The government wants to
dramatically reduce the allowable height of buildings near hundreds of
airports — a proposal that is drawing fire from real estate developers
and members of Congress who say it will reduce property values.
The Federal Aviation
Administration proposal, supported by airports and airlines, is driven
by encroaching development that limits safe flight paths for planes that
might lose power in an engine during takeoff. Planes can fly with only
one engine, but they have less power to climb quickly over obstacles.
Airlines have to plan for
the possibility that a plane could lose the use of an engine during
takeoff even though that doesn't happen very often. As more buildings,
cellphone towers, wind turbines and other tall structures go up near
airports, there are fewer safe flight paths available. Current
regulations effectively limit building heights based on the amount of
clearance needed by planes with two operating engines.
Airlines already must
sometimes cut down on the number of passengers and the amount of cargo
carried by planes taking off from airports in Burbank and San Jose in
California, and in Honolulu, Los Angeles, Miami, Phoenix, and near
Washington, D.C., among others, so they will be light enough to clear
obstructions if only one engine is available, said Chris Oswald, vice
president of the Airports Council International-North America.
The problem is
exacerbated in hot weather when air is less dense and planes require
more power during takeoff. Bigger planes that carry lots of passengers
and cargo on lucrative international flights are especially affected.
Airports worry that the
problem could cost airlines enough money that they'll find some routes
unprofitable and eliminate service, Oswald said.
The FAA's proposal would
change the way the agency assesses proposals to build new structures or
modify existing structures near 388 airports to take into account the
hazard that would be created to one-engine takeoffs. For example, under
the proposal a building located 10,000 feet from the end of a runway
would have a maximum allowable height of 160 feet instead of the current
limit of 250 feet, according to an analysis by the Weitzman Group, a
New York real estate consulting firm. As the distance from an airport
increases, the allowable building height increases as well. The proposal
could affect buildings as far as 10 miles from an airport.
Planes taking off usually
follow one of about a half-dozen possible flight paths. To limit the
number of buildings and other structures affected by the proposal, the
FAA is recommending airports and local zoning boards work together to
select a single flight path for each runway that planes can use in the
event that an engine quits, said John Speckin, the FAA deputy regional
administrator in charge of the proposal. The new height limits would
only apply to structures in that path, he said.
"We're trying to create a
balance of the aviation needs and the development needs in the local
community," he said in an online briefing Wednesday.
But even with that
limitation, thousands of existing and planned structures would be
affected, said Peter Bazeli, who wrote the Weitzman analysis. Existing
buildings along the path would not have to be altered, but a property
owner who wanted to increase the height of a building or replace it with
a taller building might be out of luck.
"Just one flight path
could cover hundreds and hundreds of acres in densely developed areas,"
Bazeli said. "You are going to be bumping up against some very valuable
property rights."
The FAA doesn't have the
authority to tell owners how high a building can be. But property owners
near airports are supposed to apply to the FAA before construction for a
determination on whether a proposed building or renovation presents a
hazard to navigation. Erecting a building that the FAA says is a hazard
is akin to building in a flood plain — insurance rates go up, mortgages
are harder to get and property values decrease. Local zoning laws often
don't permit construction of buildings determined to be an aviation
hazard.
The FAA's proposal has
created "a real estate and developer firestorm," said Ken Quinn, a
former FAA chief counsel who is representing several developers. "A
single building can be worth $100 million and more. If you are talking
about lopping off whole floors, you can ruin the economic proposition
and you can destroy the viability of the building, so you are talking
about easily a $1 billion in economic impact."
Cellphone tower owners and operators are also concerned.
"A change in the maximum
allowable height of infrastructure surrounding airports ... could
degrade wireless service coverage and capacity," PCIA, a trade
association for the wireless industry, said Wednesday in a letter to
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee members.
The real estate and
wireless industries want the FAA proposal to be put through a formal
rulemaking process, which can take years to complete. When an agency
proposes a new rule, it also has to show that the benefits outweigh the
cost to society. That makes it easier for industries to challenge the
rule. FAA officials have chosen instead to treat the proposal as a
policy change, eliminating the need to meet rulemaking requirements.
A bill recently
introduced by Democratic Rep. Jim Moran, whose Northern Virginia
district includes densely populated areas around Reagan National Airport
near downtown Washington, would require the FAA to conduct a formal
rulemaking. In a letter earlier this year to Transportation Secretary
Anthony Foxx, Moran and three other lawmakers expressed concern that the
proposal would have a "detrimental effect on the development and
marketability of airports as well as hinder job creation and shrink the
tax base of local governments."
Source: http://abcnews.go.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment