Palomar Airport: Where is the Kimley-Horn Supporting Data? Blog #58

In August 2013, County consultant Kimley-Horn [KH] recommended two changes to the Palomar runway.  First, install a $25 million safety system on the runway west end.  Second, build a $70 million 900-foot runway and taxiway extension on the east.

I asked the County to provide the KH records showing the support for the key KH recommendations.  The County furnished virtually no records.

Why the KH Supporting Records are Important

County staff at the August 2013 Palomar Airport Advisory Committee meeting and again at the September 2013 County Board of Supervisors meeting stated that the County would rely on the KH Study.  The Study forms the foundation for the ongoing County 2015-2035 Palomar Airport Master Plan and also the County grant application to the FAA to receive federal funds to lengthen the Palomar runway.

If the KH Study is materially flawed, the County is wasting up to $ 1 million dollars on the Master Plan, FAA grant application, and related CEQA documents.

If the County misrepresents the Palomar anticipated revenues and costs when it applies for a runway extension grant, the County may be denied the grant as well as risk future FAA grants.

Records Requested

Design Aircraft.   KH says it uses the Falcon 2000 as the design aircraft to assess Palomar needs.  But the County-KH contract required KH to evaluate the most demanding aircraft using Palomar.  The Falcon 2000 is an FAA B-rated, not an FAA C or D rated aircraft and hence not the most demanding aircraft.

I asked the County to provide the records showing how and why KH picked the Falcon 2000.

No responsive records were provided to my public records request.

EMAS West End Safety System.   Palomar likely needs an Engineered Materials Arresting System [EMAS] to stop aircraft that might overshoot the runway.  

But is the County using the EMAS project as an excuse to begin converting Palomar from an FAA rated B airport to a C airport by constructing massive retaining walls as part of the EMAS project? Once constructed, the retaining walls allow Palomar to increase its land footprint and increase runway and taxiway separation.

I asked the County to provide the records showing why the West end retaining wall must be about three times as wide as the EMAS system and whether KH costed  shorter retaining walls.

No responsive records were provided to my public records request.

KH Test of Key Assumptions.  When the County applies for FAA grants to extend the Palomar runway, the County must show the benefits and costs.  The FAA requires the County to test its assumptions.  As discussed in Blogs 55 and 56,  Kimley seems to assume a longer runway assures all future Palomar aircraft will carry more payload creating revenues larger than the runway extension costs.

I asked County to provide records showing how the runway extension benefits and costs change if Kimley key assumptions change.  I noted changes might include:

• corporate, commercial, and cargo jet forecast increases or decreases;

• an analysis of the different short haul, medium haul, and long haul corporate jet mix as affecting the need to fly at 90% load;

• an analysis of Palomar fuel prices as affecting aircraft buying fuel at Palomar;

• whether meetings by internet would reduce aviation flights;

• diversions from San Diego International Airport due to SDIA capacity limits; and

• whether Palomar corporate jets operating at 90% load at Palomar would simply transfer operations from South San Diego County rather than create new economic benefits.  The FAA benefit-cost guidelines expressly recognize that airport improvements often simply transfer benefits from one area to another.

No responsive records were provided to my public records request.

Where is the data objectively supporting Kimley’s recommendation to spend nearly $100 million on Palomar Airport runway improvements?