The social and environmental impacts of airports

Material Information

The social and environmental impacts of airports the effects of the Rocky Mountain Arsenal alternative on Commerce City
Glass, David
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
90, [6] leaves : illustrations, charts, maps ; 30 cm


Subjects / Keywords:
Airports -- Location ( lcsh )
Airport noise -- Colorado -- Denver Metropolitan Area ( lcsh )
Airport noise ( fast )
Airports ( fast )
Airports -- Location ( fast )
Airports -- Denver (Colo.) ( lcsh )
Colorado -- Denver ( fast )
Colorado -- Denver Metropolitan Area ( fast )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )


Includes bibliographical references.
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Master of Urban and Regional Planning (presently Master of Planning and Community Development). College of Design and Planning.
Statement of Responsibility:
David Glass.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
09816476 ( OCLC )
LD1190.A78 1982 .G5598 ( lcc )

Full Text
ry: -i -V
' Xh/rs ap V.*$ep Of
wjnp 5HeaR, a^p yop^ ;
^R2P To Tahfe OFF Pi/e ws^ToveR H^VrLY
Popi/Laiep PaRK Hfik
In psn\£r. '
! Dais Due '*# i -
t i
i . .
i ?

i *j* **"*" S I
V .
wait uuitL
I 6aNlaK2 OFF VeR
~T7 ^
"I.:: "'//.. |


PART I: Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
PART II: Chapter 6
Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9 Chapter 10 Chapter 11
Chapter 12
Chapter 13
The Struggle for Siting An Airport
The Measurement of Aircraft Noise
The Effects of Noise on Man
The Efforts to Limit Aircraft Noise
Federal Policy Toward Aviation Noise Abatement
The Need for Adequate Air Transportation in the Denver Region
Alternative Airport Sites for Denver
The Political Realities Behind a Site Selection
Statement of Hypothesis
The Social Costs of Airport Noise
Changes in Land Use in Commerce City From An Airport at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal
The Environmental Effects on Commerce City From An Airport on the Rocky Mountain Arsenal

The purpose of this thesis is to examine the effects of airports on adjacent neighborhoods and municipalities and project those effects to the situation Commerce City may find itself in,.if the Rocky Mountain Arsenal Alternative is chosen as a replacement or addition to Stapleton International Airport. Commerce City is within 2 miles of a proposed runway and some impacts from airport operation is inevitable. My hypothesis is that an airport at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal will be harmful to the environment of Commerce City with resulting economic and quality of life problems. I intend to prove or disprove this hypothesis by examining the effect of airports on like situations, and see if there has been a deterioration. The deterioration will be defined in terms of property values, used as a proxy for quality of life.
Part I is a general survey of the effects of noise on manfe well being. It begins with an overview of the struggle for siting an airport. It then proceedes to describe the various ways noise is measured. A discussion of the effects of noise on man's physical, social and economic health is followed by a review of the technological and operational procedures used to limit aircraft noise. Part I concludes with a survey of the agencies regulating aircraft noise.

Part II deals with airport problems and alternatives in the Denver Region. Chapter 6 describes the particular importance of air transportation to the Denver Region. Identification of the alternative proposals for airport development in Denver is followed by a statement on where the ultimate decision regarding the future of the airport will eminate and the politics behind that decision. Chapter 9 is the statement of hypothesis,definition of harm and methodology of proof. A discussion on the social costs of airport noise in other communities is found in Chapter 10, including the costs incurred by the Eastern Park Hill Neighborhood, an area in a similar geographic and noise exposure location as Commerce City may find itself in. The next chapters detail the natural and manmade environmental effects of an arsenal airport location on Commerce City. Finally a conclusion is drawn based on the qualitative and quantitative data gathered.

THE STRUGGLE FOR SITING AN AIRPORT The air transportation system involves a dilemma involving national and regional benefits at the expense of local environmental costs. Traditionally, the attitude has been that technology will not yield to environmental barriers, but this era is rapidly coming to an end. Today, more than 6 million Americans are affected by highly intolerable and excessive noises due to aircraft operat ions. Impacted communities have become organized and began forming opposition;the expansion of airport facilities and have brought up lawsuits against airport operators to receive damages for declines in property values and health due to airport noise. Airport administrators are on the front line of confrontations between impacted communities and regional and national interests. Their task is difficult because of the failure of the aviation industry and government to recognize environmental impact problems of airports in the past.
The first organized protest group was formed in 1951 in New York. The airport operator, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey decided to pave its east-west runway, forcing every plane to operate over Jackson Heights. As complaints came pouring in, the responsibility was passed from the airlines, to the contro-lers, to the airport operator. There was not a clear understanding of the nuisance law among any of these actors.
Civic groups began to voice concerns to the local, state and national governments. The press picked up on it and soon protest groups were forming around the country in noise impacted communities .

Later that year, 3 crashes occurred on landings approaching Newark Airport. There were a number of fatalities on the ground. A mob formed and forced the Port Authority to close the airport. After an 8 month investigation, the airport reopened with assurances to the community that a master plan would be implemented including the removal of a noisy and unsafe runway.
The day after the Newark closing, industry and government formed the National Air Transportation Committee to deal with noise mitigation and meet with citizens and government to hear complaints and receive input. This work encouraged the creation of offices to deal with noise abatement in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA).
One of the more popular accounts of an airport noise impacted community's struggle with an automous airport authority can be found in the book Jetport by Dorothy Nelkin, dealing with effects of Logan Airport on the City of East Boston. The community (which was developed before the airport) was experiencing intolerable levels of noise which was affecting homes, schools and parks. Trees had been stripped and antennaes hit by low flying planes. The perceived safety of the neighborhood was threatened, causing property values to decrease. Residents were reluctant to invest in home improvements due to uncertainty regarding airport expansion. The area had been bisected by air-

port access routes and a tunnel from the central business district was recently completed. The city was experiencing rapid decline and an intolerable quality of life due to the adjacent airport, in the midst of a thriving regional economy of which that airport was a major contributor. The City of East Boston was providing necessary services to Logan with sewer lines and police yet concessions and hotels located on a airport property were tax exempt.
Neighborhood groups were able to gain political influence in their ablility to mobilize hundreds of people to public hearings and draw support from the outside. East Boston was able to gain significant concessions from Logan on expansion proposals, noise mitigation and master planning through the political channels they became associated with.
Of course, airports have very definite advantages. They provide speed and convienence to travelers, open up new domestic and international markets, stimulate the local economy by creating new industries and helping existing industries, add jobs and payroll to the region, and purchase products from local business. These must be weighed against the noise annoyance, increased ground traffic, the smell and visable smoke of aircraft emissions and the pollution of water by poorly protected surface drainage systems. Only then can the true measure of an airport's value to a community be assessed.

In their article titled The Social-Economic Implications of
Airport Planning,^ Jerome and Nathanson stress the need for determining the external costs and benefits generated by airport development. The major beneficiaries are the airlines and the flying public. Minor benefits can be realized by employees in airport related jobs consumers and producers of goods (through speedier transportation), and society at large (through air mail delivery and the social and cultural opportunities facilitated through air transporation). Additionally there are indirect benefits realized by the region as airports create employment (from the airlines, aircraft manufactures, and airport operators), by making purchases from local businesses and by aviation wages being spent in the regional economy. Non-aviation activity can be attracted because of good air transportation. Also airports are necessary for emergency and military use.
For these socially utilitarian uses, the authors argue, airport development should justly be supported through the general tax fund.
However, in my opinion the major beneficiaries constitute a highly paid minority of businessmen and tourists who are not paying their share of the social costs of airports. The airlines and the flying public are enjoying a substancial subsidy because they are allowed to dispose of noise on the airport neighbors. Neither the airlines, the manufactures or the government is making sufficient effort to remedy the situation. The courts have established the direct overflight rule which provides a property owner is damaged only from flights directly over his property. But those properties

that are adjacent also suffer the noise but are not eligible for compensation. These costs must be internalized by the airlines to more equitably distribute over $3 billion per year in lost property value appreciation. If we want the convenience of air transportation, airlines must be able to pay the social price.
Adequate air transporation is more important to the Denver area than most metro areas. One reason is the relative isolation of Denver from other metropolitian areas. If only these areas with 1 million population are considered, KC is 600 miles, Los Angeles is 1059, San Francisco is 1285 and Dallas is 781. At these distances, airplanes are the most used mode of transport for business trips. Secondly, many of the industries locating in the Denver area are of the high technology type and depend upon air freight for the shipment of their small but valuable goods.
Third the Denver metro area is the major center for finance, wholesaling and culture for the entire Rocky Mountain Region. These activities require good transportation service, especially air transport. For these reasons, Denver is among the top ten metropolitan areas in airport operations.
A significant correlation can be found between certain measures of regional growth and air transportation service levels.
Data on 21 of the largest metropolitan areas in the U.S., indicates that regions with a heavy use of air transporation tend to be rapid growth regions. It could easily be argued that high air

transportation service levels are necessary in the long run to sustain rapid regional growth.
However, the provision of adequate air transporation must be in harmony with the preexisting environment. Any expansion of Stapleton Airport on the Rocky Mountain Arsenal would bring detrimental environmental effects to Commerce City as well as Brighton, Fedeal Heights, Adams County and Aurora, and offset the positive regional benefits with localized environmental costs.
1 Airport Land-Use Compatability Planning, FAA 1/18/76
2 Socio-Economic Implications of Airport Planning, A. Jerome and
J. Nathanson in Traffic Quarterly 25(2), page 267-286, April 1971

What is needed to combat the problem of jet noise is a realization by the top levels of government that this is a national problem and coordinated effort including the manufacturer, government and the airlines must be employed.
1 Paul T. McClure, "Indicators of the Effect of Jet Noise on the Value of Real Estate," The Rand Corp., Santa Monica, California, July, 1969.
2 IBID *

Noise is defined as unwanted sound. It is a relative term dependant on the hearer. When an object vibrates in air and disturbs the molecules nearby and causes them to move, sound is created. When this sensation reaches the ear, we respond to the magnitude or intensity of the sound and it's frequency.
The rate at which sound energy is transmitted is called its intensity and is measured in decibels. They are measured on a logarithmic scale. Thus a sound of 20 decibels is 10 times as intense as a sound of lOdb, but is perceived by most humans to be only twice as loud. In a free field, sound radiates in all directions so that a doubling of distance between source and receiver will result in a fourfold decrease in sound intensity (6 db decrease in sound level).
Sounds also differ in frequency or pitch. A four engine turbojet aircraft and a 4 engine propeller plan have similar intensity but different frequency. The turbojet seems louder because it's frequency is higher.
The "Aweighted sound level" (dba) has been developed to combine frequency and intensity of sounds. Dr. Karl Kryter invented the Perceived Noise Level in decibels (PNdb). It assigns more weight to high frequency sounds, so that jet noise produces 12-13 db higher rating than propeller noise on the PNdb scale.
The noise exposure forecast (NEF) was developed in 1967 by Bishop and Hornjeff. It is designed to reflect the impact of noise on the community rather than on a particular aircraft. The total NEF at any ground location is determined by the sum of all noise

sources. The values are reflective of perceived decibels, aircraft types, mix of aircraft, number of operations, runway utilization flight path, operating procedures and time of day. Observed NEF values range between 15 and 55. There is little or no community annoyance between 15-25, some to much annoyance from 25-40 and considerable annoyance above NEF 40.^
In quantifying the impact of jet noise on a community, one must consider the frequency of occurance of the noise. The CNR (composite noise rating) arrives at a scale which considers loudness, time of day or night, sound frequency and frequency of occurance. A CNR level of 95-100 is considered the limit of tolerance before people take vigerous action.
An individuals attitudes,beliefs, and values influence his annoyance level. If the person feels that the sound was preventable he is more likely to feel hostile to the noise. A persons activity at the time of hearing the noise is critical. Sleep, rest or relaxation are more easily disrupted than is communication or entertainment. Belief about the effects of noise on ones health also effects response to noise.
Additionally there are some physical factors found to influence a personfe reaction to noise. The greatest incidence of annoyance occurs in rural areas, followed by suburban and residential urban and then commerical and industrial areas. Noise has been found to be more disturbing in early evening and night than during the day and more disturbing in the summer than winter as people have windows open and outdoor activities are on the increase. (This

point has particular importance for residents of Commerce City as the summer month" thunderstorms necessitate operations to and from the west, over Commerce City. This is the present summer situation for the Park Hill Community located just west of Stapleton.)
The length of time a person is exposed to noise affects his reaction to noise. There is little evidence to suggest that annoyance decreases as exposure continues, rather annoyance may increase with long exposure. Predictability of the noise also affects reaction. Unpredictable noise have higher annoyance factor then predictable noise.
The DRCOG study employs the cumulative method using the LDN technique. This involves construction of noise contours with equal cumulative noise exposure. The contours depend on the flight patterns, number of daily aircraft operations, type of aircraft, runway utilization, time of day and aircraft weight. Night time noise is weighted twice as noisy as daytime. LDN values are mearly a way of comparing noise impacts, not precisely defining such impacts to specific parcels of land. They are used for highlighting an existing or potential problem, assist in helping prepare airport environs land-use plans, provide guidance as to different land-use controls to be used and compare relative magnitude of noise impacts for different configurations and locations .
LDN 75,70 and 65 contours were used. These were selected on the
basis of Federal Guidelines as well as the degree of average human response to different noise exposure levels.

