12/08/1987 - Airport Relations Commission M E E T I N G N O T I C E
The Eagan Airport Relations Committee
will hold a Regular Meeting
beginning at 7:00 p.m.
on Tuesday, December 8, 1987
in Conference Rooms A & B at Eagan City Hall
3830 Pilot Knob Road, Eagan, Minnesota
Packet information will be distributed to Committee members.
For more information about this meeting, please call
Jon Hohenstein at 454 -8100.
AGENDA
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE
EAGAN, MINNESOTA
EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER CONFERENCE ROOMS A & B
TUESDAY
DECEMBER 8, 1987
7:00 P.M.
I. ROLL CALL AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES
II. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
III. STAFF REPORT
A. City Council Action McKee Addition Noise Issue
B. Chamber of Commerce - Airport Adequacy
Position
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. MAC Eagan - Mendota Heights Corridor Study
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. Potential Preferential Runway System
Modification
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
VII. DISTRIBUTION
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MEMO TO: CHAIRMAN GUSTIN AND ALL MEMBERS OF
THE AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE
FROM: JON HOHENSTEIN, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
DATE: DECEMBER 2, 1987
SUBJECT: AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING FOR
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1987
A meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Committee will be held
on Tuesday, December 8, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. It is essential that
you contact Jon Hohenstein at 454 -8100 to indicate whether you
can attend this meeting or not. In recent months, members have
become increasingly lax in informing staff of their attendance,
resulting in an absence of quorums when key items are before the
group.
I. ROLL C ALL AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES /
Enclosed on pages you (p you will find minutes of the Airport
Relations Committee meeting of November 10, 1987. These minutes,
subject to any change, require approval by the Committee.
II. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
The agenda, as presented or with modifications, requires adoption
by the Committee.
III. STAFF REPORT
A. City Council Action on McKee Addition Noise Issue- -
Enclosed on page 7 you will find a copy of the correspondence
prepared by City Administrator Hedges to Metropolitan Airport
Commission concerning the McKee Addition. The correspondence
reflects the action of the Commission at its November 17 meeting.
Staff will provide an oral report on the Council meeting on
Tuesday evening.
B. Chamber of Commerce - Airport Adequacy Position- -
The Chamber of Commerce continues to work on development of an
airport adequacy study position statement. Staff has held one
meeting and several conversations with Chamber representatives.
It appears that the Chamber statement will address three major
issues:
•
1. Relocation of the airport and the context of the noise
issue,
2. Direct and indirect economic impacts of the relocation, and
3. Possible impact of technology on the adequacy of the current
site. No further information is available on this item at
this time.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. MAC Eagan - Mendota Heights Corridor Study -- Enclosed on pages
2cy- 9 you will find information pertinent to the Eagan- Mendota
Heights Corridor Study. The two noise contours found on page
constitute the options available to the cities of Eagan
an Mendota Heights. You will note the principle difference
between the contours as a result of the assumptions for flight
track separations during simultaneous departure conditions. As
color coding is not possible for the packet, please presume that
the northerly of the two contours relates to alternative number 3
while the southerly relates to alternative number 2 assumptions.
Staff will discuss the relative impacts of the contours on the
two cities at Tuesday evenings meeting. Following the
discussion, the Committee should define criteria of choice and
formulate a recommendation for the City Council and its
consideration of this matter.
Due to the change to a new Council in January, it will not be
possible to bring this issue jointly before the two City Councils
prior to sometime early in 1988. Therefore, the Commission
action may involve some delay before it can be processed through
to the Airport's commission.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To recommend a position to
the City Council on the results of the Eagan /Mendota Heights
Corrdidor Study and to direct correspondence to the MAC
indicating that joint consideration cannot occur before early
1988.
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. Potential Preferential Runway System Modification- -
Enclosed on page i you will find minutes of the operations
committee meeting o MASAC concerning possible changes in the
preferential runway system. These changes are a result of
discussions by a brainstorming group and the Kramer distribution
meetings which bring into question the systematic standards which
practically eliminate traffic over St. Paul- Highland Park while
concentrating it on the parallel runways when it may or may not
be necessary. The alternatives being considered are:
1) Maintaining the current preferential runway system, 2) re-
clarifying the current preferential runway system, and 3) design-
ing a new runway utilization system for greater distributional
equity.
The Commission may wish to discuss these items and consider
action on either the PRS modifications or the Kramer proposal.
For additional information on this matter, please refer to your
October packet.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To direct staff action
concerning potential preferential runway system modifications.
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
VII. DISTRIBUTION
A. SMAAC Meeting- -
Enclosed on page l --you will find a notice of a SMAAC meeting
on Thursday, December 10 for your review.
B. Valsan Correspondence- -
Enclosed on pages k3°E /c( you will find correspondence from the
Valsan Company which is currently engaged in developing retrofit
alternatives for Boeing 727 aircraft.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting will adjourn at or about 9:00 p.m.
►N`
A inistrative Assistant
cc: City Administrator Hedges
City Attorney Hauge
City Planner Runkle
_
Subject to Approval
MINUTES OF THE AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING
Eagan, Minnesota
November 10, 1987
A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Committee Meeting
was held on Tuesday, November 10, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. Present were Chairman
John Gustin, Dustin Mirick, Carol Dozois, Tom Baker and Carolyn Braun. Absent
was Joe Harrison. Also present was Jon Hohenstein, Administrative Assistant.
