periods of 1-5 minutes.
the impact is minimal and no seriohs problems have arisen
because of community protests.

The planning and location of the airport must be
considered primary reasons for the lack of a noise pollution
problem. Located on the north side of Lansing, Capital
city is in one of the non-growth areas of Lansing. Major
growth has taken place to the south and east of Lansing
with only a minimal of residential expansion occurring in
the north. As discussed in other chapters. this condition
is expected to change with the opening of 1-69 just north of

the airport. This is where planning the proper airport

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘0 .11'AIJ\.ul..o.. ...“. w’ ’0.” .\ («.9‘ .1... ...... C. -..-l ..J 1 1 l J.'.l44n*2.

 

 

 

infig? “1.4.”... ..-.\.- . ........ .. ._ ”y .

 

 

     

  

     

. Sap/1.1.1.... ..Wx...‘
.\.. 17% HDII PM“...
4.... ill WWW": -.

' "a1 .n- - .-
369» .

     

. -. 1.... n1... .. . “.....u...u.....~ .1. .. ... .- 1.3 w... . - m3.......... .. ....... _ ._ 4.
_. :..... aw...”.m.....m..~......m.rmifimu. may/(.... .....M. ......o”. 7.5.. ....... 3r... r.........m. ...» .U
. .5. oo\...—- o .a .o .. 0‘ .... . . (“a av} . . . .
. we ..... ...TMo os. _ . I . ...... -. . a . a rm”. ..3 ”Io.fot.-_.o Co _
1... .. m .I. ..v..:.c.... .7. 1...... .. >2. . .22.. ....
. .... . “ L-..Z.»..m.rm:.. ..4...............: . . a “:.....h. 3%.... ,. ....... ......a- a. .3 . .1- ,
11.1.1 ... . 21.53... . ...; I- .-. . .1--. - ... -... . :..; .3...
~ . - L . ... .. a. . 5.1. ..ow.1ns~lx.¢1l~ N .u3 . pl\
. 2 x....:..... . :13..." , .... ....
Ants... S nod 31...... ..... “1.3.11¢..er.~_...;.....3»$ .T . so. . 3 o
t. . ....u ... >......r\I .. 0.1.... .. H» . . .... .
.r.....__.. ....“u H mm 1 .. ......nwfiuzm......41.&m.fi .....ur... . 55.30
m... .....P o O . . + . . n «...... he... 5.... 9.2 352:... 2
...... . m. T D .... . :.....21. ...H... ..
\ n..... 1.. N. W. m .... VJ: 3.525 2 3 m
. . . 3 I .....nnx 5...."
._ w. c F .H...N....¢...
3.. m i E m 3.35. w 352.: m 2 ,
...z.“ u m B A mqufitw . .
Nb .8 0G .~:.Lwl<
F .n N N 3... . :...x...
p I
a m T
_ C S B
A .x.
E

 

 

 

   

.
.
. .. . .
Q . 4

1 . .. x
w. . . ..-. .. a 1-1 . ..n . ..
15 .. ......u on a... . . . .. .... . .
.m ,. .../:..... ....... a. _ . .. ._ . . . H . . .
. n . \ ... . .. .- . . n: u .. o . .c ... o . m n . .... .. n . ...” ...-.... ... .. .o u... I . . B. o . ... . _
. . . . n I .. r. . . . .u . t . . . n . o . .... a .. gJovt’oobopfl—‘c q“.0.unl\¢¢“n1\.l..4.lun. ......‘r ~‘Ol.’.'du..n..0.nou‘-r.ltoou . J. 0.... . .0 ¢."0'u0 a. . .I

 

I

      
     

 

 

 

 

 

W.W.m
..1....._......
_ . . . u"
“N _ .\.. . ol~ no u. . . rt? in...”
. a a... (.1. . a. . .........._... ......La
4 .\ .—n \.s\ ".......u. ._ on. ...-o): ....1.
. . .. / “.21.... Ilia.
. fl '\ n—m 03.4.1,- -u.-..... M s. \/4 (Jon
1.... .. \c.h\.... .33. a. .w 7..”
“(.m— .:f . I. :..» to ...m L. . . . “r
1\. H . . .... wax/1 ..\ ......1... ...... r. ..
. ”\V :0... .. . u.‘ . ..anH ....o —.. . 95$. 5.
A. . a. .. .1 / .., - b «<10
I . . .
m. . s a. W)” “4111/ ..i.1\A .
I. 0.0.: ssnt‘: n J} \ u . .5.

