UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An examination of urban area S.T.O.L. airports Morris, David William 1970

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1971_A8 M68.pdf [ 7.6MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0102021.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0102021-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0102021-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0102021-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0102021-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0102021-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0102021-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0102021-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0102021.ris

Full Text

AN EXAMINATION OF URBAN AREA S.T.O.L. AIRPORTS BY DAVID WILLIAM MORRIS B.A. SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY, 1968 A Thesis Submitted i n P a r t i a l F u lfilment of The Requirements f o r the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS i n the SCHOOL of COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the required standard, In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make i t freely available for reference and study, I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It Is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. School of Community and Regional Planning The University of British Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date: A p r i l , 1970. A B S T R A C T This thesis i s an examination of the problems that may arise from the location of S.T.O.L. airports within urbanized areas. The role of air transportation as a passenger travel mode i s considered and the problems facing the existing air transportation system are explored. The potential role of S.T.O.L. aircraft within the air transportation system i s examined in detail. Additionally, the benefits that may accrue from the use of S.T.O.L. aircraft in a regional air transport system are discussed extensively. The c r i t e r i a to be used when looking for potential S.T.O.L. airport sites are examined in detail. These c r i t e r i a are applied to three potential S.T.O.L. airport sites within the Vancouver urban area. In some cases the locational c r i t e r i a were found to be d i f f i c u l t to operatiionalize. Data on community reaction to noise exposure i s inadequate and noise standards are d i f f i c u l t to apply on a wide basis. The concept of land use compatibility around airports i s useful but only to the extent that i t does not obscure the fact that aircraft operations can cause community disruptions beyond the boundaries of the so-called compatible land uses. With specific reference to Vancouver, the available data indicates, that on the average, very l i t t l e terminal access or egress time w i l l be saved i f a S.T.O.L. airport were built at a suitable location between the existing airport and the downtown area. Finally^ the paper concludes by suggesting that despite the fact that S.T.O.L. aircraft cannot bring substantial time savings to regional a i r passengers, a S.T.O.L. air service may mean that many of the regions under u t i l i z e d conventional airports could be converted to S.T.O.L. airports and yeild substantial savings in the money used to maintain and operate the publically owned airports in the province. A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S I wish to acknowledge the great assistance provided by Professor P.Q. Roer and Dr. V.S. Pendakur whose discussions and suggestions were invaluable. In addition I also wish to acknowledge the information given to me by American Airlines, Eastern A i r l i n e s , the Boeing Company, the De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Company, and the U.S. Federal Aviation Adminstration. T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S CHAPTER CHAPTER TWO Introduction Background Statement of the Problem Method of Solution Assumptions Limitations Definitions Passenger Transportation Automobile Travel Bus Travel Rail' Travel Air Travel Mode Choice and Travel Distance The Air Transport System Aircraft Types C.T.O.L. Aircraft V.T.O.L. Aircraft S.T.O.L. Aircraft Comparison of C.T.O.L., S.T.O.L. and V.T.O.L. Aircraft Problems of the Existing C.T.O.L. Transport System Airport Access Advantages of S.T.O.L. Air Transportation Page 1-1 1-4 1-4 1-6 1-6 1- 6 2- 1 2-1 2-1 2-4 2-5 2-6 2-9 2-10 2-10 2-14 2-14 2-18 2-23 2-25 Summary 2-31 v i Page' CHAPTER THREE S.T.O.L. Airport Planning Considerations Factors Affecting the Dimensions of 3-1 S.T.O.L. Runways Safety 3-5 Airways and Air Navigation 3-8 Radio Navigation Aids 3-9 Radio Navigation Aids for S.T.O.L. Aircraft Operations 3-9 Wind 3-11 Hazard and Obstruction Clearance 3-15 Noise Problems 3-16 Noise 3-18 Noise Problem Created by S.T.O.L. Aircraft 3-21 Air Pollution 3-29 Compatible Land Use 3-34 Implications for Urban Form 3-37 Terminal Access 3-38 S.T.O.L. Airport Terminal Facilities3-39 CHAPTER FOUR S.T.O.L. Airports in the Vancouver Metropolitan Area - A Case Study The Demand for S.T.O.L. Air Transportation 4-1 The Demand for S.T.O.L. Air Transportation in the Vancouver 4-5 Metropolitan Area. The Optimal S.T.O.L. Airport Location in the Vancouver 4-8 Metropolitan Area. Potential S.T.O.L. Airport Sites in the Vancouver Metropolitan Area. 4-11 Area No. 1. False Creek Flats 4-12 v i i Page Wind 4-12 Hazards and Obstructions 4-17 Present Land Use 4-17 Future Land Use 4-17 Noise 4-18 Air Pollution 4-21 Terminal Access 4-22 Area No. 2 - Vancouver Waterfront From Main Street, East to Clarke Drive4-25 Wind 4-25 Hazards and Obstructions 4-25 Present Land Use 4-27 Future Land Use 4-27 Noise 4-29 Terminal Access 4-30 Area No. 3 The Fraser River Waterfront From Cambie Street East to Vivian Dr. 4-32^ Area No. 4 Sea Island, Vancouver International Airport 4-32 Wind 4-32 Hazards and Obstructions 4-32 Future Land Use 4-33 Present Land Use 4-33 Noise 4-33 Terminal Access 4-34 Summary 4-34 CHAPTER FIVE Summary 5-1 Conclusion 5-2 BIBLIOGRAPHY 0-1 APPENDIX ONE Estimated Cost - Revenue Relationships For Urban Area S.T.O.L. Airports Vancouver 1972-1992. 0-10 ix L I S T O F F I G U R E S Figure Page 1-1 Transport Aircraft Runway Requirements 1-1 1- 2 Airport Access Times as a Proportion of Total Journey Times 1-1 2- 1 Comparison of Passenger Fares 2-3 2-2 Trip Times versus City Centre Distance 2-3 2-3 The Air Transport System 2-7 2-4 North American Air Passenger Trip Length Distribution 2-7 2-5 Conventional Jet Aircraft 2-12 2-6 Helicopter 2-12 2-7 Folding Rotor Aircraft 2-13 2-8 T i l t Wing Aircraft 2-13 2-9 V.T.O.L. Fan-in-Wing Aircraft 2-15 2-10 Proposed Boeing S.T.O.L. Aircraft 2-15 2-11 Direct Operating Costs V.T.O.L. - S.T.O.L. - C.T.O.L. Aircraft 2-17 2-12 Total Trip Times V.T.O.L. - S.T.O.L. - C.T.O.L. Aircraft 2-17 2-13 Growth of Airport Size 2-22 2- 14 Effect of Terminal Access and Delay Time 2-22 3- 1 Thrust Weight Ratio versus Takeoff Distance 3-3 3-2 Landing Field Length versus Approach Speed 3-3 3-3 Takeoff Profile D.H.C. 7 S.T.O.L. Air l i n e r 3-4 3-4 Landing Profile D.H.C. 7 S.T.O.L. A i r l i n e r 3-4 3-5 Air T r a f f i c Collecting at a V.O.R. 3-12 3-6 An Illustration of Area Navigation in Place of V.O.R. to V.O.R. Navigation 3-12 X Figure Page 3-7 Wind Turbulence Intensity versus Height 3-13 3-8 Protection Surfaces - Metropolitan S.T.O.L. Port 3-17 3-9 Comparisons of Percieved Noise Levels for Spectra Having Equal Overall Sound Pressure Levels. 3-20 3-10 Relative Annoyance as a Function of PndB and Number of Flights per Day. 3-20 3-11 Common Noise Levels 3-22 3-12 Community Noise: Exterior Ambients and Aircraft Flyby at 1000 Feet. 3-22 3-13 Office Noise Criter i a and S.T.O.L. Aircraft Flyby at 500 feet and 1000 feet. 3-26 3-14 Interior Industrial Noise: Ambient Level and S.T.O.L. Aircraft Flyby at 1000 Feet. 3-26 3- 15 Noise Contours De Havilland D.H.C. 7 S.T.O.L. Ai r l i n e r . 3-28 3±16 Typical Elevated S.T.O.L. Airport - 3 Views 3-41 4- 1 Composite Value of Time Distribution, 1964 U.S. Air Passengers 4-4 4-2 Demand Versus Flight Frequency 4-4 4-3 Optimal S.T.O.L. Airport Location 4-9 4-4 Percent Distribution of Air Passenger Origins i n the Metropolitan Area. 4-10 4-5 Industrial Land Use 4-13 4-6 Wind Rose for the F i r s t Narrows 4-14 4-7 False Creek Runway Alignment and Noise Contours 4-15 4-8 False Creek - Eastern Approach 4-16 4-9 False Creek - Cross Section 4-16 4-10 Roads in False Creek, Centennial Pier Area. 4-24 4-11 Wind Rose - Vancouver Centennial Pier 4-26 4-12 Centennial Pier Runway Alignment and Noise Contours 4-28 4-13 Average Vehicle Speeds 4-31 Optimal S.T.O.L. Airport Site. Airport Access Trip Length Distribution. False Creek Airport Site. Airport Access Trip Length Distribution. Centennial Pier Airport Site. Airport Access Trip Length Distribution. Vancouver International Airport. Airport Access Trip Length Distribution. x i i L I S T O F T A B L E S Table Page 2-1 Intercity Passenger Miles i n Canada 1961-62 2-5 2-2 Business Trips Percent Distribution By Mode 2-6 2-3 Non-Business Trips Percent Distribution by Mode 2-6 2-4 Trip Purpose of Air Travelers 2-8 2-5 Percent U.S. Air Passenger Trips by Purpose 2-9 2-6 Air Trip.y Distance and Stage Lengths 2-9 2-7 Conventional Aircraft Classification 2-10 2-8 Air Passenger Generation Versus Airport 2-24 Accessibility 2-9 Relative Frequency of Trips Versus Overall Duration 2-25 2-10 Total Montreal-Toronto Trip Time - S.T.O.L. Versus 2-26 C.T.OiL. 2-11 Tripo Times Downtown to Downtown by Road, Train 2-27 C.T.O.L. Aircraft and S.T.O.L. Aircraft. 2- 12 Major Airport and Terminal Investment Planned 2-28 (for 1970 - 1985 period) 3- 1 D.H.C. 7 Landing and Takeoff Profile 3-5 3r2 Mean Wind Velocity Versus Height 3-11 3-3 Annoyance as a function of PndB and number of 3-21 Occurrence. 3-4 Exceptable Exterior noise levels for various 3-24 a c t i v i t i e s based on average noise reduction by building. 3- 5 Pollutant Yields for Jet Aircraft and Motor 3-30 Vehicles. 4- 1 Forecast Vancouver Air Passenger Volumes 1970-1990 4-6 Arrivals plus Departures. 4-2 Estimated Annual S.T.O.L. Air Passengers and 4-7 Aircraft Movements. x i i i Table Page 4-3 Regional Origins and Destinations of Air Passengers 4-7 Travelling to and from the Major Centers in Bri t i s h Columbia, 1967 4-4 Estimated Pollutant Yield for D.H.C. 7 Aircraft Operating i n the Vancouver Metropolitan Area, 1975. 4-22 C H A P T E R O N E INTRODUCTION For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see Saw the Vision of the World, and a l l the wonder that would be Saw the heaven f i l l with commerce, argosies of magic s a i l s , Pilots of the purple twilight, dropping down with costly bales. Alfred Tennyson, Locksley Hall 1842 Background The economic growth and urbanization of the major Canadian c i t i e s have outpaced the development of the transportation f a c i l i t i e s that serve them. A l l modes of transportation make some contribution to the v i t a l i t y of the urban centers. However, in recent years the congestion and delays that occur in the movement of goods and people in both inter-urban and intra-urban transportation have become increasingly evident. Each mode of transportation that serves an urban area has i t s particular characteristics, capabilities and limitations and each requires some kind of infrastructure for i t s e f f i c i e n t operation. Attempts to increase the efficiency and the capacity of the various transportation modes often require the expansion of existing roads, railbeds, and harbour f a c i l i t i e s , or the provision of entirely new f a c i l i t i e s such as bulk shipping terminals, container terminals, or multilane expressways. The a i r transport system i s being faced with the problems of providing new runway, terminal and navigational f a c i l i t i e s to accommodate the unprecedented growth i n ai r travel and the new types of aircraft that w i l l soon enter regular service. The rapid growth that has taken place in commercial a i r transportation has occurred mainly on the long haul, heavily travelled routes. Large turbo jet a i r c r a f t , operating over long stage lengths at high speed, have brought about significant reductions i n costs per seat mile because of the increased productivity of transport a i r c r a f t . The more efficient jet transports have tended to be larger and faster. But as aircraft cruising speed and capacity have increased, so has the takeoff distance (fig.1-1). Consequently the land area, required for airports, has increased with the size of aircraft. New airports, which must accommodate the next generation of aircr a f t , may require up to 18,000 acres of land.* As a result new airports, such as Montreal's St. Scholastique Airport, have been located far from the urban area, where sufficient land i s available at a suitable cost. Not only has the distance to the airport increased i n many cases, but the time i t takes to get to the airport has increased because of surface t r a f f i c congestion. The time required for the ground travel portions of ai r trips that occur in the most heavily travelled corridors in Canada typically exceed the times for the a i r portion of the trip ( f i g . 1-2). The impact of increased airport access 2 time i s especially noticeable on the short haul routes. Modern jet ai r c r a f t , despite their 550-600 m.p.h. airspeed, have done l i t t l e to reduce the total journey time for the short haul traveler. Furthermore, there i s no improvement that can be made to the air l i n e r s now in service, that w i l l reduce total travel time for the short haul traveler. However, short takeoff and landing aircraft (S.T.O.L.) can save time for the traveler making trips of less than 500 miles because these aircraft can be operated from city center or near-city-center airports. Special infrastructure i s required i f S.T.O.L. aircraft are to be used effectively i n the short haul regional transportation system: convenient, specially designed terminal f a c i l i t i e s must be available. These terminals w i l l form one of the novel and c r i t i c a l elements of the Runway , Length Statute Miles Journey Time j In i j Minutes ! CBD To CBD FIGURE 1-1 TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT RUNWAY REQUIREMENTS' 35 4.0 45 50 55. 60 65 70 Year FIGURE 1-2 AIRPORT ACCESS TRIP TIME AS A PORPORTION OF i '• • 4 T A T AT TfllTOMUV TTTtTTTO ^ 250 200, 150 1Q0 50 O L JOURNEY IMES.Access time' m .Airport time ,'' Flight time 7/ Di O a i w Toronto Ottawa to to Montreal Toronto Calgary Winnipeg Halifax to to to Edmonton Toronto rToronto short haul aviation system. The development of the air c r a f t , the a i r t r a f f i c control system, the terminal area landing aids and the S.T.O.L. airports must proceed concurrently. An S.T.O.L. a i r transport system w i l l not be afforded the luxury of evolutionary development as i t s use develops, as was the case with the airplane, automobile, and the railroad. The system w i l l be put into service almost f u l l y developed."* A complete, functioning S.T.O.L. a i r transport system in an urban area w i l l present many potential problems, that w i l l have to be overcome by careful planning. In the past, airports have been viewed as entities outside the community master plan, and planners in urban areas have been able to generally ignore the problems associated with aircra f t operations. However, i n 1973 S.T.O.L. airliners capable of operating from airports very near to the main t r a f f i c generating areas of the city w i l l be available for commercial use. The potential contribution that S.T.O.L. ai r transportation can make toward increasing the efficiency of intercity travel cannot be realized, unless the airport f i t s harmoniously into plans for community expansion so that space i s available for airport development and an adequate ground transportation system i s available to move passengers to and from the S.T.O.L. terminals quickly and conveniently. Statement of the Problem This thesis i s an examination of the planning problems that may arise from the location of an S.T.O.L. airport within an urbanized area. Method of Solution The planning problems that may arise from the operation of aircraf t from an urban area S.T.O.L. airport can be best examined by looking at: 1) The potential role of S.T.O.L. aircraft as an intercity transport vehicle. 2) The operational requirements of S.T.O.L. aircraft within urban areas. 3) The locational requirements of S.T.O.L. airports. 4) The community effects of the operation of S.T.O.L. aircra f t from special urban area airports. An examination of the broad spectrum of passenger transportation modes w i l l be conducted i n order to establish the role of a i r transpor-tation as a passenger travel mode. The shortcomings of the existing a i r transport system w i l l be considered and the potential improvements to the ai r transport system through the use of S.T.O.L. a i r craft w i l l be discussed. Once the potential for a S.T.O.L. a i r transportation has been established, the terminal requirements of S.T.O.L. aircra f t w i l l be derived by examining the operational characteristics of S.T.O.L. air c r a f t . The next step w i l l be to b r i e f l y examine the three types of Stolports that can be located in urban areas. Finally the more general considerations regarding S.T.O.L. airport locations w i l l be derived by examining the possible effects of S.T.O.L. aircraft operations on built-up areas. The information derived from the foregoing examination w i l l then be brought together and applied to the Vancouver Metropolitan area in order to determine the problems arising from the location of a S.T.O.L. airport i n an urban area. Problem Limitations In the analysis conducted in this thesis the following assumptions and limitations are accepted: Assumptions 1) A National Aviation Plan exists. 2) A Regional Airport Plan exists. 3) A survey of the existing airport system has been conducted. 4) An inventory of existing local and regional development plans that may affect airport development has been carried out. 5) The Regional Airport Plan indicates the need for a S.T.O.L. Airport i n the Vancouver Metropolitan area. 6) There w i l l be no major changes in aircra f t technology that w i l l alter the present technical and economic relationships between the various types of ai r c r a f t . Limitations 1) The analysis i s limited by the a v a i l a b i l i t y of appropriate data Where necessary, data gathered in other c i t i e s or countries w i l l be used as a supplement to or a proxy for necessary data. 2) This thesis i s confined to the analysis of the planning implications of the operation of S.T.O.L. aircraft from S.T.O.L airports in urban areas. 3) This thesis does not examine the a i r cargo aspects of S.T.O.L. air transport. Definitions^ When the following terms are used in this thesis they have the following meanings: Configuration: (As applied to aircraft) A particular position of movable elements such as wings, flaps, landing gear, etc. which affects the aerodynamic character-i s t i c s of the airc r a f t . Air Service: Means any scheduled a i r service performed by a i r -craft for public transportation of passengers, mail or cargo. Ai r . T r a f f i c Control: A service provided for the purpose of 1) Preventing c o l l i s i o n a) between aircraft; and b) between aircraft and obstructions. 2) Expediting and maintaining the orderly flow of a i r t r a f f i c . Airway: A controlled area or portion thereof established i n the form of a corridor equipped with radio navigation aids. Controlled Airspace: An airspace of defined dimensions within which a i r t r a f f i c control service i s provided to IFR fl i g h t s . Glide Path Angle: The angle of the glide path above the horizontal plane. Holding Procedure: A predetermined maneouver which keep aircraft within a specified airspace while awaiting further clearance. Holding Point: A specified point or location identified by visual or other means in the v i c i n i t y of which an aircraft in f l i g h t i s maintained.in accordance with a i r t r a f f i c control clearances. 1-8 I.F.R.: Instrument f l i g h t rules. A system of rules for operating aircraft under instrument guidance. In force especially when v i s i b i l i t y i s restricted. I.L.S.: Instrument landing system. A radio aid to navigation intended to assist aircraft in landing. It provides late r a l and v e r t i c a l guidance including an indication of distance from the optimum point of landing. Procedure Turn: A maneouver in which a turn i s made away from a designated track followed by a turn in the opposite direction, both turns being executed so as to permit the aircraft to intercept and proceed along the reciprocal of the designated track. Route Segment: A route or a portion of a route usually flown without an intermediate stop. Terminal Area Control:A control area normally at the confluence of a i r routes in the v i c i n i t y of one or more major airports. Touchdown: The point where the nominal glide path intercepts the runway. Threshold: The beginning of the portion of the runway available for landing. CHAPTER 1 F O O T N O T E S 1) Alan H. Stratford, "Looking Ahead in Aeronautics: Airports and Air Transport," The Aeronautical Journal, (May 1969), p.374. 2) R. Maurer and R. Peladan "Terminal Transport and Other Reasons for Ground Delays i n Air Transport," Institut du Transport Aerlen Study 67/6-E, Paris: 1967. 3) R.D. Hiscocks, "S.T.O.L. Aircraft A Perspective," The Aeronautical  Journal, Volume 72, No. 685 (Jan.1968) p.13. 4) The figure i s derived from two sources. The airport processing times were provided by Air Canada and the travel times from the C.B.D. to theairport were taken from V. SettyPendakuf, A Discussion of Stiener.M. Silence., "A Preliminary Look at Ground Access.to Airports," A paper presented at the 48th Annual Meeting Highway Research Board. Washington D.C.: (Jan. 1969) Table 1. 5) Richard F. Kuhn and Joan B. Barriage, "The Status of V.T.O.L. and S.T.O.L. Transport Development," Papers and Discussions of: The 1968 Transportation Engineering Conference: Defining Transportation Requirements Sponsored by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and the New York Academy of Science, New York: 1969 p.252. 6) The DeHavilland Aircraft Company, "The DeHavilland DHC-7 Quiet S.T.O.L. A i r l i n e r " Downsview Ontario: P.3. 7) International C i v i l Aviation Organization^ "Lexicon of Terms Used in Connexion with International C i v i l Aviation," Doc. 829, Second edition, Montreal: 1964, Appendix I. C H A P T E R TWO Passenger Transportation There are three general reasons why people travel: to meet other people for business or private reasons; for holidays or recreational purposes; or to reach a work place. Depending on the reason for travel, different factors are taken into consideration before deciding on which mode of travel to select. Time saving is especially important for business travelers. Trip time is influenced not only by the vehicle speed but also by such factors as frequency and timing of service, the number of transfers required, and the accessibility of the mode. The cost of the trip is not as important 1 2. to the business traveler as i t i s to the private traveler. ' Intangible factors such as comfort and perceived safety of the mode 3 may also have a significant effect on the choice of travel mode. Automobile Travel The automobile has several characteristics that make i t an attractive travel mode. These characteristics are speed, comfort, flex-i b i l i t y of routing, a v a i l a b i l i t y and low perceived cost. The automobile is available at any time and i t takes the traveler from his point of origin to his destination without transfers and loss of time. It 4 5. can also be used for both local and intercity travel purposes. ' The attractiveness of the automobile as a travel mode declines when roads are congested or when travel speeds are reduced during bad weather conditions such as fog or snow. In addition, thedxiyer cannot relax or work during the trip and parking can be a problem at the destinati Bus Travel Bus travel offers the traveler economical, comfortable transportation to many points not served by other modes of public transportation. In addition, bus transportation has the capability of making efficient use of the existing urban road systems.^ Another important feature of the bus mode is i t s potential capacity to move large numbers of passengers. Under ideal conditions, a system of passenger buses, operating on an expressway with televised t r a f f i c surveillance and lane control, g can move up to 50,000 passengers per hour. The principal disadvantage 9 of the bus mode i s that i t s average travel speed tends to be rather low. Rail Travel Trains have a high passenger carrying capability, up to 40,000 persons per hour. They provide reasonable service during poor weather and restricted v i s i b i l i t y . The principal attractions of r a i l travel are the spaciousness of r a i l cars and the downtown to downtown convenience that i t offers the user. The disadvantages of train travel arise from the time lost in waiting for and changing trains. Also r a i l travel is generally more expensive than automobile travel (four passengers) or bus travel (see figure 2-1). Even so, the train passenger may not pay the f u l l cost of his trip since most passenger services are operated at a loss and therefore have to be cross-subsidized from freight revenue or given a direct subsidy from the government. The travel speeds of trains can be f a i r l y high, up to 150 m.p.h., but conventional trains are generally the slowest mode of travel. Moreover, the destinations that a traveler can reach by train are limited by the track system."^ FIGURE 2-1 COMPARISON OF PASSENGER FARES 0 100 200' 300 CITY CENTRE DISTANGE - MILES 400 500 2-4 Air Travel F i r s t , in regions such as British Columbia with an uneven distribution of population, transportation links must often cross rugged areas where, there is l i t t l e or no t r a f f i c , so the cost of surface transportation f a c i l i t i e s can be very great. Under such circumstances the infrastructure for air transportation can be less expensive than would be the case for road or r a i l modes. Secondly, air transport offers the advantages of speed and distances are often 15 to 25 percent shorter by a i r when barriers such as mountains or water bodies make surface transportation circuitous. Often air transportation offers a regularity of service that cannot be attained by surface modes. However, aircraft movements are occasionally severely affected by poor v i s i b i l i t y conditions which cause f l i g h t delays or even cancellations. Travel by air has a certain number of direct effects that are immediately appreciated by the air traveler. It offers speed, comfort, the reduction of fatigue, status and generally modern clean vehicles. Aircraft provide fast transportation between airports, but the time required to get to and from the airport can reduce the advantage of high speed on trips of less than 400 miles. Aircraft have the advantage of not requiring an expensive track system so that there is a good deal of f l e x i b i l i t y in the choice of 14 15. the points served and the frequency of service that is offered. ' Figure 2-2 shows city center to city center travel times for the four modes discussed above. TABLE 2-1 Intercity Passenger Miles in Canada 1961-1962 Percent Distribution by Mode of Transport and Distance of the T r i p 1 ^ Distance (miles) A l l Modes Automobile Bus Rail Air Combinations 100-299 100 92 3 4 1 300-499 100 79 3 12 5 1 500-999 100 66 3 14 16 1 1000 & over 100 49 2 28 18 3 Mode Choice and Travel Distance As may be seen in the above table, as travel distance increases the percentage of total travelers using each mode changes markedly. For example, the automobile accounts for 92 percent of passenger miles in the 100-299 mile distance group, but only 49 percent of the 1000 and over group. As distance increases air and r a i l capture an increasing proportion of the passenger t r a f f i c . Rail and air carry only 4 percent and 1 percent respectively of the 100-299 mile t r a f f i c , but they account for 28 percent and 18 percent of a l l passenger t r a f f i c moving over distances greater than 1000 miles. Evidently, travel distance has l i t t l e effect on the proportion of the public travelling by bus. Buses seem to carry about 17 3 percent of a l l travelers in each distance group. As was mentioned previously, the mode that a traveler chooses depends in part on his tr i p purpose. Tables 2-2 and 2-3 show trip length distributions by mode for business and non-business purposes 18 of travelers in the U.S. Northeast corridor. TABLE 2-2 Distance (miles) 80-149 150-249 250-over Business Trips Percent Distribution of Trips by Mode Automobile 52.7 38.9 18.3 Bus 5.2 4.8 2.3 Rail 38.4 12.5 17.9 Air 3.6 43.8 61.5 Distance (miles) 80-149 150-249 250-over TABLE 2-3 Non-Business Trips Percent Distribution of Trips by Mode Automobile 7444 56.0 57.9 Bus 8.5 13.7 10.1 Rail 16.0 15.7 14.4 Air 1.0 14.6 17.6 The foregoing sections provided a brief view of the range of passenger travel modes. The following sections w i l l explore in more detail the principal features of the air transport system. The Air Transport System Basically, the air transport system (Figure 2-3) contains three sub-systems the air vehicle, enroute services (airways, navigation, approach, control, metereology), and the airport terminal with i t s .surface transportation system. The sub-systems are interdependent and changes in one sub-system affect a l l the rest. User demand w i l l rise or f a l l as the system provides or f a i l s to provide service that is economical, fast, dependable, comfortable and safe. The air transport system functions in a dynamic environment composed of people and their FIGURE 2-3 1 Q THE AIR TRANSPORT SYSTEM DEMAND ll-v i 1 AIRPORT EN ROUTE TERMINALS & ACCESS SERVICES FIGURE 2-4 NORTH AMERICAN AIR PASSENGER TRIP LENGTH DISTRIBUTION20 MILLIONS OF PASSENGERS - • . 