Full text of "Airports, their location"

See other formats

From the collection of the

Z ^ rr.

o Prejinger

V Jjibrary
p

San Francisco, California
2006

M-
^

HARVARD CITY PLANNING STUDIES

AIRPORTS

LONDON : HUMPHREY MILFORD

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2007 with funding from

IVIicrosoft Corporation

http://www.archive.org/details/airportstheirlocOOhubbrich

AIRPORTS

THEIR LOCATION, ADMINISTRATION
AND LEGAL BASIS

HENRY V. HUBBARD, MILLER McCLINTOCK
AND FRANK B. WILLLVMS

ASSISTED BY

PAUL MAHONEY AND HOWARD K. MENHINICK

CAMBRIDGE

HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS

1930

BY HENRY VINCENT HUBBARD

CHAIRMAN, HARVARD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF CITY PLANNING

ALL RIGHTS RESEBVED

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

THE HARVARD CITY PLANNING STUDIES
PREFACE TO THE SERIES

The increased recognition of civic responsibility for guiding and
rationalizing urban and regional growth brought about the establish-
ment in 1929 by Harvard University of the Graduate School of City
Planning, with research as a principal function. The facts and con-
clusions developed in a series of special studies, each conducted by a
leading expert, are to be published as The Harvard City Planning
Studies, of which two or three volumes will appear each year. The
University hopes to render substantial service to the communities of
this country by thus laying before the public and those concerned
in civic development — city oflScials, engineers, architects, landscape
architects, planning consultants, realtors, lawyers, members of chambers
of commerce — freshly gathered and carefully analyzed information,
compressed into monographs appearing shortly after each investigation
is brought to a conclusion. While research alone can never solve the
complicated problems of civic growth, it can contribute constructively
if the facts selected are vital and representative, and presented in a form
facilitating actual application in the promotion of wholesome trends of
community life.

The vast range of problems in this country to-day which research
should assist in crystallizing has been suggested in Our Cities To-day
AND To-morrow, by Hubbard and Hubbard, published in 1929 by the
Harvard University Press : indeed this book may be regarded as the
precursor of and introduction to the present series of studies.

Of the monographs for 1930, Volume I, Airports, is devoted to an
urgent and much discussed field of municipal activity. Volume II,
Building Height, Bulk, and Form : How Zoning Can be Used as a
Protection Against Uneconomic Types of Buildings, will be slightly
delayed by the untimely death of its author, George B. Ford, during his
final revision of the complete manuscript. Volume III, Neighborhoods
OF Small Homes in America and England : What the Community,

vi PREFACE TO THE SERIES

THE Developer, and the Home Owner Can Afford as to Space
AND Density, by Robert Whitten and Thomas Adams, representing the
last of the 1930 investigations, will therefore appear coincidently with or
even before Volume II.

It is to be hoped that these Studies will awaken discussion and that
they will call forth suggestions as to other practicable lines of research.
To these the Harvard School of City Planning will be glad to give consid-
eration in preparing its program of special studies for each ensuing year.

Theodora Kimball Hubbard
Editor of Research

Henry V. Hubbard
Chairman
Harvard University

School of City Planning
September 15, 1930

CONTENTS
THE AIRPORT IN THE CITY PLAN

Introduction 3-4

CHAPTER I

Physical Characteristics of Suitable Airport Sites .... 5-19

Size, 5 — Shape, 14 — Orientation, 14 — Topography, 16 — Soil, 17 —
Atmospheric conditions, 17 — Physical characteristics of the surround-
ings, 18.

CHAPTER II

Functional Relation of the Airport to the City and Region . . 20-36
Possible regional system of airports, 20 — Relation of the airport to
various means of transportation, 24 — Relation of the airport to other
functional areas, 29 — Appearance of the city as seen from the air, 36.

CHAPTER ni

Relation of the Airport to the National Transportation Net . . 37-40
Airways, 37 — Railways, 38 — Highways, 39 — Waterways, 39.

AIRPORT ADMINISTRATION

Introduction 43-44

CHAPTER I

Ownership 45-53

Ownership of airports, 46 — Ownership of terminal facilities in other
forms of transportation, 47 — Is the public ownership of airports good
practice ? 48 — Ownership must ultimately be based on sound economics,
50 — Predominant use as a factor in airport ownership, 51 — State and
coimty airport ownership, 52 — Duplication of airport facilities, 53 — Con-
clusion, 53.

viii CONTENTS

CHAPTER II

Administration 54-62

Administration by a separate department of aeronautics, 55 — Factors
governing the creation of a separate department, 56 — The airport under a
preexisting department, 57 — The quasi-public corporation, 59 — The
advisory board, 60 — The place of the airport in the county, 61 — Con-
clusion, 62.

CHAPTER III

Management 63-87

Leasing the municipal airport, 63 — Current practice, 64 — Organiza-
tion for airport management, 64 — Functions of airport management, 68 —
Control of the use of the airport, 78 — Provision of storage accommodations,
82 — Provision for fuel and service, 83 — The terminal building, 84 — Sale
of planes, 86 — Operation of restaurant or refreshment stand, 86 — Mis-
cellaneous provisions, 86 — Secondary services, 87.

CHAPTER IV

Fiscal Policy 88-102

Cost of the airport land, 88 — Cost of improvements, 90 — Bond issues,
93 — Appropriations, 93 — Financing the commercial airport, 94 — Fi-
nancing the cost of operation and maintenance, 94 — Airport earnings,
95 — Sources of revenue from airport operation, 96.

THE LAW OF AIRPORTS

Introduction 105-106

Air and air space, 105 — Eminent domain and police power, 105.

CHAPTER I

Jurisdiction over Aviation 107-111

National, 107 — Federal, 107 — State, 110.

CHAPTER II

Ownership of Air Space, and Rights in It 112-116

Upper air space, 112 — Lower air space, 115.

CHAPTER III

Airports 117-131

Establishment, 117 — Regulation of location, 121 — Taxation, 122 —
Liability for negligence, 123 — Insurance, 124 — Neighboring property,
124 — Administration, 130,

APPENDICES

Statistical Tables and Lists 135-175

1. List of Airports Visited 135

2. Population of Cities Visited 139

3. Persons who furnished Major Information for the Airport Study . . 140

4. Airport Managers' Suggestions and Criticisms as to Conditions at Their
Airports 143

5. Agencies Reported as Concerned in the Selection of Airport Sites . . 144

6. Factors which were Reported as Determining the Selection of Airport

Sites 145

7. Number of People who Come to the Airport 146

8. Reported Daily Activity at Airports Visited 148

9. Square Feet of Total and Developed Areas of Airports for which These
Figures were Given 151

10. Costs of Clearing, Grading, and Draining Municipal Airports • . 153

11. Difficulties Due to Developments in Surrounding Areas . . . 156

12. Areas within a Twenty-minute Radius of the Heart of the City by
Present Means of Transportation, which are Still Available for Airport

Sites 156

13. Water Areas and Plans which have been Made to Use Them as Seaplane

Bases ............. 156

14. Airports at Various Distances from Nearest Steam Railroad Passenger
Station on a Main Line 159

15. Airports at Various Distances from Nearest Freight Station on a Main

Line 159

16. Airports and Transportation Time from Business Centers of Cities . 160

17. Airports at Various Distances from Business Centers of Cities . . 160

18. Transit Service to Airports 161

19. Impediments to Highway Travel between Airport and Center of City . 162

20. Width of Annoyance Fringe around an Airport 162

21. Objections to Airports Made by Those Living in Their Vicinity . . 163

22. The Effect of the Airport on Land Values 164

23. Airports Built on Park Lands 166

24. Opinions on the Public Ownership of Airports 167

25. Municipalities where Airports are Outside the Corporate Limits . . 167

X APPENDICES

26. Cities where the Airport is Separately Administered .... 168

27. Cities where the Department of Public Works is in Charge of the Airport 169

28. Cities where the Department of Parks is in Charge of the Airport . 169

29. Cities where the Department of Public Service is in Charge of the Airport 169

30. Cities and Counties where the Airport is Administered by Other Depart-
ments 170

31. Cities which Provide Airport Advisory Boards 170

32. Cities which Lease Their Airport for Private Operation . . . 172

33. Average Cost of Land per Acre at 30 Municipal Airports and 15 Com-
mercial Airports 172

34. Cost of Acreage and Number of Acres at 30 Municipal Airports . . 173

35. Commercial Airports which Lease Their Land 173

36. Municipalities which Lease Land for Airport Sites . . . . 174

37. Cost of Maintenance and Operation per Fiscal Year at Mxmicipal Air-
ports 175

The Law op Airports: References (38-84) 176-185

Subject Index 187-190

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Wichita Municipal Airport Frontispiece

PAGE

St. Louis Air Terminal 7

Minneapolis Municipal Airport 11

Grosse He Airport . 15

Wayne County (Michigan) Airport 21

Akron Municipal Airport facing 24

St. Paul Municipal Airport 27

Rochester (New York) Airport . 35

Terminal Building, Fairfax Airport, Kansas City, Kansas . facing 46

Detroit City Airport facing 52

Oakland Airport facing 56

Organization Chart, Detroit Municipal Airport ..... 66
Organization Chart, Milwaukee County Airport and Louisville Municipal

Airport 72

Floodlights, Mines Field, Los Angeles facing 74

Chart of Organization and Activities of the Pontiac Municipal Airport . 79
Combined Administration Building and Hangar, Mines Field, Los

Angeles facing 82

Organization Charts of Buffalo and St. Louis Airports .... 85
Combined Passenger Terminal and Hangar, Wichita Municipal Air-
port facing 92

Route of the Harvard Airport Study, 1930 134

PREFACE

The rapid growth of air transportation in the United States has far
outstripped the knowledge and experience which should be brought to
bear in directing this growth. As was the case in the expansion of our
cities and in the adaptation of our highways to use by automobiles, so now
in the case of airports a great many important decisions are being made
without suflBcient thought, because there appears not to be time for
sufficient thought. Our growth will not wait for the compilation of data
or the training of experts. The question with which we are confronted is
really, therefore, whether this haphazard growth shall be accepted as
natural, or whether every reasonable help shall be given to those who
must deal with it, so that they may handle it, if not ideally, at least as
intelligently as possible.

It often happens at present, and it will presumably happen with
increasing frequency in the near future, that committeemen, public
officials, or other representatives of communities are faced with the im-
mediate concrete problem of the airport. They have to decide whether
their community needs an airport as a necessary part of its connection
with the air transportation system of its vicinity and of the country;
what kind of airport it needs ; where within the region tributary to the
community an approximately flat area of perhaps two hundred acres may
most efficiently be placed ; how it should be related to the other uses of
the land ; what it would cost to build and to maintain ; how these funds
may best be raised ; and how this essential transportation activity may
be regulated legally and efficiently for the best interests of the community
as a whole.

The purpose of the three reports comprised in this volume is to help
as far as may be toward arriving at reasoned and reasonable decisions in
this new and vital problem. It is evident that, as the conditions and
requirements vary with each city, so the decisions must vary. All that
can be done, at least in the light of our present knowledge, is to state the
important factors, some of which at least will occur in each individual
problem, and to suggest how these factors are usually related and how

xiv PREFACE

their relative importance may be evaluated. Decisions may thus be
arrived at which shall be firmly based on an intelligent weighing of all
the important considerations, both local and general, in each individual
case.

If the responsible person feels, as he well may, that he needs assistance
in coming to this decision, he may also get from these reports some sug-
gestion as to what sort of assistance to call in to supplement his efforts in
those portions of his problem in which he, himself, is not competent.

The questions of the actual setting aside of an area for an airport, as
a part of a transportation system, but also as a functional part of all the
areas ministering to the efficiency and success of the community, are
matters of city and regional planning, and are treated in the first report
by Professor Henry V. Hubbard and Mr. Howard K. Menhinick.

The questions of the methods of financing the purchase and main-
tenance of the municipal airport, together with the methods of the public
regulation of all airports, are matters of municipal administration, and
are treated in the second report by Dr. Miller McClintock and Mr. Paul
Mahoney.

The questions of the legaf rights and duties of the community in
relation to the airport, the basis of precedent on which these rights and
duties are founded, and the trend of opinion as to what further duties
should be assumed by the community in this field, are matters of law,
and are treated in the third report by Frank B. Williams, Esq.

The sequence of these reports is purely arbitrary. It was chosen
only because the writers felt that on the whole the reader would grasp
the subject more readily if he began with familiar, concrete, and specific
considerations, and advanced to matters more general and more abstract.
In order to have first-hand and more complete information and to be
able to check and to understand the data through personal familiarity
with the site and the circumstances, Mr. Paul Mahoney visited eighty-
five airports (see map on page 134) during a period of two and a half
months and thus acquired, we believe, much more valuable information
than could have been obtained through any set of questionnaires sent
broadcast through the mails. The arrangements for this airport tour
were made from the office of the Harvard School of City Planning by
Mr. Howard K. Menhinick.

The expenses of the field study and the major portion of the cost of
preparation of the first two of these reports have been paid by the Milton
Fund of Harvard University through a grant for Research in Municipal

PREFACE XV

Airports. The third report has been made possible by an appropriation
from the Harvard School of City Planning.

We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of hundreds of airport and
city officials, aeronautical engineers, and city planners, who spent many
valuable hours in giving us the benefit of their experience. The names of
many of these kind cooperators will be found listed in Appendix 3.
Colonel Harry H. Blee, Director of Aeronautic Development of the
Aeronautics Branch of the United States Department of Commerce,
furnished much indispensable technical information, and valuable legal
suggestions were received from Elmer McD. Kintz, Esq., of the Aeronau-
tics Branch. Mr. A. Pendleton Taliaferro, Jr., Chief, Airport Section,
gave us many valuable suggestions as to which airports were most likely to
repay a visit and careful study. The Aeronautics Branch of the Depart-
ment of Commerce is rendering every service which it can to aviation.
Despite a small staff and an enormous number of demands, its repre-
sentatives are giving cities valuable advice as to the selection and develop-
ment of airport sites. Pressed as they are by the many requests for their
services, these men cannot give to each city as much time as they might
wish in order to familiarize themselves completely with all the local con-
ditions and to weigh all the many local factors involved in setting aside
a portion of the city for an airport.

In addition to Mr. William Bennett Munro, Professor of American
History and Government, Harvard University, whose interest in new
phases of municipal administration first led to the plan for a detailed
study of municipal airport control, we are much indebted to Robert L.
Hale, Esq., Assistant Professor of Legal Economics at Columbia Uni-
versity, and to Mr. Harry J. Freeman, Research Fellow in Law, New York
University of Law, and Director of the Legal and Legislative Research
Service of the Aeronautical Chamber of Commerce of America, for
material and suggestions with relation to the law of aeronautics.

Air transport companies freely assisted us in the study. We espe-
cially appreciate the courtesy of the Colonial Air Transport and the
Universal Aviation Corporation in extending the privileges of their lines,
thus making it possible for our field representative, Mr. Paul Mahoney,
to cover a substantial proportion of the itinerary by air.

We are grateful to our research secretary, Miss Dorothy S. Rolfe, for
her constant interest and painstaking assistance throughout this study,
to Mr. Bradford Williams for his thorough editorial assistance, and to
Mrs. Helen E. Terkelsen for intelligent work on proof and index.

xvi PREFACE

If this research serves in some small measure to make available to each
of our many friends and co-workers the experience of all the others, we
shall feel that perhaps we have made some slight return to all of those
who have given and are giving so freely of their time and assistance to
advance the cause of aviation.

H. V. H.

Cambridge, Massachusetts
September 15, 1930

THE AIRPORT IN THE CITY PLAN

Henry Vincent Hubbabd

Norton Professor of Regional Planning, Harvard University School of City Planning
£klitor of City Planning

and

Howard K. Menhinick

Instructor in City Planning, Harvard University School of City Planning

INTRODUCTION

T^HE airport is primarily a part of a transportation system, — a sys-
-■- tern very important in the present and future life of a town, because
it connects the town with the world at large and links it to the general
progress of the whole community. In this respect the airport is like a
railroad station ; and, just as has often formerly happened in the case of
the railroad station, an ill-considered location of the airport may now
bring with it the disadvantages — increasing as time goes on — of undue
congestion in its vicinity, of interruption of traffic, and of all the ills
coming from allotting civic areas to wrong purposes and juxtaposing
incongruous uses.

The airport is also a functional area, taking its place among all the
functional areas which go to make up the total lands occupied or con-
trolled by the community. The location of an airport is thus a city
planning problem which can be solved correctly only by considering all
the lands tributary to the community, and by being sure that the loca-
tion and distribution of airports are the best possible, not only from the
point of view of air transportation, but also from the point of view of
the greatest efficiency and the least mutual harm for all the community
which shall result from devoting so considerable a portion of its area to
one specific and exclusive purpose.

To come to a decision which may not later bring contempt rather
than honor to its authors, all the various factors which are concerned in
this specific decision should be set down and evaluated at their relative
worth. This is not a thing which can be done mechanically. It is
possible and desirable to have a list of the factors which may occur, so
that nothing may be forgotten, but the relative values of these factors
will differ in each individual case, and no standardized "score card"
giving a general method of arriving at a specific decision will prove of
any final value beyond the point of suggestion.

Neither can any community guide itself with safety by copying the
present accomplished results in another community.^ In this report we

^ See Appendix 4, Airport Managers' Suggestions and Criticisms as to Conditions at Their Air-
ports.

4 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

have, to be sure, set down some statistics as to existing airports through-
out the United States. It should be borne in mind, however, that these
airports in their size, in their construction, in their location, and in their
cost have often been the result of immediate pressure, of insufficient
thought, of accidental circumstance; and though they may serve to
show what poor conditions may be tolerated in some cases, and what
conditions are now considered excellent in other cases, they cannot by
any system of tabulation or averages produce a standard which anyone
may copy in approaching the solution of a new problem.^

A tremendous amount of experience and experiment in relation to
the interior design of the airport, and its methods of construction and of
upkeep, is now becoming available to the airport designer. This present
report does not deal with this side of the question. It considers, so to
speak, only the external relations of the airport, — it considers the air-
port as a unit in its relation to other units in the city plan.

Plainly, the solution of this problem can be arrived at much more
readily and more surely by someone already familiar with such consider-
ations in general and with the city plan, present or to come, of the specific
community in particular. It is evident that the location of an airport is
a problem similar to the location of a park or of a major highway system,
or to the determination of a zoning plan. It is a duty and responsibility
of the community, which normally devolves upon the City Plan Com-
mission or whatever the name of the official body may be that has been
selected to put before the community these vastly important problems,
to ascertain and to guide the desires of the community in regard to them,
and to codify and record the decision of the community as a guide in
turn to the coordination of all the specific uses of land for the individual
purposes of its different owners.

All this is a task which requires a great deal of knowledge and skill.
It cannot effectively be divided among several authorities. If, there-
fore, in any community the City Plan Commission, as it stands, is not
capable of bearing the whole of this burden, the procedure obviously
should be not to set up some other body for this specific purpose, not to
dissipate this inseparable problem among a number of existing authori-
ties, but to see to it that the City Plan Commission shall be made capable
of handling this matter as a part of its whole great responsibility toward
the community.

^ See Appendix 5, Agencies Reported as Concerned in the Selection of Airport Sites ; and
Appendix 6, Factors which were Reported as Determining the Selection of Airport Sites.

CHAPTER I

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SUITABLE
AIRPORT SITES

Size

WHEN faced with the problem of setting aside from all the lands^of a
community the most suitable site or number of related sites for use
for airport purposes, the first factor which anyone would naturally seek
to determine would be the required size. This of course depends on the
amount and kind of use. In the present report, we are concerned with
the interior use and layout of the airport only in so far as this affects the
size and the other exterior relations of the airport as a unit in the city plan.

KINDS OF USE AFFECTING SIZE

The following kinds of use of the air are commonly found at airports
in the United States :

1. Air mail 5. Sight-seeing and joy riding

2. Transport 6. Use by private planes

3. Schools 7. Testing

4. Air taxi service

The requirements of these uses as to character of ground surface are
similar, although of course the ground requirements are different accord-
ing as the air traffic is by landplane, by seaplane, or by dirigible.

Out of 80 airports furnishing information in this respect, there were
42 fields from which air mail was handled ; 46 fields concerned in
transport ; 69 fields in which there was a school, — that is to say, in most
cases merely an opportunity for instruction in flying; 67 fields from
which planes were used for taxi service and sight-seeing and for joy
riding, these uses not being capable of further separation ; 64 fields which
provided storage facilities for private planes, all 80 providing them with
landing facilities ; and 34 fields where airplane testing was carried on.
All these uses are desirable, and at the present early stage in the develop-
ment of airports it is to be expected that they will frequently occur to-
gether on the same field. It is plain, however, that as the use of the air

6 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

becomes more and more organized, some of these uses will be relegated to
separate fields, and that therefore in selecting the desirable site of a
municipal airport, for instance, it may not be necessary to consider that
all these activities will take place within the area of this one port.

Air mail and transport are of course legitimate and permanent uses
for the airport, in which the community is primarily interested. Test-
ing of airplanes and instruction in flying are subsidiary activities which
obviously are inconvenient and sometimes dangerous to the air mail and
to transport if carried on in the same area at the same time. Separation
of the instruction from the other activities of the airport by putting the
school on a separate but adjoining field, as is planned at Columbus,
Ohio, removes some of the ground dangers but does not completely
eliminate the air hazards. Taxi service, sight-seeing and joy riding,
and the use of private planes — if regulated as to the competence of the
pilots, the eflficiency of the planes, and obedience to the rules of the air-
port — would not be a detriment to the air mail and transport planes until
the total amount of all these uses had increased to a point beyond the
capacity of the airport. When this point is reached, it would seem
that the private planes and the taxi-planes should be wholly or in part
relegated to other fields, leaving the central or most important airport
to handle the air mail and the transport.

RUNWAY DIMENSIONS RECOMMENDED BY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

In considering the size of land ports, the Aeronautics Branch of the
United States Department of Commerce has stated in Aeronautics Bulle-
tin Number 16, "Airport Rating Regulations," that to secure a "1"
rating on size of efiFective landing area, an airport must meet the follow-
ing requirements :

In addition to the basic requirements, an airport receiving a "1"
rating on size of effective landing area shall have at least 2500 feet of
effective landing area in all directions, with clear approaches, and the
field shall be in good condition for landing at all times ; or it shall have
landing strips not less than 500 feet wide, permitting landing in at
least eight directions at all times, the landing strips not to cross or
converge at angles of less than 40°, nor any one of the landing strips to
be less than 2500 feet in effective length, with clear approaches.

When the airport lies at an altitude in excess of 1000 feet above sea
level, the dimensions of the effective landing area or the effective

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SUITABLE AIRPORT SITES 7

8 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

lengths of the landing strips shall be increased to the corresponding
values shown in Figure 2. liifo^

(Figure 2 in Aeronautics Bulletin Number 16 gives the required
effective landing and take-off lengths for all- way and eight-way landing
areas at altitudes in excess of 1000 feet above sea level.)

There is a considerable weight of opinion at present that, in view of the
tendency toward larger planes, the runways should properly be planned
with an ultimate length of from 3500 to 5000 feet.

As to seaplane airports, the Aeronautics Branch of the United States
Department of Commerce sets down, among others, the following
requirements :

The seaplane airport shall be situated on or directly connected with
a body of water having a minimum depth of not less than 6 feet at any
time, calm enough for operations in all ordinary weather, and suffi-
ciently large to permit landing and taking-off of seaplanes and flying
boats without hazard. By direct connection is meant a canal or other
stream of water wide enough to allow taxiing of planes without dif-
ficulty and a distance of not over one-quarter of a mile from the actual
airport to the open water.

In addition to the basic requirements, seaplane airports receiving
" 1 " rating on size of effective landing area shall have clear approaches
and be large enough to permit at least a 4000-foot effective run in
all directions.

RUNWAY DIMENSIONS OF SOME PRESENT AIRPORTS

As might be expected in the present time of beginnings, the airports
or so-called airports in the country to-day do not all come up to the
requirements above stated. The following data would seem to show
that, out of 392 fields which had runways, only 33 had four runways,
thereby permitting landing in at least eight directions on a runway
surface.

Table I. Landing Strips on Airports in the United States ^
A. Number of Landing Strips Per Airport

1. Number of airports observed 807

2. Number of airports where the entire field was suit-
able for landing and taking-off and there were no
landing strips 415

^ Data from Airway Bulletins of the Aeronautics Branch of the Department of Commerce
through April, 1930.

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SUITABLE AIRPORT SITES 9

3. Number of airports where the entire field was suit-
able for landing and taking-off but there were also
landing strips 127

4. Number of airports possessing one landing strip . . 65

5. Number of airports possessing two landing strips . 238

6. Number of airports possessing three landing strips . 56

7. Number of airports possessing four landing strips . 33

8. Number of airports possessing more than four land-
ing strips 0

B. Number of Landing Strips of Various Lengths
Number of landing strips whose length was given . . 809

NxntfBEB OF

Length m

Landing

Feet

Strips

500- 999

1000-1499

112

1500-1999

209

2000-2499

190

2500-2999

179

3000-3499

3500-3999

Number of

Length in

Landing

Feet

Strips

4000-4499

4500-4999

5000-5499

5500-5999

6000-6499

6500-6999

7000-7499

C. Number of Landing Strips or Runways of Various Widths

Number of landing strips or runways whose width

was given 667

Width in Number of Landing
Feet Strips or Runways

Width in

Number of Landing

Feet

Strips ok Runways

0- 49

50- 99

100-149

109

150-199

200-249

250-299

300-349

127

350-399

400-449

450-499

500-549

550-599

600-649

650-699

700-749

750-799

800-849

850-899

900-949

950-999

1000

1020

1200

1250

1280

1500

10 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

All the landing strips do not come up to the desired standard in length,
for out of 809 landing strips recorded, only 279 had a length of 2500 feet
or more. There were 19 landing strips less than 1000 feet in length and
only 13 that were 5000 feet or more in length.

The same is true of width, for out of 667 runways or landing strips of
various widths, 513 were less than 500 feet in width, there being 8 that
were less than 50 feet in width ; only 10 were 1000 feet or more in width,
the widest being 1500 feet.

OTHER SPACE ALLOTMENTS

In addition to the essential provision of length and width for the land-
ing and taking-oflF of planes, the following directly subsidiary uses will
require allotment of space in accordance with their relative importance
in each particular case : (1) storage space for 'planes, both occasional
storage out of doors and regular storage in hangars — if the port pro-
vides for a dirigible, its hangar will be of course a major consideration ;
(2) overhauling and supply buildings for storage of commonly needed
supplies and for the overhauling and repairing of planes ; (3) buildings
for passengers and personnel, giving at any rate waiting facilities and
shelter, perhaps even hotel accommodations and a club room ; (4) acces-
sory buildings for fire protection, general policing of the field, and for
other uses ; (5) area for the parking of the automobiles of those coming to
the field either as passengers or as spectators, particularly on special
occasions.^ This last-mentioned area should be a diflFerentiated part
of the airport, or it may be immediately adjacent to the airport and
under sufficient control by the management. Some maintain that there
should be 5 acres of parking space adjacent to the airport for every 100
planes that use the airport. Suburban airports should make provision
for commuters' automobiles to be left all day as is done near suburban
railroad stations.

The actual size of the area which must be provided will be a thing for
individual calculation in each case, according to the total demands of
the uses just discussed.^ It is evident, however, that space may be saved
by efficient and compact design, and that the absence of any obstacles in
the immediate surroundings will avoid waste of land by the airport itself
in securing the safety of planes approaching and leaving the field.

1 See Appendix 7, Number of People Who Come to the Airport.
* See Appendix 8, Reported Daily Activity at Airports Visited.

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SUITABLE AIRPORT SITES 11

lilMhEAPOLIS MUtilCIPAL AIPPORT

VOLD CMAHBERLAIN FIELD

<<nj waccT • • e»i

SCALt OP PCET

IMDICATIOliS: "" CLOoo uout unir

^ PtVOLVinO BCACOfI

O oesTRuCTton LKiur

O 90UnDAaY LICUT

12 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

SIZES OF SOME PRESENT AIRPORTS

The following summary shows the total sizes of those airports visited
during our tour of investigation :

Table II. Total Acreages of Airports Visited

Number of Airports Reporting 76

Acreage of Smallest Airport 38.5

Acreage of Largest Airport 1085

Average Acreage 338

Number of Airports in Various Acreage Groups

Acreage

Number of

Acreage

Number of

Airports

0- 99

600-699

100-199

700-799

200-299

800-899

2 ■

300-399

900-999

400-499

1000+

500-599

These were, on the whole, airports better organized and more intensively
used than the average, so that the figures would be to that extent some-
what more enlightening. It is noticeable that the variation in acreage
is very great, being between 1085 acres for Cleveland Airport and 38^
acres for Hoover Field at Arlington, Va. By far the largest number of
the fields have an area of between 100 acres and 500 acres, and the group
between 100 acres and 200 acres is much the largest single group. These
areas just considered are the total areas owned or controlled by the
airports.^

The following figures have been compiled from the Department of
Commerce airway bulletins received up to April, 1930 :

Table III. Total Acreages of Airports as Reported in the
Department of Commerce Airway Bulletins

Number of Airports Observed 803

Acreage of Smallest Airport 4.5

Acreage of Largest Airport 1440

^ See also Appendix 9, Square Feet of Total and Developed Areas of Airports for Which These
Figures Were Given.

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SUITABLE AIRPORT SITES 13

Number of Airports in Various Acreage Groups

Number op

Acreage

Airports

0- 49

222

50- 99

270

100-199

212

200-299

300-399

400-499

NtJMBER OF

Acreage

Airports

500-599

600-699

700-799

800-899

900-999

1000+

It is evident that any conclusions as to the proper size of an airport
should be drawn with great caution from any data, particularly any data
of averages based on present conditions. The sizes of our present air-
ports have depended in most cases less upon a calculated adaptation of
area to use than upon actual conditions as to pieces of land cheaply
obtainable or already owned, or chosen for the reason of present accessi-
bility or present cheapness of development.^

PREDICTION OF FUTURE SIZE REQUIREMENTS

In determining the amount of land to be set aside by a city for an air-
port, one should remember that it is of course a provision for the future
that is being made, which must be based upon an estimate of future
requirements. The amount of recourse to the airport reasonably to be
predicted will depend on the population of the community, on the air-
mindedness of this population, and on the kind of activities normally
carried on which would tend more or less in different cases to use of air
transportation. It will depend also on the geographical relation of the
town to air routes which will make airplane travel easy and effective or
the reverse. It will depend on the future growth of air travel in regard
to convenience and cheapness, a thing about which no one can make
more than a guess, but no one could reasonably deny that the progress
is bound to be very great indeed.

Perhaps here it should be said that it is unlikely that improvements
in the ability of aircraft to alight and arise from the field will result in a
reduction in the size of the field, because any such improvement would
almost automatically bring about a completely offsetting increase in
the number of aircraft.

Provision for future expansion is highly desirable. Some considera-
tions which have been long since encountered in relation to parks apply

* See Appendix 6, Factors Which Were Reported as Determining the Selection of Airport Sites.

14 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

also to airports. If more land is likely to be needed soon, it is better to
get it at once while its price is low, rather than to raise the price first by
the development of the airport. This is perhaps less a factor with air-
ports than with parks, because the park almost always raises immediately
surrounding values, whereas there seems to be some evidence that the
airport may depress them. Again, as with parks, there is a size beyond
which it is disadvantageous for the city to go in setting aside areas through
which no streets may pass, and also there is probably a sufficient size for
an airport, so that if the future use outgrows it, the answer would be not
a larger airport but a differentiation of functions and another airport
somewhere else.

Shape

An airport may have almost any shape, providing that suitably
oriented and graded landing and take-off areas of sufficient length can
be secured. A reasonably compact shape has obvious advantages, but
a large area with a smaller protruding portion, properly related, may be
entirely satisfactory. The prevailing winds may have an influence on
the shape of the landing field by absolutely requiring an ample length
in the direction of the winds, but sometimes allowing a minimum dimen-
sion across the winds, because so few landings take place in this direction.
Similarly, any outside obstructions, natural or artificial, which tend
to make one direction of approach very much more important than
others, may have an effect upon the shape of the field.

The plans accompanying this report show some of the shapes of air-
ports now operating with reasonable eflficiency in the United States, and
would seem to indicate that no standard of shape as yet exists. Ideally,
of course, a landing field should contain a circle, or perhaps some other
compact figure, such as a triangle, capable of containing, in the eight
primary compass directions, the longest required runways, thus allow-
ing landing and departure in practically any direction. The shape of
the total field which includes the area for landing would then be deter-
mined by local possibilities and by the best arrangement of the various
facilities auxiliary to flying.

Orientation

Considerations of orientation apply almost exclusively to the direc-
tion of landing and taking-off of the planes. If the field is amply large,
this question is solved at once, since a plane may approach or leave the

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SUITABLE AIRPORT SITES 15

COUnD ISUU1D/

LIGHTS

O BOUnDARY U6UTS

a euNVAY mncATiOK

■&£

S,CALC OF rCET

GPOSSE ILE AIPPOPT

16 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

field in any direction. If, for unavoidable reasons, the field cannot be
of ample dimensions in all directions, it should at least have ample dimen-
sions in the direction of the prevailing winds, and therefore the whole
field should be located with its long dimension in this direction.

Topography

In inspecting a proposed site for an airport, it should be borne in
mind that the mean slope of the landing area should, according to present
opinion, be not more than two per cent in any direction. Therefore the
cost of bringing the surface of the landing area to a slope no greater than
this should, in eflFect, together with clearance and drainage costs, be
added to the cost of acquiring the area in determining its real price.

Some slope of the surface, however, is essential to facilitate the flow
of water over the surface to the nearest catch basin. Since the total
area is so large, it presumably will not be desirable to plan to have all
water which runs over the surface flow off the field before it reaches a
catch basin. Under those circumstances the amount of water which
would flow over the surface on the lower portion of the field would almost
certainly be too great. From this point of view alone, therefore, a per-
fectly flat field would be satisfactory, since it could be graded into very
gentle undulations of appropriate size, there being a catch basin at the
bottom of each hollow and the water being carried away underground
from these catch basins. From the point of view of minimum cost of
installation of the drainpipe, however, a slight general slope of the field
in some direction or in two or more directions in different parts would
have the advantage of not requiring deep ditch digging at the lower end
of the drainage system.

Then there is to be taken into account the matter of existing obstruc-
tions on the tract to be chosen. Buildings and trees can be removed at a
price. Streams and dedicated highways, however, offer constructional
and legal difficulties which ought to be completely thought out and
evaluated before a wise decision can be made as to the availability of the
site. In Appendix 10 are given the clearing, grading, and drainage costs
of certain airports, which will show in a general way the amount of
expense to which it has seemed reasonable or unavoidable to go in order
to produce the required approximation to flatness and dryness. These
figures are in round numbers only, and doubtless some of them contain
items which, although actually present in the construction of other fields,
have been omitted from the corresponding figures. The figures, there-

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SUITABLE AIRPORT SITES 17

fore, are not to be interpreted too literally, but since they depend so
greatly on local conditions, the general conception which may be obtained
from them is probably as valuable as something more specific would be,
short of a really complete statement of the experience of one airport for
the use of another airport under similar conditions.

Soil

In investigating the soil on a proposed site for an airport, four con-
siderations are important : ease of excavation, firmness, porousness to
facilitate surface and subsurface drainage, and fertility of the topsoil
if areas are to be kept in turf. The drainage costs given in Appendix 10
show the dollars and cents value of a porous subsoil which would avoid
the necessity of any considerable construction for soil drainage.

If any portion of the field on which airplanes are to land is to be
covered with turf, then the topsoil must be fertile enough to support this
turf with proper subsequent care, and it must also be porous enough to
allow the water to sink down through it and not stand upon it for any
length of time after a rain. It must be firm enough so that the wheels
of a landing airplane will not sink into it appreciably, even when the soil
is wet. If the surface on which the planes are to land is to be covered
with concrete or some form of asphalt-bound pavement or similar sur-
face, then the requirement of the subsoil is, of course, merely suflicient
stability and suflBcient porosity.

Atmospheric Conditions

In one way, the most important of all considerations in determining
the excellence of a site for an airport is the question of the local atmos-
pheric conditions which will help or hinder the maneuvering of planes in
the air in its immediate vicinity. Rainfall, at least, is practically uniform
throughout the whole region in which the airport must be located, and
therefore will not operate to make one airport site within this region
better than another. But to a surprising degree other atmospheric con-
ditions differ locally within short distances, and in fact one site may be
in this respect much superior to another not far away.

The direction and velocity of the wind are to be taken into account
in their relation to the line of approach to the field and the local condi-
tions of landing. Particularly are to be considered the predictability
and constancy of the wind. Obviously an airport so located in relation

18 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

to adjoining hills that it is subject to unpredictable air currents and eddies
will be an undesirable field.

The clearness of the atmosphere is an important consideration.
There should be as little fog as possible, and in a region where some fog
is inevitable, the field should be so located that the prevailing winds will
blow the fog away from the airport rather than toward it, and so that
when there is only a slight current of air, the fog will tend to drain
naturally away from the airport.

Similarly in regard to the obscuring of the air by smoke, if there are
factories, etc., producing smoke, the airport should be located so that
the prevailing winds blow the smoke away from the airport. And again,
the airport would presumably be better upon a slight elevation of ground
so that the smoke would tend to flow away from the airport rather than
to settle over it.

The amount of rainfall is an essential question but, as we have said,
it will seldom have much influence in the decision between the avail-
ability of one site and another site in the same region. Similarly as to
snowfall, the actual amount of precipitation of snow would probably be
fairly constant throughout a region, but the relation of each individual
site to the prevailing wind and to surrounding obstructions to the wind,
and therefore to the exact way in which the snow would drift and accumu-
late, is a very important consideration where the question of snowfall
enters into the problem at all.

Physical Characteristics of the Surroundings

In a general way it may be said that an airplane on leaving a field
can be depended on to rise after it has taken the air at a rate of one foot
vertically for every seven feet traversed horizontally. The surround-
ings of the airport therefore should be such that no obstructions extend
upward into the space through any part of which a plane so rising might
travel. Of course this applies not only to buildings and other solid and
bulky structures and to trees and chimneys, but equally and perhaps
with added force to constructions like power lines, radio masts, etc.,
which offer the added danger of being less easy to see. Where nothing
better can be done, some obstructions rising above the specified line
might be tolerated if they lie in a direction in which airplanes would
practically never go. But obstructions are always objectionable, and
their presence should be avoided if this is in any way possible.

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SUITABLE AIRPORT SITES 19

There are obvious advantages, both in ease of seeing the airport from
a distance and certainty of freedom from all obstructions, if the surround-
ing country lies lower than the airport. We have already mentioned the
fact that higher land surrounding an airport is likely to be undesirable,
both because the airplane must make a longer rise to clear it and because
of the possible atmospheric difficulties of peculiar air currents, fog and
smoke,^ and the possible drainage difficulties of surface water flowing
onto the airport itself.

^ See Appendix 11, Difficulties Due to Developments in Surrounding Areas,

CHAPTER II

FUNCTIONAL RELATION OF THE AIRPORT TO THE CITY

AND REGION

TN addition to the various local and specific considerations which we have
-■- already discussed, there are factors of broader relation which vitally
affect the choice of a site for an airport. One is the relation of the air-
port, or of a number of airports serving the same region, to all the other
areas in the region which, taken together, the community hopes to organ-
ize into one efficient whole, each area serving its best purpose. In other
words, the location of the airport should be considered in relation to a
consistent city and regional plan.

The function of the airport in the city plan is, as we have said, that of
a part of a great transportation agency. We have seen that in these
early days of air transport many airports are being used in a rather
undifiFerentiated way for various kinds of air transportation and for
many different auxiliary purposes. Undoubtedly, however, it will soon
become necessary to segregate these uses and to have different airports
for different purposes. We do not believe that anyone can predict with
certainty at this time what will be the typical provision of differentiated
airports which will serve the city of the future. Judging, however, from
such knowledge of conditions and tendencies as we now have, we believe
that the following kind of differentiation and arrangement is not improb-
able as a complete provision for a large city and its tributary region.

Possible Regional System of Airports
intown municipal airport

First, the city might have a large intown municipal airport, which
would be to air transportation what a union railroad station is to a rail-
road system. This airport should be as near the center of the town as
possible. A greater transportation time than fifteen minutes from the
center of the city to the airport would in all probability be a serious detri-
ment. It should be noted that this is fifteen minutes' transportation

ieo

FUNCTIONAL RELATION TO THE CITY AND REGION 21

VAYME COUNTY AIRPOPT^ MICU-

= rp^^ ~ "^

cxiSTinc comraucTions SCALE OP CCET

PBOMSco consmuctions

22 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

time by any available means, and if the airport were served by a good
subway or elevated system or super-highway, it might lie seven miles or
so from the center of the city and still be within the fifteen-minute time
zone. This airport should not contain any considerable storage or
repair facilities. It probably should not be open to private planes, and
in every way its efficiency should be kept high and its area kept low.

A site for such an airport is not so difficult to find at present in our
great cities as might at first be supposed.^ Many cities have tidal flats
or other low, undrained areas very near their center which have been
kept out of development on account of the expense of fill, particularly
the expense of piecemeal fill by the small developer. San Diego, Calif.,
and Portland, Ore., are building airports on such sites, the former by
dredging a section of the tide lands bordering on San Diego Bay, and
the latter by dredging and pumping material onto an island in the Willa-
mette River. Many cities have railway yards which, as soon as the rail-
way system is electrified, could be covered over and used for airports.
Possibly even in some cases a blighted district might be so low in value
and so much of a public menace as it stands that public money might be
legitimately used to acquire it as a part of an intown municipal airport.
It should be remarked here, however, that an existing park in the heart
of a city or indeed anywhere else should not be considered as an oppor-
tunity for the location of an airport. A park serves its own functions
which cannot be served by anything else, and it would be poor business
to increase the efficiency of the city by adding an airport through the
means of decreasing the efficiency of the city to an equal degree by losing
a'park.| ^ -~ ' ^ — -j

airplane|'storage''and' repair field^

^|ii There might be a considerable number of airports which may be
termed airplane garages, being similar to railroad yards or roundhouses
or street-car barns. They would be places to which the airplanes which
touched at the intown municipal airport would go for storage and repair
facilities, and such other functions of a similar nature as might be carried
on there. They could be located as far from the center of the city as
necessary, and since for the most part they would not be primarily places
where passengers board the planes, these airports would not have to be
so closely related to the ground transportation system of the community.

^ See Appendix 12, Areas within a Twenty-minute Radius of the Heart of the City by Present
Means of Transportation Which Are Still Available for Airport Sites.

FUNCTIONAL RELATION TO THE CITY AND REGION 23

AIRPLANE PARKING FIELDS

There might be an outer circle of airports on the analogy of parking
spaces and garages at the outer termini of rapid transit systems; i.e.,
these airports would be places to which the people residing in the suburbs
or in the country could come by private airplane or taxi airplane, and
from which they could be moved quickly by mass transportation facilities
to the heart of the city. These airports would have to provide storage
facilities primarily for private commuting planes.

LOCAL SUBURBAN AIRPORTS

Then there could be, located at suburban centers which might be a
very considerable distance from the heart of the big city, local suburban
airports which would be near the homes of a considerable body of the
population and would be the airports used by this local population in
going to and from the big city by air.

PRIVATE AND SPECIAL AIRPORTS

Also there would be various kinds of private airports; i.e., landing
fields for airplane clubs, manufacturers' testing fields, and so on. It is
not difficult to think of other specific uses which might make the con-
struction of a special airport reasonable. For instance, a large area for
recreation purposes, otherwise inaccessible, might be made many times
more valuable by a special airport.

It has been frequently recommended that intermediate landing fields,
perhaps not more than ten miles apart or even closer, should be con-
structed primarily as a safety provision along the main routes of air
travel. The fact that they could serve this purpose also will doubtless
hasten the construction of a considerable number of local airports pri-
marily for local purposes.

It should be borne in mind, however, in considering this or any other
scheme for the distribution and location of airports, that the airport like
the park should be a continuous area, not cut through by public roads,
and therefore it is bound to be, on account of its size, an interruption to
public traffic on the ground. It might be said that if a park already
exists, a location for an airport directly beyond the park from the center
of the city or directly between the park and the center of the city would
have the advantage of not diverting radial traffic any more than this
has already been inevitably diverted by the park. Therefore it is essen-
tial, in relating the airports to the regional plan, that they be considered

24 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

together with the main highway system, so that they shall be accessible
by highway but shall not interrupt main lines of traffic ; and that they
be considered in relation to the population, its kind, its location, and its
density, so that they shall not interrupt residential or other areas which
should be continuous, and of course so that they shall not unnecessarily
occupy areas which would be more efficiently occupied by dwellings or
other types of land use.

The considerations of drainage and sewerage are likely to prove very
important. Many cities contain areas which could be filled and drained
sufficiently to make entirely satisfactory airports, but from which, if
they were occupied by a dense population, sanitary sewage could be
collected and discharged only at a disproportionate cost.

Of course we do not expect that any such complete and differentiated
system of airports as above discussed is likely to be constructed by any
but a few of our greater cities in the immediate future, though it is inter-
esting to note in this connection that at the present time the Columbus
airport, Port Columbus, is surrounded by five smaller airports within a
radius of five miles. In our further discussion, however, in speaking of
the airport we shall have in mind rather the kind of airport that a city
should provide at this time and which it would use for general purposes
until such time as more specialization is justified.

Relation of the Airport to Various Means of Transportation

AIRWAYS

The decision as to the location of the airport may be affected by the
consideration of the relation of the airlines to be served by this port. If
a main airway already exists, the proposed new airport would naturally
be as nearly on this airway as possible, not only to save distance on the
airway, but on account of the additional difficulties which arise in the
handling of radio beacons and such direction-giving devices when there
is a bend in the airway. Where possible the airport should be so located
that the airways converging upon it lie over less densely developed and
inhabited portions of the to\\Ti. This lessens the annoyance to the
citizens from noise, and from the danger, slight though it is in any case,
of falling planes, and equally it lessens the danger to the plane and its
pilot, since there is a better chance in the more open country of making
an emergency landing; indeed intermediate emergency landing fields
could be much more readily secured along such a route.

■3

\ -^-ti

o
o
_j

X^^-..^-

'J » —

FUNCTIONAL RELATION TO THE CITY AND REGION 25

If both landplanes and seaplanes are using the airway, a port adja-
cent to a body of water which would permit the landing of seaplanes and
possibly the transfer of passengers and cargo between landplane and sea-
plane at the port might be advantageously chosen. Although many
opportunities for the use of water surfaces exist, very little development
of this kind has taken place.^

The principal advantage of air transportation is that it saves time,
but in order to make use of air transportation the passenger must get to
the airport where he starts and get from the airport at which he arrives,
and he might easily spend more time in this amount of land transporta-
tion than he spent in air transportation from one airport to another.
The relation, therefore, of the airport to various kinds of land transport
is very important indeed.

RAILROADS *

A location directly on an important railroad line ^ is an advantage
because it aids pilots in locating the airport since they can follow the
railroad lines very readily. Also it facilitates the transfer of passengers
and freight from plane to train and vice versa. Further, it is then easy
to provide spur tracks for the shipment of oil, gasoline, and various other
materials in large quantities to the airport. Indeed it might be said that
no large airport could afford to be without at least a spur-line railroad
connection ; and where an airport is not located on an existing railroad
line, the possibility of the construction of such a spur line should be care-
fully considered. If the airport were built directly over a railroad
terminal or railroad yards, this connection between air and railway
would be ideally provided.

TRANSIT

By proximity to the center of the city we mean, of course, proximity
in time rather than proximity in space. ^ The better the transit facilities,
the farther in miles the airport can be located from the center of the city.
Other things being equal, the problem is to secure the greatest proximity

1 See Appendix 13, Water Areas and Plans which have been Made to Use Them as Seaplane
Bases.

2 See Appendix 14, Airports at Various Distances from Nearest Steam Railroad Passenger
Station on a Main Line; and Appendix 15, Airports at Various Distances from Nearest Freight
Station on a Main Line.

^ See Appendix 16, Airports and Transportation Time from Business Centers of Cities; and
Appendix 17, Airports at Various Distances from Business Centers of Cities.

26 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

in point of time to the center of the city per dollar invested. In each
case the authority locating an airport must determine whether the most
per dollar can be obtained by purchasing physical nearness or by paying
for transit facilities.^

Surface Car Lines. The presence of a surface car line would be a con-
sideration aflFecting the location of an airport. But if this car line oper-
ated on a public street, it probably would be no better than a line of
busses, and a line of busses could operate over any street which was wide
enough and properly located. It is unlikely, therefore, that surface car
lines would be built to airports primarily for the purpose of serving them,
and usually an existing surface car line is not likely to be a governing
element in the problem except in those cases where the car line is operat-
ing on an independent right of way and is really in effect a railroad.

Bus Lines. Bus transportation from the airport to the center of the
city may be absolutely essential and presumably will be desirable in
almost all cases. Airport-owned busses might at first be necessary to
accommodate the airport traflBc, being later superseded by general public
service busses if the total trajffic should become sufficient to show a profit
for such a venture.^ Since the bus line like the private automobile uses
the public highway system, the question of bus transportation in its
relation to airport location really comes down to a matter of a satisfactory
highway system, which we shall discuss later.

Elevated and Subway Lines. Since an elevated line gives service that
is much faster than ordinary surface transportation, and since the cost
of building an elevated structure is so great, proximity to such a line
already existing would be a very desirable feature in the location of an
airport. The same thing may be said with even more force in regard to
a subway. On the other hand, it should be remembered that an existing
subway or an existing elevated line has been built because of an existing
or immediately predictable traffic demand, and that land near such
lines is already of high value, to say nothing of the inflated value due
to speculation which very frequently is found also in such places.

HIGHWAYS

The relation of the airport to the main highway system cannot be
neglected with impunity, no matter how important the other considera-
tions may be. Its importance was illustrated in Atlanta, Ga. during an

' See Appendix 18, Transit Service to Airports.

* See Appendix 7, Number of People Who Come to the Airport.

28 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

air meet when traffic was jammed for miles along the road to the airport,
and many people could not reach the airport. The airport should be so
related to the whole street network that access from all parts of the city
is reasonably direct and unobstructed. It should be near enough to a
main highway to be very easily accessible from it, but ideally the air-
port should not abut directly upon it for any considerable length. A
location off the main highway eliminates the hazard and inconvenience
of having cars parked along the highway or driving slowly to watch the
airplane activities. It eliminates the real or mental hazard of airplanes
passing close to the wires and the traffic along a crowded street. A
more important consideration is that the land abutting upon the high-
way has frontage values, which are not assets to the airport as such, as
long as it has sufficient access. Also it is frequently easier to control
the surrounding development, both for safety and for appearance, if
there is not a main public highway immediately abutting on the airport
for a long distance, the opposite side of such a highway being high in
value on account of its frontage.

The connection between the center of the city and the airport by
automobile or by bus should, of course, be over a highway which is direct
and expeditious for traveling.^ In most cases this is the master consid-
eration which will determine the effective nearness of the airport to the
center of the city. For a long time at least, most airports will not create
enough traffic to warrant an extension of transit facilities for their sake
alone. The following are the obvious factors making for consistent
rapidity for the connecting traffic : (1) separated grades at the principal
highway intersections, as for instance the route from Newark airport
to New York City ; (2) elimination of railroad grade crossings ; (3) free-
dom from ferry crossings and drawbridges ; (4) adequate width of the
highway; (5) proper pavement of the highway; (6) proper control of
traffic along the highway, especially at all street intersections ; (7) avoid-
ance of a route through subcenters and any places which will cause a
slowing of traffic by congestion, by frequency of crossing, by uncertainty
of direction, by difficulty of turning, or by parking along the way.

The highway connection between airport and city center should be
attractive in appearance. This should be true of any means of approach,
but it applies particularly to the highway because beauty along the
highway is more readily appreciated and can be enjoyed by more people.
Out of 82 airports, 28 reported the appearance of the route as attractive,

' See Appendix 19, Impediments to Highway Travel between Airport and Center of City.

FUNCTIONAL RELATION TO THE CITY AND REGION 29

28 as fair, and 26 as unattractive. This consideration of appearance
leads naturally to the suggestion that the approach to the airport should
be by means of the "park system." In so far as the "park system" is a
part of the transportation system, — that is, in so far as the suggestion
contemplates carrying the traffic to and from the airport through boule-
vards and parkways, new or already existing, and does not contemplate
the creating of new roads through existing parks, — this advantage
should be obtained as far as possible. It will make a pleasant approach
to the airport, which will have a definite value to the airport since a visit
to it can form a part of a pleasure drive along the parkway.

Relation of the Airport to Other Functional Areas

Having considered the relation of the airport to the transportation
system of the city, we shall now take up its relation to the different
functional areas of the city : that is, such areas, present and predeter-
mined, as would normally be demarcated on a zoning plan.

RELATION TO RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS

The effect of the residential district upon the airport is not likely to be
harmful except that tall apartment houses, school buildings, hospitals, or
churches with spires, if located too near to the field, may be obstructions.
This difficulty could easily be eliminated or minimized by forethought,
both in the carrying out of a zoning plan and in the location of the land-
ing field. Trees, however, are normal accompaniments of a residential
district and occur so consistently throughout a district that any necessary
avoidance of difficulty from this source will usually have to be done by the
airport, so to speak, and not by any restriction of the district, though such
restriction might be legal. ^

As to the effect of the airport upon the district, the present consensus of
opinion seems to be that in the following ways the airport is a detriment
to residential values of the territory immediately adjacent to the port and
to a lesser degree for a radius of perhaps one-half mile around the port.^

Noise.^ This is particularly objectionable to hospitals and such insti-
tutions, but it must be to some extent a detriment to ordinary residential
use, even though it may be said that people will get used to this noise just
as they have become accustomed to many other new noises in the past.

^ For further discussion of trees near the airport, see p. 129.

* See Appendix 20, Width of Annoyance Fringe around an Airport.

* See Appendix 21, Objections to Airports Made by Those Living in Their Vicinity.

30 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

The noise of the airplane engine may be largely overcome by improve-
ments. As far as we can now see, the noise of the propeller in the air will
probably always remain.

Dust.^ Dust from the landing field has in the past been protested
against as being a very considerable nuisance to a surrounding residential
district. Presumably, however, when airports are properly constructed
and properly maintained, this nuisance will be abolished, and it is not
likely to be tolerated for long, because it is a nuisance not only to the
surrounding area, but in a greater degree to the airport itself.

Night Lighting.^ It has been said that the night lighting of the airport
is a detriment to the surrounding region. It would appear that most of
these statements were made before the actual lighting was installed, and
the difficulty proved to be less serious when the facts were definitely
known. Night lighting, if objectionable at all, is primarily objectionable
only to residents on abutting property. Moreover, a careful design of
the different kinds of lights which are necessary at an airport will usually
make it possible to avoid very much glare along the ground outside of the
airport and still will leave the lighting entirely efficient from the point of
view of the airport itself.

Danger.^ A good deal has been said about the danger to life and
property caused by the proximity of an airport. It cannot be denied
that persons have been killed and property has been destroyed by the
accidental falling of an airplane into a residential or other neighborhood.
Presumably, no improvements in air navigation will entirely eliminate
this risk. But there is no reason to suppose that the risk will be any
greater (if indeed it is now greater) than the risk which still remains to
every citizen in crossing the street or, indeed, in going up and down
stairs. Even at present we are inclined to believe that any existing
depreciation of surrounding values due to the fear of danger from falling
airplanes is much more the result of a mental hazard than a practical
hazard, and that the fear will disappear to a large degree as time proves
that the danger is very slight. Insurance covering property damage
caused by falling aircraft and aircraft equipment is offered by some
insurance companies, but they naturally have very little accumulated
data on which to base their rates. Therefore, these rates cannot now be
used as a measure of the danger from falling aircraft.

Traffic Congestion. It has been said that if the airport be approached
through a residential district, the increased traffic, particularly on special

^ See Appendix 21, Objections to Airports Made by Those Living in Their Vicinity.

FUNCTIONAL RELATION TO THE CITY AND REGION 31

occasions, will be detrimental to residential values, and the parking of the
automobiles of visitors to the airport along the residential streets which
should be quiet will be a distinct nuisance to the inhabitants. This
doubtless will be true if provisions are not made to forestall it, but a
proper relation of the airport to the main transportation system would
prevent an unreasonable disproportion between the amount of traflSc and
the width of streets. A proper provision of parking facilities under the
control of the airport itself would eliminate the necessity for promiscuous
parking elsewhere.

Effect on Land Values. In determining whether on the whole the
immediate presence of an airport is an advantage or a disadvantage to a
residential district, the few figures which seem now to be available really
do not prove any point on either side of the question.^ In most cases
where the construction of an airport has been said to raise values in a
residential district, it has done so because the district was very sparsely
settled and low in price per acre, and the presence of the airport by making
opportunity for some local development, cheap residential or local com-
mercial, did raise the value of some of the land immediately adjacent to
the port. If an airport were to be located contiguous to a low-cost,
densely populated residential district, still the airport might raise values
slightly because, for the abutting dwellings, a view into the airport, for all
its noises and lights, would be preferable to a view into a continuation of
the same congested residential district. On the other hand, if an airport
abuts on a higher-cost residential district, the balance is likely to turn the
other way, and the abutting residences will lose in value instead of gaining
by the presence of the airport.

At any rate, whatever the final facts may prove to be, there seems to be
at present considerable feeling that an airport is not a thing to be sought in
a residential district, for the sake of the residential district. Neverthe-
less, the airport cannot be excluded completely from all residential dis-
tricts because this would be likely to render impossible the efficient
location and operation of this essential municipal service.

RELATION TO COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS

As to the relation of an airport to a commercial district, the effect of
the district upon the airport is disadvantageous in the following ways : it
creates an approach hazard by its closely built character, its tall struc-
tures, the unpredictable air currents generated above it, and to some

1 See Appendix 22, The EflPect of the Airport on Land Values.

32 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

extent by the presence of smoke. Evidently some of these disadvantages
would be minimized by locating the airport to windward of the center of
the commercial district. The greatest argument against the location
of the airport in a commercial district is, of course, the fact that the
intensive use of the land in a commercial district causes such high land
values that an adequate area for an airport would be likely to be pro-
hibitively expensive.

As to the effect of the airport on a commercial district, there is the
hazard of the approaching planes over an area where both population and
values are highly concentrated, and there is the fact that the large expanse
of the airport would create a barrier which might be a serious disadvantage
to the ordinary expansion of business and access to the business area. Of
course it should be borne in mind in connection with the intown location
of an airport that the intown lands of a community are not of equal value,
nor do they grade down consistently from high values in the center to low
values on the outskirts. Considerable areas of low values are found
for one reason or another close to the heart of the city, and therefore
an airport might sometimes be built very near a central district but
not in it. An example is the proposed airport on the Chicago water
front.

As to local shopping districts, they are so small and the airport is so
large that the relation between the two would presumably be merely that
the airport would be located for more important reasons, and that the
local shopping districts with their business structures would tend to
cluster at the approaches of the airport.

RELATION TO INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS

In the case of the relation of the airport to an industrial district, the
effect of this district on the airport would be detrimental in the following
ways : factory chimneys would constitute a hazard in themselves, and
their smoke would also be a serious hazard. Also the heat and the
generally unpredictable air currents to be found over such regions make
flying more difficult and dangerous. The approaches and surroundings
of an airport in an industrial district are likely, moreover, to be less ap-
pealing to the tastes of the people who would normally patronize air
transport.

As to the effect of the airport upon the district, there is no reason to
suppose that it would have any injurious effect, unless the presence of so
large an uninterrupted area should bring about difficulties of trans-

FUNCTIONAL RELATION TO THE CITY AND REGION 33

portation and difficulties of expansion which, to be sure, might prove
very serious.

RELATION TO THE RECREATION SYSTEM

Here we should first of all remember that an airport is not a legitimate
element of the public recreation system. Airplanes are primarily a
means of transportation and not of recreation. The use of airplanes for
recreation is limited to a very small fraction of the total population, and
to a considerable extent the recreational use is dependent on novelty and
will presumably decline as we all become more familiar with air travel,
just as taking a ride in an automobile has ceased for all of us to be an
adventure and for many of us to be a pleasure.

Recreational areas can properly offer to the airport little advantage, if
due regard be paid to their own proper recreational function. They can-
not be used as intermediate landing fields and remain parks. No man
would be content to allow his children to play in a park into which an
airplane might descend at any moment and for any unimportant reason.
The occasional use of any available open area by an airplane in distress,
which must make the best landing it can under the circumstances, is
something to which no one can object and which after all would happen
so seldom that its danger would be almost negligible, looked at from the
point of view of any one individual's chance of being involved in it.

The location of a park system and the size and function of its constit-
uent units are worked out in relation to the outdoor recreational needs of
the population, in relation to the topography, and in relation to the park
system's function as a part of a unified city plan. The only reason, there-
fore, which could possibly excuse the taking of park land for an airport
would be the absolute demonstration that the land was not suitable for
use as a park, or was not needed and could never be needed as a park.
And it is very rare indeed that this can be said of the existing park hold-
ings of any community in this country. The statistics ^ in regard to the
use of park land for airports are likely to be misleading if it be not remem-
bered that in many cases the community had the power to acquire land
for parks by eminent domain, but did not have this power to acquire
land for airports, specifically as such, and that therefore the community
used its power to get the land as a "park," and proceeded immediately
to make the land an airport without any great attention to the logic
of this proceeding, but only to its immediate effectiveness.

^ See Appendix 23, Airports Built on Park Lands.

34 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

RELATION TO THE PUBLIC UTILITY SYSTEM

The airport must have adequate fire protection, adequate water
supply for other purposes, an adequate sewerage system which is not
likely to be very great, a sufficient gas system in many cases, and cer-
tainly ample electric power and light supply. The effect of these require-
ments on the choice of a location of the airport is obvious. There is one
particular, however, already referred to, which might even be a governing
factor in the choice of an airport location. This is that the surface
drainage from an airport need not be particularly unsanitary, and the
amount of sewage from an airport is so small as to be capable of local
treatment without necessarily calling for any discharge into a general
sewerage system. This means that in an airport a city has a necessary and
large area which might be located in places which were perfectly suitable
for an airport but which, if developed for residence or any other use
which caused considerable density of occupancy, would cost for sewerage
an amount out of all reasonable proportion with the resultant taxable
value of the land.

ZONING FOR AIRPORTS ^

It would seem to be impossible to create a special zone for each airport.
It is true that we have in the past in some instances done "spot zoning"
which created smaller zones than the area of one airport. But to in-
corporate the airport locations in the zoning plan, thereby fixing them
with the degree of definiteness and permanence which such a plan entails,
would be to make definite a provision for the future which cannot now be
accurately predicted, and perhaps to commit the city to an expenditure
of money for such future provision out of all proportion with present
financial possibility. Moreover, the airport is primarily a part of a trans-
portation system, and the application of zoning to a transportation system
is full of difficulties. Privately owned and operated airports are legal and
presumably desirable, and the application of zoning to such ports, making
each separate private venture a zone in itself, would again be full of great
difficulties, both legal and administrative.

Ordinarily the airport would be located in an outlying residential
district because this district has the greatest area, the least intensive
development, and the fewest streets, but the airport might in a special
case be located in any one of the zoned districts. As its location is of

1 See also pp. 121-23 and 126-28 for further discussion of Zoning for Airports.

36 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

great public importance, and worthy of the greatest care and publicity,
it would seem that the best procedure, in fairness to all interests con-
cerned, should be to consider the airport as a use which would be normally
excluded from residential districts, except that the Zoning Board of Appeals
would have the right and duty to grant locations for airports within a
residential zone on the presentation of sufficient proof of the convenience
and necessity of such a public service in some specific location. In
commercial and industrial zones, the airport probably should be con-
sidered as admissible by right, but in these zones, of course, there are
likely to be high land values and many constructed and established
streets which would make it both expensive to assemble a sufficiently
large area for an airport and unlikely that so large an area could be set
aside without upsetting the city plan to an extent to which the City
Planning Board ought not to accede.

Appearance of the City as Seen from the Air

Even now, although in a transitory state of development, the airport
should be at least neat and decent in appearance, seen both from the air
and from the ground. When we know enough of its immediate future to
be justified in making a more or less permanent design, the airport, like
every other area by which the taste and self-respect of the community are
to be judged, should be beautiful as well as practical.

A general consideration which we believe to be of great importance is
the duty of the municipality and the region not to offer to the sight of those
who travel over it by air anything unnecessarily offensive by reason of
ugliness, and not to deface the present beauty of the landscape as seen
from above. The principal application of this is in the matter of advertis-
ing signs. We have seen the landscape visible from our railroads dese-
crated, and later the public views from our highways polluted and
exploited for private gain. The present difficulty of the public in getting
its rights back in these cases is due to the intrenched position of those
who have been making a very profitable business from this exploitation.

A similar misuse of the scenery visible from the air is sure to begin
soon, — indeed it is already beginning, — and it will be much more easily
forestalled now than later remedied.

CHAPTER III

RELATION OF THE AIRPORT
TO THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION NET

Airways

OO far we have been discussing local and municipal considerations.
^ There are also important and perhaps decisive influences affecting the
airport which are of a regional and perhaps national character, and have to
do with the relation of the airport to the great national net of routes of
travel, both through the air and by railway.

Early in the study of the airport site, it should be determined whether
the city is on a regional or national airway route, existing or planned, or
reasonably to be predicted. If the city is not and is not likely to be on
such a route, then it should be considered whether or not the distance
from the city to the nearest airport which is on such a route is so great
that people can save enough time by flying, as compared with other means
of transportation, to warrant a local airport for this purpose. It is
evident that any time up to perhaps half an hour might be consumed by
a person in town in getting from his residence or from his place of business
to the airport. If now it takes him only fifteen minutes to fly from the
local airport to an airport on the main airway, it might actually save him
time to make the whole of this journey by automobile or possibly by rail-
road, in which case the local airport would serve only local needs and not be
particularly valuable as a connection with the general national airway net.

If the town is on a main airway route, then the function of this route in
the entire airway system should be considered as a means of predicting
the amount and kind of future travel by air over it, and consequently the
size and kind of the airport. It would make a great difference in the choice
of a site whether the air route was to be used by landplanes or by sea-
planes or by both ; and it should be considered whether the traffic was
passenger traffic or express traffic or mail delivery, or, — if it consisted of all
three of these, as it probably would, — what were their relative proportions.

38 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

Any decisions as to the airport will further be influenced by what kind
of station on this route the local airport is going to be. To borrow the
language of the railroad, will the local airport be a terminal, a junction
point, a regular stop, a flag stop, or, although it is along the route, will it
be so located that no stop could profitably be made by long-distance
Iraflfic except under extraordinary circumstances? If it is a terminal
station, then terminal storage facilities will be necessary, and a close
coordination must be arranged between the long-distance traffic by air and
local air traffic, or other forms of transportation, presumably radiating
from the terminal airport and serving a local region. If it be a junction
point, an intersection of two airways, then transfer facilities will need to
be given special consideration. If it be a regular stop for practically all
service, then the capacity of the airport must keep pace with the whole
capacity of the airway as it grows. If, however, the airport is what
might be called a flag stop, the field must still be large enough to accom-
modate any transportation units which are used on the route, but the
intensity of use of the field will be much less than the intensity of use of
the airway.

It might happen that the proposed local field would lie on the line of
a main airway, but since it lay between two large cities which were not
very far apart as air transport takes account of distance, there would be
no advantage to through traffic in making a stop at this local port. This
would mean, of course, that the field could, and probably would, serve
the purpose of an intermediate and emergency landing field, but that
otherwise the air traffic related to it would be as local as though the field
were not on a main air route at all.

Railways

If the city is on a railroad trunk line, is it so located that it is a logical
transfer point from railway to air and vice versa on a transcontinental
combined air-rail journey ? This point is not easily determined, because
it will vary with the railway schedules. At present it is not uncommon to
travel by train at night and travel by airplane by day, and the transfer
points would thus be at the places where the most popular trains found
themselves at the end of the day or night. It should be borne in mind
also that we do not know how long this form of transfer from railwa,y to
air will remain effective and popular.

Another consideration, if the town is on a railroad trunk line, is the
size of the surrounding region tributary to the city, either by train or by

RELATION TO THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION NET 39

air ; that is, from what cities round about, not on the main line, might
planes come in order to make railroad connections, or might people come
by railway in order to make air connections ?

If the city is on a railroad spur line, or not on a railroad line at all, the
same question which arose in discussing the requirements of the airport
not on an airway route arises in a slightly different form. For those who
wish to take a train on the main line, would enough time be saved by
jflying to an airport on the main line, over the time which would be spent
by getting to the same point by railway, by automobile, or by other
means of transportation, to justify the construction of an airport as a
means of regional communication ? If an existing spur line or a spur line
which might profitably be built would save more time than an airport
would in this regard, then again the airport is only of local efficiency.

Highways

The same general considerations apply to the relation of the airport
to the national highway net that have already been discussed in regard to
its relation to the national railway net, except, of course, that trans-
portation by road is not quite so certain as by railway, — particularly in
bad weather, — it is not so cheap, and for any considerable distances it is
not so fast. On the other hand the private automobile traveling byroad
wastes less of the passenger's time in getting started than does either the
railroad train or the airplane, and so is not competed with by either until
distance overcomes this initial advantage.

Waterways

If the transportation by a main waterway with which connection is to
be made by airplane is by means of ships, and the waterway touches the
town where the airport is to be located, obviously there is a great advan-
tage from this point of view in locating the airport where it will serve as
a means of transfer from air transportation to water transportation,
without intermediate loss of time. This would be equally true if the
transportation over the water were by dirigibles, which are likely to be
used over long-distance water routes, rather than over land routes, on
account of their having a greater ability than have airplanes to remain in
the air under all circumstances. The same advantage of being a point of
transfer, however, would apply if the water route were used for shorter
along-shore flights by seaplanes, to which form of conveyance people
might change from landplanes at the port.

40 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

Some airports will be ports of entry from other countries, with the
requirement of special facilities for this use. Much more might be said
of such special cases, but we do not attempt in this discussion, or indeed
elsewhere in the report, to cover all the possibilities which might logically
be expected, but only those which experience has already shown are to
be important in the air navigation of the future.

AIRPORT ADMINISTRATION

By
Miller McClintock

Lecturer and Director of the Bureau for Municipal Research and Director of the
Albert Russel Erskine Bureau for Street Traffic Research, Harvard University

and

Paul Mahoney

Now Assistant in the Transportation and Communication Department of the
Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America

INTRODUCTION

The enthusiasm for aviation which has swept the country during the
past decade, and especially during the past three years, has resulted in
certain tendencies with respect to public ownership and management
which may or may not be sound. This report is in no manner designed
to afford a definite or final answer to the many problems which these
tendencies have raised. Rather it is an attempt to relate what has
been done under typical circumstances, and to emphasize the factors
which must be considered in evaluating the present status and future
development of airport ownership and management.

It is significant that a majority of the important air terminals now in
use are under public ownership and management. This situation has
without question resulted from a widespread feeling that the infant
industry of air transport, and aviation in general, is of such a character
as to warrant a public subsidy.

How long will this necessity last, if indeed it exists, and where will
it eventually lead ? Perhaps the time has come to ask whether the future
of aviation will be most securely fostered by a public ownership of
terminal facilities. The answer may be in the aflfirmative, but if so, it
must be justified as a definite departure from American practice with
respect to transportation terminals in general.

A similar but no less important question relates to the actual manage-
ment and operation of airports. Are cities capable of successfully under-
taking the detailed operation of air terminals, with their many technical
and experimental problems .^^ Again the answer may be in the aflfirma-
tive, but it is apparent that assurance of success will depend largely upon
the capacity of cities to develop administrative organizations and fiscal
policies suited to the unusual requirements of airport management and
operation.

As has been stated above, it is not the purpose of this report to answer
these questions in a definitive manner. The development of airports
has been so recent and is still of such an experimental character that a
final answer would be impossible. The answer, however, must be

44 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

honestly sought, and each new development must be submitted to the
critical test of its logical relation to the economic and political structure
of the community rather than judged by its mere coincidence with popular
enthusiasm.

These logical tests are neither new nor mysterious. They have long
been a part of the policy of municipal management in American cities.
It is hoped that the materials presented in this report may be of assistance
to citizens and public oflScials in guiding the aviation activities of their
communities, in order that each community may obtain its fair share
of the benefits of air travel, and especially that the business of aviation
may develop upon the most stable of foundations.

CHAPTER I
OWNERSHIP

4 IRPORTS have existed since the first successful flight was made, for
-^^ the airport is as necessary to the plane as the road is to the auto-
mobile. It was some time, however, before the airport acquired definite
characteristics.

Until the war the airplane was such an outstanding novelty that its
exhibition in flight was its first civil function. Airports were usually
simple, temporary fields adequate for the demands of the few civil planes
in operation. The problem of providing facilities for the increased
number of planes during the war was met by the military and naval
branches of the government.

When the armistice released thousands of trained pilots and large
numbers of surplus planes, the business of making the American public
air-minded was begun. Need for more adequate civil airports was fore-
seen and some development undertaken. Unfortunately, the unstable
and relatively unremunerative nature of commercial aviation just after
the war did not attract sufficient capital to provide adequate facilities.

The Kelly Air Mail Act of 1925 was a stimulus for a new phase of
operation : the established long-distance air route, flown on schedule
with mail, passengers, and express.^

By the end of 1926 the war surplus of aircraft had become exhausted,
and new construction began in earnest. The Air Commerce Act of that
year provided the necessary governmental machinery to encourage and
regulate the use of aircraft in commerce.

In 1927 aviation was popularized by the feats of such intrepid aviators
as Lindbergh, Chamberlin, Maitland, Hegenberger, Byrd, Balchen,
Bronte, Goebel, Schulter, Brock, Schlee, and Haldeman. Air transporta-
tion had become a fact. But what of the airports ?

1 For further description of this period of development, see " Civil Aeronautics in the United
States," U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Aeronautics Branch, Aeronautics Bulletin No. 1, Mar. 15, 1928.

46 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

Ownership of Airports

With the increased production and operation of planes, with popular
interest assured, and with a realization that the lack of landing facilities
was in great measure retarding the development of aviation, municipali-
ties, advised and encouraged by the Department of Commerce, enthusi-
astically undertook the task of providing airports.

Records of the Department of Commerce show that at the end of
1927 there were 240 municipal airports and 263 private and commercial
airports. At the end of 1928 there were 368 municipal airports and 365
private and commercial airports. Figures for 1929 show 453 municipal
airports and 495 private and commercial airports.^

Of the airports studied, there were established :

Before 1920

. . . . %

During 1920

... 4%

During 1925 . .

. 7%

" 1921

... 3%

" 1926 . .

. 18%

" 1922

... 0%

" 1927 . .

. 16%

" 1923

... 0%

" 1928 . .

. 23%

" 1924

... 2%

" 1929 . .

. 20%

At the time of their establishment 59 per cent were private and 41 per
cent were public ventures, while 34 per cent of these private ventures
have since been taken over by municipalities.

These figures do not cover all the airports throughout the country.
Nevertheless, it is believed that they furnish a fair index of the trend in
ownership and development of the more important airports.

The question of public or private ownership of airports will probably
exert in the future, as it has in the past, a basic influence on the develop-
ment of air transportation. The number of airports already in existence
represents a capital outlay of many millions of dollars, and constitutes a
utility of great importance.

So accessible have city treasuries been to the demands for public
funds for airport construction, and so convinced are public and private
agencies generally that airport ownership is a normal and proper public
function, that any question of its propriety may appear irrelevant. If
its basis is sound, no harm can result. However, if there are legitimate
questions which can be raised, it is assuredly time that correct answers
be sought.

^ "Air Commerce Bulletin," Vol. I, No. 17, p. 9. U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Aeronautics Branch,
Mar. 1, 1930.

OWNERSHIP 47

It is possible that by an analysis of the functions performed by the
airport, and by analogy with other transportation facilities, guiding
principles can be established. The functions of the general airport are
diversified. It is a place of arrival and departure for passengers, mail,
express, and freight. In addition it must provide storage and service
facilities for the transportation units. It may be called upon to serve as
a base for training students, and for the testing of planes. Many ports
also serve as quasi-recreational centers for those engaged in sport flying.
These functions represent elements of both public and private interest.

Ownership of Terminal Facilities in Other Forms of
Transportation

The airport has no exact analogy in other forms of transportation.
There are, however, many significant similarities.

RAIL TRANSPORTATION

Rail terminals for passengers, mail, express, and freight, and terminals
for servicing of equipment and storage of material, are exclusively under
private ownership. This follows naturally from the close functional and
physical relation which such terminals have to the privately owned
railroads.

The public interest in rail common carriers is strong. In the provi-
sion of adequate terminal facilities and in their management this interest
has been protected through the medium of state and federal control ;
but even in the construction and maintenance of union terminal facilities
there has been little public participation. The principle which has
apparently guided railway terminal development has been that the rail-
road being privately owned, the terminal should likewise be privately
owned, but adequately controlled to protect the public.

In the early days of railway development state and local governments
extended various types of subsidies to encourage railway expansion, but
these subsidies never took the form of providing privately owned trans-
portation companies with publicly owned and maintained terminal
facilities.

WATER TRANSPORTATION

Practice with respect to water terminals is not so uniform as in the
case of rail terminals. That part of the port composed of navigable
waters is uniformly under public ownership and public control. Major

48 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

improvements such as channels and breakwaters are dredged or built
with public funds. Marginal lands are frequently owned by the state
or local political jurisdiction.

The terminal facilities themselves, consisting of docks, warehouses,
and other equipment, may be either publicly or privately owned. Public
ownership of dock facilities where followed has been justified partially
as a subsidy to stimulate port activity.

AUTOMOTIVE TRANSPORTATION

Airports have frequently been compared to the highway or street
system. The analogy is exact only in so far as it may be said that both
are essential for their respective forms of transportation. The functions
are quite different. The principal similarity between the airport and
the street system occurs when the latter is used for parking purposes,
either for the temporary storage of the vehicle, or for the transfer of
passengers or merchandise. By analogy streets are more similar to
improved airways than to airports.

The airport itself is comparable to parking and garage facilities.
There are few examples of publicly owned garages or parking spaces,
private ownership being the rule.

CONCLUSIONS WITH RESPECT TO ANALOGOUS TYPES OF TERMINAL FACILITIES

A review of these analogies indicates a definite tendency toward
private ownership. There seems to be nothing in the functional charac-
teristics of airports to differentiate them materially from those of other
forms of transportation. This conclusion does not necessarily indicate
that public ownership of airports is undesirable, but it does indicate that
where followed it is a departure from general American practice.

Is THE Public Ownership of Airports Good Practice?

There are many opponents of the public ownership of any utility who
consequently oppose the public ownership of airports. Despite the
arguments they advance in opposition to such ownership, numerous
municipal airports and some state and county airports exist. The legal
validity of public airport ownership has been established on several
occasions.^

Even though the municipal ownership of airports may be considered a
legal and possibly desirable governmental function, there still remains

* See p. 117, for discussion of the establishment of an airport as a "Public Purpose."

OWNERSHIP 49

a practical problem. Will the community and aviation best be served
by such ownership ? ^ The proper test of the validity of these theories
of ownership is the manner in which they have demonstrated their efficacy
in practice.

IMMEDIATE FACILITIES MADE POSSIBLE

Observation indicates that municipal ownership of airports has
accomplished certain definite things. Private investment in airports is
limited to areas of possible immediate profit. This is not true of public
funds ; consequently, through municipal ownership the community has
been able to enjoy the facilities of an airport sooner than would have
been possible otherwise. While the commercial airport management
may have an excellent program of improvement, it must proceed gradu-
ally, relating its investment to anticipated revenue. Municipal airports,
on the contrary, can be provided with adequate equipment far more
rapidly. It is not surprising to find that a majority of the more impor-
tant airports in the United States have been developed under public
ownership.

INTANGIBLE BENEFITS PROTECTED

The effect of municipal ownership of the airport on the citizen is
similar to the municipal ownership of any public utility. Under either
type of ownership, the public bears the cost of the direct benefits when it
avails itself of the convenience of air transportation. Under municipal
ownership the public must also pay, in effect, for the intangible benefits.
Placing the city on the air map and the consequent possible increase in
the city's business activity, or the savings made possible by air transport,
are of general potential benefit. The guarantee of future air transporta-
tion is of considerable importance.

