GAO 

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

NATIONAL 

AIRSPACE SYSTEM 

Regional Airport 

Planning Could Help 

Address Congestion If 

Plans Were Integrated 

with FAA and Airport 

Decision Making 

December 2009 

GAO-10-120 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

December 2009

NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM 

Regional Airport Planning Could Help Address

Congestion If Plans Were Integrated with FAA and 

Highlights of GAO-10-120, a report to Airport Decision Making

congressional requesters 

The Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) predicts that 

the national airspace system will 

become increasingly congested 

over time, imposing costs of delay 

on passengers and regions. While 

transforming the current air-traffic 

control system to the Next 

Generation Air Transportation 

System (NextGen) may provide 

additional en route capacity, many 

airports will still face constraints at 

their runways and terminals. In 

light of these forecasts, GAO was 

asked to evaluate regional airport 

planning in metropolitan regions 

with congested airports. 

GAO (1) identified which airports 

are currently or will be significantly 

congested and the potential 

benefits of regional airport 

planning, (2) assessed how regions 

with congested airports use 

regional airport planning in 

decision making, and (3) identified 

factors that hinder or aid in the 

development and implementation 

of regional airport plans. GAO 

reviewed studies; interviewed FAA, 

airport, and other aviation and 

transportation officials; and 

conducted case studies in selected 

regions. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO is recommending that the 

Secretary of Transportation direct 

FAA to create a review process for 

RASPs and use its existing 

authority to give priority to funding 

airport projects that are consistent 

with RASPs. The Department of 

Transportation generally agreed to 

consider the revised 

recommendations. 

A number of airports are or will be significantly capacity constrained and thus 

congested within the next 16 years. However, many of them face 

environmental and other obstacles to developing additional airport capacity. 

In 2007, FAA identified 14 airports (in 10 metropolitan regions) that will be 

significantly capacity constrained by 2025, even assuming all currently 

planned improvements occur (see figure). Planned improvements include 

airport construction projects and implementation of NextGen technologies. 

Without these improvements, FAA predicts that 27 airports will be congested. 

According to the FAA assessment and other studies, regional airport planning 

may identify additional solutions, such as the increased use of alternate 

airports or other modes of travel, to help relieve airport congestion. 

Airports Forecast to Need Capacity in 2025 after Planned Improvements

Sources: GAO analysis of FAA data; Map Resources (base map).

Airports

SFO

OAK

PHX

LGB

SNA

SAN

LAS

MDW

ATL

FLL

JFK

EWR

PHL

LGA

ATL: Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International

EWR: Newark Liberty International

FLL: Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International

JFK: John F. Kennedy International

LAS: McCarran International

LGA: LaGuardia

LGB: Long Beach

MDW: Midway International

OAK: Oakland International

PHL: Philadelphia International

PHX: Phoenix Sky Harbor International

SAN: San Diego International

SFO: San Francisco International

SNA: John Wayne

From 1999 through 2008, 9 of the 10 metropolitan regions with airports 

forecast to be significantly capacity constrained by 2025 have received a total 

of $20 million in FAA funding for regional airport planning. Of those regions, 6 

have developed or will develop regional airport system plans (RASP), which 

we found largely followed FAA’s guidance for airport system planning. The 

remaining 4 regions have engaged in less comprehensive planning. FAA does 

not formally review RASPs, and they have been used selectively by FAA and 

airports in decision making for the planning and funding of individual airport 

projects. A few airport sponsors have pursued select strategies outlined in 

plans, while one airport sponsor rejected the RASP for its decision making. 

Because regional airport planning is advisory, competing interests can derail 

development and implementation. Metropolitan planning organizations 

generally develop RASPs but have no authority over airport development. 

That authority rests with airports, which are not required to incorporate 

planning recommendations into their capital plans, and with FAA, which 

makes funding decisions on the basis of national priorities. In addition, 

airport, community, and airline interests may conflict in a region. For 

example, Philadelphia International does not support planning efforts that 

may divert traffic from its airport to alternate regional airports. By contrast, 

aligned interests and FAA involvement may aid regional planning and 

implementation, as has occurred in the Boston region. 

View GAO-10-120 or key components.

For more information, contact Gerald 

Dillingham, Ph.D., at (202) 512-2834 or 

dillinghamg@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-10-120 

Contents 

Letter 1

Background 5 

Many Airports Are or Will Become Significantly Congested in 

Coming Years and Regional Airport Planning Has the Potential 

to Identify Solutions 12 

Most Regions with Significantly Congested Airports Have Engaged 

in Regional Airport Planning, but Regional Airport Plans Have 

Been Used Selectively for FAA or Airport Decision Making 23 

Since Regional Airport Planning Is Advisory, Competing Interests 

Can Derail Development and Implementation, While Aligned 

Interests Can Aid Implementation 35 

Conclusions 46 

Recommendations for Executive Action 47 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 47 

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 49 

Appendix II FACT 2 Study’s Methodology for Analyzing Future 

Airport and Metropolitan Capacity Needs 52 

Appendix III Regional Airport Planning Nationwide and in our 

Selected Regions 63 

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 69 

Tables 

Table 1: Elements of the Airport System Planning Process in FAA 

Guidance 9 

Table 2: Airports Forecast by FACT 2 as Being Significantly 

Capacity Constrained by 2025, Even If Planned 

Improvements Occur, and Their Corresponding 

Metropolitan Regions 17 

 National Airspace System 
Table 3: FAA Funding for Regional Airport Planning for Regions 

Forecast to Have Significantly Congested Airports by 2025, 

Even If Planned Improvements Occur, 1999–2008 24 

Table 4: RASP Development in Regions with Potentially Congested 

Airports 25 

Table 5: Regional Airport Planning in Those Regions with 

Potentially Congested Airports That Have Not Prepared 

RASPs 28 

Table 6: FAA Funding for Conducting or Updating Metropolitan 

System Plan Studies, 1999–2008 63 

Table 7: Aviation System Planning at Metropolitan Planning 

Organizations 64 

Figures 

Figure 1: Funding Process for Airport Improvement Projects 6 

Figure 2: Airports Needing Capacity in 2015 and 2025, Even If 

Planned Improvements Occur 13 

Figure 3: Airports Needing Capacity in 2015 and 2025, If Planned 

Improvements Do Not Occur 15 

Figure 4: Potential Extent of Bay Fill for Runway Construction at 

San Francisco International Airport (2000 Proposal) 21 

Figure 5: Service Areas for the Primary Airports in the New York–

New Jersey Region, 2005 32 

Page ii GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
Abbreviations

AAIA Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 

ACIP Airports Capital Improvement Plan 

ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program 

AIP Airport Improvement Program 

ALP airport layout plan 

ASV annual service volume 

DFW Dallas–Forth Worth International Airport 

DOT Department of Transportation 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FATE Future Air Traffic Estimator 

FDOT Florida Department of Transportation 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

FTA Federal Transportation Administration 

JFK John F. Kennedy International Airport 

LAX Los Angeles International Airport 

maglev magnetic levitation train 

MPO metropolitan planning organization 

NAS national airspace system 

NextGen Next Generation Air Transportation System 

NPIAS National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems 

OEP Operational Evolution Partnership 

RASP regional airport system plan 

SFO San Francisco International Airport 

TAF Terminal Area Forecast 

TIP Transportation Improvement Program 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 

Page iii GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
Page 1 GAO-10-120 

 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

December 23, 2009 

The Honorable John L. Mica 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Thomas E. Petri 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Aviation 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

House of Representatives 

Constrained capacity at some U.S. airports reduces the efficiency of the 

national airspace system and results in congestion and flight delays 

throughout the country. A recent study found that congestion is 

concentrated in major metropolitan areas, such as Atlanta, Chicago, 

Miami, New York, Philadelphia, and San Francisco, and that the situation 

is worsening over time.1

 In 2008, nearly one-in-four arriving flights was 

delayed more than 15 minutes at major U.S. airports, and, in the especially 

congested New York region, one-in-three flights was delayed.2

 Flight 

delays inconvenience passengers as well as impose economic costs on 

passengers, airlines, airports, and the economy. Delays at one airport can 

also impact other airports, causing a ripple effect across the national 

airspace system. Congestion also has negative impacts on the 

environment, such as increased emissions from aircraft. GAO has 

previously reported that long-term solutions to alleviating congestion and 

delay should address underlying capacity constraints at airports.3

 The 

federal government, through the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 

provided almost $3.5 billion in 2008 for airport planning and development 

through Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants. Also, airports collect 

1

Adie Tomer and Robert Puentes, Expect Delays: An Analysis of Air Travel Trends in the 

United States, Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings (October 2009). 

2

The Bureau of Transportation Statistics within the U.S. Department of Transportation 

(DOT) measures congestion—or airport on-time arrival performance—by looking at the 

percentage of flights arriving within 15 minutes of their scheduled arrival time. 

3

GAO: Next Generation Air Transportation System: Status of Key Issues Associated with 

the Transition to NextGen, GAO-08-1154T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 11, 2008). 

 National Airspace System 
 

almost another $3 billion in passenger facility charges annually that can be 

used for projects, including those aimed at increasing capacity in the 

national airspace system.4

 FAA’s Operational Evolution Partnership (OEP) 

program aims at increasing capacity and improving efficiency at the 

nation’s busiest airports through the construction of new airfield 

infrastructure, such as new or extended runways and new taxiways.5

 FAA 

is also planning to increase system capacity through technological 

improvements, such as those currently being planned and implemented in 

the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) program.6

 In 

addition, some regions are looking at ways to optimize existing and new 

regional airport capacity, including the use of alternate regional airports, 

and the potential use of alternative modes to move passengers, such as 

high-speed rail. 

Because of your interest in better meeting the nation’s transportation 

needs, you asked us to describe the role that regional airport planning 

could play in better managing airport capacity in heavily congested 

regions of the country. To address this issue, we (1) identified which 

airports are already significantly congested or are projected to be 

significantly congested and potential benefits that regional airport 

planning might offer, (2) assessed the extent to which regions with 

significantly congested airports engage in regional airport planning to help 

relieve congestion and how this planning has been used in decision 

making, and (3) identified factors that hinder or aid in the development 

and implementation of regional airport plans. 

 

4

The Passenger Facility Charge Program, authorized by 49 U.S.C. § 40117, allows for the 

collection of passenger facility fees up to $4.50 for every enplaned passenger at commerical 

service airports controlled by public agencies, with certain exceptions. Airports use these 

fees to fund FAA-approved, airport-related projects that enhance safety, security, or 

capacity; reduce noise or mitigate noise impacts; or enhance air carrier competition. See 14 

C.F.R. §§ 158.15, 158.17. 

5

According to FAA, OEP airports are commercial airports with significant activity. These 

airports serve major metropolitan areas and also serve as hubs for airline operations. More 

than 70 percent of passengers travel through these airports. Delays at the 35 OEP airports 

have a ripple effect at other airports. The 35 OEP airports were compiled in 2000 on the 

basis of lists from FAA and Congress as well as a study that identified the most congested 

airports in the United States. 

6

The NextGen program aims at combining airport expansion with other approaches, 

including regional solutions and technological and operational improvements, to meet 

future demands for aviation. As part of this effort, the NextGen program will transform the 

current radar-based, air-traffic control system into a more automated aircraft-centered, 

satellite-based system. 

Page 2 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

To address these objectives, we relied primarily on FAA guidance on 

airport system planning, FAA’s assessment of airport capacity needs, our 

in-depth analysis of selected regions with congested airports, and our past 

studies. FAA has provided guidance to states and metropolitan areas on 

the development of airport system plans, noting that such plans should 

guide airport development needed in a specific area to establish a viable, 

balanced, and integrated system of public use airports.7

 We considered 

airports that are currently congested or are forecast to be significantly 

congested using FAA’s 2007 report—Capacity Needs in the National 

Airspace System, 2007–2025 (FACT 2)—which identified airports that 

will need additional capacity whether or not currently planned 

improvements are carried out.8

 The FACT 2 report made forecasts for 

airports in 2015 and 2025, and, while this type of long-term modeling 

naturally faces uncertainties, we used FACT 2 to identify regions for our 

in-depth analysis because it forecast long-term capacity needs and 

included analyses of both demand and capacity. Because the FACT 2 

report forecast future demand before 2007, the report may overstate the 

likely growth of demand, given the subsequent economic downturn. On 

the other hand, the analyses used fairly conservative measures to 

determine which airports would be the most capacity constrained and, as 

a result, may understate the number of airports that will be congested. For 

a complete discussion of the methodology used by FACT 2 and its 

implications, see appendix II. We identified regions for more detailed 

analysis after considering (1) existing and predicted aviation congestion 

based on FAA’s FACT 2 report; (2) whether regions had sought funding 

from FAA for regional airport planning, and the amount of the funding 

provided by FAA; (3) whether regional airport planning has occurred or is 

occurring in a region; and (4) whether regions were served by a single 

major commercial service airport or multiple airports and the extent to 

which multiple airports in a region were governed by the same sponsor.9

 

7

FAA, The Airport System Planning Process, Advisory Circular 150/5070-7 (Washington, 

D.C.: Nov. 10, 2004). 

8

See FAA, Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System, 2007–2025: An Analysis of 

Airports and Metropolitan Area Demand and Operational Capacity in the Future

(Washington, D.C.: May 2007), a study prepared by The MITRE Corporation, Center for 

Advanced Aviation System Development. This report was intended to identify those 

airports that are forecast to be significantly congested, although other airports may also 

face capacity constraints. It may be found on the following FAA Web site: 

http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/publications/reports/media/fact_2.pdf. 

9

For the purposes of this report, we refer to “airport sponsors” when discussing airport 

sponsors, authorities, operators, or owners. 

Page 3 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

Our analysis of selected regions forecast to have significantly congested 

airports included Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, San Diego, and San 

Francisco. We also assessed regional airport planning in Boston, although 

this region was not among those with airports that are forecast to be 

significantly capacity constrained by FACT 2, if planned improvements 

occur. FAA officials and experts have pointed to this region as having 

undertaken successful regional airport planning. Each of the regions we 

selected has received funding from FAA for regional airport planning, and 

regional airport planning has been undertaken in each region. Three of the 

regions are served by multiple airports—sometimes under the same 

sponsor—while Philadelphia and San Diego are in regions with one major 

airport. In the five regions we selected, we interviewed regional planning, 

airport, FAA,10 and state officials about the nature of the regional airport 

system; participants in such planning; the extent that regions have 

undertaken regional airport planning and how these plans may have been 

used; and factors that aided or hindered planning or implementation. We 

also examined FAA guidance on airport system planning; interviewed FAA 

planning and forecasting officials; and interviewed industry experts, 

academics, planners, and trade association representatives. We also 

utilized our prior work on the NextGen program, on the airspace redesign 

project in New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia, and on metropolitan 

planning organizations (MPO). We also reviewed relevant studies, 

including ongoing research being developed for the Airport Cooperative 

Research Program of the Transportation Research Board and studies by 

the Massachusetts Institute of Technology regarding the role of regional 

airport planning in addressing airport congestion. Appendix I contains a 

more detailed description of our objectives, scope, and methodology. 

We conducted this performance audit from September 2008 to December 

2009, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

 

10We spoke with FAA regional and airport district office officials in the Western-Pacific 

Region—covering Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco—and in the Eastern 

Region—covering New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. 

Page 4 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

FAA’s mission is to provide a safe and efficient airspace system. As part of 

this mission, the agency uses airport system planning to better understand 

the interrelationship of airports at the national, state, and regional levels. 

FAA guidance states that the overall goals of airport system planning are 

to ensure that the air transportation needs of a state or metropolitan area 

are adequately served by its airports, and that planning results in products 

that can be used by the planning organization, airports, and FAA to 

determine future airport development needs.11 

Background 

There are several types and levels of planning involving individual airports 

or airport systems, including the National Plan of Integrated Airport 

Systems (NPIAS), state and regional system plans, and airport-level plans. 

The NPIAS identifies over 3,400 airports as being nationally significant to 

the national airspace system, including all of the nation’s commercial 

service and reliever airports and some general aviation airports.12 Most 

states periodically develop state airport system plans to inventory airports 

using a set of criteria developed by FAA. While not required, some regions 

choose to carry out regional airport planning—which may include the 

development of regional airport system plans (RASP) or other regional 

airport plans—to identify critical regional airport issues and to integrate 

aviation with other modes in a region’s transportation system.13 At the 

airport level, two types of plans support airport improvements at 

individual airports, the airport layout plan (ALP), which is required for 

 

11The Airport System Planning Process.

12A “commercial service airport” is a publicly owned airport in a state that the Secretary of 

Transportation determines has at least 2,500 passenger boardings each year and receives 

scheduled passenger aircraft service. See 49 U.S.C. § 47102(7). “Reliever airports” are 

airports designated by the Secretary to relieve congestion at commercial service airports 

and to provide more general aviation access to the overall community. See 49 U.S.C. § 

47102(22). Finally, the remaining airports are commonly described as “general aviation 

airports.” The NPIAS is designated by the Secretary and according to FAA, to be included 

in the NPIAS, general aviation airports must have at least 10 locally based aircraft and be 

located at least 20 miles from the nearest NPIAS airport. The general aviation category also 

includes privately owned, public use airports that enplane 2,500 or more passengers 

annually and receive scheduled airline service. 

13For the purposes of this report, we refer to the airport system plans that are developed on 

a metropolitan or regional level as “regional airport system plans.” These plans may be 

referred to differently in individual regions. For example, in the San Diego region, regional 

planners are developing a Regional Aviation Strategic Plan, while the plan developed in the 

Los Angeles region is part of the MPO Regional Transportation Plan. 

Page 5 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

federal funding, and the airport master plan.14 Figure 1 provides additional 

information about these plans and illustrates the role of each in the FAA 

funding process for airport improvement projects in the AIP. 

in the FAA 

Figure 1: Funding Process for Airport Improvement Projects 

Airport Layout Plans (ALP)

and airport master plans

ALPs are a graphical depiction of 

current and future airport facilities. All 

NPIAS airports must have an 

FAA-approved ALP to receive federal 

funding. Airport master plans are 

optional and supplement ALPs with 

detailed information, such as

forecasts of passenger demand and 

long-range development plans.

Airports Capital Improvement

Plans (ACIP)

FAA regional offices review airport-level 

capital improvement plans, which are based 

on ALPs and airport master plans, and may 

consider other plans—such as state plans or 

RASPs—to develop a plan of recommended 

projects. FAA headquarters scores these 

recommended projects using national criteria

for inclusion on a candidate list for AIP 

discretionary funding. FAA regional offices

have some discretion in finalizing the list of 

projects included in the ACIP.

National Plan of Integrated

Airport Systems (NPIAS)

The NPIAS is an inventory of airports that 

meet national criteria. Inclusion in the NPIAS

makes an airport eligible to receive Airport 

Improvement Program (AIP) grants.

RASPs are voluntary. These plans contain elements laid out for airport 

system planning by FAA, such as an inventory of the regional airport 

system and forecasts of regional demand. They may also prioritize 

airport improvements from a regional perspective.

Regional Airport System Plans (RASP)

Other regional plans do not necessarily contain elements laid out for 

system planning by FAA. These plans may include special studies to 

analyze or address issues such as compatible land use, zoning 

implementation, or airport ground access. 

Other regional airport plans

State airport system plans recommend 

airports for inclusion in the NPIAS. They may 

also identify state aviation funding priorities.

State Airport System Plans

Source: GAO analysis of FAA documents.

Establishing eligibility Planning for eligible airports Decision making for federal funding

Regional airport planning may complement other airport planning

Airports in the NPIAS become eligible to apply for FAA’s AIP grants, 

which provided almost $3.5 billion for capital projects in fiscal year 2008.15

AIP funding is available for eligible projects, which include projects such 

as airfield construction or equipment purchases, terminal or terminal 

access improvements, land acquisition, noise compatibility projects, and 

regional airport planning. AIP grants generally consist of two types—

 

14The ALP must be approved by the Secretary of Transportation, as must any revision or 

modification of the plan, before the Secretary will approve a project grant application. See 

49 U.S.C. § 47107(a)(16). An airport owner or operator is not permitted to make any 

modification to the airport or its facilities that does not comply with the ALP. Airport 

master plans are not required, but provide additional information for airport capital 

improvement planning. 

15The current AIP was established by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, 

Pub. L. No. 97-248, § 502(a), 96 Stat. 324, 671. 

Page 6 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

entitlement funds that are apportioned to airports or states by formula 

each year based upon statutory criteria, and discretionary funds that FAA 

approves based on a project's priority. To ensure that the highest priority

projects nationally are funded, discretionary funds are awarded using a 

national priority rating system that awards points on a variety of factors

including airport size; the purpose of the project (e.g., capacity related, 

planning, environmental, and safety); and the type of project (e.g., termi

improvement and equipment purchase). Airports apply directly to FAA 

through FAA regional offices for AIP discretionary funding, an

projects are scored using the national priority rating system.

, 

nal 

d proposed 

o 

d 

g to 

develop plans to serve as a guideline for the allocation of funding. 

gions 

funded with AIP grants includes special studies to analyze or address new 

 

16

Furthermore, the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (AAIA)—

which established the current AIP—provided FAA with the authority t

give priority to airport improvement projects that are consistent with 

integrated airport system plans,17 such as RASPs. In the guidance provided

by FAA for airport system planning, airport sponsors are also encourage

to use findings and recommendations from regional airport plannin

While no specific amount is currently set aside for system planning in the

AIP program, approximately 2 percent of funds made available annually 

for AIP grants since 1970 have been used for these purposes.18 Most of this

funding is used for planning at the state or airport level, but some re

have also applied for and received AIP funding for regional airport 

planning. This funding has been used for a variety of planning efforts by 

states, airport sponsors, and regional planning bodies—primarily MPOs—

and includes the development of RASPs.19 Other regional airport planning 

16Commercial service airports can also use passenger facility charges for all AIP-eligible 

and certain other types of projects that meet established criteria. Larger commercial 

service airports also rely on their own funding sources—in particular, long-term debt 

supported by airport revenues—to fund capital projects. 

17Pub. L. No. 97-248, § 509(b)(9), 96 Stat. 324, 685 (1982), codified as amended at 49 U.S.C. § 

47120. 

18A set-aside was established for system-planning grants in the AIP in the AAIA in 1982. 

Pub. L. No. 97-248, § 508(d)(4), 96 Stat. 324, 682. The AAIA set-aside was originally set at 

no less than 1 percent. The amount of the set-aside was subsequently amended before 

being eliminated by the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-264, 

110 Stat. 3213, 3219 (1996). 

19Typical agencies authorized to conduct metropolitan or regional planning are MPOs, 

councils of government, and regional planning councils or commissions. We refer to such 

regional planning agencies as “MPOs”. 

Page 7 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

or unique issues, such as compatible land uses around airports, zoning 

implementation, or airport ground access. 

There are a number of stakeholders with interests in the airport planning 

process. They include FAA, states, and airports and may also include 

MPOs, airlines, and local communities. The FAA’s Office of Airport 

Planning and Programming provides guidance about airport system 

planning, while FAA regional offices administer grants and provide 

technical support to airports and others developing airport plans at the 

airport, regional, and state levels. The range of involvement by a particular 

stakeholder group varies by the type of plan under development, among 

other things. Thus, FAA, airports, and sometimes airlines are typically 

most involved in the development of ALPs and airport master plans and 

the resulting capital plans. States work with airports—notably, general 

aviation or reliever airports, not typically major commercial airports—to 

identify airports and improvements for inclusion in state airport system 

plans. MPOs may work with airport sponsors, local jurisdictions, state 

authorities, and FAA when developing RASPs or carrying out other 

regional airport planning. FAA accepts plans developed by states or MPOs 

and reviews and approves ALPs. In addition to federal and state aviation 

officials, other stakeholders in the process include the following: 

• Airport sponsors: Airport sponsors can be any one of a number of 

different types of public entities, such as cities, counties, airport 

authorities, ports, intermodal agencies, or private owners. 

• MPOs: MPOs may lead or participate in regional airport planning, but 

their primary role is carrying out regional surface transportation 

planning in urbanized areas, including the development of long-range 

and short-range transportation plans. To receive federal surface 

transportation funding, any project in an urbanized area must emerge 

from the relevant MPO and state department of transportation planning 

process.20

• Airlines: Airlines play a key role in the functioning of airport systems, 

since they make decisions about which airports to serve and how 

frequently to provide service. Airlines may consider a number of 

factors in making these decisions, such as the location of regional 

business, economic indicators, the travel patterns of area residents, the 

 

20See 23 U.S.C. §§ 134, 135; 49 U.S.C. §§ 5303, 5304. FAA-funded projects do not require 

inclusion in the regional transportation planning process. 

Page 8 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

cost of establishing service at particular airports, the effects on their 

service network, and the service provided by competing carriers. 

FAA guidance on airport system planning identifies eight key elements of 

the planning process, including inventorying the airport system, 

identifying air transportation needs, considering alternative airport 

systems, and preparing an implementation plan (see table 1). The guidance 

states that the end result should be “the establishment of a viable, 

balanced, and integrated system of airports to meet current and future 

demand.” FAA does not approve airport master plans, state airport system 

plans, or RASPs. For those plans developed with FAA funding, however, 

FAA is involved in developing the scope of work covered under the grant, 

reviewing draft documents, approving aviation forecasts, and then 

accepting the final plan. 

Table 1: Elements of the Airport System Planning Process in FAA Guidance 

Element Description 

Exploration of issues that impact aviation 

in the study area 

A list of major aviation issues, problems, questions, and opportunities should be 

developed, ranked in order of importance, and presented with strategies to address 

each. The report may include issues of a national nature as well as concerns specific to 

an individual state, metropolitan region, local community, or even multistate area. 

Inventory of the current system The inventory should include information about the condition and activity of individual 

airports; environmental features and conditions as well as land-use considerations and 

applicable laws; navigational aids and other aspects of aircraft approaches; statewide or 

regional socioeconomic data and airport financial information; historical weather data; 

surface transportation; and terminal, airfield, and airspace capacity. 

Identification of air transportation needs Broad system goals and performance measures ensure the implementation of a 

successful aviation system, while specific goals vary depending on the planning area. 

Examples include having a system of airports readily accessible to the population, 

providing emergency medical access to the population, providing a safe and efficient 

system of airports, and preserving the existing airport system with a high degree of stable 

ownership. Performance measures should tie the level of service of the system and the 

performance of individual airports to the goals. 

Forecast of system demand Forecasts define an airport’s role within the system and prioritize airport development. 

FAA-prepared forecasts should be used when they meet the requirements of the system 

planning effort. Factors that can be considered include socioeconomic data, 

demographics, disposable income, geographic attributes, and external factors such as 

fuel costs and local attitudes toward aviation. Forecasts are submitted to FAA for 

approval. 

Page 9 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

Element Description 

Consideration of alternative airport 

systems 

If the assessment of airport system capacity shows that expansion of facilities is 

necessary to accommodate projected demand, an investigation of alternatives should be 

conducted. Criteria to compare alternatives can include capital costs, aviation safety, 

airspace utilization, ability to address need, environmental impacts, delay and other 

operational costs, consistency with local area comprehensive and transportation plans, 

and land-use availability and compatibility. The evaluation of system alternatives is 

usually a more complex activity for large metropolitan or regional areas, given scarcities 

in airspace and land, challenges to airport accessibility, and potential environmental 

effects. Therefore, the analysis of feasible alternatives should attempt to balance the 

need for airfield capacity and use of airspace with the need to minimize environmental 

impacts. 

Definition of airport roles and policy 

strategies 

The existing role of each airport should be identified using definitions provided by FAA for 

NPIAS airports. If alternate definitions are used, these should be linked to the airport 

categories used in the NPIAS. Using standard definitions will help maximize the system 

benefits of airport investments as well as ensure the rationalization of federal priorities 

across airport categories. 

Recommendation of system changes, 

funding strategies, and airport 

development 

State plans can identify priorities among existing airports, and MPOs can provide 

recommendations. Some states and regional planning organizations define priority 

indices with relative weightings, establishing their own priority rankings for proposed 

airport development projects. In general, these rankings should be consistent with FAA’s 

AIP priorities, if federal funds are sought. A cost-effective plan of action should be 

prepared for 5-, 10-, and 20-year planning horizons. 

Preparation of an implementation plan Development that is eligible for AIP funding should be identified so it can be easily 

incorporated into the NPIAS and FAA’s Airport Capital Improvement Plan as well as into 

the airport’s master plan and ALP. 

Source: GAO presentation of FAA Airport System Planning guidance. 

When considering alternative airport systems (the fifth of the eight 

elements), regional planners may identify alternate, underutilized airports 

in a region as having the potential to relieve pressure on congested 

airports. FAA’s airport system planning guidance states that the 

development of such alternate airports should only be undertaken when a 

full assessment has been done of various market factors. The guidance 

states that it is important to understand the nature of demand within a 

region, including factors that would divert demand to other airports, and 

any potential political, economic, or institutional barriers to developing an 

airport system. It also recommends that planners assess the ability of the 

airport to offer adequate service—in terms of convenience, schedules, and 

fares—and the effect on airlines, noting that the development of alternate 

airports should enhance airline profitability and be compatible with their 

route systems. 

In addition to the development of RASPs, other types of regional airport 

planning, including special studies whose scope of work does not fully 

correspond with the elements described in the airport system planning 

guidance, may be undertaken with AIP grants, according to FAA’s airport 

Page 10 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

system planning guidance. Special studies can include but are not limited 

to work in such areas as air service, air cargo operations, environmental or 

drainage inventories, surface access, economic impact, obstruction 

analysis or photogrammetry, general aviation security, and pavement 

management.21

FAA’s airport system planning guidance states that MPOs can receive FAA 

support to conduct regional airport planning in areas that include large- or 

medium-hub airports (1) when such agencies have the interest in and 

capabilities to conduct such planning and (2) when regional FAA, state 

aviation, and local airport officials determine that MPOs should have a 

role. The guidance continues that the regional airport planning carried out 

by MPOs should complement—rather than guide—the planning done by 

FAA, states, and individual airports. According to the guidance, MPO-led 

regional airport planning may enhance the integration of the entire 

regional transportation system by promoting aviation enhancement and 

preservation, identifying critical regional aviation issues, and acting as the 

contact point for regional surface access, air quality, and land-use planning 

studies. MPOs can also act as a catalyst in implementing system planning 

recommendations—which may involve several stakeholders—by resolving 

local conflicts, promoting airport development funding priorities, and 

proposing the distribution of grants among eligible projects. The guidance 

states that an MPO’s ability to implement regional airport planning 

recommendations is limited to the extent that it can influence airport 

development through persuasion; leadership; or nonaviation incentives, 

such as surface transportation improvements that may improve airport 

access. This stands in contrast to state aviation agencies, which can 

implement system planning recommendations using legislative and 

funding mechanisms, including AIP funds, whereas MPOs do not receive 

AIP funds, other than for planning purposes. 

 

21See section 304 of the FAA Advisory Circular 150/5070-7 for a fuller description of these 

special studies. 

Page 11 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

Many Airports Are or 

Will Become 

Significantly 

Congested in Coming 

Years and Regional 

Airport Planning Has 

the Potential to 

Identify Solutions 

FAA Has Identified 14 

Airports That May Become 

Significantly Congested by 

2025, Even If Planned 

Improvements Occur, and 

27 Airports If They Do Not 

Occur

FAA’s FACT 2 report forecast that 14 airports will be significantly capacity 

constrained—and thus potentially congested—by 2025, even if currently 

planned improvements are carried out.22 According to FAA, some airports 

are already significantly capacity constrained, and increased demand is 

expected to increase delays going forward. Six of these 14 airports will be 

significantly capacity constrained as early as 2015, according to the report. 

(See fig. 2.) 

The FACT 2 study was designed to produce a conservative list of 

congested airports, according to FAA officials, and identified those 

airports that will have the greatest need for future additional capacity. 

FAA officials noted that airports not designated as capacity constrained by 

the study may also have capacity issues in the future and may need 

capacity-enhancing projects. (See app. II for a discussion of the FACT 2 

report and implications of its design.) The demand forecasts included in 

FACT 2, however, were conducted before 2007 and do not take into 

account the reduction in demand resulting from the recent economic 

downturn. As a result, potential capacity constraints may occur on a 

different timeline than previously forecast. 

 

22The FACT 2 report used measures of demand and capacity to identify those airports 

forecast to face significant capacity constraints by 2025 and 2015. For its analysis, FAA 

focused on 56 of the nation’s 291 commercial service airports, including the 35 airports—

primarily large-hub facilities—included in the FAA’s OEP and an additional 21 airports 

identified for more detailed analysis on the basis of airport operation levels and 

assumptions about fleet mix at these facilities. 

Page 12 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

Figure 2: Airports Needing Capacity in 2015 and 2025, Even If Planned Improvements Occur 

SFO

OAK

PHX

LGB

SNA

SAN

LAS

MDW

ATL

FLL

JFK

EWR

PHL

Sources: GAO analysis of FAA data; Map Resources (base map).

LGA

Airports projected to need capacity in 2025, even if planned improvements occur

Airports projected to need capacity in 2015 and 2025, even if planned improvements occur

Pa.

Ore.

Nev.

Idaho

Mont.

Wyo.

Utah

Ariz.

N.Mex.

Colo.

N.Dak.

S.Dak.

Nebr.

Tex.

Kans.

Okla.

Minn.

Iowa

Mo.

Ark.

La.

Ill.

Miss.

Ind.

Ky.

Tenn.

Ala.

Fla.

Ga.

S.C.

N.C.

Va.

Ohio

N.H.

Mass.

Mich.

Calif.

Wash.

Wis. N.Y.

Maine

Vt.

W.Va.

R.I.

Conn.

N.J.

Del.

Md.

D.C.

ATL: Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta

 International

EWR: Newark Liberty International

FLL: Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood 

 International

JFK: John F. Kennedy 

 International

LAS: McCarran International

LGA: LaGuardia

LGB: Long Beach

MDW: Midway International

OAK: Oakland International

PHL: Philadelphia International

PHX: Phoenix Sky Harbor 

 International

SAN: San Diego International

SFO: San Francisco International

SNA: John Wayne

Airports

The improvements considered in the 2025 and 2015 forecasts include those 

in FAA’s OEP, such as new or extended runways, changes or 

improvements in air-traffic control procedures and technology, and 

airspace redesign.23 Some NextGen improvements, such as reduced 

separation requirements for arrivals and departures, were included in the 

 

23FAA projected the impact of runway improvements planned at 19 OEP airports and at 5 

non-OEP airports. Improvements included new or extended runways by 2006 in Atlanta, 

Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dallas–Fort Worth, Denver, Houston (George Bush), Miami, 

Minneapolis–St. Paul, Orlando, and St. Louis. New or extended runways were included for 

2015 forecasts for airports in Boston (Logan), Chicago (O’Hare), Ft. Lauderdale, Palm 

Beach, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Seattle, Tucson, and Washington (Dulles). Finally, new or 

extended runways were included for the 2025 forecasts for airports in Baltimore, Charlotte, 

Dallas–Fort Worth, Denver, Houston (George Bush), Houston (Hobby), San Antonio, 

Tampa, and Washington (Dulles). 

Page 13 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

2025 analysis for the 35 airports included in the OEP program and Oakland 

International Airport.24 

If planned improvements do not occur, the FACT 2 report predicted that 

the number of airports that will be significantly capacity constrained will 

increase to 27 by 2025. Likewise, 18 airports were predicted to need 

additional capacity by 2015, if planned improvements do not occur. Figure 

3 shows the airports predicted by FACT 2 to face significant capacity 

challenges in 2015 and 2025, if planned improvements do not occur. 

 

24Improvements included in the OEP (version 8.0) were included in the FACT 2 analyses for 

both the 2015 and 2025 time frames. Other infrastructure improvements were included if 

FAA airport district offices determined the projects were sufficiently far along in the 

environmental review and funding processes. NextGen improvements, which include new 

or revised air-traffic control procedures, were only included in the 2025 analyses and only 

for the 35 OEP airports and Oakland, given uncertainty about NextGen funding for other 

airports. Finally, improvements from airspace redesign were included in the 2015 or 2025 

modeling based on the best available information. Appendix II contains additional 

information about the planned improvements. 

Page 14 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

Figure 3: Airports Needing Capacity in 2015 and 2025, If Planned Improvements Do Not Occur 

SEA

SFO

OAK

PHX

TUS

LAX LGB

SNA

SAN

LAS

MSP

ORD

MDW

SAT HOU

IAH

ATL

CLT

FLL

PBI

BOS

PVD

JFK

EWR

PHL

IAD

Sources: GAO analysis of FAA data; Map Resources (base map).

LGA

Airports projected to need capacity in 2025, if planned improvements do not occur

Airports projected to need capacity in 2015 and 2025, if planned improvements do not occur

Pa.

Ore.

Nev.

Idaho

Mont.

Wyo.

Utah

Ariz.

N.Mex.

Colo.

N.Dak.

S.Dak.

Nebr.

Tex.

Kans.

Okla.

Minn.

Iowa

Mo.

Ark.

La.

Ill.

Miss.

Ind.

Ky.

Tenn.

Ala.

Fla.

Ga.

S.C.

N.C.

Va.

Ohio

N.H.

Mass.

Mich.

Calif.

Wash.

Wis. N.Y.

Maine

Vt.

W.Va.

R.I.

Conn.

N.J.

Del.

Md.

D.C.

ATL: Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International

BOS: Boston Logan International

CLT: Charlotte Douglas

 International

EWR: Newark Liberty International

FLL: Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood 

 International

HOU: William P. Hobby

IAD: Washington Dulles

 International

IAH: George Bush 

 Intercontinental

JFK: John F. Kennedy 

 International

LAS: McCarran International

LAX: Los Angeles International

LGA: LaGuardia LGB: Long Beach

MDW: Midway International

MSP: Minneapolis-Saint Paul 

 International

OAK: Oakland International

ORD: O’Hare International

PBI: Palm Beach International

PHL: Philadelphia International

PHX: Phoenix Sky Harbor International

PVD: T.F. Green

SAN: San Diego International

SAT: San Antonio International

SEA: Seattle-Tacoma International

SFO: San Francisco International

SNA: John Wayne

TUS: Tucson International

Airports

The NextGen program is intended to transform the nation’s navigation 

system into a satellite-based system, but faces challenges to 

implementation for both airlines and FAA. Benefits from the program are 

expected to include increased safety with a reduction in the number of 

runway incursions; greater design flexibility with the reduction of 

separation requirements between runways, which may allow for new 

runways or improved airport layouts; better use of existing capacity with 

reduced separation standards for aircraft and improved access to airports 

with mountainous terrain or other obstacles; and reduced environmental 

impacts since aircraft will be able to descend using the shortest routes at 

minimum power settings. As we have previously reported, FAA has made 

some progress in implementing the NextGen program, but still faces some 

challenges. For example, aircraft operators must purchase equipment to 

implement NextGen capabilities, but some airlines have been reluctant to 

do so until FAA specifies requirements, addresses funding concerns, and 

Page 15 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

demonstrates benefits.25 FAA must also determine that new technologies 

will operate in a real-life environment with a desired level of confidence 

and approve their use as well as issue rules for the use of procedures 

before midterm implementation can occur. Finally, the transformation to 

NextGen will also depend on the ability of airports to handle greater 

capacity. Since runways and airspace issues are not the only causes of 

congestion, improved efficiency in these areas—which may result from 

implementation of NextGen improvements—may exacerbate capacity 

constraints involving taxiways, terminal gates, or parking areas. 

There are 4 airports that were already considered capacity constrained 

under the FACT 2 methodology, including 2 in the New York/New Jersey 

region—Newark Liberty International (Newark) and LaGuardia 

(LaGuardia)—as well as Chicago’s O’Hare International (O’Hare) and Fort 

Lauderdale/Hollywood International in Southern Florida. In the New York 

region, FAA has set limitations on the number of takeoffs and landings 

during peak operating hours at Newark, John F. Kennedy International 

Airport (JFK), and LaGuardia, to minimize congestion and reduce flight 

delays. However, these airports are still routinely found to be among the 

most congested in the country and are on FAA’s list of airports needing 

additional capacity by both 2015 and 2025.26 Improvements at O’Hare and 

Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International will take them off the list of 

significantly congested airports by 2015, according to the FACT 2 report. 

All 14 of the airports forecast by FAA as needing additional capacity by 

2025 or 2015 are located in major metropolitan areas with at least 1 largehub airport. Nine of the airports forecast to be congested are in regions 

 

25For more information about the challenges facing the implementation of NextGen, see 

GAO, Next Generation Air Transportation System: Issues Associated with Midterm 

Implementation of Capabilities and Full System Transformation, GAO-09-481T 

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 25, 2009). 

26According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the 3 major airports in the New York 

region ranked among the 4 worst major U.S. airports for their on-time arrival performance 

in 2008. See the following Web address: 

http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/airline_ontime_tables/. 

Page 16 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

with more than 1 large- or medium-hub airport.27 Each of the airports 

identified as potentially capacity constrained in 2015 is also included on 

the list for 2025. For the purposes of our review, we focused on the 10 

metropolitan regions that include the 14 airports forecast by the FACT 2 

report to be significantly capacity constrained by 2025, assuming planned 

improvements occur.28 (See table 2.) 

Table 2: Airports Forecast by FACT 2 as Being Significantly Capacity Constrained 

by 2025, Even If Planned Improvements Occur, and Their Corresponding 

Metropolitan Regions 

Airport Metropolitan region 

Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Atlanta 

Midway International Chicago 

Las Vegas McCarran International Las Vegas 

Long Beach–Daugherty Field Los Angeles 

John Wayne–Orange County Los Angeles 

Newark Liberty International New York 

John F. Kennedy International New York 

LaGuardia New York 

Philadelphia International Philadelphia 

Phoenix Sky Harbor International Phoenix 

San Diego International San Diego 

Oakland International San Francisco 

San Francisco International San Francisco 

Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International South Florida 

Sources: Department of Transportation and GAO. 

 

27Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, and South Florida all have more than 1 

large- or medium-hub airport within their region. Nonhub airports enplane fewer than 0.05 

percent of systemwide passengers (i.e., those passengers boarding aircraft for all 

operations of U.S. carriers in the United States), small-hub airports enplane at least 0.05 

percent but fewer than 0.25 percent of systemwide passengers, medium-hub airports 

enplane at least 0.25 percent but fewer than 1.0 percent of systemwide passengers, and 

large-hub airports enplane at least 1.0 percent of systemwide passengers. See 49 U.S.C. § 

47102. 

28FACT 2 identified 8 congested metropolitan areas, accounting for 12 of the 14 congested 

airports. Appendix II discusses the criteria used to identify congested metropolitan areas in 

the study. Chicago and South Florida were not identified as congested metropolitan areas 

in the FAA study but had individual airports identified as needing additional capacity. We 

decided to include them as regions with potentially significantly congested airports. 

Page 17 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

Developing new airport capacity can be costly, complex, and timeconsuming. Historically, airports, metropolitan regions, and FAA have 

looked to airport expansion and facility improvements—such as the 

construction of new runways—to provide new capacity, but increasingly 

airport expansion faces obstacles, especially in congested regions. 

Through the cooperative efforts of the aviation industry, airports, and 

FAA, 20 airfield projects have opened since 2000 at 18 OEP airports, 

including new runways at O’Hare, Seattle-Tacoma International, and 

Washington Dulles International in 2008.29 However, projects involving 

new runways often take a decade or more to complete because of legal 

and other obstacles. In addition, the last major new commercial service 

airport in the United States was opened in Denver in 1995 and is 1 of only 

2 new major airports built in over 40 years.30 That said, proposals for a new 

airport in Peotone, Illinois, in the Chicago region and for a new airport to 

supplement Las Vegas McCarran International Airport are currently in the 

early stages of FAA environmental review.31 

Many Regions Face 

Obstacles to Developing 

New Airport Capacity 

Going forward, the development of new infrastructure—including the 

construction or extension of runways as well as new airports—faces many 

challenges. FACT 2 points out that expanding airport capacity is unlikely 

in some locations. According to ongoing research being developed for the 

Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP), adverse community 

reaction to aircraft noise and pollutant emissions at and near major 

airports continues to impede the development of new airport 

infrastructure, and this resistance is unlikely to decrease.32 Another study 

noted that lawsuits are filed in opposition to virtually every expansion of a 

 

29These airfield projects include 14 new runways, 3 taxiways, 1 runway extension, 1 

completed airfield reconfiguration, and 1 airfield reconfiguration under way. According to 

FAA, the projects have provided these airports with the potential to accommodate 1.9 

million more annual operations, decrease average delay per operation at these airports by 

about 5 minutes, and reduce the potential for runway incursions. 

30Dallas–Fort Worth International, which opened in 1974, was the other major commercial 

airport opened during this time period. In addition, a medium-hub airport opened in Fort 

Myers, Florida, in 1983, and a small-hub airport opened in Fayetteville, Arkansas, in 1998. 

31In addition to the airports proposed for Peotone and Las Vegas, 2 new primary 

commercial service airports are scheduled to open within the next 5 years in St. George, 

Utah, and Panama City, Florida. These airports will replace existing commercial service 

airports, although neither is currently predicted to face congestion in the FACT 2 report. 

(Primary airports are those that have more than 10,000 passenger boardings each year.) 

32Ongoing research entitled Innovative Approaches to Addressing Aviation Capacity 

Issues in Coastal Mega-Regions, ACRP 3-10, is in the process of being finalized. 

Page 18 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

major airport, generally challenging the right of airport officials to override 

local zoning rules or increase noise or air pollution.33 According to this 

study, while such legal challenges are usually unsuccessful, projects often 

take longer than originally anticipated. We have also previously reported 

that new runway construction from initial planning to completion takes a 

median of 10 years, but delays can add an additional 4 years to the median 

time.34 While we found that the level of challenges that airports faced 

varied, in part depending on the proximity of the airport to a major city 

and the amount of community opposition to the runway, some common 

themes emerged in our 2002 survey of airports that had built or planned to 

build runways between 1991 and 2010. Challenges identified by those 

airports included reaching stakeholder agreement on the purpose and 

need for the new runway, completing required environmental reviews, 

reaching agreement on how to mitigate the impact of noise and other 

issues, and designing and constructing the runways in light of weather and 

site preparation issues. The conversion of former or joint-use military 

airfields for civilian use is an alternate approach to providing new or 

additional capacity, but this approach has also faced obstacles similar to 

those posed with the construction of new facilities. Voters recently 

rejected the proposed conversion of military airfields at Miramar and El 

Toro, current and former Marine Corps air stations, respectively.35 

In our discussions with regional and airport officials, we found that 

environmental constraints, including land-use issues or community 

concerns about airport noise or the redesign of airspace around congested 

airports; physical constraints; and local legal constraints are also obstacles 

to the development of new capacity through airport or runway expansion. 

Environmental issues have been a constraint on development in the San 

Francisco region at San Francisco International Airport (SFO) and at 

Oakland International Airport, for example, where the construction of new 

runways would involve extensive filling in the San Francisco Bay. A 

proposal to build a new runway at SFO was dropped due to environmental 

 

33Jeffrey P. Cohen and Cletus C. Coughlin, Congestion at Airports: The Economics of 

Airport Expansions, The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (May/June 2003). 

34GAO, Aviation Infrastructure: Challenges Related to Building Runways and Actions to 

Address Them, GAO-03-164 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 20, 2003). 

35A former military airport replaced an existing airfield in Austin, Texas. The new airport in 

Austin is categorized as a medium-hub airport. Military airfields have also been converted 

to civilian use in Alexandria, Louisiana; Marquette, Michigan; and Portsmouth, New 

Hampshire. Each of these new airports is categorized as a nonhub airport, serving less than 

0.05 percent of systemwide passengers. 

Page 19 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

issues and cost constraints. As conceived, the project would have been the 

largest construction project in the bay for over 50 years and would have 

involved dredging and filling up to 2 square miles of the bay. (Fig. 4 shows 

the 2000 proposal for construction at SFO.) More recent planning has not 

included runway construction, focusing instead on a terminal development 

program and other alternatives. Noise concerns have also been a limiting 

factor for many airports. Proposals for runway expansion in Philadelphia 

led to a lawsuit filed by surrounding communities seeking to block the 

development, for example. Likewise, officials at SFO pointed to 

encroaching neighborhoods as state land-use policies encourage the 

development of previously industrial areas. Efforts to redesign the 

airspace around the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia region also led to 

community opposition, with several surrounding communities filing 

lawsuits that, thus far, have been resolved in favor of FAA.36 Physical 

constraints on expansion or new construction can also be obstacles. For 

example, San Diego International has one runway, sits on only 661 acres, 

and the surrounding terrain limits the slope for departing aircraft, 

particularly heavier aircraft. The San Diego County Regional Airport 

Authority is developing a proposal to reconfigure the airport’s terminals, 

given the lack of room for a new runway. Finally, legal agreements or 

requirements hamper the use of existing capacity at some airports, 

including those in the Los Angeles region—in Orange County and Long 

Beach. Westchester County Airport in White Plains, New York, also has 

legal limits on airport operations, according to an air service demand 

study. Other airports have community agreements limiting capacity or 

growth. For example, Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) has 

imposed a cap of 78.9 million annual passengers on its operations as part 

of a settlement agreement with surrounding communities, according to 

regional officials. Likewise, according to an airport official, Bob Hope 

Airport is prevented from expanding the footprint of its existing terminal 

until 2012 by an agreement with the City of Burbank. The airport also 

recently sought FAA approval to make a voluntary nighttime curfew 

permanent. This application was denied by FAA, however, based in part 

on concerns that the curfew would result in congestion and delay in the 

region and potentially have ripple effects throughout the national airspace 

system. 

 

36The lawsuits were consolidated in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and the court ruled 

in favor of FAA. County of Rockland v. FAA, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 12513 (D.C. Cir. 2009). 

A petition was filed on November 16, 2009, before the United States Supreme Court, asking 

the court to hear the case and determine whether the D.C. Circuit Court properly ruled on 

the matters before it. 

Page 20 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

Figure 4: Potential Extent of Bay Fill for Runway Construction at San Francisco International Airport (2000 Proposal) 

10 mile 10 miles

San

Francisco

Bay

1 mile

San Francisco

International

Airport

San Mateo-Hayward

Bridge

Runway

reconstruction

alternative

Sources: San Francisco International Airport and GAO.

San Francisco

San

Francisco

Bay

San

Jose

Oakland San

Francisco

San Pablo

Bay

Regional Airport Planning 

Has the Potential to 

Identify Solutions for 

Congestion 

Regional airport planning can identify solutions for airports and regions 

seeking to determine how best to manage available capacity and address 

the challenges posed by congestion. A 2003 study for the Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy at the Department of 

Transportation looked at the potential for alternative airports to meet 

regional capacity needs and found that the use of these airports can make 

more efficient use of existing resources and better use of limited funds for 

airport development.37 According to the report, to make better use of 

alternate airports, regional airport planning should focus on both airport 

development and access issues. The study concluded that as metropolitan 

areas grow and become more congested and complex, FAA needs to 

 

37GRA Incorporated, Alternative Airports Study, prepared for the Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Transportation Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and 

International Affairs, Department of Transportation (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 15, 2003). 

Page 21 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

promote regional airport planning. Likewise, according to ongoing 

research being developed for the ACRP, there are important opportunities 

to improve aviation system capacity and airport operations by embracing 

more collaborative and cooperative regional airport planning.38 The 

research has found that proactively seeking ways to use commercial 

airport capacity more efficiently will be important to maintaining the 

viability of air travel while accommodating forecast growth in demand for 

air travel. According to the research, airport managers and governing 

bodies will need to embrace the concept of capacity sharing with other 

airports in their market areas to maintain this viability and accommodate 

demand and will also need to look at other potential approaches. Such 

approaches may include the expansion of high-speed rail in some 

corridors or the use of demand-management strategies, such as peak 

pricing or restrictions on the use of congested airports by smaller 

aircraft.39 

FAA’s FACT 2 report and its 2009–2013 FAA Flight Plan also noted the 

potential for regional airport planning to identify options to relieve 

congestion.40 The FACT 2 report identified regional options that could help 

meet the future capacity needs of the nation’s airports, among them, 

continuing to study regional traffic and development alternatives and 

planning for high-density corridors and multiple modes, including highspeed rail. Likewise, one of the initiatives in the Flight Plan is the use of 

AIP funding to reduce capacity constraints and provide greater access to 

alternate airports in the metropolitan areas and corridors where 

congestion at primary airports creates delays throughout the national 

airspace system.41 Finally, FAA’s NextGen program identifies regional 

airports as having potential to provide additional capacity in 15 

 

38Transportation Research Board of the National Research Council, Airport Cooperative 

Research Program 3-10: Innovative Approaches to Addressing Aviation Capacity Issues 

in Coastal Mega-Regions, draft final report (Washington, D.C.: Summer 2009). 

39As we have recently reported, a number of factors make it difficult to determine the 

economic viability of any high-speed rail corridor. For more information about high-speed 

rail, see GAO, High Speed Passenger Rail: Future Development Will Depend on 

Addressing Financial and Other Challenges and Establishing a Clear Federal Role,

GAO-09-317 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 19, 2009). 

40The 2009–2013 FAA Flight Plan serves as the strategic plan for FAA. See FAA, 2009–

2013 FAA Flight Plan (Washington, D.C.). 

41The 7 metropolitan areas and corridors identified by FAA for fiscal year 2009 were 

Charlotte, North Carolina; Chicago; Las Vegas; Los Angeles; New York; Philadelphia; and 

San Francisco. 

Page 22 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

metropolitan areas, including Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago, Houston, Las 

Vegas, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, New York, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San 

Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, South Florida, and Washington/Baltimore. 

Most Regions with 

Significantly 

Congested Airports 

Have Engaged in 

Regional Airport 

Planning, but 

Regional Airport 

Plans Have Been Used 

Selectively for FAA or 

Airport Decision 

Making 

Nearly All Regions 

Forecast to Have 

Significantly Congested 

Airports Have Received 

FAA Funding for Regional 

Airport Planning 

Nine of the 10 regions forecast by FAA to have one or more significantly 

congested airports in 2025 received FAA funding from 1999 through 2008 

in support of regional airport planning (see table 3). In all, FAA provided 

$34 million in AIP grants for metropolitan system planning during this 

period, and the 9 aforementioned regions received $20 million of the total. 

According to FAA’s AIP Handbook, metropolitan areas are eligible for 

funding under FAA’s AIP program if airport problems in the region require 

a higher level of effort to address them than would be provided as part of a 

statewide analysis.42 Such regional problems typically arise in association 

with large- or medium-hub airports, according to the handbook. Each of 

the 10 regions forecast to be significantly capacity constrained by 2025 had 

at least one airport categorized as a large hub in 2008.43 

 

42FAA, Airport Improvement Program Handbook, Order 5100.38C (Washington, D.C.: June 

28, 2005). 

43While Palm Beach International Airport in South Florida was categorized as a mediumhub airport in 2008, Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International qualified as a large-hub 

airport in the same region. 

Page 23 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

Table 3: FAA Funding for Regional Airport Planning for Regions Forecast to Have 

Significantly Congested Airports by 2025, Even If Planned Improvements Occur, 

1999–2008 

Regions with airports forecast 

to be congested 

FAA regional airport

 planning funding

Atlanta $200,000

Chicago 0

Las Vegas 200,000

Los Angeles 8,250,600

New Yorka3,652,730

Philadelphia 2,847,254

Phoenix 450,000

San Diego 1,500,000

San Francisco 765,000

South Florida $2,516,250

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Transportation data. 

a

The MPO in Philadelphia administered $675,000 of the funds in the New York region as part of the 

FAA Regional Air Service Demand Study for the region. 

Six Regions with Airports 

Forecast to Be Congested 

Have Prepared RASPs 

Since 1999, 6 of the 10 regions with airports that are forecast to be 

congested by 2025 have developed or are developing RASPs, including Los 

Angeles, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Diego, San Francisco, and South 

Florida. Each of these regions has received one or more FAA grants for 

regional planning since 1999. The majority of these plans were developed 

or are being developed under the leadership of the local MPO, although in 

San Diego and Florida the airport sponsor and the state department of 

transportation, respectively, assumed leadership roles. Five regions have 

completed RASPs since 2000, and 2 are in development.44 Table 4 provides 

information about the RASPs developed or being developed in the 6 

regions. Based on our review, the completed RASPs largely reflect the 

elements laid out for system planning by FAA and generally contain 

information about the airport system, forecast information, and a 

discussion of transportation needs, among other elements. In addition, 

most of the completed RASPs contained recommendations or strategies 

regarding the role of regional airports and potential airport improvements. 

 

44The San Francisco region completed a RASP in 2000 and is currently developing a new 

RASP. 

Page 24 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

Table 4: RASP Development in Regions with Potentially Congested Airports 

Regions with 

potentially 

congested 

airports 

Organization leading 

planning effort Overview of regional airport planning 

Most recent RASP and 

FAA funding for all 

regional airport 

planning, 1999–2008a

Los Angeles The Southern California 

Council of Governments, the 

region’s MPO 

The MPO looked at each of the region’s airports to 

identify capacity constraints, such as those posed by 

terminal facilities or the inability to construct new 

runways. The plan highlighted a decentralization 

strategy that aimed at moving traffic to alternate 

airports, including those in Palmdale and Ontario. The 

RASP pointed to a need for better access to alternate 

regional airports. Forecasting done by the MPO 

predicted how changes at individual airports may 

impact the region as a whole and allowed planners to 

see the potential impact of new airport construction or 

capacity improvements on other regional airports. 

Completed in 2008. 

Updates are regularly 

done for the Regional 

Transportation Plan. 

1999: $3,227,400 

2001: $790,200 

2002: $1,500,000 

2003: $1,400,000 

2004: $833,000 

2005: $500,000 

Philadelphia The Delaware Valley 

Regional Planning 

Commission, the region’s 

MPO 

The 2006 RASP update recognized that Philadelphia 

International Airport will remain the primary airport in 

the region and recommended improvements, including 

a possible new parallel runway. The RASP also 

recommended increasing service at Trenton Mercer 

and New Castle airports to relieve pressure on 

Philadelphia International, suggesting terminal 

improvements to facilitate their increased use. 

Updated in 2006. A draft 

has been prepared for 

2009. 

Updates are regularly 

done as part of the 

region’s long-range plan. 

1999: $239,600 

2000: $200,000 

2001: $383,670 

2002: $410,310 

2003: $200,000 

2004: $300,000 

2005: $281,000 

2006: $400,000 

2007: $243,504 

2008: $189,170 

Phoenix The Maricopa Association of 

Governments, the region’s 

MPO 

The MPO received a FAA grant in 2002 to update its 

RASP. When a draft plan called for extensive airspace 

modeling—which FAA did not support—FAA closed 

out the grant. The MPO subsequently completed the 

plan without FAA involvement, although the plan was 

not formally adopted by the MPO. 

Completed in 2006. 

1999: $300,000 

2002: $150,000 

San Diego The San Diego County 

Regional Airport Authority, 

sponsor of San Diego 

International Airport 

The airport sponsor is working with regional airports 

and others to assess regional options to relieve 

congestion at San Diego International Airport. The 

plan is a follow-on to redevelopment plans for San 

Diego International Airport, which aim to redesign 

terminal facilities to improve capacity. 

Ongoing as the result of a 

state mandate. The RASP 

is to be completed by 

June 2011. 

2001: $1,500,000 

Page 25 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

Regions with 

potentially 

congested 

airports 

Organization leading 

planning effort Overview of regional airport planning 

Most recent RASP and 

FAA funding for all 

regional airport 

planning, 1999–2008a

San Francisco The Regional Airport 

Planning Committee is an 

advisory committee made up 

of the Metropolitan 

Transportation 

Commission—the region’s 

MPO—the Association of 

Bay Area Governments, and 

the Bay Conservation and 

Development Commission 

The 2000 RASP focused on new capacity, including 

the construction of new runways for San Francisco 

International (SFO) and Oakland International Airport. 

In contrast, the renewed planning efforts will consider 

noninfrastructure measures, such as pricing 

mechanisms, restrictions on takeoffs and landings 

(slot-controls), and air-traffic control changes as well 

as the use of alternative airports and high-speed rail. 

The construction of additional infrastructure, such as 

new runways at SFO or Oakland International, will be 

considered last, according to Regional Airport 

Planning Committee officials. 

Completed in 2000. 

Ongoing efforts to develop 

a new RASP. 

2000: $180,000 

2007: $585,000 

South Florida The Florida Department of 

Transportation (FDOT) and 

the Southeast Florida 

Metropolitan Area Steering 

Committee 

FDOT facilitates and supports the development of the 

Florida Aviation System Plan—which contains regionspecific plans that serve as RASPs. The state plan 

builds upon airport master plans, while also developing 

priorities for state funding. State plans determine 

airport access to state airport improvement funds—

which totaled $157 million in the 2009–2010 fiscal 

year. As a result, airport capital plans typically reflect 

state goals. 

The Southeast Florida Metropolitan Area Steering 

Committee, which develops the regional plan for the 

state airport system plan, is led by airport 

representatives. MPOs in the region—including those 

in Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties—

also participate in FDOT-led planning and include 

airport improvement projects in their transportation 

improvement plans. 

Most recent state plan 

completed in 2005. State 

plans contain RASPs. 

2004: $2,516,250 

Awarded to the Palm 

Beach Board of County 

Commissioners 

Sources: GAO analysis of regional airport planning documents, interviews with officials in selected regions, and FAA. 

a

AIP funding for regional airport planning includes both the development or updating of RASPs and 

special studies. 

Each of the regions that have completed or are completing RASPs also 

considered alternative modes of transportation as a means to alleviating 

airport congestion. FAA guidance for airport system planning discusses 

alternative modes of transportation, but does so only in the context of 

improving airport access. The MPO in the Los Angeles region has modeled 

the potential impacts of high-speed rail. According to ongoing research 

being developed for the ACRP, this modeling work demonstrated that 

development of a high-speed rail system would likely result both in the 

increased use of alternate regional airports—which would be linked to 

metropolitan centers by the new rail lines—for passenger service and 

Page 26 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

cargo and in air-rail substitution by some passengers as they chose to take 

the train in lieu of flying.45 Likewise, San Diego has used its regional 

airport planning process to identify intermodal solutions. The airport 

sponsor worked with the region’s MPO to develop a new plan for Sa

Diego International Airport, which includes considerations of an 

intermodal facility at the airport. The new RASP is also being developed 

concert with an air-rail study being undertaken by the MPO, which aims to 

explore improved access to alternative regional airports and the po

diversion of passengers to high-speed rail. 

n 

in 

tential 

 

The Extent of Regional 

Airport Planning in Other 

Regions Has Varied 

We found that the extent of regional airport planning undertaken in the 

four regions forecast to have significantly congested airports that have not 

developed RASPs—Atlanta, Chicago, Las Vegas, and New York—varied 

and was focused on individual airports. The regional airport planning that 

was undertaken in these regions was typically not led by regional planners 

in MPOs. Airport sponsors (in the Atlanta, Las Vegas, and New York 

regions) or state authorities (in Chicago) led efforts, with planning limited 

to the airports under their direct authority. All of these regions except 

Chicago have received funding from FAA for regional airport planning, 

with amounts ranging from nearly $3 million for JFK in the New York 

region—where the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Port 

Authority) carries out planning for its 5 airports—to $200,000 each in 

Atlanta and Las Vegas. Table 5 provides information about the range of 

regional airport planning in regions with airports forecast to be 

significantly congested that have not prepared RASPs, the leadership of 

these activities, and funding received from FAA. 

45Innovative Approaches to Addressing Aviation Capacity Issues.

Page 27 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

Table 5: Regional Airport Planning in Those Regions with Potentially Congested Airports That Have Not Prepared RASPs 

Regions with 

potentially 

congested 

airports Overview of regional airport planning and leadership 

FAA funding for regional 

airport planning, 1999–2008 

Atlanta There is currently no regional airport planning under way, according to FAA, 

although past efforts included the identification of potential sites for a new airport. 

The City of Atlanta—the sponsor of Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport—

is studying ways to maximize capacity at the airport with the support of FAA. Once 

remaining unsatisfied demand is identified as part of this effort, other off-airport 

options will be studied, according to FAA, which may include a second airport, highspeed rail to other underutilized airports, or the expansion of an existing generalaviation airport, among other options. 

1999: $100,000 

2000: $100,000 

Chicago The Chicago area is not part of a broad, comprehensive regional airport planning 

effort, according to FAA. Instead, planning is done for individual airports by their 

sponsors. The City of Chicago’s Department of Aviation is responsible for all 

planning at O’Hare and Midway and is involved in the O’Hare Modernization Project, 

which aims to reduce existing delays and increase capacity to meet future aviation 

needs. Other local agencies are responsible for other airports in the region. Finally, 

the State of Illinois continues to work on plans for the potential establishment of 

South Suburban Airport to be located near Peotone, Illinois. FAA is in the early 

stages of an environmental analysis of this proposed airport. 

Las Vegas The Clark County Department of Aviation owns and operates the three main airports 

in the region and operates them as a system. The Clark County Department of 

Aviation has a strategic plan, has considered a regionwide solution to future capacity 

shortfalls at Las Vegas McCarran International Airport, and is planning construction 

of a new supplemental commercial airport. 

1999: $200,000 

New York The Port Authority carries out its own planning for its airports, which include the three 

large-hub airports in the region: JFK, LaGuardia, and Newark as well as Stewart 

International, a general aviation airport. Plans are not publicly released nor have 

airport master plans been prepared for the Port Authority’s airports. Other regional 

airports, including those in Atlantic City or on Long Island, carry out their own 

planning. 

A regional demand study completed in 2007 provided information about potential 

service areas for each of the region’s airports and discussed the strengths and 

limitations of facilities—including airfield and terminal infrastructure as well as 

ground-access issues. The study found that while the airspace/airfield needs at JFK, 

LaGuardia, and Newark pose the most complex challenges to providing sufficient 

capacity, secondary airports in the region would need improved ground-access and 

terminal infrastructure to serve as viable alternates. 

The Regional Plan Association, a nonprofit, civic group, has received funding from 

the Port Authority to develop an airport system plan. The study began in earnest this 

year, according to officials, and aims to identify options to relieve congestion, which 

may include improvements to the region’s primary airports, increased use of 

alternate regional airports, NextGen enhancements, improved access, and use of 

other modes such as rail. A final conference is planned for next summer, followed by 

a report. Non-Port Authority airports will be invited to be stakeholders if 

recommendations include them. 

2002: $1,700,000 

2008: $1,277,730 

Two grants were awarded to 

the MPO in Philadelphia for 

the FAA Regional Air Service 

Demand Study in the New 

York region: 

2003: $350,000 

2005: $325,000 

Sources: GAO analysis of regional airport planning documents, interviews with officials in selected regions, and FAA. 

Page 28 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

FAA and Airports Have 

Used These Plans 

Selectively in Decision 

Making 

While regional airport planning has been undertaken in each of the regions 

forecast to have significantly congested airports, FAA has used the results 

of this planning selectively when working with airports or making funding 

decisions. In each of the five potentially congested regions we visited, FAA 

regional officials stated that they may look at RASPs or other regional 

airport plans when reviewing projects at individual airports. FAA regions, 

however, do not carry out a systematic review of RASPs to ensure that 

they meet the guidance for airport system planning, and none of the FAA 

regions we spoke with regularly used them in decision making when 

funding airport improvements, despite the potential identified by FAA and 

others for RASPs to identify potential options to alleviate congestion. For 

example, FAA officials in the Western-Pacific Region stated that capital 

investment decisions are made on the basis of airport master plans or 

airport layout plans. The officials noted that RASPs can serve as a 

tiebreaker among projects, but that funding decisions are made using 

national-level priorities. FAA officials in the Eastern Region also stated 

that they did not refer to RASPs when selecting projects for AIP funding, 

although they would assume that regional forecasts and airport roles 

would be reflected in airport master plans. As in the Western-Pacific 

Region, we were told that RASPs might be used to resolve tiebreakers for 

competing projects. 

Airport officials in the regions we selected told us that no RASP to date 

had been adopted into the airport-level capital improvement plans—

airport layout or airport master plans—that guide decision making. For 

example, airport officials in Philadelphia stated that regional airport 

planning, including the RASP, has little influence on decisions made by the 

City of Philadelphia or by Philadelphia International Airport. Officials at 

other airports, however, said that these plans may be considered during 

airport-level planning. In the Los Angeles region, airport officials at John 

Wayne Airport in Orange County, for example, stated that while they may 

consider the RASP when making decisions about airport improvements, it 

is not the primary driver for these decisions because, in their view, 

regional and airport priorities necessarily differ. By contrast, the airport 

sponsor of LAX has pursued suggestions or strategies from RASPs when 

making decisions regarding airport improvements or capacity. Los Angeles 

World Airports, which operates LAX, as well as airports in Ontario and 

Van Nuys, based internal strategic planning for LA/Palmdale Regional 

Airport on the distribution of passenger traffic among regional airports 

developed by the region’s MPO. Los Angeles World Airports also for a time 

pursued a decentralization strategy similar to that suggested in the 

RASP—attempting to develop LA/Palmdale Regional Airport—although 

the airport sponsor focused on serving local passengers, rather than 

Page 29 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

passengers that might travel to the airport from elsewhere in the region. 

Finally, Los Angeles World Airports is supporting the development of a 

high-speed rail line that would divert passenger traffic by either improving 

access to alternate regional airports or carrying passengers on busy 

regional corridors, which was also included in the RASP.46 

Airport officials at San Diego International Airport and SFO—both in 

regions with significantly congested regions currently developing RASPs—

anticipate using the RASPs for their airport-level planning. The San Diego 

RASP is being developed by the airport sponsor itself, and future airport 

plans at San Diego International are expected to reflect findings from the 

RASP, according to airport officials, although there is no assurance that 

the RASP would be considered by other airports in the region. Likewise, in 

San Francisco, SFO airport officials are supporting ongoing regional 

airport planning and stated that they expected to consider findings 

included in the RASP when developing airport plans. 

While not included in our in-depth analysis of selected regions, state 

department of transportation officials in Florida explained that RASPs in 

the state are closely tied to airport decision making, given the link 

between these plans—which are developed as part of the state’s airport 

planning process—and the state’s airport improvement program. Airport 

capital plans reflect state priorities to be eligible for these state funds. 

RASPs are developed by committees made up of airport sponsors and 

MPOs. The state department of transportation facilitates and supports 

these committees, and the resulting regional plans are incorporated into 

the state’s aviation system plan, thus becoming state priorities. The 

priorities reflected in the RASPs, however, are not linked to the decision 

making done by FAA for AIP funding, according to a state official. 

In those areas that have not developed RASPs, regional airport planning 

has contributed to some decision making. In the New York region, for 

example, FAA led efforts to carry out a regional demand study looking at 

current traffic at regional airports—both the primary and smaller regional 

airports—as well as surveying passengers to determine where they came 

from in the region and if alternate airports might be closer than the three 

 

46Los Angeles World Airports attempted to develop service at alternative regional airports 

in Ontario and Palmdale. This effort has stalled, however, given the recent downturn in 

demand, and the sponsor has redirected its attention to improving LAX, according to 

airport officials. Recently, Los Angeles World Airports gave up its lease to LA/Palmdale 

Regional Airport. 

Page 30 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

congested primary airports. The study also identified the development 

needs for regional airports. Based in part on the study’s forecasts, the Port 

Authority acquired Stewart International Airport north of the city in 2007. 

The newly acquired Stewart International Airport is seen by the Port 

Authority to have the potential to ease some congestion pressure on other 

Port Authority airports—without removing passengers from the Port 

Authority system—if airlines can be attracted to provide service to serve 

the local population.47 By contrast, the Port Authority has not included the 

other potential alternate airports identified in the demand study—

Westchester County and Long Island MacArthur Airport—in regional 

airport planning currently being undertaken by the Regional Plan 

Association, which is a nonprofit, civic group that has received funding 

from the Port Authority to develop an airport system plan. These alternate 

airports are outside the Port Authority system, and Regional Plan 

Association officials stated that non-Port Authority airports would be 

invited to participate in finalizing the regional plan if draft 

recommendations included them. Figure 5 illustrates, as of 2005, the 

service areas for the main airports in the New York-New Jersey region and 

shows the location of six other airports in the region, including Stewart 

International. 

 

47The regional demand study found that Stewart International Airport served 13 percent of 

the population that was identified as being within its service area in 2005. An improved rail 

connection between Stewart International and New York City is under study. Such a 

connection could attract travelers who would otherwise travel from one of the region’s 

more congested airports. 

Page 31 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

Figure 5: Service Areas for the Primary Airports in the New York–New Jersey Region, 2005 

ATLANTIC

OCEAN

LONG ISLAND SOUND

DELAWARE BAY

0 10 20 30 40 Statute miles

0 10 20 30 40 Nautical miles

Bradley

International

(BDL)

Sources: FAA Regional Air Service Demand Study and GAO.

Philadelphia

International

(PHL)

Bradley

International

(BDL)

Atlantic City

International

(ACY)

TrentonMercer

(TTN)

Lehigh Valley h Valley

International

(ABE)

Lehigh Valley

International Newark Liberty

International

(EWR) John F. Kennedy

International

(JFK)

Long Island

MacArthur

(ISP)

Westchester

County

(HPN)

Stewart

International

(SWF)

Long Island

MacArthur

(ISP)

Westchester

County

(HPN)

Stewart

International

(SWF)

LaGuardia

(LGA)

Newark service area LaGuardia service area JFK service area

Page 32 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

FAA officials and others pointed to the regional airport planning in the 

Boston region as being a role model effort.48 Officials with Massport, the 

sponsor of Logan International Airport (Logan) in Boston, and planning 

officials began to seek regional solutions in the 1990s after it was 

determined that Logan, the region’s primary commercial facility, would be 

unable to fully accommodate growing regional demand and that there 

were no options to construct a new primary airport. Regional airport 

planning has included a series of demand studies and a RASP that 

concentrated on finding and implementing a mix of solutions. The 

resulting plans recommend improvements at Logan; the increased use of 

underutilized airports in the region and improvements at these airports; as 

well as the expanded use of other modes of travel, notably high-speed rail 

in the Northeast Corridor. 

In the Boston Region, 

Which Is Not Forecast to 

Be Significantly 

Congested, Regional 

Airport Planning Was Tied 

to Airport Decision Making 

FAA played an important role in the Boston region by supporting regional 

airport planning and incorporating the regional approach into its decision 

making for airport capital improvement projects. The regional airport 

planning in the Boston region was led by local airports and facilitated by 

the FAA regional office, which provided funding for studies as well as 

taking a leading role in the most recent demand study and the 

development of the 2006 RASP. FAA’s involvement in the regional airport 

planning was credited to the interest of the agency’s regional staff. 

Massport officials explained that regional airports would have been 

reluctant to participate in a project headed by Massport, and the 

involvement of the Massachusetts Aeronautics Division and FAA helped 

convene stakeholders and get people to participate in the process. FAA 

also worked with regional airports to develop capital plans to identify 

needed airport improvements that were consistent with the RASP, 

according to regional FAA and Massport officials.49

The Boston region does not have an airport among those forecast to be 

significantly congested in FAA’s FACT 2 report, assuming planned 

improvements occur, and FAA and Massport officials give some credit to 

the implementation of regional airport planning in reducing congestion. 

 

48The Boston region was not among those airports forecast by the FAA’s FACT 2 report to 

be significantly congested by 2025, even if planned improvements occur. 

49FAA, The New England Regional Airport System Plan, Fall 2006, which is available at 

the following Web address: 

http://www.faa.gov/airports/new_england/planning_capacity/airport_system_plan/media/ne

rasp_section_1.pdf. 

Page 33 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

Officials at Massport point to improvements at Logan—which included a 

new runway, new taxiways, reductions in minimum spacing between 

aircraft, and issuance of peak period pricing mechanisms—as well as to 

the regional airport planning as being important to addressing the capacity 

challenges that faced the airport. Furthermore, the region was significantly 

less congested following the September 11, 2001 (9/11), terrorist attacks, 

with passenger levels at Logan dropping 18 percent from 2000 to 2002, 

although this traffic has largely returned. Following the 9/11 attacks, there 

was an increase in passengers using Amtrak to travel to New York City, 

demonstrating the potential for high-speed rail to complement air service 

and potentially reduce airport congestion. 

The realization of the goals of regional airport planning in the Boston 

region was greatly aided by the decision of Southwest Airlines to initiate 

service at T.F. Green Airport near Providence, Rhode Island, in 1996, and 

at Manchester-Boston Regional Airport in Manchester, New Hampshire, in 

1998, and airline officials pointed to regional airport planning as a factor 

facilitating these decisions. Southwest officials stated that the regional 

demand study pointed to potential demand near these airports and helped 

to pique their interest, in addition to their own analysis, in exploring 

expanded service in the New England region. Furthermore, airport 

improvements at T.F. Green Airport and Manchester-Boston Regional 

Airport allowed for the expansion. The airline debuted service at one gate 

at T.F. Green. Due to the strong demand, the airline requested that the 

airport construct a terminal expansion, which allowed Southwest to 

expand to four gates over the next couple of years. According to airline 

officials, both of these alternate regional airports met the airline’s 

expectations. 

Page 34 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

Since Regional 

Airport Planning Is 

Advisory, Competing 

Interests Can Derail 

Development and 

Implementation, 

While Aligned 

Interests Can Aid 

Implementation 

The Advisory Nature of 

RASPs and Other Regional 

Airport Plans and 

Competing Interests Are 

Factors That Hinder 

Planning and 

Implementation 

The MPOs that conduct regional airport planning have no authority over 

which airport improvement projects are priorities in their regions and, as a 

result, the RASPs they produce have little direct influence over airport 

capital investment and other decisions. Because MPOs do have authority 

over surface transportation projects—only projects prioritized by MPOs 

are eligible to receive federal funding from the Federal Transportation 

Administration (FTA) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)—

MPOs can directly influence surface projects that affect airport access, but 

cannot directly affect the capacity of these airports. None of the airports 

we met with during the course of our review are required to consider or 

incorporate the recommendations of RASPs into their ALPs or airport 

master plans. In most of the 6 regions that have developed or are 

developing RASPs, airport officials—such as those at LAX and SFO—

stated that they would consider the region’s perspective in an informal 

fashion, even though recommendations included in RASPs are not binding. 

Other airports we interviewed were more guarded about their 

consideration of regional airport planning conducted by MPOs. Airport 

officials at John Wayne Airport in the Los Angeles region stated that the 

region’s RASP is not a primary driver of airport decision making, in part 

because regional planning priorities are likely to differ from those of the 

airport, particularly regarding mitigation strategies for surrounding 

communities. Airport officials at Philadelphia International stated that the 

airport does its own planning without input from regional planners, 

although the airport is active in the development of regional airport 

Page 35 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

plans.50 As a result, regional priorities may not be reflected in the decisionmaking documents that guide capital improvements at airports. Ongoing 

research being developed for the ACRP similarly notes that while regional 

airport planning could fill the gap between airport- and national-level 

planning, most regional airport planning conducted to date has not been 

influential due in part to the fact that airport sponsors retain authority 

over planning and development decisions. 

According to FAA, it is also not required to consider MPO-developed 

RASPs, even when these plans are funded with FAA grants.51 FAA officials 

stated that the inclusion or absence of a project in a RASP had little 

influence whether the agency approved AIP grants for an individual 

airport project, serving in some cases as a tiebreaker but not guiding 

project prioritization. FAA considers AIP grants for capital improvements 

on an airport-by-airport basis, based on national criteria. Airports justify 

improvement projects individually using forecasts from their own service 

areas, and the national criteria that FAA uses does not consider how 

improvements exist in a regional context, except during the environmental 

review process.52

As we have previously discussed, FAA regional offices have some latitude 

in determining which projects to fund, and FAA’s funding and support of 

regional airport planning itself may vary within the agency and by project. 

Thus, while FAA guidance and headquarters staff encourage regional 

airport planning, two MPOs in regions with significantly congested 

airports have had difficultly in obtaining funding for regional airport 

planning in recent years. For example, in the Philadelphia region, an MPO 

official told us they sought funds to assess capacity and demand across the 

airports in its region with a demand study similar to the ones completed 

 

50Airport officials told us that regional planners would be able to provide input on airportlevel plans at public hearings, during the public comment period. An airport official 

currently chairs the MPO’s regional aviation committee and updates the MPO on the 

airport’s planning activities. 

51According to FAA, 49 U.S.C. § 47106(a)(1) gives the agency the option of reviewing a 

MPO-developed RASP for consistency with a project for purposes of AIP funding eligibility. 

52According to FAA planning officials, airports within a region are considered during the 

environmental review process for specific projects. At that time, the agency considers 

service areas and the potential capacity of alternate airports and their ability to satisfy the 

required consideration of project alternatives under the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969. Pub. L. No. 91-190, 83 Stat. 852, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq. 

Page 36 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

with FAA funding in Boston and New York.53 FAA officials told us that 

they rejected the study for Philadelphia because it would have include

significant marketing component—which is ineligible for AIP funding—

and it might not be good timing for the MPO to conduct capacity analysis 

at the same time as the environmental impact statement for proposed 

improvements at Philadelphia International is under way. An MPO official 

told us that regional planners hoped to use the results of the study to 

develop recommendations and prioritize improvement projects in their 

region—as had been done with the FAA-supported demand study and 

related RASP in the Boston region. Additionally, FAA officials told us that 

AIP funding to the MPO had declined in recent years, but that FAA did not 

view other recent MPO proposals as useful. FAA has not provided funds 

for regional airport planning in Los Angeles since 2005, although the MPO 

has developed a RASP in the meantime without FAA funding. According to 

FAA regional officials, the regional airport planning carried out by the 

MPO offered impractical solutions—notably, a proposal to construct 

magnetic levitation (maglev) train lines to regional airports—that were not 

financially feasible. MPO officials in Los Angeles pointed to other aspects 

of RASPs developed by the MPO every 4 years, such as the forecasting and 

consideration of alternate regional airports, as evidence of its value, and 

expressed frustration that technical support from FAA was difficult to 

obtain.

d a 

 

54 

For MPOs that want to carry out continuous planning, the lack of 

consistent funding may limit their ability to maintain staff and conduct 

planning on an ongoing basis. FAA’s guidance on airport system planning 

points to the importance of continuous planning, but FAA’s AIP funding 

process is not structured to prioritize it. This is in contrast to the MPO-led 

surface transportation planning process, which according to FTA and 

FHWA guidance was developed to ensure continuous planning, among 

other things. Rather, projects are evaluated on a case-by-case basis for AIP 

funding, which favors projects with discrete products, although the AIP 

handbook notes that funding is available for continuous planning, which 

may include continuing surveillance and coordination of the airport 

system, periodic plan reevaluation, special studies, and the updating of 

RASPs. The MPOs in two of the regions with potentially significantly 

53The New York demand study included several of the regional airports in the Philadelphia 

region, but did not include Philadelphia International, the region’s most congested airport. 

54According to regional officials, the maglev proposal will be replaced by the voterapproved, state high-speed rail system in the 2012 RASP. 

Page 37 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

congested airports maintain aviation planning staff to carry out regional 

airport planning on an ongoing basis. In each of these regions, the MPOs 

received AIP grant funding from FAA for regional airport planning for a 

number of years, but this funding has been curtailed in recent years. In Los 

Angeles, the MPO has received no AIP funding since 2005 and has 

continued to carry out regional airport planning using its own resources. 

While it received AIP funding in recent years, the MPO in Philadelphia 

limited the scope of its regional airport planning to special studies—rather 

than continuous system planning—according to regional planning 

officials, as the result of reduced FAA support for continuous system 

planning.55 According to ongoing research being developed for the ACRP, 

these two regions are among a handful of MPOs nationwide that employ 

aviation specialists—staff that could be involved in the type of monitoring 

involved in continuous planning.56 

The advisory nature of regional airport planning and its lack of a 

connection to capital investment decisions are not the only hindrances to 

regional airport planning and implementation. We also found that a 

number of competing interests can derail a plan and prevent 

implementation. When the individual interests of airports, communities, 

and airlines are not aligned, for example, they can hinder regional airport 

planning and implementation. Furthermore, the lack of funding for 

planning can also be a hindrance. Additional hindrances include the 

following: 

Airport interests. A major hindrance to regional airport planning and 

implementation are the differing interests of airports in a region that may 

conflict with an integrated regional approach. Airport interests may 

include maximizing revenue generation and protecting markets—including 

high-value business or long-haul markets. As a consequence, regional 

 

55The reduction in funding for regional airport planning in the Philadelphia region 

continued in fiscal year 2009. In that year, FAA awarded the MPO $76,921 to count 

operations—arrivals and departures—at general aviation and reliever airports, according to 

regional officials. This amount contrasts with annual grant amounts ranging from $410,310 

to $189,170 over the prior 10 years. 

56Other MPOs able to maintain aviation specialists include those in St. Louis and 

Washington, D.C. The latter is unique among the nation’s MPOs in that it receives a steady 

stream of federal funding to support its regional airport planning. According to FAA, the 

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments receives about $300,000 annually in the 

form of an annual state apportionment from AIP. These funds are to be spent within the 

specific state from which the apportionment came. Since there are no publicly owned 

airports in Washington, D.C., the funds are used for regional airport planning in the region. 

Page 38 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

airport planning may be more difficult to undertake and implement in 

locations where airports see themselves to be in direct competition with 

other airports in their region, particularly if they perceive that such 

planning may divert traffic or resources to competing airports. Airport 

officials in Philadelphia told us that they do not want to support federal 

efforts, including regional airport planning, that could lead to losing or 

diverting flights from their airport to other airports in the region, for 

example, because the City of Philadelphia—which owns Philadelphia 

International—does not want to lose revenue generated at its airport to 

other airports. In other regions, we found that distrust between some 

airports has limited the range of solutions considered in RASPs. For 

example, the MPO and Los Angeles World Airports airport officials told us 

that other airport sponsors in the region—including those for airports in 

Long Beach, Burbank, and Orange County—have viewed regional airport 

planning suspiciously, notably the planning undertaken by the nowdefunct Southern California Regional Airport Authority. This authority 

theoretically had the ability to force airports to accept more traffic. 

Regional airport planning carried out by the MPO, however, does not 

include such authority, and since 2001 RASPs have been developed that 

respect the physical constraints and legal restrictions at individual airports 

in the region. 

Community interests. Some local community interests, such as those 

focused on noise or environmental concerns, may impede or limit regional 

airport planning and implementation. As the result of community pressure, 

two airports in the Los Angeles region—John Wayne Airport in Orange 

County and Long Beach Airport—have legal agreements and requirements, 

respectively, that allow them to limit the capacity of their facilities, for 

example. MPO officials in the region told us that airport sponsors at these 

airports primarily participated in regional airport planning to ensure that 

existing limits on capacity or expansion were respected. These airports 

are forecast to need additional capacity by 2025, given that they are not 

expected to meet passenger demand. Other airports in the region are also 

working to respond to community pressure to limit growth or operations, 

and such agreements may further restrict the available airport capacity 

under certain conditions in the region. For example, the airport sponsor of 

LAX has agreed to limit the number of operations at the airport in 

response to community concerns about noise, air quality, and the quality 

of life in surrounding communities. In addition, the airport sponsor at Bob 

Hope Airport in Burbank applied to FAA to make a voluntary nighttime 

curfew permanent, which had the potential to put pressure on nearby 

airports, such as LAX, or airports in Ontario and Van Nuys. While FAA 

Page 39 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

denied the application, even voluntary agreements of this type reduce the 

regional options for meeting passenger demand for air travel. 

Airline interests. Airlines act independently of both airports and 

communities, and their independence may complicate efforts to plan 

regionally. Airlines make decisions about which airports to serve and the 

level of services they will offer according to their business and network 

plans, and such decisions may not align with airport and MPO plans. Most 

notably, in a congested region, planning officials might suggest that traffic 

migrate to lesser-used alternate airports, as they have in Los Angeles. 

However, this suggestion may conflict with the business plans of airlines 

that already serve primary airports in a region. Such airlines generally 

want to focus their traffic in a city at one major airport, both for cost and 

revenue reasons.57 In addition, while MPOs may want to develop capacity 

in the system, this development may not align with the objectives of 

airlines. Individual airlines may prefer to sell limited capacity at a premium 

price or limit the ability of other airlines to provide competing service. 

FAA guidance on airport system planning points to the importance of 

understanding airline business models when suggesting the use of 

alternate regional airports. Regional planning and airport officials in 

several of the regions we visited noted that they concentrated on 

attracting new entrants to the market or airlines whose business plans 

included serving alternate airports—primarily low-cost carriers—for 

service at these airports. The use of demand management strategies that 

provide incentives for airlines to serve alternate regional airports—or a 

disincentive to serving congested, primary airports—could serve to align 

the interests of airlines and airports or regional planners as well, 

according to some airport officials. 

Airport sponsors and MPOs in our selected regions indicated that they had 

little influence over airline service levels and locations, which made it 

difficult to align divergent and sometimes competing interests. Regional 

planners with whom we met also indicated that they found it difficult to 

engage airlines in their regional airport planning. For example, MPO 

officials in Philadelphia reported that airline representatives had attended 

 

57First, it is costly to set up operations at multiple airports, therefore an airline would need 

to more than make up for these additional costs on the revenue side of their balance sheet. 

Second, airlines operating on a network system feed transferring traffic into their system at 

hubs, and decentralizing traffic would make this more difficult to accomplish, which is 

particularly true for the most profitable long-haul and international routes, according to 

industry officials. 

Page 40 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

only one planning meeting. Likewise, in San Diego, an airline 

representative was included on the advisory committee, but airlines were 

not participating in regional planning. According to airline representatives, 

airlines are typically not involved in regional planning, although they may 

participate in airport-level planning, given their interest in controlling 

costs. An additional complicating factor is a difference in airport or 

regional planning and airline planning. Whereas airports use 5- to 10-year 

forecasts to develop master plans for capacity investments and RASPs 

may be updated every 2 to 5 years, airlines’ assets are largely mobile and 

can move from one market to another with relative ease. 

Legal restrictions. Current airport revenue rules generally do not allow 

airports to price their services regionally; therefore, using pricing to even 

supply and demand among various airports is not possible. Airfield 

revenues may not exceed the aggregate costs to the airport sponsor of 

providing airfield services and airfield assets currently in use, with certain 

exceptions.58 The fees that airports typically charge airlines to operate at 

individual airports—including rental charges and landing fees—are based 

on the historical costs of operating the facility according to FAA. 

