HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.1. S.O.A.R. Update ` f s�
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SIIN�SARY FOR ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: JANUARY 5, 1993
AGENDA ITEM: SOAR. PRESENTATION AGENDA SECTION:
DEPARTMENT HEADS REPORTS
PREPARED BY: STEPHAN JILK, CITY ADMINISTRATOR AGENDA N��� 1' /_ A
� �
ATTACSMENTS: PROCESS REPORT - �P �� BY'
DAKOTA COUNTY MANAGERS
Mr. Kevin Carroll, representing S.O.A.R. , will make a monthly report on the ,
Dual Track Process and current events in the regard. '
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None.
COUNCIL ACTION:
!� ...++i . ... . . ' .
f
�.:
� �� .. � . . � � .
::.;;i;.::: .
��:::::::.:�::::::�.:�:::::::::�::.:.:::::::::::::.�::::.>'.>�:::.�._:.�::::::::::
�._:::::::••:::::::�::::::..:.:::::.:::::.::::::.:.�::::::.•.:::::::::::.:.�:�:•
.........:•.....:.....:..:.....:::::.:�.:::::::a:::::.:>:::.>:.>::»»:•::�::.:.:::•> ''t
::.:�:.::..::::::...:...:::::.......... . . ..;. , .
. .:::.::::.......
. � �:•:.:�::��.�.�::
:::�:�::::�::�::�::::�:I'
......:.......
:::;a:.y:.y�::.>�:::::::.:••::'�::.::�:>:�x�:<•::;:a••:
:;;..::.:...,,,:.:::ii::j;;::�.::�.::'•>�:.:':::•>s:'.;:::..
;.,-:::::..,�
::.::.:::::::::.::.:.:.:::::::�::.:'.:�::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::.:::.,.. ..:::::.:�:�::•t:::�`�:%•:;::�;i'�rS:::•?::::.;;>:;.>::.>`::
::::.::::.�:::.:::.::.:::::::::.::..;.:::::::.�:::::::::.:�:.:�:::::::;.>+•� .:::::•:::::::::� . . .::�:>::::::::•::::•:•.::.�:::•::::�>.:.;;:...:.;:>::;•:
..::.:.�::::.::.�::::::::::::..:.:::.::::::.::::::::::::::.:::::.:::::..::: . >.: .. ..� b A,....... .............::::..... :..:::::::.:::::.:<.:::;::.::>:::.::«;;�::::::::::::>:::.:.....::
'::::::::::.:::::::::::.:...........:..:::.::.:::::.�:::::::::.::::::::::::::::::,...�.v.,,.::::::::..�1...�..:E::11C.::...::::..::.................::::.:::::..................:..::::::::::::................::..�::::::::::..::::::::::
DAKOTA COUNTY MANAGERS MEETING
Airport Dua! Track Planning Process
10:30 A.M. - 11:30 A.M. �
1 . Timeline, Flowchart and Players �
2. New Airport Site Selection Study -
3. MSP Operations Forecasts
4. ReUse of MSP -
5. 1992 Annual Contingency Assessment Report
6. Decision Document
DUAL- TRACK AIRP
CJRT PLANNING PROCESS
NEW A�RPORT DEVELO�MENT AED= ALTERNAiIVE ENVIRONMENTAI DOCUHENi +
EIS = ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SELECT pENT�Y SITE S� COMP.PLAN COMP,PLAN MAC = MEiROP�LITAN AIRPORTS COh�MlSSION
S(�S/ " SCOPNG MC = METROPOUTAN COUNCIL
SEARCH �1.ECTED SCOPING COMPLETED • FAA = FEDERAL AVIATION ADM1N[STRATION
AREA �Yout pw�r� p�oRr
PUBUC MT(i ��� DRAFT AED FWAL AED
PUBLlC MTO PUBUC MTQ
METRO MAC MAC
COUNCL APRIL 1993 ' JAN. 1994
' QEC. 1991
� EIS
EIS SCOPING � DECISION
1ST PHASE DOCUMENT EVALUATE STATE NRPORT SELECT FEDERAI
PREPARATION OTHER FNAL DEqSION PRffERRED fNAL
��a �suc Mtc ALTERNATIVES El5 DOCUM�M' ���t �g
�
APRIL 1992 AUGUST 1992 MAC/MC tvW FAA
MARCH LEGISLATURE !
1995
MSP DEVEL�PMENT
MSP UPDATE UPDAT,E SCOPING COMP,PLAN •
���� 2020 CONCEPT REPORT COMPtFTED
�'� FORECAST3 PLANS
PUBl1C MTG FPIAL AEO
MAC MAC MAC
NOV. 91 , : APRi11993 'JAN. 1994 ,�—
i
�
, , � � �.
�
� � F� � � � �
P
�
` I. DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNlNG PROCESS
TRACK A - REBUILD MSP
MSP Contingency Planning Group ��n�'�`�
- Annuai Report to the Legislature m�r co�N"�
Decision Document ����� ��'"'"" '
MSP Interactive Pianning Group � ,,,�s .�,zo�vr� rns�
- Report on Social, Environmental, etc. Costs at MSP M.��
MSP Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee A�c- ���-^�`T�Es, c y'�'a�'�
- MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP for MSP) rr�?ET'�', ��� .
TRACK B - RELOCATE AIRPORT
Gi)�y s �'�tfF �n/�-G
New Airport Site Selection Technical Advisory Committee 2e
- Technical Review of Site Selection Process for New Airport � �r�, '`�� �' •
New Airport Site Selection Policy Advisory Committee ��y s�,� v,�,o:c�
- Policy Review of Site Selection Process for New Airport �Q�,�G ��,,,,.,,.,,.�,,;ry _
MSP Re-Use Task Force ������,:,�% �-l�t'G
- Development Scenarios for MSP Re-Use and Ccsts ���:
Metropolitan Council � � ��
- Assessing Community Impacts and Economics for M.A:C. ��a-a;°��,„ ,� /y�-C
II. GENERAL A(RPORT PLANNING PROCESS 1N T.C.M:A. .
T.A.C. Aviation Committee ��,;,�.,�r�,�.�• ��
- Develops Aviation Chapter of the M.C.- M.D.I.F. ����
- Reviews Comprehensive Plans for all TCMA Airports ,
- Reviews C.I.P. for MSP �
T.A.B. Aviation Committee . . ��pQ�.�y
- Policy review of T.A.C. Aviation Committee recommendations
M.A.S.A.C./Metropolitan Airports Sound Abatement Committee. '
- Develops Noise Mitigation Measures for MSP _ l
- Maintains the Noise Complaint Hotline and Map
Metropolitan Council
- Systems Committee Reviews All Airports Related Matters
MN State Advisory Counci! on Aviation SrAT�' � Goc.e�- ��'�"��'s �
c.�i i�,vS
MN Environmental Quality Board
- Approved the Continuation of the Alternative Environmental Review Process with
the M.A.C. as the Responsible Govt. Unit
MN Legislative Auditor
�.
. �
AGENCY kNQ PUBLIC COORDINATIQ�
Throughout che Dual Track Airport Planninb • Inreragency Cc�mmittee., This is:i ininc � Sire Selecticm Technical Advisory
Process, chere has been a major emphasis on publir commiccee of MAC nncl i�tcn�e�pc,lican Cc�uncil Cc�mmittee. This commiaec revicws cechnical
and agency involvement before,during,and afrer board members mandaced I.��� the Icgislacure ro studies ancl documen[s,and provides inpuc inro
che complecion of key scudy components. oversee che Duaf Tr;�rk Planning Prbress. �he scudies. Membership includes representacives
Affecced local,scate and federal abencies • MSP Air}�c�rc T;isl: [�c�rrc. This rommir- cif affrcced stice/feder;il cranshortati�n, ��lannin��;
ha�•e bren concacced co determine che cype and ree advisrd �hr MAC cm �,��liry itisi�e:ti,�ncl crrhni- ;incl envirunmenc;il ;��c�nrics, Icx:�l;;��ve�rnmen�
loc;i�ion of resourees wichin their jurisdiccion in ral rompleteness durinS che elerele���mrnc ciFthc scuEE�and aviacicm industry rc�xcsentatives.
chc vicinity of MSP and in ehe new airpore selrrh Lonb Term Com��rrlxnsiv�� Pl;in Firr MSP. The. Membcrshi��c>f che Technical Aclvisory C�mmicree
are,�,and to identify potential issues ancl concerns. broad-b.ued group incluclecl commw�icy reprrsen- �vill lx rhan�rcl ,ifter the complericm of thr sice
[)irrcc coordinlcion wich review a�;encies has been cacives,airporc users, che husiness communicy,the srlecrion scucly ro�iddress che com��rehensi��e pl;in
maintained ch�oughout che process ro ensure thac MAC, the Metropolican Council,�ind v�uious fed- for che new airporc.
impaccs and concerns are adequately lddressed. eral,state,and local�:�;encies. 'fhe tnsk Forcr will • MSP Re-Use Task Force. This cask fflrce
In addition ro these agencies, che following be reconvened durin�; che 1.TCP updare. is studying che porencial re-use oEMinneapolis-Sc.
�roups/commiccees are involved in the process: • Site Se(ecti<,n T�isk [�orce. This rommit- Paul In�emationa(Airporc. This group is made up
• State Advisory Council. The Scate cec�vill a�ivise chc.M�1C an chc pls►nninS proress of pec�p(e who reEiresenc a broad range of re�ional
Advisory Council was established by the legisla- and policy issues during the site selcction stucly. incerests, including communities surrounding che
curr co provide a forum ac che scace level Eor eduri- Membership will inrludc rr��resrntatives of fecler- ��irport,business, labor and housing interescs,
cion,discussion and advice co the(egislacure on al,stace anil local agenrirs,rlrctrcl nfficials 1nd MAC and Mecropolitan Council members.
mecropolican aicporc planning. The Council has represencacives of the busincss community 1nd air- The general public is being kept informed of
23 members consisting of House and Senare legis- port users. Membership on che uul: force will be che Du�l Track Airport Planninb Process chrough
larors,Eederal,stace and metropolitan agencies, chinged after che complecicm�E che sire selection �series of public information meetings, ne�vslec-
rc��rrscntatives of the aviation industry and mem- s�udy io address die comprchcnsive plan for che rers,press confcrences and news releases. The pub-
hc•r.of che public residing wichin and oucside the new airport. lic will�lso have opporwnities chroubhout che
mecropolican area. • M$P Inceractive 1'lanning Group. The process to comment boch informally and formally.
• Contingency Planning Group. This MSP Inceraccive Group(IPG)�v��,s tormed ro Porma[inpuc�vi(1 be solicirecl at public
�;rc�up monirors crends in rechnology, cravel habics obcain technical input fre�m �hr communities adjn- hearinbs. Informal input From the public can be
and che economy,and makes an annual assessment cenc to MSP during the,dcvcla��mrnt of che Long provided at the scoping meecings, meecings of the
uf che nrrcl t���roccrd with any major imprf�vr- 'Crrm Cc�mprrl�ensive Pl;iii: '1'hr gri�u��:1 mnin ; aclvisory grou��s,and ac public meecinss which
mrnts a� chr currcnt airport or ro 1cqi�ire c�r dcve(- (c�rus was tn icicncify cim�niunity imp��ccs rrsiiltinb will l�e schedulecl chroubhouc che process, indud-
c,��;� new majnr airport. The Contin�ency from the drvelopment c�(tlir v;uious MSP alterna- ing meetinbs bcFore each hearing,and ac key �
Planning Group is comprised of Mecropofican. tives,and to suggest miciga�icro scrarebies. The poincs in the process, Additional advisory groups
Council and MAC members,local officials and IPG�vi(I be reconvene�l durins.che upolre of the wil! be formed as necessary.
Uusiness representacives. � . MSP plln in 1993.
. 11
� . �
. , � �
F �
� . ,
�
.
� � � � ��� � � � � �
�
I
!
�
i
�
�
�
�
SITE SELECTION TASK FORCE ,
,
Presentation
�
. �
I
- �
i
�
I
October 23, 1992
� 4wPUliS s,' . . ... . �
`� 1 '
v�� � �
� � • � � � � � � � _ • _
i�'1 � �`�'�� .
����OR15
� � � � ♦ � � � �
•• •,•�• � , �ir.`. , :��.v., ,�\ `
� ,� L=.��'�:�r�t.�i�t �� � s�' I�► �., �� �v
� � � iir" r�"1� v� : �!�.����t �� � Ri
+��;�%I�'�� !�� `� �f;;� 4l��'� ��
� ' �.va,jv.1iA,�►�►�1.�7 _" ��,����;,1�}. � � �
�r��•,1�a . �`�-� ► �� �`�=-_�� r � �
'���7�����`�•�. �e,�'3i ~t l ��' � .
, .�•� -a.■ �_ ��� 11 �.���i='� � � �.� ��
� � 1� -= . '�r\����,�-��y,�i � � ' � oT � �
,,�� ;r._
�. �l;�.r �,.t�:� �1;� �.��'� i��� � ����'�l'�'o
, ��-, n ?�.�fii;.- ,, � �.
�..-, �
:�'��i '� F�, w.,� �' � �, - �tD
�rn.�- ..�� ` �� � ts'� �� �� �-�� �k ->� o o � � O
� ;.,�.r�i�,�;,�,.>>11�'� , ,F�'r ./, i .� /��
♦ ���� , ■' _ �. �.n�_�! � �1 � .. m r,�]��,�y �,•j � �
'u�����rJ i�`��:.q,��n'',T., i �'_ �I� �� ,�f � Ye•� �, � � '��//I%�/// ��
�,,. �'r.���".�4wr���i�:��;�'��:;; � • ,j. .+ ..�"—,,, ' , Q � ��.
� ' K`�i��Ffi� �; , � � , � � , '� � "� o
��`. ,.a,�' [, i. � S: � . � mj
• �I ����.f��"•;yw�u:�f�:/�~��� ��%a'�iu"'it��Fl�1�R �� �`.�I +: h� .
���i,.�''�~'°' .f �,�'f'"��1��' ��, � � `-"%^`�� �. r � - ��
������'',� � .��:�����`;r'"��� �
,,... �i r � � w�'. - • � �
��./ I ♦ �
�r'-fiCy'J�FiI'�s�:'~Mr'�.; ,c� ��l'1 y �� l� �?� ' •� �
,�r -��"' -;�r �r��� �'*"�'�►i'� -�.� .� . ■� ���,,
tt���!i��;:li�l�/M!S'-; '■�a��[n�y;�'!a"►� j� . ..,�a ��� �, ' `i
t�;�i�.!- + r•��.� �. �� ,, � � r' �,�,,�- � � ��"�
wu � ��
�=\��i::i�tl�� .'n`.`J��.�te ii: ";'�.'�Gil�'.�{- � �1M11 ■\ ',.r�!�. .�.s
�� �`�����.i � _1T�r fi��" l I:ti:i `
, ', � `'��,r� 1 � C�, 1 � '� �� �� � ���� m •7 1 .3i:'-�:1�'lt�"���'^
���r,,�t -�, u� �..��, . . ��r� .__��' ��►_.. � ��_�30,= :I I:•y` ��.
i ` ,� r- _ �. � ����_�:_:�• � `- - ,�i.
� r,�. _
._+�11 ' �.��c ,r� �Ji,:1►:�� I ] r l., r�. ` ���
r'` �;,�'i� 'fi.`l� C�J, =����- _� � '�Ir+ �p r'�:ki� m -WI1i�'�u�w ,.�_�E4"!�u .
.
�,. .�.
.1�L .� � �,. �--I.It'_J�J�(=� i�.�1i� '"'�"�� j�. i j. �„�
��: ��'�r�w`=f��fr:���� -- ���� r• `0 _ j[4n. *+ �`•,
��n �_'�'4 u�i��:�.:- >> �� ..�i • � ���'' -�
►�`;Gi:�C-���,�,'`'•��� r`' � � ����� m �■� � ��^'��:����,�i;��� � .
,. i :_� •�.
;�l�r1�t c/t� � ;J.l.-�ii. �"��'3in�'� 0 �, � � Ql ����i � '
,�;x�; �.�a�� �--.�yv,/� ���►f►�,��� � ��■��� � .JI m, � ,V
, ��+�� _ ;�. i •�. `I! • � ,
,��,5�, ,.�:::, ,,� �� e ���'„ � S, ' �!� �.�// �! ,
,� , � s� �
������� - -�=�� ,� �� , ; � `�
����;��� � � � ,� . ����,;.�/�r�� �: �.����
i►, ' ,, ,, ;n r li..�!�"'"���iiii►%.� � �.w�
�=. {�''��i'� � � - �' ¢ _ �'�
� - , � .,� m °� � ►��i ■ � `�; '•
.i�►��1�,�;;��.� � -���ii���� �■ � ,� . � ,
nuu� ';�. �' ..
�� �►.����a�i� �:�, ��:t. '� �'�' E:� � �
�� �■ '���i�� � ��
�r�����_��r`��,:��(:..����1� � ..'� ■�
�� r, � . ..�rr � _� w
������ ��i� ��' �rr �� �����
�1 � �,.- , .
�I��� o �"�" ,,.; �
��-:.�,� � � � � �,���� `�, 1� ��' �� � -
,'/� ���'. +Ir ��
�/�r�� ■� ./,'► � � ■ m �
��1r���. A � ��
-- �� �,^ � . . .
_�e _ �� . �
,�-.._ ,,P
. SITE IDENTIFICATION CRITERIA
T PINE BEND OBSTRUCTIONS S`°'. '" Fee'
N o s000
,�„�---f
0
1168
(242) 1202
1223 (302)
O (297) 1201 ��
(� (275)
� 1168/� 2SS2 ,�..
Q s4z)�>>>a 2 ti
�z,s> • pp�, R �tie
R QSEM UNT Ro 'sEo. � �
394)�
S�AN PR F N NY - _
I �
0 K �-.-�.-�-� ,
. „ R . 4
G� : ,
GA �.
GN� :
�.
��`����*� w {�,}� ;, � ��$ s4� , .. � . � ` .
�... Y .'. \ . .. T � �r� . . .
\
} ♦
•`,��ye,K},�n�T.� yti y�;� ,4 S.. +.�.i�,��" s) ; � 1
:r �}Y:.,{;..�`•i`.''��:a k\i �,te, 4 S, y, <:� ♦ �a`' �. �� � .
r . �
n�,_�,`�.µ�. Y'�x i 4 t v}, tt � .
���.�'������x�"� �k;k�`� �> �� t y {4 v �5 {� } ������M��
t�^:\ aa�Cyk �c .,, ♦ i
. �,h:iM\S',�"�k`M\ ?h5\Y \> � K� '� J 1 .
..;t 'h.��.�' �. �} 'C. ��t k k .
:;.Et3?<..;�,K^i:t:,y y'fi. .'. < . ,r c
M}> � a
�'�y�' 3 �� 4 � {4 F �,j h � ..
-\ �'.�v . , . .�
. . . 5 'ti ., > t s Y . •` . .
. �.. �;� x�y { : } t � � � . � .�� .
: x�Q. k �y .. } 2, . � , .: .: �. .: .
; .
t �
U,•( �4+i��� �� . $; � �� . . � . . .
��k"' , '�''
, l .,; �'C�T� � , .
.. , , : � '
,
.
: ...
,.�..
: ;.
., , ...
:: .. v .
4lC.. � .:. : :', '.
�
�
� V e r m i l I i o n
, m
� �
�, _
�
PINE BEND � .
PHYSICAL OBSTRUCTIONS
�
o G1ide�toPe
3•0
..<.... .....
::;�>... <.,.:;.:...:..;::> .....
;.,:,y,;�_ ,,{�.,:r>;,,:.>.::::;:.::.`'°`�'„':<:;:;:...><.:�,:,::>::::,.,....
'�z;�•:',:.�<:.<:,�::;::;:�;...;: ;a:�::i<;;:�::�%�>:.
y� `t;g:;.;,:•:.�<:�.":;i::.:.a<; v :^;z>y«:.:<.:::...::,:.,�....
,.:�:{.`i.�..•'.:;....: ;s,::�::;s;r ,�. ,;x.;::;;: ;y,..;:..�,•...,.
..y>Y,»i:`+;•;�� i:i;,':5:;.�' �.....,,:�Y.;.l.:?} . >:nb i;}'�?fi� ^+y�S:•::. .�1�>:: i . . .
..�:: �R�:,i;:;::::`t:...;. y.;.y,.:.,y�..:... ...:.:::c.;.,:..�`x, ��'��`,.:K.•.:x. :'itc:.: i$:::,: .
� ..:::.
�•..,�.;:..;�.::,. ••. :::::
:\>,.:i:;:,;:�r.::<t.;. ...::.:.r.;•.,,;•:.::..,s�.., ..o;..�::... ��< k i ,.. �. . ;>•'.•S'r' .'..�,�`:,;:{•;•v:;�`.�r,',';�p•:• .
,.....�:. ..::+
� .:,..,..4..y?�;�".:.•.. ....:n.,ti�:r•'>v„1�:..� . 4.:..
i, n.:•�...
.....::.:::. a.;.: ....;. .. , . .
...:..:..::::.a:. . .. ..x. . ' :.•: '• � .
•ti::..::.:.... .::n.:.i<:ti�.;.:..yy�<•:}.ti�vv.;. ....)iQl�:}:i\'.•4::iY::};y.. ..r..?4 :r hyti:y`:>:::�.;�.n.:'�:i:• � ;i5:2:rii�'i:i�i:<i�'�:�:}::i.�.:..
''z::.:::.;:ii•: �. } ::..,:t.,.`: :..:::.:...:s..?�....;.y.;;d. .;.::.. i.n•�'r..:.<.::i:.:::..;,.:::•.i':e:� ' } . :k:: ' :.{;..;,:.5;:::.i.'S;?.?ti.;.�,.,:'.r.:........
.,::•>:;:�t<?:':`. .•:w. ,,:a:.:.>:.;?.:.; •..�.o:. ..:<..:,.:..t.{,�.,..,,.S..v .:.i:;�� :...,f.:::r:.s...�.s....;.,.;..�: .
........ '� :. ��,..,.. :.. .,:�:..... .:�:::i;'xSf:;......'��•.,:.. ... .::�+.
.,.: ..�
.•.,•:...>�...,..,,.. i�� ..'•••.•;:....� .:. ro..`. .. :::, .... .:�.�R }�
:.:<::t.i?:£,>.;..:�i.�..::.,♦ ,x.},;• ,.K. � .;,.,'s,.:b:k ri .:v� o-•:{4:.::•:::;::;::i:;�...�'� :::•'.}�.:iSKw`:4f,"o,;:;;,<::: ''::ti::o.:::..;..
,..>..Utit.� ::.,s•...y .?b:::4> •`..k`;fit:...� : ,�.," ..s....:� .r<<• ' . �;�.^,.,.;t.:.�.{.;r.,.:.. ::.o-��il[..'' ..�;<..<;,;.,oq:�:�... v�5::•t•r.:.,,:...t..
'^`.'.... . 't.Y.: .th.
y' .^vi•. �
� �.. :� .<,
i::'{.;{.v... 4.{�.. ..J,n�`.♦ .4. }:v,.� 2� .♦h...;...:nv:: ..::.f.;;i:t+>;::d�.:n2..�:...�.. 'i:::Lj.;.:ifFS�::\Y:.n.. :1
��.:....:., . •;jy� 'ti'....�.
. . .::i�•�;:: v(q..�.r:.� . 4.�...::..y.. n�4. . ...} . ,r,.}.... ...�i..., ti ti.��. �4:�i:j•v?SK}
.,..�:.•. :.::...Y.... ..s t,. ^'?'.. ,o.:,.,,.:y.......,k . ...>. ...,<�^::•.
��:. ..,�.;;::.;y.. ::
:.P...:::.. ♦.. •.;r:a:C•.;:::%. .::0...x.. . .3.. .k "w. ,.},..�::.::::..;., �..�;.>k•y.a;,.}..... . 2,.�..
.:.�:s... •i•. i�.. . .:::::u1..v;J:vx .�1Q :...Cvn;:.�... ♦..S .
... .\n�..;iJ'rii:�:r>ji:::..::::?:::,v,'i:Si.. .. . 4.n
..#�.2.::�� .:�:.::3.4 .... H:..:• .. ., . :n..:..::::.:.. ....:. ...... t....A.r..'C�u+•.n..n:i`.4.:.. ..::::>:+
... ..t�.. ....: .... 'v. .. .. ..:.`. . . . . :.:..... . 7+n. ............k�.v:s........:::.•}y�.....v......,,.....::.::.:::... ........ ..} .v .h ..,::..::yti;y:o^••
.. ..rv.... .. ....... .nn .. ..... .... L . . . x4. ...n.. . r.. ... ...... ...... ♦r.�..v ........ ..n.n. ....... .... .�..4.
......:.. .. ...r.... .. +>. .....,..,..Y..,>.. :i,.�� . ��S}...... ......t ........ ... .. ...... ....... .... ,..... ..h. .:: : ,..�:.. ::.., ::`:ti':.:::5;'::`::':�::�.:.�::::::
. ......... ....t:.......... :h. :.......\n....2'.. .. ...:...� �... � ........�.............:n.in.:.......:::.n.... .n...:......C.. .u.: ..�{�. ...nv* .v..:..
...... ..... .....�.. .... . ..�..... ....u..h. . .. .... ...... J}. ..... .......5...i..u. ..�... ........ ....... n.. .tn.. S.�K. � .�..... S . j:i:.y :.Jv.;..,::::.:::.�
...� .... ....... �tn ..n............ . . . ..{.. . . ♦ . ...... .v..... . ....nn ...n.3 ti.... . . ''�1.v. .r�:.;�. v':%�},;:.t :n�:r 1.....
.. .....:......:.......�.. ............ . ...:....�#��`..,.�.'. .k.:1..... .h..,,... ..k.. ;.....:..n•.,•..:.... ...:.�::.v..... ..,,..n•::.�..:.a. ..u. . .$::+ .:;wv......
..... ....... ........ ... ....... .r.... ..x . ......,. ..... .... .,�t.ct,......, .`.r.. .,... .........,•::,.:::::::.::...:<.r.:..
............:,....... . . ..........,.. ....,. . ....... 4�...�. .,. .. ....... .:.. ...... ...,.... ...... ........ .....l: .� r..a•:::.:....>..,.. :`�r;.....:.,.::::v.�:.•:.;::::.x;:::::.:o:
,. :...,.....:'2....::...... . :,..........,. .. ......,:.r .:....,>... .......::.......::....... .. ..c. ..... ...cY.�1*e`.,:;,:. `r:• .::r'::<? ...>,........ ..x...:,.......
.::�...�::•::.:..�:..::�.. . ......... ...... .... .. .: . . ....... .. , .;.:.. .,...... .., t... .....}.............. ......::....:.::.: ... :....a.....:.. ...,.E. .:.�3�:'::..
..,...::,...::::....... ...::......:.�.....,.:.....�';:�. . ;:>....:.�.. �. . . ... ........::: ....:>.....:::..,....,.;......:>:......::......�,.�:.::......:�,......:. . ...�?:. .:.. . ...:::<:.....,..;:::.::::.:::.::,..>:;:.
......,.;.... .::.....::k ,.,:;,..x.... ...::;::::.,..;;....:s.�...,.:3.::.....::::.....:..
r:.::.::.::.�:.. ...... .:.. :.., .:.<:..�..: Z :.:.. .......:.....,:.::::.�:.��•.�:.,,::.�::::.::.:....,. ..., . .;.`,�, ..... a... ...
„: ..,:.::.,.•..:::,,::::,:•.;,r<.,.4;x...... . . •::......,::.� ��a�, :�. .... ..:::�:�•....:........ .:s..
,. � ..... ..... :::: ....::..::::::,..:::::...:...,, .:.�.�::..,:..,......::.., .
.:.,�,.�:.,�,;.;.:: .:,..;...�::.. ......:. ...........v.:.. .. .:...... . 'x�, i...: .... . . .. ... ..... .t�. #�.. ...,.. .�.
.,.....„ . ........... ......:.., ....... ..`�... ......> . #�� c. . . .. ............... ....... ....... ........ ..... .. ....... ...... .�z.; :.::i:::::::::z:;::: .::.:;z:.:.sa::::>:
r:.•:::...:. ...��+s . ...>..;:......:�i.....». :,<.. ?:t:i':?ii:::��.:..
�•..:..., ..... :,9.... . s0t's\+.�•:.�:::... ••.... ... ..... ..:ti,.o.,..�.:�:,.::.,,• ,a,
,_„•.,;...:.. .....:::�,.:,�:::::.. :.:.a::,:::.::.;;.;..
.,. . a. ..... ..... a .,...,...:.,•+,
.:.::�.... .. ...:.x....::t.:......... ..... :b.� ..r.......... . ....,.....,................. ... .2b::.�:::::.. .�,. . ::;2.:
.... ....... ....s:..nn.... .2n..�....n �..........r. v. .. .. . .�......... ........... .�.. �.:C........... ...`k� . ....... +4.S .�
. .... � .::...... . ...... . ..... .... ..... ?..... .... .. . . .,... ,.... .. ... .... ..... ... .�i. :::t.::.:�sn.'':;:::::
.v ......«...... . .. ....., .....�. ... ........ ........ k.,� .. ..... .. .r.: r.: ::x.v
::.. :
...... .... . .... ...... ... ..... ...... a .... . . ...... ..:.. ::::..k:.�.....,.::......... ti. .,:::: .
... ...... ..... .. .... . . . . .e... H.. . .. .. .\. ..... .x. ..... .. . t.. . :.. ...::,...�.:::.::r.:..
• ...... ..}. Y.v:. .::. ...... .. .. . ... ......... .. $ �\. �k ... . ...... .. ..... .... �.... .v. ....n ♦ . .. . ..... '
. ..... .... .... .. ..... ...1 .<.3 ,..... ... y�3: .. ..... . t.. .. .... ..... ..... ...... .. .... ... ':E. i:::i;,";:;;:;::;i::;:
....... .s.....r........ ...... ........ ..k.................. 4 . .> .. .,.. ... .?.,... ......... . ............. ....... .. . .R. .u::. . �if'�i�:..
•:::....... ...... ....... ... ....... .... ........ ...... . . . .+... .. �:�*�R$ :.a..?..:`:?,;::%`�:
. ....... . ...>... .......:. �:..v. e K x�s . ,.::::.�:.:,.�:..;;:.:.. •5:....:.:::.,.>,.;>,:,.:.::. ...... ..::•.:..;.,� ..}, . .:.a...
.::::::'•:.::.�:a:•.�::.:::.::: :.y......r.:. •.-.... .+,. .. .....'+....... .a, .,. .........2.:......,.,....... ...................:o... . .....,:..a •;" .v:<i#:6:�Y•,:..;�x,.:: •.,,c.::�;;•;;•r........
':'.� �.......:.v....:::: �... .;}y.....+.ti\.}3t... :.v 4kC�.:};.....:.:v.. .:v...... .n:�....;?:;..}..�.. .. \.:.....�: . i. ... ..R..n :;iJ3i:!M1�:
k.
• ��� �y
...l..n�. ..r�R. \.. i.:
�.,u:.:
. �YO. ...}.... +nY ..J...4........ �Y.......