INTRODUCTION
Chairman Gustin introduced the Committee to the audience consisting
of a number of McKee Addition residents present to discuss aircraft noise in
their neighborhood. He stated that the Committee was an advisory body to the
City Council in the area of airport related issues. He stated that the
Committee is not directly related to the Metropolitan Airports Commission.
MINUTES
Upon motion by Baker, seconded by Mirick, all members voting in
favor, the minutes of the September 8, 1987 Airport Relations Committee
meeting were approved.
AGENDA
Upon review and by acclamation the agenda was approved.
MC KEE ADDITION NOISE CONCERNS
Chairman Gustin invited comments from the audience and indicated
that the Committee would attempt to answer questions raised by the neighbors
and would forward their comments to the City Council for its consideration.
Debbie Garvey indicated that she and her neighbors do not want to —
sell their homes but also would avoid additional investments in the property
if it is going to be bought out.
Ted Plante stated that he has noticed a sizable increase in traffic
since deregulation but does not feel that bandaid approaches such as sound
insulation or quiet rooms make sense. He stated that if the City could not
change the noise generator that a total buy out of the neighborhood is more
reasonable than bandaid approaches but not much more reasonable. Certain
neighborhood residents asked how a buy o t would be structured because they
understood that the Mendota Heights / Park buy out t involved
condemnation and the purchase of homes at discount prices. The Committee
responded that no program is currently in place so the details of how one
would be structured are not available.
4
Rose Buntjer raised questions concerning the corridor and flight
tracks within it. Hohenstein described the flight tracks used in the corridor
before deregulation and those currently used as a result of higher traffic
levels and safety separations. He stated that the unfortunate consequence of
the McKee Addition lying within the commercial /industrial area was that
traffic using the corridor for sound absorption also impacted a noise
sensitive area. Ted Plante asked how the area had become
commercial /industrial since zoning maps still show it as residential property.
Hohenstein explained that the Comprehensive Guide process has designated the
area commercial /industrial in a long term sense. He said that means that it
makes the most sense, given surrounding land uses that the area ultimately be
commercial, but that does not mean that there are any implementation plans to
bring that about.
Plante asked if there was any discussion of a second airport.
Mirick responded by describing a proposal prepared by John Richter, a South
Minneapolis activist. He said that under the Richter proposal, the University
of Minnesota site in Rosemount would be purchased along with residential
development rights in several directions and that a large new airport could be
built there. Plante asked if such a site wouldn't affect southern Eagan.
Mirick responded that the configuration described in the proposal would not
but that it would be possible to route trafffic in such a fashion to impact
all communities surrounding the Rosemount site. Hohenstein pointed out that
the proposal is merely a discussion concept raised by South Minneapolis
residents and that it did not have endorsement of any official planning or
decision making bodies.
Mirick also described the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement
Council and how it maintains information on complaints lodged from various
areas around the airport. He indicated that South Minneapolis does not
believe that northern Dakota County has a noise problem due to complaint
levels. He said that while operational considerations prevent a change in the
location of impacts, telephone and written complaints will certainly indicate
the severity of the problem. Chair Gustin also indicated that if individuals
are bothered they should use the noise complaint numbers. Hohenstein provided
the numbers to the group.
Hohenstein stated that the greatest benefit would come from the
introduction of stage three aircraft into the airline fleets. He stated that
this would occur naturally over the next 15 years and could only be
accelerated through some federal action. Steve Rosenthal asked if it would
help to write to the congressional delegation. The Committee indicated that
that would help and that it would reinforce correspondence which the Committee
has been forwarding to those individuals.
Residents asked how they could be kept informed of Airport Relations
Committee and other airport related meetings. Staff offered to place them on
the mailing list for the local committee and inform them of the standard dates
for regional group meetings.
Buntjer asked what the Committee would be able to take to the
Council. Gustin responded that it would report the facts presented at the
meeting to the extent possible and ask direction of the City Council. Upon
motion by Baker, seconded by Braun, all members voting in favor, staff was
directed to prepare a memo to the City Council for consideration as an •
informative item on its November 17 agenda which would indicate the level of
concern coming from the McKee Addition, recommend correspondence to the
Metropolitan Airports Commission reiterating the need for left turn procedures
during off -peak traffic, indicate that the neighborhood is concerned about the
noise situation but is generally not interested in buy outs or condemnation
and requests Council action.
Upon conclusion of the motion, Chair Gustin invited interested
residents to apply to the City for consideration as members of the Airport
Relations Committee. Mirick stated that the residents who were present were
obviously those most interested in the issue and that they should consider
getting together to discuss their options. Chair Gustin stated that if the
neighborhood wished to have a meeting, City facilities and staff or Airport
Relations Committee members could be present to provide information and
support.
