The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11.a. Airport Adequacy Study Update � � . . . .. y. . . . � .� . . .. . � . . . � . . . � . P Q.f3C1X 5#Ei ��Z��1 U 2875-1g5TH ST. W �+ ��}�n �/ ROSEMOilNT. MtNPtESOTA 55Q8S _ OJ�7i`L0�/1�� 6t2—A23-4411 To: Mayor Hoke Councilmembers Napper Oxborough Walsh WiPAerman �_ Frorn: Stephan Ji1k, Administratar Dates September 29, 1988 Re: MSP Airport Adequacy Study Preliminary Report . I attended a meeting of the airport adequacy task force on Thursday, �he 29th of this month. The purpose of the meeting was to hear the final consultant' s report on the adequacy study and to draft a decisi.on strategy for compiling a final report to the full Metrapal.itan Council on this study. I have included the summary of that study for your review, and I w3.11 present a verbal report' as a briefing to you on the process and the next step in this process. I would suggest that any concerns you `have or questions you receive from the public an this matter, unt3.1 the final report comes out, be directed e3.ther to me or to the met council so that we don't: get off on a wi�.d tangent of concern over this before we can conti.nue(?) our eonfidence in the system. sm� Attachment �#.,. AF . . . . . . . � `.. �J • i � ,4; � � . . �� . . . � � . . � � � � . � � : � . ,r� ��:: . . . � . . � . . . . . . . _ ��t . F � �: � � . � � . � �� "�S . . . � . . . . . .. � . . s� . _ . . . . . . . . . . s;_, . . . . . . . � . . � . � . . � .� � � � � . . � � . . � � . � t . . . . . . . . . . . . .. � . .. � . . . . � � � � � � � . . . � �� . ... �:, . . � . � . . � . . � .. � . . . .. ,f � � � � . . . . � � . � .. �t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � . � � . � z� �r�-I L M r�r��c� ��o L l��,n�v c�o �J N c_� � r� �A ;: O I� ri�� I IJ �1'W I N ( � i'I'l i{l�, ,t { :, � , � x,� x MSi� t1II�i'()I�'l' t1I)I�,��L1�1(�'Y �;'l't ► i)�►' ; �� :: �F'�s' , i��{3 ��t.. � u� ��.� � � � � � � � � � � � � y�'a��: � ,. �� y., � EXECUTiVE SU(UIMARY - ��F , ,�x Sc�i�t,errihci• t �)�i�3 , ; . �t: �� y � � � � � � � � �� ,�; � �r� ; ['r r��t•c.`cl I;��: �: � .A.� Ai�{)(.I�,�; IZI�,SI�,�1,t�( ,II � - �t, T��o��1��;ori — Ili��l�li�� :t;� �� {�� t;�� , i�.f '1;' � � � �� ''I; f, �� . . . . . . . tr ..'i. � . . • . . � . �. . . � . . . . r � d � * ' `.3 �'. : f — � E3SECUTIVE SUMMARY 9' T11BLE OF CONTENTS ' Introduction . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 = s � � MSP Todav . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . 2 �. . � � Forecasts and Uncertaintv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 t? , . Base Case g Alternatives . . . � . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 ��,� : Development Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 � ,� � � � � r' I3enef it-Cost Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . 12 � �� Costs of Development . . . . . . . . . . . �, Benefits of Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Evaluation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 i Economic Imt�acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2?, Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,2 Finance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 7.5 5 � � � � �:� . �' ��:_ ��'fi.. � � � r�t zntroduction Aviation has long b�en the fastest growi.ng mocle aC ' �� tr�nsportatian. This grow�h has created economic and sc�Gial ��b�� bene€its for the nation as a whole as well as fQr virtual3y every ` ° j region. It also cre�tes problema. Some of the�e probl�ms are more �� r difficult to solv� than atherss reduc3.ng the nega�ive im�a�cts fram �� ' aircraft noise and frequent overflzghts, �or example. Others, sueh ��j � as how to cope with growing demand for air travel, are concepttaally a��, i easier to solve -- simp�.y add more rutiways! -- but face subst�nti�1 � � political, planning, engineerinq, and financial obstaGles. . ��; �: i: For decades, the U,S. airport system was blesseei w�th exr_Pss 1� capacity in most major cities. This enabled the system to at�sorb steady growth year a�ter year and was, in turn, a key faetor in encouraging su�h growth. Avi�tifln experts have been warninq f.�r � e some time that this period e�f easily av�ilah.le cap�r,i.ty w�s ah�ut to end. The Federal 1luiation ndmini.str�tion (F'11A) pst.i.mat�s t�h�tt enplanements will near.ly double by the t�arn c�f the c�ntury. M��t ; . f : i � .� p�� - • � ! �: , '� �k . �( . . � . � . {f{;, . � � � � ��. importantly, whi7.e the rapid rate of industry growth may sl.ow somewhat due to reduced competition brought on by r_ecent merqers and the searc}� for higher profits, the upward trend seems unlikely to change. The consequence is clear: current airport capacity problems will only be exacerbated. This problem is national in scope. The FAA predicts that by 1996, more than two dozen m�jo� `b , Y airports -- including Minneapolis-St. Paul �nternational �MSP} - , will face capaeity probiems. �. � _.:�. � � �� The public is increasingly aware of these p�ob3.ems. Airport �d � capacity problems receives front `��LL page attention in the nati�nal t�� ' press and, for the first time since the early i970s, new airports have been approved by voters in twa major cities -- Austin �nd �" Denver -- and shauld open their doars during the 1g9ps, �' ` ��i MSP Todav �i ,; ;��::. MSP is generally recognized as �n efficiently r_un commercial airport. Whether measured in terms of tQtal enplanements or annual 'N"' operations, it also ranks as one of the busier airports in the � nation. Primarily as a result of its emergeflee as a hub, growth of air traffie at MSP has ou�paeed �atianal trends, Nationally, for exampie, �nplanements rase by 28 percent between 198o and 1985. Over that same period at MSP, enplanements grew by 66 percent - £ more than twice the national average. Fi�ancial trends suqqest a ,k=' strong and stable financial presence. While cop3.ng with strong a' growth in traffie, the finartces o€ MSP have remained strong anc� even improved somewhat. , Even though delays are somewhat larger naw than in years past� many other airports face much more seriaus capacity anc� delay problems than does MSP. Given this, why is there �ny nee�t to even think about adding capacity today? First, the ,loncr lead time rec�uired to plan com�iex y infrastructure investmente and the need to d�v�lo a � � consensus before implementin ma ar � �a1�tica1 k ;; g i pub1iG ihvestment� means that � the regi.on must focus on the level of service that will be provided ten years, twenty years, ar even further in the future. �fi ; addition, the uncertainty surrounding the sp€�ed with which any complex public decision cah be made, adds even more lead time. Second, t�ecause cities and �rec�,ions cQm ete for jobs an,� economic growth, the ability to find effe�tive solution� to airport capacity problems ereates special appartunities for cammunities with be�ter foresiqht ,- and the ability to act on �his vision. Third, public warks play a key role i.n defining a regi_an's social and economic character and the quality of life tl�at it � offers its residents. Because af this role �n�I becai�sP of ain t airport's natural longevity, decisions should be made wi�:h � timP � ; ; r 1_ ' t f � � . � � . . � � �i�. � { . � � � �; horizon that measures in decades. � °` R � � = Forecasts and Uncertainty A key first step in determining the adequacy of any infrastructure syst�m is to forecast the expectec� level vf dem�nd. '' The MSP Adequacy Study explicitly recagnizes the unr.er.tainties th�t ,,� are part of any foreeast by using a family of tech»iques called �' risk assessment. These methods have been used to assess los�q-r�nge &�# capital investments by public agenGies and pri:vate firms alike. ` � Ay measuring the risks of each of the key factors that might �� {° influence a major investment decision and incorporating those risks ;�3 into the analysis, the resultant forecast does not offer a sin le `� "take it or leave it" answer. Rather, information can be presented r � that actually reflects the uncertainties involvec� -- and how they might influenee a �orecast. By expressing restalts in ter.m.s of. the probability of bei.nq able to meet a given Ievel af demanri, the ' public ean make a much mare 3.nfarmed deaision regarding how much capacity shauld be added and how soon. More than forty specific variables have been incorporated into , the ecc�namic risk assessment madel, including descriptions of. the metropolitan regian (futuze populatiQn, jobs) , of the afrline industry ,(size of aircraft, auerage fares, deg�ee af hubbinq at MSP ete. ) , alternative eapacity additians at MSP {new runways) and future improvements to air traffic- eontrol rul.es (independent parallel operations during poor weather being the mast importantj . �� ¢f � �s a result, the risk assessment does not resul�t in a single "best guess" estimate of future traffic, but rather shows the ' probability that traffic wi11 reach or exceed � givAn 1.