..:�i:`::?.:n:i:....�k.. Sv.. � :Rw:..:♦ ♦ � , ni:ti`::ni:.:j`i:.n�::::
"`•i::i':':i'+.�i;..;n:�.•'..::i":...... 2.n.. . .....}. . ..::::�::::..� . .$�P '.:•. 2... ....v.r..... .\4:;•,;v:.vr..;:.{vs. .. .• }4... .'\. U".i:?`:i>:+S;�i:`.�::� ({�
}....n .....,},:h.. '+�4 .nv..k{n�.� .,Y,..l.i�.:+l,f:......:.w....L::.?'taiki�:.... ....s.;.vr.... .. '>;l::i:i:.� .; .. `:y .I.. .,�.n..n�. .''v;:i:�. � :..;}:..::.::�:::..::::.�
.}.., . .'$..�. ...Y �.K.�. ...+{" ..Ri•:. ...::^Jnk`:::.::.y......::::......
..�::::.�:.,.,<.;;::.::.;::;,:••:>:::. .......,•:,,;;:..•::�::::.:.:::�>::;:,..:.., � . :...�:.;.:,.. ..v:::,:::....>::::: ....:...... .:.. ::.,
.::::.:::::..�::.,......:,:.<...:.. .,�::.: .. ,'�.�.....�........ .. �. . :>..,...,..�:,�..::::.....,,.:... ,..... :�.....>�. .. ;::�.:,:..�<.::> : :.: .. ,..�..:;.::,.�. ...
. .:.<:...... ,>.,..�.:2<.. ,��,.a.,.�:,.:,:.< <\..�::..... . ...�.'.".'''.'.,''�w .>... .,k:>..:,�::;>:::;.:::>: ,.,
v::y:,........s•.:�... ........ •:..... > ...::::.::..... ........�...:.: ,.......... :..;.:.:.•e. ., ..:, .,<> :.z.. ::,..::.i:�:::�:�
•:......::........vi....... ••.v:} ....{. .....r.:.:.:v• V ♦ .v: ....S.�T.nn\:S<j•:.;.:�:n� ... ..... ..\ . v. �^n. .."i:• '.i:'' :iiY�"�:..........
..n'>i'l:. ;$::;;......v�. }\ ..}. ';:j'5:�.)'��
••�h•, • Y.,.n:v....
+.•:h•:}u{•.�. ��.0'.P: 4.:fi.;s�i;:.'
' ...::n: v:::tinvn.. �. ....
�•ti'L:nvrn;;y.:.. L i.`•:1'r':O:':^.:n::::::y::::
vrv�.vtih;.n:;:x:::n:v.:ii:hiiii:p:.: "'�'�.:n.:�.... ......... ::.�:.;.�} .:.4..+'F.i}: . ..h.:... . 1.�y...x.n., n 'x ♦'rv .;
•Us:•$!.. ,+n,r... �:..i�•iii:::.. :� \. . . � '\;:ji1�':�.n v¢??)(... v;..lv�:i:::..�.:..:
...::ti:.:v.;.s:::::.�::.: nn. 5... 4 ' 4 rx.. J.:��:'r,:.n...�.:: .. ? . .w ��'.:: r.Lnxw:
. A�, }'Q.r::�:::. r:i., ^,n.}.1�•`.:iii:i:.i'i\•. �: � :�:t.
�........ .:t.. . . .. ..�.� .: . `x'.,.s.,:.....::. ., ..t.. .;... ...k ::i•.• :.5;:';`:!';:.> .7...
v:hC::w:::.�� ..�v. :ii.v.v:,�v,..:::.�.:.2\k. .!�v.vi\h4..;..>? A:..pv��••,�,,•�'•:�i'•:. ;� .i. •�. n{,'�b. •::i..x�.;:•,.;k;,
..�t..�.r. .ti.;...:••.::z�.,. 3..: fi.. s� .«,....::#::s::::,�:::?:`;:�•
..::.;.y;.'.;..::;y;;.... .r.'.,..:..:.::c•:#:• . .. .�'{'::t.:'..�� .
;<:�;•:,`.�.:;:>.,.::::::.'�:4.v ..��.t. ...�.,...... , . : :,.�....�. •>; ;�., .
�L:w::::�SiiiY>.:;:ii:n4.i:i.n:�::. h.},..:s...}:. n .;:
. ,,.r•::::.:r•.a. ..�' .�o. •�.;•:;:.;:•:.:.>;:.>::.
..,:,.:.�::.. ...:., . •;,.:.:..;.;.
�:.,:.:..:.::.;:;•::::::.,.:..:::::y:. �•.x:;.:::a:�.::.,.:,0.., .. . ..,v..•.;;...,;...:.,::.r`.:s•<��...:.•.;.....w . .::....�.:.;..,.s,r'k. ::�• .. �. s.v.::i.<.s:ri;?::>. "x.:���.................
.\.::.v::..;n ;!1.4.\?.v�...u:..}'.i�:•�:::J:4::}4v\,:5.;}y::in�y: } .���F :Si�. :.��,,. .,-;iw:.v:..:.:���:.:.:i:i:
u.::::::...n4:.., :.�'�,• .
n�;Y.i?n:}Y..;...i*. v,-}...}t�4� . n.?}1.�$::':.n..:44n �.}���. ' :�{.i�\:}y+ "v:'yi$} `
�n�.�::::.�....n:...:. „v,p•: '
...::::n�::n....... ; .....n::�.\.... n i::;:.:. .. • :..: J�.3::�.�h.v.h:i:'::'..S.:t. �}xii4iii:i:':�:i.
.........r..:.�:.,....�.:?':.�t«.i.:;q . �j¢���ry:'?i}"k{titi•Y.:,y.:j>0..,:;.y.; {•T''t..• ....::.....r
�.0�:�\:.::.:?..Js •:.:}'k4v�.S:. ..y. .��'L �.Y�nv •:.\v.� :v�;,. .;,} ..f:..:::.::::.::ii<i::�
i:n<i.�r...i....n '.�.�•:v.J::t::::.;.�..�. .:?vv. {?:�'::::�.
y:.4v:...;. • :{.�`1.. :i..vA. ....} h..�. ..��ti.. :�V.:�: 'j:�.;�.:::'F
�::::::....:.:..::::r. �''�:?i• . .},n.
..,::;::::i:::;::iik.:i:.i::'...... •s. . ..v'•:.: .:>.v..�n��v... ..:�.�vn.�.. . •.Yv,..i.,.:vY:•..�k... . .
•. v .
.�.5:.?,'k.;::;.;
;::x�::�o.: • :;,>:.v.,.:�,;.x�.,,•,. .o�:.....: v>.: :�- ..<...;.... •;.;::::
...
4.. �}.:�:: i.:.d..
. u.:�`... !3.yS...:�iy n�:�ktt \.. n.iv.{ .4Xni: .}.,:..:.
...v y.F.. vn .. ....... .
r..`:;
..::...:::.:�:.�:::::.:. .... :.::•...�...:.: .. . .. ..::.;.;.::...... �::-:. . . . ..�;:r:;:y ........
;`;h,y..
•:::;;;::.a:::::::::':?..::`::.,.::.. ...;Y.:::.ss:;•:t.::..�.y.,.::::;;�.x.••....+:,:�: ....��','P�t •:::+:.::.�.:�::. � .;:.:�:..t. :7 .,u
..`,i,`#. s•.^.::.:::.;+., :3�i� '�"�t�
,.:.:..�;•1�::;.6:a�::+a h.;;,�:{;a.:•?x:;.:;;¢..,.t;�..,.:'t.�`.`.:.4..:,.tp„
- � ' :.:>.�r'`,o.•....:C.r.:..::::t .i a � . .tti:�c ;nj'.
.,,.� .,.::.�.:., .. . .,, .
.........: ;.^;.
,
..,,.:i:.::•:::..�..�...•..�:.�:::.:.::.;::;:, ..:.. s .... x..::;:::.::.i?•: .....: •::: <•
+•.:::.,:':;:o-::;:�.�:x.:.�• �`.; .Y.. .�....:::.�.;...2..,.•:.......;C,.:.�ka:: � .: ::. . : .r.:.:r;:o-....
. .:,;��:.:.•:::. .::........... :..;:.. •,:.,�.•.>:>c.•...�........,..c.... ...�. ....... ..•:.;:....� .:•�:::::. .�:. .s:.., ... ,. .. .. t.....
. � . •.:g<•: .v£:,.v .':...,.;..: >;.•,>•... x .;i;.• :...�f,.. .q.: .
,...;...... ���>. ;,.: :.:; ,..
.�.ii;•.�:v:.i}::'{.:iii:i:�i::i�4:i.:.;, '"i:C:�y:4:i:'•Jti:i:..ti:...i{..:..�::i::;S}�:viS ..... . .:::..n... .. �:..i... . !G..
..rn ��i.:i ....n::.;.:..v:.n.:
..h•:�+.k��.v.�:::.�.�.... .,..hY::y.�... .:t; . .::f.v.. �:+r>ii::::.�:i:iY:..�
::::.rip:?:::•:n:�::n;:::n::�..�....:.. .�h. . ..n.i:. . . .v.•:.}j?yv:......:..:y,.r ...�s.:., {it..- ... .•�'
q•.,4. ::�•. .........::
...s,�\,;;.•::.:.•.::::.....v,}::.n...J....u.....�... •Kp
!�
. ?:f,i;::nii..;;... iih�.:
......:.::n.::.�:.i:::i::: . ...� '.Y::v::•j:i:;::�. :...:. . ::i:.. . >v?
..:...... �i:.,;. t.:.;... \.v.v�..,. ... �},{.�mv,�....... •�;.:};.::..�::::�`?.::�:;::i::�>�',•i:
yu•.t.:.�..;.}S. .,.:tt.:x::n.:.:. .;.5.. ..{:. �.�.y..:.Y.�':::
'.v.::::.::::::.::::::::::.:::•::.• '+"' vrv•.ti..`•::i.i..�vv.�.��yniy:jj: :. �. :J. � l. ..
v:�:�ii}i:.::n ... ....�.n.;..... •}v:::....�.�.: :i:...r.: ':.. ... .u. . .x .\. iv:}::+�
.......4.vn;��.; :{6,..... ..v:
......:::..»:.::.::::.::.:.::.. w... ...� , :.;:.;:.::.::»::;:;.;:;<:;::.>
..:::..>:. :... . .,,.; ....tt.. �,.� .,.; p...,,a.y.: ........::.::..
. •:r�}:•.}, �.vv,
y... ..... ::s::::..:::.::.... y.;.. :. ... <:�. .::5:.;::.::::...�
'.::�\?:'t:i�ilu:j:i;p:;i:�ri.:i:•'••'f'•^.:y::.��:
::.:....:::::::::::�:>..i;u,.,�y ....••.
.A
:,..
:.t.....:r...
:::;.>.; .;.. .
. ...�;,;.,.;:;;:,:.. •.ax:.;a;.:�:....... .E:>.+...: �;:�s3<%.:!
..5::
x`.:�.
.k'.
S:;#'i::5::>::`.:::":
..;�:.�:.�:.�:::.:::... .........: ..
•..v�: %i22�'��.it.'� i:':ti:.
�:::...:.:. >x; „
%:3t
•..;,..:.:::.vt:.tfi•::: ..:.,..;;yp•:.b:+:s..::;.. ,.�•::: :;:;,..x.�:<::: 4
..%:.:ii.:,v?yntiih'r..
v:.
::::.. .... ... ..�. v�..• .�1.:. ....:.....:.:.:�:ii:•i:i�:::.: '.v. :t:
..:4v {. �.... n+....,. :'.yh,h'.:y: :..{::i:!1,�.:r.}.•;;.:..;i;;:.�.,.
�...�.... .�.�.�:..:.:. :.�. ::;.:.:.
. :,�.: ::,'•:{::: ..b. %:r,... :..t...:
:'•::;:;
..:>:ttfi:::<•:::.�:....n.... . . .. ::f:�;:i;�:::
.....:'::}.��;:.f;T::\.... •::y::}l:}:.):n.h.;Y: . ' ..:....::..s•.�.+Y.:;:::ry:?:S}.. <...;;. .4?: h . .\..
•:;.i•n:p::r.......... ♦�.. ;;...... .; : .. ::::. �...
..?.V;...} �1•'.n� � � v:�:v<j�kvii:i:�l.4'.:�:;t::�
ti.i:>.;}¢':•.v'�{'.}:}::. ' ::i'•::�i?:�:i:::::v?:..:.....:.::......:.::....
.......:.:::::�..:.:. �i'•:J:4�':i:j} .::.tiv:::1i:::;�.}i;.y:::ti.i:•}::i: :.. ...,. . � ��� .�..
. . ..4..�.,'.:i.'F.4�i'•::' .::•:t:::. :ti:t.4
n�'.�
K\.... '.i�%:�.::i+.'.;;.uv:'
�3::{"•i:'
��r}.
::Y<�Yiiv ::i:.';��.'i{:
:};;r%+
�:'R::;:;:::'f•;i:;�:',1.;...... ::%;F:�:�;>`•::::�'::i::5:.. '<:'s':f�::{5:::::i�:::`::;:5;;;�i%;o
�:.;.;..i>:i?::::i:,':a::.::. . :.��:�
::
.;.:::...••:;. ...vs..t;:.: . ::.:.
'�.4':'
.:..a:..:r.::•:: . .::.. ..<.;:.;; +,.,; .:.: a
.'t.. '.:'•:i::?•`::;'y,;$:;:,4?;:Siy..�:�...:::::;?%
♦.,:' .u.nv:;<n;:y.,,..;':n..k:�>i\?::':::::. ....:.:
..,.'<n::::ti!Jti.(G,Y.:•:S:ti'.Sti�:<:;:::q::.>.::Y.�n}. v;.},. �� Y:Y.;;::::::.i::t��
v:\•y,.5:;vr. :T:;.'::�::;' `:iE:.:�:i}�:�v},�::.•Y.:.;q{..�i.;u,.}S:
:::y::y:;.:t::...;.,ti��r:;. ::::Y: ?Y.: .a: '�.,.? ...L.....v.u.;:..:.i:%c::;;�;:'•
. :t::i::': .:.,<. \ :..<..h.:... �.:�:;:i#?:;:,;;;..,�::::
...::�r.......�:.: a.w::.�:. � � a>s•:.:. . :.
:.iR:;;:y:5:::y;':i,�::::.:::•••::�v. ..K:� .;;x,�:::;:�::�:;:•;:.::4:;:. ::k: . .:.&r•,:..
?:ia:.:i ..'.'„�f: ,..;�..::�.;:::::<:.:::r9::,:.
':;:ky::y h.. ..:4::`:a:?::.:
'�•:xv•:::,.? ..�}?:i y� ti.. .:.>z.....::..
>:Y... . .1..>::.. ?4. .k:.::
::;{.
%+.?G yf}{.S��ii ..:4{+ :i+¢<''i:
�•.
{.� 'i'r
�v\•.' �ivn ��4
\.i�. i�.�::.
�'.�1. :�i�t::
:^:'{'��
�v\v. �.:ti
h+:i.^•,:%�'�
�.�:.tt�5'��•s?. Q
•�:::4?:: i�:\.: p
.•'�.:.. ' �
'�}:t�::.:i::n ::i�'�..♦
♦ti i:
\. :?..'�'v'..u. :v:h::iijJi:f<
5�\*},'.� �� �. �':,�"�ni ��::j�.
.\•��i4 5:�:'fi.:�4•
.�1'.Y: \1.
. �vti�: ti4•.\... }..�..
. . :.�.�.. .
';::t{.�:4:'� n;,�.:::•� .'�...
..:.;,., . ::::. .;
, ;�:;�:::::^;..: ii:�t M1 �l ..4`+`+.
::.t:... '� � .
•:: ;:::.:s:•. .,
. .....:..,.>; . ..x
.:...` ��d::::;..::::: i+'.2:<i:;:.2:;;>:.+,:< �;
.:.
;..f .t;.n,';�:'3:1':ti i;:3::<>4;{,.+.;
:•.: :.::.�......... :.....•
i'L:;:i}iy; .:ti�::::�.:
♦:.. ::.....:.nWn:. ..........:... .... ..v;•. � . �4.+x`.' .v
;.i•::.:.. ....: ......;....n.::y:•,}�, '::4: ,%:i.�.; . '...
. . ' - � . . %t.i:::i<'..'."1': 'h::C' S. .•y.. :ti.. �..4.:}.}M.!�.4:k2ri^i'::r:i:':..i:.:::...:..
. ,�,4w. .;.Y . .'o+,.,c.o;..
;<»,';`S:�i?ii?:ii�:;:.;
'..;(Sy.. ..tvK'1.�5i:Y.::.v:v::'.
:.:::.: i:.:::.•..:::::.:•. ,.:,��.�� .
. !:i'{t�tiW.::.:..n.:�... ::T .:Y..y.:d�::i :::l�u..
...}�.\'....::�'i::::ry.':::,{•.:.:.:v.i':.:::..
.� :.:::.::':.Y:i "%�.
. )•y.�.n.:.,k;...
ti'iti::?:
<::(':j::
. t�'Y:s'':::J:::�n.:v;.R.n
i2+�\�:.:..
. ::;�i>:2`•:::::j:::::f•:;::'t:3#:::..;3��'�' ..)...�:..,�.?::, .
......;•.::.::: ;. ;:::
. . •.�w.: ,).
.;i�:
. t:. •:`�;::
♦.:�.:•:>.:ox:.
?";:` :4':+
.�.
�
....:..»:a::..^::::. ...:
?:t�::� 't k.�.+.. ..:,. ..x.K..:..`;`:t�i::�?ii{i;:�:.:;:i��:;;'i!.
. :::......::..�::::. .;; �
. (;'`;'s':::bf23':i::%1£:�c::'''i£;.'•:+.; ••.�.,•. '�,�::• .�,.......:v.:.::....:�:::.:..::.:.::..:.:::.�:�
,.�,}:::::•.,;0.2...;\5�,.;i$: .\:: :;:i;+";i;':.: : ?��.•a,,;;..::...:.a.a.:::::;;....::.:>;:a:.�:::;
. ..$.. �...k;;;.;,y
':4+•:i
. . . �' '^i:$iiiY.:•.,.;;..;�••;.;.;
.��il�yR.:..
. .n}:i.::::.:::;�:�ri'::�:?w::::�.::..
•:t::�'iti:v;: •:: n...
v:::::::�p:;i.ii:::':w.:i::•i:.::::yj!:.:•:ti?i..:. " �^}i: :}v::.�n.::. ' . ::
. . �:j;::: ::�i..`:.:ka.kc:.v�:.v::::.::..::.
..X .
���%iti`:�:;'`::<:�i.. i:ii;:x`;>;::;i;';:;:':�i<:i'�i?<
:.>.::::..:.:::::.�..... ,w::..�.. ;.,:
.�;..:.... ::S<>:,•.�•:`.:
;:.. 'z.�`�
. K4t:ifi4}:y:i>:;Si}}:::::::A::i:•:�:�
�.,...:::.ytin:iti:'''vu':i:�:i::i:<u'`::?:j`ti::::v'::1�: ' .:
. . . �� •, .. . .S .. ' , •.y��{:x..:.: }�
- ' . i . � ��� �:w.W�,� '..��;j. �:i" L'�j �����
. . ' . . ' ' . s s�� t � �
, . . . . . ,,' ,'; � ;.
<
` <`�>R+��inety
. . � . . t<a y� �
. � . � +;o..::.;%p•;�+�►,�•,•..yt
� . . . . .. ' . �..., �` k}�k { � .
'' > ;
. . . . { , � } �,�
+'? ..y,;,,.�,,.:.,:•.,::.:..::..
. . . . ":?::;ti;JY:.{ti:;ti;:i:::;;::::�i:;::i ��
� 3 ♦
:.
h
{ f * '
.: �
. � ' ...�v.:A.' �.
:O;:.:::::.:�. � :. �
. . � .:�.:':..k. .: . }
1
. . . . . ' :..'i:':
. . � � . � . � . ! .i
i
' � i
� �
1
t �
' SITE SELECTION PROCESS �
SUMMARY
The process of selecting a new airport site from witlun the Dakota Search Area will
be conducted in three steps: 1) site identification, 2) site screening, and 3) site selection.
These steps are descnbed following.
1. Site identification—The first step in the process involves identifying potential siles.
A set of site identification criteria will be used to delineate areas suitable for the
new airport. The auport layout from the Conceptual Design Study will be placed
within the suitable areas within the Search Area using some hard and fast
identifccaxion criteria and a series of other considerations. The sites that are
identified will comprise both a general physical boundary and a specific runway
layout/orientation.
2. Site screening—The next step consists of screening the potential sites identi5ed
from the first step using a list of site screening criteria. The purpose of this
screening process is to highlight the differences among the sites with the goal of _
eliminating the least promising sites. The surviving two or three sites will be called
candidate sites.
3. Site selection—The final step in the process involves evaluating the candidate sites
based on a set of site selection criteria and selecting the"best" site. The criteria will _
be comprehensive in nature, and will address physical geography, airfieldiairspace
considerations, ground access, utility infrastructure, regional/community impacts,
economic impacts, environmental impacts, and costJfinancial feasibility.
The evaluation of the candidate sites from an environmental perspective will be to
a level of detail commensurate with an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This
analysis will appeaz as a chapter in the Federal EIS, and will make up an Alternative
Environmental Document (AED) in the State environmental process.
Following is a list of factors to be examined during the site selection process. These
factors will be developed into specific criteria to identify, screen, and eventually select the
best site. Based on technical and public input and physical features in the Search Area,
factors will be added or deleted from the list.
t,,�,�,s,,
_�.� � l�z
�.� ,�= _ . -
- - � . . . _
'L.1 4 P()��J'! , . . �
. ,,
, j
SiI'E SELE(,T(ON FACI'ORS ,
FACtORS StI'E mEN- SR'B S[TB PREI.IMINARY COlvII�tENTS
TIFICATION SCREEriQdG SELECfION
PHYS[CAL �
Gnd�quiromenta '✓ tirpoR layout awst 5t within Search Arsa. �
T�B�PbY ✓ Conditions gcaeraUy dadlac throughout Search Area. I
Soiis � Conditioos generally�imikr thcoughout Searc6 Arta.
Ceology � Depth of bedrock varies throughout Seare6 Aru.
Meteocological conditions � Condi600s Yenerally similar throughout Search Area.
F7oodpiains �✓ ti/ � Avoid locating Ynwwnd facilitiea within floodways.
AIRFIELDiAIRSPACE
Opecationa!efficieocy t/ �/ Initia(4yaus will be ya�ed on CDS Lyout.
�
Aicapace intenction �/ � ���������� �
gardiess of site.
Aicpo�t exgandibility 1� To be wed u a rite scrtening criteria.
(ROUIVD ACCFCS�rrrrr jTy _
Ground acceu travel times � ✓ MC deemed access tima ucepiakie ia S.Area. �
Effcct on existing tnadway system �/ �✓ Infcasuuchatt varies thmughout Seatch Ana. �r
�
Availability of rail acceu 1� Infraunuture varies tyroughqit Search Mea.
Availability of udiities t� Infnsuuctue+e variu thewighout Seacch Acr.a.
RECIONALiCOr'�ILJIvi1'Y/ IO- ,
ECONOMIC
SOCtOCtODOtNC . 1� �. Ip7�1�Cb gCMi'aHy tlt011t[tbPOI1�lOUt SCiCC}1 AtCa.
MetropoGtan area growth impacts
� CouM vary thtnughouc Search ptea.
Displaccd comnue+ciaViadustrial employ. t� � No eujor wawenciaY�odwUial aceas in Search
Arca.
Land oa+oetship �
Owner�hip of large:ceas vs.iadividual avners.
Community eocial impac4 � ,�
Include�ia�pac4 wnthie and around S�arc6 Area.
Dispkced resideatial population � � May vary theouY6o�K Seatoh Area.
Pubtic iervices � � � Will be c�sidered dueic�y screeninY dt site ktection.
Lutiatioaal factors � Could vary by sRe.
Sute safety zoaes 1� � � Sute Safety Zoaes w'tl not eontaio ucbanizod aceas.
I
Revised July 13, 1992
�
_ �
F ,;
SiCE SELECTION FACi'ORS
(cont•d)
FACTORS SITS IDEN- S1TE SiTE PitELIMINARY COMMENTS
TIFICATION SCREENING SELFCI'ION
ENV[RONMENTAL
Noise impacu �/ �/ �/ Ldn 65 noise contour will not coataia utbaniud areaa.
Public parks and recreation land � � Couid vary throughout Sea�ch Area.
Historical/archeological/culwcal '✓ Couid vary throughout Surch Area.
Biotic communities �/ DNR wcvey compieted Fall I992.
Wetlands � t� � Sites aill avoid conceatraud atcaa of w�Ulanda.
w�a a�a�«;����� � Could vary throughout Search Area.
Prime farmiand �✓ � Could vary throufhout Search Area.
Waste disposal sitet � � Could vary throughout Seanch Area:
Water quality �✓ �✓ Could vary throughout Search At+ea.
Air quality � Simikr cooditions tht+oughout Seuch Mea.
Sotid wasu �/ Could vary thcouYt�out Seat+ch Acea.
B'ud atcike issuea t� � Varies throughout Seafch Area. -
F�dangercd,threatcaed,and specia!concern � � DNR wrvey complUed Fall 1992.
speeies
Light omissions � SimiLr impacu throughout Search Atea.
��BY�►PPIylnawral resourcea . � Will be eonsidered during site sekctioa.
Constcuction impaets � May vary through Seacch Area.
Gtimulative Environmental ImQacb � To be comideredduring site selection.
COST/FINANCIAL FEAS[BILITY
Land acquisidoa costs t� �/ Coasideeed duriug acmning�site seleetioa procca.
Site preparation costa t� � Considec+ed duiing�cteeaing and selection process.
AirpoR facility conatcuction coets �/ Costs�vill be coosideted during site�eketion procesa.
Utility coasuuc6on costs �✓ Cow will be coni�decsd during siu selectioa proceu.
Relocation costa �/ Costs will be consideced ducing siu seteetion process. ,
Highway/raii construction cwts � Cow will be cooudeced duriag site selectioa proceu.
Financial feasibiGty ✓ Fwncial analyds will be wed during siu selection.
Total development costs � �11 be coasidered during siu eelectiou ody.
Revised July 13, 1992
, i
i
SITE IDENTIFICATION CP.TI'ERIA �
For the purposes of this site selection study, the airport is defined as the operational area
(runways and taziways), terminal area, circulafion roadways, cargo area, support facilities, and
land required for Federal Runway Protectien Zones (RPZ's). In order to treat each site equaily,
a "conceptual" aiiport layout was used in the identification process. This conceptual layout is
a slightly modified version of the layout developed in a 1991 MAC report entitled, "New Air
Carrier Airport Conceptuai Design Study and Plan" and portrays the airport in its year 2020
configuration. The conceptuat layout encompasses approximately 13,000 acres. Additional
protecdon for State Safety Zones and for compatible land use could result in.a total azea of up
to 40,000 acres.
During the site identification process, the entire runway layout can be rotated and�
mirrored. Runways will not be significantly shortened or eliminated. A site is defined as both
a specific location ri a specific runway orientation. This can lead to sites that are in the same
general area, but because the airport orientation is different, the sites are considered unique.
Site identification criteria will provide broad guidelines to define the minimum
requirements for identifying a set of "potenrial" sites. This will help insure that no part of the
Search Area is eliminated prematurely. Next, site screening criteria will be used to identify the
most promising "candidate" sites. Finally, site selection criteria will help choose the "best" site.
Based on some preliminary analysis, including input from the Technical Committee, six
(6) criteria were used to identify the potentiai sites:
1• Airport runways, taa�ciways and other facilities must be contained within the
. Search Ar •
ea,
this is a requirement stipulated in�the Legislation. it was also assumed that FAA Runway
Protection Zones and land within FAA Building Restriction Lines (BRL's) should be !
contained within the Search Area because the FAA requires airports to purchase this
land.
� 2. State Safety Zones A and B and the Ldn 65 noise contour may-not impact existing
urbanized areas or population centers outside of the Search Area. This criterion will help
minimize safety and noise impacts beyond the limits of the Search Area;
3. Runway layout must maintain the full operational capabiiity of the Conceptual I,ayout
' Design. For site:identification purposes, rotation of the runway system as a com lete
. P
unit, or mirroring of the runway layout is considered to not reduce capacity. Individual
runways will not be shifted during the site identification phase. The main runways will !
be oriented within 45 degrees of a northwest-southeast alignment. Potential sites may
. not have more than 50 percent of their land azea in common with another site unless
either there is at least a twenty-degree difference in the alignment of their main runwa s
or they are murored layouts.
y
Revised October 21, I992 .
i
� �r
' 4. No site may be considered which places airport facilities in areas of eztensive wetlands.
This criterion recognizes the importance of minimizing the environmentat consequences
to these important biotic communities. The weflands criterion is designed to distinguish
between sites that would have relatively great wetland impacts and those having relatively
small impacts.
5. No site may be considered which would result in major ground facilities located in
floodways. These include terminal areas, cargo ueas as well as numerous runway and
taxiway crossings. This criterion recognizes the regulatory difficulties in building
structures in a floodway.
6. Avoid physical features not compatible with aircraft overflight (specifically avoid
overtlights of the Pine Bend Refinery). The Pine Bend Refinery, located less than 8,000
feet from the northern boundary of the Search Area, contains several tall structures, each
over 240 feet high. Dependent on the location of a specific site, the structures could
pose an obstruction problem for the navigable airspace. In addition, smoke stacks within
the refinery occasionally emit steam and flames that may pose a hazard to air navigadon.
Revised October 21, 1992
r
r '
I
� DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANIVING PROCESS
NEW AIRPORT SITE SELECTION STUDY
�
• SEVEN POTENTIAL SITES
• SITE SCREENING FACTORS
t
Presented to the
Site Selection Technical Committee
November 10, i992
k
�
Tf�OtlS S�H' �
3!� -`- �
O� �?
0 ` � � - � � � � � _
� �` S:
�
'�ti,'R �.
�URTS
. . DUAL-TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING STUDIES
r ,t
STTE SCREENING FACTORS
.
FACTOR CRITERIA
F100dP1a1TiS 'No. of acrea of floodways within ait�boundary.
'No.of acrea of floodway friuge within aite boundary� .
�C13ti0II2� EffiCiCriCy `�Y��features that may affxt airspace et�'iciency
*Difference('ia 10 degee iacnments)in ruaway orientazion from optimal(150/330•)
orientation.
Site Ezpandibility 'Caa 2 new main para11e1 runways dt at least 1 crosawiad ruaway be addtd dt meet site
identificatioa criteria 2-6(yealno)? If not,identify pcxentially significaat adverse impacts;
deacribe midgation opportuai6es.
s Can urminal area bc ex�anded without potenrisily significant adverse impacts(yeslno)?
•Can cazgo and other facility areas be expand without pountially significant adverse
impacta(yes/no)?
Site ACCessibilit5► 'Travei time w sirport from major activity ceaters ia region. "
*Major rosdway improvements nceded to tie sirport into eacisting roadway infrastructure.
CommunitylSoeial 'Effect of site oa local comprehensive plaas. ',
jm�� 'Number of hospitals,echools,places of wotahip and cemeteries removed. �
•Identify Federal,State,and County roads requiring relocatioa,sad total lane miles of '
replacement road. -
� Displaced Residential s Number of peopla rolocated due to sirport development,by community(1990 aad forecast
Population 2000>.
D1SP18,C�Ed Bt1S1I1CSSeS *Number of businesees('including farms)aad employeea relocaud due to airport
developmeat,by community(1990 and forecast 2000).
State Safety Zones 'Number of people and dwelling units within state aafety zones.
