Consider the Neighbors, Not Just the Economy : LAX: Plans for growth have to take account of the impact on people living nearby.

Most of the discussions about a proposed expansion of Los Angeles International Airport have focused on economic issues. Missing is any serious consideration of the people who live near the airport and what doubling its size would do to their neighborhoods.

The Los Angeles Department of Airports is drafting an environmental impact report to chart the future of LAX and examine the potential impact of expansion, including a projection of LAX handling 95 million passengers a year by 2015. In 1986, LAX reached its planned air passenger volume level of 40 million travelers. Since then, the airport has expanded its operations by 35% and now serves 54 million passengers a year. This increase happened without any examination of the impact that this dramatic growth would have on the surrounding communities.

As we discuss the airport’s future, it is clear that more accountability and leadership must be associated with the planning process. Mistakes and missed opportunities can no longer be tolerated.

Millions were spent planning the widening of the Sepulveda Boulevard tunnel, a key access way to the airport, yet the access to the tunnel from the new Century Freeway is via a traffic signal that creates mile-long traffic jams. Another example of poor planning and wasted taxpayer dollars is the Green Line light-rail system, which stops short of the airport.

Perhaps the worst example of the Department of Airports’ inability to plan for the future is its recent decision not to collect $3-per-passenger facility charges on certain travelers using LAX. This federally sanctioned fee could raise $5 million a month--money that could be used to soundproof homes in nearby communities or for public transportation improvements, including the recently aborted people-mover connecting the airport’s parking lots and the terminals.

About 25,000 homes and nearly 70,000 people who live near LAX are exposed to noise levels that exceed Caltrans regulations. This is an unacceptable number of residents who on a daily basis bear the brunt of LAX-generated noise pollution, yet little progress has been made to bring these homes into compliance with the law.

With Mayor Richard Riordan increasingly looking to use airport-generated revenues to support city services, LAX area residents are concerned that discussions about the future of LAX will focus entirely on the economic issues, with noise, safety, traffic and other important factors considered secondarily. What other explanation is there for the Department of Airports’ interest in constructing runways in the Santa Monica Bay? Can we expect the department to credibly evaluate the additional traffic that major developments, including Playa Vista, in LAX’s backyard, would bring in combination with an expanded airport?

The department should not try to accommodate all of Southern California’s future needs in air travel at LAX, especially when there are surplus military bases available for commercial use just a county away.

Everyone is aware of the airport’s vital importance to the Southern California economy, but I do not believe we should be expected to embrace an ever-expanding LAX as the necessary result of a growing economy and turn our heads from what is also an ever-growing public nuisance. LAX’s expansion must not come at the expense of the neighboring communities.