Air invasion: Why Stewart will be a really big jetport, no matter what the experts say

It ought to be clear in the next year or two whether Stewart International Airport in New Windsor will become the New York metropolitan region's fourth jetport, will remain a modest regional airport, or will take on a hybrid form between those two possibilities. No decision in this decade is more important than this one for the region's economic development, environmental quality and cultural evolution.

The marketplace pressures expanding this busy industry are expected to remain unrelenting. Absent a change in circumstances - a severe recession, a single air crash, a major terrorism incident, or especially dramatic success in the effects of new federal rules affecting the management of airport activity - the numbers will rule.

This decision will not be based on predictions about a distant future. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PA) issued new monthly traffic statistics Friday, August 10. For the 12 months ending in June of this year, the latest month for which complete statistics are available, almost 106.7 million paying passengers will have used the New York area's three major airports - JFK, LaGuardia and Newark Liberty. That's a huge number, the highest yet reported for any group of metropolitan airports in or near a single city on the planet. The numbers have been increasing steadily month after month. May's total for the previous year was just over 106.1 million, April's 105.4 million, March's 105.0

How many passengers can the three major airports sharing the same airspace handle? The upper limit, the experts have been saying, appears to be about 125 million. After that, the airports couldn't function effectively.

Eight local environmentalists met July 21 with several local political leaders and representatives of Stewart Airport's soon-to-be leaseholder, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Discussions involved broadening local participation, according to Assemblyman Kevin Cahill (D-Kingston), who was in attendance. The local participants wanted the airport to be regional, they said, to meet the passenger and cargo needs "of only this specific region." Yes, the Port Authority aviation department managers in attendance solemnly agreed: in conceptual terms, that's what they want the airport to become, too.

The best solution, many environmentalists say, is to fly around less. Some European legislators have proposed limiting the growth rate in the number of air passengers to the rate at which aviation improves its fuel efficiency.

If there are those anxious to limit growth at Stewart Airport specifically and air traffic generally, there are also those who see its possible expansion as the opportunity of a regional lifetime. A North Carolina sociology professor named Jack Kasarda has coined the word "aerotropolis" to describe development around air hubs. Describing the aerotropolis as a new form of urban district, Kasarda predicts: "Airports will shape business location and urban development in the 21st century as much as highways did in the 20th century, railroads in the 19th and seaports in the 18th."

Stewart's former managers had been describing the World War II relic as "a reliever airport," to be used as a temporary backup in case the three major New York metropolitan jetports became too congested. According to them, infrastructure improvements at Stewart were designed to provide more dependable and faster service, not to prepare a platform for the airport to play a significantly expanded role in the New York area air system.

It appears that management has now again taken to describing Stewart as "a regional airport." So let's assume that the airport fairy waves a magic wand that causes all airline passengers who can get to and from Stewart more easily than any other significant airport - comprising a catchment area of about two million people in a mega-region of 23 million, or 8.7 percent of the total - do so. Assuming equal distribution of passengers among geographic populations, Stewart will have the capacity as a regional airport to attract almost 11 million paying passengers when the three airports have 125 million. Though that's no number to sneeze at - passenger traffic at that level would be between three and four times what Albany International Airport handles - it would be only a temporary fix. The three major New York airports would again be bumping up against the 125 million passenger boundary in three or four more years, or by around the year 2015.

Redesigned airspace is not enough

Perhaps the combination of federally guided improvements in the management of air traffic and the evolution of Stewart in regional terms will suffice to handle the overflow. Perhaps not.

In its longer-term forecast for the period from now through 2020, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) forecasts an increase in the number of system passengers at 3.5 percent a year nationally. In 2006 there were 741 million passenger enplanements at U.S. airports. By 2020, the federal agency's complex model predicts, the system will transport 1.2 billion passengers.

The FAA hopes to keep up with the growth in air transportation through its Operational Evolution Partnership (OEP) "portfolio program." OEP's goal is to increase arrivals and departures at high-density airports such as those in the "NY/NJ/PHL Metro Area Airspace."

Given the New York Area's unenviable starting position, however, the plan is a pipe dream. OEP's portfolio isn't robust enough to keep up with New York's growth. Here's why.

A May 2007 FAA national study of future airport capacity identified four individual major airports as currently needing capacity: O'Hare in Chicago, Miami International, LaGuardia and Newark Liberty. A single American metropolitan area, New York, was judged as currently needing capacity. Here's what the FAA said: "Both [LaGuardia and Newark] have experienced high delays for a considerable length of time. The redesign of the airspace should help, but will not provide a long-term solution, as demonstrated by the 2015 and 2025 analyses. Additional capacity within the New York metropolitan area is needed."

Here's the FAA analysis' bottom line: New York is unique in that it now needs additional capacity. It will continue to need additional capacity in 2015 with or without the planned OEP improvements. It will need additional capacity in 2025 with or without the planned OEP improvements.

How will New York secure the additional capacity it needs beyond the OEP improvements? Here, in three sentences, is FAA's answer as of May 2007: "The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is planning to assume operation of Stewart International Airport, about 55 miles north of New York City, to expand air service to the New York metropolitan area. It is too early to determine whether this will result in a sufficient reduction in delays to avoid the need for additional capacity enhancements within the New York metropolitan area. It is likely, however, that additional capacity enhancements will still be needed at both airports."

Even with the effects of the traumatic events of September 11, 2001, the number of passengers at the three major New York airports has been increasing by three per cent annually for the past 15 years. But the growth has been erratic. In 1992, the three airports handled 71.8 million paying passengers, and in 1997 83.9 million. After September 11, the steady upward march of the numbers was reversed. The 2002 number was driven steeply back down to what was then a startlingly low 81.1 million.

That was 25 million paying passengers ago. We now know that the recovery in air passenger traffic came quickly. At the end of 2004 the three airports had handled 93.9 million paying passengers; by the end of 2005, 99.8 million; and by the end of 2006, 104.1 million paying passengers. The coming capacity problem is back, worse than ever.

The record-setting larger numbers have of late been increasingly affecting airport operations. The credibility gap between operational performance and federal promises is vast. Federal statistics show that 29.1 percent of all airline departures from JFK in 2007 have been delayed, up from 18.1 percent in the same first five months of last year. In May, Port Authority set up a high-level task force to consider ways to loosen the air traffic bottleneck at JFK. Though it's only met once, some very fancy people are on it.

Let's assume that the total of 125 million paying passengers indeed represents peak annual capacity at the three airports. Though the long-term historical increase has been 3 percent, the recent annual increase has been 4.5 percent. With passenger traffic now at 106.7 million, even at the conservative 3 percent annual growth rate the 125 million mark will be reached at the end of the year 2012, five and a half years from now.

By planning standards, that's like tomorrow.

Seeking an airport identity

A December 2003 feasibility study had speculated about a new role for Stewart (SWF). "A low-cost presence at SWF could evolve into a low-cost hub," suggested consultant Earth Tech in a study for the Metro-North Railroad. "This new role would expand SWF's travel market in the Mid-Hudson Valley and also attract a New York City/suburb market for discount air travel, particularly if efficient public transportation were available." "Key next steps" were defined: refining the concepts, evaluating the costs, examining the environmental implications, selecting a preferred action, and going ahead with the change.

This suggestion of a new business direction led to a tepid response from the 99-year leaseholder of the airport, National Express Group. In its revised master plan of June 2005, National Express anticipated handling from 620,000 passengers (the "base passenger" estimate) to 2.4 million passengers (the "robust growth" scenario) by the year 2017. The latter anticipated "a commitment by a low-fare carrier to significantly develop the SWF market" plus a build-up of the international charter business.

Here's the problem. National Express' most "robust" scenario for Stewart counted on a total of 2.4 million passengers a year by 2017. At the same time, passenger traffic at the three major New York airports, after recovery from the huge blow to business dealt by September 11, has, as we have seen, been increasing by an average of four million passengers a year. Four million more at the end of this year (108 million) than last year, four million more than at the end of last year (104 million) than in 2005 (100 million). And so on.

For purposes of comparison, Albany International Airport handles about three million paid passengers a year. Imagine an increase of that amount every year - a new Albany airport every nine months! Think of it this way: year in and year out, every day of every year an average of more than 10,000 additional passengers pass through the New York airports. Either they will be accommodated or they won't.

Stewart's addition to supply projected at a total of 2.4 million passengers a year by 2017 is an even smaller drop than Albany's traffic in the collective bucket. Given New York's numbers, it's a joke.

The FAA's 2005-2009 projections for Stewart are seriously off balance even now. They show Stewart as by 2009 having about half the traffic it already has now. The airport's capital budget allocation reflects the projected number, not the real one.

Given the go-slow message from National Express and the FAA, the "key next steps" were held in abeyance through the remainder of 2005 and all of 2006. Then at the beginning of 2007 a dramatic change in management took place, as Port Authority announced it would be taking over the remainder of National Express' 99-year lease at Stewart. Port Authority officials have been reluctant to say what they will do at Stewart, noting that their agency was not yet the leaseholder. But they can only play that game for so long. It's becoming increasingly clear that Port Authority doesn't have a good alternative to its new Stewart card.

Making Stewart competitive

The Metro-North Railroad re-entered the fray this July. In anticipation of a new emphasis on the economic development of the Stewart Airport area, Metro-North said, it was seeking proposals from consulting firms "to evaluate new strategies of regional transit access." One revived next step was the likely reaffirmation of the 2003 conclusion that supported an extension of rail from the Salisbury Mills station of the Port Jervis commuter line directly into the heart of the airport and double-tracking of the rail from the airport to the Bergen County line in New Jersey. Another was an environmental impact statement of the improved transit access. Consultant proposals for both steps, which in all will take two and a half years to complete once bids are signed, are due Sept. 28.

Metro-North Railroad said it was working to identify funding for the study, and added that an award would be made when the funds were secured.

Clearly, anything that could be done to reduce the time of travel to and from the airport would make Stewart more competitive. To that end, present construction of the access road off Drury Lane directly into the terminal area will be a big plus. The long-awaited construction of the Interstate Route 84-New York Thruway interchange will also shave access time. Other changes big and small will reduce travel time to New York City (see sidebar).

Most New York metropolitan-area air passengers will never find Stewart completely convenient to their needs. Distance traveled to Stewart will always be greater for most passengers than to the present major airports. But if the air service to Stewart can be more consistently reliable, with fewer and shorter delays, and if access and airport parking can be improved (the 2003 study recommended rail speeds of 79 to 100 miles per hour from Salisbury to Suffern), and if the airline prices and scheduling could be competitive, then there's no reason in principle to think that the local airport can't overcome that awkward transitional period between being a smaller and a larger facility. Whether that assessment is a plus or a minus depends on one's perspective.

The preparation for the transfer of control of the airport to Port Authority was a significant step in Stewart's evolution. No airline wants to pioneer a more than limited partial exile in the inspiring Hudson Valley landscape. But the possibility that the airport could become part of a new rail-connected urban form, a planned business district that would itself constitute an attraction, could become a considerable inducement.

Airports are major employers. More than one in ten jobs in Queens, home to both JFK and LaGuardia airports, are in the air transportation industry. Some 77 percent of employee compensation for the industry in New York State is earned in Queens. Total development around an "aerotropolis," as forecast by Jack Kasarda - including everything from warehousing, housing, hotels and entertainment attractions - could bring a dynamic that would transform northern Orange County's economy.

But the most compelling reality is the ultimate reality. That there'll be no more room at the major airports, as monetized through Port Authority management, will be the major determinant in pushing airlines to risk the move. Even if successful, the OEP "portfolio program" leaves too many guesses on the table. A stable environment at Stewart is a better business climate than a continued unstable environment at the three major airports.

The odds are that Port Authority is ready to palaver, and soon. Remember the deal that brought American Airlines to Stewart in the first place back in 1990? American got three gates at JFK Airport and three at Newark.

Let the games begin.