1.253/11.543/ESD.222  Transportation Policy & Environmental Limits

Hi all,

Tomorrow's dinner will be at 7:30pm at L'Osteria in the North End, 104 Salem Street.  The closest T stop is Haymarket, but the walk from Park Street isn't bad either. Map here: http://tinyurl.com/2szrqn  

Apologies that the LEV grades are so slow in coming back to you - I will distribute them as soon as possible.

Good luck with the Logan papers, and see you tomorrow night!

Hi all - I'm not sure why the formatting of Fred's answers to the Logan questions came out so screwy, but it looks okay on the Stellar page, and I've uploaded the Word file on the Stellar site as well.  Hope this clears things up.

1. Why exactly did the FAA deem PACE discriminatory?

A.  Because it changes access to the runway in a way that favors large planes over small planes.
B. Because the small plane lobby is very powerful.
C. Because the traditional answer to congestion is to expand the Concrete Commons, which does not create tension among the various air constituencies, whereas changing the pricing structure creates tensions within the constituency.
D. Because the Logan fee was a flat fee that did not vary over time, to impact only those hours when the runways are congested.
E. Peak pricing is interpreted by many as a short-term incentive to shift activity out of the peak period and into the off-peak.  Others view it as an important incentive to shift demand out of small planes and into larger ones to achieve a longer run impact.
F. When aviation regulation existed, it was a Federal power affecting interstate commerce, which the airports were not supposed to engage in under the commerce clause of the Constitution (the individual states are not supposed to interfere with interstate commerce).
G. Aviation deregulation generally said that FAA was not supposed to regulate routes or rates.  An extreme interpretation of this is that no one should attempt to regulate the status quo, especially anyone other than the Federal government.
H. If individual states or airports get involved in demand management, you could end up with a crazy-quilt of inconsistent regulation of an interstate system.

2. What does this discrimination have to do with the peak hour pricing?

Peak Hour pricing was left open as a possibility in the 1988 decision of DOT.  The DOT analysis recognizes that there is a congestion problem, had political pressure to find against the Logan flat fee (which probably should have been found to be non-discriminatory), and wanted to leave an opening for Massport to try again.  The FAA is more traditional and more institutionally opposed to any pricing strategy.

3. Are we supposed to have any indication as to why Massport hasn't followed through with peak pricing (other than that they are simply bad people, or don't want to do the things they promised because it's hard)

The current Massport leadership dos not want to make any waves.  Peak pricing was forced into the runway case by Secretary of Environmental Affairs Durand, against Massport’s will.  It was approved in the FAA Record of Decision by Jane Garvey, FAA Administrator as part of the deal to get Runway 14-32, against the desire of the FAA bureaucracy.  Massport wants Federal grants from FAA for projects like the Taxiway, and doesn’t want to upset FAA or the small-plane constituency, especially since Cape Air with its 9-seat aircraft is a popular local Massachusetts company.

4. Why would prices need to fall for big planes during peak hours?  Why not raise prices for both big and small planes (big planes would still be more able to pay) or keep them the same for big planes.

Prices need to fall for big planes during peak hours because airports are not allowed to generate a surplus from the landing fees.  Under FAA rules, regulation, or statute (I’m not sure which) the airplanes lobby heavily for this policy.  So if more money is collected than is required to maintain the airfield, that is not permitted.  The peak pricing is supposed to be revenue-neutral.  [This is crazy; half of the $15 billion Big Dig is to provide access to Logan and the seaport, but Massport works very hard to avoid paying in, and FAA (because of its own philosophy as well as pressure from the airlines), fights hard for the most narrow possible interpretations of airfield expenses.]

5. I wondered if Fred could explain exactly why this is currently in front of Andrew Gottlieb?  What exactly does he have the power to do, and what type of action are we to be recommending?  Just whether he reopen the case or that he should impose specific punishments or ease certain requirements? I'm not even sure he would have the power to do so.  I know his office balances a number of interests (housing, transportation, energy, etc...) I just want to make sure I understand what the goals of his office would be in reviewing this case.

Andrew Gottlieb was, until last December, the head of an office whose job was to coordinate environmental affairs, transportation, and housing.  The decision on a Notice of Project Change is within Environmental Affairs, but Gottlieb is over them in the organization chart.  Informally, because of the political power of Massport, Environmental Affairs has been very timid on Massport issues.  Gottlieb is as friendly a venue as the environmental side of this issue can get.  In some ways it is analogous to US DOT being more open than FAA to innovative approaches.

6. Finally, I wondered if Fred could explain # 3 of the requirements stipulated in Justice Margot Botsford's decision (as mentioned in the assignment sheet).  [Justin's note: #3 on the assignment sheet reads, "The "Air Initiative" requiring that aircraft-generated NOx emissions at Logan be subject to a cap-and-trade scheme, whereby landing feet would be increased to purchase NOx offsets in the area surrounding Logan, so that the likely increase in NOx generation by aircraft would be offset by reductions in NOx outside of Logan."]

The air initiative is a very creative way around Federal pre-emption of non-existing air quality regulations of airlines, conceptualized by Sonia Hamel.  This regulation was slipped into the Runway issue by policy entrepreneurs in the environmental agencies, and agreed to by Massport because they wanted the Runway, but Massport doesn’t really want to do it, and FAA and the airlines will react very negatively.

7.  Fred said in class that 45% of movements at Logan have fewer than 9 passengers.  Do we have a source on that?  Can we use it in the paper?

45% of movements at Logan had fewer than nine passengers, according to the Massport documentation in the EIR/S a few years ago.  It is probably still reasonably accurate, and you can use it in your papers.

8.  What exactly would the "Notice Project Change" do?  Would they have to re-file the EIS?  Is it a stall tactic or might it result in some qualitative changes?

A Notice of Project Change essentially reopens the MEPA process.  It would give visibility to the failure of Massport to honor the court decision, but it could backfire, as Massport could argue that conditions have changed and change the EIR.  On the other hand, the court agreement isn’t being honored, if Gottlieb and Environmental Affairs are strong, they could force action to honor the court order.

Obama: U.S. Auto Fuel Efficiency Lacking

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Monday faulted U.S. automakers for failing to do what foreign manufacturers have accomplished in producing fuel-efficient vehicles.

Full story:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070507/ap_on_el_pr/obama_autos

As we discussed at the end of last class, if you have any questions on the Logan assignment, please email them to me ASAP and I will try to distribute answers in writing via email by mid-week.

Also, please RSVP to me for class dinner on Thursday, May 17 - I'm trying to get a headcount for the restaurant.  We'll probably shoot for 7 or 7:30pm in the North End, unless anyone has any time constraints?  Thanks!