(A aL B� 'Number of employoea and businesses('iacluding farma)within state aafety zones.
Noise Impaets •Number of people residing within Ldn 60 dc Ldn 65 by commuaity(1990 and forecast
2000).
'Number of hospitala, echoois, nuraing homea,child care ceatan,and other noise-sensitive
laad wea withia 60 and 65 Ldn.
Public Parks & 'Number of acrea of public parfcs and recreation laad w be acquired.
R@L7�tiOri L211d `Number of screa of public parlcs aad recreation land impacud by Ldn 65.
Wet�Il(IS _ •Number of acres of wedaada within aiu boundary.
F3tt1]jand _ •Number of acrea of prime and unique farmlaad and 'ceatury farms' to be acquired.
- *Number of acrea of agricu(turat preserve land to b+e acquired.
*Number and�ze of dairy farms co be acquired.
WaStC DiSppglj $itCg •Number and aize of lmown active land filla within 10,000 feet and 5 milea of runway ends.
•Type aad size of]mown hazaMous waste siva within sirport boundary.
SOIIICe: �� Revised: 11/10192
, , , . DUAL�TRACK AIRFORT PLANNING STUDIES
• ..
SITE S � � YG FACTORS
.
(Cont'd)
FACTOR CRTrERIA ;
WStCt Qttality 'Number of acres wi�ia ate claaaified as very high sensi6vity relative w the
� Prairie Du Chiea Aquifer baaed on I?akota County Geologic Atlas. j�
'Distance fr�m sita w atnam aegment with greatest capacity to accommodate potential ��
dischargea.
Bild Strike ISSueS 'Conditioos pocentially coaducive to bird atrikes(iacluding riven,wetlanda, operaring land
filta, and flywaya)within 10,000 feet of runway enda.
�11t�211gCTC�/ThICBtCA@d •Known communitiea of endangered and threateaed species(flora aad fauna)wi��;in site �
& Special Concern ��'-
SpCC1CS 'Known communitiea of specisl concern apecies(flora and fauna)within site boundary:
Differential Land f niff��nci�t�and ac�wsiaon co,a.
Acquisition and Site `���nn��u pn�on�aars aria;n�rrom copo�hy,soil ('including acrea of h
Pt8�1TStiOt1 COStS ��'°Ck��II 10 feet of auface for esch dte), hydrolo�y,well abaadanment,utility f
ll�.aff-oirport accw,sad floodptains to pteparo aite for sirport conswction.
SOUIC�: �$ Revissd: 11/19
i� y+` i:"':- � i;� � � •)
��,�, 1%-�'-` ( �\ ��� � l
' � � � � �� �,� � _- �
:� � �._ -// `� \;_l ��;?� I �
. '
• �• '' 'a+.se1�4�' �..";;�,"�;::.
_ ; �,��`�Y ,:�
-• F '' �:-:io�:e'��':9.��-' .'�, �s'��
, -,.:: . — .. �
. , . �. �
, • • � � 'SE:eei�E�E;� ',�',� ���
�__i�� � ,� j,;.� --- :a.;lai'�� � . . � � �
;,� ^�.—(' •��
e �� ��=� ,` ,i � � ' d� �:� �'�_::�: �� �r• `� q •
' ��I �---,��� _ , ,/ � . - � -'-F;iirr�i�i���, r'�. `��.��_
� i�, �I��,;�" ��� � � �i �: � '3
� ��rh�" ��� � �r��' .� •, ' ^������ �.
. .. • \ t..t��M�' :�,�I�`� � -p'�- ,�
�� � �
� _ , � _ ,.� `�'� �+:�i� .�'�r �b�;. �� -A ..�C
� � ,. ^�,,,, �M� �,'` �►; 'j�` ,�, � Y�'W pr � ��
�.� , .���;� � �. �. �
•r, .r�,,r►, ��--�,�� �, ��� �
� -► ��_. _,.,:n���. , .•�,
�' Y. �� �� � " -.S� I � nF��' :�� ��:..
� , +� �l, '� � � .mr- ►.� �
i Y,`1��' ��� � /0�� ,� � , �_� � � i"..
� ��, - :a. �,;� ( `'� .�
'� �, M ��,1".'�� f ��� r t./ \�� .�.�1�1\� •���'� /�
,` .��:� _ - � �� �� ,�r��
°yrr�,� '�� •/ �� .'�' � -f� l" � r� I �
• _ ` t �, r�
���= r '� ���^�j ��
,, , .�� � �,.`�. �'�r � �
'v I �:�,',+ �' '' t ��.��.�''�":�' � :n �i4.\ �'V��
,. � ,.�, ��IC. r i_ ,��,�►:•
� B�� +.. � �♦• � *� h � I�J��;. i� /A ������
•
� ���.. �` �� � � � � �i �`� \����.�,•l;�e�`�� ��
�. �I� . . c� �' ����'^� �,+�►J f(�' [��" \�y� ��
; � -, i� •� • +r' �I a �1'rj �' � �, i. �;. � a..
y ��( i '��'� �C`'� �-- �' � '
�- �
!� � l - ) � r/.+/��� ��:.
...,,J�' �
► ` �� � , rv�.
� ^ � � � �.� y. �
'i �� �, �, I � ��. �. �, ,
e"_ ,e � " r G' � �t� � 1
.�' !���a ,.,� �� `�` !', �'�''� '.�..
���� � �.:E � �� �
1J���� o �` ,;,, �.
� �
�=�"�.a � aA �
�':�� �.
r
' r �
1
• � • `
Dual-Track Airport Pianning Process � MqC
� • • ' •
+ �
�
�� ' ` �`SY�.I ���.�,. ' �'iy, �
• • • ' '`� �I�r ;.
. . . ���,
:',' �1' ` \ '�..:�'._' �
.' � . •�I'`` .. '�
, �, I, � , �_:':�.::, , �
,� , � :�� �111 '��.�' ���`�
�-- �, �� � ; ��, �� �
������� E . �-.�, �. �,:
, , ,, � 4�
1
�I � � ._ ' I.
. , ;
r� � ._�..►'
� ; �
� '`� ��'�N �r���� -�_L' �1
_ �:a� °°��`.���i `—' ■��'it .
, _
, - ,,�.,�
, : , ,.,. »,
� � - . . , ,. °�% �� - �I
, . - .. ,� _ � - �, .
��� -� � ........::.._
�r � ✓;�. �
� y _.� .as-.. ,, -��;
� �� l�`�r ,�s,�y��.�-- - . _ .A�- -- �, ,
� ,/��, ( - '..
T • '�''�-. _ �.`� ���� ,� I I .,',��\
;:.i-�'-- a�. '•'i� ��i ��'� ,�� �
� r y,;, �� ��r �'���r� —
..` �►�•,�� � "_�`-_,�/i +'i�.:� �
9 . �i►.��: ���=._i.�i����l�
`� .. � ��.��:�.���.�� �. i
r '�, •u • ��° �,��;�►:_���a\��`�1�'�`,�
!, ��- � �
-' ` — ��'.,'l1�. - -- � '+��'-•_� ....,—`1..., . �
° � e ����i, ��
, " a , �
-�' ,
�' .' ', � '�
,=-;;�. , ' a � "� �► ��
• /�pr:� - i
. , � � ��. �
r�1������ -��°,� � • 4
r ��
r._ �` ��.r.A 9 / , / �
, � �
.
•
. 1 •
bua{-Track Airport Planning Process ,� � MAc -
. . .
. + '
� � �.;,, ' � �'�' ' ' i h
' �;:' =�>.o; �. � � ! o
N ; 1 . ,�,» z , �
� . �.'� � s�'i 2�pi �,��7' � C,
0 1 2 Miles R SEM UNT o up�'»• ' ; �" '�. '
"� .y, .I-tERN PINE 8 0 l I �„s �,.
'Y/ES .R€FIN Y, ,.�'� `
� "' �� 'Ill
:.�!', t Q � �' PGo,� NpRi . � $„�. �..�n^�� . ( _j ! '( � � '
o � � � ! . ,
Q1 • . . . •�, �.
,�.,�Q� � yii I'���• �'� . ..�; ..... .,.... ,,, . 5�. ; , N x" � Q e r '' 'f' ��'i �� ,' �' . ,. �
� � .� �� � � .�. �
0;•� i' � i ���" :COAT�S � uI I �
�,•, 1 , a � , I- �� � � H STIN S
, .,(, � i , . . �
� _� �' t— �-—I�— — A D ,a:;) ( Is .; �• r�'i,:� J —T-'
` � 0 �1;
' ; ' q` �-� �� I _ ' ',�)
� , � ,`:�� i
,4��� o I� _.�1� 1� ��-� o� , . �, .
r �
' Q�,� �"' ( i . , �. � ��f., � ' , /
,�� � �. 11�l. � � � ' ` '
'� tr�ti` . ��I � '�,'� V e m i l l i o�Aa , .•, h � ` r R
• :,t��' � � � a\' 4� ♦ i /
. ' .� Z1 � '�. j �
•i �� 4 � E m p i r :.t � � . �. � . , .'`
,,Z � • � � � ���`% • . �; ,.
` � , � o �� �� ; \ , . � .
o ' a � �, � ;, , , , �,
��_ �; � � _ � VERMI L�O � � /, ' �;'�;.
. , , ' I
��s � �`u �'�� .` .� � ','� � � �
� ' E��° � �i � , *�. � �
' '` r_. v • ,.'�. 44 �>,�i ���\ `\ I �
��.:'• ��d�.o �.. . �C"'("I � � �`� \ � �� i �
� -•-o � ;
� „j �
� r! 0� . . t `� �� � ,�� �
v �v p � ti :�4 7 ����,� � � . .
W „� ♦
i. .. � ..
.Y�' W � ~ ,L 1.� '' . ' I I I, I
l� I
. J n`. , I . � 1 , I i
ti4.
v��.:,�,.tiZ � HAMPTON NEW ` � j � I€SVI LE
' asti Rock TRIER� � ; , � , r � 14...
, � �
�`r�t��aus S1�h�7
2' T } f
� a • • • • ' • � } Z
}o
New Airport Potential Site 2� , b �
';,y F �o�,r
. . . � ��tPORi1 �' .
'
►`� •...
, �;i, :`. �;
::, -:� ��� � ,�
,, ��� ��
''�., , �
, • • � ��,.A
� �
:� , � � �l�_��
�. , `'� '�� .•.`�
�_ ::.-sr.�, �s
, �"�I te�{{y� 'G�.
♦ I '�'r� �
, .���� ` � • ! i � �+ i� �
f • � �*!.. ' � '�'
� �
�` ' 1.
� � �,
� 1►�i� _ ._..�.�
�` ' • ; �����r:. .� � ,
\ � �'�� /
� ' ���,
�� . ,� �,
_ _ �� �,,�: ,,,,,,,
, , � .� �- �, �-'
. . /�
r�,� /,,,!�;;,,,� l��i, w�� ,\�yri
T ''w +,1��� ���,luu��/' '► ' �� l
� :r i i' i�� �
�, .�%%i' �.��
..�� , T�r�'� �,�l� ��'%:ii/s�� �` ��
��..��1/t,..�\��:��-�.��►�, ���1�
> . =� , � ' �L�,S� ����- �. '��/,��m,��
� �►, .,�,_ .. . ' " ��� ������►�01\ '�`;'�.�%lr,
-= � • `// 'a
-t _ �` _ � �J/-'��./ 1�,,, �; ,,
♦ � s ,•.i i
1 '/� �` , `%�
� ' � `t. . � r ` , � �.� ir.\1 /ij.
, ,
� .,�'�' ;��' : �
�1• � ' � Ir .� 1 `.� �1,.
� %� ,� ' ���Q� �lll�h �, ,
��_•• �I�' ��, �;�r=� �
ai �ll , �-1 ' �, � _, '.,.e�'► , ►�
��' . , > �,. �'"'�,,.� �� , � .
- � �'� �'` � .�;�' , �
� �.
.
. � . �
,Dual-Track Airport Planning Process �. • MAC
. . . �
� � `/
4 ��`�/�_ � �� •
1� ` ■�\ ,)
► ..,� , , ;�
� �
� o • :� � ��j �, \ �" �.
'� � � �_�:'1�_�""����'`'`..
' ��� �� � .�`` ,��:� �t�,�.�`!
� �' / -..i �' 1�111. �t.�� �. `
' � � � ``i��`� � .;,.;��,. �'.� .-�
1 ����� ` ���/ , � `t• .y '
� ��f0� � j� �,� �d�������\, r � �
� �\�,� . . ,;;:;,�� \ ��� ��
, .t� � .�;� '�,`_:��\\�\ �l � � �.
t � !� � .� � _ '�
. ��;.�,_ rl,�.:;_.!►.. �� .."�' �
..�
. a.e �u•.,. - ;�� � �
� '•,�IiL�������1� :�,�/,���/��� �� �
i��� ,�q\,`Zj�� ""��► �
` �
� �`��\\b���r�..1,��� �� � � ►
�'�1�s?���`e���/'��`/.;�
I !.:a',
� •,`�`,```,� � ' �
\\�� t ;��i����/ /
+ �` / r .
) �` r+` rs�`;'�� ��� J: ��
T . � �a�� _�,'�!!�:`�►►
.; � �
� %�� "'� ���1'�\\ `:.� �
,.,�.;.r ,�► �j�.;;\\\\\\�' �'-�a .,
�� ' �"�� fi � `�-.',�� ��.. . `.�f:t�i.
,•� ,� '' „ b,�' ��\\\\�;\\��, _� �� ���'��
, � ��a�"` :rfC�`'r=�. �,,��,
° � ' _ —� k� ♦
;• � i'�s�l�/�► � ''�.� '�i,
r ' , ,
� 1 _ /. ��i`1
I �/ � 1
✓ � � �
� � � I
a l '� ��. �
� �
r.�
�- ��r� � �� �� .,
ir������i - .�_'` � � :� . .
�� ;
.
!! �',: �i
. �
• ' •
. � 1 .
Dual-Track Airport Planning Process � nnAG
. . • .
� .• � w' �. :;�.. '�=�1:
'1���`•,: •�
�� � 1 .� � �� �� J
� ' • • � �� � �'��
I� ` •'•' � `\ \ ���~���^`V
. �, �.i'.A..i..:IZiiA' `�'•
�, �� n i�^WSlir..� .{-�U+�`�`
� �� ��� �. i'��� ��� �i�� �.
�°• \ `,i'�;,, ►� � '�I� � �
����� ��,. �� , �:,:� �� -
� �
; �'i.i ,, ,�p�H • !' �
� ` � ; � - +���' - ,.
.; :,► ,�►.... �, __
, �► ��� �ni; � ,�.��.ed�� _�..r�`
�����'�, 'il,l��,:I.����'�,.,� �, - .�r ,�
� �• � �-�� , ��;li��� , 1
r \1 .�ii.
,
'��� •i�i.:/ f�
_ \,t't' !�\�fj��� ���q'�1�1�``\,�� �,I II II I�I, �� ,
\� � �.% %��� '� ��II Iii)
�1��� ���<<''��������������� `'ii��� �
�� ����%�•'•+�"�� _A��,�� h,����� i '
�. ��'�/ \�, `� � i�i,`,�U
� �., y� �-���:•'` ,� ,,i;�i :
,/`'. \ , �'�� \�
� t�� ;, , '' '�� `1\. `�vA, /
1� �ft n� .,
� � ,i � � ���� �� 'Iff�h �' ��� �
1 � �' � �
��; � � .
� _ — J.�ST��� � r����� ��
• �►
� ! �� , ,I
,� ,,,•�", ` s�'��, ��� ? , �1`
,�". '' � "� ���^ `�
�;, , �- �
a,,.,�. � ..� `��' .., ,
r��l I . . �:,; �
��., - , ,
/�! �;� ,i
. �
.
s � �
Dual-Track Airport Pianning Process • MAC
. . • .
�:: ..;.y ;
� � � w�t�;, '`�:::�
�. i .�
'► � � t
. � � �`'�� ' ' :�
� �_' ���', �� ��� � '�:w�._
w '�- ' �
�� i���•���qr•
�� � � � �, , \, J�►i'.t�iii:A ��
� � i 0�v�, '■ "�� ,v�+ �.
r � �..
� /� �� 4%/!,, ..�< �
'I�lI��D� ,,. �;'\ Il '% . �> - �. .;;:
, ' �"� '.%: �
•,�L ;� :;,,
, ,�,t� ������, '%<. �, `._ - �.
� �� . ,�,.�;,,, ,,1�,�'�u�� _ _.�
.F�i , �ai�a,,.
� � � .��.a'�i►��1 ,�:�'�;;::j►� ,;i�� �� � M
�. /�-�1 ►i �
�1;�,���^� u ��'i��'�ir���%/�1� �
��� � � '���N%i����'�'=ti�' J ti �/ ►
�"�Ir';• 3;���!, ' i� _ -� ��r
r
I '��,/���'�•���~►�3���+��,•����
i� �, � 1� �� ����R'zsr'�-i�
. � ` 1 �11 �►
�� ,:,�x- i'���' ..�
� r.:+ � � �� i.,
s`�; ' ;� ,-
�
, �
� � ►- �
�,�,•A� �� •
' --' i�+7��� �
•_ ' �,; ,
1 � ` / .,�' ', � " ,
A �
, . .: �f .�, �;
(1� � � � t
..��i�� � , '` ' . �r�i1��
_ ! �,�, �� - ' .t '?'"
� .
.
.
, � .
Dual-Track Airport Planning Process ' ' MAC
. . • . .
�+ i �,.,; .
. N ; � �,:;� �>.o, �. `�"��,�' � r� � i h
� (�)!)
N
� . l�i ?S; �
R SEM UNT ...�t;,• � st zPPi R;.,,e�' . � . C,
0 1 2 Miles . '�p�• ;• ..,
I'" ,.�SiERN PINE B 0 I �1 'w
� . .. •�E R€FIN Y.����'� � �
;.'f1 `'`y�.� . �. 1 , •ORi e . •.' � _:e`.:�
, o � 'Cg'N 4r •�• �••� ��• • . � 'I(I
•� � I �A°° � - ' ( _.I I , �.( , p
p,��t )�t, � � . • r , -, \ i
*��` � iil��'I��� ,'� :•.y;....� ..... .,. I_":.I i� f� �. . N i n I Q AT ,� ,Ji��l,� ,� "� � � .
��''� 1 �� .� ��� � S ! • I � �,`. ' ` �
�, ' ;•i�,,° ' � i � , I. �II� � �
1 .' , � " >�� �I . ,� � ' H STIN�S
� ` .L_ �; ,, �,?,;�
, � (��"� � '— , •O� . .� �• �r,�7 —— —r-
� ;' L=.1 �. ' . .� ° a 'n i j 'c
,
\\p� A � t 1.
� [_ �I �
o' P: a •� o L� •�
.. \ �'�/1�e� . ' • E�•77l~ �i � � .
.��y � � �,� � p I �'I I �
M a r s h n � � R
'� (� � j _� ,t � i � j
'� o � � . E im p i r � .� , �-- I , � y��� i
� . Z � �� �p � �s� �-- ,,, � �. ,, � i � j
,, ,
� I,,� y . �� o �� �, , �� ,�� ,\.`J, ' I I .
•4 4,,.,_., �'' � ♦ ,`i.' 'r •o i . •
.� _ �.,� o � � ' .;�� ,.
� ���... .�n .. .� ��io ' � ' . �
i � ,.:, �
� �° � � �� '� ' I ' � ' ' ,. \ .�
, = i . �� ' I .I i
��.�.� � ,
� �
�� :� J , � � ;� � � � ; ;' I . � � M . � f ` ' ' �
,�, ,., � . ; � ,.�;�, ; � ,
z:. ��-' + o , . �y � •
� �° � .' �< ,i ( I � � I i:
� �� •:� t L I � ' �
. (�I �.� �4/i � . � . I �
,.... �.. -� , , � 1 ,.
, ,
�, k J " , �i � � ''��i I , i .. . .. ,, . ..
� I � �. � �
� �tiU� � � I
��r�tiL I HAMPTON NEW I I 'MIESVI LE
• � � I __�
, �'-.� a s t i Q R o �c k I I ( � � ITRIER +� � � I �
��,,Tou,s^�
�r F tir
t + ; .
� • �� • � • � r �• �
� } Fo
New Airport Potentiai Site 7 , a ' l ;
�' � •r c,�',�
� .. . . � y7jRAORYi t" �. t ..
f�
r MET'ROPfJLITAN A.IRPORTS COMII�ISSION AT.'D �ET'ROPnLITAN COUNCII.
F�-E1�'A LUATIO N �
DUAL-TRACK FORECAST PRQCESS I I
� # �
• ' Public Scoping Session
� Date: OctQber 20, 1992 ' � •
Time: 7:04 prn . . •
Place: MASAC Room - Metropblitan Airports Commission
Facilitator: Richard Braun, Center for Transportation Studies
• MethodaIo� Panel
� Date: October 29, 1992
Time: 9:15 am to 2:00 prn -
' Place: MASAC Room - Metropolitan Airports Commission
Facilitator: Richard Braun, Center for Transportation Studies
• Forecast Assumption Panel 1 � -
Date: November 18, 1992
Time: 9:Q0 am to 4:40 pm (tentative)
Place: Room 303 - MSP Terminal Mezzanine
Topic: Socio-economic assumptions or aviation industry
assumptions
Facilitator: Richard Braun, Center for Transportation Studies
• Forecast Assumption Panel 2
Date: November 19, 1992
Time: 9:00 am to 4:00 pm �tentative) :
Place: Raom 301 - MSP Terminal Mezzanine
Topic: Socio-economic assumptions or aviation industry
assumptions
Facilitator: Richard Braun, Center for Transportation Studies
F�7� �S��� Cc'r�ea. c,.:. rw ��C i S' — .v d �.�r v,�/�-Ti ox� ,4-r ��s ��� �""'
G� .�/ y c r fr G��GrS ��'
/�t� ,�eG r��-YZ. �ti�.o-�1' ���-s .a-cE - /"Fa''
MN IJd i �'�aa K�n�'g� /��- ��z� c�.i7`�.� ��^...�e'- °�
�/�'/a /��r,� .c�G.J LocA-r�v-.J - �J�.�y 74i c+-,^.�..�'�e..
. °� ��7'����_/2�� � . . � .
� G �n �� �
l
t
` f
� .
i
r
THE 1990 DUAL-TRACK FORECAST PROCESS
Long-Term Aviation Activity Forecasts
for Twin Cities Region ;
,f
�
October 1992
1VIETROPOLITAN AIRPORTS �OhihiISSIOIvT .
6040 - 28th Avenue South . '
Minneapolis, MN 55450
612 726-1892
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL � -
. Mears Park Centre, 230 E Fifth St.
. St. Paul, MN 55101 .
612 291-6359
I
Metropolitan Council Publication I�'c�. 5�9-92-107 [
� �
• r
Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l
BACKGROUND . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
SUMMARY OF 1990 DUAL TRACK METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 '
COMPARISON OF PREVIOUS FORECASTS TO ACTUAL MSP '
ACTIVITY . . . � . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1993FORECAST UPDATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
II. 1990 DUAL TRACK FORECAST METHODOIAGY • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3
� A. BASELINE MODEL DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
B. RISK ASSESSMENT FORECAST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 .-
III. PERFORM[ANCE OF 1990 FORECASTS . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
A. OVERVIEW OF BASELINE FORECAST RESULTS . : . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
B: COMPARISON OF HISTORICAL RESULTS AT MSP TO 1990 RISK
ASSESSMENT FORECASTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
IV. SUIVIlVIARY OF KEY FACTORS IN 1990 FORECAST . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . 15
i
I. INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
The Dual Track Airport Planning Process was established by the Minnesota Legislature
�('in the Metropolitan Planning Act of 1989) to examine the two principle options for meeting the !
region's aviation needs: expanding Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport (MSP) or
building a new airport and closing MSP. A third "no-build" option is also being examined. � �
Because of the dynamic nature of the airline industry and the nationallregional economy,
and as required by the Act, the socioeconomic and aviation assumptions used in the original
Lang-Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP, or "Dual Track") forecasts for MSP will he reviewed
during 1993 and revised, if necessary. The original forecasts were completed in 1990, using
1988 as the base year. Updated forecasts will be used for both the New Airport Comprehensive
Plan and the MSP LTCP Update so that these plans are directly comparable. Facility �
requirements and alternative concepts previously analyzed for MSP will be updated and `
reassessed based on the updated forecasts, and a revised 2010 Development Plan and 2020
Conceptuai Plan will be prepared.
This summary describes the 1990 forecasting process used for Minneapolis-Saint Paul
International Airport (MSP) and compares actual activity with forecast values.'
�UMMARY OF 1990 DUAL TRACK METHODOLOGY
• k
The 1990 forecasts analyzed each major component of demand, including: !
• Locally originating passengers on domestic travel, ,
• Domestic passengers connecting at MSP,
• Enplaning passengers using regional (commuter) service,
• Scheduled international passengers,
• Passengers on international and domestic charter flights, .
� Air cargo and air mail tonnage,
• Domestic air carrier departures,
• Regional aircraft departures,
� � Schedule� international aircraft departures,
• Charter aircraft departures, ',
• All-cargo aircraft departures,
j
[
�
'The results of that forecast are presented in three documents: The Long Term
Comprehensive Plan, prepared by the Metropolitan Airports Commission, Metropolitan Long-
Range Avintion Forecasts, Assumprions and Methodologies, Metropolitan Council Publication
559-90-066(February 1990),and First Annual Conringency Assessment:MajorAirpon Strategy,
Metropolitan Council Publication 559-90-064 (February 1990).
. 1 �
,
- • General aviation operations and number of based aircraft, and
• Military aircraft operations.
Where appropriate, the forecast models included dummy variables designed to account
f�r major industry issues (e.g. the effect of deregulation, whether a regional airline is "code-
sharing" with a major carrier, etc.). Passenger and cargo/mail activity were forecast by
estimating a relationship between historical passenger levels and socioeconomic variables (e.g:
employment, per capita income, and yield (defined as airline revenue per passenger-mile, and
used as a proxy for average airline fares).
In general, aircraft activity {i.e. takeoffs and landings) was derived from passenger and '
cargo/mail activity using assumptions about expected changes in average aircraft size (e.g., the
number of seats per aircraft), load factors (the percentage of seats filled), and other variables.
COMPARISON OF PREVIOUS FOREGASTS TO ACTUAL MSP ACTIVITY
Like most other airports, growth in demand for air services at MSP has been dampened
by the recession; therefore, it is to be expected that most components of demand are at lower
levels than anticipated by the forecasts. The largest discrepancies appear between actual and
forecast passenger activity. Total enplaned passengers were approximately 5.7 percent lower _
in 1991 than forecast. Operations forecasts, however are much closer to actual levels. Total
actual operatior.s were only ahaLt 1.9 percent lower than forecast for 1991. It is anticipated that
for 1992, enplanement and operations levels should be closer to forecast levels, due primarily
to this past summer's fare wars and the added flights to Northwest's fall schedule.
1943 FORECAST UPDATE
In order to ensure that the forecasts that are being prepared for MSP are optimal from
both predictive and planning standpoints, a forecast workshop will be convened by the
Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Airparts Commission. This workshop will review
forecast methodologies and issues and develop recommendations on the optimal techniques.
Specifically, this will include a review of the relative benefits of alternative approaches to
forecasts, inputs to the forecasts, and sensitivity analysis of results.
2 �
II. 1990 DUAL TRACK FORECAST NiETHODOLO Y
This section describes the methodology and results of the 1990 Dual Track forecasts in
two parts:
• Baseline Model Design, which includes a discussion of the methodology and �
structure of the base Dual Track Forecast, and r
� Risk Assessment, a technique employed as part of the Dual-Track process to �
ascertain the potential range of forecast outcomes.
A. BASELINE MODEL DESIGN
� � � �
The baseline forecast model structure depended on the specific component of demand for
which a forecast was prepared. 'ifiis section describes each of the key forecast components . '
including� I
,;
� Air carrier originations, enplanements, and operations, ',
• Regional carrier enplanements and operations,
• Scheduled and non-scheduled activity,
• Air cargo operations, �
�• General aviation operations, and
• Military operations. �
Air Carrier 4riginations
The forecast of totai origina6ons was developeci by esdmating a relationship between '
historical originations and socioeconomic variables. Total historical originations were adjusted
downward to remave the originating ,passengers associated with turboprop operations by
Republic (RC), Northwest (NW), and Ozark (OZ). These passengen were included in the
historical data used to develop regional airline forecasts. The three variabies selected were:
• Employment (which represented the size of the market for business passengers
and, indirecdy, for discretionary passengers); __
• Per capita income (which was an indicator of the discretionary income potential
passengers have available to spend on air travel; and
3
' , �
• Yield (defined as airline revenue per passenger-mile, and used as a proxy for
average airline fares).
No service level variables were tested berause an equation that included variables for
�o�service levels and passenger traffic could confuse the causal relationships between these two
variables and the other determinants of passenger demand. As formulated, the forecasting
equation implicifly assumed passenger originations at MSP are determined by demand factors
rather than supply factors.
Air Carrier Enplanements .
To project air carrier enplanements, a ratio of enplanements to originations was applied
to the forecasted originations.2 Connecting� passenger activity at MSP has been increasing
relative to originating traffic. Between 1978 and 1988, the ratio of enplanements to originations
increased from 1.42 to 1.88, an annual increase of 2.8 percent. The forecast of future air
carrier enplanements at MSP assumed the ratio of enplanements to originations would continue
to rise at the historical rate of 2.8 percent per year until it reached the average of 2.40 (the
average for hub airports) by 1997, after.which it would remain constant. This meant that MSP�
will be transformed from a preriominantly originating airport (53 percent originations/47 percent
connecting in 1988) ta a connecting airport (42 percent originating/58 percent connecting by
199'�. By 1991, the ratio had increased to 1.96.
Because the l�vel of connecting activitp has such a significant effect on the forecast of
total enplanements, three more in-depth.alternative scenarios were also examined. The first
alternative specified connections as a function of national economic factors; the second evaluated
potential untapped connecting markets; and the third imposed operational constraints.
Air Carrier Aircraft Departures
The conversion of enplanements to aircraft departures was based on projections of
enplanements per departure. FAA forecasts of growth for both average aircraft size, as
measured by seats, and load factors through the year 2000 were adopted for MSP. For the
period of 2000 through 2010, it was assumed the growth rate of aircraft size would be half the
1988 - 2000 rate. Because of anticipated leveling off of passenger traffic after 2010, no
� additional increases in aircraft size were assumed during the 2010-2020 period. Load factors
2Historical data on enplanements were provided by the MAC. Historical data on originations �
were derived from the U.S. Department af Transportation's 10 percent ticket sample. These
sources prov:ded a consistently interpretabie source of information for the period that supported
the regression analysis.
- 4
.
were assumed to remain constant after the year 2000. It was assumed that all Stage 2 aircraft ;
would be phased out by 2010.3
�te�ional Camer Enplanements � � �
� � � �
For the purpose of developing the sta6stical forecasdng equadon for regional carrier `
enplanements, estimated historical enplanements by NW/RC and OZ turboprop operations were
included with historic regional carrier enplanements at MSP. A relationship between regional
carrier enplanements and local employment and a dummy variable(accounting for code-sharing)
was established.
A detailed market-by-market analysis of potential regional carrier enplanements at MSP,
conducted by Aviation Planning Associates (AvPlan),` suggested that regional carrier �
enplanements would increase at an average annual rate of 1.5 percent between 1988 to 2020.
