Citizens Against Airport Pollution, P.O. Box 26142, San Jose, CA 95159 (408)297-9753 - October 1996
Airport Noise Complaint Line - 998-0707 (To bypass message, push #)
September was a busy month for meetings...
CAAP members have been meeting with San Jose City Council members to discuss variety of airport-related issues over the past few months. Noise and curfew penetrations of course are our primary concern, but economics, benefit to the city, and mechanical defects and the delays they cause are also discussed.
- Sept. 08 - Alice Woody (Dist. 8)
- Sept. 12 - David Pandori (Dist. 3)
- Sept. 15 - Manny Diaz (Dist. 5)
- Sept. 16 - Frank Fiscalini (Dist. 6)
A meeting with Margie Fernandez will be rescheduled and we are planning to meet with John De Quisto, George Shirakawa, Charotte Powers, Trixie Johnson, and Pat Dando later this fall.
Noise variance extension without public input?
Lyle Johnson, our Santa Clara rep, attended the Sept. 13 San Jose City Council meeting during which San Jose requested state approval of an extension of the airport noise variance without holding a public hearing.
Although Lyle is not sure whether the request will be granted, he reports that concerned citizens can always provide input by sending their written comments to CalTrans hearing officer Dick Dyer at the following address:
Dept. of Transportation
Aeronautics Program
1130 K Street, 4th Floor
P.O. Box 942873
Sacramento, CA 94273
Upcoming community workshops
According to the San Jose Airport Commission agenda for September 9, there will be community workshops on the Airport Master Plan tentatively scheduled for November 4, 11, 18 and December 2 and 9.
CAAP is not sure what the format of these meetings will be at this time, but we will update members in upcoming newsletters.
Lenora Porcella,
CAAP Chairman
Noise Report for April '96
The number of people calling the noise report line continues to increase while the number of complaints was six less than in the month of March.
Complaints are almost evenly split between San Jose and Santa Clara, and the number of complaints from neighborhoods NOT surrounding the airport are as high as from those surrounding the airport¾seems like it's difficult to get away from the noise...
We had 50 curfew intrusions this month and almost half of them were due to weather-related causes. American Airlines flight 399, for example, left after curfew hours 7 times during the month, with no penalty...perhaps it's time for airport staff to reevaluate the schedule to facilitate ontime departures for a higher percentage of the time? United Airlines has been notified and had continuing discussions with our airport station manager to review our Noise Control Program requirements because of two noncompliant curfew penetrations.
A business planner's look at SJIA expansion
By Russ McBrien,
Business Planning Manager
Operations Services Division
Hewlett Packard Co
Editor's note: This is an edited version of Russ' very insightful article. Please see CAAP's website for the full text.
Soon, the San Jose City Council will consider investing in the airport to substantially grow its passenger and cargo handling capacity.
Is this a good idea?
After reviewing the past 10 years of airport activity and correlating it to San Jose metro area employment and retail sales data, it can be determined that SJIA has had little or no direct beneficial impact on the economy of San Jose; in fact, a case could be made that increased air traffic - especially night time cargo activity could slow or reverse the revitalization of San Jose's downtown, which lies directly under the airport flight path.
Substantial airport growth 85-95
From 1985 to 1995, SJIA air passenger traffic grew 90% to nearly 9 million annually. Moreover, air cargo grew from 1,000 gross tons to over 7720 tons¾a 665% increase.
By comparison, employment in the San Jose metro area has remained static. From 1985 to 1995, employment grew only 3.9% even though the population grew 26.4%.
If the airport is an engine of job creation and economic growth, it is not benefiting greater San Jose!
How can this be the case when the City of San Jose's aviation department has sponsored research that claims that the airport is the third or fourth largest economic engine in the area? Three things must be understood about the economic benefit studies used to date.
Multiplier Assumptions
The first is that SJIA relies heavily on economic multipliers. Multipliers presume that a large portion of salary generated in a local area will remain in the area and flow back into the economy, generating more profits and wages that then are re-spent creating more jobs and so on. This model works well in isolated communities without easy access to alternative economic outlets. SJIA's underlying assumptions fall short in a complex multi-metro area like the Bay Area.
Transportation and Cargo Alternatives
Second, the economic studies have not included the transportation alternatives of San Francisco and Oakland airports in their assumptions. San Jose's high-tech economy was largely built up before the recent expansion and traffic growth at SJIA. In fact, it is very possible that SFO and OAK cargo facilities generate more jobs in San Jose than the cargo facilities at SJIA. When you map low-cost and convenient manufacturing facilities by distance to Oakland or SFO, San Jose has a distinct advantage as a plant location: it is close enough to those airports for convenient cargo management, yet still affordable for a manufacturing or assembly site. If SJIA becomes a major cargo hub, areas far to the south of San Jose could become comparatively more attractive than San Jose.
Negative Impacts
Third, the economic studies have not taken into consideration any negative economic impacts caused by increased operations at SJIA. The models used work well for a remote single airport location such as Nashville, where the airport is the only link to the national economic infrastructure. Its location outside of town also mitigates negative impact, and in fact, sparks development of airport support business and nearby office parks.
In that scenario, the airport is a major infrastructure element that can drive the local economy forward or hold it back. By contrast, SJIA's central location and the positioning of the jet flight path over several of San Jose's residential districts create a very different economic mix. Airport facilities may indeed attract businesses to the general area but a falling quality of life may keep them out of San Jose and drive out affluent residents as well.
Correct Methodology Used?
There are several methods for assessing the economic impact of governmental infrastructure investments. The methods used to forecast the economic contribution of SJIA have predicted a high correlation between airport traffic, retail spending, and job creation; however, actual measurements of these factors by the San Jose Chamber of Commerce and SJIA over the past ten years do not show a statistically valid correlation between airport activity and economic growth in the metro San Jose or greater Santa Clara County regions.
This raises serious concerns regarding the use of standard airport economic modeling for the metro San Jose area. The faults may be caused by various factors, including:
·the models' fundamental logic may be sound, but the assumed contribution and multiplying factors may not be accurate for San Jose.
·the models were designed for single-airport regions (such as Nashville) and may not be applicable to regions with multiple major airports, such as the Bay Area, where alternative air transport choices are readily available.
Will Economic Benefits to San Jose Outweigh Costs?
This brings into question the key justification for additional capital investment in SJIA. Without more accurate economic modeling, should the City of San Jose assume the additional debt risk associated with expansion at SJIA? Perhaps the City Council should look at alternate ways of improving the quality of life in the area so that San Jose will remain attractive to the highly trained professionals that are the lifeblood of Silicon Valley. Quality schools and quiet, safe neighborhoods are more important in attracting top talent to the area than a few more direct flights. Surely Silicon Valley industry is the engine that drives the local economy: in the first quarter of 1996 $464 million in venture capital funds flowed into our area (source: Ernst & Young). A bigger airport has not brought investment capital into Oakland. Quality of life has brought it to San Jose.
When business planners like myself look at new locations, we look for low taxes, affordable housing, quality of schools, and an affordable talent pool. The difference between a 5-minute or a 40-minute drive to an airport is not a deciding factor in location. For example, Hewlett-Packard continues to grow our Sacramento sites. The 90+ minute drive to SFO is considered quite acceptable for international travel. However, if a community spoils its nest by accepting noisy or polluting facilities, I will typically look elsewhere.
Wanted: Stone-deaf Newsletter Editor!
CAAP is losing its reservoir of talented editors who can't tolerate any further airplane noise disturbances/instrusions in their homes. Long-time editor Kathy Van Dam and husband Chuck are loving their new 3-acre, stunningly quiet home on the western outskirts of Auburn, CA. Likewise, current editor Carrie Moley and husband Ed have ``really had it with airplane noise'' and are planning to put their home on the market in the spring.
As a result, CAAP is seriously looking for a replacement editor for our newsletter. Past experience has shown it is in our long-term interests to seek a deaf but computer wise editor; however, we would welcome any and all volunteers, as keeping our members informed and involved is of critical importance¾especially with the advent of the upcoming airport master plan hearings.
|
YES ! I want to fight Airport Pollution