Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.a. Airport Planning Process / S.O.A.R. UpdateCITY OF ROSE4OUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 1, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: Airport Planning Process Update AGENDA SECTION: S.O.A.R. UPDATE DEPARTMENT HEADS REPORT PREPARED BY: STEPHAN JILK, CITY ADMINISTRATOR AGENDA If.EM # 3A ATTACHMENTS: DUAL TRACK UPDATE, APPROVED BY: PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE, DRAFT DECISION DOCUMENT Representatives of SOAR will be present to provide a -monthly update on their organizations' activities. I will not be giving a Technical Committee update since there was no meeting in the month of August I will be making a few comments on the attached information: 1) August newsletter on the planning process. 2) Notice of the public hearing to be held on the "site selection criteria" to be held on September 1, 1992 at Rosemount High School. 3) The "Draft" of the Decision Document on which comments will be taken at two public hearings in September of this year. This document will be used as the guideline to make a final recommendation to the state legislature in 1995 for the future if aviation planning in the State of Minnesota and the location/relocation of theMSPairport. I would further suggest that we prepare formal comments on behalf of the City on this document for the September hearings. For that purpose I would plan on having this item back on the September 15th meeting agenda. RECOMMENDED ACTION: NONE at this time. COUNCIL ACTION: PUBLIC MEETING SET FOR SEPT.1 ON NEW AIRPORT SITE SELECTION STUDY A public meeting on the new airport site selection study will be held Sept. 1 in Rosemount (see schedule) to discuss the Site Identification Criteria for a new airport in the Dakota Search Area. The Technical Advisory Committee, which was formed by MAC to advise the Commission on the Dual Track Planning Process, is using the criteria to determine which portions of the search area are suitable for airport development. According to Nigel Finney, MAC Deputy Executive Director, Planning and Environment, "the Committee has met four times to date during 1992 and has identified potential locations in the search area where an airport could be sited." Finney says elements of the site selection process and the master planning process have been combined so that as sites are identified, work on alternative runway, terminal and ground facilities configurations will also be done. The Committee has been using a con- ceptual airport layout in the identification process, which was developed by the MAC during a new airport conceptual design study in 1990. "The conceptual layout enables us to treat each potential site equally," Finney says. "However, alternative configurations will be evaluated for each site." , Six criteria, which provide broad guide- lines to define the minimum requirements for identifying a set of potential sites, have been developed. "These criteria will help insure that no pan of the Search Area is elim- inated prematurely," Finney says, "and will help choose the best site." PUBLIC HEARINGS SET FOR SEPT. 22.23 ON DRAFT DUAL TRACK DECISION DOCUMENT Public hearings will be held on Sept. 22-23 on the "Decision Document" for the Dual Track Planning Process. The hearings, which will be held in Rosemount and Richfield (see schedule), are jointly sponsored by the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the Metropolitan Council. The Decision Document will recom- mend a long-term aviation strategy for the Twin Cities, and lay out the key data and analysis and reasons for the recommenda- tions. This document will be presented to the Minnesota Legislature in early 1995. The draft document fulfills two purposes: 1) To identify the key questions and issues that will need to be addressed in the Decision Document so that research and studies yield information helpful in making recommendations; 2) To make sure that the key factors in recommending a strategy are addressed and all relevant information is summarized in one document for public review and debate. The document outline identifies and describes eight potential issues relevant to the final decision: airport operations, ground access, air service, environmental, economic development, regional and community impact, financial and strategic. SCHEDULE NEW AIRPORT SITE SELECTION STUDY Public Meeting Tuesday, Sept. 1, 7 p.m. Rosemount High School Student Center 3335 142nd Street West Rosemount MSP RE -USE STUDY Public Information Meetings Monday, Aug. 31, 7-9 p.m. Eagan City Council Chambers 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan Thursday, Sept. 3, 7-9 p.m. Richfield City Council Chambers 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS DECISION DOCUMENT Public Hearings Tuesday, Sept. 22, 7-9:30 p.m. Rosemount High School Student Center 3335 142nd Street West Rosemount Wednesday, Sept. 23, 7-9:30 p.m. Richfield High School Auditorium 7001 Harriet Avenue South Richfield METRO COUNCIL TO CONDUCT INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS AUG. 31 AND SEPT. 3 ON THE MSP AIRPORT RE -USE STUDY The Metropolitan Council will conduct two public information meetings Aug. 31 and Sept. 3 on the Minneapolis -St. Paul (MSP) International Airport Re -Use Study. The meetings will be held in Eagan and Richfield (see schedule). The MSP Re -Use Task Force, a Council group which was formed in October 1991, is planning to make recommendations to the Council by October 1992 on the possible re- use of the current airport. "The planning process has included test- ing and debating the merits of a series of alternative future scenarios for the site," says John Kari, Senior Planner, Metropolitan Council, "each of which was based on a com- munity value." According to Kari, the strategy for pro- jecting re -use options for the site is to pro- vide a set of "performance criteria" which can serve as a framework to guide specific re -use plans as they are developed. These performance criteria define the essential characteristics and priorities for any redevelopment strategy and include physical, cultural, historic and environmental attributes. In addition, there are two types of implementation criteria - economic and legal. For further information on the study, please call the Metropolitan Council at 291- 8140 for a free publication entitled "MSP International Airport Re -Use Study: Interim Working Papers Summary." ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD TO ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR MINNESOTA EIS ADEQUACY FOR DUAL TRACK PROCESS The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) will assume responsibility for deter- mining adequacy on the final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Dual Track Planning Process. The Metropolitan Airports Commission, which is required to prepare the environmen- tal documentation related to the potential decision for the Dual Track Airport Planning Process, had requested EQB's involvement. "Because this is a major step in the over- all environmental process," says Nigel Finney, MAC Deputy Executive Director, Environment and Planning, "the Commission requested the EQB to assume this responsibility. With the State's primary agency making the adequacy determination, MAC will not be in a position of evaluating its own work. This should lend added assur- ance that the environmental analysis will be thorough and complete." The EIS will compare the selected new airport site and plan, the selected existing airport development plan, and the "no -build" alternative. The MAC will provide financial assis- tance for the additional resources EQB will need to enable it to adequately monitor and participate in the Dual Track process and environmental review. For the federal environmental review process, MAC continues to work closely with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Dual Track Update is published by the Metropolitan Airports Commission in an effort to provide information on the Dual Track Airport Planning Process. Please forward any questions or comments to Jenn Unruh at 726-8189. Metropolitan Airports Commission y r r R - � — - , •6040 28th Avenue South � .F AUG21'a2Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450 _ ® .t?.. 9 683,574 �s T Mr. ..'?ePhall Jilk 1 Ci ty Administrator CITY O �'OS MC'UNT P C1. iyoy 5!0 i RocGlitount• Mics 55LA68 i Printed on Recycled Paper METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION T,5 S<Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport r t 6040 - 28th Avenue South MN 55450-2799 a z Phone. (612) 726-8100 • Fax (612) 726-5296 o - PUBLIC HEARING NEW AIRPORT SITE SELECTION The Metropolitan Airports Commission is currently in the initial phases of the site selection process for a new airport located in the Dakota Search Area designated by the Metropolitan Council in late 1991. The initial phase of this effort consists of developing a set of criteria which will determine which portions of the search area are suitable for airport development. A Public Hearing will be held to discuss the Site Identification Criteria on Tuesday, September 1, 1992, at 7:00 p.m. at the Rosemount High School Student Center, 3335 142nd Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota. A copy of the Site Identification Criteria is attached; additional copies can -be obtained by calling Jenn Unruh at the MAC at 726-8189. The Metropolitan Airports Commission is on rilfirrnatice action employer. Rehp%pr Airpuris: AIRLAKE • ANOKA COUNTY ELAINE • CRYSTAL 0 FL1 IV ; CI Ot'D • LAKE F.I IO 0 SAINT PACT DO%%'\'I'O\y\ SITE IDENTIFICATION CRITERIA For the purposes of this site selection study, the airport is defined as the operational area (runways and taxiways), terminal area, circulation roadways, cargo area, support facilities, and land required for Federal Runway Protection Zones (RPZ's). In order to treat each site equally, a "conceptual" airport 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 Conceptual Design Study and Plan" and portrays the airport in its year 2020 configuration. The conceptual layout encompasses approximately 13,000 acres. Additional protection for State Safety Zones and for compatible land use could result in a total area 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 and 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 "potential" 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 potential sites: 1. Airport runways, taxiways and other facilities must be contained within the Search Area; 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 capability of the Conceptual Layout Design. For site identification purposes, rotation of the runway system as a complete 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 an northwest -southeast alignment. Potential sites may not have more than 50 percent of their land area in common with another site unless either there is at least a twenty -degree difference in the alignment of their main runways or they are mirrored layouts. Revised June 30, 1992 4. No site may be considered which places airport facilities in areas of extensive wetlands. This criterion recognizes the importance of minimizing the environmental consequences to these important biotic communities. The wetlands 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 ground facilities (terminal, cargo, etc.) located in floodways. This criterion recognizes the regulatory difficulties in building structures in a floodway. 6. Avoid physical features not compatible with aircraft overflight (specifically avoid overflights 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 dose an obstruction probleiii for the navigable airspace. in addition, smoke stacks within the refinery occasionally emit steam and flames that may pose a hazard to air navigation. Revised June 30, 1992 NOTICE OF Metropolitan Council/Metropolitan Airports Commission PUBLIC HEARINGS to receive comments on the draft report, Twin Cities Aviation Strategy An Outline of a Decision Document for the Dual -Track Major Airport Strategy -over- PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION When/Where: Tuesday, Sept. 22, 7 pm Rosemount High School Student Center 3335 142nd St. W. Rosemount When/Where: Wednesday, Sept. 23, 7 pm Richfield High School Auditorium 7001 Harriet Av. S. Richfield How to Participate: 1. You may attend one or both of the hearings and offer comments. To register in advance to speak, please call Jenn Unruh at the Metropolitan Airports Commission at 726-8189. 2. You may send a letter with comments, which must be received no later than 5- p.m., Oct. 7, 1992, to: Nigel Finney, deputy executive director - planning and environment Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 - 28th Av. S. Minneapolis, MN 55450 or John Kari, senior planner Metropolitan Council 230 E. 5th St. St. Paul, MN 55101 Copies: Free copies of the public hearing draft may be obtained from the Metropolitan Council's Data Center by calling 291-8140 or from the Metropolitan Airports Commission by calling Jenn Unruh at 726-8189. Questions: Call Jenn Unruh at the Metropolitan Airports Commission (726-8189) or Donna Mattson at the Metropolitan Council (291-6493). July 1992 METROPOLTTAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION 6040 - 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Mears Park Centre, 230 E Fifth St. St.. Paul, MN 55101 612 291-6359 Metropolitan Council Publication No. 559-92-044 CONTENTS Preface.......................................................... ....'it L DUAL -TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS ................................ 1 II. CHOOSING AN AVIATION STRATEGY FOR THE TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA ... 3 III. DECISION DOCUMENT .......................... ........... ......... 6 Outline of Decision Document ........... ....... ......... . • • • • • • • • • . • • 6 Decision Factors & Data and Analysis ...... 7 Decision Factor: Investment Assessment .............................. 7 Decision Factor: Air Service Quality ................................. 8 Decision Factor: Regional Economic Impacts .......................... 9 Decision Factor: Regional and Community Impacts ..................... 10 Decision Factor: Environmental Effects .............................. 11 DecisionFactor: Financial Issues ................................... 12 Regional Strategic Concerns ........................................ 13 Preface This public hearing draft document suggests the outline for a joint final airport planning and development report ("DECISION DOCUMENT") of Metropolitan Council (Council) and Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) to the Minnesota Legislature on the "dual -track" major airport planning process in 1995 or 1996. The DECISION DOCUMENT report is required by state law (MS473.618 Airport Planning and Development Report): "WITHIN 180 DAYS AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ACTIONS REQUIRED BY SECTION 473.616, SUBDIVISION 3, THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND THE AIRPORTS COMMISSION SHALL REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE ON THE LONG-RANGE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OF MAJOR AIRPORT FACILITIES IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA. THE REPORT MUST INCLUDE THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE AGENCIES ON MAJOR AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA FOR A PROSPECTIVE 30 -YEAR PERIOD AND ON ACQUIRING A SITE FOR A MAJOR NEW AIRPORT. THE REPORT MUST INCLUDE AN ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT OF A NEW AIRPORT ON PRESENT AND PROPOSED FACILITIES AT THE EXISTING AIRPORT AND ON THE LOCAL, REGIONAL, AND STATE ECONOMIES. THE REPORT MUST CONTAIN THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE AGENCIES ON FINANCIAL PLANNING AND FINANCING FOR A MAJOR NEW AIRPORT, INCLUDING: COST; COST ALLOCATION; AMORTIZATION OF MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS AT THE EXISTING AIRPORT BEFORE A TRANSFER OF OPERATIONS; FINANCING METHODS AND SOURCES OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FUNDS; LEASE AGREEMENTS AND USER CHARGES AT A NEW AIRPORT; AND A METHOD OF CAPTURING FOR PUBLIC USES A PORTION OF THE REVENUE FROM DEVELOPMENT AROUND A NEW AIRPORT." The DECISION DOCUMENT will recommend a long-term aviation strategy for the Twin Cities, and lay out the key data and analysis and reasons for the recommendations. This public hearing draft document fulfills two purposes for the Council and MAC: • The first is to identify the questions and key issues that will need to be addressed in the Decision Document so the research and studies undertaken during the next phase of the dual -track planning process yield information helpful in making the key recommendations in the DECISION DOCUMENT. • The second purpose is to make sure that all the key factors in recommending a strategy are, in fact, addressed and all relevant information is summarized and extracted in one document for public review and debate. This outline identifies and describes seven important factors. People are encouraged to review them and suggest others. ii DUAL -TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS Under the Metropolitan Airport Planning Act of 1989 (MS 473.155 and 473.616-619), the Metropolitan Council (Council) and the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) are required to, make recommendations to the legislature about how to meet the long-term aviation needs of the Twin Cities Area. A six-year time frame was established to complete the dual -track airport planning effort. The tracks are on a parallel timeline. Under one track, the MAC was to prepare a plan for the possible expansion of Minneapolis -St. Paul (MSP) International Airport. A concept plan, MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan, was adopted by the MAC in November 1991. Under the second track, the Council was to designate a "search area" for a possible replacement airport. A`search area in east -central Dakota County was selected by the Council in December 1991. The next steps in the planning involves environmental, economic, community impact and other studies for both tracks (see Figure 1). An update of the MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan is expected to be completed in 1994. In 1994 the MAC will have selected a site within the much larger search area for a new airport and will have a development plan for a new airport. The MAC will lead the new airport planning effort, though the Council will conduct some of the land use and economic impact studies. In addition, by the end of 1992 the Council must prepare a plan for how MSP can be re -used if a replacement airport is constructed. The overall purpose of the dual -track approach is to conduct studies that will give the region - and the Minnesota Legislature -- information to compare the option of expanding the current airport with the option of building a new airport in a new location. The major planning activities for 1992 to 1995/1996 period are shown in Figure 1. In addition, the Council, the MAC and a 15 -member Contingency Planning Committee are annually monitoring trends in the growth in airport passengers and freight travel, the economy of the region, and changes in the airline industry, among others, to see if the trends mean changes should be made to the dual -track approach. The annual monitoring will also give the region the best and most current information on which to base the decisions which will be made in 1995 or 1996. 1 I MSP LONG TEAM COMP. PLAN I MAC. NOV.1991 I I FIGURE 1 DUAL -TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS SUMMARY NEW AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT SITEILAYOUf SITE LAYOUT SWIPING POfENMI. few ��'*APRIL LAYOUT/ COMP. MANS M� COMP. PINS SCOPING RPL SDO PUBLICMIGS EIsCOFING [ PHASE PUBLIC MIGS APPoL.1992 MSP DEVELOPMENT UPDATE AI20 r FORECASTS AM 1993 AEO.AMrnative Environmental Document SO.ScooingCocw w OS00. Draft Scoping Decision 0ocuffW SOD.Swpinq Detislon0ocumert MAC.Mtlrop=AirportsCa Rasion MC . Metropolitan Council FM. Federal Av iation Administration FINAL MD. SELECT NEW AIRPORT20M COW. PIAN MAC. JAN 1901 MSP SCOPING E55COP1NG MSPO FAEO, REPORT, SOD AEO,MFr SELECTIHALMSP PUBLIC UP W. WIGSMAC IGS fEls HRNG PLAN E7�S or MAC. JAN 1991 EIS tVAIINTE E55COP1NG DRKT SPATE AIRPORT SELECT fFDERAL fFDERAI FCEDPOOf SDd06DD. PUBLIC fEls E7�S or ALTEItNATN6 PUBLIC MiGS MAC NftlG DOCUMENT DE MARCH, 199/ • 19m IMC. MC MK FAA FAA WACK Ims LEGISLAM CHOOSING AN AVIATION STRATEGY FOR THE TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA By 1996, the Minnesota State Legislature will select a long-term aviation strategy for the Twin Cities Area and for the state. The MAC and Council are following an accelerated planning schedule which will result in a final report for legislative consideration in 1995. This ambitious schedule represents a goal of the agencies to address concerns raised because of the uncertainty that exists for persons potentially impacted by the development of MSP or a new airport. Overall, the legislature and the citizens of the Twin Cities and the state, need to be in a position to respond to two questions: • First, will the region need to make significant investment for additional runway(s) and terminal capacity (concourses, gates) during the next 25-30 years (2020) or can the region meet expected demand for air service with only modest investments and improvements to facilities at MSP? • Second, if significant investment and additional capacity is needed, where should the region make those investments -- at MSP or at a new commercial airport in Dakota County? The MAC and Council 1989 forecasts show that demand will probably outpace existing capacity by early in the next century requiring significant investment for capacity improvements. The long term forecasts for 2020 will be updated in 1993 and used to determine facility requirements. These facility requirements will be the basis for comparable master plans for both MSP and potential new airport. The decisions on where and how best to meet future air transportation demand in the region will take into account how each option will provide air service in terms of physical facilities, operational efficiency and flexibility, and safety. In addition, the comparison of the options will need to include cost, economic, community, regional development and environmental impacts. The DECISION DOCUMENT should extract the information and analysis of the dual -track studies in a manner so that the differences, similarities and contrasts between the potential public policy options can be more readily seen and highlighted. To date seven factors have been identified in the 1991 annual contingency planning assessment report as important for making choices among the options - - expand MSP, build a new airport, and do nothing. These factors are as follows: • Investment Assessment • Air Service Quality a Regional Economic Impacts 3 • Regional and Community Impacts • Environmental Effects • Financial Issues • Regional Strategic Concerns The information in the DECISION DOCUMENT will be organized like a scorecard (Figure 2). Each option will be evaluated and graded for a series of analysis topics for each of the factors. There will be a concise write-up for each topic and an overall summary for each topic by policy option. At this time the focus should be on whether or not more factors should be added or if some should be eliminated and combined with others. A similar critique should also be done concerning the analysis topics. It should be expected, however, that as the dual -track studies are completed additional analysis topics may be added and existing ones dropped. The focus should be on making an evaluation of the policy options and highlighting those topics and factors that will help move the public debate to a decision. Are any important areas missing? An open question at this time is how the comparison will be made. Should an overall average be the yardstick? Should some factors be weighted more highly than others? 4 FIGURE 2 DRAFT SCORECARD FOR EVALUATING DUAL -TRACK POLICY OPTIONS DECISION FACTORS INVESTMENT ASSESSMENT Net Capacity Cost Effectiveness Costs/Benefits Risk of Low Return Social Cost/Benefit AIR SERVICE Level of Service Fares Hubbing International System Integration ECONOMIC IMPACTS Short Term Long Term Improved Economic Structure REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY IMPACTS Airport Environs Infrastructure Implications Accessibility ENVIRONMENTAL Natural Noise/Overflight Indirect (air quality, etc.) Ability to Mitigate FINANCIAL ISSUES Feasibility Effect on Regional Finance Effect on Airlines Effect on Region STRATEGIC CONCERNS Technical Flexibility Economic Flexibility Vision of the Region Technology Political/institutional THE SCORECARD The scorecard above summarizes the kind of information needed to evaluate the aviation options and to select the most suitable aviation strategy. This scorecard, or one like it, serves two purposes. It helps explicitly identify the data needed for an informed decision. Much of this data can be distilled into one summary statistic in the social cost/benefit analysis. However, the scorecard can also help evaluate single factors that are especially important and/or consider factors that may be impossible to put a dollar figure on for inclusion in the summary cost/benefit analysis. 5 DECISION DOCUMENT OUTLINE OF DECISION DOCUMENT A proposed outline for the Decision Document is shown in the Figure 3. The executive summary will highlight the major findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Council and the MAC. The second section will summarize the dual -track metropolitan airport planning process from 1989 to 1995/1996. The third and largest section will summarize data and analysis. The long-term forecasts of aviation activity and the major underlying assumptions will begin this section. The remaining part of this section will summarize the data and analysis of the dual track studies. This information will be organized under the seven decision factors. An initial set of questions to be addressed by the data and analysis is discussed below. The final three sections will include findings, conclusions and recommendations. DUA L -TRACK DECISION DOCUMENT Part I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Major Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations Part II DUAL -TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS Part III DUAL -TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING -- SUMMARY OF DATA & ANALYSIS A. Long -Range Forecasts of Aviation Activity B. Decision Factors & Data and Analysis • Investment Assessment Air Service Quality • Regional Economic Impacts • Regional and Community Impacts • Environmental Effects • Financial Issues • Regional Strategic Concerns C. Decision Scorecard Part IV FINDINGS Part V CONCLUSIONS Part VI RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE C DECISION FACTORS & DATA AND ANALYSIS DECISION FACTOR: INVESTMENT ASSESSMENT The primary policy concern is to have adequate capacity to meet the air transportation needs. The existence of a full range of aviation services is central to the long-term economic and social well-being of the Metropolitan Area. In the planning and development of airport facilities, it is not unusual to have long lead times between project identification and project construction and operation. This situation requires looking out long-term and recognizing the potential risks. The key issues for major airport investment decisions involve how effective and flexible an option is in meeting the future capacity objectives, the relationship between costs and benefits and what the relative risks of making investments too soon or too late. Analysis Topic: Net Capacity • How much capacity and flexibility for expansion in relationship to the forecasted demand does the option provide? • What are the assumptions regarding technology for each option and their impact on net capacity? Analysis Topic Cost Effectiveness • Does the option provide capacity at a reasonable cost per passenger or per flight --that is, is it cost-effective? • What is the cost per operation of each option at different levels of activityldemand? What is the cost in future years if demand and airport use increase? Analysis Topic: Costs/Benefits • Do the benefits of the option justify the costs of the project? Analysis Topic: Risk of Low Return • What is the risk of low return for each option? Is this acceptable or not? • What is the risk of being wrong, of having too much or too little capacity? • What will it cost if the region guesses high or low -- what are the financial and economic penalties if there is not enough activity to cover operating costs and debt service and what if there is not -enough capacity that leads to unacceptable delays, perhaps even a limit on air traffic? Analysis Topic: Social Cost/Benefits • What are the costs of aircraft noise and traffic on the well being of nearby residents • Do the social benefits and costs of the option justify the costs of the project? 7 DECISION FACTOR: AIR SERVICE QUALITY How good should the quality of air service be for the Twin Cities Region and the State of Minnesota as provided by the major commercial airport? Aviation goals call for the major airport to provide a high level air service for the residents and businesses in the Twin Cities Area, the state and the upper midwest region it serves. The airport facilities and services should enhance and maintain the Twin Cities as a major hub airport in the national system, maintain and increase the frequency of service and nonstop access to major national and regional markets, promote and facilitate the expansion of direct international service, promote air cargo goods movement to regional, national and international markets. Analysis Topic: Level of Service • What is the range of choices available to passengers under each option -- scheduling and cities served by nonstop and direct flights. • How will cargo demand be affected by the airport option's capacity, distance from regional business centers or by passenger services? • What impacts will technological advances and substitutions for air travel have? Analysis Topic: Fares • What is the range of choices available to passengers under each option -- fare levels? Analysis Topic: Hubbing • How well will the options maintain and enhance the Twin Cities area as an airline hub? Analysis Topic: International • What is the range of choices available to passengers under each option -- breadth of international service? Analysis Topic: System Integration • What facilities and improvements are committed and/or planned at competitive airports (such as Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis, Denver)? • What are the potential changes in the airline industry and what are their likely impacts on the Twin Cities? 0 What is the current role and what future role could the regional reliever airports play? DECISION FACTOR: REGIONAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS Air service plays an important role in fostering regional economic prosperity. The aviation industry provides the region with accessibility to and from other parts of the United States and the world. It is a major force in the regional economy. The key economic questions involve what airport investments will do in the short term, over the long-term and how will they affect regional economic growth and development patterns. Analysis Topic: Short Term • How do the options differ in their short-term relocation and employment effects? Do they differ in their long-term impact on regional growth and stability? Analysis Topic: Long Term • What kind of changes are likely in the level and character of economic activity fostered by each option for region and state. • Where within the region will new businesses be likely to locate under each option? Analysis Topic: Improved Economic Structure • What kinds of businesses will be attracted and how will they affect local employment residential patterns, income, character and quality of life? • Who benefits and who is burdened by each option? • Overall, how well do these economic changes support the long-term goals of the Twin Cities region and the state? G� DECISION FACTOR: REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY IMPACTS How will the airport options impact people, communities and regional land use and development patterns? Although it may be difficult to attach dollar values to these types of impacts, the influence that airport operations (on-site employment, aircraft operations, passengers, freight, etc.) and related infrastructure (highways, public utilities, etc.) have investment they must be considered in evaluating the options. Analysis Topic: Airport Environs • What changes would be set in motion by each option and how would the options affect the surrounding community and the region as a whole in terms if land use and development patterns? • -What are the land -use implications of these effects on various parts of the region? What happens to business activity if only modest changes are made at MSP? • How will the provision of air cargo affect future land use patters, the mix of cargo and passenger demand and, ultimately, air service quality? • What is the current and anticipated use of land adjacent to the airport= agricultura4 residentia4 commercial; industrial? • How will the land area needed for expansion be acquired and who would be affected? Analysis Topic: Infrastructure Implications • What is the adequacy of the infrastructure for projected land uses. • Will more investment in local transportation infrastructure be needed to satisfy aviation - stimulated growth? Analysis Topic: Accessibility • -What are the travel distances and travel times for the options from various major activity centers in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area and cities in Greater Minnesota? 10 DECISION FACTOR: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS Airport development and operation, whether at the existing airport or at a new site, will involve have environmental impacts which will need to be addressed. These impacts will be both on- and off-site and will effect the natural and man-made environments. What are the type and magnitude of environmental impacts and can identified adverse impacts be mitigated? Analysis Topic. Natural • What, and how critica4 are the environmental implications of each option? What is the impact on the natural environment --wildlife, wetlands, river and groundwater quality. How does the community evaluate these effects? Analysis Topic: Noise/Overflight • What are the noise and overflight effects. How do residents feel about these annoyances? Analysis Topic: Indirect (air quality, etc.) • Will airport -based and induced ground transportation significantly affect air quality? Analysis Topic: Ability to Mitigate • Is mitigation possible? How much will it cost? 11 DECISION FACTOR: FINANCIAL ISSUES Is financing likely to be a constraint in the ability to generate sufficient funds to implement the desired aviation strategy? The key financial issues need to address basic project feasibility and the ability of the public and the airlines/airport users to cover annual debt and operating costs. Major airport improvements will be staged over time and supported by a combination sources (federal grants, user fees and charges, revenue bonds and general obligation revenue bonds). Analysis Topic. Feasibility • What is the financial feasibility of the options? • What are the costs and cost allocation requirements of the options? • What are the potential financing methods and sources of public and private funds? Analysis Topic: Effect on Regional Finance • What will the financial impact be on the region? • What revenue sources are available to fund each option? • What will the effect of airport financing on regional or community bond ratings? • How do the options compare in their impacts on regional/local government finances? • What method for capturing revenue from development around a new airport could be used for public purposes? What role should fiscal disparities play? Analysis Topic: Effect on Airlines • What will the financial effect be on airlines with each option (lease agreements, user charges and fees) ? Analysis Topic. Effect on the Region • What will be the financial impact on the typical resident of the Twin Cities and the typical business? 12 DECISION FACTOR: STRATEGIC CONCERNS No matter how well it appears to satisfy currently estimated needs, the aviation plan will succeed only if it is implemented in a form that satisfies future needs. No one evaluating the options now can predict the future with precision. Circumstances are bound to change. New technology may be introduced, aviation and economic development in general may take a slightly different path, or new socio-political forces may emerge. The flexibility of each option may provide an important hedge against uncertainty. The viability of the aviation strategy may critically depend on its ability to adapt to change and unforeseen events. Financial flexibility fosters greater efficiency and helps keeps costs to a minimum. At the same time, the chosen option must be able to fit in with regional plans and objectives. If the project fits in well with public objectives -- the vision of the region -- or is easily adapted to support those objectives, it is more likely to garner the support needed for successful implementation. There are potential implementation roadblocks facing each option and they may differ because each option affects different populations, interests groups and economic interests, or affects a given interests differently. Analysis Topic. Technical Flexibility • Can engineering design be altered during the construction phase to fit changed circumstances? Is it possible to stage development differently or shift development schedules? • Can the finished airport be adapted to respond to shifts in the composition of aviation demand (for example, a shift from regional to cargo air service)? Analysis Topic: Economic Flexibility • Can financial arrangements can be adapted to changes in financial markets, local debt situations, or cash outflow. Analysis Topic: Vision of the Region • How well does each option fit into the overall development strategy for the region as articulated in the Council's policy plans? Analysis Topic. Technology • What technological improvements and changes are expected? • How might they impact the need for air transportation or improve the capability of existing air transportation investments? Analysis Topic. Political/Institutional • What are the political and institutional issues faced by each option? 13 SOAR Fall Calendar: 1992 Inside: Important Fall Meetings: Your Last Chance! Thanks to SOAR's 1992 Contributors Update on SOAR Activities We Need YOU! This bulletin is provided by Stop Our Airport Relocation, Inc., a private 501c4 non-profit organization. SOAR can be reached by calling 612-891-9241 or writing SOAR, PO Box 82, Rosemount, MN 55068. Want more information about who to vote for in November? SOAR is sending out a candidates survey for the purpose of compiling results in a report to members. We'll let the candidates' own views speak for themselves -- and you be the judge. Expect this in October. SOAR, Inc. PO Box 82 Rosemount, AlN 55068 Watch the next SOAR newsletter for Hugh, SOAR's newest member. Hugh is a year-old barn owl who moved to the Carpenter Nature Center in Hastings last month to help educate young and old alike about the wildlife residing in Dakota County. The only known nesting of barn owls in Minnesota is in the middle of the search area; the possibility of more owls will become known through the Biological Survey. SOAR is sponsoring Hugh as part of our growing community education program. If you would be interested in sponsoring Hugh for a month -- or more -- please call Jim Wollmering at 437-6534 or leave a message at the SOAR number. We would be happy to provide details about the program upon request to interested sponsors. THANKS! SOAR Treasurer Jim Wollmering and the entire Board thanks these generous people who make our programs possible: Andrew & Mary Rother Mrs. Elvina Bauer Lawrence J. Loonis Donald Beissel Mrs. Emma Siebenaler Greg & Kate Ries Bette & Rob Behlke Michael Wittrock Wollmering Family Trust Mark Wilmering Marian A. Stenzel Nick & Karen Wayslik Mr. & Mrs. Lawrence Brochman Mr. & Mrs. Bernard Bauer M.L. Siebanaler Douglas Webster Jervis Stoffel Leroy Wagner Robert & Janice Johnson Allan & Brenda Swanson Cindy Jesberger Dave Ehrhardt Bill Bauer Frank Kasel Bill Sell Fran Teuber Ratgen House Account Mr. & Mrs. G.E. Stelzel Mr. & Mrs. Ray Brochman Thomas Smith Harlan Harris Greg & Marie Wollmering O.J. Doyle, Jr. Geo & Cherry Fitzgerald Mary M. Wollmering Roger & Pat Fox Fay & Dennis Wallin William & Cheryl Raway Norma Marsh Richard Tomassoni Patricia Johnson Cathy Dickman Dan & Carol May Leo & Rosalie Bauer George & Marguerita Marschall Jan & Ruthann Haines Peter & Kristi Lawless Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Nesbitt Kathleen & Roger Riedl Rod & Joanne Olson Karen L. Mogen Rue Boykin Carl &Jill Marhauer Ayrol & Verna Rolf Clifford & Barbara Moen John & Joan Conzemius Joseph & Pamela Harris Jacob & Betty Girgen Edward Deutschmann Agnes Fitch Kobierowski Terry & Renee Hartman Joseph Wollmering Cori & Eric Benson Ambrey & Sharon Gartner Milton & Anne Ulmer Michael & Rebecca Creglow Jerome & Joanne Dempsey John & Leona Schutt George Johnson Carla Griebel Margaret Kordsmeyer Mr. & Mrs. Herb Kimmes Frank Hegedus Kathie Majeski Larry Paulson Gale & Judy Konrp Frances Szczesniak John Hage Gus & Helen Heinold Mark Lundberg David Housker Francis & D. Trost Ron & Jeanne Mammer Leo & Ruth Girgen Gordy & GiGi Gerlach David& Krystal Thomson Merlin & Kay Leine Arlo & Jeanette Finney Rogert & Larene Kerr Gary & Jane Swanson John A. Neisen Don Bahis John Bahis Ada M. Saufferer Patrick & Mary Regan Harry & Marie Jensen William May, Jr. S. Dakota Co. Sportsmen's Club Northwest Airlines, Inc. Ger-Bes Enterprises Hastings Farm Service Homestead Apiaries Fluegel Elevator Caturia Funeral Home Stage Coach Express, Inc. Vermillion State Bank Dakota Co. Taxpayers Association Law Offices of H.P. Schoen Dakota Co. Farm Bureau Peine Plumbing & Heating Kasel's Fairway Foods Caturia Interiors Keith Horsch Ins. Agency Schmidtke Fuels, Inc. 1st State Bank of Castle Rock Controlled Air, Inc. P.H. Feely & Son, Inc. Jacques Seed Co. Joe's Auto Sales Ginther's Repair 1st Bank of Rosemount Carlson Tractor & Impl. Genz & Ryan Jensen Associates Bailey Nurseries, Inc. Treat Truck Alexis Bailly Vineyard Angell's Greenhouse Bahis Motor & Impl. Beskau Trucking Big Daddy's Carroll's Antiques City Limits Lanes Corcoran Equip & Appls. Corrigan Electric Don't Super Valu Emily's Bakery Fancy That F F S - Mark Wollmering Hastings Co-op Creamery House of Coates Joanne's Beauty Solon Just Thinking Book Store Larry's Standard Local Oil Co. Loch's Pharmacy Master Transmission Napa Auto Parts Polka Dairy Inc. Rother Machine Sears of Hastings Tom's Super Valu Stin Haus Werner Implement Wiederholt's Super Club Zephyr Cleaners Major In -Kind Donors Fredrickson & Byron, Carroll Law Firm Jim & Judy Wollmering Wustenberg Consulting Drewry Communications Joan & Jim Ryan Gloria & Ron Pinke Nic Leifeld Greg Fox Rep. & Mrs. Dennis Ozment Dennis Ozment Sheila Klassen Stephen Jilk Mayor Mike Werner KDWA-Hastings And a special thanks to SOAR's many volunteers and committee members. Metropolitan Airports Commission SOUND INSULATION PROGRAM OFFICE AND DEMONSTRATION HOUSE The Sound Insulation Program Office and Demonstration House is located at 6314 Standish Avenue South in Richfield near the end of one of the airport's busiest runways. The home is owned by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and will be used by the Center for Energy and the Urban Environment (CEUE) as the program office. Three rooms have been sound insulated, with one of these rooms designed to be a "quiet room". The rest of the home was left as is. People are able to walk from room to room and compare the different sound levels. The Demonstration House office phone is 348-9337. The Demonstration House visitor hours are: Mondays 11:00 a. in. to 7.-00 p. m. or call 348-3997 for Tuesdays 9.00 a. m. to 4:00 p. m. an appointment Location Principles of sound insulation Noise enters a house in two ways: Information Program Office 348-9337 MAC 726-8100 1) Noise is airborne. Open windows are obvious examples, but noise can enter through even the smallest cracks. Acoustical caulks, sealants and special weatherstripping keep the new windows, doors walls and ceilings very tight. Air conditioning ducts have been baffled. A House Doctor crew has tested the house to make sure there is adequate ventilation. 2) Noise is structure -borne. Sound will cause a structure to vibrate. This vibration will transfer the sound directly through a wall or roof, albeit in a diminished manner. Added mass in the form of additional sheetrock and acoustical windows with thicker panes of glass have been added to the acoustically treated rooms. This extra weight makes it harder for a wall or window to vibrated and pass noise through. 3) To make the transfer of structure -borne noise even more difficult, additional space between panes of glass and discontinuous construction (where a new wall and ceiling, separated by a gap, is built adjacent to the existing structure) are featured in the dining "quite" room. _ POoCil QD M @ IT OR AIT 0 QD Co -ibW NSTA 'IT QVINCa T{DONL TaagA ii The 0errbn5h2a1i0V1 Nouse has +HRee room$ that have been sound irtsu(afed. The rest o(^ -Fhe kbuse has no+ had special acbusfi'ca1 woRK UP ENTRY clone but S}i l I �rov� des arzounot a 29 d gR CA wei h}cd decibets closest to huma4,1 gA7� c�Er heaR vn) Horse ►eVel reductbi- mow wrz{ g o t5_tdP�A-.- r A meosuReol o(Atside, it fiakcs a • lodBA CIR°p O zovvE� 0 Cu+ f+)e pe(2cei ved Ylol Se [r) h8 l -p. Dow N 51'A 1 RS DEN - New ST -C- 37 �-� MASTERIn- Wihdow54 solid Com evrtRy door a� O Oo Q�oo Q�QD The Quiet Room has been designed t achieve the highest tevets 4 noise r'L-du +ion, I+ -PeafuRes J -he 4: howl ng s • New (�eesi'andtn5o wall and Ceilii W I* 2 new l ayeRS cF !V YM I bd • t3a(�'led � shielded AC ducf �n Ceil�� • New STC W window wi+j 5/rb" IaMim+ed 9I.Q55 and %4"�JQ+e 91Q-65 Se�,aR�*ea by d 4 ' aiiz Sfzx afR3 layerz of fy&" wall lana ad on irnside Walls and opRa5e Wall a l ono G STG 44 Yvihdow in rcom below aid Rig - ib"l. 15tts ih �laoR • New tolO cone woad evitlzy doQR 4VhJURUE uV1NU ECOM NeV,r sTC 44+ windoWsI second 51�d ina, 91ass CI oDR, 2 vrevu Solid cop, -e of ootz5. avid 2 new layeR.s 4 Y$"Uvail Vd. QUIET Room See detalk, below. 51"C. -Sound CIa55, The ,hiaolnerk V /"A j F�C�Y1 V, FOP Further Information m If you would like additional information `�° Metropolitan Airports Commission concerning the specifics of the Sound Insulation a Program, please call your city office or MAC's consulting firm, the Center for Energy and Urban D Environment (CEUE) - ph. 348-9337. o Z � m O Go — C1 BloomingtonPaPt 150 - z 5 c _cc 887-9636 o Ppo M Sound O Eagan - 681-4600 Insulallmon IM 0 Ppo9pam Mendota Heights - -1 1- i t- i1�... 452-1850 a�i _ M nneapolis ..t.... 673-2595 or 673-3192 Y Richfield 861-9716 A prf{grutn.vpou.wircl by the Aletcoplliturt ' I r Ah1wrtd C bmmLc.crrnl in woperation tt •r1h the cities q%Blnomhr gl xt, Eagan, Atendva Heights. +." + Al inneapolh. dilel Ri( field. Sound Insulation Program - An Overview A Sound insulation Program is being implemented in cities adjacent to hlinnealx>lis-St. Paul International Airport in an ellort to alleviate the impact of aircraft noise. The program involves modifying homes to reduce the amount of noise entering from the outside. 'i'hc Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) is working with Bloomington, Eagan, Mendota I leights, Minneapolis and Richfield in the design and implementation of tills Suuncl InSnlatiOn Program. Funding for this "Part 150 Airlxrrt Noise and land Ilse Compatibility Planning" program is being provided by both the Federal Aviation Administration (80 percent) and by MAC (20 percent). The program will begin in 1992 and is expected to continue'over the next several years. The FAA determines eligibility for the Sound Insulation Program according to the Ldn 65 (level clay/night) exterior noise contour. Each city is responsible for selecting and prioritizing which homes receive sound insulation and will notify MAC of the selections. Although homeowner participation in the program within this noise contour is not mandatory, it is encouraged. Description of the Sound Insulation Package Once a home has been designated for sound insulation, the degree of modifications will be determined by exterior noise level, construction type, and ratio of window/wall area. A recommended sound insulation modification package will be developed Ii,r each home within the Ldn 65 to 75 noise contours, with nNKlifications ranging from an additional 0-15 decibels of intloor/outo-imr noise reduction at a cost from $0- $25,000 leer home. The program goal is to reduce the average internal noise level to 45 decibels or less in habitable rooms directly exlxrsed to aircraft noise. This level has been established by federal guidelines. What Modifications Aire included? The nxxlifications in the sound insulation program arc primarily intprovcntents u, wimlows and dr,ors and the elimination ofair leaks into the home. Walls and ceilings in very high noise ,leas rna�- he wiufi,rced with additioml gypsum board. Air conditioning will he imchralcd if tic holm, clues nut have if. Changcs to rhe home will he handled iu a uniform manner consistent with the home's aesthetics. I )urimg const runt ion of t he sound insular ion modifications to each residence, the program will pay, and provide,mh li,r the following linishim}; work: • Walls and ceilings of treated rooms would he repainted either "off-white" or with at paint provideel by t he homeowner. • Surlaces modified or altered by the sound insulation construction would he restored with a finish surface of similar materials comparable to the surface prior to construction. Fur example, existing "sculptureel" surfaces would be rcl,Iastcred. • All moldings would he rcplaccd. • Any exterior stucco and window trim would be replaced and repainted if necessary. There will be .t $25,000 cap on sound insulation modification work to be done on it single residencc. The homeowner will have the aibility to reject reconunemded sound insulation nx,chfication plans, as lung as the final insulation modifiratiun plan selemd A/.t mi /roc ib,ru 5 dreibr/.r of"noise reduction in any room directly exposed to aircraft noise. I lotneowners will have some limited ability to scic(t alternative nu,clifl(atirats to some di-ments, such as windows or walls, as long its adequate noise redaction is a(hieveel and costs do not increase. In the event homeowners want to upgrade to a higher level ofsound insulation or make other miscellaneous improvenu-nts, additional work (act he dune at the homeowner's expense as long as the proposed changes are consistent with the scope and character of the work being perfi,rmcd, Now the Program WoPks MA(:'s SOUnd Insulation Consultant'teatn will administer the sound insulation program simultaneously aunong the five eligible cities. This team will handle program management, engineering, quality control and supervision of the re•nuxleling contractors throughout this multi-year program. Program participants would sign an Avigational Release as a condition of participating in the program. The release waives legal claims against MAC regarding aircraft noise and vibration but is urn a lien or easement un the property. Eligible homeowners who grant an avigation release to MAC: would not he required to contribute toward the cost of the program, according to FAA guidelines. "Phase not granting such a release would he required to contribute 20 percent of the cast of mcKlifications to their home. Ac(ording to FAA guidelines, eligible homeowners who wish to remodel their homes prior to the availability of the program in their area will mot be reimbursed Irr construction casts, but would he provided construction guidelines, including somnd insulation technigttesand a list of approved material suppliers. Ineligible homeowners living outside the Ldn 65 noise contour who also wish to make sound insulation modifications at their awn expense will also be provided construction information upon request. 171 ! Jfo )� ,.t 1-1 ' .: P 11 i� f t I O -Z v. A j lose: �OMNI" I C _ Ri1Yi�� :..—. �,.. .. _ -_.. �,.:. ...� ..,nye. „. t .i. .,. $ ..� .. ��yy,, -,u ' ^ Y— ...� �. ,�" .�. 4'L tee: ._ TR<*Y�s (copied from Noise Footprint Map in Noise House on 815-92 by S. Klassen) Eligible Area * Virtually all homes within the outer ring will have their entire home (not just three rooms) sound insulated. * Air conditioning will be provided if you do not have it. * All work will be paid for. (8006 Fed, 20% MAC) * Work will begin next summer (1992) with homes closest to runway. * It will take several years to get to homes near the outer ring. * Eligible owners will be notified by mail.