Improving alternate airports can make them more expensive, since the 

costs for such improvements become part of the rate base charged to 

airlines. For example, in the Los Angeles region, fees for airlines at the 

more-congested LAX are less than at less-congested airports in the region, 

such as Ontario International, in part due to previous improvements at the 

smaller airport. Furthermore, airport-airline lease agreements, which, 

according to officials, can prohibit some airport sponsors from 

transferring funds from one airport to another, even if they have the same 

sponsor, also can limit the options available for regional airport planning. 

As a result, it may be challenging to adjust these fees in a regional context 

to provide financial incentives to airlines to serve less-congested airports, 

if these airports have higher operating costs. 

 

58Policy Regarding Airport Rates and Charges, 73 Fed. Reg. 40430 (July 14, 2008), 2.2, 

amending the 1996 Policy Regarding Airport Rates and Charges, 61 Fed. Reg. 31994 (June 

21, 1996). The 2008 amendment provided airport sponsors of congested airports (as defined 

in the policy) with the ability to include in the airfield fees a portion of the airfield costs of 

other, underutilized airports owned and operated by the same sponsor or a portion of the 

costs of airfield projects under construction. The 2008 amendment also allows a congested 

airport to impose a fee on each operation, under certain conditions. The current policy is 

being challenged in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals—Air Transportation Association of 

America, Inc. v. Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Case No. 08-1293 (D.C. Cir.). 

Page 41 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

From our in-depth analysis, we identified a number of factors that aided 

regions in the development and implementation of regional airport 

planning. In general, we found that when stakeholders were supportive of 

regional airport planning, the plans resulting from these efforts were more 

likely to be used. More specifically, the factors that helped align these 

various stakeholders include the following: 

Regional Airport Planning 

Is Aided by Several 

Factors, and 

Implementation Only 

Occurs When Interests Are 

Aligned 

Legal considerations. Legal considerations served to facilitate planning 

in two of our selected regions. After residents of San Diego County 

rejected a proposal to develop a second airport, a law was passed that 

required the county’s airport authority to develop a RASP by June 30, 

2011.59 The law requires the airport authority—which operates San Diego 

International—to prepare and adopt a plan that identifies workable 

strategies to improve the performance of the regional airport system.60 In 

the San Francisco region, a state agency, the Bay Conservation and 

Development Commission, controls the permitting process for 

development within 100 feet of the shoreline of San Francisco Bay. Both 

SFO and Oakland International airports sit on land adjacent to the bay and 

therefore are subject to the commission’s review and permitting process, 

depending upon the type of development projects these airports propose. 

The commission has stated that it would deny projects—including the 

construction of new runways—that would affect the bay, unless the 

airports exhaust all reasonable alternatives to providing capacity. In 

practice, the region’s RASP development process has become the venue to 

explore such alternatives. 

Constraints on infrastructure. A number of constraints to airport 

construction—geographic, environmental, and political—spur regional 

airport planning. In Boston, for example, Logan is largely locked into its 

existing footprint, given its waterfront location and surrounding 

community. Officials in several of our selected regions mentioned similar 

constraints as reasons for participating in regional airport planning. In San 

Francisco, filling the bay to build capacity would be extremely costly and 

may be unlikely, given environmental concerns. Likewise, terrain 

surrounding San Diego International and the airport’s small footprint limit 

expansion opportunities. Each of these regions is using regional airport 

 

59Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 132358. The California law requires that the San Diego County 

Regional Airport Authority develop a regional aviation strategic plan for the region. Airport 

authority officials stated that this document will serve as the region’s RASP. 

60Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 132358(a). 

Page 42 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

planning to help identify additional options for providing transportation 

capacity. 

MPO and FAA interest and involvement. Regional airport planning 

was more likely to occur when a MPO or FAA took an active interest in 

advancing regional airport planning. In several of the regions we visited, 

for example, MPOs had aviation planners that carried out system planning. 

Such planners in Philadelphia have engaged in a variety of regional airport 

planning, including the development of a RASP and prioritizing airport 

projects for state funding. MPO officials are also active in Los Angeles at 

the Southern California Association of Governments. Over the course of 

many years, this MPO has developed several RASPs, and FAA has 

provided funding for some of this planning. The MPO also has created and 

maintained a sophisticated modeling tool, allowing it to do airport choice 

modeling for the entire region.61 Ongoing efforts to create and update 

RASPs under way in San Diego and San Francisco are being undertaken 

jointly by MPO and airport officials. 

While some FAA and airport officials questioned the regional airport 

planning expertise of MPOs, MPOs regularly prepare surface 

transportation plans and this experience may aid them in developing 

RASPs. MPOs are required to develop long-range (20 year) transportation 

plans and short-range (4 year) Transportation Improvement Programs 

(TIP) that identify strategies for operating, managing, enhancing, 

maintaining, and financing a metropolitan area’s transportation system, 

among other things, and the elements suggested for RASPs are similar to 

those included in these plans.62 For example, the surface transportation 

plans prepared by MPOs monitor existing conditions, carry out 

forecasting, and identify current and future transportation needs and 

potential improvement strategies. FAA guidance for airport system 

planning also includes an inventory of the current aviation system, 

forecasting, an identification of air transportation needs, and the 

 

61The MPO provided the seed money for the development of the forecasting and demand 

allocation model—known as RADAM—but most of the development was funded by private 

sources. As a result, the model itself is proprietary. According to regional officials, FAA 

prohibits the use of system planning grants for the development of modeling tools, 

including aviation forecasting models. 

62To receive federal surface transportation funding—from FTA and FHWA—any project in 

an urbanized area must emerge from the relevant MPO and state department of 

transportation planning process. Projects funded with FAA funds need not be included in 

these regional transportation plans. 

Page 43 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

consideration of alternative airport systems.63 In a survey conducted of 

MPOs nationwide for a prior GAO report, nearly 19 percent of MPOs 

reported that they engaged in regional airport planning—sometimes as a 

result of state requirements.64 We found that 17 (41 percent) of the 41 

largest MPOs that responded to the survey—those with populations with 

over 1 million people—indicated that they engaged in regional airport 

planning.65 Of these 41 MPOs, 39 have a large- or medium-hub airport 

within their jurisdictions.66 

Airports noted that outside groups, such as MPOs; nonprofit groups; or 

FAA can be useful in establishing regional airport planning since they can 

mitigate some of the suspicion that might be present if airports, 

particularly dominant ones, lead the planning. According to ongoing 

research being developed for the ACRP, MPOs can offer airport managers 

truly regional perspectives on planning, data, and analyses on travel 

behavior and demand in a geographically broad area and a neutral “table” 

at which airport managers and other key stakeholders can sit to work 

through coordination options and opportunities. Establishing a neutral 

table was especially helpful in the Boston region where FAA took an 

active role in helping to formulate a RASP and then to implement the 

recommendations. FAA regional officials helped develop the region’s 2006 

RASP by facilitating meetings among potentially reluctant stakeholders 

and leading an assessment of regional demand, among other tasks. FAA 

regional office then worked actively with airports in the region to integrate 

RASP recommendations into their capital plans and reviewed these plans 

against the RASP when making grant decisions. 

Political benefit. In several of the regions we visited, airports supported 

regional airport planning to obtain political acceptance for airport 

 

63Unlike the FTA or FHWA requirements for MPO surface transportation planning, FAA 

guidance does not include estimates of the impact on environmental features, including air 

quality. 

64In GAO’s survey, 324 MPOs of the 381 MPOs nationwide responded. See appendix III of 

this report for a more detailed discussion of MPOs and regional airport planning 

nationwide. Also GAO, Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Options Exist to Enhance 

Transportation Planning Capacity and Federal Oversight, GAO-09-868 (Washington, 

D.C.: Sept. 9, 2009), for more information about the survey. 

65In the GAO survey, 41 large MPOs responded to questions about regional aviation 

planning, while there are 42 such MPOs in total, excluding Puerto Rico. 

66The 2 MPOs without large- or medium-hub airports were among the 17 MPOs that carried 

out aviation planning activities. 

Page 44 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

improvement projects. Given sensitive environmental considerations, SFO 

and Regional Airport Planning Committee officials told us that they 

worked together on the RASP because any significant capital 

improvements would need the support of the regional body. Even when 

regional airport planning is undertaken without the leadership of a MPO, 

there can be political benefits. In the New York region, the Port Authority 

is funding a project by the Regional Plan Association to look at ways to 

build capacity within the Port Authority system. As part of this effort, 

Regional Plan Association officials told us they planned to poll the region’s 

residents before and after their planning process regarding delay and the 

public’s support for potential solutions. They anticipate that polling 

demonstrating greater public awareness of the problems posed by delays 

will build support for potential solutions, including less-popular options 

such as runway construction or other improvements at the three major 

airports in the region. 

Airport benefit. When airport objectives complement each other—

whether to increase, decrease, or maintain current flight levels—regional 

airport planning recommendations may be reflected in airport 

improvement decisions. In regions where a capacity-constrained primary 

airport wants to specialize in particular types of flights or service, for 

example, other airports in the region may benefit if they are interested in 

expanding other types of flights or services. Furthermore, we found that if 

a region’s primary airport or airports are engaged in regional airport 

planning, their involvement may engender momentum for planning and 

result in additional financial resources or other support. In Boston, which 

is a region generally seen as successful at regional airport planning, FAA 

officials told us that their efforts to shift traffic away from Logan was 

aided by Massport’s interest in reducing the number of smaller feeder 

flights that were consuming an increasing amount of the airport’s runway 

capacity. Its interest in making capacity available for international and 

long-haul flights rather than short-haul flights coincided with the interests 

of regional airports in New Hampshire and Rhode Island that wanted to 

expand service. Officials at SFO also expressed enthusiasm for renewed 

regional airport planning in their region. An airport official told us that 

such an effort might allow SFO to focus on a more-targeted segment of the 

aviation market, notably long-haul and international flights, while allowing 

alternate airports to expand shorter-haul domestic flights. SFO, together 

with the region’s other primary airports, has provided financial support to 

the regional planning process. In each of these cases, the region’s primary 

airport or airports took an active role in regional airport planning, by 

acting as participants as well as by contributing financial resources to 

sustain the efforts. 

Page 45 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

Conclusions The national airspace system is plagued by congestion and delay, with 

nearly one-in-four arriving flights delayed at major airports, even though a 

majority of the nation’s airports still have adequate capacity. FAA and 

others forecast that more airports and regions will be congested in the 

future, even if planned infrastructure and technological improvements 

occur. However, many regions that contain congested airports also have 

alternate airports that may be able to provide some congestion relief as 

well as other options, including using other modes of transportation such 

as high-speed rail. Regional airport planning can identify solutions to help 

relieve aviation congestion—that airport-level planning cannot. 

RASPs should include the range of elements identified by FAA for airport 

system planning to help establish a viable system of airports. While FAA 

reviews RASPs and other regional system plans to determine if they are 

eligible for FAA funding, in those cases where RASPs have been 

completed, FAA does not necessarily review the plans for conformance 

with FAA guidance or standards. Without a review process, FAA may not 

have confidence that RASPs are of a sufficient quality to guide decision 

making or to ensure that they are integrated with local airport-level plans, 

state airport system plans, and the NPIAS. Nor is there an incentive for 

FAA to work with regions to help ensure that RASPs meet certain 

standards, both in terms of content and quality. 

Except in the Boston region, the recommendations made in RASPs that we 

reviewed have not been systematically integrated into airport capital plans 

that currently guide airport decision making and FAA funding. Rather, 

both airport sponsors and FAA can choose to ignore RASPs, or to use 

them selectively, even though the federal government has contributed 

millions of dollars for their development. Congress, however, in creating 

the current AIP in 1982 indicated that FAA may give priority to projects 

that are consistent with integrated airport system plans, such as RASPs.67

If RASPs are ignored, the time, effort, and resources that MPOs, airports, 

and other regional bodies expend on these efforts—as well as FAA’s grant 

support—are not filling the gap between airport- and national-level 

planning efforts or ensuring that funding is used most efficiently to 

manage capacity within regions with large- or medium-hub airports. 

 

67Pub. L. No. 97-248, § 509(b)(9), 96 Stat. 324, 685 (1982), codified as amended at 49 U.S.C. § 

47120. 

Page 46 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

To ensure that federal AIP funds are employed to their maximum benefit 

and to improve the level of regional- and airport-level coordination, we 

recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct the Administrator 

of FAA to take the following two actions: 

1. Develop an FAA review process for regional airport system plans to 

ensure that they meet FAA standards and airport system planning 

guidance as well as provide technical support for regional planners 

undertaking such planning. 

2. Use its existing statutory authority to give priority to funding airport 

projects that are consistent with RASPs. 

We provided a draft of this report to DOT for its review and comment. 

DOT provided technical comments in an e-mail message on December 11, 

2009, which we incorporated into this report as appropriate. In reviewing 

the draft’s second recommendation to require that the RASPs are 

integrated with airport-level plans so that they are consistent and tied to 

FAA funding decisions, DOT officials indicated that they did not believe 

they had the authority to require airports to incorporate RASP 

recommendations unless airports concurred. As a result, to create 

incentives for airports to work with MPOs and other regional 

organizations, we modified the second recommendation for FAA to use its 

existing statutory authority to give airport projects that are consistent with 

RASPs greater priority for AIP funding. DOT generally agreed to consider 

our recommendations. 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents 

of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days after the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to interested 

congressional committees, the Secretary of Transportation and the Acting 

Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration. The report is also 

available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

Page 47 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
 

If you or your staffs have any questions concerning this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov. Contact points for 

our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. Staff members making key contributions to 

this report are listed in appendix IV. 

Gerald Dillingham, Ph.D. 

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues 

Page 48 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 49 GAO-10-120 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

To identify regions with potentially congested airports, we used the 

Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) 2007 report entitled Capacity 

Needs in the National Airspace System, 2007–2025 (FACT 2).1

 Using 

both demand and capacity forecasts, this report identifies airports that it 

predicts will face significant capacity constraints by 2015 and 2025. To 

obtain clarification on the methodology employed, we met with officials at 

both FAA and The MITRE Corporation to discuss the study’s design and 

findings and reviewed both published reports and unpublished work—

including the scores received by airports in the four assessments used to 

measure demand and capacity—supporting the FACT 2 study. Appendix II 

provides more information about the methodology used in the FACT 2 

report and its implications. 

To evaluate the challenges facing regions with potentially congested 

airports, the extent of regional airport planning being undertaken, and the 

factors that have aided or hindered planning and the implementation of 

regional airport plans, we carried out an in-depth analysis of selected 

regions. We identified regions for this analysis using the following four 

criteria: (1) existing and predicted aviation congestion based on FAA’s 

FACT 2 study, (2) whether regions had sought funding from FAA to carry 

out regional airport planning and the extent of the funding provided by 

FAA, (3) whether regional airport planning had occurred, and (4) whether 

regions were served by a single airport or multiple airports and the extent 

to which multiple airports in a region were governed by the same sponsor. 

Our assessment of regions with congested airports included Los Angeles, 

New York, Philadelphia, San Diego, and San Francisco. We also assessed 

regional airport planning activities in Boston, although this region is not 

among those with airports that FACT 2 forecast to be significantly 

capacity constrained. FAA officials and experts pointed to the Boston 

region as having undertaken successful regional airport planning. Each of 

the regions we selected received funding from FAA for regional airport 

planning from 1999 to 2008, and regional airport planning has been 

undertaken in each region. Three of the regions are served by multiple 

airports—sometimes under the same sponsor—while Philadelphia and San 

Diego are in regions with one major airport. For each of the regions we 

selected, we reviewed regional airport planning documents and 

interviewed officials at FAA airport district offices, airports officials or 

 

1

See FAA, Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System, 2007–2025: An Analysis of 

Airports and Metropolitan Area Demand and Operational Capacity in the Future

(Washington, D.C.: May 2007), a study prepared by The MITRE Corporation, Center for 

Advanced Aviation System Development. 

 National Airspace System 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

sponsors, state aviation departments, and metropolitan planning 

organizations (MPO).2

 These interviews addressed the following topics: 

• The nature of the regional airport system, including challenges 

involving capacity constraints or congestion and local constraints. 

• Participants or stakeholders in the regional airport planning process. 

• The extent that regional airport plans are used by airports, MPOs, 

states, and others to guide airport decision making and FAA airport 

funding decisions. 

• The inclusion of intermodal access and other ground transportation in 

regional airport plans. 

• Factors that aid or hinder regional airport planning or the 

implementation of regional airport plans. 

We interviewed FAA officials in the Office of Airport Planning and 

Programming to collect information about the types of plans involved in 

aviation planning; the nature and extent of regional airport planning in 

congested regions; the history of such regional planning; the roles of 

various stakeholders, including FAA; and the outcomes associated with 

regional airport planning to date. We also reviewed FAA’s advisory 

circular on the airport system planning process and related documents 

from FAA to summarize the guidance that FAA provides to airport system 

planners, including those in metropolitan areas.3

To analyze FAA funding for regional airport planning, we obtained grant 

data from FAA for metropolitan system planning in the agency’s airport 

improvement program (AIP) from fiscal years 1999 to 2008. These grants 

were awarded primarily to MPOs, but one state and several airport 

sponsors also received grants. To assess the reliability of these data, we 

reviewed the quality control procedures applied to the data by the 

Department of Transportation and subsequently determined that the data 

were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. 

 

2

In some regions, Councils of Governments or other regional bodies carry out regional 

planning, although we refer to “metropolitan planning organizations” throughout this 

report. 

3

FAA, The Airport System Planning Process, Advisory Circular No: 150/5070-7 

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 10, 2004). 

Page 50 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

To gain an understanding of the congested aviation regions and the 

potential impact of regional airport planning, we spoke with industry 

experts, including those in academia; airline industry representatives; and 

regional planners. We interviewed academics at the Massachusetts 

Institute of Technology and the University of California at Berkeley 

regarding work that they had undertaken on regional airport systems. We 

discussed airport system planning and congestion with the Air Transport 

Association, the National Association of State Aviation Officials, the ENO 

Transportation Foundation, and Airport Councils International. To discuss 

the results of regional airport planning in the Boston region, we 

interviewed officials with Southwest Airlines. We met with government 

officials and industry experts at a Transportation Research Board 

conference on aviation system planning. We also reviewed various reports 

and studies, including research on airport systems, congested regions, 

intermodal issues, and planning and on the use of alternative airports 

published by authors at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the 

University of California at Berkeley, GRA Incorporated, and the Airport 

Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) of the Transportation Research 

Board, among others. Finally, we reviewed previous GAO reports, 

including our prior work on aviation infrastructure, the Next Generation 

Air Transportation System (NextGen) program, MPOs, and high-speed rail. 

