The Federal Aviation
Administration wants to reduce height limits on buildings near airports,
but the proposal has sparked disputes between airlines and airports
that support the change, and development interests worried about hurting
property values.
The FAA says buildings should be shorter to
bolster safety at 388 airports nationwide, to give pilots more options
up to 10 miles from an airport in case one of an airliner's two engines
fails while taking off or landing.
The policy change would affect
4,000 tall buildings near airports and 4,000 more that are planned
nationwide, according to a 2012 analysis by the Weitzman Group
real-estate consultants in New York. Many more developments that haven't
yet filed applications with FAA could be affected, according to study
author Peter Bazeli, senior vice president of Weitzman.
Airlines
and airports say height restrictions are needed after 40 years of tall
buildings encroaching on airports. Avoiding tall buildings by altering
flight routes can lead to burning more fuel, and reducing cargo or
passengers to lighten a plane's load.
"Our first concern, as
always, is the safety of the operation of our aircraft," said Victoria
Day, a spokeswoman for Airlines for America, a trade group for the
largest airlines. "The industry looks forward to working collaboratively
with local communities to find win-win solutions."
But developers say the limits could hurt construction plans from Arizona to the suburbs of Washington, D.C.
Even
the procedure is contentious. FAA is proposing a brisk policy change,
rather than a formal rulemaking that critics prefer and that could take
years to complete.
Rep. James Moran, D-Va., proposed legislation
to require a rulemaking because 170 buildings are affected in his state.
Airlines must already ensure there is a safe, alternate route if a
plane loses an engine, which is why the policy has traditionally been
considered an economic debate, Moran said.
A public-comment period, which has already been extended once, ended Monday.
FAA
doesn't directly restrict the height of buildings, but issues a
"determination of hazard" when buildings are too tall near airports. At
that point, local zoning boards are reluctant to approve construction
and buildings can become unaffordable because of higher insurance costs
and smaller size.
Summarizing the FAA proposal is difficult
because most airports have a variety of flight paths. But one example is
that at 10,000 feet from the end of a runway, the current building
height limit of 250 feet would be reduced to 160 feet, according to the
Weitzman report.
"Certainly it's understandable that there might
be some accommodation for disaster scenarios," said Bazeli, the study
author. "The real concern here is that there is a really significant
impact on property owners and communities and cities, and that certainly
wasn't fully vetted in 2012 when it was originally proposed."
The proposal affects communities differently.
Hawaiian
Airlines "wholeheartedly supports" the proposal, according to Daniel
Lyons, the airline's senior director of operations analytics. All
Honolulu flights departing from one runway must turn to the right
because of rising terrain and a 447-foot antenna two miles from the
runway, but then cranes at a container terminal create another obstacle
for wide-body planes, Lyons said.
"If the trend continues of
increasing obstacles on departure paths where no alternative
(one-engine) path exists, at some point, federally funded runways will
no longer be viable for commercial airline operations," Lyons said.
But
Jack Longino, mayor of College Park, Ga., which contains several
concourses of Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport, urged
the FAA to drop the change. FAA's purpose isn't for the safety of
passengers or airlines, but an attempt to reduce the economic impact on
airlines that can't load their aircraft to maximum capacity, he said.
Arizona has interests on both sides of the debate.
The
city of Phoenix, which owns Sky Harbor International Airport, "desires
to preserve what clear airspace remains" beyond the east runway,
according to aviation director Danny Murphy.
But four Arizona
lawmakers – Republican Reps. Paul Gosar, David Schweikert, Matt Salmon
and Trent Franks – said 75 existing and proposed buildings in their
state would be hurt.
In Phoenix, the Maricopa County Court Tower
and the Virginia G. Piper Sports and Fitness Center would be unable to
add equipment or signs to the top of their buildings, the lawmakers
said. In Tempe, the proposed Sky Tower would exceed the proposed limit
by 217 feet, lawmakers said.
"At a time when the U.S. economy is
just starting to turn around, the proposed (one engine) policy threatens
to derail much needed economic development," the lawmakers said.
Another hot spot for the debate is Virginia's Arlington County, which surrounds Washington's Reagan National airport.
Rosslyn,
along the airport's northern glide path, anticipates 4.5 million square
feet of office space and 1,000 new housing units over the next 25
years. The skyline is "meaningful and much-valued asset," according to
the Rosslyn Business Improvement District, but the FAA proposal "will
hamper development and reduce property values."
But Don Gay, an electronics engineer from Arlington who lives 200 yards from the airport, supported the policy change.
"Safety
must be foremost in this decision; not the financial interests of
developers and the temporary creation of jobs," Gay said. "There are
other places where buildings can be constructed. When aircraft accidents
occur adjacent to airports, it will not be the developers who will be
subjected to scrutiny and criticism, but the FAA."
- Source: http://www.usatoday.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment