01/16/1986 - Airport Relations Commission CITY OF EAGAN
AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE
AGENDA
THURSDAY
JANUARY 16, 1986
I. ROLL CALL & APPROVAL OF MINUTES
II. COMMITTEE UPDATE
- Governor's Task Force Report
- Noise Monitor Demonstration
- Glumack Proposal
- Membership
III. OLD BUSINESS
- North Eagan Departure Corridors
IV. DISTRIBUTION
- N.O.I.S.E. Correspondence
- Metro Monitor Article
- County Board Article
V. OTHER BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
MEMO TO: CHAIRMAN BAKER & ALL MEMBERS OF THE AIRPORT NOISE
COMMITTEE
FROM: ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT HOHENSTEIN
DATE: JANUARY 13, 1986
SUBJECT: AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE MEETING FOR JANUARY 16, 1986
A meeting of the Eagan Airport Noise Committee is scheduled for
Thursday, January 16, at 4:30 P.M. The meeting will be at the
Eagan Municipal Center in Conference Rooms A and B. Please
contact Jon Hohenstein at 454 -8100 if you are unable to attend
this meeting. The following discussion is intended to provide
background on those items to be reviewed at the meeting on
Thursday.
MINUTES
A copy of the minutes of the Eagan Airport Noise Committee
meeting of December 12, 1985, is enclosed for your review.
These minutes, subject to any change, require adoption by the
Committee.
COMMITTEE UPDATE
- Governor's Task Force Report
Enclosed for your review you will find the third draft of the
Governor's Task Force Report to Governor Perpich. This will be
forwarded to the Governor with minor modifications. The task
force has further recommended that it meet again in five to six
months to review the extent to which the short -term goals have
been met. Also attached you will find a copy of the public
hearing document prepared to cover the Logan Airport Noise Budget
for the city of Boston, Massachusetts. A budget along these same
lines is encouraged by the task force. Also attached you will
find newspaper articles covering the Metropolitan Airports
Commission response to the task force deliberations. As you will
see from the content of the articles, Chairman Glumack and the
MAC are very concerned about any attempt to preempt their
activities within this area. While no action is required of the
Committee on this particular item, staff will be on hand to
respond to questions and discuss the contents of the reports.
-Noise Monitor Demonstration
The demonstration of the Metrosonics Noise Monitor is scheduled
for Tuesday, January 14, at 3:30 P.M., at City Hall. Due to
scheduling difficulties, this was the best time avilable for
Metrosonics and City staff. Members are encouraged to attend the
1
CHAIRMAN BAKER & ALL MEMBERS OF THE AIRPORTS NOISE COMMITTEE
JANUARY 13, 1986
demonstration if possible. As it is not a convenient time for
those who work during the day, staff will review the outcome of
the demonstration at the meeting.
- Glumack Proposal
Attached in your packets you will find an article covering the
latest attempt by the MAC to institute the 180 degree turn
procedure. Chairman Glumack has modified the initial proposal by
- making it a part of the planned extension of Runway 4/22 toward
the Bloomington /Richfield boundary. The intent behind this
proposal is to offset the takeoff point for departing aircraft on
Runway 22 to a point between the parallel runways. By doing
this, it will be possible to maintain the preferential
configuration longer than is currently possible by reducing the
number of planes that aircraft controllers have to dodge when
departing aircraft on Runway 22. This proposal correlates with
Noise Abatement Measure #4 of the FAR Part 150 Noise
Compatibility Plan. A copy of the evaluation of the measure
suggested is attached to your packets.
Also attached to your packets you will find a copy of the letter
forwarded by staff to MASAC in response to specific proposals
presented by the study. The responses had to be forwarded to Mr.
Weslander by January 10. If you have any additional concerns you
wish to have presented in light of your review of the study and
staff's response, please forward those to us and we will pass
them along to Mr. Weslander.
The initial meeting on resubmission of the 180 degree turn to the
FAA will be held on Wednesday, January 15, at the Operations
Committee level. Staff and Chairman Baker will be on hand to
represent the Committee's interest. As can be seen by staff's
response to the airport article, it is important that the
Airports Commission recognize the different impacts of these two "
separate issues. No action is required of the Committee on this
matter at this time. If additional concerns need to be raised
about either the Glumack proposal or the FAR Part 150 study
report, they can be raised at the meeting.
- Membership
The City Administrator's office has forwarded letters to the
incumbents on the various Committees requesting that they
indicate whether or not they wish to continue to serve on the
Committees. Airport Noise Committee members should have received
this letter sometime in the past week. Please respond at your
earliest convenience if you wish to continue membership on the
Committee. Also forward to the Administrator's office names of
any individuals you feel should be considered for membership.
CHAIRMAN BAKER & ALL MEMBERS OF THE AIRPORTS NOISE COMMITTEE
JANUARY 13, 1986
While no action is necessary on the part of the Committee on this
matter at this time, recommendations of additional members can be
made for the City Council's review.
OLD BUSINESS
-North Eagan Departure Corridor
Attached in your packets you will find a copy of the departure
flight tracks used for the noise contour lines in the Part 150
study. In a recent discussion with the tower personnel, Otto
Leitner was told that the localizers which send beams down the
middle of the runways are used to determine flight path and not
the supposed 105 degree departure headings. As you can see from
the straight -line extensions of Runways 11L and 11R, such
departure track brings the aircraft very close to the Country
Home Heights Addition. In addition, Mr. Leitner was told that
the departure controllers frequently shotgun aircraft at a
variety of headings to achieve near airport capacity levels of
flights in this direction.
As the outcome of this discussion seems to be that the corridor
is not recognized by the controllers, the Committee needs to
reconsider previous indications that the tower could be made to
comply with the approved departure rules.
Action To Be Considered On This Item: To reconsider efforts to
obtain compliance with the north Eagan departure corridor.
DISTRIBUTION
Attached in your packets you will find three items of information
for distribution. The first of these is a memorandum from the
National Organization to Insure a Sound Controlled Environment
covering their written responses to the FAA hearings held in
Washington D.C. an December 10, 1985. The second is an article
which was referenced at the December meeting concerning aircraft
noise complaints and taken from the Metro Monitor for December,
1985. The third item is a copy of the Minneapolis Star and
Tribune editorial from December 19, 1985, concerning the Hennepin
County Board's denial of the airports request for pull tab
gambling. The Committee may discuss these matters and any
possible action necessitated by them.
3
CHAIRMAN BAKER & ALL MEMBERS OF THE AIRPORTS NOISE COMMITTEE
JANUARY 13, 1986
ADJOURNMENT
The Conference Rooms have been reserved by the Cable Commission
beginning at 6:00 P.M. Hopefully, the Airport Noise Committee
can complete all business before or by that time. Staff will
make an effort to facilitate this ambitious time schedule.
,.nd 4
Ad 'nist a ive Assistant
JH /jj
cc: Tom Hedges, City Administrator
Paul Hauge, City Attorney
Dale Runkle, City Planner
Attachments
4
MINUTES OF THE EAGAN AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE
EAGAN, MINNESOTA
DECEMBER 12, 1985
A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Noise Committee was held on
Thursday, December 12, 1985 at the Eagan Municipal Center at 4:30 p.m. at
which the following were present: Chairman Tom Baker, John Gustin, Joe
Harrison, Carol Dozois and guest, Otto Leightner. Also present were City
Administrator Tom Hedges, City Administrative Intern John Hohenstein and
Assistant City Attorney Dave Keller.
MINUTES
Harrison moved, Gustin seconded the motion to approve the minutes of the
previous meeting of October 10, 1985. All voted yes.
NOISE MONITOR DEMONSTRATION
The committee discussed the possibility of the purchase of noise
monitoring equipment at a cost of between $7,500.00 and $10,000.00. John
Hohenstein indicated that there may be a problem of creating a new liability
to the City, to create and enforce a Noise Ordinance with the information
provided by the noise monitoring equipment. He also indicated that MPCA
Representative Dave Kelso could also provide the same information with the
proper request from the City. The Committee further discussed the costs of
operation, record - keeping and training of an individual in a manner to make
that individual somewhat of an expert in this area. Harrison moved, Gustin
seconded the motion to meet with a sales representative regarding the noise
monitoring equipment in January, in order to gather more information in regard
to the use of such equipment without any commitment with regard to the
purchase or rental thereof. All members voted yes.
NORTH EAGAN DEPARTURE CORRIDORS
The Committee then reviewed the letter of November 8, 1985 from Les Case,
Air Traffic Manager. Mr. Case's letter described the airport localizers as
electronic beams which merely extend the center lines of the runways 29L and
29R. John Hohenstein pointed out that Mr. Case was retiring in May and might
give the Committee a fairly candid response if asked to attend a meeting. It
was also noted that the noise abatement rules of May 1, 1984 did not appear to
coincide exactly with the agreement with the City regarding the corridor and
departures therefrom. Harrison moved, Gustin seconded the motion to request
that Mr. Case attend the February meeting. All voted in favor.
1
� Noise Committee Minutes
December 12, 1985
180 DEGREE HEADING DECISION
John Hohenstein then provided information in regard to the November 26,
1985 MASAC meeting, in addition to a history of the 180 degree heading
decision. The major reason for Mr. Case's rejection of the 180 degree turn
appeared to be that he was advised by the Federal Government that an
environmental impact statement would be required in order to continue the use
of the heading, which was tested during 1983 -84. It was pointed out that
MASAC and MAC appeared to have forgotten that it was agreed prior to the test
as stated by Tim Anderson of MAC that such an EIS would be required. John
Hohenstein pointed out that prior to the test of the 180 degree turn which
took flights heading southwesterly down the Cedar Avenue corridor, that there
were four other headings being used, being 200, 220, 270 and 350 degrees. The
180 degree turn was added as a fifth heading to allow more flights off that
particular runway. However, the sound tests which were used to determine the
net benefit to people of the change in routes were conducted over a 4 day
period only, and the noise contours that were derived therefrom, ignored the
fact that the 200 degree heading was being used simultaneously. It appeared
that the intent was to provide 5 headings rather than to merely substitute the
180 degree heading for the 200 degree heading, although the noise from the 200
degree heading had been ignored in the noise contours.
MAC CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
John Hohenstein then reviewed with the Committee the Capital Improvement
Program information provided in the committee packet. It was pointed out that
MAC intended to rehabilitate and extend runway R22 by 1,500 feet. This was
presented by MAC as a safety factor for the landing of larger aircraft.
However, it appeared that such an extension would allow a greater use of R22
for a southwesterly departure of flights allowing aircraft to start from
beyond the intersection of the parallel preferential runways. It was pointed
out that the extension of the runway by 1,500 feet would make the 180 degree
turn no longer run over Cedar Avenue but rather again affect the people that
were supposedly benefited by the 180 degree turn. While there was
$6,000,000.00 designated for a noise suppressor for 1986, it was pointed out
that a representative of the MPCA had advised staff that this money would
never be spent but was put into the budget to show people what an inordinate
amount of expense was involved for one noise abatement measure.
PUBLICITY
The group then discussed the need to organize and provide information to
area residents so that Eagan area residents would be as well represented on
• complaint maps as the highly organized Minneapolis /Bloomington /Richfield
areas. Gustin moved, Harrison seconded the motion to continue articles in the
local paper every week with some explanation as to the need to make telephone
calls in addition to providing notices to the Eagan telephone directory, Cable
T.V. and Community bulletin Board. All members voted in favor.
2
.' Noise Committee Minutes
December 12, 1985
MEMBER RECOMMENDATIONS
Harrison moved, Gustin seconded the motion to recommend to the City
Council Otto Leightner, Mr. Myrick and Brad Farnham as potential members, in
addition to contacting non - active members in regard to their desires as
continuing members. All voted yea.
NORTH EAGAN DEPARTURE CORRIDORS
The Committee then continued further discussion on the North Eagan
Departure corridors indicating that Mr. Skoglund was recommending that since
the flight departure paths are not being complied with, that the departure
corridors be eliminated. It was pointed out that there was a need to 1)
prevent the elimination of the departure corridors, and 2) push for compliance
with the corridors. Harrison moved, Gustin seconded the motion to recommend
approval of the resolution to maintain the three -mile departure corridor for
parallel runway departures over Eagan and Mendota Heights as attached hereto.
All voted in favor.
ADJOURNMENT
Harrison moved, Gustin seconded the motion to adjourn the meeting at 5:55
p.m. All voted in favor.
DGK
Secretary
3
• Revised 1/9/86
i
M E T R O P O L I T A N C O U N C I L
Suite 300 Metro Square Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101
DATE: January 2, 1986
TO: Members of the Governor's Task Force on Airport Noise
FROM: Connie Kozlak, Bill Lester
SUBJECT: Third Draft of Final Report to Governor Perpich
Introduction
Over the past two decades, the communities surrounding the Minneapolis -St. Paul
International Airport (MSP) have been seriously impacted by noise generated by
the aircraft using the airport. In the past few years, the problem has become
acute. This is principally because of increased aircraft operations resulting
from Congress' decision in 1978 to deregulate the airline industry. At the
time of deregulation, there were 9 airlines annually flying about 11 million
passengers in and out of the airport. That was done with about 220,000
landings and takeoffs. Today, there are 34 airlines flying the same number of
passengers; however, the landings and takeoffs have increased to 370,000. Many
of the airlines operating at MSP are using older aircraft that are very noisy.
One measure of the seriousness of the problem is the dramatic increase in
citizen complaints. In July 1985, there were 1,252 complaints as contrasted
with 823 in July of the prior year. Finding effective solutions to this
problem is complicated by the fragmentation of authority over aircraft and
airport operations at the federal, state, regional and local levels.
In October, 1985 Governor Perpich authorized this interagency task force
chaired by Sandra Gardebring of the Metropolitan Council. Members, who are
listed in Appendix A, included representatives of the Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA), State Planning Agency, legislators, Department of Transportation and
Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) as well as local units of government and
citizens of the area. The specific charge of the task force was to evaluate
potential solutions available at both the federal and state level to rctea
the problem of aircraft noise at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport and
to recommend specific proposals to the Governor for both short- and long -term
solutions to the problems of airport noise.
The task force met eight times between October, 1985 and January, 1986.
Perspectives on the problem were presented by MAC, MPCA, the Metropolitan
Council, the airline industry, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), state
legislators and other interested groups such as the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound
Abatement Council (MASAC) and South Metropolitan Airports Action Council
(SMAAC). A presentation was heard on the legal constraints and fragmentation
of authority between various levels of government. Since airport noise is a
problem in many metropolitan areas around the country, solutions being tried in
other cities were also examined. A list of 49 possible solutions were prepared
and examined by the task force. This list was pared to the options presented
in this paper. Emphasis was placed on controlling operations and noise levels
The basic premises of the Task Force in evaluating the range of solutions to
the airport noise problem were as follows:
1. Short -term noise reduction should be the primary goal of the Task
Force.
2. Initiatives offering long -term relief are equally important and should
be recommended, but are no longer sufficient in light of the current
problem.
3. Legal questions should be considered, but should not be determinative
of the recommended course of action.
$. Noise abatement is a multi - jurisdictional responsibility.
5. Noise reduction in one neighborhood should not be accomplished at the
expense of another.
Assuming short -term noise reduction as a primary goal the task force did not
consider construction of a new airport. A new airport has not been sited in
the United States since the late 60's. Further, with the passage of the
National Environmental Protection Act in the early 70's, the possibility of
such a siting would at the very least be a long -term solution to the problem
if it could be done at all. While not completely ruling out this option, it
was felt that the task force's best efforts should be directed elsewhere.
Background
Much work has already been done on the issue of airport noise by several
agencies and groups. In 1969 the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
(MASAC) was created as an advisory group by MAC. This was the country's first
successful attempt at bringing together industry representatives, citizens and
the airport operator to develop noise abatement strategies. These strategies
included creation of a preferential runway system to channel traffic over the
Minnesota River and an industrial - commercial area of Eagan, voluntary nighttime
restrictions on flights, and reduction of noise from engine runups.
These were significant steps which contained airport noise at a tolerable level
for several years. However, there has been a dramatic increase in airline •
traffic into the Twin Cities since the airline industry was deregulated in
1978. The traffic levels have substantially increased the duration of noise in
affected areas and have decreased the amount of time the preferential runway
system can be used. Deregulation has also allowed new carriers to enter the
marketplace, often by purchasing used aircraft to avoid the substantial
investments required for new planes. Prior to 1978 the used aircraft market in
the U.S. was relatively inactive; now, however, retirement of an older, noisier
airplane by one carrier does not often remove the plane from the national
fleet.
During the summer of 1985 aircraft noise reached crisis proportions. A record
number of complaints was received by the airport and citizens organizations,
notably the South Metropolitan Airports Action Council (SMAAC) renewed their
efforts to curtail noise.
In addition to the work of this task force there are currently some special
local efforts to deal with the problem. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
held public hearings on November 19 and 20 on proposed noise rules which would
restrict the amount of noise emanating from aircraft using the airport. ire
MAC al3o fccl3 the proposed rule3 arc too Strict, do not uoc thc corrcct noise
metric and would - - - _ - - - ' _ _ _ _
advcr3e economic impact on thc airport and thc metropolitan arca. MAC is
currently completing a voluntary Part 150 Study which has been underway for 2
years. The Federal Aviation Regulation Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility
Program prescribes the procedures and methodology for preparation of airport
noise exposure maps and an airport noise compatibility program. Several of the
recommendations in the report are also contained in the Part 150 Study, such as
a noise budget, differential landing fees and a night curfew.
MAC Chairman, Ray Glumack, has proposed a 14 -point program for dealing with the
noise, some of which are included in this report.
Task Force Recommendations
The following recommendations are organized in sections according to the time
frame of their noise improvement. Within each section there is no implied
priority for individual strategies; they are all intended for implementation as
a package. Immediate action on the recommendations in Sections 2 -3 is needed
even though actual noise reduction will occur at a later date.
For each recommendation, the agencies with primary jurisdiction and secondary
responsibility are identified as well as a suggested procedure for carrying out
the recommendation.
SECTION 1 - TARGET: OPEN WINDOW SEASON
1. Noise Budget -- Using the Logan Airport (Boston) Model, begin immediately
to determine aggregate noise level in 1984 and issue an order to the
airlines not to exceed this level. Airlines would be free to decide within
this budget which planes to use and when (within 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. time
frame). However, all would be bound by an allocated ceiling based on 1984
noise levels. After this initial single season rollback, ceilings would be
structured in succeeding years to allow noise improvements each year.
Primary Agency -- Metropolitan Airports Commission
Secondary Agency - Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (as part of a
compliance schedule)
Compliance Procedure -- MAC would establish the noise level and begin
meetings with the 34 airlines to inform them of the ceiling and to discuss
appropriate mechanisms to stay within the noise budget. The compliance
schee would also be negotiated wit'! ` _,
•
of May 1, 1986. Potential sanctions include loss of terminal space, loss
of gates, others. MPCA could make implementation of a noise budget part of
a compliance schedule to meet its standards (see Section 2, Strategy 2).
2. Limitations on corporate and private general aviation operations at
Minneapolis -St. Paul (MSP) International Airport. No new facilities for
general aviation (such as corporate hangars) would be approved at MSP and
incentives would be provided for non - essential users of MSP to move to
satellite airports.