We conducted this performance audit from September 2008 to December 

2009, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Page 51 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
Appendix II: F

An

Capacit

ACT 2 Study’s Methodology for 

alyzing Future Airport and Metropolitan 

y Needs 

Page 52 GAO-10-120 

Appendix II: FACT 2 Study’s Methodology for 

Analyzing Future Airport and Metropolitan 

Capacity Needs 

The purpose of the FAA FACT 2 study is to analyze the extent to which 

airports and metropolitan areas in the United States will face aviation 

capacity constraints in the future. The study developed forecasts of 

expected operations (takeoffs and landings), demand, and the capacity to 

handle traffic at 56 airports and certain associated metropolitan areas.1

 By 

comparing, for each of three time frames (2007, 2015, and 2025) an 

airport’s expected demand with its projected capacity, the study then 

measured, in four different ways, the extent to which each airport may 

experience congestion and delay. The study used specific thresholds to 

designate whether an airport would be capacity constrained according to 

each of the four capacity assessments. To be so designated, an airport 

must be found to be capacity constrained across all four assessments for a 

given time frame. According to FAA and MITRE officials with whom we 

spoke, the study was designed to identify which airports would be the 

most capacity constrained. Because of the focus of the study, some 

airports that are also likely to face some degree of capacity problems are 

not among those identified as capacity challenged in the study. 

Using demand and capacity forecasts—each of which is evaluated in two 

different ways—the FACT 2 study produced four assessments of the 

extent of capacity challenges at each airport in 2015 and 2025. 

FACT 2 Study 

Identified Future 

Capacity-Constrained 

Airports That 

Exceeded Specified 

Thresholds for All 

Four of the Study’s 

Capacity Assessments 

Demand Forecasts The FACT 2 study used two different forecasts of future demand, both of 

which use economic, demographic, and airline industry information (such 

as expected fares and the degree of competition) to assess the expected 

level of future aviations operations at each airport. Both forecasts are also 

generally “unconstrained,” meaning they predict the extent to which 

 

1

The FACT 2 study, which was completed in 2007, also measures the degree of capacity 

constraints in the near term. Specifically, the study provides 2007 estimates of congestion 

and delay, but these estimates were based on data from a somewhat earlier time frame. See 

Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System, 2007-2025. 

 National Airspace System 
Appendix II: FACT 2 Study’s Methodology for 

Analyzing Future Airport and Metropolitan 

Capacity Needs 

demand will grow at an airport regardless of whether that airport would 

actually be able to handle all of the traffic. Key aspects of the forecasts are 

summarized as follows: 

• Terminal Area Forecasts (TAF): Produced by FAA each year, TAF 

forecasts project expected operations demand on an airport-by-airport 

basis, with separate forecasts for air carrier, commuter and air taxi, 

military, and general aviation operations. 

• Future Air Traffic Estimator (FATE) forecasts: Produced by MITRE,2

FATE forecasts project origin to destination traffic between 

metropolitan areas within the United States. This model then analyses 

how flights are likely to be scheduled by airlines to meet that demand, 

based on projections about which airports within a city, flight routes, 

and types of aircraft will be used for each flight segment.3

 The results 

are then restated on an airport-by-airport operations basis, and 

supplemented by the number of projected international and general 

aviation operations at each airport. 

Airport Capacity FACT 2 used two methods to evaluate airport capacity which then fed into 

the following two models of capacity constraint: the annual service 

volume (ASV) and national airspace system (NAS) modeling. Both models 

assessed existing capacity and for the 2015 and 2025 forecasts took into 

account planned additions or improvements to runways, technologies, and 

air traffic procedures. For the 35 Operational Evolution Partnership (OEP) 

airports and for Oakland International Airport, the 2025 analysis also took 

into account some elements of the expected improvements offered by 

NextGen implementation. 

• ASV: The ASV is the level of capacity—expressed in the number of 

operations during a year—at each airport that, if fully utilized, would 

be expected to be associated with a given level of average delay. A FAA 

model established the ASV level by examining existing data on the 

relationship between the level of operations and extent of delay across 

 

2

The MITRE Corporation is a not-for-profit organization that conducts federally funded 

engineering and technical research on a variety of public policy issues. MITRE’s Center for 

Advanced Aviation System Development provides technical support and analysis on an 

array of issues for FAA. 

3

The model assumes the maintenance of current carrier hub structures and employs a 

logistic choice model to assign aircraft to each flight segment based on various factors, 

most notably segment distance and passenger density (the number of passengers). 

Page 53 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
Appendix II: FACT 2 Study’s Methodology for 

Analyzing Future Airport and Metropolitan 

Capacity Needs 

a set of runway configurations in varied weather conditions at each 

airport. The model took into account the expected capacity-enhancing 

improvements and simulated, based on past experience, an ASV level 

that would be associated with a 7-minute average queuing delay at each 

airport.4

 

• NAS–Wide Modeling: While the ASV method establishes the level of 

demand that would be associated with an average level of delay, NAS 

modeling estimates the extent of delay that will result from a specific 

level of traffic, given an amount of capacity. The NAS modeling begins 

with “benchmark” airport capacity measures, which were established 

for most of the FACT 2 airports in an earlier study5

 based on the most 

commonly used airfield configuration in three weather conditions, 

information on weight classes of fleet at the airport, and other 

operational factors. Future capacities were then estimated based on 

any planned airport improvements at the airport and in ATC 

procedures and on NextGen improvements. 

Designation of CapacityConstrained Airports 

The key findings of the FACT 2 study are that assuming all capacity 

improvements—including those associated with NextGen for 2025—are 

taken into account, 6 airports will be capacity constrained in 2015 and 14 

(an additional 8) will be capacity constrained in 2025. For an airport to be 

designated as capacity constrained in 1 of the study’s forecast years, the 

airport had to be designated as capacity constrained in each of the 

following four assessments: 

• ASV with TAF forecasts: The ASV was compared with the TAF demand 

forecasts to obtain a ratio of forecasted demand to ASV. A threshold at 

80 percent was used in designating airports as capacity constrained, 

meaning that forecasted demand was 80 percent or higher than the 

ASV. 

 

4

Because the calculation of an ASV was time-consuming, ASV levels for 2025 were not 

necessarily computed in all cases. In particular, because the designation of an airport as 

capacity constrained in any of the forecast years required the airport to be found capacity 

constrained across all four assessments, future ASV values were not calculated if the 

airport was not found capacity constrained in either of the NAS assessments. If that is the 

case, the two additional assessments are not needed for determining whether the airport 

will be designated as capacity constrained (because the airport has already been 

determined to not meet that designation) and thus up-to-date ASVs are not necessary. 

5

For those airports included in FACT 2 that did not have benchmark capacities already 

established, MITRE developed such measures. 

Page 54 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
Appendix II: FACT 2 Study’s Methodology for 

Analyzing Future Airport and Metropolitan 

Capacity Needs 

• ASV with FATE forecasts: The ASV was also compared with the FATE 

demand forecasts to obtain a ratio of forecasted demand to ASV. A 

threshold at 80 percent was again used in designating airports as 

capacity constrained, meaning that forecasted demand was 80 percent 

or higher than the ASV. For example, for the Dallas–Forth Worth 

International (DFW) airport, the 2007 ASV ratio was 0.78 with the TAF 

demand forecast and 0.81 with the FATE forecast, indicating that the 

airport was just edging toward having a capacity problem at that time, 

according to the ASV assessments. For the 2025 forecasts at DFW, the 

ratios are 1.09 and 1.15 under TAF and FATE, respectively, indicating 

that according to the ASV assessments, DFW will become substantially 

more delayed by 2025. 

• NAS with TAF forecasts: This NAS assessment uses a “network 

queuing” model that simulates how traffic flows across the NAS, given 

the level of demand on routes and the extent of capacity at airports. 

This analysis measures the following for each airport: (1) average 

scheduled arrival delay,6

 (2) arrival queue delay,7 (3) percentage of 

scheduled arrival delay caused by local conditions, and (4) departure 

queue delay.8

 An advantage of the NAS method is that by analyzing the 

relationship between operations and capacity across the network, 

rather than on an airport-by-airport basis, the model can take into 

account how circumstances at one airport influence delay experienced 

at other airports. Moreover, this analysis enables the contributory 

causes of measured delay at any given airport to be identified; that is, it 

distinguishes among delay caused by conditions at the given airport, at 

other airports, and in the airspace. 

Using this model, two different triggers can cause an airport to be 

designated as capacity constrained. First, the capacity-constrained 

designation is triggered if the airport’s scheduled arrival delay is at 

least 12 minutes9 and, if in either weather condition examined, either

(1) the arrival queue delay exceeds 12 minutes or (2) local conditions 

 

6

“Scheduled arrival delay” is the average delay per flight arrival at the airport. 

7

“Arrival queue delay” is the average delay while a flight waits to land at an airport. 

8

“Departure queue delay” is the average time flights wait for departure at an airport. This 

delay is caused by local factors. 

9

Twelve minutes was used as a threshold in these analyses on the basis of FAA and MITRE 

officials’ view that most airports considered to have congestion problems generally have an 

average delay of at least 12 minutes. 

Page 55 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
Appendix II: FACT 2 Study’s Methodology for 

Analyzing Future Airport and Metropolitan 

Capacity Needs 

causes more than 50 percent of scheduled arrival delay. Using the 

secondary factors to supplement the scheduled arrival delay criteria 

allows capacity-constrained airports to be limited to those that 

experience delay caused by local factors. Second, an airport can also 

be designated as capacity constrained if the airport’s departure queue 

delay—which is considered to be fully caused by local factors—is at 

least 12 minutes. 

• NAS with FATE forecasts: The second NAS assessment uses the NASwide modeling approach with the FATE demand forecasts. Instead of 

rerunning the NAS model with FATE forecasts, outputs from the 

NAS/TAF runs are used and the differences between the FATE demand 

forecasts and the TAF forecast are examined to calibrate how model 

outputs would likely have been different under FATE demand 

forecasts. This assessment measures only average scheduled arrival 

delay. Under this model, an airport is designated as capacity 

constrained if the airport’s average scheduled arrival delay is at least 12 

minutes.

In addition to identifying airports that would be capacity constrained in 

the future, the FACT 2 study also identified metropolitan areas that are 

likely to have significant aviation capacity shortfalls. The study looked at 

Metropolitan Statistical Areas—geographic areas defined by the Office of 

Management and Budget—or combinations of such areas in the case of 

some larger metropolitan areas, and analyzed the expected aviation 

demand and capacity at the relevant airport or airports within those areas. 

For determining which metropolitan areas should be designated as 

capacity constrained, FACT 2 only examined those metropolitan areas that 

either contained a large- or medium-hub airport or at least two small-hub 

airports that the FACT 2 airport analysis had identified as capacity 

constrained. A metropolitan area could be designated in FACT 2 as 

capacity constrained for any of the following three reasons:10

FACT 2 Study Also 

Identified 

Metropolitan Areas 

That Will Face 

Capacity Constraints 

• The metropolitan area contained a large-hub airport that the study 

deemed capacity constrained and there were no other secondary 

airports serving the metropolitan area. 

 

10For this report, we considered regions surrounding the identified capacity-constrained 

airports, rather than using the congested metropolitan areas that FACT 2 identified. 

Page 56 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
Appendix II: FACT 2 Study’s Methodology for 

Analyzing Future Airport and Metropolitan 

Capacity Needs 

• The metropolitan area contained at least two large hubs, both of which 

were identified to be capacity constrained. 

• The study conducted an analysis of demand and capacity across the 

airports in each area. It used projected airport benchmark capacities 

and, using historical weather conditions, converted these hourly 

capacities into an annualized average expected capacity level for each 

airport in each forecast year. For each of the demand forecasts (TAF 

and FATE), capacity and demand across the relevant airports were 

summed for each forecast year. If the resulting ratio of metropolitan 

area demand (for either TAF or FATE) to metropolitan area capacity 

exceeded 0.8, then the metropolitan area was considered to be capacity 

constrained in that year. 

Long-term forecasts of airport demand and capacity, such as those 

undertaken in FACT 2, naturally face uncertainties. FACT 2 looked almost 

20 years into the future. A number of conditions could change over the 

course of those years and affect the accuracy of the forecasts, including 

unexpected changes in regional economic growth patterns, demographic 

movements, new airline industry business models, and the 

macroeconomy. New industries may also unexpectedly influence business 

and societal patterns. Since the time that FACT 2 was conducted, 

macroeconomic conditions have already changed considerably. In 

particular, because TAF and FATE demand forecasts were conducted 

prior to the current economic downturn, they are likely considerably 

higher than demand forecasts would be if they were to be conducted 

today. 

FAA’s Methodology 

Was Designed to 

Identify the Most 

Seriously Congested 

Airports and May 

Understate Future 

Congestion Problems 

The results of the FACT 2 study are not only impacted by forecasting 

uncertainties, but also the study’s purpose and design. According to 

officials from FAA and MITRE with whom we spoke, the FACT 2 study 

was intended to identify airports that will be highly capacity 

constrained—not just airports that may have some congestion and delay 

problems. In fact, the published study findings present only a list of 

airports that were found to be highly capacity constrained and do not 

report the underlying scores on the four assessments. For our work, we 

not only examined the published FACT 2 study, but also airports’ scores 

on the four assessments, and we also met several times with FAA and 

MITRE officials to gain a further understanding of the model design. We 

found that the objective of identifying “the worst of the worst” capacityconstrained airports was critical in structuring several elements of the 

FACT 2 study. These model elements are discussed more fully in the 

following text: 

Page 57 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
Appendix II: FACT 2 Study’s Methodology for 

Analyzing Future Airport and Metropolitan 

Capacity Needs 

• Meeting all four congestion thresholds: The FACT 2 study identified 

airports as either being congested or not, rather than presenting 

airports’ degree of capacity constraints along a continuum. 

Furthermore, it required that an airport be designated as congested on 

all four assessments to be designated as capacity constrained. These 

model design elements have two implications. First, there is not a full 

presentation of the range of capacity constraint—the published report 

only states whether an airport was determined to be capacity 

constrained or not. But the underlying scores are of a continuous 

nature, and some airports were close to the trigger level on some 

criteria. Moreover, if an airport did not meet the threshold for a 

designation of a capacity problem on both of the NAS assessments, the 

ASV assessment may not have been completed, since ASV levels were 

only reestablished for later years if they were needed for the analysis. 

In short, the study’s capacity-constrained designation criteria obscure 

the more continuous nature of the data when designating which 

airports are on or off the list, and a complete assessment across all four 

criteria was not completed in all cases. Second, because underlying 

scores for the assessments are not provided in the final study, the 

results also do not show how much greater capacity problems are 

likely to be at some of the airports than at others that do receive a 

capacity-constrained designation. For example, the findings for the 

Newark and Philadelphia Airports indicate that congestion and delay 

will be substantially more problematic in those locations, even when 

compared with many other of the designated capacity-constrained 

airports. 

• Seven-minute average delay threshold: The ASV assessments used a 7-

minute average delay threshold for determining available airport 

capacity, rather than the 4-minute delay that, according to FAA and 

MITRE officials, is more commonly used to measure delay-prone 

airports within ASV studies. A lower average delay threshold would 

have resulted in more airports meeting the capacity-constrained 

threshold, according to the two ASV criteria. 

• Planned improvements: The FACT 2 findings, which are predicated on 

the assumption that planned improvements will be completed in a 

timely manner, may understate future capacity problems if 

improvements fall behind schedule. The two sets of 2025 findings (i.e., 

with and without improvements) show that the planned improvements 

are critical for addressing capacity problems at airports. In particular, 

many more airports would be predicted to have significant capacity 

challenges under the FACT 2 analysis were it not for the greater 

capacity offered by the planned improvements. We have previously 

Page 58 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
Appendix II: FACT 2 Study’s Methodology for 

Analyzing Future Airport and Metropolitan 

Capacity Needs 

reported that some airport improvement projects have faced or may 

face delay in either funding or implementation.11 If the planned 

improvements underlying the FACT 2 study face similar delay, then the 

study may understate future capacity problems.12 Similarly, we have 

reported that NextGen improvements face challenges that may affect 

timely implementation, including some airlines’ reluctance to invest in 

the necessary equipment, and the need for FAA to validate and certify 

new technologies and issue certain rules before midterm 

implementation can occur.13 In addition, airport officials with whom we 

spoke expressed concerns that benefits from NextGen technological 

gains might not be fully realized if FAA does not change air traffic 

management standards (such as lowering ceiling requirements for 

certain types of approaches) to match the new technology. FACT 2 

acknowledged that more research on these types of air traffic 

management improvements is required. 

• Unaccounted for constraints: Certain constraints or local 

considerations that may limit either the growth at individual airports or 

traffic distribution among airports within a region were not accounted 

for in the FACT 2 analyses. For example, the study’s unconstrained 

demand estimates did not take into account legal restrictions at two 

airports in the Los Angeles area on the number of flights that can 

 

11In other work, we found that some airport improvement projects—including terminal 

renovations and runway reconstruction projects—have recently been delayed or canceled 

because of decreased revenue, less immediate demand for capacity-enhancing projects, 

and tightening credit markets. See GAO, Commercial Aviation: Airline Industry 

Contraction Due to Volatile Fuel Prices and Falling Demand Affects Airports, 

Passengers, and Federal Government Revenues, GAO-09-393 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 21, 

2009). 

12While we were not able to identify specific airport projects in the FACT 2 analyses facing 

such delays, similar challenges are possible for the OEP projects included in the FACT 2 

report. For example, we previously reported that FAA established a 5-year implementation 

time frame for its airspace redesign project in the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia 

region, but has not yet developed a detailed implementation plan or determined the type or 

amount of equipment or software needed to implement the airspace redesign. See GAO, 

FAA Airspace Redesign: An Analysis of the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Project, 

GAO-08-786 (Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2008). FAA’s airspace redesign project in Chicago 

is also intended to reduce operational constraints, leading to additional airfield capacity at 

Midway International. FACT 2 assumes this project will be implemented by 2015, taking the 

airport off the list of those facing capacity constraints by 2015. 

13For more information about the challenges facing the implementation of NextGen, see 

GAO, Next Generation Air Transportation System: Issues Associated with Midterm 

Implementation of Capabilities and Full System Transformation, GAO-09-481T 

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 25, 2009). 

Page 59 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
Appendix II: FACT 2 Study’s Methodology for 

Analyzing Future Airport and Metropolitan 

Capacity Needs 

operate or the number of passengers that can be accommodated. Thus, 

FACT 2 may overestimate the operations at these airports and 

underestimate traffic growth at other airports in the region. FAA 

officials told us that they did not take these constraints into 

consideration since FACT 2 was measuring unconstrained demand. 

Furthermore, they expressed the opinion that the constraints could be 

changed if there was an interest in doing so locally. Regional officials 

noted that the current settlement at John Wayne Airport in Orange 

County expires in 2015. At that point, the county and community may 

negotiate changes to the current agreement, according to airport 

officials. This could mean that the FACT 2 demand forecasts for other 

airports in the region—most notably Los Angeles International Airport 

(LAX), which came close to being designated as a capacity-constrained 

airport in 2025—may underestimate future growth. 

• Unaccounted for capacity constraints: The FACT 2 study also did not 

consider some potential capacity limitations. As noted in the study, 

when given an opportunity to comment on the FACT 2 methodology, 

some airport sponsors noted that an airport’s taxiways and terminal 

gates as well as airspace—rather than runways—can sometimes limit 

the number of operations that can be handled at an airport. The FACT 2 

study, however, focused only on runways as the limiting capacity 

factor. MITRE officials told us that further analysis of these elements of 

capacity limitations are being examined currently. 

• Assumed aircraft upgauging: Both demand forecasts, but particularly 

the FATE forecast, used in FACT 2 assumed some level of upgauging in 

aircraft size, meaning the average number of seats per aircraft is 

assumed to rise over the projection time frame. Some aviation experts 

with whom we spoke, however, do not believe much upgauging will 

occur in the coming years. If the upgauge assumptions overstate the 

extent to which seats per aircraft actually rise, the level of congestion 

in FACT 2 could be understated because more operations than 

indicated in the demand forecasts would be needed to accommodate 

Page 60 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
Appendix II: FACT 2 Study’s Methodology for 

Analyzing Future Airport and Metropolitan 

Capacity Needs 

the projected passenger base.14 Nevertheless, FAA officials discussed 

the analysis that underlies the upgauge modeling for FATE and noted 

that the FATE forecasted upgauge is driven by past experience in how 

airlines have chosen to serve routes as demand has risen. Moreover, 

they pointed out that certain fleet types that are likely to be phased out 

in the next decade are likely to be replaced with somewhat larger 

aircraft. 

According to the FACT 2 report, the analysis includes planned 

improvements affecting runway capacity for two future planning periods, 

2015 and 2025.15 The planned improvements include the following: 

• New or extended runways: New or extended runways were included 

as planned improvements. The OEP v8.0 and airport-specific planning 

documents were used to incorporate the runway improvements in 

either the 2015 or 2025 planning period. 

FACT 2 Study’s 

Planned 

Improvements 

• New or revised air-traffic control procedures: If a new or revised airtraffic control procedure was listed in the OEP v8.0 or defined by the 

FACT 2 analysis as consistent with a NextGen concept, it was modeled 

as an improvement in this study. NextGen concepts were applied only 

to the 35 OEP airports and Oakland International and then only in the 

2025 planning scenario, given that NextGen is still in the early planning 

stages. NextGen concepts for en route or oceanic operations or 

changes to operations on the airport surface were not included. 

 

14As a rough example, the FATE forecast for Chicago’s O’Hare airport forecasts 1,358,000 

operations in 2025. Since the upgauge analysis in FATE only applies to domestic 

commercial flights, assume for the sake of this example that 70 percent of these operations 

are domestic commercial flights. Under this assumption, 950,600 domestic operations 

(.7*1,358,000) are projected for O’Hare in the 2025 FATE forecast. FAA and MITRE 

provided data on how much the average number of seats per aircraft rose in their 

projections for each airport—and the increase in gauge at O’Hare was predicted to be, on 

average, 12 seats per aircraft—from 96 per plane in 2007 to 108 per plane in 2025. The 

upgauging estimated for O’Hare by the FATE forecast was one of the largest among the 

airports included in the FACT 2 study. Under a simplifying assumption that load factors 

stayed roughly the same, we would expect that in 2025 the model would be indicating that 

roughly 11.4 million passengers (12 seats per aircraft x 950,600 yearly operations) were 

accommodated by the higher gauge of the aircraft. If fleet gauge does not increase over 

that time frame—that is, if the average gauge remains 96 per aircraft—it would take 

118,750 (11.4 million passengers divided by 96 seats per plane) more operations in 2025—or 

325 additional operations per day—to accommodate that traffic. 

15FAA’s FACT 2 report identifies improvements for specific airports. 

Page 61 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
Appendix II: FACT 2 Study’s Methodology for 

Analyzing Future Airport and Metropolitan 

Capacity Needs 

• Airspace redesign: Improvements derived from the redesign of the 

airspace surrounding an airport were included in the 2015 or 2025 

scenario on the basis of the best information available. The redesign 

itself was not performed as part of this analysis. 

• Other assumptions: The FACT 2 analysis assumed existing 

environmental restrictions that impact runway capacity, such as noise 

abatement procedures, would continue through the FACT planning 

periods. Planned taxiway, terminal, or ground access improvements 

were not included in this analysis because they were outside the scope 

of the models used. 

Page 62 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
Appendix III: Reg

Nation

ional Airport Planning

wide and in our Selected Regions 

Page 63 GAO-10-120 

FAA has provided over $34 million in funding to metropolitan regions or 

others carrying out metropolitan system planning in fiscal years 1999 to 

2008. (See table 6.) These grant funds went to a range of efforts, including 

developing or updating regional airport system plans (RASP). The majority 

of these projects were sponsored by local MPOs or other regional planning 

bodies, although the state of Virginia also received a grant. Funding was 

also provided to several airports sponsors, including the Port Authority of 

New York and New Jersey; Clark County in Las Vegas; the Palm Beach 

County Board of Commissioners in South Florida; the Louisiana Airport 

Authority in the New Orleans region; and the San Diego County Regional 

Airport Authority, which operates San Diego International Airport. 

Table 6: FAA Funding for Conducting or Updating Metropolitan System Plan 

Studies, 1999–2008 

Metropolitan regiona

 FAA system planning funding

Alaska Burroughs $922,858

Atlanta 200,000

Boston 2,544,149

Buffalo/Niagara 20,000

Commonwealth of Virginia 326,000

Dallas–Fort Worth 2,757,106

Genesee/Finger Lake 73,800

Houston 950,000

Kansas City 90,000

Kodiak 363,196

Las Vegas 200,000

Los Angeles 8,250,600

Minneapolis-St. Paul 488,500

Monterey Bay 370,000

New Orleans 755,000

New Yorkb3,652,730

Philadelphia 2,847,254

Phoenix 450,000

Pittsburgh 112,905

Salt Lake City 165,821

San Diego 1,500,000

San Francisco 765,000

Seattle 628,950

South Florida (Palm Beach) 2,516,250

Regional Airport 

Planning Nationwide 

Appendix III: Regional Airport Planning 

Nationwide and in our Selected Regions 

 National Airspace System 
Appendix III: Regional Airport Planning 

Nationwide and in our Selected Regions 

Metropolitan regiona FAA system planning funding

St. Louis 613,000

Tucson 150,000

Washington, D.C. 2,689,492

Total $34,402,611

Source: GAO analysis of FAA data. 

a

The Commonwealth of Virginia received funding to conduct or update metropolitan system plan 

studies. 

b

The MPO in Philadelphia administered $675,000 of the funds in the New York region as part of the 

FAA Regional Air Service Demand Study for the region. 

In a survey conducted of 381 MPOs across the country for a prior report, 

we found that fewer than 20 percent of the 324 MPOs responding indicated 

they had responsibility for conducting all or a portion of a region’s aviation 

planning.1

 Among the larger MPOs responding to a question about their 

involvement in aviation planning—41 of the 42 planning organizations 

serving areas with populations greater than 1 million—17 engaged in 

aviation planning activities, accounting for 41 percent of these MPOs.2

 Ten 

MPOs indicated that they were required by state law to engage in regional 

aviation planning, 2 of which had populations over 1 million. (See table 7.) 

Table 7: Aviation System Planning at Metropolitan Planning Organizations 

Do you have responsibility for conducting all or a 

portion of the region’s aviation planning? 

Population of the 

metropolitan planning 

area 

Yes, it is a requirement 

from state law 

Yes, but it is not a state 

requirement No

Less than 200,000 4 19 140

200,000–999,999 4 17 97

1,000,000 and greater 2 15 25

Total 10 51 262

Source: GAO survey of MPOs. 

 

1

See GAO, Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Options Exist to Enhance 

Transportation Planning Capacity and Federal Oversight, GAO-09-868 (Washington, 

D.C.: Sept. 9, 2009), for more information about the survey. 

2

There are a total of 42 MPOs serving populations over 1 million, excluding Puerto Rico. 

Page 64 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
Appendix III: Regional Airport Planning 

Nationwide and in our Selected Regions 

Regional Summaries 

Boston Region There are three commercial service airports operated by separate 

sponsors in the Boston region. Boston Logan International is a large-hub 

airport, and in 2008, 73 percent of flights to this facility arrived on time. A 

medium-hub airport, T.F. Green, near Providence, Rhode Island, and a 

small-hub airport, Manchester-Boston Regional in Manchester, New 

Hampshire, also provide commercial service to the region’s residents. 

FAA’s FACT 2 report did not forecast that any of the airports in the Boston 

region would become significantly capacity constrained by 2025, assuming 

planned improvements occur at Boston Logan and T.F. Green. 

FAA officials in New England have taken an active role in trying to assist 

the region’s airports in planning for future capacity needs. Officials at 

Massport, which operates Boston Logan, told us that they realized that the 

airport would not be able to meet the region’s capacity needs. After an 

attempt to develop a second major airport in Massachusetts failed, they 

worked with FAA and other airports in the region to decentralize the 

region’s air traffic. This allowed Boston Logan an opportunity to specialize 

in international and long-haul routes over short-haul trips. Prior to the 

arrival of Southwest Airlines, regional demand studies demonstrated that 

there were markets that could be served from Boston’s alternate airports. 

Southwest Airlines officials told us that the demand forecasts piqued their 

interest in the alternate airports in the region, and that the airline has been 

pleased with how customers responded to its entry into Boston’s alternate 

airports. Prior to the emergence of T.F. Green and Manchester-Boston 

Regional, many residents drove from areas near these airports to travel 

from Boston Logan. Expanded service options have allowed some 

residents of the region to be served closer to where their trips originate. 

Los Angeles Region Los Angeles World Airports operates two commercial-service airports in 

the Los Angeles region: LAX is a large-hub airport, and Ontario 

International is a medium-hub airport. In 2008, 77 percent of flights to LAX 

arrived on time. There are two other medium-hub airports in the region 

operated by separate sponsors—John Wayne Airport in Orange County 

and Bob Hope Airport in Burbank. There is also a small-hub airport in 

Long Beach and a nonhub airport in Van Nuys, which is owned and 

operated by Los Angeles World Airports. FACT 2 predicted that both John 

Wayne and Long Beach airports will become significantly capacity 

constrained by 2015. 

Page 65 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
Appendix III: Regional Airport Planning 

Nationwide and in our Selected Regions 

The capacity challenges faced by the Los Angeles region are compounded 

by flight and operations restrictions at several airports in the region. The 

airports in Orange County and Long Beach have legal agreements or 

requirements that limit their ability to increase traffic levels and thereby 

relieve regional congestion. Likewise, the sponsor of Bob Hope Airport 

has entered into a voluntary agreement that prevents the development of 

new gates or the expansion of the footprint of the terminal until 2012, 

according to airport officials. LAX, for its part, has also agreed to a limit on 

the number of annual passengers at its facility under a settlement 

agreement with the surrounding community, according to regional 

planners. Los Angeles World Airports officials told us that while they 

previously attempted to promote the development of alternate facilities, 

such as LA/Palmdale Regional, the focus of their agency has shifted back 

to LAX, given the recent downturn and the backlog of maintenance at this 

facility. Several of the airports in the region are proposed to also serve as 

high-speed rail stops, including Ontario International and LA/Palmdale 

Regional. Such ground access improvements may help these airports play 

a greater role in delivering capacity for the region in the future. 

New York Region The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Port Authority) operates 

Newark Liberty International (Newark), John F. Kennedy International 

(JFK), and LaGuardia. These large-hub airports are consistently amongst 

the most delayed in the nation. In 2008, 62 to 68 percent of the flights to 

these facilities arrived on time (i.e., within 15 minutes of their scheduled 

arrival time). Stewart International, an airport 1 1/2 hours of the city by 

car, was recently acquired by the Port Authority and is a small-hub airport. 

Long Island Macarthur Airport in Ronkonkoma is a small-hub airport that 

operates outside of the Port Authority system. FAA’s FACT 2 report 

reported that LaGuardia and Newark were already significantly capacity 

constrained in 2007, and that JFK would become so in 2025. 

The Port Authority is an intermodal organization that is exempt from some 

of the revenue-sharing prohibitions affecting other regions. Airports in the 

Port Authority system are part of a larger portfolio of transportation assets 

operated by the Port Authority, such as major bridges and tunnels. 

According to the Port Authority, because it was grandfathered under 

federal law prohibiting the use of airport revenues off airport property, the 

Port Authority is able to cross-subsidize transportation modes. The 

airports in the Port Authority’s system provide some of the revenue for 

other modes that operate at a loss, according to Port Authority officials. 

The region recently completed a regional air service demand study, and 

Port Authority officials told us that the forecasts developed for the study 

Page 66 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
Appendix III: Regional Airport Planning 

Nationwide and in our Selected Regions 

were essential for demonstrating the benefits of acquiring the lease for 

Stewart International. Port Authority officials told us that while they 

expected the facility to generate revenue eventually, it is now operating at 

a loss. At the request of FAA, the Port Authority is presently preparing 

updates to the airport layout plans for airports in its system. FAA officials 

told us that the last airport master plans the Port Authority prepared date 

back to 1970. According to Port Authority officials, planning for the 

airports happens in an ad hoc fashion, given intermodal competition 

within the agency. The local MPO, the New York Metropolitan 

Transportation Commission, does not play a role in regional airport 

planning beyond surface access. A nonprofit, the Regional Plan 

Association, has recently begun regional airport planning with Port 

Authority financing, which will focus on the airports under Port Authority 

sponsorship. Ground access is a significant consideration for the future 

development of Stewart International, and the Port Authority is 

cosponsoring a rail study with the New York Metropolitan Transportation 

Authority to evaluate access improvements to the airport. 

Philadelphia Region There is one large-hub airport in the Philadelphia region—Philadelphia 

International—and one small-hub airport—Atlantic City International—to 

the southeast in New Jersey. In 2008, 73 percent of flights to Philadelphia 

International arrived on time. Philadelphia International is owned by the 

City of Philadelphia, while Atlanta City International is jointly owned by 

the South Jersey Transportation Authority and FAA. FACT 2 forecast that 

Philadelphia International would become significantly capacity 

constrained by 2015. 

Philadelphia International is presently pursuing a capital enhancement 

project to add an additional runway and expand another. The project is 

contentious, particularly with residents of Tinicum Township and 

Delaware County where environmental impacts, including emissions and 

noise, might increase. Atlantic City International provides some residents 

of the region with an alternate to the more congested Philadelphia 

International. The local MPO, the Delaware Valley Regional Planning 

Commission, is active in regional airport planning, focusing in recent years 

on planning for general aviation airports. MPO officials expressed an 

interest in continuing regional airport planning as well as undertaking a 

regional demand study similar to the ones completed in the Boston and 

New York regions. 

Page 67 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
Appendix III: Regional Airport Planning 

Nationwide and in our Selected Regions 

San Diego Region The San Diego region has one large-hub airport, San Diego International. 

In 2008, 78 percent of flights to this airport arrived on time. FACT 2 

forecast that San Diego International would be significantly capacity 

constrained by 2025. 

The primary airport in San Diego is run by the San Diego County Regional 

Airport Authority, which was previously involved in a major site-selection 

effort to build a new airport for the region. This effort was rejected by 

voters in 2006, however, and airport officials are now planning under the 

assumption that San Diego International will be the only major airport in 

the region. With this in mind, the airport sponsor is considering how it 

could maximize San Diego International’s capacity within its existing 

footprint. In addition, a state law passed in 2007 mandates that the airport 

authority prepare a RASP for the region by June 30, 2011. While the airport 

authority is working on the airside components of the study, the MPO is 

working on a multimodal transportation plan. 

San Francisco Bay Area The San Francisco Bay Area has three major airports with different 

sponsors. San Francisco International (SFO) is a large-hub airport, and in 

2008, 69 percent of flights arrived on time. Both Oakland International and 

Norman Y. Mineta in San Jose are medium-hub airports. FACT 2 forecast 

that both SFO and Oakland International will be significantly capacity 

constrained by 2025. 

SFO and Oakland International are located on land adjacent to San 

Francisco Bay and face significant obstacles to the construction of new 

runways as a result. The Regional Airport Planning Committee, which 

includes the Metropolitan Transportation Commission—the region’s 

MPO—will play a significant role in identifying potential alternate 

solutions for the region, and is currently leading efforts to develop a new 

RASP. This effort is being funded by FAA, the MPO, and airports in the 

region. SFO officials told us that they have committed themselves to 

studying nonconstruction ways to relieve congestion, and that they are not 

averse to having domestic, short-haul traffic shift to Oakland International 

or Norman Y. Mineta in San Jose or in instituting demand management 

strategies such as peak pricing to relieve congestion. SFO officials also 

stated that they are also considering improvements that may come from 

NextGen and other technological improvements. 

Page 68 GAO-10-120 National Airspace System
Appendix IV: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 69 GAO-10-120 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Gerald Dillingham, Ph.D., (202) 512-2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Paul Aussendorf (Assistant 

Director), Amy Abramowitz, Lauren Calhoun, Delwen Jones, Paul 

Kazemersky, Molly Laster, Monica McCallum, Sara Ann Moessbauer, and 

Josh Ormond made key contributions to this report. 

 National Airspace System 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(540182) 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs 

Please Print on Recycled Paper