New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Area Airspace Redesign Volume One: Documentation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT NEW YORK/NEW JERSEY/PHILADELPHIA METROPOLITAN AREA AIRSPACE REDESIGN VOLUME ONE: DOCUMENTATION July 2007 Prepared by: United States Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Area Airspace Redesign EIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 delegates FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental various responsibilities to the Federal Impacts: Policies and Procedures. Aviation Administration (FAA) including controlling the use of the navigable airspace ES.1 PURPOSE AND NEED and regulating civil and military operations in that airspace in the interest of maintaining The basic air traffic environment for the the safety and efficiency of both of these NY/NJ/PHL Metropolitan Area airspace was operations. In its effort to continually designed and implemented in the 1960s. maintain safety and increase efficiency of Since that time, the volume of air traffic and the airspace, the FAA is proposing to the type of aircraft that use the air traffic redesign the airspace in the NY/NJ/PHL control (ATC) system have changed Metropolitan Area. significantly. However, the basic structure of the NY/NJ/PHL airspace has essentially This redesign was conceived as a system for remained the same and has not been more efficiently directing Instrument Flight adequately modified to address changes in Rule (IFR) aircraft to and from major the aviation industry, including increasing airports in the NY/NJ/PHL Metropolitan traffic levels and the use of new aircraft Area, including John F. Kennedy types. Therefore, the Airspace Redesign is International Airport (JFK) and LaGuardia needed to accommodate growth while Airport (LGA) in New York, Newark maintaining safety and mitigating delays, Liberty International Airport (EWR) and and to accommodate changes in the types of Teterboro Airport (TEB) in New Jersey, and aircraft using the system (e.g., smaller Philadelphia International Airport (PHL) in aircraft, more jet aircraft). The purpose of Pennsylvania. the Airspace Redesign is to increase the efficiency and reliability of the airspace The purpose of this Environmental Impact structure and ATC system. Statement (EIS) is to evaluate the environmental effects of the NY/NJ/PHL ES.2 PROPOSED ACTION Metropolitan Area Airspace Redesign (Airspace Redesign) in accordance with the The Proposed Action for this EIS is to National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 redesign the airspace in the NY/NJ/PHL (NEPA).1 This EIS was officially initiated Metropolitan Area. This involves when the FAA issued a Notice of Intent developing new routes and procedures to (NOI) to prepare an EIS on January 22, take advantage of improved aircraft 2001. The format and subject matter in this performance and emerging ATC environmental study conform to the technologies. requirements and standards of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) The Proposed Action does not include any regulations2 and the FAA as set forth in physical changes or development of facilities, nor does it require local or state actions. Therefore, no physical alteration to any environmental resource would occur 1 P.L. 91-190, 32 USC Section 3321 et. seq. and no permits/licenses would be required. 2 40 CFR Part 1500 Additionally, the Airspace Redesign would ES-1 New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Area Airspace Redesign EIS not require changes to any Airport Layout • Modifications to Existing Airspace Plan and infrastructure funding is not Alternative, which includes expected to be necessary. modifications to current routes and procedures to improve efficiency in the Since the Airspace Redesign involves current airspace system; modifications to airspace configuration and air traffic management procedures, the • Ocean Routing Airspace Alternative, project requires direct FAA action in order proposed by the NJ Citizens for to be implemented. This consists of the Environmental Research (NJCER), design, development, implementation, and which moves all flights departing from use of new or modified ATC procedures and Newark International Airport over the reconfigured airspace. Atlantic Ocean before turning in the direction of their final destinations; and ES.3 ALTERNATIVES • Integrated Airspace Alternative, The examination of alternatives is of critical integrates the New York Terminal Radar importance to the environmental review Approach Control’s (New York process. Those alternatives that meet the TRACON’s) airspace with portions of Purpose and Need are included for detailed surrounding Air Route Traffic Control environmental analysis for the study years of Centers’ airspace to operate more 2006 and 2011. seamlessly. The range of alternatives considered in EIS These alternatives are described in the sub- include those within the following sections that follow. Descriptions of each categories: (1) alternative modes of alternative are followed by a summary of the transportation and communication, (2) Purpose and Need evaluation. The changes in airport use, (3) congestion alternatives are evaluated based on Purpose management programs, (4) improved air and Need, operational viability, and traffic control technology, and (5) airspace operational efficiency criteria. Operational redesign. Of the five categories of potential viability refers to whether a particular alternatives considered, alternatives one airspace redesign is workable and thus, safe. through four are not carried forward for Operational viability criteria include reduced detailed analysis because they do not meet airspace complexity and reduced voice the Purpose and Need. Airspace Redesign is communications. Operational efficiency the only category that offers the potential to refers to how well a particular design works. meet the Purpose and Need because the Operational efficiency criteria include: airspace redesign can result in an air traffic reduced delay; balanced controller system with enhanced safety, reduced workload; meeting system demands; delays, and the ability to accommodate improved user access to the system; growth. expedited arrivals and departures; increased flexibility in routing; and maintaining This EIS considers four airspace redesign airport throughput. alternatives including: • Future No Action Alternative, which assumes no changes to the existing airspace; ES-2 New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Area Airspace Redesign EIS ES.3.1 Future No Action Airspace South departure gate. In addition, the PHL Alternative East departure gate would be shifted to the east; PHL departures to the east would have Although it does not meet the Purpose and to continue farther east before tuning to the Need of the Proposed Airspace Redesign northeast. Project, the Future No Action Airspace Alternative is analyzed as required by NEPA Arrivals in the Modifications to Existing and CEQ regulations. Note that under the Airspace Alternative would not be changed Future No Action Airspace Alternative, the from today’s configuration. airspace will operate as it did during existing or baseline conditions (2000), with the The Modifications to Existing Airspace exception of two procedural changes (i.e., Alternative enhances safety by reducing the Dual Modena and the Robinsville- complexity. This alternative improves Yarley Flip-Flop) that have been efficiency by increasing flexibility, implemented and have independent utility maintaining airport throughput, and with regards to the Airspace Redesign. As expediting departures. Therefore, this is a these changes have been implemented, they reasonable alternative for meeting the are included as part of the Future No Action Purpose and Need of the Airspace Redesign Airspace Alternative. The only major and is carried forward for a detailed difference between this alternative and environmental analysis. present day operations will be in the type and quantity of aircraft operations otherwise ES.3.3 Ocean Routing Alternative known as the flight schedule. The Ocean Routing Airspace Alternative is a ES.3.2 Modifications to Existing proposal that was originally developed by Airspace Alternative the NJ Citizens for Environmental Research, Inc. (NJCER) at the request of the NJ This alternative takes the current routes and Coalition Against Aircraft Noise 3 procedures and modifies them to improve (NJCAAN). efficiency in the current airspace system. The differences between this alternative and The Ocean Routing Airspace Alternative the Future No Action Airspace Alternative proposes to move EWR departures out over include additional departure headings as the Atlantic Ocean prior to turning them well as shifting of the NY Metropolitan west to their final destinations. This Area airports’ South departure gate and the alternative proposes significant changes to PHL East departure gate. EWR and JFK departures. It also creates a new JFK arrival post which is located New departure headings for LGA, EWR, approximately 10 miles east of Mantoloking and PHL would be implemented as part of Shores, NJ. In addition, LGA departures this alternative. For example, a more direct flying to the North gate remain east of the LGA Ocean departure procedure would be Hudson River for a longer distance prior to added. In this alternative, the South departure gate 3“Development of Air Traffic Routings for the is shifted 10 miles to the west. Departures Mitigation of Aircraft Noise in New Jersey,” submitted to New Jersey Citizens for Environmental to the south originating from JFK, LGA, Research, Inc.; June 1993; Section 1.0 – Executive