[email protected]

Residents

concerned about a proposed fifth runway at Atlanta Hartsfield Airport

will have an opportunity in January to let their feelings be known.

Last week,

the Federal Aviation Administration released a draft Environmental Impact

Study on the proposed fifth runway.

A public

hearing will be conducted Jan. 30 at the Georgia International Convention

Center on Sullivan Road in College Park.

The fifth

runway will have a big impact on the traffic patterns around the airport

and will affect such major roads as Riverdale Road, Sullivan Road and

West Fayetteville Road and Airport Loop Road.

Plans call

for Riverdale Road being tunneled underneath the fifth runway.

Construction

on the runway could start in 2002 with completion finished in 2005.

Copies of

the complete draft report are available at the South Fulton Library

in Union City.

The following

includes much of the executive summary. The complete draft is several

pages long.

According

to the draft, the city of Atlanta Department of Aviation has determined

that a 6,000-foot long commuter runway, which was environmentally approved

in 1994, does not provide the reduction in flight delays that is now

needed because of increasing traffic volumes and increased use of regional

jets at ATL.

Delays are

averaging eight minutes, according to the study.

A 9,000-foot

runway is shown on a revised airport layout plan that was submitted

to FAA for review in June 2000. The FAA will select its preferred alternative

for the proposed project after the close of the comment period and will

publish its selection in the final Environmental Impact Study.

The Aviation

Department is seeking approval of the 9,000-foot fifth runway that would

meet the need to reduce current delay levels and accommodate existing

and projected airfield demand for hub operations at ATL through 2010

in all weather conditions.

Proponents

say the longer runway will help reduce delay during visual meteorological

conditions and instrument meteorological conditions. The proposed project

also would include the implementation and/or development of related

projects, including taxiways, navigational aids, lighting, roadway modifications

and land acquisition.

Primary purpose

of an EIS is to ensure that the policies and goals of the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969 are considered in ongoing programs and actions of

the federal government.

The Federal

Highway Administration has agreed to participate as a cooperating federal

agency for this draft EIS, having jurisdiction by law because implementation

of the proposed project would require an Interstate Encroachment Permit

due to the proposed runway extension and associated taxiways bridging

Interstate 285.

FAA's analysis

of delay at the airport, performed as part of the draft environmental

study, determined that to maximize the airport's ability to serve the

local Atlanta air travel market, as well as continue as a connecting

hub, five air carrier runways are essential to accommodate ATL's air

carrier demands during peak arrival and departure periods in all weather

conditions.

The airport

currently has inadequate airfield capacity to accommodate existing and

forecast activity levels during peak periods, which creates high delay

levels, according to the draft. These high delay levels would increase

exponentially over time without major improvements to the airfield,

according to the study.

According

to the study, four critical components of delay would be addressed by

the proposed project: reducing arrival delay by providing additional

independent approach capability; reducing departure delay by decreasing

the dependency between departure runways in poor visibility conditions;

reducing delay by providing an enhanced airfield to serve all air carrier

aircraft under all weather conditions, and reducing delay by maintaining

existing and future hub activity at the airport.

An additional

air carrier runway that allows ATL to accommodate three times as many

independent instrument approaches in all weather conditions would provide

the large-scale, all-weather capacity that would meet the airport's

immediate need for reduction in arrival delay, the report says.

Also, the

approved 6,000-foot commuter runway is limited to arrivals, and the

airport needs for the runway to handle departures if it is to be effective,

the study says. Having both landing and takeoff capacity would result

in shorter queues, it says.

Further,

the study says that a longer runway will serve a larger percentage of

the airport's carriers. More than 80 percent of all aircraft types in

the forecast 2010 operations would be served by a 9,000-foot runway;

it could accommodate any plane smaller than a B757 at maximum takeoff

weight, and would also accommodate heavier aircraft under non-"hot

day" conditions at maximum takeoff weight or under "hot day"

conditions at less than maximum takeoff weight.

A runway

with a length less than 9,000 feet would not be able to accommodate

these aircraft at these takeoff weights, thereby reducing its usability

and contribution to delay reduction, the study says.

As the alternative

evaluation proceeded through each level of analysis, alternatives that

did not meet the criteria were eliminated from further evaluation.

The "no-action

alternative" would mean building a 6,000-foot by 150-foot commuter

runway as originally planned. This alternative would provide some delay

reduction, but not enough to serve as a long-term solution, the study

says.

During preparation

of the draft study, the federal Environmental Protection Agency provided

comments to FAA concerning the difference in impact between the existing

four-runway airfield in the airfield with implementation of the proposed

9,000-foot fifth runway.

To respond

to these concerns, FAA has conducted analyses of the future conditions

at ATL assuming that none of the alternatives under consideration, including

the no-action alternative (commuter runway), would be constructed. The

analyses identify the impacts in 2005 and 2010 as if only the currently

operational four runways were available.

FAA's analysis

follows:

Because

the Aviation Department is nearing completion of land acquisition activities

related to the approved runway, the community disruption categories

(residential and other relocations and social impacts), as well as environmental

justice and historic and archaeological resources categories, would

have the same impacts as the No-Action Alternative. No additional analysis

is required.

Because

the four-runway alternative would not include runway construction activities,

there would be no impact on wetlands or hazardous substances. No additional

analysis is required.

Because

the four-runway alternative would result in modified flight schedules

to maintain service at ATL with only four runways, the DEIS addresses

impacts on surface transportation, noise and air quality.

This phase

of the alternatives analysis assessed the no-action alternative, the

four-runway alternative, and the alternatives that passed the level

one screening. Within the two geographic areas, eight alternatives were

evaluated:

Alternative

1 - This alternative considers a 9,000-foot fifth runway that is

3,400 to 4,200 feet south of runway 9R/27L, with the west threshold

in the same location as the previously approved 6,000-foot commuter

runway.

Alternative

2 - This alternative considers a 9,000-foot fifth runway that is

3,400 to 4,200 feet south of runway 9R/27L, with the west threshold

shifted approximately 1,900 feet to the east from the location of the

previously approved 6,000-foot commuter runway. This proposed eastward

shift was considered in order to determine any operational benefits

associated with moving the runway farther east of the I-285/I-85 interchange

and with aligning the west threshold of the 9,000-foot fifth runway

with the runway 9R/27L threshold.

Alternative

3 - This alternative considers a 9,000-foot fifth runway that is

3,400 to 4,200 feet south of runway 9R/27L with the west threshold shifted

4,900 feet (3,000 feet plus the approximate 1,900 feet shift in alternative

two) to the east from the location of the previously approved 6,000-foot

commuter runway. This alternative was considered in order to assess

the potential benefits and adverse impacts associated with maximizing

the runway location to the east.

Alternative

4 - This alternative considers a 9,000-foot runway that is 3,400

to 4,200 feet south of runway 9R/27L, with the west threshold shifted

approximately 4,400 feet west from the location of the previously approved

6,000-foot commuter runway. This alternative was considered in order

to assess the potential benefits and adverse impacts associated with

maximizing the runway location to the west.

Alternative

5 - This alternative considers a 9,000-foot runway that is 3,400

to 4,200 feet south of runway 9R/27L, with the west threshold shifted

approximately 10,900 feet (9,000 feet plus the approximate 1,900 feet

shift in Alternative 2) east from the location of the previously approved

6,000-foot commuter runway. This eastward shift was considered in order

to determine the potential benefits and adverse impacts of crossing

I-75 instead of I-285.

Alternative

6 - This alternative is a 9,000-foot runway with a lateral separation

of 4,200 to 6,700 feet south of runway 9R/27L, with the west threshold

shifted approximately 1,900 feet to the east of the location of the

previously approved 6,000-foot commuter runway. This shift to the south

and east was considered in order to determine the potential benefits

and adverse impacts of placing the runway south of I-285.

Alternative

7 - This alternative is a 9,000-foot runway with a lateral separation

of 4,200 to 6,700 feet south of runway 9R/27L, with the west threshold

shifted approximately 6,800 feet to the east from the location of the

previously approved 6,000-foot commuter runway. This shift to the south

and east was considered in order to determine the potential benefits

and adverse impacts of placing the runway between I-285 and I-75.

Alternative

8 - This alternative considers a 9,000-foot runway with a lateral

separation of 3,400 to 3,800 feet north of runway 8L/26R, the current

northernmost runway at ATL. This runway, in replacement of the previously

approved 6,000-foot commuter runway south of Runway 9R/27L, is north

of the existing runways, crossing I-85. This alternative was considered

in order to assess the potential benefits and adverse impacts associated

with constructing a runway north of the existing airport.

A final report

from the FAA is due next summer.

Traffic impact

on local roads also is covered in the draft report:

Under the

no-action alternative, the roadways immediately south of the existing

ATL property to I-285 would be acquired. Access to the roadways would

be blocked. Four highway facilities would be affected by the no-action

alternative, as follows:

Sullivan

Road would be closed just west of its intersection with I-285. Riverdale

Road would be realigned from its north-south orientation to an east-west

orientation and would connect with West Fayetteville Road. West Fayetteville

Road would remain in its north-south orientation and would tunnel under

the proposed fifth runway and its associated taxiway. Airport Loop Road

would end in a cul-de-sac east of the taxiways connecting the fifth

runway to the existing ATL property. A connector road would allow traffic

to exit onto Sullivan Road just south of the cul-de-sac.

Because of

the realignments as described above, major adjustments to travel patterns

would be required. Some adjustments would require short distances of

indirect travel for through movements in the area. Changes in travel

patterns through local areas would also have to occur. However, since

the relocation of businesses and residences within the acquisition area

would occur before the start of construction, relocation of the local

roadways would not impact residences within the affected areas. Therefore,

no significant impacts would result from implementing the no-action

alternative.

Under alternatives

one and two, the roadways immediately south of the existing ATL property

to I-285 would be acquired. Access would be blocked. The same four major

highway facilities would be affected by these alternatives.