OTHER BUSINESS
All other business was continued to a future agenda for
consideration.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting will be held on Tuesday, December 8, 1987.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion by Mirick, seconded by Gustin, all members voting in
favor, the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
JH
Date Chairperson
Secretary
per+ z
.!:;,-ii
F s... ,I.,..,,,,,-
1 „grz,,,,,,
cots oF ec an
3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, PO. BOX 21199
EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55121 BEA BLOM9uISi
PHONE: (612) 454 -8100 MOjOf
THOMAS EGAN
November 23, 1987
JAMES A. SMITH
VIC ELLISON
THEODORE WACHTER
JEFF HAMIEL Council Members
THOMAS HEDGES
METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION City Administrator
6040 28TH AVENUE SOUTH EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55450 City Clerk
,.. McKee Addition Noise Alternatives
Dear Mr. Hamiel:
In official action taken at its November 17 meeting, the Eagan City Council
directed staff to explore alternatives for the McKee Addition, a noise
impacted neighborhood in the Eagan- Mendota Heights Corridor. The City and the
Commisssion have long been aware of the noise situation in this area, but had
not pursued specific action because of the corridor philosophy and a
relatively low level of public response.
In October, however, residents of the neighborhood prepared a petition and
presented it to the City's Airport Relations Committee asking that the noise
be reduced or that options for the area be considered. The Committee
forwarded the petition with findings to the City Council. The Council
reiterated the need to avoid all noise sensitive areas in and around the
corridor when off -peak traffic levels permit. It further directed staff to
explore what, if any, corrective land -use measures the MAC would consider to
the McKee Addition. This does not constitute a commitment on the part of the
City to engage in a corrective program, but a willingness to discuss
alternatives. The neighborhood itself has mixed feelings about corrective
alternatives and no commitments have been made.
We realize that the McKee Addition lies outside of the contour eligible for
corrective action under the Part. 150 Study. Therefore, any proposal for this
area would require a special allocation of funds from a source or sources to
be defined. The City intends merely to define the alternatives more fully,
including the mechanics of the alternatives with as much detail as possible.
Please contact myself or my office to discuss this matter further. Thank you
for your kind attention to this matter.
Sine rely,
Thomas L. Hed:es
City Administrator
cc: Walter Rockenstein, MASAC
TLH /JDH /jeh
THE LONE OAK TREE. ..THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR /
COMMUNITY /
itit":30t16 . orta pea
MAC
`ir/ �'•✓ P. O. BOX 11700 • TWIN CITY AIRPORT • MINNESOTA 55111
OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR • PHONE (612) 726 - 1892
10 -5 -87
To: John Hohenstein, City of Eagan
Kevin Frazell, City of Mendota Heights
From: Steve Vecchi
Enclosed are the results of the LDN 65,70,75 contours generated
by HNTB that were based on the following assumptions agreed at the
September 23,1987 meeting:
11L,R DEPARTURES
SIMULTANEOUS (65 %) NON- SIMULTANEOUS (35 %)
Alternative #2 11R - 115 11R - 110
11L - 100 11L - 115
Alternative #3 11R - 110 11R - 110
11L - 095 11L - 115
NOTE:
As you may recall, the Operations Committee decided to deal with the
LDN contours for the two alternatives (65% simultaneous dep. & 35%
non - simultaneous dep.) rather than consider a L1065 contour, which
only deals with peak, 100% simultaneous departures.
I would appreciate if you could bring the completed population
estimates that correspond to alternatives #1 & #2 to the next
scheduled meeting, Tuesday October 20, 1987 at 10:00 am.
If you have any questions, please give me a call.
OFFICE" LOCATION - -CO-10 28th AVE. SO. —WEST TERMINAL AREA—MINNEAPOLIS-SAINT PAUL. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
• st, OJO+•3::... r+ w nY bYw• ♦ '.. � ... .R �..
ea wwu
= •a b•,
' a M - as to.. = I
II
= = Q i i
J = CC �.,,� 1 iii i ii .4 :
,p,. ... -
Al t.f o il illef
A 4 ' ., .q. e r °
---) it ,-
-..: 9
/OP ti O y '' WI ° i
0S los: ty- I.. JP ....''''''''s \ .................3 Ta . li 'a W
.... le 1 ag W4r . ral , . , .
-:- N \ '\ --. ' „.„ e was % A. 1 . 4„ , ow," ...... yill
NOile . ` 7 5 / 111 4
' ) .N,. 1
i 1 - \ \ °11111111
. 1.9 ,
, , „ , . , W ' 6 w /iiih .14 ,
„ ...
,,,, 1, tI
::,,,_,...,..._
......... .,..
, \\....), - ----...1•._. jilifiP lieu ,..
,,
• Imo ,,.. .,t,
1
w i
, , Ilile IAN t'
itit � � � � � , --\ �, mo t IO
i . . til _ � II��% i - ° =i jl a 1 a am \ 1 q a uoev !, v.,, ?
Iiiiii 1,,, ; -ft ..„,..,......... miwk ) No
Va 70n,
o
wa., -
�i ifs ' Q \ `
®� 5 ,,, *jW4 . fi.w. , /2 lialia, 4 , , c itoi r r . - ■\ � � •
_Laig . f j
:h ....
,,,,.,..
,,.__ ,_.
/ 411VIMI, m J
11*, *
.., Ar t � / _ ulosauu��y - �O 1
a ........._ ,o,.,... .., .. MI a 1 1:0 - ' 74 * . .. . 4 /, t, am__ 1 8
l a: . 0 1 O o 0 r r j .-- j ,utia,9 ,:, \. \ , ,,.