The ultimate value of these intangible benefits cannot be calculated
in a period of development. At present it can only be said that the
municipalities, in general, provide a larger and better equipped airport
than private interests are likely to furnish, and the public must pay in
proportion though the majority make no direct use of the facilities
provided.

COORDINATION AND MANAGEMENT

The opportunities of coordinating the port facilities with the city
plan and of obtaining public service facilities such as water, sewerage,

^ See Appendix 24, Opinions on the Public Ownership of Airports.

50 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

storm drains, and highway connections are increased under municipal
ownership. Municipal airports in general, however, are no better located
than those commercially operated. In fact, the commercial venture
has one distinct advantage, for its choice of site is not limited by political
boundaries.^

Management of the municipal airport is not superior to management
of the commercial airport. For economic reasons a higher degree of
efficiency is demanded of the management of the latter, though it is not
always demonstrated in practice.

EFFECT UPON AVIATION

Aviation has indisputably been benefited by the municipal airport.
The number of adequate airports has been tremendously increased.
Municipal ownership has given an air of permanence to aviation ventures
which has encouraged commercial investment. Charges for services
rendered and facilities provided have been based on the operator's
ability to pay rather than on the basis of cost plus interest on investment.
Consequently aviation has been indirectly subsidized by the public, and
the growth of aviation artificially stimulated. It is for the future to
decide whether forced growth with its attendant danger of temporary
overdevelopment is more costly than the delay entailed by slower and
more cautious growth.

The United States has long since gone on record as believing in the
merits of subsidizing infant industry by protection. The granting of
subsidy through the provision of terminal facilities is nevertheless a
practice which has few parallels. Public ownership of river and harbor
terminal facilities is perhaps the only outstanding comparable develop-
ment.

Ownership Must Ultimately Be Based on Sound Economics

Problems of development are but temporary, however. The coor-
dination of the airport with the city plan is of primary importance.
Ultimate objectives include the provision of adequate transportation
facilities, and the satisfactory operation of the airport from the stand-
point of both cost and service rendered.

It is believed that these objectives can be attained eventually with-
out public ownership. With air transportation well established, it is

1 The Central Airport at Camden, N. J., serves Philadelphia, Pa. The Curtiss-Steinberg Air-
port in East St. Louis, HI., serves St. Louis, Mo. The latter port is far more conveniently located
than the St. Louis Municipal Airport, St. Louis, Mo.

OWNERSHIP 51

reasonable to assume that if an airport cannot be made to pay there is
no need for it. Regulation of its location and operation are matters of
planning and legislation. It has not been demonstrated that better
results in regard to these features are assured under municipal ownership.
It has been the experience of this country that, where private owner-
ship of commercial activities which are colored with public interest can
be regulated for general benefit, it offers a satisfactory method. When
aviation has reached its commercial majority, there should be little need
for the municipal ownership of airports. In the meantime the develop-
ment of airports must parallel and even anticipate the growth of aviation.
Ownership of the airport is influenced by current needs, but in the deter-
mination of the ownership of any contemplated airport these needs
should be closely analyzed.

Predominant Use as a Factor in Airport Ownership ^

Predominant use is of primary importance in determining the type
of ownership. It has been assumed that with the development of avia-
tion certain types of airports will come into existence as a result of segre-
gation of use.

types of use best adapted to private ownership

Club, factory, school, and transport base airports are exclusive in
their nature and are purely private in their purpose. There is a strong
presumption against public ownership. However, these functional uses
may be properly a minor and incidental part of the activities of a public
port, as long as they do not interfere with its proper operation.

USE WHICH involves PUBLIC INTEREST

There are certain other types of ports, the use of which is more general
and more public in character, for which the question of ownership cannot
be decided so definitely. There are many authorities who foresee and
advocate the "downtown" airport, located as close to the heart of the
city as possible, and highly specialized in use. This port will serve as a
central station for the transfer of passengers, mail, and express. The
planes using it will be stored and repaired elsewhere. WThether it be on
the waterfront, over freight yards, on the top of a large building or
buildings, or in some conveniently located open space, the great cost and
the difficulty of obtaining land will limit its size. Moreover, the tremen-

^ See pp. 20—24, for functional classification of airports.

52 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

dous volume of air traffic which would justify its existence would restrict
its use in order to insure the maximum efficiency of operation. There
would be probably not more than one airport of this type in any large
<3ity. Therefore the problem of location and of restriction, and the
necessity of granting equal privileges to legitimate users, would require
a high degree of public control. It is apparent that the public interest
would be substantial, and unless regulation of private ownership proved
adequate, public ownership might be indicated, as has often been the
case in harbor facilities, though rarely with rail terminals.

The ports located in the suburbs, serving outlying communities, and
the airports located near rapid transit lines just outside the more densely
settled portion of the city, would be much more general in their use, and
their functions would vary with the demands of the areas which they
served. The operation of these airports will undoubtedly call for a large
amount of public control, and in some cases may justify public ownership
and management.

At present most communities are served by one airport which per-
forms a combination of services. It is usually a passenger, mail, express,
and freight depot, a service, storage, school, and factory base. Serving
as it does both public and private interests, a determination of its proper
ownership must depend on other factors than use, unless it is apparent
that some particular use will rapidly become dominant.

State and County Airport Ownership

There are few examples of state or county airport ownership. Ten
county airports ^ are listed by the Department of Commerce. Rhode
Island has created a state airport commission with powers to acquire
land for a state airport. ^

Many municipal airports, however, are located outside of the munici-
pal boundaries.^ In some cases this has presented certain difficulties.
A problem encountered when the municipal airport is located in adjacent

^ Kern County Airport, Calif. ; Imperial County Airport, Calif. ; Menominee County Airport,
Mich. ; Muskegon County Airport, Mich. ; Burlington County Aero Club Field, N. J. ; Josephine
County Airport, Ore. ; Franklin County Airport, Wash. ; Yakima County Airport, Wash. ; Jackson
Coimty Airport, Wis. ; Milwaukee County Airport, Wis. From " Airports and Landing Fields,"
U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Aeronautics Branch, Aeronautics Bulletin No. 5, Revised Jan. 1, 1930.
Wayne County Airport, Mich., which was visited during the field survey is not listed. There are,
perhaps, other county airports nearing completion which have been omitted.

*" State Aeronautical Legislation and Compilation of State Laws," U. S. Dept. of Commerce,
Aeronautics Branch, Aeronautics Bulletin No. 18.

' See Appendix 25, Municipalities where Airports are Outside the Corporate Limits.

o
<

O
H

H
Q

OWNERSHIP 53

non-municipal territory is that of taxation. Another is that of land
condemnation, which in some cases has hindered the acquisition of land
for the airport as well as right of way for direct highway routes.

State legislation has been resorted to for the solution of certain of
these problems. Joint responsibilities and joint interest in the airport
have been recognized, as in the formation in Louisville of an airport
board on which both the city and county are represented.^

Duplication of Airport Facilities

At least two counties have established airports not far from municipal
airports serving the same communities. These are Wayne County Air-
port, near Detroit, and Milwaukee County Airport, near Milwaukee.
It is possible that the demands of aviation will increase to such an extent
in the future that such duplication of terminal facilities will not prove
wasteful. Nevertheless, airport costs are so large, the possibilities of
immediate profit from their operation so small, and the experience in air-
port management so limited, that close cooperation between the city and
the county is obviously highly desirable.

Conclusion

It is apparent that the municipal airport has played an important
part in the development of air transportation in the United States by
supplying an indirect subsidy in the form of essential terminal facilities.
Such a subsidy may be justified by the special character and present
status of air transport, but cities should not lose sight of the fact that it
is a departure from generally established practice. Evidence indicates
that while the need for this type of subsidy is rapidly on the wane, there
are other factors which will continue to promote the development of
municipal airports. It is also apparent that the creation of municipal
airports to meet present needs establishes municipal airport ownership
on a basis which is likely to have little relation to future problems. The
conclusion may thus be drawn that municipalities should limit their
participation in aviation to creation of those airports in which there is a
predominant public interest, and only in such cases where there exists
no possibility of supplying adequate terminal facilities by the encourage-
ment and control of private enterprise.

1 For organization of the Louisville and Jefferson County Air Board, see p. 61.

CHAPTER II

ADMINISTRATION

4 IRPORT administration, like airport ownership, is a new departure
-^^ in municipal government. Municipalities suddenly have found
themselves confronted by new responsibilities without even the guidance
of sound principles established by similar private ventures. Although
the commercial air terminal demands no radical departures from con-
ventional business administration and management, the task of fitting
an airport into the already elaborate administrative machinery of most
American cities obviously raises many new problems.

What department of the city government should be charged with air-
port control? Should a department be created for this new form of
municipal activity, or should the airport and its administration be
absorbed by a department whose existing facilities might be readily
expanded ?

The 85 airports visited and studied during the course of the survey
include 47 municipal air terminals,^ constituting outstanding examples of
their kind in the United States. Five general types of administrative
organization were disclosed. The administration of thirty-two (68 per
cent) of the forty-seven municipal airports was by a preexisting depart-
ment. Ten of these thirty-two (or 21 per cent of the forty-seven) were
administered by the park department, ten (21 per cent) by the depart-
ment of public works, four (9 per cent) by the department of public
service, and eight (17 per cent) by other established departments of the
city government.

While the creation of a separate department of aeronautics is not the
general practice, yet the significant proportion of the air terminals so
administered, coupled with the relative size and importance of these
airports, warrants examination of this type of procedure.

^ These include two county airports, — Wayne County, Mich., and Milwaukee County, Wis.

ADMINISTRATION 55

Administration by a Separate Department of Aeronautics

Fifteen cities with municipal airports of more than average impor-
tance are administered by separate agencies which have assumed full
charge of all aeronautical activity. Twelve of these are administered by
a Department of Aeronautics, and three by a Council Committee.^

the director of aeronautics

In six cities the Department of Aeronautics is headed by a Director
of Aeronautics. In Dallas, Los Angeles, Miami, and Ponca City such
directors have been appointed. In Ponca City, however, the airport is
operated by a private company and the director is an honorary appointee,
drawing no salary. Fort Worth and Pontiac have provided for the
appointment of a director of aeronautics but as yet have made no appoint-
ment.

In Miami, Ponca City, Pontiac, and Fort Worth appointments are
made by the city manager. Los Angeles selects its director of aeronau-
tics from the three candidates receiving the highest grades in a civil
service examination for the position. In Dallas the mayor appoints the
director of aeronautics with approval of the commission.

A director of aeronautics is usually placed in full charge of all the
city's aviation activities, including the construction, improvement, main-
tenance, and operation of municipal landplane and seaplane bases. In
practice, however, the development of aeronautical activity has not passed
the point where the director's duties include much more than manage-
ment of a single airport. Thus with few exceptions his duties are largely
those of an airport manager. In fact, no additional appointment of an
airport manager has been made in those cities which have filled the post
of director of aeronautics. This condition, however, may be but tem-
porary, for the time is perhaps not far oflF when the increase in aviation
activity may so occupy the director of aeronautics with matters of general
aeronautical policy that he will no longer be able to assume direct man-
agement of the airport. At present the salary of a director of aeronautics
ranges from $2000 to $5000 a year.

the air board

In Hartford, Louisville, Memphis, Salisbury (N. C), Winston-Salem,
and Terre Haute the Department of Aeronautics is headed by an Air

^ See Appendix 26, Sees. A, B, and C, "Cities Where the Airport Is Separately Administered."

56 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

Board. In each case the members serve without salary, but with a
nominal allowance for expenses.

The merits of a board or a commission as opposed to a single director
have been discussed at length throughout the history of municipal
administration. The single executive rather than the board has gained
increasing favor during the last few years in those departments requiring
skilled administration, quick action, and undivided responsibility. The
board has been retained in the administration of certain specialized
functions where representation rather than responsibility appears more
necessary. In airport administration undivided responsibility is deemed
more important than representation; consequently there exists a pre-
sumption in favor of a single responsible executive.

THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE

Atlanta, Macon, and San Francisco have placed their airports under
the control of Council Committees. The Atlanta committee is composed
of five members, and the Macon and San Francisco committees of three
members. Despite the fact that many activities of municipal govern-
ment are satisfactorily administered by council committees, airport
control presents many problems of such a technical nature that it is
questionable whether this type of administration will prove effective.

Factors Governing the Creation of a Separate Department

The independent department aflFords a suitable administrative agency,
but it may not be wise in all cases to add to the already complex structure
of the city government. What factors should be considered before
creating such a department ?

Some cities have sufficient power under the terms of their charter to
create additional departments of the city government. In a great many
cities, however, an act of the state legislature is necessary before an
additional department can be created.^

Granting that the city has the power to create a separate department
of aeronautics, the additional expense involved by the creation of such
a department is another factor to be considered. The advantages of a
separate department for airport matters should be carefully weighed
with the expense involved in comparison to the expense and possible
advantages of consolidation with some existing department.

^ See pp. 118-19, for discussion of the power of the local government to establish an airport.

<
O

ADMINISTRATION 57

Present conditions should not be the only factor influencing the
creation of a separate department. Possibilities of future aeronautical
development should be considered in the light of the city's relation to
the airways network, its topographical situation, and its industrial
position.

Finally the size of the city and its form of government may exert a
determining influence on the question. The fifteen cities in which the
airports are independently administered vary in size from Los Angeles
to Ponca City.^ Of these the three cities which placed their airports
under a council committee had, of course, a mayor-council form of gov-
ernment. Of the remaining twelve which had created a separate depart-
ment, five were governed by a mayor and council, two by a commission,
and five by a city manager.

The Airport under a Preexisting Department

It is significant that out of forty-seven municipal airports, twenty
were found to be under the control of the department of public works ^
and the park department,^ and twelve under some other already estab-
lished department of government.^ The preponderance of favor lies
with the department of public works and the park department. There
are sharp differences of opinion, however, over which of these two depart-
ments is the better fitted for airport administration.

the airport under the park department

It is said that the Park Department should administer the airport
because the requirements are similar to those met in park development
and administration. Thus for both airports and parks a large tract
of land must be cleared, graded, drained, surfaced, and landscaped.
Structures must be erected and concessions leased or operated, and
provision must be made for the handling of large crowds. It is
reasoned that because of these similarities the park department
possesses valuable experience which should be utilized in airport
administration, and that savings will result from a more eflScient use
of materials and personnel.

^ See Appendix 2, Population of Cities Visited.

* See Appendix 27, Cities where the Department of Public Works is in Charge of the Airport.
^ See Appendix 28, Cities where the Department of Parks is in Charge of the Airport.

* See Appendix 29, Cities where the Department of Public Service is in Charge of the Airport,
and Appendix 30, Cities and Counties where the Airport is Administered by Other Departments.

58 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

THE AIRPORT UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

Advocates of airport administration by the Department of Public
Works advance similar arguments. The department of public works
has also the necessary experience, equipment, and personnel to construct
and maintain an airport. Close cooperation with the engineering staff
is assured, for the type of work is similar to that which constantly engages
the attention of the department. It is unnecessary to present this argu-
ment in more detail, so exactly does it parallel that advanced by the
advocates of park administration.

Some doubt as to the value of these arguments is suggested by one
writer who says : "One might just as logically combine the airport with
the school system." ^ Both demand land acquisition, building construc-
tion and administration, open area maintenance, swimming pool and
tennis court management, restauranting, and good public relations policy.

The ultimate decision whether the airport should be placed under
the park or public works department will be determined in a great meas-
ure by local conditions. The ports which are now found under one of
these two departments are there, in most cases, because of chance rather
than careful consideration of the relative merits of each. The reasons
advanced in field interviews include: "it was politically advisable";
"the commissioner was an aviation enthusiast" ; "no other place to put
it"; "the park department was the only one that could acquire the
land, so called it an air park" ; "everything new is put in the department
of public works"; "office of manager was abolished, manager became
director of public works, took the airport with him"; "park commis-
sioners were interested."

However, it is indisputable that the primary function of aviation is
transportation. This being so, the administration of the airport is a
technical function, the successful performance of which is of importance
to the entire city. The department of public works is likely to have
wider engineering experience than the park department. The former is
concerned daily with the combined interests of the city, while the park
department deals with but one special phase of municipal activity, —
recreation. It would appear, therefore, that if the airport is to be placed
in an existing department, it logically belongs in the department of public
works rather than in any other, subject of course to special local condi-
tions.

* "Airport Management an Independent Function," by Ernest P. Goodrich. City Planning
April, 1930, p. 122.

ADMINISTRATION 59

THE BOARD OF PORT COMMISSIONERS

Two cities have placed the airport under the Harbor Board or Board
of Port Commissioners. This course may be logical when the airport is
located on property belonging to the board. Oakland has successfully
correlated the activities of the port and the airport and has placed the
care of their development under one head. In the other instance, a
good county airport is serving the community. The municipal airport
is so badly located as to make expenditures for improvement sheer waste.
In consequence it is given little attention by the municipal harbor board.

- The Quasi-Public Corporation

The plan of putting the administration and operation of a combina-
tion of rail, water, and air terminals under a quasi-public corporation
has been suggested and widely discussed. Such a plan has been advo-
cated for Philadelphia. 1 The plan suggests a corporation

to be known as The Philadelphia Terminal, of which the City of
Philadelphia will be the owner, this corporation to have a Board of
Directors, which will be automatically appointed by reason of positions
which they hold.

The following oflficials or their nominees are suggested :

The Mayor of the City of Philadelphia

The President of the City Council

Director of the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania

Chairman of the Public Service Commission of the Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania
President of the Chamber of Commerce
President of the Board of Trade
President of the Maritime Exchange
Governor of the Federal Reserve Bank
President of the Engineers Club
Head of the Department of Economics and Transportation at

Temple University
President of the Pennsylvania Railroad
Chairman of the Philadelphia Business Progress Committee
Director of Wharves, Docks, and Ferries
President of the Philadelphia and Reading Railway Co.
Chairman, State Aeronautics Commission

Presiding Officer, Local Chapter, National Aeronautic Association
The Manager or Representative of the lessee of the airport

i"A Plan for the Development of the Philadelphia Terminal Air-Marine-Rail." The Phila-
delphia Business Progress Committee, Sept. 6, 1929.

60 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

The entire terminal will then be leased by the city to this corpora-
tion at a rental which will be 100% of the net income. The Board of
Directors will elect the officers of the Company and appoint those to be
responsible for its development and administration, to serve with or
without pay. . . .

It will be the duty of the directors to recommend to the city the
development which the city itself should undertake, or to sublet to
private interests on appropriate terms, certain portions of the tract.

This combination of terminals would not always be possible, but the
plan might be used for the single purpose of airport development and
administration. It is apparent, however, that the necessity for such an
elaborate organization is less when a consolidation of several terminal
facilities is not contemplated.

The Advisory Board

The Advisory Board is common in airport administration. Thirteen
of the municipalities studied have made provision for such a board. ^ In
many others, though no such provision has been made, a similar influence
is exercised either by the aviation committee of the Chamber of Com-
merce, the aviation committee of the local post of the American Legion,
or by a local Aero Club.

The smallest board among those observed by us is composed of three
members, the largest of twenty-four, the usual number being five or
seven. Among the interests represented on the various boards are the
executive branch of the municipal government, represented by the
mayor ; the legislative branch, by aldermen and councilmen ; the air-
port itself, by the director in whose charge it had been placed ; education,
by members of the school board and, less frequently, the president of
the local university ; aviation interests, by those engaged in this business ;
and the public, by outstanding business and professional men of the city.

The qualifications required of appointees are interest in aviation
and some official connection with the body they represent. In most
cases the members are appointed by the mayor or manager with or
without the approval of the council or commission ; in a few cases they
are appointed by the head of the department operating the airport.
The term of office of the members runs from one to six years with a usual
term of three years.

Legally the powers of such boards are purely advisory. Actually

1 See Appendix 31, Cities which Provide Airport Advisory Boards.

ADMINISTRATION 61

they all have gone through or are going through a process of evolution.
In almost every case the original members of these boards were among
those who made the airport possible. Usually these are farsighted,
capable men, engaged in private business, interested in their city, and
enthusiastic about aviation. Consequently, these boards are able to
wield an influence far exceeding their legal powers. This influence is
obviously an aid to prompt development and completion of the airport.
With the airport once established, however, it has been observed
that the interest of the original members is inclined to wane. Eventually
they tend in practice to become purely advisory, exerting but little of
their former influence. The advisory board may be a highly desirable
aid in the administration of the airport. It provides representation for
a wide diversity of interests ; its powers are limited only by its ability ;
it so functions that it almost always is likely to do more good than harm ;
and when the period of its usefulness is over, its activities may be assumed
by a more formal organization.

The Place of the Airport in the County

Cases of county ownership and operation of the airport are few as
compared to the number of airports municipally owned and operated.
As already stated ^ there are only ten listed as county airports by the
Department of Commerce : two in California, two in Michigan, one in
New Jersey, one in Oregon, two in Washington, and two in Wisconsin.
The tendency in county administration is to put the airport under the
highway or park commission, instead of creating a special commission.
As to the relative merits of county highway and park administration,
the same factors apply as in the case of municipal departments of public
works and parks.

An interesting attempt at joint control has been made in Louisville
with the creation of the Louisville and JefiFerson County Air Board. It
is composed of six members appointed by the mayor and the county
judge, all appointments terminating simultaneously at four-year periods.
Equal representation of the Republican and Democratic parties is required.
Members draw no salary, and are in complete charge of the airport,
acting through the airport manager. This is a farsighted recognition
of the fact that the problems of the airport or airport system are of more
than local interest, and in many cases are of as much interest to the county
as to the city.

1 For the names of these airports, see p. 52, footnote 1.

62 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

Conclusion

A uniform type of airport administration can hardly be expected,
nor would it be altogether wise. However, the development of airports
has reached that point where cities are becoming increasingly interested
in and guided by the methods and experience of other cities. Conse-
quently it is reasonable to expect that airport administration will be
limited to several distinctive types. An increase in the number of sepa-
rate departments of aeronautics can be expected with an increase in
aviation activity, and a wider recognition of local requirements by state
legislatures.

Thus far it is significant that airport administration is affected favor-
ably or adversely not by the form of administration but by the caliber
of the department head and the political standards of the municipality.

CHAPTER III
MANAGEMENT

CITIES which have embarked on the business of furnishing terminal
facilities for air transportation are faced with two alternatives in the
actual management of these facilities. They may develop the organiza-
tion and personnel with which to assume active and direct management
of the airport, or they may relieve themselves of these responsibilities
by leasing the airport for operation by private interests, retaining only
general supervisory control in such broad matters of policy as may
be incorporated in the terms of the lease.

Leasing the Municipal Airport

It is logical to inquire whether airport management, as distinguished
from ownership, is a proper function of municipal activity. All evidence
points to the fact that it^ is so considered, though in many respects iF
maybe adistinct departure from conventional practice.

A factor in determining the choice between leasing and direct opera-
tion is the city's legal and financial status. Are there legal restrictions
on the city's ability to engage in this type of enterprise? If so, what
enabling legislation will be required to eliminate the obstacles, and how
difficult will the enactment of this legislation prove to be ?

The cost of operating and maintaining an airport equipped with
adequate and modern facilities involves large expenditures which may
not always be compensated by operating revenues. Is the city in a
financial position to make these expenditures and to continue to main-
tain the airport in a satisfactory condition ? How will potential operating
revenue compare with the revenue to be derived from leasing, provided
responsible and capable private interests can be found ?

Also consideration should be given as to whether leasing the airport
will be in harmony with the circumstances which originally dictated
municipal ownership. If a desire to aid and encourage local aviation
progress was the primary factor in the creation of the municipal airports,

64 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

will private operation, with its attendant need for larger and more im-
mediate profit, stand as an obstacle in the path of such progress ? ^

As aviation grows and prospers, this question will become less im-
portant. Proper control of the airport, on the other hand, will become
increasingly a factor. The obvious restrictions on promiscuous airport
location in any area so limited in the number of possible airport sites
as the larger cities indicate that an airport serving a large community
is likely to assume many of the characteristics of a monopoly. It is
apparent that the municipal airport will best serve the community only
as long as equal treatDoient for all legitimate aviation Interests is assured.
The degree to which leasing the municipal airport to private interests
will interfere with such control is a factor worthy of serious consideration.

Current Practice

There are relatively few municipal airports operated by private
interests under lease, and still fewer commercial airports so operated.
Of the forty-seven municipal airports from which data for this study
were derived, only seven had been leased to private operators. ^ Rarely
has a city oflFered its airport for sale.

It is claimed that a trend toward municipal ownership and private
operation exists, but it is difficult to find evidence to support this. Yet
with the decreasing need for the indirect subsidy afforded by municipal
airport ownership and operation, the development of such a tendency
may well be expected.

Organization for Airport Management

The scope and character of airport organization and personnel
depend on the extent and variety of the airport's activities and the
number of functions assumed directly by the operator.

THE airport manager

The Airport Manager furnishes the connecting link between the
administration and actual field operations. His title varies, sometimes
being director of aeronautics,^ or airport foreman, but, more generally,
airport manager.

^ Reference should be made to the following chapter on Fiscal Policy for a more complete dis-
cussion of other important financial factors which should be considered in relation to this question.
* See Appendix 32, Cities which Lease Their Airport for Private Operation.
' For description of the duties of a Director of Aeronautics, see p. 55.

MANAGEMENT 65

Only a few cities have established specific qualifications which must be
met by a candidate for this position. These usually require that the candi-
date be a licensed pilot and a graduate of a technical college. In Michigan
a state airport manager's license is required, issued by the state Aero-
nautics Commission. At approximately one-third of the municipal air-
ports studied, the manager was required to take a civil service examina-
tion. At the others no formal requirements had been established. It is
popularly supposed that all airport managers are or have been licensed
pilots. This was found to be the case at only a third of the ports visited.

Methods of selection and appointment were found to be as varied as are
municipal charters. In most cases due consideration of merit was given,
and a tendency evinced to make the position at least semi-permanent.

Managers at the municipal airports visited are paid from $1000 to
$12,500 a year, the average salary being $3285 and the median $2500.
In a few cases the airport manager is provided with an automobile, a
house, or both, in addition to his salary. He is rarely permitted to
engage in profitable operations on his own behalf at the airport. Only
when hls~3uties also include management of the local operating company
is this permitted. An arrangement of this sort is dictated by economy
and is usually found to be unsatisfactory both to the city and to the
individual.

Salaries of commercial airport managers are higher, on the average,
than those paid at municipal ports, due to the fact that at the former
the duties usually include operating a school, a taxi service, or other
services, as well as the airport.

The duties of the airport manager are many and exacting. He is
the active representative of the city's aeronautical interests : the con-
necting link between the airport and the city, state, and federal govern-
ments, between the airport and the manufacturers and operators who
use it, and between the airport and the public. He must formulate
details of fiscal policy, secure new business, recommend and enforce field
rules and regulations, make provision for handling spectators and pas-
sengers, see that the airport is adequately policed, and that airplane and
automobile traffic are regulated. The variety of his possible activities
is so great that a complete list of his duties would be lengthy indeed.

THE ASSISTANT MANAGER

In most cases airport activity does not yet justify the appointment
of an assistant manager, although a number of the larger municipal

I—
Ul

<
<

r o

Oiii
Ql-

0^5

0=?

E50

cozi

2-a

ru
Oil

UJS|-^|

• >>^

cto

z:S

J^^

I —

IS
ll

^ <%

.ct

Sl-fic

•S ^

III

0 eSi

i-RS

a. a.

Ul 14

Oi Q

Z a.

!-"■

z: <*•

■*»■ ^

-» «-

z:
nr

Ul '»5 0

•-

0 0

S, 9,

ii<aui >-

-1

0 3

<
0

uiZ .y t«

_i
0 w

LU a

ofe

r
<

3
«}

-I

Ij oE

•0

Cv<

LU a>

LU
Q. •

=> y

CO u

<OuI
050u.

li:=o

H' O

4A-

z: z

LU
U

3;?o

</)

lo 2

ul Q
L> S

_l -J

O O

■DO

ytt O

5 * 10

§2 3

or ^

o c o

< 4»

o' >;

uiO %

oz: <

-T — «

ot3

1) Ul

MANAGEMENT 67

and commercial airports have found it necessary to make such appoint-
ments. The Assistant Manager, as second in command, should possess
the qualities of the successful manager. It is desirable that he be a
pilot if the manager is not. The actual qualifications imposed for the
position and the methods of selection and appointment are similar to
those for the manager. In no case, however, was it found that the air-
port manager had the authority to select his assistant. The duties of
the assistant manager are obvious. He should relieve the manager
of much of the routine work and be capable of managing the airport
alone during those times when his superior must represent the city
elsewhere. At those municipal airports visited the assistant manager
was paid a salary ranging from $1200 to $4500 a year, averaging $2201
with a median of $2000.

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF OPERATIONS

The position of Superintendent of Operations is commonly filled
only at the larger commercial airports where operations are combined
with airport management. Municipal airports do not operate air services
of their own, and only in the most active of these airports is such a position
provided for.

It is almost universally agreed that the superintendent of operations
should be a pilot. He is personally dealing with the operation of planes
and the regulation of pilots. He must superintend the arrival and
departure, the service, storage, and repair of the planes. He is in charge
of the mechanics, the helpers, and the dispatchers. Consequently the
experience of many hours in the air is essential to a sound knowledge
and a thorough performance of his duties. The superintendent of opera-
tions at the municipal airports visited draws a salary ranging from
$1000 to $3000 per annum, the average salary being $2112 and the
median $2400.

THE FIELD SUPERINTENDENT

The duties of the Field Superintendent consist mainly of field proc-
essing, seeding, drainage, runway maintenance, grass cutting, planting,
snow removal, control of spectators, and maintenance of equipment.
He is consequently the liaison officer between the city engineering staff
and the field foreman. Under his direction are the foreman, laborers,
watchmen, and janitors. Since activity at municipal airports usually
does not warrant the employment of both a superintendent of operations

68 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

and a field superintendent, the latter, aided perhaps by a hangar superin-
tendent, performs the duties of both positions. This is the case in ninety
per cent of the municipal airports visited. Qualifications for a field super-
intendent should include some training in engineering, and if possible,
experience in flying. Salaries for this position at the municipal airports
visited vary between $600 and $2400. The average salary observed was
$1640 and the median $2200.

THE CHIEF CLERK

Another important minor oflScial in the airport organization is the
Chief Clerk, who is usually a civil service appointee. On his shoulders
falls the burden of keeping the books and accounts, attending to cor-
respondence, payrolls, meteorological records, permits, construction rec-
ords, charts and maps, and of supervising the staff of clerks, stenog-
raphers, and telephone operators. In many cases there is so little clerical
work that it may be done by one stenographer, while in others the chief
clerk shares with the manager the duties of the assistant manager, super-
intendent of operations, and field superintendent. His salary was found to
range from $1000 to $3000 with an average of $1916 and a median of $1800.

MINOR EMPLOYEES

The number of minor employees varies greatly with the size of the
airport and the season. An average drawn from forty-seven municipal
airports discloses eight minor employees drawing an average annual
salary of $2000 each. The usual staff was found to consist of three
laborers, one mechanic, one helper, one clerk or stenographer, one
janitor, and one watchman. The wages of field foremen average $1950
a year, chief mechanics $2200, mechanics $2000, and helpers, clerks,
stenographers, laborers, and janitors between $1250 and $2000, depending
on the section of the country and labor conditions.

Functions of Airport Management

When the necessary physical features of the airport have been com-
pleted there fall upon the airport operator certain functions necessary
to insure the safe, orderly, and eflScient use of the facilities which have
been provided.

provisions for order and -safety

In addition to assigning a policeman or two to the airport many
cities find it convenient for the county to deputize the airport manager

MANAGEMENT 69

and several of his staff, that state and federal legislation as well as local
ordinances and field rules may be enforced.

Close attention should be given to the problem of handling crowds
and a large volume of automobile traffic. Restricted areas for both
spectators and motor vehicles should be established and adequate
fencing and warning and direction signs erected.

FIELD RULES AND AERONAUTICAL LAWS

The enforcement of aeronautical legislation is one of the most impor-
tant functions of airport management from the standpoint of safe and
orderly use of the field. That section of the Air Commerce Regulations
dealing with Air Traffic Rules is applicable everywhere in the United
States ; the remaining regulations apply only to planes and pilots
engaged in interstate flying.^ Thirty-five states have incorporated these
model regulations in their own air laws. Other special state aeronautical
legislation must be enforced.

Finally there are the airport's own field regulations. The Depart-
ment of Commerce has formulated a model set of regulations which serve
as a guide to the airport operator.^ These are designed to control such
activities as landing and taking off, taxiing, running engines, flight
instruction and test flights, parking and mooring areas, dead lines, and
fire protection.

Because of the wide flying range of the airplane it is apparent that,
for the sake of safety and convenience, airport field rules as well as
state aeronautical legislation should be as uniform as possible throughout
the country. One need only refer to the complexities of state and mu-
nicipal motor vehicle legislation to appreciate the value of attaining at
least basic uniformity in flying and ground rules before a parallel con-
dition develops as aviation activity increases. A few airports have
adopted the Department of Commerce model field rules. Others have
modeled their rules on these, while still others have largely neglected to
modernize their local regulations to bring them into basic uniformity
with the generally accepted standards established by the Department.

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL

At a majority of airports air traffic has not yet become sufficiently
heavy to necessitate control measures beyond the ordinary field rules

1 "Airport Management," U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Aeronautics Branch, Aeronautics Bulletin
No. 17.

2 "Suggested City or County Aeronautics Ordinance and Uniform Field Rules for Airports,"
U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Aeronautics Branch, Aeronautics Bulletin No. 20, Oct. 1, 1929.

70 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

and Department of Commerce Air TraflSc Rules, supplemented as need
arises by oral directions to pilots. At the more active ports, however,
a positive, controlled system of directing traffic has become essential.

The most commonly used device for such control is the siren. This
is used to clear the field until the mail or scheduled passenger plane has
landed or taken oflF. One long blast is the usual signal to suspend the
use of the field for all other craft until two short blasts are sounded,
when general flying operations may be resumed in safety. The siren
has other important uses, such as signaling fires or other emergencies.

Another method of handling the traffic is by a flagman stationed
at the end of the runway in use, who controls the movement of planes
either at the signal of a director in the control tower or according to his
own judgment. Two flags are commonly used. A black and white
checkered flag is the "Go" signal. Red is the "Stop" signal for all
planes : those upon the runway in use, those approaching the runway,
and those intending to land. Both flag and siren systems are in use at
many airports.

In some of the larger ports a complete lighting switchboard is installed
in the control tower. By operating the approach lights, landing direc-
tions can be indicated at night. An illuminated wind tee is also used
for this purpose. The Wayne County and Grosse He airports have
installed an elaborate system of runway lighting. In each runway at
the Wayne County airport lights are set in the form of a double-headed
arrow, which can be made to point in either direction at the will of the
man in the control tower.

Two-way radio communication as a traffic control feature has not
been used extensively. At present its important use is to establish con-
tact with a plane while in flight from one airport to another, rather than
as a means of controlling traffic at the airport.

The assignment of certain portions of the airport for certain classes
of flying is another element of traffic control. Some airports have
excluded school flights and factory testing. A few of these permit the
school base to be located at the airport, requiring that planes be flown
off the field and back by instructors, and that the students do their
flying and practice landing elsewhere. Other airports have developed
adjoining property for school purposes. The latter solution, while reliev-
ing traffic congestion on the ground, does little to improve conditions
in the air because of the proximity of the two fields.

Congestion of air traffic on and above the airport is increasing, and

MANAGEMENT 71

it is a necessary and proper function of management to provide adequate
control.

WEATHER INFORMATION

The greatest aviation hazard yet to be conquered is weather. A
major responsibility of airport management is the provision of adequate
weather reports.

One source of this information is reports of observations taken at the
airport. These should include such items as :

Height of ceiling Barometric pressure

Wind direction Humidity

Wind velocity Temperature
Rainfall

This necessitates the maintenance and use of the following instruments .

Ceiling projector Hydrograph

Wind direction and velocity Sling psychrometer

apparatus Standard thermometer

Rain gauge Maximum and minimum
Mercurial barometer thermometer

Barograph Thermograph

Use should be made of the daily map service from first-order Weather
Bureau stations and weather reports from upper-air stations. Such
maps should be obtained daily and posted, together with reports from
adjacent airports. Weather-control stations on civil airways are another
important source of weather information. To benefit by their periodic
broadcast, the airport should be equipped with a radio and loud speaker.
This information ^ should be systematically tabulated and posted on
the airport bulletin board.

FIRE PROTECTION

The management should provide and maintain adequate fire pro-
tection.

The general hazard of airplane hangars may be roughly compared
to that of garages, but there are certain factors which may make air-
planes slightly more hazardous to store than automobiles. Some of
these factors are the following :

1 "Airport Management," U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Aeronautics Branch, Aeronautics Bulletin
No. 17, July 1, 1929. For more complete information on this subject, see Department of Commerce
publications.

ORGAMIZATIOM CHART
MILWAUKEE COUNTY AIRPORT. WISC

COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

MIQHWAY COMMnTEQ

OOUNTY MIGHVAY COi^.
A PLANNING ENOIhECR

AIPPORT MANAGER

ASSIST MANAGER
I

WATCUMAN

FOREMAN

LABOR C as

UCLPCRS

LOUISVILLE -KY- MUNICIPAL AIRPORT

U.S.AQMY

FOREMAn

MAYOD OOUMTY JUDGE

LOUISVILLE* JEFFER-
SON AIR BOARD

A MEMBERS

AIRP. MANAGER

SECRETARY

LABOR EliS

MANAGEMENT 73

1. The combustibility of the airplane structure.

2. The presence of high-test gasoline in large volume.

3. The general refusal of pilots and mechanics to observe simple
safety precautions in the handling of gasoline.

4. The usual lack of fire protection either in the form of first-aid
fire appliances, water for hose streams, or fire department protection.^

The Aviation Committee of the National Fire Protection Association
strongly recommends adoption of the fire regulations of the Department
of Commerce model field rules. ^

Large airports should "have a fire truck with first-aid fire appliances
which is able to respond to fires in airplanes that may crash when landing.
Most of the large city airports should provide such protection and the
truck should be manned by one or more firemen at all times when there
is any extensive flying going on." ^

It is an unfortunate tendency at most airports to consider widely
scattered first-aid fire appliances as suflScient fire protection, and to
overlook the fact that these appliances are designed to cope only with
relatively small fires, and should be supplemented by equipment of
greater capacity.

MEDICAL ATTENTION

First-aid equipment should be instantly available. The type of
equipment necessary for a Department of Commerce "A" rating includes

an ambulance, or some vehicle which can be used as an ambulance,
equipped with the following: first-aid kit, drinking water, crowbar,
wire cutters, hack saw, ax, cloth-cutting shears, fire extinguisher, two
litters.

The first-aid kit shall contain at least 12 assorted bandages, 12 sterile
dressings, 2 tourniquets, a supply of first-aid dressings for burns,
adhesive tape, a supply of either tincture of iodine or mercurochrome,
aromatic spirits of ammonia, and a paper or glass cup.

The litters should preferably be of the Stokes Navy type. If
they are of the ordinary type, then the vehicle shall also carry an
assortment of splints.^

1 "Memorandum on Airplanes and Airports," by H. L. Bond, Engineer of the National Fire
Protection Association. Boston, June 11, 1929 (mimeographed).

* " Suggested City or County Aeronautics Ordinance and Uniform Field Rules for Airports,"
U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Aeronautics Branch, Aeronautics Bulletin No. 20, pp. 8-10, Oct. 1, 1929.

'"Memorandum on Airplanes and Airports," p. 3. See footnote 1 above.

* "Airport Rating Regulations," U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Aeronautics Branch, Aeronautics
Bulletin No. 16, p. 7, Jan. 1, 1929.

74 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

AIRPORT LIGHTING

Of the 453 municipal airports listed by the Department of Commerce
at the close of 1929, 109 are equipped with beacon lights, and partial
or full equipment for landing flood lights, flood-lighted buildings, bound-
ary lights, danger lights, etc. Of the 495 private commercial airports,
71 are so listed.^

Any airport of importance must have adequate night lighting equip-
ment. Such equipment must be supplied and maintained by the airport
management, as convenience and safety demand central control.