LDN 75 or higher is an FAA guideline for their aviation noise abatement policy. This is considered severe. HUD specifies LDN
65 as the maximum outdoor level before serious noise intrusion enters
into the home. These standards are intented to separate intensive noise sources from noise sensitive areas. They prohibit any HUD assistance for new construction on unacceptble noise-exposed sites. (See Land Use Guidance Chart in Appendix)
It should be noted that HUD guidelines are based on the accumulation of noise from all sources, including highway, industrial and aircraft noise while FAA guidelines only include aircraft noise.
This is important in the case of Commerce City where, according to David Lefvre, HUD Environmental Officer, increased aircraft noise added to preexisting noises may put Commerce City within
the LDN 65 contour and make subdivisons in the area ineligible for
HUD asistance including mortgage guarantees.
1 "Economic Analysis of Transportation Noise Abatement," J. Nelson, 1978, page 32.
2 Interview with David LeFevre, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Denver, April, 1982.

remarkably well (Glass, 1969).^ The effects of noise on sleep are not well understood. It depends on the intensity and frequency of the noise and the stage of sleep as well as the chara-teristics of the person. Studies by Kryter has shown that older
people are more bothered by sleep disruption from noise than 3
younger people. (Kryter, 1970)
Noise may also effect the cardiovascular system. Selye (1956) has hypothesised that noise is one of many stressors producing specific and non-specific effects and that the non-specific effects are equal and cumulative, suggesting that even low noise exposure may contribute to other non-spec ific stressors, resulting in cardiovascular effects.4 The imperical evidence about the effects of noise on the cardiovascular system is sketchy. Jansen (1969) found that workers in noisy industries have a higher rate of cardiovascular disease than workers in quiet industry.5 However, the National Research Council has concluded that the physiological and psychological effects of noise are transitory and can be adapted out (except for hearing).
A UCLA study concluded the tension, anxiety and qqisance of jets constantly passing overhead may substancially reduce a persons life span. They examined a neighborhood boardering Los Angeles International Airport where jets pass over several hundred times per day and found a higher death rate than in a quiet community, along with an increase in the occurrence of every type of

disease, including a 39% increase in stroke and cardiovascular
problems and a 140% higher incidence of alcoholism.
A Japanese study examining the effects of baby weights at birth under noisy airport flight paths found a 50% increase inthe pro-portion of infants under 2500 grams in noisy areas. (45% of U.S. babies under 2500 grams die in their first month and they account for 60-75% of all first year infant deaths. These babies also show higher mortality rates in later life and are subject to highrate of various diseases)- They also found that mothers experienced ill effects (starting at 75 DB) at twice the rate of those in quiet areas. These results must be regarded as questionable, because of lack of information on precedure and methodology.
Environmental noise also interferes with job performance. Noise effects productivity in that workers exhibit an increase in errors, more variability in performance, and an increased ten-
dency to make quick decisions in confusing situations. Additionally noise may indirectly negatively influence motivation and morale resulting in increased absenteeism, personnel turnover and retraining expenses. Noise also interferes with communication, decreasing work and social communication on the job.
Mills has found that children are more likely to suffer from effects of noise than adults. This is because as speech and hearing are interrupted, more of its meaning is lost. Studies showing the relationship of transportation noise to improvement of reading ability concluded that high noise levels in the home

cause children to be unable to differentiate phonemes and caused worse performance on reading tests.
Another effect of noise is a reduction in the quality of life (which is a subjective term). Damage to the auditory system reduces the ability to communicate with other people, listen to music and talk on the telephone. Even for people with normal hearing, excessive noise moves people indoors and causes people to speak louder. Aircraft operations often interfere with T.V. reception, and cause vibrations in structures, somtimes cracking windows. (This is what happened in the Park Hill Neighborhood). "It even makes it difficult for the sick to be home to convelese," says Dr. Cecil Glen.
Glass & Singer have found that there are after effects of noise.
In their experiments, they discovered that workers exposed to
noise performing a task after the noise was eliminated made more
errors in proofreading, were not as persistant in working on
important problems and not as competent on processing
conflicting information as the group who did not experience any 10
noise. This implies that workers living in noise exposed homes will show the after effect at work.
Studies have proven that noise effects social behavior. In a laboratory study, a person dropped an armload of books. A subject was less likely to pick them up under noisy conditions than under quiet condit ions .11 Another study had subjects administer electric shocks to someone with a choice given to the subject on the intensity of the shock. Those giving shock under noisy

conditions gave a greater intensity shock than those in quiet conditions .12
Noise also effects indirect learning. It appears to produce concentration on the primary learning task at the expense of the secondary task. This was proven in a study where people were required to proofread under noisy conditons. Their ability to
proofread wasn1 t impared but their ability to detect spelling and
grammar errors was reduced.
Thus the effects of noise on hearing, phy-sical, economic, and social health and quality of life have been well documented. It is clear that excessive noise can cause a degregation of mans well being.
1 Kryter, K (1970), The Effects of Noise on Man, New York: Academic Press
2 Glass, D.G., J.E. Singer, and L.N. Friedman (1969), Psychic Cost of Adaptation to an Environmental Stressor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 12(3), page 200-210.
3 IBID to number 1.
4 Selye, H. (1976), The Stress of Life, New York: McGraw-Hill
5 Jansen (1969), Effects of Noise on Physiological State, Page 89-98.
6 Meachan, W.C. and Shaw, Ned, Effect of Jet Noise on Mortality Rates, UCLA, Los Angeles, California
7 Ando Y., and Huttori, H.(19 73) Statistical Studies on the Effects of Intense Noise During Human Fetal Life, Journal of Sound and Vibration 27(1), page 101-110.
8 Broadbent, D.E., (1951), Effects of Noise on Behavior, Page 10:1-10:34,
Handbook of Noise Control, edited by G.M. Harris, New York: McGraw Hill
9 Mills, Ch.G., (1975), Noise and Children: A Review of Literature. Journal of Accustical Society of America 58(4), page 767-779.
10 Glass and Singer, (1972), Urban Stress: Experiments on Noise and Social Stressors, New York: Academic Press.

11 Mathews, K.E. and Cannon L.K., (1975), Environmental Noise Level
As A Detriment of Helping Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32(4), page 571-5 77.
12 Geen, R.G. ana Powers, P.C., (ly71) Shock and Noise as Instigating
Stimuli in Human Agression, Psychological Reports, 28(3), page
9 8 3-y 8 5.
13 Weinstein, N.D. (1974), Effect of Noise on Intellectual Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(5), page 548-554.

There are 4 approaches to limiting the noise problems in airport environs. These are (1) decreasing the noise at the source, (2) moving the noise away from the people, (3) moving the people away from the noise,and (4) establishing collaborative working relationships among various levels and agencies of government.
Decreasing the Noise at the Source:
Noise generated by jet engines is an operational by-product.
A jet produces thrust by taking in air through an inlet, raising the temperature and pressure of that air in the engine and expelling it to the rear with a high velocity from a jet nozzel. Noise is Produced by the processes that take place within and outside the engine.
The first jets called turbojets expelled all of the sucked-in-air at a high velocity. Later a nozzel was added onto the tailpipe to decrease the friction with the ambient air.
In 1959 turbofans were introduced. These took in large amounts of air and expelled it at lower velocity. It added a multibladed fan ahead of the compressor at the engine intake, blowing 30% of ingested air around the turbojet engine and tailpipe, creating a ring of cool air around hot jet effluxfaci1itating mixing with the ambient air, thus decreasing jet noise. But the fans created a whine which is especially noisy during approaches.

The sound proofing of the nascelles (engine housing) was effective in reducing escape of engine noise and whine.
The develoment of the hi-bypass engine on today's wide body aircraft produced half the loudness with more thrust. These engines blow out 5 times the ingested air around the engine as thru it. This resulted in reduced areas of community exposure to the same noise level.
Additional source control involves retrofitting noiser aircraft with quieter engines. Federal Aviation Regulation Part 36 set up noise standards for new aircraft types certified after 1969, and have since extended the standards to older types of aircraft. It is the basic instrument of noise abatement policy in the United States today. Since 1969 the FAA has instituted voluntary operational noise abatement rules where arrivng aircraft are kept as high as possible prior to approach; considered several noise abatement proposals by EPA such as a fleet noise level requirements, and amended part 36 to provide for lower noise emission standards for new type aircraft applied for after November 1975.
In 1973, The FAA sponsored a $7 million test program to retrofit the Boeing 707. This resulted in a 10-15 degree reduction in engine noise. This represented a promising solution for airport operators and the noise impacted community, but the airline industry claims that the benefits are over estimated.
The cost of retrofit is a significart expense for the the airlines (estimated at several billions by FAA)f considering the

remaining service life of these old aircraft. The airlines lobbied heavily for the Avaiation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 which essentially put the retrofit program aside. Future improvements in noise control at the source will now be from new technology aircraft with the incentives provided from the Act. Also the Act provides for (1) the Secretary of Transportion and the head of EPA to establish a single system of measuring noise at and near airports along with a single system for determining exposure of individuals to noise and identifying land-uses com-patable with various noise levels. (2) Requires the airport operator to submit to the secretary of Transportation, noise exposure maps and noise abatement measures to serve as a basis for planning and development grants in aid. These maps limit the liability of the airport operator in suits for damages resulting from operation in accordance with them and their noise abatement measures. (3) Exclude by 1985, 86, 3 & 2 engine aircraft not conforming to noise certification provision of FAR-36.
Another technological solution to decrease noise at the source is the develoment of STOL and VTOL (short and verticle takeoff and landing) aircraft. These aircraft, used for trips up to 500 miles require less runway space (only 1500 ft. compared to 10,000 ft, for convetional jets). The use of these aircraft would effectively distribute the noise problem throughout the metropolitan area, utilizing satellite airports spread around the region. However, the outlook for these aircraft is uncertain, as they have demonstrated unstable rides at their low altitudes.

Although today's fleet is quieter than yesterdays, airport environs have not received any relief from the noise problem. This is because the increase in aircraft operations has out-weight any gains in the quieter technology. Additionally many of the older noisy plans have been retained by the airlines during the current economic slowdown. Most experts agree that rather than retiring the older planes, the airlines will sell them to one of the upstart companies who will keep then in the air for another 10 years. The resulting prospects for noise impacted communities in the near future is therefore not good.

This effort must begin by sensitively locating new airports.
Noise specialists should be consulted to determine the impacts, taking into account frequency of operations, fleet mix, adjacent land-use and community reation to noise. Surveys need to be conducted questioning the public's maximum acceptable time between the airport and major originating points.
The configuration of the runways is of prime importance in noise mitigation. The configuration is dependent on the prevailing winds, airspace, the configuration of runways from nearby airports, the topography, and local obstructions. Orienting runways to avoid overflying residential areas is no easy task because safety is the overriding locational factor. The lengthening of runways to permit take-offs and landings on the same runway in the same direction may be a useful technique in allieviating noise.
Ground run-up areas should be shielded with walls or buildings to minimize warm up noise leakage.
Operational procedures are useful in limiting the noise exposure. Stapleton presently uses a preferential runway use pattern. When weather conditions permit, planes take off to the north over the Rocky Mt. Arsenal and land from the east over sparsely popluated areas. Unfortunately, the weather conditions
only permit this to occur about 53% of the time^forcing operations over more populated areas like Commerce City, Aurora, and
Park Hill. Other operational procedures used to mitigate the noise problem are the two segment approach and departure flight

patterns which involve a full thrust take off and initial climb, then reduced thrust over populated areas and finally resume full thrust after these areas are passed. On landings, a 6 glide slope was used until a point near the end of the runway with a 3 slope resumed, keeping the aircraft up higher over residential areas. These procedures resulted in a 10 perceived noise decebil decrease but were questionable from a safety standpoint. Other operational adjustments to reduce noise include displaced thresholds (landing further down the runway) and changing flight paths. These have all been opposed by the airlines because they may increase delays costing airlines fuel, salaries, engine wear and the cost of time to their passengers.
The most controversial of noise abatement operational procedures are the night-time restrictions and curfews. These have been proposed by the airport operators (who have been taking heat for the noise problem from the nearby communities), supported by the impacted people, and opposed by the airlines and the FAA (because half the airfreight shipped in the US is between 11P.M. and 7A.M. and many international flights take off at night to get to Europe for the business day. At Stapleton, there are few nightime operations: 5% from 10 PM-7 AM) .^in 1973 the US Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a night-time curfew imposed by the City of Burbank in operations at Hollywood, Burbank Airport, finding that the Federal Government has primative rights in this case. The Burbank case effectively prohibits the use of the police power by the state and local governments to protect its citizens from aircraft noise. This has raised the question whether the

airport operators noise abatement. Aspects section.
can excercise its proprietory rights to achieve This will be discussed later in the Legal

