Residents concerned about a proposed fifth runway at Atlanta Hartsfield Airport will have an opportunity in January to let their feelings be known.

Last week, the Federal Aviation Administration released a draft Environmental Impact Study on the proposed fifth runway.

A public hearing will be conducted Jan. 30 at the Georgia International Convention Center on Sullivan Road in College Park.

The fifth runway will have a big impact on the traffic patterns around the airport and will affect such major roads as Riverdale Road, Sullivan Road and West Fayetteville Road and Airport Loop Road.

Plans call for Riverdale Road being tunneled underneath the fifth runway.

Construction on the runway could start in 2002 with completion finished in 2005.

Copies of the complete draft report are available at the South Fulton Library in Union City.

The following includes much of the executive summary. The complete draft is several pages long.

According to the draft, the city of Atlanta Department of Aviation has determined that a 6,000-foot long commuter runway, which was environmentally approved in 1994, does not provide the reduction in flight delays that is now needed because of increasing traffic volumes and increased use of regional jets at ATL.

Delays are averaging eight minutes, according to the study.

A 9,000-foot runway is shown on a revised airport layout plan that was submitted to FAA for review in June 2000. The FAA will select its preferred alternative for the proposed project after the close of the comment period and will publish its selection in the final Environmental Impact Study.

The Aviation Department is seeking approval of the 9,000-foot fifth runway that would meet the need to reduce current delay levels and accommodate existing and projected airfield demand for hub operations at ATL through 2010 in all weather conditions.

Proponents say the longer runway will help reduce delay during visual meteorological conditions and instrument meteorological conditions. The proposed project also would include the implementation and/or development of related projects, including taxiways, navigational aids, lighting, roadway modifications and land acquisition.

Primary purpose of an EIS is to ensure that the policies and goals of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 are considered in ongoing programs and actions of the federal government.

The Federal Highway Administration has agreed to participate as a cooperating federal agency for this draft EIS, having jurisdiction by law because implementation of the proposed project would require an Interstate Encroachment Permit due to the proposed runway extension and associated taxiways bridging Interstate 285.

FAA's analysis of delay at the airport, performed as part of the draft environmental study, determined that to maximize the airport's ability to serve the local Atlanta air travel market, as well as continue as a connecting hub, five air carrier runways are essential to accommodate ATL's air carrier demands during peak arrival and departure periods in all weather conditions.

The airport currently has inadequate airfield capacity to accommodate existing and forecast activity levels during peak periods, which creates high delay levels, according to the draft. These high delay levels would increase exponentially over time without major improvements to the airfield, according to the study.

According to the study, four critical components of delay would be addressed by the proposed project: reducing arrival delay by providing additional independent approach capability; reducing departure delay by decreasing the dependency between departure runways in poor visibility conditions; reducing delay by providing an enhanced airfield to serve all air carrier aircraft under all weather conditions, and reducing delay by maintaining existing and future hub activity at the airport.

An additional air carrier runway that allows ATL to accommodate three times as many independent instrument approaches in all weather conditions would provide the large-scale, all-weather capacity that would meet the airport's immediate need for reduction in arrival delay, the report says.

Also, the approved 6,000-foot commuter runway is limited to arrivals, and the airport needs for the runway to handle departures if it is to be effective, the study says. Having both landing and takeoff capacity would result in shorter queues, it says.

Further, the study says that a longer runway will serve a larger percentage of the airport's carriers. More than 80 percent of all aircraft types in the forecast 2010 operations would be served by a 9,000-foot runway; it could accommodate any plane smaller than a B757 at maximum takeoff weight, and would also accommodate heavier aircraft under non-"hot day" conditions at maximum takeoff weight or under "hot day" conditions at less than maximum takeoff weight.

A runway with a length less than 9,000 feet would not be able to accommodate these aircraft at these takeoff weights, thereby reducing its usability and contribution to delay reduction, the study says.

As the alternative evaluation proceeded through each level of analysis, alternatives that did not meet the criteria were eliminated from further evaluation.

The "no-action alternative" would mean building a 6,000-foot by 150-foot commuter runway as originally planned. This alternative would provide some delay reduction, but not enough to serve as a long-term solution, the study says.

During preparation of the draft study, the federal Environmental Protection Agency provided comments to FAA concerning the difference in impact between the existing four-runway airfield in the airfield with implementation of the proposed 9,000-foot fifth runway.

To respond to these concerns, FAA has conducted analyses of the future conditions at ATL assuming that none of the alternatives under consideration, including the no-action alternative (commuter runway), would be constructed. The analyses identify the impacts in 2005 and 2010 as if only the currently operational four runways were available.

FAA's analysis follows:

Because the Aviation Department is nearing completion of land acquisition activities related to the approved runway, the community disruption categories (residential and other relocations and social impacts), as well as environmental justice and historic and archaeological resources categories, would have the same impacts as the No-Action Alternative. No additional analysis is required.

