1.  Air Carrier Terminal

  2.  Whether Diamond Blvd will be extended northward through the golf 
    course and onto Marsh Drive

3.  Types of developments for the non-aviation uses on Parcels B and C.

4.  Navigation and tarmac improvements for more corporate jets.

5.  Development of a joint fire station with the Fire District.
 

   The terminal was planned based on the hopes the air carrier service provided by PSA in the late 1980's would increase.  In 1986, PSA was sold to USAir, and USAir subsequently discontinued service in February of 1992, after transferring service to a contract carrier in March of 1991.  The aviation community attributes a number of reasons for the demise of carrier service: assertions that USAir did not promote the Concord-LAX flights, that high union wages paid by USAir (as opposed to those paid by PSA) made the route unprofitable, and that USAir was incompetent.  The newspapers attibuted the recession of the early 1990's as the reason.  Our analysis of the events of that time raises two other possibilities, which we feel are more likely reasons.  First, the effects of the 1978 Aviation Deregulation Act did not hit California until 1985, when American Airlines bought AirCal Airlines.  During the 70's and 80's, AirCal and PSA were the major carriers serving the north-south corridor on the west coast.  In four of its last five years of operation (1981-1986), PSA lost money, and during this time conducted on and off merger talks with USAir.  From post-mortem articles written by aviation analysts, it appears that PSA firmed-up is decision to sell to USAir at the beginning of 1985, shortly before it began serious discussions with the county on starting service at Buchanan.  As most airlines do not start new routes when they are losing money, it seems to us that PSA was using the county to build a quick asset (a new route) to bolster its sale to USAir.  Thus, we believe that the motivation for starting the prior carrier service at Buchanan was not based on true market economics.  As a second reason, we note that Southwest Airlines started service at Oakland in 1989, and dramatically cut fares, which affected all of the Bay Area's airports.  After that, the low volume of enplanements at Buchanan could not provide the economies of scale being achieved by Southwest at Oakland, or those needed to compete with Oakland. 

Impacts and Conflicts--
1.  The fact that no major airline has expressed interested in starting service at Buchanan over the past 10 years, the fact that neither of the start-ups has been certified by the FAA to fly, and the appearance that neither has filed a completed application to be considered for certification, raise the question of whether the county should be in the air carrier business.

2.  Given that MTC's Regional Airport System Plan Update 2000 states that air carrier flights into and out of Buchanan will experience daily "abnormal" delays because its traffic will have lower priority than traffic to the major bay area airports, does it make sense anymore be in the air carrier business?  This airspace constraint will fundamentally limit the number of flights into and out of Buchanan, preventing it from obtaining the economies of scale needed to compete with Oakland.

3.  After the terminal was initially planned in 1990, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) came out with its famous earthquake maps in 1994 and earthquake report in 2000, which indicate that the airport is located in the severest earthquake shaking zone and that structures at the airport have a 6% change of being totally destroyed in the next 30 years.  How much more will it cost to make the terminal earthquake proof?  How much more of a treasury overdraft against the general fund will the airport need to earthquake proof the terminal?  (Click here for the earthquake map of Buchanan)
(Note: while the runways of SFO, OAK, and SJC are on land fill as well, they are not directly over an earthquake fault like Buchanan.  This does make a significant difference in the degree of damage done.)

4.  Stockton is having to subsidize America West Airlines at a cost of $800K per year for 6 flights a day (3 departures and 3 arrivals per day = 6 flights per day).  Stockton has the same or larger population base as Buchanan.  If this is what it takes to get air carrier service from a major airline, can the county general fund afford it?

5.  In addition to subsidies, runway 19R will have to be extended another 500 ft to attract a major airline (Stockton has an 8000 ft runway, Buchanan only has a 5000 ft runway).  The runway extension would make it even harder to make the Diamond Blvd extension safe for automobile traffic since it will put the end of the runway 500 ft closer to the proposed road (See Discussion of Diamond below).  Since most of the new regional jets being built today require as much runway as a Boeing 757, arguing that Buchanan can have air carrier service using regional jets without extending the runway will not fly.

6.  Since we now know that the airport is on extremely shaky ground and has a 6% chance of being destroyed in the next 30 years, does the County want to make long term commitments to the airline industry when a natural disaster will make it difficult and costly to fulfill those commitments?  Does the airport enterprise fund and the county general fund have the resources to handle this potential situation?

7.  Since that the airport is on soft land fill, the heavier air carrier planes will cause more than normal damage to the runways.  Does the airport enterprise fund and the county general have the resources for these repairs? 