0 n n 1 n - T 400 800 1200 1600 2000 LENGTH OF PASSENGER TRIPS - STATUTE MILES economy. This environment influences and shapes the nature of the demands that are made upon the system, simultaneously offering both opportunities and constraints. On one hand, a growing population and economy creates new markets for air transport: on the other hand, factors such as noise, pollution, government controls and terminal 21 access problems tend to restrain i t s growth. Figure 2-4 shows the distribution of air passenger trip lengths for flights occurring in North America. The median trip length is between 400 and 450 miles. The same general distribution of trip 22 length exists for flights within Europe. As was mentioned previously people travel for various purposes. 23 The 1970 "Inter-City Passenger Transportation Study", conducted by the Canadian Transport Commission, found that people travel by air to:and from various Canadian c i t i e s for six principal purposes. These purposes are l i s t e d in Table 2-4. TABLE 2-4 Trip Purpose of Air Travelers (% for Air and City Pair) Ottawa-Toronto Ottawa-Montreal Montreal-Toronto Toronto-Quebec: Vacationing Sightseeing V i s i t Frierids_ and Relatives Shopping Entertainment -Sports Events Commuting Company Business Personal Business Other Non Response 3.08 11.30 .53 3.10 70.03 8.18 3.58 .20 100 3.21 7.08 .23 3.50 71.53 7.60 1.85 100 3.68 8.16 .90 1.88 75.65 6.20 3.08 .45 100 17.08 7.95 52.30 17.04 5.63 100 In the U.S. there is proportionately more air travel for non-business purposes than there is in Canada. Table 2-5 shows trip purpose 24 for U.S. a i r travelers. TABLE 2-5 Percent of U.S. Air Passenger Trips by Purpose 1955 1961 Business 63 61 Non-Business 37 39 Aircraft Types There are three basic types of aircraft used in the air transport system: conventional takeoff and landing (C.T.O.L.) aircr a f t , short takeoff and landing (S.T.O.L.) ai r c r a f t , or v e r t i c a l takeoff and landing (V.T.O.L.) airc r a f t . Air routes that these aircraft operate over are divided into short, medium and long hauls according to the length of f l i g h t stage. However, clas s i f i c a t i o n varies from one a i r l i n e to another depending, as a rule, on the type of aircraft used and the route structure. There is no standardized system for designating route lengths. Lufthansa and Swissair even distinguish between short and very short routes. Table 2-6, shown below, l i s t s some general route classifications used in Europe 25 and Great Britain. TABLE 2-6 AIR TRIP DISTANCE AND STAGE LENGTHS DISTANCE IN MILES Type of Stage Lufthansa Swissair Sabena B.E.A. Very Short Up to 220 Up to 150 Short 220- 500 150- 900 Up to 300 Up to 150 Medium 500- 1800 900- 2200 300-1800 150- 450 Long Over 1800 Over 2200 Over 1800 Over 450 C.T.O.L. Aircraft Conventional aircraft are classified according to the length of route over which they operate and the number of passengers they carry. 27 Table 2-5 l i s t s the characteristics of the major C.T.O.L. ai r c r a f t . • TABLE 2-7 Conventional Aircraft Classification Operation Type Passenger Cruise Speed Knots Range With Maximum Passengers Runway Length Long Haul Concorde 128 1,176 3,500 9,450 Boeing 747 415 512 5,000 11,200 Boeing 707-320B 180 480 5,000 10,350 Douglas DC-8-63F 220 480 2,000 11,900 Medium Haul Lockheed T r i Star 295 490 2,700 8,000 Boeing 727-100 119 119 2,000 7,400 Short Haul B.A.C. Three Eleven 220 475 1,370 6,600 DC-9-30 109 460 1,000 6,800 F27 44 240 1,000 4,600 Twin, otter 18 175 400 2,000 Conventional aircraft are also classified according to the type of propulsion system they use. There are three principal types of aircraft propulsion systems: reciprocating engines and a propellor, turbo-jet engine and propellor (turbo-prop) and turbo-jet. Furthermore, an aircraft can be classified in terms of the number of wings, the shape of the wings and where the wings are positioned on the airc r a f t . For example, a typical modern commercial a i r l i n e r might be described as a 100 passenger medium range, mid-wing turbo-jet monoplane. A typical jet C.T.O.L. aircraft i s shown in figure 2-5. V.T.O.L .'Aircraft Vertical takeoff and landing aircraft can be classified into five categories: 1) H e l i c o p t e r s 2) Compound h e l i c o p t e r s i n c l u d i n g f o l d i n g r o t o r a i r c r a f t 3) T i l t w i n g , t u r b o j e t o r t u r b o p r o p e l l o r 4) L i f t f a n i n wing 5) L i f t j e t s i n f u s e l a g e H e l i c o p t e r s g a i n l i f t i n f l i g h t from a power d r i v e n r o t o r . I n a compound h e l i c o p t e r the r o t o r s y s t e m i s g e n e r a l l y used t o -provide l i f t d u r i n g l a n d i n g and t a k e o f f . In f l i g h t , t he r o t o r can e i t h e r be stoppe d and stowed i n f u s e l a g e o f the a i r c r a f t , o r i t can re m a i n i n m o t i o n d u r i n g f l i g h t to supplement the l i f t p r o v i d e d by the a i r c r a f t w i n g . The e x a c t mechanism f o r p r o v i d i n g l i f t f o r compound h e l i c o p t e r s may v a r y d e p e n d i n g on the type o f a i r c r a f t under c o n s i d e r a t i o n . T i l t w i n g a i r c r a f t a r e a b l e t o t a k e o f f and l a n d v e r t i c a l l y by c h a n g i n g t h e a n g l e o f i n c i d e n c e o f the a i r c r a f t w i n g , and the n u s i n g the a i r c r a f t p r o p u l s i o n s y s t e m t o p r o v i d e v e r t i c a l t h r u s t . The t r a n s i t i o n f r o m v e r t i c a l t o h o r i z o n t a l f l i g h t i s made by g r a d u a l l y r o t a t i n g t h e a i r c r a f t wings s o . t h a t they b e g i n to p r o v i d e l i f t as f o r w a r d speed i n c r e a s e s . D u r i n g l a n d i n g a r e v e r s e p r o c e d u r e i s f o l l o w e d . L i f t f a n and l i f t j e t s a r e f i t t e d t o a i r c r a f t t o p r o v i d e l i f t f o r v e r t i c a l f l i g h t and f o r t r a n s i t i o n f rom v e r t i c a l t o h o r i z o n t a l f l i g h t and v i c e v e r s a . F i g u r e 2-6 i l l u s t r a t e s a h e l i c o p t e r , F i g u r e 2-7, a f o l d i n g r o t o r a i r c r a f t , F i g u r e 2-8, a t i l t w i n g a i r c r a f t , and F i g u r e 2-9 shows a f a n - i n - w i n g V.T.O.L. a i r c r a f t . Before, d i s c u s s i n g S.T.O.L. a i r c r a f t i t s h o u l d be p o i n t e d out t h a t the h e l i c o p t e r i s the o n l y V.T.O.L. a i r c r a f t c e r t i f i e d f o r c i v i l use. A l l t he o t h e r t y p e s o f V.T.O.L. a i r c r a f t have f l o w n a t one time or a n o t h e r b u t none has been g i v e n a p p r o v a l f o r r e g u l a r a i r l i n e u se. FIGURE 2-5 TYPICAL C.T.O.L. AIRCRAFT - - :99 FT FIGURE 2-6 HELICOPTER29 134.0 F T - — -64-FT 4—IN. DIAM Jr- ^ DEGREES FIGURE 2-7 FOLDING ROTOR - V.T.O.L. AIRCRAFT •69 FT 7 IN. k£J> 12—FT 4—IN. DIAM no » M •65 FT 7 IN.-• •• 49-FT 4—IN. DIAM •v- 103 FT ~ - --96 FT 6 IN. FIGURE 2-8 iTILT WING - V.T.O.L. AIRCRAFT 31 •84 FT 7 IN.-22-FT8-IN. DIAM > / Q \ J l / O r < A _ J I U O J L _ —104 FT -102 FT. •96 FT 6 IN. Although the production of a reliable V.T.O.L. aircraft i s technically feasible, there i s considerable dispute among aircraft experts as to when an economically feasible commercial V.T.O.L. 32 aircraft w i l l be available for a i r l i n e service. S.T-.O.L. Aircraft S.T.O.L. aircraft have the same general configurations as C.T.O.L. aircr a f t . In effect S.T.O.L. aircraft are modified conventional aircraft which incorporate special devices to produce high l i f t at takeoff and high drag during landing. The important high l i f t devices used in S.T.O.L. aircraft are li s t e d below: 1) Vectored thrust 2) Boundary layer control 3) Slipstream deflection 4) Jet flaps 33 5) Augmentor wings S.T.O.L. aircr a f t , l i k e C.T.O.L. aircraft, can also be classified according to passenger capacity, range, and propulsion systems. Figure 2-10 shows a proposed Boeing Aircraft jet S.T.O.L. ai r c r a f t . The S.T.O.L. type of aircraft appears to have an assured future in commercial aviation. Major research and development has already resolved many S.T.O.L. problems and i t i s expected to continue to yield improve-ments in efficiency, r e l i a b i l i t y and the operating characteristics that w i l l make S.T.O.L. aircraft exceptionally attractive for c i v i l use. But, wholesale supplanting of C.T.O.L. by S.T.O.L. is not anticipated. Comparison OF C.T.O.L., S.T.O.L. and V.T.O.L. Aircraft The type of aircraft used to provide a i r service on a particular 2-15 • FIGURE 2-9 • FAN-IN-WING V.T.O.L. AIRCRAFT34. route, assuming s u f f i c i e n t demand, depends upon the a v a i l a b l e a i r p o r t s , route stage lengths, winds and distances to a l t e r n a t e a i r p o r t s and the 36 operating costs of the a i r c r a f t moved. Figure 2-11 presents a comparison of the operating costs of each type of a i r c r a f t . Conventional a i r c r a f t have the lowest operating cost, 1 cent per seat mile. S.T.O.L. costs about 1.2 cents per seat mile and h e l i c o p t e r s cost about 2 cents per seat mile. T i l t wing and j e t l i f t V.T.O.L. a i r c r a f t operating costs are s l i g h t l y more (1.3 cents per seat mile) than S.T.O.L. a i r c r a f t costs. The t o t a l t r i p time f o r the various a i r c r a f t types can be seen by r e f e r r i n g to f i g u r e 2-12. Conventional a i r c r a f t provide the longest t r i p times for journeys of l e s s than 400 miles. The h e l i c o p t e r provides the most rapid journey f o r t r i p s of up to about 80 miles. V.T.O.L. a i r c r a f t have the f a s t e s t t r i p s f o r distances of from about 80 miles to the l i m i t of the range of the a i r c r a f t . S.T.O.L. a i r c r a f t , have a longer t r i p time than V.T.O.L. a i r c r a f t , but they do provide f a s t e r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n f o r journeys of from 80 miles to about 400 miles than do C.T.O.L. a i r c r a f t or h e l i c o p t e r s . The foregoing comparisons are based on the assumption that V.T.O.L. a i r c r a f t can operate from the centre of t r a f f i c generating areas, whereas S.T.O.L. a i r c r a f t are assumed to operate from terminals geographically located somewhere between the centre of t r a f f i c generating areas and the conventional a i r p o r t . The landing and takeoff c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of each type of a i r c r a f t are of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t i n t h i s study because they u l t i m a t e l y determine the major dimensions of the a i r p o r t f a c i l i t i e s required f o r each type of a i r c r a f t . Conventional a i r c r a f t generally require a minimum 6000 f t . runway. The normal g l i d e slope f o r a conventional a i r c r a f t i s about 3 degrees. FIGURE 2-11 DIRECT OPERATING COST - V.T.O.L., S.T.O.L. & C.T.O.L. 37 • 90 PASSENGER AIRCRAFT- 350 MILE TRIP 2.5 2.0 ca CO u 1.5 1.0 Q.5 d o H CO erf w H O a • o • • O • H > > H M fn M HJ H •J • H t - l W H TYPE OF AIRCRAFT FIGURE 2-12 TOTAL TRIP TIME V.T.O.L., S.T.O.L. & C.T.O.L. AIRCRAFT CO u 3 o <u a. •r-t 1-1 H O H (Includes Terminal Time and Access Time) .38 U.S. NORTHEAST" C.T.O.L. S.T.O.L. V.T.O.L. TILT WING 100 200 300 400 MILES V.T.O.L. aircraft are able to climb and descend v e r t i c a l l y , thus making possible operations from small areas near the center of the city such as parks or parking lots surrounded by high buildings. In practice, however, this procedure i s not practicable, at least at present, because of the d i f f i c u l t y of controlling a prolonged v e r t i c a l descent. In addition, v e r t i c a l f l i g h t operations require high engine power output that results in a correspondingly high fuel consumption. In practice, a V.T.O.L. aircraft would travel v e r t i c a l l y to about 25 feet and then the climb path would become about 10 degrees. For landing, the f i n a l approach able would be approximately 6 degrees. At a point about 100 feet from touch down the aircraft would make the transition from forward to hovering f l i g h t and then descend ve r t i c a l l y the last 39 25 feet. S.T.O.L. aircraft require a short run on the ground before takeoff or landing. The ground r o l l required for takeoff i s normally longer than that required for landing. For example, the De Havilland D.H.C. 7 S.T.O.L. a i r l i n e r (on a standard day at sea level with no wind) 40 requires a takeoff r o l l of 1250 feet and a 760 feet landing r o l l . Despite the fact that there have been rapid developments in the technology of the aircr a f t , there has been a simultaneous deterioration in other sub-systems of the air transport system which has tended to negate the gains, in terms of reduced trip times, which would have otherwide accrued to the travelling public. Problems of the Existing C.T.O.L. Air Transport System The rapid growth in air transportation in a l l branches of c i v i l aviation has brought about serious problems in air t r a f f i c congestion and aircraft handling. At some of the larger U.S. airports congestion is the rule rather than the exception, and the time is nearing when this congestion w i l l cause enroute t r a f f i c backups and a spreading of 41 the situation to otherwise uncongested areas. The major problems with C.T.O.L. ai r transport are: 1) A highly constrained airways system 2) Inadequate runway acceptance rates 3) Radar limitations 4) Terminal area and ground maneouvering congestion 5) Conventional aircraft performance The Airways System - The present airways structure, as well as approach and departure patterns are predicated and limited by the geographic location of radio navigation aids. The location of these aids imposes an i n f l e x i b i l i t y in routing and necessitates funneling aircraft in and out of common points. In theory, the ver t i c a l separation of aircraft should permit multiple convergence on radio navigation aids. In practice, however, inadequate altitude information, altimetry tolerances and excessive air t r a f f i c controller workloads force the controller to treat the problem of aircraft separation as i f i t were 42 two dimensional: thus ve r t i c a l separation benefits are lost. Runway acceptance rates - The rate at which runways can accept aircraft is considerably lower than the rate at which aircraft can arrive in the airspace controlled by the terminal air t r a f f i c controllers. This difference in acceptance rates results in airways congestion in the airspace used to hold aircraft not able to land immediately at an airport. The congested conditions in one terminal can be propagated rapidly throughout the system so that aircraft may be forced to f l y holding patterns hundreds of miles from their destination. In exceptional cases aircraft may be prevented from taking off u n t i l a landing assignment is secured from the destination terminal. vPoor weather can further aggravate the problem when aircraft must use the instrument landing system (I.L.S.) because a runway accepts fewer aircraft under instrument f l i g h t rules (I.F.R.) than i t does under visual f l i g h t rules (V.F.R.). Furthermore, the high landing speeds and runway requirements i 43 of C.T.O.L. aircraft combine to yield high runway occupancy times. Radar Limitations - Radar is the most important instrument used by air t r a f f i c controllers. Operational experience with existing radar systems has revealed a number of limitations in the equipment. In order to compensate for these limitations the distance between aircraft 44 i s greater than would be necessary i f the equipment were more reliable. Terminal Area and Ground Congestion - In terminal area operations, the navigation and control functions are carried out by air t r a f f i c controllers. The f l i g h t crew possess a minimum of navigation data and authority because most air t r a f f i c control i s based on radar vectoring. The information provided by ground based radar i s both supplemented and implemented by voice communication. Because of equipment failures and communication interference, the information transfer rates are slow and the time required to make decisions i s extended. Air t r a f f i c controllers compensate for this delay by increasing aircraft separation or by 45 directing aircraft to f l y over time and distance consuming patterns. Conventional Aircraft Performance Characteristics - C.T.O.L. aircraft have been developed primarily from the standpoint of economical operation. These aircraft are designed for efficient cruise performance; runway lengths, maneouverability, climb and descent characteristics are secondary considerations. As a result current C.T.O.L. aircraft require large airborne turning r a d i i and a shallow climb and descent gradient. These operational characteristics of C.T.O.L. air c r a f t , combined with noise control procedures in terminal areas, effectively r e s t r i c t the number of possible C.T.O.L. aircraft approach and departure patterns. 46 These factors result in less than optimal use of runways and airspace. In order to relieve congestion and accommodate passenger t r a f f i c growth, airports are using increasingly large amounts of land. Figure 2-13 shows the increase in airport land area required by major world airport authorities during the past 20 years. The upper curve shows the total land area used for airport f a c i l i t i e s , including land for aviation-linked f a c i l i t i e s such as access roads, car parking and ai r oriented industry. The lower curve indicates the actual land 47 used for airport purposes. The increasing size requirements of airports and the high cost of land means that airports have to be very far from city centers. The 1980"model" airport w i l l require approximately 10,000 acres of land. Such a large amount of land is rarely found a convenient distance from. . , 4 8 a c i t y . As a result new airports may have to be located from 20 to 40 miles away from the c i t i e s they serve. Airports located at such great distances from a city require some form of rapid terminal transportation i f they are to make a maximum contribution to the efficiency of the air transport 49 system. There does not, however, seem to be an effective, inexpensive means of transporting people quickly to and from outlying airports. FIGURE 2-13 GROWTH OF AIRPORT SIZE 5 3' ' . .1940 1950 1960 1970, 1980 1990 YEAR FIGURE 2-14- • - • EFFECT OF : TERMINAL' TRANSPORT AND DELAY TIME 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 . 900 RANGE MILES 2-23 Airport Access The problem of airport accessibility i s becoming increasingly important as both air t r a f f i c and ground t r a f f i c increase in the areas 53 served by airports. The travel time between transportation terminals has been reduced substantially by the airplane. At the same time the increasing size and t r a f f i c congestion of c i t i e s has made i t increasingly d i f f i c u l t to gain access to the air terminal. Often the time saved by air travel i s lost during the trip from the airport to the f i n a l destination. There is considerable evidence to suggest that an increase in the journey time to and from the airport has a negative effect on 54 the popularity and use of the air transport system. The importance of airport accessibility to air travel has been examined in a number of U.S. s t u d i e s . G e n e r a l l y the studies are con-cerned with relocations of airports and the resulting passenger flows through them. The studies contain several flaws that make interpretation rather d i f f i c u l t . The f i r s t point to consider is that relocation of an airport may increase t r a f f i c generation from other areas. Consequently, the change in passenger t r a f f i c resulting from moving an airport may be understated, because new t r a f f i c could have been generated in areas not served by the original airport. Second i n some cases the highway system was improved when the airport was relocated so that the change in travel time was not proportionately as great as the change i n travel distances. Table 2-8 summarizes the results of five U.S. airport access studies. j 2-24 TABLE 2-8 Air Passenger Generation Versus Airport Accessibility Survey Area and year 21 California Airports 1950 Buffalo Airport 1952-1953 Accessibility Factor Detroit 1946 Fort Worth 1951 New York Met. Area 1956 Average passenger generation of ci t i e s at 10-20 miles distance compared with c i t i e s at 0-10 miles distance. Average passenger generations of c i t i e s at 15-25 distances, compared with c i t i e s 0-15 miles distance. Average passenger generation of c i t i e s at more than 25 miles distance compared with c i t i e s at 0-15 miles distance. Airport relocation 6 miles from the city to 36 miles from the city. Airport relocation 5 miles from the city to 18 miles from the cit y . Passenger generation of individual counties affected by a 1 hour difference in airport transport time. Traff i c generation in the less favourable case compared with the more favourable 35% 60% 25% 55% 65% 50% The different results do not f u l l y agree with each other but they do demonstrate that airport accessibility i s a very important factor i n the attractiveness of air travel. This situation of decreased air passenger t r a f f i c generation with increasing distance from an airport was investigated by Bjorn J. Elle who has concluded that "The amount of travel over a certain distance i s determined essentially by how long i t takes to cover this distance". He developed the table, shown below, which relates the frequency of travel to the 58 overall duration of the t r i p . TABLE 2-9 Relative Frequency of Trips Versus Overall Duration Duration (hours) Frequency Index Duration (hours) Frequency Index 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 100. 67.3 46.6 31.1 25.2 19.3 15.1 11.7 9.50 7.82 3.50 3.75 4.00 4.25 4.50 4.75 5.00 5.25 5.50 6.45 5.17 4.40 3.76 3.18 2.70 2.35 2.00 1.74 The table shows, for example, that i f a total door to door travel time of 3.00 hours is reduced to 2.75 hours, the t r a f f i c w i l l increase above findings, that the need for a high degree of passenger accessibility and the need for large amounts of land for new C.T.O.L. airports are in confl i c t . However, a system of S.T.O.L. aircr a f t , operating from S.T.O.L. airports near the city center, can help to resolve this c o n f l i c t . Advantages of S.T.O.L. Air Transportation The provision of city center S.T.O.L. air transport service opens up an additional a i r l i n e service capability which is of great importance. Short range, less than 500 miles, city center to city center aircraft operation can have a significant effect on air travel. It can save the traveler time in reducing ground travel and in reducing or eliminating a i r l i n e transfers; i t can also relieve the major long haul airports of a significant amount of t r a f f i c and thereby, reduce airport congestion.^ The removal of short range air t r a f f i c from the major airports may also prevent or reduce the need for new large airports that might otherwise by a factor of l i : 7 -9.5 9.5 or 23 percent. It appears, based on the be required to accommodate the anticipated growth in conventional air travel. The total trip time needed to complete a f l i g h t by S.T.O.L. aircraft can be less than that required for a comparable f l i g h t by C.T.O.L. aircraft because savings can be made in terminal access times. The following table details the components of total trip time between two representative central areas of Montreal and Toronto for a jet C.T.O.L. aircraft f l i g h t and a S.T.O.L. turbo-prop aircraft f l i g h t . Even though the S.T.O.L. fl i g h t phase i s longer than that of the C.T.O.L. aircr a f t , there i s enough time saving in the estimated S.T.O.L. airport access, egress, and terminal processing portions of the trip to make the S.T.O.L. aircraft trip time shorter. TABLE 2-10 Total Montreal - Toronto Trip Time (Hours) 6 0 S.T.O.L. Versus C.T.O.L.  S.T.O.L. Turbo-Prop. C.T.O.L. Turbo-Jet Access .25 .45 Terminal Processing .67 1.40 Flight 1.47 1.08 Egress .33 .57 TOTAL 2.72 3.50 This potential time saving may not apply to the whole city and certainly does not to areas of the city situated near the C.T.O.L. , 6 1 airport. Table 2-11 permits comparison of the travel time between downtown points in Canada and U.S. using various mode of transport and two types of a i r c r a f t . 2-27 TABLE 2-11 Trip Times (in minutes) Downtown to Downtown By Road, Train, C.T.O.L. Aircraft and , 62 S.T.O.L. Aircraft City Pair Distance Road Rail C.T.O.L. S.T.l Air Miles Road Miles Ottawa-Montreal 120 126 140 130 140 26 Toronto-Ottawa 215 281 300 350 150 39 Toronto-Cleveland 180 294 350 540 155 35 Cleveland-Chicago 300 349 420 480 205 57 Cleveland-Detroit 90 167 200 300 157 22 Toronto-Detroit 210 231 270 310 160 39 Chicago-Detroit 285 296 350 300 193 49 New York-Washington 200 208 250 250 190 37 New York-Boston 180 216 260 280 153 35 Toronto-Chicago 450 529 700 615 200 72 Aside from the savings in trip times that are p ossible with S.T.O.L. air transport there is a very substantial economic benefit that can result from the implementation of a S.T.O.L. aircra f t passenger service. A preliminary study conducted by Eastern Airlines of the airports and terminal requirements in 24 major c i t i e s that i t serves indicates that nearly 8 b i l l i o n dollars could be saved by 1985 through the deployment and u t i l i z a t i o n of a S.T.O.L. air carrier system. The a i r l i n e estimates that preliminary study findings are correct 63 within ± 20 percent. Table 2-12 shows the results of the study. The total investment planned or l i k e l y to be required for conventional aircraft f a c i l i t i e s is $6,217 b i l l i o n . Comparable costs for a system of S.T.O.L. airports to serve t r a f f i c up u n t i l 1980 is forecast to cost $1,307 b i l l i o n . For the 1980-85 period Eastern Airlines estimated that an additional $3,601 b i l l i o n investment for new C.T.O.L. f a c i l i t i e s , while the same t r a f f i c could be accommodated using S.T.O.L. aircraft at a cost of $655 million. 