02/13/1986 - Airport Relations Commission •
AIRPORT NOISE MEETING
THURSDAY
FEBRUARY 13, 1986
7:00 P.M.
EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER BUILDING
I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS & LEGISLATIVE REVIEW
- REPRESENTATIVE ART SEABERG
II. REVIEW GOVERNORS TASK FORCE
RECOMMENDATIONS - EAGAN MAYOR BEA BLOMQUIST
III. QUESTIONS & GENERAL REMARKS
IV. OTHER BUSINESS
V. ADJOURNMENT
HANDOUTS
- Airport Noise Articles /Special Edition
by Current Newspapers dated 2/10/86
- " Perpich will disregard plan from noise
panel" article dated 2/12/86, Minneapolis
Star & Tribune
- Task Force report to Governor Perpich
VVC1 b C016."- ices 401 444s pete-131-4.
o titaz- 4
4 ��� Metropolitan Council
300 Metro Square Building
l i, Seventh and Robert Streets
:: St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
\---\ �.
ieleanone (6 12) 29 1•6359
•
January 27, 1986
•
The Honorable Rudy Perpich
130 State Capitol
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Dear Governor Perpich:
Enclosed is the report of the Task Force on Airport Noise that you established
in October, 1985. This interagency group examined. the problem of aircraft
noise in the communities surrounding Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport
and evaluated potential solutions to this problem at the federal, state, and
local level.
A program of solutions which was adopted unanimously is recommended to you in
the report. I would like to emphasize the key recommendation of the report,
which is that the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) negotiate a phased compliance schedule to
reduce airport noise. Many of the other recommendations could be implemented
as elements of this compliance schedule.
Since the Task Force adopted its report on January 9 two events have occured
that are related to aircraft noise. The hearing - examiner has issued a report
on the proposed new MPCA noise regulations that delays their implementation.
(rte
This ruling does not change my perspective that MPCA and MAC should begin
negotiations since MPCA does have existing noise regulations in effect.
In addition, on January 23, Northwest Orient Airlines announced the acquisition
of Republic Airlines. This may offer the potential for noise relief due to
less competition, but again, does not negate the need for negotiations between
MAC and MPCA to go forward. The new Northwest should be involved in
attenuation of aircraft noise.
I would urge you to request the executive directors of the Metropolitan
Airports Commission and the Minnesota Pollution Control '' -
Agency to ''•', - aeGic „cl
begin negotiations on this compliance schedule and report back to you by June 1
on their progress.
Z/3
6.
•
Governor Rudy Perpich
January 27, 1986
Page 2
The members of the task force, who are listed in Appendix A of the report,
represented state and metropolitan agencies, stage legislators, local units of
government and citizens of the area. Through their interest and cooperation we
were able to complete this report in an expeditious manner. It is my belief
that the problem of airport noise can be alleviated through a continued
cooperative effort by all the agencies involved to implement these
recommendations.
Sincerely,
&I ' S-A-k. i'
(a./
Sandra S. Gardebring
Chair, Governor's Task Force on Airport Noise
- SSG /dpf .
enclosure
rt#
•
1
.1
REPORT OF THE
GOVERNOR'S TASK FORCE ON AIRPORT NOISE
Adopted January 9, 1986
•
. l
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 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
rather than adding capacity to the airport.
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.
1/
• 1
•
4. 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
l 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
restrictio 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 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.
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 this report are also contained in the Part
150 Study, such as a noise budget, differential landing fees and a night
curfew. The Part 150 Study will also seek to establish the environmental
capacity of MSP. Defining the airports environmental capacity will help shape
the implementation of, and provide a legal basis for, many of the
recommendations which follow.
2-7
2
MAC Chairman, Ray Glumack, has proposed a 16 -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.
Recommendation 2 of Section 2, to work out a phased compliance schedule between
MAC and MPCA to result in the reduction of airport noise, should be
highlighted. This is a key recommendation since many of the other
recommendations can be implemented as elements of this compliance schedule.
These negotiations should begin immediately with a report made to the Governor
by June 1 on their progress. This task force should also be re- convened to
review this progress.
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 bran 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
' , " );1 " 1; Secondary Agency - Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
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
schedule would also be negotiated with the airlines. 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. 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. Combinin this recommendation with other
��0
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
creatin ncentives 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
Secondary Agency y g y -- 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
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. -
z1f
4
• -
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, 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 could be dedicated to noise abatement 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. Additional nighttime restrictions (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.