:Ft 3 ) , - ■ % O l F
Z
° I ° 44,ado,d „od,.v o �; _.
NIBTI 0/ . _ • 9'a �_ d. . ,,
... \ !,
CITY OF EAGAN
OVERFLIGHT IMPACT ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Homes Comp Guided 17 11
Residential
Homes Comp Guided 120 115
Commmercial
137 126
Ib
Date: October 14, 1987
To: MASAC Operations Committee
From: Captain Niel B. Atkinson
Subject: Departure NAVAIDS
I have been asked to comment on the use of aircraft departure NAVAIDS as they
relate to noise abatement proposals being studied by the Operations Committee
of MASAC.
Three types of NAVAIDS are in use today;
ADF - limited accuracy
VOR - more accurate
ILS - most accurate
The use of any of the above as part of a departure procedure would require
a turn shortly after take off to intercept a bearing from the NAVAID or a
course in the case of an ILS. This would have to be accomplished during a
period of high cockpit workload at a time when the pilots' primary concern
0 must be aircraft performance. The pilot is certainly capable of following
ground based navigational signals, however it would seem unlikely that precise
ground tracking capabilities would be probable given the close proximity to
the airport of the noise sensitive area in the Eagan /Mendota Heights Corridor.
AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION =1 MINNEAPOLIS FIELD OFFICE
Suite 275— Dupont Center, 9801 Dupont Avenue South, Bloomington, MN 55431 (612) 884 -4344
SCHEDULE WITH SAFETY •. -C,t r AFFILIATED WITH AFL•CIO
///
Operations Committee 2 Meeting
Thursday, November 19, 1987
The meeting was called to order by Charles Hanebuth at 5:00 p.m. and the
following individuals were in attendance:
Niel Atkinson
Bob Cavill
Bruce Wagoner
Bob Collette
Jan Del Calzo
Walt Hellman
Rick Weiderhorn
Bob Johnson
Larry Shaughnessy
Evan Futterman
Brian Ryks
Dave Kelso
- Steve Vecchi
Steve Cramer
Scott Bunin
Don Priebe
A packet of material which contained information from the MAC Brainstorming
group and Steve Cramer's Ad Hoc group was handed to all committee members.
Steve Vecchi summarized the history of the Preferential Runway System (PRS),
the purpose of the brainstorming group, and the necessity of having a recan-
mendaticn to MASAC within six months.
He began the discussion by reviewing the various options outlined which
included: (1) maintaining the current PRS system; (2) reclarifying the
current PRS system; and (3) designing a new Runway Utilization System for
more distributional equity.
Since questions remain regarding the overall capacity of the airport, hourly
capacity and runway configurations, the committee requested that Evan
Futterman present a more detailed report on the hourly capacity of the
current (airspace - approved) MSP runway configurations that utilize the
diagonal runway (4/22):
Arrive Depart
04 11L/R
29L/R 22
04 04
22 22
The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, December 17, 1987 at 5:00 p.m.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
/1
•
•
IP 1
Notlf!.When!
Two Twin Cities residents have proposed the purchase of land for the future construction of a new airport. The recommended
site would have six new runways and retain part of the existing airport for a passenger terminal and other functions. Does this
sound good to you? Come hear more about their plan.
The proponents of the plan are Jim Serrin, University of Minnesota Mathematics Professor and John Richter, Minneapolis
businessman. Both are founders and members of MASAC (Metropolitan Airports Sound Abatement Council), and both are also
SMAAC members.
WHEN Thursday, December 10, 1987
7:30 PM
WHERE: Diamond Lake Lutheran Church
5760 Portland Avenue, Minneapolis
* * * A Noise Complaint Number ' 726 -9411
. P� iT !f ` 'L. .., -a_�� { i_, - j + t A '�. -..,," r 1i,'+�y.?
. Sponsored by: r C.�" v_. s- tc`...�- ..3�:'d 'k' ykS$ ". ° .. • . ,, _.._.. . . �_
SMAAC Enrollment /Renewal Form
Send this form and your membership fee to: SMAAC, 5116 Columbus Ave. So., Mpls., MN
55417. With increasing budget constraints, we encourage all families to contribute $10
per household. Membership categories: ; t 4
_General ($5.00) _Supporting ($10.00) '` . Contributing ($25.00)
Name Phone
Address •
„ Zip
Are you willing to volunteer time to SMAAC? Yes No
South Metro Airport Action Council If you have a specific area of interest, please check:
Membership a " ' Budget /Fundraising a_ Publicity�j''
Programs w —" ` Publications _ Political Action
— Watchdog = Outreach • _ Legal f ,, t
For more information about SMAAC, call 823 -0694
• _- — =
vALSAN PARTNERS One Horatio Street, Jackson Square, New York, NY 10014 Marketing Office:
(212) 807 -6622 Telex: 825379 VALSAN UF 99 Washington Street, Norwalk, CT 06854
SITA: NYCVRCR Fax: (212) 242 -6405 (203) 866 -6051
Telex: 6714726 DALAV UW
A Delaware Limited Partnership Fax: (203) 855 -0362
Seattle Office:
1400 112th Avenue S.E., Suite 100
November 16, 1987 Bellevue, WA 98004
Telex: 825379 VALSAN UF SITA: NYCVRCR
Mr. John Hoenstein
Administrativw Assistant
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan MN 55122
File:NIP1116
Dear Mr. Hoenstein,
Valsan is developing a modification of the Boeing 727
aircraft which significantly reduces its noise levels at take
off and landing. Valsan will replace the B -727's two
outboard engines with the same high bypass engine that powers
the MD -80, and will quiet the center engine with an acoustic
mixer. Certification is expected in the spring of next year.