The Department of Commerce Airport Rating Regulations list the
following lighting equipment as necessary for an "A" rating:

Airport beacon

Illuminated wind-direction indicator

Boundary lights

Obstruction lights

Hangar flood lights and roof marking

Ceiling projector

Landing area flood-light system

THE AIRPORT REGISTER

The Department of Commerce requires for an *'A" rating that a
register be maintained to include the following information :

1. License number and model of arriving or departing plane.

2. Owner of plane.

3. Pilot of plane and his license number.

4. Time of arrival and departure.

5. Number of crew.

6. Number of passengers.

7. Space for remarks covering any unusual situation.

The value of a careful tabulation of this information is obvious. It is
as necessary to the sound management of an airport as is the record of
the day's business to a commercial house.

... It provides a valuable check on the movements of planes
and pilots. It will assist in running down offenders of the air traflBc
rules and will protect innocent pilots who might be charged with some
violation if they were not able to prove their movements definitely
by an airport register. This is especially true along the borders where
a more rigid check will have to be maintained than in the interior of
the country.

^ " Airports and Landing Fields," U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Aeronautics Branch, Aeronautics
Bulletin No. 5, revised Jan. 1, 1930.

MANAGEMENT 75

From the standpoint of the airport and the city, the register will
be of value in furnishing data that may be of assistance in obtaining
larger appropriations and a greater recognition of the work that is being
accomplished.

In addition to the register provided for itinerant planes, it may
prove advisable to work out a form for the use of the transport com-
panies operating from the airport. This form would contain the
information ordinarily recorded in the register, and would be furnished
promptly by some one in authority in the transport company. It would
save the time that would otherwise be consumed in traveling from the
transport company hangar to the administration building upon the
arrival or departure of any of the company's planes.^

THE AIRPORT BULLETIN BOARD, MAP FILES, DATA FILES

A bulletin board should be placed in a convenient and conspicuous
place and the information on it kept up to date. This information
should include :

1. Daily weather maps.

2. Weather conditions at neighboring airports, first-order Weather

Bureau stations, upper-air stations, etc.

3. Airway notices regarding condition of intermediate fields,

interruption of beacon service, etc.

4. Warnings of dangerous conditions at any of the neighboring

airports.

5. Warnings regarding restricted areas in immediate vicinity.

6. Copy of local flying rules ; copy of Federal air-traflBc rules.

7. Location of fire-fighting equipment.

8. Statement of charges in effect at the airport.

9. Map of environs and information regarding various methods

of ground transportation, charges, etc.
10. Notices involving any unusual situation that should be brought
to the attention of the flying public.

The airport map files should contain the following :

1 complete set of airway strip maps
1 complete set of airway bulletins
1 magnetic declination map
1 large topographic map of the United States
1 map of each State in the Union

1 large scale local map showing highway connections, bus and
trolley lines, railroads, etc.

In addition, the seaplane ports or landplane airports near the coast
will need the following :

' "Airport Management," U. S. Dept. of G)mmerce, Aeronautics Branch, Aeronautics Bulletin
No. 17, p. 7, July, 1929.

76 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

1 complete set of Notices to Aviators and Naval Air Pilot Notices,
published by the Hydrographic office of the United States Navy.

A file of charts of near-by waters.

A file of pilot charts of the upper air, issued monthly by the Hydro-
graphic Office of the United States Navy.

The following publications should be kept ... [in the data files]
and made available for reference purposes to those interested :

Department of Commerce Aeronautics bulletins.

File of Air Commerce Bulletin published by the Department of
Commerce.

Copies of the principal trade journals.

Bulletins listing the reports of the National Advisory Committee
for Aeronautics. This list can be obtained from the Super-
intendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washing-
ton, D.C.i

COMMUNICATION

Provision should be made at the airport for the acceptance of mail.
Telephone communication should be installed. Arrangements should
be made for the prompt dispatch and delivery of telegrams. The larger
ports should be provided with a radio station. Eventually an airport
of any importance will have available all these methods of communication,

TRANSPORTATION

Transportation is another problem which must be considered by
the airport management. The service provided by air transport opera-
tors is not always sufficient. There are many who may have business
at the airport who still may not be prospective transport passengers.
The management should see that some service operating on a regular
schedule at reasonably frequent intervals is available for transportation
to and from the city. At present it is difficult for a person without an
automobile to get to most airports quickly for a moderate sum.^

NEGOTIATING CONTRACTS, COLLECTING REVENUE, PROMOTING NEW
BUSINESS

Proper functions of management include the negotiation of contracts,
collection of revenues, and the promotion of new business. A policy

1 "Airport Management," U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Aeronautics Branch, Aeronautics Bulletin
No. 17, pp. 7-8, July 1, 1929.

2 It is a common practice in aviation circles to refer to the distance from the center of the city
to airports most notorious in this respect, in the terms of dollars of taxi fare.

MANAGEMENT 77

of leasing land, buildings, and concessions must be drawn from the
background of local conditions, so that it may best insure the steady
progress of the airport toward its goal of service and profit.

One of the functions of good management is the promotion of
activity at the airport as fast as safety and sound business judgment
will allow. This promotion work may consist of air meets, exhibits,
model plane contests, the preparation of interesting press releases,
[and] the bringing of speakers to address gatherings on the subject
of aeronautics. ... In one sense the advancement of aviation is a
question of selling, and it is the responsibility of everyone connected
with it to help to develop interest and confidence on the part of the
public. The individual airport will grow in proportion as the industry
grows and any effort on behalf of the whole will be reflected in the
fortunes of the unit.^

Some doubt exists concerning the eflBcacy of impressing the public
with the safety of air transportation by means of air meets with their
attendant thrills and possible mishaps. A well ordered and attractive
airport at which transport planes arrive with impressive regularity, and
where the needs of passengers are quickly taken care of, is more likely
to impress spectators with the status of aviation than spectacular air
meets. Thus sound promotion will consist of day-by-day demonstrations
of efficient and safe management, and the enforcement of well drawn
regulations.

MAINTENANCE

It is the duty of the management to maintain the airport in a state
of cleanliness and repair. This calls for cutting grass in the landing
areas, keeping up prepared runways, filling holes, providing proper
warning signals to keep pilots off areas temporarily or permanently
dangerous, keeping drainage lines and catch basins open, maintaining
lighting equipment, keeping wind tees, wind cones, and similar devices
in repair, painting and maintaining structures, and in general performing
those numerous and petty tasks which promote a neat and attractive
appearance as well as efficient and safe operation.

IMPROVEMENT

A sound plan for progressive and orderly improvement should be
adopted and carried on as conditions permit. With the rapid growth
of aviation, present facilities must be continually increased and expanded.

1 "Airport Management," U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Aeronautics Branch, Aeronautics Bulletin
No. 17, p. 9, July 1, 1929.

78 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

This will necessitate new grading, draining, clearing, surfacing, and
construction and other general improvement to keep abreast of
requirements.

Control of the Use of the Airport

The management must formulate sound policies for the control of
operations. What financial and operating standards must be met by
tenants? Will the number of transport companies using the port be
limited .f* Will the number of taxi companies be limited? If so, will
transient flyers be permitted to compete with them and on what basis ?
Will schools be limited or prohibited? Will factory testing be en-
couraged, restricted, or prohibited? Will private flying be permitted
and on what terms ? ^

Both commercial and municipal airports solicit and encourage the
business of air mail and transport companies, and make no attempt to
restrict the number of such companies operating from their fields. A
somewhat different policy is pursued in the case of taxi, charter trip,
and "joy hop " companies. These three types of service are economically
inseparable, and can be rendered profitably if competition is restricted
on the basis of the volume of business available. Thus a majority of
commercial airport operators reserve this type of business for themselves.
The same practice is general in the case of schools, although the actual
management of the services may be placed in the hands of a subsidiary
or allied company.

The municipal airport, while less exclusive in policy, may also restrict
the number of companies offering taxi, charter, and "joy hop" services.
At most of the smaller municipal airports the financial condition of these
companies and the limited business available usually succeed in effecting
a high degree of automatic, if not formal, restriction.

The character and distribution of the various types of air services
available at thirty commercial and forty-seven municipal airports is
suggested by the following tables.

Commercial Airports
Nttmber of Number of

AiHPOHTs Air Mail Companies

22 0

6 1

2 2

^ For figures on type and extent of operations at airports visited, see Appendix 8. Rates and
charges and the types of leases and financial stipulations they include are treated more fully in
Chapter IV of this Report.

z:<
< —

o|-

^TIAC
MAM
IN AGE

II <-

)

I—

UILUO

<z:i-

OUjLiI

z: .—

uiqq

<<t
_j-r

0Q(/)
6_

Lua

-lui

I—

< CO

LU 5

2. ui

Oq.

uiiiiz! Jul

02:t-Pijju.S

^^ B

VjU

o <

*»s

2 u aco

3 0 g

1 2

lll<

Ull-

U.5

-Sss

<ty

Ult-

-a

ow>

-»<

fit

i§

" i =2
It i 3g

d<Sz SO

111111111

1-
r

11
O

1-
a.
O

i
1

a
<

<
<
O

a
Q

i
g

z:
<

1
a

AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

Commercial Airports — Continued

Number of Number of

Airports Transport Companies

18 0

6 1

1 2

3 3

2 4

Number of Number of

Airports Taxi, etc., Services

1 0

24 1

2 . . 2

1 3

1 6

1 .10

Number of Number of

Airports School

1 (school prohibited) .... 0

27 1

1 3

1 5

Note. One airport allowed use of field as base only.

Number of
Airports

Number of
Factories

22 0

4 1

2 2

1 3

1 6

Municipal Airports

Number of
Airports

Number of
Air Mail Companies

16 0

25 1

2 2

2 3

1 5

1 6

MANAGEMENT 81

Municipal Airports — Continued

Number of Number of

Airports Transport Companies

21 ... 0

14 1

3 2

2 3

1 4

3 5

3 6

Number of Number op

Airports Taxi, etc.. Services

3 0

14 1

10 2

9 3

2 4

2 5

1 6

1 7

1 8

1 10

3 12 and over

Number of Number of

Airports Schoois

5 0

23 1

8 2

7 3

1 4

3 5

Note. One airport prohibits schools ; two provide a practice field but have not developed it.

Number of Number of

Airports Factories

27 0

11 1

8 2

0 3

1 4

Note. Factory testing was definitely prohibited at one airport visited.

82 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

Attempts have been made to exclude flying schools. Both the air-
port management and the school admit that such exclusion is logical and
will eventually be common. At present the smaller schools cannot afford
their own airports, nor can the airport management afford to ignore this
source of possible revenue. One municipal airport which forbade school
activities in the original draft of its regulations now proposes amend-
ments in order to permit them. Other airports, both municipal and
commercial, have limited the schools to the use of the airport as a base
only. Some provide an adjacent field for students. Certain of the
larger schools have, of course, provided their own airports, the use of
which is limited to the school operations of the owners.

Prohibition of factory testing depends largely on local conditions.
If the manufacturing interests are small, they cannot afford their own
fields, and the amount of testing does not seriously menace the safety
of other operations. If they are large, they may have their own fields.
There are, however, several instances where airplane factories were the
original reason for the location and the growth of the municipal airport.
In other cases the location of factories at the airport has been encouraged.
It is apparent, however, that as soon as the increase in air traffic warrants
and the airport management can afford it, factory test flying will be
generally relegated to its own fields.

Provision of Storage Accommodations

The original storage accommodation was the right to "stake down"
a plane in the open field. Some airports are not sufficiently equipped
with hangars, and consequently many planes are still so accommodated.
At most airports there now is sufficient hangar accommodation to pro-
vide for the usual demand. One airport prohibits "staking down"
unless an unusual number of visitors causes an overflow. Another has
increased its charges to discourage this practice. The provision of
hangar space and such services as may go with it are optional functions
with the management.

commercial port practice

Practice as to storage accommodation at commercial airports varies.
At six of those about which we have this kind of information the ground
is leased and the hangars are constructed by the tenant under such
structural and architectural restrictions as may be imposed. Four have
erected all structures ; four will lease either the building or the land ;

MANAGEMENT 83

sixteen have established no definite policy. The management at all
commercial airports, however, provides storage accommodations for
tenants.

MUNICIPAL PORT PRACTICE

Municipal airports are less likely to furnish all hangar accommoda-
tions than are commercial airports. The usual practice is the con-
struction of one or two hangars by the municipality, which are operated
for transient storage, unless the activity at the airport does not justify
the reservation of so much space for that purpose. All municipal air-
ports have constructed at least one hangar for this purpose. Twenty-one
lease land to tenants, who have constructed their own hangars subject
to varying structural and architectural restrictions. Eight municipal
airports have built hangars and leased them. Two lease land or build
the hangars according to the wishes of the tenant. At sixteen the
activity is not suflBcient to necessitate the adoption of a definite policy.

Provision for Fuel and Service

At commercial airports the management usually reserves the right
either to sell all the gasoline and oil or handle all gasoline and oil sold
to transients, or to grant these privileges to one or more oil companies.
In most cases the airport management handles all such business. At a
few this concession is leased to a single company.

At municipal airports the practice is much more varied. Of those
studied, at 28 per cent it was found that the management handles all the
gasoline and oil. At 23 per cent there are no restrictions. At 23 per
cent the concession is leased by the management to one company. At
5 per cent it is leased on a flat rate to several companies. At 21 per cent
anyone may sell gasoline and oil on payment of a specified tax per gallon.

SALE of gas and OIL TO AUTOMOBILES

Thirty per cent of the airports studied sell gasoline and oil to auto-
mobiles. Most of the commercial airports sell directly, but in a few
cases the concession is leased to a gasoline company. At the municipal
airports the management uniformly leases the concession.

MECHANICAL SERVICE

Practice varies widely in the provision of mechanical service. The
management at commercial airports has the equipment and personnel to
repair transient planes and can reserve this business for itself. At mu-

84 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

nicipal airports it is felt that the municipality should provide such serv-
ice for the flying public. Consequently an attempt is made to provide
for repair work or at least to provide sufficient tools and facilities so
that the transient may do it himself.

The demand for this service is not as yet sufficient at most airports
to create much business. All operating tenants of any size have their
own repair shops, and if not overcrowded, are willing to do outside work.
Since they are not required to render this service, and since it may be
inconvenient for them to do so, it is wise for the airport management
either to set up a general repair shop of its own, or to make special arrange-
ments with a tenant having adequate repair facilities, in order to take
care of the general flying public.

The Terminal Building

If the traffic justifies it, a pleasing, well equipped terminal building
should be erected and maintained where passengers may comfortably
await their planes, purchase their tickets, and enjoy other conveniences
to which they are accustomed in railroad transportation. The terminal
is usually provided by the management, but may be operated by a tenant
or a special company created for the purpose. Portions of the building
are reserved for office space. The building should be located where it
is most convenient for planes to receive and discharge passengers. Four
municipal and four commercial airports have constructed handsome
buildings which combine the terminal with the administration offices.
Centralization of administration and operation makes for order, safety,
and convenience, and it is only a matter of time before all airports will
be so equipped.

Eight municipal and two commercial airports have found it necessary
to combine the waiting room, administration offices, and control tower
with a hangar. Such an arrangement, while convenient and often
economically necessary, is at best temporary. It adds to the fire hazard
and has many other obvious disadvantages. It is similar in principle
to combining the railroad station with the roundhouse. Fourteen
municipal and six commercial airports have constructed permanent
buildings to house the administration offices, but have made no special
provision for passengers. At five municipal and thirteen commercial
airports offices are temporarily housed in one-story frame buildings.
At sixteen municipal and five commercial airports the administration
offices are installed in hangars.

ORGANIZATION CWART ST. LOUIS AIRPORT

DCPT.oF PUBLIC WELFARE

AIPPORT
COMMISSION

LIAISOM WITW

ST. LOUIS AIR BOARD

CHAMBER OF COMH.

AIR MAIL

MILITARY AVIATIOM

LEGISLATION

LEASES

CONTRACTS

COMMERCIAL AVIAHOfl

PLAN A SCOPE

NANCE

PARK DEPT.

AIRPORT
MANAGER

ASSISTANT MAMAOER

PIELD OPERATIONS
I

RULES- REGULATIONS

INSPECTION OF PLANES

FIELD SERVICE

METEOROLOGY

LIQMTINO CONTROLS

VISITING PLANES

FLYINO RECORDS

SPECIAL EVENTS

ADMIhlSTR.& CONSTli-

CHIEP CLERK

PAYROLLS ACCOUNTS
CORRESPONDENCE ETC

FIELD SUPT.

MAIMTENANCE

ROADS & RUNVAYS

DRAiriAGE

LIGHTS

POWER • WATER

GARAGE AMAMGARS

ROLLING SIDCU

WATCUMAN

ORGANIZATION CUADT BUCCALO AIRPORT

PUBLICITY
INFOCNATIori-REPOKB-
LIAISON WITH GOV'T
MFRS. * OOEBATOBS.
LEASES A CONTRACTS-
NEOOTIATON PORAlRfMlL
fOaourit PAM.SERVICE-
ARRANGEMENTS COP MILI-
TARY OPCRATIONSAT
AIRPORT

COMMISSIONER

DE PT. OF PARKS

AIRPORT MANAGER

ASSISTANT MANAjER

FLYIMQ

SUPTOFOPERATlOnS

0ONSTq.UCTION
MAINTENANCE

IM5PECTION rOQEMAN ~ - ENGINEER jAMiTOa

CNPDRCEMEnrOF

FIELD R£0ULATI0^6■

INSPQCtOF DL4NES'

EXAMINATION OF

PILOTS'

CMECKinO

PERMITS-

FIELD PROCESSING-
SEEDING • DCAinAGE-
RUNWAY MAlNTEriAnCE-
ROAD MAINTENANCE-
OCASS CUTTING -

PLANTinO-
SNO\V REMOVAL

CHIEP MECWANIC

ASS. MEOJ.

AIRPLANE

MECMW1IC

MOTOB.
MECH.

SUPPLIES

SERVICE

HAMOABS

SWOPS

PRDTECTION

STORE KEEPER

AIRPORT
ADVISORY
BOARD

ADMIMISlRKnON

CHIEF CLERk"

aERKS AND
STENOGRAPHERS
TELEPH. OPE PATS

FLYINO. MCTEOR.OL.
&COMSTC. RECORDS
BOOl^ & ACCOUffflS

PAY COLLS-

CORRESPONDENCE

CHARTS A MAPS-

PERMITS.

86 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

Sale of Planes

At the larger airports provision is made for selling planes. At
commercial airports the management almost invariably reserves exclusive
sales rights. At the municipal airport there are generally no restrictions.
A tenant may engage in selling, and erect sales rooms if necessary, without
additional charge in his lease or operating tax. The same practice
prevails in the sale of airplane parts. If the tenant is engaged only in
the sale of planes, or parts, or both, a certain definite charge for this
privilege may be assessed, but as this is an incidental function per-
formed by operating companies, the municipality seldom derives any
appreciable revenue from it. Some cities of course sell parts in connec-
tion with the operation of their repair shop.

Operation of Restaurant or Refreshment Stand

It is the practice to grant an exclusive lease for the operation of the
restaurant or the refreshment stand. The nature of the business is such
that it does not lend itself to direct operation by the management, and
the value of such a lease at present is largely dependent upon an assurance
of no competition. The same applies in general to the sale of equipment
and novelties. Direct operation of these concessions by the management
was found at only three commercial and three municipal airports.^

Miscellaneous Provisions

The provision of bunks and sleeping quarters, lockers and tool
chests, is optional with the management. At present such accom-
modations are not extensive and their operation is unimportant. They
are usually provided either in a hangar or at the club house if there is
one on the field. ^

Most airports, unless badly cramped for room, reserve some area for
parking space. Six commercial airports and one municipal airport
charge for this service and operate it themselves.^

^ Curtiss-Reynolds Field, Glenview, 111. ; Hoosier Airport, Indianapolis, Ind. ; Capitol Airport,
Indianapolis, Ind. ; Miami Municipal Airport, Miami, Fla. ; Milwaukee County Airport, Milwaukee,
Wis. ; Lambert Field, St. Louis, Mo.

* Memphis Airport, Montgomery Airport, and Toney Field at Pine Bluff, Arkansas, have dub
houses. Oakland Airport is equipped with a hotel, and Tulsa Airport with a hotel for pilots.

' Curtiss-Reynolds Field, Glenview, 111. ; Curtiss-Herrick Airport, Cleveland, O. ; Curtiss-
Milwaukee Airport, Milwaukee, Wis. ; Curtiss- Valley Stream Field, Valley Stream, N. Y. ; Curtiss-
Steinberg Field, East St. Louis, 111. ; Schenectady Airport, Schenectady, N. Y. ; Newark Airport
(Municipal), Newark, N. J.

MANAGEMENT 87

Secondary Services

There are various extra-aeronautical services which may be operated
by the management or leased as concessions. Some add to the con-
venience of the airport, some are important merely as possible sources
of revenue. The following is a partial list of possibilities :

Hotel Bowling alley

Swimming pool Pool and billiard room

Airplane show room Shooting gallery

Sale of novelties Putting green for practice golf

Slot machines Various stores and shops

Vending machines

The actual use and location of the airport will determine to some measure
the type of primary and secondary services rendered. Three commercial
airports operate bathing beaches, two operate swimming pools, one offers
moving pictures, dancing, and billiards, and another is equipped with
tennis courts.

An attempt to emulate the functions of a park or an amusement
center, however, is at best of doubtful value.

CHAPTER IV
FISCAL POLICY

"Y^HAT does an airport cost ? How can it be financed ? What are the
' * sources of revenue, and to what degree can they be counted on to
pay operating expenses or produce a profitable return on the investment ?
What fiscal policies should govern the operation of the municipal airport
as a public enterprise ?

It is obviously impossible to return a specific answer to these ques-
tions. Little time has elapsed since airport management was put on a
businesslike basis. There is as yet no standard system of airport account-
ing, nor any marked uniformity in management or operation. Consider-
ation of the various items which influence cost, financing, and revenue in
the light of the experience of representative airports throughout the
United States throws some light, however, on problems of the individual
airport.

Cost of the Airport Land

Purchase price of the land to be used for the airport is one of the
largest items in the airport bill. It is apparent that the factors which
influence the cost of land for any purpose exert the same effect on the
price of land for airports. Proximity to the center of the city, location
in regard to use zone, size of the city, the size of the tract desired, the
number of available sites, the number of owners of the tract, and many
more factors play their part in determining cost. The fact that the air-
port must necessarily be a large tract, that it must not be too many
minutes distant from the heart of the city, and that the requirements of
its location limit the number of possible sites are further elements which
add to the cost of its purchase.

It is of interest to discover what the average cost of airport land has
been throughout the country. At 45 airports, — 15 commercial and 30
municipal, — the average cost of the airport site was found to be $974.28
an acre. The average size of these areas was 396^ acres. ^ The largest

* The average size of a total of 76 airports reporting on their total acreage was S38 acres.

FISCAL POLICY 89

investment in land amounted to $2,600,000 ; the smallest, $7500. The
largest site was 1085 acres ; the smallest, 100 acres. The cost per acre
ranged from $6500 to $50.

It was found that condemnation proceedings made little or no diflfer-
ence in the cost of the land. In most cases condemnation proceedings
were undertaken simply to clear the title after agreement had been
reached on the price.

Commercial airports have in general paid somewhat more for their
land than municipal airports, due perhaps to the fact that the sites of
the commercial port are restricted to areas more likely to return immedi-
ate profit on operations.^

LAND OWNED OR DONATED

Four cities — Detroit, Jacksonville, Milwaukee, and Newark — have
established their airports on land already owned by the city. This pro-
cedure avoids the necessity for a large portion of the initial cash outlay
required for land purchase, but under certain conditions may be false
economy.

Unless the site is well adapted to airport use, it is possible that the
cost of improvements or the reduced eflSciency and safety of operations
arising from its location may ultimately raise the total cost of the airport
above a figure required for the purchase of land better suited for airport
purposes.

In several of the cities which have built their airport on such land the
site could not be considered ideal. While these sites in general were
found neither better nor worse than those purchased by a majority of
cities, in every case better sites were available at sums which were not
prohibitive.

In one city the site for two municipal airports had been donated.^
The advantages of this method of land acquisition are obvious ; the dis-
advantages are similar to those which are apt to be encountered when
the land is already owned, plus the possibility of restrictions which may
be imposed by the donor.

In every case, however, it is apparent that the requirements of an
adequate airport site should not be lost sight of in an apparent saving in
the price of the land.

1 See Appendix 33, Average Cost of Land per Acre at 30 Municipal Airports and 15 Commercial
Airports ; and Appendix 34, Cost of Acreage and Number of Acres at 30 Municipal Airports.
^ Miami Mimicipal Airport and Miami Dirigible Airport.

90 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

LEASING THE LAND

Leasing the airport site is a less common and often temporary means
of acquisition. A number of reasons may make the purchase of the site
either impractical or impossible. The necessary legal power to float a
bond issue for this purpose may be lacking. The bonded indebtedness
of the city may be so great that it would be unwise to increase it. A fair
price for the issue might be difficult to obtain. The political factions in
the city government may prevent the ordinance from passing the council.
The issue might meet defeat in the hands of the electorate. If there is
no possibility of financing the purchase of land, leasing is a temporary
solution.

Lack of money is not the only factor which might make leasing the
land desirable. A pressing demand for airport facilities, together with
an inability to determine whether the immediate site is to be the ultimate
one, may make leasing the proper solution until the question of site can
be definitely determined. A few cities have adopted this procedure.^

It sometimes occurs that the one outstanding site cannot be acquired
by any means other than leasing. This is often true when the land is
owned by the federal government, board of education, or other public
agency. One of the largest municipal airports in the country leases its
land under such conditions, and the procedure has been followed in
many cities.^

Of the airports studied, both municipal and commercial, 20 per cent
leased their land. The yearly cost per acre at thirteen municipal airports
varied from $5.00 to $192.18, the average cost being $40.09 per acre.^

The terms of the leases vary from three to twenty-five years, usually
with provision for renewal for a similar period and with options to pur-
chase at a fair price in almost all cases except where the land is owned by
a governmental agency.

Cost of Improvements

The second big item on the airport bill is the cost of improvements.*
These include clearing, grading, draining, surfacing, lighting, and struc-
tures.

' Des Moines, Tampa, Toledo.

2 These cities include Albany, Boston, Chicago, Louisville, Ponca City, and San Francisco.
' See Appendix 35, Commercial Airports Which Lease Their Land, and Appendix 36, Municipali-
ties Which Lease Land for Airport Sites.

* For more detailed figures, see Appendix 10.

FISCAL POLICY 91

CLEARING

The cost of clearing depends, of course, on the character of the land
acquired. This cost was found to range from $0.99 to $501.54 per acre,
with an average cost of $190.05 per acre.

GRADING

Another item which may vary greatly is grading. This cost varied
from $6.51 to $9212.50 per acre with an average cost of $280.55 per acre.
In every case the plans contemplated a maximum gradient of less than
2|^ per cent in the flying field.

DRAINING

Drainage still remains one of the major problems facing the airport
engineer, varying with local conditions. The elevation of the land, the
type of soil, the danger of floods, and climatic conditions may complicate
the drainage problem and increase the cost of the airport. Various
drainage systems are being tried throughout the country. At some of
the most important airports careful data are being kept on the cost and
eflSciency of the methods in use. Time and experimentation should do
much to simplify the problem.

At those airports which were meeting the drainage problem with
some success it was found that from $2.50 to $1445.09 per acre was spent
on this one item alone, with an average expenditure of $217.49 per acre.

SURFACING

The special preparation of the flying field includes seeding, and the
construction of runways and taxi strips. The estimated cost of a good
sod surface is about $200 an acre. The average airport is spending much
less for this item. Runway construction is more expensive and at present
the subject of much debate among airport engineers.

Possibilities range from an all-sod field to an all-paved field. If there
is a good deal of flying activity, it is difficult to maintain an all-sod field.
The cost of an all-paved field is at present prohibitive. Runway con-
struction is an engineering problem, the costs and types of runways
varying so widely that generalizations as to cost and merits are of little
value.

LIGHTING

Flying is no longer confined to daylight hours. Scheduled night
flying is increasing. At the end of 1929 there were 12,448 miles of lighted

92 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

airways completed, and 1352 miles under construction.^ Of the 453
municipal airports in 1929, 109 (or 24 per cent) were equipped with
beacon lights or had partial or full equipment of flood lights for landing,
flood-lighted buildings, boundary lights, danger lights, etc., and 71
(or 14 per cent) of the 495 commercial airports were so equipped. ^ Light-
ing is a definite item in the cost of the airport and all plans for future
airport development make provision for it.

It is estimated that it costs from $15,000 to $20,000 to light an
airport completely with beacon and boundary lights on a series circuit
and with a 150-ampere arc flood light. Three shifts of personnel are
necessary to operate and maintain lights, at a cost of $8000 to $9000 a
year. Power bills and maintenance of lighting equipment, underground
cable, arc mechanisms, etc., cost an additional average of $6000 a
year.^

Figures obtained from thirty-seven lighted airports show an average
expenditure of $16,935.58 for lighting equipment. The investment in
each airport for lighting equipment ranged from $2500 to $65,000.

STRUCTURES

Utility and durability coupled with some architectural merit are
factors in designing airport structures. They are required for the storage
of planes, the housing of shop facilities, garage, administration ofiices,
passenger waiting room, and restaurant. There are other possible needs,
such as a club house or hotel.

All these facilities may be housed in a single structure or in several,
according to the funds available and the amount of the activity. While
the tenants may build many of the necessary structures themselves, the
management must set aside a large sum for this purpose. Of those air-
ports studied which were able to give accurate cost data on this item it
was found that the municipalities were spending an average of $115,000
for this purpose, the commercial airports, $102,000, and the tenants at
both types of airport an average of $80,107.96. The average investment
for all structures was $143,417.53, ranging from $1000 to $960,000 per
airport.

^ U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Aeronautics Branch, Air Commerce Bulletin, Vol. I, No. 17, Mar. 1,
19S0.

* " Airports and Landing Fields," U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Aeronautics Branch, Aeronautics
Bulletin No. 5, Revised Jan. 1, 1930.

' "Airports as a City Problem," by Major J. E. Whitbeck. Public Management, Vol. XI, No. S,
p. 149, Mar., 1929.

FISCAL POLICY 93

SUMMARY OF IMPROVEMENT COSTS

The average cost of total improvements at seventy-three airports ^
was found to be $326,000. This figure does not truly represent the cost
of an ideally adequate airport, which might well be more, unless the cir-
cumstances attendant on the purchase of the land and construction of
the facilities were particularly favorable.

Bond Issues

Money for the purchase and improvement of land for municipal air-
ports is usually obtained by a bond issue for this specific purpose, or by
an issue for a general improvement program of which the airport is a
part. The type of bond and the length of the issue depend on local
practice and the market. Issuing and retiring bonds for airport purposes
does not diflFer appreciably from issuing and retiring bonds for any other
similar municipal enterprise, the principles of public finance applying
with equal force. The average total amount issued for those cities
studied which had financed their airports by issuing bonds was
$976,287.50.

Appropriations

Bond issues have not usually been sufficient to cover the cost of the
original improvements and subsequent development. A certain amount
of capital outlay is necessary from year to year. Funds set aside for this
purpose, into which the airport revenue is put, have been neither large
nor numerous.

In some cases this money comes out of the amount budgeted to the
department under which the airport is administered. Three cities have
a special tax levy for airport purposes, the rate per capita being fixed by
the legislature.

The amount appropriated often includes both annual capital expendi-
tures and the amount expended to meet the operations deficit. Conse-
quently it varies widely from city to city, depending on the size of the
bond issue, if there was one, the improvement program, the policy of
airport operation, and the financial condition of the municipality.

In connection with financing the airport, the unsound practice of
putting the airport into some department, usually the park department,
and letting the department use a portion of its regular funds for airport

^ Some of these airports had little or no night lighting equipment and many had but one small
hangar.

94 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

purposes was discovered in four cases. The airport suffered because
suflBcient funds for its adequate construction and operation were not
available. The primary services rendered by the department were cur-
tailed in exact proportion to the expenditure on the airport. Few depart-
ments have more money than they need, and placing an additional
service of such importance as the provision and operation of airport
facilities without adequate additional financial provision is poor economy.

Financing the Commercial Airport

The commercial airport is usually financed by the sale of stock.
Sometimes the airport is not operated primarily as a commercial project,
but is held and operated by a corporation of citizens to serve their
municipality until the city can take it oflF their hands. In such cases
stock is purchased by citizens in order to assist the enterprise, and with
little or no expectation of profit.^

Financing the Cost of Operation and Maintenance

The average operating and maintenance cost of thirty-one municipal
airports where accurate data were available was $27,052.54 per year.^
This sum does not include the purchase of items for sale at cost or profit,
such as gasoline, oil, parts, etc. A little more than half of this sum is
accounted for by salaries and wages, which averaged $15,700 and ranged
from $2400 to $63,000.

Meeting the cost of operation and maintenance presents no unique
problem at the commercial airport. The corporation engages in the
business of operating an airport for a profit, or in a few cases at cost, and
must eventually depend on revenues to meet the expense of operation
and pay return on the investment. The municipality differs from the
private corporation in that it need not operate its airport primarily for
profit.

Considerable discrepancy exists at most municipal airports between
operating expenses and revenue. Consequently cities have found it
necessary to make annual appropriations for airport purposes.^ A few
cities have established an airport fund which is supplemented by appro-

* Those commercial airports visited which might be included in this category were : Charlotte
Airport ; Dayton Airport ; Schenectady Airport ; Toledo-Transcontinental Airport ; and Tulsa
Airport.

* See Appendix 37, Cost of Maintenance and Operation per Fiscal Year at Municipal Airports.

FISCAL POLICY 95

priations from the general fund when operating revenues fall below
operating and maintenance costs.

At least one municipal airport makes no attempt to meet its costs
from operating revenue. The policy is to charge at cost for special
services, but to provide all necessary landing facilities free of charge,
and to meet all expenses by funds raised through general taxation, on the
theory that no charge is made for the use of the public streets, and that
the primary function of the public airport is analogous to the function
of the street.^

The majority of municipal airports attempt to derive as much revenue
as possible without taxing the local operator too heavily, and usually
entertain the hope that the airport will eventually become self-supporting.
There is good reason for this hope. Municipalities attempt to operate
their public utilities in such a manner that they will be self-supporting.
The operation of the airport in many respects closely resembles the
operation of a public utility.

It is generally conceded that similar enterprises should earn operating
expenses of all kinds, depreciation allowance or reserve, interest on invest-
ment, emergency surplus, and taxes. There is some question whether
earnings should also cover an allowance for sinking fund purposes, a
reserve for extensions, and an accumulation over and above other items
which may be drawn upon annually for general budget purposes.

There seems to be no reason why the municipal airport should not
earn enough to provide for the first five items in the near future. If it is
unable to do so in competition with a commercial airport in the same
locality which is able to show such a return, there is good reason to doubt
the advisability of continuing public operation of the airport. If no air-
port in the vicinity is able to show a return, nor has any prospect of doing
so within a reasonable time after its establishment, then it would appear
that there is not sufficient need to justify an airport.

Airport Earnings

Municipal airports do not show as profitable a balance sheet as do
commercial airports. Their charges and the terms of their leases are
far more favorable to the tenant than those of the commercial airports.
The municipality can maintain a relatively low schedule of rates, and
oflFer more favorable terms on its leases for land and structures on the

^ For analogy, see p. 48.

96 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

subsidy theory and with a knowledge that deficits will be met from public
funds. Several of the municipal airports studied showed a profit, but in
terms of interest on the investment it did not exceed three per cent.

Sources of Revenue from Airport Operation

The sources of airport revenue may be roughly divided into three
classifications : charges for operations, charges for service, and income
from concessions either leased or operated.

LANDING FEES AND PASSENGER TOLLS

A landing fee for transient planes is not usual at commercial airports.
A landing fee for transport planes not using the port regularly is com-
mon, however. There is a possibility that a general charge for landings
will be common in the future at such airports.

LEASING LAND OR BUILDINGS TO OPERATORS

One of the more lucrative sources of revenue is the leasing of land or
hangars and other structures to the operators on the airport.

Land may be divided into regular plots and so leased, or it may be
leased by the square foot or front foot. There seems to be no standard
practice in this regard. The usual plot, however, runs from 100 X 100
feet to 350 X 225 feet. Taking an acre as a standard unit, the annual
rental varies from $60 an acre to $5000 an acre, and averages $1010 an
acre.

A sliding scale of rates is not uncommon. It is frequently the prac-
tice to increase the rental annually by a stipulated amount, also to
decrease the price per square foot or other unit as the amount of land
leased exceeds a specified minimum.

Leases vary from one to thirty years and include provisions for
renewal. No standard manner of leasing airport land exists. Conse-
quently no type of lease agreement can be accepted as entirely representa-
tive.

Most of such leases, however, include the following provisions :

1. Declaration of lease and description of property.

2. Length of lease, amount and time of payment, provisions for

renewal.

FISCAL POLICY 97

3. Restriction of the use of the property ; i.e., to erect, maintain,

and operate a hangar for airplanes, to teach aviation, to sell
airplanes and parts, to store and repair airplanes, to keep
and sell all necessary supplies, to repair parts for airplanes,
and to do all incidental work.

4. Provision for the approval by the lessor of plans and specifica-

tions of structures erected.

5. Provision for the neat and orderly maintenance of the struc-

tures and property.

6. A clause prohibiting excavation or fencing of the property

without consent of the lessor.

7. Provisions for fire protection.

8. A clause releasing the lessor from liability accruing from the

erection of structures or use of the premises.

9. Provision for the payment of all taxes, assessments, license

fees, etc.

10. Stipulations as to sub-leasing.

11. Provision for the restoration of the property to original condi-

tion at termination of agreement.

12. Provision for the carrying of fire and liability insurance by the

tenant, the necessary amount of the insurance if collected
going to the lessor in case the lessee defaults.

13. Provision by the tenant of a bond against liens.

14. Provisions as to operation; i.e., only licensed pilots and

mechanics, etc., to be employed by the tenant, etc.

15. Provisions for cancellation.

16. Provisions as to the removal of the tenant's structures at the

termination of the agreement, and a stipulation as to the
terms on which they will be taken over by the lessor.

Land leased for factory sites is divided into larger tracts and is usually
offered at a much lower rate than that set aside for hangar construction.
Such land is not as well located in regard to the flying field as are the
sites reserved for hangars. At many municipal airports, as might be
expected, the location of the factory is encouraged, and the return desired
is an increase in employment in the city rather than a profit on the rental
of land.

When the airport management erects the structures itself, the rental
is figured as a percentage on the investment plus depreciation, taxes,

AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

and insurance, and calculated on the basis of square feet,
type of rental applies to show rooms, offices, etc.

The same

COMMERCIAL FEES

In order to induce operators to erect permanent and attractive struc-
tures, the management frequently releases them from the payment of
the usual fees for commercial operation, provided a company's expendi-
ture for a hangar or hangars exceeds the minimum amount stipulated in
the lease. With this exception, at ninety per cent of the airports visited
a charge over and above the lease is made for the exercise of the privileges
of commercial operation.

Four types of rates are common : a charge per seat per plane, a charge
based on percentage of the gross income of the operating company, a
charge per passenger or per pound of mail and express carried, or a flat
commercial rate.

Companies engaged in scheduled transport operation pay either a
flat commercial rate or from 5 per cent to 10 per cent of gross income.

The Newark airport, the location of which insures considerable activ-
ity, and the policy of which is to be at least self-supporting, charges a
fixed rate per passenger carried, and a fixed rate per pound of express
and mail.

These charges are $1.00 per passenger and $0.01 per pound of mail
or express carried in or out of the airport. Companies engaged in
passenger hopping, scenic trips, and charter trips sometimes pay by
passenger capacity. Rates for one-passenger and for twelve-or-more-
passenger ships are as follows :

Monthly Rates

Summer

Winter

1 Passbmgeb 12 Passengers
OR More

1 Passenger

12 Passengers
OR More

$8.75: $45.00

$7.50

$35.00

to to

$18.75 $200.00

$22.50
Daily Rates

$200.00

Stjmmer

Winter

1 Passbngeb 12 Passengers
OR More

1 Passenger

12 Passengers
or More

$3.50 $25.00

$3.50

$15.85

to to

$7.50 $100.00

$7.50

$85.00

FISCAL POLICY 99

In other cases the rates are based on a percentage of gross income, vary-
ing from 5 per cent to 12^ per cent.

The flat yearly fee is also found. This charge is often $250 for the
first two planes operated and $50 for each additional plane. Annual
charges on the basis of passenger seats are usually fixed at $10 for the
first seat and $5 for each succeeding seat.

Schools are taxed either on percentage of gross receipts or from
5 per cent to 10 per cent of each tuition fee paid. One airport charges
the school a flat rate of $25 per student. An effort is made to separate
income accruing from flying instruction from that derived from ground
school operation and to tax only the former.

Photographic flying, if taxed at all, is taxed on a basis of percentage
of gross income.

In an effort to protect their tenants and to discourage barnstorming,
airports charge transient operators at a higher rate than they charge
tenant operators. This charge is usually figured on the basis of a regular
daily commercial charge plus the regular charge for overnight storage,
whether or not the barnstorming pilot stores his plane at the field. In
some cases the charge may be from 5 per cent to 10 per cent higher than
the usual charge to tenants.

CHARGES FOR NIGHT LIGHTING

Charges for flood lighting are based on the cost of this service. For
tenants the fee is usually either included in the lease or added to the
commercial charge where the night lighting equipment is regularly used.
Otherwise the charge is made by the hour or portion thereof.

The fee varies from $1 to $3 per hour and from $40 to $60 per month.

CHARGES FOR STORAGE

There is no uniform system of fixing storage rates. All ports attempt
to apportion the cost according to the amount of space occupied, but
use a variety of methods in determining this. The more common
methods in practice are :

A flat rate based on the type and make of plane.

A rate varying with the seating capacity.

A rate varying with the number of engines.

A rate based on the number of linear feet of wing spread.

100 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

A rate based on the number of square feet occupied, the amount
being estimated by calculating on a basis of twenty square feet
for every linear foot of wing spread.

A rate based on the number of square feet occupied, calculated by
the linear feet of the wing spread times the length of the fuse-
lage.

(In all cases special consideration is given to high- wing mono-
planes, folding-wing planes, or other special types.)

The last three methods of charging seem the most logical, the charge
relating more accurately to the actual amount of space occupied.

Most commercial airports and a few municipal airports compute the
construction and maintenance cost of the hangar per square foot of
hangar space, and base storage charges on this cost, plus a slight addi-
tion to secure a fair return on the investment. This taxes the owner of
the plane stored in direct proportion to the service and accommodations
enjoyed.

The majority of municipal airports receive less than a fair return on
their investment, due to basing their charges on what they feel the local
operators can afford. A few airports, both municipal and commercial,
copy their rates from their neighbors. The result is a number of different
rate standards and a wide variation in the cost of the same unit of space,
with little regard to the type of accommodation rendered.

If the storage charges are reduced to a common basis of 1000 square
feet occupied, the rental for this space is found to vary from $35 to $85
a month, and from $1.50 to $5.50 a day.

Charges for "stake-down" privileges, where permitted, vary from
$10 to $30 a month and from $0.50 to $4.00 a night.

CHARGES FOR SERVICE

Services may be supplied by the management, including washing,
general servicing of the planes, repair work, and supplying of lockers,
tool boxes, and bunks.

Mechanic's time is charged for at a rate varying from $1.50 to $10.00
per hour; helper's, from $0.50 to $1.50 per hour; washing planes, $1.25
an hour; lockers, $1.00 per month; tool boxes, $1.00 per month; and
bunks, $1.00 per night and $15.00 per month.

Charge for lockers, tool boxes, bunks, etc., are based on cost and are
not expected to yield a profit.

FISCAL POLICY 101

REVENUE FROM CONCESSIONS

Sources of revenue from concessions which the management may-
lease or operate itself are :

Sale of gasoline and oil to airplanes.

Sale of gasoline and oil to automobiles.

Sale of parts and accessories.

Sale of airplanes.

Restaurant.

Refreshment stand.

Airport hotel.

Parking privileges.

The sale of gasoline and oil is a lucrative source of income. Where
controlled by the management it is often the largest revenue producer,
particularly where there is a large amount of transient traflSc. The
profit varies with the airport. Some airports are able to realize as much
as 11 cents a gallon on airplane gasoline, and 80 cents a gallon on oil.
Gasoline and oil sales may be leased as a concession at a flat rate or on a
percentage basis, varying from 5 per cent to 12^ per cent of net income,
or at a tax of from 1 cent to 3 cents a gallon of gasoline and 5 cents to
8 cents a gallon of oil. Another common method of deriving revenue \ J
from this source is to tax every gallon of gasoline and oil sold by the I
tenants.

The sale of gasoline to automobiles, if leased as a concession, yields
the rental for the land and about 1 cent a gallon on gasoline and 5 cents
a gallon on oil.

Servicing and repairing of planes and the sale of parts may be made
to yield a nominal profit comparable to the income from similar services
performed by garages.

Profit from the sale of planes is largely dependent on the market.
The lease for the land or building and the charge for use of the field
usually include this privilege.

The management of the earlier airports found it diflScult to induce
restaurant operators to set up in business at the airport. In order to
have this convenience it was customary to oflFer the concession for a
moderate fee on a long-term lease.

The present practice is to lease the concession on the basis of requir- I
ing a minimum guarantee plus from 5 per cent to 10 per cent of the gross ■ ^
income. In this manner the income derived depends on the value of •

102 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

the concession and does not unduly burden the lessee. One commercial
airport goes a step further and leases this concession for 50 per cent of
the profits. With the increase in activity at the average airport the
restaurant concession has become an important source of revenue.

Until quite recently the airport hotel appeared to be an unreasonable
investment. At those few airports where a hotel, inn, or club house has
been operated by the management or leased as a concession, it has been
found to be a quite profitable venture, contributing as much as 10 per
cent of the airport revenue.

Only at commercial airports is a charge made for parking. Except
when air meets are held, municipal airports, supported as they are by
public funds, are not considered justified in levying such a charge.

Admission fees have the same status, and are even less common than
parking fees. Admission fees are usually $0.25 a person ; parking fees,
$0.50 a car.

THE LAW OF AIRPORTS

By
Fbank Backus Williams, A. M., LL. B.

of the New York Bar

INTRODUCTION

T^HE airport is an adjunct to flying, located upon the earth's surface.
■*- The law of the airport and of aviation generally is therefore partly
the law of the air, partly the law of the earth. Aviation is a new thing in
the world and the legal principles relating to it have by no means as yet
been fully established. More nebulous in the air, more definite on the
earth, this law is in process of rapid evolution. This report is an
attempt to give in outline the present state of that law in so far as it is
a necessary basis for the regulation and administration of airports.

Am AND Air Space

At this point the distinction should be indicated between air and air
space. Of the air no one can claim jurisdiction or ownership ; it passes
freely from country to country, from landowner to landowner. Itfis
with relation to the air space above the land of the landowner and the
nation that questions of jurisdiction and ownership arise.

Eminent Domain and Police Power

In the establishment and conduct of airports and the passage of the
aviator through the air space in approaching and leaving them are
involved the taking of private property and the adjustment of rights of
the public, the owner of the port, and the owners of the land over which
the aviator flies. Rights in property under our constitutions and laws,
when they cannot be obtained by contract, are acquired by virtue of the
right of eminent domain with compensation; and conflicting rights in
property are adjusted under what is known in this country as the police
power, without payment. Some knowledge of the nature of these powers
and the distinction between them is therefore necessary to the under-
standing of this paper. (38) '

* These figures refer to notes in the Appendix to this legal report which are numbered consecu-
tively from 38 through 84. See pp. 176-185.

105

106 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

The broad line between taking and regulation is easy to indicate ; to
draw it, however, is much more difficult. Just and convenient as the
distinction is, it cannot be claimed that, as stated in our law, it is scien-
tific. Property is not a thing but a right, or rather a bundle of rights, in
a thing. Our courts have always held that in order to be a taking, for
which there must be compensation, an appropriation of all these rights
is not necessary. Now regulation of a man's property — prohibiting him
in some respect from doing with it what he otherwise would be free to do
— is always the taking of a right in it. Nevertheless our judges as prac-
tical men recognize that the exercise of the police power — the power to
regulate — is in accord with the provisions of our constitutions requir-
ing compensation when property is taken. Most legislation is regula-
tion. Such legislation without compensation was going on when our
fathers drafted our constitutions, and they had no thought of forbidding
it. The bases of this distinction have rarely been stated by our courts ;
instead they have been satisfied with placing the doubtful cases as they
arose on one side or the other of the line dividing them. Perhaps there-
fore I may be permitted to quote a statement of the distinction which I
have made elsewhere, especially since it now has the approval of one of
our high courts. (39)

Difference Between Police Power and Eminent Domain

For a statute or other governmental act to be a valid exercise of
the power of eminent domain or of the police power, it is evident from
what has already been said that it must in either case tend to promote
the public health, safety, morals or general welfare. What, then, is the
line of difference between these two powers ? The analysis of the cases
seems to show that it is largely one of degree. Is it reasonable and
proper, under all the circumstances, that the public good sought should
be attained without compensation to those whose rights are to be
limited to this end ? If, on the whole, those affected are benefited by
the measure, if the right surrendered can no longer, in the light of
advancing public opinion, be retained in its fullness by its present pos-
sessor, if the sacrifice to him is slight or if the number affected is great,
so that compensation is impracticable — in all such cases compensa-
tion is not provided for ; otherwise the law demands it. In the deci-
sion, history, custom, opinion, as well as surrounding circumstances,
play their part. (40)

CHAPTER I
JURISDICTION OVER AVIATION

National (41)

T) EFORE the recent war national and international air flight had begun.
-L-' To justify these flights internationally two theories of the law on this
subject were advanced. The first was that the high air, like the high
seas, was not subject to ownership or sovereignty, but was of right free
to the aircraft of all nations. The second theory was that the air space
above the territory of each nation was more or less within the jurisdiction
of the nation having sovereignty of the territory of that nation. To some
extent this second theory was recognized by national legislation and
international agreement before the war, in certain cases limiting and in
certain cases allowing with greater freedom the passage over national
territory of foreign aircraft.

With the war came the acceptance, by belligerents and neutrals alike,
of the principle that each nation has full jurisdiction of the air space above
its territory. This principle has prevailed ever since, the right of inno-
cent passage being accorded foreign aircraft by international conven-
tions and the legislative enactments of individual states.

Federal
division of power in general between nation and state

In the United States the full power of government is divided between
the federal government and the governments of the individual states,
these states having, by the federal constitution, ceded to the nation cer-
tain powers deemed to be of national scope, retaining for themselves
the remaining powers. In the District of Columbia, the Territory of
Alaska, the Canal Zone, and the Island Possessions, outside the limits
of any state, the United States has full power, except as it has voluntarily
delegated rights of self-government to these jurisdictions, as to a greater
or less extent it has done.

107

108 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

BASIS OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION OVER AVIATION

The United States has no jurisdiction over the air, or the air space,
above the lands and waters of the states as such. Its power to regulate
aviation within the states, derived from the federal constitution, is based
solely upon its control over interstate commerce. Other bases of the
power have been suggested and discarded. Of these bases the admiralty
jurisdiction was the one most generally urged ; but this power, given
the United States Government specifically over navigable waters, cannot
be extended by mere analogy ; and besides, the analogy between navi-
gable air and navigable waters is most imperfect.

The United States also may set aside certain air spaces above states
through which for military reasons it forbids aviators to go, and may use
airplanes and establish air routes for the transmission of the mails, etc. ;
but these powers are not in any proper sense a power to regulate aviation
as such. It therefore remains true that the only basis of such control is
the right to regulate interstate commerce.

EXTENT OF CONTROL

Decisions with regard to the control over aviation which the United
States has by virtue of its power to regulate interstate commerce are few ;
but evidently this power is in the main the same that prevails over move-
ment by rail, ocean boat, bus, truck, or any other method of transporta-
tion. It is clear, therefore, that in general the central government may
pass any regulation with regard to intrastate air commercial flight, or
non-commercial flight, whether inter- or intrastate, which is necessary for
the proper regulation of interstate commercial flight.

APPLICATIONS OF THESE PRINCIPLES

Planes and Pilots. Evidently, therefore, the United States may
pass needful regulations to insure that planes are safely constructed and
maintained and pilots skillful and reliable when in interstate commerce.
This it has done by requiring such pilots and planes to be licensed, sub-
jecting them to an examination for that purpose. On request it also
licenses all suitable pilots and planes.

Planes and pilots in intrastate commercial and interstate and intra-
state non-commercial flight are practically of necessity in the navigable
air space traversed by planes and pilots in interstate commercial flight.
Unsafe planes and unskillful or unreliable pilots in this air space are a
danger to interstate commerce, whether themselves engaged in it or not.

JURISDICTION OVER AVIATION 109

It is clear, therefore, that the United States may regulate pilots and
planes in flight for any purpose, but it has not as yet seen fit to do so
except on request. On the same principle it is clear that the United
States may prescribe the markings on all planes necessary for their
identification, for whatever purpose used, in order to enforce its regula-
tion of planes in interstate flight, and in fact it has done so.

Traffic Rules. Similarly the United States may prescribe traffic
rules for all planes, in the air and in landing and taking off at airports
and landing fields ; and in fact it has done so.

Air Lanes, Beacon Lights, Emergency Landing Fields, etc. As aids to
interstate commerce and as air mail routes the United States has the
right to lay out air lanes or civil airways, with necessary beacon lights,
emergency landing fields, and other facilities for flight ; and in fact it
has done so.

Transport Companies. The jurisdiction of the United States with
regard to interstate commerce includes the power to regulate the individ-
ual or company engaged in interstate commerce. This jurisdiction in
the case of railroads is in the main exercised by the Interstate Commerce
Commission. It requires such a company, before beginning business, to
obtain a certificate of convenience and necessity, and, if the service offered
is not 'needed, it will not allow the company to proceed. The Commis-
sion also|investigates the financial soundness of such a corporation, gov-
erns its financing, and within limits fixes its rates.

This jurisdiction has never by statute been extended to include avia-
tion companies. For such an extension there are both advocates and
opponents. The advocates point to the many mistakes made or abuses
perpetrated by unregulated railroads in the early days. The opponents
urge that we now have the most extensive and best railroad system in the
world, which quite probably we might not have secured if in the early
days of our inexperience we had attempted extensive regulation. The
analogy to the aviation company is evident. These companies naturally
oppose such regulation.

Airports. There is no doubt that the United States could own, oper-
ate, and regulate in considerable detail rail terminals in interstate com-
merce. It does not own or operate such terminals, nor does it regulate
them in detail. Similarly it could, but does not, own or operate airports,
nor, as a rule, regulate them. At one time the federal government owned
a few airports, but it has now turned them over to the states or local gov-
ernments within them.

110 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

Information. The United States collects and disseminates much
information with regard to aeronautics, making use for this purpose of
the Department of Commerce. Thus, without claiming any authority
in this connection, it rates the different airports of the country and on
request sends its representatives to aid states and local authorities in
selecting sites for airports and in laying them out.

State
state jurisdiction

Except for the power which by the United States Constitution it has
surrendered to the nation, and the powers with which by state consti-
tution or statute it has endowed the local governments within it, a state
is sovereign within its limits. The state, except for the power to set aside
certain air spaces for national purposes, has made no surrender to the
national government of jurisdiction over the air space above it, as such,
or of jurisdiction over aviation, except in the matter of interstate com-
merce. The state, therefore, on principles fully established with regard
to transportation on land and water, has the right to control aviation as
follows :

(1) It may pass additional regulations on matters which the United
States has power to regulate, and has done so, provided the state regula-
tions are not in conflict with those of the nation.

(2) It may in general regulate matters with relation to which the
United States has regulatory power and has not exercised it at all.

(3) It may pass regulations with regard to matters over which the
United States has no jurisdiction.

EXERCISE OF STATE JURISDICTION

And in fact the different states have enacted legislation and made
rules along all the three lines above indicated.

Planes, Pilots, and Traffic Rules. Thus, for instance, the states have
required pilots and the owners of planes in interstate commerce holding
United States licenses to register with the state authorities ; they have
required all intrastate fliers and the owners of planes engaged in intra-
state flight, for commerce or pleasure, to take out state licenses, as a rule
exempting them from these requirements if they have voluntarily
obtained United States licenses ; and they have laid down traflSc rules
for fliers not engaged in interstate commerce, usually adopting the United
States flying rules. Indeed, for uniformity, the state laws have in every

JURISDICTION OVER AVIATION 111

way endeavored to make state flyers of all sorts take out federal licenses
and follow United States traflSe rules.

Transport Companies. The regulation of air transport companies —
which the United States has not attempted — has been undertaken in a
few of our states under general laws (42) or legislation especially appli-
cable to aviation (43), and therein the states have been sustained by the
courts. (44)

Airports. The application of these principles to airports is one of the
main purposes of this report and will be found in the subsequent portions
of it.

CHAPTER II

OWNERSHIP OF AIR SPACE, AND RIGHTS IN IT

T^he first part of this report has been devoted to a brief exposition of
-■- the law with relation to the jurisdiction of the air space and passage
through it. Important in that connection and also with regard to the
rest of this report are the questions of the ownership of that space and
the nature of the right to traverse it. As to these questions it may be
said in a word that this right of transit exists and will continue, but the
nature and extent of the ownership of the air space and the right to pass
through it are still unsettled.

Upper Air Space
"freedom of the air," international

Ever since flying became common and the importance of aviation to
mankind became clear, it has been evident that the aviator had the right
to fly, or would be given that right. The earliest theory of this right
was that it existed by virtue of the fact that the high air, like the high
seas, being incapable of ownership, was not subject to the jurisdiction of
any nation or the ownership of any person but was free for all to traverse.
The air raids of the late war showed that jurisdictionally the analogy
between the air and the sea was not tenable. No one any longer doubts
that each nation has absolute sovereignty of the air space above it, that
the aviator of one nation may fly above the lands and waters of another
nation only by its permission, or that the permission will be granted gen-
erally by international convention or national law in time of peace,

"freedom of the air," national

Admitted to be untenable with relation to jurisdiction of the air
space, the theory of "freedom of the air" is still advanced in the interest
of aviation with regard to the ownership of that space. It is thus claimed
in accordance with this theory that, limited only by the control which
each nation has over the persons or things within it, the aviator may of

112

OWNERSHIP OF AIR SPACE, AND RIGHTS IN IT 113

right traverse the higher air spaces because these spaces are not owned or
capable of ownership or possession ; that the only person who can claim
to own these spaces is the owner of the land underneath ; and it is absurd
to say that his right extends between ever diverging lines from the convex
surface of the earth to the farthest confines of space. Ownership, it is
pointed out, is based on possession or the ability or interest to possess.
It should be limited, it is said, to the air space which the landowner is
using or may use ; and he has no interest in the remoter spaces which the
aviator traverses.

PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OP UPPER AIR SPACE

The view that the entire air space belongs to the owner of the land
below it is an ancient one in the English common law ; and that law, in
so far as adapted to our circumstances, has become the common law of
this country. This view is, as stated in the common-law maxim, cujus
est solum, ejus est usque ad coelum. This maxim was taken by Coke (45)
not from the Roman law, but from a gloss on that law. It is found in
this and in a less extreme form in modern codes. Except as enacted in
these codes, and even there perhaps with qualifications, it cannot be
said necessarily to be the law. In our jurisprudence, based so largely on
decided cases, it cannot be shown to be the law, for obviously until recent
times no occasion could arise for deciding the point. The extent to which
the older cases of invasion of the air space, at a much lower height, have
established the principle is in debate (46), and the few modern cases (47)
cannot be said to be conclusive. On authority, therefore, the question
is still unsettled. (48)

TRESPASS AND NUISANCE

In our earlier common law a right was that of bringing one or more
of a given number of specific actions ; if no action could be found for a
given injury, there was no redress. In that earlier law trespass lay for
entry upon the real estate of another and damage was not a necessary
element in the wrong. On the contrary, nuisance, an action arising later
in the history of the law, was based upon damage and did not lie unless
actual damage was done. An argument for the "freedom of the air"
is that if the upper air space belongs to the landowner below, the aviator,
traversing that space without damage to that landowner, nevertheless
commits a trespass and may be enjoined from such flight or at least sub-
jected to suits without end ; so that the only method of allowing aviation

114 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

to continue would be to take and pay for rights in all air spaces to be
traversed, which would be practically impossible. A constitutional
amendment was even suggested by a firm believer in the ownership of
the air space '* usque ad coelum" as the only way of making aviation in
this country legally feasible.

CHANGE OF REMEDY

This argument for the private ownership of the air space would seem
to be unsound. Under our constitutions a given legal remedy may with-
out compensation be modified or taken away without being considered an
illegal taking of property if a reasonable remedy for any substantial
wrong suffered is left. If the landowner is actually damaged by transit
at whatever height, through what, for the purposes of argument at this
point, may be characterized as his air, an action for nuisance will lie and
is an all-suflScient remedy ; but if it is a mere trespass without damage, he
may be constitutionally deprived of the right to sue for it. In some juris-
dictions, also, under modern laws, there is no right to sue at all for an
alleged injury for which damage is not suffered, the court considering all
such suits frivolous ; and there is no constitutional reason why this
should not be made the law in all the states.

Other methods of obtaining the right to traverse the upper air, if
privately owned, have been suggested. The United States, and the
states in so far as possible without conflicting with the federal rights, have
the power to aid and improve navigable waters, often inflicting substan-
tial damage to land under water and riparian land in so doing. The
power of the United States is based upon both the admiralty power and
the right to foster interstate commerce. There is a certain analogy be-
tween navigable waters and navigable air. It must be remembered, how-
ever, that the law of navigable waters has a long history behind it which
has shaped its development.

It has also been suggested that the United States, and the states in so
far as compatible with the federal power, may grant the right to fly
through the upper air under the police power as an adjustment of rights
in the public interest ; and for this claim there is already legal authority.
(49) This is the use of the police power in a new field. That power,
however, is not a fixed quantity, but changes from time to time to meet
changed conditions of society ; or, to speak more accurately, the power
remains the same, its apparent extension being merely the application of
the principle upon which it is based to new conditions as they arise. (50)

OWNERSHIP OF AIR SPACE, AND RIGHTS IN IT 115

Lower Air Space

In the taking off and landing of planes at airports, at the customary
angle of about seven to one, it is necessary to traverse the air spaces more
immediately above land abutting on and in the neighborhood of the port.
It is therefore the ownership of these spaces and the right of the aviator
to go through them that are of concern to us in this inquiry; and the
brief exposition of the law of aviation, including rights in the upper air
space, is useful to us as a necessary introduction to a discussion of the
law with regard to these lower air spaces.

COMMON-LAW RIGHTS

With regard to the rights of the owner of the land underneath and the
aviator in these lower air spaces we find the same differences of opinion as
with relation to the higher air spaces. It is admitted by all that the
landowner may, in the absence of zoning and similar restrictions, build
structures at any time for his use to any height he desires. It is main-
tained by some that this is the extent of the landholder's title, any further
rights in the air spaces above him, like his rights with relation to uses on
neighboring land, being those of not being disturbed or annoyed ; so that
the aviator may at all times traverse the air space not at that time used
by the landowner subject only to the action of nuisance if he annoys
that owner by so doing.

In support of the opposing theory that the landowner owns the air
space above that part of it which he has ever occupied are cited cases of
overhanging eaves, wires, etc., for which the landowner has always had
his redress. (46, 47, 49) In answer it is pointed out that these uses
may ripen into an easement depriving the owner of the right to occupy
this space in the future, while the aviator, passing at intervals in no one
fixed path, would acquire no easement. It would seem, however, that a
constant stream of airplanes approaching or leaving an airport were mov-
ing with sufficient frequency and in a path sufficiently definite to be ca-
pable of obtaining an easement. Be this as it may it would seem to be
good reasoning and established in principle by the older cases that the
landowner does own the air space considerably beyond the limits of
which he has taken actual possession. Of some pertinency in this con-
nection is the fact that "Air rights" — i.e., the right to have the air
space above a contiguous building open — are in these times often sold
by the owner of a low building or vacant lot to an adjacent landowner

116 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

desirous of light and air over it for the benefit of the structure he is
planning to erect. And there is one recent case (49), stating that the
low flight of aviators over wild land, without physical injury to it or
annoyance to its owner, is a trespass.

It appears probable, therefore, that the landowner has title to the air
space above his land beyond the space which he has already taken pos-
session of and is using. To what height that title goes it is difficult to
indicate. Probably the height would difiFer with circumstances and
change as those circumstances change. It is quite in consonance with
this theory, of course, that he does own the upper air space used by the
aviator who does not, at that point, descend toward an airport ; or that
he does not. The question of the ownership of the upper air spaces has
been discussed above. At what height these upper spaces are at present
thought to be may perhaps be indicated by the United States and state
laws defining the rights of aviators in flight while they are not descending
in their more immediate approach to port.

With the lower air spaces in private ownership it would seem neverthe-
less possible in several ways to give the aviator the right to traverse them ;
for, first, the landowner might be deprived of the right of action in the
nature of trespass if left his action in the nature of nuisance. Second,
the right to such approach might be given by the national or state use of
the police power. A right obtained in either of these ways would not
justify any undue disturbance of the landowner in the present reasonable
use of his land or prevent him from changing that use. Third, and less
probably, on the analogy of the air to the water, the right might be con-
ferred, with or without substantial or permanent damage to the landowner,
under the state or national jurisdiction over commerce, as an improve-
ment of aerial navigation.

It has been intimated that the United States Air Commerce Act, 1926,
in its provisions for take-off and landing at airports, does not authorize
them but simply relieves them of their criminal character ; but this is not
an intimation that appropriate language could not be employed which
would authorize them.

If the aviator had the right to traverse the air space at any altitude,
high or low, by virtue of the police power, he would not obtain an ease-
ment, for the landowner could not prevent such passage. This is espe-
cially important in case the passage is at a height at which the landowner
had not at that time occupied the space with buildings, but later might
desire to do so.

CHAPTER III

AIRPORTS

Establishment

IN GENERAL

A Public Purpose. It is evident in principle that the establishment
by a governmental agency of a public airport, as an aid to communica-
tion and commerce, is a public purpose; and the courts have so held.
(51) Almost without exception the various state, territorial, and insular
governments have been authorized by statute to establish such ports. (52)
The statutes usually declare such establishment to be a public purpose.
(53) Such a declaration is not essential to make it a public purpose, nor
is it conclusive that it is such ; but it does tend to that result, for one
element in a public purpose is public opinion and public need, which is
to some extent proved to exist by a solemn declaration to that efiFect by
the people's legislature, speaking for it.

Airports not established by a public authority may, as already indi-
cated, be divided into semi-public and strictly private ports. A com-
pany holding itself out to the public as a common carrier of persons or
goods or both is a public utility, and the port owned and operated by it
partakes of this public character. An aviation company transporting
persons or goods or both for a single company, etc., is private, as is the
port which it owns and uses.

Acquiring the Land. Whether or not the land for a public airport
could be acquired by eminent domain by any given jurisdiction without
special legislation depends upon the existing general condemnation laws
applicable to that jurisdiction. There cannot be any doubt of the con-
stitutionality of such a taking if duly authorized. The question whether
the general law in any given case allows such a taking is no longer, how-
ever, of any great practical importance, since in nearly all jurisdictions
authorizing airports there is specific authority to take land for them by
eminent domain.

117

118 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

Upon satisfaction of any claims for damage caused thereby to neigh-
boring landowners, the local authority may, of course, if it sees fit, close
any highways preventing the acquisition of a suitable tract of land
needed for its port and, if it seems best, unite the bed of the abandoned
street with the rest of the tract. (54)

Whether, having the power of eminent domain, a given jurisdiction
instead of taking the entire interest in the land may merely lease it for a
port, is again a question of the wording of the law invoked. As a rule
statutes authorizing taking for ports authorize the taking of either the fee
or a leasehold interest.

There is no constitutional reason why semi-public aviation com-
panies should not be given the power of eminent domain in the acquisition
of airports, but as yet none of them has been granted this power.

Paying for the Land. How, in the absence of special statutory pro-
visions, a given jurisdiction authorized to acquire land for an airport may
or shall pay for it, is again a question of general law. As a rule there are
now specific statutes of one sort or another in the various jurisdictions
authorizing the incurring of indebtedness, the issuing of bonds, the levy
of taxes, etc., and to some extent provisions for the financing of airports
in special ways.

ESTABLISHMENT BY STATE

In a few states the state itself establishes airports directly or by means
of a state board (55) ; in some cases it aids municipalities in establishing
them. (56)

ESTABLISHMENT BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Without Special Statutory Authority. As already indicated the entire
authority of a state is in the state itself except as it has endowed local
governments with some part of it. More and more states are giving these
governments large powers of self-government by constitutional amend-
ment or by statute. These provisions vary greatly in the different states.
It is probable that in some of these states, "home rule" communities have
the power, without special statutory grant, to establish and operate air-
ports. Any extensive consideration of "home rule," however, is beyond
the scope of this inquiry.

Special Statutes. The question whether particular local governments
have the power without specific grant to establish airports is now of little
practical importance. It is to cities that broad powers have most exten-

AIRPORTS 119

sively been given in the past ; and these cities, as already indicated, in
common with counties and other local governments, have very gen-
erally of late been granted the power specifically. (57)

AIRPORTS OUTSIDE LIMITS OF PUBLIC AUTHORITY ESTABLISHING THEM

As a rule a municipality authorized to engage in a given enterprise,
acquire the necessary land, absolutely or by lease, by eminent domain and
pay for it, has, within the state, the right to do so outside its municipal
limits without special statutory authority to that effect; and this rule
should hold with regard to airports. (58) In many cases municipalities
are specifically empowered to do so. Counties, being larger and needing
the power less, are less often given it. In three statutes the establishment
of an airport outside the state was authorized. (59) Obviously one
state has no right to exercise the power of condemnation in another,
although that other state will sometimes provide for the employment of
its power to that end.

There are statutes allowing municipalities to condemn land for many
purposes, such as waterworks and parks ; and in states in which aviation
is held to be a park purpose land may be condemned for a park and used
for an airport, thus establishing an airport outside municipal boundaries
without specific authority to do so.

JOINT AIRPORTS

Without a grant of that power from the state two or more local gov-
ernments do not have the right to engage in any enterprise jointly. In
some states broad general powers of prosecution of joint enterprise
have been given local governments. Statutes with regard to aviation
often authorize local governments to establish and administer airports
jointly. (60)

CORRELATION OF AIRPORTS AND RAILROADS

Corporations are limited to the powers conferred upon them by
statute. Whether railroads and other land and water transportation
companies could lawfully, in the absence of a specific grant of power from
the state, make use of the airplane in their business could be determined
only by an examination of their charters, and the statutes and rulings
of public utility corporations relating to these older methods of convey-
ance. In a number of states, railroads are more specifically empowered
to use the airplane. (61)

120 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

USE OF LAND ALREADY OWNED

Within constitutional limits the right of the state or any of its local
governments to use or acquire land already owned by it for any given
purpose without special statutory authority to do so is dependent upon
existing laws. The extent of the general powers of local governments has
already been indicated.

There are many statutes specifically authorizing the state or local gov-
ernment, without further payment or proceeding of any sort, to use
for an airport land already owned by it. In certain cases this would and
in others would not seem to be constitutional.

When the public authority owns the entire title to land it may by
general or special law be given the power to use land devoted to one public
use for another public purpose. As a rule there are limitations upon this
right in the case of certain uses, such as parks, and none in others, such
as sites for public buildings. Thus a municipality if it is given the power
to discontinue a park use is often required first to obtain approval for this
step by referendum, but is allowed to sell a fire engine house site or use
it for a police station without special formality or authority.

Under some condemnation laws a local government takes a fee, under
others only an easement for the given purpose, and if only an easement
has been acquired and the property is used for another purpose, it reverts
to the former owner. In either case the state has the power to authorize
land condemned for one purpose to be condemned for another.

Where land is dedicated by the owner to the public for a given use, it
cannot, except by condemnation, be used for another purpose ; and if so
used, it reverts to the former owner. (62)

AIRPORTS IN PARKS

It seems clear on principle that use for an airport is not a park use. A
park is intended for recreation, an airport is a facility of business and
commerce. It has been held in one case (63), however, that an air-
port is a park use, because aviation is a sport and an amusement. This,
however, is a minor purpose and not the essential end and aim of
aviation.

However, if a part of a park is devoted to the landing and taking off
of pleasure planes or planes for access to the park for recreation, the land
so used might well be held to be devoted to a park use.

There are a number of statutes authorizing the use of parks as air-
ports. (64)

AIRPORTS 121

If it be granted that use for an airport is not a park use, then conver-
sion of a portion or all of a park into an airport would be legal only in so
far as it is possible for a public authority to change the use of land already
owned by it. In this connection it should be borne in mind that where
a portion of a tract is dedicated as a park and other portions of it sold
with this representation, the purchasers also have rights in the land dedi-
cated as a park.

Regulation of Location

BY LOCAL government, THROUGH ZONING •

In the absence of state control or local regulation, the public authority,
public utility, or private corporation or individual with power to estab-
lish an airport within the limits of a given local government may select
any site for it within its boundaries that it or he sees fit, taking the land
for the purpose by eminent domain or private purchase as it or he may
have the right to do. The method by which a public authority deter-
mines whether it shall engage in any given activity in which the state has
given it the power to embark and what land it shall use, if it already owns
it, or acquire, if it does not, for the purpose, varies of course in diflFerent
local governments, sometimes being more or less subject to the action of a
planning commission with regard to it.

If there is a zoning ordinance in force for the local government in
question, it usually regulates only the territory within the limits of that
government. The instances in which a municipality has power to pass
zoning regulations to control land outside its limits in this country are
so rare as to be negligible. (65) There are in a few jurisdictions re-
gional zoning provisions.

In some cases the state, another local government, or the local govern-
ment enacting the zoning ordinance is, by the terms of the state enabling
act, and the local ordinance passed under it, bound by the ordinance as
to the land situated within the local limits, and sometimes it is not so
bound. In some cases the zoning ordinance exempts public utilities,
more or less completely, or privileges them, leaving them to the control
of public utility commissions as a substitute. The better method, per-
haps, is to make all land within the local limits subject to the ordinance.

The diflSculty in many cases in finding a site for an airport suitable for
aviation is so great that it seems necessary to provide a method by which
ports may be admitted into any zoning district. The possibility of
injuring existing uses and hurting the future development of the district

122 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

for other purposes, however, is manifest. Zoning must be for the advan-
tage of the community as a whole, and must deal justly with the interests
of all. The solution of this difficult situation is met in a majority of the
zoning ordinances in this country by allowing airports to be located in any
district on permission of the board of appeals, which always has power to
impose conditions suitable to local circumstances to obviate damage and
prevent injustice. The disadvantage, felt by all students of zoning, of
increasing the discretionary power of boards of appeals, may be lessened
somewhat by giving the municipality the power to lay down rules with
regard to airports, the same for all parts of the municipality but varying
in difiFerent municipalities so as more closely to fit local circumstance.

REGULATION OF LOCATION BY STATE

In some cases the state selects by statute the site for an airport for its
own use, for the use of the citizens of the state more or less as a whole, or
for a particular community; in a few states there are state airport
boards to make the selection.

Some of these boards are given the duty to license airports, no local
community being permitted to lay out an airport until it has obtained
such a license. Obviously these boards can control the location of local
airports. (66)

REGULATION OF LOCATION BY COORDINATE ACTION

In many cases an airport is selected on the advice of the Department
of Commerce after one or two short visits from its representative. Great
as is the knowledge and experience of this department, a port cannot
safely be located on this general knowledge alone. Such a selection is
not only a matter of general but of great local importance, and should
be carefully studied with expert assistance by the local planning com-
mission in conjunction with the local zoning authorities, after which the
national or state authorities should be called in ; for it is only with a full
understanding of the local situation obtained in some such way that
outside experience has its full value.

Taxation

As a rule in the absence of statutory or constitutional provisions on
this subject the property of a municipal corporation where appropriated
to public uses is exempt from general taxation or special assessment

AIRPORTS 123

whether that property is located within or outside the limits of the mu-
nicipality owning it. (67) There are many statutory and constitutional
provisions in the different states subjecting to or exempting from taxa-
tion such property generally and in specific cases. A few such statutes
have been passed with regard to airports. (68)

Liability for Negligence

An aviation company, whether a common carrier and therefore a
public utility, or engaged in running a school, carrying passengers or
freight for a single concern, etc., is of course liable for negligence in the
conduct of its business. Whether or not a municipal corporation is so
liable in the management of an airport is a matter of dispute. The
general rule is that a municipality is liable for negligence in the prosecu-
tion of an enterprise if engaged in it in its corporate capacity but not if
so engaged in its governmental capacity. The distinction is a confused
one, in consequence of which the decisions are in conflict, with differing
rules in different jurisdictions. In a case on this point with regard to air-
ports it was held that the municipal corporation was liable. (69) There
are statutes exempting public ports from liability. (70)

Accidents occasionally happen from the falling of the plane on abutting
or neighboring property as the plane is leaving or approaching the port.
In the absence of statute the aviation company or the aviator, or both,
would be liable in such cases for negligence.

There is a doctrine, commonly referred to as res ipsa loquitur, that

Where the thing is shown to be under the management of the defendant
or his servants, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of
things does not happen if those who have the management use proper
care, it affords reasonable evidence in the absence of explanation by
the defendants that the accident arose from lack of care. (71)

The doctrine has been apphed to railroad cars and other means of public
conveyance, elevators and other falling objects, and the failure of mechan-
ical contrivances generally. It is urged against its application to the
falling airplane that there are too many causes, such as wind or weather,
other than negligent operation which may occasion the accident, for
negligence to be presumed. On the other hand the doctrine is applied
in many instances where the facts are necessarily known to the defendant
and cannot be obtained by the plaintiff, which is peculiarly applicable
to the falling plane. (72)

124 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

There are now many statutes with regard to the responsibility of the
aviator for damage caused by him to the land beneath, some stating
that he shall be liable only for negligence (73), others holding him abso-
lutely liable for any damage, whether negligent or not. (74)

Insurance

• Most important in the conduct of any branch of business in these
days, to the industry, to those served by it, and to those having business
relation to it, is insurance. There are now many cases specifically deal-
ing with the liability of the aviation company to those whom it carries
and those whose goods it transports. There are also cases with regard
to the liability of such company to its employees. These cases, which
are rapidly growing in number, may be found without diflBculty in the
law digests. The cases with regard to other methods of transport are
also in print. The subject has also been dealt with, in many ways, by
statutes expressly related to aviation. (75)

Neighboring Property
protection of general public, airport, and neighboring property

In the location and operation of an airport are involved the general
interest of the public in an undertaking which promotes the general
welfare, and the more special interests of the owner and operator of the
port and of abutting and neighboring landowners. The public authori-
ties, state or local, in control in this matter may be and often are the
owners and operators of the port ; it is nevertheless their duty, while
aiding the port in all proper ways, to deal justly with the local interests
to a greater or less degree conflicting. The same considerations apply
to a port owned and operated by a public utility corporation, and to some
extent to a private port.

The observance of this policy is especially necessary in the location of
the port. It is essential that the port should be placed so as to be con-
venient and safe of access to the aviator and so as to serve the public.
The choice of locations is often limited. Nevertheless it should be
remembered both that an airport is sometimes an injury to surrounding
property, and that the uses of surrounding property are often a difficulty
in the operation of the port if they are allowed to remain or an expense
if they are limited or abolished. The avoidance of conflict between air-
port and other local uses, in so far as it can be attained in the location

AIRPORTS 125

of the port, is consequently of advantage to all interests, general and
special.

A conflict of interests, however, cannot in all cases be avoided. A
statement of the rights and duties of the port on the one hand and of the
surrounding landowners on the other is, therefore, necessary.

PROTECTION OF PORT

Nature of Surrounding Land. Viewed with relation to the lands sur-
rounding them, ports may be described as follows : the port on expensive
land on the whole intensively developed with residences, business, or
industry; the port surrounded by land less intensively developed, and
generally residential ; and the port in a neighborhood practically unde-
veloped, such as most landing fields. The port used by landplanes
should also be distinguished from the port used by seaplanes. The
nature of the possible dijfficulties in the operation of all these ports is
much the same, the difference between them being in the probable num-
ber of such diflBculties and the expense in coping with them.

Obstacles — Liability to Suit. The operation of an airport may in
many ways be an annoyance to abutting and neighboring landowners.
These annoyances may be divided into those which can be obviated by
the conduct of the field in accordance with good modern practice, and
annoyances which cannot be so avoided and therefore may be said to be,
for the present at least, inherent in the business. Unnecessary annoy-
ance, such as dust which can be kept down, undue noise, etc., may be
suflficient to be a nuisance which the landowner incommoded may pre-
vent by injunction or for which he may recover damages as a nuisance.
The protection of the airport from action for unnecessary annoyance is
the conduct of the field in accordance with good modern practice, and
calls for no further comment.