�vel of ;: traffic. It thus offers a less simplistie but more realistic assessment of the future. From a poliey point of view, it pAx-mits .' specific co�sideration of the quality of service th�t the communfty g � ' wishes ta provide. For example, is an airpozt that is o»ly large ,P enough to offer a fifty perceht cha�ce of ineetinq future c�emand adequate? Or is an eighty percent target more appropr.iate? Tradeoffs among the level of service, the cast to provide that ' service, and the benefits from greater �ss��rance involve complex calculations as well as considerable value judgments. The farecasts show a very high probabil ity of strong cont i nt�eti grawth in aviation demand for the Metropalit�n RPqion. This iG n�t surprising given the continued economic grawth 3r1 �he reg{.on. There is a more than two-thirds chance that enpl�nements will increase by 50 percent or more within ten years (1998) to 12 million from roughly 8 rnillion tod�y {Tahl.e 1) . TwPntreasi_ng from naw, there is better than a one-thire� ch�nce that an�i�t em�nts will have doubled (exceeding 16 mil}.ion each ye.�r. ) �r��i an �t�4 . 3 � � � � percent chance that they wiil have doubled withfn thirty years. 4,, ,��, - TABLE 1 �;;; a,�-,: ,�� Likelihood of 50 Percent' Increase in Enp],anements Withins �� ; F�, Five Years . . . . . . 10 � Ten Years . . . . , . . 69 � Fifteen Years . . . . . 86 � -w Twenty Years . . . . , . 93 � Thirty Years . . . . . . 97 $ Likelihood of 100 Percent Increase in Enplanements Wi.thin: Five Years . . . . . . . � �; Ten Ye�rs . . . . . . 1 4k Fift�en Xears . . . . . 9 $ Twenty Years . . . . . 34 � Thirty Years . . . . . . 84 � The traffic forecasts used in this study have been linked closely to those deveZoped as part of the M5P Master Plan. Both the MAC Master P1an and the�Metropvlitan Cautteil �tudy �re b�sed on the same ecanometric equat.ions. Hoth sets of estimates, however, are iess than the recent hub foreeasts prepared by the FAA• The attached €igure campare� these three sets of estim�tes for future enplanements and for futnre operations at MSP. The grey band covers an area with roughly a two-thirds probability of including the actual future enplanemet�t level. The third Figure shows the probability that the level of enpianements will exceed eertain levels for each of the Porecast years. For example, while the most likely estimate af traffie in 2008 is some 15. 3 million enplanements, there is a 30 percent chance that traffic will be some 10 percent higher. t, r , �. � . � . � � � � . . . . f .. FOPEC'_15�1' L'ti C'0\STP._�I�ED _��L��L E��'L��i E��rl'.ti �o :, � , ; .,fj � ; i . ;,,�fj —�I (.n� f ' j, ��:-� --1 � � �7 _; f �.... � : G-- ! : •�O ,.�' .`; x, i , �,- , �,. t l�;, � ; �., 1� ' -�- !y 4 ~ , ``'� �.""��"" i -• ; �,,. � . �,.� . .. . . '��.,�--r:: .. .� �,;,r . j . . � �r^� ��r � �'� i� � ��.. : ��:,.- �� ' �--�..... ; . ,.. ' ' _r,..--'"` l._„r....-�- , �.-� f�,.--r-'°'—'"'r _;-,f,::_.---�..s""'-- ; l�� + �I L{� — • � � . . . . �O[?i' (R} :�llilili'�{ ..it'•',i .'i'.�)CQ=*•t3t.:i "j — �)Ilc: .��iAiltl:tl'�( ��t•1';:1�.:1Ut1 i!'��til : . � . i3 sti� u��_•:�:: si ;.t�e `.t.•rR-��,litn�i C':,�incil`; !",,i r��:a-.r. . � . . � I})j JU:sI1@(� ..:1��i'FJ!)Ct :�e�:iCi Jat':'V^I�>C:�.:iCt� �il i��:v�i��i (r�Cr�_:i�t. . . � � � � � � �J . � . � . . . � . .. . . . . . . � , . . . �. . . l:)�):3 l�)�8 ''')O:� '_'Ot)F3 '_'O I�3 ;..'i) 1 t3 a \Ier (_'��itn�.:i - si`:T� I�':�.1 . i , � � i � � - -- _.. _ _ � _ _ _,,,. , _ . ..� ... _ _._ - --- - -- __. - ....� �_,� -�" �.•_- � a , , � � � �! �'�)�.�; ':1`�� _ _\4,'�!� `�� .-':A� Zl) 11T :�_ '� �;��.:� ,. � � 7. ' �)OO - :_-_ _ _ -- _ _ _ Fi t7;.� — � �, . !�- _ � �0 O — % ' ' �. �� I � � � � . . � � � ../ � � . � i � �� . . . � . . � .. / ' / � I _ . . v� . . . . . . . . . , . � ��; :.; /' ,i . •.. '� � � : I' � � /'� � ,r'� � 1 . . . ! 'l�� 7 V��. _ . � . . ._ f✓ ..I � y .� ' . . `- �/ ` .-I �,^,,. � . . '..� � � . . .� � . i � `.,.�� , . . .. /"r_ I . . ��" : . ... i . v�� .. :. . , . . ..: . .,, : -. . . .: . _ �, . :;. .. ._.; .: . . .. :. .:;�. . ' �'�' .. I � ; � . . . � ' :.:� . �OO . . � : . � .. :: -. � .` �" .:.�'"�! +✓J . � � . � ' - . �. . , -� .. � . . j .,.,..--"-� . _,_,,...... .-�Q Q ---�-�""_.�.-.----�-'�""".�--- � ,; �._....--- - � \okes: (a) Sli:�ded arca re��resents �f— one stat�rlard rle��iati�n frniii , ni.' thc mean nf thc 91r_1rop�lilae� C�ut�cil's f�rec.i:�t. (bj Ilashed linc rc��r•esenl; cari•1•—for«•ard nf I1`�'1'I3 f�cr_casl. ; • . 300 ,' , , .; 1 ��J3 1998 2003 ''008 �013 �0'1 £3 ■ '�Iet C'a��ilcil H\TI; � I�,:1:1 , , ` �. ' � � }; . . . . . � . . f,.'. __ . . � � � . � � . }n j-... . . . � . . :,,.�.:j�;.�:;�. � V . . � � . � . . � <��, P, . . � � � �. � •�'�.... ': I'rc�t�at�ilit,y t,ll�t 1�iSI' 1)car��;t.ic� 3_,° I?n��lanern�nts wiil i�,�Yec�ccl ii��.li<�<�( ��ci [,��r�l ,� : i�o .� R.. .__.�_-------------__ __ __ _.__ _ . -_ � �''\ -=""�`---�a_._.__�___ 1``-��\�-..�_ � ----a—_-_a._, �0 - \ ��,\ � ..$ z ,, �..p . �.\ -��l.,..��, � � .. � ,n _.q ticl `\ �\ e `� �\ 7� ;� ,\ ., >, fiQ � . � \ \ � �i0 - ,`� A L � � � � `'.'1 � � . . °" 40 - •� � \ �.� 30 � � • 2(1 � '� � \� 1(1 � ''� �., ` ,, � �., �O_ . - � ,�,,___. ,�� p _ ��, .T- � 1, ----�.-_-.___.�_ T�_._...�._.__�_r ____{ -�-,,...� ....:__* _,_ �.. _... �_ .__� .. �, . � 11 [1.11 !).fi 1Q.•1 ( 1.2 1? tl.(i 1:1.(i 11.4 f�i.? I(i {(i.tt t:.li Ffi..1 ��`��;�, . � . . � � � 7 �.� Milli�na nf Fnplanern�nte � . ■ 1��13 + 1 �?�£i ^ ��[1:� � ��Ot)1i t� „O I 1t . ) � � � � ��. �� a ,, Develo,Qment �ptions � ; . , Base Case - '� As with any camplex, long-term p�:�blic issue, the Twin Gities �� Region faces a series of choices. The benchmarle for evalu�t�ng these alternatives is cailed the Hase Case. This is nat � c�a- , � nothinq alternative, but rather represents � ser. iat2s �olicy clyotce �� in its own right. Specific�lly, the base rasa calls Lc►r cont.i.nttecl impr.ovement to the existing airpvrt, t�kinq �c.�v�►�t�� c�C s �� technological improvements as they arrive. Itawever, na major { �'� physical additions are made beyond the planned extension ot runway �''", 4-?.2 . By deferring the ta�agh planning anc� pc�iiticat cleciGi�ns to 2 some future date, such an aption has some obvi.ous �clvantaqe�. i Preliminary results fram the MAC Master Plan inc�icatecl th�t the major capacity constraint at MSP was on tk�e air�ide -- that is ; while terminal additions and improved grounci access wo��tci be needed, these changes cauld 'be met withi:n norm�l planning Pf�or.ts and likely financial resources. Within the foresee�ble future, the lack of new runway capacity would mean signi.�i.cant :incre�ses in delays or force airlines to shift traffic ta other airpvrts ar to less convenient travel times. Alternatives More than ten separate layouts for MSP were ex�mine.c� c�uring the study� as well as a "generic" new airpart. This examin�tion was limited a.n two ways. First, no extensions were m�de beyond the airport's "natural.'� borders (basicaily, inside the Ring Road but excluding �he National Cemetery) . Second, consic3erati.on v� a ' possible new airport was abstracted fram any par�iecil.