1D
Primary Agency -- Metropolitan Airports Commission •
Secondary Agency -- Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Compliance Procedure -- Immediate MAC action to set policy ban based on FAA
Part 36 regulations which certify the sound levels of various planes.
8. 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 limit expansion of MSP
facilities unless such projects are consistent with noise abatement goals.
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.
SECTION 2: MEDIUM RANGE RECOMMENDATIONS (2 -5 YEARS)
1. Prepare for litigation involving the FAA with regard to 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
Airports Commission, or other agency with standing.
Compliance Procedure -- Research is currently being conducted on relevant
legal issues. _
*See Appendix B for definition of aircraft stages.
ZZO
2. Work out a phased compliance schedule between MAC and MPCA to result in the
reduction of airport noise. This may incorporate noise reduction
techniques such as differential landing fees, noise budgets or land use
compatibility guidelines.
Primary Agencies -- Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Metropolitan
Airports Commission
Secondary Agency -- Metropolitan Council
Compliance Procedure -- Work on this agreement should begin immediately,
with the agencies reporting to the Governor and this task force by June 1
on their progress.
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
f Compliance Procedure -- At the request of Congressman Martin Sabo funding
for this improvement is included in the current transportation bill.
5. The Part 150 study currently being undertaken by MAC (with FAA, airline and
local government participation) should be completed. This study 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.
•
Primary Agency -- Metropolitan Airports Commission
Secondary Agency -- Federal Aviation Administration
Compliance Procedure -- This study should be completed as soon as possible
and submitted to the FAA. The study includes several options, some of
which are recommended by this task force; however, the task force has not
reviewed or endorsed the complete study.
6. Adopt ban on further manufacture of Stage II aircraft and the import of new
or used Stage II planes from other countries.*
*See Appendix B for definition of aircraft stages.
1:
6
•
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
most Stage I aircraft already and will ban all remaining 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
_ - Council should enforce Metropolitan Land
Ianiti' c . Airport and FAA must maintain flight patterns upon which
these land uses are based.
9. Coordinated soundproofing plan where sound insulation is provided to
schools and public buildings, and to homes on a voluntary basis, with full
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
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.
*See Appendix B for definition of aircraft stages.
2Z7—
7
•
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 have not been endorsed by the Task Force due
to a lack of information on their noise benefits. It is possible they should
be considered after further information becomes available.
1. Implement extension of Runway 4/22. 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.
2. 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.
3. Implementation of long -term comprehensive airport plans at all system
airports by 1990.
4. Limited acquisition of homes in highest noise areas, preferably on a
voluntary basis, by MAC or another agency, possibly with money from a Noise
_ Abatement Trust Fund established with differential landing fees.
5. 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.
6. Stricter compliance with Eagan departure corridor and three -mile turn rule
would obtain maximum acoustical benefits from runway 11L and 11R. This is
an operating 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.
7. 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 has also
passed a similar resolution.
NOISE1
•
2z3
8
Appendix A
IMPORT NOT SE TA= FORCE MEMBERS
•
Sandra S. Gardebring, Chair Mr. Raymond Giumack
Metrocolitan Council Metropolitan Airports Comm.
300 Metro Square Building Rm. 301 Terminal Building
St. Paul, Mn. 55101 St. Paul, Mn. 55111 •
291 -6452 726 -1892
Rec. Wesley Skoglund Sen. Michaei Freeman
507 State Office Bldg. 303 State Capitol
St. Paul, Mn. 55155 5t. Paul, Mn. 55755
721 -1515 h 869 -1114 h
296 -4330 0 2 - o
Cr. Larry Foots Mr. Tom Katitcwski
Mn. 0ecart..tent of Transportation Executive Director
Transcortation Buiiding Mn. Pollution Control Agency
St. Paul, Mn. 55755 1935 W County Road B2
296 -3000 Roseville, Mn. 77113 •
296 -7373 •
Mr. Rick JeIlinger
5157 - 13th Avenue Scutt' Mr. Joe Sizer
Minneacolis, Mn. 55 Mn. State Planning Agency
824 -1509 100 Caci-cal Scuare Building
St. Paul, Mn. 55
Mr. Steve Cramer • 297 -2997
307 City Hall
Minneacolis, Mn. 55 Mr. Don Cederholm
348 -2211 o 6214 - 5th Avenue South
Richfield, Mn. 55
Ms. Sue McCloskey 866 -9185
387 Macalester Stret
"z St. Paul, Mn. 55105 Mr. Leon Cock
944 -5710 5016 - 13th Avenue Scutt,
Minneacolis, Mn. 55
Mayor Bea 8lcmcuist 332 -2195 0
City of Eagan 823 -2692 h
3830 Pilot Knob Road
P. 0. Box 21199 Mr. Burton Josecn (aiternate)
Eagan, MN 55121 Metrcco l i tan Airports Comm.
454 - 8100 Rm. 301 Terminal Building
St. Paul, Mn. G5111 •
•
•
Z
9
Appendix B
Definition of Terms
Stage I, II, III -
The FAA Part 36 regulation defines three generations of commercial jet
aircraft according to design noise levels. The oldest, noisiest jets such
as are referred to as Stage I. Boeing 707 and McDonnell Douglas DC -8.
•
Stage II aircraft are slightly less noisy 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 jets, Stage III, are those complying with the latest-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.
Preferential Runway System (PRS)
The Preferential Runway System is a system of runway use at Minneapolis /St.
Paul International Airport (MSP) designed to reduce aircraft noise over the
most densely populated areas near the airport. The program orginated in May,
1968. In recent years, it has only been used for a limited number of hours per
day due to the large increase in the number of aircraft operations at MSP.
The map and explanation below are from MASAC's Airport Fact Sheet 102.
The Runway System at the
Minneapolis /St. Paul International Airport
MINNEAPOLIS
ST. PAUL
MISSISSIPPI RIVER
-9ltl 22
11R ✓ �:�
RICHFIELD 4
MENDOTA
MSP TERMINAL f` �
1494 29L �j
360' MINNESOTA RIVER
290° 4 0° BLOOMINGTON
Under the Preferential
Runway System the following
270. 90. NOTE: Airport rumeays are normally runways f teer and tint ; my
numbered according to compass EAGAN TAKEOFF LANDING
° 110 headings
LANDING 220 ill and R 29L and R
led 22 1
29L and R 11L and R
4 22
The runway system at the Minneapolis /St. the PRS is not being used. planes arriving on 111
Paul International Airport is comprised or six and 11R fly over areas of South Minneapolis. Run -
separate runways. 11L and 11R and 29L and 29R ways 29L and 29R run southeast to northwest.
are called a parallel system. This refers to their Under the PRS. arriving planes are directed to use
relative parallel positions. Runways 4 and 22, these runways. This way planes approach Min-
which run at an angie to the other runways. are neapolis/ St. Paul International Airport over the
positioned this way to allow for changing wind open areas to the southeast. When the PRS is not
direction. Each runway can be used for both in effect. planes departing on 29L and 29R tly over
takeoffs and landings, yet. in an attempt to max- noise sensitive areas or South Minneapolis. Run -
imize noise relief. the PRS designates each run- way 4. running from southwest to northeast. is
way a priority function; i.e. either takeoff or land- commonly used for arriving aircraft. Approaching
ing. For example. the map shows that runways 11L planes fly over areas or Richfield and Bloom -
and 1IR run from the northwest to the southeast. ington. It is seldom used for departing aircraft.
When the PRS is in effect. priority is given_ these in contrast, runway 22 is used for departing pianes
22 5' runways for departing planes. This takes them (taking the aircraft towards the southwest) and
over areas to the southeast or the airport. When seldom used for arriving planes.
n
i irY� t4= i� Normil L,. - - .
Session 9 86 '
P • ' •' � + « • -�- Minneapolis Star and Tribune - - --- ' =- -�-- �------ -•-=.•
erpichVill . 4B Wed., Fab 12 1986 f," T 1.16h . .----....."--..Z vs
d ,? a Awn. cw•az rr• L ast35rm+a a I I tf ArfF
pla from l 4 Co ntinued from page 1Bf k l - 1 ; I- II if - _ 1
y t:"-,. '. I • r'' . y -rte rro i' � +r
•t no i S e panel f P!1r; tly upo n ! us some : Session 86 th this,"
i . By Laurie Blake + ;" Ario said. ' t • ` `° ` < ,.,:s debring said. s'• 3 *`" �' a: _
f Staff Writers � t , * - .. �
,; Rep. Wes Skoglund, DFL- Minneapo ' Hamiel said the airport is planning
Gov. Rudy Perpich has decided to lis, and a task force member, also three remedies to help reduce noise I
ignore the recommendations of his ` criticized Perpich's decision. "'#!' - this summer. implement more strip - j • special Task Force on Airport Noise r; - i � `,11 i ' • gent restrictions on night use of the
and give the Metropolitan Airports o` That's absolutely horrible He is airport, direct all training flights to -
Commission another chance to im- ?' selling out south Minneapolis, Rich - other airports and repeat noise- sensi- A
prove the airport noise problem, ac- w field and Bloomington if that is true. ` tivity seminars for pilots and airline
cording to Sandra Gardebnng, head if it's true it boils my blood," Skog 'controllers ` o■ ;0 ,, ", -, a -.' `
of the task force. ,: ,:- . •_ lund Said. ' x .._. ti, . EFy r . �.. , <
0o +0 z ro� : � + ), Y -1' :'ri at
In the longer term, t he ort com
rp
Perpich did not accept the task "The first thing the governor' ought mission has a 17 -point plan for im - i
force's- primary recommendation 0, to do is throw almost all of the com- ' proving the noise problem, including
that the Minnesota Pollution Control ' - missioners off the board. The envi- - an extension of Runway 4 -22 to allow
Agency (MPCA) ,take a supervisory __ ronmental problem grew with all of.. for more evenly distributed airport
rA role in working with the airports r ttiem there and none of them did traffic, and a study of the noise ceil-
commission to reduce jet noise over 'anything about it until literally thou ing concept endorsed by. the task
the communities surrounding Minn e- , = sands of people decided to say — force, Hamiel said Jo
apolis -St. Paul International Airport, . Skoglund said .c y '_t�f : •` :' ' '
Gardebrin said Tuesday. tom.., . � � » _ .
� '
�:, < 1 , ; ; vI '
Perpich appointed the special task
Perpich believes the airports com - r • S�en. Mike Freeman, DFL- Richfield, force in October following a record -
Per
Per l c believes a task force member, said he is breaking summer of resident com -
awareness
mission a of ll demonst and reduce a' new � that the governor made plaints about airport noise and grow-
n should be permitted to try le reduce uP his mind on the task force recom- ing citizen dissatisfaction with the -
to mendations before meeting with oth- commission's action on the problem.
f - noise without the pressure of the x` er task force members. He and Skog ;` ' - :. +.,,-.
MPCA, she said., ` . y . �
. , m ,, S f ' > 6.,0-41;4 . lund have a meeting scheduled with The governor asked the task force to
_
3 r Perpich Tuesday. - review options for reducing noise
The governor's office referred all r
questions on the task force report to j 4' '" - ..,.., -"`� - - R - • . and report back to him with recom
qu ono
Gar also force reprt chairwoman , Jeff H amiel, executive director of mendations for short-term and long-
Gar i eMetropolitan Co c i., ; the airports commission, said: "The term noise improvements. In Janu-
s-, oli s ,, +: -IN lir message is clear. Gov. Perpich ex ' ary, the task force delivered a list of
d pects the airport commission to pro- 17 ways to reduce noise.
The president of the South Metro .:. .
Geed aggressively in taking any ac , :: i+ • - - '' a.
Airprrts Action Council, the anti - i tions we can to deal with this serious The strongest recommendation was
noise citizens group, criticized Per
pick. Frank Arlo said airport offs- . 0 problem. We will do so." :� s ` _ to immediately place a cap on over -
cials have proven in the past that .t° - i ?` <.. •iK an noise (at its 1984 level, to start
they cannot control noise -1. t Gardebring said Perpich wants the with) and order airlines to observe-
`? airports commission to submit a de- this ceiling by either limiting flights
4 ' '
tA tailed report by May 1 on how it will or using quieter planes. It said the
"I think the governor, by taking this': ' p roceed on the noise problem. "He MPCA should work with the airports
kind of stance, is saying at this point ►'' has asked me to impress upon them commission to establish this noise
the political process really refuses to the fact that he is expecting a real ceiling and to set a schedule for.
deal with a very serious economic
and environmental issue. The people demonstration of commitment," Gar achieving ti`s , - ..3 €. ! s ,s i
z Y, ' , + u
4-
in ,our area would have hoped we _.._` . «, ..;, ' , +^ Y . 4, S',- r ..- ol _ M -- • - -- -, • ;:',044,.
' Noise continued on page 4l3 ; >.