Test flights of the modified aircraft have established
that as re- engined by Valsan, all weight and engine
combinations of the B -727 will meet Stage 3 noise limits. In
fact, virtually all combinations will meet Stage 3 without
any of the allowable acoustic trade -offs. These conclusions
have been confirmed by BBN Laboratories and other leading
acoustic experts in a recent report.
With B -727's accounting for nearly one -half of the daily
departures in the United States, Valsan believes that its
program is an important part of the solution to the growing
aircraft nciise problem. Valsan would be pleased to furnish
you with a copy of the noise test report upon request. We
have also enclosed a recent article from The New York Times
about our modification.
Regards,
•
Walter H. Johnson
l3
` El)e New jork VI .Lgi WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1987
P dvances Agis Salpukas
Rebuilding bring this fleet into compliance.
"Something has to be done," said which also reduces the noise level.
•
The inner and outer walls of the
Robert E. Wagenfeld , the president case around the fan, as well as the
Planes to Cut of privately held Valsan Inc., which` tailpipe, are lined with sound- absorb-
hopes to retrofit 727's, the three -en- ing structures.
gine workhorse of airline fleets. "You To modify the center engine, which
Airport Noise can't just push these airplanes off the is built into the 727's tail section, Val,
cliff." san proposes to install a Pratt & Whit -
Boeing halted production of the 727 ney forced air mixer, a device that
in 1984. About 1,750 of them remain in mixes the airflow from the fan with
A DRIVE by the Federal Aviation service, including 400 that could the hotter air from the turbine. That
Administration to impose more easily fly into the next century if a mixing lowers the temperature and
stringent noise abatement rules way could be found to meet the new the speed of the gas leaving the final
at airports is causing the airlines con- noise standards. nozzle. The resulting improvement in
cern about the future usefulness of 70 Airline executives point out that the uniformity of the temperature of
percent of the nation's air fleet. more than 1,500 DC -3's built before the air at the exit reduces the noise.
The jet aircraft threatened by the 1946 are still flying; ironically, those
proposed noise regulations include propeller- driven planes meet stage 3 Valsan tested its concept last
4,500 Boeing 727's and 737 100's and noise standards. March on a flight from Greenville;
200's, as well as McDonnell Douglas • S.C., to Los Angeles on a modified 727
DC -9's. Overly noisy jet aircraft would be owned by Sterling Airways. The noise
While industry executives doubt sold overseas, where noise standards levels indicated that a modified 727 -
that the standards would force the are generally not as strict. However, 200 would meet the Stage 3 standards:
immediate removal of such planes, growing concerns about noise in Valsan hopes the Federal Aviation
pressure for action has been growing. P g g• some overseas markets and the sheer Administration will duplicate and
• size of the stage 2 fleet would force certify that result by May.
The standards represent the third the airlines to unload the planes at Valsan calculates that the new en=
P pro- base of the noise abatement gives and retrofit together will im-
fire -sale prices.
gram that began in 1976. The stand Moving aircraft from a stage 2 prove fuel efficiency by 15 per -
ards classify aircraft by so- called ranking to stage 3 presents a more cent, increasing the e 727's 727's r range to
stages — according to their noisiness difficult technical challenge than 1,800 miles from an average of 1,500
on takeoff, climb and descent. moving them from stage 1 to stage 2, miles
The first phase required airlines to which typically could be achieved by Valsan has 85 orders and options
upgrade or retire their noisiest, or for the modification from such air -
Pg installing $2 million
stage 1, aircraft by 1985. The rule af- Hers known as hush ki ts. s. million muf- lines as Texas Air and Electra Avia -•
tion Ltd. Mr. Wagenfeld has also met
fected such older planes as the Boe- Some companies, such as the Aero- g
ing 707 and the McDonnell DC -8. nautic Development Corporation, are with representatives of Delta, USAir,
Allan McArtor, the chief of the Fed- working on hush kits to meet stage 3 Pan American World Airways and.
eral Aviation Administration, h Federal Express.
standards on DC-8 aircraft. Other
proposed establishing a schedule that planes, however, need new engines to The outlook for the DC -9 is hazier.
would require the gradual retirement McDonnell Douglas is talking with a
eq g meet the standard.
of the stage 2 aircraft. No date has yet group of investors interested in re -• Valsan's approach to the 727 is to trofitting set for stage 3 compliance. PP g the aircraft with a new ver-
Most major airlines have already replace two of the JT8D engines, sion of the Rolls -Royce Tay 650 en-
ordered new planes that offer greater made by Pratt & Whitney, with more gine, but there is no expectation that
fuel efficiency and other improve- advanced JT8D -217 engines, which a design can be proven and certified
ments while also meeting the new power the McDonnell Douglas MD -80. before 1991.