2-28 TABLE 2-12 Major Airport and Terminal Investment Planned '^f or 1970 - 1985 Period (in millions. of dollars) 1970 through 1980 Additional by : C.T.O.L. S.T.O.L. C.T.O.L. S .T.O Atlanta $300 $100 $750 $100 Baltimore 400 60 Boston 125 60 Buffalo 200 60 Charlotte 45 10 Chicago 790 30 Cleveland 1000 30 Freeport 5 5 Greensboro 22 17 Huston 200 50 Detroit 30 Louisville 65 50 135 10 Orlando/McCoy 78 12 Miami 400 60 Montreal 169 12 491 60 Nassau 21 6 New Orleans 100 60.' New York 1000 300 Philadelphia 100 60 400 120 Pittsburgh 197 60 St. Louis 350 50 Toronto 150 50 450 50 Washington, D, .C. 75 75 Los Angeles 500 60 900 180 $6,217 $1,307 $3,601 $655 S.T.O.L. aircraft offers the potential of reducing the problems of airport and airways congestion. This conclusion was brought out in a U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (F.A.A.) study conducted to determine methods of increasing the runway acceptance rates of major U.S. airports. The study revealed that the operational characteristics of S.T.O.L. aircraft and their a b i l i t y to use airspace, not now used by C.T.O.L. aircr a f t , would allow them to operate e f f i c i e n t l y from the larger airports. S.T.O.L. aircraft can also provide effective air service into small suburban areas or special activity points where only very modest runway f a c i l i t i e s are available. Also such aircraft can be used in less developed parts of Canada where large runways are expensive to construct and where the frequency of service would not ju s t i f y extensive 66 f a c i l i t i e s . For example, in British Columbia alone, S.T.O.L. aircraft can operate from more than 200 airstrips from which i t i s not possible to operate C.T.O.L. a i r c r a f t . ^ S.T.O.L. air service has a number of important implications as a tool for directing the development of regions. In recent years the trend i n aircraft development has been toward large aircraft which require long runways. Such f a c i l i t i e s can only be j u s t i f i e d in the larger urban centers. The result of this trend has been the provision of greatly improved air travel opportunities in the large urban areas but there has been no comparable increase in service offered to the smaller centers. It may be possible to alter this trend by developing and operating a moderate capacity dispersed transportation system, as opposed to a high capacity "spinal" system. A S.T.O.L. aircraft system would appear to f i l l the requirements of such a system. A system of S.T.O.L. airports could be provided at a relatively modest cost to give improved travel opportunities to those people who dwell in the smaller centers. In contrast to the more permanent "spinal" system of transportation routes, a dispersed S.T.O.L.air "transport system would be flexible and able to adapt to regional development needs in sparsely settled areas while s t i l l being able to handle high density short haul t r a f f i c in and 68 around metropolitan areas. One long term benefit considered possible i f a S.T.O.L. air transport system were established might be the reversal of present 2-30 population trends which show people increasingly moving from rural 69 areas to metropolitan areas. Another benefit that might accrue from the successful development of S.T.O.L. transportation i s that the system may help to make possible the establishment of light industry in areas that.are economically depressed.^ 0 Despite the fact that S.T.O.L. aircraft offer so: many potential advantages, there i s at present no S.T.O.L. a i r l i n e r available for c i v i l use that i s capable of carrying more than 40 passengers.^ The De Havilland D.H.C. 7 S.T.O.L. a i r l i n e r , programmed for delivery in 1973, w i l l be the f i r s t S.T.O.L. a i r l i n e r designed specifically for . ., 72 c i v i l use. The large U.S. airlines have recognized the need for S.T.O.L. aircraft service between the larger American c i t i e s . They anticipate that the "introduction of S.T.O.L. aircraft w i l l take place in three stages: 1) Introduction of an i n i t i a l series of short haul S.T.O.L. aircraft which w i l l be ready for service from about 1973-75. These aircraft should provide the impetus for the construction of S.T.O.L. airports near city centers. 2) The period between 1976 and 1978 should see the introduction of a second generation of higher capacity more efficient S.T.O.L. ai r l i n e r s . 3) In the years following 1980, during which considerable congestion at S.T.O.L. airports i s anticipated, the introduction 73 of V.T.O.L. aircraft i s expected to take place. Summary People travel for three general reasons: to meet other people, for holidays or recreational purposes, or to reach a work place. The travel mode they choose depends upon the purpose of the t r i p , the convenience of the mode, the total trip time, and the trip cost. Each mode of travel, be i t automobile, bus, r a i l , or air offers the traveler certain advantages and disadvantages. The principal advantage of air travel i s i t s very high terminal to terminal travel speed, but this speed advantage is being eroded because airports are becoming congested and the surface travel time to and from many airports is increasing. However, recent developments in air vehicles such as V.T.O.L. and S.T.O.L. aircr a f t , which can be operated from small airports, near the principal t r a f f i c generating areas of a city, can reduce a i r t r a f f i c at the conventional airports and reduce surface travel on the airport access links. V.T.O.L. aircraft are s t i l l being developed but S.T.O.L. aircraft w i l l soon be ready to enter a i r l i n e service. S.T.O.L. aircraft may also provide a less expensive more flexible transportation service to the less populated areas of Canada. The modest airport and terminal f a c i l i t i e s required by S.T.O.L. aircra f t w i l l allow air service to be given to small communities not generally served by air transportation. Nevertheless, this does not mean that scheduled air service should be offered to every small community. The frequent stops would have a negative effect on the economics of a i r l i n e operations and the level of service offered to passengers travelling between larger centres would decline. CHAPTER TWO F O O T N O T E S 1) E.E. Marshall, "The Role of Aircraft in Future Transport Systems," Aircraft Engineering (May 1969) p.21. 2) National Analysts Inc., "The Needs and Desires of Travellers in the Northeast Corridor. A Survey of the Dynamics of Mode Choice" Philadelphia: (Feb. 1970) p.11. . 3) Marshall, "The Role of Ai r c r a f t , " p.21. 4) National Analysts Inc., "Needs and Desires of Travellers", p.xv. 5) Bjorn J. E l l e , Issues and Prospects in Interurban Air Transport. (Stockholm: Wiksell and Alimquist) 1968, p.58. 6) . N.W. Boorer and B.J. Davey, "The Characteristics and problems Associated with V/S.T.O.L. Operation,"Aircraft Engineering May 1969, p.21. 7) National Analysts Inc., "The Needs and Desires of Travelers," p.xvi. 8) Vergil G. S t o ^ r , "Some Nonuser Implications of Urban Transportation, Proceedings of The 1968 Transportation Engineering Conference: Defining Transportation Requirements, New York: 1969, p.311. 9) Boorer and Davey, "The Characteristics and Problems," p.21. 10) Marshall, "The Role of Aircraft," p.24. 11) Booer and Davey,!"The Characteristics and Problems," p.20. 12) Marshall "The Role of Ai r c r a f t , " p.23. 13) Davoud and Heaslip, "The Prospect of V/S.T.O.L.", p.58. 14) National Analysts Inc., "The Needs and Desires of Travelers," p.xvi. 15) Boorer and Davey, "The Characteristics and Problems," p.21. 16) H.A.C. Summers "Trends in Short-Haul Transportation," Canadian  Aeronautics and Space Journal, (Sept. 1966), p.266. 17) Ibid. 18) National Analysts Inc., "The Needs and Desires of Travelers," p.161-162. 19) Bernard A. Schriever and William W. Siefert, Air Transportation  1975 and Beyond: A Systems Approach: Report of the Transportation Workshop 1967, Cambridge Massachusetts (The M.I.T. Press) p.8. 2-33 20) De Havilland Aircraft of Canada, "The De Havilland D.H.C. 7 Quiet S.T.O.L. A i r l i n e r , " Downsview Ontario (June 1970), p.6. 21) Schriever and Steifert, "Air Transportation", p.8. 22) Boorer and Davey, "The Characteristics and Problems", p.20. 23) Canadian Transport Commission, "Inter-City Passenger Transportation Study," Research BrancJi Report, Ottawa, Sept. 1970 p. 87. 24) E l l e , The Issues and Prospects, p.31. 25) . Institut du.Transport Aerien, "A German Case Study i n Short Haul. Air Transport," Doc. 64/13-E, Paris 1964, p.7. 26) Ibid. 27) Marshall, "The Role of Airc r a f t , " p.23. 28) The Boeing Company, "Study of Aircraft i n Short Haul Transportation," Final Report, Seattle, Aug. 1967. pp. 19-23. 29) Ibid. 30) i b i d . • 31) Ibid.. •' .. - . 32) R.D. Hiscocks, "S.T.O.L. Aircraft - A Perspective," The  Aeronautical Journal, Jan. 1968, pp. 15-16. 33) Hiscocks, "S.T.O.L. Aircraft", pp. 15-17. 34) Ibid". 35) The Boeing Company, "Study of Air c r a f t , " pp. 19-22. 36) J.A. Gill e s , "Choosing New Transport Air c r a f t , " Canadian  Aeronautics and Space Journal, Jan. 1964, p. 1. 37) The Boeing Company, "Study of Airc r a f t , " p. 33. 38) The Boeing Company, "Study of Air c r a f t , " p. 47. 39) Joseph W. Wetmore, V/S.T.O.L. Transports and Their Terminal Requirements," Journal of The Aero-Space Transport Division  of A.S.C.E., Proc. Paper 4612, ATI, Jan. 1966, pp. 81-82. 40) De Havilland Aircraft of Canada, "The D.H.C. 7 Quiet S.T.O.L. Ai r l i n e r : Performance," Downsview,Ontario, Sept. 1969, P. 1. 41) The Boeing Company "Model 751 C/S.T.0.L. General Description," Seattle, A p r i l 1969, P. 1. 42) Eastern Airlines Inc. and McDonnell Aircraft Company, "S.T.O.L. Evaluation Program," Technical Report, New York, N.Y., March 1969, P. 5. 43) • Ibid." 44) Ibid.' 45) Ibid. 46) Ibid. 47) Stratford "Looking Ahead", P. 375. 48) Dorn C. McGrath Jr., "Compatible Land Use," Airports Terminal F a c i l i t i e s , A.S.C.E. - A.O.C.I. Specialty Conference, Huston, 1967 P. 241. 49) J. Mercier,"The Economic and Social Consequences of Air Transport and i t s Technical Progress i n Western Europe," Institut du Transport Aerien, Doc. 61/6, Paris 1961, p. 52-53. 50) Richard H. Jordon, "Airport Location i n Relation to Urban Transport" Journal of the Aero-Space Transport Division of A.S.C.E., Proc. Paper 3245, Aug. 1962, p. 99. 51) Alan H. Stratford, "Looking Ahead in Aviation Airports and Air Transport," The Aeronautical Journal,(May 1969), p. 375. 52) Wallis Hawkins, "The Next 50 Year in Aviation," Astronautics and  Aeronautics, July 1965 p. 92. 53) Maurer and Peladan, "Terminal Transport and Other Reasons," p. 5. 54) Edward A. Briemborn, "Terminal Access and the Choice of Intercity Modes", Transportation Engineering Journal of A.S.C.E., Vol.95 No. TE3, Proc. Paper 6731, Aug; 1969, p. 463-481. 55) See the studies done by John F. Brown and James C. Buckley l i s t e d in the Bibliography. 56) John F. Brown, "Airport Accessibility affects Passenger", Development Air Transport Journal of A.S.C.E., Vol. 91, ATI Proc. Paper 4302, Apr i l 1965, pp. 47-58. 57) E l l e , "The Issues and Prospects," p. 48. 58) E l l e , "The Issues and Prospects," p. 48. 59) P.Y. Davoud and W.T. Heaslip, "The Prospects of V/S.T.O.L. Aircraft i n Future Air l i n e Operations," Transportation Research  Forum, Dec. 1968, p. 57. 2-35 60) Ibid.. 61) Canadian Transport Commission, "Intercity Passenger Transportation," pp. 35-37. 62) Davoud and Heaslip, "The Prospects of V/S.T.O.L. Ai r c r a f t , " p. 59. 63) David A. Brown, "Airport, Terminal Saving found for S.T.O.L.," Aviation Week and Space Technology, July 20, 1970, p. 28. 64) J.C. Staples, "Operational Evaluation of S.T.O.L. Aircraft and Related S.T.O.L. Developments," F.A.A. Washington, June 17, 1969, p. 2. 65) Davoud and Heaslip, "The Prospects of V/S.T.O.L. Ai r c r a f t , " p. 57. 66) Boorer and Davey, "The Characteristics and Problems," p. 30. 67) "S & R gets Buffaloes to Replace ol'Albert," Canadian Aviation Oct. 1970, p. 23. 68) Science Council of Canada, "A Canadian S.T.O.L. Air Transport System - A Major Program," Ottawa, Aug. 1970, p. 5. 69) "Applications Decision i s a Key Hurdle," Aviation Week and  Space Technology, June 22, 1970, p. 146. 70) Ibid. p. 150 71) David A. Brown, "Users Study Joint S.T.O.L. Program," Aviation  Week and Space Technology, July 1, 1970, p. 23. 72) De Havilland, "The D.H.C. 7 Quiet S.T.O.L. A i r l i n e r , " p. 3. 73) "S.T.O.L. or V.T.O.L. For Future Inter-City A ir Transport?," Interavia, Jan 19 70, p. 49. C H A P T E R T H R E E S.T.O.L. Airport Planning Considerations To derive the maximum benefit from S.T.O.L. aircraft i n intercity-passenger transportation, special terminal f a c i l i t i e s , or Stolports, w i l l be required. The size, arrangement, location and support f a c i l i t i e s required for the terminals w i l l be determined in a large measure by the operational capabilities and limitations of the aircraft that use them."'' Therefore, the chapter w i l l begin with an examination of the takeoff and landing performance of S.T.O.L. aircraft and the factors that determine the overall dimensions of a S.T.O.L. airport. Once the basic dimensions of the S.T.O.L. airport have been established the discussion w i l l turn to the question of the safety of urban area f l i g h t operations. Following the discussion of safety there w i l l be a discussion of ai r navigation and the problems of ai r navigation in urban areas. Next there w i l l be an examination of the locational considerations associated with urban area S.T.O.L. airports. These considerations are: wind, a i r pollution, noise, terminal access land use compatibility and implications for urban form. Factors affecting the Dimensions of S.T.O.L. Runways The space requirements of an S.T.O.L. airport is a basic factor to be considered with deciding upon a suitable location for a S.T.O.L. airport. The basic dimensions of an S.T.O.L. airport are derived from the performance of the airc r a f t . One reason that S.T.O.L. aircraft can takeoff in a short distance is that they are generally f i t t e d with powerful engines which permit rapid acceleration and a high rate of climb. There i s , however, a limiting value of thrust weight ratio above which the marginal gain in thrust i s not reflected in increased take-off performance. Typical takeoff results for a S.T.O.L. aircra f t of relatively conventional configuration are shown in figure 3-1 where the total distance, ground run plus airborne, to reach a height of 50 feet are shown i n terms of thrust weight ratio. From this i t can be seen that beyond a certain point increased power w i l l not increase the performance of the air c r a f t . The length of a takeoff run i s also dependent upon the geometric design and the dimensions of the aircra f t wing. In addition, the rol l i n g resistance of the aircraft wheels i s an important factor in 2 takeoff performance. The landing distance of a S.T.O.L. aircraft i s directly related to, approach speed, the steepness of the approach gradient, and the efficiency of the aircra f t braking system and propeller pitch reversal 3 system. (See Figure 3-2) The landing and takeoff performance of the De Havilland D.H.C. 7 S.T.O.L. a i r l i n e r i l l u s t r a t e s the relationship between aircraft performance and runway dimensions. The estimated landing and takeoff profiles for the D.H.C. 7 aircra f t are shown i n figures 3-3 and 3-4. These figures i l l u s t r a t e the D.H.C. 7 operating from S.T.O.L. airport at an average gross weight of 36,000 pounds. Table 3-1 provides additional information on the D.H.C. 7 landing and takeoff performance. FIGURE 3-1 THRUST.WEIGHT RATIO VERSUS TAKE OFF DISTANCE 500 1000 1500 2000 • TAKE OFF DISTANCE TO 50 FT. FIGURE 3-2 LANDING'FIELD LENGTH VERSUS APPROACH SPEED 120J 2000 4000 LANDING FIELD LENGTH FEET FIGURE 3-3 TAKEOFF PROFILE DE HAVILLAND D.H.C. 7 - S.TO.L. AIRLINER Associated Conditions 1) Seallevel ISA 2) Aircraft Weight, 36,000 lbs. 3) A l l Engines at Takeoff Power. 4) Zero Wind. TAKEOFF FLIGHT PATH 75 Feet < — GROUND ROLL 1100'Ft, < DISTANCE TO 35 FEET < ACCELERATE-STOP DISTANCE 1680 FEET ' TOTAL S.T.O.L. AIRPORT LENGTH FIGURE 3-4 LANDING PROFILE DE HAVILLAND D.H.C. 7 - S.T.O.L. AIRLINER8 <J—GROUND ROLL S> (750 Feet) DISTANCE FROM 35 FT.—> (1140 Ft.) TOTAL S.T.O.L. AIRPORT LENGTH (2000 F T . ) >8 4-TABLE 3-1 .D.H.C. 7 Landing and Takeoff Profiles (Sea Level, Zero Wind) Normal Operations Emergency Operations Engine Failure at L i f t Off Take .Off 59°F 90°F 59 8F 90°F Ground Roll Feet 1100 1220 1170 1300 Horizontal Distance to 35 Feet 1540 1670 1780 1925 Take Off Climb Gradient 10 9.3 5 4.5 Landing Ground Roll Feet 750 Horizontal Distance from 35 Feet 1140 Total Field Length 1900 Ft. (1140 x 1.67 factor of safety) From Table 3-1 i t can be seen that despite the fact that the aircraft requires only 1300 feet of runway under the most extreme take-off conditions, the required runway length i s a minimum of 1900 feet to provide for a safety margin. The F.A.A. in i t s 1979 "Interim Design Criter i a for Metropolitan S.T.O.L. Ports and S.T.O.L. Runways,',' recommends that a S.T.O.L. airport be a minimum of 1800 feet i n length and a minimum of 200 feet i n width. The De Havilland Aircraft Company i n the 1970 pamphlet, "A Guide to S.T.O.L. Transportation System Planning," recommend that the S.T.O.L. airport be a minimum of 2000 feet i n length and 250 feet i n width Safety Safety margins are applied to the basic performance characteristics of a l l commercial ai r c r a f t . These margins may diff e r slightly from one country to another. The speeds at which aircra f t may takeoff and climb or approach and land are defined as a function of a basic s t a l l i n g speed. (The s t a l l i n g speed i s the speed at which the wings do not produce sufficient l i f t to maintain f l i g h t ) . The st a l l i n g speed of a propeller driven airc r a f t may vary with engine power setting and propeller slipstream because of the latters effect over the wing and the varying downwash. For a typical S.T.O.L. aircra f t the st a l l i n g speed with f u l l power i s approximately two-thirds of the s t a l l i n g speed with power off. Generally, take off safety speed (V ) is the basic aircraft s s t a l l i n g speed plus 20 percent. For approach and landing the basic s t a l l i n g speed i s usually that which i s obtained with the flaps i n the landing position and zero thrust. S.T.O.L. air c r a f t are required to at least maintain the s t a l l i n g speed plus about 30-50 percent at the runway threshold during landing. Other safety margins are applied to the^gross takeoff and landing distances that result when aircraft are operated at speeds discussed above. In Britain, for instance, government regulations require the takeoff distance to be increased by 25 percent and the landing distance 9 to be increased by 43 percent. Multi-engine commercial S.T.O.L. aircraft operations introduced, another set of safety factors which further modify S.T.O.L. airport dimensions and obstruction clearances. It i s normally accepted that an airc r a f t should be able to survive a single engine failure at any stage during landing or takeoff. Modern aircraft engines are remarkably reliable and i t is known that the chance of engine failure between l i f t off and 50 feet i s one per 10 million takeoffs. It i s assumed that the engine w i l l not f a i l within 10 seconds after l i f t off nor:will i t f a i l during the last 25 seconds of approach. Ten seconds after takeoff the aircra f t w i l l have reached 300 feet at which time i t w i l l have the performance to continue climbing on one engine. An air c r a f t is also expected to be able to survive an engine failure during the last 25 seconds and make a safe landing with only an increase in the landing distance. There i s reason to believe that S.T.O.L. aircra f t operation w i l l be safer than C.T.O.L. aircraft operations because of the slow f l i g h t speeds attainable with S.T.O.L. airc r a f t . There are however, two opposing factors involved i n achieving a safety level for S.T.O.L. aircraft that i s better than the present level for C.T.O.L. aircraft.''" 0 On one hand the added complexity of the S.T.O.L. aircra f t requires more effort to guard against mechanical and system failures, but the slower landing speeds involved i n S.T.O.L. operations should reduce the consequences of any accident that does happen because of the lower energy to be dissipated."'""'' The safety of aircraft operations increases as the speed that an aircraft approaches the runway declines. But on the other hand, the shorter the runway the greater the reduction in r e l i a b i l i t y for any approach speed. However, from the pilot's point of view S.T.O.L. aircraft operations.may be less safe than those of conventional aircraft because he w i l l be pushing the aircraft to i t s maximum capability i.el. engine, high l i f t devices, landing aids, and shorter runways. At slow speeds S.T.O.L. aircra f t are affected by crosswinds to a much greater extent than are C.T.O.L. ai r c r a f t . Hence, under crosswind conditions S.T.O.L. aircraf cooperations may be. just as hazardous as C.T.O.L. aircraft operations. In a U.S. study of commercial aircraft accidents, i t was shown that approximately 18 percent of the accidents occurred during cruise operations about 25 percent occurred during takeoff; and the majority, about 57 percent, occurred during approach and landing. The study also showed that a direct correlation exists between takeoff and landing speed and accident rate. Although there are many other variables not considered in the accident rate versus landing speed, there does, however, appear to be a strong indication that air travel safety can be enhanced by the low landing speeds of S.T.O.L. aircraft. Since the landing speed of S.T.O.L. aircraft i s one half that of jet transport aircraft i t may be expected that the S.T.O.L. aircraft landing accident rate w i l l be roughly one 12 quarter the figure under existing circumstances. Airways and Air Navigation An air t r a f f i c system reflects the complex inter-relationships of ground based f a c i l i t i e s and the fl i g h t characteristics of the aircraft operating in the system. On the ground the main f a c i l i t i e s consist of the airport navigational aids and enroute control f a c i l i t i e s . In the ai r , the kind of navigational equipment used varies from one aircraft to another depending on the type of operations that the aircraft normally performs. Where air t r a f f i c is light a minimum of external aircraft control may be necessary because standard pilot applied fl i g h t rules and procedures in conjunction with ground navigational aids may be sufficient. High t r a f f i c densities require that some centralized form of control be established over air t r a f f i c . This centralized control is placed in a system called a i r t r a f f i c control. Airways are the portions of commonly travelled air routes which are subject to air t r a f f i c control. In Canada there are two categories of airways; the high level airway, which is a prescribed track between radio navigation aids above approximately 23,000 feet altitude; the low altitude airways which extend upwards from 700 f t . to 23,000 f t . above the surface of the earth, are 9 miles wide and li k e high level 13 airways, follow a prescribed track between radio navigation aids. Radio Navigation Aids There are two principal radio navigation aids used in the Canadian airways system. The instrument landing system (I.L.S.) which i s used to guide aircraft to the runway within the terminal control area, and the V.O.R. (very high frequency omni directional radio range) which guides 14 the aircraft during the enroute portion of a f l i g h t . The instrument landing system emits radio signals along a path leading to the airport. A special radio receiver in the aircraft picks up these signals and indicates to the pilot the aircrafts f l i g h t path with reference to the signals. The I.L.S. can be subject to errors which arise from the reflection of radio waves from objects such as metal doors and intervening objects such as h i l l s or rough terrain.'''"' V.O.R. ground equipment produces two radio signals that are picked up by an aircraft omni receiver which electronically measures the aircraft" direction of fl i g h t with reference to the ground station."^ Radio Navigation Aids for S.T.O.L. Aircraft Operations Instrument approaches by conventional aircraft at most large airports 3-10 require long, time consuming approach paths. Even under visual conditions i t can take as much as 15 minutes for a landing approach due to routings dictated by other a i r t r a f f i c . Under instrument f l i g h t conditions, the holding of aircraft consumes additional time. If the S.T.O.L. a i r t r a f f i c were to bemixed with conventional air t r a f f i c , much of the time saving of the close-in S.T.O.L. airport might be lost even under V.F.R. (visual f l i g h t rules) conditions. As a result S.T.O.L. aircraft w i l l l i k e l y require different air t r a f f i c control procedures, particularly in the terminal areas. ^ In the instrument approach and landing phases of the S.T.O.L. aircraft f l i g h t special instrument landing systems w i l l be required. S.T.O.L. airports w i l l be small and they may be located at elevated sites in areas that are surrounded by other buildings, structures, and so on. The existing I.L.S. i s not capable of providing adequate guidance under such conditions. The inadequacy of the I.L.S. does not result from the higher approach gradient of S.T.O.L. air c r a f t ; i t i s the product 18 of obstacles and irregular terrain at the ends of the runway. It i s expected that a microwave I.L.S. w i l l have to be used at urban area S.T.O.L. airports. A microwave system would have small antennae apertures which would provide high signal d i r e c t i v i t y . In addition, the physical dimensions of the microwave transmitting components are small. Thus the problem of siting instrument landing aids at S.T.O.L. airports 19 w i l l be greatly reduced. In the past the V.O.R. navigational system has been adequate but the growth in air t r a f f i c may require that new navigational systems be employed to help reduce airspace congestion. The movement of aircraft along the radials between V.O.R. stations may result in congestion when air 3-11 t r a f f i c from many directions is funneled to one V.O.R, along a selected radial (see Fig. 3-5). Moreover, for low level navigation or for fl i g h t in built up areas, where the presence of nearby objects may affect the V.O.R., a more accurate navigation system w i l l be required. An area navigation system can increase the accuracy of air navigation and also increase the capacity of the airways. The area navigation system consists of an airborne computer that can process V.O.R. signals to permit point to point navigation instead of V.O.R. to V.O.R. navigation. (See Figure 3-6) Wind There are several characteristics of winds that should be borne i n mind when considering S.T.O.L. airport locations. F i r s t , the average wind velocity varies from zero at ground level to the value of the so called "gradient wind" at higher levels. The speed varies because of the f r i c t i o n of the wind over the ground, and so the variation of wind velocity depends upon the roughness of the ground and the extent of 21 the roughness. Hence wind velocity at elevated S.T.O.L. airports w i l l be greater than i t w i l l be at ground level airports. The following table shows the decline in wind speed as ground level i s approached. TABLE 3-2 Mean Wind Velocity versus Height 22 Height of Wind Instrument Ratio of Wind Velocity at 20 Ft. to Wind Velocity at Instrument Height 120 Feet 0.77 100 0.79 80 0.82 60 0.86 40 0.90 20 1.00 FIGURE 3-6 AN ILLUSTRATION,OF AREA NAVIGATION IN PLACE OF l k . V.O.R. to V.O.R. NAVIATION _gvrV._0._R. V.O.R. RADLALS 1 AREA NAVIGATION POINT TO POINT AIRPORT AIRPORT FIGURE 3-7 0 10 20 30 PERCENT TURBULENCE 3-14 A second characteristic of winds i s their intensive turbulence. Figure 3-7 shows the typical variation with height of the root-mean-square longitudinal turbulence intensity, expressed as a percentage of local mean wind speed. Turbulence intensity for a wind blowing over rough ground decreases with an increase in altitude. Since turbulence appears to be a nearly random process, there could be occasional values much greater than those shown:"£n the figure, and near the ground the wind direction • . . - , , 26 may vary widely and i t may sometimes even reverse. For S.T.O.L. operations in urban areas turbulence may be an important problem since there may be turbulent zones created in the wind wake of t a l l buildings. The extent of a turbulent zone w i l l depend largely on wind speed. S.T.O.L. aircra f t are sensitive to gusts and crosswind components, i.e. a wind component perpendicular to the fl i g h t path, hence these factors must be considered when locations for S.T.O.L. airports are being considered. Wind gusts can have a great influence on the precision of S.T.O.L. aircraft landing approaches, because this type of aircraft has a low wing loading and small changes in wind speed can have a relatively great effect on the l i f t generated by the wings. Thus a change in wind velocity w i l l have an effect on the rate of descent and therefore on the angle of approach of the airc r a f t . E.G. Morrissey in his 1970 study, "An Approximate Method for Calculating C r i t i c a l Gust Statistics for S.T.O.L. Operations," found that, "gusts may occur with sufficient frequency to necessitate their consideration during the design and formulation of Stolport operational practices." 