>2 \. IQ \ I .

.0 u \ J 4 .1 ......
at I \ ..1. l —. up .
o~\.“ «v \./4.. .rflbs.”\. .. l...-Ffi V...l\!n..¢.. “A _ . 2.11%.:
.
-

a.-.

. ”how”,

     

 

 

 

'0 J u .o u C . .. . .
m . \ c \ k v a K *QOVV—v— “4'“. JR L. w . 1.2”. . . . . u . . .~/\
. \ I... I o a a. .... ......u o a _ o .0. “4‘... . ... .. no. .. \. I
"11 1 II 1 1 I..-) 11......IL .381. Inn-1..-.» 1huuuonl..QIr. Watt. 4?! “if c UK... I who...- u..5 . |\.J I. A «u. 1.11.. v‘ I 1~ “....ooco! . u I . Q . o ‘1‘. d a
v . . I n 0 ~ I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

r1

 

environment comes into play. In too many cases future
developmental pressures have been ignored thus allowing
conflicting land uses to encroach upon the airport area. The
Airport Authority wishes to maintain as much of the rural a
character of the land as possible and has embarked on a
land acquisition program. This program will be discussed
more fully in the following chapter but suffice to say
that it is trying, through land banking to avoid the noise
pollution problem.- While not going to the extreme of the
Florida case previously cited. the Authority seeks to
remove the airport as far as possible from the urban
environment.

In addition to maintaining appropriate land uses
surrounding the airport, both airlines serving Capital
City, United and North Central, are experienced in using
several of the flight procedures discussed earlier.
No one technique has of yet been implemented but if the
envisioned expansion of air operations takes place the
impacted noise area will expand greatly. To avoid a curtailment
of operations one or more of the discussed techniques will

have to be adopted.

[ -\ 7.
',f‘\ ’1 LF‘x.

-50-

Conclusion

The future appears brightest for those smaller cities
which are just beginning to contemplate the construction
of an airport. Much has been learned in the last twenty
years. Unfortunately. this learning has been from mistakes.
Lesson number one is that locating an airport away from the
urban areas is not enough. Airports attract development.
Without proper land use controls residential development
will likely spread to the border of the airport. The
100,000 people living in the shadow of J.F.K. International
in New York and the 150,000 living within close proximity
of LA International can attest to the fact that an airport
environment is not condusive to peace and quiet. All new
airports should rely heavily on strong land use controls.
Consideration should be given to future expansion of the
airport and also of the urban area. Thexnespansexinxkansing
taxthksxsituationxwilkxbexdiscussedxinxdatailxinxthe
nextxahapten. Much of the expense of this planning will be
borne by the Federal government. The Federal Airport Act
of 19fi6 provides for grants to public agencies for airport
development.

Regionalism will become an important issue in the future.
Do Lansing, Jackson, Kalamazoo. Grand Rapids'and Battle
Creek each need their own major airport? Ecdnomic efficiency
would probably be better served by the construction of one
large regional airport connected with high speed transit
links, if possible. The problems associated with this

method were discussed in the sowhern Florida case. Lack

of regional government was the major obstacle encountered.
With each local government quarreling over who should

control what and where it goes very little can be accomplished.
State governments will have to pass legislation creating and
granting powers to regional governments. The county may

be a thing of the past. State planning should become more
common as problems arise whichtannot be handled by localities
and affect the entire state. Without such state and regional
planning, solutions. such as that arrived at in Florida.

will be all to common. This type of solution generally adds
to the problem. Regional airports are easier to locate far
from urban areas and thus eliminates many of the noise
problems if properly done.

For existing airports the problem of noise is a complex
one. A major step towards its solution will come when local
operators are forced to pick up the cost associated with
noise. Once this is passed on to the users of air
transportation pressure will be increased on all parties
concerned to reduce the expense of noise. Local government
can take several steps. Leasing of air and noise rights is
one way to remove the cost of litigation but the expense
is still high. Properties surrounding airports can be
purchased but with residential property values so high, no
local government could afford it. The short range solution
seems to be to pay off the landowners and make the customers
pay for it.

Aircraft flight procedures can reduce this cost. By
following the takeoff, altitude and landing procedures

outlined previously the amount of noise could be drOpped

-52-

“; .

to acceptable levels. Here too, there would be a cost but
perhaps the airlines should be forced to bear it.

Little mention has been made of insulating buildings
against noise pollution. It goes without saying that any
buildings built in the future should be insulated but
the cost of doing so to all existing structures would be
prohibitive. Perhaps some tax incentive could be made
available to homeowners and employers to enable them to
insulate without bearing the full brunt of the cost.

The noise problem will not be solved overnight. Some
of the blame for its existence must go to the airport
planners of past years. These men, mostly engineers.
had little feel for the human element and how it would
interact with the airport. More than any other factor,
noise will be a determinant of future airport location.
Consolidation of small airports into regional centers is
likely. But whatever course is taken the person planning
the airport will have to consider the people who must
live with it.

Controlling the land airport around the airport
will play a crucial role in reducing the number of people
affected by the noise attthe airport. The next chapter
will view the situation in Michigan as far as who controls
this land. The case of Lansing and Capital City Airport
will be discussed in particular. Whether by luck or
planning, Capital City does not have a noise problem at the
present time. The steps being taken to preserve this

situation are the topic of the second portion of the chapter.

53—

9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
1h.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.

20.

21.

FOOTNOTES

Charles M. Haar, "Airport Noise and the Urban Dweller.
A Proposed Solution", The Apprsaisal Journal, vol. 36,
October. 1968, p.556.

Report on Airport—Aircraft Noise, Environmental Protection
Agency.Administrator, serial number 93—8, U.S. Government

'Printing Office, Washington D.C., 1973, p.5.

Joseph Foster, "The Airport: A Community Asset", The
Appraisal Journal, vol. 3?. October, 1969, p.550.

EPA, op. cit, p.2.
EPA, op. cit. p.3.
EPA, op. cit. p.#.
EPA. op. cit. p.7.

 

Luther J. Carter. The FloridafExperiencerTue Jet“
Misplaced Responsibility, Johns Hoplins Press,

“I; 1974, p.132
ibid. p.193.

ibid. p.193.

ibid, p.194.

ibid, p.202.

ibid, p.203.

ibid, p. 208.

ibid, p.219.

EPA, op. cit. p.17.

EPA, op cit, p.18.

EPA, op cit. p.20. .

William Randall, "Appraisal of Damages Caused by

Proximity to Jet Airports". The Appraisal Journal, vol. 22,
January, 195A, p. 37.

Haar. op. cit, p.551.

Haar. op. cit, p.553.

.. 51;-

225

23.
2h.

"California Court Bars Class Action", Aviation Week and
Space Technology. vol. 101, October 7, 197b, p.35.

Haar, Op. Cit, p.556.

Paul.K. Daggart. "An Economic Approach to Airport Noise".
Journal of Air Law and CommerceL vol. 30, Spfihg. 1964, p.218.

ss—

y '3

1.

2.

5.

6.

7.

9.

10.

11.

12.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Branch. Melville 0.. Outdoor noise and the Metropolitan
Environment: A Case Study of Los Angelos. 1970.

Aviation Week and Space Technology. "California Court
Bars Class Action ", vol. 101, October 7, 197a.

Carter, Luther J., The Florida Experience, Johns Hopkins
Press. Baltimore, 1974.

Daggart, Paul K., ”An econimic Approach to Airport Noise".
Journal of Air Law and Commerce, vol. 30, Spring, 1964.

EPA Administrator, Report on Aircraft-Airport Noise.
serial number 93—8, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington. D.C.. 1973.

Foster. Joseph, "The Airport: A Community Asset",
The Appraisal Journal. Vol. 37, October. 1969.

Galloway, W.J.. Noise Around Airports. ASEE-DCPA
Summer Institute on Protective Design. Bolt, Branch,
and Newman, Inc.. 1973.

Haar. Charles M.. "Airport Noise and the Urban Dweller,.
A Proposed Solution". The Appraisal Journal, vol. 36,
October, 1968.

Randall, William J., "Appraisal of Damages Caused by
Proximity to Jet Airports", The Appraisal Journal,
vol.22, January. 1954, pp. 39-92.

 

"San Francisco Sets Airport Noise Limit", Aviation Week
and Space Technology. vol.93, March, 1968.

 

Business Week. "The Racket that Won't Go Away", vol.22,
March 16, 1968.

Tondel. Lyman. Jr-.”Noise Litigation at Public Airports",
Journal of Air Law and Commerce. vol.32. summer, 1966.

CHAPTER IV

COMMUNITY CONTROL Q: T E AIRPORT AND SURROUNDING LAND

“——

Intrdduotion

Twenty-five years ago when many cities were first establishing
their airports. little thought was given to what would happen
in the future. Because of this, development of non-compatable
uses have grown up around the nation's airports” almost wfihout excp-
tion,This problem shall be the focus of this chapter.
Lansing is fortunate in that development has not yet
encroached upon its airport's boundaries. In a recently
adopted master plan, the airport's governing body, the
Capital Region Airport Authority has attempted to meet
this future problem and prevent it. An integral part of
the plan is a 1500 acre land acquisition program which is
currently being implemented.

Land as it effects the airport and the community shall
be discussed in detail. Section one looks at the existing
methods of controlling land use in and around the airport
and the problems that are present. Power is the key element
here and how it is wielded by its possessors. The institutions
that have been created to wield this power have their
faults and corrective measures must be taken.

Section two will look at the land acquisition program
itself to determine its costs and benefits. More pertinent
is who bears the costs and and Who reaps the benefits of
of the airport expansion program. The first topic discussed is the
state involvement in airport land planning which began in 1950.

-57-

Airport Land Use Control in Michigan
Airport Control - Where the Power Lies

On June 7, 1950, Michigan's Airport Zoning Act was
passed by the state legislature. It empowered the Michigan
aeronautics commission, municipalities, and other political
subdivisions to "promulgate, adopt and establish, administer
and enforce airport zoning regulations." The reason behind
the passage of this act is quite simple. The state found
itself in possession of several airports. especially Capital
City Airport in Lansing. As the urban areas served by these
airports grew it was felt that some control was necessary
to prevent incompatible uses fromllocating near the airport.
The pretext used was that of safety. The act called for
the adoption of airport approach plans. Each plan outlined
exactly what was a hazard, the area where it might be located
and the height limits and other requirements within the
hazard area.

Overall, the Airport Zoning Act is traditionally
structured. The apparatus established to administer the
system is a zoning board with an appeals board for controversial
cases. Both of these institutions are familiar structures
and need not be elaborated on here. Public hearings are
called for which must be publicized beforehand. The 1953
zoning ordinance adopted by the state for Capital City Airport
stretched over one hundred pages in length and detailed
exactly what uses were permitted on the airport property
plus specifying height restrictions for the airport runway

approaches which stretched out to ten miles from the end of

-53-

the runway.

Community involvement in this process was minimal to
say the least. Since the state owned the airport, it adopted
whatever regulations seemed a3310;riate.ThiS system was not to
last forever though. On July 16. 1970 the Governor signed
House Bill ##220 which provided for the creation of airport
authorities and the membership thereof.

Reflecting perhaps the changing sentiment regarding
public particpation in decision making, the act provided for
representation of the affected governmental units on the
authority board. In particular, this act established the
Capital Region Airport Authority by transferring 1.135 acres
of land to the Authority and investing the board with
certain powers. When initially formed, this board was
composed of representatives of Ingham, Clinton, and Eaton
Counties and the City of Lansing. Since its conception,
both Clinton and Eaton Counties have withdrawn from the
board. This defection had led to a curious situation
regarding the decision making process. The airport lies wholly
within Clinton County. The Board regularly makes decisions
which effect the county. but because it is not a member,
Clinton County has no voice in these decisions.

A major power of the board is the right to tax its
members up to 3/4 mill on each dollar of assessed valuation,
to pay for Operating expenses. repairs. improvements and
expansion. As of this writing, only the residents of
Ingham County pay any tax for airport operations. The

residents of Clinton and Eaton Counties have received all

-59...

of the benefits without paying any of the monetary costs.

It can be said that Clinton County is paying social costs,
i.e. noise and air pollution, but due to careful planning
on the part of airport administrators, these costs have
been kept to a minimum. Efforts are now being made to
entice these'hma counties into joining the board once again.
In view of the current land acquisition program (discussed
in a subsequent section) and the overall 20 year plan, a
more comprehensive effort is needed to encompass all
affected areas.

This 1970 Act also stated that "for the purpose of
acquiring, pruchasing, constructing, improving, enlarging
or repairing airports and airport facilities created within
or hereafter acquired by the Authority, the board may issue
self-liquidating bonds of the Authority." Here is another
example of community airport interaction. The bond rating the
airport receives feflects Wall Street's assessment of not
only the board's ability to repay the loan but also the
community's support of the airport. Close ties with the
community it serves would appear to be essential to enhance
the borrowing potential of the authority. The Capital
Region Airport Authority has an excellent rating which

reflects to a certain extent its acceptance by the community.

Land Use Control

As stated previously the board does have zoning powers
within its own property limits. This zoning plan was
adopted in 1953 and is in need of updating. In addition,

a 1976 Airport Zoning Act, passed in June of that year,

grants to the beard the power to zone land up to ten
miles outside the boundaries of the airport itself. This
area extends from the runway end in an ever decreasing
triangle with its point located ten miles away. This
zoning o'verrules any existing zoning adopted
by the local government. This would seem to present a
problem in intergovernmental relations but in the case of »
Capital City Airport, no such problems exist. In the past,
it has been common practice for the local units of government
prior to adopting their zoning ordinances to request
assistance from the airport authority. This has resulted in
a reasonable effective zoning plan in the airport vicinity.
As of this writing, no zoning ordinance has been adopted
by the board for its surrounding area. It appears they will
simply incorporate those ordinances already in existence.
This would be a mistake on the part of the board. It
should look deeply into how it can, by its zoning powers,
effect and guide the growth of neighboring townships.
In the coming years there will be severe developmental
pressures placed on the townships north of Lansing. The
main intent of the board's ordinance should be to alleviate
these pressures because most compatible land uses are
extensive rather than intensive. Since these townships are
basically rural in character they would appear to be eager
to develop a method of maintaining their way ofdife. The
traditional zoning ordinance has not proved an effective tool
for accomplishing this. Too often the profit motive has

proved the downfall to small rural communities.

Land Acquisition Program
As stated previously the airport occupies 1200 acres.
Under the currently effective 20 year master plan, a program
of land acquisition which will add 1500 acres to the airport,
is currently being implemented.
Existing Land Use
Incompatible land uses around an airport fall into
two classes. First, certain uses of land near airports could
pose safety hazards to aircraft using the airport. Such
uses include erection of tall structures that intrude into
navigable airspace, or uses that would interfere with
electronic communications or visibility or which would
present confusingllights to aircraft operators. Second,
other uses of land near airports can be environmentally
incompatible in that they expose those on the ground to
excessive levels of aircraft noise.
The existing land uses in the area of Capital City
Airport are described below and depicted on figure u.1.
1. To the north of the airport, the land is primarily
in agricultural use with scattered, low density
residential development along some sections of
existing roads.
2. Land west of the airport is primarily open.
.A golf course, cemetary, and flarms are the
significant uses.
3. South of Capital City Airport, commercial/
industrial and residential uses predominate. The

proposed development will have no affect upon land

Capital City Airpsrt

EXISTING LAND USE

 

..............
.9... .........
..............

°gggggggggggfcaeivai (553732333:

assess?

 

 

 

examine iAznp 335M

Ejaeswznnm ' -?iusuc SEMI-PUBLIC
{323-3 COMMERCIAL ޣ3 INDUSTRIAL
r-OPEN saxce AGRICULTURAL

uses in this area.

a. To the southwest of the airport is a rapidly
developing residential community.

5. To the east of the airport, land is in low
density residential and scattered commercial
uses.

As can be seen, the airport does not face an immediate
threat from encroaching incompatible land uses. This
is a position which should be maintained and enhanced.

The land acquisition program seeks to accomplish this goal

by buying Up surrounding land. Any unused land will be leased
to farmers for cultivation. This practice is currently

being employed with existing property. The state highway
department will be acting as agentrfor the authority in all
land pruchases and of the 1500 acres to be purchased,

owners of 1000 have already contacted the Authority to
indicate their willingness to sell.

The reasons for this willingness to sell, while not
obvious, can be discerned. Airports are not the best
neighbors in the world. Resale value of property adjacent
to airports is reduced to what agricultural land is worth.
In addition, the Authority has the power to take the land
it needs through the power of eminent domain. As long as
it can be proved that the land is needed for a public
purpose, the Authority can secure the land while paying
"just compensation" to the owner. In many past cases this has
meant long delays for the owner when the courts decide on

a fair price. To avoid this, many owners try and get the

6A—

best price by dealing with the Authority directly.

Up to this p6int, no judgement has been made regarding
the land acquisition program itself. What effects will it
have upon the community and will it accomplish the desired
goal of maintaining a proper airport environment?

In answer to the first question, both DeWitt and
Watertown Townships will suffer financially from the acquisition
program. Taking 1500 acres off the tax roles will hurt both
townships. As a state created agency, the Authority's
property is tax exempt. In addition to this being prime
agricultural land now, the future must also be considered.
If it is assumed that development will proceed as projected,
this land would have been useable as commercial/light
industrial which generate a much higher tax return than
agricultural land. The interesting fact is that while both
townships will suffer from the plan, neither township had
any voice whatsoever in its formulation because they are not
members 0f the board. This is yet another argument for a
wider membership on the Authority board.

Is the airport environment to be preserved by this
program? The Authority would argue yes on the grounds that
more land than necessary is being purchased. All of this
excess land will maintain the character of the area and keep
out unwanted uses. As the map (fig. u.2) on the follwoing
page indicates, the idea of sufficient excess land is
blatently untrue. The plan now in use is based on a 20
year perspective ending in 1995. By that time, a new terminal,

two new runways and several runway extensions will be

Future Buffer Zone

 

....l. Ix
‘71:

 

Future Airport Facilities

“\—

Figure-4.2
Capital City Airport

GROUND ACCESS SYSTEM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\ ---' M -—-.__~-- 25:!
/%’,>;v;:2 -—-—- . ~<-\V
% 1| /
_ CLARK ROAD JP.“
DI ‘
// <i
o.
/"”\ AV’ a}
l-69 EXPRES'SflAY [w ___ g: / y '
// "1:;- '=—-" -'-"“~—«\- —-/ —’ H
/ “j H
/ / 3;? ,
/ if]!
/ (3?
319g ROAD ! ___. __ __

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
   

  
 

1‘:
a <‘
< 0’
o 04
O! F,
L11 01‘
> .
0 °-*
0’. Of.
0

 

 
  
    

 

 

 

‘\

c .89 MIL ROAD.

-..-.- c

 

 

.---o

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

completed. These projects will use up most of the acquired
land and leave little for any type of buffer zone. In
adfition, the state highway department is in the process of
planning a major bypass highway which will be just north
of the airport site. There will be an interchange at
DeWitt Road which will be a focal point for new growth.

In justifying the location of the new terminal this was

a major consideration but was ignored when talking about
the impact of new airport facilities. Residential growth
is beginning in the area and there is little the Authority
can do to prevent it because it does not lie in its area
of zoning power.

Accompanying this residential growth will be a growth
in service uses and commercial uses. These uses are not
compatible with an airport environment and the zoning
powers of the airport will notlprevent this growth. By
developing the northern sector of the acquired land, the
board is pushing active airport operations within close
proximity of this growth. The case presented for these new
facilities is not extremelv convincing. It appears that
expansion of existing facilities would prove to be a
more viable alternative if a proper airport environment is

to be preserved.

-67-

Conclusion

Relationships are often difficult to discern when
looking at various inStitutions. This chapter has viewed
the power relationship between the airport Authority and
the surrounding communities. If power is defined as the
ability to coerce somebody to do something he normally
wouldrnot, then it is clear that the Authority holds a
good deal of power over the local governmental units.
This power takes several forms. Initially, the state invested
airport commissions to regulate height and safety hazards.
As time progressed this expanded to include the power of
eminent domain, the taxing power and finally} dominant
zoning. At the present time, this power is wielded in a
vacuum because these governmental units are not represented
on the board.

This chapter has suggested that this situation be remedied.
The impact of having fullrepresentation on the Authority
Board could be substantial. With only Ingham County on the
Board, little thought was given to the impact of development
plans on the two bordering townships, DeWitt and Watertown.
If both are given a voice in determining future policy there
will be a greater balance to that policy. A more equitable
sharing of costs and benefits will result. fie~ n'a’

The need for land use controls is not questioned, nor
is the need for additional land for future airport
development. What is unfortunate is that community participation
in the decision making process has not been as complete as it

should be. ,,¢,-..

—58—

If the public wishes to continue to receive the benefits
of air transportation it must be prepared to work to
preserve a sound airport environment. This can only be
achieved if all levels of government and the public become

intimately invblved;in.the process.

I
O

    
  
  
   
  
 

Ottempt has been made to review
\.

adLof community/airport interaction.
. O

tities are closely related and have

In this r r.
theemost import Ag.
As can be Seen. 1’6

0
many impadtg upor another both positive and negative.

0

It will only be ugh a greater understanding of these

0
relationshfi‘L that full potential of the airport can
is.

be realized.‘ Bfi"§ximizing the positive aspects and
minimizing 1e negative, the airport can continue to

. O. I . 0
play an important role in the overalfi community structure.

3 .
a a . ‘ " ” ‘
I ... . . ' . f
' ‘ I .l. . ‘ ' Q. \g!‘ .“_.
' fl 2.. ‘C ' ‘ a,
l *‘ . To ‘ .

 

grufffif‘! \

   
 

 

......

 

. , . .

 

Jn645 9770