LAX Study Called ‘Fatally Flawed’

In an opening salvo of a coming battle over the $12-billion LAX expansion proposal, consultants hired by local governments that oppose the plan blasted its voluminous environmental report, saying it inadequately addresses noise, air pollution and traffic worries.

The consultants, in a presentation Tuesday to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, called the 12,000-page expansion document “fatally flawed” and said it fails to comply with federal and state law. They added that the document is so riddled with inconsistencies that “the only practical remedy is to start the process over again.”

Criticism of the expansion plan is expected to rise in coming weeks as Los Angeles World Airports--the city agency that runs Los Angeles International and three other airports--and the Federal Aviation Administration close an 180-day public comment period July 25. Public hearings on the report are scheduled for Saturday.

The expansion plan favored by the city agency would add no runways to LAX, but would make improvements to the existing facility to accommodate 89 million passengers a year by 2015. The airport currently serves about 67 million passengers a year.

The expansion plan has prompted an intense regional debate about how to accommodate a projected doubling of air passenger traffic in Southern California by 2025. County supervisors and about 100 Southland cities favor distributing this traffic among regional airports, while unions and airlines favor LAX expansion.

The report doesn’t quantify the expansion plan’s effects on minority neighborhoods, or suggest adequate measures to offset those impacts as required under federal law, said Andy Lazzaretto, whose firm, A.C. Lazzaretto & Associates, was hired by the county to analyze the plan.

“They say information on the number of minority businesses in the region that are impacted is not available,” Lazzaretto said. “We take exception to that.”

Lazzaretto agreed with a consultant hired by the South Bay Cities Council of Governments that there is nothing in the expansion plan to prevent the airport from absorbing all the region’s passenger growth.

The environmental impact report “doesn’t reveal the true build-out potential of the airport,” said Barbara Lichman, a managing partner at Chevalier, Allen & Lichman, the firm hired by the South Bay council.

The expansion plan assumes that other airports will accommodate additional passenger growth, but doesn’t provide a means to ensure that this happens, Lazzaretto said.

Among the inconsistencies Lazzaretto cited in the report are differences in the number of residents directly affected by airport noise.

A 1996 study by the airport agency found that 85,907 residents were most affected by airport noise, while the expansion plan says 49,000 residents fall into this category, he said.

Lichman and Lazzaretto said the report uses outdated statistics to determine how expansion would affect traffic and plane noise. The report also fails to analyze how traffic generated by an increase of 22 million passengers a year would affect intersections in neighboring communities, Lichman said.

The city airport agency offered no response to the consultants’ charges, saying it will respond after the public comment period ends.