Traditionally, Airports have been inducers of development in their environs. Firms often find it to their advantage to locate near the airport for immediate access of their executives and customers to air service and for speedy transportation of valuable and perishable goods. (Stapleton provides 85,000 primary and induced jobs.)^ Thus the airport is a center of employment for many people. It will usually have a favorable access position in the region, both in terms of roads, and transit. For these reasons, there is a natural demand for housing and associated services in the airport vicinity. However, residential, commercial and recreational uses near airports are often incompatable ones. It is for this reason that land use controls are needed, that would leave a clear zone in noise impacted areas. Unfortunately, 51 of the 61 airports serving the largest cities in the U.S. were built before 1950 (long before jet services) when land use compatability was not a consideration for receiving federal funds. What is needed is a collaboration between airport management local and regional planning officials and the impacted public specifying the land uses that are compatable with the noise impacts. This collaboration can be accomplished through the preparation of an airport-land-use campatability plan. The plan uses the input of the airport owner and manager, the FAA and airport neighbors to achieve a better environment for the airport and its' neighbors.
The plan includes a physical plan and an implementation program.
The physical plan defines the location of the airports noise, basic land-use surrounding the airport and major natural and

transportation facilities. It uses the HUD land-use-guidance
chart to identify land uses campatable with different noise 5 .
levels* It also identifies existing and future aviation needs and resulting impacts. It is developed in way similar to a comprehensive plan (identifying community's goals, identification of existing land use and future land use, development of alternative compatability schemes, selection of prefered alternatives.
Implementation is accomplished through actions to control noise and to controlling development in the noise sensitive area. Operational controls, discussed previously, are designed to control noise. Land use controls are to assure the noise impacted area will not be encroached by noise sensitive uses.
Acquisition of noise impacted properties is the most positive way to insure compatable development. Impacted land is usually bought by the airport sponsor or by state or local governments. The Airport and Airway Development Act Amendments of 1976 provide federal funds for the purchase of land adjacent to the airport for noise compatability purposes. The land may be incorporated into the airport, used for other purposes or resold with convenants to assure long term compatibility. Land can be acquired through negotiation, through a voluntary program or through condemnation.
Another strategy used to achieve compatability is through zoning. This includes zoning out incompatable land uses in noise impacted areas as well as limiting the height of objects near the airport.The Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Airport is considered to be a successful example of compatable land-use planning through

zoning. In spite of the airport's huge size and its large buffer area, the surrounding community of Irving, Texas was subject to substancial noise exposure. The affected area was rezoned from residential to airport related industrial park providing com-patability and expanded tax base for the city.
However, zoning by itself may not be effective as a compatability tool especially in developed areas. It is not retroactive, not permanent and can be legally violated through variances. As the airport developed, the City of Irving responded to increasing pressure for residential development by rezoing some of the adjacent land back to residential, creating a compatablility problem again. In developed areas such as Commerce City, rezoning the residential district adjacent to the proposed airport may prove politically impossible. People have been established in homes there since the 1950's and would likely resist moving, even in the prospect of rising land values from rezoned property. Vacant land rezoned and developed for airport related purposes can be a negative influence on a residential community. Witness the blight of the residential communities surrounding the major airports, including Stapleton.
A useful technique available to local governments to insure com-patability is to limit the construction of utilities and roads in the high noise areas, reducing the pressure for residential development .

zoning. In spite of the airport's huge size and its large buffer area, the surrounding community of Irving, Texas was subject to substancial noise exposure. The affected area was rezoned from residential to airport related industrial park providing com-patability and expanded tax base for the city.
However, zoning by itself may not be effective as a compatability tool especially in developed areas. It is not retroactive, not permanent and can be legally violated through variances. As the airport developed, the City of Irving responded to increasing pressure for residential development by rezoing some of the adjacent land back to residential, creating a compatablility problem again. In developed areas such as Commerce City, rezoning the residential district adjacent to the proposed airport may prove politically impossible. People have been established in homes there since the 1950's and would likely resist moving, even in the prospect of rising land values from rezoned property. Vacant land rezoned and developed for airport related purposes can be a negative influence on a residential community. Witness the blight of the residential communities surrounding the major airports, including Stapleton.
A useful technique available to local governments to insure com-patability is to limit the construction of utilities and roads in the high noise areas, reducing the pressure for residential development .

Easements are yet another land-use control mechanism available to pay for the cost of noise. Land owners are compensated for exclusive rights to airspace over the property above a certain height. In 1962 the Supreme Court held that the airport operator was liable for taking an avigation easement over the plaintiffs property because of low flying commercial aircraft.
The airport operator was liable because "he" is the promotor, owner and lessor of the airport and adequate approach is as important as a runway.
In order to avoid costly lawsuites, the owners of Los Angles International Airport have spend $125 Million for the purchase of noise impacted property and easements in the last decade. In Denver, 32 easements have been purchased at an average price of $1,000 in 1968. 6
Another compensating mechanism is for the airport sponsor to pay for insulation. This has been used at the Seattle-Tacoma airport sucessfully. The EPA has estimated that buying out or soundproofing homes of the 2.5 million people severely impacted by jet noise would cost over $10 billion. They recommend 3 ways to compensate property owners for relocating or soundproofing homes including a surcharge on passenger tickets and cargo, charging aircraft operators for noise, and getting funds from existing federal housing and energy programs to establish a noise trust fund. The report also stressed that local government can allievate the problem by preventing incompatable development.1

Finally a compensatory strategy exists where residents unable to sell property due to noise intrusion are offered purchase agreements by the airport sponsor.
These are all strategies designed to decrease the impact of noise on people. They must be implemented within the constraints of the political, economic and legal systems. Their implementation will depend upon the realization that airport noise is a considerable hardship to the impacted community.
Dulles International Airport near Washington D.C. is an example of what can happen to the airport vicinity in the absence of land use controls or accurate forecasts of aviation growth. Revised estimates of noise impacted areas caused county officals to change their policy of not permitting residential development in the generally unacceptable areas. The new policy prohibits residential development only in intolerable areas.
The Huntsville-Madison County Jetport in Alabama is a good example of using both operational and land use control to limit noise. Orginating in the open countryside, the airport induced development along its borders causing the need for a land use compatability plan. Operational controls were implemented to keep jets away from populated areas while development was controlled to encourage industrial and commercial uses in the noisy areas.

1 Interview with Wayne Flairighty, FAA Planner, Denver, March 1982
2 Stapleton Master Plan, Table A-3, Peat Marwick & Mitchell, 1981.
3 IBID, Table A-2
4 34,155 direct employment from aviation activity at SIA. Induced employment from subsequent rounds of spending from these aviation related employees are approximately 85,000 jobs. Economic Research Associates,. July 1981.
5 See housing and Urban development Land Use Guidance Chart in Appendix.
6 Paut T. McClure, "Indicators of the Effect of Jet Noise on the Value of Real Estate" The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica,
California, July 1969.

The Fair Commerce Act of 1926 accomodated aviation to the law of property rights by conferring "a public right of freedom of air navigation through navigable airspace." But lowing flying aircraft soon became so distrubing as to be construed a trespass or nuisance and a use of ones property (airspace) to distrub another person's enjoyment of his property. In a nuisance case, the courts must weigh the social utility of the noise makers conduct against the damage cost to the plaintiff. Relief is grated when the noisemakers conduct is determined unreasonable.
In most states, plantiffs can recover damages caused by the intrusion into airspace directly over their property but not for disruptions that are nearby but not overhead. Compensation also requires judgement dealing with physical invasion and disruption, which are difficult to define. Also, plaintiffs often lose their case because they moved in after the airport was built. With these historical barriers to overcome, the victims of airport noise will have trouble recovering the costs associated with it.
Private citizens have brought suites against airport operators on the basis of nuisance and taking. The first Supreme Court decision (Causeby VS U.S. 1946) involved a taking. Causeby, a chicken farmer, claimed the military flights from a public owned airport over his property destroyed his business by killing 150

chickens and constituted a taking of his property without just
compensation. The court first rejected the ancient Roman law
that ownership of land extended to -the limits of the universe,
stating that Congress had declared the airspace to be a public
highway. However, the overflights in the Causeby case, occurred
below the floor of navigable airspaces (sometimes as low as 81 feet) which was 500 -1000 feet at the time, causing a diminuation of the value of the property. The remedy for the taking was just compensation (inverse condemation). But the major question left to be resolved was who is liable for the taking. In this case the airport operator, aircraft owner and controller of the airspace were one in the same (the military).
The party liable for taking was resolved in U.S. Supreme court in 1962 in the Griggs VS Allegheny Airport Case. Griggs was a property owner living a few thousand feet from the end of the Greater Pittsburgh Airport. The flights were 150-300 feet above his home. A board of reviewers found a taking by the airport operator (Allegheny County), awarding Griggs $12,690. The county argued before the Supreme Court that either the airlines or the FAA is liable for the taking. The court rejected this claiming that it is the operators obligation to aquire all property interests necessary for the operation of the airport. Based on this decision, 49 families near Los Angeles International Airport were recently awarded $365,700 for damages to compensate for noise, (over 61,000 households (both individually and collectively) have brought suit against Los Angeles *
International, for illegal taking averaging over $46,000 per

household.^- It is clear that the plantiffs have added sufficient
amounts of "blue sky" to their damages which inflates these
claims. If 10% of the sums asked in damages were settled on out
of court, then the total cost of noise in the Los Angeles
impacted community would be $280 million).
Federal regulations normally supercede regulations of the state and local level. Congress has said that the States and local governments retain the power to control use of airports when they don't interfere with Federal laws. Presently there are local ordinances controlling the number of night-time operations, limiting the total number of operations, excluding particular aircraft, and regulating noise emissions.
Recently the Supreme Court has cast a cloud of doubt over locally imposed ordinances. In the Burbank case mentioned in a previous chapter, the court held that the City could not impose a ban on night-time jet take offs. Thus, under Griggs the local government is responsible for the taking of property yet under Burbank they cannot make operational adjustments.
In American Airlines VS Hempstead 1968, the town of Hempstead near JFK International Airport enacted an ordinance to bar all aircraft in excess of 92 decibles. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals said a town can't adopt an ordinance which effectively controls aircraft flights on the grounds of total social interest. However, other local ordinances have been upheld including a curfew on night time operations at Santa Monica Airport (not used by commercial airlines).

Bureaucrate Policy- The FAA, created in 1958 is responsible for
air traffic control, use of runways and airways, and setting performance standards for safety and noise. In 1969 the FAA set maximum noise limits for new types of jet aircraft and have since extended the limits to older types (FAR Part -36see Chapter 6).
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires any federally funded project to be reviewed by the Council on Environmental Quality with a environmental impact statement attached evaluating all adverse affects on the environment.
Many of the nation's airports have been federally funded through the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970. Funds are provided for locating or expanding airport facilities. FAA will only provide aid if the protection of the environment is insured, including the interest of communties in or near the project. The act requires that airport operators insure that airport plans are consistant with other urban plans. ADAP expired in September 30, 1980 with a $350 Million extention tacked on Spetember 1981.
Because aircraft noise and safety are related issues, control of these 2 aspects has remained in the hands of FAA. They have the power to reject environmental regulations if they interfere with what they believe are "unsafe, technologically or economically unfeasible or not applicable to certain aircraft." The FAA policy on the environmental impact of airports requries environmental issues be given consideration in all Federal airport planning projects. These include impacts on social, economic and community

development issues as well as noise and air pollution. But vague guidelines for evaluation of these impacts have watered down
the policy and led to inferior planning.
HUD is indirectly involved noise abatement by control of federal aid for housing in noise impacted areas. In 1961 the FHA started refusing to insure mortgages in high noise areas where jet noise reaches 100 db. Their policy stated. "In the absence of planning and zoning for new residential uses, FHA must recognize that the disability of residential property in the vicinity of airports may be affected adversely by the existing or potential hazard of low flying aircraft, the nuisance of noise and the possibility of mushrooming non-residential uses."
But FHA officials often found themselves caught inbetween increased reaction to aviation noise and needs for new housing rendering their policies useless. In the same year the new policy was announced, Rep. Hale Boggs of Louisiana aided officials of the City of Kenner/ La. in halting its implementation. "I was able to get the FHA to reverse its decision so that residential and business development could continue in Kenner and its environs. The fact is that this suburban land west of New Orleans was vitally needed for home and business construction in order to meet population growth in Metropolitan New Orleans." Twenty one years later on July 9, 1982 a tragic plane crash occured in that same vicinity, killing residents and destroying homes.