7^ 3-15 Crosswind wind components can have a substantial influence on S.T.O.L. aircraft operations. For instance, a 10 knot crosswind component w i l l cause a 13 degree heading changing on a S.T.O.L. aircraft approaching 28 for a landing at a speed of 45 knots. The distribution of wind directions in association with v i s i b i l i t y and ceiling are of primary importance in deciding on runway orientation. Subject to a l l other factors being equal, runways should be oriented in the direction of the prevailing wind when i t blows consistently from one direction. Of course, beneficial effects of winds can also be realized i n S.T.O.L. aircraft operations, i f the aircraft can be operated directly into the wind. In takeoff or landing operations the horizontal distance required to reach or descend from a given height, can be significantly reduced with even a moderate headwind. For instance, the horizontal distance required to get to or from 100 feet above ground level (as indicated i n Figures 3-3 and 3-4) can be reduced as much as 25 percent 29 in a 10 knot headwind. Hazard and Obstruction Clearance Local factors can be important in relation to the location of individual S.T.O.L. airports. For instance industry can produce smoke which may be concentrated in certain directions because of prevailing winds. As a consequence the v i s i b i l i t y in some areas may be reduced and visual f l i g h t procedures may be precluded. Sites adjacent to refuse dumps and sewage outfalls may be undesirable because of the danger of 30 aircraft c o l l i s i o n with birds. 3-16 S.T.O.L. aircraft use steep f l i g h t path gradients in takeoff and landing to limit the constraints imposed on land use beyond the ends of the runway. However, aircraft must be able to clear a l l obstacles safely in the event of an engine failure during takeoff. This requires that obstruction free planes be established extending from both ends of 31 the runway in the direction of f l i g h t . The U.S. F.A.A. has produced "Interim Design Criter i a for Metropolitan S.T.O.L. Ports and S.T.O.L. Runways" which define the dimensions of the obstruction-free planes which should be secured around S.T.O.L. Airports. Figure 3-8 shows the F.A.A. recommended obstruction-free zones for a S.T.O.L. airport. Any objects which limit the available f l i g h t path may reduce the efficienty of f l i g h t operations. If t a l l structures exist in or near areas suitable for instrument f l i g h t , non-standard f l i g h t procedures may be required and the duration of f l i g h t during landing and takeoff 32 may be increased. Noise Problems In the past, airports were located away from the urbanized area and any community noise exposure problems from aircraft resulted from the growth of the community toward the airport. However, in the case of S.T.O.L. aircraft the situation w i l l be reversed in that i t i s now possible to build S.T.O.L. airports within existing communities. This i s inherent in the basic concept of S.T.O.L. intercity air transportation: the providing of convenient and rapid a i r transportation to populated areas. For this concept to succeed, S.T.O.L. aircraft operations must be readily accepted by the community. The noise problem that i s causing concern at some of the large APPROACH SURFACE RIMARY SURFAC LONGITUDINAL PROFILE LJ.,000' ql.OOO 1 Runway Length , [Plus 150' Each End TRANSITIONAL SURFACE 300 Primary SurfaceClear Transitional ace. 400 n Approach j \ .SURFACE ,.?.nnnv 10.000' PLAN VIEW TRANSITIONAL SURFACE PRIMARY SURFACE _ GROSS SKGTTON FIGURE 3-8 - PROTECTION SURFACES METROPOLITAN STOLPORT 33 3-18 airports that serve jet aircraft i s l i k e l y to present even greater problems for S.T.O.L. city center operations because of (1) the high power or thrust required in takeoff and landing, (2) the need to locate the terminals as close as possible to the heavily populated city centers, and (3) the longer duration of noise because of the low approach and 34 takeoff speed of the ai r c r a f t . If S.T.O.L. aircraft are to be acceptable as an intercity transportation vehicle i t is very important that the presence of such vehicles be acceptable as well as beneficial to the community. The goal is that S.T.O.L. aircraft should not generate noise above the ambient levels: however, in many cases i t may not be possible to achieve this goal. Noise "Noise by definition i s an undersirable or unwanted sound. Sound is composed of pressure waves whose magnitude and frequencies are sensed by the human ear. The undesirability associated with sound involves the subjective response of the observer, which includes not only the physical stimulus of the ear as a function of intensity and frequency of the perceived noise, but also an psychological factors. Thus the observer perceives the noise in terms of whether or not the sound is loud, annoying, interferes with his speech or leisure a c t i v i t i e s . In effect, the observer establishes^^ criterion by which he personally judges the acceptability of ;.noise. The physical characteristics of noise, are described in terms of frequencies i n cycles per second, or hertz, and i n terms of sound power, intensity, or i n a logaritmic unit, the decibel. The subjective effect of frequency is known as "pitch" and that of intensity as loudness. However, at present there is no universal method to quantify or describe the unwantedness of noise. The most common measure of sound level measurement is of overall sound pressure level expressed in decibels. The decibel (dB) is defined as: Sound pressure level, dB = 20 Log. ~(P/Po) were P is the root mean, square sound pressure and Po is the reference pressure, normally .0002 microbars. This is a physical measure of sound intensity. During the last 10 years the perceived noise level (PndB) has largely replaced the purely physical dB as a measure of the subjective "noisiness" of aircraft and other noises. The perceived noise decibel is a weighted dB average over a frequency spectrum. The weighting permits high pitched noises to be rated relatively "noisier" than low pitched noises of the same dB level. Thus as shown in Figure 3-9 turbo jet engine noise with i t s high frequency content is rated 6PndB noisier than a propellor which has the same sound pressure level in decibels. As a rule of thumb, when dealing with PndB a doubling or halving of a sound level results in a 10 PndB difference i n noise levels. In situations where speech communication against a noise background is of major concern, a measure known as the "speech interference l e v e l " (SIL) is often used. Tbet.sp.eech interference level is a measure 37 of the speech-masking effect of a noise. The frequency of aircraft takeoffs and landings as well as their individual noiseness of PndB i s a strong factor in public acceptability of aircraft noise. (See Figure 3-10), "In England, as a result of considerable investigation, the subjective effects of the two (frequency of f l i g h t and Pndb) have been combined into a "Noise and Number Index". NNI = average of peak PndB Levels + 15 log^Q N-80 Here N is the number of individual occurrences, and the -80 implies that a level of 80 PndB has negligible annoyance. If we set NNI = 45 as an allowable daily upper limit then the allowable PndB depends on the number of events, as follows." FIGURE-3-9 COMPARISON OF PERCEIVED NOISE LEVELS FOR SPECTRA o o CO 300 1200 4800 600 2400 9600 ' Octave Bands C.P.S. FIGURE 3-10 RELATIVE ANNOYANCE AS A FUNCTION OF PndB Number of Flights per Day TABLE 3-3 ANNOYANCE AS A FUNCTION OF PndB AND NUMBER OF OCCURRENCES N.N.I.=45 C.N.R. = 100 N PndB Pndb 1 125. 115 2 120.6 112 4 116. 109 8 111.5 106 16 107. 103 32 102 100 64 98 97 128 93.5 94 The composite noise r a t i n g (C.N.R.) l i k e the N.N.I, i s another scale which i s calculated by adding a l g e b r a c i a l l y , PndB and c e r t a i n other corrections which take into account other f a c t o r s such as the number of 41 a i r c r a f t movements, the time of day, and runway u t i l i z a t i o n . As was mentioned previously, the d e c i b e l " i s a commonly used measure of sound i n t e n s i t y ; i t i s also a convenient device f o r obtaining noise comparisons, e s p e c i a l l y f o r veh i c l e s or objects i n motion. Figure 3-11 shows the r e l a t i v e sound pressure l e v e l s associated with various sound producing events. Noise Problems Created by S.T.O.L. A i r c r a f t To assess the possible e f f e c t s of S.T.O.L. a i r c r a f t flyovers and S.T.O.L. a i r p o r t operations, i t i s f i r s t necessary to examine, from a noise viewpoint the various environments that could be affected by S.T.O.L. a i r c r a f t operations. Once the e x i s t i n g environments have been described i t then i s poss i b l e to discuss the noise problems created i n the v a r i e t y of s i t u a t i o n s which may be encountered. Figure. 3-12 FIGURE 3-11 > <u 1-) <o co •H O !Z3 T3 > •H 0) O CU 20 10 COMMON NOISE LEVELS 42 100 Sonic Eoo.m Threshold of Pain 110 Boiler Factory Subway Passing Riveting Machine 35 Ft. Heavy Street T r a f f i c Average Automobile Department Store - Noisy Office Minimum Street Noise Very Soft Music ~T ' Rustling Leaves t u r n J / & Threshold of Hearing FIGURE 3-12 COMMUNITY NOISE x EXTERIOR AMBIENTS S.T.O.L. AIRCRAFT FLYBY AT 1000 Ft. 43 Quiet Suburban (Night Time) Urban Residential (Day Time) Commercial (Light Traffic) Industrial Downtown (Heavy Traffic) S.T.O.L. AIRCRAFT NOISE 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 PERCEIVED NOISE LEVEL - PndB 70 80 90 3-23 shows the ambient noise for a variety of community locations as a background for the perceived noise level of a current S.T.O.L. aircraft operating at a distance of 1000 feet. An assessment of the possible noise effects that may result from S.T.O.L. city center operations should begin with a look at the residential area, the area where noise is least acceptable. The ambient noise levels in residential areas are generally low, and people are particularly sensitive to disturbances in their home environment. People are particularly annoyed about having their conversation, phone c a l l s , and radio or television programs drowned out by an intrusive noise such as that from an aircraft flying overhead. Many of the complaints received by airports refer to this type of a situation. Although these cases are generally concerned withsp.eeeh interference, the noise problem in residential areas i s far more complex, involving annoyances, interference with tasks, and interference with sleep. Considering these factors, perceived noise level appears to be a useful measure of noise intrusion for aircraft flyovers. The acceptable value of perceived noise level w i l l depend upon the type of residential community concerned. As can be seen from Figure 3-12 the perceived noise level of a 1000 feet above ground level flyover of the De Havilland D.H.C. 7 S.T.O.L. a i r l i n e r i s about 25 PndB higher than the daytime ambient noise level in urban residential areas. The roofs and walls of the average home is sufficient to reduce 44 noise annoyance substantially, probably to an acceptable level. Table 3-5 shows the acceptable interior noise level in buildings used for various a c c t i v i t i e s . 3-24 : TABLE 3-4 ACCEPTABLE EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS FOR VARIOUS ACTIVITIES BASED ON AVERAGE NOISE REDUCTION BY BUILDING Activity Industrial Apparel Painting : Food jP.roces s ing Metal Working Acceptable Interior Acceptable Exterior Acceptable Exterior Noise Level (PndB*) CNR** (without CNR with 10 dB modification) extra Noise Reduction Offices Private -Private -General -General -Hotel School Store Residence Special Uses Concert Hall Theater Church Hospital Arena one floor multifloor one floor multifloor 85 80 80 80 50 50 60 60 60 55 70 60 40 50 45 50 70 115 110 110 120 80 85 90 95 90 85 100 90 125 120 120 130 90 95 100 105 100 95 110 100 * Noise Level in PndB ** CNR = Composite Noise Rating However, during the summer months when windows and doors may be l e f t open, the average sound attenuation through buildings w i l l be 46 reduced. As a result, i t seems obvious that a different noise criterion is required for a neighbourhood where windows are l e f t open and backyard act i v i t i e s are performed, than in a neighbourhood composed of air conditioned, sealed,apartment houses. 3-25 In industrial and commercial areas the noise problems are somewhat different. In an office, a conference room, or a store, annoyance effects are l i k e l y to be of a lesser concern than i s ease of communication. This assumption suggest that for industrial and commercial situations the speech interference level method of noise evaluation would be the most suitable way to assess noise problems.4^ "For office environments, sets of curves called noise-criterion (NC) and noise criterion alternate (NCA) have been established, differing only in that the NCA curves are less stringent at low frequencies, where noise reduction is d i f f i c u l t and expensive to achieve. The criterion curves are based on satisfactory communication environments; the number refers to the associated speech interference levels. Three of the NCA curves are shown i n Figure 3-13 ranging from an executive office criterion to that for a large, excessively noisy office. Superimposed on these NCA curves are the interior noise spectra, after transmission through a well built structure with double glazed windows, for a proposed S.T.O.L. aircraft at both 500 and 1000 feet distances. As can be seen from the figure there is no apparent noise problem from this. . . . situation."4 8 There are no commonly used noise c r i t e r i a for industrial establishments as there are for offices. Speech interference and annoyance are not of major concern u n t i l interference with work performance i s evident. Naturally i f noise does not intrude above the ambient noise level, no problem w i l l exist. For the range of industrial interior noises shown in Figure 3-14 a flyby of an S.T.O.L. aircraft at 1000 feet poses* no 49 problems for a f u l l y enclosed building with closed double glazed windows. The noise levels created by aircraft at the maximum power or thrust levels used during takeoff have been estimated in PndB at various lateral distances from the aircraft track. The estimated ground or side line noise levels for the De Havilland D.H.C. 7 aircraft are shown in figure 3-15. However, the landing noise is generally greater than the takeoff noise because of the lower f l i g h t angle of the landing approach (7.5°) as opposed to the climb angle (9.8°). Moreover, the 3 -FIGURE 3-13 50 OCTAVE BAND LEVEL dB RE. 0.0002 MICROBAR OFFICE NOISE: CRITERIA AND S.T.O.L. AIRCRAFT FLYBY AT 500 FEET AND 1000.FEET 100 80 60 40 20 0 L Aircraft " - ^  Noise Through 1000 Ft Closed Windows NCA 70 500 Ft. 53 106 212 425 850 17Q0 3400 6800 .FREQUENCY IN CYCLES PER SECOND ' OCTAVE BAND LEVEL dB RE. 0.0002 MICROBAR FIGURE 3-14 5 1 INTERIOR INDUSTRIAL NOISE: AMBIENT LEVEL AND S.T.O.L. AIRCRAFT FLYBY AT 1000 FEET 100 80 60 40 20 CLOSED 53 106 212 425 850 1700 3400 6S00 FREQUENCY IN CYCLES PER SECOND duration of noise from S.T.O.L. aircraft may be two or three times longer than that for a C.T.O.L. air c r a f t , as a result the acceptable level of noise for S.T.O.L. aircraft may be lower than that for C.T.O.L. airc r a f t . It has been found that doubling the duration of noise exposure i s 52 equivalent to an increase of approximately 4.5 PndB. In 1969 the U.S. F.A.A. issued noise level requirements for the certi f i c a t i o n of C.T.O.L. ai r c r a f t . It i s expected that the F.A.A. w i l l soon issue noise standards for V.T.O.L. and S.T.O.L. air c r a f t . The S.T.O.L. aircraft standards are expected to be a maximum noise level of 100 PndB at 1000 feet on either side of the runway and 2000 f t . from the 53 point of l i f t off. The noise contours shown i n Figure 3-15 more than meet the expected F.A.A. c r i t e r i a . By using the noise contours and the noise c r i t e r i a outlined in the foregoing discussion i t w i l l be possible tcchoose a S.T.O.L. airport location that minimizes noise problems. It should be pointed out, however, that the noise c r i t e r i a , mentioned previously must be applied with a certain amount of judgment because "there are problems that arise when attempts are made to apply the c r i t e r i a to specific situations. More spe c i f i c a l l y : 1) There are many types of aircraft engines i n the c i v i l aviation fleet. 2) Noise transmission paths are affected by meteorological and topographic conditions. 3) Aircraft noise produces varying behavioural responses. 4) Aircraft noise produces l i t t l e i f any permanent structural changes (exclusive of sonic booms). 54 5) Much of the psychoacoustic and sociacoustic - data i s limited in amount and poorly correlated. NOISE CONTOURS DE HAVILLAND D.H.C. 7 S.T.O.L. AIRLINER55 There does not appear to be a simple way to relate the profusion of methods and scales used for measuring and specifying noise levels. Noise measurement involves both physical and subjective elements. The physical components of noise can be measured with considerable accuracy, but the subjective elements of noise annoyance can change from one individual to another, for example, noise annoyance can be related to the hour-of the day, a persons economic relationship to the noise source, the general noise level of the area, and whether other people are being 56 subjected to the same noise levels. In conclusion, i t should be noted that some aeroacousticions remain dubious about the v a l i d i t y of PndB, N.N.I., C.N.R., etc.'^ for assessment of community response to complex noise. Major companies (e.g. Boeing) are conducting their own research on the subjective response to noise in an effort to come up with better c r i t e r i a for the evaluation of community response to n o i s e . ^ Air Pollution Air pollution at an S.T.O.L. airport can be the result of three factors: a) the surface t r a f f i c generated by the airport b) the industry attracted c) the emissions of the aircraft operating from the airport The last mentioned factor w i l l be of primary concern since i t represents a new and different source of a i r pollution for the urban area. There are two broad classes of a i r pollutants. The f i r s t i s particulate matter consisting of solid and liquid particles ranging i n size from large particles greater than 100 microns in diameter to suspended particles of less than 20 microns and aerosols from 1.0 to 0.1 microns i n diameter. The larger particles eventually f a l l to the 3-30 earth, the smaller particles may remain suspended in the atmosphere for a considerable length of time. (Small particles w i l l be discussed in greater detail later i n this chapter.) The second class of pollutant 58 is made up of gases and vapours including the permanent gases. The principal emissions from turbo jet engines are carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter. Table 3-5 shows a comparison of the emissions from a turbo jet engine and an automobile engine, both of which consumed 1000 pounds of fuel. TABLE 3-5 59 Pollutant Yields for Jets, Aircraft & Motor Vehicles (Per 1000 Lb. of Fuel) Engine Type Operating CO HC NO Particulates Pb SO ' Mode ' ' .. ' ' ' Turbo Jet Idle & Taxi 174 75 2.0 0.3 0 1.0 Approach 8.7 16 2.7 1.0 0 1.0 Landing Take-Off & Climb 0.7 0.1 4.2 0.6 0 1.0 Out Automotive Total Piston Average 300 55 27 4.5 0.4 2.3 Aircraft and automobiles can also be compared on basis of how much fuel they consume per passenger mile. An 80 passenger jet aircraft travelling at 250 miles consumes 4000 pounds of fuel per hour. Based on an average 50 percentl<oad factor this amounts to 0.04 pounds of fuel per passenger mile. On the other hand an automobile which travels 15 miles per gallon of gasoline carries an average of 1.2 passengers. The average rate of fuel consumption for automobiles i s thus in the order of 0.25 pounds of fuel per passenger per mile.*'0 In the U.S. the Department of Health, Education and Welfare has estimated that aircraft pollutant emissions as a percentage of total emissions from a l l other sources were: carbon monoxide 1.2 percent; hydrocarbons 0.7 percent' nitrogen oxides 0.1 percent and particulate matter 0.1 «. 6 1 percent. Since the f i r s t commercial S.T.O.L. a i r l i n e r that i s expected to enter service w i l l be turbo prop ai r c r a f t i t w i l l be worthwhile to b r i e f l y examine the pollutant emissions of turbo prop engines. The products of combustion from turbo prop engines do not vary markedly, per pound of fuel consumed, from those of the pure jet engine. The basic engine operation i s similar to that of the turbo jet, or pure jet engine, with the same factors influencing smoke production or changes in thermal decomposition products (i.e. design of combustion chambers, temperature humidity, power output, fuel consumption, and atmospheric pressure). However, the exhaust system i s cooler in the turbo prop engine than i t i s i n the pure jet engine. This tends to enhance the production of smoke. Because of the slower speed of the turbo prop aircraft and the relatively cooler temperature of the exhaust a more distinct smoke plume 62 w i l l be noted on occasion. Several approaches, which have had varying degrees of success, have been tried i n order to alleviate problems of a i r pollution near airports: 1) The restriction of housing developments i n the immediate v i c i n i t y of the airport. 2) The use of runways that direct air c r a f t over water or sparsely populated areas. 3) The use of increased glide slope. Obviously, the above methods w i l l not reduce the amount of pollutants emitted into the atmosphere, however, the methods may reduce citizen complaints about aircraft exhaust emmissions and noise exposure. The only effective way to reduce a i r pollution i s to control i t at the source. There are three general approaches: 1) Improved engine design. 2) Improvements in fuels. 63 3) More conservative rating and operation of jet engines. Improved design of engine combustion chambers can reduce overall jet engine emissions by up to 75 percent for some types of pollutants. The new combustion chambers effectively reduce engine emissions of hydrocarbons and organic gases, which are the most v i s i b l e pollutants emitted by jet engines. Nevertheless, the emission of carbon monoxide and particulate matter is reduced by less than 25 percent, and oxides of sulphur are not reduced at a l l , whereas the emission of the oxides of nitrogen i s increased by nearly 40 percent. Thus improved engine .'design may serve to mask rather than reduce the problem of aircr a f t air pollution. The reduction of the smoke emissions from aircraft may be a negative rather than a positive step because "many people s t i l l suffer from the delusion that v i s i b l e plumes from smokestacks, incinerators, 65 airplanes and autos are exclusively to blame" for a i r pollution. As has been discussed above i t i s possible to make a vi s i b l e source of a i r pollution invisible to a l l but the most knowledgeable observer. This can be done by passing large particulate v o l a t i l e smoke through a hot flame or by diluting the smoke with a large amount of a i r as is done in an aircraft engine. Dilution tends to make the particles smaller. The role that small invisible particles may play in health i s not as yet known. However, Schaefer in his studies at the Atmospheric Sciences Research Center of the State University at Albany has shown that the lungs 3-33 capture about 66 percent of the small particles that are inhaled. Schaefer and his research group consider 200 particles per cc to represent the global background particle level of the lower atmosphere. Schaefer measured the level of small particles in the passenger cabin of aircraft and on airport access roads. On airport roads and during aircr a f t boarding, the particulate levels ranged from 80,000/cc to 1,000,000/cc. Upon takeoff, the cabin a i r became clearer and dropped a particulate level of from 320/cc to 500/cc. These measurements show that the small particle pollution levels at large metropolitan airports can exceed the levels at the center of the c i t i e s they serve. For example, the particle level at Lexington Ave. and 51st Street i n New York City on Tuesday, Dec. 3, 1970 was 170,000/cc. Unlike water pollution, the source of which can be easily identified, the small particles and gases in polluted a i r are hardly affected by gravitational forces. Once they enter the atmosphere, their residence time is l i k e l y to range from a month to several years. The only important way they are removed from the atmosphere i s through-precipitation i n which 66 they serve as nuclei for either cloud or ice crystals. The use of fuels other than kerosene could lead to substantially lower pollution levels. In general, however, these fuels tend to cost more than present fuels and they tend to be d i f f i c u l t to handle and to store. The poss i b i l i t y of using fuels that generate exhaust gases that w i l l chemically combine with existing pollutants to produce more inert materials has been considered, but at present there have been no 6 7 significant advances toward producing such a fuel. The efficiency of jet engine operation is frequently sacrified during takeoff i n order that maximum engine power can be produced. Such operation increases the smoke production of jet engines. More powerful engines would permit aircraft to take off at-lower than maximum power 68 levels and thus permit much lower levels of smoke generation. But u n t i l such a time as regulations require that aircraft be f i t t e d with more powerful engines this method of reducing a i r pollution at airports appears to be merely a p o s s i b i l i t y . The problem of a i r pollution at S.T.O.L. airports should not be dismissed lig h t l y because about 70 percent of a l l the smoke emissions 69 from S.T.O.L. aircraft w i l l occur near the S.T.O.L. airport. But, on the other hand, there does not appear to be a presently available method of controlling the emission of pollutants from turbo jet engines. Compatible Land Use Generally i t can be said that when two or more land based a c t i v i t i e s are carried on regularly in some proximity to each other without conflict they can be considered to be compatible. The concept of land use compatibility implies some degree of separation of the different a c t i v i t i e s , so that differentiation among the various users i s possible. The compatibility of different land based a c t i v i t i e s may vary with the season, the hour of the day, the duration of the conflicting situation and the frequency with which the conflicting activity i s repeated.^ A S.T.O.L. airport has the potential of creating major land use conflicts because of i t s noise, i t s crash hazards, and i t s surface t r a f f i c generating capability. Certain land uses are incompatible with airports given certain levels of a i r and noise pollution and the frequency of landing or takeoff accidents. The incompatible uses tend to be those for which a quiet non-toxic and safe environment is desired for the conduct of such ac t i v i t i e s as l i v i n g , playing, learning and convalescing from i l l n e s s . Thus residential areas, recreational f a c i l i t i e s , schools, hospitals and similar land uses are unsuitable near an airport. Most of these land uses are unrelated i n a i r transportation except in the case of residential uses for airport employees who may desire to l i v e close to work.^ S.T.O.L. airports should be located so that a compatible land use situation i s created or preserved and existing forms of land use are not affected by aircraft operations. Such planning may obviate the need for costly land control measures which may otherwise be necessary to avoid noise or obstruction problems. For example, surrounding industrial land uses are generally compatible with S.T.O.L. airport development, as are natural areas which are restricted from use due to terrain. Highways and railways, located within the approach areas, are good land areas for compatible runway approach use. In addition, sites with approaches over water, but free of bird hazards, and where radio navigational aids to approaches can be installed and operated, should prove 72 to be acceptable. In Michigan a comprehensive study of compatible land use near airports was undertaken to determine the actual impact of jet aircraft noise on various surrounding land uses and to develop a plan of compatible land uses in the affected area. The study was published in 1964 by 73 the Detroit Area Regional Planning Commission. The Detroit study resulted in several significant findings, including these: 1) The landing of jet aircraft produces greater problems of community annoyance than does taking off. 2) The higher the property (home) values and the greater the personal income, the higher the level of complaint w i l l be. 3) There was no direct relationship between blighted areas and aircraft operations in the environs of the airport studies. 4) Land use in the area affected by aircra f t noise i s not suitable for residential development. Fortunately, S.T.O.L. airports w i l l tend to induce compatible land uses for adjoining land. "Real estate authorities recognize that airports have a strong tendency to attract industry i n a competition with other possible sites within the same metropolitan economic region, and can cause a concentration of industrial and commerical growth."74 However, compatible land use does not entail simply ensuring that aircraft meet certain noise c r i t e r i a and that industrial and commercial land uses surround the S.T.O.L. airport. Recent events i n New York City suggest that residents i n areas adjacent to "compatible" land uses are not necessarily i n favour of urban area S.T.O.L. airports. In June 1970 American Airlines was awarded a contract by the F.A.A. for a technical f e a s i b i l i t y study of a floating S.T.O.L. airport. In order to obtain specific data, a site was evaluated which had been identified in-earlier studies by the City of New York as being suitable for a S.T.O.L. airport. The proposed site i s immediately to the west of an underused dock area on the Hudson River. The West Side Elevated Highway i s immediately to the east of the dock area and i t serves as a barrier between the dock area on the west and the Chelsea residential areaion the east. The residents of the Chelsea area...did not want an S.T.O.L. airport at Chelsea nor did they want a study implying acceptance of a S.T.O.L. airport for the Chelsea s i t e . The "Chelsea Against the Stolport Committee" could see no neightbourhood benefits whatever for a nearby S.T.O.L. airport. The committee anticipated that an S.T.O.L. airport would bring nothing but noise, a i r pollution, threats to safety, and surface travel congestion. American Airlines estimated that the noise levels that would be generated i n the Chelsea Area by S.T.O.L. aircraft would be less than the ambient noise level i n the neighbourhood. However, the residents of Chelsea f e l t that the ambient noise levels were already objectionably high and that rather than attempting to increase the noise level, attempts should be made to reduce i t . ^ " * This type of reaction to a proposed urban area S.T.O.L. airport points very cogently to the fact that a very detailed study of neighbourhood attitudes toward an S.T.O.L. airport w i l l be required before a S.T.O.L. airport at a specific site can be thought to be compatible with the surrounding area. Because S.T.O.L. airports have the potential to attract development on adjoining land, this kind of a f a c i l i t y w i l l require special attention so that i t can be used as a tool to help achieve the planning objectives of the urban area. Implications for Urban Form The urban area S'VT.O.L. airport can become a useful tool in helping to shape urban form. "A central S.T.O.L. port could . . . . . become a key element i n a coherent and rational transportation system. Operated as a system with the present airport used for long haul f l i g h t s , the S.T.O.L. port could become a transportation terminal or the center for communication based industry, in contact with a l l parts of the central business d i s t r i c t by members and closed channel T.V.. The S.T.O.L. terminal could thus become a form-creating force. The S.T.O.L. port system represents an efficient mechanism for strengthening the downtown core i n terms of sales dollars, jobs created, additional city revenues and induced investment potential."76 The S.T.O.L. airport may also become a new centralizing force which can contribute to the v i a b i l i t y of central c i t i e s . In addition the S.T.O.L. airport has potential of creating direct economic benefits for urban areas. "There i s every reason to believe that the increased investment generated by a S.T.O.L. port would be greater than that for most urban development. This i s bourne out by the growing tendency for industry and consumer services to spring up around a i r terminals. While there i s l i t t l e data on airport-induced investment values, i t would seem that the dynamic image a central a i r terminal would bring to a city warrants the conclusion that induced investment would be far higher than the 5 or 6 to 1 rate used as a rule-of-thumb for federal (U.S.) urban renewal project. The small amount of data that i s available indicates that a new industry, which a central S.T.O.L. port would induce, pays in taxes 3 to 5 times what they cost the local government for additional services."77 The Port of Seattle Commission i n i t s paper entitled "Seattle-Tacoma Airport and i t s Impact Upon the Economy of King County" has estimated that each a i r passenger generates $5.65 in consumer sales. In addition, the Commission estimates that 83 jobs are created for each 78 1000 aircraft departures. These figures may, however, tend to overstate the primary economic impact of a S.T.O.L. airport because rather than generating new economic activity, S.T.O.L. airports may only redistribute economic act i v i t y among the existing airports. Terminal Access From the point of view of the short haul a i r passenger, the principal benefits of S.T.O.L. a i r transport w i l l be the time saving that results from a reduction i n terminal access time. Hence, the ideal location for an S.T.O.L. airport would be one that minimizes terminal travel time. In theory, the geographic centroid of passengers origins and destinations, within the urban area, i s the optimal location for an airport. But the centroid i s only optimal i f transportation f a c i l i t i e s and services are uniform throughout the urban area. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this thesis the geographic centroid w i l l be considered to be the point that minimizes terminal access time for short haul a i r passengers. This assumption i s made because i t is beyond the scope of this thesis to make a detailed analysis of surface travel conditions Within the urban area. Private automobile, taxi and bus are the principal airport access 79 modes used i n Canada and unless there i s a significant change in people travel habits these modes w i l l continue to carry a major portion of ai r travelers to and from the terminal. A significant part of S.T.O.L. airport planning, therefore, involves choosing a site for an airport that has convenient vehicular access to the a r t e r i a l siraet system. S.T.O.L. Airport Terminal F a c i l i t i e s The function of any terminal, be i t for C.T.O.L. or S.T.O.L. air c r a f t , i s to expedite the flow of aircraft for hauling passengers and cargo. To perform this function the ai r terminal incorporates several f a c i l i t i e s , among them are: 1) Landing and takeoff areas. 2) Aircraft navigational and guidance f a c i l i t i e s . 3) Cargo loading and unloading areas. 4) Passenger loading and unloading areas. 5) Aircraft line maintenance f a c i l i t i e s . 6) Fire prevention and control f a c i l i t i e s . 3-40 There are, of course, certain functional differences in terminal requirements for S.T.O.L. aircraft as compared to C.T.O.L. ai r c r a f t . One of the more obvious differences i s in the landing area size. S.T.O.L. airport operational areas are shown i n Figure 3-16. S.T.O.L. airports can be built at ground level on elevated structures, or they can be bu i l t to float in a river or a harbour. Ground level S.T.O.L. runways have been bu i l t i n the U.S. at La Guardia, 80 Washington National, and Dulles Airports, and exploratory studies have been conducted on locating ground level S.T.O.L. runways at J.F. Kennedy 81 and Newark airports. The experience gained from S.T.O.L. operations between Baltimore Friendship Airport, Washington National, and Dulles Airport indicates that S.T.O.L. aircra f t can operate e f f i c i e n t l y from 82 existing C.T.O.L. airports. The S.T.O.L. runways at these major airports are either portions of runways that are not frequently used or else they are specially b u i l t f a c i l i t i e s that are paral l e l to existing C.T.O.L. runways. The dimensions of these runways are similar to those discussed earlier i n this chapter. Ground level runways in other parts of a metropolitan area are feasible provided that the minimum obstruction clearances can be obtained; however, land costs tend to be too high to allow for this type of land use near the city center. In order to overcome the problem of high land costs there have been some proposals that S.T.O.L.jairports could be built over freeways, railroad yards, and wharfs. Figure 3-16 shows a plan and side views of a S.T.O.L. airport that i s similar to one proposed for the city of Los Angeles. The structure i s to be bu i l t over the Union Railway Terminal. It w i l l consist of a parking deck, a terminal FIGURE 3-16 ELEVATED S.T.O.L. AIRPORT Control Tower -Terminal •Sub-Terminal & Parkin c Deck - SIDE VIEW -si. 1 t35 Ft. Ground Level R 120 Ft, 35 Ft. - END VIEW 3-42 and parking deck and a f l i g h t deck. The t o t a l floor area of the structure w i l l be approximately 3,240,000 square feet. The f i r s t phase of this terminal development is estimated to cost $37,000,000, the f i n a l phase i s expected to cost an additional $11,600,000. This terminal f a c i l i t y i s expected to be able to process about 6 million passengers 83 per year. As was mentioned previously,, there have been suggestions that a floating S.T.O.L. airport could be b u i l t and anchored in the Hudson River 84 along the West Side of Manhatten. A floating S.T.O.L. airport could be b u i l t on barges and i t would be possible to tow the airport to a different s i t e , should community pressure require that i t be done. The three different types of S.T.O.L. airports can be compared on the basis of costs. The least expensive type of S.T.O.L. airport would involve the construction of an S.T.O.L. runway at an existing airport. The existing terminal f a c i l i t i e s would be used by both S.T.O.L. and C.T.O.L. ai r passenger alike. A single 2000 X 100 feet runway would cost 85 approximately $330,000. to build. In the urban area where land costs would have to be included in the price costs would rise considerably. For instance, i n 1966 i t was estimated that a ground level..urban area 86 S.T.O.L. airport would cost $10.5 million. This cost includes land, a terminal building and a runway. The cost of the 2000 f t . floating S.T.O.L. airport i s estimated to 87 be $15.0 million, salvage value is expected to be $2.0 million. Since the only information available on this type of structure is of a preliminary nature i t i s not possible to discuss what the $15.0 million cost includes. Both the ground level and floating S.T.O.L. airports require the provision of parking space. Since the land costs near a city center are very high i t can be assumed that parking w i l l haye to be provided in garages'.-.adjacent to the airport. However, depending on the number of passengers served, at some point i t may be economical to build a parking garage sufficiently large to accommodate an elevated S.T.O.L. airport. The elevated aiport can be more than twice as expensive as the other types of airports. Estimates range from $21.9 million to $37.0 88 million. However, an elevated structure can provide on-site parking for up to 3000 automobiles. In addition, space not required for parking can be leased as warehouse space. A more detailed cost analysis of elevated S.T.O.L. airports w i l l be carried out in Appendix 1, In summary the location, size and type of S.T.O.L. airport used in the urban area w i l l be influenced by a number of factors: 1) The operational capability of the aircraft operating from the airport. 2) The origins and destinations of the passengers within the urban area. Because S.T.O.L. airports are relatively small they can be located close to the centroid of passenger origins and destinations. 3) The high level of safety that w i l l be required. Thus a non-obstructed, safe approach to the S.T.O.L. airport i s needed. 4) The S.T.O.L. airport must be compatible with neighbouring land use. It i s especially important that the area be relatively insensitive to noise. 5) The S.T.O.L. airport must be located so as to minimize problems of interconnecting with the surface modes of transportation. Thus, the terminal site must have good vehicular accessibility. 6) The S.T.O.L. airport location should be chosen such that i t w i l l make a maximum contribution to the furtherance of the planning goals of the area. F O O T N O T E S CHAPTER THREE 1) Wetmore, "V/S.T.O.L. Transport and Their Terminals Requirements," p. 77. 2) Hiscocks, "S.T.O.L. Aircraft - A Perspective," p. 14. 3) C.R. Newnes, "The Performance of S.T.O.L. Aircraft", Flight  International, (May 1969) p. 721. 4) De Havilland of Canada, "The De Havilland D.H.C. 7 Quiet S.T.O.L. A i r l i n e r , " p. 22. 5) Hiscocks, "S.T.O.L. Aircraft - A Perspective," p. 13. 6) Spero A. Kondoleon, "R e l i a b i l i t y with S.T.O.L.," Journal of Aircraft, Sept-Oct. 1968, p. 445. 7) De Havilland of Canada, "The De Havilland D.H.C. 7 Quiet S.T.O.L. A i r l i n e r , " p. 22. 8) Ibid. 9) Newnes, "The Performance of S.T.O.L. Ai r c r a f t , " p. 721. 10) R.D. Hiscocks and R.J. Tabourck "Posts for S.T.O.L. Some Observations, S.A.E. Transactions 680274. 1968 p. 872. 11) Richard E. Kuhn and Joan B. Barriage, "The Status of V.T.O.L. and S.T.O.L. Transport Development," p. 241. 12) Kondoleon "Rel i a b i l i t y with S.T.O.L.," p. 443. 13) Ministry of Transport, "Designated Airspace Handbooks" Issue no. 45. (Queens Printer for Canada; Ottawa, 1970) p. 4. 14) Ibid. 15) Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics; Stanford University "A Design Study of a Metropolitan Air Transport System," N^AvS.A. C.R. 73362 (Palo Alto, California, Aug. 1969) p. 22. 16) William K. Kershner, The Instrument Flight. Manual (Ames Iowa: The Iowa State University Press, 1967) p. 84. 17) Richard E. Kuhn, Mark W. Kelly and Curt A. Holzhauser, "Bringing V/S.T.O.L.'s Downtown" Astronautics and Aeronautics, Sept. 1965 p. 21. 18) Hiscock and Tabourek, "Ports for S.T.O.L." p. 872. 3-45 19) Kuhn and Barriage, "The Status of V.T.O.L.," P. 251. 20) Decca System Incorporated, Information released, Washington D.C. undated. 21) R.J. Templin "Aerodynamics Low and Slow," Canadian Aeronautics and- Space Journal, Oct. 1970, p. 319. 22) F.A.A. "Airport Capacity Creiteria Used In Preperation of the National Aviation Plan," Advising Circular 150/5060-1A, Washington D.C. 1966 Appendix 2, p. 20. 23) Kuhn and Barriage, "The Status of V.T.O.L.," p. 250. 24) Ibid. 25) R.J. Tgmplin, "Aerodynamics Low and Slow," p. 320. 26) Ibid. 27) E.G. Morrissey, "An Approximate Method for Circulating C r i t i c a l Gust Statistics for S.T.O.L. Operation," Canadian Meteorological Research Report. Department of Transport, Meteorological Branch, Ottawa: 1970, p. 40. 28) Wetmore, "V/S.T.O.L. Transport and Their Terminal Requirements," pp. 89-90. 29) Ibid. 30) The Secretariat, International C i v i l Aviation Organization, "Manual on Airport Master Planning," Doc. 8796 - AN/891, Montreal 1969, p. 34. 31) De Havilland Aircraft of Canada "A Guide to S.T.O.L. Transportation System Planning," Downsview Ontario, Jan.1970, p. 16. 32) The Secretariat, International C i v i l Aviation Organization, "Manual on Airport Master Planning," p. 34. 33) F.A.A. "Interim Design Criter i a for Metropolitan S.T.O.L. Ports and S.T.O.L. Runways," Order 5325.3, Washington, D.C. 1969. 34) Wetmore "V/S.T.O.L. Transports and Their Terminal Requirements," p.85. 35) Myron M. Kawa Jr., "Helistop Sound Levels," Planning and Design  of Urban Helicopter F a c i l i t i e s , Los Angeles, 1962, p. 1. 36) Nathan Shapiro and Gerald Healy, "A Realistic assessment of the Vertiport-Community Noise Problem," Journal of Aircraft, July-Aug. 1968 p. 407. 3-46 37) H.S. Ribner, "Jets and Noise," Aerodynamic Noise, Proceedings of AFOSR-VTIAS Symposium held at Toronto 20-21 May, 1968, University of Toronto Press, p. 8. 38) Ibid. 39) Ribner, "Jets and Noise'1, p.34. 40) Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Stanford University, "A Design Study of a Metropolitan Air Transit System," N.A.S.A. CR 73362, Palo Alto, California, Aug. 1969, p. 6-16. 41) Kingsley Lewis, "Residential Areas and Airport Locatinnal C r i t e r i a , " unpublished M.A. Thesis, School of Community and Regional Planning, U.B.C, 1970 p. 55. 42) Kawa, "Helistop Sound Levels," p. 2. 43) Shapiro and Healy, "A Realistic Assessment," p. 409. 44) Shapiro and Healy, "A Realistic Assessment," p. 408. 45) Arde, In. and Town and City Inc. " Study of the Optimum Use of Land Exposed to Aircraft Landing and Takeoff Noise," N.A.S.A. Cr. NASI-3697, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Springfield Virginia: Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information, March 1966. As reported i n Micheal J. Menhenberg, "Planning the Airport Environmrnt," AS. P.O. Report #231, Feb. 1968. 46) Shapiro and Healy, "A Realistic Assessment," p. 408. 47) Ibid. 48) Ibid. 49) Ibid. 50) Shapiro and Healy, "A Realistic Assessment," p. 409. 51) Ibid. 52) Westmore, "V/S.T.O.L. Transports and Their Terminal Requirements," p. 85. 53) "S.T.O.L. or V.T.O.L. for Future Inter-City Air Transport?" Interavia, Jan. 1970, p. 46. 54) F.A.A., "The Aircraft - Airport Noise Problem and Federal Government Policy," Washington, D.C. 1967. 55) De Havilland Aircraft of Canada, "A Guide to S.T.O.L. Transportation System Planning," p. 18. 3-47 56) Karl D. Kryter, "Evaluation of Psychological Reactions of People to Aircraft Noise," Alleviation of Jet Aircraft Noise, A Report of the Jet Aircraft Noise Panel, Office of Science and Technology, Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C., 1966, pp. 18-19. 57) Ribner, "Jets and Noise," p. 10. 58) Lewis, "Residential Area and Airport Location," p. 70. 59) Robert F. Sawyer, "Reducing Jet Pollution before i t Become Serious," Astronautics and Aeronautics, A p r i l , 1970, p. 64. 60) Dept. of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Stanford University, "A Design Study, , ," p. 3-54. 61) Air Transport Association of America, "Airlines as Good Neighbours," Remarks of Warren N. Martin, Vic President - Public Affairs Before Hawaiian Senate Committee of Public Health, Welfare and Housing Honolulu, 1970. 62) U.S. Government, "Statement of Col. Alvin Meyer Jr.", Hearings before a special sub-committee on A i r and Water Pollution of the Committee on Public Works, United States Senate 88th Congres, Second Session, Part 2, Washington, D.C. 1964, pp. 1039-40. 63) U.S. Government, "Statement of Vernon G. MacKenzieV,Hearings before a.special sub-committee on Air and Water Pollution of the Committee on Public Works United States Senate, 88th Congress, Second Session, Part 2, Washington, D.C, 1964 p. 1141. 64) Vincent J. Schaefer, "The Threat of the Unseen," Saturday Review, Feb. 6, 1971, p. 55. 65) Ibid. 66) Vincent J. Schaefer, "The Threat of the Unseen," p. 57. 67) Dept. of Aeronautics and Astronautics, "A Design Study . . .," p. 3-54. 68) U.S. Government, "Statement of Vernon G. MacKenzie," p. 1141. 69) Ibid. 70^ Dorn C. McGrath Jr., "Compatible Land Use," Airport Terminal  F a c i l i t i e s , A.S.C.E. - A.O.C.I. Specialty Conference, Houston, 1967, p. 235. 71) Richard D. Shinn, Regional Airport Planning: A Systematic Model. Urban Planning Series No. 8 Dept. of Urban Planning, University of Washington, Seattle, 1970, p. 181. 72) John F. Brown, "The Environmental Aspects of Airport System Planning," Transportation Engineering Journal of A.S.C.E., Vol. 96 TE.4, Proc. Paper 7674, Nov. 1970 p. 558. 73) . The Study findings were reported in Dorn C. McGrath Jr., "Compatible Land Use," p. 235. 74) "Technical and Economic Evaluation of Aircraft for Inter-City Short Haul Transportation" Vol. 3, McDonnell Aircraft Corporation St. Louis, April 1966, p. 137. 75) Fisch, "Why New York Has No Stolport," p. 33-34. 76) "Technical and Economic Evaluation of Ai r c r a f t , " p. 137 77) "Technical and Economic Evaluation of Ai r c r a f t , " p. 135. 78) Port of Seattle Commission, "Seattle-Tacoma Airport and i t s Impact Upon the Economy of King County," 1962. 79) Based on the results of a mail questionnaire survey of Airport Managers conducted;by the U.B.C. School of Community and Regional Planning during the summer of 1970. 80) Neil MacDougall, "Dorniers Skyservant - Pilot Report," Rotor and Wing, Nov. - Dec, 1970, p. 131. 81) The Boeing Company, "Model 751 C/S.T.O.L. Airplane System Integration," Seattle 1969, pp. 67-68. 82) Neil MacDougall, "Dorniers Skyservant," p. 31. 83) Albert C. Martin and Associates, "Los Angeles S.T.O.L./V.T.O.L. Metroport," Los Angeles, 1969, p. 30. 84) Edward G. Nawy and Cooper B. Bright, "Floating V/S.T.O.L. Airport Proposed," C i v i l Engineering, July, 1967, p. 5. 85) McDonnell Aircraft Cor., "Technical and Economic Evaluation of Aircraft for Inter-City Short Haul Transportation," Vol. 3, pp. 29-35. 86) Ibid. 87) Astronautics and Aeronautics, Dec. 1970, p. 33. 88) McDonnell Aircraft Cor p./'Technical and Economic F e a s i b i l i t i y , " Vol. 3 p. 29 and Albert C. Martin and Associates, "Los Angeles. . Metroport," p. 30, C H A P T E R F O U R A S.T.O.L. Airport in the Vancouver Metropolitan Area: A Case Study Urban area S.T.O.L. airports w i l l cause a change in the present city airport relationship. Previously, the city grew outward toward an airport, but now the process can be reversed and an airport can be developed i n the center, of an already built up area. This possible change in the location of the terminal f a c i l i t i e s of a: major transportation mode may have important planning implications. The chapter i s devoted to examining the possible implications of the operation of S.T.O.L. aircraft from a number of potential S.T.O.L. airport sites within the Vancouver Metropolitan area. The examination w i l l begin with an estimate of how many people would us a S.T.O.L. airport i f one were located within the Vancouver urban area. The next step w i l l be to determine the optimal location for a S.T.O.L. airport within the metropolitan area. Once the optimal location for an airport has been determined, potential S.T.O.L. airport sites near to the optimal location w i l l be examined i n detail. The potential airport sites w i l l be evaluated on the basis of the c r i t e r i a discussed in Chapter three and on the basis of cost revenue relationships detailed in Appendix 1. The Demand for S.T.O.L. Air-Transportation There are two separate groups of travelers who are potential users of S.T.O.L. a i r transportation.. The f i r s t group i s composed of those people who normally travel distances of less than 500 miles by C.T.O.L. aircraf t and w i l l be able to save time by traveling by S.T.O.L. airc r a f t . The second group contains those people who are presently using other 4-2 modes of travel such as automobile or train and would change to S.T.O.L. ai r transport as the service between a city-pair improves. The individual travelers choice among alternative transportation modes can be related to the following factors: 1) Total cost (aircraft, surface fare, handling and processing charges at both ends). 2) Total time (total elapsed time between two points). 3) Available departure frequencies. 4) Travel comfort level (seating, a i r conditioning, noise, etc.) 5) Convenience of terminals. 6) Schedule R e l i a b i l i t y . 7) Safety. 1 The Lockheed California Company has developed an "Airline System Simulation Model" that includes a sub-model for predicting S.T.O.L. 2 air t r a f f i c between city-pairs. Unfortunately the model requires data that are not available on travel within British Columbia. Nevertheless, a brief outline of the method i s given below i n order to i l l u s t r a t e a comprehensive method of predicting S.T.O.L. a i r t r a f f i c . The basic premise of the S.T.O.L. demand model i s that the a i r traveler i s willing to pay more for a mode of transport that saves time. This value of time concept i s used to evaluate the potential transfer of passengers to S.T.O.L. aircraft from the alternative modes of transportation. In order to apply the value of time method, the costs and the tri p times of each mode of transport and the value of time to a l l intercity travelers must be known. The value of time to a i r , auto, r a i l and bus travelers that was used as an input i n the model was derived from the income distributions of these travelers. The income distributions were derived from various passenger travel surveys. The average earnings per hour were calculated according to incremental income groups by dividing the average yearly income by the average number of hours worked during the year. The model assumes that business travelers value their time at lh times their average hourly earnings and that non-business travelers value their time at \ their average hourly earnings. Using this assumption and a 70/30 percent s p l i t in business, non-business travel a value of time distribution for each mode was derived. (See Figure 4-1) For each city-pair under consideration, the cost per hour saved by S.T.O.L. travel i s computed and compared against each alternate mode. Using a i r travelers as an example, the cost per hour saved i s derived by dividing the additional trip cost of S.T.O.L. as compared to C.T.O.L. aircraft by the time saved on journey between the city-pair. For example, assume that the total t r i p cost by C.T.O.L. aircraft i s $20v00 and assume the total t r i p time (portal to portal) i s 2 hours. Now assume also that the total t r i p cost by S.T.O.L. aircraft i s $24.00 and the total trip time i s 1% hours. The cost per hour saved i s : (2°: 1.5$)4Hrs MS.OO/hour Entering this value into the distribution shown i n Figure 4-1 i t w i l l be found that 36 percent of a i r travelers value their time at $8.00 per hour or more. The potential demand for S.T.O.L. aircraft i s found by taking 36 percent of the city-pair a i r passenger demand. This same operation would be conducted for each other competing mode in order to obtain total city-pair potential demand. The actual demand that results from the potential demand i s a function of the frequency of fli g h t s between the city-pairs. The model incorporates this factor by means of a frequency-allocation function. The function (Figure 4-2) i s based on the normal probability distribution 4-4 1.00 ,80 FRACTION OF TOTAL C.T.O.L. PASSENGERS PASSENGER DEMAND PERCENT .60 .40 .2C FIGURE 4-1 COMPOSITE VALUE OF TIME DISTRIBUTION 1964 U.S. AIR PASSENGERS3 Business Travel Time 1.5 X Hourly Income Non-Business Travel Time .5 X Hourly 70% Business Travel .Income 30% Non-Business Travel 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 VALUE OF TIME - DOLLARS PER HOUR FIGURE 4-2  DEMAND VERSUS FLIGHT FREQUENCY4 100 80 60 40 20 0 4 8 12 16 - 20 24 • FLIGHT FREQUENCY 16 18 4-5 and i t has been adjusted to account for variations in trip times for the competitive modes. On the basis of this figure, one can compute the percent of the potential a i r passengers who w i l l seek a i r service for any frequency of fli g h t s per day. The value of the forecasts, produced by the model, i s . open to some question. The model uses, cost, trip time, and departure frequency to determine demand, but, i t does not use travel comfort, terminal convenience, schedule r e l i a b i l i t y or vehicle safety as forecasting variables. No "doubt, the model includes the more important demand factors, but i t seems to ignore the effects of one of the important differences between S.T.O.L. and C.T.O.L. a i r transportation, and that i s increased terminal accessibility. Moreover, the basic premise of the model, the value of time concept, has come under some cr i t i c i s m ^ in the transportation planning literature. A study of the problems of developing dollar values of time, saved by a i r travelers, was conducted for the F.A.A. i n 1966. Some relevant conclusions of this study are: 1) The application of the value of time for a l l classes of passengers at a l l times of the day, for economic analysis seems to be misleading and less valuable than applying no value at a l l . 2) Willingness to pay i s probably the best yardstick for valuing the time saved by a i r travelers, but because there i s l i t t l e data presently available, i t s use i s not feasible. 3) Time saved i n non-business travel has not been rationally evaluated in past highway studies as well as aviation f a c i l i t y improvement. 4) Non-routine occasions are characteristic of a i r trips and the value of these hours i s generally maximum value time and greater than the value of the same persons average hours. Demand for S.T.O.L. Air Transportation in the Vancouver Metropolitan Area Because the foregoing model i s theoretically unsound, and because no local data i s available, the model w i l l not be used to forecast the demand for S.T.O.L. aircra f t services i n the Vancouver area. However, for purposes of this thesis, i t i s possible to establish a gross estimate of the demand for S.T.O.L. a i r transport, given the following assumptions: 1) 80 percent of the a i r passengers who travel within Br i t i s h Columbia w i l l choose to travel by S.T.O.L. a i r c r a f t . - S.T.O.L. ai r transport w i l l provide fast, convenient transportation for persons travelling 500 miles or less, hence i t s greatest impact w i l l be f e l t i n the regional, or within Br i t i s h Columbia travel market. Nevertheless, S.T.O.L. a i r transport w i l l be^subject to competitinn from medium range C.T.O.L. aircra f t that make intermediate stops within the region as part of a trip of more than 500 miles. For this reason i t i s thought that an 80 percent capture rate i s the highest that can be expected. 2) The load factor of S.T.O.L. aircra f t w i l l be 60 percent.- The load factors for various North American a i r carriers range from 50 to 60 percent. Thus a 60 percent load factor wguld appear to be the highest that can be reasonably expected. 3) 48 passenger S.T.O.L. w i l l be used i n Bri t i s h Columbia u n t i l the end of 1984 at which time they w i l l be replaced by 120 passenger air c r a f t . - A 48 passenger S.T.O.L. aircraft w i l l be available for a i r l i n e service by 1973. U.S. o f f i c i a l s expect 120 passenger S.T.O.L. aircraft to be ready for service in the late 1970's or early 1980's, hence i t i s reasonable to expert a 120 passenger S.T.O.L. aircra f t to be i n service by 1984. 4) Passengers who transfer to S.T.O.L. a i r transport from surface mode w i l l increase the estimated passenger demand for S.T.O.L. air transport by 10 percent. - There i s no simple way to estimate the percentage of persons who w i l l change travel mode, thus the 10 percent transfer rate chosen i s purely arbitrary. Table 4-1 shows a forecast of a i r passengers arriving and departing at Vancouver Airport. It i s from this forecast that the demand for S.T.O.L. Air transport for the period 1972-1992 w i l l be estimated. TABLE 4-1 Forecast Vancouver Air Passenger Volumes 1970-1990 Arrivals plus Departures (Q00,s)^  * Trans- Trans Total Domestic(%) Regional(%) Border(%) Ocean(%) 1968 Actual 1810 722 40. 574 31.5 470 26.0 41 2.5 1970 Forecast 2092 832 39.7 652 31.3 546 26.1 62 2.9 1975 3284 1214 36.9 954 29.1 982 30.0 67 4.0 1980 5286 1866 35.2 1462 27.8 1684 31.8 274 5.2 1985 Projection 8678 2976 34.3 2352 27.1 2838 32.7 512 5.9 1990 11418 3836 33.5 3016 26.5 3836 33.6 730 6.4 * Regional Flights begin and end in British Columbia 4-7 The estimated demand for S.T.O.L. air transportation i s outlined below: TABLE 4-2 Estimated Annual S.Tu'CvL. Air Passengers and Aircraft Movements Vancouver 1972-1992 Year Total Regional 80 Percent 10 Percent Total STOL Total Annual Air Passengers Capture Rate (Mode Change) Passengers Aircraft Movements 1972 772,000 616,000 61,600 677,600 23,420 1975 954,000 763,000 76,300 839,300 28,930 1980 1,462,000 1,169,000 116,900 1,285,900 44,310 1985 2,352,000 1,881,000 188,100 2,069,100 28,740 1990 3,016,000 2,412,000 241,200 2,653,000 ;• 36,847 1992 3,321,600 2,557,280 255,728 2,813,000 39,000 The following table shows the 1967 percentage breakdown of the origins and destinations of a i r trips to and from major British Columbia points which began or terminated at Vancouver International Airport. TABLE 4-3 Regional Origins and Destinations of Air Passengers"''0 Travelling Between Vancouver and Major Regional Points - 1967  Destination Passengers Percent of Total Campbell River 13,000 3.4 Castlegar 18,190 4.7 Comox 7,560 2.0 Cranbrook 10,120 2.6 Fort Nelson 2,880 0.8 Hudson Hope 10,160 2.7 Kamloops 11,530 3.0 Kelowna 25,480 6.6 Penticton 17,470 4.5 Port Hardy 31,060 8.1 Prince George 42,700 11.1 Powell River 30,070 7.8 Prince Rupert 37,110 9.7 Sandspit 19,150 5.0 Terrace/Kitimat 24,060 6.3 Victoria 66,870 17.3 Williams Lake 2,080 0.5 Fort St. John 10,870 2.8 Total 384,470 100.0 Based on this geographic distribution of a i r trips i t can be assumed that Victoria, Prince George, and Prince Rupert w i l l be the principal points served by a S.T.O.L. air transport system operating from the Vancouver metropolitan area. The Optimal S.T.O.L. Airport Location in the Vancouver Metropolitan Area From the regional a i r traveler's point of view the optimal location for an S.T.O.L. airport i s one that minimizes aggregate terminal travel time. Assuming that straight line distance i s an adequate proxy for travel time, i t is possible to calculate the optimal location for an S.T.O.L. airport using a basic geographer's method for determining the. centre of gravity of a series of weighted quantities spread over a plane surface. The method used to calculate the centroid of passenger origins i s quite straight forward. The passenger origins were f i r s t assigned to 59 t r a f f i c zones. These origins were then plotted on a grid. The moments of force were balanced about the x and y axes. The number of passenger origins in each zone was as a weight and the position of the weight on the axis was used as the moment arm. The balance point for each axis was then projected at right angles to both axis. The point of intersection of these two projected lines i s the centroid of a i r passenger surface trip origins. (See Figure 4-3 for optimal airport location) The data used to determine the centroid of regional a i r passenger origins was taken from the February 1971 "Canada Airport Access Survey" which was conducted.at Vancouver International Airport by the School of Community and Regional Planning at the University of British Columbia. 4-9 I o , Figure 4 - 4 shows the geographic distribution of a i r traveler-origins in the metropolitan area. Notice that 21.7 percent of a l l a i r passengers who make trips destined within the province transferred from other f l i g h t s . (See Figure 4 - 4 , Traffic: Zone 4 6 - 0 The effect of such a high concentration of origins i n a single zone vras calculated. It w i l l be noticed in Figure 4 - 3 that the transferring passengers cause the optimal terminal location to shift approximately one mile to the south-west of the point obtained i f transferring passengers are not considered. But i n terms of the practical location of an S.T.O.L. airport i t would seem that such a sh i f t makes l i t t l e difference since both locations are equally unsuitable, both are i n single family residential areas. Potential S.T.O.L. Airport Sites in the Vancouver Metropolitan Area. The c r i t e r i a for S.T.O.L. airport location were detailed i n Chapter three. In general, a potential S.T.O.L. airport s i t e must be: 1) Insensitive to noise. 2) Easily accessible by surface vehicles. 3) Optimally located with regard to a i r passenger origins and destinations in the metropolitan area. 4 ) Free of obstructions and hazards to a i r navigation. The c r i t e r i a suggest that an industrial area near the centroid of passenger origins would be well suited for an S.T.O.L. airport. However, a similarly located site, adjacent to a recreational area might also be acceptable. In addition, wharf or harbour areas may also provide suitable sites for an airport. An examination of a land use map of the metropolitan Vancouver area indicates that the following areas can be considered as potential S.T.O.L. Airport Sites. These areas are l i s t e d below i n order of increasing 4-12 distance from the optimal terminal location. 1) The False Creek Flats area from Granville Street to Clark Drive. 2) The Vancouver Waterfront from Main Street east to Clark Drive. 3) The Fraser River Waterfront from Cambie Street east to Vivian Drive. 4) Sea Island - Vancouver International Airport. Area No.l- False Creek Flats The False Creek Flats areai.is the industrial area closest to the centroid of passenger origins. Because of the extensive existing development i n the area, i t appears that an elevated S.T.O.L. airport above the C.N.R. and Burlington Northern Railroad yards would interfere least with the a c t i v i t i e s presently being carried out in the area. As may be seen in Figure 4-5 the railway yards are surrounded by industrial land uses that can provide buffer between the airport and surrounding residential land use. Wind There have been no o f f i c i a l records kept of wind speed and direction in the False Creek area. However, Mr. J.B. Wright of the Ministry of Transport, Meterologial Branch in Vancouver, suggests that wind data that has been collected at the F i r s t Narrows Bridge can be applied to the False 13 14 Creek area without any substantial adjustment being required. ' Figure 4-6 shows the wind rose for the F i r s t Narrows Bridge. Notice that the wind is calm, or i t blows from the east or the west approximately 76 percent of the time. In addition, i t should be noted that the greatest average crosswind component i s about 6.5 miles per hour. Runway alignment i s a c r i t i c a l factor for both the maximum u t i l i t y of an airport and the control of aircraft noise. S.T.O.L. runways should 4-13 / N 5.4 I / 4.9 w CALM 21.7% D 7.8 Percentage Frequency By Direction (1 Inch = 10%) . Mean Speed for each Direction 6 .-7~ Shown by Figures Mean Wind Speed for Period 7.1 m.p.h. s FIGURE 4-6' WIND ROSE VANCOUVER FIRST NARROWS 1969 - 1970 BURPAKD INLET FIGURE 4-8 OBSTRUCTION CLEARANCE: EASTERN APPROACH TO FALSE CREEK SITE 1 8 Section AA Earth F i l l Flaj; i F.A.A. RECOMMENDED OBSTRUCTION CLEARANCE 20:1_ Slape - • — ^ 700 Ft. - » K -1000 Ft. •6000 Ft. s200 Ft. FIGURE 4-9 OBSTRUCTION CLEARANCE: CROSS SECTION (Section AA Figure 4-8) 19 F.A.A. RECOMMENDED ^TRANSITIONAL SURFACE Earth F i l l Flat 1 2 5 F t , 7500 Ft. be aligned insofar as possible (1) to provide aircr a f t with the most favourable wind conditions, and (2) to avoid noise sensitive areas in the approach and departure paths. Selective runway alignment can minimize noise in the potentially noise sensitive areas, adjacent to 20 the airport. Fortunately, i n the False Creek Flats area, a runway oriented on a substantially East-West axis can take f u l l advantage of the wind and minimize noise exposure at the same time. (See Figure-,4-~7) Hazards and Obstructions Figures 4-8, 4-9 show the F.A.A. recommended protection surfaces and the surface contours of the land along the S.T.O.L. airport approach and take off path, shown in Figure 4-7. The minimum protection surfaces can be achieved without modification of any structures along the f l i g h t path. Present Land Use False Creek Flats was created by f i l l i n g i n part of False Creek. It comprises the area bounded by Main Street on the west, Clark Drive on the east, Great Northern Way on the south and Prior Street on the North. The Flats include 403 acres, 240 of which are covered by railway track, yards and roads; the remaining 166 acres in the area are used for other industrial purposes. Of these 166 acres, 100 are used by railroad oriented industries such as freight forwarders, wholesalers, and cartage and warehousing firms. The area west of Main Street i s devoted to heavy industrial use. A large ready mix concrete plant i s located directly opposite the 21 C.N.R. Depot. The rest of the land between Main Street and False Creek bounded by Georgia Street and Fourth Avenue i s used for a variety of industrial purposes. The area bounded by Venables Street and Fourth Avenue between 22 Clark Drive and the railway yards is also devoted to industrial use. The industrial area that encircles the railway yards is skirted by commercial and residential land uses on a l l but the western side which abutts False Creek. Future Land Use The C.N.R. and Burlington Northern Railroads have substantial investments in the False Creek Flats area. The C.N.R. alone has assessed investments of $1.6 million in buildings and improvements in the False Creek Area. The La Farge Cement Company has also made recent capital investments in the area. These sizeable investments would tend to indicate that the area w i l l continue to be used for 23 industrial purposes for the foreseeable future. The future of land abutting False Creek is much more uncertain. At present there are two residential developments proposed for the lands west of Cambie Street Bridge. Marathon Realty has proposed a high rise apartment and townhouse development on 120 acres on the north side of False Creek. The land east of the Cambie Bridge and west of Main Street that abutts False Creek i s owned by the Provincial Government, and i t i s presently used for industrial purposes. Marathon Realty Company Limited in their "Proposal for the North Shore of False Creek, Vancouver, B.C.", suggested that this land may continue to be used for industrial purpose or i t could be developed as a recreational area. The City of Vancouver which"" Owns " a l l the land abutting the south side of False Creek from the Granville Street Bridge to Main Street, has recently asked for proposals for an 85 acre residential development in this area. Moreover, the City of Vancouver Planning Department is presently preparing a policy paper on the development of city owned property between the Cambie Street Bridge and Main Street. Marathon Realty states that the city owned land east of the bridge, "has a fine south slope and beautiful view of the mountains and the c i t y , i t would be a prime 25 site fo?Tterraced, family housing," Hence i t would seem that nearly a l l of the land abutting False Creek w i l l eventually be used for residential purposes. Noise In order to minimize noise exposure i n the surrounding residential areas, the best location for an east-west oriented S.T.O.L. airport i s one that is near the centre of the False Creek Flats industrial area. A s i t e approximately 3500 feet south of the C.N.R. Station w i l l minimize late r a l noise exposure. Noise exposure during landing and takeoff w i l l be minimized i f the western end of the airport abutts Station Street. When the noise contours in Figure 3-15 are superimposed on a land use map the number and type of buildings that w i l l be exposed to each 26 noise level can be determined. Beginning f i r s t with the area east of Main Street, and using the above method, i t was determined that there are 67 single family dwellings within the 90 PndB noise contour. There are also three old hotels which are used as low rental rooming houses, and six apartments located above commercial establishments 27 within the 90 PndB contour. There are approximately 1018 single family dwellings between the 85 and 90 PndB noise contours. Assuming 3-4 4-20 persons per dwelling, unit, an estimated 3,461 persons would be subject to this noise level. In addition, there are two schools within the 85 PndB contour. Between the 85 and 80 PndB contours, there i s one high school, two elementary schools, and 1690 dwelling units, or approximately 5,746 persons. Given the existing land use there w i l l be v i r t u a l l y no noise exposure problems created by S.TvO.L. aircraft operations over the western end of False Creek. There i s no residential development at a l l within the 85 PndB contour and i t i s estimated that there are fewer than 121 dwelling units within the 80 PndB contour. Nevertheless, should the proposed development of the north and south shores take place, the situation w i l l change markedly. Marathon Realty has estimated that their False Creek Development w i l l eventually house 14,000 persons, a l l of whom would be within the 85 PndB noise contour. Using the same ratio of persons per gross acre, the development on the south shore of False Creek would attract 9,350 persons. A l l of these persons would be within the 80 PndB noise contour. Table 3-5 suggest that the acceptable, interior noise level for a home i s 60 PndB. Assuming a 25 PndB sound attenuation through the roof and walls of a home, i t would appear that the average noise level w i l l be raised 5 PndB in the 67 homes and dwellings within the 90 PndB contour. However, during the summer the increase i n sound levels w i l l be considerably greater when windows and doors are l e f t open and more family a c t i v i t i e s are conducted out of doors. Persons l i v i n g in the developments west of the Cambie Street Bridge would presumably be less affected by sound generated by aircra f t because apartments generally have better sound insulation than private homes. Nevertheless, in the summer apartment dwellers would suffer the same problems as persons in single family dwellings. Additionally, apartment dwellers on the upper floors of the high rise towers would be exposed to higher noise level because they.will be closer to the source of noise. The nature of this difference i n noise level i s not known. Air Pollution The a i r pollution created by S.T.O.L. aircra f t operating from the Vancouver urban area can be calculated by using fuel consumption figures provided by the aircra f t manufacturer and the data outlined in Table 3-5. The pollutant emissions resulting from 1975 S.T.O.L. aircraf t operations i n the Vancouver urban area are calculated below using fuel, consumption data::for the D.H.C. 7 S.T.O.L. A i r l i n e r and the estimated 1975 aircra f t movements from Table 4-2. -Fuel Consumption - .587 pounds per equivalent shaft horsepower per hour. -Engine Power Output - 919 equivalent shaft horsepower. -Number of engines - 4 -Estimated time aircraft - 6 minutes w i l l be operating within the urban area. -Total annual S.T.O.L. - 19,758 movements, 1975 -Fuel Consumption per - 587 x 919 , . . . .... —77,—; x 6 mm. x 4 engines = 216. aircraft movement within 60 min. " the urban area. -Total fuel consumed within the urban area during - 19,758 x 216. = 4,267,728 pounds. 1975 S.T.O.L. aircra f t operations TABLE 4-4 ESTIMATED POLLUTANT YIELD FOR D.H.C. 7 AIRCRAFT OPERATING IN THE VANOCUVER METROPOLITAN AREA - 1975 Carbon Monoxide 2987.4 lbs. Hydro Carbons 426.6 lbs. Nitrogen Oxides 8962.3 lbs. Particulates 2560.6 lbs. Sulpher Oxides 426.6 lbs. The figures shown above must be considered gross estimates because as is evident in Table 3-5 , the amount of each type of pollutant that i s emitted varies with the operating mode of the engine. However, for the purposes of estimation of pollutant yields, i t was assumed that the engine would be operated i n the landing, takeoff and climbout mode indicated i n Table 3-5, Terminal Access The proposed terminal site i s conveniently located with respect to the Vancouver C.B.D. and i t is central to the urban area. The terminal site i s adjacent to one of most heavily travelled surface transportation 28 corridors in the region, the Main Street - Kingsway Corridor. The major streets in the area are Main Street and Terminal Avenue. Access to the False Creek Flats area from the C.B.D. i s presently being up-graded. A new Georgia Street Viaduct is presently under construction. The structure w i l l provide a 6 lane a r t e r i a l connection between Main Street and the C.B.D.. The new viaduct which consists of three east-bound and three west-bound lanes w i l l cross Main Btreet at two points. The east-bound lanes, which connect on to Georgia Street, w i l l cross Main at Prior Street and the West-bound lanes, connecting onto Dunsmuir Street, w i l l cross Main at Union Street. The 6 lanes w i l l join at Gore and Prior Street. At this point they w i l l link to a proposed East-West Freeway. This freeway with adequate entrance and exit ramps w i l l greatly increase vehicular access to the False Creek Flats area for those potential S.T.O.L. ai r passengers who travel to the airport from the C.B.D. and the eastern parts of the city. There are also a series of proposals for transportation system improvements which could greatly increase surface travel conditions in the False Creek area. For instance, the C.B.D. bypass route from the proposed second crossing of the F i r s t Narrows i s expected to connect to the proposed Quebec - Columbia Street connector which w i l l provide additional north-south road capacity par a l l e l to Main Street. (See Figure 4-10) A 1968 transportation study, conducted for the City of Vancouver, suggested that a site near the C.N.R. Station i s suitable for one of the stations of a proposed rapid transit line that would follow an alignment from the C.B.D. via Pender Street, Main Street, Great Northern Way, and the abandoned B.C. Hydro "Central Park" right of way 29 to Willingdon and Kingsway Streets i n Burnaby. Moreover, the same transportation study suggested that a railroad commuter service could also be operated from Burnaby to Vancouver along the C.N.R. Burlington Rail-line. The study stated that, "The existing C.N.R. line from the (C.N.R. Depot) through Vancouver and Burnaby provides a ready made route through the most d i f f i c u l t and built-up part of the Metropolitan area."30 However, considering modal transfers, the waiting time required to complete a journey, and the slowly increasing affluence of passengers i t seems that such a service would not be attractive to the travelling public. Nevertheless at a future date a commuter service to the C.N.R. N5 Station, i n .conjunction with a rapid transit system, may prove to be attractive to commuters as the metropolitan area grows eastward up the Fraser Valley. Considering the existing transportation system and the proposed system improvements, i t seems that the False Creek area may become one of the most accessible areas in the Vancouver Metropolitan area. Area No. 2 - The Vancouver Waterfront from Main Street, East to Clarke Drive The land along this section of the Vancouver Waterfront contains the largest piers i n the harbour, Centennial and Ballentyne Piers. The rest of the shoreline i n the area i s taken up by a grain elevator, a sugar refinery, and several smaller piers used by the Burlington Northern Railway and several fishing companies. Wind The Ministry of Transport Meteorological Branch records wind 32 velocity and direction at a recording station above Centennial Pier. The Wind Rose for 1969-1970 shown in Figure 4-11 summarizes the important . wind data for the area. Notice that the wind blows from the east or west, or is calm approximately 62.4 percent of the time. For about 22.5 percent of the time the wind blows along a northwest-southeast axis. This wind data indicates that a S.T.O.L. runway i n this area should be aligned on a substantially east-west axis. Hazards and Obstruction-Clearance It i s not possible to build an elevated S.T.O.L. airport i n this area without making substantial changes in the cargo handling machinery on Centennial pier. A container crane stands 200 feet above the pier, two other cranes on the pier are 160 feet high. Moreover, there are 5.4 Percentage Frequency by Direction (1 Inch" 10%) Mean Wind Speed for Each Direction Shown by Figures 5.6 Mean Wind Speed for Period 6.3 m.p.h. s F I G U R E 4-11 W I N D R O S E V A N C O U V E R - C E T E N N I A ; 1969-1970 P I E R ' several buildings approximately 2QQ.feet high immediately east of Centennial pier. These machines and buildings would project into the obstruction free zones recommended by the F.A.A. even i f the S.T.O.L. airport were 125 feet above the ground. An elevated S.T.O.L. airport in this area would have to be at least'200 feet above ground to obtain obstruction clearances. Since the economics of a 125 feet high structure over a dock i s questionable, (as may be seen i n Appendix 1) an elevated structure 200 feet high can be considered to be out of the question. A floating S.T.O.L. airport, anchored approximately 1,000 feet north of Centennial Pier, can be aligned on an east-west axis and achieve the desired obstruction clearance and s t i l l minimize noise exposure. Figure 4-12 shows the noise contours and takeoff and approach path associated with the floating S.T.O.L. airport. Present Land Use The land, north of the Canadian Pacific Railway tracks, i s devoted mainly to port oriented f a c i l i t i e s such as piers and grain elevators. The land immediately south of the tracks i s used for warehousing and manufacturing purposes. There are also some older hotels and r e t a i l outlets i n the area. Future Land Use The water front land in this area i s classified as being suitable for deep sea general cargo f a c i l i t i e s . The present shipping terminals are not being used to capacity, primarily because the area i s handicapped at present by an abundance of obsolete port f a c i l i t i e s . Cargo tonnage BUPJURJ) INLET forecasts for Vancouver Harbour indicate that a strong demand for 35 shipping terminal space w i l l continue u n t i l 1985. Nevertheless, a 1970 Vancouver study of the urban/.influence on port development indicates that an urban location for a port i s no longer necessary 36 due to changes i n cargo flows and service links. But, despite the changing relationship between the port and the cit y , i t seems that the recent National Harbours investments i n plant and equipment on Centennial Pier indicate that the area w i l l be used for port oriented a c t i v i t i e s well into?