Delivering Value in the Air Transportation System

Regional perspectives on general aviation and reliever airports: A case study of the Phoenix metropolitan area

Tony H. Grubesic1, Kurt Fuellhart2, Fangwu Wei3, Kevin O’Connor4

1 Center for Spatial Reasoning & Policy Analytics, College of Public Service & Community Solutions, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA (e-mail: [email protected]) 2 Department of Geography &Earth Science, Shippensburg University, Shippensburg, PA, USA (e-mail: [email protected]) 3 School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA (e-mail: [email protected]) 4 Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia (e-mail: [email protected])

Received: 12 April 2017 / Accepted: 7 June 2017

Abstract. Reliever airports hold a special place within the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) in the United States. Established in the 1960s, the purpose of reliever airports was to draw general aviation traffic away from congested primary airports located in larger met- ropolitan areas. In time, many of these airports evolved from simply relieving local air traffic congestion to functioning as both operational and economic hubs for the communities they serve. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the development of the reliever airport network in the United States and to explore their role (existing or potential) in the larger air transport sys- tem, as well as the associated regions that they serve. Specifically, a case study of the Phoenix Arizona metropolitan area and its reliever network is conducted. The results suggest that although many relievers are destined for their original purpose, others may have the opportunity to diversify their form and function.

JEL classification: L93, R58, O21

Key words: Air transportation, regional development policy, planning models

1 Introduction

The national air transportation system in the United States is large and complex. Of the 3,340 airports identified in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), 382 are consid- ered primary airports by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) (FAA 2016c). This group includes all large, medium, small and non-hub facilities. FAA designated large hubs (e.g., ATL) handle 1 per cent or more passenger enplanements, medium hubs (e.g., STL) 0.25–1 per cent, small hubs (e.g., TUS) 0.05–0.25 per cent and non-hubs (e.g., MFR) enplane at least 10,000 (but less than 0.05%) of all US passengers per year. To put these numbers in perspective,

doi:10.1111/rsp3.12091

© 2017 The Author(s). Regional Science Policy and Practice © 2017 RSAI

Regional Science Policy & Practice, Volume 9 Number 2 June 2017.

17577802, 2017, 2, D ow

nloaded from https://rsaiconnect.onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1111/rsp3.12091 by E

m bry-R

iddle A eronautical U

niv, W iley O

nline L ibrary on [16/02/2023]. See the T

erm s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com

/term s-and-conditions) on W

iley O nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O A

articles are governed by the applicable C reative C

om m

ons L icense

FAA large hubs (n = 31) handled 580,568,021 passenger enplanements (i.e., 72.7%) of the na- tion’s passengers in 2015 (FAA 2016a).

The airports detailed above are those that most people are familiar with – functional gate- ways served by commercial carriers. However, there are 2,950 additional facilities in the United States that are classified as non-primary airports, which consist of general aviation (GA) (n = 2,564), non-primary commercial service (n = 127) and reliever airports (n = 259). As detailed by the FAA (2016a), general aviation airports do not receive any commercial service (or not enough to satisfy the NPIAS criteria), but do serve as the closest source of air transpor- tation for about 19 per cent of the population, including many rural areas. General aviation air- ports also support a range of critical functions for local communities, including flight training and law enforcement operations (FAA 2015b). That said, a small group of non-primary com- mercial service airports (n = 127) offer scheduled passenger service at low volumes (2,500 to 9,999 passengers per year). For example, during 2015, the airport in Bar Harbor, Maine (BHB) handled 9,579 passengers, while the Purdue University airport in Lafayette, Indiana handled 2,504 passengers.

The remaining non-primary airports are classified as relievers and provide functionality somewhere between a general aviation and non-primary commercial gateway. For example, the operation requirements for smaller, general aviation aircraft are drastically different than those for larger commercial jets. As a result, general aviation pilots often have difficulty accessing and operating their aircraft in urban areas, especially at primary airports where the dif- ferentials in aircraft size and speed and can cause problems (FAA 2015b). Thus, in an effort to provide broader access to the national airspace, the FAA has developed a network of reliever airports in/around metropolitan areas. To obtain reliever status, an airport must provide general aviation access to the surrounding area, have 100 or more based aircraft or have 25,000 annual itinerant operations.1 To reiterate, contrary to the nomenclature, most airports that are desig- nated as relievers serve their own economic and operational role and do not exist to relieve com- mercial jet congestion at another primary airport. However some reliever airports have the capacity to provide this function. It is this fact that makes them both interesting and highly rel- evant to their local communities, as well as the future of the national air transportation plan.

Specifically, reliever airports are important for several reasons. First, as will be detailed later, they have substantial regional economic implications, contributing millions to local economies every year. Second, and relatedly, relievers facilitate the general aviation industry, which sup- ports $219 billion in total economic output and 1.1 million total jobs in the United States (GAMA 2015). Third, relievers have a potential role in the development of future commercial air transport, especially in communities where existing primary airports are heavily congested. Fourth, reliever airports can present significant land use conflicts for communities, where noise and related development concerns can become contentious issues. Lastly, it is important to re- member that most reliever airports were sited decades ago. So, like many infrastructure systems, reliever airports reflect a legacy of community priorities and investments, but their geographic positioning is important to consider and/or reconsider given the massive growth that many urban areas have experienced over the past several decades.

Given this context, the purpose of this paper is to highlight the development of the reliever airport network in the United States and to explore the role of relievers (existing or potential) in the larger air transport system, as well as the associated regions that they serve. Specifically, a case study of the Phoenix Arizona metropolitan area and its reliever network is conducted. The results suggest that although many relievers are destined for their original purpose, others may have the opportunity to diversify their form and function, greatly expanding and enhancing

1 Itinerant operations are operations performed by an aircraft, either Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), Special Visual Flight Rules (SVFR) or Visual Flight Rules (VFR), that lands at an airport, arriving from outside the airport area, or departs an airport and leaves the airport area (FAA 2014).

T.H. Grubesic et al.102

Regional Science Policy & Practice, Volume 9 Number 2 June 2017.

17577802, 2017, 2, D ow

nloaded from https://rsaiconnect.onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1111/rsp3.12091 by E

m bry-R

iddle A eronautical U

niv, W iley O

nline L ibrary on [16/02/2023]. See the T

erm s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com

/term s-and-conditions) on W

iley O nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O A

articles are governed by the applicable C reative C

om m

ons L icense

their role in the local metropolitan fabric. It is also important to note that research on general aviation in the United States, in any form, is sparse – especially in the regional science and/or transport geography literature. Aside from some basic work on general aviation crashes (Baker and Lamb 1989; Kearney and Li 2000; Grabowski et al. 2002), and an early effort to evaluate the employment impacts of reliever airports (NewMyer 1983; NewMyer et al. 2007), we are not aware of any work concerning the regional implications of general aviation in the US. Again, considering that the general aviation industry supports $219 billion in total economic output and 1.1 million total jobs in the United States (GAMA 2016), this is a huge oversite. In an effort to mitigate this gap, a secondary purpose of this paper is to develop a foundation for future research concerning general aviation and its importance to communities and their as- sociated regions. However, because this work is structured as an overview and case study for Phoenix, the small sample size (n = 6) prevents us from developing an inferential framework that explains local drivers for all general aviation activity. We view this as a strength, rather than a limitation as it allows us to highlight the many economic, operational and spatial subtleties that permeate the reliever airport network in the United States, and Phoenix, Arizona in particular.

2 General aviation

In order to understand reliever airports, it is necessary to explore the many facets of general avi- ation operations in the United States. In brief, general aviation fills the gaps left behind by scheduled commercial airline service. Each year, the FAA conducts a general aviation survey and categorizes the uses of general aviation aircraft as follows:

• personal and recreational flying; • business transportation without a paid crew; • business transportation with a paid, professional crew; • instructional flying; • sight-seeing (i.e., commercial sight-seeing operations under FAR Part 91); and2

• air taxi, air tours and air-medical operations (i.e., on-demand FAR Part 135).3

It is remarkable to note that the bulk of yearly aircraft operations in the United States (~75%) fall within the bounds of general aviation. These are little planes moving in/out of little airports. As detailed above, this includes the use of corporate jets, medical evacuation helicopters and airplanes owned by small businesses and/or individuals. To be clear, this also includes general aviation for agricultural functions, law enforcement and border control, fire suppression, time- sensitive air cargo services (e.g., organ donation) and a range of other important civil and municipal functions. Clearly, the scale and scope of general aviation activity is significant in the United States. Of the 268, 443 registered GA aircraft in the United States 204,408 (77.9%) were active in 2014, flying more than 23.2 million hours (GAMA 2016). GAMA (2016) is also projecting a 1.4 per cent growth in GA hours flown in the US. (2014–2035), but this projected growth runs counter to other trends that indicate some softening within the GA industry. For example, the number of registered pilots in the United States has steadily decreased since 1980, falling from 827,071 to 590,038 in 2015, a decline of more than 33 per cent (GAMA 2016).

In 2012, the FAA developed a basic typology of general aviation airports to better delineate their local, regional and national functions (FAA 2012):

2 For more details on Part 91, see: http://tinyurl.com/z9ewsz4. 3 For more details on Part 135, see: http://tinyurl.com/jt6vmmq.

Regional perspectives on general aviation 103

Regional Science Policy & Practice, Volume 9 Number 2 June 2017.

17577802, 2017, 2, D ow

nloaded from https://rsaiconnect.onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1111/rsp3.12091 by E

m bry-R

iddle A eronautical U

niv, W iley O

nline L ibrary on [16/02/2023]. See the T

erm s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com

/term s-and-conditions) on W

iley O nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O A

articles are governed by the applicable C reative C

om m

ons L icense

• National: supports the national and state system by providing communities with access to na- tional and international markets in multiple states and throughout the United States;

• Regional: supports regional economies by connecting communities to statewide and interstate markets;

• Local: supplements local communities by providing access primarily to intrastate and some interstate markets;

• Basic: supports general aviation activities such as emergency service, charter or critical pas- senger service, cargo operations, flight training and personal flying.

• Unclassified: airports with limited activity and eight or fewer based aircraft.

Each category for GA airports is associated with several criteria that help determine mem- berships.4 For example, to be classified as a regional general aviation airport, the facility must be located in a census designated micropolitan or metropolitan area, have 10 or more annual do- mestic instrument flight rule (IFR) flights over 500 miles, 1,000 or more IFR departures and one based jet or 100 or more based aircraft.

Roberts Field (RDM), located in Redmond, Oregon is a good example of this category. RDM is the primary commercial airport for Central Oregon, serving as the local air gateway for nearby communities such as Bend, Prineville and Madras. Currently, RDM is served by four commercial carriers, including Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, United Airlines and Delta Airlines. Non-stop destinations include Phoenix, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Salt Lake City, Denver, Seattle and Portland. As of 2015, 68 aircraft are based at RDM, 55 of which are single engine, nine are multi-engine, three are jets and one is a helicopter (AirNav 2016). RDM aver- aged 125 operations per day in 2015, 48 per cent of which were local general aviation, 25 per cent transient general aviation, 15 per cent air taxi, 10 per cent commercial and 2 per cent mil- itary (AirNav 2016). Interestingly, one of the major general aviation functions at RDM is its use as a base for regional firefighting efforts. The United States Forest Service (USFS) Redmond Air Center is located at the airport, providing support for firefighting operations, training and hous- ing for smokejumper teams (USFS 2016).

2.1 Reliever airports, secondary airports and multi-airport regions

2.1.1 Multi-airport regions (MARs) and secondary airports

Given the sheer number of airports recognized by the NPIAS in the United States, it should not be surprising that most metropolitan areas are home to more than one airport. However, local context is important when attaching the term multi-airport region to commercial air transport markets. As outlined by De Neufville (1995) multiple airport regions correspond to metropolitan markets and/or regions that have more than one commercial gateway option for travelers. Again, this subset of facilities consists of 382 primary airports, or about 11.5 per cent of all NPIAS airports in the US.

Within the broader context of MARs it is important to delineate the differences between core airports and secondary airports. To be clear, reliever airports should not be confused with, nor do they correspond to ‘secondary’ airports in multi-airport regions (MARs) (De Neufville 1995; Loo 2008; O’Connor and Fuellhart 2016). Secondary airports are commercial gateways that have emerged near heavily congested core airports. These gateways are often served by low-cost carriers (LCCs) (e.g., Southwest, JetBlue, Frontier, etc.) and their geographic location typically caters to densely populated secondary cities or suburban population centers located

4 Space limitations prevent us from detailing the requisite characteristics for all of these categories, but interested readers can consult the FAA (2012) report, General Aviation Airports: A National Asset, for more information.

T.H. Grubesic et al.104

Regional Science Policy & Practice, Volume 9 Number 2 June 2017.

17577802, 2017, 2, D ow

nloaded from https://rsaiconnect.onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1111/rsp3.12091 by E

m bry-R

iddle A eronautical U

niv, W iley O

nline L ibrary on [16/02/2023]. See the T

erm s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com

/term s-and-conditions) on W

iley O nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O A

articles are governed by the applicable C reative C

om m

ons L icense

near major cities (Bonnefoy and Hansman 2005). In short, secondary airports are the ‘multi’ part of the MAR system.

For example, consider the Tampa, Florida region, which includes three primary airports – Tampa International (TPA), St. Petersburg/Clearwater International (PIE) and Sarasota/ Bradenton (SRQ). TPA is considered the ‘core’ airport in the region, maintaining an 86.7 per cent market share of passenger traffic within the MAR during 2015 (BTS 2016a). Accordingly, PIE and SRQ are classified as secondary airports for the region, maintaining a 7.52 per cent and 5.77 per cent market share of passenger traffic, respectively. These are not the only airports in the region, however. There are five reliever airports within 35 miles of Tampa (CLW, SPG, TPF, VDF and LAL), but none of these airports factor into the MAR designation, nor are they considered ‘secondary’ airports.5 Interestingly, the Lakeland Linder Regional airport (LAL), lo- cated near Lakeland, FL is a NPIAS designated reliever airport, but it currently holds a Part 139 operating certificate from the FAA (2016b), which allows for scheduled air carrier operations with aircraft designed for more than 9 passenger seats, but less than 31 seats. In fact, as recently as 2012, Direct Air offered service to Myrtle Beach, SC, Niagara Falls, NY and Springfield, IL – anticipating that LAL would become a hub for tourist traffic to the area (Chambliss 2011) – but scheduled services ceased in March of that year and LAL resumed its status as a reliever.

In other MARs, such as Washington, DC, multiple core airports may exist without any sec- ondary gateways. For example, Baltimore (BWI), Dulles (IAD) and Reagan National (DCA) are all considered core airports, because their share of passenger traffic within the region is rela- tively equal. BWI processed 35.02 per cent of all traffic in the region for 2015, while DCA and IAD processed 32.77 per cent and 31.7 per cent, respectively (BTS 2016a). In the case of Washington, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) denotes the region (and all three component airports) as ‘WAS’, although as noted by O’Connor and Fuellhart (2016), the use of these codes for MARs are not applied consistently on a global basis.

2.1.2 Reliever airports

The concept for reliever airports was developed in 1962 in an effort to more fully integrate gen- eral aviation activity into the fabric of metropolitan areas (FAA 2012). Again, the basic idea was that smaller planes and commercial jets did not mix particularly well when simultaneously operating at larger commercial airports. Reliever airports provided smaller aircraft alternative gateways for accessing metropolitan airspace without interfering with larger commercial opera- tions at large or medium hubs. By 1968, 147 reliever airports were active in/around the 22 largest commercial airports in the United States. In time, the network of relievers expanded as new reliever airport standards were established in 2000 (FAA 2000). Specifically, general aviation airports could be included in the NPIAS and granted reliever status if the following criteria are met (FAA 2000):

1. The airport currently (or is forecasted) to have at least 100 based aircraft or 25,000 annual itinerant operations,

2. The relieved airport serves a metropolitan area with a population of at least 250,000 or enplanes 250,000 passengers annually.

3. The relieved airport operates at 60 per cent or more of its capacity, or would be operated at such a level before being relieved, or is subject to restrictions that limit activity that would otherwise reach 60 per cent of capacity.

5 Clearwater Air Park (CLW) is located in Clearwater, FL, Albert Whitted Airport (SPG) is located in St. Petersburg, FL, Peter O. Knight Airport (TPF) is located on Davis Islands, FL, the Tampa Executive Airport (VDF) is located six miles east of the Tampa central business district in an unincorporated portion of Hillsborough County and the Lakeland Linder Regional Airport is located in Polk County, FL.

Regional perspectives on general aviation 105

Regional Science Policy & Practice, Volume 9 Number 2 June 2017.

17577802, 2017, 2, D ow

nloaded from https://rsaiconnect.onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1111/rsp3.12091 by E

m bry-R

iddle A eronautical U

niv, W iley O

nline L ibrary on [16/02/2023]. See the T

erm s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com

/term s-and-conditions) on W

iley O nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O A

articles are governed by the applicable C reative C

om m

ons L icense

4. Privately owned airports that were already designated as relievers (but did not meet these newly established criteria) could be grandfathered into the system and maintain reliever sta- tus for 10 years. If these airports did not meet the new criteria within that timeframe, they were to be deleted from the NPIAS.

Today, the FAA recognizes relievers using their established typology of non-primary air- ports detailed above. This includes 65 relievers within the national category, 151 classified as regional, and a handful of other reliever airports that are considered local (n = 20), basic (n = 1) or unclassified (n = 22) (Figure 1). The spatial distribution of the airports is not unex- pected. Figure 1 illustrates that relievers are clustered in metropolitan areas (e.g., Dallas/Fort Worth, Los Angeles, Chicago), but there are standalone relievers, including those near Albu- querque, NM, Boise, ID, Spokane, WA, Des Moines, IA, Omaha, NE and many other smaller metropolitan areas in the US.

Reliever airports in the United States are diverse in both size and function. Consider, for ex- ample, Phoenix Deer Valley Airport (DVT). DVT is a national airport that is home to 881 fixed wing aircraft (single engine, multi-engine and jets). During 2015, DVT had 379,616 tower op- erations, which includes both general aviation, commercial and military activity (GAMA 2016). In fact, DVT is so active, that as recently as 2010 it ranked as the 25th busiest airport in the world for aircraft movements (368,737 total), ahead of Salt Lake City (SLC), New York LaGuardia (LGA), Boston (BOS) and many others (ACI 2010). Conversely, consider the St. Clair County Airport (PLR), located near Pell City, Alabama, which serves as a reliever for Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport (BHM). PLR is a non-primary local airport that houses 84 fixed wing aircraft and had 34,572 operations during 2015 (GCR 2016). In terms

Fig. 1. Reliever airports in the United States, by Type, 2015

T.H. Grubesic et al.106

Regional Science Policy & Practice, Volume 9 Number 2 June 2017.

17577802, 2017, 2, D ow

nloaded from https://rsaiconnect.onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1111/rsp3.12091 by E

m bry-R

iddle A eronautical U

niv, W iley O

nline L ibrary on [16/02/2023]. See the T

erm s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com

/term s-and-conditions) on W

iley O nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O A

articles are governed by the applicable C reative C

om m

ons L icense

of operations, DVT is more than 165 per cent larger than PLR. So, while they are both consid- ered relievers, the scale of operations between the two airports is enormous. For example, DVT covers 914 acres, has two asphalt runways, hosts two flight schools (Westwind School of Aero- nautics and TransPac Aviation Academy) and a charter airline (Westwind Air Service) (DVT Airport 2016). Conversely, PLR covers 200 acres, has a single asphalt runway and is home to Holder Aviation, an avionics repair and installation company (PLR Airport 2016).

3 Reliever airport development

Clearly, general aviation plays an important role in the United States and reliever airports serve as the most significant locations of general aviation functions. Given the recent growth in both global and US domestic airport traffic, it is important to explore opportunities for leveraging key air transportation assets, including reliever airports, when considering strategies for expansion of the commercial air transport system. For example, IATA expects global air traffic for 2016 to increase 5.4 per cent to 3.7 billion passengers (3.5 billion in 2015) and it is expected to double by 2034 (IATA 2016b). To put this in perspective, for 2016, about 9.8 million passengers flew each day – 5.83 million international and 3.97 million domestic passengers (IATA 2016a). Although much of the projected growth will occur in developing markets (e.g., Asia and the Middle East), mature markets, such as North America, are also anticipating growth. For example, IATA (2016b) analysis suggests that North America will grow 3.3 per cent annually and carry a total of 1.4 billion passengers (an increase of 649 million) by 2034. Considering that only 78 per cent of flights departed on time at airports such as SFO, JFK, LAX, FLL, ORD, LGA, EWR and MIA between January and October of 2016 (BTS 2016b), and that only 78 per cent or less of scheduled flights arrived on-time to BOS, MIA, FLL, LAX, JFK, EWR, SFO and LGA (71.50%) during that same period, congestion delays at existing commercial hubs will continue to increase (Ruud 2015).

Given these projections in traffic growth and the existing air traffic delays at many of the most important hubs in the United States, do reliever airports provide an opportunity to amelio- rate congestion and expand/enhance commercial operations in the United States? Answering this seemingly simple question is fraught with complications, including economic, planning, op- erational, and environmental challenges. In addition, it is recognized that airport capacity, con- gestion, demand and performance, for both passengers and freight, comingle in diverse ways. For interested readers, the literature offers a thorough exploration of these interactions (Hamzawi 1992; Gillen and Lall 1997; Slack 1999; Forsyth 2007). Here, we are asking two in- terrelated questions. First, can reliever airports shift from just serving general aviation to a rising share of commercial traffic in a growing global, national or regional market? If so, how and where? Second, are there alternative development trajectories, not necessarily involving com- mercial operations, that could spur local and regional economic development? If so, how and where?

3.1 At least two paths

It is important to acknowledge that there is significant debate surrounding reliever airport devel- opment throughout the United States. In this context, development could include additional charter and corporate/business jet traffic along with larger scale passenger operations. That de- bate has negative and positive dimensions. The negative dimension queries whether a reliever airport should be developed to accommodate larger volumes of traffic at all. It is well expressed in the controversy surrounding a proposal for an $11.5 million runway expansion to accommo- date more business travel at the Lake Elmo, MN airport (21D), which serves as a reliever for

Regional perspectives on general aviation 107

Regional Science Policy & Practice, Volume 9 Number 2 June 2017.

17577802, 2017, 2, D ow

nloaded from https://rsaiconnect.onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1111/rsp3.12091 by E

m bry-R

iddle A eronautical U

niv, W iley O

nline L ibrary on [16/02/2023]. See the T

erm s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com

/term s-and-conditions) on W

iley O nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O A

articles are governed by the applicable C reative C

om m

ons L icense

Minneapolis-St. Paul International (MSP (Divine 2015). However, residents in/around Lake Elmo have expressed strong displeasure with the proposed expansion citing the potential for more noise from increased activity at the airport and an encroachment of the airport facility on valued open-space (Divine 2015). Ultimately, the proposed runway expansion was short- ened, but only by 100 feet (3,600 ft. to 3,500 ft.) (Divine 2016). Similar opinions were expressed when a proposal to expand the Flying Cloud Airport (FCM) in Eden Prairie, Minne- sota, also a reliever for (MSP). Again, community groups were concerned about the potential for additional noise in the community that a larger FCM would generate (Blake 2008). Regardless, plans for expanding FCM are moving ahead.

The positive dimension of this debate centres on the benefits that are expected to flow from the role of a local airport as an economic hub (Weisbrod et al. 1993). It expresses the potential economic impact, not only directly via the additional traffic, but also from aviation support in- dustries or businesses that rely on the logistical advantages attracted by the additional traffic (MASC 2016). Analyses of the local impact of an airport have been carried out and although returns vary, it is suggested that for every dollar invested in an airport, the associated economic benefit exceeds $2 (MASC 2016). This is confirmed by research carried out on the total eco- nomic impacts of commercial airports in each of the US states in 2013 by CDM Smith (2014). That showed the 19 commercial airports in the state of Florida, for example, generated over 1.1 million jobs, and had a payroll approaching $38 billion and an economic output of $143.5 billion. In Arizona, the numbers were smaller, but still considerable. Specifically, the 11 commercial airports generated 324,000 jobs with a payroll exceeding $14 billion and an eco- nomic output of $43.3 billion. In sum, the total economic output tied to commercial airports in the U.S. for 2013 was $1.1 trillion, approximately 7 per cent of the total gross domestic product that year (CDM Smith 2014).

Needless to say, reports of these economic returns spur significant interest in airport devel- opment for smaller communities especially for those that already have existing air transport in- frastructure such as reliever airports. As an example, in 2000, Stafford County, Virginia, which is located on the Interstate 95 corridor approximately 35 miles southwest of Washington, DC, aggressively pursued the construction of a new reliever airport to support economic develop- ment in the region (Infanger 2000). Unlike many other locales, Stafford County did not have any existing air transport infrastructure, so the newly established local airport community pur- chased 550 of land acres at a cost of $9 million (Infanger 2000). Subsequent development of the airport increased overall costs to $35 million and includes a ~ 5,000 ft. runway. By 2010, Stafford Regional Airport was contributing $18.2 million to the local economy and actively serving as a reliever airport for both Dulles International (IAD) and Reagan National (DCA) in the DC area (SRAA 2014). What makes this an interesting example is that all of the major local government entities, including Stafford County, Prince William County, the city of Fredericksburg and many others supported its development and worked collaboratively to complete the project.

Hence reliever airport development is not a straightforward matter, and opportunities and outcomes depend on local circumstances and community organization and attitudes to local eco- nomic development. To illustrate how these issues play out in a metropolitan region, we carry out an analysis of the reliever airports in the Phoenix metro area.

4 Reliever airports in the Phoenix metropolitan area

With over 1.5 million residents, Phoenix is the most populous city in Arizona and the sixth most populous in the United States (Census 2015). More broadly, the Phoenix metropolitan area, which includes numerous suburbs (e.g., Scottsdale, Mesa, Chandler) throughout Maricopa

T.H. Grubesic et al.108

Regional Science Policy & Practice, Volume 9 Number 2 June 2017.

17577802, 2017, 2, D ow

nloaded from https://rsaiconnect.onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1111/rsp3.12091 by E

m bry-R

iddle A eronautical U

niv, W iley O

nline L ibrary on [16/02/2023]. See the T

erm s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com

/term s-and-conditions) on W

iley O nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O A

articles are governed by the applicable C reative C

om m

ons L icense

and Pinal Counties, has a population of over 4.5 million (Census 2015), making it the twelfth largest metropolitan area in the United States. Although larger than most, the overall urban and suburban structure of Phoenix is quite similar to many other large cities found in the Sun- belt, including Las Vegas, San Antonio, Albuquerque, Sacramento and Austin. The Phoenix area is also growing rapidly, but the majority of this growth is occurring in the suburbs. Figure 2 displays population growth from 1990 to 2014 for a range of suburban locales through- out the metropolitan area. The growth in these suburbs is remarkable. For example, the city of Chandler had a population of 91,030 in 1990, but as of 2014 had grown to 254,276 (+94.55%). The city of Surprise grew from 7,207 people in 1990 to 126,275 (+174.4%) in 2014. It is impor- tant to highlight this suburban growth because reliever airports for the Phoenix area are firmly embedded within (or nearby) many of these suburbs. Again, Figure 3 highlights reliever loca- tions, all of which are located in first or second-ring suburbs in the metropolitan area.

The state of Arizona has appreciably strong ties to the aviation industry. The Arizona De- partment of Transportation (AZDOT 2015) estimates that nearly 16.8 per cent of all employ- ment in the state is connected to the aviation industry. More importantly, AZDOT (2008) projects significant growth in aviation activity throughout the state over the next several de- cades, including massive increases in both enplanements and general aviation operation (Table 1). This mimics the national and global trends of projected growth highlighted previously (IATA 2016b). AZDOT (2008) estimated that $9.72 billion in funding would be required to meet basic infrastructure needs and associated aviation facility expansions to meet this projected demand in aviation services.

The commercial air transport landscape of Arizona is largely dominated by Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. During 2015, PHX was the 11th busiest airport in the United States, enplaning over 21.3 million passengers (FAA 2016a). This is not to say that commercial activity does not exist elsewhere in Arizona. For example, Tucson International (TUS) enplaned 1,549,253 passengers in 2015, while the Grand Canyon National Park Airport (GCN) enplaned 332,050. Enplanement statistics, however, mask the sheer volume of passengers processed in hubs like PHX. For example, 44,006,205 passengers made their way through PHX during 2015, setting a new record for the airport (AZ Central 2016). In addition to being a hub city for American Airlines (which processed 48% of all passengers (~23 million), PHX also serves as a focus city for Southwest Airlines (which processed 32% of all passengers (~14 million) in 2016 (AZ Central 2016). In sum 20 different commercial airlines operate at PHX, providing service to over 300 cities in North America and Europe.

In the next subsection, we provide a structured overview of reliever airports in the Phoenix metropolitan area by grouping them into four functional classifications based on their opera- tional characteristics as well as their role in the community. It is important to note that these are not ‘hard’ assignments, many of the detailed airports could easily be grouped in one or more categories, but for the purposes of this paper, they are assigned to their best fitting group for 2016. As detailed throughout this paper, reliever airports are dynamic entities, as are the com- munities that they belong to. Thus, the functional classifications of these airports may change over time.

4.1 Reliever becomes commercial

Phoenix-Mesa Gateway International airport is located in Mesa, Arizona. AZA covers 3,020 acres and maintains three runways. AZA represents the most interesting development in com- mercial air transport in Arizona over the past decade – emerging as a second commercial airport in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Phoenix-Mesa Gateway International Airport (IWA or AZA) is located 20 nautical miles east-southeast east of Phoenix (Figure 3) in the community of Mesa, AZ. As recently as 2007, AZA was classified as a reliever airport in the NPIAS and had no

Regional perspectives on general aviation 109

Regional Science Policy & Practice, Volume 9 Number 2 June 2017.

17577802, 2017, 2, D ow

nloaded from https://rsaiconnect.onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1111/rsp3.12091 by E

m bry-R

iddle A eronautical U

niv, W iley O

nline L ibrary on [16/02/2023]. See the T

erm s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com

/term s-and-conditions) on W

iley O nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O A

articles are governed by the applicable C reative C

om m

ons L icense

Fig. 2. Population growth in metropolitan Phoenix suburbs: 1990–2014

T.H. Grubesic et al.110

Regional Science Policy & Practice, Volume 9 Number 2 June 2017.

17577802, 2017, 2, D ow

nloaded from https://rsaiconnect.onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1111/rsp3.12091 by E

m bry-R

iddle A eronautical U

niv, W iley O

nline L ibrary on [16/02/2023]. See the T

erm s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com

/term s-and-conditions) on W

iley O nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O A

articles are governed by the applicable C reative C

om m

ons L icense

commercial flights. However, in October of that year, Allegiant Airlines began offering service to a handful of US destinations. In time, both Spirit Airlines and Frontier Airlines also began offering service from AZA, but the presence of multiple carriers was short-lived. Both Spirit and Frontier uprooted from AZA and began offering service from PHX instead, with Spirit Airlines citing higher levels of traveller familiarity with PHX as the reason for leaving (Polletta and Wang 2013). With the departure of Spirit and Frontier, WestJet Airlines (based in Canada) began offering service from AZA in 2015 to multiple destinations in Canada.

Fig. 3. Phoenix reliever airport network, 2015

Regional perspectives on general aviation 111

Regional Science Policy & Practice, Volume 9 Number 2 June 2017.

17577802, 2017, 2, D ow

nloaded from https://rsaiconnect.onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1111/rsp3.12091 by E

m bry-R

iddle A eronautical U

niv, W iley O

nline L ibrary on [16/02/2023]. See the T

erm s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com

/term s-and-conditions) on W

iley O nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O A

articles are governed by the applicable C reative C

om m

ons L icense

The transition of AZA from a reliever airport to a small hub is significant for many reasons. First, these types of large scale transitions from general aviation/reliever airports to commercial hubs are rare. As detailed by Poole and Butler (1999), this is not an easy process, even if smaller regional jets were used for providing the service to relievers. In short, it requires significant upgrades to the landing aids and associated technology, as well as changes to the regional air space and air traffic control procedures. AZA managed to make these changes, leveraging a sig- nificant capital funding effort exceeding $754 million, much of which was eligible for FAA sup- port (~$400 million) (PhxMesa 2009). Second, the return on this investment has been significant. AZA has become amassive economic engine for the East Valley andGreater Phoenix region. The most recent economic impact analysis for AZA suggests a direct impact of $767 million for the region. In addition, estimates suggest the secondary impacts of AZA exceed $544 million (ASU 2014). In sum, over $1.3 billion in economic activity is attributable to Phoenix-Mesa Gate- way, with payrolls exceeding $390 million, as well as adding 10,470 jobs in the region (ASU 2014). Expansion plans for AZA are also underway. For example, in an effort to attract additional carriers, AZA is offering incentives for new service at levels of at least two roundtrip flights per week to new markets. Specifically, AZA will provide 24-months of terminal use fee and landing waivers and $200,000 in marketing assistance (PhxMesa 2017). Further, for providing additional non-stop service to underserved markets, AZA is offering 12-months of fee waivers and $100,000 in marketing assistance (PhxMesa 2017). Lastly, AZA is also part of the FAA Phoenix Metroplex plan which is a large scale effort to improve the efficiency of the airspace in the Phoe- nix area by optimizing arrivals and departures. The Phoenix Metroplex project includes all of the reliever airports in Phoenix, as well as Tucson International (TUS) (FAA 2017).

4.2 Relievers as economic growth engines

Phoenix Deer Valley Airport is located in Phoenix Arizona. DVT covers 914 acres and main- tains two runways. It is the busiest general aviation airport in the country (FAA 2015a), and likely the world. As detailed in Table 2, DVT had 379,616 tower operations in 2015, but there is no scheduled commercial service, aside from an occasional charter flight, at DVT. Given the sheer volume of activity at DVT, Phoenix City Council recently passed a 20-year master improvement project for the airport. This includes the improvement of existing taxiways, the addition of new taxiways, upgraded lighting and hangar expansion (CBS 5 2015). In addition, all of the runways at DVT will be improved. Cutter Aviation, the DVT fixed-base operator, has also announced plans to build a new, multimillion-dollar facility at the airport (Epstein 2015). Recent estimates suggest that DVT is responsible for direct (on airport) revenues of more than $32 million, employing 282 people with a payroll of $6.89 million for 2015.

Phoenix Goodyear Airport is located in Goodyear, Arizona. GYR covers 789 acres and maintains one runway and one helipad. GYR was once known as Litchfield Naval Air Facility (LNAF) and was used to receive and test aircraft modified for the Navy by the Goodyear Air- craft Corporation during the Second World War (AZ Central 2014). After the Second World

Table 1. Projected Growth in Aviation Activity for the State of Arizona

2007 2012 2017 2030

Enplanments (including air tours) 23.2 M 25.3 M 29.0 M 41.1 M Based aircraft 8,043 8,757 9,523 11,892 General aviation operations 3.84 M 4.21 M 4.63 M 5.93 M Total operations (including military) 4.84 M 5.23 M 5.75 M 7.32 M Cargo tonnage 0.17 M 0.19 M 0.22 M 0.32 M

Note: M = Million.

T.H. Grubesic et al.112

Regional Science Policy & Practice, Volume 9 Number 2 June 2017.

17577802, 2017, 2, D ow

nloaded from https://rsaiconnect.onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1111/rsp3.12091 by E

m bry-R

iddle A eronautical U

niv, W iley O

nline L ibrary on [16/02/2023]. See the T

erm s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com

/term s-and-conditions) on W

iley O nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O A

articles are governed by the applicable C reative C

om m

ons L icense

War, the facility shifted the scope of its operations and began serving as a preservation depot for surplus or antiquated aircraft from the Navy, Marines and Coast Guard (AZ Central 2014). When the LNAF closed in 1967, it was purchased by the city of Phoenix to serve as a reliever for Sky Harbor Airport. Because of federal budget cuts in 2013, the FAA threatened to close the tower at GYR (Jansen 2013), but because of its proximity to Luke Air Force Base, the tower remained (and remains) operational. As detailed in Figure 2, GYR is located in the second ring suburb of Goodyear, AZ, which is one of the fastest growing cities in the country (Zetner 2016). Similar to DVT, there is no scheduled commercial service in/out of GYR, but it is a busy airport, with 128,377 tower operations in 2016. The bulk of these operations are attributable to the Air- line Training Center Arizona (ATCA), which trains pilots for both Lufthansa Airlines and the German air force. In fact, the ATCA programme is so large, it has constructed dormitories for students at GYR. At one point ATCA and Oxford Aviation Academy (OAA), a second flight school based at Goodyear, housed nearly 600 students per year. Although Oxford departed GYR to consolidate training operations at Falcon Field in Mesa, AZ, expansion plans for pilot training are currently in the works for GYR, with CTC Aviation Group slated to invest $7 mil- lion to equip and open a training centre at GYR (Madrid 2014). Within three years, CTC plans on training approximately 200 pilots per year at GYR. The broader plans for GYR includes a partnership between the Phoenix Aviation Department and the city of Goodyear to create an avi- ation, defence and technology centre near the airport. A range of local development projects are in the works, including a $9.7 million corporate jet hangar and facility operated by Lux Air Jet Centers (Trowbridge 2015). In addition, the city of Goodyear also operates the Gateway South industrial park which is classified as a foreign trade zone (FTZ). This allows companies to store and move products within the FTZ, duty free. For example, Estes (2016, p. 1) notes that ‘British Airways can send orders to the warehouse in Goodyear where it ships to caterers who then de- liver to airlines in Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles. Duties are only assessed when items reach their final destination’.

Chandler Municipal is located in Chandler, Arizona. Established in 1928, CHD covers 550 acres and maintains two active runways and a helipad. Today, it is the 7th busiest general avi- ation airport in the United States, with more than 226,000 tower operations in 2015. As detailed previously, Chandler is one of many fast-growing suburbs in the Phoenix metropolitan area, adding more than 163,000 residents between 1990 and 2014. Given the boundary restrictions for the city, especially where Chandler abuts the Gila River Indian Reservation, the corridor sur- rounding CHD represents a ‘final frontier’ of growth and development for the municipality. Plans for this corridor, formally known as the Chandler Airpark, include a recently announced 50-year ground lease agreement for the WingSpan Aviation Center at CHD. The first phase of this project will include 80,000ft2 of hangar/office space (City of Chandler 2015), but the

Table 2. Phoenix reliever airport operations, 2015

Facility Airport operations Tower operations* Enplanments

CHD 219,853 226,681 360 DVT 369,759 379,616 28 FFZ 250,725 260,664 21 GEU 77,835 81,589 13 GYR 111,330 116,598 10 SDL 147,753 157,457 1,164 PHX 440,411 462,603 21,351,504 AZA 214,409 223,178 666,187

Notes: *Tower operations include all itinerant traffic and overflight activity at a given airport.

Regional perspectives on general aviation 113

Regional Science Policy & Practice, Volume 9 Number 2 June 2017.

17577802, 2017, 2, D ow

nloaded from https://rsaiconnect.onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1111/rsp3.12091 by E

m bry-R

iddle A eronautical U

niv, W iley O

nline L ibrary on [16/02/2023]. See the T

erm s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com

/term s-and-conditions) on W

iley O nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O A

articles are governed by the applicable C reative C

om m

ons L icense

five-year build-out plan include an additional 170,000ft2 of hangar/office space and enhanced taxi access to the CHD runway. This is in addition to the development of a 302,000ft2 package distribution center under development by Federal Express (Gabel 2014). A recent economic impact analysis of CHD suggests that the airport is directly responsible for over $32 million in revenues and 163 jobs with a payroll of $6.89 million (CAC 2016). More importantly, when direct air visitor impacts and associated secondary economic impacts are considered, CHD is responsible for over $109 million in revenues, 795 jobs and $31.45 million in payroll. These numbers are expected to grow over the next decade, with estimates suggesting that the Chandler Airpark area eventually hosting more than 28 million square feet of non-residential space and account for 30,000 jobs (Quigley 2013).

4.3 Relievers as specialized economic nodes

Falcon Field is located in Mesa, Arizona opened in 1941 to serve as a training base for pilots during the Second World War. FFZ consists of 794 acres and has two active runways. FFZ is an active airport, with over 260,000 tower operations in 2015, ranking it as the 12th busiest gen- eral aviation airport in the country (FAA 2015a). However, FZZ is best known as a centre for aerospace/defence manufacturing. For example, MD Helicopters is located at Falcon Field and is one of the largest manufacturers of high-performance helicopters in the United States (MDH 2016). Also, adjacent to FFZ is a Boeing Corporation campus that manufactures the AH-64 Apache helicopter. Boeing employs more than 5,000 people in the state of Arizona, with its largest concentration of employees in Mesa. Nammo Talley and Timken (both defence con- tractors) also maintain a presence in/around the Falcon Field Economic Activity Area (Mesa 2014). In sum, there are more than 90 businesses providing more than 1,300 jobs at Falcon Field (FF 2016) and much like Goodyear, AZ, Mesa also offers a FTZ to companies seeking this type of operational support.

Scottsdale Airport is located in Scottsdale, Arizona and was established in 1942 as a training facility for Second World War Army Air Corps pilots (Scottsdale 2017). SDL covers 282 acres and maintains a single asphalt runway. SDL is one of the busiest single runway airports in the country and had the most enplanements of any reliever airport in the Phoenix metropolitan area during 2015 (Table 2).6 Recent economic impact statistics suggest that aviation activity at SDL and its associated airpark created $536 million in total economic benefits for the region, supporting 3,462 jobs with incomes of $186.2 million (SCC 2015). On an average day, SDL visitors inject $120,000 into the area economy (SCC 2015). One of the major geographical ad- vantages for SDL is its location in north Scottsdale and its proximity to the major resort desti- nations in Scottsdale and Paradise Valley. There are more than 16,000 rooms and 86 resorts in the immediate area (Scottsdale 2015) and economic analysis suggests that an overnight vis- iting travel party arriving to SDL by private jet will spend an average of $5,255 during their stay in the area (SCC 2015).

4.4 Relievers on the decline

Glendale Municipal is located in Glendale, Arizona and was established in 1987. GEU covers 720 acres and maintains one active runway. GEU is the least active reliever airport in the Phoenix region (Table 2), with less than 82,000 tower operations in 2015. The University of Phoenix Stadium is located in Glendale (home to the Arizona Cardinals, a professional football franchise) and the stadium plays frequent host to major sporting events, including the Copa America Centenario soccer games (June 2016) and major college football games (e.g., 2011

6 All of these enplanements are tied to charter airline operations.

T.H. Grubesic et al.114

Regional Science Policy & Practice, Volume 9 Number 2 June 2017.

17577802, 2017, 2, D ow

nloaded from https://rsaiconnect.onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1111/rsp3.12091 by E

m bry-R

iddle A eronautical U

niv, W iley O

nline L ibrary on [16/02/2023]. See the T

erm s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com

/term s-and-conditions) on W

iley O nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O A

articles are governed by the applicable C reative C

om m

ons L icense

NCAA Championship). Recent strife at the airport, including a major lawsuit from pilots, sug- gests that GEU is both poorly managed and unpopular with local pilots (McGlade 2014). The most recent economic impact statistics for GEU (Glendale 2002) are extremely dated, but sug- gested that its direct, indirect and induced economic impacts exceeded $52 million annually, generating 516 local jobs, a payroll of $15.5 million and $36.7 million in sales.