This was considered a conservative rate.
� There was considerable discussion on the regional forecasts during the course of the
forecast preparation, with questions raised as to the total potential activity by 2020. It was
therefore decided to retain the higher forecast developed for this study as a "conservatively
optimistic" base regional forecast for planning purposes, although the AvPlan market-by-market
analysis was considered a more realistic forecast scenario at the time.
Regional Aircraft Departures ~ �
Conversion of regional airline enplanements to. aircraft departures was based on
enplanements per departure. It was assumed that average regional aircraft size would increase ,
at the forecast FAA rate through 1995. Between 1995 and 2005, the growth in average regional
aircraft size was assumed to be half the FAA forecast 1995-2000 level because a higher rate
would have resuited in a decrease in departures, even though enplanements were forecasted to
increase. No additional growth in aircraft size was forecast beyond 2005. The average load
factor was forecast to gror�► at the FAA forecast rate for regional carriers through 2U00 and
remain constant thereafter.
f
�
�
3Subsequent to the 1990 forecast, federal legislation was passed which mandates phase out :.
of Stage 2 aircraft by 2000 (with special exceptions as late as 2003).
`Aviation Planning Associates, Inc., Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airpon
Regional/Commuter Poteraial Tra,,�"ic Study.
5
Scheduled International
. The forecast of scheduled international activity was adapted from a separate potential
�n�rlcet study of international air traffic developed by SH&E.s Some modifications were
required to insure consistency with the remainder of the activity forecasts.
Non-scheduled ''
The level of non-scheduled activity has exhibited wide fluctuations over the past de�ade,�
therefore, the correlation between non-scheduled enplanements and socioeconomic conditions.
was not as strong as is the case of scheduled carrier enplanements. Even so, a relationship was
identified using metropolitan income, fareign exchange rates, and a dummy variable (to account
for airline deregulation). Domestic and international non-scheduled service were examined
separately. � � .
Air ar
In forecasting air cargo enplaned tonnage, statistical relationshigs were tested between
total cargo tonnage and local area demographic variables_ Meuapolitan area employment and
a dummy variable accounting for airline deregulation were identified as the most statistically -
significant and were used to develop the forecasting equation.
Virtually all mail is shipped as belly cargo on passenger flights. An equation relating
enplaned air mail tonnage to metropolitan area employment, deregulation, and the new U.S. __
Postal Service operational practices was used.
General Aviation
General aviation activity at MSP has been decreasing due to MAC policy and airside and
landside constraints. Should a new airport open in the next century, activity will likely increase,
however. Two forecasts of based aircraft were developed --one for the existing airport and one
for a new airport. The former assumed a decrease in the number of based aircraft and the
elimination of non jet aircraft. 1fie forecast for the new airport site assumes a growth in jet
aircraft.
General aviation operations were forecast using the assumption that the number of
� itinerant operations will change at the same rate as based aircraft, adjusted by the FAA forecast
change iri the national forecast of hour flown (a proxy for operations) to based aircraft through
2000. The relationship between based aircraft and itinerant operadons was assumed to remain
constant thereafter. Local operations were assumed to be eliminated by 1998.
SSH&E, Minneapolis-Saint Paul lnternarional Air Tra,;�`'ic Forecast Study, January 1990.
6
Mil��
Since military operations are related to national and international political factors rather
than local economic conditions, future military aircraft operations were held constant at 1988
levels. �
B. RISK ASSESSMENT FORECAST
� Econamic risk assessment was applied to the base econometric model used for the Dual
Track forecast. This technique explicitly incorporates the uncertainty (using probabilities)
inherent in all quantitative forecasting. 1fie resultant output combines traditional point forecasts
with a non-traditional form of sensifivity analysis that seeks to explicitly incotporate all
foreseeable variability in forecast inputs. As part of the 1990 forecast process, a series of expert
panel sessions were convened to develop the information :necessary to support the risk
assessment forecasts. These panels sought to review the baseline forecasts, major forecast
inputs, their range, and to consider underlying factors, such as changes in the industry and the
local economy. . �
Thus, in the case of the Dual Track forecasts for the Twin Cities, the rislc assessment
models relied on the predictive e�uations developed for MSP Intemational to yield, in addition
to the point estimate forecasts, a probability distribution a�ound each key output. Specincaily,
the forecasts were developed in four steps: � . �
i
• Construct logic model; �� E
f
• Specify input assumptions and data;
• Convene expert panels; and
� Apply risk assessment to point forecasts �� _
�
The logic models prepared for Dual Track forecasts were based on the functional
relationships among the factors or variables that determine demand and supply as defined in the
baseline models. This process definerl separate it�odels for each separate component of
operations demand, such as commercial air carrier, commuter, general aviation, and air.cargo.6
_ �
_ The logic models identified and defrned the variables to be used in the actual forecasts. f
These were of two types: � '
� I
; �
� I
. ;
�
6Figure 3 (later in this report) presents the structure of the air carrier demand forecasting
Iogic models used for the Dual Track process.
. f
7
' • General socio-economic variables (such as population and regional income), and
� Aviation-specific factors (such as plane seat size and load factors affecting
demand, air traffic control technology and airfield characteristics affecting
capacity).
1fie third step was to specify the initial probability distributions for the input variables,
using statistical analysis and judgmental factors. These were described in terms of the expected
("average") value and thE variation about that value that might occur -- essentially high, middle
and low values with prababilities specified for each. Members of the expert panels then
reviewed these estimates and helped us refine them so that distributions specified for each input
factor reflected a realistic range of possibilities.
For the Dual-Track risk assessment, the opinions of the experts did not need to converge i
on a single mast-likely value. Rather, the diversity of their estimates of the mean as well as '
their estimates of the upper and lower- bounds was reflected in the probability distribution
assigned to each input variable. Members for the expert panel were drawn from a broad
spectrum of representatives from the aviation industry, government, business, and� the local
community. _
Prior to each meeting, each panel member received a bri�fing book that described the
variables to be discussed, including variable definition, the initial median value estimated for
each, a summary of how that variable affects air traffic, and major uncertainties associated with
that factor. At the meetings, members were asked to indicate their estimate of the median value _
and the "10 percent limit" values for each variable, for each benchmark year -- the outlying
� values that have a 10 percent chance of occurring. These estimates, and characteristics of each.
variable -- uncertainties, impact on aviation demand, etc. -- were then discussed in an open
forum. The majority of questions thafi arose in these sessions were addressed during the session
itself. Those that were not were addressed in subsequent analyses that were incorporated into
the Dual Track forecast process.
Based on the information from the expert panels, a risk assessment forecast was
developed for each dependent varia':+le.' In risk assessment, the mean of the distribution
enerated b the model enerall corres nds closel to the int estimate that the traditional
g Y g Y
Po Y P°
'Risk assessment forecasts use Monte Carlo simuladon to calculate each forecast literally
thousands of times by sampling randomly fram the probability distributions of each input
variable, thus generating a probability distribu6on for the dependent variable. That is, on each
"run" of the model or single forecast, the computer randomly picks one value from the range .
of possible values for each input variable; the set of values selected are used in the defined
equations to generate one output value. This is repeated thousands of times. Thus, instead of
a point estimate of each dependent variable for each forecast year, this process generated a
probability distribution for each dependent variable.
S
�
process would itself yield.$ As a result, the final expected value output of the risk assessment
forecast was virtually identical to the baseline forecast of the original econometric modeL
The difference between risk assessment and a traditional forecast is that risk assessment
also estimates the chance that the forecasted value will be different than this "average" value.
Estimates of future demand and capacity, therefore, included not only the expected number of �
operations and net capacity for each year but also the chance that the values actuaily realized will
differ from the single point forecasts (see Table 1).
Table 1.
1990 Dual Track Forecast of Annual Enplanements �
(with 80 percent confidence interval) ,
1995 - 2020 �
Forecast Lower 10 Main Estimate Upper 10
I'ear Percent � Percent
1995 11,100,000 12,117,000 I3,90Q,000
2000 12,OO1,Q00 13,965,000 15,691,000
� 20Q5 - 13,900,U00 15,500,000 19,000,000
20I0 15,100,000 17,043,OQ0 21,400,000 .
2020 17,900,000 18,597,000 24,700,000 �
Source: Metropolitan Long-Range Aviation Forecasts,
Assumpcions, and Methodologies, February 199Q,p.
2. (Metropolitan Council Publication 559-9Q-065)
.
&This is not always the case and depends upon the nature of the input distributions.
9 �
�
+ III. PERFORMANCE OF I990 FORECASTS
A. OVERVIEW OF BASELINE FORECAST RESULTS
The base year for the Dual Track forecasts was 1988. Table 2 shows how the various
activity forecasts are tracking actual levels. Figure 1 compares forecast total enptanements and
total operations to historical activity. Like most other airports, aviation activity at MSP has been
dampened by the recession; therefore, it is to be expected that most components of demand are
at lower levels than anticipated by the forecasu. The largest discrepancies appear between actual
and forecast passenger activity. Total enplaned passengers were approxirnately 5.7 percent
lower in 1991 than fore�ast. Operations forecasts, however are much closer to actual levels.
Total actual operations were only about 1.9 percent lower than forecast for 1991. It is
anticipated that for 1992, enplanement and operations levels should he closer to forecast levels,
due primarily to this past summer's fare wars and the added flights to NorthwesYs fall schedule.
B. COMPARISON OF HISTORICAL RESULTS AT MSP TO 1990 R!SK ASSFSSMENT
F9RECASTS �
In spite of the slowdown in traffic, activity at MSP remains within the bounds of the risk _
assessment forecast (see Figure 2). The lower growth in 1991 does not necessarily suggest a
new trend, but may be a temporary deviation from the historical trend, with a return to higher
growth rates likely as the economy recovers from the recession.
Total aircraft operations (air carrier, regional, freight, charter, general �aviation, and __
military) at MSP were forecast to grow from 364,400 in 1989 to between 388,000 and 453,000
� by 1995 (or between 1.1 percent and 3.7 percent annual growth). Actual operations growth
remains in the middle of the forecast band and reached 382,017 in 1991 (Figure 2a). Of the �
components of total operations, regional operations grew dramatically faster than predicted.
OQerations by regional carriers were forecast to grow from 59,000 in�1989 to between 70,000
and 90,000 operations in 1995. Actual growth, however,jumped to 74,497 opeiations in 1990
and 75,856 in 1991. .
Revenue passenger enplanements at MSP were forecast to grow from 9.2 million in 1989
to between 11.1 and 13.9 million by 1995 (or between 3.2 and 7.2 percent annually).9 Actual
enplanement growth at MSP has closely mirrored this forecast; 2.7 percent annually to 9.7
million in 1991 (Figure 2b). These figures do not includa "non-revenue" passengers — those
- passengers using frequent flier and "comp" tickets. Non-revenue passengers add economic
value, but were not a significant proportion of traffic in the early 1980s. For this reason, they
were not used in preparing the original forecasts.
9Metropolitan Council, Metropolitan Long-Range Aviation Forecasts, Assumptions, and
Methodologies, February 1990, p. 2.
10
Tabic 2
MINNEAPOLIS-SAINT PAUL INTERNATtONAL AIRPORT
Comparison of Actual and Forccast AcUvity, 1992 �
• 1989 ;:;� 19$9.; 19I0 ; ':' 1990 1991 1991 i992 1992 I995
1988 Forecasl � Actdal. Forecast a i�Ac1ua1 f'orccast a Actuel �aecast a Esiimatcd b Forecaxt
Annnrl P�secn`cr Activltr � •
Domextk Enptanements 8,023,121 8,404,500 �8,34?,059 8,804,000 S,b07,63$ 9,222,500 8,685,226 9.6b0,R00 • 9,431,6:;6 11.IOS.00c1
Ori�inntions 4.265,650 4,360,R00 4,.525,OG0 4,456,100 ;4,53.1,24b 4,557,500 4,432,920 4,659.2Q0 4,97R.(x)cl
Connc�Uims 3,75�,47} 4,043,700 3,821,999 4„'�45,900 ' 4,076,342 4,GGS.Q00 4,252,3Q6 5.001,60(1 6,127.000
Itebional Cntricr 397,8:15 427,600 415,61b 459,500 �. 495,327 493,900 488,763 530.R00 547,066 b59,00(1
iM¢cneii�nei Scheduled 64,708 80,100 "�'7$,910 99,100 102,G73 122.70O 122,431 151.9tl0 ' 136,911 2R�i.000
Non-Schedulcd 348,910 :361.800 341�515. 375,200 �.; 384,718 389,100 353,540 401,t� �75,115 4S0.0p0
Totai 8,834,574 9,214,000 9,183,100 9,737,800 9,592,356 10,228.200 9,650,010 10,747,000 10,590,728 12.502.(K►o
�11r Prcight 97,118 100,300 98,197 103,70Q 106,085 107,100 99,493 I1A,600 1t6,582 lZ2.Of10
A(r Mail 42,977 45,200 44,36A 47,500 ' 45,934 49,900 49,189 52,500 53,382 61,000
Tot�l 14Q,095 145,500 142,SS7 15I,200 � ., 152,019 157,000 148,6R2 163,200 169,963 183,otx�
Annurl Oper�tiona Activily � � '
Uamc�clicSchcdulcdAirCsrria 211,562 217,500 218.334 223,500 • • 224,119 229,700 225,4:�0 231,111O 234,5t0 2S�s.4�(►
Rrgionnl Grcicr 58,888 60,800 :' `39,33� 62,SQ0 :� .74,447 64,900 � 75,778 67,000 82,919 73,An0
IntcrnatienaiScheduled 514 G00 `:'717 8tI0 . ' f�CO i,(100 � 1,078 1,2Q0 1,313 2,1J#3
Nen-Schcduled 4,024 4,104 ,:3,334 4,2Q0 . 4,488 4,400 5,046 4,500 S,K?A 4,R54
Ail-Carg�+/Rx�xcas 18,154 18,ti�0 '..1G,913 19,500 - '.18,291 20.200 20,059 21,000 19,G02 ?3,4�0
CicnaalA��ia�ion 68,634 6�i,G00 `.61,Q48 64,600 � 54,780 62,700 52,145 60.F00 53,881 SS,S�u�
Miiitnrv 6,h98 6,700 : 4,291. 6,700 2,A02 6,700 2,4R0 6.700 3,031 h,70O
Toinl 3G8,474 375,100 31r1,030 382,100 3�4,785 389,b00 382,016 377,300 401.079 422,942
Domestic Air Carrier With Ncw NW��tl Schcdule ' '. 2�,A�
To�AI�Vith Ncw NW Cali Schcduk '���4�
Peak Mnnth I
(k+maclkNr Carrler Wi1h New NW f•'all Scheduk . 22.322
Taial With Ncw NW fall Schcduk 37,657
Pc�k tlaur Alrcraft A�rivals
tlomeslk Schcdulctit Alr C�tria 38 39 �36� 39 36 40 38 41 43
ILcgi�nal Carrier 17 17 • 17 17 11 t? 16 16 16
Int�rnrii�r.a!Srheciulcd 1 1 -l 1 1 i 1 i 2
Pcwk (tout Aitcraft hcpartur •
t*,.,nticSchedulcdAirCarrier 40 41 qp q2 38 42 35 43 4G
�t^��onai Carri�r 17 U 17 l7 18 !� 16 16 16
In��rnatJ�na1 Schcdulcd 1 1 ;1;.` 1 t 1 i t 2
�._
(�)tnter�wdatrd. . •
(h)Pxtrap�datcd hom)anrary-Au6ust dau.
Sourees:Minn��poli:-S�inl P�ut l.onb-Tem Comprchensive I'lan�nd MSP Summuy ofOpentions. Updaled Sc�tcmixt 22,19�YL
• • , ,
�•
� FJGURE 7. ACTUAL AND FORECAST ACT/V/TY, �
� MSP INTERNA TIONAL � � -
FIGURE 1 a. TOTAL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
Annual Operations (Thousands)
600
��.�.. -- •
500 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -� �!�.- - - - - -
�•- —�'
� � "' '� Forecast
400 - - - - - - - - - - - - - � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - = - - -
Actual
300 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
� 200 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1pp - - - - - - - - = - - - - - - - - - - = - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
�980 1985 1990 � 1995 2000 2085 2010 2015 2020 --
FIGURE 1 b. TOTAL REVENUF PASSENGER ENPLANEMENTS
Annual Enplanements (Millio�s?
25
20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � � !„
i ��'
�— ��
/ '��
y �' FOf�CaS't
��j' - - - - ^ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - /� - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
� '
�'
�Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
AC'�ll�
5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "
�980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Note: Estimated 1992 actual data extrapolated fram .7an-Aup data
,
F/GURE 2. DFTA/LED COMPAR/SON OF ACTUAL VS.
RISK ASSESSMENT FORECASTS
FIGURE 2a. �
MSP AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS: ACTUAL AND FORECAST
(1989-1995) . .
�perations (thousands)
460
„...�^'
,,��.::
.::-.::.�.r;::}���:::;
� Lifnit .�`�~;,::< .�
. � fi >:+.�x- tft f'{ . .
Pe :�:�<:,:>-.<.;E >�
,.�:.';:::::.::_.
� � 11 P tn.-�.,�-:;.;.<:�i;�w4�:;:�}��;:y�::;;�:;::;<:'�j,��'.',;�,��
�e t ..�...,>
420
Gas q.!*`.���`�',�'�'�,'��'�!y:,�k�>;>:;:,,`�:,y:;�;<:v.`,;;�;::a��;::;:<;;:<;=;,ry�
F� „Ar�l•�.��< . <<,��, '' {�.�.,�'^ ,� ' ,�z
. .an.��''�r`�,J'G''� y� < f>s t{�tf���Y{.a o}� T f{t�.
Actual ����.'%X:>i'�,v��F}ar a+f s f ^t�@..Nl'..�t�fir?...�'v oF �
'.l'ry�.a"� h k:v:.'��'�.y p?"•-i::j,•�'v+ wj••i�}iv..:..v}:�'::•.w
.,�,.�a,'stj.k.:{y':�•`-Y:-:yi::t%::.�_`'.,.:.::�i'irjg't'�}:�a.t{:f:;::;,s:;.•:'•'•o:{'�Ji?�,t
i'"}"KF' 4°�'Cnvel,'.J:+?.�•'`•<:::n h.�.;y%:�i ;''l.G.'•;6;,.•'.;•.:..i:;:c�
4� �^�� { Fc;��::.�•....r..c�_;k..wt;d�'��`..�,�.�-,�r•:.;`'::;ti;>;;:,•.S:.:c;,;
� r/t�".��•"`��ti:`y,:-%Y+.;A�'::�;Fv '4: �•an^::•oi?:•v
i-' fi...*..r`. Y+;•i-IX.; ✓-..
y,.,..;.,.,�f�,.,.�...'y'N'nY�••`.�u•a`�;;%:29`'':�=7�;:�;. ..,,oc.;�t't'{::..,{:q±:`-;r:;}ii
r�4 �i:}ier'iti'..� .`�'•cr^+• .• . ....,j..,-"",._ /.F:si+ti�+r{l,.•::•i:f:�:i�ij�'.Vtir}r.
':"t,:. l.y»y.•.,...�>...: .; :.:.:�,•�i�'.fo-.•'i:;�[:'�::T.;...;ti: °;+�i:.:�:y.,�;.....;� +.f +.C.S'.
�{.•.;:;r:h:.�<.:�'t".:;``-•^ .� ° ' : f�' .2' ,:.::.•+:.'. '.�..2:'•: a•n.,..,,.
a':x .,r�;;�`•`:'Y•c:�'r.'`•'?`'�:%'� ..{..:••,••.,...>+.r•:,��„ .cs;as;.:-+`'�
� i.S•�f' .x' ��":;:''�`c.�:�`ca.��:�#�.
380 _...........:.. .t:;="�. r�,,;,�•`�y.��r..;;r.�k.a•v.�<:.a" !
�4..v =:�S cv.:,; .,y;...•.h...
fi�$:4:tie>;r'v���.+'i�N:X�+b'�. �::�k+y'i ��x�� Lower
� ,.:h�:4y:�:::><..�,�<: ,�:.. ..�_,:. ����:. � Limit {
� �r=-fn�-��h�,� Forecast
<�=_'<`�:�>:N�;;�::�;�f.:�..
.. ,N,. .,.;`<'xi;<�:;>:.,�
360
340
S9 90 9i 92 93 34 95
Year
FIGURE 2b. �
MSP ENPLANEMENTS: ACTUAL AND FORECAST
(1989-1995)
� Enplanements (millions)
15 .
14
��#: I
. ,�"��'`.%�`y
13 (i11t .�r�•>;.;h::�:..�:::;.::
L� r.t.:,..:fti::v'•::•`?:Q.:;.'H,:`t
•r`•'
Total enplanements t UPPe� .,���",,�"�^-.;.:?�>„„��`���%:�";;��%;;;
includinfl nan-rsvenue aS .::,:p k:; ,��� .;�{� t �•�
<
�2 Fo�ec ,;.:.:.�f�:�.�,�.� ��� �� ��,
�.:.>v::::,.:�:.. �.�f�, .� ri�,{�,�
(See note below) :.. ; :��;:��;�::�:;�:�;w �$����.�.:�„�,.�.<
�. ,: •�.,•<:::..:.:� �fi,• �;{x� >f
7�^�'.�' ;�'!�;<;.�:-'%c;�:+ P4 y��r.�'�Li;�aa4r�::` ',
^ + .j,'•x ';.c:x��;;?r,...•S•c••t�,:.,.., ,y7$��V4`.y'� ;f, .g;p;..yrY„ f .
� 1 /`1 ri C Va� � :?2.. n��A�.'c• .. .• y.,•::.�..:.y-..,:.::��:,y,y...c.•{:•.;,. .ti �, � ',
1 ,Ni,' X ��i'/.�, •.Ft^�,'.,:4:�•�'i�Y}`.�.;n l�;v��•f�;�iwYl.F.
l :.y:r�{fti�y. }.... }a�'h?5...:.�as`.<,`•`;)•:ySg:�?;:c;sq.•};cy..;i3%.cS•y,�',.<:;;C'��hv,i�yw,;rp:v. ,,'
��t f,..r ,,�;S�tili�,' .. .c�7�..,i� �.'�..«�'..�'��.�a ,a�wa�"r�• I .
•f:Y yFr�"t�y'�,'��,rf•-••f�`y +' '+.t.°z �'.�fc��'� ,.
�o •<> `��.� .. "` �Forecast Lower Limit {
'v ... .. ...h•V-�.yi.�...�'•`:fi:•.:. . 4
. 9 � t
� � � � . ._ ��..
8 ' E
89 90 91 92 93 94 95 �
Year
Note: MSP enpianemeMs exciudes twn-revenue passenpe�a. Thua totalenpienements in 1991 equaled 10.3 million I
or 6.6 percent hiQher tfian ahown by lit►e.
Source: Apogee Reaeatch from Met CouncB and MAC data.
D��L �/Z 7�� �!9"�S � rn �'� �u C,c.,�v s G
��.E��T��� 9 �
;
Actual total enplanements, which includes both revenue and non-revenue passengers were
b.5 percent higher — above the midpoint of the forecast range (Figure 2b). When the forecasts
�.c� rcviewed in 1992, the use of total enpianements should be examined -- both to reflect the
�� demand for facilities and because all passengers generate economic value.
- 14
�V. SUNIlVIARY QF KEY FACTORS IN 1990 FORECAST
Given the importance of the input variables as well as the rapid and significant changes
to the industry and the region, this section h�ghlights.some of the key inp�ts to the final aviation
demand forecast and reviews how they have changed since the original forecast.
In general, the Domesfic Carrier Activity category is the single most important category.
Overall, regional and international activity are growing rapidly in importance, the latter having
a larger impact (per enplaned passenger) on the economy, but not expected to affect demand
dramatically for the next 10 years.
Of the inputs to the forecast, six are perhaps the most important and most sensitive.
these can be grouped into two categories: Econometric (Airline revenue as measured by revenue �
per revenue-passenger-mile, or "yield", regional (Twin Cities) employment, and regional
income • and rational i
), Ope (hubbing ratio, average aircraft size, and enplaning load factor). The
relationship of these factors in forecasting demand is depicted graphically in Figure 3 on the '
following page. Each of these factors is described below, followed by a table that summarizes '
other inputs to the overali air service demand forecast.
Econometric Factors �
Airline revenue (as measured by "yield", average revenue per reveriue-passenger-mile
flown). A lower yield due to lower fares results in an increase in air
travel. The 1990 Dual Track forecast showed yield decreasing by 0.3 --
percent annually (from 13.6 cents in 1987 to 13.1 cents in 2004 in
constant 1991 cents).10 The 1992 FAA forecast now predicts yield to
increase by 0.7 percent annually through the year 2000 {and by 0.6
percent through 2003)." This expected rise in domestic yields is
attributed to the need for U.S. carriers to rationalize their fare structures
(to improve their profitability) and to the industry consolidation currently
u�derway. Several uncertainties that could continue to affect yield,
including the current fare wars, volatility of oil prices, increase fuel
. efficiency of newer aircraft, industry labor costs, and interest rates.
MSP employment (the number of people working in the MSP xegion). Higher employment
levels indicate higher economic activity and thus a higher demand for air
travel. This is a key variable in determining originations, international
enplanements, and air carga tonnage. In the 1990 Dual Track forecast
1°The 1989 FAA forecast predicted yield to decline by 0.6 percent annually.
"FAA forecasts are derived from detail presented in the appendices to FAA Forecctsts, as
presented in the 1989 and 1992 issues. �
�
�
� 15
4
1�
� � � � . � � � - � . i
' employment was expecterl to increase from 1.52 million in 1987 to 1.93
million in 2020. Recent analysis has shown that trends in non-farm
employment (and income) are more important than population in
determining demand for air travel. The recent recession had a adverse
affect on employment in the Twin Ciries. Some factors that need to be .
considered in reviewing the original forecast include: the effect of the
recession on employment in the region, the shift towards a service
� economy, the trends in non-farm ernployment, growth in population and
its affect on employment, and any wealrnesses in the projection '
methodologies for this variable.
MSP income (as measured by average per capita income in the MSP region).
Generally, higher per capita income results in higher demand for air
travel. In the 1990 Dual Track forecast, this variable was used to
determine originations, non-scheduled enplanements, and regional
enplanements. In that.forecast average per capita income in'the region
was expected to grow from $7,220 in 1987 (in 1972 dollars) to $9,609 by
2020, or 1 percent annually. Between 1987 and 1989, the most recent
period for which data are available, the actual growth was 5.4 percent
annually. Due to the recent recession, however, there may be short-term
variations in per capita income. Other factors that could influence per
cagita incorne include the shift from manufacturing to service sector jobs
(variation in non-farm income), and the performance of dominant
economic sectors in the IvISP region that have disproportionately large
affect on the per capita income of the region.
Operational Factors
Hubbing ratio � (ratio of enplaning to originating passengers). Total enplanements can be
predicted simply as the product of originating passengers.and t}ie hubbing
ratio.1z In the 1990 forecast, MSP hubbing was expected to grow by 0.3
percent annually thraugh the year 2000. The hubbing ratio between 1982
and 1991 actually grew by 4.9 percent annually. Some uncertainties that
couid affect the hubbing ratio are economic growth in MSP versus the
national economy and, of course, operational decisions by Northwest
12The 1989 MSP forecast used the USDOT's 10 percent ticket survey to estimate originating
passengers (and, thus, the hubbing ratio) for MSP. This method results in a higher hubbing
ratio than that reported by the MAC because the estimate of originations in the DOT sample are
generally lower than actual. Likewise, because the airport connecting data provided by the
MAC do not include interline transfers, the MAC ratio tends to be slighfly lower than actual.
For example, the original forecast's 1988 hubbing ratio was 1.88; airport data shows that the
hubbing ratio in that year was i.46.
16
F/GURE 3. �
DEMANQ FORECAST/NC9 METHODOLOGY �
�990 DUAL TRACK A/R CARR/ER FORECASTS
,..,.....�.::.... . ... .�... .. ..::.� .,.::: :.�...,.....v..:.......:.::::.:.:: ..::...,�.:......:..:::::::......:.......:. .
k ..; r.�.�::::::::::::: .... ......... .............nv.w:.:: �:.v.n•.w.wn�::v.•.�.:'� .:•:::. :.vy:.:..�:::::::::::::..•:i::.�:::.::n•.•.:•.::r.•:.•n •.
.......... ... . .. .. ... .. .... . �MMMMf,�::. O: "� ..... NM�N�M�M�MMNM�MMM1
iv
..y}:: .:1v. :Sv:.•:.?:ti
•�{{•.
:.i....,�h A4 :['0:•:r. y
,. y., , ...., .,, v . : . ..» ...,..,a.:•:•� .; ...
� .L { �••x.a.:•:.::.:t:::<•':e.^.•'••:.v:.....:?:•:x.:+. ...>....: �:#.•;•..y: ..,,�... ..�,;.,:. ..;k:
,} , '•2�Y•>•'•+ S::;r:��i•�
. . . .v . ra:.:.,�.�•:.: ,•,•:y.:::y.:,:::•r..,:.....,.�....... ....�........... y .s.,
..•� .+:s '� . •� :•.�t°:.. ..,.t•�., .r.... .vt::.,•. .::<,.a.+.:,�#.:x;i'$:3i . ..t.. .
•.. ,� �:+� •�. . .!,. �. •.'7Y• s ..�:�Fn�'•.v '� ii.. .'� v�... . ,':•4vny;:}'.i�;: . :f:ti`{:ii:i�i:?$ ..�.v. .4h .h:
r,.A.;,.. .,,Qs;j.., :;la::::•::n..v v•.<.•.v: '•:9.S'.. .£
s� � •.•.� ..n>RKy;:: ,`.�:'V.:.t..�.•t .r. ;3...�.x, •}'� ^�•:�a:`f.^�'{.�• }:
� .,.#.+:.+..;".c::•.:.: ..��^..'�e•,''C. . .�r.'��'%:;:$: .f
i� ;>o .E ..t., 2 ,�. x�?t...t`�..
L� �d .� ..�..t.:�. .�Pl�1':':'s:: :��t:�l�t� .�ilati�,<.•...
..��.�...°�.�.. . ,��...,� ��v<�
.:.:��,. ;:>:<.>•�.
.:.., • :
.�►.. �.��c . ...t... . �.:....... . ..�.............,.. v:>..;� � .�.
.;:>:.:.� ....�.,.::: <.:�£ . .�.......�'.... :>.f..;.< . ,:;.: ::f.��� �.�€ .,..,,<x>�:�,�. 1d: �.
,,�,5•,y �.f• .>�`''s 4v. 2<?.�: .,..L;.• +::•k:••�.;....: :'••.Sf..+�•• <�:t..+..,n..v...... ..t.>.,k.. .,k'�•;.�so.;;•.y,••... y.,
y" k.. .Z .vti.••::i •o:•:e•..at .{,£r:.ss.:.;r..,..ary..••.':r.:•:x;:i::,7:�:+r:: •,.;;f,•:?:2;�i�::i;.::t�'ii•.a.,•S{.� ,a�v .r • .�y..�e.�.+.,,..2,�f�
�a .y F ���•, ;'•�'•v��',y\�'�. . �.}t4,A,.., �.�i;r. v;},•��:•:.•+y'.�.•� 'i:C•..e:.>.�v:•v,••y;;•;• \+,:!}:�;$,:;{: 4���'' y .5:�:^• £.
• ,•,^�.{} •nti\': �i,•,��, �;:� ,.,. v;r:a;;•{:rL}:;;,v.:$;i:.r+�. :C...;ir,k`G v4•4: ��'vY�:•�y.�.;�•.v: �<'� •�'�'i.�+'�^'vi\4...ri^'���Y�j�'.�,�i�,{<$y�•\;�.,X4'ri.. � �
'�},��''y•d\; . \v�.}, �•;�$, '. C}}. • :;'� ., � >.,}:> y. �:h}�.;� v.}.,. �{.
�.�'t ;.>. • $ {{:; '.`;:c:`;.+.:;�;.. . `.'� ;i::x.;:y::�. ':as.+;Sir��;{ ;� F :h� ' �;
,;,. .:�,.��k Q ;s::.:::<:�::.�.�.�.�.::�#li��k��'':�A..t,'�k ��.,>...A��••::<•>..< ,:,
. ��'� . ,,..�:.:h..::::::::.::.:::..�.:: .,.� :>.:� .>� .,.�;. {:���3 �C::.,�1��:';:�`�'.
.��;. ` .,?'�','�;:;:. •,�. ,,?�'• <:a.,. < .s.. :.: ..�` .�,.:.:�i•.,...g.
v�$'. Y � �:`}:'• .�.:{ii}v...:+{'^:�i•"+�}:'{iq:?'�� r\ .���. .'tii•.'�:•i•4. �'i^. ':i�•:' J:
:i�h • �i�•y•',y ;$'ii`ih+,:^S'i+.v. .4`. r.���n �•4`:iffi`"i�:•:i:C+S^.•?2 v.�F 4n�}.�..., 0:.•;..
.��' #`: . >., �• �?R' ?•{ ,2.,.}?..:};•`.{+.y?:••. ,,>,::.4 0 ::2•:::•.. • ,:•:! •..L: . �+52:2:}� v,..3,ti�i.;•>".,a�l,�v'.+T. •'.�}.
'. . . ...` ,; .
�. , ,. ;r .;Y• . ;. h .�.�'';^' ''k';;,;n:. ,•:;�i+:::'^,... v�..T.. ^:•,•,}.::r ;.,s r ^,...•>,.i,':::;�;^•?� .,.�S'i.. i.:;�:x,.i�:L,..�:• ..v�.��.�'S'.�•.l.,,e;;L,a'�.:•.,:'.x,�+.''t,:, k�.. '}'
''� �y :��. ti.:.'•{i,t��,.�; ' :.,•�,�'e:r. ,,;}•3�;�L i{.x�'y; .�
..�.��� �:� � �....��;, .....�����:���.��r><�:�:�:�t����::��:��.. ..�. . >�:...
...�.,.. .�;v .�:. . ..�:.,:. :.>.:.:�:..:.:>...�.:. :,. . : :u. .::� �.� .F���s�: �:�,
:.:�:., ..., ..�.:,:...::�.:; }:.::: ��<.:�.:::�`:�: .�
�i.s' r•t r.?.w v.fF +.:• '%'c�•>+.�,o >,•P;}';}.�vy,�.n;: n.;'{v;'•::C4.. :•:ti<��':i{t:•�., 'ti{f,.,I,.tf. ::.vL;{.r::� • •.•..{v;. '4}'. • '{h,+'ri;r . {�.. :♦^.��.: ...+: .
:. �'n:�, .�. ' `x...;..:..::. ..,.,+.,;:,•,,;., ..x.. c.a:.>. ..,� z.%�,..,�`�, ,.�.:::.
. :: •:: �: :� . . . . •. ..s.. ?#.:s:ak`t� ..,>....r+f •.+.•
.::.';, �
.a.?n•
.Y� ;.;• .,t,�� e<,
•,n•: •�>a ,x:��.fi+.
. . ...... :
;•:.,•:,,• •..•... .,• • ..Ft,,; •: . •., .::.r:t•� •v•t �r;:•:.•••a:�.. •.::..:::•::::.:�,::::.:::::......:.:>:•: :•:r;.: „t�••�,: •:•»:r•+::t�•:. .st�. ..u:.•t+.o••:t
:•:. ..... ...::
.. . ...�::...
,. .. . w . . . +r.r:.:•.::.:::::•. •.:::::::.,.:;.::.::•.:.;•:•:::•.:.••:. �
..... .. .�.... . :•.�•... ....... ............. :•::•.>rs+.•:s•,:.::.:r::t:+.a:�.,;: :;.,..•:. :. ,V;:•..;,.
Air Carrier
Passenger Originations �
:�'yi+,,..•��s ��{y4>:i�...,�Aryti:..��tir.y .�. ..L� �
}LS.��L� �+�
•�� :E
�'� JA�
. . :i:'a`'�''Tv'�• �� ,* .2�,,t#'�,, .', .`:
i; f"''•4#
� :�::;;�.:;�,� �;,> , ;
,�.;;•:. :'�' s#�.�.>.�;;#,;, ��
. ;;,3;3;� �{�7��.., f '��
;;s�.��•<: ��,��' '4.� c Y.,;.
�` :��• �:�• �`�J';���1X�:�:
N.h,�;n,.. >:. ..�.,����:>,3�,>#�:��• �,�k<� r
i i•"`�a4����,x�'r %ah:h�}'#;:?�.'�*:i,�i• i�j ,h .;`,
�.`•:��iY,`�.'�'`��> ;C�;#,�k?e�.`„�,y.,�,' ;;•y;
� � � . .i�..::i:••r}::ii4ii:.,;r;;.,.,�....,�}i:i'i}:•i:;i::i'rT:i:•kJ:+:�...T,:v. :+rF •v�;.:{i,C•C
Air Carrier
assenger Enplanement
.... ::::.::::::::::.: ;�...,:..:..,..: ,...:. ::::..,.:.. ���r��� �.�;:
� . . ::d k p•��r i�'$,,'�}n�.
..�4•, �:ar.t;,s ,.,t,•:, ',.?�,:�,:;.,,. +.. ',�:..".f,.ui`j::i;ik;' ,�C'• �i',. .,�. :,'�i,
'ni^4•:K;, '''s,;w{.y:;?:;;:? � ::;#;.,:,2 ;4 j3;,':,?`:'a 2�'��•:.. ti*,j.'.,r,� 3>'�: �i ,t�,g#�`•" '
( . ,2,>. i C.`C+F A '� .�.�r..�,.i ..� }
. �{,• . � ��niM1 }
�`y� ,�?�l�y'�'' �f',�' }•. . :4 . �;::: '+ . o,;"•.,.,.' .{�iv
;''r ' �3 � t.ft' � N�:'��.+�,.:'�#;•7'•• �; �;��,� <Y?.'�' Yv.y�:., r+ .e4,4,�,'Q'¢•. ;.,. .
��. ;}� t .,} +6S;vti t.;,;.?: ;.<;':� s•:�'s,°;'+ �:: .i .�t` � .
;'%r s' ,9'`Y#�. �}r`f•'•: .a / ,p,;��y'.'•:`:•• y�.:� � . . � :Y^s; ,�`,,•+•,+•'t.v�:r�'�:,;yA�r���>>`�:��t�<;f x4:�i{ i,'• "'d,¢� •� .
$$� �?�?:•C'�• : y i:k•: ; ' �.5 �,,. .x��.,' ::
� �'�� �} y� M1:' �Y.f�'.:�: . . t:i ' iA• i••� �\��:;:. �,{. x4' -0�+•i�r,' L.�
';�. f( R.T,:'�r..�,+�.;�� �'� b.r?.v?. �,L .�
��.t .�."...:��i:•:�' .��, :$.,.;;.;; :;�„s,.,.;,k:r'•..�>•••:::�.�#::z`�,;� ,;'�,�..�:..�'s�.,�, ,,,�,.
��:'. •''fi�','^::.t:v> w.�'t•::+.<:+.�:;r,::�i;,�?K`:i>�r ry.}# . . �;�?:;{:;�; '+.�' ?: .
J� �i/ •�.�>.����1.����.�,��°..xi�...�.��..'#��.
'"3� , r•S,y` r.�..r' •.•?,�: � ;i;: x'(' •.
y::;� �.., •.�;2;.�:f,.�:;i,::i.:;r�.}+„�j�t;hC,3�.,F.s#,,, ,�h F >. :•}:, .<:•.,.• +�'�:•2;e,�,� �N .i..
•:4' J�Ir}� y /,• ? • r: � . ;r�.�rr•,S:k�s ';;'w;.;+�. E�:;�;;;:•,••.:.•:;.:.:::4�' .
f;I �.�' f�►7�;N,4,"��+:,4,jfi•�..�'i�,'�':s:.:S�;t��' . � "'G::f�,�.}::•;•.',•,.,.. `�c�•, +.��v�k'S.,•.,,.$}.v...,6.,"{�i,�. :;?
% :� '•e�.,•>r`�Y'y�6�,�`•:9:5+/•,#;::;'},:? , . ^�i�,�i;,••���>S::.h,�'�''��n'v` ��',•.'�•'�;s:s?ti•�,•S•;R;3,.Tt;:y,,?$� . ':.�}�� Yry�';
s'� �� F;.s;�!,!�•S'k3.::S. "•�,,o�.^:..�;:>,::,;;:<,�;,k.�.�.fi.�.r:."stoxto,.::>.£a�..<;��:.�•o .
:s �`�•:�'.'I` a.#.�«:...�C<�;,; �,:: . •.>....,.:,�`. .A, '%
4 r ::}�: Y:.\vv^i:::y4:'•:i::-0:::;'?::i.}:t?i^iii+iii:�^ri•:i•iii:•:•M1::'r•:r:ti<.:i'trii�::4:•iT:::ji:�i.'•}:4:i!i�:
Air Carrier
Aircraft Departures
Ke y: � •
:<:<::;.�;:,r.:>..:,
���`�k>;�t��.��'�';�;:�;::<> OUTPUTS �
�;:: ,
� Airlines, which is now moving operations from Washington, D.C., to
other cities.
:�v�rrcge aircrrcJt
szze (average number of seats available per air carrier departure). Average
aircraft size is a key workload measure since it will directly affect
passenger capacity and operations. In the 1990 Dual Track foreca.st,
average aircraft size was expected to grow by 1.2 percent annually
through the year 2000. The FAA now predicts aircraft size to grow by .
1.5 percent through the year 2000.13 Some key uncertainries are the
affect of the noise regulations on a.ircraft size, the nature of hubbing, and
increased use of widebody aircraft_
Enplaning loari
factor (percent of departing seats filled by revenue passengers). This measure,
used in conjunction with average aircraft size, converts enplanements to
� aircraft departures. The original forecast expe.cted this variable to climb
from 55.8 percent in 1987 to 56.9 percent in 2000, for a 0.2 percent
growth annually. The comparable national forecast for 1992 is virtually
the same (0.1 percent). -
The above factors represent the most important of those considered in develaping the
1990 forecasts. A wide variety of additional factors were also included as part of�the 1990 :
forecasts. The inputs for six of these forecasts are presented in Table 3. �
13The 1990 MSP forecast showed that the average number of seats for MSP in 1989 was 140
compared to 153 nadonally. The comparison in this memo describes relative rates of growth
(MSP versus national) rather than comparing the vaiues directly.
18
'�
TABLE 3.
Sl;f�vIMARY OF INPUT VARIABLES USED IN THE 1990 DUAL TRACK FORECAST �
BY ACTIVITY FORECAST CATEGORY
Activity Category
Variable
Domestic Air Carrier Activity:
I
• MSP per capita income
� MSP employment
� Yield
• Income elasticity
• Employment elasticity
• Fare elasticity
• Hubbing ratio �
• Average aircraft size �
• Enplar.ing load factor �
• Peak load factor . �
� Distribution of departures by month �
• Hourly activity profiles of similar airports -�
Non-scheduted Domestic Enplanements: �
• MSP Income k
• Average charter aircraft size .
� Enplaning load factor
� Peak month operations data
• Hourly profiles
Regional Eaplanements:
• MSP Income
+ Dummy variable for code sharing
• Average aircraft size .
• Enplaning load factor
• Peak month operations data �
• Hourly prof les '
Note: Variables in italic� are the key forecast variables discussed above.
f
19
� f
• f
TABLE 3. (Cont'd)
SUNIlVIARY OF INPUT VARIABLES USED IN THE 1990 DUAL TRACK FORECAST
BY ACTIVITY FORECAST CATEGORY (Cont'd)
Activity Category
Variable
International Activity:
• MSP employment
• Trade weighted value of US dollar
• Potentially divertable international enplanements _
• Split of scheduled v. non-scheduled enplanements
• NWA average aircraft size
• Enplaning load factor
� FAA forecast international aircraft size
• Distribution of peak month enplanements � _
Genecal Aviation Activity: �
• FAA forecast of growth in haurs flown
• Itinerant operations
� Local operations
Air Cargo Activity:
� MSP employment
• Dummy variable for deregulation
� , • S-year_avg. split for dedicated v. small cargo
• Avg. tonnage per departure �
20
• �
i
f
. ,
�
,
MINNEAPOLIS-SAINT PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUMMARY OF FORECASTING METHODOLOGIES
OCTOBER 1992 �
�
i
I
k
prepared for the
PANEL SESSION ON AVIATION FORECASTING METHODOLOGIES• k
�
�
,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pa�e
:�, Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. Regional Carrier (Commuter) Enplanement Forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2.1 Issues Coneeming Regional Enplanement Forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2.2 Description of Regional Carrier Enplanement
Forecast Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2.3 Methodological Evaluation of Regional Carrier
Enplanement Forecasts . . . . . . : . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.4 Preluninary Recommendations for Forecasting
Regional Carrier Enplanements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Regional Carrier Aircraff Ogerations Forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1 Description of Regional Carrier Aircraft-
Operations Forecast Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 -
3.2 Methodological Evaluation af Regional Aircraft
Operations Foreca.sts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3 Preliminary Recommendations far Forecasring
Regional Carrier Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . 9
4. Originating Passenger Forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1 Issues Concerning Originating Passenger
Activity Forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2 Description of Originating Passenger
Forecast Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3 Methodological Evaluation for Origination
Passenger Forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4 Preliminary Recommendations for Forecasting
Originating Passengers . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
S. Connecting Passenger Forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1 Issues Concerning Connecting Passenger
Activity Forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2 Description of Cannecting Passenger
Forecast Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.3 Evaluation of Connecting Passenger
Forecast Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.4 Preliminary Recommendations for Forecasting
Connecting Passengers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
. � ,
�
LIST OF TABLES
Table pa�e
1 Comparison of Alternative Regional Carrier • .
Enplanement Forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 Comparison of Alternative Regional Carrier
Operations Forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3 Comparison of Alternative Air Carrier Origination
Forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4 Comparison of Alternative Air Carrier Connection
Forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
,
�
f
I
f
4
I
�
�
`
4
�
,
` MINNEAPOLIS-SAINT PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUNIlVIARY OF FORECASTING METHODOLOGIES
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study is to review aviation forecast issues and forecast techniques, and
recommend forecast methodologies for Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport(MSP). The
report concentrates on MSP's four most sensitive components of demand: 1) regional carrier
enplanements, 2) regional carrier operations, 3) air carrier originations and 4) air carrier
connections. The issues addressed in this summary report are examined in greater detail in a
companion volume, Evaluation of Forecasring Methodologies. The findings are based on
analysis of more than 30 forecasts from 12 airports and the Minnesota State System Plan.
2. REGIONAL CARR�R (COMMUTER) ENPLAI'�TEMENT FORECASTS
2.1- Issues Concerning Regional Enplanement Forecasts
Forecasting regional carrier (commuter)activity can be more difficult than forecasting air carrier
activity for several reasons. There is no standard definition for regional carriers. Less data is
available for this component of demand than for the air carrier comgonent. Regional and air
carrier service sometimes overlap, making it difficult to distinguish between passengers travelling
on regional flights and those travelling on air carrier flights. Moreover, the regional market is � _
more volatile than the air carrier market and more sensitive to latent demand stimulation.
2.2 Description of Regional Carrier Enplanement Forecast Methodologies
Six major categories of forecast methodologies were identified and are described below:
Re�ression Analysis is a statistical methodology which correlates historical regional carrier
enplanements with factors that presumably determine the level of regional carrier enplanements
(e.g. population, employment, income, institutional factors). Necessary assumptions are that
historical relationships between enplanements and independent variables will be maintained in
the future and the forecasts of the independent variables are accurate.
National Share Analysis is a top-down approach that assumes that local regional carrier
enplanements are largely determined by the same forces that determine national regional carrier
enplanements. Regional carrier enplanements are calculated as either as a constant, increasing,
or decreasing ratio of national enplanements. The methodology assumes that the relationship
between local and national enplanements is predictable and also assumes that the national
forecast of regional carrier enplanements is accurate. .
Airport Share Anal�sis assumes that regional carrier enplanements are determined by the same
forces that determine total airport enplanements. Under this methodology, total airport
enplanements are projected first, and then the share of total enplanements comprised by regional
carrier enplanements is derived. The methodology assumes that the ratio between regional and
l
+
total airport enplanements is predictable and that the forecast of total airport enplanements is
accurate.
Market Analysis involves an analysis of individual exisdng and potential regional carrier
markets. A forecast is developed for each individual market and then aggregated to produce a
forecast of total regional cazrier activity. This technique still requires that a methodology or
methodologies be developed in order to forecast each of the individual markets.
Constraint Analysis is required for airports which are under or are anticipated to be under
capacity constraints such as slot restrictions or excessive delays which are expected to continue
in the future. Under this methodology, activity levels are simply assumed to converge towards
the constraint. The methodology still requires assumptions on the relative distribution of activity �
between regional carriers and other aircraft categories. It also requires an effective assessment
of how physical or operational constraints translate into constraints on passenger activity.
Expert Jud ement is a more qualitadve methodology than the others listerl. It requires a quasi-
intuitive assessment of future activity based on a synthesis of the forecaster's knowledge of past
trends, likely future events, and their interrelationships. �This technique often involves the
development of several quantitative forecasts and the selection of one based on the forecaster's -
judgement.
2.3 Methodological Evalaafion of Regional Carrier Enplanement Forecasts
Table 1 provides a summary evaluation of the various regional carrier enplanement forecast -
methodologies (a detailed evaluation may be found in Evaluation of Forecasting Methodologies).
When comparing the performance of various methodologies, it is important to remember that �
some airports are more volatile than others, some years have been more difficult to forecast than
others, and that the sample of some methodologies is not large enough to provide a fair
comparison. Even so, the evaluation suggests that certain methodologies performed better than
others on average.
For each forecast methodology, the deviation of the forecast activity levels frQm actual activity �
levels is presented in percentage terms for each year following the base year. The average is
calculated using the absolute value of the deviafions of the forecast levels from the actual levels. '�
Absolute val��es are used in order to avoid the prospect that negative and p�`rsitive values might '
offset-each other and thereby provide an unrealistic impression of overall accuracy. �h
A weighted index is developed to evaluate each forecast methodology within the context of other
forecast methodologies. For each methodology, the percentage deviation for each year is
divided by the average deviation for that year of all forecasts.'These performance ratios are thea
averaged over the period of the forecast to provide an overall index of accuracy relative to'other �
forecast methodolagy. The lower the weighted index the more accurate the forecast in
comparison to other forecasts.
I
I
2
y �
Table 1
MINNEAPOLIS-SAINT PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Comparison of Alternative Regional Carrier Enplanement Forecasts
Percentage Deviation of Forecast �Ialues From Actual Values
Summary Comparison of Methodologies
Percentage Deviation(a) , Weighted Index
Base Years From Base Year Air- Alt Air-
Forecast Methodology Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Avg(b) port(c) pocts(d)
Reeression Anal�rsis - 18.8 21.7 24.2 86.9 46.4 79.2 46.2 - 1.23
National S6are Analysis - 15.5 38.2 23.4 28.9 61.6 23.8 49.? 57.3 55.7 56.6 58.2 29.6 31.5 40.8 - 0.92
Airport Sharc Analysis - 9.2 23.t 33.2 22.2 4S 3.� 5.9 12.4 17.8 36.1 16.8 - 0.44
Martet Analysis - 2.7 17A 9.8 - 037
Ezpert Jud6ement - 12.5 28:8 47.6 53.4 56.5 53.1 52.4 67.2 68.8 57.4 88.4 89.6 89.9 89.7 90A 63A - 1.21
Gpacity Constraint - 27.8 61.8 '71.4 54.5 41.4 41.3 32.7 50.9 57.1 � 48.8 - 1.32
Avecs6e of Totat - 14A 313 35.3 48.4 52.3 40.4 40.1 49.4 50.3 51.1 63.5 59.6 60.7 89.7 90A 31.6 - 1.00
(a)(Forxest Value-Actuai ValueyActual Value.
(b)Average ot absolute values ot deviations.
(c)Percentage deviation divided by average percentage deviation for individual airport each ycar and then averaged for all years.
(d)Percentage deviauon divided by average percentage deviation for all airports tach year and then averaged ta all years.
Sourca HNTB analysis.
, ,
� 1
• t
The intent of this index is to remove the bias against forerasts with longer records, since it is
more difficult to accurately forecast activity ten years into the future than one year into the
future. For a given forecast, the percentage deviation five years from the base year is only
cvmpared with the average percentage deviation at other forecasts at a point five years from the
: base year. This is done for each year of the forecast and then the indices for all years are
averaged to produce a weighted index.
The key fmdings of the evaluation are:
1. None of the methodologies is very accurate: Tfie average deviations of the forecasts
from actual activity levels range from 10 percent for the market analysis methodology
to 63 percent for the expert judgment methodology. Because of the high volatility in the
regional carrier market, it is unlikely that any method will consistenfly yield a forecast E
as accurate as a typical air carrier forecast. i
;
2. Only a small part of the deviation of regression forecasts results from imprecise
demagraphic and economic forecasts. Regression analysis needs to incorporate the
. structural changes that have affected the commuter market recently, either through the 'i
use of code-sharing dummy variables or some other method. The regional�carrier market . '�
is dependent on more than just local economic trends.
3. Excluding the TAF forecasts, the national share technique appears to do well compared
to most of the other methods. Given the simplicity of the method, it may be the most �
useful for forecasts with limited budgets. However, the method is poorly suited for - F
incorporating local degartures from the national norm, as occurred in Kansas City with
the bankruptcy of their hub airline, Braniff. Only a small part in the deviation of
national share forecasts appears to be a resuit of deviations in the FAA forecasts upon �
which they are based.
4. Airport'share analysis appears to perform well relative to most of the other techniques.
� Nevertheless, it requires both an accurate forecast of ovet�all airport passenger activity
and an accurate assessment of how the regie�nal carrier share of airport activity will
change over tir�e. Forecasts that assume that the regional carrier share of passenger
activity remains constant do not perform well. �
5. Based on the limited data available, the market analysis technique appears to perform
best. However, the forecasts are conservative and may continue to 1ag behind actual
activity in the future. Mazket analyses would probably be more accurate and more useful
if they were to assess the latent demand in each markei, and evaluate the.potential for
tapping that demand.
6. Capacity constraints should be incorporated into forecasts with care. Even when faced
with constraints on aircraft operations, carriers have a number of c�ptions for
accommodating increased passenger demand.
4
' 2.4 Preliminary Recommendations for Forecasting Regional Carrier Enplanements
The following measures are recommended for future forecasts of regional carrier enplanements.
S�rrte of these recommendations may or may not be feasible depending on the resources.
atrr�ilable.
1. Since virtually all regional carrier forecasts are likely to be inaccurate to some extent,
include in the forecast discussion a statement indicating the likely variability based on
past regional carrier forecasts.
2. A market analysis should be performed if the resources are available: However,
examination of existing or potential markets should include an evaluation of potential
demand, by examining pre-deregulation activity, enplanement population ratios, potential
substitution of other transportation modes such as automobiles, and the potential for
reducing existing fares. If feasible, travel agency surveys should be performed at these
markets to obtain an empirical estimate of latent demand.
3. Any regional carrier enplanement forecasts should exglicitly address potential changes
that may result from the new generation of commuter aircraft, such as the 50-seat jets
or 60+ seat turboprops. �
4. If regression analysis is selected, recent structural changes, such as code-sharing and new
equipment should be included through the use of dummy variables or other adjustments.
S. Although the FAA does not publish yield data for regivnal carriers, historical yields can
be derived from the financial data the regional carriers submit to the U.S. Department
of Transportation. Yields represent revenue per passenger mile and are often used as a
proxy for fares. Historical yields for the regional carriers serving the market under study
can be used in regression equations as the price variable determining demand. The
problem of obtaining a suitable regional carrier yield forecast would remain, however,
6, At airline hubs, many if not most regional carrier passengers connect to air carrier
flights. Thus a measure of air carrier service (flights, seat departures, number of
markets served) may be a useful independent variable in a regression equation for
regional carrier enplanements.
7. If there is no major difference in the statistical and theoretical reladonship between
enplanements and alternative socioeconomic variables,population should be selected first,
employment second, and income third. This is because population forecasts tend to be
more accurate than employment forecasts, and employment forecasts tend to be more
accurate than income forecasts. -
S. Since much of the volatility in regionaT carrier enplanements results from the shifting of
markets from regional carrier service to air carrier service and vice versa, it may prove
5
. r
more useful to estimate enplanements by type of market, i.e. less 300 miles, greater than
300 miles, than by carrier service. However, collecting the required historical
enplanement data would be more difficult.
9. If resources are limited, the national share analysis method is most likely to be effective.
10. Simplistic capacity constraint methodologies should be avoided when forecasting regional
carrier passenger enplanements. �
11. Expert judgment should be used as a supplement rather than a substitute for more �
rigorous forecasting techniques. ;
f
3. REGIONAL CARI[tIER AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS FORECASTS
3.1 Description of Regional Carrier Aircraft Operations Forecast Methodologies
� �
As with regional carrier enplanement forecasts, several regional carrier aircraft operations
forecast methodologies were evaluated by comparing the performance of a number of case
studies. The forecast methodologies were grouped into the five major categories described -
below:
En,�lanement Derivarion assumes that regional carrier aircraft operations are directly related to
regional carrier enplanements. Enplanements are converted to operations by making assumptions
or projections regarding the future number of passengers per aircraft departure. This requires _
either implicit or explicit assumptions regazding future aircraft�size and enplaning load factor.
The enplanement derivation method possesses a theoretical appeal in that it assumes that aviation '�
activity is driven by demand, the number of passengers that wish to fly. This in turn, is f
assumed to determine the service level that accommodates that demand, in this case aircraft
arrivals and departures.
National Share Anal,��sis is similar to the national share analysis technique used to forecast
regional carrier enplanements. It assumes the forces determining local regional carrier aircraft
operations are similar to those affecting narional regional carrier operations. Local operations `
are therefore assumed to be an increasing, decreasing, or constant share of national operations.
The methad�logy assumes that the relationship between local and national operations is
predictable and that�the national forecast of regional carrier operations is accurate. An additional
complication, not encountered with regional carrier enplanements, is that air taxi operations are
included with regional carrier operations in the FAA foreca.sts.
Market Analyses for regional carrier operations aze generally done concurrently with market ;
analyses for regional carrier passenger enplanements. When a forecast is developed for an �
individual mazket, an assessment is generally made of the type of service that would be I
economical for the demand levels anticipated and also the type of service that would be required
to accommodate the anticipated demand. Assessmen�s regarding the threshold level of service
. 6
` required to tap the potential demand and the threshold level of enplanements required to make
service financially feasible are still necessary. �
���rstraint Analysis is often used at airports which are experiencing or are expected to
ex�rience capacity constraints. This methodology is more apgropriate for aircraft operations
forecasts than enplanement forecasts because the constiaints affect operations directly instead of
iridirectly as is the case with passenger enplanements. Nevertheless, some assumptions are still
required regazding the level of regional carrier operations relative to other aircraft operations.
Expert Jud�ment is more qualitative than the other methodologies, and requires a synthesis of
the forecaster's knowletige of past trends, likely future events, and their interrelationships.
3.2 Methodological Evaluation of Regional Aircraft Operations Forecasts
Table 2 presents an evaluation of the various regional carrier aircraft operations forecasts listed
by airport and methodology. The evaluation method is the same as that used to evaluate
forecasts of regional carrier enplanements in Table l. �,
The key findings of the evaluation of the regional carrier aircraft operarions forecasts are: _
l, The opera.tions forecasts are more accurate than the enplanement forecasts, but still
deviate from actual activity levels by an average of almost 25 percent.
2. If an airport is encountering capacity constraints and expansion is not an option, _ �
incorporation of these constraints into the forecast yields more accurate results for
operations than for enplanements.
3. In unconstrained situations, there is not much difference in the efficacy of the alternative
forecasting techniques. Enplanement derivation and market analysis methods apgear to
perform slightly better than others, but these differences may be related to factors such
as the number of studies in the sample and fiscaUcalendar year inconsistencies.
�a Even when the enplanement derivadon technique is used, the forecasts of operations tend
to be more accurate than forecasts of enplanements. This is perhaps an indica.tion that
regional carrier operations activity is inherently more stable than regional carrier
enplanement activity.
5. Only a small part of the deviation in operations forecasts calculated using the
enplanement derivation technique can be attributed to deviations in the FAA forecasts of
average seats per aircraft or load factor.
6. Only a small part of the deviation in operations forecasts esumated using the nadonal
share method can be attributed to deviations in the FAA forecast.
7
� Table 2
MINNEAPOLIS-SATNT PAUL INTERNATIONALAIRPORT
Comparison of Alternative Regional Carrier Operations Forecasts
Percentage Deviation of Forecast Values From Actual Values
Summary Comparison of Methodologies
Percentage Deviation(a) Weighted lndex
Base Years From Base Yeat Air- All Ait-
Forecast Methodology Year 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 AvR(b) port(c) ports(d)
Enplanement Derivation - 13.2 15.7 20.9 24.8 22.4 26.4 29.0 58.1 22.0 11.8 24.4 - 0.92
National Shate Analysis - 27.8 443 25.6 35.3 59.6 29.8 45A 44.2 42.2 40.9 44.4 25.6 25.0 37.7 - 1.27
Msrtet Anatysis -, 18.4 22.8 16.4 19.2 - 0.90
Capacity Constrsint Analysis - 1.2 31.7 34.7 3.5 7.4 11.6 7.7 1.8 ?.3 11.9 - 0.49
Ezpert JudEemeut - 16.1 7.3 4.S 19.3 19.4 17.5 7.1 43.8 41.3 70.5 74.9 81.5 85.9 85.4 85.1 44.0 - 1.00
AvaaEe of Total - 19.2 25.6 21.6 26.6 33.3 23.2 23S 3 L6 27.7 42.9 48.4 53.5 55.4 85.4 85.1 24.3 - 1.0
(a)(Foracast Value-Actual ValueyAcwal Value.
(b)Average of absolute valuea ot deviations.
(c)Percentage deviation divided by average percentage deviation[or individual airport each year and then averaged for ali years.
(d)Perantage deviation divided by average percentage deviation[oc all aicports each year and then averaged for al!years.
Sourcc HNTB analys�s.
_._. . _ __ __ ___._
� �
(
" 7e Expert judgement is useful in situations where there is knowletlge of factors that will
affect future activity which cannot be integrated into any of the other methodologies.
�.. Expert judgement also holds promise as a standardized method for providing upper and
lower bounds for a forecast.
3.3 Preliminary Recommendations for Forecasting Regional Carrier Operations
The following procedures are recommended for consideration in performing future forecasts of
regional carrier enplanements. Some of these recommendations may not be feasible depending
on the resources available:
1. At airports experiencing capacity consttaints that cannot be resolved, these capacity
restrictions should be explicitly included in the forecast of regional carrier operations:
2. There are theoretical azguments for consistency between regional carrier enplanement and
operations forecasts. Consequently, if the market analysis technique is used, the
assumptions used in the enplanement and operations forecasts should be consistent.
3. Tfie enplanement derivation technique is recommended for estimating operations forecasts
when the market analysis method is not used for estimating englanements. It ensures that
even if there is an error in the forecasts, the errors will be consistent, and the planner
will not be confused by diverging trends among the forecasts of enplanements and ,
operations. -
4. Examine the fleet acquisition plans of the regional carriers servicing the particular airport
under study. Use this information in formulating assumptions about future average
aircraft size.
5. Examine the number of regional carriers feeding the market in comparison to other
airports with a similar number of regional carrier enplanements. If the number of
carriers is unusually low, a new carrier may enter and increase the number of operations.
If the number af carriers is unusually high, the number of operations may decrease.
4. ORIGINATING PASSENGER FORECASTS
4.1 Issues Concerning Originating Passenger Activity Forecasts .
An originating passenger is an enplaning passenger who begins his or her trip at the airport
under study. This information is provided by the U.S. DOT's quarterly Ori�in-Destination
Survey of Airline Passenger Traffic.l -
l U.S.Department of Tcansportatioa and Air TranspoR Association of America,Orisin-Destination Survev of Ai�line Passencer Tre ffic.
9
,
,
�
There are discrepancies in the database, however. Passenger trips that occur exclusively on
regional carriers are not recorded in the 4&D Survev, although trips that include both
certificated carrier and regional carrier segments are recorded. The O&D Survev includes no
data on foreign flag carriers. Also, international trips on domestic carriers that begin at a
gateway airport are not recorded as originations. On combined international-domestic itineraries
wtiere the passenger's true originating point is a foreign airport, the O&D Surv� records his
or her origin as the first domestic departure point. Consequently, true direct international ;
originations are not recorded and incoming combined international-domestic trips are incorrectly
recorded as an origination at the airport where the domestic leg began.
� � ���
Other issues concerning origination passenger forecasts include: distinguishing between resident
and non-resident originations, distinguishing between business and pleasure travel, and yield
forecasts.
. 4.2 Description of Originafing Passenger Forecast Methodologies
There are four major originating passenger forecast methodologies that were examined: �
Regression Analysis is a sta.tistical method of conelating historical originations with potential
explanatory fa�tors such as population, employment, or air carrier yield.
Ivlarket Analysis involves tne projection of originating passengers on a market by market basis.
f
National Share Anaiysis assumes that local originations or englanements increase or decrease as �
a share of a national foreeast of enplanements.
Ex�rt Judgement is a qualitative methodology, and requires a synthesis of the forecaster's
knowledge of past trends, likely future events, and their interrelationships.
A complication in the evaluation of origination forecasts is that many forecasts of air carrier
enplanements do not include a breakdown by originating and connecting passengers.
4.3 Methodological Evaluation for Origination Passenger Forecasts '�
�
Table 3_presents a comparison of the various air carcier origination forecasting techniques. The
evaluation method is the same as that used to evaluate forecasts of regional carrier activity in
Tables 1 and 2.
The key findings of the evaluation of origination forecast techniques are as follows: 4
;
l. Regression analysis appears to yield the best results, �ut the sample of other forecast � - �
techniques is insufficient to provide any reliable conclusions on their efficacy. �
�
� 10
F .
Table 3 .
MINNEAPOLIS-SAINT PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Comparison of Alternative Air Carrier Originations Forecasts
� � Percentage Deviation of Forecast Values Fa�om Actual Values
Summary Comparison of Methodologies
Pcrcentage Daiation(a) Weghtod index
Base Ytars From E3ase Year ' Air- All Air-
Forecast Year T 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 i l 12 13 14 15 Avg(b) port(e) pocts(d)
Rebreuion Aaalysis 5.0 8.3 8.9 8.7 10.2 14.6 4A 8.5 - O.S4
Market Analysis 49 19.2 229 16.6 13.5 13.4 I1.6 14.6 - 1.42 ^
Rebression/National Shsre Analysis 0.5 3.1 3.5 9.1 5.4 31.7 29.5 209 19.6 17.9 23.2 20.6 20.1 18.5 30.3 16.9 - 123
Expert Judgement 10.9 18.5 19.6 23.0 18.0 - 2.01
Averase of Total 4.8 93 11.1 11.4 9.0 16.1 11.3 13.] 9.8 99 23.2 15.5 15.8 14.3 21.9 8.7 - 1.00
(a)(Forecast Value-Actual ValuexActua(Value.
(b)Average of absolute values of deviations. ,
(e)Percentage deviation divided by average percentage deviation!oc individual airport each year and then averaged for ai!years.
(d)Percentage deviation dividcd by average peroentage dcviation[or all airports each yeaz and then averaged for all years.
Sourco:HNTB analysis.
-
,
2. There is no detectable difference in the results of logarithmic and linear regression �
equations.
3. There is a general consistency in the coefficients among the logarithmic equations. The
elasticity of originations.with respect to employment ranges from 1.75 to 2.22 if ttiere
are no other socioeconomic variables, and between 1.08 and 1.36 if per capita income
� is also used as a socioeconomic variable. The elasticity of originations with respect to
yield ranges from -0.48 to -0.81.
4. . R-squared values associated with origination equations tend to be high but have littte
relation to the overall performance of the resulting forecast.
5. Much of the deviation of regression equation forecasts results from deviations in the
forecasts of the explanatory variables.
4.4 Preliminary Recommendations for Forecasting Originating Passengers
The following measures are recommended for future forecasts of passenger originations. Tfie �
feasibility of some of these rec�mmendations may depend on available resources. �
1. Fram the information available, regression analysis is the most effective way to forecast �
air carrier originations.
2. When using regression analysis, particular care must be taken.regarding the accuracy of _
the forecasts of the independent� variables. The most recent and well-documented I
forecasts available should be selected. In selecting the equation to be used, the rElative
accuracy of forecasts of alternative independent variables should be explicitly considered. �
3. There are several types of passenger, each driven to travel by different social and
economic forces. An annual passenger survey, recording information on age, income,
and trip .purpose would be particularly useful; especially in attempting to gauge the
impact of the aging of the baby boom generation upon long-term air travel demand:
4. If the market is dominated by a single catrier, an attempt should be made to substitute
that carrier's historical yield €or national yield, or alternatively, weight the yield variable
by the percentage of originations traffic accounted for by the predominant carrier. If
resources and the length of the historical data series permit, the use of fare data for
� major market pairs should be tested to identify(1)whether local fares are conelaCed with
nati,anal yields and (2) whether they produce an equation that better explains historical i
activity. .
5. If there is significant historical variation in the percentage of resident and non-resident
passengers, separate forecasting equations for resident and non-resident originations
should be attempted. Presumably, resident originations would he a function of local
12
, '
' economic variables and non-resident originations would be a function of national
economic variables.
�� If resources permit, disaggregation of passenger originations by fare class should be
attempted, to develop separate forecasting equations for each faze class.
7. Some forecasters believe that as the population ages and obtains more leisure time, they
will travel more. If resources permit, the percentage of the population in each age cohort
may be a useful independent variable.
$. Most of the growth in passenger traffic has been due to an increase in the propensity to
travel within the population rather than an increase in the population. Focusing on per
capita originations may be a useful method of isolating the factors that increase the
propensity to fly.
5. CONNECTING PASSENGER FORECASTS
5.1 Issues Concerning Connecting Passenger Activity Forecast
For the purposes of this analysis, a connecting passenger is defineli as an enplaning passenger
who does not originate his or her trip at the airport under study. Typically, connecting
passengers are estimated indirectly, by subtracting U.S. DOT O&D Survev originations from
certificated air carrier enplanements. Because of the discrepancies in the O&D database,
accurate connecting numbers are sometimes difficult to determine. Following is a summary of _
other issues that should be considered when developing connecting passenger forecasts:
• Socioeconomic conditions at cities served (or anticipated to be served) •from the hub
airport.
• Yield forecasts (as a proxy for fares).
• Routing analyses to estimate the percentage of passengers that couid be efficiently routed
thrcyugh the connecting hub.
• Competition between airports for �onnecting airports.
• Air carrier actions.
• Through flight substitution (Hub bypassing).
• Operadonal factors. -
• Relationship between connecting and originating traffic.
13
C
,
5.2 Description of Connecting Passenger Forecast�Methodologies
Five alternative connecting passenger forecast methodologies were examined. These are
described as follows:
Ori�ination Derivation assumes connecting passengers are directly dependent on air carrier
originations, either as a constant share or a directly increasing share. There is an implicit
assumption that the connecting passenger traffic is attracted by the levels of air carrier service
that are in turn generated by originating passenger demand.
National Derivation assumes connecting passengers are a segment of the national air travel
market and thus are directl de ndent n
y pe o the same forces that determine national demand
Usually, connecting traffic levels can be estimated either through regression analysis, with
national rather than local-socioeconomic variables as independent variables, or as a direct share
of projected national traffic. ;
Onerational Analysis is analogous to the constraint analysis employed in regional carrier
forecasts. It incorporates the assumption that operational considerations determine an optirnum '
size of an`air carrier connecting bank, and that inefficiencies appear if that optimum size is
exceeded. Generally, connecting passengers are assumed to grow at a rate determined either
through the origination derivation or national derivarion methodologies unril this constraint is
reached.
Market Analysis is more detailed than the others involvin a market b market anal si f �
� g Y Y S o _ ,,
potential connecting routes. The methods vary, but they can involve an analysis of circuity, `
route specific passenger traffic, threshold requirements, and potential competition from other �
airports and airlines.
Enplanement Derivation begins with estimating total enplanements; originations and connections
are then derived from the total. It is implicifly assumerl that total enplanements can be estimated
more accurately than either of the individual subcomponents. It is often used when accurate
historical data on originating or connecdng passengers is unavailable. A method for estimating
the origination/connecting percentage share of activity is srill required; often the existing ratio
is assumed to continue into the future. � �
5.3 Evaluation of Connecting Passenger Forecast Methodologies
A comparison of the alternative forecast methodologies for connecting passenger enplanements
is presented in Table 4. Except where noted, connecting enplanements refer to domestic air
carrier connections and do not include international or regional carrier traffic. The means used
to evaluate the performance of the alternative studies is the same as that used to evaluate . �
originations forecasts and regional carrier activity forecasts.
;
The key findings of the e�aluation of the connecting passenger forecasts are:
14
� t.
Table 4�
MINNEAPOLIS=SAINT PAUL INTERNATIONA.L AIRPORT
Comparison of Alternative Air Carrier Connection Forecasts
Percentage Deviation of Forecast Values From Actual Values
Summary Comparison of Methodologies
Percentage Deviation(a) Weighted Index
Base Years From Base Year Air- All Air-
Forecast Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS Avg(b) port(c) ports(d)
Oriaination Derivation - 8.7 113.3 14.7 9�.0 221.0 21.4 7.9 23.2 32.8 403 44.3 47.8 46.7 37A 37.1 52.9 - 1.23
Natioosl Derivation - 3.3 3S 3.4 - 0.25
Operational Anslysis - 5.0 3.5 4.2 . - 0.36
Martet Analysis - 5.2 8.4 16.3 20.0 46.1 19.2 - O.S2
Enplanement Derivation - 3A 3.7 0.2 9.0 4A - 0.15
Avera6e of Total - 7.3 70.9 13.5 68.1 181.7 27.9 24.2 35.3 26.8 30.3 44.3 29.9 28.8 24.5 20A 63.9 - 1.00
(a)(Forxast Value-Actual ValueyActuat Value. .
(b)Average of absolute values of deviations. ,
(c)Percentage deviation divided by average percentage deviation for individuai airport each year and then averaged for atl years.
(d)Percentage deviation divided by average pereentage deviation toc all airports each year and then averaged[or ailyears.
Source:HNTB analysis.
�
,
ti
1
!
1. The origination derivation method is not very useful for forecasting connections. In the
cases that were examined it appears to overes6mate the level of future connections.
Although there is some correlation between the level of originations and connections, the
correlation is not sufficiently strong to provide a good forecast. Also, the assumption
that connecting ratios for different airports will gravitate towards a commoa mean does
not appear to be valid.
2. The air carrier that provides the hub service appears to be a strong determinant in the
growth of connecting traffic. This is evidenced by the varying experiences of Kansas
� City, St. Louis, and Dallas-Fort Worth. The experience of Kansas City indicates that
� if a major carrier fails, other carriers will increase service to accommadate originating �
passenger demand, but the same dces not hold true for connections.
3. Regardless of the methodology used, connecting passenger forecasts tend to be less
accurate than originating passenger forecasts, reflecting the greater volatility of the
connecting passenger market. �
4• Although operational analysis may yield a method of establishing an upper bound on the
number of connecting passengers, there is not enough information to establish the validity ,
of this method: Future changes in technology and operational methods may also render '
this method useless for long term forecasts. Finally, a method of projecting connecting� -
passengers prior to the attainment of the operational constraint is still required.
5. The national derivation method appears to yield the best results. However; this
assessment is based on limited data and cannot be considered conclusive. An
examination of major airline hubs indicates that the link between national enplanements • '
and local connections is weak overall. �
. . f
6. The market analysis method may also prove fruitful, but is complex and time-consuming,
and needs further refinement regarding methodologies and assumptions.
7. There is need for further research and experimentation regarding connecting passenger
forecasts. A method that allows air carrier fitness to be incorporated into the assessment
would be especially usefuL
E
5.4 Preliminary Recommendations for Forecasting Connecting Passengers �
The following measures are recommended for future forecasts of air carrier connecting �
passengers. Some of thesa recommendations may or may not be feasible depending on the �
resources available.
'�
1. Forecast connecting passengers independently from originarions. 4
�
� k
16
;
I!
I
�, Since the market analysis methodology parallels the decision process airlines perform
. while making their routing decisions, it is worthy of future study. A distinction needs
to be maintained between the potential connecting market and the actual likelihood that
market will be routed through the airport under study.
�o There is not enough information available to justify the validity of the operational
constraint methodology. Nor is there any certainty that the operational constraints will
be the same in the future as in the present.
4. The fmancial health and published expansion/consolidation plans of the principal hub
carrier should be explicifly incorporated into the forecast of connections. A regression
equation with the number of aircraft in the hubbing carrier's fleet as an independent
variable may be useful. .
5. Even with a healthy airline, there is no assurance that its marketing strategies will rema.in
the same: Therefore, alI connecting forecasts should include a sensitivity test assessing
the impact of reduced service from the major hub carrier.
6. Service factors.are tremendously important in determining connecting traffic. Factors �
such as available seat capacity and markets served should be analyzed to examine the
historical determinants of connecting passenger traffic. However, assumptions would -
need to be developed regarding the futare levels of these service factors.
6. SLT1VIlIZARY
A number of inethodologies for forecasting regional earrier enplanements and operations, as well '
as air carrier originations and connections have been reviewed in the previous sections. Some�
preliminary conclusions have been developed regarding techniques that appear completely
unsuitable and those which could benefit from further refinement. However, no methodology
has appeared which is significantly superior to the alternatives nor which guarantees a high level
of accuracy. Forecasting is by nature an uncertain practice and complete accuracy has never
been attaiaed consistently by any technique in any social or economic field. Consequently, while
attempting to improve forecast techniques, it may be useful to also pursue new methods of
Ancorporating flexibility i�to the planning process so that fluctuations in activity can be
dc�ommodated without restarting the planning process at the beginning.
17
,.
y
MINNEAPOLIS—ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPQRT
REUSE STUDY
� i,. -: . �.�5��c�—._�..
:�- —f�-�y.
� ., — =:.--�-�.�ti,- -�;� ,,;\' ` • `
T✓� `!�� ' %. �� ic1i:;'�:.. ��'"'�_'3-:�:�``^y----,��:,,���.,;�`� �'.. �-
'�'�—._�- "'•'/_T'�-� = --1 �..^- -•� ' '•�•,�. \;:��.,
� � u.`T•�'(•i��%{ sr= i�: i� i�:�',i. � _`�"' (.=-���,z —�.-..--'�_.�, �I
f.';�':'% .Ji', l.�.�� ����`��f�ly� �� ���� :��i::', �i�, "\� /—_\.�- --:�' �-�_;``:
+r ; •i: ':ti'•ti' ' •: � \•,
. �s�i�Zi�-L. '/' +�(1.'�•.i,1' r`f:J•, �� '�5�.��.5 '���i'�j:��;��`� ♦ ���,1'•�.a .�y:�, • .\``.a�:- ..
�ro,.^,�. /�� .��f-� �; � ! . •�:�:;�� ��'� 1 \�,t ��` \��.� �� \� ,\ ��:c�
�•,- �-+ -' .:r,y�/�-`= ��l:'Y���'! lt�jt�.�e`''.�}C ���,}���iUsl\ \�.\� --'-' -�`�,��\� , �\ . ,���
/ !� �';.;f�.�.{..:C•Jr�-= �'J' Y�.,::f�'' A4 -� •.- �,i `�• � . •-� - — -� �
t• �i•�� ,6�.'n-[1• �i� j i=�jrj�Ivr• � .�1� (.`. ":;; ��, ._ _.,\� :•. .`. �\. '
i/ / •�•'• /. tt �a. •� 1? �� ` �..� �♦ ��
� .�z 1= � � " �f Iiltt�ait ;�� ��t.-'= 1 ��r � �
'..��.� �a '' J .r =�� • �� l��j�l' s6�t �. � ��i. �
, `.
��.� � .5 �%�eM.-r�t:�. �� ��. �a �e e+ tS�1�i � J
i: = , yl%,;�' ' •, 'f��.'�.�• � �� a. �3 -''� �+1:� \ �' �.y�
r • ��c_�:. :��. ir:. r
..%�C— .:i�''�'7 r..it! 1yr.�"-' ..� . _ —� � p�
• `� �
!s':� : ,N%N/K! � �c��y ;� ; `/ -
� 'J��� ��ct'�voy .R �� ,�ftyqM�t �' �. w� � , ' �^� t � -�\
'�Jf�\! .t vi�"�+t��J'(�7MvpAnc ��L. ��e , �`'a�Q s--.r:� .
r,, •;;,ns-_�rn,+�1�i .a� y�!�/).",�`.l: � \
N,�li�i�`Ir•� {�•�Iff/�.It1�:.11 TY/_ � �
�>:•!�'J Hi J� A tifl�R�Ly�il�'^ t',�� �� �I "�\ w
'. r/�/'w:t•=�� Y�. �" tj�'Pj ,>-I'�--., "r .,o� O �.
t.�i��-���,,.ya� x �•r �� � �Y r�`"-• 1`�'-".t
�]rM1��s.+ :K w .► ��.y rti't w��. � �.�.\ . <
_ i�• • :L'f'[%N�Myw1�YF qR/ I�� ��� � �r.���//, ��`. .)) �'.
. ��i'� I����i'A ! �� d + � � /./�` ,� ' / �J � � • �
nr;.}�7��J/A^'.,x 'rX��1� car c�r � 1 j�. � �"' ,7,- � > _
. t .r�,,... „�,-;�,.y� ,,., a� �.. � ••.- d+ f ��� -
. . L-?+ .- �r-:�r .�a�
1/„'/�'/i�'�� � �^ aL7�� �3• ' `f+.; �.:�!�_`�� �C �1 � r
.9i//kr�.'u" �� �• _ .i. �-_ '''1�-�::1.. r_ `
���tf':l! _J L r� iTL� �r� ' -f'..:'J� / l-`�'c;�
�_:�;";f'% 1- - i � &�t-1 �7' 'c- . t '�'t.- t. �
f l Jo � �.���
�� � _� � ��� � t-�,.._,..� �
a
Adopted �
October lb, 1992
by
MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT REUSE TASK FORCE
METROPOLITAN C4UNC[L
Mears Park Centre, 230 E Fifth S�
S� Paul, MN 55101
612 291-6359
Metropolitan Council Document 55�-92-106
,
�.
= i
�
- Prepared by:
�
-_ k
. UDA Arc�itects '
Haatmer Siler George tLssocistes
Siemon, Larsen and Mursh
Hoyle, Tunner and Associates, Inc.
Enviroscience, Inc.
I
k
E
'Ihe preparation of this document was financed in part through a !
planning grant from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as 4
provide under Section 505 of the Airpo�t and Airway Improvement Act f
of 1982. The contents do not necessarily reflect the ofFicial views or �
policy of the FAA. Acceptance of this repoct by the FAA does not in �
any way constitute a commitment on the part of the United States to r
participate in any development depicted therein nor does it indicate . '
that the proposed development is environmentally acceptable in
accordance with appropriate public laws.
r
METROPOLITAN COUNGIL MEhiBERS
MARY E. ANDERSON. CttAIR
LiZ ANDERSON
SUSAN ANDERSOPt
POLLY P. BOWLES
D[RK DE�JR:ES
BONNIE D. F�.ATHERSTONE
DAv�D F. FISHER
31�4 K:tAL;1TKItEMEP.
CAROL KUMMER
� ' KENNETH KUNZMAN
F. �KAIG IYLURRIS
Fa'THER NrW�OME
7AMES W. (JIM} SENDEN
MARt'rARET SCHREINER
SONDRA R. SIMONSON
DEDE WOLFSON "
• a
MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT REUSE TASK FORCE
EDWARD GUTZMANN. Ci�lAIR
ROBERTA OPHEIM. VtCE-G��IR
LiZ ANDERSON
srEvt c�-�,vEz
HENRY FISHER
KATHLEEN GAYLORD
Totrt HwftMs
Jw.�uFs JErtsEt�t
?oHt� L�BosKY
WILBUR MAKI �
DEsn.P�RsoN
�. MI^.F;A€L POD:�.WI'..TZ
kEGINA REED
�
WILL(AM REII.ING
MICHAEL:ROBIIYSON
HUGH SCHILLING
MARGAREI'SCHREINER -
STEWART STENDER =
. MARY VOGEL
RAY WALDRON
STEVE WELLINGTON
JOHN WHEELER . `�
ROBERT WORTHINGTON --
• �
ADJACENT CITY REPRESENTATIVFS
I
NEIL ANDERSON - MINNEAPOLIS F
i
ALLEN LOVEJOY - ST. PAUL
RICK GESHWILER (ALTERNA'IE- GREG INGRAHAM) - BLOOMINGTON
JIM PROSSER - RICHFZELD
JILL SMITH (Ai.TERNATE - CHARLES E MERTENSO'CTO) -.MENDOTA HEIGHT'S
JON HOHENSTEIN-EAGAN
,
;
;
CorrcErrrs
PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
I. STA'IEMENT OF OPPOR"IUNITY�CHALLENGES,AND SUMMARY OF FLNDINGS AI+7D
.. CONCi..USIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
• Statement of Opportunity . .. ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •_ - - . . . . :. . . . . . 2
Stacement of Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . 4
Summary of Findings and Conclusions .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
II. MSP AIRPORT REUSE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
.. Steps in che Reuse Study .. . . ... .. . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
III. RE�toxAt, Corrc�xTs . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Regional Conte�cts . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Historic Development Context.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Regional Employment and Economic Activity Center Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 18
Transpoctation Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ 21 -
Environmencal Contexc . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 ,
IV. MSP CoN'IFxIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 28
MSP Contexu . . . . . : . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 •
Land Use Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 "
Transportation Network Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Environmental and Open-Space System Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . : 39
V. PERFORMANCE CRTIERIA . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Performance . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. 45
. Statement of Opportunity and Chailenges .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . 45
Job Opportunities aad Economic Development Criteria . . ... . . . .. . . • •. •- • • • • SO
.� Major EnvironmeniaUOpeu-Space Amenity Criteria . . . ......... . .. . .. . . . . . . 52
Criteria to Complement Surrounding Communities . . . .. .. ..... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Regional Transportauon Criteria .. . . . . . .. ... . .. . . . ... ... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Residentiai Communities Criteria .. . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5
VI. DEStGN CoNCEP'TS .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. .. ... . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . 57 _
Altemative Design Concepu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. .... . . .... . . .. . . . . . . . . 57.
Parkway Design Concept . ... . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . 58
New Neighborhoods Design Concept . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . .... . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 64
Compact Development Design Conccpt . . . . .. . . . ... .. . .... .. . . . . . . . . . . . 70 _
VIL IMPLEMENTA'PION ... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . .. .. . ........ . .. ..... . . . . . 76
.. Governanoe Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .... . . . . . .. . . . ..76
Fnancing and Implementatioa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
e �
M
• �
. PREFACE
,
Dual-Track Airport Planning Process
�� Under the Metropoiitan Airport Planning Act of 1989, the Metropolitan
Council and the Meiropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) have been
charged to examine how best to meet the long-term air transportation
needs of the Twin Cities Area and State of Minnesota. This planning effort
is commonly called the "dual-track" strategy. �
One track Eocuses on a new-airport option. The Metropolitan Council � '
cc�mpieted the first phase of this tracic when it selected the Dakota County �
Search Area in December 1991. The MAC is beginning the detailed site and
airport layout planning to determine the nirport's precise location within
the search azea. The MAC will then conduct an environmental evaluation
and prepare a detailed airport development plan.
!
The second track focuses on possible ways to improve the capacity of
Minneapoiis-St. Paul Intemational Airport (MSP). The MAC i� conducting _ -
this planning. In November 1991, the MA.0 adopted a long-term development -
cancept Eor MSP that includes the constrection eE a new north-south
runway and new west-side terminal. Tlie MAC will refine this plan over the
next several years.
� MSP Reuse Study
The study of the potential reuse of MSP is part of the "dual-track" major
airport ptanning process. The purpose of the reuse study is to identify
policies to guide the reuse of MSP should a new major replacement airport
be built to serve the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area.
. The Council in September 1991 appointed a Minneapolis-St� Paul International
• Airport Reuse Task Force, broadly representative oE community inte�ests,
to advise it on a reuse strategy. The task force was charged to provide a
forum for the discussion oE issues and concerns regarding the MSP reuse
study, and to develop reuse scenarios, policies and recommendations for �
consideration by the CounciL The reuse study is to develop policies which
can provide the framework for the reuse of ihe airport if the decision is
made to do so, nat to gropose a speciFc master plan. 'The task Eorce adopted
this report Octolzer 16, i992. The Council is required to make its report to
the Minnesota Legistature by Jan. 1, 1993.
(
This report,Minneapolis-S�. Paut Internnrional Airport Reuse Study, summarizes the work and i
recommendations of the task force. In addition to this document, there is a separate
�
technical appendix. `
1 .
.'
.
I. STATEMENT OF OPPORT�.TNITY
STATEMENT OF CHA.LLENGES
AND
SUMIVIARY OF FTN�INGS AND CONCLUSIONS
• STATEMENT OF OPPORTUNt1Y
- In the 19th century, the United States chose ground high above the confluence of the
Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers io build Fort SneIling. The fort opened up the upper -_
midwest region to a wave of eager pioneers. The site was selected because river locations
meant fast transportation for peo�le and the products oE a rugged frontier.
In xhe ZOth century, land just west of the fort was gradually transformed to take advantage
of a new way to travet and ship products -- the airplane. The site, equal in proximity to
Minneapolis and St Paul, was chosen in the 1940's to be the single airport to serve the
metropolitan area. A modern, internationat airport sprouted up to connect a cosmopolitan
region to the world. The air service played a key role in the rise of the region's major
corporations and its successful, diversi6ed economy.
What�role wiIl the site ptay in the next century, if it is no longer an airport? Will its impacr
-- in reuse - equal those of the previous centuries? It could, if that's the scale of the vision.
Daniel Bumham told people to "make no littie plans; they have no magic to stir one's blood
and probably themselves will not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hope ..." The
reuse of the airport site could be the right place. The 21st century may be the right time to
"aim high"
The site is near the center of the popul.�����n of the 23 million Twin Cities Metropotitan .
Area. It is large assemblage of land -- >�,:,��; 3,100 acres. But iu central location daes not
mean its setting is entirely urban. Rath�r. ic is perched above the confluence of two major
rivers in a marvelous natural setting,wiih .�,cctacular btuffs, vistas,woodlands and wildlife.
The river gorges are scenic and well prc.�n�ed. All in all, the site's convenient location and
natural setting offers a unique opportuni�y tor the region and state.
2
, � -
.
4
STATEMENT OF OPPORTUNITY
THE CENTR.AL LOCATION, UNIQUE SIZE; HISTORIC AND CULTURAL HERITAGE,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSET'S AND HIGHWAY ACCESSIBILITY OF THE MSP SITE
M�CE"IIIE REUSE OF THE SITE AN E.XIRAORDINARY OPPORTUNITY TO:
• ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF LIFE AND ECONOMIC STRUGTURE OF THE �
"j�VIM CTIZF�S METROPOLITAN AREA a.ND TO DE�/ELOP A SIGNIFICANT
I LARGE-SCALE, MULTIPLE-USE IN1EGItATED ENTERPRISE WI'I�-i A HIGH- �
1 QUpLTIY IMAGE TO SET A NEW STANDARD FOR 'IT-iE REGION;
�
• REPLACE AND CREATE A NEW ECONOMIC FOCAL P�INC IN THE REGION
OF NATIONAL AND IN'IERNATIONAL SPA'NRE;
• CREATE A MAJOR REGIONAL OP£N-SPAGE RESOURCE Tf-iAT IS LINKED
TO EXIS'TING OPEN-SPACE RESOURCES; ' -
• PROTECT AND ENHA,tiCE THE HISTORIC AND CLTLTtTRAL RESOURCES OF
� THE REGION;
• PROVIDE FOR FULL INTEGRATION �RTFi ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND __ �
PHYSICAL LTRBAN AND SUBURBAN DEVELdPMEISI' PATTERN; - �
f
�
• PR�VIDE A BAIANCE OF RESIDENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES; I
• ENCOURAGE ECONOMIC GROWIH IN HIGH TECHNOLOGY AND
MANUFACITJRING WDUSTRIES; '
• REINFORGE TFiE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC INTEGRrI'Y OF SURROUNDING
COMMUM'TIES: AND
� • STTMULATE INVESCMENT AND REINVES'I'MENT IN A MATURE AREA OF j
E
TfiE REGION. � �
i
i
�
�
f
' I
[
,
3
;
i
�
. _
STATEMENT OF CHALLENGES
• �iE POTENT(Ai.REUSE OF THE MSP SITE NEEDS TO FiT'I1iE COM'E}R'OF iT'S
.. REGtONAL LOCATION AND TI'S CONTFXT iN THE I-494 CORRiDOR.
• CCJRRENTLY,THE�II�VII� C117ES COhtMERCiA[. REAL ESTA"fE MARiCET, AS IN MOST
METROPOLITAN ARFAS ACROSS THE COUNTRY, HAS A LARGE AMOUNT OF VACANT
OFFICE, RETAIL,AND INDUSIRU�[.SPACE. T�-(E REGiON [S COMING OFF A STRONG
COMMERCIAL CONS'IRUCT'[ON PER[00. TriIS H.4S RESULTED (N AN "OVERHANG" IN T'-iE
OFFICE-SPACE MARKET,WHICH MAY TAKE S TO 10 YEARS TO BE ABSORBED.