*.the forseeable future. The land use immediately west of this area i s beginning to undergo a dramatic change. The f i r s t stage of Project 200, a major comprehensive development, i s now being b u i l t . Project 200 w i l l eventually cover an area of 28.6 acres. It w i l l cnnsist of three basic elements, an o f f i c e -hotel-trade center, eight high rise apartment buildings, and a department retail-store area. The development, i n i t s f i n a l stage, w i l l provide over two million square feet of office space, 1.5 million square feet of hotel/office space, and about 2.5 million square feet of residential floor space. This residential floor space w i l l allow for about 3,000 37 dwelling units or housing for from 5,000 to 6,000 persons. Noise The community noise exposure, that would result from S.T.O.L. aircraft operations from an airport anchored in the harbour, would be generally low. There are no dwelling units within the 90 PndB noise contour, and there i s only one hotel within the 85 PndB contour. But there are many office buildings, stores, hotels and apartment buildings in the area along the waterfront from Coal Harbour to Main Street, that are within the 80 PndB noise contour. In addition, when Project 200 i s completed, the number of people who would be exposed to a 80 PndB noise level w i l l increase significantly. Terminal Access Centennial Pier i s immediately north of False Creek Flats and t r a f f i c i n the pier area may benefit to some extent from the road system improvements planned or in progress i n the False Creek area. Nearly 55 percent of the t r a f f i c destined to the central business d i s t r i c t of Vancouver from the eastern part of the city, i s funneled 38 through the section of land between False Creek and Vancouver Harbour. The principal routes are Georgia, Pender, Hastings and Powell Streets. The heavy t r a f f i c volumes along these streets results in average vehicle speeds of from 0 to 13 miles per hour at peak t r a f f i c hours. (See Figure 4-13) Not only i s the congestion high on the east-west streets, but i t is also high on the north-south streets close to the waterfront. Average vehicle speeds on these streets i s from 0 to 13 miles per hour during the peak hours. Thus the streets immediately adjacent to the area 39 under consideration suffer from congestion and under-capacity. Hence i t can be concluded that the sit i n g of a S.T.O.L. airport adjacent i to Centennial Pier would worsen t r a f f i c conditions in an already badly congested part of the cit y . A S.T.O.L. airport located on the sea-ward side of an actively functioning shipping pier would also present a series of localized t r a f f i c problems. It i s not possible to discuss these problems in any detail, but there are several points that deserve to be mentioned. F i r s t , i t seems that in order for the pier and the airport to operate e f f i c i e n t l y , vehicular t r a f f i c for each function should be grade separated. 4-31 4-32 Second, parking garages must be provided in order to minimize the wharf space used by air-oriented surface vehicles. Third, passenger transportation between the parking garage and floating airport w i l l pose an additional problem. There does not appear to be a convenient way to move passengers between the parking garage and the floating airport. Ferry boats may be the only feasible way to transfer passengers, but this additional mode change might tend to reduce the attractiveness of the a i r service. Area No. 3 - The Fraser River Waterfront from Cambie Street, East to Vivian Dr. This area i s unsuitable for an S.T.O.L. airport. Aircraft operations from anywhere within this area would conflict with aircraft operations from Vancouver International Airport. Area No. 4 - Sea Island, Vancouver International Airport As has been mentioned previously, the U.S. experience has shown that S.T.O.L. aircra f t can be operated e f f i c i e n t l y from C.T.O.L. airports. There is no reason to suspect that the same result cannot be achieved at Vancouver Airport. Wind The existing runways at Vancouver International Airport are aligned to take advantage of the prevailing East-West winds and this alignment w i l l be adequate for S.T.O.L. aircra f t operations. Hazard and Obstruction Clearances Since the obstruction clearances for C.T.O.L. are more stringent than those recommended for S.T'vO.L.. aircr a f t , no obstruction problem would be encountered in the Vancouver Airport area. Present Land Use Sea Island i s situated i n the North Arm of the Fraser River. It is bounded by the Strait of Georgia on the west, the City of Vancouver on the north, and Lulu Island on the south and east. Nearly a l l of the more than 4,000 acres of Sea Island i s devoted to airport or airport oriented uses. C P . Air, Air Canada, and Pacific Western Airlines maintain large maintenance f a c i l i t i e s on the island. Other aircr a f t support services such as aircra f t sales and service depots, and overhaul shops are also located on the island. About 300 acres of the island i s used for an Indian Reserve, a small residential area, and national defense purposes. The land on Lulu Island, immediately east of Sea Island, i s used for mixed industrial, commercial, and residential purposes. The land toward the eastern end of Lulu Island i s largely open space with some industrial uses along the Fraser River and a few small subdivisions near Highway 499. Future Land Use 41 The Ministry of Transport's $60 million investments i n terminal f a c i l i t i e s , a i r t r a f f i c control f a c i l i t i e s , and $21 millinn for a new bridge to the island indicate that Sea Island w i l l be used for airport purposes well into the future. The o f f i c i a l Regional Plan indicates that land uses on Lulu Island w i l l remain much as they are at present. However the plan does suggest that the industrial areas on the Fraser River w i l l increase in 42 s i z e . Noise The people who l i v e i n the v i c i n i t y of the Vancouver International Airport are already exposed to aircraft noise levels greater than those which would be created by S.T.O.L. aircraft operations. At f i r s t glance, i t might appear that S.T.O.L. aircraft operations might substantially reduce any community annoyance, created by the aircraft operating from Vancouver International Airport. However, the community disruption from S.T.O.L. aircraft may s t i l l be important because the duration of the noise created hy;,S.T.O.L. aircraft w i l l be about twice that of C.T.O.L. aircraft and the frequency of S.T.O.L. flights w i l l be greater because the f i r s t generation of S.T.O.L. aircraft w i l l seat only 48 passengers; whereas aircraft presently in regional service seat from 50 to 100 passengers depending on the area served. Never-theless, Without extensive tests, i t i s not possible to say to what extent the combined effect of noise duration and frequency, created by S.T.O.L. aircraft, offset the higher PndB levels created by C.T.O.L. airc r a f t . •Terminal Access The 1967 N.D. Lea and Associates "Sea Island Access and the North Arm of the Fraser River Crossing" study indicates that thev.Hudson Street Bridge, being built across the North Arm of the Fraser River, w i l l ensure that vehicular demand w i l l not exceed capacity on the 43 access routes to the airport. Summary Four industrial areas, within the Vancouver metropolitan area, have been examined with a view toward determining their s u i t a b i l i t y as a potential site for a S.T.O.L. airport. These areas are: (1) False Creek Flats (2) Centennial Pier (3) The Industrial area along the North Arm of the Fraser River (4) Sea Island The industrial area along the North Arm of the Eraser was not examined i n detail because a i r operations from this area would conflict with those being conducted from Vancouver International Airport. It was found that S.T.O.L. aircra f t operations could be conducted from sites within the other areas. False Creek Flats, Centennial Pier, and Vancouver International Airport can be compared from three points of view: (1) How well they f u l f i l l the locations requirements for an S.T.O.L. airport s i t e . (2) The additional social costs imposed upon the community as a result of aircraft operations into the urban area. (3) Economic Costs. The most important locational requirements of a potential S.T.O.L. airport i s that i t be situated so as to minimize passenger terminal travel time. It can be seen in Figure 4-14, that the average access t r i p length for a journey to the optimal terminal location, i s 5.7 miles. The average access t r i p length to the False Creek location i s 6.0 miles. (Figure 4-15) For Centennial Pier (Figure 4-16) the average access trip length i s 6.6 miles and for Vancouver International Airport the average access t r i p length i s 6.9 miles. (Figure 4-17) Based on the foregoing data i t i s evident that a S.T.O.L. airport located at False Creek w i l l minimize passengers terminal access distance. Moreover this area of the city may eventually benefit from major improvements to the surface transportation f a c i l i t i e s . A floating S.T.O.L. airport, anchored near Centennial Pier i s the next most accessible airport site in terms of average terminal travel distance, but the present t r a f f i c congestion in the FIGURE 4-14 OPTIMAL S.T.O.L. AIRPORT SITE AIRPORT ACCESS TRIP LENGTH DISTRIBUTION (Regional Passengers) Average Trip Length 5.7 Miles 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 + Distance in Miles FIGURE 4-15 FALSE CREEK AIRPORT SITE AIRPORT ACCESS TRIP LENGTH DISTRIBUTION (Regional Passengers) Average Trip Length 6.0 Miles I 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 -16 + Distance in Miles FIGURE 4-16 CENTENNIAL PIER AIRPORT AIRPORT ACCESS - TRIP LENGTH ( R e g i o n a l P a s s e n g e r s ) ^Average T r i p L e n g t h 6.6 M i l e s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 + D i s t a n c e i n M i l e s FIGURE 4-17 VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL AIPORT AIRPORT ACCESS TRIP LENGTH DISTRIBUTION ( R e g i o n a l P a s s e n g e r s ) A v e r a g e T r i p L e n g t h 6.9 M i l e s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 + D i s t a n c e i n M i l e s area and the problems of transferring passengers to and from a floating airport suggest that the area i s unsuitable for a S.T.O.L. airport. Vancouver International Airport has the longest average access tr i p length. Nevertheless, vehicular access to Sea Island w i l l be adequate u n t i l 1985. However, unless there are savings i n terminal access time at other regional destinations, a t r i p by S.T.O.L. aircraf t from Vancouver International Airport would take longer than would the same trip by j e t , C.T.O.L. ai r c r a f t . Without a reduction in terminal access time, S.T.O.L. aircra f t cannot offer a i r service that i s an attractive alternative to C.T.O.L. a i r services. The principal social costs that would result from S.T.O.L. aircraft operations into urban areas are increased noise exposure, and increased safety hazards. It is possible that S.T.O.L. aircraft may also cause localized increases in a i r pollution, but i t i s not possible to determine where the increases would occur, and i f there would be compensating reductions in pollution in other areas. A problem arises when an attempt i s made to compare the potential airport sites in terms of increased community noise exposure. This situation arises because a whole series of physical and subjective variables combine to create noise annoyance. Noise i s measured on an ordinal scale and i t i s not possible to equate the noise annoyance experienced by one group of people exposed to one noise level with the annoyance experienced by another group of people exposed to a different noise level. Hence i t i s not possible to aggregate noise data from one potential airport site and compare i t to aggregate data from another s i t e . However, with respect to the False Creek and Centennial Pier sites this problem of noise exposure comparison does not arise because community noise exposure at False Creek would be greater than i t would be at Centnennial Pier for a l l noise contour levels. (Except for the 80 PndB contour where exact figures are not known.) It i s not possible to compare the potential noise exposure at Vancouver International Airport with the.:exposure that might occur at the other sites because there i s no common base for comparison. At False Creek and Centennial Pier, noise exposure from air c r a f t would be a new phenomenon whereas at Vancouver International Airport, the community noise exposure would only be a change in an existing situation. Since i t is not possible to measure the changes in community noise exposure between sites, the evaluation w i l l have to be done purely on the basis of the number of people who would be exposed to increased noise levels. On this basis a S.T.O.L. airport on Sea Island i s the most preferable, Centennial Pier i s next and False Creek i s the least acceptable. The increase i n community safety hazards that may arise from S.T.O.L. aircraft operations w i l l also be examined on the basis of how many people would be exposed to additional risk. Since the peopl who li v e near Vancouver International Airport are already exposed to the safety hazards that might arise from ai r c r a f t operations, no additional risk would result from aircraft operations from this area. The approaches to the floating S.T.O.L. airport are mainly over water so a i r operations from this f a c i l i t y would present less of an additional risk than would operations from an elevated structure at False Creek. 4-40 Finally, based on the brief cost-revenue analysis in Appendix 1 i t appears that the floating S.T.O.L. airport would be the most expensive f a c i l i t y . Over a 20 year period the floating structure would require a$5.4 million subsidy. The elevated structure would >• require a $756,000 subsidy over the same period. The capital cost of a S.T.O.L. runway at Vancouver International Airport i s approximately $330,000, but beyond this figure i t i s d i f f i c u l t to determine the costs and revenues resulting from S.T.O.L. operations because maintenance and operating costs would be shared by both S.T.O.L. and C.T.O.L. operations, and revenues would accrue to both operations. A complete lack of data makes i t impossible to allocate the costs and revenues that might arise from S.T.O.L. aircra f t operations at an existing conventional airport. Thus i t can only be assumed that S.T.O.L. operations from an existing C.T.O.L. airport would cost less than operations from a completely new S.T.O.L. f a c i l i t y . In summary, the important characteristics of the three potential S.T.O.L. airport sites are outlined below: Site Average Terminal Access Distance Number of Persons exposed to Higher Noise Levels Additional Safety Hazard Net Costs False " Creek Centennial Pier 6.0 Miles 6.6 Miles Vancouver 6.9 Miles International Airport Approx. 9000 Not Known No Additional Exposure Greatest Moderate Least Elevated Structure $756,000 Floating Structure $5.4 Million Assumed to be Least I t i s n o t p o s s i b l e t o say w h i c h o f t h e t h r e e s i t e s i s most s u i t a b l e f o r a S.T.O.L. a i r p o r t w i t h o u t r e f e r e n c e t o a s p e c i f i c p l a n n i n g g o a l and a s e r i e s o f o b j e c t i v e s . I t was p o i n t e d out i n c h a p t e r t h r e e t h a t a S.T.O.L. a i r p o r t can be used as a t o o l t o h e l p r e a l i z e t h e p l a n n i n g g o a l s o f an a r e a . F o r i n s t a n c e , i f one of the o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e c i t y p l a n i s t o r e b u i l d t h e w a t e r f r o n t a r e a t h e n t h e f l o a t i n g S.T.O.L. a i r p o r t n e a r C e n t e n n i a l P i e r may be a d e v i c e t h a t can be used t o c h a n n e l development t o t h e w a t e r f r o n t a r e a . A l t e r n a t i v e l y , i f t h e p l a n n i n g o b j e c t i v e were t o c o n c e n t r a t e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s i n a s i n g l e c o r r i d o r , t h e n F a l s e Creek might be chosen as the most s u i t a b l e a i r p o r t s i t e because i t o f f e r s a u n i q u e o p p o r t u n i t y t o i n t e g r a t e r a i l , r o a d and a i r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s i n t o a s i n g l e s y s tem. However, i n the absence o f s p e c i f i c p l a n n i n g g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s t h e r e does n o t appear t o be any j u s t i f i c i a t i o n f o r b u i l d i n g an S . T . O . L . a i r p o r t a t F a l s e Creek o r C e n t e n n i a l P i e r . The s a v i n g i n average t e r m i n a l t r a v e l d i s t a n c e t h a t w o u l d a r i s e by o p e r a t i n g S.T.O.L. a i r c r a f t from e i t h e r o f t h e s e two s i t e s when compared to the average t e r m i n a l a c c e s s d i s t a n c e t o t h e e x i s t i n g a i r p o r t a t Sea I s l a n d i s m i n i m a l . I n a d d i t i o n , the b r i e f c o s t - r e v e n u e a n a l y s i s t h a t has been co n d u c t e d i n d i c a t e s t h a t S.T.O.L. a i r p o r t s a t t h e s e two s i t e s would n o t be e c o n o m i c a l l y v i a b l e . F u r t h e r m o r e , a i r o p e r a t i o n s from t h e s e two s i t e s would expose a d d i t i o n a l p e o p l e t o the n o i s e and i n c r e a s e d h a z a r d s t h a t may a r i s e f r o m a i r c r a f t o p e r a t i o n s . Hence t h e b e s t l o c a t i o n o f an S.T.O.L. a i r p o r t i s a t Vancouver I n t e r n a t i o n a l A i r p o r t . F O O T N O T E S CHAPTER FOUR 1) B.L.F. Darden and M.I. Khan, "Developing a Stolport Policy for the City-Center," Canadian Aeronautical and Space Journal, May 1970, p. 193. 2) Joel F. Kahn, "V/S.T.O.L. Airli n e System Simulation," Journal of Aircraft, May-June 1968, p. 306. 3) Ibid, p. 307. 4) Ibid, p. 308. 5) Herbert E. Bixler, "Feasibility of Developing Dollar Values for Increments of Time Saved by Air Travelers," Systems Analysis and Research Corporation, Cambridge, Mass. Feb. 1966, pp. 1~2. 6) "Trunkline Load Factors," Aviation Week and Space Technology, July 13, 1970, p. 23. 7) David A. Brown, "Users Study Joint S.T.O.L. Programs," Aviation Week  and Space Technology, July 13, 1970. pp. 23-24. 8) Department of Transport, "Air Transportation Sta t i s t i c s , Forecasts Air T r a f f i c Movements - Passengers - Cargo," Ottawa, 1969, 9) Derived from D.O.T., "Air Transportation Statistics Forecasts," 1969. 10) Air Transport Board, "Airline Passenger Origin and Destination Sta t i s t i c s : Domestic Report," Ottawa, 1967. 11) Calculated from data collected for the "Canada Airport Access Survey," - Conducted by the U.B.C. School of Community and Regional Planning at Vancouver International Airport, Feb. 15-22, 1971. 12) Ibid. 13) The wind recording instrument i s located 380 feet above sea level. 14) Mr. J.B. Wright, Ministry of Transport, Meteorological Branch, Scientific Support Services, Vancouver: discussion, March 4, 1971 Vancouver, B.C. 15) Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t Planning Department, Metro Land Use Maps, updated 1970. 4-43 16) Mr. J.B. Wright, Ministry of Transport Regional Office, Vancouver March, 1971. 17) Derived from Figure 3-15. 18) Derived from topographic maps of the area and Figure 3-8. 19) See 18 above. 20) "Design and Operations for Minimum Noise Exposure," Washington D.C, May, 1969. 21) Burke L. et a l . "Impact Study of a Rapid Transit Station: The Main Street Station," Planning 550B Term Project. U.B.C School of Community and Regional Planning, A p r i l 9, 1970. p. 9. 22) Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t Planning Dept., Metro Land Use Maps, No. V9, V10, V20, V21, V32, updated 1970. 23) Burke et a l . "Impact Study for a Rapid Transit Station," p. 15. 24) Marathon Realty Company, "Proposals for the North Shore of False Creek Vancouver, B.C., "April 17, 1969. p. 31. 25) Ibid. 32. 26) Greater Vancouver Regional Planning Board, Metro Land Use Maps. 27) Burke et a l . "Impact Study for a Rapid Transit Station," p. 10. 28) "T r a f f i c Volumes and Travel Times 1967 - 1968," Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t Planning Dept., Feb. 1970. 29) N.D. Lea and Associates Ltd., "An Apprasial of Transportation Systems for the City of Vancouver,"'Vancouver Tr a f f i c Department, City Engineering Department, Nov.1968. 30) Ibid, p. 42. 31) Peter Tassie and Niel J. Griggs, "The Growth and Transportation Implications of Port Development: A Case Study, Vancouver, B.C.", unpublished M.Sc. Thesis, U.B.C. School of Community and Regional Planning, A p r i l 1970, p. 96. 32) 95 Feet above surface l e v e l . 33) Mr. J.B. Wright - Ministry of Transport Regional Office, Vancouver March 1971. 34) Derived from Figure 3-15. 35) Pendakur V.S. et a l , Multiple Use of Transportation Corridors in  Canada - Socio - Economic Impact and Transportation Consequences, i: U.B.C. School of Community and Regional Planning, Vancouver Oct. 1969. Pp. 55-56. 4-44 36) Peter Tassie and Neil J. Griggs, p. v. 37) Pendakur et a l . p. 19. 38) Ibid. pp. 49-50. 39) Tassie and Griggs, p. 115. 40) Tassie and Griggs, p. 99. 41) Vancouver Sun, Saturday Nov. 1, 1969, p. 30. 42) Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board, " O f f i c i a l Regional Plan, Regional Plan Series, Long Range Plan, Map Schedule B.," Victoria, 1966, p. 28. 43) Lea N.D. and Associates, "Sea Island Access . . . ," p. 115. C H A P T E R F I V E This chapter includes a summary of the main points examined in this thesis. It also includes some of the conclusions that can be drawn from the material that has been discussed. Summary In chapter one i t was shown that S.T.O.L. aircraft have the potential of alleviating some of the problems facing the air transport system. In addition i t was also shown that S.T.O.L. aircraft can provide a i r transportation to some of the smaller communities not presently served by scheduled a i r l i n e s . The chapter concluded by pointing out the need for an examination of the potential problems that may arise from S.T.O.L. airc r a f t operations into urban area S.T.O.L. airports. The important passenger transportation modes were examined i n Chapter two. The characteristics of the three major types of aircraft were discussed and compared. The potential role of S.T.O.L. aircra f t and the benefits that could accrue from their use as an inter-city travel vehicle were discussed. In Chapter three the discussion focused on the factors that must be considered when planning for a S.T.O.L. airport within an urban area. Chapter four i s a brief study of the possible effects of operating S.T.O.L. aircraft from S.T.O.L. airports within the Vancouver urban area. This study includes an estimate of passenger demand for S.T.O.L. air services and the calculation of the optimal location for a S.T.O.L. . airport in the urban area. Four areas near to the optimal airport site were examined with a view toward determining their s u i t a b i l i t y as locations for a S.T.O.L. airport. The study revealed that i t is possible. 5-2 to operate S.T.O.L. aircraft from three of the four sites examined. The three sites were compared; however, i t was not possible to state which area is the most suitable for a S.T.O.L. airport. Such a comparison would involve both, objective and subjective factors, and in such cases, judgements can only be made with reference to specific planning goals and objectives. Conclusions The evaluation of the potential S.T.O.L. airport sites within the Vancouver metropolitan area has shown that i t is possible to find S.T.O.L. airport sites within the urban area that meet the minimum technical c r i t e r i a for S.T.O.L. aircraft operations. However, during the course of this study i t became evident that there are rather serious shortcomings in some of the S.T.O.L. airport locational c r i t e r i a . For example, a dependable method of forecasting the community responses to aircraft noise has not be developed. "P^ychoacoustic measures are generally obtained by comparing different sounds in the laboratory environment. The methodology for predicting the psychological reactions of a populace as a whole from laboratory or contrived experiments is very unsatisfactory. One of the most d i f f i c u l t aspects of developing valid community noise c r i t e r i a i s the restricted a b i l i t y to identify these other elements of aircraft operations, community environment, and semantic content that result in a gross reaction of a community to noise, and that there are not physical dimensions of noise. 1'! This statement is supported by the findings of studies conducted in both the United States and Great Britain which found that the threshold of annoyance for intermittent sounds in a community varies between 2 40 and 90 PndB. Therefore, i t is evident that estimating community reaction to noise exposure i s a very complex matter. To simply report that the perceived noise level resulting from aircraft operations is below that which is normal for an area may be very inadequate and misleading. 5-3 Given the present state of the art in noise exposure forecasting, i t i s apparent that selection of a location for an urban area S.T.O.L, airport that w i l l minimize community reaction to aircraft noise w i l l be a d i f f i c u l t and complicated task. In the literature that deals with the operation of S.T.O.L. aircraft from within urban areas there i s considerable emphasis placed on the fact that the SVT.O.L. Airports should be surrounded by compatible land uses which w i l l minimize community acceptance problems, This rather narrow view often ignores the fact that the possible disruptions from S.T.O.L. aircraft may extend several miles beyond the actual airport site. Moreover i t i s unfortunate that compatible land uses around a S.T.O.L. airport may often imply that aircraft operations w i l l be conducted over the areas of the city that contain the older homes and the poorer residents of a city, simply because lower income residential areas are often contiguous to land uses that are compatible with S.T.O.L. airports. This point Is given some local support by the fact that air operations from both the False Creek area and the Centennial Pier area would cause increased noise exposure and safety hazards for the people who l i v e in the lower income eastern part of Vancouver, Another point that i s occasionally discussed and frequently implied by spokesmen for aviation interests, i s that a i r transportation brings benefits to the community at large and i s an important part of our economy and way of l i f e ; therefore, the annoyance and disturbance suffered by some i s a price that must be paid. In the case of S.T.O.L. inter-city air operations, this could mean that the lower income groups of the city would have to pay the greater part of the social costs. 5-4 Such a situation involves a form of social tax upon the lower income groups of the city, However, i f the contribution that S.T.O.L, air transportation can make to the economy and to increased travel convenience is so great that i t s benefits out weight i t s costs, then there is no reason why some compensation cannot be given to the people who l i v e near a S.T.O.L. airport and pay the major portion of the social costs that arise. If such a service i s required, fairness would suggest that the social costs that arise should be minimized, There are two potential methods for creating a more equitable distributinn of these social costs. The f i r s t method involves the purchase of air easements. An air easement i s a method of gaining some control of land use short of outright ownership. It i s the purchase of the right for aircraft to f l y over property without recourse by the private owner against the aircraft owners or the airport operators. This method has been used in the United States with some degree of success^ by both military and c i v i l authorities. The U.S. experience indicates that the method i s flexible and that the property owners have been able to recover from the easement holder when the use of the airport changed and noise levels were 3 increased. One disadvantage of this method is that only property owners are given compensation for the increased annoyance and disruption while persons renting dwellings would presumably be given no compensation. The second method which has been suggested for a more equal distribution of the social costs involved i s that the cost of insulating dwellings against aircraft noise exposure be borne in part by the public. This method has only limited usefulness because i t reduces only a portion of the problem, and i t does nothing to alleviate outside noise levels. 