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 (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 > •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• 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