No matter how much it costs and impacts them, local aviation pilots are expected to support air carrier service for a number of reasons.  Many fear closure of the airport, and view the presence of air carrier service as an insurance policy against closure.  Many also have the view of supporting any form of aviation at any cost.

When it comes to air carrier service, the aviation community does not tolerate dissension in its ranks well.  Some pilots who opposed air carrier service in the 1980's had their planes vandalized.

    In 1994, the cost of building the 0.75-mile extension plus widening Center Ave and Marsh Drive was estimated to be between $5 million and $6 million.  In 1992, the County Public Works Department (CWPD) first tried to fund the road by putting the entire town of Pacheco and the Airport into a redevelopment district to receive tax increments from the new development on Parcel A (Sam's Club on Concord Ave).  The Board of Supervisors at that time (Powers, Fadden, Schroeder, McPeak, Torlakson) unanimously rejected the redevelopment proposal under pressure from Pacheco residents.  In 1993-1994, CPWD next sought money from MTC earmarked for relieving traffic congestion and improving air quality.  To qualify the extension for funding, CPWD had to show that there was an existing congestion problem on I-680 and on the surface roads at the Concord Ave interchange with I-680, and that the extension of Diamond would reduce that congestion.  Published reports from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) showed that there was no congestion problem in the area.  To demonstrate a congestion problem, CPWD submitted a false funding application which claimed that I-680 was only a 4-lane freeway when in fact it was a 6-lane freeway, and claimed that Concord Ave only had one through lane onto Chilpancingo Parkway, when it previously claimed that it had two lanes in its environmental documents for its Sam's Club Development (Parcel A).  When the false information was brought to the attention of MTC and CCTA, CPWD argued that other agencies were puffing their numbers and that it should not be held to a higher standard than other agencies.  In the end, MTC and CCTA redefined how congestion was measured in order to maintain funding for the extension.  However, three members of the Board of Supervisors (Bishop, DeSaulnier, Torlakson) turned down the money on various grounds: embarrassment over the false application, pressure from Pacheco constituents, and the fact that CPWD had underestimated the cost of the extension by at least $1 million, money which the County would have to provide but did not have. 
    In the midst of one of California's deepest recessions, the announcement in 1993 that CPWD had won tentative funding for the extension and was going to proceed with building it trigger a 20% increase in rents at two of the mobile home parks on Marsh Drive.  Because the extension of Diamond Blvd will provide freeway access to the land parcels of these parks, the extension will greatly increase the value of these parcels for commercial uses while greatly decreasing the value for residential uses.  From 1994-1998, these parks were maintained at historically high vacancy rates through the application of above-market rents.

Impacts and Conflicts--
1.  The Diamond Blvd extension would be built into the existing safety zone of runway 19R and located 1200 ft from the end of the runway.  The State of California currently recommends limiting the number of people to less than 30 persons per acre in that zone.  A single lane of traffic at 1/3 capacity traveling at 30 mph meets that limit. Making people stop their cars at the signal light at Concord Ave will increase that density.  The collision between an aircraft running off the end of the runway and a car on Marsh drive in October 2000 shows the danger of building access roads into the clear zones.  This is clearly a liability issue for the County.

2.  As the experience at the mobile home parks in 1994 demonstrates, the road extension will force the eviction of the mobile home residents, many of whom will require more social services from the County after their evictions, thus impacting the general fund.  The new road will increase the value of the land for business and Office building uses, while decreasing the value for residential uses.

3.  The conversion of the mobile home parks to commercial uses will reduce the County's stock of low income housing.  While the county currently has more low-income housing than required by state law, it is expected that the County's stock will decrease with time as more unincorporated areas become annexed into cities.  With the airport being located between the parks and the city Concord, Concord will not be able to annex the mobile home parks unless the County allows it.  Therefore, these parks are more valuable to the County than other unincorporated areas in meeting this state requirement. 

4.   The proposed extension is on land fill with the water table only a foot and a half down.  The cost of maintaining the road, if build, will be significantly higher than normal, and will be a burden on the public work's maintainence fund.  Although built on five additional feet of fill than the area of the proposed extension, nearby stretches of Concord Ave already have sunken and uneven parts, although this road was just repaved 4 years ago.  In addition, Official County maps from the previous century show that the prior water coarses of Walnut Creek ran under the area of the proposed extension, raising the possibility that the water table in the area is feed with water from a subterranean river bed.