noise standards. The third engine would be kept in There is no program at this point to
However, since most of the aircraft P1'" hut ,,,n4.f:o.f
affected by the new standards have
many years of flying life left, the car
riers have also shown interest it
small group of companies th•
seeking to find economical v
Reducing N to
in 727 , ;' w
a
E
Z I
MEMO TO: CHAIRMAN GUSTIN AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE AIRPORT
RELATIONS COMMITTEE
FROM: JON HOHENSTEIN, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
DATE: OCTOBER 7, 1987
SUBJECT: AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING FOR WEDNESDAY,
OCTOBER 14, 1987
A meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Committee will be held
on Wednesday, October 14, 1987 at 7 :00 p.m. Please note the
special date for this meeting. It has been rescheduled from its
usual evening as a result of a conflict with a joint City Council
meeting. Please contact Jon Hohenstein at 454 -8100 if you are
unable to attend Wednesday's meeting.
I. ROLL CALL AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Enclosed on pages - S you will find minutes of the Airport
Relations Committee meeting of September 8, 1987. These minutes,
subject to any change, require approval by the Committee.
II. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
The agenda, as presented or with modifications, requires adoption
by the Committee.
III. STAFF REPORT
MAC Eagan - Mendota Heights Corridor Study -- Enclosed on pages
/Qyou will find information pertinent to the Eagan - Mendota
Heights Corridor Study. The documents contained herein are the
most recent contours prepared for the study alternatives. You
will note that the principal difference between the contours is a
result of the assumptions for flight track separation during
simultaneous departure conditions. As color coding is not
possible for the packet, please presume that the northerly of the
two contours relates to alternative #3, while the southerly
relates to alternative #2 assumptions. Staff will be reviewing
the relationship of the contours to the Metropolitan Council
policy contours as well as reviewing the affected populations
within the two communities.
A number of options have been discussed through the course of the
study and staff will present information on all available
discussions at the meeting on Tuesday evening. In addition, the
cities of Eagan and Mendota Heights will attempt to work together
to develop an acceptable alternative from the two currently being
studied.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To provide staff direction
for discussions with the City of Mendota Heights.
B. Working Group on Airport Noise /Airport Capacity -- Enclosed on
page /7 you will find an article from "Airports International"
magazine concerning a working group on airport noise /airport
capacity. Jeff Hamiel of the Metropolitan Airports Commission
was a member of the group which recommended major changes within
the airline industry and the environment surrounding airports.
The recommendations have generally received a negative response
due to their intention to limit the legal alternatives available
to noise impacted residents.
In brief, the plan would call for agreements on the part of the
airlines to accelerate fleet conversion such that all Stage II
aircraft would be phased out of the fleet in three year
increments beginning in 1994. The plan would include a 1987
production cut off for all Stage II aircraft and in 1989
a registration cut off for the same aircraft. It was further
recommended that federal incentives be utilized to accelerate the
fleet change over by the year 2000.
In exchange for these agreements, the group proposes that the
airports cease the implementation of all new noise abatement
rules and that noise affected populations be prohibited from
suing for damages for aircraft noise. It is the latter matter of
the severe limitation of future rights in the face of an
uncertain noise environment which has drawn the most criticism to
date. Staff will be available to respond to questions on this
matter at the meeting.
No action is required on this item at this time.
C. Legal Opinion - Nuisance Complaint -- Enclosed on pages/2-/J'
you will find correspondence from the City Attorney concerning
the airport noise complaint of Roger Sperling. As you know, Mr.
Sperling has pursued the matter of a nuisance complaint through
his City citation for an appropriate party at the airport under
the theory that airport noise from jet traffic may fall within
the City's police power. Debra Schmidt of Attorney Hauge's
office has reviewed the pertinent case law and concludes that
such a case is not within the police power of a municipality but
that that does not diminish the individual's right to pursue a
civil nuisance case as has been done in south Minneapolis under
the auspices of Richard Gun. Staff will respond to questions in
this regard at the meeting.
No action is required on this matter at this time.
P ferential Runway System Working Group -- Enclosed on pages
( a - you will find information pertinent to the preferential
runway system brainstorming group. The group considered
alternatives to the current preferential runway system to make
greater use of the crosswind runway both with and without the
extension of Runway 4/22. It was concluded that by optomizing
alternatives to the preferential runway system traffic on the
parallel runways would actually decrease slightly while
increasing over the Bloomington /Richfield and St. Paul - Highland
Park areas. While numerous alternatives were discussed, the FAA
G2
pointed out that it is permitted to have no more than five
departure configurations within its flight rules and that
specific alternatives need to be defined for use.
The group's conclusions have been forwarded to the MASAC
Operations Committee for further review. Staff will keep the
committee abreast of developments in the area as they occur.
No action is required on this matter at this time.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. Runway Utilization Committee -- Enclosed on pagescRYsVyou will
find information pertinent to Steve Cramer's committee on runway
use. The general concept has been to develop target ranges for
all traffic operating at Minneapolis -St. Paul National Airport by
runway end. The purpose would be to increase the use of the
crosswind runways while setting caps or target ranges on the
amount of runway use in any given direction. Under this
scenario, the corridor would receive roughly the same if not
slightly less traffic as it receives at the present time and
better compliance with an acceptable Eagan - Mendota Heights
Corridor definition is presumed.