GENERAL.LY SPEAKING THERE NAS BFEN i_OCAL AND NA'I'IONAL CYCLICAI. PATIERHS QF
OVER-BUILI?ING FOCLOWED BY A PERtOD OF'UNDER-L'JILDING. I.1 ADDITICN,THERE .S
VACANT, DEVEIAPABLE LAND THAT 1S PIANNfiD AND ZONED FOR COMMERCU�L OfFiCE
LISES WHICH IF DEVELOPED WO(.iLI? ADD C-TO 8-MITIIQN SQUARE F�E'T. BY'I�?E T7'�iE
THE REUSL 3F MSP WOULD PO'IENTIALLY BEGIN IN 2005 TO 2C10, :T IS AN"I:CIPA:L•D
. THAT THE CURRENT SUPPLY OF VACANT SPACE WJULD BE ABSORBED,
• TrIE MSP PROPERTY IS A VERY LARGE PROPEl2TY REIATIVE TO 'II-i£HISTORIC PACfi OF
� LAND ABSORPTION IN'IHE REGION. IN ADDITION, CT WILL TAKE TIME TO CLEAFi AND _
PREPARE THE U�ND FOR DEVELOPMENT. AS A RESULT,THE ECONOMIC RESULTS OF
TI�iE MSP•SI"L'E MUST BE VIEWED EROM A 20-TO SO-YEAR PERIOD,NOT T�-iE`I1V0-TO-"
f"!VE YEAR TURNAROUND ASSOCIA'I'ED WI'i�i A MUCH SMALLER,MORE TYPICAL
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
• �ZQM THE STANDPOINT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,T�-IE GREA'IF_ST CHALLENGE WILL '-
8B TO PREPARE AND IMPLEMENT A REUSE PLAN AND S"IRATEGY THAT WILL GENSRATE
NEW REGIOI3AL ECONOIvI1C GROWI'H. AL'II�iOUG�i CREATtNG NEW GROwIH IS THE
PRIORtTY,SOME IN'IERNAL SHIETING OF ECONOMIC ACT[VITY IN THE REGION WILL
LIKELY flCCUR.
• T�-iE COMPLETE CLOSURE OF MSP AS AN AIRPORT IS PREFERRED FOR REUSE OF'iI-iE
SITE. AN AVIATION REUSE FOR GENERAi.AVIATION ACTTVI'I1'AND T�IE MILITARY WAS
COPISIDERED. SUCH AN AVIATION REUSE ASSUMED THAT ALL SCHEDULED PASSENGER
SERVICE AND AiR FREIGHT ACTIVITY WOULD BE RELOCATED TO'I�iE NEW AIRPORT.
T�tE TERMINAL WOULD BE COMPLELELY CLOSED AND RUNWAY SYSTEM WOULD BE
REDUCED TO A SHORTENED PRiMARY FtUNWAY AND A CROSSWiND. HOWEVER,WHEN
THIS OPTION WAS CONSIDERED IN LIGHT OF T7-IE PERFORMANCE CRITERIA DISCUSSED
„ . IATER IN THIS SECTIOK, !T WAS DROPPED FROM CONSIDERATlON.
• T�-IE GOVERNANCE S'TRUCIVRE MUST SALANCE T1-IE DNERSE AND SOMETTMES
CON�.[CTING NEEDS, INTERES'i'S :VVQ EXPECTATIONS OF'IHE ADJACENT COMMUNtIZES,
TFiE REGION AND THE STATE. �il IE GOVERNANCE STRUCNRE NEEDS TO RECOGNIZE
'I'E�HLS'PQRICAL C()NTFJCT OF �iSP, CURRENT USES ON-STIE AND IN ADJACEN'T
COHII�SLJNIT�.S,AND TI�iE REUSF =•I KFORMAIVCE CRTTERIA. �1PlALI.Y,'IHE GOVERNANCE _
STRUCNRE NEEUS SUFF'[CIENT �' l��CIBILITY AND AtJ'ITiORTiY'PO DEVELOP AND
IIKPL,EMENT TI-IE REUSE MASTE R 'ri?�N.
• Tr�MSP sr�ts owrrEn BY 1i�t �1AC,THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND FEDERAL
GOVERNMEM: DLSPOSR`!ON Oh it ItS LAND WILL BE GOVERNED BY INS'IRUMENTS OF
4
.,
�
'I�T1,E, S'I'q'(E LAW AND FEDERAL IAWS AND REGULATfONS. A MAJOR TASK FOR THE
REUSE OE MSP WiU-BE THE NEED TO ASSEMBLE'il'iLE TO "IHE L�1NDS AT MSP.
TriE PROCESS OF CONVERTING THE CONTROL OF THE LANDS AT MSP FROM AV[ATION
tJSES TO MAKE THE LANDS AVAI[ABLE FOR REUSE SHOULD BEG[N AT"IZ-iE T[ME A
DECISION IS MADE TO BUfLD A NEW AIRPORT. SUBSTANTIAL NEGOT[ATIONS WILL NEED
TO OCCLJR AMONG NUMEROUS FE[)ERAI�STATE, REGIONAL,AND LOCAL AGENCtES
REGARDtNG THE REUSE OE T7-iE MSP LANDS. LEGISLATION, OR POSSiBLY
CONGRESSIOPIAL ACI'ION. MAY AISO BE NECESSARY TO ENSURE'I1-lE CONVERSION OE'
Tz-tE MSP t.At�Ds. �R�iE PROCESS OF ASSEMBLING THE MSP LANDS WILL MOST LIKELY
NOT BE COMPLETE UNTIL AFTER TI-{E CESSATION OF SCHEDULED AIR SERVICE
�JNCTiONS AT MSP.
• TRAFFIC CAPACtTY LIMR'S AND CANGESTIOPI ON THE REGIONAL SYS'IEM �VILL LllvftT OR
SHAPE THE DEVELOPMENr POTEM'tAL OF'IZ-iE SIT'E. T7iE CHALL.ENGE WILL BE TO
CREATE A MULTIPLE-USE DEVELOPMENT SERVED BY AN INTERNAL MOVEMENT SYST'EM
WHERE PEOPLE CAN LIVE, WORK,SHCP,AND RECREA'I� CN-SITE. DEVELAPMENT ALSO � ,�
SHOULD CREA'IE ACTIVRY NODES"I'FiAT SUPPORT T'ftANSfT.IHEREBY REDUCING
BF2�SANDS ON THE REG[ONAL HIGHWAY NE'IWORK
• TrIE OYEFZAI.L IMPACT OF T�iE HA7�►ftDOUS WASTE CONTAMINATION AT MSP IS
UNKNOWN AT'IZ-IIS TIME. REGARDLESS OF WFiAT DECISiflNS ARE MADE ABOUT THE_
LONG-TERM AVIATION USE OF MSP,THE ENVIRONMENTAL GLFANUP W[LL NEED TO �E
D0:1E AND THE RESPONSIBLE PARTIES WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR R'. F�DERAL AND STATE
LAW IN REGARD TO RESPONSIBILiIY AND LIABQ.ITY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
- CONTAMiNATtON IS REGARDED AS A POTENT[ALLY SERIOUS DISMCENTTVE FOR REUSE,
PARTICUI�RLY VVI-IERE THE PRIOR USE INVOLVED F_XTENSIVE USE OF TOXIG OR
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. BECAUSE AN AIRPORT IS NOTED FOR USING SUCH MATERIALS, '
P.PROGRAkf OF INDEMNIFICATION IS APPftOPRIATE TO ATI�2AGT CANDiDATE INVESTORS '
OR USERS WfiO MIGHT OTHERWISE BE DETERRED BY UNDISCLOSED OR UNDISCOVERED i
CONTAMINATION. TO ENCOURAGE INVEST'MENT AND REUSE UNDER THE CURREI3T
ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILI'TY LAWS, MSP COULD INDEMNIFY LESSORS, INVESTORS OR
USERS OF T�iE LAND AGAINST CLEA21-UP COSTS. TriE GOVERNMF,NT COULD S'TILL SUE
THE INVES"TORS, BUT MSP COULD PROMtSE TO PAY L�ItGA'IZOfI FESS AND �I.EtINUP
COSTS. T�iEREFORE,"II-iE WVESIORS WOULD NOT BE AT RISK AND WOULD BE MORE
LIKELY TO INVEST iN THE REUSE OF MSP. 'I�-iE CLEAN-UP;OF MSP BY THE PARTIES
RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTAMINATiNG'If�PROPERTY SHOULD COMPI-6'TE THEIR EFFORTS f
WF�iETf�R'I��AIIiPORT IS RQ.00A'IED OR NOT. �I7-iE COS'TS ASSOCIATED WITH
CLF.ANUP ACTNPTIFS ARE ANfICffATED TO BE PART OF'IHE OPFtC[AL TRANSFER PLAN
TO Tf-IE REPiACEMFNT AIRPORT AS REQUIRED BY T�IE FAA.
• DURING TI-�FIRST YEARS OF DEVELOPMFNT, REUSE WILL LiKES-Y FOCUS ON LAND
ALRFADY SERVED BY UT[LITIES r�ND LAND'n-IAT IS SERVFD BY EXIST[NG ROADS AND
ACCESS POIIJ'IS TO THE REGION.�L HtGHWAY isEfWORK. SOME OF THE EXIS'fiNG
AIItPORT TENANT�,THOSE WNO :x) NOT NEED DIRECT ACCESS'I'O AIRCRAr'T,COULD
REMAIN ONStfE AS INPERIM OR : ��VG-TERM USERS. IT MUST RECAGNIZED TFtAT ZHERE ,
WIL.L BE LONG DEVEI,OPMENT t �' :I.DOUT) PERIOD —20 T'O 5(1 YEARS --WHICH WII-I- (
REQUIItE MAINTAINING ELFXII3:: .:l' AND RESPONS�'Ib MAKKST CONDITIONS.
INTERIM USES OF THE S'TRUCIt �' i COULD BE EMPLOYED TO KEEP A BENEFICtAL
LEVEL OF ACTIVtTY ON THE Sfll �.`D TO GENERA'IE REVEI�iUES FOR FU'IURE REUSE
AND WE•"RAS'IRUCf(1RB INVES'[�ft �•f. G
5 �
� '
� I
r
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
• TrIE MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAU�iNT'ERNATIONAL AIRPORT(MSP� SITE O�RS 'I�{£�I�ViN
-- CI'i'[ES REGION A UNIQUE AND SIGNfFICANT REDEVELOPMEN'�OPPORTUN[TY THAT CAN
BE A BENEF[T TO`IT�iE ADJACENT COMMUNITIES AND n-tE REG[ON AS A WHOLE IE A
REPLACEMENT AIRPORT 1S BUILT.
• TrIE REUSE SHOULD BE MARKET DRPJEN. TriE PERFORMANCE CRI'I�RIA CONTAINED IN
THIS REPORT PROVIDE TI-iE PO[.ICY ERAMEWORK NEEDED FOR THE REUSE EEFORT.
PRIORTIY SHOULD BE TO HELP REPIACE TH£AVIATIQN JOBS AND ECONOMIC ACTNITY
AtlD TO ATIRACT NEW JOBS AND E.:ONC:�:I�ACT:✓1"IY FOR T�-IG REGfON. TriREE
DESIGN CONCEPTS THAT TFST AND ILLUS'IRATE'IHE PERFORMANCE CRITERIA EMPLOY 1
BY NECESSITY A C:URRENT MARKET YIEW. 'I�i£ACIL'AI.MASTER PLAN MAY BE I
atFFERENT GIVEt�T�E FAGT REUSE IS A.LFA�"T A DEC�iE AwAY.
• A DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT ENTiTY SHOtiLU BE ESTABLISHED TO GUIDE
REUSE AND TO.[MPLEMENT THE PERFORMANCE CRITERIA. TriE ENTiTY SHOULD BE
ESTABLISHED AT LFAS'T FNE YEARS PRIOR TO TI�iE CLOSURE OF THE AIRPORT TO
ENSURE"I�iE TiMELY RESOLUTION OF DETAILS AND TO ADDRESS THE CfiALLENGES _
FACED BY THIS LARGE AND COMPLFX UNDERTAKING. A F'tJNDING SOURCE FOR THE
START UP WILL BE NEEDED. -
• IF A REPLACEMENT AIRPORT IS $UILT,THEN A1.L AIFZCRAFt OPERATIONS AND AIRPORT
FUNCTIONS SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM'I�iE MSP S['I'E.
• TriE MSP STTE IS A LARGE PRQPERTY RELATIVE TO HISTORIC?ACE OF LAND
ABSORP'I'ION I:J"I�iE R�GION. THcREFORE,THE REUSE AAID ECONOMIC RESULTS.MUST
BE VIEWED FROM A 20-TO-SO YEAR PERIOD. THE REUSE REQUIRE AN INCREMENTAL
AND PHASED APPROACH. IT[S UNLIKELY'I�iAT RfiVENUES EROM THE REDEVELOPMENT
WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR�INANCING THE REPIACEMENT AIRPORT. �JNDS GENERATED
BY THE REDEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE USED TO IMPLEMFNT THE REUSE MASTER PLAN.
• TriE REUSE OF'I�iE StTE SHQULD BUILD ON"II�iE CULNRAI.AND HISTORICAI.
1MPORTANCE OF TZ-iE PROPERTY. TriE DED[CATION OF APPROXIMATELY A THIRD OF
TEiE SITE TO OPEN-SPACE N�TWdRKS WILL PROVIDE IMPORTANT CONNECI'[ONS TO THE
LOCN..,REGIONAI.AND STATE PARK SYSTEMS.
• � A MAJOR TASK Wt[1.BE TO ASSEMBLE TITLE TO THE LANDS AT 1VISP. WTIH A WELL-
DEFIPlED REUSE MAS'IER PLAN AND SUEFICIENT FUNDS,HOW£VER,THERE IS E.i'I'ILE
THAT SHOULD STAND IN THE wnY OF CONVSRT[NG THE CON'IROL OF THE tANDs FROM
AVIA170N TO REUSE PURPOSES. SUBSTANTIAL NEGOTIATTONS WILL NEED TO OCCUR
AMONG NUMFROUS FEDERAL, STATE,REGIONAL.,AND LOCAL AGENCIES. LEGISLATION
� AND CONGRESSIONAL AC110N MAY BE NECESSARY. 'R-IE LAND ASSEMBLY PROCESS WILL
MOST LII�LY NOT BE COMPLETED UNTIL AFTER THE CLOSURE OF MSP. .
6
' p
♦
. i
. . . . . . . . [ �
II. MSP AIRPORT REUSE STUDY
._ i
STEPS IN TIIE REUSE STUDY
Task Force �
�
The Metropolitan Council in September 1991 appointed a Minneapolis-St. Paul f
(MSP) Internatioaat Airport Reuse Task Force, broadly representative of a
community of interests, to advise it on a reuse strategy. 'ihe task force was charged
- to provide a focum far the discussion of'sssues ar.d concerns regarding the MSP
reuse study, and to develop reuse::cenarios, �licies an� recanmen3ations �cr
consideration by the CounciL A technical review commiuee consisting oE affected
property owners and governmentat agencies was also estabiished to provide
information and review draft materials. The reuse study is to develop policies, not to
propose a specific master plaa
Initial ScopinQ
In October 1991 the task force conducted two workshops with xepresentatives of
� various community, business, academic and public agencies. The workshops were
organized as brainstorming sessions to generate a broad range of potential reuse _
' scenarios for the MSP site. The task force held a series of small-group discussions in
November 1991 to develop a study design for the reuse stLdy. The task farce
examined several comparable projects which included the Denver Stapleton
redevelopment, Las Colinas and redevelopment of Southwest Airport (F� Worth)
near Dallas-Ft Worth (DFI� International Airport, and Alliance Airport in Ft.
Worth which is a new airport developed for industrial users. A series of seven reuse
themes were identified for evaluation, along with four potential urban design
altematives.
The reuse themes identi6ed to explore what new uses could be accommodated on
� the site were: intemational corporate center, biomedical and health care center,
major research pazlc, entertainment/major outdoor-indoor recreationai center, high-
tech manufacturing, transportation center and aviation reuse..
The four urban design alternatives for exploring how the MSP reuse could be
. reincorporated into ihe regional development patt�m were: as an"island"whereby
the site would be redevelapment as an independent, discrete development, as a E
transportation/development corridor, as one or more development nodes and as part .
of a continuous growth pattern whereby the site would blend in with its adjacent
communities.
7
. (
.
Reuse Contexts �
During the spring of 1992 the task force examined the aLernatives by examining a
series of regional and MSP "X-rays" information maps. The task force used the "X-
� . rays" to understand how the region developed. They examined the forces that
inf�uenced and shaped the patterns oE development and that provided frameworks
for Euture development influences. These contexts included the historic development
pattern, the evotution and location of the regional employment and economic activity
r,eniers, the transFortation systems and the environmental and open-spac.e systems
influences. The task force conducted a series of focus groups in April and May to
critique the reuse alternatives. Discussions were held with devetopers, corporate
businesses, the binmedical and high-tecEa community; open-space, historic anci
environmental agencies; urban design professionals; transportation agencies; and
aviation agencies.
Development Scenarios
A second round of alternative futures for MSP reuse was discussed by the task force _
in June i992. Based on the information and perspectives gained from the Aprii_May
focus discussions, a set of five community values were identified. Reuse atternatives
that maximized each sin�le value were prepared as a starting point to come up with
_ performance criteria.
Each of the scenarios represented a single "community value" taken to its maximum
� potential on the site. The development scenarios �rere: maximum economic hPnefit
to the region, maximum public open space, maximum public purpose, maximum
benefit for adjacent communities, and aviation use. Each scenario was discussed by
the task force and tested for its impact on the MSP contexts and evaluated in terms
of strengths and weaknesses.
Performance Criteria �
A series of drafi performance criteria were developed in July 1992 using the
"community values" expressed by the development scenarios. A draft set oE
performance criteria and faur"hybrid reuse alternatives" that combined elements of
the value scenarios were discussed at several public information meetings in August
and September. The task force held small-group discussions. As a result, the
performance criteria were revised and three reuse design concepts were developed.
'The performance criteria are to guide specific.reuse plans as they are developed in
the futura The criteria deEne the essential characteristics of and priorities for any
redevelopmen� They include physical, economic, cultural,historic and environmental
attnbutes that should serve as physical planning tools and as a basis for public policy
• frameworks. The three design concepts illustrate optians for reuse using the criteria.
An aviation option that wouid continue some general aviation and military functions
was dropped. Continued aviation activity requiring the use runways was not found
consistent with the performance criteria.
8
9 �`
�
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
CHAPTER 1
;
i
,
1992 ANNUAL CONTINGENCY ASSESSMENT REPORT �
November 11, 1992
�
I
,
,
;
;
Prepared by
Apogee Research Inc. , .
�
P
�
DRAFT FQR 1992 CONTINGENCY REPORT QF CHAPTER I: '
TRAFFIC TRENDS
During the first nine months of 1992, aircraft operations and passenger enplanements
{revenue and non-revenue) at Minneapolis-Saint Paul (MSP) International Airport increased 6.3
percent and 12.9 percent, respectively, compared to the same period last year. The data shows
a marked jump in traffic during the summer months, primarily due to the fare wars that were
initiated in the late spring.t
Aircraft operations and enplanements at MSP, and across the nation, increa_ced during the
period for several reasons: (1) consumer confidence in airline security was up from the first half
of 1991, when the United States was involved in the Persian Gulf War; (2) increased fuel prices
(passed on to the consumer as increaseti fares) during the Gulf War caused a decrease in demand
for a time; and (3) a round of fare wars among the major carriers caused prices (adjusted for
inflation) to drop, and in many instances, to drop to levels which had not been.seen for a decade. -
These faie wars were instituteci, in part, to help offset decrea.sed demand during the recession.
This chapter describes the short-term and long-term aviation activity trends at MSP.
Specifically, it details the traffic trends by category (operations and enplanements) and related
subcategories, compazes the Dual-Track forecasts for MSP with the actual airport operations and --
passenger enplanements from 1989 to 1992, and analyzes several underlying factors affecting
airport activity, such as hubbing, regional carrier growth, and the increasing percentage of non-
revenue passengers on flights, noting their effects on activity at MSP.
MA70R TRAFFIC TRENDS
Traffic at MSP grew rapidly in 1992. Consequently, both operations and enplanements
rernain within the bounds of the dual-track forecast, although at the high end (see Table 1 and
Figure lj. This section describes the short-and long-term trends in operadons and enplanements.
'Because of the unique political and economic situation in 1991, when air travel demand
actually dropped from 1990 levels for several months, an analysis of short-term traffic trends at -
MSP from 1990 to 1992 may provide a better benchmark with which to compare dual-track
forecasts. This method shows that total aircraft operations are up at an average annual rate of
growth of 4.1 percent from 1990.
Preliminary Draft, Chapter I, Contingency Assessment Repon Page 1
Table 1:
. Comparison of Actusl and Forecast Actfvlty
at MSP International, 1988 to'1992
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
Forecast Actual Forecast Actuai forecast Actual Forecast (a) Estimated (b)
Annuai Pasaenger Activity
Domestic Enpianements 8,023,121 8,404,500 8,347,059 8,804,000 8,605,638 9,222,500 8,685,226 9,660,800 9,840,361
Originations 4,265,650 4,360,800 4,525,060 4,458,1G0 4,533,246 4,557,500 4,432,920 4,659,200 4,745,799
Gonnections 3,757,471 4,043,700 3,821,999 4,345,800 4,076,392 4,665,000 4,252,306 5,001,600 5,094,563
Regionai Carrier 397,835 427,600 415,616 459,500 495,327 493,900 488,763 530,800 553,768
Intemational Scheduled 64,�08 80,100 78,910 99,100 102,673 122,700 122,431 151,900 138,714
Non-Scheduled 348,910 361,800 341,515 375,200 384,718 389,100 353,590 403,500 400,617
Totai 8,834,574 9,274,000 9,183,100 9,737,800 9,592,356 10,228,200 9,650,010 10,747,000 10,933,461
Air Freight 97,118 100,300 98,197 103,700 106,086 107,100 99,493 110,600 116,682
Air Mail 42,977 45,200 44,360 47,500 45,934 49,900 49,189 . 52,500 53,382
Total 140,095 145,500 142,557 151,200 152,019 157,000 148,682 163,100 169,964
Annuel Operatfona Activity
Domestic Scheduled Air Carrier 211,562 217,500 218,339 223,500 224,117 229,700 225,430 � 236,100 234,510
Regionai Carrier 58,888 60,800 59,338 62,800 74,447 64,900 75,778 67,000 82,919
Internationai Scheduled 514 600 717 800 860 1,000 1,078 � 1,200 1,313
Non-Scheduled 4,024 4,100 3,334 4,200 4,488 4,400 5,046 4,500 5,824
All-Cargo/Express 18,154 18,8d6 16,963 19,500 18,291 20,200 20,059 21,000 19,602
General Aviation . 68,634 66,600 61,048 64,600 54,780 62,700 52,145 60,800 53,881
Militar 6,698 6,700 4,291 6,700 2,802 6,700 2,480 6,700 3,031
Totai 3E�".<`:"`R 3�5,100 364,030 382,100 379,785 389,600 382,016 397,300 401,080
Domestic air carrier operations testimated) wiih new fall schedule 240,Sb4
Total (estimated) with new fall schedule 407,423
(s)Interpolated. •
(b)Extrapoleted from January throuyh Septerriber dete.
Source:HNTB from MSP Lo�p-Term Comprehensive Pian end MSP Summery of Operations (September 1892)end Apoqee Reaeerch based on date throuph September 1992
�
• a
,� .
� F/GURE 1 a.
MSP A/RCRAFT OPERAT/OtVS: ACTUAL AND FORECAST
� (�989-19951
�pe�ations (thousands)
aso
�°° e� �'m�t � �� z<.�`>
� UPP :<:..:�.rr<��.;..,,;;�A� «;,;, �
t {;: �> ,�.}:���:. �.: ..
ecas . �.�,;�>��,.�>��'� �
420 F0� :.: � >''�''��•x<��.:,..,��.� �"„�� ;
.+S_+Z,...,�N'�.s�'�v'kr,`�,:;%F¢,n�C}^'%i•tS�� �i�' .
",:�'• t';�s����� �• ��
•.�°u>
Actua/ 407 000 (est.1 t�. � . ¢�'l �� �:r:�';�'ri�
� � , •.,:.�". • r�<s� �,•� �<c�
. '.:� � '�:
'tr�x r ' �'.�... •n� �%�'�.
.• �'.�:;�,:�1V�...�• ;. , �,'m �>�� .�,. .
�c��y a.t��"�� 4�C.�� :�"y�'. Y .•..�.�••
. . `� vh�� "�r ^.3:A�1. SWl1'.y'4k�'3 �h`�'ti•ff•i�,a��
. C�I�.+ aT•.•:��Q ti•�{'. > i�i••b�iS:� Y"�'.��"''iiy>s,y{tyr.}Ni;�.��a.+�••� � . �.
3V0 ... .�.�,..y2� ' �'..ci}'rt"t..' .�•::• ... , . _.... w
.�,,��: :�:>4�;;;�;,� f Forecast Lower limit
...�:�:�::�:�^^��::�x�
360
340
89 90 91 92 93 94 95
Note: 1992 eatimate based on new fdl schedule. YBaf
F/GURE 1b.
MSP ENPLANEMENTS: ACTUAL AND FORECAST
(1989-19951
Enplanements (millions7
15
�� Total enplanements mjt
` includinfl non-reve�ue t UPPer U
�3 (See note below} �p(�S .
� ? � �
12 � }�`
� ,�
i� Actua/ � .
�w � �.f
' :.. : . .
�° , ..�;,::..,.. :� ,. . � �� �' Forecast Lo wer Limit
. .. .. . 10,933,000 (est.) .
9
8
89 90 91 92 93 94 95
Year
Note: MSP enplanert�ents exdudes nort-revenue peasenpen. Thus totd enplanetnents in 199?(estimeted) wNl bs
11.8 mii'an,or 6.2 peroe�t hipher tl�an�how�by i'x». Est'rnate ba�ed on data tfwouph Sept«r�x 1992.
Source: Apoyee Reteerch from Met Council end MAC data.
:
• �, 4
�1
�
L
Aircraft Operations
Commercial airline operations (air carc'ier, regional and charter) and passenger
enplanements increased significantly at MSP in 1992, improving on the modest growth of 1991.
Through September 1992, approximately 247,60U commercial operations were performed, up
from 232,300 for the same period a year ago. lfiis is a jump of 6.6 percent from 1991, and 8.3
percent over 1990, when there were 228,700 operations, yielding an average growth rate over
� the two-year period of almost 4.1 percent(see Figure 2d). Assuming comparable growth for the
remainder of the year, commercial operations at MSP would total 326,900 for the year. The
major air carriers have been responsible for the majority of this growth. Operations jumpedfrom
170,400 in 1991 to 179,800 in 1992, an increase of 5.5 percent (see Figure 2a). The effect of
the 1992 summer fare wars stands out when operations from June through September are
examined. Commercial operations (air carrier, regional, and charter) at MSP in these four
months in 1992 totalled 117,100, exceeding the 1991 figure of 107,300, a jump of 9.1 percent. �
Clearly, fare reductions in the industry stimulated increased demand for air travel. �
�
Through-September of 1992, regional and charter operations at MSP both showed healthy
growth over the same nine-month period one year earlier. Regional operations increased from
57,840 to 62,900, an increase of 8.8 percent (see Figure 2b). Charter operations jumped from
4,100 ogerations to over 4,900, an in�rease of almest 20.5 percent (se� Figure 2c). Air freight
is the only category of operations at MSP which has exhibited a decline in I992. Air freight
operations dropped slightly from 14,800 to 14,300, a decrease of about 3.3 percent (see Figure
3c). General aviation and military operations also experienced growth in 1992. General aviation --
climbed from 39,300 operations in 1991 to 42,100 in 1992, a rise of 7.1 percent(see Figure 3a).
Military operations showed the largest percentage growth of any category. Operations rose 28.3
percent, from approximately 1,800 to almost 2,300 for the first nine months {see Figure 3b).
Er�pianements
Revenue passenger enplanements (aur carrier, regional, charter, and connecting
passengers) at MSP jumped dramatically in 1992, up from 7,216,000 in 1991 to 8,176,000 in
1992 -- growth of 13.3 percent (sce Figure 4). Through May of 1992, the month generally
considered the start of this year's fare wars, enplanements were up by 2.4 percent compared to �
the 1991 level. From June through September, total revenue enplanements jumped over 25 �
percent, from 3,464,000 in 1991 to 4,332,000 in 1992. The cumulative effect of the fare wars
yields an increase in revenue enplanements of approximately 13.3 percent through September
1992, and, assuming comparable growth through year-end, i0.9 million enplanements for 1992.
Total enplanements at MSP through three quazters were up almost 1 million, from 7,696,000 to
8,689,000 this year.
Preliminary Draft, Chapter I, Contingency Assessment Report Page 4
� ;'
Figure 2. Commercial Opera tions Trends a t MSP +
A. Air Carrier Operations at MSP B. Regioaal Carrier Operations at MSP
• 1980-1992 1980-1992
Operations Operations
2ao.000
so,000
220.000 I,/��r
200.000 GO 000 .
180.000 '
. 40.�
180.000
140,000 '
20,000
120.�
100,000 0
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1967 i988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1980 1981 1882 1983 7984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
Year Year
C. Charter Operations at MSP D. Total Commercral Ope�ations at MSP
1980-�992 1980-1992
Operations OperaYions
8,000 350,000
�,�
8.�
250.�
4.000
200.000
2.000
150,000 •
0 100.000
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 198B 1989 1990 1991 1992 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
Year , Year
. . . . . . . I ' .
Figure 3. 0ther Operations Trends at MSP
A. GeneralAviation Operations at MSP B. Military Operations at MSP
1980-9992 1980-1992
Operations Operations
so,000
�a.000
�I� 12.000
t 0,000
70.000
8,000
�.� g•�
4,�
60,000
2.00U
40.000 �
1980 1981 t982 1983 1984 1985 1988 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1986 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
Year Year
C. Air Freight Operations at MSP D. Tota! Operations at MSP
1980-1992 1980-1992
Operations Operations
450,000
20,000
A 00,00� •
16.000
350,000
10.000
300.000
5.000
250,000
� 200,000
1980 1981 1882 1983 1984 1986 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
Year Year
__-___--_ _.�__ _ _ _ _ _ _ -- _ . ___ ,
� _
. . . . . � � , .k
F/GURE 4. ENPL�4NEMENTS TRElVDS A T MSP, �95�- 7992 +
A. Air Carrier Revenue Enp/anemements B. On-Line Connecting Enplanem�nts
Enplanements Enplanements ,
�o,000,000 6•0°°�0°°
9.000.000 5.000,000
8'�'� 4.000.� -
7,�,�
3.�.�
8,000.000
2.000.�
5.000.000
1,000.�
4.000.000
3.�.� � ,
ep 82 84 86 88 90 92• 80 82 84 86 88 90 , 92'
Year Year
. . � � •1062 fnlmeu. � � . .
'iiY4 EwM�w�. . . . ..
C. Regional �arrier Enplanements D. Tota/ Passenger Enplanements
Enplanements Enplanements
soo 000 �s.000.000
600.000 iD.000.000
400.C100
8.000.000
300,�
6,�,�
200,000 -t
4,000.�
100.�
� 2.000.000
gp 82 84 86 68 90 92• 80 82 84 86 88 90 92'
Year Year
� � . �, •1882 E�Uttuu. � .
� •tYY2 fexrra • . � . . � . .
Although the airlines have been successful in pushing through two fare increases since
September, the industry shows signs of cutting fares again in the traditionally slow traffic season
ahead. For example, Condnental Airlines recently led such an action by introducing faze cuts
on select international and domestic routes. The effect that these fare cuts will have on passenger �
enplanements is not expected to be proportionally as large as those of the summer season, given
that the fare cuts are a response to the traditionally slow season (i.e., airlines generally cut their
fares during the fourth quarter). However, an escalation beyond the proposed fare cuts could
stimulate additional traffic during the fourth quarter. Passenger enplanements are quite sensitive
to fare changes when those changes go beyond the seasonal norm, as evidenc�d by the large rise '
in summer travel when prices were lowered. If fare cuts occur in the fourth quarter dropping
ticket pric�s below "normal" levels, passenger enplanements above and beyond usual levels could
be expected.
Non-Revenue Passenger Trends
The number of non-revenue passengers travelling through MSP rose significantly in 1992. f
Non-revenue passengers are those who are not flying with a regular ticket. Individuals flying
with compensation passes, airline employees, and people being flown on airline business not
using a regular ticket are considered non-revenue passengers. Individuals redeeming frequent
flyer coupans are considered:evenue passengers, even though th�y may nU:be paying anything.
Through September, approximately 513,600 non-revenue passenger enplanements occurred at
MSP, compared with 480,000 the previous year, a rise of 7.0 percent. Overall, non-revenue
passengers have accounted for 5.9 percent of total passenger traffic at MSP in 1992. Non- -- '�
revenue passenger travel actually decreased over the summer months, due to a lack of available
seating, caused by the high demand of p�ssengers with discount tickets. After the majority of �
the summer discount travel was complete, however, MSP saw a rise in non-revenue passenger ;
travel from 50,800 enplanements in September 1991 to 55,1Q0 in September, 1992, an 8.5
percent increase.
Long-Term Trends
Airport operations and passenger enplanements at MSP have continued to surpass national �
figures since 1980. Revenue passenger enplanements at MSP through September, 1992 were up
13.3 percent from the first nine months of 1991. If this percentage holds for the year, it would
yield an average annual growth rate af 7.3 percent from 1980 to 1992. This easily�out-paces the I;
national average of 4.1 percent per year over the same time period. Total domestic passenger
enplanements are expected to grow at an annual rate of 3.7 percent over the next ten to twelve
years.2
2Federal Aviation Administration, FAA Aviation Forecasts: Fiscal Years 1992-2003, ,
February 1992, p. 81. ;
f
�
�
Preliminary Draft, Chapter I, Contingency Assessment Repon Page 8
i
-- i
,
� Total aircraft operations at MSP through September, 1992, ciimbed 6.3 percent from the
same period the previous year. If this percentage holds through year end, it would produce an
average annual rate of growth of 3.8 percent from 1980 to 1992. Total commercial operations
jumped 6.6 percent through the first three quarters of 1992. If this percentage holds through
y� end, the average annual rate of growth would be 6.0 percent over the past thirteen years.
Over the past decade, commercial operations have consistendy grown as a percentage of
total operations at MSP, and this trend continues in 1992 {see Figure Sa). In 1980, commercial
operations made up 63 percent of total operations. By 1986, this share had grown to 74 percent. -
Following the merger of Northwest and Republic, commercial operations in 1987 declined by
over 13,000 to 272,400, lowering the commercial share of total ogerations just slightly to 73
percent. Since 1987, commercial operations have grown to 80 percent of total operations in
1991, with air carrier reaching 59 percent, regional 20 percent, and charter 1 percent. Non-
commercial operations were as follows: general aviation, 14 percent; military, 1 percent; and
air freight, 5 percent. Through September, 1992, commercial operations accounted for 81
percent of all operations at MSP, with the distribution as follows: air carrier, 59 percent;
regional, 21 percent; charter, 1 percent; general aviation, 13 percent; military, l percent; and
air freight, 5 percent (see Figure Sb).
UNDERLYING TRENDS
Several other key measures can provide further insight to the nature of traffic activity at
MSP, and can play a significant role in facility planning and development. These include the
amount of hubbing activity at the facility, average aircraft size for departing aircraft, and the =
enplaning load factor.
Hubbing
The hubbing ratio is the total number of people who board an aircraft at a given facility
(including transfers and connecting passengers)divided by the number of passengers who actually
begin their trip at that location. A hubbing ratio of 1.0 signifies that all passengers using an
�i rport begin their trip at that facility--there are no connecting passengers from incoming flights.
A ratio of 2.0 suggests that 50 percent of the passengers using the airport are beginning their
trips there, while 50 percent are transferring from other flights.
In 1988, the hubbing ratio at MSP was 1.88. The ratio droppe�to 1,84 in 1989, but rose �
to 1.89 in 1990 and 1.96 in 1991. Based on the forecasted domestic enplanements and
originations at MSP, the hubbing ratio for 1991 should be appro�cimately 2.07.3
3These numbers are based on data from HNTB.
Preliminary Draft, Chapter I, Contingency Assessment Report Page 9
i �
�
Figu�e 5.
5A, Commercial Operations as a Pe�centage of
Total Ope�ations by Yea�
Percent
�oo
8o n � 8, e,
72 74 73 74
gg 70
86
63 gy
6�
40
20
0 -
1980 i981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990` 1991 1992
� Year
i
5B. 1992 Operations by Carrier Type
Air Carriei' 59% �
�
,
...... ........:.
Military 1%
�
k
I
Charter 196 Gen. Av. 13% �
�
�
Reqional 21%
Ai�Freiqht 5%
r
�
.
�
While the hubbing ratio is, to a certain extent, a reftection of the local economic climate,
business decisions by individual airlines can also affect this value. USAir's recent move into its
��� midfield terminal in Pittsburgh is a good example. USAir and airport planners at Pittsburgh
��p�ct connecting activity to increase by 10 percent due to the new terminal, eventually
increasing the hubbing ratio to over 3.3 (100 passengers / 30 initiating travel).` Corporate
decisions by Northwest Airlines will similarly play a major role in future operations at MSP.
Aircraft Size
Aircraft size is the average number of seats per departing aircraft. In 1991, scheduled
aircraft departing MSP(domestic, international, and regional flights) had an average of 113 seats
per departure. This is one-third less than the national average of 168 seats per aircraft. Part of
this difference may be attributed to the fact that MSP has seen an extensive rise in regional
canier operations since 1990. Regional air carriers traditionally use aircraft that have much
smaller seating capacity than those of the major air carriers.
While seating capacity of aircraft used by U,S. commercial carriers grew at a healthy rate
from 1978 to 1983, increasing by almost twenty seats, there has been almost no growth in
eapacity from 1983 through 19915. Several factors can accaunt for this lack of growth, including
decreasing fuel prices (before the Gulf War) and hubbing. Airport hubbing has allowed airlines
to fly routes with more frequency, therefore reducing the need for larger aircraft to me�t
demand. The drop in jet fuel prices through the 1980's allowed airlines to refrain from
purchasing newer, more fuel-efficient aircraft. As jet fuel prices have begun to rise since 199Q, __
upgrading to newer, and generally larger, aircraft has commenced.
I,oad Factors
"Load Factor" is the percentage of seats filled by revenue passengers. In 1991,
Northwest had a load factor of 65.8 percent, second only to Unired at 66.3 percent.b Through
September 1992, load factors for the major air carriers rose compared to the same nine month
period one year earlier due to the increased demand for discount tickets offered over the summer
months. For all major carriers, the average nine-month load factor for 1992 was 64.8 percent,
compared with 63.4 percent one year ago. For calendar year 1991, a .slight rise was seen
compared with 1990, from 62.4 percent to 62.6 percent.
4Aviation Week and Space Technology, October 5, 1992. '
5Federal Aviation Administration, FAA Aviution Forearsts: Fiscal Years 1992-2003,
February 1992, p. 66.
eAviation Daily, January 31, 1992, p. 190, and February 10, 1992, p. 241.
Preliminary Draft, Chapter I, Contingency Assessment Report Page 11
.
' �
Attachment 1: f
� Detailed Enplanements Trend at �
Mirtneapolis-St. Paul inte�national Airport
Air On-Line
Year Carrier Connects• Regional Charter Total
1980 4,542,353 NA 42,993 113,855 4,699,201
1981 3,808,319 NA 31,OQ0 90,55t 3,929,870
1982 5,145,941 503,500 73,032 93,500 - 5,312,473
1983 5,656,751 i,033,000 114,174 160,500 5,93i,425
1984 5,794,523 1,327,500 131,Oi3 243,000 6,168,536
1985 7,203,791 2,083,500 153,706 369,000 7,726,497
1986 8,001,818 2,365,000 287,415 237,000 8,526,233 = j
1987 8,267,150 2,268,143 360,520 293,242 8,920,912
1988 8,161,263 2,795,231 385,380 284,159 8,830,802
1989 8,429,179 3,120,134 408,479 345,736 9,183,394
1990 8,712,311 , 3,499,197 495,439 384,688 9,592,438
1991 8.832.208 3,675,137 484,979 351,054 9,668,241
1992•" 9,568,547 5,002,000 547,066 475,115 � 10,590,728
Compound Average Annual Growth
1980-1992 6.4% 2b.896 23.6°,6 12.6% 7.0°6
` Compound average annual growtfi is measured trom 1982 to 1992.
** 1992 estimates based on inte�polation from HNTB data presented in Long-Term �
Comprehensive Pian {September 19921. '
Source: Nletropolitan Airports Commission
i
6
� +
� �
.
�
Attachment 2:
Detailed Operations T�end at
Minneapolis-St. Paul Internationat Airpart
Air Regio�al Total Ge�s�ai Air
Year Carrier Airline Charter Comme�cial Aviation Mititary Freight• Total
1980 148,888 12,126 1,976 162,990 83,976 6,365 6,006 259,337
1981 147,338 9,881 2,568 159,787 82,969 5,541 8,117 256,414
1982 151,304 22,841 2,47$ 176,623 73,303 5,250 � 10,868 266,044
1983 170,075 33,953 3,752 207,780 73,582 5,071 13,249 299,682 -
. 1984 13�,145 35,544 4,734 231,423 82,443 ?,5�2 10,AS� 331,469
1985 221,394 31,461 6,278 259,133 71,631 14,006 15,200 359,970
1986 231,401 51,141 3,043 285,585 76,691 6,863 16,089 385,228
1987 212,936 56,412 3,OOfi 272,354 79,900 5,495 16,053 373,802
. 1988 213,955 58,896 2,836 275,687 75,115 5,092 17,95? 373,851
1989 219,056 59,338 3,334 281,728 61,037 4,291 16,974 364,030
?'��� 224,977 74,447 4,488 303,912 54,780 2,802. 18,291 379,785
1991 226,697 75,856 5,046 307,599 51,991 2,480 19,947 382,017
1992 239,732 83,793 6,596 330,t21 56,069 3,031 � 19,112 408,333
Compound Average Annual Growth
1980-1992 4.0°� 17.5% 10.6% � 6.1% -3.3% -6.09�6 14.19b 3.9°�
+ 1980 and 1981 data are questionable.
Source: Metropolitan Airports Commission
�
K /� f�� DONALO R.CHAPDELAINE�
DA OTA COC�� V �����"'�ss�ou[n- THinopisra�C1
575 CHAPEL IANE
DAKOTA COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER �ArE�E HONE2t
• � � 1560 HWY.55.HASTINGS.MINNESOTA 55033 (612)438-4429 HOME 454•2533
.
� .
I
R
September 22, 1992
�,
i
Mary Anderson, Chair
Metropolitan Council
Mears Park Centre
230 East Fifth Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
Mr. Hugh Schilling, Chair �
Metropolitan Airports Commission �
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport �
,.
� 6040 28th Avenue South f
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Dear Ms. Anderson and Mr. Schilling: � '
�
Dakota County is vitaily interested in the dual track major airport _
strategy process. Selection of a site in the Dakota County Search
Area for the location of a major new airport would forever change I
our County. Expansion of the current airport has significant
implications for the northern portions of Dakota County.
Dakota County is disappointed with the July, 1992, Pubiic Hearing
Draft, "Outline af a Decision Document for the Dual Track Major
Airport Strategy. " The Framework for a Dual Track Decision Document
prepared by Apogee Research in 1991 recommends that "The Decision
Document should be more than a summary and more than an expanded
EIS. " Dakota County agrees with that concept. The outline k
preserited in the Public Hearing Draft is inadequate to achieve this
goal. �
;
;
Our primary concern is with the proposed "scorecard" format and the
potential implications in the selection of an alternative using this �
approach. Dakota County recognizes that a one or two page summary
of the MAC/Metropolitan Council recommendations would be useful to �
the decision process, but urges that a less simplistic format be
used. Specifically, we urge that descriptive text be substituted � �
for alpha or numeric "scores. " Dakota County suggests a two page
format that would first indicate to what degree each alternative �
meets the program goals of the Dual Track Airport Planning Process,
and then proceeds to analytically compare the potential impacts of
each surviving alternative. We have prepared and attached to this
letter a mock-up of our suggested format for your consideration. ;
;
AN E9UAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER �a
�
J
f
. � .. . . . � . . . � .
Page 2
Dakota County is further concerned that "governance" as a separate
�:���.cal issue has been omitted from the Draft Document. In fact, it
remains unclear which of the several studies currently underway or
anticipated will address governance issues. The Council and the MAC .
must address when and in what document and process governance issues .
will be covered. For example, what role will Dakota County and
local governments have in dealing with existing and future airport
issues, either at the current airport if it is expanded or an
airport relocated to Dakota County? What airport/local government
agreements will be necessary? What off-airport controis should be
established and by whom?
Dakota County would also like to request that assurances be given by
the MAC and Metropolitan Council to the Region, Dakota County, and
local governments that the Draft Decision Document will remain a
"living document" during the course of the several studies being
conducted between now and the 1996 deadline for delivery of the
Decision Document to the Legislature. Dakota County suggests that
the Decision Document Outline be formally reviewed and updated on an �
annual basis. Addi.tionally, we suggest that each of the individual -
studies being conducted specifically highlight key conclusions
reached in the studie5 which �rould �e applica�le to the Decision
Document and, in turn, contribute to its viability.
Still further, Dakota County restates its position taken in h�aririgs _
on the site selection criteria, our position is that the
Alternative Environmental Review Process approved by the Minnesota
Environmental Quality Board for the continuation of the Dual Track
Airport Planning Process �includes provisions to form both technical
and policy committees in advisory and oversight roles, respectively.
The Site Selection Technical Advisory Committee was organized during
the spring and has met five times. However, a Site Selection
(Policy) Task Force has not yet been constituted, and, therefore,
has not met to consider any recommendations or conclusions reached
in the Site Selection Technical Advisory Committee. Dakota County
strongly objects to this and any deviation from the Alternative
Environmental Review Process as approved by the EQB.
As a final comment, Dakota County requests that both the MAC and the
Metropolitan Council respond in a very timely manner to this letter �'
as well as to other comments in previous letters.
�
Sin�e ely,
� '� , � � '�/.�, _
�f/���������r 1��:�%�'G��
�DO ALD R. CHAPDELA�D7E, Cha ir
DAKOTA COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS -
cc: Brandt Richardson, County Administrator
Louis J. Breia�hurst, Physical Development Director
John Tocho, �ffice of Planning
V
` t t
SUGGESTED SUMMARY TABLE /
DRAFT DECISION DQCUMENT
- . �
r
PART 7 - MEETING PROGRAM GOALS ;
ALL ALTERNAT(VES 'i
ALTERNATIVES MEETING THE AVIATION MEETING THE STRATEGIC
NEEDS OF THE REG(ON G�A�S FOR THE REG(ON
1. No Buiid (text) (text)
2 Expand MSP (fext} . (text)
3. New Airport {text) (text)
f
4. Other (text) (text)
5. Other (text) � (text) �
PART .2 - COMPARISON 4F VIABLE A�TERNATlVES
ALTERNATlVES ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2
EXPAND MSP NEW AIRPORT `
1. Environmental impacts (text) (text)
2. Investment Assessment (text) (text)
3. RegionallCommunity Impacts (text) (text)
4. Economic Impacts (text) {text)
5. Governance (text) {text)
6. Other {text) (text)
i
FROM THE DAKOTA COUNTY OFFtCE OF PLANNING.
f
f
�_ S : � _ -
�AR _
- - Stop Our Airport Rclocation N�wS Release
P.O. Box$2.Roscmount.MN SSOGS
{612)89a-924I
Gerry Drewry
2Q090 Northfield B1vd. "
Hampton, MN 55031
_.._ .
�� � - Phone: (612)464-6755
Fsuc: (f 12)463.800f� -
AIRPURT FEASIRTI.tTY (�UF.STIONS
MUST BE AN5WERED,
SOAR PRE�YDFNT SA'YS
FARMINGTON,Minn.,Dec. 24—Qucsdons about thc fcasibility ot a new airport
that were presented in the Du:. 20 Star Tribune�rre exlremely impartant,have b�en askcc3
frcquently by SOAR(Stop t?cu Airport Relocation), and mustbe a.nswere�d,its presitient s�id
Sunday.
' "VVe aze especially glessed that the newspaper wns able to find out that$4,2 r�ullion has
t�een spem so far on the Du�a1 Tr�ck Pracess," said VJendy Wu:�tenber�of Fsirmington,
presidcnt of�lyc 2,54Q-tYicmbc�•or�anizAtion, "We h�ve Askecl the Metro�olits�n Couneil and
Mevopolitan Ais�,orts Commission (MAC)for that infotmation duzens of times. Haw tt�ucl�
morc taxpaycr itioncy must they spend before apenly considering these ecc�namic ra�tities?"
�
�ustenberg said that shc hopcs that the Legislative Auditor's 4ffic:e will tFticc hcecl of
tI1C C�L1tS 'c,ns. Their auditars ure investigatin�the process mans��t.d by the Metrop�litar�
�
Cauncil and the MAC►with�report�ue in Junuary.
;
4OAR has questioned both the need for a new airport ai►d thc abiliry to pt�y far one
since its�Ifaanding in �c�.c�ber ��9I, she said. "The Dual Tmck Pracess is baseci an obsolctc
assumpt�ons made before dere�ulation c�f t��c airlin�ind��stry�nd before the mulriplc 3irline
bAnkruniteies. N�rEhwest Airline'c fin�ncial situ�rion makes thrse data cc�itiplctGly i1•relevent."
I�Vustenberg caller�noisc, not cconomics, the driver fnr a ncw airporc. "�3uilding a ncw
�irprn�t v�ill not s�lve the noise problem,"she saici. "It will anly move it t�t�new lacation.
Noise at�atement and bc;ttc:r land•use calurols should continue to alleviatc disturbanccs in the
ssreas mt�st sevorely affecceci by the prescnt airport."
-mare-
'-w+-�:i�v.a.� 2 P..�.�.. ... . - . . . .
" "We wnnt N'orthwest Airlines to succecd,3nd we want Minnecetn to de�clnp a stronger
- . �,.... : _ _
economy,"Wust�nbcrg said. "The cosw of the proposed airport would bc dcvastating to bot�i �
thc airlinc and to statc taxpaycn�f ali catc�ories. I,et's g4t t►oyand the politicni rhetoriC vf
i
glob�l economic growth ht�ngin� pn a ncw airperrt�nd dcal with the resil t�sk of�iuilciin�� �
climate conducive to busincss in the fuxt place." '
organization rncourages the MAC to continue stuclying the dcvcl�pment of reliev�r �
"I'hc = . : - - . _ _
airparts,including u s�tcllitc airport in Rochecter,flnd Rsks lh�t wmprehencive trctncPortatioii
plans include considcradan of high-spccd rail ta Rnc;hcster and Ghict�go to rclicvc futur�nr,cds
: at the MinneapatislSt. Paul Internauonal Airport if neeessfuy.
�OAR is a statcwide c9tizen organization fnrmecl to c:onduct re.search sinti report nn the
need for a new airpart.and the impaets of the progosed projxt. It wn.c �rg�ni�.t.� in Qctober �
. 19�►I and is d�501(c} (4)nonprofst corporadnn. S(JAR is warkici�witEi ottic;r or�anizations t�
find the best gossabtc vision of Minncapoli�/St. PauI Intcrnational Airport as a world-class
facility u�to thc 21st century.
� -0-
1992
�
����� �������� • Di�rsti:►g the,s� raovea, Finney said:
"lt euuld w�)1 bc thHt in thc 'xhart
• - tpm wc rnay nos�ee thc growth that .
� � we had anticipau:Q in tern�c of thG
, vvs.�r����� ���� d�l� ; � tize of ihe NorthweRt fleet.,,
� • ' •• • The uncertainty about whethrr
��� �� '; , Northwes�'a problcma Ar�=hor�-tc:rm
aky future cas�, ot IOTIg-tCrm haS become a Central
•„r�.. fOcut uf thG t�irport :tudy, taid MCt
r� ,•�,:a:t Council p3nnner ]nhn ICari. "lt be�
�f'"�G���\A j �'1� ���t'1� �ar.r,ir► . cxsmes the m�j�r thing thut we netd
r r V t � ��;i to kccp looking At;'be suid.
�rl ;���
airpart ex �nsion �;''rr`� But, he added: "We're atudyirtg
� �': � where shoulci we put a mqjor invost-
,;in��rr • . r�ent in eriation facititiea over the
$y Lsnrle�tlttke ' � next 30 yt�trs.We'rc not on1}+loc�kiag
•,�d; l, � �c cryine to mAkC dtcie�ons for
Staf3`'Writer ,.1�•,�t Norihwcat, bat wo arc lookfng nt�he
r�:irrr, c t�e�inn as 4 wholc."
Halfwa�through the eighi-yoar ctratcgic study of��p��
thc'(�n Citits�t�eeds e ncw airport,e s�pw Zp� {: Trying to saparaic the study, from
haa entand ttu oqu�uan—N�rthwest Airline� �rp�, � Northwest's intcrest in p►at�ica�ti
aus financit�qituutinn, t
. � �,;,,� " in such a psoject raises thc qucatip$
All alon�, ehe nesumption ha9 bcen t!u►t Nort7ivy�,�, of wba wc�utd benefit from a mw
would b�the main icnant nf a n�vv or�ac dt� ��rpart, Raid Mikr Hamilton, an air-
J� �RPn+� Iinc industry analy�t fOr the Lcuthold
The ori�inul fimcasta of p�t�et and pessengera �t ths Group.
airpoct u� 2�20 countrd on the growth of Northwett
strvice fed by morc passe�ger� from smattcr ccgi p� "APAn f'roni the noise tssuc, which
airline.�. � ,��� hns e tlfe of ita own,if ynu mov�the
Dat if Nortl�weYt'y f nanci�►1 situ�tion rCmaias as �iN�ri nnd expand, realiatie$JIy yoq
���' � arr. expanding for the bcnCf�t of thc
it has txren,pianner�will bc forced to ssk themselvea if Amecicanx And the 5nqthwCsts �nir-
the suline couid �►fford u move to a new sirportu �' � liiiesj, whieb itiCi�aae6 tt�C pccaRWr�+
whethcr, in the worst cAs�, t�e Twin Citi�s w.�uld,e�+e�}� that Narthwest c��e�'t tiltimai�.l
rcraain a major hUb for airtine scrvia iP North_.y,��� : survive in t1�c form it's in now,�'
rcduocd it� size, mer�ed ev;Q, another carrier }��� � HnmiIton suid.
Gisewh�or wtnt out of busincss, ,., �j}� '
C�`tcials directi the lo ran stud 4t thc Mctr�����{`�11 "Y°u ctsarly at tttfs stage are not
� �� � Y p��x ; �PAndinB 7"win �Sties rnetro fot•ihr.
�st� Air�wrts Gommission (MAC} end tbe Metrc��poli�tacyx bencf t of Nonl�west tx�uue they�►re
C.ouneil are cnreful not to draw po�e��ion��beut;��� : tairly vehemcnt that�cy don't w¢nt
NorthwcrCx cunra�t problemc may mean for the fl�t}�,j that," ha added. By inar�easing cc�m•
but thcy admit they fee!compeAod to h+bQ,ge their betp; �:; pctitian here, 'y�n Are puc��ng the
"i thiak the best that we c.�n do at this point ia tcs try.��jiet; p��Un on, snd ii'you du thn� and
[ifj somei3un� dr�tstFc hart�cns ta
r;�;i�i� � Narthwtst, then you don't n�d ihc
...A.irl►ort to��tinucd on pR SB ,r.:,�cu� ' • new air�ort'�
' � . , ;;': , ' With t}cat C.ntch-22 nn the har;�.on,
�i �r �� il�hard to sec n atroag dcb;r�ot�tllt
� �� �'� � ����� ' part of il�e trrtveling �subtiC tn triuve
�� airport hc
t4 ° "�"'' � said. "At this
. � ��� �� � �.�• �tagt,d0i��g whatavt�'c;un be dpnc to
� �� ��� '='' keep Nc�rthwest ax a viat�}c naruci-
� '` P�nt in tl�e Twin CSties hub—thnt ia
Cuntinacd fmm pAge ID ' ' � A higtr pnbliG poJicy nptian."
���•
do some altcrnntive acenArios of cil }�i�cesFient �4.2 miJ!on st dy ng' tu aties�cu a�Uhy�Northw 51's��.
wliat may h�ppen in the!'uture,'��aid thc nirpc�rc's ll�ture. Mcenwhilt, the nene�es �u�c; oth�r quextion�, I�C t�id.
NigCl Finney, MAf' pt3ni�ing d'ueC. sirline industry hus txxn bdtterod by 1'hey incit2cie; trow 6ig and hvw old
tor. recession, �naring jtt fasl priccs � th�Northwaet fleet wi11 be;what w;}l
linkc:ci to the Percuw Qulf Wnr,and a
Tbe ztudy�began in 19$4, the yeer A bloody fare war R�,urrod by Ueight-
pattnetship led by A1 C:hecchi and ened eompctitinn botwoen carricr�,
�rY Wil�on bpu�ht the nirlina and
pled�ed tn expand its u�erations, A� the ytar c14acY, T��arthwest lit�s �""*� `": �:' `w: '` •,,`.:,,..,
t'hey �aid they would pay on thc canceled a �3.5 billion urder for
atsggcring S3 bitlion t�uyout debt ptancx,iR nog,�tipung�4(�miliioa in St�r Tr�burre
with exxx6 casU from oner�tions. pAyroll eo�scc�xisans with unions, haa
Metro�,otitar!o{I�,cis)S em�,,arked an R seeurc:d a new$250 miltion loan and
study with the �nat of detcu•�nining hns deRrn.G re�Ayrt�ent of S34p mil- � ��d�y
W'l�ai airpart cx�nsion might be lion in debt,all as tlie MAC pnpares ��pecember 20�1992 ���
naedeci and whr.chr.r tlze curncnt uir- ta ulcct the site of a pasaiblc new fl8lsd thett I+eCyCie
poM-�T 8. ticw a`u}�ort-in 6outhcrn airport in T3akota County and to up-
I?akota CnuntY shauld De ihc ptac.� date the forscast of pianea and ��s-
t'oxfbat ezpaAsian. sebgers exixcted to use thc uir�ort in .
2020. . ,
_, _ _ . . _
_- com� of the new cllisna witti'KLM t ' "If you'vc�ot one(a new airpartj, it � '
Roy�Dutctl Airliaes,And ho��ettucl� sccmc to mc in A chrn�a�,'ritOtO�; �
tmific Northwcyt will kccp� tbe �IobRiiud air� cant�olim�ate tt�t
7�in Citiea comparai with it6� ub in
_ _, Decroit. .�, matches s m p�o t�a emy, f
- :.:;`. you've Rat iuch x facitity ibeiiyo u
•`i don'� euvy an oue in th �: iaa• hdvo somethla�ta market,':�aid Gra=
uit� position ri�it now" ��id, � nl�'�W�o acim�t�ha h�s,►n�ntbrost ia
.'T,hc cry�qi t+�ll is quite ciaud�►�' �aob!m by movi�tho Ai� }n;aoiu
.� Pr A8 , rpo
� Withaut knowin�the tpecifici of tl�e Sung Won Sohn,chief oconOmitt f0i
ai+port diacussiona here�Con�inent�! Norvveat Carp.;said: "No one,wou14
Airlines spokesman Davicl tvje�sin� atgu�tbAt evetitue►lly,,,�vC wilt•rieed a
said, "Any aidine e�tn be ppt'et a Q�W Q��, �� queotion I��rcaliy
eucnpetitive diaadvantage iF�,o�u of �zn,The approach right now i61et's
their primary huba is unoco�mical find thc nead and set how we Mn pay �
due to costs astoeiated with iLt': for t� Sefore you cven ulk xbout �
A� the aconnd-largcet unastt�in tUe that, leNs spend � lot of timo ttud M
energy as ta how;we can betur utilizt
ncw Denver Intemationnl Airport, the exioting urpart -- tnd �fiRris�
onc of C4atinentsl's eh�ef cQ�iperns exhausted thxt,then go to lon�•range
when it opeas tuxt October• t�lt be plAnnit�g."
that cnats be kcpt in line �o.3utt it �
dona not becoma noncomp6titive •
with other hubs eround tha a�u,r►try,
l�e said:
',��;
Ai Dcnvcr's Staplatos► Air�rt,,ptr•
passengar costa aro eibout S6,�Q; dnd • •
at the a�w ai MusiuY u
them to be a6aut 3S, Pcr ager �
costs ero tho=e�:sed on to n• : :'..,�..�., ...� �;.�•..� ... :.
gers to.PaY for leadin� na. : tber
xirpc�rt fee.. Unicod Ait�linqi; the -
priacipal airliae in Dostvar,'�:a16o_
conxrned about per•pa��eng�t;�eottt
at thc ttew airport, spnkcsm'�} ohn
Philp said, Four yvers ago, Li�ted's
position wao that the new nver
' sirport would aot be n :,, ul
1Rter in the decadt."When ii: e
clear that the ai�rt was oi g0
w
ahcad anr+uay,uniced h a!�q�kc e
judgment on how ft would�a into
our syctem," he oa�d. Tt�e ions
wei'C t0 foduCe �I�tt4 t}leiC ri0t
be se exposcd to tht iner�a .eost�
of x new airpart, or ta ex and
spread costs over more pnsse�s. - - -
rt
United chose the latur, aigi�'4 up
for 42 getes. Hy the timc the�ort
at►en: in October it wiil p7�p�►ably '
have incroased tlighta by 4U�ps a f
daY,PhiID said. ,�.,
�...
Thc ihoary. said Phi1p, is ttist.if an
airline sdds � lot af servicx fr��,twth
directions,it attract� aaw�sat�ttgers
br�uso there's mon eerv�a��r the
iocst raaidents and more in�tive
for bu�inesses that do a lat�idf air
trnva!to►oc�ste in a plaoe wher�4here
iR nn Lnarmous nnlount of ait;t�f�ic,.
Tt�at has been true at Atlansa;.�t►ica•
go and Dallea,philp said.Th�'thenry:
wilt bc te�ted next fn Denver. �:::� ;
Those who s�ee the poteatial eoonam-
ic bonanza ef a new airport�iD tlu
Twin CitieB �rea ure th� s�e.roe,
soning. Minnespotia City Gbuacil I
Member Siev�Cramer, for exampie, .
said that wi�h so few airporu being
built, a new one hene c�uld�bt a'
Yatuab�e cool co araw truane.s w�he
aros.i�e�lebal eoanomy...:.,;,�;:... � ,:,