The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3.b. SOAR Update / Dual Track Airport Planning .Y�� i.� � . . ... . . . . . � � . . � . � . . . . �� . . . . . .. . .. CIT'Y OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: MARCH 2, 1993 AGENDA ITEM: S_O.A,R. UPDATE AGENDA SECTION: DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLI�NNING DEPARTMENT HEAD REPORT PREPARED BY: STEPHAN JILK, CITY ADMINISTRATOR AGENDA NO. o,,, 6 �� ATTACffi++lEENTS: NEWSPAPER ARTICLE, AP OVE B . 9 � N REPORT SUNIMARY ,� ✓�.;_ . � ,� � Mr. Kevin Carroll will update the Council on the activities of S.O.A.R. and recent events occurring in the Dual Track Airport Planning Process. A recently published report from the Minnesota State Auditors Office regarding the Dual Track Process is enclosed. Since this is a lengthy document it is not being copied to others in the general packets. If it is desired to be reviewed, a copy is available at City Hall . Mr. Carroll, Councilmernber Klassen and I attended a meeting on Thursday, in Hastings on this report. We will comment on it. RECONIlKENDED ACTION: None. COUNCIL ACTION: e � ! Auditor says Met Council's � research for new airport � confains technicai flaws SUMMARY: A legislative a new airport in Dakota County. audltors repott released tast State Rep,Dennis Ozment,IR- week was very critical of the Rosemount,said that hia ongoing Met Councit's research 1nto criticism of che Mec Council's whether a new alrport is reseanh and scatemeacs about a needed.OpponentS of the al�- new airport had been vindicated. port are saying that the report `IC was very good news, snd gives them a vaivabie tooi to �^'e're going to use it to the besc of iight a new airport In Dakota our ability ta swp the airport prn- COutlty. cess...,' Ozment said. Dakota , wuntypeo pie are real grateful to by Steve Elde have a d�cument that jiisti6es all r i staff wr�1N�+"-"'�rt'`-� o� previous opposition.' Opponents oCa new sirport are On Friday,Feb.19,the day the � revelingtih'the•legislative sudi- report was seleased,Legislative tofszeportthatwasreleasedlast Auditor Jamea 2voble met with i W'eek.The re rt ri the TM�n Cities media,summar- Po pped the Met- ��ng his findings. iropolitan Council's handling of a . � study regarding whether to build Report/See Page 5A ' ��p 0 t ` Continued from page 1A . "Expansion is probably st�'ll Counal atudied the posn'b�ity of i needed,but's it's probably,and I bu7ding a new sirport�and where i say probably, needed later than one could be bu�t The three sites 1 w•as first predicted,'Noble told chasen are a]1 in Dakota County. � reporters on Friday. The DIAC looked into nenovating Toble found five technical andexpandingthecutteatairport, � 11aa•s in the T'fet Coundl's study. Minneapolis St Paul AirporL f, *inappropriate methods used to ' determine airport capacity. �eg�s�a�(Q(� '� •ezroneous analysis of the use of g�� gep, ��e Morris, IR- the current sizport as a oonnect- g�y�.!'➢e,is introdudng legis3a-� ing point by air travelers, tion that calls for the.halt-off�5e •significant overestimation of 81�rt study:Ozment and several ;�curreni and future deia�•s, athez�akota County legislato:s •substantial overestir�ation'oT $��ng on as co-authora to the the benefit�_ut-s-ne`vi�runwav or bilL _ airport, and � So far the duat-trad study has •flawed analysis of future noise �t about S7 mi7lion. probtems at•the currentairporL •AndiYsorilyhalfover,"Oanent Duai-track 6a��. The bulk oC the expenses go for The state legislaW7e initiated consultants who are reseuching - what's called the dual-traci:prooess the poss�'bilities ofeither a new or a during the late 1980a-The two rehabbed sirport tracks were explored by the h4et ^ Couna'1 and the ATetropolitan fur- �+rft�C�$m ports Commission(I�lACJ The A1et A4an}•of the criticisms in the the r � � i � audito�'s TepDn had tieen p�vious• characterized some of the oonsui- � ly raised by new airport opponents, tants work as ha��ng"bonehead, � ac�ordingw Oanent While rntiral undergraduate erross.' � of the h'!et Council'�research and "�;'hen we have bonehead,� � research oonclusions, the auditor undergraduate consultanis µ•ho � stated that the dual•trae}:prooess arepaidhighmoneyfortheirexper- � should continue. tise thea32hinl:thestateof:�tinne- � � Ozment doesn't thinY, so. �should have some teoou.�se..." � "They really have astndy that Ozment and other legislatois I was faisely�siudie�n a need for Want to 3rnow why there wer+e gr�eat I ,�something that doesn't exist—yet errors regar�ng future air tra�c, i they say keep it going;' Ozment the impad of noise in the fu:ure, said. and the airpoY's ab�lity to hand'ie Dottie A.ietow•,the new head o° incomingandoutgoingai:�af5cin tha T1et Couna'l,said that consu;- ��,.5 ahead. tants had p:ro�ided ihem �iL'� � "Is it inwmpetence or polidcs'.'" inmrrec:es�imates of future noise, Ounent asked. and estima:es of futuz+e detays at But last wee}:,2�oble stated that the ai*port. theteportwasn'tdesignedtoassess Ozment said that he's loo}�ng blame,oniy to determine if there inw who's accoti:nable for the Re!e e.^.rors. ezrora Ozment added tnat ai*po:ts in "Pm sa}ing hox•do K•e hold ihem Rochester and St. Paul are accauntabie?" Ozment sated underutilized. Ozment s�:ed tnat one of the "Anylternativesiteisn'tiusri5ed st::d}'s�•o c�-autho:s.El;ic:Lo�g. and never K171 be," Ozment said. � � • � • � . ' � • • C � � � ' i � I � AIRPORT PLANNING • A flawed analysis of future noise annoy- ance for communities around MSP,and February 19, 1993 • An erroneous analysis of trends in hubbing In December 1988, the Metropolitan Council activity at MSP(the use of MSP as a con- completed a study of the long-term adequacy of °�tiag point for travelers). the Minneapolis-St.Paul Intemational Airport �ar example,in 1988,the Council's consultant esti- (MSP). The study raised serious qnestions about mated that,without expansion,airport delay�s at MSP s physical and environmental capacity to han- MSP would grow from 14 minutes per aircraft in dle future aviation activity. As a result,the Coun- 1988 to 50 minutes in 2008. In contrast,M�AC's cil recomm„nded,andnthe 1989 Legislature ��nts estimated that delays would graw from adopted,a dual-track planning process to study 2 minutes to 6 minutes. The Council's estirt�ate for both MSP expansion and new airport developmen� 1988 was not consistent with MSP's experi�nce. Althou h the seven- ear lannin In addi6on,more recent studies confirm that the g y p g pic�cess is now �uncil's estimates for 2008 were not reasonable. only about half completed,the process has become quite controversial. We were asked by the I.egisia- W�aLso€ound that the technical work of bo�h the tive Audit Commission to examine the technical �uncil and MAC needs to be more clearly pre- adequacy of work already completed by the Metro- sented and summarized for policy makers. �n addi- politan Council and the Metropolitan Airports tion,the two agencies need to better coordinate Commission(MAC). In addition,legislators ques- their efforis so that they are using similar methods tioned whether recent changes in the airline indus- of analysis. try should prompt changes in the scope or timing ' of the planning process. Despite these problems,we conclude that: We found that both agencies have done some good • �e dual-track proce,ss should be comtin- planning work and have conducted a process ued,although the need for mo�e runWay which is open and accessible. However. ca acit a rs to be farther of�in�he P Y PP� • The CounciPs consultants and staff have future than initially forecast. used a number of questionable methods to '�e 1988 adequacy study overstated future�apac- reach key conclusions in past studies. ity problems by overestimating futwe airpoct op- The technical problems we found with the Coun- erations,particularly regional airline operatians, cil's studies include: and by usmg questionable methods of analyzing air�cut�dequacy and estimating the benefits',of ca- • Use of an innppropriatemethod for deter- pacity enhancement. In early 1990,both ag¢ncies mining airport adequaey, revised their forecasts of future operations ahd pas- - senger acfivity. We found the revised estimates of • SigniGcant overestimation of current and total operations to be reasonable,although we sug- future airport delays, gest some changes to certain categories of ai�craft operations. Revised passenger estimates are�prob- • Substantiat overestimation of certain bene- ably too high primarily because we think iha!t both fits of capacity enhancement at either MSP agencies have overestimated the future level'of or a new airport, hubbing activity. , � � � ' Bascd on its reviscd fore- cast, MAC staff tcnta- a��'Pai't Oper$tiorts 8t MSP that both agencies tivcly estimaie that closely monitor North- additional runway capac- Thousands west Airlines'financial ity may not be needed � condition and recom_ unG12005 or 2010. mcnd changes in the Given the uncertainty in �p duat-traek pracess if the airline industry, how- �� warranted. ever,it seems reasonable ' to continue the dual- 4� �sso Fo�ecnst FinaIly,we re�ommend track process as sched- � that the Council exam- ulcd. IniGai estimates 2� ine the need ta protect sugpest that improving viable expansipn opGons MSP could prove to be at MSP. Currdnt}y, the costly. Consequently,a �s�2 ts82 tss2 2pp2 Zo12 �uncil has auithority to comprehensive and tech- limit develop ent in the nically competent analy- Y�� new airport�rch area sis of the benefits and but has not worked costs of the various options for im rovin ca cit enough with communi- needs to be done before MSP is ex nded or� Y ��around MSP to ensure that future development closed. � does not limit the viability of MSP expansion op- tions. Continuing the dual-track planning process would help the region reach an informed decisian ro- �°Pies of the report are available from the Pro- P gram Evaluation Division. If you have any vided that the Metropolitan Council takes prompt questions,please contact Roger Br�ooks,John action to upgrade the technical su from consultants and staff. We alsOe,�c mme d � Z'unker,or Elliot Long at{612)296-47�t3, - � `