�r Gite. Based on this detailed review, it was decided to focus on three signifieant capacity additions. o A new North-South runway "parallel." to Cedar �,venue; �� :� � o A new "far" parallel runway, some 2O�U feet �o the � Northeast of 11L=29R: and � . . . . . . . . .. . ...C..... o A possible new airport. Develobment Strateaies . These physic�l options were then combine�l i.nto six alt�rnative strategies, including estimates of likely tfmi.ng r�qi�iremant:�. The �ollowing sketch maps shc�w the twa devel.a�m�nt �t��egi.ag fc�x the current MSP site, 8 � ; . . . . . . . 1. � �� . . . . . ... � � � . . . . . . � . � . . . .. � . � � . . . . . � . .. . ��. i p � � .. . , . . . . .. . � . . .. .. . . . .. � . . j�� i:. . . . . � � � � . � . . . � � � � � � + . . . . . . � � . . � . ... �� fi �� 's : � . � . � � . . . . . . . �. . � . � . . � . ... . �... . .� . # i�`��; � . . � . . � . � � � � . � � � � .. . . . . . . . . , 1��'. � . . � . � � - . . . � � �. . � � . . . . . � . . #"��' . . __ . . . . . . . � . . � . 'g.. ' �1�P it�! er�t�s�t:i��i�.jl `�� "Slr�tr•�V A.. � �� ~ �' r�c,rziEt ��a; . . . :4 � . . . � . . . . . . � . . �� . �� r�. � . . �. . . . . . . �� . � . � � � \. . . . . � .. � . . . � . . �� r'� . 1 y�� ; � �";#, ' 'f� � �� . � � ' . � .. . . . . .. � � . . . . � S iI . . � . . . . . . . � � . , Y I � . . . . � �. . . � . . � � . .. . . . . y r 9 � � � � , � . . . . � � . �� . . . � � � .. /�� . . . � � . . . . . . . . . . i#,��. � . . � .�y � .. . . . �. . . � . � . . .. . . t '. v IOftp (t, v . C-�� R,°' . t �� er tir, MSI' tnt.�rn.il.ic,r►��l , .��-,, ' "Sl r�t.c��;,y t:t" �:.. � . ; �� ?' �� ,� Ntlit'f�tl 1 � '� ��'� �YI . . ��. . . . . . . � . i�.�.. � .� � . . � � � � .. � � � � � � . � . }�,- ;Q �y � �� . � f ; . . � � . � � . � � . . .� .. . �. N4'� . .. �. � � . . � . . �.� �f,.. � � . � . . � � . . . . � . � }! 9 �000 fl. y � , l . ....1 r� f! , {' �:�, !i ` � ,i ., 4 � � : �� . � C . . � � . . � � " . ..� . . . . . . �. .. � � �. . . � . . . . . � � �� .. ' . . � . � � . . . . .. � . ��.. . � . . . . . . . . . . � . �.,.. C�evelopment Strategies �� : Base Case Continue MSP with existxng runway system �nd irnpt�ment �� current capital improvement including the 4-22 r�.�nw�y { ;; extension the base cass �� { program is assumPd in all subsequent strateqies) , �� Strate e , �y qy A Enhance MSF by bu�ldi.ng � new North-:�c�t�th Ruriw�y, ��, operational in I997 , � � ,�� ,;, Stratectv B Enhance MSP to its maximum potential (within the ��,` ringroad highway system) by building a new Nor.t�t�-5acath Runway, operational in 1997 and by building a n�w Far Parallel Runway, operatianal in 200�3 . Strateay G Enhanee MSP shart-term and lanc� bank for a new replacemQnt airport long-term. 5tratecty C1 Enhance MSP by building a North-South Runwap, operatianal in 1997 , secure a land bank for a potential new airport, la�d unc�er contrvl by 1994 or 1991 if p4ssible and by 1996-199? �t lates�; and build and open a new �irport in 20OA i€ �ustified by contingency planning proeess. Stratecxy G2 Enhance MSP by builc�:ing a new North-S�uth Runway, operational in 1997; secur� a Iand bank €or a potential new airport, lanc� t�nder contral by 1990 or 1991 if possible and by 1996-1997 at latest: and build and open a new airport i,n 2015 if justified by continqertcy �lanning pr.oeess. Strateay D Use demand tnanagement techniqt��s to �ltex the schedule of the air carriers and reg�onal commuters to maximize the ca�aeity af MSP; ,' Stratectv E Site and bui.ld a new aarport, o�en i.t by 1999. Under the base case set o� assumptions, demanc� for �ervi,ee ' ; though MSP quickly outstrips the capacity pf the �yst�m -- even • wxth significant air traffic control improvemPnts in�ludec� i.n the '' calculations. For example, by the year 20U8, the F3ase C�se offers anly a five p�rcent ch�nee of bea.ng adequ�te ta meet expectec� demand -- that is, a ninety five pereent ch�nce o� ��11inq shc�rt of expe�ted demand (See Figure} . St��tegy 11, howeuer, wo��.ld improue this probability to aboi�t 2fl pereent, whi1P �tr�t�gy i� offers a more than 80 percent assur�nce of ineeting demancl in the year 2008 . 10 � � j tiet Capacity Probabilities at bISP International ; � ( In the Y ear ?008} I � a � 100v� . . ';�, , , _ _ � I : i � _ � : � �EY � > � � ■ Base Case . { 80`0 . ; � a + Strateby :� � _ '� �� ! � Strate;y B � � �- � � ;:� A ( . _ 1 -'� Ei t)`' ,. � , ; .� , _ , �\ ! •.., '. .�... I i _. ... . � :. �: ....... ::.. ' � . _ ..... .. ...._ ... �.` i , r ; -� � � ., _ � � , ! , � ! , ; � -�p�; ; . . � _ , . ; � . ' ` ;_:. ': � < � � . ■ a � , j � . i . , ,� � i . � . � ::. ; i # � .:- .. .. � , ,: . ; �� i _� � y s : I ' � ; � ; ; ' � �4: ! , � , ` � . � � : <"��. .: . a f : _ , ;; � ,�� t a I �'r � � s.'s.'�_ � ��`" - � -16U-i-�0-1?fl-1 G� -80 -60 -�fl -'?fl 0 ?0 �Q 60 80 100 i , Vet C'apacity , ; _ - � _.� .. __ �_..� ..�. _r�;¢ - - = _ . ._. _w_ . � . . � ...�,� .��.. .��..,,. �. .�- � �..� ".�.. _ �� .� � ..,��",..�x,.��.�._. _ � A . � � � . � .�; Strategy B prabably represents the maximum fP�sibte. �,�"# dPvelopment of the current site. This option requires �:�kinq ��rt `� of Fort Snell�nq Park and wauld mean th�t the 11ir Force at�c� 1�3:r ��t Nat.i.onai Guar� operations would have to move to �nothpr t�i rpe�r.�, �;� per ha ps o u t s i de t he me tropo l i tan r e g i:o n. F u r.t h P r. , i C c i�r r P r�t J t,� MinnDOT rules for safety zottes at the end of new runw�ys were �� fol lowed, parts flf the South Minneapol is nei.ghbarhood wc��il ct f��ve ,�.�� to bQ purchased. ` '`` ,,�� Strategy D is a non-capital intensive appro�ch th�,t inv�lves � changes in the schedule of flights. While such an appraactt is very `�' attractive because af its ].ow direct cost, it invalves several problems. First, can the schedule changes be Pnfvrced shor� of imposing local government regulation of air carr. ier ser.vice? Second, �t what point do schedule changes beqin ta divert tr.affic away from MSP? This Iast point is cxuciai in determininq how extensive are the changes that can be made. Since the "easips�" flights to change invol.ve sma�ler aircraft th�t �PrvP regi�nal traffic, this strategy runs the risk of damaging the econamic Iinks between the Twin Cities and the surrovnd3_ng region -- l.inkages that have been st�rengthening in recent years. More dr�s�i� schPdule changes would be required if capacity is well below expected demand, but this is clearly undesir�bl;e �rom the poi.nt of view of the Metropolitan Region. 8enefit-Cos�Analvsis � A family of econamic tools qrauped under the term of benefit cost analyses are well-suited to evalu�tinc� the r�Iati�ve attractiveness of alternative investments. Thes� tools require a comparison o� the direct cQsts and benefits attrih�.tted �o each option. Costs of Development The direct casts of eaeh strategy ineludes the c�pit�l costs ta construct the runways, termi.nals, and ground access need�d as well as the cost� to purchase the land rec�uired fc�r siting these facilities (See Table) , Whiie not di,scussed in deta�l in tt�is executive summary, there is also the pc�tenti�l need to add additional sa£etp zones at the end of the exi�tinq runway�. �t�e current runways at MSP are "grandfather�d" �r�m t11is rPqui.rpment. The costs --ba�h financial, and social --� to purch�se thi.s l.�nci �re substantial and they have been included in the table �artl.y to �how greater comparability between the costs of a new �irpar.t (which would include sueh safety zanes) and cost� �t the eurrent sate. 1�11 costs and benefits have been canvPr.f�e� inta const�nt 198� dollars. Airport operating costs arP f�hP sec�nc� ma_jc�r c�s� for each strateqy, f3tMer non-ecc�nami.e costs -- mc��t im}��rt�ntly nc�isA impacts -- are discussed bPl�w. 12 i ` � � * s f ' ��' � : ��_ SUMMAqY Of POTENTFkL OEVELOPNENt GOSiS �t ��,� (MILLIQNS 4F #98$ DQliARS) � Y� � � <E� (i) DIRECT Q�VELOPMENT GOSTS t �£ . .................�........ . � . .. � . �� r ""'............................................"•'_'.._..__..... � . . � $ . COST CAT�GORY S1RA1E6Y A STRAtEGY $ STRAif.f.Y C1 SiRA1EfY C.2 k�': . . ----....--•--... ,: PROPERTT ACOU15iT10N $ PREP.: � i NATIONAI GUARD NfA z05_S (t) (t) <� A1R fORCE N/A t42.5 (i) ti) fi: 11EST-SIDE RESI6ENTtAI 40 GO 60 40 OTHER NM 37.5 (t) (i) _;� tOTAI 40 625.5 460.6 (2> 47.0.6 <2) ��# ,4,': ,:. ADD'C ZONES (NEN RUN4/AYS) � ;-'�, C�fiAR ZONH 0 75 (3> (3) i' SAFETY ZUNE R (MtNN00T) i69.i 255.5 169.1 (3) i69.i (3) SAFETY ZONE 9 (MINNUOT) 8$.8 171.9 $8.8 {33 8tl.8 t3) � � � � � � � � � � t, NOV LANES 0 2T.7 N!R N/A AIRF1Et0 DEVEL�MENT 34.$ 63.4 260.7 (/i) 260.T tti) 1ERM{MAL fACitIT[ES 192 192 i37.4 t5) 737.4 (5! . .................... SUBTOTAI 524.3 1211.0 i736.6 i1T6.6 '; (ii) INDIRECT ANO POTENT1Al DEVELOPMENT COST$ . ............................... COST CATEGORY SIRATEGY A STRATEGT 8 STRAIEGY C1 SIRATEGY C2 -•••........................ A00'l ZONES (EXiSTING RUMWAYS) CLEAR 20NE (FAA) 60 b0 b0 60 SAFETY 20NE A (M(NNUOT) 286.b 286.6 2ftb.6 2Rb.b SAFETY 20NE B (N(NNOOt> 539.1 539.1 534.i 539.1 ........................••-•---.....---...____ , SUBTOTAI 885.T SA5.7 885.T 885.7 � tOtAl t410 2096.7 2bQ2.3 26�2.3 tJ4TES: (1) AMtiCIPATED COSTS ARE NDf ESl'tMATEb. (2) iNC�UDES NE41 AtRRORi PROPERTY ACOUStitON f�48.9) ANO StTE PREF�ARATtOM (�371.7), R STRATEf,Y A (�,�). (33 fOR GflNSTRUC110N Of NEN AIRPWlt SAfETY ZONfS AMD GIEAR ZQNES tNC,ItAfQ UMOER LAND ACW71SITtOM. (6) fOR NEtiI AIRPQRT,GENERAL AViATId1 (l3.5) ANO SUPF't3RT FACll1T1ES ts42.5), dND S�RAtEGY A (434.G}. (S) fOR NEU AIRPORT, GROk1MD TRANSPQRTATtON (5194,G} ANO fEOERAL fAC.7lifiES (�31), ANp SIRATEGY A (tf22). 13 ., � � � , Benefits of Development £r; :t. � � � �� The tran�portati�n benefits fr.om addinq capaei�.y all dera,ve �� from reduced delays. These benefits arc� of two ty�es: ��_ �i� o savings to airiines from reduced f�ael use and lawer i;' aircraft and crew costs; and ,` � , , o savings to travelers from reduced wa.iting time for c�elayed k;: aircraft. ; In the analysis presented be].aw, estimates are m�de usinq tc�tal y ` transportation bene�its a»d then us3.n q anl y a i r l i n e b P n e f.i t s. �� ` Focusing on aircraft benefi�s alone is clearlX the more ! conservative approach and is done in �art bec�use of uncertainty in assigning a value �a travel time savings, i � Estimates of delay under each strategy use a detailed air�or.t simulation model -- called ADSIM -- that was c�ev�loped �iy the F11A for use in their airport capacity studies. The estim�tes of- tot�1 aircraft hours of travel delay are shown in the �tt�rhec.l figure and table. A key conclusion is th�t wi�hout signipi:c�rtt addit�.ons tv capacity (as shown by the successive implementati�an of Strat�gi.es A, B and C} travel delays at MSP gvickly esC�latp to intolerable levels. Evaluation Measures Th,e economic evaluation measures iased ir� tha.s �ttidy ca�n be divided in�q two grQups: those er�ncerned with �.he overall worth of the inuestment and those that focus on the �raper timing caf the ' ' investment, Each set of ineasures tells � di�'ferent sto�ry (the . attached Table .summarizes how each is caleiala�ed) . In terms of ranking the different stratPgies, net pr�±sent � valu� (the discounted value o�' benefits mint��z the discr�untec� ualue �' of tatai costs) is the bes� singl.e measurQ. Rate c�� re�t�rn j measures and benefit cost ratios �re ctsefui a� sQtting m.inimum � hurdles that must be exceeded ta make projects wortt�whil.e - � tYpiealiy, a rate for return in excess o�' ten �erc�nt yQar anr� � � benefit-eost ratio of �ne or gre�ter are rAc�uir�c� �e� nc�min�tP � ± project for consider�tion. The r�te of reti�rn me��txre al:�o c�Cfpr� ', a comparison with the type of criteria of�.en examined in �►riv�te ' business. : The €irst year benefit ' is a go4d me�sure of pr.e�ject ti.mi.ng. ' If the benefits in the first yeax of opezat3.on �re mare than tan percent (a typical hurdle rate for publ.ic prajects) of the tot�l construction costs, than th� project can "p�y for itself" frc�m ypar one and is well-timed. Moreover, if_ �he first yPar henefi:t r��t� is substantially more than the hurdle rate, th.is oftan inc3i,c�tAs that the pro�ect is averdue. , 14 .. . . . . . . . . . . J ( . � . . : . � . � .. ��. '�� . � . . .. � � .. � � . � .. .� . . � { r� 1 ��t (f1ll�t;12�1 � �1l�ilit�`}� (Miitie��:�) , �� t' :�� ;l1 t ► c i c , i., C; C� Ca U c� —• --� —. � _. C� - • N (,i {- [)► O'r ��! [Il 1U ..� --' (J C�t .j� tJl 1' --' v �t, � - --i- -_ -1__ --1_---_l._,:_1�-1---�----__l..____l_,.� l�_._._!.._.1__ �l i�cr - -- ._.� ixi tL> tD C.� � � .�" t� C) �t� k i � � � v, tD ' �r r� �� ( � Yj � . .... ,.��.. . . � . . . .. . . '�`. �� . �• j � 1'T'1 -< �.� - ' � r � E] - ' . � � ;a.l � � t�� N ll p O �� % � , m �► �� ` � � � H m G� � . tw� � . . �. . - . � � . . . � �.. � . . � . . � . . W • � n� � j a _ � � c., � , ��„ �`' L � a t- v, ' r� { t�� r � c� �. � t,, —• � �� w � _,, n . .._� . . _ - - --_ _ ---_------ ---__---------___—._ ��,. ' ' ----- — � < __ � i � . i � �z t . � . � � . .. � � � . . . . x� . � i . . .. . .. . � F' TOTAL AIRt:RAfi'i' i1rt,AY ��NT) A�'�12�4(:C�, h�?T,fiY i ;�� t ,�� ,�; �:tJRRi;NT STltA'i'f,CiY STRA1'T:fiY :�'fRA1'rGY .�1't2A"i't?GY �T�R1�'1'F.(;Y ='�: YGAR - AtRP(?RT* ' n ti CI E'l r ;'� +�; 1�R8 TOT UF:LAY(I�TIZS) 75.577 75,577 75.577 75.577 75,577 75,571 �'r � � � � � � �'�� AVGI)FLAY(MIiV) td.l� lA.i(1 14.1(1 id.ifl 14.1(t i�t.lfl .� � # � }998 TOT DELAY(FiRSj 2#6.AS3� fii,S91 61591 F1,F91 Fi,S��t 2114,85R ` � AVG UEI.AY(MIN? 29.72 R.44 8.44 R.44 R.n,i 29.72 ; " � � . . . . . . . � . . . . � :�f 2�OR TOT llELAY(F1R5) d39.731 1i17.42� 93,R75 in�,42(t tft7,42t1 21,9R� ' AVG i)ELAY(MTI� 50.41 12.32 10.76 t2.32 12.22 2.:t2 2t)i8 TOT 1)ELI�Y(FiRS) 1.251,415 Sd7,500 37R,9R3 (.2.571 fi2,571 62,51t � � A VG i)Fi.l�Y(MIIV) 1 Q9.9b 4f3.11 33.3{t 5.50 5.50 5.50 � t Inclucles Curren[Capitat Improvemenl Program. ' , � � 16 � . " t{1��1rASt1it1?,� Ql�' COS'i'-I�i�Nt�'I' . . . . . . . . . . � . . � � � .�k. . . . .. . . .� � . �:�:.�.k�. '��L1-'�LIRi�S OI'WORTII �?�f�i��i� IN11:_Rt'R1:1'A'1'iC)N : ; . ; _ _; -� � Nct I'rescnt Value(NI'V) 1'r�scnt-cl:�y vsilue c�f NI'V �;rr��cr�Ir,i�� ix�»>�•,�rts �`; �i � � � � � � � � benc�ts�ri�irn�s fi�re.sent �1a�y � � (�f-«jrc�l�is tv�>rthwtril�. !'t•�sjr•ct�s � � �� vattie c�f cc�Sts. �re rar�l:ed .�cccir�liw�g tc� NI'V ' �., IZ�ttc c�f IZeti�rn 'i��c ctisc��tr��t ratc ht wl�ich Itartc c�f rcl�ir•i� s}��al�i cxc:ecci ' NVP =t) �,�•c-�e1 titit�cile ri�it�{1(1'��)�{� c�ti��fit'y iirrc•�n�si�trr�ti��r. I3eneCt-Cost Ratio Preser�t v�tue of hencCits n r:�ti�c�f grc�ter tl�ai�c��c nrenns divideil by{�resent v�ltte ��roject is w�:�r�tla�viiilc. ��f cotits. MCASURCS OFTIMiNG First-Year T3ene�t I3enefits in ttie#irst year A rati�er�t��i to�r in excecs ctf afrer c�nstnicti�n ciiviclecl t�y the h«rcfle r�te(1()�la)tf�eans constn�ction costs(inci�rclin� projcct is weil ti�neci. A r�ti� intereSt paid cit�ring l�cic�w htia�clte ratc t��ehns project constn�ctic�n �eric�ci}, is�sreir�attire. expressed as a percent. I�ay-l3ack Period N��mi�er c�f ycars��ntil A s�ac�rt �ay-hack peri�xl��e�ns caj�it�l re-cc�taped thr�ugl� less risk. _ tt�e ilow�f l�enefis. a : r7 � . s- ' . � . . � . � � � �.� .� � �.. � � . � � � � . � . �esu t�u .. . . . . . . � . .. . . . . .. ... . . . � . ';,�: � � . . . . � � � � . � � � � .. � � � . � � � . �.. The resul.�s of the cost-benefit an�lysi.s �r.e summariz�c3 in tt�e �' attached taUle and two figures. The table compares the each of the �� major developmen� options in terms o€ net pres�nt v��.ue, rate of �� return and first year benefits bath with total benefits �nr.# with � aircraft ben�fits alone. �; �' In terms o€ net present value, all the options pPrfaxm we11, _ with Strategy C�. (a NQrth S+auth Runway follawed by a new air�o�t in 2008) showing the highest value when �ot�l. ben��its ar_A u�Pd. All strategies shaw rates of return in the mid-4t�s -- anot.her �' indication af warthwhi�.e investments. Based on tatal benefits, the ratio o� fir�t year b�±npfa.�� .i� � well a�n excess af ten percent for each o�tion, inc�icatinq ttt�� these options could be implemented even sooner. B�sed on �irline benefits alone, however, the ratia of first ye�r benefi.ts indicate that 5trategies B and C1 shauld be del�yed, That is, it m�y be more difficult to use airline fees as the primary c�r sole source to fund these strategies. What are the risks of failure? The �wQ figures show the probability of achieving differ�nt levels of net- �resent values. In all cases, there is virtually no chance that the net pr.esent value of these investments {whether based on total benefits or just airline benefits) will fall to zero. Both charts indicate the greatest assurance with S�rategy A, adding just a North-Sauth runway. This is not surprising,since this is the l,east co:�t investment option considered. � ,� . ].� � , 5urir�r=�RY C�F CaST-�Ef��EF I T Ar��aL`r'S I 5 OF N I R�t'J�T E:�cGNra� I �r� ST�r=rrE�, i ��, � A11 Bene+' its ---------- � N�t Pr-��ent R�,t� o+ F i r-st Y�.�r�� ' �trat�gy 'Ja1u� Rzturn B�na+' it , �• � i� mi 1 1 ion� ,� t ✓' � i :: i c ---__A-------------��2�a______ _ —��----------��—�— ; � � B 3 , 33� �t� 1�z. 3 , , C2 3 , '�5 �.�:1 1�� . v . 1 CZ 3 , 527 .ei? �L� . 7 , i E 3 , 283 �i.=' . :3 . �5, ..D � Y=1 i r�r.�t t [-t�n�i= i t•3 , � h•1�t �r.��nt. �'.��a pf � i r_._,F ''r`�ar , . , . . �'t.C"'8 �`..=y��. � � � � Av:J.1�J� � � � �..a_1:,�J f"f'� . . � � Ei�--+.i-�..-1' 1 •,". . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . � . � . � � . . � . . . � � . . ��. '� �T 1� � 1..1 i7 T1-. J l .> i . .. . . f ... �t � � � . � . . � � � r=t •�.-r,' � ._.:>� ._+_ . -i , , _ <�r,1 - _ � _ � � i ��1 i 1 _ � 1 � , �� _�1 .�� E. ,_ � i . . . . . . . � �. � � . � � . .:�.:�.CJ. . . . �. . � � � � .� �� 1 C . � � . � � . . 1 i r�cr��r�=.r-�t,� 1 r�turn a-'��r n�w .� i rp��rt ��n 1 �� . ; � �� B�CIE'fttS QIC�;C� �✓QStS 0.042 t , ,�, � � �).00?2 � C � � 1:� �„�O.00}i -�- ;� 3:$� ,�.�. I . •_ � .�:ci � I a � .��.�� r 'Q � / 3 z t C!. � �`,' 4 { o.000 � . I ,- , { i � �� / � ; ,.-:----:--! .. ; � � _,��,��``'. . .. . ... , �'• (},DQC} ' `�� i ; . � �va�7.o ��,0 2�8�..9 3��.s 4z2�.s a.asi.� Ne� Present Value _ _ �.�_ �.: _. . . i � Aircra#t Benefits Direc� Gost� . � �,�, o.00a � � �•LlQ�7 , '��'' �� l:` t L� �' �� " �::� L l �:c, �a.Q02 �:s � ��.4 s:Ci .,.r � � :t �}.002 - -, `� Q . . ``, � L �' CL ,• '•, ,�� .t}{)1 ;l � , l � . .� � � .. . . .. . . . �,� . . . . . . . .�,1 . \ . . .� . . . . � : . . � . . � � . � � ...... � . . . ..1 �`` . . . � . . . . . .. . � . � � . .. .. . � olfl�V � J! . ` � . ... . . �ti� . .� . .. � . . . . . � . . . ' . ..��' . � . . � . . �..'.. . � �.. ��. . _^. . . . 199,8 449.6 H�9.3 949.� 1198.? 9448.� Net PreS�'n# �/�lUe : _ - -------- , ' � � . ,i. _ , x Economic Im�a�ts The potential regional economic losses fram holdi.ng capar..ity below expected demand are quite largP. Tfie ai.rpor.t r.ur.r.Pnt:ly contributes we11 above $2 hilli.on � ye�r ta tlle r.eg.ion, ai� 3.mp�ct Y. that could inerease to �bout $3. 5 billic�n over the n�+xt two � • decades. Nowever, by the year 7.Oo�i, �.hp sPu�r.e cz��ci�y � constraints found nnder the B�se Case i.m�2y regiot��l losse� e�f $1. 5" biliion or more -- a thirty percent loss (see �'igure, k�elow) . Yet even the high end of the r�nge of potential im�acts understates the true potential of additional capacity since an airport with "excess" capacity can act as a "grawth pole. " The kpy r�3.e th�t � `j airports play in attraeting new business or enc4iiraging existi.ng ' businesses to expand, has played a iar�e part �n tt�e mc�tiva�i.an behind the new DaZlas Airpor� in the early 197�s ancl the r.t�r.rent move to build a new aixport in Denver. Likewise, an �irport brings new jobs. one th�t i.s c��ci�:y constr�ined, on the other hand, wi11 limit growth la�l.ow it� potet�tial. As demonstrated in Figure 2 , f.or examp3_e, the ch:tnqe in service implied by increases in delays can only r.esult in l�st opportunities for growth. Here, the greater delays and d.iverted flights under the Base Case results in thausands fewer jobs far the regian. In terms of economic impact, Strateqy C1 appears to statici c�tit because of its strong commitment to increasinq capacity at a fast but practicai pace. This is one w�y to assure stronq ac.cess to natios�al and world markets. , The economie impact af different airport developments depends on what baseline is used. For example, the analysis presented tie.re focuses on comparisons with what would hAppen under the Base C��e, _ this Base Case assumpt.iot� itself is a moving target howPvear. Thus, even without significant capaci.ty imprvvem�nts at MSP, airport activi,ty would still increase regionai income �nd ac�d new ��bs. However, while the reqional eeonomy would not shxink if signific�nt capacity additions were hot made, fut�tre growth wvuld be much more limited (see the bottom Zine in attached figure�} . Noise , The above discussion has €ocus�ed on me�sures o� airpor.t impacts that are relatively easy tv measure -- savings in aircraft vperating casts, ch�nges in travel. delays, job ch�nges, etc. Many of the impacts of airport development are harder to meast�re and require personal judgments to evaluate. 7.2 i !, * PavGE UF POTE�TI�L ECavO�ilC I1�iPaCTs aT �fSP INTERN�TIO�':�L =�.o f 3.8 . .. �,,.,,,,, i :,, � � �.6 -� �� *��*�� r Unconstrained Forecast 4 ;��„.�,� `"��,�� , �� '�w'. 3.=� �� 4 �� - � �s��,` � ' "� � ��: . . /-\ 4. . . . . k� .. . � . � .. 7 '�^M Jl _ -��z; ,,. . . . � �. � . .. . �� i�y �� . . � � . � . � � � � � . . . Q. � � . . . Y�.!` ,'Pd� ..',��'�.� . � . . . . . . � . �J.� � � . �_q�4d �.. �� f ��L� .. . ^ I �' �' =,5�� µ K � . 6�i`��t ...., � ., � �� v �� T�� . .�; � �,$ � �� a� � � �+� m �."�',� .�� ; ...r. �a� :. � � rt� .�..^' �� .r�� a"" ��9u,�' .z"7... '^� �� „ . . � . �.. ,. .. . . . � �i�"� ' . «i";., .. : . . � —�.��."�*� Constrained Forecast �.6 —t i ; � ?.� —I � , � , � � ,� .� � � � , ?.0 ; ; 1993 1�98 ''003 ?008 ';C l� '?O I$ , . t + Inzplieci C'h�n;e� in Em�lo�-ment Due to Delays �� ; ; 7 � �� I , � � � ,�, , =�� --; , -i � � 39 —i � ..-. � I : 37 � ; I , � 3� ; —� �� ; : n.; � ; � ' = 33 —� � ;... � , � , 31 —� � � � � �� i � � ; ,,r � �� f 1 J88 1 JJ8 ?Ot)8 ?0 I8 $ase Ca�e ; � _ � C'� , �.� � i . � . . � �„ Noise impacts stand out as the most significant enviranmental effect of ai�-port. our analysis of noise impacts Foun� a significant relationship between 3eve1 of no:ise stress and flight frequency as well a� floise energY f�1H) . This f inding im�1 ies th�t ' even with the rapid �,ntroduetion of quiete� Staqe 3 aireraft, the area surrounding the current airport shauld not expe�t to see any reduction in noise stress and is likely ta see an increase. The increase in noise stress i.s, or course largest under those opta.ons that involve adding to the eapac�ty a� the CiIZ'Z'Ett'� si.te -- all but Strate9Y E (build a new airport as quickly as possible) . ; Finance In addition to the many cc�mplex questions �hat are paart of adding airpor.t cap�cityg thea7'w�in�cities must also eansider how to pay far the �.mpzovements. Twa question� arise: First, is the �irport financia�.1 a signi.ficant new capacity expansion? p�Second�d hat ndorttke development alternatives imply for the availability of future - financing? The first answer is clear. The f3.n�rcial performance of Minneapolis-St. Paux �Mt,��n�,tional Airpart has been ��rQ� �.e �he '�o that of similar air arts. 9 lative operatin9 ratio � �ince 3980► for example, the_ {operating easts as a �ercent of o��+rating revenues) has corrsais�.ent�.y Qut-ranked that of other ai.rports while also displaying a trend of continued improvemen� (f�llin fr ��r��n� in i980 to 76 9 om 85 o��igations of the Metropolitan Airpa ts At�thc��t �dditio», debt highest bond rating possible {AAA) . Y (MJ�C? hoZd the The answer to` the sec4nd question is not as sim le encouraging nonetheless. The cost-benefit anal sis P , but found significant net regionai benefits from eve r�a��e� �bove strategy. For example, the airlines alone st�nd to ealize��ment savings from aircraft operatians {due to crew ant� fuei sav ` enough under either Strateqy �, g, �� ar E to lnqsj expense. justify the additi�anai The most costly a�tions invalve a n�w airport. Tn t � regard, the MSP Reuse panel identiffed alternative u�ses for the current site tnat cc�uld generate ade portion (perhaps even all) o� a n�w �g� ��ds to ffnance a large Canclusions The economic analys�s does nat the clear �'winner" --� Strate Aoint tQ a �ingte strat�gy �S value for total benefits, while Strate ve the highest nAt pre�e»t gY A has the hic�he��t nnt 25 ` .. �'�'3 � . �� .. . . . .�. � .. � . . . . . � . � '� present value far aircraft eosts. However, the analysis does indicate the strong need to do somethi:ng, and do somethinq l,�rge in scale. Without significant additions to MSP's capacity - beyond that �.n the Base Case -- the econamic costs tv the Metropolitan Region wiil continue to escalate both in terms of increased travel delays and in terms of job and income losses relatiue to what could be achieved with incre�sed capacity. � B�cause of the political and planni.ng uncert��inties that surround any given optionr a strate ta aption would a �Y purs��e morP th�n � str�q.1P ppear ta be desirable. Str�tegies Cl and c2 represent such a "dual" optian. Thu�, far exam�:le, if. 3t appear.ed that constr�ction o€ a North-South runway w�s infeasib�e, the region wauld nat have ruled out the possik�il�.ty of a new a3.rport. If these choices are pursued, it wvuld a��Pa�- to �iP w1.�e tr� incorporate a set of criteria, that cauld be tis�d tp ev��a��P �� need f4r any mid-eourse carrections, Finally, until a definitive decision has k�een re�eh+�c� on thP region+s pref��red long-range airpart p].an, l:and b�nking f4-r a new airport stands out as a low-aost, low-r�sk action. If �and bankfng is d�layed until the mid-1990s (or laterj , however, thP re ttte real risk oF missing the chanee of findinq suit b].ett l.and relatively close to the economic centers of th� Twin Cities. Tht1s, lack of action now miqht make it much mc�re difficult to implement a new airport later. + � ,, i` ; � , , � ! � 26 : ' ` i � a,sixih race of pick � • �ommenis �ut but droPA��4 FRI4AY ,�e.�a�kev.9oQa , SEPT�MBER 3Q, 1988 ;1e gh en'99�e5 �as at huge Price ;1Qam for nighfcaP . � .��'� � qn ocassion .. . JI�� downlane �1I� �t dista�ce � � � � � � � � � � � � � d will finish... . � �umbers �� I � �� I� � � fla Consensus �� rtz 32.5R6 �� ,,28.8% 362-1115, � 19 . •9 L!]y1� 11�� ' rnd Jove Norlhbo�nQ Jnve al� ��'7■!1!1� �O+sR_ 7 �Natalie Friendly Naiaiie . . j j,�� Q . .. ��bY�low � Classic Gof� • v . . �� iL� � m . .. � � Y4niiltrn�e KCeP�eY¢ovif�me� port �� r m Sw�leh C P.'tlAdY ��O n _�dy. �BaldisetteQa�cPr � [� Thovnrt . Prince 7hoU Art . �y MICfI@�@�.'OO�C '�"j i1�11�3✓i..�l Stridc ShTrpTimes sraii wr;teo iect more than one conrse of acti�� T�mes 1id$he��ee� — preferably TllXIW�y QXp�(�CtOi1 Nood iacoman A new runway shoald be bu�jt at and land banking — `°t�eause o� Minneapolis-St. Paul'International t�Et�jiticaluncertainties." m�� geebv1e""v Airport�to meet short-term traftic oT"„'�o�� o�c��nG�� "I wish there was one ctear �n_ �asp �'c°.°'v" needs, but land a}so should be pur. swer, but there i�n't," A9udge/s.3id. c,Asgvo�� chased "�mmediatety in the event { ,�o�v�� „ "The key thing is tll+�L .R.OT�IP4�I�� i�6� k�4ddY SI�P{11A!V81QttiliMP a TC{��aC@tTletl� 81CpOCt !3 itE� ,inn'sva�gnt�ne Mv Poker Ftuedy Metrp litan �d� a Set dane." � Counefl com rt veera��•� C2i�pp�o recomrnended mittee The steerin� committee's ree- —"""""""'"'� cA��","°°k°+ Thursd�y. ommendation does 1lQ ill�Ant PackPl ce.�'tI8 �Q19 QC W@ C RUggESt xthern Sioui�Sue Narlhern SIOi�x 5uA � � procrastinate when a decision to buitd a new air- eyhp�N@vr Again CataloMe the harder it wii! be to Eind land," part might be rnade, s"'` ene9otiate :. R@�e�otiate . O�said Josephine Nunn, chairwpman Instead,it advises the h[etr�p�a�_ �A��, w�, th� . . ellyb�a��ahY � Jetlybean BabY� . Airport Adequacy Task �n Councii and the Metra�►o li tan ao�e R��fh s°'a RFa`h Force. "We're saying it's prudent ports Commisston tc� k� ,��rie1yc��'�;�+�{ tO fi0 1t IIOW." 1�1T Time�y Counsetor . . p a� Hosffle�nte�t �� Nosti�e�ntenl . eye on aviatian trends over the With 16 months of study under next deeade,and Ehen make a deci- 9ef`A'°Sf Re�°`Utia��4�h�;Eue{�Z� its belt, the task force's steerin sion. Tfie renort so .,,,; Dehlinger-5L711% E��r1z""d5-111. g Y ggests�that�an � � ��.2 E�.o�r«�^^,��•5`'�W.BPS,nP,s committee made the recommenda- a��'Aprt could open ip 2pOR or 2f115, tion in a id-page report, and the An o#ficia1 #or Northwest Air- fuii task force is almost certa�n to l�fl�s, the airport's primary user lend approval when it eonvenes Oct. 13,Nunn said. �';th nearly R0 percent of the traf- � Iir In�d_e..__----s _ _. •....�vr�A'r1�� . � • � . Metrbpalitan Council of the Twin Cities Area Mears Park Centre, 230 East F'ifth Street St. Paul, Mirineso�a 55101 Tel. 612 291-5359/TDD 291-Ug04 � DATE: September 29, 1988 T0: MSP Adequacy Task Foree *; � ..,r, .< � � .s.,,� �' FROM: Josephine Nunn, Chair �. .;`.'� '�,. Diek Beens, Vice Chair ,:. �«�� SUBJECT: Preliminary Draft � MSP Adequaey Study Decision Options Introducti.on The Steering Committee developed the outline and first draft of the decision aptions at its August 8th meeting. Since then this report has evolved as nat only the Steering Cc�mmittee has studied it, but also as the full Task Force has eritiqued and diseussed it in the small group meetings. This draft r�flecta that diseussion and ineorporates the baekground reports on eostlbenefit analysis, enuironmental capaeity (eommun3ty noise stress index3 and the ADSIM sehedule/depeaking simulat�.on on airport operations. This regort is intended to form the foundation of the recommenda�ions, findings and conclusions of the Task Foree. Section As MSP Adec}uacy Study Alternative Strategies for Analysis and Reeommendation Section B: Strategy Evaluation Measures Section C: Strategy Principles and Goals Seetion D: Draft Decision Strategy: Assuring Ma�er A�.rport Adequacy for the Metropolitan Area and the State of Minnesota �- Section E: Contingency Planning and Risk Assessment Proeess: Annual Assessment i . � � A. MSP Adequacy Study Alternative Strategies for Analysis and Recommendation 1. Base Case - Make MSF work with existing runway system and implement eurrent capital improuement program including the 4-22 runway extension (the base case program is assumed in all subsequent strateg�.es}. � 2: Strate�y A - Enhanee i�LSP by building a new North-South Runway, operational in 1997. , 3. Strategy B - Enhanee MSP to its maximum potential (within the ringroad highway system) by building a new AIorth-South Runway, operational in 1997, and by building a new Far Parallel Runway, operational in 2008. 4. Strategy C - Enhanee MSP short-term and iand bank for a new replacement airport long-term. 5trategy GI: Enhanee MSP by building a new North-South Runway, operatlonal in 1997; secure a Tand bank for a potential new airport, Iand under control bp 1996-1q97; and build and open a new airport in 2008 if �ustified by contingeney pianning proces8. Strategy CII: Enhanee MSP by building a new North-South Runway7 operational in 1997; seeure a land bank for a potential new airport, land under contro2 by 1996�1997; and buiid and open a new airport. in 2015 if 3ustified by ec�ntingeney planning psrocess. 5. Strategy D - Use demand management teehniques to alter the seRedule of the air carriers and regional commuters to maximize the capacity of 1�P. ; , 6. Strate�,�E - Site and build a new airport� open it by 1994• 2 . � � t F,' • r; � � � � � � � s��. B. Strategy Evaluatian Meaaures � ,i: . ;�y' The MSP Adequaey Study eonsultants have prepared under separate cover the Executive Summary of �he information and analysis generated for the �,' examinatian of Lhe long-term adequaey af Minneapalis-St. Paul Internatianal °�'' Airport. Answers ta the qeaesti�ns and evaluatian measures iisted here are R�� contained in that repart. �s�' ,°' 1 . Forecastsz What is the demand? : What are the key assumptions? What is the eredibil.ity af the foreaasts? 2. Capacity & What is the desired Ievel of serviee, how mueh annual and Level af average delay is aceeptable? Service: What at*e the faeility requirements for the desired level oF serviee? How wi11 market respond to eapacity constraints/exees� capacity? Wha� is the air transportation cost/benefit ana].ysis of eaeh option? What role does peak spreading and demand �nagement play in eaeh option7' 3• Finanee: How mueh will eaeh option cost and what fs the scaie and seope of the financial requirements? Who pays? Who benefits? 4. Environmental Capacity & Safety: What is the aommuni�y noise sGress indsx eontour and LdN eontour for eaeh option? - What levei of land use safety is aehieved? 5. Eeonomie Developments What are the short-term and long-�erm economie benefits {,jobs� ineome and eeonomio multiplier effects} benefits and costs of eaeh option? What 1eve1 of air serviee (hours of annual delay, nonstop service) is prt�vided to the business communityfregional eeonamy? What eeonomie development image or eeonomie future is portrayed by the level of servies? What aerviee ievel is implied for Greater MinnesotalUpger M3dwest for each option? 6. Air Transportation System: 'r What role does MSP play in national/ international system? How far ahead or hehind cauld MSP be in air service faeilities relative to other ma,jor hub airgorts? 3 � � r:; C. Strategy Parineiples and Goals f ,' c: 1. SINGLE MAJOR AIRPORT WITHIN A �°' N�TROPOLITAN AIRFORT SYSTEM � Within the metropolitan airport system� develop and aperate a singie ma�or � airpart for seheduled air earrisr service and a geographica2ly balanced system ; of reliever airports. If a ne�a ma�or airport is built, MSP shall be closed and � reused for a non-av3ation tase. New terminaZ caneepts Cremote terminal, satellite terminals) appear relatively eostly but ought to be investigated. 2. HIGH LEVEL OF AIR SERVICE • Facilities at the ma�ar airport should be planned and develaped to afford the Region a high level of aviation service with mini�um delay and eongestion. 3• COi�'ETITTVE FACTLITIES -- NATIONAL d� INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM FaeiI.ities at the ma�or airgort should provide service levels whieh maximizes the Regi,on's eompeti,tive posi�ion in national and international. air transport markets. b. CQMPETITIVE AIRFQRT -- AIR SERViCE Adequate facilitfes at the ma�or airport shoald be developed to promote competitive airl3.ne services and to support ma3or hubbing aetivity. 5. ECONOMIC VITALxTY AND DEVELOPMENT The economic develogment needs of the Metropolitan Area and State should be a ` priority in the deveiopment and operation of the ma�or airport. Deeisions coneerning the ma�or airport ought to be cognizant of the existing eapital investments of ths airlines, business community and publie agencies. 6. FINANCE Ma�or eapital investments should be finaneed in a balaneed manner among federal grants, usar-based fees and eharges, state finaneiai support and private seetor investtnents. Th� garticipation of the private seetor in funding, developing and operating of landside faeilities (terminals, gates, parking faciiities, aneil.lary commerciai and suppart services) should be investigated. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL CAPACITY To the degree practieable� implement measures to limit the adverse environmental/noise impaets in eommunities around MSF; at a new ma�or airport implement appropriate eontrols to extent #'easible to limit potential noise/land use development'con�'licts. 8. SAFETY To the degree practicable, impl:emen� the State Land iTse Safety Zone Requirements at MSP; at a new ma�or airport implement the State Land Use Safety - Zone Requirements. 4 � M � D. Araft Decision Strategy: Assuring Ma�or Airport Adequae,�r for the Metropvlitan Area and the State of Minnesota 1. The metropalitan area and the state need to be assured that on ain annual basis that it is afforded adeqcaate air transportation serviee. 2. A priority needs to be given to investments and vperational proeedures to keep MSP adequate, meeting safety requirements and air serviee �needs with a minimum of airport-eaused delay for as long as MSP is �he ma3or airport. Given what �e know today from the information, expert testi�ny and analy�is developed for the Adequacy Study, ths foliowing points outline the reeommended strategy. 3• ICeeping MSP adequate will require the addition of at least one new runway in the five to ten year timeframe and demand manag�m�nt teohniques. Demand management teehniques inelude: (1} continued development of the Reliever Airport System for general aviation/ eorporate aireraft, (2) sehedule changes/depeaking opera�i+anal praetiees by the airlines and specifie imglementation polieies by the P3AC, anc3 (3) Fricing policies by �he MAC. U. In the longer term 2Q to 30 years, the metropolitan area will need either an additional runway at MSP or a new airport, therefore, the Region should begin immediately to secure a site. The �it� should be of adequate size to meet long range avfation needs and to' minimize environmental impaets. The locat�.on should serve the existing urban development dependent upon air transportatfon a»d future eeonomie development needs of the Region. 5• The process required is lengthy for either runway expansions or new airgort development and therefore it is neeessary to base long te�n decisions on foreeasts. Uncertainty is a part of long term forecasts and must be addressed in making strategie deciaions. A eantingeney planning and riak assessment proeess nseds to be integrated into the deei�ion-making and implementation proeess. An annual assessment of problems, prospeets, suceesses and needs must be made. 6. The difficulty, cost and uneertainty oP either building new runways at I�P or building a new airport should not be understated. Nor should the Region's need to have a high qua�ity of air serviee; nor the importanee of air serviee to the Regian's econamy today and in the 2tst century. A dual-traek implementation strategy must be pursued to assure bath short term and long term needs, to provide flexibility and to cope reasonably and rationally with un�ertainty. Table 1 lays out the dual-track implementation strategy required to address these coneerns to meet the shart and long term aviatian needs of the Metropolitan Area� the state and Upper Midwest served by the ma3ar airport. 6 • • � E. Contingeney Planning and R�sk Assessment Frocess: Annual Assessment Once one of the deeision aiternatives has been seleeted, a risk management and eontingency planning proeess to monitor and analyze events should be set up to ad�ust timing and ta cop� �ith �nfavorable events or favorable opportunities. The purpose of this strategic management approaeh is ta provide flexibility in dea3ing with a dynamic and eomplex issue, Course� ad�ustments and corrections will be required as it wiZl take several ' deeades to fully implement the plan. In addition, the number of local, metropolitan, state and federal governmental �urisdictions involved, each with their awn agendas and perspectives, requires some flexibilfty. Most important, the incorporation of a risk management and contingeney' planning process into the overall deci�ion-making process supports a strong clear decision at the outset. If the eritfeisms or reservations about the decision prove valid down the road, the ecintingency proeess Will allow far their inclusion and impiementation schedule ehanges aan be made. Hedging and unneeessarily eomgromising the initial deeision are not necessary iP adequate eontingeney safe�uards are gut in place. The risk a:��essment approach used for the MSP Adequaey Study atrongly support this contingeney planning process. - Risk A4anagementlContingenay Planning Process Benehmarks ' Annual assessments of eaeh benehmark should be made to determine if ehanges noted indieate shifts in the industry, shifts in demand for air tt^avel, or changes in operational efficieney c�f the airport or airllne industry. in addition, an assessment shauld be made as to the combined impaet of ali factors on the timing of the �mplementa�ion, the need for capital improvements, and the amount and type of demand management. 1 . Enplanements and Operations Actual number af annual enplanements antl operations of scheduled air carrier and regianal cc�mmuters, - trend over three years exceeds or falls beiow fareeast level hy 20 percent or more. 2. Technology Inerease/decrease in runway • capacity due to applieation of technologYi teehnologieal changes offer more or less than expeeted 15 pereent inerease in eapacity/ utilization of runways. 7 r - � � . . . � . . . . . . . . � , . . . . . . ' .� �� . .. � . . � . � . . � . . . . . � . . .. 3• Aircraft Size Ghange in average seat size af aireraft fleet using MSP sig- nificantly vary from forecast increase of two seats per year. Avsrage over three years shows ' no ehange or more than 10 seats. 4. Economie Factars Regional eeonomie growth or national GNP growth greater than expected or ma�or recession of more than 36 months in duration. Regional economie base shifts and air travel demand needs change. 5. Airline Industry Significant ma�or airline mergers; hubbing aetivity reduce or increased at MSP; ratio of OriginfDestination passengers to transfer traffie draps below 1.9 or 2.3 (foreeast level i.s 2.1). 6. Airfare Reai airfares rise/fall from 1988 levels affecting demand. >" 7. Regulation and Safety Federal regu2ation or airline industry and airspace; state regulation including land u'se safety/comgatibility affeeting airpart operations. 8. Noise Adverse change in noi�e impaet from noise energy or frequeney of . over flights due to traffie or ' fleet mix. 9. Implementation of Strategy Implementatian schedule of enhancement of MSP or landbanking for new airport gets delayed signifieantly due to eommunity aeceptanee, finaneial feasibility, or airline industry ehanges. 8 f . - • ' � . � . � • � �� . . . . . . � . . . . . . .� . . . . . 10. D emand na e Ma g ment Demand management teehniques of schedule changes Cdepeaking}, priQing, reliever ayatem use bY Beneral aviation ar� more/ less effective in efforts to handle congestion and delay. JM3029.PHTRNI@5 � 9 ��r� Z� ��r _. ��, � �" �� . A� �� Z� ' �t 1"'r►��.�Z' +y �� '� � � `'�u,e,s , Qc�o�+�-,�5' / 8 t�r�.t� � 9� u� ?v p,,n. ; , '-- �i��MIY�IriM�Y_.. � ._._. _.�.+Y�.....r.,...............:.....,.....�_..........__.... � `IJiG�L1N1f��OG,S � St.`�C?�D�' `�Ot� c�,��i�lA1�.S�O�it�� U7�"e It�G �o t�r.�`c�ication �rr�cu� � dcv�e Cosi��S c cur �� "'i�cun;�iq a�,raC.�. `��(ca�c lvav us tv�iaNk�w�rra�ru� wfw F�a�vc r�ssisted z'n-ifr� � �'e"�' t��.�'y`�"as �GC'a� ats �iC 5t:��rrL � � 's��t�i�mini�~ t� tru.�� -t�'i G�cnut"fs �i�- 5� �t��iz tfrc 1�'�Zit��s� � , � r�� sa�c-, �ie Ciiz� �ose— �iu�aa� a � �� vtr.s dtatrtotsstt�atfo�s � 6e arcd 6om6�ia��f�`'u� ro6ots wtiGG 6�de�rc�►�trat�d a� �cis state.-nj--�/ii�-art��ornd 59r�a.d 1,�u� ' , , , � a,sixlh race oi Pick � • ;omments >ut but dropF�^9 FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 3�. 19$$ ,ne�sh d'`9°°a nst some h1991e5 �as af huge Price ;isam for nighicap �1�� on ac�ssion J�I�� down i ane �,�� t disiance � . . � .. � � � � � . � �d wiil finish.,�� .� . � ,umhers. �� '� � � fla COt15BnSUS �� rtz 32,5% �� v 28.$% 3b2-1115r � "�'_ 19 ,9 ��'{'�� . � . . ' � dnd love Nofthboeind Jove �. � 1� p ��h�e �Q�. ('� .Nataiie Friendly Natt�liP j'j1�� YGI�w � .ClassicC�in • iU . . . ^-L� �� . ycoulfrme KeeD�eyeotitfrrn¢ i�i port so recom SW.,�h �.�.-S��Ady �� -adY� Baldisette Da�cer � T.hoa A�1 F'rince Thoo A�1 sY MIChQIe(,'00�C stride shrrp T�mes srarr wr��er lect more than one coiirse of acti�n T�meg K��+sn�uee� — preferably runway expansion N��d sW�"wooe A new runway should be built at and iand bankin Ta`°""a" Minneapolis-St. Paui International t��Political uncer�taintie�eause of ,,,a„ Babby"a""'' Airport'to meet short-term traffic "I �'�sh there was one clear an_ oTa"`'"f-D °»c°�an�a�a needs, but land also should be `85� �Cer��Yn Sw�C �rolYn �. C1854Yone . ra �„ Pur i� , but there isn't��t MU(��£,4`<91(�� Shdine's Velentln4 chased imtnediatel in the�uent The key thing ia that som�th�n� ��r 8 r@ t�CE rokr.r nu�nY nker�uedv P ment airport is need�d � get done." ,�,,,,,5 v��n��ne Mr R MQti'4pQJitlh �Ot1I1Cl� C4tT1 i r rf vrar's Girt Qulpp�a reeomrnendedThursday, mittee The steerin� commitk�e's r�c- "'--'"'"'""`p �^ua",n°`k�+ ommendation does nat cuggest � ,��a��ro�kR� � � � ��The �lan CC WQ � � �rthero Sloux Sue Northe��S�a+�x Su. � proerastinate when a decision to build a new�qr_ avhP N��A9a�^ cataloa+a the harder it will be to find land," Port might be made. s`�`` 381(� .�OSQ flitlC enegotiale Renegolis�te � Nunn, chairwoman Tnstead,it advises the Metrc►p�ti_ �r�b��"ea�'v �e��Yee$„Beb,, Qt the Airport Adequacy Task t�n Council and the Metr��itan a��a eAa�h ♦ �t "We're �"'`Y� Bold Reach Force. saying it's prudent Airports Commission t� keep ,�mQ�vcn�n��o• . . . 6Q UQ��[jO�T.'e . � aI� � Timely CoonSetor NoStf�C InfPnt �. eye on aviation trends over t}�E Hos+��e�n+ent With 16 months of stvdy under next decade,and then rr�ake a deci- 9e`-A'°5+R��t'�^�9f1��uQ`�l� its belt, the task force's steering P g� h 111; 6eAlin9�r^57-iit; E�e�+=–^s-", sion. The re art sv QS�S lhat an �;,,,2�O�{��P`��7 fOf Shn`N•BPSt hPT4 committee made the recommenda- a�rpprt cou�d open in 200R or Z(1i5, tion in a 10-page report, and the An o#ficiat for Northwest Afr- fuil task force is almost certain to I�nes, the airport's primary user lend approval when it eonve»es u'ith nearly �0 �ercent of the traf- Oct. 13,Nu�n saja. fic load, expressed sorne diseom- �y�. The recommendation fol fort with th, �� forecasts from consultin f trns P rec�mrnendation. �� ' that predict the airport, as is, is ��Ei�e g°t�500 million invested in this place," said company Vice � �� IikelY to be extremely congested President Ben Griggs. "I dan't . � � � and clogged with flight delays in think you'd feel any differentlq if the next 24 years. someone said, `We want to uproot Consultants have indicated the 3'OU• ity for the Minnes�Ea Racin�;Cor big issue is econom�es,and that the stafe stands to be a big finaneial afficials af�the airline Minneso- m�ssion. ta's �hird 1ar est errrployer, f�ave � The three patrons describ� loser if it doesn't push ahead with s�ggested that they rrzigl�t sto� ,t themselves to Hessel as casnal b� significant airport expansion or addtng jobs and building neze facil- ,,- tors who have nothing agai� build a new airport. ities in the Twin Cities. s- 'frader and no business assoc The Canadian firm of Thompson- Griggs said the company is wil(_ t.ions with Cantert�ury I3owns•T� HickIing Aviatian said that without ing to take part in ex�ansi�n dis_ G�+id t.hcy sir►►Fly tho��ght the ir �r�ater airlinetraffic capacity,the r.ussions, b�rt adct�fi, „w� f��v,, I.o �� d�nt had t.�he re{�rte�. region stands t� mi.�.s out on m�re kec�our opt:ions open.>, 'cy than �� Sh:+nnon had i:he device te� $:� billion in commercial �;��nday and�gain Monday to�ic growth and jobs. The task force recommendation .ter in two weeks will not lend acivic.e nis- mine it it was "hal.,, '1'hc(irst, "For a lot of people, the issue on where to buy land for a re lace- wa�P�itive,and the sec�nd de has been noise.But it's really about p ��ned that the deuice carriQc the region's economy and how to �ent airport. Accorciing to state �nat- position ourselves ;n the future" 1aw, the Metropolitan Council v�tts AC• that �al�� Marges Tr �rapher said Minneapolis City Council �°°uld have the task of selcctin� a � pa- The comp . member Steve Cramer, a stron ge°eral area, the Aii•ports Com- nt to W�th "P��Se�iO� �f 2n elect g mission would select the specific device on license raee track p advocate for a new airport and a site. e Cp, leader in efforts to reduce airport �t #�r �s�'� anied b o Ka noise over south Minneapolis. m9na} T�'�'�er was �ceomp N�nn said that if 11�e task force att�rney,l.�lantl W��C°n�at T wh�le The recommendation echoes the Metropolitar� C�ncjro�ed t►�a ninaa ,{��.'� t��'��m� bu# deciined n 33 those made by eonsultants Thurs- ;�,tri�•� }„ �� .r, „�, , �c? t,:��,� his�t.� dav Cnnsultant I)ick M�i��P � to the Legislat.��re for a ��"' i` ` . .. , �:,•"��"�:•• a�Jvi�;c*d lask forc�� me�nbc rs Iu ,;�, �S @af) ��POVc7� � �V a� the rtexf s��;�;i�n. tvhich � h��;in.�in.Irin�l�i r�,