The NW portion of the City of Aurora is an area heavily impacted
by noise from Stapleton Airport. They recently applied for
grants from HUD to help existing residents maintain their homes,many of which were built before the utilization of jets and some before Stapleton was built. The grants were finally
approved under the conditions that acceptable interior noise levels be achieved and that no new housing be permitted in unacceptable areas. (LDN 75 and higher) Undeveloped areas within questionable noise impact areas will be referred to FAA for noise monitoring before HUD will administer grants.
The US Airforce was the first unit of the executive branch to feel the impact of community reaction to jet noise and do something about it. They devoted over $100 million to noise abatement research by 1958. Congress had authorized the purchase of buffer-land around bases by the mid 1950's. The USAF policy of locating bases 15 miles from urban development was soon violated because towns kept springing up next to the facility. Underscretary of Defense J. H. Douglas announced in 1957 that land should be cleared up to 6 miles from the ends of each runway. But this proved uneconomical as over $7.2 billion was needed to acquire easements at that distance in 1956.
Of the agencies invovled in noise abatement, perhaps none is better technically suited to deal with the problem than NASA.
But as they got involved in space exploration, noise abatement interest dwindled.

THE NEED FOR ADEQUATE AIR TRANSPORTATION IN THE DENVER REGION Stapleton International Airport is located in the northeast quad
of Denver (See Map I). It is bordered by Park Hill a developed residential community in Denver "on the west, Northwest Aurora a developed residential neighborhood of Aurora on the south and Commerce City on the northwest. Its northern border is the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, a military installation of 17,700 acres of largely undeveloped and some highly contaminated land, and its eastern border is Morris Heights a residential part of Aurora (see exhibit B, land use map). SIA was dedicated in October 1929 on a 630 acres cow pasture "way out on the prairie." Mayor Ben Stapleton encountered bitter opposition when he paid $143,013 for the property. At that time the area was largely undeveloped except for portions of the Park Hill neighborhood. According to Dr. Cecil Glenrv a resident of Park Hill and professor of sociology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Stapleton was a good neighbor until the influx of jets in 1960. "We could coexist with the propellor planes and the 727's and 737's but not with today's fleet."^says Glenn.
According to Robert Michael, Director of Aviation, SIA is rapidly reaching saturation. "Unless it continues to expand its facilities it will be swamped before the end of the decade."
Table I, included in the appendix 2 shows the forcasts for future operations, upon which all planning is based. Despite an actual historical growth in operations, predicting future demand is a tricky subject, especially in this era of uncertainty in t^ie air transportation industry (for example, a 4.9% nationwide drop

jh -; _r u r P.. / i 1 i i ; > ' IK-K .- j j
H \\zj- ' i/jr y : < > / ,.r* / Ijr
Y ^ G> ;- 'j 7- v a tept^ it T i-r A

in air travel due to the air traffic controllers strike, supris-ingly resulted in an 8.8% increase in Stapleton's usage during that time.
"The chances are that any figures relating to the future will be wrong. This is not because of a desire on anyones. part to deceive; it is just that one of the most consistant features of an up and down industry has been the way predictions,, good and bad, have been wrong. Even the forecasts change rapidly. At the end of 1967 it was predicted by 1977 that 352 million passenger miles would be flown in the US. At the end of 1968 the forecast for 1978 read 440 million passengers. That's an upward revision of 25% in 12 months for an industry with a growth rate of about 15% per year."
Many factors influence future demand for air transportation.

Some of these are the price and availability of aviation fuel, the impact of deregulation on fares, general economic conditions, air controllers strikes, policy decision by airlines to keep Denver as a hub, a morass of federal, state and local policies regarding airport development and access, the implementation of new technology competing with airline travel (video phone), on and on. These conditions all affect potential demand and thus have ramifications on where, when and if at all to expand airport facilities. The do nothing alternative may be a viable one and should be addressed. Therefore, it is with some reservations that I have decided to accept the forecast of the Master Plan concluding that present facilities are inadequate to handle future demand. This acceptance has been based on the expertise


employed in making the forcasts and the historical growth of air operations of SIA.
The Master Plan study is recommending additions to terminals, 2 new concourses, removal of several hangars and expansion of runways, designed to extend the life of Stapleton to the year 2000.
Presently SIA ranks as the 7th busiest airport in the world with
22.6 million users in 1982 (note the discrepancy between this and the forecast. SIA wasn't forecasted to reach this level until after 1990). This is way out of proportion for a city of Denver's size (24 largest city in the US and 7th largest airport in US.). The reason for this is that SIA is used as a hub airport for this region providing transfer services for many passengers. The fact that 54% of Denver' s emplanements were originating from and destined for somewhere else,^ indicates that Stapleton is providing most of its capacity for people other than Denverites. Because somebody else decided that SIA will be major hub we are forced to pay the price,"6says Dr. Cecil Glenn,a resident of Park Hill, a Denver community just under the flight path of Stapleton's 2 E-W runways. (Incidentially, Dr. Glenn, along with 5 other plaintiffs are bringing up a lawsuit against the airport operator for violating a state noise statute.) Dan Todd, an employee of Frontier Airlines, representing the Colorado Forum, a coalition of airlines serving SIA counters. "The airlines will bear the price of expansion (thru landing fees, gasoline tax) up to the airport boundary." This means the costs in access, services and the environment are payed by the local taxpayer .

The airport operator, who is the City and County of Denver, is committed to providing connecting service at their hub airport.
They express fears of losing some of the transfer service to
Kansas City and Salt Lake City due'to congestion with the present
facility thus relinquishing income from landing fees and fuel
tax. This revenue' has been estimated at $6 million per year in fueltaxes.
The problem with congestion and delays are most pronounced at SIA when the weather is bad, usually in February and March. The parallel runways do not allow for simultaneous arrivals. FAA regulations require a 4300 foot separation for simultaneous arrivals; while SIA north/south runways has only a 1,300 separation and the E-W runways only a 9001 separation and are not used at all during bad weather. This has caused SIA to have the 2nd highest incidence of delays in the US in 1980. These delays are expected to increase to well over and hour for 91% of the delays at SIA in the year 2000, if facilities remain at the present level (see table 10). While most delays now are between 1-5 minutes, most in the year 2000 will average 75 minutes.
Capacity is also strained on the land side. According to Robert Michael, "there is insufficient public space in the terminal, roadway system and parking areas," A new and expanded airport is needed if demand is to be handled. We wish to accomodate demand.
The airport master plan had developed with this in mind.(Table 2)
Generally the master plan is recommending physical and operational alternatives to handle the demand at SIA until the year

2000. It advises a phased approach to improvement. The immediate needs are for a $70 million expansion of the terminal, including a four story addition to the building and an additional concourse with another dozen gates. Near term action (82-87) include reducing general aviation to eliminate low performance aircraft operations to reduce commercial delays, construction of low cost surface parking, and preliminary studies related to new runway construction. Plans for the intermediate term show the development of air cargo facilities and airport support facilities in the NW section of the airport and construction of a remote terminal north of the existing terminal. The long term recommendations (2000) include construction of a new NS runway with the required 4300 ft separation. (See exhibit B) The plan recommends a bond issue of $150 million to begin a $1 billion expansion. $310 million worth of improvements would be necessary to satisfy the requirements through 1985.
The administration of Mayor Wm. McNichols of Denver is firmly behind the retention and expansion of Stapleton. The problem is that after spending $1 billion on improvements SIA will be in the same position it is today in 2000. It is for this reason that the Denver Reginal Council of Governments (DRCOG) is studying the possibility of relocating the airport to 3 alternative sites.
These are site 3 at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, site 4/5 east of the arsenal and site 6, 25 miles outside Denver near Bennett.
Ail three of these alternatives are in Adams County. This presents a public relations problem for Stapleton's operators. "The f public doesn't understand why you want to spend $1 billion to

expand the airport when you will be moving," says Robert Michael,
"But the industry has a way of paying for it."
Both the airlines and McNichols agree that the regional airport will be built on the Rocky Mountain Arsenal dispite the cries of Adams County officials and residents. "Anyone is welcome to build and manage an airport somewhere else, like Bennett, but we want to be a part of it. We are staying with Stapleton and the arsenal. We won't close Stapleton or its arsenal replacement, "10 says Mayor McNichols. Airline officials, are supportive of McNichols' position. They say the DRCOG alternatives are wrong and prefer a gradual building program in the southwest corner of the arsenal allowing for a phased transfer from Stapleton to the arsenal. (See exhibit C RMA 5/3/82). "The airlines have more than $600 million invested in the section of Smith Road between Quebec St. and the Airport," says Frontier's Dan Tood. "It's not economical to give that up." Continental's regional Vice President Guy Gibbs agrees. He says his airline wants to pay for a relocation to the arsenal even if a Bennett location is cheaper. United Airlines (who along with Frontier and Continental makeup 80% of Stapleton traffic) says their decision will be a dollar and cents one. But they indicated that they did not see the Big 3 parting company.H

Interview, Dr. Cecil Glenn, UCD, June 1982 SIA Master Plan-, 1981, Peat Marwick & Mitchell "Crisis in the Skies," Joseph Marx, 1970 Rocky Mountain News, October 14, 1981 SIA Master Plan, 1981, Peat Marwick & Mitchell IBID #1
CASE Meeting, December, ly81, Commerce City Hall
Meeting of the Colorado Transportation Committee, Stapleton Piaza
Hotel, January, 1982
Rocky Mountain News, May 13, 1982.
Rocky Mountain News, May 3, 1982.


As mentioned briefly before, DRCOG.' s metro airport study has been undertaken to select a site for a new airport with the assumption that Stapleton be.closed down to commercial operations. The study has been divided into 3 phases, with Phase I identifing 3 potential sites (see Map 3), and Phase II identifying a general concept for an airport on each of the 3 sites, describing advantages and disadvantages of each. Phase III, yet to be published will offer a recommended alternative site to the DRCOG executive committee comprised of the elected officals of the various municipalities in the area.
"General, the arsenal (site 3) is the most favorable in economic criteria with the Bennett (site 6) site the most favorable in terms of air space, environmental and social criteria," says Bob Farley, Executive Director of DRCOG.-*- A detailed summary of the 3 sites can be found in Table 2.
Expressed in 1981 dollars and cents, the cost to provide facilities at the various sites were as follows:
Site 3
Land Acquisition $124 million
Site Develoment 726 million
& Air Field Construction Terminal Bldg.Construct ion 655 million
Transportaion System Construction
Systems Construction 336 million
$1,841 mill ion
92 million 809 million
655 million
414 million $1,970 mill ion
62 milli 738 milli
655 milli
619 milli $2,074 milli
DRCOG Metro Airport Study, Phase II, 1981

Denver Regional Council of Government!
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. March 1982

As seen from Map 2 hnd the facility cost chart, the attractiveness of site 3 lies in it's low access costs. This is because the Rocky Mountain Arsenal is closer to the origionsand destinations of most Denver tripmakers requiring less road, time and transit infrastructure than the other sites. These access costs are about 50% of the costs of travel to site 6 and 75% of the cost of travel to site 4/5. (It should be noted that the access costs to site 6 include a 10 lane freeway and a light rail system along with a bus every i0 minutes. This level of access seems excessive considering the 2% use of transit by
Stapleton's users, employees and guests and the high level of service to Stapleton.)
The DRCOG study fails to quantify the costs of aquisition, demolition of builidings and decontamination of the Rocky Mountain Arsenal (the $124 million cost for land acquision at site 3 only includes the costs of relocating residents and industrial and agricultural development on site 3, outside the arsenal boundary). Moreover, the availability of the arsenal for airport use remains unclear. Presently, the arsenal is owned and controlled the U.
S. Army, and located within Adams County.
Over the past 39 years chemicals used in the production of weteye bombs, pesticides and petroleum have been disposed of on arsenal property. Many of these chemicals were dumped in open shallow basins or buried underground and Army officials have said that no records were kept of where these chemicals were buried 2
Basin F now holds 50 million gallons of wastes. "The
contamination in Basin F is so big that there's not enough money
in the world to clean it up. You just have to get it to a size

where you can handle it, physically or technically, hopefully
we'll eventually be able to apply the technology to dispose of
it," says Carl Loven, Chief Chemical Engineer at the Arsenal.
Thus, the Army's priority is containment of contamination, not
clean up. Of the Arsenals 27 section of land, 9 have been
designated as contaminated that will never be suitable for
anything because the price is too high for any use. "Along the
south boundary some areas are pretty clean" says Art Whitney
Public Information officer at the Arsenal.
Army Undersecretary Paul Johnson said that a study will be completed in October, 1982 indicating the extent of contamination. He indicated that the Army will be willing to continue the containment program through facilities already built to prevent seepage of contaminmation into the aquifer regardless of who owned the land. However, they are not willing to pay an estimated $1 billion dollars for decontamination. Both the City of Denver and the airlines feel that an airport can be arranged on the safe area of the arsenal.
The issue of availability and cost of the arsenal has been clouded in confusion. In response to a leter from Mayor McNichols, a September 15 letter from FAA's Arthur Varando stated that the FAA would "be pleased to assist Denver in anyway we can" in aquiring the arsenal. Federal law authorizes government agencies to surrender land to local jurisdictions for airport use if the FAA certifies the request. The agency must transfer the land unless it can prove a need to retain it.