Freedom from successful suit by those who own or occupy nearby
land cannot always, however, be secured by the proper conduct of an
activity. Some essential industries are more or less necessarily objec-
tionable in their operation, and necessarily placed somewhere. The
question is whether they are properly located. As placed such industries
have in many cases been held by the courts to be a nuisance, and from the
danger of such a holding the airport would not seem to be immune.

Physical Obstacles. To the aviator while in the upper air structures
below him are not a menace. In landing, however, the flier approaches
and leaves the airport at an angle of about seven to one. It is therefore

126 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

structures in the neighborhood of the port which are most likely to be
a peril to him.

These structures have been found to be buildings, especially tall
buildings, towers on buildings or tower buildings, smokestacks, radio
towers, flag poles and similar structures, telephone and telegraph lines,
and especially high-tension electric lines. Tall trees may also be a serious
obstacle. In general it has been found that the aviator needs protection
from obstacles such as these in leaving and approaching an airport of
reasonable size according to present standards, for a distance of about
1500 feet in all directions from the outer boundaries of the port.

In addition smoke and gases from industrial operations in the vicinity
of the port may in many ways interfere with its operation.

Protection from Suit — Location by Law. An airport is sometimes
specifically located by statute or by the license of a body acting by state
authority.^ This would seem to be a legal determination that the loca-
tion of the port was, all things considered, proper. Zoning regulations
sometimes admit an airport unconditionally into any zoning district.
This would seem to establish its suitability to the district but not its
location at a given spot in the district. Under most of the zoning ordi-
nances at present in force in this country an airport is admitted to any
zoning district, but only on application to a board of zoning appeals,
which may in this case, as always, impose conditions. This may well
be held to be full proof of the propriety of the exact location of the port
and a bar to suit. (76)

Protection from Obstacles — Zoning. The best protection of an airport
from uses disadvantageous to it on neighboring land is the exclusion of
such uses from its neighborhood. This may measurably be accomplished
by zoning. By this means the general height of future structures in the
district may be kept down and the erection of tall office buildings and
factories with their smokestacks, smoke, and gases forbidden.

There can be no valid zoning regulation especially in the interest of
the port ; it can be considered only in connection with all the other inter-
ests and appropriate uses of land in the neighborhood and a proper regu-
lation made for the district as a whole. In a locality where the price
of land is moderate, the existing buildings few and low, and the district
suited to residential development, a residential zone may be created
embracing the airport and an area around it, in so far as of similar charac-
ter, with a low height limit throughout it. In such a district, in all proba-

1 See p. 122 above.

AIRPORTS 127

bility, there would be no existing tall business buildings and no factories
with tall chimneys giving out smoke and fumes. In neighborhoods,
however, in which higher residential structures or business or industrial
buildings are the appropriate use of the land, zoning must accord with
this character of the land, and the laying out of an airport will not suflB-
ciently change that character to make any other regulation reasonable
and therefore valid.

Manifestly any zoning limitation of the height of all structures in the
district a given distance from its outer boundaries at an angle of seven
or ten to one is impossible (77) ; for it is a serious burden on neighboring
land in the special interest of the port and does not in any proper sense
treat all similar land in the district in the same way. It would seem rea-
sonable, however, in a residential district containing an airport, to forbid
exceptional and non-essential structures like towers and flag poles, rising
above the general height limit of the district, in spite of the fact that such
structures are usually permitted in these districts; for the airport is a
use of a large tract in the district and may rightfully be given its due share
of consideration in framing the restrictions for the district. And if these
taller non-essentials may be forbidden completely, it seems obvious that
they may be prohibited only in so far as they exceed the general height
limit beyond an angle of seven to one or ten to one for a reasonable dis-
tance in all directions from the outer boundaries of the port.

The regulation of the height of non-essential structures at a seven or
ten to one angle seems clearly to be zoning ; if it could not be supported
on the legal principles upon which zoning is founded, it is diflficult to see
how it could be supported at all. No addition to the usual zoning
enabling act or special legislation of any sort is needed to enable local
governments, having the power to zone, to make this regulation wherever
proper ; indeed, it seems impossible to frame any legislation more appro-
priate to that end or so readily defended in the courts. Nor would it be
helpful to suggest the phraseology of a clause to be inserted in local zon-
ing ordinances for the purpose, since they must vary to suit local circum-
stances and situations.

There would seem to be no reason why the port of a semi-public cor-
poration or public utility, engaged in state or interstate commerce, as
well as the port publicly owned and operated, should not be considered
in the zoning of the district in which it is situated ; and even a private
port. Obviously, however, much more consideration in so doing would
be given to the public port. In the same way ports used wholly or partly

128 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

for auxiliary purposes, such as manufacture or storage of planes, especially
if operated by an aviation company engaged in commerce, should be
given appropriate attention.

Protection by Utility Regulation. The structures, wires, etc., of the
industries at present regulated by public utility commissions are some-
times subject to local zoning ordinances, sometimes to a greater or less
extent privileged by them or exempted from their operation. In so far
as they are not regulated by zoning it would seem that they may best be
controlled in the interest of aviation in so far as proper by the regulations
of these commissions. (78) Such regulations may apply not only to
future but to existing structures, appliances, and facilities, ordering their
removal or relocation or the adoption of protective devices to prevent
injury from them. Regulations of this sort are in exercise of the police
power, for which no compensation is necessary. This is not unfair to the
utilities since they are so regulated as to allow them to obtain from the
public a fair net return for their services.

Protection of Seaplane Ports under Power over Commerce. What has
been said above applies more or less to land under navigable water. It
is possible to regulate it, however, in other ways. A seaplane while in
the water is in some respects regarded as a vessel (79) and the United
States, the states, and the local governments within the states, in so far
as these local governments have been given power by the states to do so,
may pass regulations in the interest of water navigation for the benefit of
such a plane. Under this power obstacles to water navigation may be
removed. The airport used by seaplanes, also, as an owner of riparian
land, would have the right of water access from navigable water to the
airport.

Protection by Eminent Domain. Zoning regulation is an exercise of the
police power. Police power regulations may always be changed; for
the police power cannot be lessened or abridged, but always remains in
full in the public for its protection. The airport, therefore, must submit
to zoning changes to its disadvantage in the district in which it is situated,
if such occur ; and amendments of zoning ordinances increasing the height
and bulk of buildings and changing the use of land from residential to
business or industry are frequent in this country. The only power, there-
fore, which the aviator has of preventing such changes to his disadvantage
is his influence, in common with other interests, over the public officials
and voters of the community. If he desires any more permanent pro-
tection, he must resort to eminent domain with compensation. Laws

AIRPORTS 129

giving municipalities the power to protect their airports by this means
from increasing heights are already on our statute books. (80) They
give the airport the right by eminent domain to demolish tall structures
on neighboring land, to take the air rights over it, or to take the entire
title to it excepting the right to use it for purposes not interfering with
air navigation, regranting the landowner that right. There is no legal
reason why the same rights should not be given aviation companies
engaged in interstate and state commerce, as similar rights have in the
past been given to other public utilities. There is as yet, however, no
case in which this has been done. It should be noted that taking the
entire title to a given piece of land when only the air rights in it are
needed is not excess condemnation but a permissible method of acquiring
rights to be used for the public purpose in question. In such cases rights
thus acquired, when not needed or no longer needed, may be sold. This
occurs often in the construction of subways and has been sustained by
the courts. (81)

Such a taking, therefore, not being excess condemnation, does not re-
quire a state constitutional amendment as the basis of a statute authoriz-
ing it and is not dependent upon the validity of excess condemnation,
which cannot as yet be said to be completely established.

Protection by Marking. In cases where it is impracticable on account
of expense or for any other reason to prevent or relocate erections which
by reason of height or for any other reason are a peril to the aviator in
the use of the airport, it may be desirable to mark them. The marking
to be effective should be placed completely around the exterior of the
structure at one-third and two-thirds its height and at its top. It
should consist of red lights at night and bands of yellow and black for
daytime protection. The burden of marking the dangerous structure
and maintaining the marking would be a heavy one, neither broadly
nor evenly divided among the members of the community. It would
therefore be unreasonable to impose this burden upon the owner of
the structure under the police power without compensation. Like any
other public utility, however, the airport may be given the right to
place and maintain this easement useful to it in its business by eminent
domain.

Trees. As already stated, tall trees near an airport, especially if
opposite the end of the runway, may be a serious obstacle to the opera-
tion of a port. It is doubtful whether they could be controlled by zon-
ing ; for the burden of watching and limiting them would in many cases

180 AIRPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES

be too great. They could of course be limited in height by eminent
domain.

Spite Erections and Planting. If trees are planted, fences or any struc-
tures erected, not for the legitimate use of the landowner but to impede
the use of the airport, there is no need of resort to the ordinary principles
of the police power or to eminent domain ; for they would be in some juris-
dictions unlawful and may be made so by statute anywhere. A prece-
dent for such legislation is provided by statutes with regard to so-called
*' spite fences." (82)

It might be claimed that the landowner erected the fence not in spite
or to obtain compensation or force the purchase of his land or rights to
it, but to prevent aviators from annoying him by low flight. If such
flight were within legal limits, such erection would clearly be illegal in
jurisdictions forbidding spite erections. If the flight apprehended was
an illegal one, the structure would seem to be justified in law ; and with-
out the structure the landowner would have the right to prevent such
flight, or recover damages, by legal action.

PROTECTION OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY

The nature, methods, and extent of the protection which the law
affords to owners of property from annoyance by an airport in their neigh-
borhood is apparent from what has already been said. Abutting
property owners have certain rights in the air space immediately above
their land which they may vindicate by action ; all property, owners in
the neighborhood may appeal to the state or to the local zoning author-
ities for a due consideration of their interests if they deem it unfair that
a port should be located near them ; for the legitimate conduct of the
port, if sufficiently annoying, they may have a measure of redress more
or less in accordance with the definiteness with which the exact site is
determined ; and the illegitimate conduct of it they may, if sufficiently
damaged, prevent by injunction or obtain compensation for by action for
nuisance.

Administration

The general right of local governments to set up administration
machinery and change it varies in different jurisdictions. In so-called
"home rule" municipalities this power is often extensive; in other local
governments, less. There are a few statutes with relation to this power
with regard to airports.

AIRPORTS 131

There is the same variation of ruling in different jurisdictions with
regard to the right in general of municipalities empowered to engage in a
given enterprise to lease it to others for operation. It has been held
that a municipality cannot, in the absence of a statute authorizing it, so
lease an airport. (83) There are now many statutes specifically grant-
ing this power. (84)

APPENDICES

' ' > * \

-■

]^J^ \ ^^^Jr-^"^

\ 'i

*^\\ ^AV't s^kt^T"''^ \

\ 1

\ ^V f^ ^ \ ^Oslfe--^''^''^QT^ \ \

V Si

vVV S_ J^C'^^^^K M ^ \

— ' v^k

X^^^^C^^^^^^rcrvT^^

P^ u

■3r^^^^»^

$ \ .

\ ^JIt^P^is^Io S^ ^ '^J^?^

jxM^ '

/^ \ ^.-—''''^ — r\/ * V w"^ B^^^v./vA V^l^r ^

^ i^ J/

»^^^k\ fetc^^^ *^l ^M^

^« o(L

— i

/ 1 Jn /t^i^StLlJ^^

*^j s ^

1 ^— f^'^-^^rT^S"* 1 ^It**'''^^ * i " " 1 /

^1 1-Jl

^^ — \ P S^^~^ "^,^^4-^^ ' \x^

/ J *= -^

LL ¥**'^tH^'^1ii^^

A 31

*"-?^v \ (^ — :»=i^::^^^T^-»^

?^i ^ — ^^~ 1 rfl f I "^ "^

x*^- **

^N.

* — '

i>r :4i

}

S 5 Q

c;^ '^i-Y

\y^n !

jj-T^

)l 2 /

■%

J &-T

— r — "t- \r

^Ix <^

< So/

S a

V,i

A (<^

'H^

fi^

1°°

■ 1

t 0

■^ — LJ ^

e L L

~/7 — \ — ^~^^~~~-^^^XS^< \ \ ^1

1 ^

7 ^

/ / M / ^ \[^W^^^

— ^~7i^

'~ ~~~~r~— J-_ '^l' ® //®V ^P — *(

/ / "~~~'~f'-— .^ / / ^ / / ^ 1 / *^

/ / ^ ^§r""^''^^^^£x — ~^--/l— J *

/ / ® * / 7\~" — — --jf 1^*=:^-— -Zur / ""

""^-yJ^^i / .^/(T^^

~~F^>

/ /r'~~^^''~^r-^-7^ y r~ / ** / \ \ / •- "

y ^

/ /" — ~'~-^ / ^ T'^^V-^ 7 — ■^~-— ^ / W / "•

y — /

"-j/ ^/ >-^^Cj^/?^^^-^i^l^^

/ r^ 7W

/7^/X/ o"" / b y^^fsY

-^^t^

p^^^r^^ il^^---^r y^ ^ A-v^

:fe| -

7V^ / / * ' /'^'^-^ ^ ° Z-T^^

sfi |1

^'"^""\>^ / / »^^^^^^^-^_

3 [l] 3*1

y^--,^^[^\^_^_/ / ^^/^-^^^"l"^ "~~ —

z •'

/ ^"^■^-^P""\--/-^-'^'*^^ /

r------

__ D

ll » ■" .-

134

2 >>

o. a

«*< "p «*M

o 5 o

^ i

.-a S .-a -Q

U -< U PL,

S
o
U

o ^
O 3

PQ n

*J o
.fa "^

^ .2

CO
tie

_B
>>

-^ a

•M (M (M tn «*H

O O O ^2 O

>j >j >> '"S >J
*J +J *J 2 .■*-'

a -S
Si >

U U U

3 .2fJ=! S3 >»

"^ Ld M .1*9 r^

u^uuuuuuuuu

Q
o

■*->

3 '^

Ph
Ph

l-H

PC4

<J-^

o o o

U ^ U hS ^

- <1

.t- >> S3 a

PM U <J3 U

o
5

^ ^ ii >^

u u u u

3
ei

o
a,

3
J2

.3
*o
3

60 03 tn

.a ^ ^

fe Q Q

•4-1

•4^

•M

•4H

>»

•!->

■M

■>->

■I-)

UUUUUUUQ

^ 1

2 .fa a 2

p a

« o
o

3
O ^j

60 5

.3 a
^ .fa
§^

^ o

> a

3
O

3 _

en Q

§ &2

^ o ^-

^ ^ ^ M ^ <1 u

o 2 fa

o 13 -g

3 S J3

P5 U O

tf *^ 2
2 o fa

< '■^ -a
S) g J

:3 3 .ii
U hJ U

fa ^-
U Pk

J^^i^

3 > >»
a> o =3

135

"53

ft S

a -I

Q .2

O O

fe u u ^

•4-1 >

o S
>^ o

.a ti

a «

S '^

« 60

Eh fl

< S

^ 60

n .

o
o

& .2

a;
Pi

' 6C

H O

>> tJ
e8 O

W <1 ^

o o .J>

ft o
a

•4-1 >S

> a

A I— I
o t

•4-1 X

o S

!Xi

60
.S
'>.

-a
o JS

>^ o ^

2 rt S

-51

u
O

O
>>

•ft.

■i"

o "E

P ^

Q .2

•4-c :3

o o

5 ^

o •>
o ^

.-s 8

u CO -^
O « <U

fe Q Q

"«

2 -0

a> 'v

• — 4
1>

S S

■4->

C/2

a ^

eS <u

^ >

o
S ^

^ a

^^
i o

eS °

to ,4>

tn 3
^ — ' ra

t-i

•^ o -e

w 60 t

-o .a &

.2
-3

o o

C3
t— 1

•4-1

-u

■4-)

p^ PIH u

iX!

L7 t_i ^H '^

°^'^^

a S-g

O pq

ft o

I "^

M CO

O J- »*=• Ul
m O > o

h2? ^ u o

^ -„ 03 eg

o
ft
.is *^

►-9 Ph

O 13

&! M

03 "W
03 Ci

s e

O 9i

'-' b

;^ few

0) O

60 fl

p>q

Ph P

.S «

•- y t) w kT

H M O t4 H

o en

Q Q W &I C!

Q O

CO 05

M M

J ^3

i ^

w w

-<) -<

00 of

H H

» H

O O

a
s
o
U

a
o

CO .2

o
U

Cfi

^ S .2 N .2 .Si

S3 ns

BP^S

.2 .E: "S^
■ o

S§g b^ |^^*S

3 ^

2 «*-c •« ^ •4-1

(3 6 >s

U U O

U PL,

:3 " :s o

o M

S;^

o o

.„ ^ ^ ^ «s

^ u u u o

^ 5

X bC '>

cd d «H

•si""

d
o
U

>> s

^ a •-

o O 5

V d

u o

'>»

d ,

c< "d -r
o Pm l>

o ^1

u
O

d §3

O -3

P «4-.

F5 <1 C/2 CO

.ti .tJ '3 .-H .ti
P^ U P^ U U

a
a

^ o Si

. d

is «*<

>j >

U pL,

o
a

ii
o

'a 'a J

^ oj en

*(-l «fcH 2

o o "J
U U >

U 0)

03 "<d

a-^

cd
o

U3 O

d ^

goo
d >» >>

o tie

-^^ -T— --— +J 93

S C u u o

« •=

.is A
< PM

S Is

t-J u

< PM

03
Xfl

lu '2 "d
"J 5 3
t-s hJ Ph

a ^

-§1 • . .

v3 ^ +j +j *j
P5 W c« CO CO

*t-l (M "^^ «t-l «»-l
00000

>J >5 >> >» >»

4-9 p^ ■*-' *-> ^- ^^ ♦-

u p4 u u C C C

2
d

ft*5l

t- :S

fe I'a *a 'a

--^ ^ c3 o3 c8

p:)
d

o ■
ft

.a Fd fe

d
3
o
U

g;^iggp2ds§

2 ^

a a

08 o

a d

.is *^

o ^
f^-o

-«

„ d

:z;o

.is c8

'^ Id

4; ft

j^ -2

«« sF^

Pk Ph

d «
o >

-2 '^

as
O

t- o >.

d »-i U

PM Ph P^

•tr & §-

0) d 2 ^^

x g d 3

0) S O e8

P5 Ph CO CO

%%%%^^%%%

M :3

S u

s o

Ph Ph

!z:
O
Pm

:-ss

§ S B ^

-J 5 H H H

Pm P5 CO CO CO

l^(^

137

• si

U ^1

•»J'

•M

fl o

o^. fr

S O ^ 3

Salisbury
San Fran(
:;tady Airp
1 Aviation
Syracuse
Tampa
Terre Ha
Toledo

3 M

3 «M
O O

Utica
-Valley St
County
Airports,
Wichita

.&
!§
's

eg-

O O g .3 O O O

•s

w "13

>. >> a 6 >. >» >»

3 <-

Q.J

uuc«SuuuGh«

CO 1
HH a.

■8
I

3
(A

b &-^ «

tS .3 cj w

3 J- <^ g 3

^ «U ^ 5 O

2 3 >> t; 03

CC O 5 IX! c«

•S -1 l-S-o

>>>«>>>>

+J .-H ^ 4-> -U

•-< ^ O "^ '-^

U Ah c« U U

H O

® "S -

>^ ?r a

U Ah H

3 +^

a "s

OS
u,

a
,o

O 3

3 3

I— I O

^ ->-> 3
2 IS Ji
"-I .5 5

.ti 3

c3 -5

3
X «« O

•4-1 tn

>j 3

U U ^ fe U ^

<u
(I

■<->

o 33

•- '^

•<1 to

P u

0) 3
3 O

3 V

- a .a

. E-i -

^* W §

2 J '^

13 > ^ ^ ^ S

O E H
&I 3 t«
S S ?5

138

APPENDIX 2

POPULATION OF CITIES VISITED

.... 240,0002

.... 31,8763

.... 120,4001

.... 1,8638

.... 25,455

.... 255,100

.... 54,700

.... 799,200

.... 555,800

.... 135,400

.... 82,100

Chicago 3,157,400

Akron . . .

Alameda . .

Albany . . .
Ablington

Atchison . .

Atlanta . .
Atlantic City

Boston . . .

Buffalo . .

Camden . . .
Charlotte

Cincinnati
Cleveland
Columbus .
Dallas . .
Dayton . .
Dearborn .
Des Moines

413,700
1,010,300
299,000
217,800
184,500
2,470
151,900

Detroit 1,378,900

East St. Louis 74,000

Fort Worth 170,600

Garden City 3,141

Glendale 21,290

Glenview 760

Hartford 172,300

Indianapolis 382,100

Jacksonville 140,700

Kansas City, Kan 118,300

Kansas City, Mo 391,000

Le Roy 4,348

Los Angeles 1,420,000

Louisville 329,400

Macon 61,200

Memphis . .
Miami . . .
Milwaukee .
Minneapolis .
Montgomery .
Newark . .
Oakland . .
Orange . . .
Parkville . .
Philadelphia
Pine Bluff .
PoNCA City .

PONTIAC . .

Portland . .
Richmond . .
Rochester
St. Joseph . .
St. Louis . .
St. Paul . .
Salisbury . .
San Francisco
Schenectady .
Spartanburg .
Syracuse . .
Tampa . . .
Terre Haute
Toledo . . .
Tulsa . . .
Utica . . .
Valley Stream
Weston . . .
Wichita . .
Winston-Salem

190,200 1
156,700 1
544,200 1
455,900 1
63,100 1
473,600 1
274,100 1
5,141 5
619 7
2,064,200 1
21,611 2
17,000 6
61,500
78,600
194,400
328,200
78,500
848,100
358,162
13,884
585,300
93,300
22,638
199,300
113,400
73,500
313,200
170,500
104,200
7,313
991
99,300
80,000

^ Figures from U. S. Dept. of Commerce, population estimate as of July 1, 1928, of municipali*
ties having 30,000 or more inhabitants on Jan. 1, 1920.

" Figures from 1930 World Almanac, Estimated Population of Big U. S. Cities, July 1, 1928.

^ 1925 population. Figures from Chamber of Commerce of the U. S., Supplement to City
Planning and Zoning Accomplishments — a report compiled by the Civic Development Department.

* 1925 State Census. World Almanac 1930.

' 1925 Decennial Census of Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

« 1927 Local Census. (See "Our Cities To-day and To-morrow," p. 306.)

^ 1920 Federal Census.

* Figures from estimated population of 1920, Rand McNally Commercial Atlas (1928).

139

APPENDIX 3

PERSONS WHO FURNISHED MAJOR INFORMATION FOR
THE AIRPORT STUDY

The authors regret that limits of space prevent the listing of all officials and citizens
in the many cities visited who kindly gave a brief interview to the field representative
during the airport study.

Adams, D. G., Spartanburg, S. C.
Allen, Frank R., Pine Bluff, Ark.
Ambbose, Frank J., Valley Stream, N. Y.

Baggett, Frederick R,, Albany, N. Y.
Baker, Harold W., Rochester, N. Y.
Baldwin, H. Bevan, Atlantic City, N. J.
Beach, E. J., Buffalo, N. Y.
Bell, A. T., Atlantic City, N. J.
Bell, J. Haslett, Des Moines, la.
Bennett, E. O., Ponca City, Okla.
Bennett, H. C, New York, N. Y.
Berry, Major John, Cleveland, O.
Berthe, a. E., Minneapolis, Minn.
Black, Archibald, New York, N. Y.
Blee, Colonel Harry H., Washington,

D. C.
Blucher, Walter H., Detroit, Mich.
Bowers, G. M., Richmond, Va.
BoYER, Frank M., Terre Haute, Ind.
Brandt, William, Toledo, O.
Brooks, H. C, Indianapolis, Ind.
Brown, Mayor Ben Hill, Spartanburg,

S. C.
Bush, Hollis, Miami, Fla.
Button, Scott, Schenectady, N. Y.

Canada, Colonel J. W., Memphis, Tenn.
Cannon, Frank F., Buffalo, N. Y.
Capes, William P., Albany, N. Y.
Carey, William N., St. Paul, Minn.
Carlton, D. W., Fort Worth, Tex.
Carr, O. E., Fort Worth, Tex.
Casey, J. A., Chicago, III.

Cavanaugh, W. F., Milwaukee, Wis.

Centner, Major William F., Colum-
bus, O.

Clark, James C, Jacksonville, Fla.

Coath, Captain Robert, Portland, Me.

CoAN, Mayor George W., Jr., Winston-
Salem, N. C.

CoNLEY, Charles E., Cleveland, O.

CoNNELL, William H., Philadelphia, Pa.

Cook, H. Weir, Indianapolis, Ind.

Cooper, J. H., St. Paul, Minn.

CosGROVE, T. F., Milwaukee, Wis.

Cox, Major Charles E., Jr., Indianapolis,
Ind.

Cox, Paul S., Terre Haute, Ind.

Coyner, Stratton, Mineola, N. Y.

Craig, R. F., Kansas City, Mo.

Culbertson, Wallace D., Miami, Fla.

Davis, R. Waliace, Tampa, Fla.
Doe, W. W., Montgomery, Ala.
DoLAN, C. H., Richmond, Va.
Duffy, N. E., Buffalo, N. Y.
Duncan, L. H., Spartanburg, S. C.

Eckert, Major Samuel B., Philadelphia,

Pa.
Edson, Captain Albert L., Boston, Mass.
Embry, T. Higbee, Cincinnati, O.

Farrell, Roy C, Kansas City, Mo.
Fisher, Charles F,, Akron, O.
Fitch, Harry E., Jr., Terre Haute, Ind.
Fitzgerald, Joseph F., Jr., Albany, N. Y.
Foulkes, Arthur F., Terre Haute, Ind.

140

Franzheim, Kenneth, New York, N. Y.
Freeland, B. B., Miami, Fla.
Freeman, Harry J., New York, N. Y.
Fritsche, George W., Grosse He, Mich.
Fuller, William G.,Fort Worth, Tex.
Fulton, B. E., Akron, O.

Garber, J. Otis, St. Louis, Mo.
Geng, F. J., St. Paul, Minn.
GoLDSBOROUGH, Paul, St. Louis, Mo.
Green, W. Sanger, Camden, N. J.
Griffith, E. C, Charlotte, N. C.

Hale, Robert L., New York, N. Y.
Hammond, L. D., Minneapolis, Minn.
Hannam, E. B., Syracuse, N. Y.
Hardin, C. L., Chicago, 111.
Hare, S. Herbert, Kansas City, Mo.
Hartsfield, Willluh B., Atlanta, Ga.
Hayman, Morton F., Terre Haute, Ind.
Hearin, Jesse B., Montgomery, Ala.
Heath, Reginald I., Utica, N. Y.
Heermance, a. H., Miami, Fla.
Heruhy, Elisabeth M., Boston, Mass.
Herrold, George H., St. Paul, Minn.
Hill, Parker, Cleveland, O.
Hill, Perley J., Philadelphia, Pa.
HoELscHER, L. W., Fort Worth, Tex.
Holland, Paul, Detroit, Mich.
HoLMAN, C. W., St. Paul, Minn.
Horn, A. J., Toledo, O.
Horner, W. W., St. Louis, Mo.
HoRTON, R. Harland, Philadelphia, Pa.
Howard, E. A., Milwaukee, Wis.
Howard, Clarence E., Syracuse, N. Y.
Hughes, Frank, Columbus, O.

Johnson, Fred W., Philadelphia, Pa.
Jordan, R. G., Macon, Ga.

Kaiser, Frank A., Milwaukee, Wis.
Kennedy, G. D., Pontiac, Mich.
Kincaid, R. L., Syracuse, N. Y.
Kingery, Robert, Chicago, 111.
KiNTZ, Elmer McD., Washington, D. C.
KisER, Daniel, Milwaukee, Wis.
Klewer, Judge Edward B., Memphis,

Tenn.
Knox, Clarence M., Hartford, Conn.
Kuester, C. O., Charlotte, N. C.

Laird, Major Roland A., Dallas, Tex.
Lambert, A. B,, St. Louis, Mo.
Landis, Reed G., Chicago, 111.
Lawrence, F. E., Jr., St. Louis, Mo.
Layfield, E. R., Macon, Ga.
Lederer, Jerome, New York, N. Y.
Lee, a. W., Louisville, Ky.
Lennon, James J., Albany, N. Y.
Lewis, John V., Rochester, N. Y.
LoTHROP, Ernest E., Orange, Mass.

MacDonald, Alfred, Wichita, Kan.
Marshall, R. C, Cleveland, O.
Mason, L. G., Montgomery, Ala.
McCrary, Dewitt, Macon, Ga.
McKernan, C. a., Utica, N. Y.
Meister, Louis, Cleveland, O.
Melville, George W., Cincinnati, O.
Miller, Edwin A., Rochester, N. Y.
Moore, Paul H., Indianapolis, Ind.
Moot, Richmond D., Schenectady, N. Y.
MuLOCK, Mayor E. H., Des Moines, la.
MuNRO, W. B., Cambridge, Mass.
Murphy, J. C, Louisville, Ky.

Nassr, a. M., Toledo, O.
Nicholson, Brown, Macon, Ga.
Norton, John K., Detroit, Mich.

Odell, L, L., Miami, Fla.
Olin, Robert N., Cincinnati, O.
Ormiston, T. N., Kansas City, Mo.
O'Ryan, General John F., New York,

N. Y.
O'TooLE, Peter J., Jr., Newark, N. J.
Overton, Mayor Watkins, Memphis,

Tenn.

Parker, George O., Macon, Ga.
Parks, O. R., Robertson, Mo.
Paul, Charles H,, Dayton, O.
Piasecki, Major Stanley, Milwaukee,

Wis.
Piety, Charles E., Terre Haute, Ind.
PoLLET, Benjamin A., New York, N. Y.
Putnam, Charlton D., Dayton, O.

Rabbitt, p. J., Washington, D. C.
Reel, Russell, Des Moines, la.
Reinhardt, R. R., Kansas City, Mo.

141

Rex, Frederick, Chicago, 111.
Rice, Maxwell Jay, Miami, Fla,
RiCKARD, V. A., Schenectady, N. Y.
Riddle, John Paul, Cincinnati, O.
RiTTER, William T., Winston-Salem, N. C.
Roberts, C. F., Glenview, 111.
Robertson, John P., Flushing, N. Y.
Robinson, Mayor Pat L., Little Rock,

Ark.
Rogers, Major H. W., Louisville, Ky.
RoHLAND, O. W., Jr., St. Paul, Minn.

Salisbury, H. L., St. Louis, Mo.
Saltus, R. S., Jr., Camden, N. J.
Satterfield, John M., Buffalo, N. Y.
Shank, Robert F., Indianapolis, Ind.
Shaw, B. Russell, St. Louis, Mo.
Short, C. W., Jr., Tulsa, Okla.
Simons, George W., Jr., Jacksonville,

Fla.
Smart, Herbert, Macon, Ga.
Sneed, Preston, Dallas, Tex.

Taliaferro, A. Pendleton, Jr., Washing-
ton, D. C.

Taylor, Hollinshead N., Philadelphia,

Pa.
TipPEE, J. M., Des Moines, la.
ToRRAS, R. W., Atlanta, Ga.
Tully, Major J. K., St. Louis, Mo.

Van Buren, S. G., Toledo, O.
Vedder, a. L., Rochester, N. Y.
Vernon, Victor, New York, N. Y.

Walker, Watson, Macon, Ga.
Wallace, W. J., Detroit, Mich.
Walton, Kenneth B., Atlantic City, N. J.
Waters, R. V., Miami, Fla.
Webb, J. Griswold, Albany, N. Y.
Williams, Edwin M., Memphis, Term.
WiRTH, Theodore, Minneapolis, Minn.
Wood, Major E. A., Dallas, Tex.
Wright, A. J., Columbus, O.
Wright, Walter, Chicago, 111.
WuNDER, Albert B., Cincinnati, O.
Wyman, Phelps, Milwaukee, Wis.
Wynne, John S., South Washington, Va.

YoNGE, J. E., Miami, Fla.
Young, W. C, Akron, O.

142

APPENDIX 4

AIRPORT MANAGERS' SUGGESTIONS AND CRITICISMS AS TO
CONDITIONS AT THEIR AIRPORTS

(A) In answering the question "What suggestions or criticism have you to offer as to
conditions at your airport?", the management at thirty -eight municipal airports
gave the following answers :

16 wanted more land. Average acreage of these airports is 289.
8 wanted more money,

7 wanted a location closer to the heart of the city. Average distance of these
airports from the post oflBce is 7 miles.

5 wanted the flying field brought to a better grade.

4 wanted better highways.

3 wanted school activity segregated.

3 wanted a better surface for the flying field.

3 wanted better lighting equipment.

3 wanted more of the land developed for flying purposes. Average amount of

land developed at these airports for these purposes is 24 acres.
2 wanted more operation facilities.
2 wanted less political interference.
2 wanted less hazardous surroundings.
2 wanted the airport protected by a zoning ordinance.
1 wanted the flying field more thoroughly drained.
1 wanted better fire protection,
1 wanted better water connections.

1 wanted the area occupied by the airport annexed by the city.
1 wanted the dust nuisance reduced.
1 wanted better traflic control.
1 wanted the smoke nuisance reduced.
1 wanted an administration building.

8 were completely satisfied. Average size of these airports is 586 acres, average
developed area 315 acres, average distance from post office is 9 miles.

(B) The management at fourteen commercial airports gave the following answers :

1 wanted more land. Acreage of this airport is 150.

5 wanted a location closer to the heart of the city. Average distance of these
airports from the post office is 12 miles.

1 wanted better lighting equipment.

2 wanted less hazardous surroundings.
1 wanted better hangar facilities.

6 were completely satisfied. Average size of these airports is 270 acres, average
developed area 240.5 acres, average distance from the post office is 8 miles.

143

APPENDIX 5

AGENCIES REPORTED AS CONCERNED IN THE SELECTION OF

AIRPORT SITES

Aeronautics Branch of the Department of Commerce 4 '

American Legion 1

Army and Navy Officials 9

Aviation Commission (City or State) 8

Bureau of Budget and Efficiency 1

Chamber of Commerce 9

Citizens' Committee 9

City Council 5

City and Regional Planning Commissions 2

Consulting Engineer 1

County Surveyor 1

Department of Water and Power 1

Mayor 4

National Aeronautical Association 4

Park Department 3

Pilots 17

Private Concern Building the Airport or Operating from It 25

Public Utility Company 1

Public Works Department 3

1 Figures indicate the number of airports reporting the agency as having been concerned in the
site selection.

144

APPENDIX 6

FACTORS WHICH WERE REPORTED AS DETERMINING THE
SELECTION OF AIRPORT SITES

Cost of Drainage, low 14 i

Cost of Grading, low 12

Cost of Improvements, low 7

Cost of Land, low 23

Ease of Acquisition of Land in Large Parcels 9

Elevation, high 6

Expansion, opportunity for 2

Highway, well located in relation to 24

Land Already Owned 6

Land and Water Both Available for Landing Purposes 4

Obstructions, freedom from 19

Only Satisfactory Site Available 7

Park Adjacent to Airport 1

Political Pressure 2

Proximity to Centers of Population 3S

Public Utilities Readily Available 4

Railroad Adjacent or Near 9

Smoke and Fog, freedom from 10

Soil, fertile 4

Transportation ReadUy Available 9

Used as Landing Field Previously 4

Unnecessary to Fly Over City on Main Airway Routes 2

Windward of Town, location to 2

^ Figures indicate the number of airports reporting each item as one of the principal factors.

145

APPENDIX 7

NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO COME TO THE AIRPORT

Name

Akron ^

Albany

Arlington

Hoover Field ....

Washington Airport

Atchison

Atlanta

Atlantic City ....

Boston

Buffalo

Camden

Charlotte

Chicago

Cincinnati

Cleveland

Cleveland Airport . .

Curtiss-Herrick Airport

Columbus

Dallas

Hensley Field . . .

Love Field ....

Dayton

Des Moines ....

Detroit

Fort Worth ....
Garden City ....

Glenview

Grosse Ile

Hartford

Indianapolis

Capitol Airways Airport

Hoosier Airport . . .
Jacksonville ....
Kansas City, Kan. . .

Average Number

OF People on an

Ordinary Day

IN Summer

1500
500-600

200
400-500

500

500-1000

400-500

500

100
200

3000-4000

2000-5000

1500-2500
300
100

400-500

1000

150

100

100-500

5000

Number op People

ON A Week-end

IN Summer

3000-7000

2000
1000-1200
2000 2
6000 2
2000

15,000 2
2000-5000

1000 2
5000 2

28,000 2
200-300 2
10,000-15,000

200
15,000-25,000
5000
2000
10,000
2000-3000
10,000
5000 2
5000 2
5000 2

5000 2
10,000-15,000 2
10,000 2
10,000-30,000

Largest Number
OF People on
ANY one Day

45,000
10,000

1500-2000

50,000
3000-4000
10,000
75,000
25,000
10,000
200,000
35,000

140,000

50,000

7000-8000
80,000
15,000
30,000
75,000
10,000
150,000
40,000-50,000
12,000
75,000

10,000
75,000
30,000-40,000
259,221 3

^ For the name of the airport in each case, see Appendix 1, List of Airports Visited.
2 Sunday only.

^ Estimate made on basis of 3 people per automobile.

146

NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO COME TO THE AIRPORT (Continued)

Name

Average Number.

OF People on an

Ordinary Day

IN Summer

Number of People

ON A Week-end

IN Summer

Largest Number
OF People on
ANY ONE Day

Kansas City, Mo

Le Roy

Louisville

Macon

Memphis

Miami

Miami Airport

Dirigible Airport . . . .

Miami Seaplane Base . . .

Miami Pan-American Airport
Milwaukee

Maitland Field . . . . .

Milwaukee County . . . .

Minneapolis

Montgomery

Newark

Orange

Philadelphia

Pine Bluff

PoNCA City

Everett Taylor Airport . .

PONTIAC

Portland, Me

Richmond

Rochester

St. Joseph

St. Paul

Schenectady

Spartanburg

Syracuse

Tampa

Terre Haute

Toledo

Toledo Airport

Transcontinental Airport . .

Tulsa

Utica

Valley Stream

Wichita

Winston-Salem

100
200
100
500

25-75

100

100-200

400-500

10-100

2500-3500

50-100

200

500

100

200
100-200

200-500
150
500

0-60

500
100
500

5000
20,000 1
5000-10,000

1000
30,000

500-2000

1000-5000

500

300-500
10,000
10,000 1
4000 1
5000-10,000
100-500
1000-10,000
2500-3000 1

200-300

500-1000 1

2000-3000

1000

300-5000

30001
500-1000 1

500
5000 1

4001
50001

20,000
200-10,000 1

5000

3000-5000

8000

10,000 1

1000-2000

20,000
86,000
20,000
10,000
80,000

20,000

30,000

10,000
12,000
75,000

60,000
10,000
10,000
18,000

50,000

2000-2500
10,000
15,000
75,000
10,000

30,000

2000

25,000

40,000
40,000
15,000
27,000
10,000
20,000
10,000

Sunday only.

147

PLH

■< 9 t) P5
, !5 f. O

o5 6<

a fc o
« w S ^

O P5 2 H

g««r§

> ^ ft, ^

«1 w s w

2WH

O 00 I— I i-H

<J<JpQ«UUOU

148

.5 "s TS
" « 5

« O T3

* § ^

00 i-t »o »c s*

t, s|

o
a

O O

iz;

e8 O

& a r-i - '

.fa •- "^ J ^ '^

^ '•< -< "OJ J w 5

5 o <u " ^

2 +J -S *J s to CD

f«HS«oSgr1hS;^^;z;;z:P^o3

a
o <t;

O 03

^ W „

o ^ s

o S S

-< H 5

O cS

:^ s

c
a
o

M ^ M

5 M ^

S H

149

_S « « t^
<; g D «

•i < a f"

O
Ah

H-l

H
<^

I— t

H
P4
O

Oh
W

' S «

o & t>

H H B H
O OS O H

H «
> -«!