Staff has been participating with the Cramer group over the past
several months and has been generally supportive of the concept
of greater distributional equity provided no additional adverse
effects are presumed for the City of Eagan. In this regard,
Member Mirick has expressed concern that the institution of a
Cedar Avenue turn component for Runway 22 will increase the
impact on southwestern Eagan. When considering this issue, it
should be noted that a Cedar Avenue departure may tend to affect
that area regardless of whether percentages are defined for the
area or not. Therefore, it may be necessary to more completely
define all the issues for the City of Eagan before making
recommendation on this matter.
To date, staff has defined the issues of this matter to be as
follows:
1. Whether the 52 - 55% target range is acceptable and
reasonable for the Eagan - Mendota Heights Corridor.
2. Whether extension of Runway 4/22 implies a need to modify
these percentages.
3. Whether the Cedar Avenue turn will impact the community
differently under this proposal as opposed to the present
preferential runway system configurations.
4. Other issues as defined by committee members.
This matter has been referred to the Operations Committee
together with the Preferential Runway System Working Group report
for joint consideration.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To provide staff direction
on the Runway Utilization Committee recommendations.
3
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. McKee Addition Noise Concerns - -Staff has been contacted by
residents of the McKee Addition concerning aircraft noise impacts
in that neighborhood. In late September, staff assisted a
neighborhood resident in the preparation of a petition regarding
the area. After considerable discussion, the residents indicated
that they would review the items discussed and contact City staff
further with their conclusions.
Generally, staff indicated that efforts were being made to
mitigate noise impacts on the community, but that the McKee
Addition's location within the corridor area made it difficult,
if not impossible, to reduce noise impacts to the neighborhood
without adversely affecting other residential neighborhoods.
Staff will address questions in this regard at the meeting on
Tuesday evening.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To provide staff direction
with regard to noise concerns raised by residents of the McKee
Addition.
B. Chamber of Commerce - Airport Adequacy Position - -The Eagan
Chamber of Commerce has contacted City staff for assistance in
the preparation of a position on the adequacy of Minneapolis /St.
Paul International Airport. The concerns of the group illustrate
a matter previously discussed by the Committee concerning the
balance which Eagan represents between its business interests and
the residential community. The small business leaders from
around Eagan have a keen sense of the relationship of Eagan's
dependence on the International Airport for its international
climate. Therefore, airport relocation represents a significant
challenge to them.
Staff will continue to work with the Chamber in the development
of its position. In addition, the committee or representatives
of the committee may wish to meet with Chamber representatives to
discuss mutual issues in this regard.
No action is required on this matter at this time.
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
A. National Organization to Ins re a Sound Controlled
Environment--Enclosed on pages30 -q is information pertinent to
N.O.I.S.E. as requested by the Committee at its last meeting.
The information provided represents a cross section of that
available in the file.
B. Citizens League Airport Committee -- Enclosed on pages
you will find information from member Mirick pertinent to the
September 18, 1987 Citizens League Airport Committee meeting.
The information pertains to a presentation by Minneapolis
residents Jim Serrin and John Richter concerning a possible
airport relocation scenario. Mr. Serrin and Mr. Richter have
identified the University of Minnesota Rosemount Research Center
as an undeveloped location capable of absorbing additional air
I
traffic and aircraft noise. The remote location would serve as a
supplement to rather than a replacement for the current airport
and it would be connected with the current location by a high
speed rail link utilizing Soo Line right -of -way through
Rosemount, Inver Grove Heights and Eagan. If time permits,
discussion may be had in this matter at the meeting on Tuesday.
VII. DISTRIBUTION
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting will adjourn at or about 8 :30 p.m. The next
regularly scheduled meeting of the Airport Relations Committee
will be Tuesday, November 10, 1987.
I
Administrative Assistant
cc: City Administrator Hedges
City Attorney Hauge
City Planner Runkle
JDH /jeh
�
HAUGE, EIDE & KELLER, P.A.
��'�� U PAUL H. HAUGE
,2 orneys al , ((7� aw KEVIN W EIDE
TOWN CENTRE PROFESSIONAL BLDG., SUITE 200 DAVID G KELLER
1260 YANKEE DOODLE ROAD LORI M BELLIN
EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55123 DEBRA E SCHMIDT
THOMAS P. LOWE
(612) 456 -9000
September 24, 1987
Mr. Thomas Hedges
Eagan City Administrator
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55121
RE: Airport Noise Complaint of Mr. Roger Sperling
Dear Mr. Hedges:
This opinion is in response to the continuing problem of aircraft
noise adversely affecting the residents of the City of Eagan.
QUESTION
May the City of Eagan file a criminal complaint under the Public
Nuisance Statute, M.S.A. §609.74 (1), for excessive noise caused by
jet traffic in and out of the Minneapolis /St. Paul International
Airport.