The army has indicated they may be replacing the arsenal with the new facility in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. Adams County officials are hoping the Army will retain the arsenal for its present use, find a new mission for it, or turn it over to their control so that an airport does not get built there.
In a letter to Mayor McNichols an army deputy in charge of installations and housing said a southern strip of the arsenal could possibly be turned over to Denver by 1986. But on a recent trip to Washington, Adams County officials reported that General Niles Fulwyler, the director of Army's nuclear and chemical division, said the army "has no plans for the release of the facility until the methods of clean up is identified, which is projected to occur in 1990. Arsenal officials have said there is going to have to be a comprehensive contamination survey of those areas before that land is released for any purposes. In a May 1, 1982 interview, Paul Johnson, a top ranked army official said "if everything goes on schedule, our mission at the arsenal will be completed in 1986 and we would see no reason not to give the arsenal to a municipality if they need it, including the City of Denver for an airport."^ Johnson says that the area doesn't have to be cleaned up the highest standards. Thus confusion reigns over the future availability of the arsenal.
The DRCOG study makes the assumption that the arsenal will be given away to the airport operator. This could, be an erroneous assumption in light of executive order 12348 initiated by President Reagan which can require that federal lands be sold at

fair market value. This could place a price tag of $255 million
on the arsenal.
Additionally the cost of demolition of buildings on the arsenal has not been addressed. Frontier Airlines, Dan Todd, says at least one of the present facilities for detoxification with 10 foot thick walls should remain intact after the airport opens. "That plant has the abilitiy to decontaminate everything up to PCB's. Why get rid of it? That kind of plant and airports are two ugly ducklings -- no one wants them. We'll get along."
Another point about the arsenal needs to be addressed. This involves the issue of liability. When samples were taken from Irondale, a subdivision in Adams County located west of the arsenal, officials were suprised to learn of high levels of contamination. Even if a portion of the arsenal is transferred, the big question is how do you transfer liability or retain it?
Thus the DRCOG study makes cost determinations without several
key variables resulting in a financial picture that makes site 3
appear better than it is. The cost of cleanup alone offsets any
positive benefits from the increased access afforded by site 3.
$1 billion for cleanup costs versus $300 million in extra transportation construction costs to site 6.
Expansion or relocation of Stapleton to the Arsenal may involve some political battles involving ownership, control and administration of an airport at that site. The arsenal is located in Adams County; therefore, county officials believe they should control the development on that site. However, the City of Denver is the owner and operator of Stapleton Airport, and City officials believe they should be in control of the expansion and
phased relocation. In a recent arsenal study undertaken by

Denver, the consultant recommended placing of the terminal within Denver County with the runways situated in Adams County.^ This location affords Denver the opportunity to collect the tax on con-sessions and parking revenues while leaving Adams County with the noise impact. From an operational point of view this is une-conomical because planes are forced to taxi long distances to the
terminal. The alternative possibility of a regional airport
authority to manage and own the airport should be explored. However, this is beyond the scope of this research.
The DRCOG study identifies air space considerations as most pronounced on site 3. Limitations would occur when arrivals occur from the west (3.3% of the year). This would result in minor delays (average 4.7 minutes) costing the airlines 590 million.^ The proximity of this site to the Rocky Mountains is also a concern expressed by pilots.
Site 3 is located closest to current and future -urban development, and would experience the highest noise affects of the 3 sites. Aircraft noise would exceed the LDN 65 contour (recommended by the Federal government as a maximum noise to which residential development should be exposed) in existing development north and northwest of the airport, including the Hazleton area, (within the growth area of Commerce City) the SE part of Brighton along with proposed development south and east
of Barr Lake, and areas southeast and northwest of the site. (See exhibit 2). The City of Commerce City, has stated that the

noise of present air operations at SIA is unacceptable to 120,000
people and the expansion would broaden that impact.
More land development is expected around site 3 than the othersControlling that land use and minimizing the noise
effects are of primary concern here. The airport may be required to purchase land, development rights, and avigation easements in order to ensure compatability with the airport. Land also should be zoned compatably with an airport. (These strategies will be discussed later).
Although not easily quantifiable, the loss of a potentially significant recreation area at portions of the arsenal, is a consideration. "The arsenal offers the single largest open space in the Denver Metro Area. It provides a sizeable example of natural grasslands, according to Ron Lestina from the Sierra Club. "The arsenal is the best place Eastern Colorado has for wildlife. It could be a national wildlife project." Reid Kelley of the Colorado Openspace Council believes that the use of the arsenal for an airport may be dangerous. He feels that airport use will require grading which could stir up contamination. But use as an open space will leave the area in its natural state.
The DRCOG study indicates that no endangered wildlife species are known to exist on the arsenal. However airport operations may interfere with the wildlife habitants. Wildlife observed at that site include catfish, trout, duck, geese, deer, fox squirrel, possum, muskrat, turtle, beaver, herons, starlings, black bird, sparrow, owl and goldeneagle

The county stands to lose $917,000 annually in property tax revenues frcm airport operations at site 3, due to displacement of 190 hones off of the arsenal. 72 of these homes are presently existing in Commerce City's growth area. The total number of displacements is greater than any of the other sites. Potential airport induced development in the area is expected to net $9-13 million for the county by the year 2000. The potential losses and gains are highest at site 3.^2
It should be noted that the DRCOG study concludes that most of
the 4300-5700 acres of land projected to be developed near site
3 within 10 years of the opening of the airport would have
occurred anyway, while all of the development at site 6 and
much of the development at site 4/5 is airport induced. The biggest money maker for the county in terms of tax revenue would be hotels. "Because of current land use and surface transportation patterns in the Stapleton site 3 area, we expect that much of the future airport adjacent land use activity will continue to be focused on Denver. While actual placement of any facilities including hotels and offices will be sensitive to placement of airport terminals and access roads, it can be generally held that such off-airport facilities will tend to
locate on major traffic arteries between the airport and Denver's
downtown core" says ERA, an economic consultant.
Apparently an airport at site 3 would not bring substantial economic benefit to Adams County, because many of the facilities to service that airport are already in place within Denver. Only the shape and the character of the development would be altered if an airport is chosen at site 3.

The social costs associated with site 3 are greatest among the 3 alternatives. These have been identified as the costs of relocating the 190 households within the suggested boundaries (these homes are outside the arsenal property). This amounts to the relocation of 540 people at a cost of 3.3 million.Dividing $3.3 million by 190 yields a $17, 368 relocation cost per household. This seems low, as the average home in Adams County today is valued over $65,000.
Other comparisions included in the DRCOG study include the loss of potential energy resources, agricultural lands, and vegetation effects on the 3 sites. The total costs indentified by the study favor the arsenal location. DRCOG has not estimated the time-access costs to travelers to any of the alternative sites. This factor would favor site 3, as it is closest to the metropolitan area. The public should be aware that the cost determinations
have omitted several significant costs which need to be addressed before a recommendation is made.
1 Meeting of Aviation Technical Advisory Committee, April 1982, DRCOG Conference Room.
2 Commerce City Sentinel, November 11, 1981
3 IBID #2
4 Rocky Mountain News, May 2, 1982.
5 Assuming a cost of $!5,000/acre for the 17,000 acres.
6 Stapleton-Rocky Mountain Arsenal Expansion Study, Peat Marwick & Mitchell, June 1982.

7 DRCOG-Metro Airport Study, Phase II, Peat Marwick & Mitchell,
March 1982
8 IBID #7
9 Commerce City Council Resolution on Expansion of SIA, February 1981
10 IBID #7
11 Report of Tour of Rocky Mountain Arsenal by Harold Kite, Mayor Commerce City, February 1982
12 IBID #7
13 IBID #7
14 "Analysis of Economic Impacts from a New International Airport in Adams County," Economic Research Associates, July 1981.
15 IBID #7

"The ultimate decision will be made in Washington." says Bob Briggs Adams County Commissioner "That is why the DRCOG recommendation is so important."'*" The executive committee, made up of the representatives of the various municipalities in the region are the group who will command the attention of the Colorado delegation in Washington. They will vote on the alternatives when Denver has completed their expansion study. The results of the study have been postposed and delayed for months. Commerce City'sMayor Harold Kite, believes that Denver is stalling in order to put their views in the newspaper to get cushion of support. Aurora Councilman Paul Taur thinks that Denver finding problems locating the terminal within Denver County while runways are within Adams County. Nevertheless, the politics involved in siting a new airport are a key variable in this issue. (The expansion study has just been released recommending construction of three new runways in Adams County and a terminal within Denver County.)
The Committee Against Stapleton Expansion (CASE) has been formed by the citizens of Commerce City, Aurora, Brighton, Federal Heights, and unincorporated Adams County. The purpose of the group is to educate people impacted by airport operations of the issues regarding Stapleton. They are a "preactive" group more than anything else, as they are engaged in the fight against relocation or expansion to the Rocky Mountain Arsenal. They have alligned themselves with the National Organization to Insure a

Sound-Controlled Environments or N.O.I.S.E., a group formed in 1968 out of opposition to airport plans in Newark, Los Angeles,
Chicago and Minneapolis. N.O.I.S.E. now includes some 30 groups mostly from suburban impacted communities. N.O.I.S.E. is an educational organizat-ion working with regulatory agencies and lobbying in Congress for policy on noise abatement. CASE has also made trips to Washington to lobby for their interest. They find themselves on the same side of the fence as the Greater Park Hill Commmunity Association who are presently involved in a lawsuit against Stapleton for violation of state noise statutes. The Sierra Club and Colorado Open Space Council is also supportive of CASE efforts.
Apparently the cards are stacked against CASE. Both the City and County of Denver, and the 3 major airlines (and FAA informally) are supportive of the arsenal expansion and relocation. A recent survey of all 5th District residents of Adams and Arapahoe County (250,000 people) conducted by the Office of Representive Kramer found that nearly two-thirds of Adams and Arapahoe County residents believe SIA should be expanded onto the Rocky Mountain Arsenal. Only 21% think that site 6 should be used. "Those living within one mile of Stapleton preferred the Bennett site by 43.1 to 40.1% while those living more than 10 miles from Stapleton chose the arsenal over the Bennett site, 77.6% to 10.6%. Noise was the main concern for residents living within 5 miles of Stapleton while cost to taxpayer was the most important factor in ,

siting a new regional airport to residents beyond 5 miles.
In response to the questionaire, Commerce City Council approved a $2,400 survey in which 550 random residents were asked their feelings on Stapleton expansion to the Rocky Mountin Arsenal.
The survey, which counted 9.8% of the City's residents, found that the overwhelming majority of the respondents did not want the airport expanded to the Arsenal, and that they opposed an east-west runway. The majority (87%) also baid that present airport noise levels are "noticeable to "intolerable." (According to Bob Coates, Stapleton Public Relatins Office, most complaints from Commerce City residents occur from night time training flights and ground maintainence, not from overflights.) Over 82% said that they would not be willing to pay for a tax increase to support arsenal cleanup. Most felt that the Army or the Federal government should pay. The commercial airlines were chosen as second choice and Denver as third. Another 88% said they would prefer the arsenal wildlife habitant preserved. Finally, the majority preferred an airport furthered: from their homes at site 6.
Commerce City Officials took the results of the survey to Washington, reporting to the Colorado delegation on February 25, 1982. Pentagon officials told them that there were no definite plans for airport expansion to the arsenal in the near future.
It appears that funding the airport will be local issue. Federal funding for airports has decreased over the years. The only 2 major airport projects in 20 years at Dallas and KC were

funded only 15% by the FAA, according to Pat Barry, President of
the Colorado Transportation Committee. With the expiration of the Airport and Airways Development Act and subsequent extention, only $350 mill ion is available for airport purposes this year, not even enough for maintanence of existing faciltities, let alone construction of one new airport which is estimated to cost over $1 billion.
1 CASE Meeting, March 1982, Park Lane Elementary School, Aurora.
2 Meeting of the Colorado Transportation Committee, Stapleton Plaza Hotel, January 1982.


It is my belief that an airport located on the Rocky Mountain Arsenal will fce harmful to Commerce City and it's growth area. Harm will be defined as a net decrease in the quality of life for the residents of Commerce City due to the pollution of air, water
and tranquillity from aircraft operations, and its associated impacts upon the physical and economic health of the residents, along with increased traffic and adverse changes in the character of the residential areas in Commerce City.
This hypothesis will prove correct or incorrect using some basic assumptions about future airport operations, runway layouts, land use planning and airport induced development that have been previously studied by agencies in the Denver area. An examination of the effects of airports on other communities in similiar situations will be used to determine the potential effects on Commerce City.
The definition of quality of life is a subjective one and difficult to quantify. One method, previously used by scholars has been the property value technique where property values are used as a proxy for quality of life. This will be the method employed in this thesis and used by Economist John Nelson^in his book Analysis of Transportation Noise Abatement. It is his assumption that transportation noise is an annoyance factor that affects the satisfaction derived from home ownership or apartment occupancy which is reflected in the residential property values.
That assumption will be tested for the Park Hill neighborhood of

Denver, a noise impacted community west of Stapleton Airport and in a position similar to the one forecast for Commerce City.^
The North Park Hill neighborhood is defined by the Denver Planning office as the area between Quebec St. and Colorado Blvd. and from E. 23rd tp E 32nd Avenue. The neighborhood's eastern boundaries lies approximately 2 miles from the 2 east-west runways of Stapleton, alligned approximately with 29th Avenue and 26th Avenue. The neighborhood is subject to aircraft approaches
about 3% of the* time and take offs about 2%
of the time, when weather conditions requires aircraft operations to and from the West. This situation is similar to the projected operations from the Rocky Mountian Arsenal, where operations to and from the west on the east-west runways would leave Commerce City impacted 5% of the time from site 3 and about 8% from Stapleton Expansion.
The North Park Hill neighborhood has experienced substancial changes since 1960, going from 97% white in 1960 to 65% black in 1970. School age children make up the largest age group. (This is significant in that noise effects children to a higher degree than any other group.) North Park Hill has 9% of all families below poverty level. Medium family income showed relative decline between 1960-70. The predominent land-use is single family resi-dential&the housing stock was developed from 1934-1960. During 1960b construction almost stopped, and losses of the older stock were offset by conversions of units built in 1950's. The level of crowding has increased substancially between 1960-1970. Owner

occupied units declined slightly betwen 1960-1970, but are 80% of the total. Vacant units remain scare. The average value of

housing fell below the city average during the 1960's to 87.4% of the value of other city housing. The mean value of housing increased only 6.6% from 1960-1970, compared to a 39.9 increase for the city as a whole. The mean rent declined from above the city norm to at the city norm in 1970. (increased of 6.4%) to $116./mo. The median values for housing was $57,000 for 1980 and
median rent $270, compared to $63,300 and $213 for the city as a whole. The area was judged to have declined since 1960 from a sound over all rating to an adequete rating in 1970, by the Denver Planning Office. The housing values are relatively lower than in 1960 in terms of the city as a whole, indicating the atrractability of this area as a residential neighborhood has declined relative to the rest of the city.^
Census tract 41.04 (from Montview Blvd. to E. 32 Ave., from Holly to Quebec Street) is the area receiving the brunt of the airport noise. This area has a substancially lower housing value than the rest of the City §52,000 in 1980) and has experienced a 5.3% turnover rate in its housing stock, while the City has only turned over 3.7% of its stock during that year; indicating a relative instability in that area. In 1970 the rate was 8.6% for this part of North Park Hill vs 4.4% for the City.^
Directly north of Park Hill lies, Northeast Park Hill.
Stapleton is immediately east of the neighborhood and exerts an considerable impact upon NE Park Hill. Certain problems defined by the Denver Planning office in their 1972 Neighborhod Analysis include airport noise levels, potential expansion of the airport

related hotel-office development -along Quebec St., the decline of 2 neighborhood shopping areas, failure of median family income and housing values to keep pace with the City's and increasing welfare rate. The area was developed in the 1950's and settled by whites who remained until the i960's. The population had boomed from 633 in 1950 to 9,282 in 1960. During the 1960's the area began to change in terms of the ethnic and age composition.
t 6-'
Residential use changed from single family to more multiple family units. Local shopping areas declined physically and econimically and new hotel and office development pressures formed along its eastern boundary. Today the area along Poplar Street from 36-38 Avenues contains a significant number of housing units in poor condition where no owner occupancy exists along with some abandoned housing. This area faces the rear of a hotel fronting on Quebec Street.
Housing value in the neighborhood has not appreciated as rapidly as the rest of Denver.
The poorest residential environment lies west of the hotel/office development along Quebec Street. In this area, unkept lots are common and maintenance is poor. Ownership information shows that business expansion speculation is underway. Increased airport related traffic along Martin Luther King Blvd., 35th Avenue and Smith Road have been noted. These volumes are of potential concern because of the residential character of Martin Luther King Blvd. Smith Road, is less direct and involves some difficult driving. Until this route is improved Martin

Luther King Blvd. will contine to serve the bulk of airport related traffic.^
Together these 2 areas make up the Greater Park Hill Neighborhod Association. Tkis group has been leading the way for a reduction in aircraft acitivity over Park Hill and pushing for a relocation of the airport to the Bennent Site. "Any expansion or relocation to the Rocky Mountain arsenal would be like taking the problem off our shoulders and putting it on the shoulders of Commerce City," says Karen Salimon, Chairwomen of the GPHNA airport committee. Thus, they don't recognize that the Rocky Mountain Arsenal location is a viable airport alternative.
John Morris, president of the Association feels that the utilization jet aircraft has been a factor in the decline of the neighborhood. "The first jets came to Stapleton in 1960. At about that time, Martin Marrietta cutback its work force from 20,000 to 6,000, creating a housing glut in the Denver Market, and property values did not increase at the normal rate. These factors coupled with the migration of whites out of Park Hill and the replacement of those whites with blacks were reasons for property values increasing at a decreasing rate."
According to Mr. John Harris of the Denver Planning Office,a 2 bedroom brick home of 850 square feet will sell for less in airport affected part of Park Hill than in other areas of Denver.
The reasons are aircraft noise, airport related business and traf f ic.^

Commerce City is an industrial community of 16,000 bordering the northern City limits of Denver. It is bordered on the east by the Rocky Mountain arsenal, the west by the South Platte River and the north by 72nd and 69th Avenues. The municipal tax rate is one of the lowest in the Denver Region and has been helpful in attracting business; many of them highway related such as tractor-trailer sales, service establishments^ and associated repair and maintenance firms.
Commerce City offers a superior transportation network.
Stapleton Airport lies at its southeast boarder. Union Pacific, Burlington Northern, and the Rocky Island Railroads have trackage there and U. S. 6 and 85 and Interstate-270 move through the City.
Commerce City is by no means a wealthy community. A large number of its population is on welfare, median home values are 20% lower than the median values in Denver (for 1980),and the City lacks a focal point as transportation lines and 2 streams criss-cross the City. Population is classified by local citizens as lower-middle class, and is reflected in its low percapita and family incomes.
One of the assets that Commerce City does enjoy is a relatively high rate of owner occupancy. This allows for a neighborhood pride to develop. The owner occupied housing stock maybe jeopardized if the airport is moved to the arsenal, as noise sensitive residents will begin to leave the neighborhood and be
f ^
replaced by lower income renters. This is what has occurred in Park Hill after the introduction of jet service in the 1960's. +

1 Nelson, John, "Economic Analysis of Transportation Noise Abatement," Ballanger Publishing Co., Cambridge, Massachettues, 1978.
2 See Comparison Chart.
3 Denver Planning Office, "Denver's Neighborhoods."
4 Denver Planning Office, Land Use File
5 Denver Planning Crffice, Neighborhood Analysis of N.E. Park Hill, 1972.
6 Interview with John Morris, President, G.P.H.C.A., UCD, May 1982
7 Interview with John Harris, Denver Planning Office, August 1982 *

John Nelson provides empirical evidence of the effect of an airport on property values in his study of the Washington DC SMSA for the year 1970. In the Washington DC property market,, an increase in aircraft noise reduced the values of a $21,000 residential property by about $210 per NEF all other thincp being equal.-*- Emerson's study covered 222 single family residential properties in the vicinity of Minneapol is-St.Paul International Airport. He examined 25 variables of property sales price including square feet of lot and house, size of garage, number of baths, age of dwellings, non-white school population and freedom from aircraft noise through a regession analysis. The elasticity of freedom of noise nuisance for the full sample was .00316. His conclusion showed a .6% reduction in the average property value for each unit of the NEFscale .2
Paik has studied the effects of aircraft noise on housing values in vicinity of major airports in New York,Los Angeles, and Dallas in 1960 and found that a 3.22% increase in aircraft noise resulted in a 2.56 percent reduction in the value of a given property.2
Price examined the percentage change from 1960 to 1970 in the median rent values for census tracts in the environs of Boston's Logan International airport. Variables in the study included the

change in the percentage of non-whites from 1960 to 1970, distance to CBD, .percent increase in property tax, percent houses built before 1939,and after 1960, and percent of public housing rental units. His conclusions based on a number of regressions shows that each unit increase in NEF resulted in a decrease in rent of 1.2%,or a quiet residence (NEF25) would be about $100 more per year than a noisy one (NEF35).4
Devany's attempt to estimate the noise discount and the implicit positive accessibility premium found in residential communities near Dallas-Lovefield showed that within one mile of the airport there is a sizeable reduction in value due to noise (about $2,600). However accessibility has a substantial value, from homes that are 2-3 miles from the airport (about $2700). Within a proximity of one to two miles the airport has an inconsequential effect on property values, (the noise discount and accessibility premium cancel each other out). Beyond 3 miles the airport has neither a positive or negative effect on values.^
A summary of 9 studies evaluated by Wilson shows that a .7% discount per NEF was the simple mean. Comparing 1960 damage estimates to 1970, suggests a decline in noise depreciation values. This maybe caused by the emigration of noise sensitive people or increased commercial value of land near airports.^
In a study of the effects of airport noise on residential property values near the Toronto International Airport,
Meiszkowski found significant discounts resulting from aircraft noise. Discounts ranged from 3.5% in the moderately

impacted areas to 15% in NEF 35. He then calculated a total social cost of $60 million, which he proposed to be offset by a tax on all passengers using that airport to more equitably distribute that social cost.^ However, this does not relieve the problem of airport noise to those residents; it only compensates them for their discomfort. Given the reluctance of Americans to pay more tax, a better solution would be to move the airport to a more remote site and discouraging incompatable future development through land use planning.
It is difficult to quantify the full cost of jet noise in dollars. There is a cost to productivity and a cost to property along with a number of intangables that need to be addressed. Dr. Howiler described the effect of loss of sleep on people living near an airport due to early morning jet warm up: "Stress situations are caused; if they occur in the morning they represent an unfavorable start to the day's work. An hour of undistrubed sleep every morning for thousands living near a airports represents an economic factor of great importance."
City's pay for jet noise in the deterioration of their neighborhoods. Lew Goddfriend, acoustician, observed the spacial distribution of aviation noise and noted its effects on the social and economic structure of the City. "This could be serious if it results in middle and upper class families abandoning neighborhoods, quietly and without fanfare and leaving them to the next lower economic level for who the neighborhood, noisy or not is a step upward." It appears it is already happening in Miami where middle class residents have moved out of a noise impacted

community and been replaced by lower income groups and in Park Hill where airport operations have been one factor in that neighborhood's declines. An airport at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal will have similar effects upon Commerce City.
Additionally, the most costly of sound insulation is required by buildings near airports. One federal study found it could cost from $260-4500^ to sound insulate a detached home made of light exterior such as those found in Commerce City. These are costs that HUD is reluctant to pay for unless the homes existed prior to the airport.
Other intangible costs include loss of education by children attending schools in the noise impacted area. One teacher in Englewood, California told a congressional subcommittee "oral communication becomes impossible each time a jet passes near our school. The result is that 4000 students and 165 teachers must stop all class discussion until the airplane has passed. The result of such disruption goes beyond the actual time involved in the passage of the aircraft as each class must again have its attention focused on what was being done before the interruption. Our teachers tell us that considerable loss in the education program results." An airport on the Rocky Mountain Arsenal will cause noise interruptions when aircraft are required to operate to and from the west. Although the prefered runway use allows take offs to the north and landings from the east, there will be times (approximately 17,000 flights from site 3 or 30,000 flights from Stapleton Expansion) in the year 2000, when operations will
be over Commerce City and the educational process disrupted as much as 50 times pec hour.

A report by M. E. Paul concluded that the true social costs of airport noise cannot be measured in terms of property values.
Studies have shown that people are waken from their sleep, conversation is impared, time is lost at work, education is wasted, and admissions to mental hospitals is more pronounced in airport
communities.^ There are additional costs associated with these conditions that must be calculated before the true social costs can be determined. In the absence of knowlege of all the effects of aircraft noise on man, the property value appoach gives the best estimates, however crude, on the economic impact of noise on the community.
Judging from the observed relative decline in housing values in the Eastern section of the Park Hill neighborhood, (census track 41.02, 41.04 defined as Montview Blvd. to the Adams County line and from Holly Street to Quebec Street.), a neighborhood in a comparable geographic and noise exposure location to the one expected at Commerce City and the regression analysis conducted for communities impacted by various levels of noise (which factored out airport noise among different variables and mesured its effects on property values), it is still my belief that an airport on the Rocky Mountain Arsenal will be harmful to the residential property values in Commerce City and its growth area.
There are enough similarities between the Eastern Park Hill neighborhood and Commerce City to make a valid projection of the airport effects on Eastern Park Hill to Commerce City. Both
commmunities share a housing stock of similar vintage, mostly single family dwellings of brick constructed in 1950's. Housing

values (for 1970) are comparable, as are median familiy incomes (NE Parkhill 16,6-00 and 98,889 and Commerce City $12,800 and $8,815 respectively). Both face relatively similar positions with respect to highway transportation (1-70), although Eastern Park Hill does enjoy better access to the CBD and better transit service. The percentage of minorities is much higher in Eastern Park Hill than in Commerce City. Use of land in both communities is similar with industrial usage making up over half of the total in both areas, and residential use about on quarter of total in both.
The proposed expansion or relocation of Stapleton Airport to the Rocky Mountain Arsenal will place Commerce City in a similar airport location as Eastern Park Hill currently is experiencing.
For this reason, Commerce City may experience similar effects including increased noise and traffic, land use changes, decreasing relative residential property values, and changes in the socioeconomic structure of the population.
Commerce City is cursed with enough social economic and environmental problems. .The city is already within a nonattainment air quality area and is already a noisy area. The disamenity associated with an airport less than 2 miles from Commerce City will serve to further down grade this community.

Census Tracts 41.04 Census Tracts 41.02 Cen: 79 ;us Tr 80 lets 82 CITY METRO
Distance from Run Way 7,000 (proposed) 2000-3000 ft. 500
% of Operations 5% 5% none over 50 % '
1960 Median Family Income $ 5,972 (41C) $ 8,175 $ 7,456 (41A) $ 6,141 $ 7,10C $ 7,268 $6,361 $ 6,551
1960 Average Value of Housing $10,600 (41C) $14,600 $14,800 (41A) $12,200 $14,70C $16,300 $13,200 $13,800
1970 Median Family Income $ 8,085 $ 9,944 $ 8,889 $ 8,474 $10,109 $11,504 $ 9,654 $10,734
1970 Average Value of Housing $12,600 tl4.2% $17,400 *16.1% $16,800 +11.9% $15,500 $18,60C $20,300 $16,800 *21.4% $19,100 *27.72
1970 Housing % Owner Occupied 66.9 80.1 58.3 38.7 69.2 83.7 50.3 61.5
1970 Housing Turnover Rate 8.6 6.8 4.4
1980 Median Family Income not available
1980 Average Value of Housing $46,000 t 72.6% $57,700 + 69.8% $56,100 +70% $50,200 $55,20C $58,400 $62,00 *72.9% $77,900
1980 Housing % Owner Occupied 60.0 78.6 61.4 35.9 66.5 84.7 38.9 37.8
198^ Housing Turnover Rate 5.3 4.1 3.7

1 Nelson, John, page 97.
2 Emerson, F.C., 1969, "The Determinants of Residential Value with Special Reference to the Effect on Aircraft Nuisance and Other Environmental Features," Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota.
3 Paik, I.K., 1972, "Measurement of Environmental Externality in Particular Reference to Noise," Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Georgetown, University.
4 Price, I., 1974, "The Social Cost of Airport Noise as Measured by Rental Changes: The Case of Logan Airport," Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Boston University.
5 Devany, A.S., 1976, "An Economic Model of Airport Noise Pollution in an Urban Environment," in Theory and Measurement of Economic Externalities, New York Academic Press, page 205-214.
6 Wilson, J.A., 1974, "Tne Compensation Principle and Environmental Policy," in DT Savage the Economics of Environmental Improvement, Boston Houghton-Mifflin, page 69-81.
7 Meiszkoski, P. and Saper, A.M., 1975, "An Estimate of the Effects of Airport Noise on Property Values."
8 Bold Beranek and Newman Inc., "A Study-Insulating Houses from Aircraft Noise," HUD, FHA, 1966.
9 Paul, M.E., 1971, "Law Aircraft Noise Nuisance Be Measured in Money?", Oxford Economic Papers, Volume 23, November; page 297-322.


While most studies of residential land values seemed to indicate a relative decline, an interesting study of general land values near the Toronto Airport by Crowley indicate that there is an initial shock period when airports are built or expanded in which property values decline then slowly rebound to their former levels.-*- This phenomenon is caused by the movement of noise sensitive people out of the area, creating an excess supply of homes (driving price down) and the replacement of these homeowners by both noise-tolerant people and land uses, bidding the price up. The overall result is that land values remain the same as before the shock but the type of resident and pattern of land use change. This exerts a significant effect on a neighborhood, as the character of that neighborhood is altered. As commercial and industrial uses infiltrate residential neighborhoods, a blighting influence often accompanies them. Witness the growth of the office-hotel complex a long Quebec Street across fran SIA. The residential properties directly behind these establishments have grown into disrepair due to the heavy traffic and incompatable nature of these uses.
Although airports create negative externalities for residential properties, positive externalities may be realized for industrial and commerically zoned properties due to proximity to air transportation and favorable ground access positions. This proximity has the effect increasing demand for industrial and

commercial purposes and forcing out less intensive uses that originally located there. Thus, the integrity of the neighborhood
-i| i
- is sacrified through the market mechanism.
An expansion or relocation of the airport to the RMA would adversly effect the residential character of Commerce City's residential neighborhood in terms of changing its land use.
The area west of Quebec Street is in close enough proximity to the proposed airport to cause substancial amounts of commercial and industrial development pressures to occur. Although this type of development would certianly be a boon to the local economy, it would be contrary to the City's adopted comprehensive plan, incompatable with the existing residential area, and clearly unacceptable to fully 89% of the City's residents according to a recent poll.2 Given the past performance of other municipalities located near airports to rezone properties for industrial and commercial uses to the detriment of their residential neighborhoods (and even permitting high-density residential developments in airport vicinities, furthering the incompatability conflict between airports and residents), I feel that the arsenal airport location would be harmful to the residential area of Commerce City in terms of incompatable land uses.
In a 1973 study of the airport service area,^ the Denver Planning Office concluded that the increased demand for air travel would necessitate an airport expansion to the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, accompanied with an expansion of the airport service area into the Commerce City area. This included an increase in the number

of hotels, conference facilites, restaurants, recreation and commercial facilites. They suggested the Commerce City location because of its proximity to the airport complex, the relatively large amounts of undeveloped or underdeveloped land, and the extensive transportation network that exists in the area. They rejected an expansion of the existing airport service area on the grounds that conversion of the residential areas north of 32nd Avenue to commercial uses was bad for the existing area. This is precisely the situation in Commerce City. These types of uses are inconsistant with the comprehensive plan for Commerce City and would be equally disruptive to their residential community.
Airports in and of themselves are usually inducers urban development. Airline employees, desiring easy access to their jobs tend to locate near the airport. This creates a demand for commercial services and recreational uses. This demand, coupled with industrial demand for proximity to the airport for corporate executives and movement of freight, creates a pinch on the land market in the vicinity of airports. However, there are a number of mitigating factors that may lead to less than expeded development of airport environs. In a survey of 13 airports Gladstone found a variety of factors that affect the type and speed of development in airport environs.^
A) Distance of the airport from the Central City: When airports are close to downtown, such as in Phoenix and Tampa, they tend to be located in places where industrial development would occur anyway. When airports are located on the edge of the City, the airport tends to be a focus of new industrial development. I

believe this would be the case for an airport at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal. New commercial and industrial development will be attracted to'Commerce City as the terminal is relocated toward the area, displacing the residential community near Quebec Street.
B) Other transportation systems in the airport vicinity:
Industrial growth around airports is enhanced by the presence of a nearby road or rail. This development is usually centered on a major intersection or road leading to downtown. Commerce City, the "crossroads of Colorado" has this infrastructure in place at the present time. The location of an airport on the arsenal with access on 104th Avenue will further encourage industrial, residential and commercial development in the city's growth area, which had been designated largely agricultural. Moreover, the
expansion of Stapleton will require extra lanes along 1-270,
increasing traffic and pollution in an already congested Commerce City.
C) Community Growth: The airport vicinity will develop more rapidly if it is in the path of normal growth. Commerce City has not been in the path of population growth, as it has lost 7.3%
of its residents in the period 1970-1980. However, it continued to expand its industrial base during this period as employment has increased by 25%, and is within the path of heavy industrial development.

D) The airport as an employment center: The total level of employment generated by the airport itself, air related industry and air oriented industries (those which are not necessary to airport operation but use airport facilities) affect the amount of development in the airport vicinity. The proximity of
Commerce City to the Arsenal would make it ripe for airport induced development, contrasting to the established residential nature found there.
E) Land prices: In areas where speculation exists, land prices will be artificially inflated and inhibit development. The residential area adjacent to the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, in Commerce City is largely residential. If Stapleton was expanded or relocated to that site, the value of that residential property would soon decrease. This would result in the emigration of noise sensitive people and their replacement with a lower socioeconomic group of people for whom the neighborhood represents a step upward, noisy or not. Those residential properties left vacant would be bought by noise tolerant land users (such as industrial or heavy commercial) and subsequently rezoned to the detriment of local residents.
F) Jurisdictional Control over surrounding Land Use: This factor can affect the type of development in the airport environs. The airport is usually owned by the City which is concerned with airport clear zones and noise zones. The owner will usually zone with compatible land uses. However, adjacent lands maybe
controlled by various juridictions who cannot work together in

cooperation for comprehensie planning. Such is the case for Stapleton, where Commerce City, Aurora, and Denver all share a border with the-airport. Each city has control over development of theirarea and have grown differently. The exisiting comprehensive plan for Commerce City shows the area west of the aresenal to remain largely agricultural along with some light to medium industrial. This would present an incompatability problem in the event an airport use is implimented at the arsenal.
The airline industry is urging the Federal Government to give local communites grants or loans for repurchasing noise impacted residential property followed by resale to noise tolerant uses. In fact, DRCOG has recommended that the airport authority purchase all land within the 75 LDN countour for incorporation into the airport. This action would require the purchase of 190 homes,
75 of which are located in the communities of Henderson and Hazleton Heights, within Comerce City's growth area. This would require the relocation of 560 people at a cost of $3.3 million. This action would result in a breaking up of a long standing agricultural community. Relocation would force ex-residents to attend different schools, make new friends and adjust to a new neighborhood which has been shown to be a severe psychological stressor to most people.
In summary, Commerce City, and its growth area can be expected to undergo extensive changes in land use from an aiport being located adjacent at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal. These changes will be the result of market forces, land aquisitions and rezon-# ings. The rate of that change will be contingent upon various conditions.

1 Crowley, R. W. 1973, "A Case Study of the Effects of An Airport
on Land Values" Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Volume 7, May, page 144-152.
2 Poll of 9.7% of Commerce City Residents conducted by Oedipus Inc., February 16, 1982, Boulder, Colorado.
3 Denver Planning Office, Airport Service Area Study, 1973
4 Gladstone & Associates, "The Economic Impact of An Airport In Adams County," ERA Associates, July 1981.

NOISE: A 1973 measurement and analysis of aircraft noise in the
Commerce City area showed an average LDN=56 along the City's eastern border, and estimated that 20% of the people exposed were highly annoyed (about 1200 people). A survey of the residents showed that 16% f'elt airport noise was the most pressing community problem. The noise exposure occurs when departing jets using the N-S runways turn west after flying over the Rocky Mountain arsenal. (About 500 occurrences per day) Any future expansion or relocation of the airport to the arsenal will increase the number of operations and decrease the distance to residential areas, making noise exposure worse than it is now.
A study by Engineering Dynamics, Inc., done for Commerce City in 1973 showed that if a new east-west runways is built (as proposed by Denver) that the LDN 65 Contour will pentrate into Commerce City, Adams City, and Dupont, (annexation areas). It was estimated that the LDN will rise from 56 to 74 in the E. 64th Avenue vicinity, annoying over 6000 people.
Commerce City is already a noisy place to live due to large amounts of truck traffic, aircraft operations, railroad operations and heavy industrial activity. The placement of a runway aimed at Commerce City will add to existing noises and may put the entire City above the HUD guidelines for a healthy environment (something that the airport planners have not considered in their noise analysis).