General aviation planes are relatively quiet.but oinoo thoy fly olower than.
jots they oongcot the takeoff and landing pattern° and reotrict the uoage
_ _ _ _ - - -- - - _._.. However, since the Preferential Runway
System is dependent on the total number of aircraft operations and because
even environmentally sound aircraft contribute to that total, they can have
the effect of limiting the use of the Preferential Runway System.
Combining this recommendation with other attempts to limit noisy commercial
flights, such as the noise budget, should insure that reducing general
aviation flights does not merely open space for more commercial flights.
- - - - .. . - - - - -- - - -- - -- A program of
legal limitations at MSP and incentives to move to other airports could be
implemented.
Current efforts such as the installation of an instrument landing system
at Airlake Airport and upgrading of St. Paul Downtown Airport are
continuing and should show results soon. Further development of all
reliever airports should continue into the future. A minimum landing fee
at MSP, regardless of weight, could be imposed immediately as an incentive
to land elsewhere. MAC should actively advertise and promote general
aviation use of its other airports.
Primary Agency -- Metropolitan Airports Commission
Secondary Agency -- Metropolitan Council, Legislature
Compliance Procedure -- Policy decision to disapprove a request for new
facilities at MSP would be made at the Commission level; Metro Council
Policy Plan encourages development of reliever airports. The Council also
oversees airport development through reviews of EIS's, master plans and • -
• MAC's capital improvement budget. This also may fall under proposed
legislation to restrict expansion of airport. MAC would be responsible for -:'
creating incentives for general aviation to move to satellite airports.
3. Ban all training flights by ordinance, to take effect next summer when
Airlake instrumentation is complete.
Primary Agency -- Metropolitan Airports Commission
Compliance Procedure -- MAC would adopt ordinance.
4. Strict enforcement of noise abatement operation procedures and noise
sensitivity training for pilots and air traffic controllers.
Primary Agencies -- Metropolitan Airports Commission, FAA, Congress
4
Secondary Agency -- Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Compliance Procedure -- the Metropolitan Airports Commission would become
more proactive and begin immediate meetings with the airlines and FAA,
employer of the controllers, to determine appropriate compliance methods.
5. MAC should establish an aggressive 24 hour noise monitoring program at the
airport to become more proactive on the noise issue.
Primary Agency -- Metropolitan Airports Commission
Secondary Agency -- Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ( -part of a
compliance schedule)
Compliance Procedure - MAC should act immediately to establish 24 hour
monitoring by people, not machines, for compliance with noise abatement
procedures." People could quickly respond and point out problems to the
control tower for correction. -
6. Differential landing fees based on noise level of individual aircraft, with
lower fees for quieter planes.
Primary Agency -- Metropolitan Airports Commission
Secondary Agency -- Minnesota Pollution Control Agency . (as part of a
compliance schedule), Legislature (noise tax) -
Compliance Procedure -- MAC would begin immediately to develop a process
to significantly increase landing fees for noisier aircraft. Fees for
major carriers could be increased in 1989 when contracts expire, although
the contracts may not be binding if a nuisance or pollutant is created
allowing the fee structure to be changed sooner. Monies derived from this
procedure 4~34 could be dedicated to er.noise abatement #.rmiet-
fund - activities. Fees have to be high enough to be a significant
disincentive for noisier planes to use the airport. An alternative method
would be setting a "noise tax" for take -offs and landings.
7. A nighttime ban (11 p.m. to 6 a.m. weekdays, 8 a.m. weekends) on all but
Stage III aircraft. - There is currently a voluntary nighttime restriction -
honored by the airlines which keeps flights at a low level. However, there'
is a possibility the number of flights may grow," especially among general
aviation such as cargo and charter flights.
Primary Agency -- Metropolitan Airports Commission
Compliance Procedure -- Immediate MAC action to set policy ban based on FAA
Part 36 regulations which certify the sound levels of various planes.
SECTION 2: MEDIUM RANGE RECOMMENDATIONS (2 -5 YEARS)
1. Bring a lawsuit against the FAA in Federal or District Court to establish
the airport operator's authority to regulate the number of flights at MSP
based on environmental capacity considerations.
Primary Agencies -- Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Metropolitan
•
•
Compliance Procedure -- Research is currently being conducted under the
auspices of the State Attorney General's Office to determine an appropriate
basis on which to make suit.
2. Work out a phased compliance schedule between MAC and MPCA to achieve state
noise standards. This may incorporate noise reduction techniques such as
differential landing fees, noise budgets or land use compatibility
guidelines. The environmental capacity of the airport should be defined as
a basis for a compliance schedule.
Primary Agencies -- Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Metropolitan
Airports Commission
Secondary Agency -- Metropolitan Council
Compliance Procedure -- Work on this agreement should begin immediately.
3. Accelerate development of reliever airports to better serve general
aviation. Improvements to St. Paul Downtown and Airlake are almost
completed but ongoing improvements and amenities to the other airports will
be needed to divert further traffic from MSP.
Primary Agency -- Metropolitan Airports Commission
Secondary Agencies -- Metropolitan Council and possibly state Legislature
for change in current law regarding reliever airport improvement.
Compliance Procedure -- Metropolitan Council should provide direction in
its Aviation Policy Plan. The draft plan recommends an additional minor
airport in western Hennepin County. MAC should continue improvements to
other airports.
4. Add an instrument landing system (ILS) to Runway 11L to allow better
utilization and more precise higher approaches to this runway.
Responsible Agencies -- Federal Aviation Administration, Metropolitan.
Airports Commission
Compliance Procedure -- Rep. Sabo has included funding for this •
improvement in the current transportation bill.
5. Limit expansion of MSP facilities until noise abatement program is adopted.
Primary Agency -- Minnesota Legislature. Rep. Ken Nelson and Sen. Mike
Freeman are introducing bills which would prohibit expansion of MSP
facilities.
Secondary Agencies -- Metropolitan Airports Commission, Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (as part of a compliance procedure)
Compliance Procedure -- If the Legislature does not limit expansion, MAC
could voluntarily refuse to expand the airport.
6
6. Adopt ban on further manufacture of Stage II aircraft and the import of new
or used Stage II planes from other countries.
The FAA Part 36 regulation defines three generations of commercial jet
aircraft according to design noise levels. The oldest, noisiest jets are
referred to as Stage I (includes Boeing 707 and McDonnell Douglas DC -8).
Stage II aircraft are slightly quieter planes whose designs were approved
after 1969. These include 747's, DC -10's, and other planes re- designed to
comply with these regulations such as newer 727's, and DC -9's. The newest,
quieter jets, Stage III, are those complying with the FAA design
standards. These include 757's, 767's, 737 -300's A -300 Airbus and DC -9
super 80's, which produce half the noise of a Stage II plane.
Primary Agencies -- Federal Aviation Administration, Congress
Compliance Procedure -- Continued lobbying, possibly congressional action.
7. Adopt a ban on any further extension of the-Stage I operating cutoff date
of January 1, 1988.
Primary Agencies -- Congress, FAA
Compliance Procedure -- Continued lobbying, possibly Congressional action.
Locally, MAC has adopted an ordinance cutting off use of MSP Airport by
Stage I aircraft after January 1, 1988.
8. Adoption and enforcement of Metropolitan Council's Land Use Compatibility
Guidelines by all affected municipalities to prevent development of vacant
land into noise sensitive uses.
Primary Agencies -- Municipalities, Metropolitan Council
Compliance Procedure -- Those municipalities which have not incorporated
these guidelines into their comprehensive plans and zoning should do so
immediately. Metropolitan Council should enforce Metropolitan Land
Planning Act. Airport and FAA must maintain flight patterns upon which
these land uses are based.
9. Coordinated soundproofing plan where sound insulation is provided to homes,
schools and public buildings which desire it, with full or partial cost
(depending on building location) provided by MAC or another designated •
agency.
Primary Agency -- Metropolitan Airports Commission
Compliance Procedure -- MAC and Minneapolis should complete pilot -
insulation program as soon as possible and MAC should institute a
continuing comprehensive plan of insulation in all affected municipalities
funded through a differential landing fee, jet fuel tax or other sources.
This insulation plan should be based on the F.A.R. Part 150 Study now being
prepared.
SECTION 3: POST -1990
Continuation of strategies from Sections 1 & 2 is assumed.
1. A ban on operation of Stage II aircraft should be adopted to be implemented
by 1995.
•
Primary Agency -- Federal Aviation Administration, Congress
Compliance Procedure -- Continued lobbying by members of Task Force,
possible Congressional action.
SECTION 4: OTHER POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
Solutions identified in this section have been discussed by the Task Force and
are passed forward without specific recommendation or endorsement. Some are
actions already underway; others are somewhat controversial and have not been
unanimously favored by the Task Force.
1. The Part 150 study currently being undertaken by MAC (with FAA
participation) is looking at the environmental capacity of the airport and
will identify ways to curtail noise. Upon completion of this study, MAC
will be eligible for federal funds to assist in a noise abatement program.
2. Implement extension of Runway 4/22. Presently runway 1 4/22 cannot be
utilized during the warmest summer days for some large, fully loaded planes
used in long hauls and international flights. Many of these planes take
off over South Minneapolis. Extension of Runway 4/22 would allow some of
these flights to depart to the southwest instead. Completion of 4/22 would
increase the number of hours the Preferential Runway System can be used.
Completion of the environmental impact statement for this extension would
provide the information needed to fully assess its potential for noise
abatement and its economic impact.
3. Installation of a Microwave Landing System will allow curved and variable
approach paths, as well as varied glide slopes. Actual benefit to noise
levels requires further study.
•
4. Implementation of long -term comprehensive airport plans at all system
airports by 1990.
5. Limited acquisition of homes in highest noise areas, preferably on a
voluntary basis, by MAC or another agency, possibly with money from a Noise
s.
Abatement Trust Fund established with differential landing fees.
6. Tax reduction plan for houses impacted by aircraft noise. This has
implications of selling airlines a license to make noise. The money that
would be needed to reduce taxes may be better spent on actual reduction of
noise,--:- - _ - -
7. Stricter compliance with Eagan departure corridor and three -mile turn rule
would obtain maximum acoustical benefits from runway 11L and 11R. This is
an procedure (part of the "preferential runway system ") which
previously had great benefits by concentrating aircraft approaches and
departures over an industrial /commercial area of Eagan, rather than
residential areas which surround the airport in most other directions.
However, with increased traffic in recent years, these procedures decrease
•
the amount of time runways 11L and 11R can be used, and increase the amount
of traffic departing over South Minneapolis, where planes can turn and be
fanned out sooner than three miles.
8. MAC has passed, and is promoting among others, a resolution favoring
limited re- regulation of the aviation industry to control noise (i.e.,
limiting the number of flights between two points); Minneapolis a dth
- _ = has also passed a similar
resolution.
NOISE1
r•
M E T R O P O L I T A N C 0 U N C I L
Suite 300 Metro Square Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: December 19, 1985
TO: Airport Noise Task Force
FROM: Connie Kozlak
SUBJECT: Logan Airport Noise Budget
Attached is the text of the public hearing document from Massport regarding
alternative proposals for restricting the aircraft fleet at Logan Airport for
noise abatement pruposes.
The first proposal, the Three Tier Rule, is an administrative procedure. The
second alternative, Marketable Landing Rights, seeks to restrict the number of
Stage I and II through an auction procedure. Comments are also being accepted
on some combination of the two.
attach.
DPF078
•
these flights would either be rescheduled, or a stage 3
aircraft would have to be substituted depending on the
capabilities of individual airlines. However, since each
flight is operated by a different carrier, the impact on any
one airline is no more than one operation.
Alternative Fleet Improvement Rules
Administrative Approach
The first regulation, named the Three Tiered Rule, is
suggested as a method to improve Logan's percentage of stage 3
airplanes through the establishment of administrative
standards. An alternative market based approach is discussed
below, as is the possibility of a combination of the two
methods.
Three Tiered Rule:
The proposed regulation like its predecessor, Article II of
the current Logan Airport Rules and Regulations, is intended to
maximize the noise benefits to be derived from a quiet fleet at
Logan. The Three Tiered Rule would achieve this goal by
crediting carriers for their contribution to achieving Boston's
noise goal by assigning their quietest aircraft to Boston,
while allowing them the greatest possible flexibility to meet
their individual operating requirements.
11
The rule requires carriers with four or more daily flights
4/ to meet either the Tier 1 or Tier 2 criterion, each of which
can be satisfied in a variety of ways. Carriers unable to meet
either standard would be covered by Tier 3. The purpose of the
rule is to encourage use of the quietest possible aircraft in •
Boston by (1) increasing the percentage of stage 3 flights; (2)
reducing the percentage of stage 1 flights; and /or (3) by
choosing the quietest stage 2 aircraft. The rule gives
carriers credit for making any combination of those choices,
but penalizes them for making no contribution to achieving the
noise goal at Logan.
Tier 1. Stage 3 Compliance Ratio
The first tier, or criterion, for fleet improvement
established under this rule is a percentage of stage 3
operations conducted at Boston which, if achieved, by a carrier
will assure that its operations are consistent with our noise
goal. Any carrier able to meet the stated stage 3 percentage
will be unconstrained by any further requirements under the
fleet improvement rule.
The projected stage 3 percentages for each calendar year
until 1989 are listed below in Table 6. These percentages are
consistent with the Authority's noise goal as detailed in
Chapter 2 indicating that a high percentage of stage 3
operations will be necessary for noise to decrease. To allow
4/ for a fuller discussion of this aspect of the rule, see New
Entrant Provision.
maximum predictability for industry fleet planning, the
' percentage for 1990 will be calculated by the end 1986, and
in each subsequent year the fifth year will be added.
Table 6
Stage 3 Percents
1986 - 43.9%
1987 - 46.4
1988 - 48.7
1989 - 51.0
While it is not anticipated that all or even a majority of
Logan's carriers would be able to comply with this Tier 1
criterion at the start, analysis indicates that carriers
representing about between 20% and 25% of current operations
will be able to meet this percentage by reassigning a fair
share of their stage 3 aircraft to Boston.
Tier 2. Noise Per Seat Index
The second tier, or criterion, for fleet improvement
establishes a noise per seat index which, it by
individual carriers at Logan, will assure that that carrier's
operations are also consistent with our noise goal. For any
individual carrier, a noise per seat index (NPSI) is calculated
by adding the arrival and departure noise values published by
33
FAA in Advisory Circular 36 -1C and 36 -2B for all average daily
scheduled operations during the time period in question and
dividing it by the number of scheduled seats. 4/
The NPSI is innovative in its application to the aviation
industry in that it offers carriers a level of flexibility
which is unique in most regulatory settings. Its origin is
perhaps best explained by reference to the familiar fuel
economy index expressed as miles per gallon. Indeed, the
regulatory theory contained in this portion of the rule is
similar to the corporate average fuel index employed by the
United States Department of Energy to control long -term
automobile fuel consumption. In this case, the automobile
industry was required to produce a fleet which achieved a
certain miles per gallon average, without constraining the
number of cars produced or the number of miles driven.
Massport proposes to establish this index annually for the
airport as a whole at the value which, after consideration of
the fleet and activity projections for that year, would achieve
our noise goal.
4/ The specific procedures for calculating NPSI appears as
Appendix D.
• 34
The proposed NPSI levels are as follows:
Table 7
1986 77.95
1987 77.64
1988 77.28
1989 77.25
Analysis of the expected future fleets of carriers
operating at Logan combined with the projected increases in
operations through 1989 indicates that carriers conducting more
than 50% of Logan's operations will be able to meet the
proposed index levels with reasonable aircraft substitutions.
Several Logan carriers can achieve the necessary fleet
balance to meet the index level by assigning a "fair"
proportion of their quieter aircraft to Boston. The word
"fair" is used to indicate that a carrier's use of quieter
aircraft at Logan is at least equal to the proportion of
quieter aircraft in its fleet.
The choice as to how to meet the established index level is
within the control of the individual carrier. Some may opt to
continue operations in noisier stage 1 or 2 airplanes, if
market size or other factors dictate, and still achieve the
NPSI by increasing their percentage of stage 3 airplanes.
35
Others may take advantage of the distinctions NPSI makes
between aircraft within a single Part 36 stage. Stage 2
aircraft, for example, vary enormously in their individual
noise levels and therefore in their index values. As a result,
a carrier would receive credit in the index calculation for
assigning its quieter stage 2 aircraft to Boston. A list of
NPSI values for Logan's fleet is attached in Appendix E.
Under the NPSI approach Massport does not propose to
interfere with a carrier's equipment scheduling process, as is
required at airports with regulations establishing fixed stage
3 percentage for the whole airport. In this regulatory
framework, the Authority assesses whether a carrier's overall
schedule meets the established index level; how that index
level is achieved is, properly, the carrier's concern.
Tier 3. Stage 3 Growth
Analysis indicates that some carriers, having unusually
noisy fleets or assigning particularly noisy planes to Boston,
will not be able to meet either of the Tier 1 or Tier 2
criteria. Carriers falling into this category currently
operate just under one quarter of Logan's total operations.
The proposed rule provides in those cases that the carrier may
continue to conduct the previous level of stage 1 and 2
activity that was effective in the immediately prior reporting
period, but may not increase the future level of operations
except in stage 3 aircraft.
36
This provision insures that carriers which fail to meet
either of the first two criteria will be able to continue to
operate their previous schedule, but will be prevented from
contributing to environmental degradation by increasing
operations, unless they can provide for that growth in quieter
aircraft types.
New Entrant Provision
•
Finally, the rule proposes to address the question of new
entrants by allowing operators conducting fewer than six daily
operations (3 flights) to be exempt from the requirement to
attain either the Tier 1 or Tier 2 criterion. Since history
has shown that the overwhelming number of new entrants commence
operations with 3 or fewer flights, this exemption attempts to
provide new entrants with reasonable access to Logan while, at
the same time, avoiding unnecessary environmental degradation.
The sum of all current scheduled airlines operations daily who
operate fewer than 6 operations daily amounts to 4% of Logan's
daily flights. However, half of those operations are conducted .
by foreign flag carriers, many of which will be able to meet
either of the first two criteria. Thus, carriers with fewer
than 6 operations unable to meet either criterion represent
only 2% of airport operations. Charters amount to an average
of 1% of daily jet operations and bring total operators in this
Tier to 3% of Logan's daily jet operations for 1984.
37
If one of these airlines wishes to expand beyond 3 daily
flights, then either of the first two Tier criteria will apply,
otherwise, the carrier will remain in Tier 3 after entry. The
night rule described above will apply to all operators
regardless of number of flights, as does the prohibition
against stage 1 aircraft after January 1, 1988.
The Three Tier Rule offers a choice of methods by which a
carrier can choose to meet the Logan fleet improvement goals.
It recognizes that carriers vary widely in their abilities to
meet certain standards, and seeks to avoid the problem of
either a lowest or highest common denominator, application
where everyone is asked to meet the same test irrespective of
the specific characteristics of their fleet, operating
procedures, markets, or other variables. The rule, therefore,
offers a choice of tests applied equally to all carriers, so
that if a carrier cannot, or chooses not to, meet one standard,
it is likely that this carrier can meet another, and if it
cannot meet either criterion, there are still two options: to
grow in stage 3 aircraft, or to remain at the previous level of
operations.