5 Discussion - expanding and synthesizing views on relievers

The examples from the greater Phoenix region make clear that reliever airports are embedded in multiple spatial, political and economic frameworks that sometime draw contradictory views. Although the case studies presented for Phoenix are somewhat limited in both scale and scope, it is important that readers view them in the broader context of reliever airports nationwide. Spe- cifically, while AZA, DVT, CHD, FFZ, SDL and GEU are local to the Phoenix metropolitan area, they are part of a much larger, nationwide network of general aviation ports that provide both a foundation for regional economic and transport activity (usually evidenced by positive regional economic modeling results). However, many relievers in the United States, including some of those found in the Phoenix area, can also become targets of criticism. As a result, re- liever airports, can be assessed from a variety of aviation and non-aviation perspectives, based on factors both on and off the airport grounds. In an effort to synthesize the reliever experience here in Phoenix, and beyond, it is important to succinctly summarize both the promise and peril of reliever airports in broad strokes. We recognize that each reliever airport and their associated community, will have some local quirks that make their site and situation unique. However, there are a handful of themes which are emergent, regardless of location, reflecting the current mix of thinking on reliever airports in the academic literature, gray literature (e.g., newspapers, community development reports, etc.), by practitioners in the field and the case studies presented above.

Specifically, reliever airports promise to:

1. act as important nodes in the US’s overall aviation infrastructure as origin–destination points for many types of operators;

2. clear some traffic from busier ‘hub’ airports, potentially increasing regional air transport efficiency (Lindsay 2005);

3. reflect trends in GA and private air transportation in the nation and within their regions (Adams 2011);

4. provide a site for organizing emergency and other public service aviation activities (Eisler 2005; ACRP 2008);

5. support, many aviation-related enterprises that related or linked to the civil air network (Mulliger 2016);

6. generate economic multiplier effects which provide benefits that go beyond the airport itself (ACRP 2008; FAA 2015a);

7. provide potential catalytic effects on regional productivity (ACRP 2008); 8. promote tourism (Chambliss 2011); and 9. provide a land use for which new alternatives are extremely difficult to site.

At the same time, relievers may become lightning rods for criticism on many grounds. While these would differ substantially by region and context, they include:

1. excessive noise in and around the airport region (ACRP 2008; Blake 2008; Remmers 2015); 2. enhanced traffic or road congestion in and around the airport region (Remmers 2015);

Regional perspectives on general aviation 115

Regional Science Policy & Practice, Volume 9 Number 2 June 2017.

17577802, 2017, 2, D ow

nloaded from https://rsaiconnect.onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1111/rsp3.12091 by E

m bry-R

iddle A eronautical U

niv, W iley O

nline L ibrary on [16/02/2023]. See the T

erm s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com

/term s-and-conditions) on W

iley O nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O A

articles are governed by the applicable C reative C

om m

ons L icense

3. ineffective or inefficient use of funds (high opportunity costs); 4. ineffective or inefficient use of lands (Divine 2015; Olson 2004); 5. ineffective or inefficient relative source of taxes (Eisler 2005); and 6. ineffective or inefficient management / regional integration (Glendale 2002).

In sum, when evaluating the potential impacts of reliever airports in a community, the rela- tive importance (or weight) that is given to both the positive and negative aspects of a facility and its operation might vary between communities, but the factors considered likely reflect a combination of those detailed above.

Within this context, it is important to reiterate that reliever airports are strongly enmeshed within a city’s socioeconomic, demographic and infrastructural fabric. As detailed previously, the vast majority of reliever airports were designed and built at (or beyond) a city’s ‘perimetripolitan bow wave’ (Hart 1991) – close, but not too close. Strategically, this made good sense because relievers were located in places where they could perform their roles with mini- mal negative externalities to their local community, but were proximal enough to add economic benefits and provide the necessary decentralizing function(s) to the larger city’s air traffic. How- ever, metropolitan areas are dynamic and this dynamism can gradually change the context of re- liever airport locations. For example, as local and regional land use pressures evolve in major metropolitan areas, divisions can emerge between various constituencies as airports’ uses and function are contemplated for the future. This is especially salient for reliever airports, which are often one of the more visible and/or high profile facilities within a community (Eisler 2005).

Consider, for example, the impacts of growth pressures in a community where suburban de- velopment has pushed into the frontier and toward a once, relatively isolated, reliever airport. For these newer residential areas, noise suddenly becomes an important element of an airport’s regional perception. According to Nelson (2004), residential property values decrease by almost 0.6 per cent per decibel of noise (when proximal to an airport) in the United States. Although this finding is not consistent (Lipscomb 2003; see also, ACRP 2015) between areas, noise is un- doubtedly one of the core issues relating to airport operations, development and quality of life for most communities in the United States and elsewhere.

These interrelated views – one towards the relievers’ air network functions at various scales and the other towards their integration within their regional and local communities at various scales, coupled with the priorities of local constituencies – form the context within which the development of research on relievers both generally and within individual cities can move for- ward. Importantly, while economic impact studies form the basis of many arguments regarding the benefits, need for, and usefulness of reliever airports, they may not necessarily be the ‘last word’. Understanding the operational nature of reliever airports, as well as the political climate of communities they are located in is also absolutely essential.

6 Conclusion

As detailed in this paper, reliever airports can take many forms, serve many functions and have a wide variety of impacts in their communities and regions. The Phoenix metropolitan area and its reliever airports are illustrative of this diversity in form, function and impact. Not only does Phoenix have a major international commercial airport (PHX), it is also home to a booming regional airport that has increased its role in commercial aviation (AZA) and a robust group of traditional reliever airports, including the busiest reliever in the United States (DVT).

However, it is important to reiterate the context of the Phoenix case study, in that it may not be directly generalizable to all cities or their experiences with reliever airports. As mentioned previously, the local metropolitan morphology is not dramatically different from places like

T.H. Grubesic et al.116

Regional Science Policy & Practice, Volume 9 Number 2 June 2017.

17577802, 2017, 2, D ow

nloaded from https://rsaiconnect.onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1111/rsp3.12091 by E

m bry-R

iddle A eronautical U

niv, W iley O

nline L ibrary on [16/02/2023]. See the T

erm s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com

/term s-and-conditions) on W

iley O nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O A

articles are governed by the applicable C reative C

om m

ons L icense

Dallas/Fort Worth, Denver or many other large urban complexes in the Sunbelt, particularly when evaluating the geographic distribution of reliever airports. However, the relative strengths of Phoenix in the domains of commercial, corporate and general aviation, as well as the pres- ence of multiple flight schools, aviation manufacturers and a large air force base in the region make it somewhat unique. To some extent, this may obfuscate some of the local challenges faced by suburban communities and their reliever airports in/around Phoenix, but it does not render the metropolitan area immune to airport development problems. For example, noise gen- erated by new FAA mandated flight paths for PHX remain a serious concern for many neighbourhoods in the metropolitan area, and residents are going to court to lobby for changes in the air traffic management for the region (Goth 2017).

From a development perspective, it is also clear that within the current aviation environ- ment, Phoenix’s collective airport system provides substantial economic benefits to the region, with the impacts underscored by a suite of diverse input–output studies (Glendale 2002; ASU 2014; SCC 2015; FF 2016; CAC 2016). While these studies can be coarse, such metrics are crit- ical. They represent fundamental economic arguments for the continued operation of the airports from a cost–benefit perspective and can be used both in time-series as well as in geographic comparisons (with other regions) to provide a sense of on-going changes, methodological opportunities, and prospects for discovering new for aviation-community linkages. Yet there is no doubt that Phoenix too will face difficult development questions pertaining to its reliever network in the future. In particular, issues pertaining to who exactly reaps the benefits (e.g., employment, product movement) versus those that pay the costs (e.g., noise, congestion) from reliever airports may soon emerge as the Phoenix area continues to grow. More importantly, as with most spatial problems, it is likely the two groups will not be one and the same.

Land use, safety, and sustainability may also form the backdrop for other concerns over the future use and management of reliever airports both in Phoenix and across the US. It is already clear that some regions see the very existence of an airport in close proximity to a CBD or suburban development as a tremendous opportunity cost that might be ‘paid’ through the land use conversion of airport properties into parks, residential units, or commercial areas. Where arguments for safety and sustainability are both compelling and actionable, opportuni- ties for re-location are attractive, although the process for decommissioning and converting the airport will take many years. The ability to balance economic development and urban growth, with issues of sustainability, safety and concerns regarding noise are not limited to Phoenix, as many communities, including Boise, Idaho (Loughrey 2017), Longmont, Colorado (LTC 2017), Santa Monica, California (Croft 2008; City of Santa Monica 2017; Weikel and Smith 2017) and Portland, Oregon (Sparling 2017) are also attempting to find an appropriate balance.

The review of reliever airports and the case study of Phoenix has suggested many of the positive aspects of having a strong regional airport system. The benefits accrue widely. Yet the questions that surround the future of reliever airports in Phoenix and elsewhere will no doubt multiply over time and involve political and economic arguments of tremendous complexity. The relative paucity of systematic research to date into both general aviation and reliever airports is somewhat odd given the volume of GA flying, the sheer number of reliever airports, and the (occasionally controversial) impact of both. This leaves significant opportunities for future research along at least two tracks. First, it is essential to more thoroughly document the role of reliever airports’ aviation functions. This includes both current uses and potential options for future roles in metropolitan, regional and national plans to effectively handle air transport demand. Second, ‘from the ground’, the impact of relievers on urban morphology will have to be more adequately accounted for along the lines of land use, economic growth, and commu- nity planning. Ultimately, as is often the case, a third research track – one that synthesizes both perspectives – may prove most fruitful.

Regional perspectives on general aviation 117

Regional Science Policy & Practice, Volume 9 Number 2 June 2017.

17577802, 2017, 2, D ow

nloaded from https://rsaiconnect.onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1111/rsp3.12091 by E

m bry-R

iddle A eronautical U

niv, W iley O

nline L ibrary on [16/02/2023]. See the T

erm s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com

/term s-and-conditions) on W

iley O nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O A

articles are governed by the applicable C reative C

om m

ons L icense

References

Adams J (2011) Signs of relief of suburban airports; The reliever airports were hit by the recession, but several are seeing increases in air traffic and sales. Star Tribune (Minneapolis), January 24, 2011, 1D

AirNav (2016) Roberts Field Airport. URL: http://www.airnav.com/airport/RDM Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) (2008) Airport economic impact method and models: A synthesis of

airport practice. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) (2015) Passenger value of time, benefit-cost analysis, and airport capital

investment decisions. URL: http://tinyurl.com/llpmc37 Airports Council International [ACI] (2010) URL: http://tinyurl.com/lnavn3w Arizona Department of Aviation [AZDOT] (2008) State Airports System Plan. URL: http://tinyurl.com/zkzn3u7 Arizona Department of Aviation [AZDOT] (2015) Economic impact of aviation in Arizona: Statewide report. URL:

http://tinyurl.com/z2qznvy Arizona State University [ASU] (2014) PhxMesa Gateway Airport economic impact analysis: Fiscal year 2013. URL:

http://tinyurl.com/zdox6su AZ Central (2014) Goodyear naval facility became aircraft restoration center. URL: http://tinyurl.com/h4u9xl6 AZ Central (2016) Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport sets passenger record in 2015. URL: http://tinyurl.com/

hq9qqdz Baker SP, Lamb MW (1989) Hazards of mountain flying: Crashes in the Colorado Rockies. Aviation, Space, and Envi-

ronmental Medicine 60: 531–536 Blake L (2008) Flying Cloud Airport is cleared for expansion. URL: http://tinyurl.com/jqbqddb Bonnefoy PA, Hansman RJ (2005) Emergence of secondary airports and dynamics of regional airport systems in the

United States. Report No ICAT-2005-02, MIT International Center for Air Transportation Bureau of Transportation Statistics [BTS] (2016a) URL: http://www.transtats.bts.gov Bureau of Transportation Statistics [BTS] (2016b) Ranking of major airport on-time departure performance year-to-date

through October 2016. URL: http://tinyurl.com/zdoerof Bureau of Transportation Statistics [BTS] (2016c) Ranking of major airport on-time arrival performance year-to-date

through October 2016. URL: http://tinyurl.com/z5ma6vb CBS 5 (2015) Phoenix council approves 20-year Deer Valley Airport improvement plan. URL: http://tinyurl.com/

zchc66g CDM Smith (2014) The economic impact of commercial airports in 2013. CDM, Cincinnati Chambliss J (2011) Direct Air expects Lakeland Linder to become a hub of tourism. The Ledger. URL: http://tinyurl.

com/h6xffnr Chandler Airport Commission [CAC] (2016) Chandler Municipal Airport economic impact analysis. URL: http://tinyurl.

com/hdwnzwg City of Glendale [Glendale] (2002) Airport Master Plan: City of Glendale. URL: http://tinyurl.com/ybarjyp2 City of Chandler (2015) New hangar/office project headed to Chandler Municipal Airport. URL: http://tinyurl.com/

hfnwag6 City of Santa Monica (2017) Santa Monica Airport will close forever on December 31 2028. Santa Monica City Council

reaches Historic agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration and the Department of Justice. URL: http:// tinyurl.com/hhrq4tv

Croft J (2008) FAA challenges reliever airport on access for business jets. Flight International, 8–14 April, 28 De Neufville R (1995) Management of multi-airport systems: A development strategy. Journal of Air Transport Man-

agement 2: 99–110 Divine M (2015) Lake Elmo Airport expansion in the works. Twin Cities Pioneer Press. URL: http://tinyurl.com/zjo9l5n. Divine M (2016) Lake Elmo Airport neighbors unsatisfied by revised expansion plan. Twin Cities Pioneer Press. URL:

http://tinyurl.com/h62fs5e Eisler D (2005) How to save your airport. Business & Commercial Aviation 96(3): 69–78 Epstein C (2015) Cutter Aviation becomes sole FBO at Deer Valley. URL: http://tinyurl.com/hxan7wu Estes C (2016) Foreign trade zone attracts first company to Goodyear Gateway South. KJZZ.URL: http://tinyurl.com/

jhr8se6 FAA (2012) General Aviation Airports: A National Asset. URL: http://tinyurl.com/y8enlnkz Falcon Field Airport [FF] (2016) URL: http://tinyurl.com/zgbzaxe Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] (2000) Order 5090.3C: Field formulation of the National Plan of Integrated Air-

port Systems (NPIAS). URL: http://tinyurl.com/zqxa3sz Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] (2012) FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. URL: http://tinyurl.com/lsrlqtn Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] (2014) Glossary. URL: http://aspmhelp.faa.gov/index.php/Glossary Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] (2015a) Air Traffic Activity System (ATADS). URL: https://aspm.faa.gov/

opsnet/sys/Tower.asp

T.H. Grubesic et al.118

Regional Science Policy & Practice, Volume 9 Number 2 June 2017.

17577802, 2017, 2, D ow

nloaded from https://rsaiconnect.onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1111/rsp3.12091 by E

m bry-R

iddle A eronautical U

niv, W iley O

nline L ibrary on [16/02/2023]. See the T

erm s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com

/term s-and-conditions) on W

iley O nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O A

articles are governed by the applicable C reative C

om m

ons L icense

Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] (2015b) The economic impact of civil aviation on the US economy. URL: http:// tinyurl.com/jppw85t

Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] (2016a) Passenger boarding (enplanement) and all-cargo data for US Airports. URL: http://tinyurl.com/65y8kwn

Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] (2016b) Part 139 Airport Certification. URL: http://tinyurl.com/n6kdvb7 Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] (2016c) Airport categories. URL: http://tinyurl.com/yblkd9xl Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] (2017) Phoenix Metroplex. URL: http://tinyurl.com/j2445lx Forsyth P (2007) The impacts of emerging aviation trends on airport infrastructure. Journal of Air Transport Manage-

ment 13: 45–52 Gabel C (2014) FedEx bringing huge distribution facility to Chandler Air Park. East Valley Tribune. URL: http://tinyurl.

com/h9aaq5a General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) (2016) 2015 General aviation statistical databook & 2016 indus-

try outlook. URL: http://tinyurl.com/zmtp2z9 GCR Inc (2016) AirportIQ 5010. URL: http://www.gcr1.com/5010web/default.cfm Gillen D, Lall A (1997) Developing measures of airport productivity and performance: An application of data envelop-

ment analysis. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 33: 261–273 Goth B (2017) Court to hear Phoenix arguments against FAA flight paths at Sky Harbor. Arizona Republic. URL: http://

tinyurl.com/j9vw4e2 Grabowski JG, Curriero FC, Baker SP, Li G (2002) Exploratory spatial analysis of pilot fatality rates in general aviation

crashes using geographic information systems. American Journal of Epidemiology 155: 398–405 Hamzawi SG (1992) Lack of airport capacity: Exploration of alternative solutions. Transportation Research Part A:

Policy and Practice 26: 47–58 Hart JF (1991) The perimetropolitan bow wave. Geographical Review 81: 35–51 Infanger, J.F (2000) A new capital reliever. URL: http://tinyurl.com/gns9suh International Air Transport Association [IATA] (2016a) Global Air Traffic & Top Airlines 2016. URL: http://tinyurl.

com/zyl2exf International Air Transport Association [IATA] (2016b) IATA Air Passenger Forecast Shows Dip in Long-Term

Demand. URL: http://tinyurl.com/hyc4e4j Jansen B (2013) FAA: Air-traffic control towers at 4 Arizona airports to close. USA Today. URL: http://tinyurl.com/

jf3g25r Kearney PJ, Li G (2000) Geographic variations in crash risk of general aviation and air taxis. Aviation, Space, and

Environmental Medicine 71: 19–21 Lindsay M (2005) Relievers airports looking for relief. Saint Paul Pioneer Press. August 16, 2005 Lipscomb C (2003) Small cities matter, too: The impacts of an airport and local infrastructure on housing prices in a

small urban city. Review of Urban & Regional Development Studies 15: 255–273 Loo BP (2008) Passengers’ airport choice within multi-airport regions (MARs): Some insights from a stated preference

survey at Hong Kong International Airport. Journal of Transport Geography 16: 117–125 LTC (2017) Editorial: Respect needed in Longmont skydiving noise battle. Longmont Times Call. URL: http://tinyurl.

com/j6czexa Loughrey D (2017) Sure, bring the F-35: But base it in the Idaho desert, not in Boise. Idaho Statesman. URL: http://

tinyurl.com/joyf4fy Madrid D (2014) Training center for pilots planned at Phoenix Goodyear Airport. Arizona Republic. URL: http://tinyurl.

com/j6kmwum McGlade C (2014) Glendale Municipal Airport sued by pilots. Arizona Republic. URL: http://tinyurl.com/q6etspa Mesa (2014) Falcon Field economic activity area strategic plan. URL: http://tinyurl.com/zedprac MDH (2016) URL: http://www.mdhelicopters.com/v2/index.php Mulliger A (2016) Runway expansion to begin at Spartanburg Downtown Memorial Airport. Herald-Journal

(Spartanburg, SC), February 19, 2016 Municipal Association of South Carolina [MASC] (2016) Airports make economic development soar. URL: http://

tinyurl.com/jjvpxdc Nelson JP (2004) Meta-analysis of airport noise and hedonic property values. Journal of Transport Economics and

Policy 38: 1–27 NewMyer DA (1983) Problems and prospects for the growth of reliever airports. Airport Services Management: 28–32 NewMyer DA, Modjeski MC, Voges JK, Bryant JT (2007) The Importance of Reliever Airports in the USA. Collegiate

Aviation Review 25: 57–72 O’Connor K, Fuellhart K (2016) Airports and regional air transport markets: A new perspective. Journal of Transport

Geography 53: 78–82 Olson R (2004) Reliever airport may need to close; the land is envisioned as part of the upgrade near County Rd. 81.

Start Tribune, 23 October, 1B

Regional perspectives on general aviation 119

Regional Science Policy & Practice, Volume 9 Number 2 June 2017.

17577802, 2017, 2, D ow

nloaded from https://rsaiconnect.onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1111/rsp3.12091 by E

m bry-R

iddle A eronautical U

niv, W iley O

nline L ibrary on [16/02/2023]. See the T

erm s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com

/term s-and-conditions) on W

iley O nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O A

articles are governed by the applicable C reative C

om m

ons L icense

PhxMesa (2009) Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport master plan. URL: http://tinyurl.com/jewz4vy PhxMesa (2017) Resolution No.: 16-58| Air service incentive program. URL http://tinyurl.com/j5fcan3 Phoenix Deer Valley Airport [DVT Airport] (2016) URL: https://deervalleyairport.com/ PLR Airport (2016) URL: http://www.plrairport.com/pilot-information.html Polletta M, Wang AB (2013) Spirit Airlines to leave Mesa Gateway for Sky Harbor. Arizona Republic. URL: http://

tinyurl.com/jgm8arh Poole Jr RW, Butler V (1999) Airline deregulation: The unfinished revolution. Regulation 22: 44 Quigley D (2013) Chandler, Mesa Gateway, Sky Harbor officials discuss aviation impact on AZ economy. East Valley

Tribune. URL: http://tinyurl.com/cy4xujl Remmers V (2015) Airport’s expansion draws mixed reaction from residents. The Free Lance-Star (Fredericksburg, VA)

13 August. URL: http://tinyurl.com/y8nshapg Ruud C (2015) FAA warns NYC-area airport congestion to significantly worsen by 2030. New York Newsday. URL:

http://tinyurl.com/jlojcpf Scottsdale [City of Scottsdale] (2017) Airport History. URL: http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/airport/history Scottsdale [City of Scottsdale] (2015) The Scottsdale/Paradise Valley Tourism Study. URL: http://tinyurl.com/h5z4byv Scottsdale City Council [SCC] (2015) Scottsdale Airport Master Plan. URL: http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/airport/

master-plan Slack B (1999) Satellite terminals: A local solution to hub congestion? Journal of Transport Geography 7: 241–246 Sparling Z (2017) House bill to challenge port control of Troutdale Airport. The Portland Tribune. URL: http://tinyurl.

com/jqcymuy Stafford Regional Airport Authority [SRAA] (2014) Stafford Regional Airport Compatible Land Use Study. URL:

http://stafford.va.us/DocumentCenter/View/5378 Trowbridge C (2015) $9.7 million luxury hangar project coming to Phoenix Goodyear Airport. Phoenix Business Jour-

nal. URL: http://tinyurl.com/jxbbpyk United States Census Bureau (2015) Quick facts: Phoenix, Arizona. URL: http://tinyurl.com/y8wfwg7h United States Forest Service [USFS] (2016) URL: http://tinyurl.com/mfok6h7 Weikel D, Smith D (2017) Santa Monica Airport will close in 2028 and be replaced by a park, officials say. Los Angeles

Times, 28 January. URL: http://tinyurl.com/hovgy5h Weisbrod G, Reed JS, Neuwirth RM (1993) Airport area development model. Paper presented at PTRC-International

Transport Conference, Manchester Zetner E (2016) Goodyear, Buckeye saw some of the nation’s fasted population growth last year. Arizona Republic.

URL: http://tinyurl.com/h49egqy

T.H. Grubesic et al.120

Regional Science Policy & Practice, Volume 9 Number 2 June 2017.

17577802, 2017, 2, D ow

nloaded from https://rsaiconnect.onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1111/rsp3.12091 by E

m bry-R

iddle A eronautical U

niv, W iley O

nline L ibrary on [16/02/2023]. See the T

erm s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com

/term s-and-conditions) on W

iley O nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O A

articles are governed by the applicable C reative C

om m

ons L icense

Resumen. Los ‘aeropuertos de alivio’ constituyen un grupo especial dentro del Plan Nacional de Sistemas Aeroportuarios Integrados (NPIAS, por sus siglas en inglés) en los Estados Unidos. Establecidos en la década de 1960, el propósito de los aeropuertos de alivio fue el de desviar hacia ellos el tráfico aéreo de carácter general de los aeropuertos principales congestionados situados en las áreas metropolitanas más grandes. Con el tiempo, muchos de estos aeropuertos evolucionaron para pasar de simplemente aliviar la congestión del tráfico aéreo local a funcionar como polos operativos y económicos para las comunidades a las que sirven. El propósito de este artículo es poner de relieve el desarrollo de la red de aeropuertos de alivio en los Estados Unidos y examinar su papel (actual o potencial) dentro del sistema de transporte aéreo en general, así como en las regiones asociadas a las que sirven. Específicamente, se trabaja en un estudio de caso del área metropolitana de Phoenix (Arizona) y su red de alivio. Los resultados sugieren que aunque muchos aeropuertos de alivio están destinados a cumplir su propósito original, otros pueden gozar de la oportunidad de diversificar su forma y su función.

抄録:抄録: リリーバー空港は、米国におけるNational Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS:国家空港総合整備計画)が定める特殊な位置づけの空港である。これは、ゼネ ラル・アビエーションの航空交通を大都市圏の主要な空港の混雑から分離する目的で 1960年代に設立された。リリーバー空港の多くは、現地の航空交通の混雑を緩和する だけであったのが、時間の経過とともに現地コミュニティにおける運用と経済のハブ の両方として機能するようになった。本稿の目的は、米国におけるリリーバー空港の ネットワークの発展を明示することと、より大きな航空輸送システムおよびその空港 に関連する地域における役割(既存の役割と潜在的な役割)を探索することである。具

体的には、アリゾナ州のフェニックス大都市圏(Phoenix Arizona metropolitan area) とそのリリーバー・ネットワークについてのケーススタディを実施する。結果は、多 くのリリーバー空港が元来の目的を果たすだけであるが、一部の空港には形式と機能

を多様化できる機会がある可能性があることを示す。

doi:10.1111/rsp3.12091

© 2017 The Author(s). Regional Science Policy and Practice © 2017 RSAI

Regional Science Policy & Practice, Volume 9 Number 2 June 2017.

17577802, 2017, 2, D ow

nloaded from https://rsaiconnect.onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1111/rsp3.12091 by E

m bry-R

iddle A eronautical U

niv, W iley O

nline L ibrary on [16/02/2023]. See the T

erm s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com

/term s-and-conditions) on W

iley O nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O A

articles are governed by the applicable C reative C

om m

ons L icense