S <! iJ

o
s

apH

»« (N :x2-0* Q< ©» ©< O ?0 0* ©«

2 >

O ^

W Q k3

Ph tf rt !:g CC !/2 CC !X! CO H H

its

^ ±' t» t*

150

APPENDIX 9

SQUARE FEET OF TOTAL AND DEVELOPED AREAS OF AIRPORTS
FOR WHICH THESE FIGURES WERE GIVEN

Number of Airports Reporting Both 50

Name

Total Acreage

Developed Acreage

Akron ^

900
235

38.5
300
112
131
555
150
220
320
1000

277
1085

173
310
160
250
425
510
425

176
80
175
779
687
150

500

Albany

235

Arlington

Hoover Field

38.5

Atlanta

150

Atlantic City

112

Boston

Buffalo

131
200

Camden

150

Charlotte

150

Chicago

160

Cincinnati

450

Cleveland

Curtiss-Herrick Airport

Cleveland Airport

Dallas

Love Field

160
700

173

Dayton

310

Des Moines

160

Detroit ,

250

Fort Worth

213

Glenview

380

Hartford

125

Indianapolis

Hoosier Airport

90
80

Kansas City, Kan

Kansas City, Mo

Le Roy

244
400
150

Los Angeles

Western Air Express Terminal

380

^ For the name of the airport in each case, see Appendix 1, List of Airports Visited.

151

SQUARE FEET OF TOTAL AND DEVELOPED AREAS OF AIRPORTS
FOR WHICH THESE FIGURES WERE GIVEN {Continued)

Number of Airpjorts Reporting Both

Name

Total Acreage

Developed Acreage

Louisville

203

247
202

130

305
956
420
845
240
193
400
110

300
176
199
162

225
515
357
400
640
640
100

203

Macon

Memphis

Miami

Pan-American Airport

Milwaukee

Milwaukee County Airport

Montgomery

50
202

180

160
600

Newark

175

Oakland

PONTIAC

845
140

Portland, Me

Richmond

Rochester

105

St. Louis

Salisbury

100
85

Terre Haute

115

Toledo

Toledo Airport

160

Transcontinental Airport

Utica

160
140

Valley Stream

325

Wayne County

440

Wichita

390

Winston-Salem

Average Total

Acreage,

361.8

Average Developed

Acreage,

211.1

152

APPENDIX 10

COSTS OF CLEARING, GRADING, AND DRAINING
MUNICIPAL AIRPORTS!

A. Costs of Clearing

Name

Total Cost

Number of Acres
Developed

Cost per Acre

Akron ^

Albany

Buffalo

Des Moines

Kansas City, Mo

Louisville

Minneapolis

Pontiac

Richmond

Syracuse

Wayne County

$ 19,000.00

100,000.00

1,036.49

13,000.00

200.00

163,000.00

3,026.78

5,000.00

3,491.76

41,720.00

80
235
200
160
400
203
325
140

50
132
440

$237.50

425.53

500.00

6.48

32.50

0.99

501.54

21.62

100.00

26.45

94.82

Total

$449,475.03

2365

Average cost
per acre,
$190.05

' Figures obtained for these items on commercial ports are confidential and therefore cannot
be given.

2 For the name of the airport in each case, see Appendix 1, List of Airports Visited.

158

COSTS OF CLEARING, GRADING, AND DRAINING
MUNICIPAL AIRPORTS (Continued)

B. Costs of Grading

Name

Total Cost

Number of Acres
Developed

Cost per Acre

Akron

Albany . .

Buffalo

Cincinnati

Des Moines

Fort Worth

Kansas City, Mo

Minneapolis

Montgomery

PONTIAC

Richmond

St. Louis

Spartanburg

Syracuse

Tulsa

Wayne County

Wichita

$737,000.00

178,500.00

30,000.00

75,000.00

7,506.31

8,000.00
42,662.36
15,000.00
15,000.00

4,719.75

13,600.00

127,000.00 1

4,000.00
32,285.59
15,000.00
48,405.00

2,500.00

80
235
200
450
160
213
400
325
600
140

50
480
105
132
440
440
384

$9212.50

759.57

150.00

166.67

46.91

37.56

106.66

46.15

25.00

33.71

272.00

264.58

38.10

244.59

34.09

110.01

6.51

Total

$1,356,179.01

4834

Average cost
per acre,
$280.55

C. Costs of Clearing and Grading

Name

Total Cost

Number of Acres
Developed

Cost per Acre

Columbus

Dayton

Terre Haute

Toledo

$30,000.00 2

13,500.00 2

2,000.00

3,000.00

534
310
115
160

$56.18
43.55
17.39
18.75

Total

$48,500.00

1119

Average cost

per acre,

$43.34

' Includes diversion of creek.

* Includes cost of seeding.

154

D. Costs of Draining

Name

Total Cost

Number of Acres
Developed

Cost per Acre

Akron

Buffalo . . . • . . .

Cincinnati

Columbus

Dallas

Love Field . . . .

Dayton

Des Moines . . . .
Kansas City, Mo. . .
PoNCA City

Everett Taylor Airport

PONTIAC

Richmond

Rochester

St. Louis . . . . .

Syracuse

Tulsa

Wayne County . . .
Total

$70,000.00
29,000.00
5,000.00
75,000.00 1

250,000.00
8,300.00 2
1,051.80
23,984.15

200.00

385.25

6,300.00

3,232.39

200,000.00

1,324.66

5,000.00

229,000.00

$907,778.25

80
200
450
534

173
310
160
400

80
140

50
105
480
132
440
440

4174

$875.00

145.00

11.11

140.45

1445.09

26.77

6.57

- 59.96

2.50

2.75

126.00

30.78

416.67

10.04

11.36

520.45

Average cost
per acre,
$217.49

E. Costs of Clearing, Grading, and Draining

Naate

Total Cost

Number of Acres
Developed

Cost per Acre

Chicago

Cleveland

Detroit

$129,000.00
139,000.00
346,040.00

160
700
270

$806.25

198.57

1281.63

Total

$614,040.00

1130

Average cost
per acre,
$543.40

^ Includes cost of sewerage.

* Includes cost of storm sewers.

155

APPENDIX 11

DIFFICULTIES DUE TO DEVELOPMENTS IN SURROUNDING AREAS

A. Height of Structures

Out of 83 airports 16 reported diflSculties due to the height of structures outside
the boundaries of the field. Types of structures mentioned include the following :
buildings, oil tanks, power transmission lines, radio towers, a railroad trestle, and
trees.

B. Smoke

Out of 83 airports 12 reported diflSculties due to the presence of smoke.

C. Nuisances

Out of 83 airports 12 reported the development of such nuisances as hot-dog stands
and billboards, but five of these airports said that the number of such structures
was not yet serious.

APPENDIX n

AREAS WITHIN A TWENTY-MINUTE RADIUS OF THE HEART OF THE
CITY BY PRESENT MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION, WHICH ARE
STILL AVAILABLE FOR AIRPORT SITES

Fifty-nine cities reported as follows : 15, reported none; 6, very few; 4, one; 4, two;
4, three; 2, four; 3, six; 21, many.

APPENDIX 13

WATER AREAS AND PLANS WHICH HAVE BEEN MADE TO USE
THEM AS SEAPLANE BASES

Akbon. Springfield Lake, adjacent to port, is not considered at present safe for seaplane

operation.

Alameda. Many areas along San Francisco Bay. If completed according to present

plans, Alameda Airport will be combined landplane and seaplane base.

Albany. Areas along Hudson River in South Albany. No plans made to use them.

Airport is 7§ miles from river harbor.

Arlington. The Potomac River borders Hoover Field and Washington Airport. No

definite plans to use it.

Atchison. The airport, j mile from the Missouri River, adjoins Sugar Lake, which has

an area of 400 acres. Future plans contemplate combination landplane and seaplane base.

Atlantic City. Water areas available for seaplane ports. Plans to use them discussed.

Boston. Airport flanked by harbor. Seaplane base suggested on harbor side of airport.

Buffalo. City holds waterfront land which Department of Public Works plans to utilize

for seaplane port.

156

Chicago. Areas along lakefront available. Numerous plans made to use them. At
present there is small seaplane base on lakefront.

Cincinnati. Two hundred acres at junction of Little Miami and Ohio rivers available
for seaplane port, but no plans made to use them.

Cleveland. Areas on lakefront and at mouth of Rocky River available. Plans made
to develop them as auxiliary landing areas and for seaplanes. Commercial operator
considering shuttle service from lakefront to airport.

Detroit, Studies to consider possibility of developing seaplane port along lakefront
being initiated.

Fort Worth. Lake Worth, 2^ miles west of city, is normally too smooth for operation
of seaplanes. No plans made to utilize it.

Glenview. Amphibian shuttle service between lakefront and airport is in use when
demand warrants it.

Grosse Ile. Airport property adjoins Lake Erie and Detroit River. Naval seaplane
port already developed next to airport.

Hartford. Water areas available on river near port. No definite plans made to utilize
them. Problem of variation of 25 to 30 feet in water level would necessitate careful
planning for hangars and ramps.

Jacksonville. Areas available along St. Johns River. Indefinite plans made to use
land already owned by city, near municipal docks, for seaplane base.
Kansas City, Ka.n. Areas available along Missouri River. Seaplane base and recrea-
tion beach planned.

Kansas City, Mo. Shores of Missouri River available. No definite plans for seaplane
base.

Louisville. Suitable areas available on river harbor. Plans for development of sea-
plane port not definite but sites are under consideration.

Memphis. Areas along Mississippi River available except that a 36-foot variation in
water level makes hangars and ramps almost impracticable.

Miami. Areas suitable for seaplane port available along Biscayne Bay. A 300-acre
combination landplane and seaplane airport planned on Virginia Key. Plans sponsored
by Department of Public Service and Municipal Aviation Board and approved by the
War Department involve expensive fill. Financial conditions make it impossible to carry
out plans at present. City has leased temporary site which is in use as seaplane base.
Private corporation has also established one.

Milwaukee. Many suitable areas available adjacent to Lake Michigan. Temporary
ramp used by seaplanes last summer.

Minneapolis. Areas available at barge terminal on Mississippi, 6 miles from the present
airport and 2 miles from center of town. Plans to use Nicollet Island as future seaplane
base.

Montgomery. Alabama River flows through city, but there is some doubt as to possi-
bility of using it as seaplane base.

Newark. Unlimited natural opportunities for seaplane port but no definite plans to
use them. They will doubtless be used eventually.

Oakland. Many areas along San Leandro Bay available for seaplane bases. Seaplane
base being developed as part of Oakland Airport. Block of 20 acres was obtained for this
specific purpose and deep-water channel constructed to airport proper for use of speed
boats carrying cargo and passengers between airport and bay cities. Channel also serves
industrial area adjacent to airjjort.

157

Pakkville, Mo. Missouri River near town. No definite plans for seaplane base.

Philadelphia. Provision made for seaplane base in plans for development of Hog

Island as combined air, rail, and water terminal.

Pine Bluff, Large lake used by seaplanes, but land adjoining not yet developed as

seaplane base.

PoNTiAC. Within radius of 5 miles are 25 lakes ranging in size from 5 to 10 square miles.

Preliminary plans made by private concerns to use some of lakes for seaplane bases.

PoBTLAND, Me. Areas adjoining harbor available, but no plans made to use them.

Private airport company lands seaplanes in harbor occasionally.

Rochester. Areas along lakefront and series of bays available but no plans made to

use them.

St. Joseph, Mo. Airport is on river. No seaplane base developed.

St. Louis. In connection with park and riverfront development, areas are available

for seaplane base but none of sites developed. Current, undertow, ice, etc, render site

directly on river unsatisfactory. Artificial bay is only solution.

St. Paul. Projected inland harbor development south of airport may be changed to

seaplane base. Seaplane base of 298 acres in form of equilateral triangle with sides

3400 feet long has been proposed, adjoining the airport.

Salisbury. Largest artificial lake in world available for seaplane port but no plans

made to utilize it.

San Francisco, Many available sites on San Francisco Bay but none developed.

Schenectady. Sites along Mohawk River may possibly be suitable for seaplane base

but no plans made to use them.

Spartanburg. Reservoir available for seaplanes but this use not contemplated.

Syracuse, Plans made for seaplane base on Onondaga Lake, Future development of

plans assured,

Tampa, Areas along harbor and bay available. Site for projected joint landplane

and seaplane base selected,

Terre Haute. Land along river available. Combined landplane and seaplane base

proposed,

Toledo, Plan to build combination landplane and seaplane port on waterfront,

Weston, Mo, Present airport | mile from river. No plans to use it for seaplanes.

158

APPENDIX 14

AIRPORTS AT VARIOUS DISTANCES FROM NEAREST STEAM
RAILROAD PASSENGER STATION ON A MAIN LINE

Number of Airports Reporting 74

DiSTANCK IN Miles

Number of Airports

Distance in Miles

Number of Airports

0. to 0.5 1
0.6 to 1
1.1 to 2
2.1 to 3
3.1 to 4
4.1 to 5

7
6

5.1 to 6
6.1 to 7
7.1 to 8
8.1 to 9
9.1 to 10

^ In only one case was there a main-line railroad passenger station directly at the port.

APPENDIX 15

AIRPORTS AT VARIOUS DISTANCES FROM NEAREST FREIGHT
STATION ON A MAIN LINE

Number of Airports Reporting 75

Distance in Miles

Number of Airports

Distance in Miles

Number of Airports

0. to 0.5 1
0.6 to 1
1.1 to 2
2.1 to 3
3.1 to 4
4.1 to 5

14
7

17
6

11
5

5.1 to 6
6.1 to 7
7.1 to 8
8.1 to 9

1
7
6
1

^ In only two cases was there a main-line freight station practically adjacent to the airport.

159

APPENDIX 16

AIRPORTS AND TRANSPORTATION TIME FROM BUSINESS
CENTERS OF CITIES

Number of Airports Reporting 79

Time in Minutes

Number of Airports

Time in Minutes

Number of Airports

0 to5

21 to 25

6 to 10

26 to 30

11 to 15

31 to 35

16 to 20

36 to 40

41 to 45

APPENDIX 17

AIRPORTS AT VARIOUS DISTANCES FROM BUSINESS CENTERS

OF CITIES

Number of Airports Reporting 81

Miles

Number of Airports

Miles

Number of Airports

0. tol

10.1 to 11

1.1 to 2

11.1 to 12

2.1 to 3

12.1 to 13

3.1 to 4

13.1 to 14

4.1 to 5

14.1 to 15

5.1 to 6

15.1 to 16

6.1 to 7

16.1 to 17

7.1 to 8

17.1 to 18

8.1 to 9

18.1 to 19

9.1 to 10

19.1 to 20

20.1 to 21

160

APPENDIX 18

TRANSIT SERVICE TO AIRPORTS ^

Kind of Service

Frequency of

(Figures indicate the number of airports reporting this service)

Service in

Minutes

Airport-Owned
Busses

Common-Carrier
Busses

Street Railways

Rapid Transit

. 1

180

240

Total Number

^ 33 airports were served by taxicabs only.

161

APPENDIX 19

IMPEDIMENTS TO HIGHWAY TRAVEL BETWEEN AIRPORT AND

CENTER OF CITY

A. Traffic Congestion

Out of 81 airports reporting, 51 reported traffic congestion as an impediment.

B. Railroad Grade Crossings

Out of 80 airports reporting, 52 reported railroad grade crossings as an impediment.

C. Poor Handling of Traffic

Out of 75 airports reporting, 6 reported poor handling of traffic, and 12 reported only
fair handling of traffic.

D. Roads of Inadequate Width or Poorly Paved

Out of 83 airports reporting, 27 reported roads of inadequate width or poorly paved
as an impediment.

E. Ferry Crossings or Drawbridges

Out of 80 airports, 5 reported one or the other of these as an impediment.

APPENDIX 20

WIDTH OF ANNOYANCE FRINGE AROUND AN AIRPORT

Out of 55 airports reporting, 29 airports replied that an annoyance fringe definitely
existed and estimated its depth as follows :

9 estimated its depth as not exceeding J mile
13 estimated its depth as not exceeding J mile
5 estimated its depth as not exceeding 1 mile
1 estimated its depth as not exceeding 2 miles
1 estimated its depth as not exceeding 10 miles
8 airports reported that an annoyance fringe existed but that its depth was indefinite.
5 said that the annoyance fringe was temporary, and 13 said that an annoyance
fringe did not exist.

The following comments were interesting :
"People who live about are poor and don't complain."
"It is merely a matter of becoming accustomed to the annoyance."
"Annoyance fringe ends at end of runways."

162

APPENDIX 21

OBJECTIONS TO AIRPORTS MADE BY THOSE LIVING IN
THEIR VICINITY

A. Noise

Out of 82 airports, 17 reported receiving complaints against noise. Five said
that these complaints were of a minor character. The following comments on this
subject were made :

The complaints were a result of low flying.

The complaint was made because the owner wanted the city to buy his property.

A great many complaints have been received but all the testimony is exaggerated.

A petition signed by fifty people requested the reduction of noise.

Complaints have been received from a high-class residential district two or three
miles from the airport.

A church complained against the noise on Sunday, and poultry raisers have com-
plained that the airplanes frighten their chickens.

B. Dust

Out of 82 airports, 11 reported receiving complaints against dust, but most of
the complaints were received during construction operations.

C Night Lighting

Few complaints against annoyance caused by night lighting of airports were
reported. Most of the complaints reported were a result of faulty adjustment of
lights. One airport reported a complaint from a hospital before the lighting equip-
ment was put into operation. They feared that the beacon light would disturb their
patients.

D. Danger

Out of 82 airports, 17 had received complaints against the operation of the airport
because of the danger to those living in the surrounding territory; seven of those
complaints were primarily against low flying.

The manager of one airport reported that he had received no complaints on the
score of danger, but that insurance companies in the city were selling a great many
policies providing protection against property damage caused by falling aircraft
or aircraft equipment.

163

APPENDIX 22

THE EFFECT OF THE AIRPORT ON LAND VALUES

Akbon.^ Caused abnormal inflation of prices.

Alameda. Increased values tremendously. Before establishment of airport, land had

very low value.
Albany. Increased price and sale.
Akltngton

Hoover Field. Increased land values.
Washington Airport. WiU increase land values.
Atlanta. Effect not determined. Land immediately adjacent to airport undesirable

for residential purposes.
Atlantic City. Increased residential property sales.
Boston. No definite effect as yet.

Buffalo. Increased price. Very little increase in sales.
Charlotte. Depreciated values slightly.
Chicago. Has decreased sales, but not property values.

Cincinnati. Land prices more than doubled. Little increase in actual number of sales.
Cleveland

Cleveland Airport. Decreased land values.

Curtiss-Herrick Airport. Prices and number of sales have increased.
Dallas.

Curtiss- Wright Airport. Land values increase 20 per cent.
Hensley Field. Land values doubled.
Love Field. Increased land values considerably.
Dayton. Increased sale price but not the number of sales.
Des Moines. Use of land as homesites for airport personnel has increased its value.

Otherwise it would be used only as farm land.
Detroit. No noticeable effect.
Fort Worth. Increased values 25 to 30 per cent.
Garden City. Increased some values and decreased others. In general, has increased

value of undeveloped land and has not lowered residential values.
Glendale, Increased value of adjoining property because it created a demand for

factory sites in that locality.
Glenview. No change traceable to the airport as yet noticeable.

Grosse Ile. Number of sales of adjoining property increased, but the price has remained
about the same.

> For name of airport in each case, see Appendix 1, List of Airports Visited.

Hartford. Greatly increased land prices.
Indian Apous

Capitol Airways Airport. Increased sale of property.

Hoosier Airport. No effect.

Indianapolis Airport. Increased price of land but not the number of sales.

Stout Field. Price but not land values increased,
Jacksonville. No efiFect.

Kansas City, Kan. Prices doubled but no sale for land.
Kansas City, Mo. Increased values.
Los Angeles

Metropolitan Airport. Slightly increased values.

Mines Field. Increased both values and sales.

Western Air Express Terminal. Slightly increased values.
Louisville. No effect on land values.
Macon. No definite efiFect as yet.
Memphis. No definite effect as yet.
Miami

Miami Airport. Land improved by structures has increased in value because of
demand for housing facilities for airport personnel.

Pan-American Airport. Increased values 200 per cent.
Milwaukee

Curtiss-Milwaukee Airport. Airport tends to increase land values for one year and
then they sink back to normal.

Maitland Field. The development of the lake port as a whole has increased land values.
The airport itself has done little to increase land values.

Milwaukee County. Tended to increase land values.
Minneapolis. Land being held for increased price but there is no market for it.
Montgomery. Increased values considerably.
Newark. No efifect.
Oakland. Probably increased values due partly to development of adjacent land as

industrial sites.
Orange. Increased land values on bordering properties.
Philadelphia. Slightly increased values.
Pine Bluff. Slight increase in values.
PoNCA City. No increase in values.

PoNTiAC. Increased prices and to some extent number of sales.
Portland, Me. No increase in values.

Richmond. Increase in price of land immediately surrounding airport.
Rochester. Increased price but not sales.
St. Joseph. No increase in values.
St. Louis

Curtiss-Steinberg Field. Increased values.

St. Louis Airport. No efifect on values.
St. Paul. Land values doubled since city started to acquire land for airport.
Salisbury. Some increase in land values.
San Francisco. Materially increased values.

Schenectady. Increased land prices but not sales. Increased price of additional
acreage which airport wishes to obtain.

165

Spahtanburg. Slightly increased ability to sell property for specialized uses.

Syracuse. Increased prices 30 per cent but not sales.

Tampa. No change in values.

Teeire Haute. No change in values.

Toledo

Toledo Airport. Slight increase in values. Some stimulation of sales.

Transcontinental Airport. Price increased but no sales have been made.
Tulsa. Increased values.

Utica. Price increased 100 per cent but number of sales has not.
Valley Stream. Slight increase in land values.

Wayne County. Impossible to determine effect of airport at present.
Weston, Mo. No increase in values.
Wichita. Tripled value of land.
Winston-Salem. No effect.

APPENDIX 23

AIRPORTS BUILT ON PARK LANDS

In answer to the question, "Has the airport been built on park lands," out of eighty-
two replies only the following affirmative answers were received :

Des Moines.^ Was originally called Des Moines Airport Park in order to operate under

existing state laws. An enabling act passed last year gave city power to acquire,

maintain, and operate an airport.
Detroit. Airport built on land legally a park, but used as a dump.
Louisville. Airport site purchased as park land.
Miami

Miami Dirigible Airport. Land given to be used as both dirigible airport and golf

course.
Miami Seaplane Base. Airport built on water reserve land.
Milwaukee

Maitland Field. Airport built on what was originally submerged land set aside for

park purposes by State of Wisconsin and later turned over for harbor purposes.
Montgomery. Airport is classed as park. Was acquired under state statute permitting

acquisition of park land beyond corporate limits.
St. Paul. Small portion of land used as airport site was originally given by subdivider

to city for recreational purposes.
Spartanburg. Land bought as park land but for use as airport. Was called an air

park in resolution authorizing purchase.
Tulsa. If city purchases the airport, they will take it as a park.
Wichita. Airport designated legally as a park.

^ For name of airport in each case, see Appendix 1, List of Airports Visited.

166

APPENDIX 24

OPINIONS ON THE PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF AIRPORTS

Opinion of 38 Municipal Airport Officials Opinion of 12 Commercial Airport Officials

For Municipal Ownership .... 29 For Municipal Ownership .... 4

Against Municipal Ownership ... 2 Against Municipal Ownership ... 6

Undecided 5 Undecided 0

For Municipal Ownership with Private For Municipal Ownership with Private

Operation . 2 Operation 2

OPINIONS ON COUNTY OWNERSHIP OF AIRPORTS

Opinion of 2 County Airport Officials
For County Ownership 2

APPENDIX 25

MUNICIPALITIES WHERE AIRPORTS ARE OUTSIDE THE
CORPORATE LIMITS

Albany Minnb:apolis ,

Atlanta Montgomery

Buffalo Ponca City

Cleveland Pontiac

Columbus Richmond

Des Moines RocHESTiai

Fort Worth St. Joseph

Indianapolis St. Louis

Jacksonville Salisbury

Kansas City, Mo. San Francisco

Louisville Spartanbubo

Macon Syracuse

Memphis Tampa

Mlajvh Toledo

167

APPENDIX 26

CITIES WHERE THE AIRPORT IS SEPARATELY ADMINISTERED

A. By the Aviation Department Under a Single Executive:

Dallas. Commission Government. Director appotated for one year by mayor with
consent of the commission.

Fort Worth. Commission-Manager Government. Director appointed for one year by
city manager with consent of the commission.

Los Angeles. Mayor-Council. Director selected by council from three candidates re-
ceiving highest grades in the Civil Service examination.

Miami. Commission-Manager Government. Director appointed for one year by
city manager with consent of the commission.

PoNCA City. Mayor-CounciJ-Manager. Director appointed for an indefinite term by
mayor with consent of the council.

PoNTiAC. Commission-Manager. Director appointed by city manager with approval
of the commission (none appointed as yet).

B. By the Aviation Department Under a Board :

Hartford. Name : Air Board. Six members appointed for six years by mayor

with approval of the council. Two members every year. No
salary.

Louisville. Name : Louisville and Jefferson County Air Board. Six members

appointed for four years by mayor and county judge, all terms ex-
piring simultaneously. Three Republicans, three Democrats.

Memphis. Name : Airport Commission. Five members appointed for one year

by mayor. No salary.

Salisbury. Name : Airport Commission. Three members. One city represent-

ative and two citizens appointed for an indefinite period by council.

Terre Haute. Name : Board of Aviation Commissioners. Four members appointed
for four years by mayor, one retiring annually. Two Republicans,
two Democrats.

Winston-Salem. Name : Miller Municipal Airport Commission, representing the
Winston-Salem Foundation. Five members : mayor, chairman of
the^ Board of County Commissioners, president of the Chamber of
Commerce, and two citizens.

- C. By a Council Committee:
Atlanta.' Five members
Macon. Three members
San Francisco. Three members

168

APPENDIX 27

CITIES WHERE THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS IS IN
CHARGE OF THE AIRPORT

Albany Philadelphia

Chicago (Bureau of Parks, Recreation and Richmond

Aviation) Rochesths

Detroit Tampa

Indianapolis Utica
Kansas City, Mo.

APPENDIX 28

CITIES WHERE THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS IS IN CHARGE OF

THE AIRPORT

Atlantic City
Boston
Buffalo
Cleveland
Des Moines

Minneapolis
St. Louis
Spabtanbubg
Syracuse
Wichita

APPENDIX 29

CITIES WHERE THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE IS IN
CHARGE OF THE AIRPORT

Akkon
Cincinnati

Columbus
Toledo

169

APPENDIX 30

CITIES AND COUNTIES WHERE THE AIRPORT IS ADMINISTERED
BY OTHER DEPARTMENTS

Jacksonville. Department of Radio Station and Highway

Milwaukee. Harbor Board

Milwaukee County. Highway Committee of the County Board

MoNTGOMEKY. Commission of Public Works and Parks

Newark. Department of Public AflFairs (Port Newark Development)

Oakland. Board of Port Commissioners

St. Paul. Department of Public Utilities

Wayne County. Road Commission

APPENDIX 31

CITIES WHICH PROVIDE AIRPORT ADVISORY BOARDS

Akron. Name : Airport Committee. Mayor appoints, council approves,

3 members
Service Director, Chairman

1 member selected by President of Goodyear Zeppelin Company
President of University of Akron
Albany. Name : Air Board. Mayor appoints, council aflBrms, 7 members for

one year
Commissioner of Public Works
Corporation Counsel
Mayor
Secretary
3 citizens
Name : Advisory Board. Mayor appoints 6 members for five years
Mayor

Atlantic City.

Boston.
Buffalo.

CfflCAOO.

Mayor appoints a varying number
Commissioner of Parks appoints

Commissioner

2 members of School Board

2 members to represent citizens
Name : Citizens Advisory Board.

of members, usually 5
Name : Airport Advisory Board.

5 members for the period of his administration
Name : Aero Commission. Mayor appoints 12 members for four

years with consent of council

3 must be aldermen (one of these a member of the council committee
on aviation)

9 citizens

170

Dallas. Name : Board of Air Control. Mayor appoints 5j[members for

two years with approval of council.
Street Commissioner one of the members

4 residents of the city

Miami. Name : Municipal Aviation Board. City Manager appoints 5 mem-

bers for one year with the approval of the commission. No
qualifications
Philadelphia. Name : Board of Control. 3 members
1 from City Property Department
1 from National Guard

1 from Ludington Philadelphia Flying Service
St. Louis. Name : City Air Board. 10 members

5 citizens appointed by Mayor for indefinite term

5 city oflBcials : President of the Board of Aldermen, and 4 ofiBcials
representing departments of Law, Finance, Welfare, and Parks
St. Paul. Name : Advisory Board. 10 members

7 citizens selected from the "Greater St. Paul Committee" by the

Mayor for an indefinite period. No qualifications
3 council members representing the departments of Public Works,
Utilities, and Committee of Education
San Francisco. Name : Citizens' Airport Advisory Board. Supervisors' Airport Com-
mittee appoints 3 members for the term of the supervisors
Syracuse. Name : Mayor's Advisory Board. From 14 to 24 members appointed

by the Mayor for an indefinite period. No qualifications

171

APPENDIX 32

CITIES WHICH LEASE THEIR AIRPORT FOR PRIVATE OPERATION

Macon Richmond

Montgomery St. Joseph

PhiIiAdelphia Spabtanbubg

Winston-Salem

APPENDIX 33

AVERAGE COST OF LAND PER ACRE AT 30 MUNICIPAL AIRPORTS
AND 15 COMMERCIAL AIRPORTS

Average cost of land per acre at 30 municipal airports and 15 commercial

airports $974.28

Average number of acres at 30 municipal airports and 15 commercial airports 396^ acres

Average cost per acre at 30 municipal airports $713.50

Average number of acres at 30 municipal airports 415f acres

Average cost per acre at 15 commercial airports $1495.80

Average number of acres at 15 commercial airports 357f acres

172

APPENDIX 34

COST OF ACREAGE AND NUMBER OF ACRES AT 30 MUNICIPAL

AIRPORTS

Cost

Acres

Akron

Atlanta ....

Atlantic City . ,

Buffalo ....

Cincinnati . . .

Cleveland . . .

Columbus ....

Dallas

Hensley Field
Love Field . .

Fort Worth . . .

Hartford ....

Indianapolis . . .

Kansas City, Mo.

Macon

Milwaukee County

Minneapolis . . .

Montgomery . .

PONTIAC

Richmond ....

Rochester . . .

St. Louis ....

St. Paul ....

Salisbury ....

Spartanburg . .

Syracuse ....

Terre Haute . .

Utica

Wayne County. .

Wichita ....

Winston-Salem . .

$ 1155.00

829

S20.00

300

2649.00

300

807.00

555

350.00

760

1200.00

1085

561.00

534

157.00

285

2167.00

173

750.00

225

1086.00

425

292.00

915

1294.00

687

50.00

247

486.00

320

580.00

325

104.00

965

648.00

240

75.00

100

454.00

110

2000.00

480

400.00

300

151.00

176

183.00

105

408.00

132

496.00

162

230.00

357

1252.00

640

100.00

640

1000.00

100

$21,405.00

12,472

APPENDIX 35

COMMERCIAL AIRPORTS WHICH LEASE THEIR LAND

Alameda Airport, Alameda 346 acres

Atchison Airport, Atchison 167 acres

Capitol Airport, Indianapolis 176 acres

HoosiER Airport, Indianapolis 80 acres

Weston Field, Weston 160 acres

173

X a

§ I

h3 S H

PS «

■«! H O

W «<<

<< o

ei vi

O e8
O _

■^3

o
55

o
Em

73
0

o a>

>> >»

w en 91
b. (h (14
>> !>> >j

o •* »o e*

€©■€©■ 1-1

O 00
CO 06

05 ©

CO 1-^

05 ©
05 •*

o O "O

O o

rn" >»

UO I— I
00 00
O* l-H

(N ©

»«

©< CO

00 rl <N

o o '^ o ^ C
UU PQ Ph

pLH

13
O

•«->

PM m

PhP^

hS o

<3m

!« S

s 0

Qfe

o w
2 o

5 o

o
a
»

j> ©
j> o

00
ee- as-

§3 ex

60 §

o >

174

APPENDIX 37

COST OF MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION PER FISCAL YEAR AT

MUNICIPAL AIRPORTS

City

Year

Cost (1930 cost estimated)

Akron

Albany

Atlanta

Buffalo

Chicago

Cincinnati ....
Cleveland ....

Columbus

Dallas

Des Moines ....

Detroit

Fort Worth ....

Hartford

Kansas City, Mo. . .
Louisville ....
Macon (Port leased) .

Miami

Milwaukee ....
Minneapolis ....

Oakland

PONTIAC

Richmond (Port leased)
Rochester ....

St. Lours

St. Paul

Spartanburg. . . .

Tampa

Terre Haute . . .

Toledo

Utica

Milwaukee County .

1929

$ 12,700

1929

30,000

1930

15,000 1

1929

95,000

1929

42,000 1

1930

20,000

1929

29,000 1

1929

15,500 »

1929

12,000 1

1930

4,000

1930

112,000

1930

16,000 1

1929

44,358 1

1930

100,000

1930

31,100

1929

2,000 1

1929

10,000 1

1929

13,130

1929

14,134

1929

25,000

1929

25,530

1929

2,000

1929

40,550

1929

36,000

1928

26,391

1929

7,000

1930

18,000

1930

12,000

1929

7,000 1

1929

12,000 1

1927

9,236

$838,629 Total
$ 27,052.54 Average

^ Amounts actually appropriated for that year. In other cities appropriations actually made
were less than the estimated maintenance and operation cost by the amount of the estimated revenue.
In a few cities the appropriation exceeded the maintenance cost to permit capital expendittu-es.

175

THE LAW OF AIRPORTS

REFERENCES

No attempt is made here to give references with any completeness to the
authorities in support of general statements of law, such references as are
given being suggestive rather than exhaustive. Nor as a rule have the au-
thorities with regard to the general principles of aviation law been cited. The
United States Government, through the Aeronautical Division of the Depart-
ment of Commerce, furnishes information with regard to all phases of aero-
nautics on request. Especially valuable, perhaps, on the law is "Civil Aero-
nautics, Legislative History of the Air Commerce Act of 1926, together with
miscellaneous legal materials relating to Civil Air Navigation," the latest edition
being corrected to August 1, 1928. A collection of the laws and decisions on
aviation is United States Aviation Reports, published in Baltimore annually,
beginning in 1928. A bibliography of aviation, by Rudolph Hirschberg, will
be found in the June, 1929, number (Vol. II., No. 5) of the Southern California
Law Review, a quarterly published by the School of Law of the University of
Southern California at Los Angeles. The latest American book on aviation
law is Davis's "Aeronautical Law," published by Parker, Stone and Baird
Company, Los Angeles.

In this report and appendix the endeavor has been made to include important
statutes up to the close of the year 1929, and important decisions appearing up
to July 1, 1930.

38. In this explanation use has been made of what the writer has already said in a
lecture in a City Planning course at Harvard University, March 30, 1928, as printed in
City Planning for July, 1928.

39. State ex rel Oliver Cadillac Co. v. Christopher, 317 Mo. 1179 at 1192.

40. " The Law of City Planning and Zoning," by Frank B. Williams. New York, The
Macmillan Co., 1922, p. 25.

41. An excellent brief presentation of the law on this phase of the subject is "Law of
Aerial Navigation, Document No. 221, Senate of U. S. 70th Congress, 2d Session."

42. Arizona, see General Order No. lina, see decisions cited in note

113-L. of the Arizona Cor- 44, below,

poration Commission, dated Nevada, see Rule No. 9, Feb. 5,

Nov. 10, 1928, given in 1929 1929, given in 1929 U. S. Avia-

U. S. Aviation Rep., p. 409. tion Rep., p. 668.
California, Michigan, North Caro-

43. Pennsylvania, 1929, No. 316, sees. 1202-1208.

176

REFERENCES 177

44. California, Western Association of Pennsylvania, Re Gettysburg Fly-

Railroads V. Railroad Com- ing Service, Inc., P. U. R.

mission, 173 Calif. 802. 1928, B 287 ; Application of

Michigan, Re Air Tarf Service, Battlefield Airways, Inc.,

Inc., Public Utility Reports, P. U. R. 1929, A 476, 1929

1927, D 279. U. S. Av. Rep. 54.
Nevada, Re Francis A. Riorden, But see Colorado, Re U. S. Air-

P. U. R. 1928, D 854. ways. Inc., P. U. R. 1928, E

North Carolina, Bureau of Light- 518.

houses V. Southern Pub. Ut.

Co., P. U. R. 1928, E 307.

45. On Littleton, 4a.

46. A good statement of the authorities on this phase of the subject is to be found in
Civil Aeronautics (corrected to August 1, 1928), a pamphlet printed by the United States
for the use of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the House of Repre-
sentatives. After giving the foreign law to some extent this pamphlet, on page 86,
continues :

This ancient maxim [cujus est solum etc.] finds a limited survival in some American
State codes, as, for example, that of Calif. Civ. Code (sec. 829), which provides that
"the owner of land in fee has the right to the surface and to everything permanent
situated beneath or above it."

But, notwithstanding the persistence of this rule, its application to the space not
immediately adjacent to the soil and the structures on the soil is wanting. All the
decisions are regarding intrusions into the space very near the surface, where the
actual use of the soil by the surface occupant was disturbed. It is believed that an
examination of the cases will show that cuju^ est solum is not law, but is merely a nice
theory, easily passed down from medieval days, because there has not been until re-
cently any occasion to apply it to its full extent.

It has been held to be a trespass to thrust one's arm into the space over a neigh-
bor's land (Hannabalson v. Sessions, 116 Iowa, 457 (1902) ) or to shoot over another's
land (Whittaker v. Stangvick, 100 Minn. 386 (1907) ), and for one's horse to kick into
such space (Ellis v. Loftus Iron Co., 10 C. P. (Eng.) 10 (1874) ). Overhanging
branches constitute a legal wrong, either a trespass or a nuisance (Lemmon v. Webb,
1895 App. Cas. 1 ; Smith v. Giddy (1904), 2 K. B. 448 ; Grandona v. Lovdal, 70
Calif. 161 (1886) ; Tanner v. Wallbrunn, 77 Mo. App. 262 (1898) ; Ackerman v.
Ellis, 81 N. J. L. 1 (1911); Countryman v. Lighthill, 24 Hun (N. Y.) 405 (1881)).
A board attached to defendant's building and overhanging plaintiff's land constitutes
a trespass (Puorto v. Chieppa, 78 Conn. 401 (1905) ; contra, Pickering v. Rudd,
4 Camp. (Eng.) 219 (1815) ). In Pickering v. Rudd, Lord EUenborough said (p. 221) :
" Nay, if this board overhanging the plaintiff's garden be a trespass, it would follow
that an aeronaut is liable to an action of trespass quare clausum fregit at the suit of
the occupier of every field over which his balloon passes in the course of his voyage."
This result Lord EUenborough did not approve, but Blackburn, J., in Kenyon v. Hart
(6 Best & Smith, (Eng.) 249, 251 (1865)), remarked: "I understand the good sense
of that doubt, though not the legal reason of it."

178 THE LAW OF AIRPORTS

So also projecting eaves (Harrington v. McCarthy, 169 Mass. 492 (1897) ; Aiken
V. Benedict, 39 Barb. (N. Y.) 400 (1863) ; Huber v. Start, 124 Wis. 359 (1905)),
cornices (Wilmarth v. Woodcock, 58 Mich. 482 (1885) ; Lawrence v. Hough, 35 N. J.
Eq. 371 (1882) ; Crocker v. Manhattan Life Ins. Co., 61 App. Div. (N. Y.) 226
(1901)), roofs (Murphy v. Bolger, 60 Vt., 723 (1888)), and walls (Barnes v. Berendes,
139 Cal. 32 (1903) ; Norwalk Heating & Lighting Co. v. Vernan, 75 Conn. 662
(1903) ; Langfeldt v. McGrath, 33 111. App. 158 (1889) ; Codman v. Evans, 7 Allen
(Mass.), 431 (1863) ; Lyle v. Littel, 83 Hun (N. Y.) 532 (1895), have been held to be
wrongful and to give rise to an action of some sort. In Butler v. Frontier Telephone
Co. (186 N. Y., 486 (1906)) it was held that ejectment would lie for the space occupied
by a telephone wire strung across plaintiff's land at a height varying from 20 to 30 feet.
Vann, J., expressed himself as follows :

"The surface of the ground is a guide, but not the full measure, for within reason-
able limitations land includes not only the surface but also the space above and the
part beneath. * * * Usque ad coelum is the upper boundary, and while this may not
be taken too literally, there is no limitation within the bounds of any structure yet
erected by man. So far as the case before us is concerned the plaintiff as the owner
of the soil owned upward to an indefinite extent. * * * According to fundamental
principles and within the limitation mentioned space above land is real estate the same
as the land itself. * * * Unless the principle of usque ad coelum is abandoned, any
physical, exclusive, and permanent occupation of space above land is an occupation
of the land itself and a disseisin of the owner to that extent."