Marketable Landing Rights
The proposed marketable landing rights rule offers an
economic -based alternative to the Three Tiered Rule. It
too is intended to achieve the established noise goal
through increasing the percentage of stage 3 operations at
Logan. Rather than setting administrative standards for
carriers, however, the landing rights rule would
distribute a limited number of stage 1 and stage 2
operations through economic competition. Stage 3
operations, as in the administrative alternative, would be
unrestricted.
The landing rights established under this regulation
consist of a right to conduct operations in stage 1 and
stage 2 airplanes. The landing rights would not be for a
specified hour of day, aircraft type or destination, but
would represent the right to conduct the authorized number
of stage 1 and 2 operations at any time during the
applicable schedule period, except during the late night
hours specified by the proposed night rule. These rights
would have a duration of six months in order to coincide
with the major airline schedule periods. Use of the
landing rights would be limited to the initial purchaser
and would not be transferable through aftermarket sales.
38
This is proposed in order to reduce the potential for
commodity speculation unrelated to the regulatory
objective of noise control, which has been observed in
similar situations involving landing rights. However,
aftermarkets may serve as a valuable mechanism to provide
a solution to short -term demand variations between
scheduled auctions. Therefore, comments on this aspect of
the proposed regulation are specifically solicited.
The number of available stage 1 and 2 slots for each
six -month period would be established as follows. First,
the number of stage 3 operations scheduled during the
forthcoming period would be determined from submissions
made by each carrier. The noise emissions contribution of
each stage 3 aircraft operation would be calculated by
means of the noise energy methodology described in Chapter
1 and in Appendix B. These individual airplane noise
emission values will be multiplied by the number of
scheduled operations in each airplane type for all stage 3
operations and summed for the schedule period in question.
This calculation results in a total estimated noise
contribution for all anticipated stage 3 operations.
Next, the estimated stage 3 noise contribution would be
subtracted from the total airport noise energy that
represents the established noise goal. The allowable
remainder is the level of noise emissions for all stage 1
and stage 2 jet operations during the scheduled period.
39
.
To arrive at the actual number of allowable stage 1
and 2 operations for the period, the remaining noise
emissions limit would be divided by an average combined
stage 1 & 2 airplane noise emissions value for the fleet
which operated at Logan during the immediately preceeding
period. Once this number of allowable stage 1 and 2
operations is established, each carrier will receive the
right to conduct 80% of the number of stage 1 and stage 2
operations conducted by that respective carrier during the
comparable schedule period in calendar year 1985. The
aggregate number of landing rights so distributed will be
subtracted from the total allowable limit of stage 1 and 2
operations. The remainder would be offered for sale to
all carriers at an auction conducted by a Certified Public
Accounting firm under contract to the Authority to assure
fairness and verification of authorization for scheduled
stage 1 & 2 operations.
Because of the impending federal deadline for the
retirement of stage 1 airplanes, and because the noise
environment at Logan is dominated by the overwhelming
number of stage 2 airplanes, we propose to create a single
category of landing rights for both stage 1 and stage 2
operations. Although a theoretically finer distinction
could be made by differentiating between stage 1 and stage
2 aircraft, the implementation of the rule would be
complicated by the need to conduct separate auctions.
Under such a two- auction rule, auctions would need to be
sequential: stage 1 operations followed by stage 2.
Inevitably the second auction would be heavily dominated
by the results of the first. Thus, the advantages of
separate auctions would seem minor considering their
interrelationship and complexity. However comments are
solicited on the need, if any, to differentiate between
stages 1 and stage 2 for purposes of this regulation.
New Entrants
As in the administrative alternative, we propose to
accommodate the new entry provisions of the deregulation
act by providing carriers not previously serving Logan
with the rights to operate 3 flights a day under this
rule. If a new entrant carrier wishes to commence service
with a higher number of daily flights, those rights would
have to be purchased at auction. This 3 flight allocation
would exist only for the first period of. entry.
Thereafter, a carrier would be treated like all others and
receive 80% of its prior scheduled number of stage 1 and 2
operations. Additional rights would be purchased at
auction.
This proposed rule provides a means of allowing
purchasers of landing rights to establish the value which
they place on the right to conduct those operations while
recognizing that the airport proprietor retains the
responsibility and authority to regulate cumulative noise.
41
Combined Administrative and Market -Based Approach
This proposed rule would combine aspects of both the
administrative and market - based approaches. It would seek
to achieve the established noise goals by extracting
certain features from both the Three Tiered Rule and the
Marketable Rights Rule. This combined proposal is
identical to the TTR except that the number of stage 1 and
stage 2 operations allowed to third tier carriers would be
limited in number, and would be allocated through an
auction in a manner similar to that contemplated in the
landing rights allocation.
Since the third tier carriers most likely to be
affected by the limitations on stage 1 and stage 2
operations under this proposal are those carriers having
the least flexibility to operate substitute aircraft, we
propose to provide an exemption mechanism to allow
continued operation of their base period schedule of stage
1 and stage 2 airplanes. This exemption would be available
only upon a satisfactory showing that the carrier has made <
maximum efforts to engage in a fleet improvement program,
as evidenced by contractual comittments to the acquisition
of aircraft and their assignment to Boston operations in
substitution for base schedule aircraft, which will result
in compliance with either tier one or tier two of the rule
on a schedule acceptable to the Authority.
Operating Rules for Light Aircraft
This proposal would amend Article IV, para. J of the
current rules and regulations so as to change the current
weight -based limitation into a noise level limit. The
present rules provide (Article IV, para. J) that "takeoffs
from Runway 4L and landings on Runway 22R are restricted
to light propeller driven aircraft with a maximum
certificated gross takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds or
less..." This rule relies on aircraft weight rather than
noise level, because at the time of adoption no Federal
advisory circular for light, propeller- driven aircraft
existed to form the basks of a regulation.
At the same time, 12,500 lbs. served as an established
distinction among classes of aircraft for certification
purposes, and it was generally perceived that propeller
driven airplanes weighing less than this limit do not
represent a serious noise problem.
Since those rules were adopted in 1976, however,
several of these facts have changed. First, FAA now
publishes Advisory Circular 36 -3 providing a consistent
list of noise levels for aircraft both certificated and
uncertificated. Although this information does not
•
represent measured airplane noise levels specific to
departure and approach profiles at Boston, nor to the
r.
locations where residents would be exposed, it is
nevertheless useful for comparing the relative noisiness
of various airplane types. Second, since the original
noise rules were adopted, new airplanes, such as the
DeHavilland Dash 7 turboprop, have entered the fleet.
This aircraft, as an example, weighs more that 12,500 lbs.
but is quieter than some older airplanes weighing less
than that limit.
To resolve this issue Massport is proposing several
changes to Article IV, paragraph J. Restrictions on the
use of runways 22R/4L would continue, but would be based
on published FAA noise levels (Advisory Circular 36 -3) for
the type operation in question rather than on the weight
of the airplane.
To prevent an increase in the noise exposure in
affected neighborhoods, the noise limit would be set at a
level not to exceed that of airplane types currently
allowed under Article IV, para. J. Specifically, landings
on runway 22R under the present 12,500 lb. restriction are
limited to airplanes having a published value in AC36 -3 of
not greater than 78.0 dBA. Similarly, 73.0 dBA is the
proposed noise level limit on the use of runway 4L for
takeoffs.
Penalties and Fines
Failure to meet the requirements of these proposed regulations
would subject violators to varying fines and sanctions. The
following is a summary of these proposed fines.
Night Rule
Penalties for violations under the proposed night rule would
remain unchanged from their current levels. These range from
$250 to $500 per violation. (See Appendix A.)
Stage 1 Rule
Each operation conducted after December 31, 1987 would be
subject to a fine of $2000.
Fleet Improvement Regulations
Option 1 - Administrative Option
This proposal contains a graduated fine scheme, as follows.
2) Exceedance of restrictions imposed by any Tier would
result in a warning and /or fine not to exceed $300.00 for the
first allocation period.
2) Subsequent offenses after the first period would be
subject to a fine not less than $500.00 and not more than
$2000.00 per operation.
3) Failure or refusal to file a report required under this
proposed regulation would be subject to a fine of $100.00 per
day for each day the report is delinquent.
4) The proposed fine for knowingly filing a false report
would be $2000.00.
Option 2 - Marketable Rights Option
A violation would occur if an unauthorized operation were
conducted. In this case, the proposed fine would be not less
than $500.00 and not more than $2000.00 per violation.
•
•
47
0p apgv) •v 4 - o as e .0 00 00a ,.., p. .
/ w o m 4 "w � w ' a d ,-, 4) ° v� a p O a p° p O Q O a CO > C • C 7 1 a 0 O r •
1....... O•v..- y
C H I O V O �� a)
• 1.. 0 Z .M 1.O O 1:2 2 ` E.9a 2
o . .. - . 42 � ° ae v 0 a) oap aad = ° �v ..o> -.o
a)O 0 N 1. a y . o a a e' ..°>.
NIMMII
o oB E < � a)� >a>, ° c 0 0) � gp .a � as � • aa 0 5$
� �d ° E V a is
a o 0 ' a � x �c �v d y as
4 0 .,,,,u2t) 0a)p ° a ° `' E 0a 0000 a
. c) )a°
o'v - av u C ti9 ovc 4.)v= 2 4, °o E 0.
v• a cap °y 0 ° 3 ' �
> ° ce �a' • � � j.V! csc- .4 v 440
pD O °�O 0 .... iI • 2 us8 a 2 5N O to
-23.4"" a -
CO c a 2.0 r„ a 0. .8 .0 0 ,-. a d o >+, � . ,) o `� 3 w as a o a
a ;cd
2 1 °-a �a v ` pp oye y ° xv aa a ..o 3 + -•C
.M 0.0 °ati b °= c�g�� E 1 d a oac 13' °
`® a � a� 0 c ad 0 0 as 0 a v a =�i.4 c o o I ca >, as
o a� . a4.o 2pa a..
. ° '^0 Q 4 '' ' . U i a � a . 0( .°a o "a „)E�
a. a s 3 o a at
a 0 2 4)°E/".3."32. a'a ~t.YyQ ° -a) + Sw
1 a d y ° c ° t7 �a E ° x 0 e..;a d m ai s_ v o =o 0 >' > 1
111 EMI c „ o � . . ` > o 0 = C)a - A a... . • as ' dY o
- x o� co a u a x ppaa«
$vas .1 E E, °D w[aa) .S «0 v °EvE . ! ca C_ a;ca�a 1"-°421d2' Z.. .a a � 0: aaC. u>a
a 2 y .. , a0 8. aW 5 a E
a do a °-
o a «° a) s. >, E c° '� . 1- r a vEE gv0;.0g0 v CU O 4) ay
al KO .- . )
3 . rEo a i..v,+d avv C7oa .0. L.c, i
� b6 0S w ° o° p ij 2 de .4 0 ... o '' O o a0 v -. a °.,tea .a0 >0' a>..
0 SE� N t. s o 0 00.,„ ., t a ....3 a V,. 1
a�E 0' 'x ..4 �°_v aso...r°. =A2 oa j
W P., .. �°'A8 q o a � �� ...c °
�p ' a0 >wa „ a E a ^ ,dN a ac a II °)
a w S N - C). 00 rd y O V O a+ E " . =i 'a d y �.2 00 1
-_. - y ° .a y
O O R.r > . . 0 E 2 as . te a w '•' v C5 8 .0 0 0 G a 0 . O pp
fn . a � ,. c 0 erb0v o o as a ri, a s
YJ o..a , ao - � as °oaaaEbi a - a� = _ gg
CO
L .r 0°•°ava >""E - =, :
E 0 r 0 � �
d - a
'-, 3O0
■
0%4_ a y� � E a =) o °a � v 0 0 0 � � c v d �,
M /A oa� aO�o � 00.s E- .. ~ ° . v a ° s 0 v 0Et CQ °. S
v/ E+v,Rf>s'00 � «aa0.�3 - .....a v) ` 4)a0....E : .0 - 0 : .�. •
■i +
a >OO i..NUN� aw C a o0 0 y 6,0 0 y E r E ._ o > E 11 i
'v = > E Ca Z a a d e. 0 .. a
, >1% ' M 4 0o.. . >, ; 1
= y a a d a) 0 aoo .
▪ add
ID ' �i�� • a g cy a s a "v d ty .. g. )a .
X m ° c • 8 ° t al o 0 7 � g c_ a ? 0 a ", .1-.... o c ; Ys fi
111 o .o
II) �0c� o 0 01 -0 .cot aozi'^ v 8 3
�' 1 � � 8 .. o� o � : � - •.E :
c 1.1- .c: a � 13 0 .° 0020.1.-. 0 2 c ; �,-. des
C E-a sy � a a 2a, oat
�m a ■as3a re a E a 2 49 H 2 • 3s% r.1.18.12.0.2
o3 0 o � .0 „ 41 " ° � o b i.) 8 ki.0.a 0° - 04 00 '
0) 0 CO . ° � a u � q o [ .. v a �
_ ,. a M tea; 2 , z ,,, >,E•av Z'• �°E.a _
p W ° a c ° �a 2 m a bv o u �= a 3 o 0 0 o a $ �'_ I
a x 0V ° �3 so g ci,, '"ca _ aoa
as C i i i �.�, i .O Q ap d a [ a W W � , _ � � .. a7 ate.. r C Ea .� 0 0
CC r..o' a0 O ad aDw ° a) a, • U ;••• 00 > y ear a0 C �°, :1 y a; ` _`1..
G . .0 0 0 = ~ - a ^ ° 00 01 05 0 y o O 00 o E ..
., o°� o C c a0a 0.4) o w C I p d o E o f ."
a C vw� ua,> d v j k . jfliljp0000 3ss _' a a
. ...,
� -03 QS a A co) a .. !
...
.,p , : lk.-•,' , ..
. .....,
1 ,. :...
.1.--
,- . r.. •
I.■ I - •
Ire ' II=
_ .... .
• Is t lit . i . silt; ilq
(I) ',„ - = - • ' 4.• A ...1 u . z " -, . -d • •-•`' t,•-• -, 7 (07 i T;-' t='"'SV6
-. - . &., 11,1 eSe °S • - v.: , : ; - 4..V, Iii;1
CO , -:, ,...... -
v awi ° 31 d "k 5' ' C -11.2IgElags4v1V-3 f- 4
■. 4 : T, CO ie
1 -111 4.6 1 11 1 . 9
w. 0.--eM . 5
./ ..,
soml 1 il a L^ 1-•• a - . 4 „..ei, -vavieg 1 4 ---- . 1. , ,.= i
CIL • NM 1:1 15 15 it .1 0 yr• - .....3.31 =.:.t.....--2 .,..,--
Cti -e' r E .g-'' ' w ' Li et 6 logo 4 '
c ...Z. EA EM =. "Ifilmis 010-„ via,..u...e --- .:N- - ,1:5 , ":
0 ' r• MCIEZE a. 8 '. ' (0 It -:-:'•1
.'• iw .2".a . a st ,„t .
c ig 1 : Mow : 0 il Ms c I /
aeze V Zari /o1F06=
all. .0.....>_131 V ...1 A
."' ' - 0 .4.111Each..d 0ER 2 .1
IC =03 -
IIM 1 7 m 68.1 g84.1 42. I foin i llif ':.•
-
.. .. .„.
,.....I. 6
_..„....!.- ., .1111■11 mit "g•tog eiev..12 ' ' et ■Pcivo•••1 . 6 L..) v'... a 1.,.0.,p- '''-t 4
wo=.5.;;24.) E�° , •11.9 g .,...
': ' 1 •
• 43)-- 1 rgE•A' °. st-a LI fil 216 %.,1 -i:
! 0., a iv s ,
Lim all:., lt s .... I :1 •
- . &E
0 v
siiash'f, .aZest,. I,
0 i s41.1-,- zvar't s i-. _ ....0,
el .- o05ۥ_ .V8oP, 2.,.._
C7 8.1 , ,-UF, E 7 :
.. ''' •
1:1)_ I .3 . ..
...: .,._ A o a., ..I v d 14 a - o 0 .
1 4)-.sSN Zits.: 3 a 4 0 0,g1..§.z.: A (
INN.. .. 0 .0 - ve.
or•-f o •••••E - 4D"'"'"ai. Niii i E f S f ' e.. o - 2 1
ES •_,.sE oleo . a i
• :
(1)' 0),,,14:...s .15'.,gsSo . .se P=
. -gE-
A41 6 0:1 Eigglr-..e --
° 6
atu. aS Sgtgf'''E a 1
. 4.0 a g Fg ; u-g.....e:
- iv ri a 1 ° S it 1 . - ' 1 a ?!... .2.-4 A' •,.
C- co 2E28E= g8o- al g
4 -• -m va47) Ale ag II alit .-- ta.ri r .6 a S k a ass.: s „.4 ,
, -
st-s ...... . _. • . _ .,.,
... ...
"436- E a .6.... x
. E .....s ..., 4 e " 51•F:, -11 01: 1
lot-al 0 .
CO W. U g:esligiEg Elvg
-06. -13.. -- (31r.torg . 1.
....
0 0 x 0.).>.„,sgulial 8 f-3..-•
a .1
•■ r 8 r.ES8 S - •Ci • : t
ao
04 1.1 - t g I
az-,-,
wiMi§ ( 6 ) / , Low I= 1.13„,tga= -- D v . ;' 2 1i' Ss -
_ I__ __ �. za?... . . .-
0.
CU iv '''' ' 8it'.. .P3A2
simg - o
0 u) •
et,,,,,I.,..2 g§.1.
..x-110.8,..-g t
0 I:E V 0. ..' - it - 0 '.• ,
- :1- 2= 08 =='-')""". tag --,
silmi
C 1.111/ %e ea§0.1,4 a 10,..,P4S .Sist Ti 0 -.
p•-■ ,8,t 2.. 1. 1 al.4,:SSiallal eS ..a -3. -137;
0 Isotat>=1„a I...43v - -asivg isal ;.s ti:L:
a -- Eilza
C i 2 E ...t. .1.1... ..... .-
CO : : "Cj 0 mbraS1-..14.2E§ sis st.- 1 . ,-.. ig12111 ssest raszst 8-ii :.
o
C • C or"-" &Co vv .,... - - • .
0 1= iii, 4 gel A
. & 0 U) c 4 6 0§=tt• s°4•..., .se le
.=.
0 . IIMINNI CO :"' . 1 41 ° ^1. 1 .-E TE 1 . WC/1 i g IV' 1
CD = . ., gn . t .,. an .... •. ,
1= u) 7 ' O 4 8 a.2 .oreeo ,..
- Elar. se-3A 112.°2 I I
a) . ,..'§'---' 's>. §ev;z0°A. .
.,.... : , .- _ l_e 67 8.. sal
40 0 - • .
.1.1 %..--if 14 ,.-
ok t v I 8 r, .• 1 * g ; °all ;.'• . a a• a S E .8
Q. ‘„,, ea ag--gog
.00> ":"..".
• a) - • •••=1 4-, zi,8•88.2e.t......
: • a- lit chv ), o v4
0
ems .... 1 .1 -2_,?2 m -vai z lt ,
12 -1) . ‘I•M 4••• Af ) il
I- 0
03 ' 1 - himi CV r 1 1 ' E 2 0 'ee
s OS 4 o " on o
2 :- " C Es; AlgesliAglEN 5 Ist11. sigii vagl ,..-
.- AmS014.1114.&&F. .S.Stic 1
---
- ' - 'C.1 - ^44r..:: . 17:-.: ...."- - - - -- '
-..•.::
• ...,--$ Ats:Ztel.. el22e . 047 "Ali gVir g pi
m ..,- w-i, gs : g :,
, . . . : . . . . . Is 1 .f.d
ai 1 °11 1, .
,..._ .1 -,.....„ _ .12....qg
fi 17 4
v 2s a •-.4)
?-- Ur4k . a - 6 fi: : ,
• 0 m .5
- I' ■ 4
, . a
. . . . ,
02/04, :..11.3f
' - a 119 lel .2.•-• a a, a
, , ,...-• v p _ vm ,.. 6
--.-z-..7 I
,
-._ .. 'S •'
0.- ' S tgA'S - 03 •
1 cg) -.1i gil :e. edl .4 I I
.s. 1 . ....-.. .
„. - :-...: - .c .N ,,•,11se.- - a ,.....8.
.is .,...., 0.
.. 63 " t lx0 1 eta--
;
CI. A' • isal.e, nt .
4 a Ej 4 i f -
..,11.41v 08.5 %S - - ""oz..% - :
Zati °"sii 4 .F-54.,
2 :e..Er. .E
.3 ss aV
... 4-t4.14., .-- *-- • . . --. - - . .. .", '. ti *.U.
i • l'ii7}' Zhi; ?e, ,,,,L
j
1
Minneapolis Star and Tribune
Thursday -
December 19/1985 1 Y a , . •
/, pproval P roposed runway expansion and traffic plan ; x ;� - ` .
likely �
N.. 1 5•" e i
;;;.i,,,,',, 3 Q
35W 5 5, c ( > J tr∎ . 7
for airport nose E � ��� 1
Minneapolis = 5 -:
r ' - amsey Co.
�';•+�•,•.. r. e,ree .4 tY. �., y� �, u,,. F,.1 = i ¢ ctC�t.at;,l!. -'. —
dispersion plan Wo uld become akota Co Mississippi
! 2 River_
main runway '
routing traffic 1 • \ • j ,
Lilydale West
y ; St. Paul i
By Jim Parsons ,,,,.. „�, The extension of the runway en- over Cedar Av. 62 � ,, : 49
Staff Writer, c . ; ... , ables the airport to make a signlfi- f t •
cant change in the use of its three �
The Metropolitan Airports Commis- runways. To understand that signlfi- O., . - -Mendota i
lion expects its recent lobbying trip cance, Glumack says it Is Hates k ,• c M e n do t a l
to Washington, D.C., to pay off with sary to know a little history. a 4
approval of its plan quiet some of , ` Richfield ' Heights Sunfish
the opposition to airplane noise Back in the 1970s the airport start- j 41 f✓ La
over south Minneapolis. ed using Runway 22 more exten- 494 5 ill* ” •' • R z
lively to cut down on the number of r + - a
Ray Glumack, head of the commis- " flights taking off and landing over
sion, predicts that the Federal Avia- south Minneapolis on the two main ir.::: 1116
Lion Administration officials will go ' runways, known as 11 Lett and 11 35W .
i ,
55 3 •
along with the project, which he Right. Because Runway 22 inter- •
calls the "greatest noise abatement sects with the main runways, the
possibility that we've got left to us." system was a bit slower, but it Bloomington •' r
—_ helped considerably with the corn- _ . i ii °0 ""
It's a partial solution to the noise plaints about noise from Minneapo- - 1 -
/ i s • •
problem, and it won't be popular in lis. d Proposed construction
parts of Burnsville and Eagan and,
to a lesser extent, in portions ,of But since 1978, when Congress de- 2 ,. r . __ m — t: ' ' '' " New berm '
Richfield and Bloomington. regulated the airline industry, the T
• „ • • s 1 i number of flights at the airport has
It's also a solution that won't be gone up 40 percent and made the Crosstown Hwy. ! y�y
effective until 1987 at the earliest slower runway pattern unworkable S • because several pieces of a puzzle • -'^ • S
must come together. Approval for "We used to live with those delays -,, s ' 22 St
extending a runway a half -mile is without any problem, but now we '` x , ark ,
one piece. Another Is getting Feder- can't," said Nigel Finney, the air- ,' " ` ,, j R Takeoff `' p -
al officials to go along with a ports' director of development. point
change In flying routes that was "There's just too much traffic." The proposed runway and air traffic
just rejected two months ago by plan would extend runway 22 by T„
those same federal officials. So the parallel runways are used 2 700 feet and reroute -ome ¢ �„�. ,, ��M •
It's also a solution that w almost e now, and that + on't reduce ' means that south Minneapolis and a landings and takeotrs on the a
the amount of noise. It will just tip of northeast Richfield are get- airport's three runways. Weather +
disperse the whine and roar of jet tang more noise than ever. ., and traffic conditions permitting, ' 8 r " " " � ,,Y r 3
engines over a wider area and, to , large planes would take off on • I : . some extent, away from residential The same is true to a lesser extent Ru end turn south over 27 000 it. Cemetery areas in favor of commercial prop- for Mendota Heights and its imme Y +
erty. -- • . . diate neighbors, which are under Cedar Av. Small planes would use expansion • the flight path of planes using the Runway 11 Right. to runway
The plan comes from a commission main runways. Homes in that area •
that is being bombarded with crltl are not right next to the airport, - 1 -494 , " - , _
cism because of the dramatic In- however, and their noise problem Is
crease In airplane noise, much of it less severe than at the other end of • New berms She and Tribu graphic
over south Minneapolis On Tues- those runways.
day the Hennepin County Board re-
fused MAC's request to allow gam- Connie Morrison, Burnsville mayor, , ..
bling at the airport's charter terms- - said that she objects to the pro- used before the glut of new flights Much more significant is the vol- "The big winner In this is south
nal because of the noise problems • posed change. "Redirecting the without clogging the traffic pattern. ume of flights at the two peak hours Minneapolis;' said Finney...,
noise is simply not the way to solve The takeoff point would be moved of the day, approximately 7 to 9 _
The plan hinges on extending the the problem. The real answer Is to so planes using runway 22 would a.m. and 4 to 6 p.m _ -. , And the losers? "Burnsville and a
airport's southwest - northeast run- immediately get rid of the noisy not cross the path of planes using pars of Eagan," he said. "But re-
way, Runway 22, by 2,700 feet, and., planes." (The newest airplanes runway 11 Left. (See adjoining "We're still looking at the numbers member that the planes are much
altering the flight path of most have "quiet" engines, but the vast map.) r • _ of flights involved, but right now it higher over Burnsville and Eagan
planes taking off on it to turn south majority of the large planes flying "' looks like that for about an hour so the level of noise is lower.,,, :.
along Cedar Av., climbing over Met • into the airport use engines that are That Left open open for virtually ontinu- will be so�heavy we have Frank Ario, the president of an an-
Center and the proposed mega-mall very noisy). •
development. They ey would continue- e _ -_ •. 'r '`_`""•= 'Fi'zwo% ?-= °•--._ - ous use and would spread out the . to use the parallel runways lust as tlnoise group called South Matra..
climbing along that corridor in Morrison said that the problem is noise. The proposal also would al- we do now," Finney said. u . politan Airport Action Committee,
Bloomington and then over portions "Increasingly becoming a national low small -plane traffic to be con- - r,- • - said Wednesday that he has been
of Burnsville and Eagan. issue and it is at the national level centrated on that portion of Run - That means that during those two briefed on the proposal.
- _:_ - - - - - • - - - • - - - - - - - - - _. -- ... - - - - -- -_—_ that we should be getting some an- way 11 Right that does not intersect periods, south Minneapolis can ex-
The advantage of the turn on take- swers to the problem. : . with the southwest - northeast run- pest a flight a minute just as it now "Our group is not pushing the
off Is it puts the worst noise over a - • - - -- - way has part of the time. spread- the -noise philosophy," he
commercial area rather than over "It hardly seems fair," she added,
:kg:`• .:_ "YSS said, because we need the help of
"
Richfield homes with patios and "to plan our communities carefully - There are two circumstances when Finney said the planners haven't everyone — all the suburbs — to
back yards. To further minimize and then have a change made by that wouldn't apply. "One situation yet determined exactly how much keep up the pressure to find solo-
the takeoff noise for homes near someone else that undoes our plan- . Is when the wind Is in a certain traffic would decline over south tions to our problem. "But you have
the airport, additional earthen ning." ,.,, - - ,,1. direction," said Finney, "because Minneapolis. But every plane using to recognize that spreading the
walls may be built along the edge of ' ' ' -`' " °•* ' , ••'..- planes can't land or takeoff with runway 22 will be one less takeoff noise may be part of the solution,
the airport property to deflect the MACs proposed extension of run- tailwinds. But that's the c a s e now, or landing over Minneapolis or but only part." .�W ah
nolse."1`r;••: '`.:,.-. ' way 22 would. In effect, allow the so that really doesn't change any- Mendota Heights. Al q.Y:.n!,rr,,
Governor's task fo rce o ff e rs •
17 proposals;
to _ redu c e n oise pr arou airpor „ ,
. ki' , , .l -:. . . Jr. .t ...r, � •trT A '
By Laurie Blake "' rl' '''.'rt
Staff writer , ..7,1 . ...'.1e:. , , .. . . �r 1aA ac •
'' R ,r. 1,, A irport noise reduction proposals 1r/. •:,.
The Governor's Task Force on Air .. .
port Noise concluded its three -month ;.oe. '
investigation of the node problem ''�,, y d ` ' N r '`' v 1 . .
around MlnneaporesSt. Paul Interne�, i r _ . _ ti - A
tional Airport on Thursday with a list .;I, _ , ,z4,4 s+ e -w- '0.--0,... _ 11 � _
of 17 ways t0 reduce the noise. .-
• Cap noise at 1984 levels and ; • Add instrument landing system to • Extend Runway 4 -22 half a rmle r2
Several recommendations were orlg order airlines not to exceed it • , I, runway Eleven-L to allow higher _ . for safety and to draw traffic Moms
inelly targeted to glue residents (task force would Implement as • • pp
approaches to runway. - .• ,
worst noise area, south . :. °warn. •
some relief from jet noise this sum- soon as poae • . ,.•
ibis arpo
irts • Increase landing fees for nosier • Minseapdre. ', .t .. •. • •-
mar. But two key proposals were cornmiesion would study). ....;‘ planes (task force favors • Install equipment to allow circular
softened yesterday, making notice- • Umit small planes at main airport : knme • into work on a plan with approaches to airport to diffuse—"- ,
able summer relief less promising. by refusing to build new hangars 1 fnplementation 1989; airports • approach patterns. ,s .. . • '+14; • 1
and using incentives to lure them -' commission is studying it). ■ Seek federal approval for more, y;i's . •
Jeff Hamlet, executive director of to small airports.
the Metropolitan Airports Commis • Develop St. Paul Downtown local control of flights, and ask - ;
Won, also downplayed the possibility • Umit expansion at airport until Airport to divert business and - Congress to give incentives to ',,,,
of summer Improvement this weep noise program is established; the ''.:other smaller aircraft from main speed airlines' purchase of • t . i.e:
- "We're In serious trouble if we've exception would be construction ' airport (already underway). quieter planes. Enlist other • -fr? eleiN
left the community with the impres projects consistent with noise .. • End all training flights at airport airports n • this campaign• . : ,
lion th we are going to take any - reduction mss• : t (expected to be completed this. • Update the airport master plan io,r
steps by April 15 that will make a • Monitor noise continuously and year). • define the capacity of the
noticeable reduction in noise," he investigate Infractions. airport's runways, terminal _
said- "It's simply not going to hap- ■ Speed development of smeller facilities, perking and road _rrr:
yea" ;„ o ,, • Add additional restrictions on , airports to better serve entailer . _ system and noise limits.. : • _,
;
. . . ;:.— nighttime flights.
The task force recommended that v ■ Prepare for possible Ikigation • Explore insulating homes to • Study using local taxes to help -
the commission take immediate Involving the federal government relieve noise problems airlines speed purchase of quiet6lr
steps to stop the noise from getting 10 establish local authority to (experimental program . d'
worse by placing a cap on overall regulate the number of flights at underway). • Spend S100,000 on public . r'
noise (at its 1984 level to start with) the airport• relations film about noise to erase:
and ordering airlines to observe the • Adopt and enforce land -use rules pubic support. -.--
level by either limiting flights or ' • Work old accord between . by cities surrounding airport to tiw
using quieter planes. The task force, airports commission and state • atop new development in flight 1• Complete study of full range of "— .
however, eliminated a May 1 dead- Pollution Control Agency to paths (immediate . .- noisecontroloptions • r ,, tom' ■
line for establishing that cap, a dead- achieve state noise standards. . implementation). recommended by the •••
Line that had appeared in earlier • Press Congress to enforce the • Strictly enforce noise abatement Metropolitan Aircraft Sound
drafts of the report ' 1988 phase -out date for oldest takeoff and landing Procedures ' Abatement Council, which haste 1
planes, ban manufacture of and training for pilots and ac a w -
The task force also recommended current generation aircraft and traffic controllers (immediate representatives. ', • ,,.,., .,
additional restrictions on night phase out use by 1995. implementation). • • Study construction of a second '
:flights and specified that some of the - , . u • ' • crosswind runway to distribute ak
, restrictions take effect this summer. . - ,. -- ; • i • ^'- traffic flew. `
.' Earlier drafts of the report bad r'eo ,
`outmeoded a ban on night nights •s. 4.. --t:, .. .. : •aE.;<, - • ,,.->..F..A.,. • - ..•,- . u.: m
; .v r .2''''``4•'••'
except for those flown by Inc quiet- emergencies or other unforeseen air �" Gardebring said: The overa reco-' 'p ressure- on b oth age notAto
est planes.. • . 1 traffic difficulties. .
-+• 1 •.,... - mendatioa will be that the governor move ahead and she expects results.
•' - I direct the airports commission and: She will urge Perpich to request that
Sandra Gardebring, chairwoman of Rep. Wes Skoglund, DFL- Minneapo- the Minnesota Pollution .Control , the agencies report on their progress
the task force, said the changes were its. a task force member, objected to Agency to begin immediate negotla- June 1 and that he reconvene the
made to make the recommendations softening the nighttime ban, saying tloos to establish the noise cap and to- task force that month to review the
more realistic to implement • ` everyone deserves a good night achieve it by implementing other • progress report •, r •
• - • , r<.. 9' r , sleep, and "a nighttime ban is basic." . measures recommended by the task. - .• - • - 't:: _,h; , y,• �c - 1 •
She said she had been persuaded (There are now about 33 arrivals or force. :4 ..:.,• ' - Hamlet and airports commissioner
that the likelihood of arriving at a departures a day between 11 p.m, • - • - l'.• : ! L - .- 4 -Burton Joseph requested that the
noise cap by May 1 was remote and and 6 a.m.) .s. •• ,'• These agencies have disagreed in- task force forgo deadlines for the
accepted arguments that flexibility is ' • . •'•'' ' the past and have made little joint . airports commission on establishing
needed to allow flights to arrive at The task force report will be sent to progress on the problem. But Garde- ' - - -`, • - i ,.. , - s. - t 1 •.,
the airport at night in the event of Gov. Rudy Perpich In about 10 days, • bring said there Is more political N' otes continued on page 4B
•
N oise . Continued from page 3B
the noise ceiling and the night re- Task force member Leon Cook said
strictions. Both said these measures the commission's concern about the
have not been studied thoroughly airline industry does not help the
enough to gauge their possible nega- people he represents who live with
• tive effect on the airline industry. the noise. "If a timetable is not given
. to this thing, then we're going to get
Northwest Airlines executives al- the same noise and I'm going to be
ready have warned the governor the same victim and I don't like it."
that implementation of the task
force recommendations would result Minneapolis City Council Member
in some measure of reduced air Steve Cramer, a task force member
transportation and airline jobs. and a key figure in attempts to se-
cure noise reductions, said the rec-
"There is a way and a time we're ommendations are not as far-reach-
' going to solve this and we're on our ing as he had hoped and other peo-
way," Joseph said, referring to the ple in the community would like to
commission's own noise reduction see. "But it does offer a better hope
plan, which it sent to the governor for controlling noise than anything
this week. that has been put together so far. It's
a step in the right direction." •
•
„..,,
E,
u= _,
m kt % city of eagan
3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, P.O. BOX 21199 BEA BLOMQUIST
EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55121 Mayor
PHONE: (612) 454 -8100 THOMAS EGAN
JAMES A. SMITH
JERRY THOMAS
THEODORE WACHTER
December 23, 1985 Council Members
THOMAS HEDGES
City Administrator
EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE
City Clerk
RAY GLUMACK, CHAIRMAN
METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION
6040 - 28TH AVE SO
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55450
RE: RUNWAY 22 EXTENSION AND AIRCRAFT DIVERSION
Dear Chairman Glumack:
I read with ccn.,iderable concern the article in the Thurday,
December 19, 1985, Minneapolis Star & Tribune, concerning a
combination of the 180 degree heading and an extension of Runway
4/22 of approximately 2700 feet. My concern is based on the fact
that these two items are being treated as if they are a single
issue on the noise abatement agenda. This is not the case and
should not be so treated by the Metropolitan Airports Commission.
While we in the City of Eagan understand that the maintenance of
the preferenti:..' runway zys;.em fcr longer perioc39 of time will
benefit the northern sections of our community by maintaining
arrival traffic through the corridor, the plan as proposed would
offset any advantage by a substantial increase in disadvantages
to the southern, residential portions of the community. This
trade off is not a necessary condition of the improvements
suggested. Because the map proposes to combine capital
improvements with changes in procedure, it should address the
impact of the two separate items individually. That is to say,
the impact of the runway extension should be analyzed without
procedural change and then with procedural change to
differentiate between those impacts related to the extension of
the preferential runway configuration and those related to the
diversion of traffic along the 180 degree corridor. This is the
only fair way to approach the issue since it is obvious that the
maintenance of the configuration itself tends to benefit south
Minneapolis and a mixing of the issues fails to recognize that
point.
Since the beginning of the 180 degree heading test procedure, it
has been the assertion of the airport staff that an EIS would be
necessary to ascertain the actual impact of the diversionary
heading. More recently, Les Case of the Federal Aviation
\ . TI” ! ^ "_ (- )AK TREE ...THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH
!n! n, !n ^ ^. " „ „„
RAY GLUMACK,CHAIRMAN
DECEMBER 23,1985
PAGE 2
Administration has indicated a need for such a statement and the
Metropolitan Airports Commission itself recommended such a study
when it forwarded its recommendation on the turn. To combine the •
study with that of the runway extension without regard for the
differential impact of the turn would be unfair.
Part of the reason that separate consideration of the
diversionary heading is necessary is that the extension of runway
4/22 changes all of the impact areas used to analyze the turn
from its first trial use. Clearly, the data gathered from the
first study is invalidated by take off points almost one -half
mile closer to Cedar Avenue then were the case during the test
period. The extension of the runway will change the
effectiveness of the turn procedure as well as the magnitude of
the affected populations.
Please accept this as official notice that the City of Eagan
opposes the combination of these two issues in a single program
of development and operational change. We would appreciate your
consideration of our position in your review of this matter.
Please keep us advised of the status of these issues.
Sincerely yours,
( c - V.01•6411R4t1A_.- '
Thomas L. Hedges
City Administrator
cc: Walter Rockenstein (MASAC)
Sandra Gardebring (Metropolitan Council)
Steve King (City of Burnsville)
Representative Art Seaberg
Senator Howard Knutson
TLH /JH /db
_ Minneapolis /St. Paul International Airport
FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Plan
•
Evaluation of Potential Noise Abatement Measures
December 17, 1985
HOWARD NEEDLES TAMMEN & BERGENDOFF
Architects Engineers Planners
(1
c,r
Minneapolis /St. Paul International Airport
•
FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Plan
Those potential noise abatement measures which were identified at the
October 22 meeting of MASAC for further study (together with some
variations /refinements) have been evaluated to the next level of detail.
The evaluations are described in the attached sheets.
At the December 17th meeting of MASAC, the results of this analysis will be
described and members of the Council will be asked to comment on the
measures.
This discussion will take place on a measure -by- measure basis, but members
are requested to think of each as part of an overall program designed to
address the key issues of:
- Reduction in overall number of operations.
- Reduction in operations by Stage 2 aircraft.
- Maintenance of the preferential runway system.
- Limitations on night operations.
- Flight procedures and other measures.
Following comments by members, a potential program drawn from the measures
(or variations thereon) will be prepared and presented for review by MASAC.
•
Measure No• 1• LIMIT TOTAL DAILY NUMBER OF FLIGHTS TO EACH DESTINATION-
Description: This measure would require a degree of re- regulation of the airline
industry. With a limit on the number of flights to each destination in
effect, it is probable that fever aircraft would depart, but with higher
loads.
•
Net Change There would be no short term noise benefits from this measure, since even a
in Community degree of re- regulation of the airline industry on a national level would •
Noise and be a difficult and lengthy procedure. Long term noise benefits would
Overflight result were there to be a reduction in the total number of flights
operating into and out of MSP. The degree of the improvement would depend
upon the nature of the restriction imposed by a new regulatory body.
Re- regulation could tend to lessen the advantages in hubbing, thereby
additionally reducing air traffic at MSP. An increased use of the PRS
would also be expected.
None, except possibly fewer operations and implications of reduced traffic
Airport and for ATC, airport operations.
ATC
Operational
Considerations
Effect on The re- regulation of the airline industry would have major impacts on the
Aircraft airlines, creating a new round of instability at a time when the industry
Operators is just settling down after de- regulation. The ability to hub at MSP as
presently practiced by Northwest and Republic could be lessened by
re- regulation.
Effect On The choice of the air traveller for conveniently timed flights to most
Quality of cities would be reduced. Service to smaller markets from MSP would likely
Air Service be cut as carriers redeploy aircraft away from MSP to those cities which
provide more service flexibility. As competition to various cities is
reduced, air fares would be expected to increase.
Capital Costs Uncertain.
of •
Implementation •
Implementation Re-regulation or partial re- regulation would have to occur at the federal
Factors level; it would be politically difficult and time - consuming. Subsequent. to
re- regulation, the process of selecting cities and carriers for service
would be complex and controversial.
Legal Legal issues include potential for conflict with the Airline Deregulation
Act of 1978, and for claims by incumbent or new entrant airlines of unjust
Implications discrimination by the airport proprietor in its allocations of limited
airport capacity.
Conclusion
1'
M easure
No. 2. PROVIDE No ADDITIONAL TERMINAL GATES-
Description: This measure would place a moratorium on the construction of additional
terminal gates as a means of restricting future traffic growth and thereby
limiting future noise impacts. The restriction would have to apply to
remote gates, ramp parking and all other aircraft position options in order
to be effective, and would involve a continued limitation on nighttime
activity.
Net Change There would be no short -ter' noise benefits associated with this measure.
in Community Current gate utilization (5.0 departures /gate /day) is such that a 50
Noise and percent increase in traffic could occur before additional gate capacity is
Overflight absolutely required. It is expected that after 1990, when higher
utilization of gates is attained (7.5 departures /gate /day), the noise
benefits of the measure would begin to be experienced, with the lack of
gates acting as a deterrent to introduction of additional airline flights.
The extent of the improvement would not be major.
Airport and ATC workload would increase slightly as more aircraft would have to be held
ATC on the taxiway and apron areas while waiting for gates to clear. This
Operational situation is typical of airports with very high levels of gate utilization.
Considerations
Effect on In the short term, the only significant effect would be increased
Aircraft congestion in the gate area. In the longer term, the ability of the
airlines to grow at MSP would be decreased, and could result in a shift of
Operators
flights and employees to other airports. The effect would be felt first by
connecting operations.
Increasing congestion in the terminal area would be experienced by air
Effect On travelers. Beyond 1990, the service options for passengers could decrease
Quality of and level of service could be adversely affected.
Air Service
Capital Costs None. Could be savings of costs of new terminal facili
of
Implementation
Implementation Implementation would be straight - forward; MAC would, by resolution,
Factors establish a moratorium on the construction of additional terminal gates
beyond those in the construction or design phase, and upon use of apron or
ramp areas for the parking of air carrier aircraft.
Legal Legal issues include possible claims by new entrant airlines of unjust
Implications discrimination by the airport proprietor in allocating all available
airport capacity to incumbent airlines.
1 .
C onclusion
No. S. ESTABLISH A MAXIMUM PEAK LEVEL OF USE AT THE CAPACITY OF'THE
Measure PREFERENTIAL RUNWAY SYSTEM- ALLOCATE SLOTS BASED ON CURRENT
OPERATIONS BY DIFFERENT USER GROUPS•
Description: This measure would involve the establishment of an hourly operations quota at 70 total
operations, the hourly capacity of the preferential runways. Forty -nine slots would be
allocated to air carriers, nine to regional carriers, and 12 to general aviation, based on
current proportions of operations. The airport would be operated in a manner whereby the
preferential runways are utilised whenever wind and weather conditions permit.
Net Change This measure would not be expected to affect the total number of daily flights, but peak
9 spreading would occur to bring hourly demand levels down to 70 per hour. Runway use
in Community patterns would change greatly as use of Runway 22 for departures and Runway 4 for arrivals
Noise and increases. The change in the noise environment as defined by Idn contours is presented in
Overflight Figure 3 -1. Because aircraft tracks are more dispersed, (even with the 180- degree turn in
effect) the total population within the Ldn 65 would increase by 5,100 to a total of
40,000; however, the overall population within the I.dn 75 would be reduced by 280, to
1,200 persons. After 1986, no increase in traffic would be accommodated, so noise impacts
would gradually diminish as quieter aircraft are introduced into the fleet.
There would be an increase in ATC workload if operations are scheduled to obtain the
Airport and maximum capacity of the preferential runways for the 50 percent of the time that winds
ATC permit use of the system. During these periods, safety margins would be reduced, since
Operational runway crossings would increase significantly.
Considerations
Effect on This measure would have a serious effect on Northwest and Republic. The hubbing strategy
Aircraft mould be expected to change with smaller and more frequent banks replacing current 4 -5
Operators banks per day. With no opportunity for growth beyond 1986, the coat effectiveness of
maintaining hubs, and hence, headquarters and maintenance functions at the airport would
be in question.
Effect On The quality of air service for air travellers in the region would deteriorate after 1986
Ouality of as new demands for travel at peak times could not be satisfied. Frequency of service to
Air Service all markets would be reduced, minimizing the choice of times for travel.
•
Capital Costs None.
Of
Implementation
Implementation This measure would be implemented by ordinance, with specified penalties. It would be
Factors difficult to implement, requiring the establishment of a mechanism for allocating slots
and continuing effort for allocations. Decisions concerning the distribution of slots
among various user groups would be a continuing issue. •.
Legal Legal issues may include claims of Federal preemption, i.e., that FAA makes final
Implications operations as to maximum runway capacity; whether limitations on numbers of aircraft
operations would impose a burden on interstate commerce; and claims of unjust
discrimination lodged against the airport proprietor for its allocation of limited airport
capacity to incumbent and new entrant airlines and to other user groups.
Conclusion
•
•
tl
es
No• 3A. ESTABLISH A MAXIMUM PEAK LEVEL OF USE AT THE CAPACITY OF THE
Measure PREFERENTIAL RUNWAY SYSTEM. ALLOCATE SLOTS TO THE QUIETEST
AIRCRAFT.
Description: This measure would require setting an hourly operations quota at 70 operations, the
capacity of the existing PRS. Slots would be allocated to the quietest aircraft.
Because of the limited restrictive effect that a slot system would have on total
Net Change current traffic levels, it is expected that immediate use of Stage 3 aircraft would
in Community increase only modestly, from 20 to 25 percent of total air carrier operations. This
Noise and shift would not have a significant effect on the future noise environment, associated
Overflight with Measure 3, which allocated slots based on the current mix, since it would result
in the removal of few of the more noisy Stage 2 aircraft. The Ldn analysis for
- Measure 3 depicts the expected future noise environment. In the long -term, the
measure would encourage enhanced use of quieter aircraft. The extent of this
improvement would be related to the carriers ability to acquire and schedule the new
generation aircraft out of MSP. Short -term noise effects would be a shift in noise
impacts from S. Minneapolis to areas south and west of the airport during some hours.
Overall use of the PRS would be limited to about 50 percent of the time, based on
historical data on prevailing winds.
Airport and There would be an increase in ATC workload if operations were scheduled to obtain the
ATC maximum capacity of the preferential runways for the 50 percent of the time that
winds permit use of the system. During these periods, safety margins would be
Operational reduced, since runway crossings would increase significantly.
Considerations
Effect on This measure would be a problem for carriers which do not have a large number of
Aircraft Stage 3 aircraft in their fleets or which lack the financial resources to obtain
them. On a broad scale, unless a carrier with a large number of Stage 3 aircraft
Operators attempted to establish a hub at MSP, the overall effect on the airlines at MSP
compared to Measure No. 3 would be less; however, the ability of both Northwest and
Republic to maintain hubs at MSP would be seriously in question.
Effect on The quality of air service for air travellers in the region would deteriorate after
Quality Of 1986 as new demands could not be satisfied. Frequency of service to all markets
Air Service would be reduced, minimizing the choice of times for travel and the availability of
seats at the most desirable times.
Capital Costs None.
Of
Implementation
Implementation The measure could be implemented by ordinance, with specified enforcement and
Factors penalties. Implementation difficulties associated with the establishment of a slot
system would be experienced. A technique would be needed to factor the relative
quietness of aircraft into the slot allocation process. An extensive study of
safety, environmental, and economic concerns would be required.
Legal issues may include claims of Federal preemption, that only FAA makes final
Legal determinations of maximum runway capacity; whether limitations on numbers of aircraft
Implications operations would impose an undue burden on interstate commerce; and whether the
procedure for allocating limited airport capacity to operators of quiet and noisier
aircraft was unjustly discriminatory.
•
NO. 4. RELOCATE RUNWAY 4-22 SOUTH OF RUNWAY 11L-29R. ESTABLISH A MAXIMUM
Measure PEAK LEVEL OF USE AT THE IMPROVED CAPACITY OF THE PREFERENTIAL
RUNWAY SYSTEM-
Description: southwest, with ighly restricted t use i of the northernmosty2 ,7500feett to
the
of runway.
This would remove the interaction between Runways 4 -22 and 21L -29R, with capacity
benefits and reduced runway crossings.
al heapeakth hour
ofs regional
established at 80 operations,
carriers. and 14 to general aviation, based on current proportions. •
The existing noise environment would be changed with increased use of preferential
Net Change run ways (50 percent of the time) increasing noise levels southwest of the airport.
in Community The number of operations would not change over current levels, although some peak
Noise and spreading would be expected to occur. Two sets of Ldn noise contours, depicted in
Overflight Figures 4 -1 and 4 -2, show what effects the measure would have in comparison to the
1985 noise environment. One set of contours includes all Runway 22 departures
turning east of Cedar Avenue or along 1 -494, (4,800 persons added to base case Ldn
65, 630 removed from Ldn 75) with the other assuming current flight tracks with 40
percent using a 165' turn to remain east of Cedar Avenue (4,000 persons added to Ldn
65, 430 removed from Ldn 75). A major reduction in noise levels would occur if the
capacity constraints were to result in reduction in hubbing by the two major air
carriers. On a single -event basis, Runway 22 departures would create more noise
southwest of the airport, since the start -of -roll point for aircraft will be further
to the southwest than at present.
Airport and An increase in ATC workload would result due to the increased coordination
ATC requirements of operating the preferential'runvays. The shift of Runway 4 -22 will
eliminate many runway crossings, which would have positive safety implications.
Operational
Considerations
Effect on
Aircraft The measure would require some rescheduling of flights in the peak hours, and would
constrain future growth. The ability of Northwest and Republic to continue to
Operators
operate hubs at MSP would be in question, although continuation would be easier than
with Measures 3 and 3A.
Effect on
Quality of
Air Service The measure would result in some loss of service in peak times. In the future, as
extent of the loss n of� service o dependent i upon the i reactions l of e the m airlines to the
the
capacity constraint and the associated slot system.
Capital Costs
Of Th shift of Runway 4 -22 2,750 feet to the southwest would cost approximately $8-10
Implementation million.
Implementation _ -
Factors The restriction would be implemented by ordinance, with a system of penalties. The
establishment and maintenance of a slot system would involve administrative costs to
MAC, and would be • continuing issue.
Legal
Implications Legal issues associated with this measure would be similar to those described for
Measure No. 3, plus the possibility of local litigation to prevent construction (or
use) of a runway extension.
Conclusion
4
No. 4A. CONSTRUCT A SHORT PARALLEL RUNWAY WEST OF RUNWAY 4-22 AND RELOCATE RUNWAY
Measure 4-22 SOUTH OF RUNWAY 11L-29R. ESTABLISH A MAXIMUM PEAK LEVEL OF USE AT
THE IMPROVED CAPACITY OF THE PREFERENTIAL RUNWAY SYSTEM.
Description: The combination of the physical improvements in this measure would allow for 70 -80
hourly operations by air carriers, with adequate capacity remaining to accommodate
forecast commuter and general aviation traffic; the improved preferential runways
could be used 50 percent of the time based on historic wind and weather data.
The existing noise environment would be changed with increased use of the
Net Change preferential runways (50 percent of all operations). The improved capacity of the
in Community preferentials would be adequate for current operational levels with some peak
Noise and spreading. The changed noise environment is depicted in Figure 4 -1 and 4 -2 (same as
Measure 4). Enhanced use of Runway 4 -22 and its new short parallel will result in
Overflight an increased noise impact southwest of the airport (more flights at lower altitudes)
and • reduced impact over South Minneapolis. The population within the Ldn 65
contour would be decreased overall, from 34,900 to 30,300 persona. Maximum
channelization of Runway 22 departures along less noise sensitive corridors would
further reduce the number of residents within the Ldn 65 contour.
Airport and An increase in ATC workload would result from greater use of the preferential
ATC runways. The shift in Runway 4 -22 and addition of a short parallel runway would
permit ATC to handle the increased workload more efficiently and safely by
Operational decreasing runway crossings and providing additional capacity.
Considerations
Effect on This measure would require some rescheduling on the part of Northwest and Republic
Aircraft to meet the 70-80 hourly operations quota for air carriers. To the extent that
additional operations can be scheduled for non -peak hours, some growth in total
Operators daily traffic levels could occur and the potential for the primary carriers to
maintain their hubbing activities at MSP would be good.
Effect on This measure would not significantly effect current air service. In the future, as
demand increases, the choice of flights available to passengers at prime times could
Quality Of
.be diminished.
Air Service
A 2,750 -foot extension would cost an estimated $8-10 million. Construction of a
Capital Costs
5,000 -foot parallel runway west of Runway 4 -22 would cost approximately $15 -
Of million.
Implementation
The measure would be implemented by ordinance. The establishment and maintenance of
Implementation the slot system would involve administrative costs to MAC, and would be a continuing
Factors issue.
Legal issues associated wtih this measure would be similar to those described for
Legal Measure No. 3, plus the possibility of local litigation to prevent the construction
Implications (or use) of a runway extension or of a new parallel runway.
Conclusion
Measure NOS 5. 4-22. ESTABLISH NEWNPREFEROENTIAL PARALLEL OF RUNWAY
Description: This measure would involve the construction of an 8,500 -foot runway vest of
and parallel to Runway 4 -22. The runway use program would be modified to
allow for use of parallel runways at all times. The first'priority would
be operations on 11L and 11R, followed by 22L and 22R, 29L and 29R, and 4L
and 4R. When Runways 22L and 228 are in use, the 180' turn procedure would
be utilized.
This measure would result in a redistribution of aircraft noise, shifting
Net Change more than half of the overflight from South Minneapolis to the southwest
in Community and northeast of the airport. The resulting Ldn noise contours, depicted
Noise and in Figure 5-1, include a residential population of 30,300 within the Ldn •
Overflight 65, compared to 34,900 in the base case contour.
The use of Cedar Avenue (and I -494) departure track is critical to
capturing the potential noise benefits of this measure.
Airport and The new runway, with an amended runway use program, would permit ATC to
ATC handle operations in parallel runway modes at all times, an improvement
over current use of the preferential runways. Use of the closely spaced
Operational 4/22 runways would require a higher degree of coordination compared to use
Considerations of the 11/29 runways.
Effect on Construction of a new runway would require relocation of general aviation,
air traffic control tower, and other facilities in the west ramp area.
Aircraft
Operators
Effect on None.
Quality of
Air Service
Capital Costs It is estimated that construction of a new runway would coat $25 -
Of million. Additional costs would be incurred in the relocation of general
aviation,. ATC, CFR, and other facilities in the west ramp area.
Implementation
The construction of the runway would result in only minor disruptions to
Implementation
on -going operations.
Factors
Legal issues may include local litigation to prevent the construction (or
Legal use) of a new parallel runway.
Implications
Conclusion
'„ No• b. ASSIGN PROPELLER AIRCRAFT TO RUNWAY 11L-29R AND 11R -29L WHEN THE
Measure PREFERENTIAL RUNWAY SYSTEM IS IN USE•
Description: This measure would shift propeller aircraft operations to the parallel
runways during periods when the preferential runways are in use. The shift
of these operations, which account for 25 percent of all operations, will
make available additional capacity on the preferential runways for jet
aircraft, and would extend the periods that jet aircraft can use the
preferential runways.
The noise benefits would be those associated with use of the preferential
Net Change runway system, reduced overflights of South Minneapolis and increased
in Community operations to the southwest where the adverse effects of overflight can be
Noise and better ameliorated. The measure is partially implemented by ATC today.
Overflight Maximisation of the measure could extend the number of daytime hours that ,
the preferential runways are currently used from two to as any as five
' hours, per day.
In the long term, projected increases in traffic will minimize the
potential noise benefits to be derived from this measure, since use of the
preferentials would be all but eliminated during the daytime hours by the
volume of turbojet operations alone.
Increased coordination will be required among ATC controllers, so that the
Airport and propeller aircraft operating on the parallels can be sequenced between
ATC operations on Runway 4 -22. As traffic levels increase, this need for
Operational coordination will also increase, and will become more difficult.
Considerations
Effect on None.
Aircraft
Operators
Effect on None, unless this measure is associated with a measure restricting activity
Quality of levels to the peak hour capacity of the PRS. In this case, it will improve
Air Service the capacity of the system, and permit higher levels of air carrier
operations.
Capital Costs None.
of
•
Implementation
Implementation Runway Use Program currently in effect would be modified to reflect the '_
Factors change in procedures.
Legal Legal issues may include the possibility of FAA's refusing to direct its
ATC personnel to assign propellor aircraft to the runways designated by MAC
Implications for their use when the PRS is in use.
Conclusion
Measure NO. 7. 11TU OD PTM E TOLBNOORA•MESONIMEEKENDSN NIGHTTIME OPERATIONS TO
Description: This measure is designed to reduce aircraft operations between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00
a.m. on Saturday and Sunday mornings. There are currently 31 air carrier operations
(15 arrivals, 16 departures) in this two -hour extended time period that would be
affected on Saturdays, and 20 (10 arrivals, 10 departures) on Sundays. This is
compared to 6 air carrier operations during the entire voluntary nighttime
restriction hours of 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. on weekends.
The noise benefits associated with the measure would be contingent upon the degree of
Net Change airline compliance with the voluntary restriction. It is anticipated that the
in Community effects on airline fleet utilization would be such that only limited compliance with
this measure could be expected. As traffic levels increase in the future, it will be
Noise and
increasingly more difficult for the airlines to shift these operations to later
Overflight hours. The short term noise benefits of this measure, assuming that a third of the
operations are shifted, would be a reduction from 15 to 10 departure or arrival
overflights over a given residential area on a Saturday mornings and a reduction from
10 to 7 operations on Sunday mornings. In the long term, airlines may find a way to
schedule operations outside of these two -hour periods, resulting in fewer operations
than those assumed above.
-
Airport and None.
ATC
Operational
Considerations
It is anticipated that airline compliance with this voluntary restriction would only
Effect On
be to the extent that fleet scheduling is not significantly impacted. Constraints on
Aircraft the scheduling of future activity would be modest.
Operators
Effect on The flights affected by the restriction include the first daily flights to and from a
Duality Of number of destinations, including arrivals of night flights from west coast cities
and departures to numerous cities in the east. Depending upon the extent of airline
Air Service compliance with restriction, some loss of early morning and late night service to and
from these destinations for. Minneapolis -St. Paul area residents would result.
Capital Costs None.
of
Implementation
Implementation The measure would be a modification of Measure 9 (mandatory night restrictions), if
Factors Measure 9 is implemented. MAC would notify all operators of the proposed extension
of the voluntary restriction hours.
Legal Since airline compliance under the measure would be voluntary, no legal issues would
Implications likely be raised.
Conclusion
'� Measure No. 8 . I NSTITUTE A NIGHTTIME BAN ON ALL BUT STAGE 3 AIRCRAFT•
Description: This measure would prohibit operations by all aircraft not in compliance with Federal
Aviation Regulations Part 36 Stage 3 levels between 11:00 p.m. - 6:00 a.m. This
prohibition would result in the elimination of operations by the noisiest aircraft
(11-727, DC -9, etc.) during the nighttime hours. In August 1985, there were eight
scheduled arrivals and eight scheduled departures of non -Stage 3 aircraft daily in
this time period. The operations were mostly by cargo aircraft.
Net Change The elimination of 16 daily nighttime operations by the noisier aircraft serving MSP
in Community would result in reduced noise effects to the east of the airport, where most
Noise and nighttime operations are conducted. The Lin 65 contour in this area would be reduced
Overflight as depicted in Figure 8 -1, with a reduction in population within the Ldn 65 of 1,400
persons and no change within the Ldn 75. On • single -event basis, the elimination of •
the 16 more noisy events would provide a noticeable benefit for residents under the
flight tracks. In the event that the operations would be moved to another airport,
residents of that area would be subject to the same Stage 2 aircraft noise levels.
In the long term, this measure will have a positive noise benefit as a deterrent to
the scheduling of operations by noisy aircraft in the nighttime hours.
Airport and None.
ATC
Operational
Considerations
Effect on This measure would have a major effect on air cargo operators at MSP, with a lesser
Aircraft effect on the air carriers. The 9 daily air cargo operations affected represent 60
Operators percent of all large aircraft operations in this category. Most of the operators of
these aircraft do not have replacement Stage 3 aircraft and would have to move their
operations elsewhere (no alternative facilities are currently available). The 7 air
carrier operations would have to be rescheduled to daytime hours or be flown with
Stage 3 aircraft. The ability of operators to schedule future nighttime operations
would be limited.
Effect on
Quality of If cargo operators could be moved elswhere, the quality of air cargo service would
As Service not be unreasonably affected. Air travellers in the Minneapolis -St. Paul area would
potentially lose lower cost nighttime passenger service.
Capital Costs
Of Replacement facilities for air cargo operators say be.required at another airport.
This is a question, since it is not established that such facilities would be a
Implementation proper 'alternative" for these operators.
Implementation The mechanism for administering and monitoring of this measure would be developed by
Factors MAC. The basic rule would be by ordinance, vith a system of penalties.
Legal Legal issues say include claims by affected aircraft operators OBat a nighttime ban
Implications on operations of all but Stage III aircraft would impose an undue burden on
interstate commerce.
•
Conclusion
No. 9. INITIATE A SLOT SYSTEM TO RESTRICT NIGHTTIME ACTIVITY TO CURRENT
Measure LEVELS•
Description: would to 6100 a .. to restrict
arrivals, turbojet
departures, excluding GA). The voluntary measure has, through continuing efforts on
the part of MAC staff, been effective in restricting nighttime operations. With or
without new measures which would constrain day -time activity, the potential for
additional nighttime demand is apparent.
Net Change No effects on existing noise levels would result. The value of the measure would be
in Community to ensure that future nighttime noise does not exceed today's levels.
Noise and
Overflight
•
Airport and None.
ATC
Operational
Considerations
Effect on Measure would restrict the ability of the operators on the airport to schedule
Aircraft operations, particularly as future demand begins to exceed the airport capacity
Operators during the daytime hours. This could create pressures to reschedule day -time flights
in the late evening or early morning hours. The operators, especially the cargo
operators, have no available alternative facility.
Effect on No effects on existing service. Constraints on future service would result in
Quality of restrictions in air service; these would likely affect primarily charters and low
Air Service fare flights, as far as passenger activity is concerned.
Capital Costs None.
of
Implementation
Implementation The measure would be instituted by ordinance. Implementation and maintenance of a
Factors slot system would be difficult, especially for a small number of slots which must be
allocated between different users and user groups.
Legal Legal issues may include claims that a mandatory ceiling on numbers of nighttime
operations would impose an undue burden on interstate commerce, and that the
Implications allocations of limited airport capacity during those hours by the airport proprietor
to incumbent and new entrant aircraft operators are unjustly discriminatory to some
user or some class of user group.
Conclusion
•
NO. 10. IMPROVE FACILITIES AT AIRLAKE AND SHIFT ALL NIGHTTIME OPERATIONS TO
Measure THAT AIRPORT.
Description: This would provide the "alternative facility" required to ensure that restrictions on
nighttime activity at MSP (Measures No. 8 and 9) do not constitute an interference
with interstate commerce. The improvements would require an 8,000 -foot precision
runway. The measure would exempt emergency operations at MSP from the restriction.
Net Change The measure would remove all nighttime activity other than emergencies from MSP and
in Community would result in lower Ldn noise levels, especially at Eagan and Mendota Heights,
which are most overflown by night operations. The removal of the noise events would
Noise and be a perceivable improvement. The noise would be removed to the Lakeside /Farmington
Overflight area, where it would be perceived as disruptive.
Construction of a new 8,000 -foot precision runway, taxiways, aprons, terminal area,
Airport and terminal buildings, and relocation of up to 11,400 feet of Cedar Avenue and 5,600 of
ATC railroad track would be required. About 300 acres of land would be acquired. No ATC
Operational problems would be anticipated.
Considerations
Effect On There would be financial burdens and operational problems associated with cargo
Aircraft operations separated from MSP, and with increased fees to meet the costs of new ,
Operators facilities.
Effect On Possibly minor reduction in cargo service if operators move. Major loss of service
Quality Of if they pull out. Loss of charter passenger service could occur.
Air Service
Capital Costs Major - not calculated.
of
Implementation
•
Implementation The measure would require an ordinance restricting operations at MSP, and
Factors implementation of the construction program described above. The feasibility of
construction of a major air carrier facility at Airlake is low, from political and
funding perspectives.
Legal Legal issues may include claims that the statutory prohibition on all but emergency
Implications nighttime operations at MSP would impose an undue burden on interstate commerce or
would be inconsistent with written assurances to the contrary given the FAA by the
airport proprietor as a condition of having received past Federal airport grants.
Local litigation also could be possible to prohibit construction (or use) of a major
new runway and associated development at Airlake.
i v.., .... • I I
nt N0. 11. EXEMPT STAGE 3 AIRCRAFT FROM NOISE ABATEMENT FLIGHT TRACKS.
Measure
Description: This measure would exempt Stage 3 aircraft from following noise abatement flight
tracks, specifically the required 4-mile final for all landings, the Eagan departure
corridor, and the 1,500 foot MSL minimum altitude for beginning turns off Runway 22.
Departing Stage 3 aircraft off Runway 11L and R would subject new areas east of the
Net Change airport to overflight, but at generally low noise levels. Other departure impacts
in Community would be minimal, since turns will generally not be initiated below 1,500 feet MSL.
Noise and
Overflight Changes in landing patterns and resulting noise impacts will be minor, since it would
be easier for ATC to sequence Stage 3 aircraft into the arrival streams at the same
points as other aircraft, beyond 4 miles. On occasion, however, Stage 3 aircraft
could be turned onto 2- to 4-mile finale during periods of light traffic, without
significant noise effects.
Airport and ATC would use the unrestricted Stage 3 tracks to more efficiently handle traffic as
ATC needed, so the exemption would have a positive effect on their workload and on
Operational airport capacity.
Considerations As the proportion of Stage 3 aircraft in the airlines increases, some modification of
the exemption may be required.
Effect on
Aircraft Limited flighttime savings would accrue to operators of Stage 3 aircraft,
particularly for westbound and northbound traffic departing Runways 11L and 1IR.
Operators
Effect on
Quality of None.
Air Service
Capital Costs •
of None.
Implementation
Implementation
Factors MAC and ATC would amend the Tower Letter describing the runway use program, to
include the exemption for Stage 3 aircraft.
Legal None.
Implications •
Conclusion •
[ Measure No 12. BAN ALL BUT STAGE 3 AIRCRAFT AFTER JANUARY 1ST, 1995.
Description: This measure would establish January 1, 1995 as a date beyond which operations by
aircraft not meeting FAR Stage 3 noise levels would be prohibited from MSP.
Net Change There would be no change in the existing noise environment as a result of this
measure. As 1995 approaches, significant noise benefits would be achieved. An all
•
in Community Stage 3 mix in 1995 would result in a 5 -10 Ldn reduction in the 1985/1986 Ldn
Noise and contours for MSP. If sufficient replacement Stage 3 aircraft are not available, then
Overflight traffic would be reduced.
None.
Airport and
ATC
Operational
Considerations
Effect on The existing composition of the fleets and financial resources of Northwest and
Aircraft Republic and the equipment acquisition plans of the two airlines, sake it doubtful
Operators that either could meet the 1995 date while maintaining a large hub at MSP. In these
circumstances, the response of the airlines with respect to HQ /maintenance operations
at the airport is uncertain.
Effect On If the 1995 date vere to result in the elimination of Northwest and /or Republic hubs,
Quality of a substantial deterioration of air service to area residents would occur. The
Air Service effects of the service loss would translate into significant economic disbenefits to
the Twin Cities area.
•
Capital Costs None to the airport. Major costs of equipment acquisitions to the airlines if they
of choose to comply.
Implementation
Implementation A field ordinance establishing the timetable for compliance with the 1995 date would
Factors be adopted. The costs of setting up and administering monitoring and enforcement
procedures would be significant.
Legal Legal issues may include claims that the MAC action, unless also adopted nationwide
Implications by the Federal Government with the identical effective date, would impose an undue
burden on interstate commerce.
Conclusion
Measure NO. 12A. ALL BUT AIRCRAFT AND AT i984 LEVE
Description: This measure is an alternative to Measure 12, but adds a freeze in activity by Stage
1 and 2 aircraft at about 480 daily operations, the level of this category of traffic
in August 1984. With 1985/1986 Stage 1 and 2 operations projected at 590 daily, 110
daily flights would be affected immediately. There would be no restriction on
additional operations by Stage 3 aircraft.
The change in the noise environment that would result from the removal of 110 daily
Net Change flights by stage 1 and 2 aircraft is shown by a comparison of the 1984 and the
in Community 1985/1986 Ldn contours. This comparison, presented in Figure 12 -1, shows a decrease
Noise and in noise around the entire periphery of the contour, with the population within the
Overflight Ldn 65 decreasing from 34,900 to 28,000. The actual effect would be more beneficial
if this measure were to be combined with the measures to enhance use of the PRS.
In the future, as 1995 approaches, a continuing reduction in the area subject to Ldn
65 would be expected as airlines gear up for an "all Stage 3" operation, with the
noise environment in 1995 and beyond being much reduced.
None, except that total traffic would be reduced to the extent that operational
Airport and demand cannot be satisfied by available Stage 3 aircraft.
ATC
Operational
Considerations
Effect on The elimination of some of today's operations and restrictions on future activity
Aircraft levels would affect the ability of Republic (and possibly Northwest) to hub
efficiently at MSP, and raises questions as the the future of the HQ /maintenance
Operators activities of these airlines at the airport. Severe financial burdens would fall on
the airlines.
Effect on There would be an immediate loss of air service to area travelers, particularly to
Quality of smaller cities where the older Stage 1 and 2 aircraft are used exclusively. In the
Air Service future, dependent upon the response of Northwest and Republic to this measure, a more
significant loss of air service could result, with adverse economic effects.
Capital Costs None to the airport. Major costs of equipment acquisition to the airlines if they
of attempt to comply.
Implementation
Implementation An ordinance would be required. A slot system to allocate Stage 1 and 2 aircraft
Factors slots would be established, and a continuing allocation process would be required,
with the workload inherent in administration of the system.
Legal Legal issues associated with this measure would be similar to those described for
Measure No. 12. In addition, the freeze on non -Stage III aircraft operations at 1984
Implications levels would raise separate undue burden on interstate commerce issues as well as
potential claims that the allocations of limited airport capacity by the airport
proprietor to incumbent and new entrant airlines, and to other aircraft operators,
was unjustly discriminatory as to some user or to some class of user group.
Conclusion
• No. 12B. BAN ALL BUT STAGE 3 AIRCRAFT AFTER JANUARY 1ST, 1995, AND FREEZE
Measure DAILY OPERATIONS BY STAGE 1 AND 2 AIRCRAFT AT 1985 LEVELS.
Description: The measure is an alternative to Measure No. 12, but freezes the level of Stage 1 and
Stage 2 aircraft at about 590 operations daily, the current level of operations.
There would be no restriction on additional operations by Stage 3 aircraft. The
measure does not guarantee this level of operations if other measures (FRS) impose a
lower level of operations.
If this measure were introduced alone, it would have no immediate effect; the noise
Net Change
environment which would result is that represented by the 1985/1986 contour in Figure
in Community 12 -1. It would prevent any additional growth in the Ldn contour. In the future, a
Noise and continuing reduction in the area subject to Ldn 65 would occur as the airlines move
Overflight toward the 1995 restriction. If the measure were combined with a measure to maximize
use of the FRS, the benefits could be improved.
None, except that traffic would be constrained to the extent that Stage 3 aircraft .
Airport and are not available to meet any increase in demand.
ATC
Operational
Considerations
Effect on The restriction on operations could affect the ability of the hubbing airlines to
Aircraft maintain their operations at MSP, but the impact would be less than that associated
Operators vtih Measure No. 12A.
Effect on There would be some lose of air service if the Stage 3 aircraft are not available to
Quality of meet service demands.
Air Service
Capital Costs None to the Airport. Major costs to the airlines of accelerated acquisition of Stage
of 3 aircraft and early retirement of Stage 2 aircraft if they choose to comply.
Implementation
Implementation This measure would be implemented by ordinance, with penalties. A slot system to
Factors allocate Stage 1 and 2 slots, and a continuing slot allocation process would be
required. Administration workload and costs would be involved.
Legal Legal issues associated with this measure would be similar to those described for
Measure No. 12A, plus the possible claim that alloying only inclmbent airlines to
Implications
operate non -Stage III aircraft would be unjustly discriminatory and in conflict with
the Airline Deregulation Act.
■
Conclusion
Mo• 12C• ESTABLISH A SCHEDULE FOR PROGRESSIVE REDUCTION IN THE NUMBERS nF
Measure STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2 AIRCRAFT FROM 1985 LEVELS•
The measure would establish current average daily operations by Stage 2 aircraft as a base and
Description: require a reduction of 8 percentage points of this base number each year, beginning in 1987.
It would be done on an airline -by- airline basis. New entrants would be required to operate
with a proportion of quiet aircraft not less than the current average for the airport. There
would be no restriction on the introduction of Stage 3 aircraft. This is a regulatory version I
of the goal for replacement of Stage 2 aircraft set in the 1984 Annual Report to the State
Legislature.
Net Change There would be no immediate (1986) noise benefit, but short -term (1987 -1991) benefits
in Community would be guaranteed (not the case in Measure No. 12, 12A, 128) as levels of
Noise and operations by Stage 1 and Stage 2 aircraft are progressively reduced. The measure,
Overflight together with measures designed to restrict operational levels to the capacity of the
PRS and to so enhance use of the PRS would have significant noise benefits over time.
•
Airport and None.
ATC
Operational
Considerations
Effect on
Aircraft The air carriers do not have available, or programmed, sufficient Stage 3 aircraft to
maintain current operations or to enhance air service under the provisions of this
Operators measure, so the viability of today's hubbing and HQ functions are questionable.
Effect on
Quality of Some loss of air service would likely result.
Air Service
Capital Costs
Of None to the airport. Mayor costs to the airlines of accelerated acquisition of Stage
3 aircraft and early retirement of Stage 2 aircraft if they choose to comply.
Implementation
Implementation A field ordinance establishing the regulation would be required. Monitoring and
Factors enforcement procedures would involve administrative workload and costs.
Legal Legal issues say include claims that the MAC's phased reduction schedule of
Implications operations of non -Stage III aircraft would impose an undue burden on Interstate
commerce or that the local ordinance was unreasonable and thus unenforceable since,
without an overall ceiling on total operations, an influx of new entrant airlines
could cause a net increase in community poise exposure.
Conclusion
•
.
F —..— ,
NO. 13' ADDITIONAL TWITHN STAGET3sAOIRCRAFT.RESULTING TRAFFIC.
Measure INCREASES
Description: This measure would permit the construction of new gate facilities only if the
resulting traffic increase is flown by Stage 3 aircraft. It is another incentive to
accelerate replacement of Stage 1 and 2 aircraft with Stage 3 aircraft.
There would be no short -term noise benefits associated with this measure, since there
Net Change is currently excess gate capacity in the terminal building. An increase of up to 50
in Community percent of flights could be accommodated by existing gate capacity before any effects
Noise and of the measure would be felt. The measure would permit the expansion of the current
operations by Stage 2 aircraft to absorb this existing capacity, so in the short
Overflight term, significant increases in noise levels would be expected. Only vhen the gates
are used at capacity would the levels of Stage 2 aircraft be restricted.
Introduction of Stage 3 aircraft to use additional gate capacity may or may not
represent an acceleration of current replacement schedules, so the noise benefits of
the measure are questionable.
Airport and Increased ground congestion would result from higher utilization of existing gates,
ATC requiring a greater ATC effort to control ground traffic flows.
Operational
Considerations
Effect on The airlines would experience increasing congestion in their gate areas in the short
Aircraft term. The construction of new gates and introduction of Stage 3 aircraft would not
necessarily reduce this congestion. The costs to the airlines would depend upon the
Operators point in time that the existing gate capacity is reached.
Effect on Air travelers would experience increased congestion in the gate areas as scheduling
Duality of of gates became tighter; delays would increase as arriving aircraft wait for gates to
Air Service be vacated before taxiing to the terminal.
Capital Costs None.
of
Implementation
Implementation The component of traffic growth attributable to additional gate capacity would not
easily be identifiable. Traffic increases due to improved utilization of existing
Factors gates would need to be identified separately from increases due to new gate
construction
Legal issues may include claims that imposing aircraft noise limitations only on
Legal airlines needing terminal facilities would be unjustly discriminatory as to new
Implications entrant airlines or in conflict with the Airline Deregulation Act. Also, a claim
might be made that the MAC regulation would be unreasonable if a rational connection
between the amount of aircraft noise produced by an airline and its need for terminal
capacity could not be established.
Conclusion
I j I
A
{��
No. 14. REVIEW DEPARTURE TRACKS OVER THE EAGAN CORRIDOR AND EVALUATE MEANS
Measure OF OBTAINING BETTER COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRESCRIBED PROCEDURES-
Description: A survey was conducted to check the compliance of departing aircraft with the Eagan
corridor (between the extended runway centerlines). Of 78 flights surveyed, 14 were
directed by ATC out of the corridor on a 90 heading off Runway 11L. The reason for
11 of these headings was to provide diverging paths betveen'simultaneous Runway 11L
and 11R departures; this is an ATC regulation. The other 3 divergent aircraft were
assigned headings outside of the corridor when no traffic was departing 11R.
Eighteen percent of aircraft were observed to fly outside of the corridor, most of
Net Change them to meet ATC safety regulations. The deviant flights largely overflew Mendota
in Community Heights; the flights could overfly other areas (South St. Paul) but land use
Noise and considerations indicate that impacts are less over Mendota Heights. Deviation from
Overflight the established corridor by 3 aircraft was apparently not necessary, and stricter
compliance by ATC could reduce such incidents.
Airport and ATC could better coordinate use of the corridor without loss of airfield capacity.
ATC When traffic levels are light and simultaneous departures on Runways 11L and 11R are
not required, use of headings on Runway 11L of 110 ° , and on Runway 11R of 090 ° -110
Operational should be specified. When ATC switches to split local controllers (one each for
Considerations Runway 11L and 11R), increased coordination between controllers will be required.
•
Effect on Strict adherence to the corridor at all times would result in increased delays to
Aircraft aircraft operating at the airport when Runways 11L and 11R were in use, since
aircraft could not conduct simultaneous departures off both runway ends.
Operators
Effect on Slightly longer flighttimes and delays would result if compliance with the corridor
Quality of were to be required at all times.
Air Service
Capital Costs None.
of
Implementation
•
Implementation MAC would request ATC to emphasize use of the corridor whenever traffic permits.
Factors
Legal Legal issues associated with this measure appear to be nil; however, assuring strict
FAA compliance with the Eagan Corridor procedures may legally be difficult to
Implications enforce.
Conclusion
•
R
No. 15. CHANNELIZE WESTBOUND TRAFFIC DEPARTING RUNWAY 22 ALONG THE 1
Measure CORRIDOR.
Description: This measure, which was evaluated and recommended for implementation in the NAOP,
Could attempt to channelize northbound and westbound turbojet traffic departing
Runway 22 over the industrial /commercial corridor along 1 -494. The availability of
suitable navigational aids permits easier implementation of this measure than
previously was possible.
With the reduction in use of Runway 22 since this measure was last evaluated in 1980,
Net Change the magnitude of noise benefits would be smaller than those previously identifed,
in Community although if measures to increase FRS use are introduced, this could become of prime
Noise and importance as a noise abatement measure. The current (1985) Ldn 65 contour does not or
Overflight extend far eanough into Richfield or Bloomington to be used as a 7 basi f or P arture off
identifying noise benefits. On a single-event basis, a typ
Runway 22 turning along the 1 -494 corridor would subject 870 fewer persons to noise
levels of 75 dBA than a departure turning to a heading of 250' and 400 fever persons
for a 350 heading (Figure 15 -1). If use of Runway 22 for departures increases in
the future, the cumulative benefits of these single -event benefits will increase.
ATC would need to modify its procedures to accommodate this new turn. Once in
Airport and effect, there would be no change in total workload.
ATC
Operational
Considerations
Effect on There mould be a small increase in flighttiae for southwest bound departures;
Aircraft northbound departures would fly an additional 3 -4 miles compared to existing
procedures. Flown at cruise speed, this additional distance represents an additional
Operators
20 -30 seconds of flighttime.
Effect On None.
Quality of
Air Service
Capital Costs None.
of
Implementation
Implementation MAC would vork with FAA to set up procedures on a test basis. After a specified
Factors period, the results of the test would be evaluated and a decision wade to implement
as recommended, implement with adjustments, or not to implement.
Legal Legal issues associated with this measure may include the possibility of FAA's
refusing to approve and implement the MAC- recommended procedures.
Implications
l
Conclusion
•
I 1 l
c
NO. 16. MODIFY R OVER LESS
AND D
2
LATEPAREASE HEADINGS TO CHANNELIZE
Measure RAF
Description: The purpose is to identify alternative flight tracks for aircraft departing these
runway ends, if any.
Net Chan There are six primary departure tracks currently used; straight -out, and left and
right turns off each runway end. Potential revised tracks are:
in Community
Noise and a. Left turn off 29L follow heading of 270 to overfly the Crosstown Highway.
Overflight b. Right turn off 29L adjusted to overfly I -35W (360 heading).
c. Right turn off 29R turned more sharply to 360 to overfly park areas.
Given the overall residential nature of area, the narrow non - residential corridors,
and normal deviation from typical tracks, these would offer no advantage over current
procedures.
Change in ATC procedures, but no continuing difficulty.
Airport and
ATC
Operational
Considerations
Effect On No significant changes.
Aircraft
Operators
Effect On None.
Quality of
Air Service
•
Capital Costs None.
of
Implementation
Implementation Would require agreement and change in ATC procedures.
Factors
•
Legal Legal issues associated with this measure may include the possibility of FAA's
refusing to approve and implement the MAC-recommended procedures.
Implications
Conclusion
1
� l
t
G '
Measure NO. 17. ENFORCE AND OPTIMIZE MACS ENGINE RUN-UP POLICY-
Description: Current policy requires that all run —ups be conducted in the Northwest Airlines area,
at a heading of 290' + 20'. Rumps are banned between 2300 -0600 except to fulfill
emergency requirements only. Noise monitors are installed in the area to record
run —up incidents. Public concern has been expressed that run —ups are occurring
outside of the permitted hours.
Review of sample monitoring records for periods between February 1984 and July 1985
Net Change indicate that of 288 run —ups recorded in the 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. time frame,
in Community Sixty —nine occured in the curfew hours of 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Of these 69, 49
Noise and either started prior to 11:00 p.m. and finished after that hour, or started prior to
Overflight 6:00 a.m. extending beyond 6:00 a.m., or occurred wholly within the hours immediately
before or immediately after the curfew hours. The balance occurred at other hours
during the night. Enforcement of the measure would probably remove some of these
potentially disturbing noise incidents from hours when they are most prone to disturb
sleep, but they mould not be eliminated.
' Strict monitoring would require additional administrative effort on the part of MAC
Airport and staff. No ATC impacts.
ATC
Operational
Considerations
•
Effect on The regulation does not forbid run —ups during the restricted hours, but requires
Aircraft documentation that such run —ups are, in fact, "emergencies." Some reduction in
infringements could occur, with resulting costs and with inconvenience to the
Operators operators.
Effect on
Quality of NOAe
Air Service
Capital Costs
of None.
•
Implementation
Implementation
More rigorous monitoring and follow of existing procedures.
Factors
Legal None.
Implications
Conclusion
I i
rr_
kph" city of eagan
3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, P.O. BOX 21199 BEA BLOMQUIST
EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55121 Mayor
PHONE: (612) 454 -8100 THOMAS EGAN
JAMES A. SMITH
JANUARY 6, 1986 THEODORE L WAACHTER
Council Members
DARRELL WESLANDER THOMASHEDGES
METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION City Administrator
6040 28TH AVENUE S EUGENCit
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55450
Re: FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Plan .Responses
Dear Darrell:
Enclosed please find specific responses to various elements of
the Howard, Needles, Tammen and Bergendoff study of noise
abatement proposals. As you are well aware, it is the position
of the City Council that the most significant impacts on aircraft
generated noise must come at the federal level since local
sanctions alone will tend to reduce the operational effectiveness
of the airport. The City Council does maintain, however, that
significant sound abatement can be achieved in specific instances
by the application of specific controls or procedures well within
the authority of the Metropolitan Airports Commission.
The Council has expressed concern in the past that the airport
operator needs to improve its responsiveness to the community
with respect to procedural changes in the pursuit of noise
abatement. Recommendations for changes which increase impacts in
traditional noise areas or generate noise in areas not previously
impacted have at least as much effect on the community as would
major developments or the construction of a major highway. In
each of those cases, there are specific procedures for the
consideration of public sentiment and the impact on all facets of
the environment. The Council would encourage the Metropolitan -
Airports Commission to consider that municipalities are faced. .
with substantial financial and public responsibilities when they -
propose changes with significant impacts. It would be much
appreciated by all of the airport's neighbors if the Airports
Commission would recognize a similar responsibility to the
community.
With that in mind, I would like to make the following comment on
specific proposals within the FAR Part 150 report. The fact that
we have not replied to all the measures implies neither support
nor opposition to them; no specific comment was made about them
at this time. Our responses, by measure number, appear below:
•.^ r'OMM Wry
FAR PART 150 AIRPORT NOISE ABATEMENT
JANUARY 6, 1986
PAGE 2
MEASURE NUMBER 3
As stated above, the City is concerned that the short term
benefits of an operations cap or slot system may negatively
impact the area economy without specifically addressing the
sources of the noise generation - the noisy aircraft. If a cap
or allocation system were to be devised, it would make more sense
to do it on a noise basis rather than an operations basis. This
would encourage an increased use of Stage 3 aircraft to allow
greater numbers of operations within the same sound allocation.
In general, the City supports the use of the preferential runway
system, but a peak hour cap without any incentive for investment
in aircraft is short sighted and detrimental to the community.
MEASURE NUMBER 4
The City of Eagan feels that it is essential to separate the
issue of the Runway 4/22 extension and the implementation of
departure headings other then those in use. The City feels that
the improper combination of these two issues will tend to cloud
the relative benefits and disbenefits of each proposal. To
simply add the 180 or 165 degree headings to a proposal for
capital improvement with its own impacts is to ignore the
principle of treating each variable independently. Howard -
Needles should be instructed to include as another alternative
under Measure Number 4 the actual impact of the lengthening of
Runway 4/22 on current departure headings only. A contour map
should be prepared which shows the contour changes without
additional headings. This could be compared to the maps prepared
to distinguish benefit of each facet of the proposal. Obviously,
with extension of the runway, any turn to a departure heading
will impact broad new areas of Richfield and Bloomington. It is
incumbent upon the Airports Commission to prevent these impacts
from being misrepresented through the inclusion of departure
headings not now in use.
MEASURE NUMBER 11
This recommendation would only be acceptable to our community if
a warm weather test were conducted to determine the actual noise
impact from the fanning of heavily loaded Stage 3 aircraft. As
with any major deviation from current noise abatement activities,
the City would insist that an Environmental Impact study be a
condition to any such test and that an adequate mechanism for
community response be made available to insure a response and
interaction with the affected residents. We do see concern with
Howard - Needles' contention that there are no legal implications
to this proposal. Obviously there are definite legal
implications whenever there is an operational change of this
nature. The simple fact that most homeowners are not in a
position to bring expensive litigation should not minimize the
airport's responsibility to its neighbors.
FAR PART 150 AIRPORT NOISE ABATEMENT
JANUARY 6, 1986
PAGE 3
MEASURE NUMBER 12
Any ban on Stage 1 and 2 aircraft must come from the federal
level to be effective.
MEASURE NUMBER 14
The City strongly objects to the methodology used to review
departure compliance over the Eagan /Mendota Heights departure
corridor. The short period of time in which the study was
conducted and the description of the nature and frequency of the
flights observed tends to indicate that the study occurred
outside of a peak period of 1 1 L and 1 1 R departure use. To say
that no aircraft diverged south of the corridor and to recommend
procedures based on that observation, ignores the fact that many
of the complaints received by MAC from Eagan residents in a given
month are a result of over flights by aircraft outside the
corridor over residential Eagan. It should further be pointed
out that deviation up to 90 degrees over Mendota Heights is
provided for within the Preferential Runway System Tower Control
Rules. Since 15 degrees divergence is allowed within these rules
and that is sufficient to provide for adequate separation of
aircraft on parallel or successive departures at peak capacity,
it is difficult for the City Council to understand why there is
any suggestion that the Eagan /Mendota Heights departure corridor
presents a bottle neck to aircraft departures. Finally, under
legal implications, Howard - Needles recognizes that assuring
strict FAA compliance may be legally difficult to enforce. The
City has recognized this for a long period of time and made the
recommendation in the hopes that the airport and its consultant
would pursue means of discovering how to overcome this legal
obstruction. The cities of Eagan and .Mendota Heights have
provided a corridor of compatible land -uses in which noise
impacts can be absorbed. It is the responsibility of the
Metropolitan Airports Commission to recognize and enforce the use -
of that corridor if it wants cities to continue to adapt their
land -use planning to the Airport's needs.
MEASURE NUMBER 17
The recommendation concerning better monitoring of the engine
run -up policy is positive but stops short of addressing the real
issue which is a means by which the airport operator would
enforce the policy. Monitoring per se does not reduce the
incidence of the run -ups, rather, some sort of fine or penalty
needs to be considered to offset the additional costs of strict
monitoring of the policy and to provide a disincentive to those
who abuse the policy as it stands. If, in fact, an emergency
situation does exist and it can be documented, it should be worth
FAR PART 150 AIRPORT NOISE ABATEMENT
JANUARY 6, 1986
PAGE 4
the cost to the air carrier to conduct that run -up in violation
of the policy. As with Measure Number 14, the issue is not so
much the monitoring of the abuses, rather it is the pursuit of a
means to enforce the rules which are in place so that the abuses
observed by airport neighbors are addressed and dealt with.
Please forward these responses to the Part 150 Study to the
report's consultant. Thank you for your kind attention to this
matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact either myself or Mr. Hohenstein of our office.
Sincerely Yours,
Thomas L. Hedges
City Administrator
TLH:jh
cc: Chairman Glumack, Metro Airports Commission
Sandra Gardebring, Metro Council
Representative Arthur Seaberg
Senator Howard Knutson
Representative Bill Frenzel
Senator Rudy Boschwitz
Senator Dave Durenberger
Kevin Frazell, City of Mendota Heights
Linda Barton, City of Burnsville
N
AC 1
C)
C13 0
6. w.
— 0 N
C A U
L L 0 1- � .
CD a) rn N
1, r. (1) -
u H
Z
11 a) c co 1 I .
C = J r- I
� i "
1 , > i a , e �ellw G am-
_
la
_ NW , , f , �� N , �" ..
. !11't'Ilfl s � v _ : o
,.,� ( Vic • - -
• • N.p'�..y YiVI
4.1 i.•;••••""•^V. - ..—.1.=• .:08••••-•aimirrvIcialari o. ' I :q, - • - ,
...at W 1 ' ;'.. ,1 =., r ‘ /ttela dr, ! . .,._ • hi
. ... ,_,
ii i,„,, om , ,,, s , 1 ..„6 4 . 04 iv . 4 I ... ,.,..... ,.,
>✓ y • ;
/1 lllbl ' I a1ti :'tID \ ` • 9
• x [
Q 1, `• 1 •• 1ro �f�, �, • •_ 1 � I I
I111B ...... I 11111. .
1∎111111/Drel IIFIl1ASIR 1 !' V. t.. I
L rrI1MrwYY1Fl - w� wry .. �, r -- •
•mm fFlfIr111itrra :i:. ..�.iAM/• ,,, -, _riin t h _ �� e. al
IIIxMU1 Cr tl�l � ,�.... w �� ' Y mil,_ d-
fi e I ' � A . � a i
▪ 1 ► aarnm xu111�nu p , , �. - •
nmrlrrrra- _.� [p a r
x111YI 11111.W g11
�1�'9P� ?. ,..1,,,%, ,,, f VI
�
•
1 �� um__ �
0 .. ;1i1;'•1LIIIIIIN' N �UMRP t �r1•f i
� " i : 1
I��IIY�Y�h�U111 `Y� � 1f�►,�� I , �; � � I - I.
.rte ▪ i f ikalo r lfrl id"r ! rllkiNgp,;.;: � tt l ,•\ t ,
.etrFr Fret•1Ftfe • 1% c I ., ., z
..... �.. I GI IUI 111llll -f,, . rrr. I I i � , "`• 1 tilt
FF %� ellIMIIIIr/111
1 I1 1Mfl111= ��s f f
11 `. �� [!! o WI
F •- 1r1iii11r11111r FFPM1EerPI i 6, t .
, l ' E "FV •� oT1 1 Willt
'1 '�� \ r e
1 Mme- _,„..1.,.„........0,„ � % '� -ti �� ��� DIM _ ' 2 2 =4 a -- i y -- 1a by ,1/4_ D '' \. �` rrf E �� �:�'?
- =� C� JyA �' �� � III- 1 i \ . ( ! _ -er,dII tt
CO P
' Alt ;.1 ..4.16"k.:.•• - , ' A t I x, !I 1 \ %'1" A
CL - •
C : —7 " -- ====w211..,141), 1.1ri imizari„.:._ araz" ., •, ._,,,_ =r1,11 let :\., ' , , ,
� __ .- - - - - - a . =—.__ t ail - - rly- ---- - =a' a_o_a∎ ° -- I _�� wit
CO 1 PJ$ I !tfr • fi r - �� vi 1— d ) ii �,• --
. \ h�\•'.
4,
National Organization to Insure
• O. 1. S. E • a Sound - controlled Environment
1620 EYE STREET, N. W. — 3rd FLOOR, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006 • 202 - 429 -0166
January 7, 1985
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Director
FROM: Tom Duf
SUBJECT: N.O.I.S.E. Submission o FAA
As you know, N.O.I.S.E. submitted written testimony to FAA in response to their
request for comments on modernizing the commercial aircraft fleet. A copy is
attached. The main points covered were approved by the Board of Directors on
December 7, 1985.
A new point for N.O.I.S.E. in this submission is the Stage 2 operational
cutoff. We suggested a 15 year period and discussed it in conjunction with
reengining of Stage 2 aircraft. The 727 and DC -9 are the main source of
aircraft noise now and will be for the forseeable future. They can (from an
engineerng viewpoint) be reengined. This would cost half, or less, of what an
airline would have to pay for a replacement aircraft.
The comments submitted to FAA will be reviewed and assembled into a report to
the Congress. Whatever action is then taken from among those suggested at the
hearing (N.O.I.S.E., incidentally, mentioned most of the positive suggestions .
made by others at the hearings) will depend on Congressional will.
N.O.I.S.E. will forward its comments to appropriate Committee Chairmen on the
"Hill." You as a city official may want to pick out one or two of the points
and write to your Congressmen and Senators for future action. (Copies to us,
please.)
enclosure
5,
N• 1. S. E • National Organization to Insure
a Sound - controlled Environment
1620 EYE STREET, N. W. — 3rd FLOOR, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006 • 202 - 429 -0166
December 18, 1985
Mr. Richard N. Tedrick
Manager
Noise Policy and Regulations Branch, AEE -110
Office of Environment and Energy
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20591
Dear Mr. Tedrick:
N.O.I.S.E. is pleased to respond to FAA's invitation to comment on alterna-
tives to accelerate the modernization of the commercial airline fleet. As I
noted in my November 18th letter to John E. Wesler, the Directors of
N.O.I.S.E. and I were unavoidably absent from Washington on December 10, 1985.
These written comments are submitted in lieu of oral testimony on that date.
We congratulate FAA for its compliance with the followup on the Appropriations
Directive in H. Rpt. 99 -256.
This comment will cover three main points.
1) Elimination of non -Stage 3 aircraft.
a) Phase out of Stage 1 aircraft.
b) Production cutoff of Stage 2 aircraft.
c) Cutoff of operations of Stage 2 aircraft, with consideration of
phasing, reclassification, technology.
2) Preference for Stage 3 aircraft in rulemaking.
a) Local.
b) Federal.
3) Future Standards.
a) Stage 4.
b) Other.
1) Elimination of non -Stage 3 aircraft.
a) Stage 1 aircraft are scheduled to be modified or to stop operation at
fixed dates. The four engine Stage 1 aircraft now flying are doing so
by exemption for limited periods of time. The key action involved
here is for FAA to do exactly what it said it will do in its policy
statement of September 30, 1985.
The small city exemption aircraft now flying (2 engines, 99 seats or
less) are scheduled to cease U.S. operation by January 1, 1988. This
Tedfick
December 18, 1985
Page Two
is a foreseeable date. In fleet planning terms, it is already here.
FAA should undertake an effort to circularize operators now using
these aircraft to determine their plans for replacement, hush - kitting,
or other alternatives. These plans can be compared to manufacturers'
capacity for producing and installing hush -kits and with new aircraft
orders to determine the feasibility of operator's plans. Such an
effort will ensure that operators are on notice and will avoid the
1984 experience with four engined aircraft.
b) Stage 2 production cutoff. On March 16, 1985, this organization and
the Airport Operators Council International (AOCI) filed a petition
for rulemaking which would, in essence, cut off the production of
Stage 2 heavy jet aircraft. This petition was published in the
Federal Register on April 4, 1984. The end of the comment period was
June 1, 1984. To date, FAA has taken no action on the proposed
rulemaking, for whatever reason. It is strongly urged that the
process be made to move and that FAA act quickly and affirmatively on
the petition.
The reasons for this remain the same as they were at the time of the
filing. With comparable equipment available, there is little reason
to add new, noisy aircraft to the fleet in lieu of quieter aircraft.
At the end of service life in the fleet, such new Stage 2 aircraft
constitute an extension of aviation noise. Our present purpose is to
reduce it and shorten its life.
A necessary part of this proposal was provision against the resale of
foreign -owned non -Stage 3 aircraft to domestic carriers. This should
be retained.
c) Stage 2 operation cutoff. The bulk of the aviation noise problem for
the forseeable future lies with the 727, 737, DC -9 fleet. According
to FAA's fleet inventory of July 1, 1985, they consititute 74% of the
heavy jets now operating. Assuming that thq BAC 111's and DC -9's not
yet hush - kitted will have that done by January 1, 1988, we will have a
fleet of Stage 2 aircraft that, by normal attrition, will reduce as a
percent of the total fleet at a fairly even rate until about 2010 or
2015. This represents about a 3% reduction per year.
The only significant way to reduce the number of these aircraft more
quickly, and thus eliminate the greatest part of aircraft noise is to
institute a rulemaking which would forbid operation of Stage 2
aircraft at a given date. The 3% per year figure assumes the economic
forces which would influence fleet replacement with Stage 3 other
things being equal.
Aircraft noise is a cost of doing business that is paid, not by those
doing business and making a profit, but by third party "noise
consumers" or those impacted by this unwanted side effect of jet
aviation. In terms of nuisance or damages, this cost is measured by
the courts. However, it can be expressed from another point of view.
The cost of producing noise is the net cost of conversion to Stage 3
which is not expended by the aircraft operators.
•
Tedrick
December 18, 1985
Page Three
To force operators to replace their fleets on an accelerated basis
with new Stage 3 aircraft at current prices for aircraft might well
raise questions of the ability of the industry to raise the necessary
capital. There is, however, an alternative. Reengining.
The manufacturers of the 727 and DC -9 have both done preliminary
studies on reengining their aircraft. They have both found it
feasible from an engineering point of view. Neither pursued the
programs explaining that the price of the conversion would not be
economical in a condition of moderate fuel prices. (Both manufac-
turers are understandably in the position of having possible
conversions compete with sales of their current Stage 3 aircraft.)
The fact that new engines are a third more economical to operate than
those now on the aircraft implies operating savings which reduce the
economic cost of conversion. As noted above, this is the conversion
cost of noise in aviation's economy.
The December 2, 1985 issue of "Aviation Week and Space Technology"
carries an article on page 34 describing an effort by independent
group to develop a 727 -200 conversion. Without arguing the merits of
the particular conversion (though in general it follows Boeing's
original concept) or the ability of the company to get it into
production and sell it, the sponsors quote a price of $15 million to
convert a customer's aircraft. Given the certainly optimistic
estimates of the sponsor, this is supposed to result in a five and one
half year payback to the operator.
It is now said that the service life of a properly inspected and main-
tained aircraft is indefinite. It follows that such a conversion
would change the cost of noise (the changeover cost) to zero over a
five year depreciation period or an actual profit over a longer
period.
The experience with Stage 1 four engine jets indicates that once the
industry is convinced that regulators are serious, manufacturers will
supply what is necessary to convert or replace aircraft. Technology
is now feasible. The remaining factor is generation of demand.
Therefore, it begins to be conceivable that a Stage 2 operations
cutoff could be implemented by the year 2000 or thereabouts.
This would need to be implemented by a phased fleet noise rule which
provides benchmarks for gradual compliance over the period. A
possible schedule is: 25% conversion and replacment at the end of 5
years, 50% at the end of 10 years, and 100% at the end of 15 years.
Subsidiary to this idea is a possible redefinition of Stage 2 into
Stage 2a and 2b (2a being noisier.) There is a significant difference
in the noise output of various Stage 2 aircraft. Four engine
hush - kitted aircraft are so marginally Stage 2 that they have to use
trade offs to meet standards, not to mention power and flap settings
whose actual use is speculative in practice. By the same token,
737 -200's with the "Lufsthana modification" barely miss meeting Stage
3 standards.
Tedrick
December 18, 1985
Page Four
Setting up Stages 2a and 2b would not necessarily be for the purpose
of cutting off operations but would be a way to give more credit in
the progressive fleet compliance program for converting or getting rid
of a much noisier Stage 2a aircraft before a relatively quieter Stage
2b aircraft.
2) Preference for Stage 3 in rulemaking.
a) Local. There is a trend among airport authorities to prohibit night
operations except by Stage 3 aircraft and to develop various standards
and requirements that favor Stage 3 aircraft in all operations. This
trend should be encouraged by national policy. Anecdotally, we
repeatedly see orders for Stage 3 aircraft being announced with
specific reference to meeting the noise standards of John Wayne
Airport or the night landing standards of National Airport.
Carriers will do what they have to do to serve a market. The
"patchwork" argument advanced by pilots and operators may have some
basis in terms of special in- flight operations requirements and
safety, but has no relevance for operators except for dispatch
decisions. Alleged difficulty in meeting Stage 3 requirements is not
persuasive in terms of limiting local authority to make and enforce
noise standards.
b) The import of Paragraphs la and lb above is directly aimed at
preference for Stage 3 in Federal regulations and recommends action to
that effect. There is a further dimension that is generally ignored,
decisions made by FAA in the normal course of business which could
have a significant effect on noise impact if noise were considered and
made a factor in the decision. A good example is the FAA action
recently reported in the Washington Post which would allow carriers to
buy and sell slots at constrained airports. Under a "free- market"
theory, the Federal government will give away slots, without cost, but
then allow them to be held as valuable property by carriers. The
article estimates the value of a prime -time slot at O'Hare or La
Guardia as high as $50,000. This is created value for which the
government receives no recompense. It would be entirely logical and
equitable to make noise a factor in the awarding of slots in the first
place and certainly in any resale. Expense involved would be a offset
against the artificially created value of the restricted slot which
the operator receives.
The general principle to be derived is that any regulatory action of
FAA which confers a benefit to a carrier should contain an offset in
terms of restriction of noise. Preference for Stage 3 operation would
be such an offset. N.O.I.S.E. recommends that every regulatory
decision made by FAA be examined for the opportunity to build in a
Stage 3 operating incentive (or disincentive for non -Stage 3.)
3) Future Standards.
a) Stage 4. The happy combination of fuel efficiency and major noise
reduction in the high- bypass jet engine and a fuel price crisis
brought about the tremendous reduction in noise energy output that
Stage 3 affords. It is now said that the major technological gains
from high- bypass noise reduction have been achieved. There will be
Tedrick
December 18, 1985
Page Five
more, but they will come more slowly. Another fact has become
apparent. Airframe noise is a proportionately increasing factor in
total aircraft noise. Further reduction in external noise in approach
and departure situations will involve airframe design specifically for
noise control to a degree not hitherto pursued.
The definition of Stage 4 as a fairly distant standard is necessary
both to determine long range goals and to provide time for the
industry to work toward them. Having the standard in existence will
provide additional incentive to squeeze decibels in both engine and
airframe design.
What the standard would be is undetermined. FAA should undertake a
study promptly to review the state of the art and current R & D to
develop a rigorous yet feasible Stage 4.
b) Other. New engine types are being developed. The Ultra high by -pass
external fan engine is on several drawing boards. Preliminary reports
indicate that decibel level estimates vary. It will be higher for
cabin noise. It will be about the same, though at different frequen-
cies, as current Stage 3 engines. Noise reduction gains from current
technology at this point are said to be marginal.
Development of hypersonic aircraft is being looked at again.
Radically new propulsion systems are being proposed. The effect of
these in terms of noise is very likely to be extremely deleterious.
Stage planning which provides for fitting of new engine or aircraft
types into noise categories is going to require revisiting existing
standards to determine whether existing descriptions capture the
quality of noise energy output accurately and include them properly
within the scheme of things. How hydrogen fuelled engines can operate
in relation to populated areas is another type of unusual approach to
new technological developments. This kind of thinking needs to be -
begun so that we can manage change as it comes.
N.O.I.S.E. remains ready to cooperate with DOT and FAA in further expanding .
these ideas and in developing the means to implement them. We appreciate the
opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
(
Thomas N. of y
Executive Di ec r
TND : j p
METRO MONITOR, December 1985 3
N ___
. .
• __.,.
. .•
..... __....,
,_ ...___ „,„... , . .. .....
„.......„ ,
. ..,.
_.
_____ __.
s st -
-NN\ . . ' lae -
,. II ,), ' Rif I Y M � 1
. , _._ . • i _ : _ .. ,_.., 9 1/ ri. jit..... / . ______________ _. .
. - -3 n 6 --- fir - ' 54 PAUL
Ga ` _t.. \ ,I� / n 6
,Y +
1 +
Air n compla _
cl imb with takeoffs -
Home - based airlines off first front the runways pointed toward
LJ Cll 1 the least populated areas. As traffic has
cite jobs, spending increased, however, the objective has .
force . - become to get airplanes out as quickly as
as task e possible to avoid unmanageable backups. '
• Often that means abandoning the prefer -
considers solutions • ential runway system and sending,the
- _ - planes over south Minneapolis.
• - Rep. Wes Skoglund, a task force mem-
ince 1978 noise from the air - ber from the Nokomis and Longfellow
i planes using. Minneapolis/ + { areas of south Minneapolis, said that's - - . c
St. Paul International Airport unacceptable. He urged adopting strong
has increased dramatically, incentives to move private airplanes to
and so have the complaints from the other, smaller airports, to allow the use , -
surrounding communities. of the preferential runway system.
Between 1978 and 1985 the number The federal government, through the
of takeoffs and landings at the airport has Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
climbed from 250,000 to 370,000. With has sole jurisdiction over the airplanes
the ^xtra 120,000 has come a lot more themselves, so little can be done locally
noise, as well as concern from the air. as far as the planes themselves are
port's neighbors that the sound is not , concerned, explained Jocelyn Olson, I
only inconvenient but unhealthy. . a special assistant to the state attorney •
Early this fall, Gov. Rudy Perpich general assigned to the Minnesota - '
named Metropolitan Council Chair Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). . _
Sandra Gardebring to head a task force - -
to study what can be done to resolve the -
noise issue. The nine -member task force As yr traffic has
includes representatives from local i the object 'has governments, state and regional agencies, • +
and citizens. - • become to get the
Rick Jellinger, a task force member . -
representing a citizens' group, South • airplanes out as quickly -
Metro Airport Action Council, said the as possible. Often, that - : .
stress of the air noise can have adverse
psychological and physical impacts on means abandoning the - - _
both the development of children and the tlr eferential- i'linwa -
longevity of adults. Jellinger spoke this P J - -
fall at a meeting of the task force - system.
designed to hear the various perspectives -
of people involved in the issue. • ' • • '
- • - -• o Olson said the efforts of local govern - •
• ment are restricted pretty much to i
Ben Griggs, executive vice president zoning laws. She said the Metropolitan .
of operations at Northwest Airlines who Airports Commission (MAC), however,
also spoke at the meeting. pointed out . as owner of the airport, has some power
that Northwest and Republic Airlines, to impose restrictions on aircraft noise— ,
both based in the Twin Cities, pour . subject to constitutional limitations and
millions of dollars into the local economy. FAA regulations. A Metropolitan Council study showing , said that testing the federal
that the aviation industry here generates uthority in the court systems is one of
S2.1 billion a year, or 3 percent of the the alternatives the task force should ...
region's economic output, backs him up. consider. .
Griggs said his airline provides its Right now, the task force has gener- ,
pilots with rigorous training in the died many possible solutions to the , ,
procedures that will minimize aircraft problem, from relocating some of the
noise on takeoffs and landings. Northwest people who live in the area surrounding •
also 'staking steps to add quieter airplanes the airport, to pushing federal legislation
to its fleet, he said. to make standards for aircraft noise more
A major problem is that when one air- rigorous. Several task force members plan
line moves to quieter planes, another air- to attend an FAA hearing Dec. 10 in
line buys its old, noisier planes and keeps Washington. D.C., to testify about ways
flying them, said Walter Rockenstein, to encourage an accelerated move in the -
who leads the efforts of the Metropolitan airline industry to quieter aircraft. .
Aircraft Sound Abatement Council. The task force will continue to meet '
When the number of flights in and out throughout December and hopes to We
, ,le recommendations ready for Gov.
- .
•
. '
. . 1
....!" - .
' III 1
7 - - i r ' . -- L' i s• — i
0 , ■-__,,,*
. / - ... - .,
''....--
V._ ---f . ' • • \ \ . '
. % \
\ - . -OP . „.• - .. - -, -,
4, 111
07
74Ir .
4
/7
• ' I I
• SAI_
,, __,D
. 1
, WEI> L.11 To
COMPLAIN N 1 1
:''' . / / ABOUT .A
„ „.....: LOW.-FLY1 NG
. ...... .
i
,, .. ,, ," ....,_ • . , ,
_ . ... ,..
r 10., 1104 '
• . .. . -ad' . );\
' /K-;---- \ -41,-...2.-1"—• .
....
4t701 t
''''Z.'..'!"! '!'• • ,,--,-_:'
.1,0-yikt • r
,..;_ lik\l, lwelk ,
_
"' I "
+1%e) 40 At -
, .
. ..
, I
• .
. _ . . . ' ,. .
,....
MinneapoIis Star ....
and Tribune
Established 1867 Roger Parkinson Publisher and President
i Joel R. Kramer Executive Editor
Tim J. McGuire Managing Editor
Robert J. White Editorial Editor
36A Thursday, December 19, 1985
frustrated
A ^
w response to airport noise " .O.K., so it wasn't the Hennepin County Board's radicals who
°'' :�Yinest hour. • Coupling charitable gambling at the means to the regional economy; the subject is too
F ,
airport to airplane noise reduction violates a basic technical for outsiders to understand; state agen-
public- policy principle: Don't invent links between cies seeking to confront the problem lack authority issues. Good reasons exist for refusing and should leave well enough alone. No wonder the
'the Metropolitan Airports Commission a license for county board acted in frustration,
., charitable gambling in the charter terminal, but
-airplane noise really isn't one of them Glumack is a whiz at running airports. Minnea l
1...�'Yet we understand why the county board acted 1 as best-run I t nywhere, and Glumack deserves a f full
:a did: The gambling license is the county's only share of the credit. But wizard or not, he's still a
,..,:,lever to bring noise - reduction pressure: on the air- public servant. And much of the public he serves is
FJrts commission. The pressure is justified. The upset -- because Glumack seems to puts the inter-
�
�''" commission needs reminders that the airport is not • ests of air commerce ahead of the interests . of- a
K` .a. kingdom and Commission Chairman Ray Glu- citizens who want to live in peace. A resolution of 1
L --smack is not along. -
m.. ' 'those competing interests will require more restric-
aGlumack gives an imperial impression that every- would likeaand more noise than citizens would like.
';,one else is out of step on airport noise. The news -If in the meantime the protesters are radical, as
media report the noise problem wrong the people Glumack alleges, they have been radicalized by
who protest against noise are a small band of airplane noise and by Glumack's response.