Due to the topography of the Denver Region, air pollution tends to flow from the southwest to the northeast along the Platte River Valley, in the mornings, and from NE to SW at night. Thus, Commerce City is within the drainage flow path. Airports are increasingly significant producers of air pollution due to aircraft taxing, ground service vehicle operations, fueling systems, engine emissions during maintenance, motor vehicles, and airport heating plants. The construction of airport facilities on the Rocky Mountain Arsenal will contribute to an already bad air quality problem in Commerce City, which has been designated as non-attainment area by the Department of Health.
Water quality degradation can potentially occur during airport construction and operation. Construction of runways, taxiways, roads and terminals can change water runoff rates, and salinity factors. Additionally waste materials can get into the water system including fuels, lubricants, sanitary wastes, and construction debris. The diverse users of water associated with airport operations also present a problem. Separate collection facilities are needed for the treatment of wastes from the passenger terminal, maintenance areas, air conditionings, snow and ice removal, and fire fighting foam. Off site contributors to pollution include industrial development, motels, repair shops, care rental agencies and residential development These can all be expected to strain the capacity of existing infrastructure. r

LOSS OF VALUABLE WILDLIFE: A study by Biologist Dr. June Bock recommended maintaining the lakes and ponds located on the RMA. According to the study the arsenal represents a unique habitant in the metro area for aquatic and non-migratory animals.^ An air
port planned for this site is incompatable with a wildlife area and is also unsafe for aircraft operation due to bird strike haz-zards. Also as mentioned in Chapter 3, portions of the arsenal are suitable for recreational purposes, a use that is badly needed in the Commerce City area.
An arsenal expansion may also have a negative impact on the Adams County Regional Park, as aircraft operations over that area may create a noise problem, destroying the utility of that park.
SAFETY PROBLEMS: Although highly unlikely, aircraft accidents pose a threat to the residents of airport adjacent communites. Moreover, the perception of safety is jeapordized as jet planes thunder overhead. Perception of safety or lack of it is reflected in the value of the residential property. An area perceived to the dangerous will command less value than a safe area, all other things being equal.
Approaches from the west from an airport located on the RMA will
place jets about 500 feet on top of Commerce City's residential
area, according to Gary Mucho of the National Transportation 2
Safety Board. Aircraft at that distance will produce loud noise, rattling of windows and safety perception problems. *
The fact that some of the nation's worst aircraft accidents have
occurred within 3 miles of the airport adds to the fear of the air

port adjacent community. The recent accident in New Orleans has evoked reactions'from the impacted communities around Stapleton and other airports across the country.
From an airspace point of view, the Rocky Mountain Arsenal site

ranks as least favorable of the choices according to the Metro Airport Study. The pilots find SIA a difficult airport to operate to and out of due to its proximity to the mountains, Buckley Airfields, Jeffco and Arapahoe Airports. A relocation to the RMA will not allieviate that problem. The airline pilots association has also objected to the expansion proposed. Tom Lindeman, a spokesman for that association said the expansion proposed is a band-aid approach to an already obsolete' airport.
"I question the cost effectiveness of such a project in the long run. I certainly see more permanence to SIA incorporating any of the (expansion) alternatives. The question at hand is: Does Denver want an airport that is designed to efficiently accomodate turbine aircraft, during all weather conditions or are we going to follow the lead of our forefathers "a day late and a dollar short?" My vote is to minimize the expenditure at SIA and get going on a relocated regional airport which could become operational in 1990 and would accomodate the projected needs of the metro area as well as the State of Colorado."^
The issue of contamination of the land and water on the Rocky Mountain Arsenal presents a special environmental concern for the
area surrounding that site. The Army has indicated that they will continue their policy of containment of the contamination but will not decontaminate that facility. A less than total

and operation of an airport. Grading and paving of the land for airport use may stir up contamination. An what if a plane were to crash on contaminmated lands. The consequences could be fatal (incidentally, the westernmost N-S runway on the expansion
proposal is alligned with an open contaminated well called Basin
F. )
The safety issues were adequately stated by Colorado Representative Pat Schroeder. "The airline business is booming in side of the airport boarders the Rocky Mountain Arsenal where our old friends the wet eyes are nesting comfortably in the flight path of more than 1000 daily incoming and outgoing aircraft. The possibilities for a disaster are many fold and pretty grim. On Stapleton's other three sides are people whose lives reverberate with the music of jet engines, the aroma of diesel fuel and the ever present possibility of disaster in their back yards."4
Expansion of that facility would only serve to aggrivate these problems (and move then northward.) What is needed is a remote airport away from urbanized areas, with speedy access, to keep the environmental and social costs to a minimum, while still affording Denver the opportunity to sustain its regional growth and economic health.
1 Environmental Impact Statement For Rocky Mountain Arsenal Airport Site, Tim Smith and Denis Tarrin, Airport Planning Class, Metro State College, Winter 1974.
2 Interview with Gary Muco, N.T.S.B., July 1982, Aurora.

3 Interview with Tom Lindeman, Pilot, Western Airlines, Stapleton International Airport, June, 1982.
4 Commerce City Sentinel, December 14, 1981.

In this study,.I have attempted to prove that expansion or relocation of Stapleton Airport will be harmful to Commerce City in terms of a degredation of the environment through the pollution of air and quiet, and the associated land use changes that accompany airport construction and expansions. I have examined the effects of airports on other adjacent airport communities and have found that they exert significant forces on the community, including relative decreasing residential property values, and changes in the socioeconomic character of the community. The neighborhood becomes a prime location for airport related industrial and comercial uses, forcing rezonings to the detriment of existing residential districts. Where speculation exists, the artificially inflated price of land inhibits development and property remains vacant and unkept.
In particular, I have studied the effects of Stapleton on the eastern section of Park Hill. This area is in a similar geographic and noise exposure location as the one projected for Commerce City and offers a unique opportunity to project those airport related affects to Commerce City. Eastern Park Hill has undergone extensive changes since the introduction of jet service to Stapleton in 1960, including relative declines in property values, median incomes, changes in land use and the racial makeup of the area. My conversations with people familiar with that area, indicated that jet noise was a factor in this neighborhoods decline.

I have concluded that an airport on the arsenal will be harmful to Commerce City. The additional noise and air quality problem generated front an airport this close to the City will only serve to make an already noisy and polluted area worse off than it is today.
Similar changes can be expected in its residential district, although some mitigating factors have been noted which may make the impacts of a different magnitude.


Page 12
L dn
Z 0
3 0
r: n u ~ t u
H 16 HIE *
M I 8 H E *
H 'S h E
cor**ol s
AC 150/5050-

Page 14
10 Residential. A-B 30 Manufacturing (continued). * 0 Services. *
II Household units. 3 1 Rubber and miscellaneous plastic C-D 6 1 Finance, insurance, and real eatate B
Single unit*detached productsmanufacturing.
11,11 A 3 2 Stone, clay, and glass products C-D 2 ' Personal services. B
II,IK Single unitsscmiattached. A manufacturing. 6 3 Business services. B
11,15 Single unitsattached row 8 33 Primary metal industries. D 6 4 Repair services. C
Two unitsside-hy-side. 34 Fabricated metal productsmanufac- D 85 Professional services. B-C
11,21 A luring. 8 8 Contract construction services. C
11,22 Two unitsone above the other. A 35 Professional, scientific, and control- B 87 Governmental services. .. B
Apartment*walk up. ling instruments: photographic and 8 I . Educational services. A-I
11,31 B optical goods; watches and clocks 89 Miscellaneous services. A-C
11,32 Apartmentselevator. B -C manufacturing.
12 13 14 Group quarters, flesiaential hotels. Mobile home parks or courts. SB Miscellaneous manufacturing C-D 70 Cultural, entertainment, and recrea
B 40 Transportation, communication, and tional.
1 3 Transient lodgings. C 71 Cultural activities and nature exhibi- A
1* Other residential. A-C 4 1 Railroad, rapid rail transit, and street D 72 tions. Public assembly. A
railway transportation. 73 Amusements. c
2 0 Manufacturing. * C-D 42 4 3 Motor vehicle transportation. Aircraft transportation. 0 74 Recreational activities. 5 Resorts and group camps. B-C

4 4 Marine craft transportation. D 76 Parks. A-C
2 1 r 2 Food and kindred productsmanufacturing. Textile mill productsmanufacturing C-D C-D 4 8 4 6 47 Highway and street right-of-way. Automobile parking. Communication. Utilities. Other transportation, communication, and utilities. D D A-D 79 Other cultural, entertainment, and recreational, g A-B
2 3 Apparel and other finished products made from fabrics, leather, and C-D 49 A-D 0 Resource production and extractioq.
similar materialsmanufacturing.
2 4 Lumber and wood products (except C-D 8 1 Agriculture. C-D
furniture) manufacturing. 50 Trade * 02 Agricultural related activities. C-D
2 3 C-D Forestry activities and related services. Fishing activities and related services.
ing. 04 D
2 6 5 1 Wholesale trade. C-D 05 Mining activities and related services. D
8 2 Retail tradebuilding materials, hard- C 09 Other resource production and extrac- C -0
27 Printing, publishing, and allied in- ware, and farm equipment. tion.
83 Retail tradegeneral merchandise. c
f Chemicals and allied productsman- C-D 84 Retail tradefond. c 90 Undeveloped land and water areas.
t 9 Petroleum refining and related Indus- C-D 3 87 aircraft, and accessories. 9 1 Undeveloped and unued land area D
r'" 5 Retail tradeapparel and accessories. Retail tradefurniture, home furnish- c (excluding noncommercial forest development).
89 ings, and equipment. Retail tradeeating and drinking. C-D 9 2 9 3 Noncommercial forest development. D A-D
Other retail trade. 94 Vacant floor are*. A- 0
95 Under construction. A-D
99 Other undeveloped land and water A-D
1 70 V3C S'jto 4CE CA7 I , AGE 12
t V iufrtc wtr iW it c £ A T *££ It oftst: r ExtoiT£o unc 3 *E0V 4r1 L1 rEL7 70 VAf
1 nC3* *9>VAl MAZAAO *ECAJT9M 143 y'S'jlL EC3C43E3
4 c i; g 11;* i v.nm* *i, r- C3 *:t7rC9£0 Ut.3-9G.G0 70 4£ f 7 *!**£ Z04£ SLUCV S7A9CA*3 LA 43 USE CC3 4* 4A4ulL, SEE AlAiAAv 21
AC 150/5050-6

AC lb0/*>0:0-G
similar fashion to generate categories of land use compatible with
highway, rail, or other noise sources when day-night average sound level
(Ldn) is used as the primary noise input.
a. Airport Noise Interpolation LUG Chart I. LUG Zones A, B, C, and
D, as shown on Chart I, represent four levels of airport noise impact ranging from minimal for LUG A to severe for LUG D. LUG Chart ] is used to interpolate noise inputs derived from the common airport noise estimating methodologies into LUG zones. These common methodologies include: The LdnJ Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF); Composite Noise Rating (CNR); and Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL).'More detail on these is provided in Appendix 2. Others may be usable as inputs if they can first be interpolated into one of the given methodologies. The Integrated Noise Model (INM), latest and most sophisticated of the approaches, may be used to generate Ldn data as well as data for the site analyses often required for environmental impact statements (see paragraph 3, Appendix 2) and is recommended. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Noise Assessment Guidelines are acceptability guidelines for site exposure to noise and are used for screening mortgaging guarantees and other HUD assistance. They are included for information and comparability purposes. The suggested noise controls are a generalized description of the actions typically desirable. The controls recommended for a specific airport-environs situation should be tempered to the individual situation.
b. Land Use Noise Sensitivity Interpolation-LUG Chart II. Different uses of the land have different sensitivities to noise. Schools, residences, churches, and concert halls are very sensitive to noise. By contrast, factories, warehouses, storage yards, and open farm land are relatively insensitive to noise. Other uses, such qb offices, shopping centers, recreation areas, or hotels have intermediate levels of noise sensitivity. A table of suggested relationships of aircraft noise to categories of land use is shown in Land Use Guidance Chart II, Land Use Noise Sensitivity Interpolation. The term "suggested" is important since it is intended that these relationships be used only as starting pointh. Specific relationships should be established for each study via citizen involvement and the consideration of community goals.
The noise exposure criterion that is considered appropriate by one community may not be considered appropriate by another. By starting with the suggested LUG value for each land use category aa shown in LUG Chart II and weighing it against the identified community goals, LUG values can be established for each needed land use category. The selected value may be higher or lower than the suggested value, however, there are extra costs visually associated with each increase in compatibility quality. In general, all land within LUG Zone D should either be under positive control of the airport or be used only for those land uses which have little sensitivity to aircraft noise. An FAA goal as expressed in the Aviation Noise Abatement Policy is to confine, insofar ns possible,
Page 11
Chap 2 Par 21

Table 1
This table has been prepared on the basis of the information and assumptions set forth in the text. The achievement of any forecast-may be affected by fluctuating economic conditions and is dependent
upon the occurrence of other future events which cannot be assured . Therefore, the actual results
achieved may vary from the forecasts, and such variations could be material.
Base year
PASSENGERS 1976 1978 1985 1990 2000
Enplaned passengers *
Air carrierx 6,423,620 9,304,744 13,100,000 17 , 200,000 28,000,000
Commuter carriers" 81,358 176,687 210,000 280,000 420,000
Total enplanements 6,504,978 9,481,431 13,310,000 17 ,480,000 28,420,000
Originating passengers* 2,866,760 4,065,970 6,020,000 7 ,83G,000 12,600,000
eak hour, average day, peak month* 1 2
Airline enplanements 2,364 3,811 4,000 5,050 7,500
Commuter enplanements 93 162 240 320 480
Total peak hour, ADPM3 enplanements 2,457 3,973 4,240 5,370 7,980
Airlines2 221,081 273,814 322,270 369,650 493,240
Air taxi" 33,915 63,119 62,000 71,000 84,000
Subtotal 254,996 336,933 384,270 440,650 577,240
General aviation 162,465 125,973 -- __
Full demand 140,000 135,000 130,000
Restricted activity 56,000 54,000 52,000
Military2 1,292 3,739 1,292 1,292 1,292
Total operations (assuming full
demand for general aviation) 418,753 466,645 525,562 576,942 708,532
a Peak hour, ADPM
Airlines 61 72 78 87 110
Air taxi 9 16 15 17 19
General aviation 35 37 -- -- --
Full demand 27 26 25
Restricted growth 11 11 10
nplaned tonnage
_ c 1 Cargo and mail 73,098 88,298 212,100 341,600 868,200
Sources of forecasts:
1. R. Dixon Speas & Associates.
2. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.
a. ADPM = average day, peak month.
b. Restricted growth forecasts represent only those general aviation operations carrying passengers who are making connections with certificated airlines.
c. Includes cargo carried by all-cargo carriers. The forecasts can be considered optimistic.