Because the four-runway alternative would not include runway construction activities, there would be no impact on wetlands or hazardous substances. No additional analysis is required.

Because the four-runway alternative would result in modified flight schedules to maintain service at ATL with only four runways, the DEIS addresses impacts on surface transportation, noise and air quality.

This phase of the alternatives analysis assessed the no-action alternative, the four-runway alternative, and the alternatives that passed the level one screening. Within the two geographic areas, eight alternatives were evaluated:

Alternative 1 - This alternative considers a 9,000-foot fifth runway that is 3,400 to 4,200 feet south of runway 9R/27L, with the west threshold in the same location as the previously approved 6,000-foot commuter runway.

Alternative 2 - This alternative considers a 9,000-foot fifth runway that is 3,400 to 4,200 feet south of runway 9R/27L, with the west threshold shifted approximately 1,900 feet to the east from the location of the previously approved 6,000-foot commuter runway. This proposed eastward shift was considered in order to determine any operational benefits associated with moving the runway farther east of the I-285/I-85 interchange and with aligning the west threshold of the 9,000-foot fifth runway with the runway 9R/27L threshold.

Alternative 3 - This alternative considers a 9,000-foot fifth runway that is 3,400 to 4,200 feet south of runway 9R/27L with the west threshold shifted 4,900 feet (3,000 feet plus the approximate 1,900 feet shift in alternative two) to the east from the location of the previously approved 6,000-foot commuter runway. This alternative was considered in order to assess the potential benefits and adverse impacts associated with maximizing the runway location to the east.

Alternative 4 - This alternative considers a 9,000-foot runway that is 3,400 to 4,200 feet south of runway 9R/27L, with the west threshold shifted approximately 4,400 feet west from the location of the previously approved 6,000-foot commuter runway. This alternative was considered in order to assess the potential benefits and adverse impacts associated with maximizing the runway location to the west.

Alternative 5 - This alternative considers a 9,000-foot runway that is 3,400 to 4,200 feet south of runway 9R/27L, with the west threshold shifted approximately 10,900 feet (9,000 feet plus the approximate 1,900 feet shift in Alternative 2) east from the location of the previously approved 6,000-foot commuter runway. This eastward shift was considered in order to determine the potential benefits and adverse impacts of crossing I-75 instead of I-285.

Alternative 6 - This alternative is a 9,000-foot runway with a lateral separation of 4,200 to 6,700 feet south of runway 9R/27L, with the west threshold shifted approximately 1,900 feet to the east of the location of the previously approved 6,000-foot commuter runway. This shift to the south and east was considered in order to determine the potential benefits and adverse impacts of placing the runway south of I-285.

Alternative 7 - This alternative is a 9,000-foot runway with a lateral separation of 4,200 to 6,700 feet south of runway 9R/27L, with the west threshold shifted approximately 6,800 feet to the east from the location of the previously approved 6,000-foot commuter runway. This shift to the south and east was considered in order to determine the potential benefits and adverse impacts of placing the runway between I-285 and I-75.

Alternative 8 - This alternative considers a 9,000-foot runway with a lateral separation of 3,400 to 3,800 feet north of runway 8L/26R, the current northernmost runway at ATL. This runway, in replacement of the previously approved 6,000-foot commuter runway south of Runway 9R/27L, is north of the existing runways, crossing I-85. This alternative was considered in order to assess the potential benefits and adverse impacts associated with constructing a runway north of the existing airport.

A final report from the FAA is due next summer.

Traffic impact on local roads also is covered in the draft report:

Under the no-action alternative, the roadways immediately south of the existing ATL property to I-285 would be acquired. Access to the roadways would be blocked. Four highway facilities would be affected by the no-action alternative, as follows:

Sullivan Road would be closed just west of its intersection with I-285. Riverdale Road would be realigned from its north-south orientation to an east-west orientation and would connect with West Fayetteville Road. West Fayetteville Road would remain in its north-south orientation and would tunnel under the proposed fifth runway and its associated taxiway. Airport Loop Road would end in a cul-de-sac east of the taxiways connecting the fifth runway to the existing ATL property. A connector road would allow traffic to exit onto Sullivan Road just south of the cul-de-sac.

Because of the realignments as described above, major adjustments to travel patterns would be required. Some adjustments would require short distances of indirect travel for through movements in the area. Changes in travel patterns through local areas would also have to occur. However, since the relocation of businesses and residences within the acquisition area would occur before the start of construction, relocation of the local roadways would not impact residences within the affected areas. Therefore, no significant impacts would result from implementing the no-action alternative.

Under alternatives one and two, the roadways immediately south of the existing ATL property to I-285 would be acquired. Access would be blocked. The same four major highway facilities would be affected by these alternatives.