The English cases show that the stringing of a wire across land at low heights
(30 to 34 feet) is regarded as a trespass (Finchley Elec. Lt. Co. v. Finchley Urban
Dist. Council (1902), 1 Ch. 866 (1903), 1 Ch. 437; Wandsworth Board v. United
Tel. Co., 13 Q. B. 904 (1884)). Leading text writers agree in substance that, in the
words of Pollock, "the scope of possible trespasses is limited by that of possible ef-
fective possession" (Pollock, Torts (10th ed.), 364; Salmond, Torts, 163; Chapin,
Torts, 349).

The operation of subways and tunnel streets as far below the surface as 150 feet
has been regarded as wrongful as against the surface owner, in the absence of purchase
or condemnation of the right (Matter of New York, 160 App. Div. 29 (1913), affirmed,
212 N. Y. 547; Matter of Willcox, 213 N. Y. 218 (1914) ; Matter of New York, 215
N. Y. 109 (1915)).

It thus appears that the only rights in space which have actually been protected
by the courts have been rights in space immediately adjacent to and connected with
the surface. There are no decisions to the effect that it is a wrong against a land-
owner to interfere with the space over his land at such a height that the use of the
surface is not affected in the slightest degree.

All the codes now in existence and all proposed codes, so far as known to the writer,
treat the landowner's property in the space above his land as subject to a right of
passage by aircraft. None of these codes requires condemnation of an aerial right of
way and none provides that the mere flight through the space above shall constitute
a trespass. * * * "

47. Portsmouth Harbor Land and Hotel Co. v. United States Supreme Court, Dec. 4,
1922, reported in 1928 U. S. Av. Rep. 26.

REFERENCES 179

Johnson v. Curtiss N. W. Airplane Co. (Minnesota), reported in 28 U. S. Av.
Rep. 42.

Com. V. Nevin and Smith (Pennsylvania), reported in U. S. Av. Rep. 39.

Cattle Frightened by Airplane (Decision of U. S. Compt. Gen., Oct. 20, 1923),
reported in 1928 U. S. Av. Rep. 46 ; Smith v. New England Aircraft Co., Inc., (Mass.)
170 N. E. R. 385.

48. Many modern statutes have provisions with regard to the ownership of the air
space, none of which have been passed upon, as yet, by our courts. These statutes are :

Arizona, 1929, ch. 38, sec. 9. Pennsylvania, 1929, Act 317, sec. 4.

Minnesota, 1929, ch. 219, sec. 3. Rhode Island, 1929, ch. 1435, sec. 3.

Missouri, 1929, p. 122, sec. 3. South Carolina, 1929, ch. 189, sec.
Montana, 1929, ch. 17, sec. 6. 3.

New Jersey, 1929, ch. 311, sec. 3. Wisconsin, 1929, ch. 348, sec. 3;
North Carolina, 1929, ch. 190, sec. 3. stat. 1143.

49. Smith v. New England Aircraft Co., Inc., (Mass.) 170 N. E. R. 385.

50. Article on "Constitutional Law," 12 Corpus Juris, 909, notes 30 and 31 ; Miller v.
Board of Public Works, 195 Calif. 477, at 484 ; Village of Euclid v. Ambler Co., 272 U. S.
365, at 386.

51. Douty V. Mayor of Baltimore, 155 Maryland 125.
State ex rel. City of Lincoln v. Johnson, 117 Neb. 301.
Stern v. Mayor and Aldermen of Jersey City, 150 Atl. 9.
Hesse v. Rath, 230 N. Y. S. 672 ; 249 N. Y, 435.

State ex rel. Hile v. City of Cleveland, 160 N. E. 241 (Ohio).
McClintock v. City of Roseburg, 127 Ore. 698.

See Clayton and Lambert Mfg. Co. v. City of Detroit, 34 Fed. (2d) 303.
These cases hold that the establishment of an airport is a legitimate municipal purpose
and to be such it must be a public purpose.

52. Alaska, 1929, ch. 29, sec. 1 ; ch. and County of Maria, Panama

110, sec. 1. City, Perry, St. Petersburg,

Arizona, 1929, ch. 38, sec. 2. Stark, Tallahassee, Taylor

Arkansas, 1929, No. 135, sec. 1. County, Nauchula.)

California, 1927, ch. 169, sees. 1, 4 ; Georgia, 1927, p. 779, sec. 4 ;

ch. 267 (No. 149), sec. 1 ; 1929, Spec. Sess. 1929, Local Acts

ch. 404, sec. 1 ; ch. 847, sec. 1 ; for City of Brunswick and

Polit. Code, sec. 4056-c. County of Glynn, and City of

Connecticut, 1929, ch. 236, sec. 1 ; Newman and Cometa County.

ch. 281, sec. 1 ; Spec. Acts, Hawaii, 1927, No. 238, sec. 2 (4).

1929, No. 194, sec. 1 (Hart- Idaho, 1929, ch. 106, sec. 1; ch.

ford); No. 266, sec. 1 (N. 108, sec. 1; ch. 133, sec. 1;

Haven). ch. 241, sec. 1.

Florida, 1929, ch. 13569, sec. 1 ; Illinois, 1927, p. 297, sec. 1.

ch. 13574, sec. 1 ; Spec. Sess. Indiana, 1920, p. 160, sec. 3838 et

1929, Special Acts (Lauder- seq.; 1921, ch. Ill, sec. 1;

ville, Leesburg, Mariana, Mel- 1928, ch. 48, sec. 1 ; 1929, ch.

bourne, Miami, City of Ocala 57, sec. 1.

180

THE LAW OF AIRPORTS

Iowa, 1929, ch. 138, sec. 1.
Kansas, 1921, ch. 264, sec. 3-110;

1929, ch. 5, sees. 1, 3.
Kentucky, 1924, ch. 76, sec. 1;

1926, ch. 107, sees. 165-2, -3,
-6; 1928, ch. 78, sees. 1, 7.

Louisiana, 1928, No. 5, sec. 2 ; No.

24, sees. 2, 3; No. 43, sec. 1.
Maryland, 1929, ch. 219, sees. 14,

15; ch. 220, sec. 2.
Massachusetts, 1928, ch. 350, sec.

1; G. L. ch. 40, sec. 5 (35).
Michigan, 1927, No. 182, sees. 1-5 ;

1929, No. 103, sees. 1, 6 ; No.

210, sec. 1.
Minnesota, 1923, ch. 34, sec. 669-3 ;

1927, ch. 62, sec. 1626-1;
1929, ch. 125, sec. 1 ; ch. 217,
sees. 1, 2; ch. 379, sec. 1.

Mississippi, 1929, ch. 63, sees. 1, 2,

3.
Missouri, 1929, p. 276, sec. 1.
Montana, 1927, ch. 20, see. 5039 ;

1929, ch. 108, sec. 1.
Nebraska, 1922, Comp. Stat., sec.

4607; 1929, ch. 35, sec. 1.
New Hampshire, 1929, ch. 90, sec.

1 ; Pub. L. 1929, ch. 42, sec.

68a.
New Jersey, 1928, ch. 101, sees. 1,

2; ch. 181, sec. 1; 1929, ch.

26, sec. 1; ch. 206, see. 1;

ch. 325, sees. 1, 2; ch. 350,

sees. 1, 2.
New Mexico, 1929, ch. 53, sees. 1,

2; ch. 54, sec. 2112.
New York, 1928, ch. 647, sees.

350-354; 1929, ch. 16, sec.

353a; ch. 31, sec. 350.
North Carolina, 1929, eh. 87, sees.

2, 3, 4; ch. 170, see. 1; ch.

171, see. 1.
North Dakota, 1929, ch. 86, sec.

1.
Ohio, Gen. Code, 1926, see. 3677.
Oklahoma, 1929, ch. 11, sec. 1;

ch. 83 ; ch. 238, sec. 1 ; 1929,

S. B. 214.
Oregon, 1921, ch. 45, sec. 10 ; 1929,

House Jt. Res. No. 2; 1929,

ch. 195, see. 1.
Pennsylvania, 1923, No. 192, sees.

460 &-1, -8, -4; 1925, No.

328, sees. 460 c-1, -3 ; 1927,

No. 250, sec. 2; No. 494*

sees. 1, 3, 4; 1929, No. 318,

sec. 1 ; No. 446, sec. 1 ; No.

484, sec. 4.
South Carolina, 1928, No. 919, sec.

1 ; 1929, No. 461, see. 1 ; No.

538, see. 1 ; No. 562, sec. 1.
South Dakota, 1929, ch, 71, sees. 1,

2.
Tennessee, Private Acts, 1929, chs.

408, 759.
Texas, 1929 (1st Sess.), ch. 83;

ch. 281, sec. 1.
Vermont, 1929, No. 60, sec. 1.
Virginia, 1928, p. 1172.
Washington, 1925, ch. 42, sees. 1-

2; 1929, ch. 93, sec. 1.
West Virginia, 1929, ch. 61, sees.

2, 5.
Wisconsin, Stat. 114.11 ; 67.04 (4)

1921, ch. 234 ; 1927, eh. 248

1929, ch. 285, see. 59.08 (11)

ch. 318; ch. 348, sec. 3; ch.

464, see. 1 ; ch. 521, sec. 1.
Wyoming, 1927, ch. 72, sec. 5;

1929, ch. 66, sec. 4.

63. Arizona, 1929, ch. 38, see. 3.
Arkansas, 1929, No. 135, sec. 4.
Florida, 1929, ch. 13569, sec. 3.
Indiana, 1929, ch. 57, see. 13.
Iowa, 1929, eh. 138, sec. 9.

Kansas, 1929, ch. 5, sec. 3.
Louisiana, 1928, No. 5, see. 2; No.

24, sec. 2.
Massachusetts, 1928, ch. 350, sec.

REFERENCES

181

Maryland, 1929, ch. 219, sec. 16.
Michigan, 1927, No. 182, sec. 3;

1929, No. 103, sec. 3, 6 ; No.

210, sec. 3.
Minnesota, 1929, ch. 217, sec. 3;

ch. 379, sec. 3.
Mississippi, 1929, ch. 63, sec. 3.
Missouri, 1929, p. 276, sec. 3.
Montana, 1929, ch. 108, sec. 2.
Nebraska, 1929, ch. 35, sec. 2.
New Hampshire, 1929, ch. 90, sec. 1.
New Jersey, 1929, ch. 325, sec. 3 ;

ch. 350, sees. 1, 2.

New York, 1929, ch. 16, sec. 353a.
North Carolina, 1929, ch. 87, sees.

4, 5.
Ohio, Gen. Code, 1926, sec. 3677.
Oregon, 1929, ch. 195, sec. 1.
Pennsylvania, 1929, ch. 318, see.

1 ; ch. 446, sec. 4.
South Dakota, 1929, ch. 71, sec. 3.
Vermont, 1929, No. 60, sec. 1.
Washington, 1929, ch. 93, sec. 1.
West Virginia, 1929, ch. 61, sec. 5.
Wisconsin, 1929, ch. 348, sec. 3;

ch. 521, sec. 1 ; Stat. 114.12.

54. See Clayton and Lambert Mfg. Co. v. City of Detroit, 34 Fed. (2d) 303.
The closing and relocation of highways for this purpose is specifically authorized by
Conn., 1929, ch. 236 ; Ind., 1929, ch. 57.

66. Instances of this are :

Connecticut, 1929, ch. 281.
Kentucky, 1926, ch. 107.
See U. S. Res. of Mar. 4, 1929, ch. 713, 45 Stat. 1698

Rhode Island, 1929, ch. 1353.

66. An instance of this is Kentucky, 1926, ch. 107.

67. California has passed a statute (1929, ch. 847) providing for the formation of air-
port districts on petition of a percentage of the voters of the proposed district, with power
to sell bonds, levy taxes, etc.

58. The decisions are conflicting, but this seems to be the prevailing law. McQuillan,
"Mimicipal Corporations," 2d ed. (1927), sees. 1210, 1215.

In the case of airports condemnation outside municipal limits was upheld under gen-
eral laws in City of Spokane v. Williams, reported in U. S. Daily, June 17, 1930.

69. Arkansas, 1929, No. 135, sec. 4.
Idaho, 1929, ch. 106.

60. Arkansas, 1929, No. 135, sec. 4.
Indiana, 1927, p. 160, sec. 3838

(5917, vol. 1).
Kansas, 1929, ch. 5, sec. 3.
Massachusetts, 1928, ch. 350, sec. 1.
Michigan, 1929, No. 103, sec. 6;

No. 210, sec. 3.
Mississippi, 1929, ch. 63, sec. 3.
New Hampshire, 1929, ch. 90, sec.

61. Illinois, 1929, p. 590, sec. 1.
Iowa, 1929, ch. 133.
Michigan, 1929, No. 193, sec. 1.

Oklahoma, 1929, ch. 83.

New Jersey, 1929, ch. 350, sees. 1,

2.
New York, 1929, ch. 16, sec. S53a.
North Carolina, 1929, ch. 87, sec. 4.
Oregon, 1929, ch. 195, sec. 1.
Pennsylvania, 1929, ch. 318, sec. 1 ;

ch. 446, sec. 4.
Vermont, 1929, No. 60, sec. 1.
West Virginia, 1929, ch. 61, sec. 5.
Wisconsin, 1929, ch. 521, sec. 1.

Missouri, 1929, p. 345, sec. 2.
Wisconsin, 1929, ch. 201, sec. 1.

182 THE LAW OF AIRPORTS

62. See Nichols, "Eminent Domain," 2d ed. (1917), pp. 972, 995 ; Lewis, "Eminent
Domain," 2d ed. (1900), p. 345, sec. 140, note 51, et seq.; Corpus Juris, "Eminent Do-
main," vol. 20, p. 598, note 76, and p. 599, note 77 ; McQuillan, " Municipal Corpora-
tions," 2d ed. (1927), sees. 1643, 1644, 1649.

63. City of Wichita v. Clapp, 125 Kansas, 100.

64. The following statutes relate to airports in parks or under park management :
California, 1927, ch. 267, p. 484, Massachusetts, 1928, ch. 388, sec.

sec. 1. 56.

Illinois, 1927, p. 616 ; 1929, p. 557, Minnesota, 1927, ch. 62, sec. 1625-

sec. 1. 5 ; 1929, ch. 125, sec. 9.

Kansas, 1929, ch. 5, sec. 2. Oregon, 1921, ch. 45, sec. 9.

Kentucky, 1928, ch. 78. Wisconsin, 1927, ch. 248, sec.

2705.

65. States authorizing such zoning are :

Florida,SpecialActs, 1923, ch. 9915 Kentucky, 1928, ch. 80 (2d class
(No. 797), p. 2690, sees. 1, 4 cities),

(applicable only to St. Peters-
burg).

66. Idaho, ch. 137, sec. 2 (h). Virginia, 1928, Title 33A, ch.
Iowa, 1929, ch. 138, sec. 6. 146A.

Michigan, 1929, No. 177. See Connecticut, 1929, ch. 253.

Pennsylvania, 1927, No. 250 ; 1929, Maryland, 1929, sec. 20.

Nos. 175, 316, Art. II.

67. McQuillan, "Municipal Corporations,"^2d ed. (1927), sec. 1264. Property used
for revenue is often held liable to tax. Ibid.

68. Florida, 1929, S. J. R. 89. Indiana, 1923, ch. 182, sec. 5.
Georgia, 1927, p. 779, sees. 4B, 4C. Michigan, 1929, No. 157, sec. 1.
Idaho, 1929, ch. 283, sec. 4. Vermont, 1929, No. 20, sec. 1.

69. City of Mobile v. Lartigue, 127 So. Rep. 257 (Ala.).

70. Iowa, 1929, ch. 138, sec. 9. Texas, 1929 (first session), ch. 83,
South Carolina, 1929, No. 562, sec. 3 ; ch. 281, sec. 3.

sec. 2. Wisconsin, 1929, ch. 464, sec. 1.

71.'|Pollock, "Torts," 11th ed. (1920), p. 451.

72. For an exhaustive discussion of the doctrine, see the article on negligence, 45
Corpus Juris, 1193, et seq. The applicability of the doctrine to the airplane is considered
in "Transportation by air and the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur" by William M. Allen, in
the Arfierican Bar Association Journal for July 1, 1930.

73. Arizona, 1929, ch. 38. Pennsylvania, 1929, No. 317.
Connecticut, 1929, ch. 57.

74. Delaware, 1923, ch. 199. Maryland, 1927, ch. 637.
Hawaii, 1923, L. 1923, ch. 109 ; Michigan, 1923, No. 224.

Rev. L. 1925, sees. 3891-3905. Minnesota, 1929, ch. 219.

Idaho, 1925, ch. 92. Nevada, 1923, ch. 66.

Indiana, 1927, ch. 43. New Jersey, 1929, ch. 311.

REFERENCES 183

North Carolina, 1929, ch. 190. Tennessee, 1923, ch. 30.

North Dakota, 1923, ch. 1. Utah, 1923, ch. 24.

Rhode Island, 1929, ch. 1435. Vermont, 1923, No. 155.

South Carolina, 1929, ch. 189. Wisconsin, Stat. 11405.
South Dakota, 1925, ch. 6.

In Idaho (1929, ch. 88) persons engaged in aviation are exempted from the Workmen's
Compensation Law.

75. California, 1929, ch. 193, sec. 394, Michigan, 1929, No. 154.

(18). Ohio, 1929, p. 54, being an amend-

Idaho, 1929, ch. 88. ment of Gen. Code, sec. 9556.

Iowa, 1929, ch. 229, sec. 1. Virginia, Corp. Com. Reg., 1929,

Louisiana, 1926, No. 52. Rule 33, given in 1929 U. S.

Massachusetts, Gen. Laws, ch. 175, Av. Rep. 855, et seq. ,

sec. 47 ; 1928, ch. 106, sec. 1.

76. In this connection see Law et al., Spartanburg County Board v. City of Spartan-
burg, 148 S. C. 229.

77. Such ordinances have been passed; see Alameda, Calif., Ordinance No. 203,
Dec. 3, 1928.

Oakland, Calif., Port Ordinance No. 45, Jan. 7, 1929. Akron, O., Ordinance No. 600,
June 18, 1929.

In this connection should be noted the decision of the Supreme Court of Indiana in an
appeal by the General Outdoor Advertising Company against the Indianapolis Park Board,
digested in U. S. Daily for June 29, 1930. This decision sustained the power of Indiana
cities to prohibit by ordinance the erection and maintenance of advertising billboards
on private property within 500 feet of the city's parks or boulevards, refusing to foUow
cases to the contrary in Massachusetts in 1905, in Illinois in 1911, and in Missouri and
Ohio in 1912. The decision points out that since these cases were decided, stringent city
planning and zoning laws have very generally in this country been passed and upheld by
the courts.

The court intimates, however, that unless it can be shown that billboards already
erected are a nuisance, the owners of such billboards are entitled to compensation for
them if they are ordered removed.

78. Regulation'of this sort by the Board of Aviation Commissioners is authorized by
Indiana, 1929, ch. 171, sec. 5 (8), 9, 11.

The statute also makes subdivision within six hundred feet of an airport subject to the
permission of the Board. It would be diflBcult to defend any action of the Board in this
connection in the special interest of aviation ; and there is nothing in the statute suggesting
such action on their part. In any event it would seem to be the better policy to have all
subdivisions controlled by the same authority.

79. Seaplane moored in navigable waters has been held to be a vessel (Reinhardt v.
Newport Flying Service Corp., 232, N. Y. 115; see People ex rel. Cushing v. Smith,
(N. Y.) 119 Misc. 294, 196 N. Y. S. 241, 206 App. Div. 642, 198 N. Y. S. 940, 206 App.
Div. 726, 199 N. Y. S. 942, Laws N. Y. 1929, ch. 187).

The laws of many of the states provide that a seaplane when operated on or immediately
above the water is governed by the rules regulating water navigation.

184

THE LAW OF AIRPORTS

Arizona, 1929, ch. 38, sec. 7.
Delaware, 1923, ch. 199, sec. 1.
Hawaii, 1923, ch. 109, sec. 1.
Idaho, 1925, ch. 92, sec. 1.
Indiana, 1927, ch. 43, sec. 1.
Maryland, 1927, ch. 337, sec. 1.
Michigan, 1929, No. 224, sec. 1.
Missouri, 1929, p. 122, sec. 1.
Minnesota, 1929, ch, 219, sec. 1.
Nevada, 1923, ch. 66, sec. 1.

North Carolina, 1929, ch. 190, sec.

1.
North Dakota, 1923, ch. 1, sec. 1.
Rhode Island, 1929, ch. 1435, sec. 1.
South Carolina, 1929, Act 189, sec.

1.
South Dakota, 1923, ch. 6, sec. 1.
Tennessee, 1923, ch. 30, sec. 1.
Utah, 1923, ch. 24, sec. 1.
Vermont, 1923, ch. 155, sec. 1.

Many of the regulations with regard to vessels are not suitable for seaplanes ; see
Legislative History of Air Commerce Act of 1926, compiled by Frederick E. Lee (to be
found in 1929 U. S. Av. Rep., p. 117), sec. 7 (A). Accordingly the earlier rules have been
changed by the U. S. Commerce Act 1926 (Act of May 20, 1926, ch. 344, 44 Stat. L. 568),
sec. 7, and the Air Commerce Regulations 1928, sees. 22 and 74 (J), so as to apply to sea-
planes only in certain cases.

80. Connecticut, 1929, ch. 236, sees.
4,5.
Indiana, 1929, ch. 171, sec. 5 (8).
New Hampshire, 1929, ch. 90, sec.

68d (Pub. Laws, ch. 42, sec.

68d).
South Carolina, 1929, No. 440.
Tennessee, Private Acts, 1929, ch.

408.

81. See Nichols, "Eminent Domain," 2d ed. (1917), sec. 49.

82. See generally, article on "Adjoining Landowners," in 1 Corpus Juris, p. 1230,
note 95.

83. State ex rel. Mitchell v. Coffeeville, 127 Kansas, 663.

84. California, 1927, ch. 267, p. 485,

sec. 4.
Indiana, 1921, ch. Ill, sec. 1 ; 1929,

ch. 57, sec. 5 (5).
Iowa, 1929, ch. 138, sec. 8.
Nebraska, 1929, ch. 35, sec. 5.
New Jersey, 1928, ch. 181 ; 1929,

ch. 26.
Oklahoma, 1929, ch. 11, sec. 1.

Pennsylvania, 1923, No. 191, sec.

460a-3; 1923, No. 192, sec.

4606-3 ; 1927, ch. 494, sec. 3.
Rhode Island, 1929, ch. 1353, sec. 5.
Wisconsin, 1927, ch. 248 (27.05),

sec. (4).
Wyoming, 1929, ch. 66, sec. 4.
See Idaho, 1929, ch. 106, sec. 1.

Postscript

The Cleveland Airport Decision. Since this report was written, an important case
(Swetland v. Curtiss Airports Corporation), long pending, has been decided in the United
States District Court (Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, July 7, 1930, Hahn,
Judge) ^ in conformity, in so far as involved in the case, with the conclusions of law as
stated in the report.

^ Subsequently, in August, 1930, clarified by minor changes and additions, and here summar-
ized in the light of these changes.

REFERENCES 185

The action was for injunction for trespass and the maintenance of a nuisance. The
plaintiflFs are the owners of a highly improved country estate, in a sparsely settled neigh-
borhood near Cleveland. The defendants are the owners of an airport adjacent to it.
The field is well equipped and conducted. In taking off and landing the defendants
traverse the air space less than 500 feet above plaintiff's land, and subsequently, the
air space at a greater altitude above it.

The Court holds that

1. A private airport and flying school is not a nuisance per se, but may be a nuisance
if improperly located or conducted. The present field is properly located, and in the main
properly conducted.

2. Flight, in this locality, above five hundred feet is not a trespass since this air space is
not owned by the plaintiffs. As conducted it was not a nuisance. The state laws, to-
gether with the United States laws and regulations allowing such flights, were valid police
legislation.

3. Flight at less than 500 feet over plaintiff's land is a trespass and will be enjoined.
The existing laws and regulations do not attempt to legalize them as against the owner of
the land underneath. "Until the progress of aerial navigation has reached a point of de-
velopment where airplanes can readily reach an altitude of 500 feet before crossing the
property of an adjoining owner, where such crossing involves an unreasonable interference
with property rights or with effective possession, owners of airports must acquire landing
fields of sufficient area to accomplish that result. In such instances to fly over the lands
of an adjoining owner at lower altitudes, the owners of airports must secure the consent
of adjoining property owners, or acquire such rights by condemnation when appropriate
enabling statutes are enacted. Smith v. New England Aircraft Co., Inc., (Mass.) 170
N. E. R. 385, 391, 393. (See an able article by Charles P. Hine, of Coimisel in this case,
'Home VersTis Aeroplane,' American Bar Association Journal, April, 1930.)

" Whether property rights or effective possession is interfered with \mreasonably is a
question of fact in the particular case

" It is of course conceivable and very probable that in other cases, depending upon the
character and extent of the operations of the adjoining airport, effective possession may
not be interfered with by flights at lesser altitudes than 500 feet in taking off and landing."

SUBJECT INDEX

Administration of airports, 54-62, 130.

Admiralty power, 108, 114.

Advisory board, 60-61.

Aerial photography, 99.

Aeronautics bulletins, 6, 8.

Aeronautics Commission, 65.

Air board, 55-56.

Air Commerce Act of 1925, 45.

Air currents, 31-32. See also Wind.

Air mail, 5-6, 51-52, 78, 80, 98.

Air meets, 77.

Air rights, 115-116, 129-130.

Air routes, 13, 109. See also Airways.

Air space, 105, 108, 110, 112-116; upper, 112-

114, 116; lower, 115-116.
Air taxi service, 5-6, 23, 65, 78, 80-81.
Air traffic control, 69-71, 109-110.
Air traffic rules, 69-70.
Airplane express, 51-52.
Airplane parking fields, 23.
Airplane storage and repair fields, 22.
Airport advisory board, 170-171.
Airport board, 53, 61.
Airports, see Municipal airports; Commercial

airports; and other types of airports.
Airports visited, 135-138.
Airway bulletins, 12.
Airways, 24, 37-38.
Altitude of port, 6, 18-19.
American Legion, 60.
Angle of taking off, 18, 115, 125-127.
Annoyance fringe around an airport, 162-163.
Appearance, 28-29, 36, 82-83.
Approach by highway, 28-29.
Approaches, clear, 6, 31.
Appropriations, 93-94.
Arlington, Va., 12.
Assistant manager, 65, 67.
Atlanta, Ga., 27, 56.
Atmospheric conditions, 17-18.
Automobile traffic congestion, 30-31, 69.
Aviation Committee of National Fire Protection

Association, 73.

Blighted districts, 22.

Board of appeals, see Zoning board of appeals.

Board of port commissioners, 59.

Bond issues, 90, 93, 118.

Buildings, 10, 92.

Bulletin boards, 71, 75.

Bus lines, 27.

California, 61.

Certificate of convenience and necessity, 36,

109.
Chamber of Commerce, 60.
Chicago, 111., 32.
Chief clerk, 68.

City plan commission, 4, 36, 121-122.
Civil service, 55, 65, 68.
Clearing, 16, 91, 153-155.
Cleveland, O., 12.

Clubs, airplane, 10, 23, 51, 60, 86, 92.
Columbus, O., 6, 24.
Commercial airports, 46, 64, 78, 80, 82-83, 88-89,

94, 96, 102, and passim, 173.
Commercial districts, 31-32, 36.
Commercial fees, 98-99.
Communication, 70, 76.
Concessions, 77, 86-87, 101-102.
Condemnation of land, 53, 89, 119-120, 129.
Control towers, 70, 84.

Cost of improvement, see Improvement cost.
Cost of land, 88-90, 172-173.
Cost of maintaining airport, see Maintenance and

operating costs.
Council committee, 55-57.
County airports, 48, 52-53, 59, 61.
Court decisions, 108, 111, 116, 131.

Daily activity at airports visited, 148-150.

Dallas, Tex., 55.

Deficits, 96.

Department of aeronautics, 55—57.

Departments of municipal government, 54, 57,

170.
Design, see Interior design.
Detroit, Mich., 53, 70, 89.
Director of aeronautics, 55, 64.
Dirigibles, 5, 10, 39.

^ Only cities mentioned in the main text are included in this Index,
in footnotes and in the alphabetical lists and tables in the Appendices.

187

Other cities will be found

188

INDEX

Dnlukce Cram center of city, 20^ 2S 23, 2S-26,

S8; 58; 88, leo.

DaCricti^ jw Blighted <£stzMts; Commodal
dHtritts; Indnstrial distrkts; ReaUkntia]

DiantkHionud.89.
Dniuge. 16-17. 24, S4, 91, 1m.
Dmt, SO. 125.

Eaaement, 115-116. 120. 129.

Bevatod and sobwar fines. 22, 26.

fiuMBt dmaain. SS, 105-106, 117-119, 121,

128-130.
Ertabfiahment, 117-121.
Excess condemnatioii of land, 129.

Fkcttwy ates, 51-52. 97.

Fidd rales. 69. 73.

tiM sopenntokdent, 67-68.

Fhianrhig of oommerdal abpocts, an Stock,

sdkof.
financing of mnnicqMl aiipoits^ see Appn^fHria-

taons; Bond issues; Subsidies; Taxatioa for

aiiports.
Vm pntcctiofn, 10. Si, 69, 71, 73.
f&nitaid.73.
Fiscal polky, 8»-102.
Ftyiqg acfcools, aw InstracticMi in flying.
Fbg. 18-19.
Fort Worth, Tex., 55.
Fkci^ht, 25, 52, 98.
FM. sale of, 83, 101.
FWartinn of airport, 20.
FWtnre expansion, 13-14.

Gaiagesi. airfdane, ste Airfdane storage and rqiair

DeHB.

Gaaofine, aee Fne), sale of.
&aifi^, 16. 91. 151-155.
GniiRlle.Midi.,70.

Hangars. 10. 71, 82-85, 97.

Hartfotd, Conn., 55.

Haaaids, 6. 8. 24. 28. 30-33, 71, 84.

Hei^ Endt. 120-127.

Higfcnraja^ 16, 22, 24, ST'^a; St, 48. Itt.

Hanerale,118,130.

HoftdiW 10. 87, 92, 101-102.

Lapnrremoit, 77-78.
ImfKmtmeMA coat. 89-98, 153-155.
IiiAirtml dHtrict% 3S-33, 36.
Inatmctian in Qjin^ 5-6, 51-52, 65, 70, 78, 80-82;
99.

I— .30,124.

fntwior deagn, 4, 10.

Intomediate and emogency landing fieIds.*23-24,

33, 38, 109.
Intostate commerce 106-110, 114, 127. 129.
Intcntete Coounerce CommisBicm. 109.
Intovn mnnidpal aiiports. 20. 51.

Au^sonviDe. Fla., 89.
Joint aiiports, 119.

Jurisdiction. 107-111 ; fedend. 107-106 ; national,
107; state. 107. 110-111.

Kdlf Air Mail Act of 1925, 45.

Land acquisition, 33, 88-90. 119.

Land available. 156.

Land cmiTerted for airport use. 22. 119-121.

Land rahies. 26. 28. 32, 36.

Land ▼aloes, effect of aiipwt on. 31. 124, 164-166.

Landing fees, 96.

Tending stiqw, see Ramrays.

Landowners, 88. 105. 118. 125. 129.

Leaang. 63-64. 77. 82-83. 86, 90. 95-98. 118-119.

172-174.
Legislation. 120. 124, 120-130; federal, 69;

local, 118-119; state. 69. 111. 123.
Legislation. enaMing. 56. 63, 121.
Lialnlify tot negligaice, 123-124.
Liabifity to suit, 125-126.
Lnensinfr of aiiports, 122; of aiipc^ managers,

65; of pilots, 65, 108-111; of planes, 108-

111.
Lm AngiJks, Cafif ., 55, 57.
Looisvffle; 1^., 53, 55.
LooiBviDe and JdEerson County Air Board. 61.

Macon, Ga., 56.

MaintcBUioe and <^>erating costs, 63, 91-95, 175.

Maintenance of aiiport, 77.

Managonent oi aiiports, 43, 50, 63-87.

Mamger, 55, 61, 64-65, 67.

Maps, 71, 75.

Marking of obstmctions, 129.

'M»^Pr»l attentim, see First aid.

Mfiphin^ Tenn., 55.

Miami, Fla., 55.
Michigan, 61, 65.
Milwanloee, Wis., 53. 89.

Bjiimg #m|Jt»y>#.>, 68.

Mnnicqial administiatioii, see Board of port
eoaomiaBonexs; Dqiartment of aeronantics;
Dqiartments of municipal guneiument; ftik
department; PldbGe works dqiartment.

Mnnicqial aiiports, 46, 48^1, 53-54, 59. 63-64,
67-68, 7»-84h 88-90, 98, 97, 102, and passim,

in, 175.

Muncqpal boundaries. 50, 52-53, 119, 123, 167.

INDEX

NatioBal Adviaorv Committee for Acroosotics,
76.

National transportation systems, S7-40-
Ncwark, N. i^ 28, 89, 98.
New Jersej-, 61.
New York City, N. Y, «8.
Nigbt lighting, 70. 74. »l-»2.
Niglit ligbting as a, mnaance, 30.
Nigfat lifting charges, 99.
Noise, 29-30, 125.

Nuaance. kgal ajpect. llS-116, 125. 130. See
aUoDiuA.; Ndse; Nigfat lighting ; etc

Oaldand. Calif.. 59.

Obstrnctioiis. 10. 14. 10, 18-W. ». 125-186. 156.

Offices, administzation. 84. 92.

Oil, see Fuel, sale of.

Opcfating income, «ee Commensal fees; Omces-

sions; Fuel, sale of; Imwdmg fees; Leaamg;

Night lighting diaises; Stance cfaaigea.
Oregon, 61.

Orientation at airport. 14. 16.
OwD«^hip, 43, 45-53. 109, 107. SceoboHmaa-

pal airports; State aiipocta; etc
Ownerdiip ctf air space, 112-lM.

Park department, 54, 57-58, 61, 93, 109.

Parking, automobile, 28, 31.

Parking space, aahMnobile, 10. 31, 48. 69. 85,

101-102.
Parks, 4, 13-14, 22. 87. 119-120, lOS.
Paiks, airports in, 120-121.
Parks and other recreaticm areaa, rdatkn of air-

pOTt to, 23-24, 29. 33.
Passenger fares, 96, 98.
Passengers, 10, 25.

Personnel, 10, 63-64. See alto Majuqger; etc
Philadelphia, Pi-. 59-60.
Physical chaiactensties of airport sites, 5-19.
Physical chanMteriatics ol aiipozt aunoundiBg^i

18-19.
Pflots, 67, 74.
Hanes, sale of, 85, 101.
Police power, 105-106. 114. 116. 128-130.
Policing, 10, 68-69.
Ponca City, Okla., 55. 57.
Pontiac, Mich., 55.
Population of cities visited, 199.
Portland, Ore.. 22.

Private and ^>ecial airports. 23HU, 46-18, 51.
Private planes. 6. 22^23.
Property owners, li^fts of, 113-116, 124-125,

130.
Protection of airport, 125-130.
Protection of neighboring pr(^)erty, 130.
Public utilities, 34, 49-50.

PaUici

Public works depatBorf, 54, 57-^8^ Mi.

Pahlifatioos, aeronwrtnl, 71.

lUlidly.T?.

QiMia iwAlic cxupoEstion^ S»-t>.

Bn£o, 70-71, 76.

Ba^b»beaean*,S4.

Bail transportation, 47.

Bailway stations, 3, 20, 159.

Baihray yardb, 22, 51.

R^ma^a. SS, S8-S0, 109, 11*.

Baiitfail. 17, 71.

Bati^ of aiiparta, 8, 7S-74, IM.

Beerealiiai lariiitifa at airpotta, 87.

BcnalDBent stands^ tee Caueaatuou.

Bc^ooal ifjalcm of aiiparta, 20-24.

Bcgistiatini of planes. 74-75.

BcgnlatJim as pnliGe otaity, ftS, 121, 123-124,

1C7-420.
Brgnhtion, power of, 106. 108-111, 121-122.
BdaboB of aBpoet to city and :
BfislMi d astport to

i^alcnM, 37-40.
Wfistinn of anport to tniiipoital am, 94r99.
Bepairing. 22. 83-84, lOL
BnAfc-ntial districts, 24, 29-31, S4, 36. 126-127.

163.
Bestaurants, 86, 92.
Bevome, 87, »4-102.
Bliode Uand. 52.
BmiwayB, 6, 8-10. 14. 70. 91. U».

Salaries of airport pemmei. 55^56. 61. 9S,

67-68.
Safisbmy. N. C, 55.
San Diego. Calif.. 22.
San Faadaco, Calif.. 56.
Soorecard. 3.
Seaplane airports, 8. 25. 55. 75-76. 125, 128,

157-159.
Secondary nses, 10, 87.
Separate administzatiMi of aiipotta; 168.
Soriee diarsea, 100-101.

Sbspe of aiiport. 14.

Si^ht^eefaig and joy tiding, 5-6i, 78;, 98.

Signals. 70.

Ste. reqairaments for, 5, 14-19, 121-122.

Site, selectJon of , 6, 37, 122. 124, 144^145.

Siae, 5-6. 10. 12-14. 88-89. 151-152. 173.

Smoke. 18-19. 32. 126.

Snow. 18.

Soil. 17.

Sowrcea of inSormation. 140.

190

INDEX

Spite erections, 130.

State airports, 48, 52-53, 118, 122.

State airport commission, 52.

Statutes, 117, 119-120, 123-124, 130-131, 176-

185. See also Legislation.
Stock, sale of, 94.
Storage charges, 99-100.
Storage of planes, 5, 10, 22-23, 82-83, 92.
Structures, 18, 31, 115, 125-127, 129-130. See

also Buildings.
Subsidies, 43, 48, 50, 53, 64, 96.
Suburban airports, 10, 23, 52.
Suggestions and criticisms by managers as to

airport conditions, 143.
Superintendent of operations, 67.
Surface car lines, 27.
Surfacing, see Turf ; Runways.

Taxation of airports, 53, 122-123.

Taxation for airports, 93, 95, 118.

Telephone and telegraph, see Communication.

Terminal buildings, 84.

Terminal facilities, 38, 43, 47-48, 50, 53, 63.

Terminals, air, 38, 54 ; rail, 47, 52, 109 ; water,

47-48, 50.
Terre Haute, Ind., 55.
Testing of planes, 5-6, 23, 70, 80-82.
Topography, 16.
Transit, 25, 28, 161.

Transport service, 5-6, 51, 78, 80-81, 109, 111.
Transportation, 3, 25, 34.

Transportation connections with airport, 20,

22-29, 76.
Trees, 29, 126, 129-130.
Trespass, 113-114, 116.
Turf, 17, 91.

Undrained areas, 22.

United States Air Commerce Act, 1926, 116.

United States Department of Commerce, 46, 52,
61, 69, 73-74, 110, 122.

United States Department of Commerce, Aero-
nautics Branch, 6, 8, 76.

Uses, kinds of, 5-6, 47, 51-52. See also individual
uses.

Uses, control and segregation of, 6, 20, 51, 70,
78-82.

Visitors at airports, 146-147.

Waiting rooms, 10, 84, 92.

Washington, D. C, 61.

Waterfront location, 32, 51, 156-158.

Waterways and water transportation, 39-40.

Weather Bureau, 71, 75.

Weather information, 71.

Willamette River, 22.

Wind, 14, 16-19, 71.

Winston-Salem, N. C, 55.

Wisconsin, 61.

Zoning, 4, 29, 31, 34, 36, 88, 115, 121-122, 126-130.
Zoning board of appeals, 36, 122, 126.

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Airports, their location"

See other formats