5-5 These two methods of minimizing the social cost of aircraft operations are only pa r t i a l l y effective in reducing the community costs that may arise from aircraft operations. What these solutions would cost the public In dollar terms i s not known. An important function of the S.T.O.L, aircraft inter-city transport system i s the minimization of passenger terminal travel time and distance. In the case of Vancouver, there does not appear to be any substantial time saving that could be realized by operating S.T.O.L. aircraft from sites at False Creek or Centennial Pier. For example, a S.T.O.L. airport located in the False Creek area would reduce the average terminal access t r i p length for regional air passengers by 0.9 miles. Assuming that the journey to the S.T.O.L. airport could be conducted at speeds ranging from 6 to 60 miles per hour, a 0,9 mile reduction in the trip to or from the terminal would mean a time saving of from one to six minutes, depending on the passenger's origin or destination, the surface travel mode chosen, and the route taken. Whether such a small time saving has any significance to a traveler i s an open question, but such a minimal terminal access time saving could hardly be the basis for an inter-city S.T.O.L. ai r service that would compete with conventional air services on the same routes. While i t i s not the purpose of this thesis to examine the economics of a possible S.T.O.L. air transport system, some attention was given to the cost-revenue relationships that might arise from operating an urban area S.T.O.L. airport. Appendix 1 indicates that the revenue generated by a S.T.O.L. airport in the Vancouver urban area w i l l not be sufficient to cover the capital and maintenance costs of the required 5-6 f a c i l i t i e s . In addition, the very minimal average terminal travel distance that would be saved, to say nothing of the additional social costs generated, point very forcefully to the conclusion that there is no apparent economic or social j u s t i f i c a t i o n for building a S.T.O.L. airport at False Creek or near Centennial Pier, This is not to suggest, however, that there i s no role for S.T.O.L. aircraft within the r.e_giorial air transportation system. Quite the contrary, there may be an important area of secondary cost savings that could result from the operation of S.T.O.L, aircra f t from Vancouver International Airport. For instance, many of the f u l l y licensed airports within the province have very low annual t r a f f i c volumes. During 1969 the airport at Terrace, B.C., which has three paved runways of greater than 5000 feet in length, handled only 1,304 scheduled f l i g h t s . Moreover, there were.at. least 7 other licensed airports in the province that handled less than 2,000 annual scheduled flights 4 during 1969. In the complete absence of cost and revenue data for the government operated and maintained airports i n the province, i t can only be assumed that such low t r a f f i c volumes do not generate enough revenue to cover the costs of operating these airports. While i t i s recognized that some of these airports must be maintained to f u l f i l l international aviation obligations, there would seem to be ample scope to convert at least some of the province's less used airports to S.T.O.L. airports in order to save part of the cost of operating and maintaining these airport f a c i l i t i e s . Finally, despite the fact that there does not appear to be a significant time saving for an air passenger flying by S.T.O.L. aircraft from the Vancouver urban area, there may be significant savings in publ funds resulting from the operation of a regional system of S.T.O.L. airports. The extent of the possible saving of public money and the implications of converting conventional airports to S.T.O.L. airports are matters that should be carefully researched. 5-8 F O O T N O T E S CHAPTER FIVE 1) National Academy of Engineering, Aeronautical and Space Engineering Board. " C i v i l Aviation Research and Development: An Assessment of Federal Government Involvement," Washington, D.C. Aug. 1968. p. 39. 2) Karl D. Kryter, "Evaluation of Psychological reaction of People to Aircraft noise," Executive office of the President, "Aleviation of Jet Aircraft Noise near airports," Washington, 1966. p. 18. 3) Issac H. Hoover and D.G. Cochran, "Airport Design and Operation for Minimum Noise Exposure," North Atlantic Treaty Organization Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development, Aircraft  Noise and Sonic Boom. Conference Proceedings No. 42, St. Louis France. May 1969, p. 3-13. 4) Information provided by the Ministry of Transport, Vancouver Regional Office, Airports Branch, Sept. 1970. 0-1 B I B L I O G R A P H Y Books El l e , Bjorn J.., Issues and Prospects in Interurban Air  Transport, Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell, 1968. Kershner, William K.. The Instrument Flight Manual. Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State University Press, 1967. Schriever, Bernard, A., and S i e f i r t , William W,. Air Transportation  1975 and Beyond: A Systems Approach. Report of the Transportation Workship 1967, Cambridge, Mass..: The M.I.T. Press. Shinn, Richard D.. Regional Airport Planning; A Systematic Model. Urban Planning Series No. 8, Dept. of Urban Planning. University of Washington, Seattle: May 1970. Research Reports American Airlines. "S.T.O.L. Inter Metropolitan Evaluation Phase x." Final Report. New York: Jan, 1970. Bixler, Herbert E., "Feasibility of Developing Dollar Values for Increments of Time Saved by Air Travellers." Systems Analysis and Research Corp., Cambridge, Mass.: Feb. 1966, The Boeing Company. "Study of Aircraft in Short Haul Transportation Systems." Vol's 1 and 11. Final Report, Seattle: Aug. 1967. Canadian Transport Commission. "Intercity Passenger Transportation Study." Ottawa: 1970. Del Balzo, Joseph M.. "Economic and Technical Feasibility Analysis of Establishing on A l l Weather V/S.T.O.L. Transportation Systems." F.A.A. Washington, D.C.: May 1967. Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Stanford University. "A Design Study of a Metropolitan Air Transit System," N.A.S.A. CR 73362. Palo Alto, California: Aug. 1969. Flight Transportation Laboratory. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "A Systems Analysis of Short Haul Transportation." CR. 8565. Cambridge; Aug. 1965. Fort, Donald M.. "Systems Analysis as an Aid in Air Transportation Planning." The Rand Corporation. Santa Monica, California: Jan. 1966. Institut du Transport Aerien, "A German Case Study in Short-Haul Air Transport." Doc. 64/13-E. Paris: 1964. I n s t i t u t du T r a n s p o r t A e r i e n . " F r o n t i e r A v i a t i o n The C a n a d i a n P i c t u r e . " Doc. 64/13-E. P a r i s : 1964. I n s t i t u t du T r a n s p o r t A e r i e n . "The Economic and S o c i a l Consequences o f A i r T r a n s p o r t and i t s T e c h n i c a l P r o g r e s s i n Wes t e r n E u r o p e : P r e s e n t and F u t u r e Trends and P r o b l e m s . " Study 61/6. P a r i s : Feb. 1961. L e a , N.D. and A s s o c i a t e s . " T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Systems f o r t h e C i t y o f V a n c o u v e r . " Vancouver: T r a f f i c Department. C i t y E n g i n e e r i n g Department. Nov. 1968. Le a . N.D. and A s s o c i a t e s . "Sea I s l a n d A c c e s s and N o r t h Arm of t h e F r a s e r C r o s s i n g s , " R e p o r t t o t h e Government o f Canada and The P r o v i n c e o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . Department o f Highways. V a n c o u v e r : Nov. 1967. M a r t i n , A l b e r t , C. and A s s o c i a t t e s , "A P r o j e c t D e f i n i t i o n Study of a M e t r o p o r t f o r S.T.O.L. and V.T.O.L. a i r c r a f t f o r t h e C i t y o f L os A n g e l e s C a l i f o r n i a . " L os A n g e l e s : 1 9 6 9 . M c D o n n e l l A i r c r a f t Corp. " T e c h n i c a l and Economic E v a l u a t i o n s o f A i r c r a f t f o r I n t e r - C i t y S h o r t H a u l T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , " V o l ' s 1, 11 and 111. St.. L o u i s : 1966. Meshenburg, M i c h a e l J . . " P l a n n i n g t h e A i r p o r t E n v i r o n m e n t . " A.S.P.O. R e p o r t #231, C h i c a g o : 1968. N a t i o n a l Academy o f E n g i n e e r i n g . A e r o n a u t i c a l and Space E n g i n e e r i n g B o a r d . " C i v i l A v i a t i o n R e s e a r c h and Development. An Assessment o f F e d e r a l Government I n v o l v e m e n t . " W a s h i n g t o n D.C: Aug. 1968. New Y o r k S t a t e O f f i c e o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n . " O p t i m i z i n g Common C a r r i e r T e r m i n a l L o c a t i o n . " A l b a n y , New Y o r k : Nov. 1965. M o r r i s s e y , E.G. "An A p p r o x i m a t e Method f o r C a l c u l a t i n g C r i t i c a l Gust S t a t i s t i c s f o r S.T.O.L. A i r c r a f t O p e r a t i o n s . " C a n a d i a n M e t e o r o l o g i a l R e s e a r c h R e p o r t . Department o f T r a n s p o r t , M e t e o r o l o g i c a l B r a n c h . Ottawa: A p r i l 1970. N a t i o n a l A n a l y s t s I n c . "The Needs and D e s i r e s o f T r a v e l e r s i n (( t h e N o r t h e a s t C o r r i d o r : A S u r v e y o f t h e Dynamics o f Mode C h o i c e : P h i l a d e l p h i a , P.A.: Feb. 1970. P e a r s o n , P.M. and M c L a u g h l i n W.A. " D e r i v i n g t h e T r a f f i c Consequences o f A i r p o r t L o c a t i o n a l A l t e r n a t i v e s . " Highway  R e s e a r c h R e c o r d . No. 322. W a s h i n g t o n : 1970. Pe.ndakur, V. S e t t y , T a s s i e , P e t e r , G r i g g s , N e i l J . . " M u l t i p l e Use o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o r r i d o r s i n Canada: P a r t 1, C o n c e p t u a l and L e g a l A s p e c t s . " The S c h o o l o f Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g , The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . V a n c o u v e r : J u l y , 1969. 0-3 Pendakur, V. Setty, Tassie, Peter, Griggs Neil J.. "Multiple Use of Transportation Corridors in Canada, Part 11 Socio-Economic Impact and Transportation Consequences," The School of Community and Regional Planning. The University of Br i t i s h Columbia. Vancouver: Oct. 1969. San Diego County Comprehensive Planning Organization. "Air Transportation Background and Policy Study." San Diego: Nov. 1969. Science Council of Canada. Report of the Committee on Transportation. "A Canadian S.T.O.L. Air Transport System - A Major Program." Ottawa: Aug. 1970. Southern California Association of Government. "Southern California Regional Airport System Study." Los Angeles: Sept. 6, 1968. System Analysis and Research Corp.. "Economic Analysis of Short-Haul Transport." Boston, Mass.: March 15, 1964. Articles Bakke, Oscar. "S.T.O.L. operations i n the City Center." Astronautics and Aeronautics. (Feb. 1966) pp. 30-32. Barnes, Wallis, Dr. "Case for Small Long-Range S.T.O.L. Transports." Flight International,(Oct. 28, 1965). pp. 738-739. Barriage, Joan, B.. "S.T.O.L. and V.T.O.L. Air Transportation From the Ground Up." Astronautics and Aeronautics. (Sept. 1968) pp. 44-52. Bates, G.P. and Barriage, Joan. "V/S.T.O.L. Ports and Short Haul Air Transportation," A.S.C.E. -A.O.C.I. Conference on Airport Terminal F a c i l i t e s . (Houston: 1967) p. 169. Boorer, N.W. and Davey, B.J.. "The Characteristic and Problems Associated with V/S.T.O.L. Operations." Aircraft Engineering. (March 1969) pp. 19-30. Briemb.orn, Edward, A. . "Terminal Access and the Choice of Intercity Modes." Transportation Engineering Journal of the A.S.C.E. Vol. 95, No. TE3, Proc. Paper 6731 (Aug. 1969) pp. 483-481. Brown, David A. "Airport, Terminal Saving Found for S.T.O.L." Aviation Week and Space Technology. (July 20, 1970) p. 28. Brown, David A. "Users Study Joint S.T.O.L. Program." Aviation  Week and Space Technology. (July 1, 1970) p. 23-24. 0-4 Brown, John F.. "Airport Accessibility Affects Passenger Development." Air Transport Journal of A.S.C.E.. Vol. 91, AT. 1, Proc. Paper 4302 (April, 1965) pp. 47-58. Brown, John F.. "Environmental Aspects of Airport System Planning.1' Transportation Engineering Journal of A.S.C.E.. Vol. 96, TE.4 Proc. Paper 7674, (Nov. 1970) pp. 543-559. Buckely, James C . "The Effect of Airport Distance on Tra f f i c Generation." Journal of the Air Transport Division of A.S.C.E.. Proc. Paper 978 (May 1956) p. 978. Buley, George, L.. "The S.T.O.L. Port and i t s Environment." Paper delivered to a Conference on S.T.O.L. Transport Aircraft Noise Certification. D.O.T., F.A.A. Office of Noise Abatement. Washington, D.C: Jan, 1969. Crossfield, A. Scott. "Short Haul Concepts in Perspective." Astronautics and Aeronautics. (Dec. 1970) pp. 46-55. Darden, B.F.L. and Kuhn., M.I.. "Developing a Stolport Policy for the City-Center." Canadian Aeronautics and Space Journal. (May, 1970) pp. 191-196. Davoud, P.Y. and Heaslip, W.T.. "The Prospect of V/S.T.O.L. Aircraft in Future A i r l i n e Operations." Transportation Research  Forum. (Dec, 1968) pp. 55-66. Doganis, R.. "Traffic Forecasting and the Gravity ModelV, Flight International. (Sept. 29, 1966) pp. 547-548. Fisch, Bruce, H.. "Why New York Has no Stolport." Astronautic and Aeronautics. (Dec. 1970) pp. 22-28. Gill e s . J.A. "Choosing New Transport Ai r c r a f t . " Canadian  Aeronautics and Space Journal. (Jan, 1964) pp. 1-6. Hawkins, W i l l i s , M.. "The Next 50 Years in Aviation." Astronautics  and Aeronautics. (July 1, 1965) pp. 90-95. Hiscocks, R.D. and Tabourek, R.J.. "Ports for S.T.O.L. Some Observations." S.A.E. Transactions 680274. 1968. Hiscocks, R.D.. "S.T.O.L. Aircraft - A Perspective." The Aeronautical Journal. Volume 72. No. 685 (January 1968) pp. 11-33. Jordon, Richard, H.. "Airport Location in Relation to Urban Transport." Journal of the Aero-Space Transport Division of the A.S.C.E.. Proc. Paper 3245 (aug. 1962) p. 99. Kahn, Joel F. "V/S.T.O.L. A i r l i n e System Simulation." Journal of  Aircraft . Vol. 5, No. 3. (May-June) 1968) pp. 306-311. Kawa, Myron M.. "Helistop Noise Levels." Paper presented to the Second National Conference on the Planning and Designing of Urban Helicopter F a c i l i t i e s . Los Angeles, California: Oct. 1962. 0-5 Koloden, Spero A.. "R e l i a b i l i t y with S.T.O.L.." Journal of  Aircraft, Vol. 5. No. 5 (Sept. - Oct. 1968) pp. 443-449. Kuhn, Richard E. , Mark W. Kelly arid Curt Holzhauser-r "Bringing V/S.T.O.L.'s Downtown." Astronautics and Aeronautics. (Sept, 1965) pp. 18-24. Lucking, A.J.. "Longest Queries are for the Fastest Journeys." Flight International. (June 26, 1969) p. 1046. Nawy, Edward G. and Bright, Cooper, B.. "Floating V/S.T.O.L. Airport Proposed." C i v i l Engineering. A.S.C.E. (July, 1967) p. 45. Newnes, C.R.. "The Performance of S.T.O.L. Ai r c r a f t . " Flight  International. (May 1, 1969) p. 721. Marshall, E.E.. "The Role of Aircraft i n Future Transport Systems." Aircraft Engineering. (May, 1969) pp. 21-28. McDougall, Neil. "Dorniers Skyservant." Rotor and Wing, (Nov. Dec. 1970) p. 28-31. McGrath, Dorn C. Jr.. "Compatible Land Use." Airport Terminal F a c i l i t i e s , A.S.C.E. - A0C1 Specialty Conference. (Houston: A p r i l 1967). Miller, Rene H. and Simpson, Robert W.. "V/S.T.O.L. i n the Northeast Corridor." Astronautics and Aeronautics. (Sept. 1968) pp. 28-29. Ransome, Robin K.. "S.T.O.L. - Creating on Good Neighbour." Astronautics and Aeronautics. (Dec. 1970) pp. 30-37. Sawyer, Robert. "Reducing Jet Pollution Before i t Becomes Serious." Astronautics and Aeronautics. (April, 1970) pp. 62-67. Schaefer, Vincent J.. "The Threat of The Unseen." Saturday Review. (Feb. 6, 1971) p. 7. Simpson, Robert W.. "Future Short Haul Air Transportation In the Northeast Corridor of the U.S.A.." Canadian Aeronautics and Space Journal. (December, 1966) pp. 383-391. r Shapiro, Nathan and Healy, Gerald J.. "A Realistic Assessment of the Vertiport Community Noise Problem." Journal of Aircraft. (July-Aug., 1968) pp. 407-411. Stratford, Alan H.. "Looking Ahead in Aviation Airports and Air Transport." The Aeronautical Journal. (May 1969) p. 373. Summer, H.A.C.. "Trends in Short Haul/Transportation." Canadian  Aeronautics and Space Journal. (Sept., 1966) pp. 263 - 267. Templin, R.J.. "Aerodynamics Low and Slow." Canadian Aeronautics  and Space Journal. (Oct., 1970) pp. 318-322. Wragg, David, W.. "Air Versus Rail.™ Flight International. (Oct. 9, 1969) p. 556. Wetmore, Joseph W. "V/S.T.O.L. Transports and their Terminal Requirements." Journal of the Aero Space Transport Division of  A.S.C.E. Vol. 92 A t l Proc. Paper 4612 (Jan. 1966) pp. 27-93. Zimmerman, C.H.. "The Future of Short Haul Aviation." Canadian Aeronautics and Space Journal (December 1964) pp. 303-307. "Advances in V/S.T.O.L. Technology." Interavia. V.25, No. 1., Jan. 1970. "Applications Decision i s a Key Hurdle." Aviation Week and Space  Technology. (June 22, 1970) pp. 144-150. *S & R Gets Buffaloes to Replace 01'Albert," Canadian Aviation. (Oct. 1970) p. 23. "Canadian Accented V/S.T.O.L." Flight International. (Oct. 1970) p. 534-538. "Eastern Unveils Its Inter-City Ideas." Flight International. (Aug. 28, 1969) p. 308. "Floating Stolport: More Than an Engineering Problem." Astronautics and Aeronautics. (Aug. 1970) p. 15. "German V/S.T.O.L. Projects." Flight International. (Nov. 27, 1969) p. 836. "Is Short Distance Air Transport Really Rapid?" I.T.A. Bulletin. No. 40, (Nov. 1969) pp. 919-922. "Lockheeds V/S.T.O.L. Proposals." Flight International. (Nov. 27, 1969) p. 835. "New Thinking on D.H.C. 7," Flight International. (June 19, 1969) p. 1007. "S.T.O.L. or V.T.O.L. for Future Inter-City Air Transport?" Interavia. (Jan. 1970) pp. 45-49. "S.T.O.L. Transports Seen Growing with Airport Access Problems." Aviation Week and Space Technology. (Jan, 9, 1967) p. 11. "S.T.O.L. - Long Run to Takeoff." Astronautics and Aeronautics. (April, 1969) pp. 4-12. "S.T.O.L. The Coming Invasion of America." Rotor and Wing. (Nov. - Dec, 1970) p. 22-75. "Stolports." Flight International. (April 10, 1969) p. 1. "Towards the Inter-City Era." Flight International, (Nov. 27, 1969) p. 833. Government Publications Air Transport Board. "Airline Passenger Origin and Destination Statistics Domestic Report." Ottawa: 1967. Canada, Parliament. "National Transportation Act." 13-14-15 Elizabeth 11, Feb. 1967. Department of Transport. "Air Transportation Statistics and Forecasts, Air T r a f f i c Movements - Passenger - Cargo." Ottawa; Dec. 1969. F.A.A. "Intermin Design C r i t e r i a for Metropolitan S.T.O.L. Ports and S.T.O.L. Runways." Order 5325.3 Washington: 1969. F.A.A. "Planning the Metropolitan Airport System." Advisory Circular 150/5070-2 Washington: 1966. F.A.A. "Model Airport Zoning Ordinance." Advisory Circular 150/5190-3, Washington, 1967. F.A.A. "Operational Evaluation of S.T.O.L. Aircraft and Related S.T.O.L. Developments." Washington: June 17, 1969. F.A.A. "Airport Capacity Critera Used in Preparing the National Airport Plan." AC 150/5060 La, Washington: 1966. Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t . Planning Department. "Traffic Volumes and Travel Times." 1967-1968, Feb. 1970. International C i v i l Aviation Organization. "Manual on Airport Master Planning." Doc. 8796-AN961 Montreal: 1969. Ministry of Transport. "Designated Airspace Handbook." Issue No. 45 Queens Printer, Ottawa: Nov. 1970. Ministry of Transport C i v i l Aviation Branch. "Flight Information Manual." Queens Printer for Canada, Ottawa: 1970. North Atlantic Treaty Organization Advisory Groups for Aerospace Research and Development. Aircraft Engine Noise and Sonic Boom Conference Proceedings No. 42 St. Louis, France: May, 1969. Seattle Port Commission. "Seattle-Tacoma Airport and i t s Impact on the Economy of King County." Seattle: 1962. 0-8 U.S. Government. "Statement of Col. Alvin Myer Jr. U.S. Airforce MiiS.C. Chief of Bioenvironmental Engineering, Office of the Surgeon General U.S. Airforce." Hearings before a special sub-committee on Air and Water Pollution of the committee on Public Works. United States Senate, 88th congress. Second Session, Part 2, Washington D.C,: 1964. p. 1039-40. U.S. Government. "Statement of George S. Moore, Director Flight Standards service F.A.A." Hearings before a special sub-committee on Air and Water Pollution of the Committee on Public Works. United States Senate. 88th Congress. Second Session. Part 2, Washington D.C.: 1964. p. 1139. Unpublished Material Air Transport Association of America. "Airline as Good Neighbours." Remarks of Warren N. Martin, Vic-President Public Affa i r s . Before Hawaiian Senate Committee of Public Health, Welfare and Housing. Honolulu: Feb! 11, 1970 (Mimeograph). The Boeing Company. "Model 751 C/S.T.O.L. General Description." Seattle: A p r i l 1969. The Boeing Company. • "Model 751 C/S.T.O.L. Airplane System Integration1.' Seattle: A p r i l 1969. Burke L., Cuylits, E., McDougall, D., McFadden, M., "Impact Study of a Rapid Transit Station - The Main Street Station." Term paper for Planning 550 B. School of Community and Regional Planning. U.B.C. Ap r i l 1970. Decca System Incorporated. Information Release. Washington D.C. no date (Mimeograph). The De Havilland Company of Canada. "A Guide to S.T.O.L. Transport-ation System Planning." Downsview Ontario: Jan, 1970. De Havilland Aircraft of Canada. "The De Havilland D.H.C. 7 Quiet Airliner'." Downsview Ontario: June, 1970. De"Havilland Aircraft of Canada. "The D.H.C. 7 Quiet S.T.O.L. Ai r l i n e r : Performance." Downsview Ontario: Sept., 1969. Eastern Airlines, McDonnell Douglas. "Eastern, McDonnell-Douglas Demonstrate New Aircraft Ideas for Air Shuttle." Information Release. New York, N.Y.: Sept 23, 1969. Eastern A i r l i n e s , McDonnell Aircraft Company. "S.T.O.L. Demonstration Program: Technical Report.V New York, N.Y.: March, 1969. Eastern Air l i n e s . "Engineering Report. Operational Requirements and Guidelines for V/S.T.O.L. Systems." New York, N.Y.: Aug. 1969. Lewis, Kingsley. "Residential Areas and Airport Locational C r i t e r i a . " Unpublished M.A. Thesis, U.B.C, 1970. Marathon Realty Company. "Proposals for The North Shore of False Creek Vancouver, B.C." A p r i l 17, 1969. Tassie, P. and Griggs, Neil J. "The Growth and Transportation Implication of Port Development: A Case Study, Vancouver, B.C." Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis, School of Community and Regional Planning, U.B.C, 1970. A P P E N D I X O N E Estimated Cost-Revenue Relationships For Urban Area S.T.O.L. Airports: Vancouver 1972-1992 The purpose of this appendix i s to estimate the basic cost-revenue relationships that might result from the construction and operation of an S.T.O.L. airport i n the Vancouver urban area. The cost-revenue relationships are calculated for an elevated two level S.T.O.L. airport b u i l t over a road or railway yard in one case, and a structure b u i l t over a wharf or pier i n the other case. Calculations were also made to determine the cost-revenue relationships of a floating S.T.O.L. airport. It i s assumed in that the airports would begin operating on Jan.l, 1972. The period under consideration extends from 1972 to 1992. The cost-revenue relationships w i l l be examined from the point of view of the Ministry of Transport. The elevated S.T.O.L. airport i s assumed to have two levels, or decks, each of which w i l l have 550,000 square feet of floor space. The upper deck would be used entirely for a i r operations and the lower deck would serve as a terminal area and car park. Any unused space could be leased for use as warehouse space, u n t i l the passenger t r a f f i c increased to the point where the space would be required for car parking and terminal needs. A l l of the space on the floating S.T.O.L. airport i s assumed to be required for aircraft operations and terminal needs. What follows is a discussion of the method used to calculate the basic cost-revenue relationships. F i r s t , the yearly number of passenger trips was determined by linear interpolation of the forecasts detailed in Table 4-2. The total number of fli g h t s per year was determined by dividing the total yearly passengers by an average number of passengers per f l i g h t . It was assumed that from the beginning of 1972 u n t i l the end of 1984 a 48 passenger S.T.O.L. aircr a f t , having an average load factor of 60 percent, would be the principal air c r a f t i n use. It was further assumed that in 1985 a 120 passenger S.T.O.L. ai r c r a f t , also having a 60 percent load factor, would enter service. The number of peak hour passengers per day was calculated using the ratio of one peak hour passenger per 2000 annual passengers."'' Once the peak hour passenger volumes were determined, the number of parking spaces that would be required was calculated using a standard of 1.5 parking 2 spaces per peak hour passenger. The total area needed for parking each year was calculated using a standard of 276 square feet per 3 parking space. "Terminal area space requirements were calculated using 4 the standard of 100 square feet per peak hour passenger. TABLE 0-1 ESTIMATED ANNUAL S.T.O.L. FLIGHTS Year 1975 1972 28,930 44,310 28,740 23,420 (48 passenger ai r c r a f t , average load factor .60) 1980 1990 1985 36,847 39,000 (120 passenger airc r a f t , average load factor .60) 1992 TABLE 0-2 S.T.O.L. TERMINAL BUILDING REQUIREMENTS Year Peak Hour Parking Spaces Passengers Required Parking Area Terminal Building Square Feet Area Square Feet 1972 309 464 127,000 30,000 1975 380 570 157,000 38,000 1980 585 875 242,000 58,500 1985 940 1420 392,000 94,000 1990 1200 1800 496,000 120,000 1992 1312 1970 545,000 131,000 Capital Costs (1970 Dollars) Elevated S.T.O.L. Airport 5 Structural and Architectual Site preparation Heating and Plumbing E l e c t r i c a l . $10,000,000 730,000 1,230,000 1,140,000 $13,110,000 Design Fee 4% Contingency 10% 524,000 1,311,000 $14,935,000 Land^ (air rights 75% of land cost) Parking expansion 2,052,000 714,400 TOTAL $17,701,400 Additional cost to build an elevated S.T.O.L. airport over a wharf or pier. 2,100,000 TOTAL $19,801,400 Floating S.T.O.L. Airport and Terminal Building 7 (no details available) $15,000,000 8 Maintenance and Operating Costs. Terminal building $1.50 per square foot per year. Airstrip and Parking Lot $320,000 per year. Using the S.T.O.L. terminal building requirements outlined i n Table 0-1 and a discount rate of 5 percent the present values of operating and maintenance costs were determined for the twenty years under consideration. Terminal Building $1,044,800 Airs t r i p and Parking Lot 4,361,770 TOTAL $5,406,570 Revenue Parking fees are assumed to be 25c per hour. It i s also assumed that the parking lot w i l l have a 50 percent daily occupancy for a 16 hour day. The twenty year discounted value of "these fees is $9,190,300. Warehouse space was assumed to rent for $1.20 per sq. f t . per year. It was further assumed that a l l space offered would be rented. The present value of warehouse rental income i s $3,804,200. Terminal rent was calculated assuming 6,000 square feet of terminal space would be required for public space and airport administration. A l l 9 other space was assumed to be rentable at $2.50 per square foot per year. The discounted value of rental income i s $1,557,800. The revenue from landing fees was calculated based on a fee of $7.50 per a r r i v a l for the 48 passenger aircraft and $15.00 per a r r i v a l for the 120 passenger aircraft."'' 0 The present value of this income is $2,022,500. The revenue from terminal fees was calculated on the basis of $1.00 per 5 arriving s e a t s . ^ The discounted value of this income is $5,776,500. Elevated S.T.O.L. Airport Total Cost Total Revenue Terminal Building Maintenance and Operation $17,701,400 5,406,570  $23,107,970 Parking Fees Warehouse Rent Terminal Rent Landing Fees Terminal Fees 9,190,300 3,804,200 1,557,800 2,022,500 5,776,500  $22,351,300 Net Cost $756,670 Elevated S.T.O.L. Airport over Wharf or Dock Total Cost Total Revenue Terminal Building Maintenance and Operation $19,801,400 5,406,570  $25,207^970 $22,351,300 Net Cost $2,856,670 Floating S.T.O.L. Airport Total Cost Floating Structure 12 Parking Garage Maintenance $15,000,000 3,384,310 5,406,570 $23,790,880 Total Revenue Parking Fees Terminal Rent Landing Fees Terminal Fees 9,190,300 3,804,200 2,022,500 5,776,500  $20,793,500 Net Cost $2,997,380 0-15 F O O T N O T E S 1) McDonnell Aircraft Corp., "Technical and Economic Evaluation of Aircraft for Intercity Short Haul Transportation." Vol. 3 St. Louis, Mo., 1966, pp. 24-35. 2) Ibid. 3) Ibid. 4) Ibid. 5) Ibid. 6) Greater Vancouver Real Estate Board, "Real Estate Trends i n Metropolitan Vancouver," 1969, Supplement: Vancouver 1970. 7) Robin Ransome. "S.T.O.L. - Creating a Good Neighbour," Astronautics and Aeronautics, Vol. 12, Dec. 1970 p. 33. 8) McDonnell Aircraft Corp., "Technical and Economic Fe a s i b i l i t y , " pp. 24-35. 9) Greater Vancouver Real Estate Board, "Real Estate Trends . . .," 1969 Supplement. 10) Ministry of Transport, C i v i l Aviation Branch, "Flight Information Manual," Queens Printer for Canada. Ottawa: 1970 p. 3-17. 11) Information provided by the Airport Managers Office, Vancouver International Airport. A p r i l 6, 1970. 12) Information provided by the Downtown Parking Corporation, Vancouver British Columbia, A p r i l 6, 1970. I 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0102021/manifest

Comment

Related Items