Airport Highlights 2006 0106 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

• • new terminal in Area 2. The master plan studies, but does NOT recommend, a new taxiway at North Field, south of Runway 9R -27L (see Figure 5.5). • The draft land -use map for 2010 to 2012 (see Figure 8.3) does not show any fill of wetlands. The draft land -use map for 2025 does show possible land uses that might require fill of wetlands. However, it is important to note that the master plan does not discuss any projects in the 2025 timeframe to accommodate unconstrained aviation demand because the master plan is not recommending a new South Field runway (which would likely be.required to accommodate the unconstrained demand in 2025). Therefore, it is not reasonable to plan projects that far into the future (see Section 3.1.3 of the master plan), and the 2025 land -use map shows potential land -uses if ever required. Question 1: Specific Plans to Avoid New. Airplane Noise The Port of Oakland does not (and cannot) control the number or type of aircraft that the airlines (or other . aircraft operators) fly in and out of OAK. In fact, under federal grant assurances, airports must make . facilities available for public use on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination to any person, firm, or corporation to conduct or engage in any aeronautical activity. The FAA has determined that some arrangements for accommodation must be made if reasonably possible, and that an airline may not be denied access to an airport solely based on the non - availability of facilities (FAA Order 5190.6A, Airport Compliance Handbook, Section 4 -15). Further, the number of airline passengers will likely continue to grow even without new facilities, such as a new terminal building, and the airlines will likely continue to add flights, but existing facilities will operate at poorer and poorer levels of service (e.g., dirty restrooms, cramped hold rooms, long lines at the security checkpoint, etc.). For example, as discussed at the August 19 and September 30, 2004, Stakeholder Advisory Committee meetings, the 18 million annual • passengers (MAP) forecast in 2010 might be able to be accommodated at the existing aircraft gates at the Airport, plus those that are currently under construction, albeit at a greatly reduced level of service than if new gates at a new terminal were available. The forecast increase in the number of passenger airline flights/operations (2010 compared to existing conditions in 2004) translates to single -event aircraft noise; however, until additional analyses are performed, it is unclear whether this new aircraft noise results from new projects or the normal growth that would occur even without those projects, as describe above. Also, depending on the aircraft types, there may not be a corresponding increase in "airplane noise." For air cargo aircraft operations, the Port does have some control because air cargo is more dependent on • the availability of facilities. As described in Section 3.3 of the master plan, we are recommending that the Port not aggressively pursue new air cargo development at OAK. This recommendation results in a low air cargo growth forecast (3.59% annual air cargo weight increase) focused on existing air cargo airlines at OAK as they grow in response to the economic growth in the San Francisco Bay Area. In terms of air cargo airline operations (and therefore, flights and single -event aircraft noise), these assumptions result in no new flights at South Field (2010 compared to existing conditions in 2003) and a 2% annual average growth in the small air cargo operations at North Field (e.g., Ameriflight). Therefore, we have listened to • the input from the Stakeholder Advisory Committee about aircraft noise, and the master plan is recommending not to pursue an aggressive air cargo marketing campaign, resulting in fewer flights and less single -event aircraft noise. The master plan compares aircraft noise anticipated in 2010 (based on the forecasts) to existing aircraft noise in 2004 (see Sections 6.3.8 through 6.3.10 in the master plan), both in terms of nighttime single event noise contours and community noise equivalent level (CNEL) contours, a time - weighted average measurement of noise. Although there will be "new" aircraft operations resulting in more flights and noise resulting from those flights (see Figures 6.3 -1 and 6.3 -2), it is anticipated that there will be less overall CNEL noise footprint in 2010 (compared to existing conditions in 2004) because it is anticipated 2