ANSWER
After reviewing relevant case law on the issue of airport noise and
the public nuisance statute itself, in my opinion the City cannot
prosecute.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
CASE LAW
The major case in this area is City of Burbank v Lockheed Air
Terminal, 93 S.Ct. 1854 (1973), 411 U.S. 624, 36 L.Ed. 2d 547. In
Burbank, the City Council of Burbank, California, adopted an
ordinance which made it unlawful for a so- called pure -jet aircraft
to take off from the Hollywood- Burbank Airport between 11:00 p.m. of
one day and 7:00 a.m. the next day, and making it unlawful for the
operator of that aircraft to allow any such aircraft to take off
from that airport during such periods. This Ordinance only affected
one regularly scheduled flight during the whole week. Action was
brought by the owner and operator of the airport and an interstate
air carrier against the City and certain of its officers, for
judgment declaring the City Ordinance invalid. The State Court
/;1
Mr. Thomas Hedges
September 24, 1987
Page 2
entered judgment in favor of the airport operator and the City
appealed. The United States Court of Appeals affirmed the lower
Court and the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals. The
basic rule set down in the Burbank case is that the Noise Control
Act of 1972, along with the Federal Aviation Act, granted the FAA
in conjunction with the EPA, full control over aircraft noise, pre - `
empting state and local control. There was some discussion in the
case of the Commerce Clause, which is another major concern, but the
whole decision revolved around federal pre- exemption of any state or
local control over airport noise. "Control of noise is, of course,
deep seated in the police power of the states. Yet, the pervasive
control vested in the EPA and in FAA under the 1972 Act, seems to us
to leave no room for local curfews or other local controls."
Burbank, at 1862.
Interestingly enough, the Court does make an exception for local
regulation of aircraft noise by a proprietor of the airport, be it a
City or other entity. The issue has not yet been determined on how
far a proprietor can regulate, but in the present situation, that
would involve MAC and not the City of Eagan.
Several cases have followed on the same issue with the Courts ruling
that local attempts to control the noise of over - flying jets is pre-
empted by federal regulations concerning planes in flight. In
British Airways Board v The Port Authority of New York, 558 F.2d 75
(1977), the United States Court of Appeals ruled that local
proprietors can adopt noise regulations, as long as they are
reasonable, non- arbitrary and non - discriminatory. Again, the key
word here is 'local proprietor', which does not include the City of
Eagan. This case involved the right of Port Authority of New York
and New Jersey to ban the Concord from landing at JFK Airport. The
Court states:
"It is understandable that the numerous
localities in the vicinity of major airports
cannot be permitted an independent role in
controlling the noise of passing aircraft. The
likelihood of multiple, inconsistent rules would
be a dagger pointed at the heart of commerce -
and the rule applied might come literally to
depend on which way the wind was blowing. The
task of protecting the local population from
airport noise has, accordingly, fallen to the
agency, usually of local government, charged with
operating the airport." British Airways Board at
83.
Mr. Thomas Hedges
September 24, 1987
Page 3
STATUTE
Minnesota Statute §609.74(1) states as follows: "Whoever by an act
or failure to perform a legal duty intentionally does any of the
following is guilty of maintaining a public nuisance, which is a
misdemeanor: (1) Maintains or permits a condition which
unreasonably annoys, injures or endangers the safety, health,
morals, comfort or repose of any considerable number of the members
of the public; . . ." To convict anyone under the Public Nuisance
Statute, it would be required that we show the act done involved
criminal intent, and that it unreasonably annoyed or endangered the
safety, health, comfort or repose of any considerable number of the
members of public.
In the Advisory Committee comment to the Public Nuisance Statute,
the following is found: "There is probably a place for the crime of
public nuisance, but it is believed it should be restricted to those
instances which come within the purposes of the criminal law. This
will require (1) some criminal intent, and (2) limitation of the
statute to such specific terms as the nature of the problem
permits." It would appear to be impossible to prove criminal intent
on the part of a pilot, air traffic controller, the FAA, or anyone
involved with the MAC in either ordering or allowing low flying
aircraft to go over residential areas of Eagan.
The "unreasonable" requirement may or may not be met, but would
involve a balancing of the public good served by the aircraft and
interstate commerce, balanced against any proven damages to
individuals subject to the noise.
A requirement that the act unreasonably endangers the safety,
health, morals, comfort, or repose of any considerable number of the
public would require documentation of actual noise levels (which
could be done) or medical complaints directly arising from the
aircraft noise. While there may be numerous residents affected
within the City of Eagan, it would be a question to be decided by a
Judge or jury whether or not that number was sufficient to involve
the "public ".
Another major hurdle to prosecuting this matter would be determining
who was the appropriate defendant, the pilot, air traffic controller
on duty, the FAA or the MAC.
CONCLUSION
I think it is very significant that I was unable to find any
reported cases at any level where a governmental entity has
IL(
Mr. Thomas Hedges
September 24, 1987
Page 4
attempted to prosecute criminally on complaints concerning excessive
aircraft noise. In the alternative, the case law does not appear to
cut off the right of any individual to sue for civil damages under a
private nuisance theory and /or under an inverse condemnation theory.
There may be legislation in effect in other states which would
effect individual's rights and each case would depend upon
particular facts and location of the parties involved. However,
reviewing the case law and the Minnesota Public Nuisance Statute as
written, it appears to me that the City may not proceed under any
criminal statute. If you have any questions concerning this, please
feel free to contact me.
Very truly yours,
HAUGE, EIDE & KELLER, P.A.
Debra E. Schmidt
DES:ras
cc: Jon Hohenstein
Jay Berthe
1/
ULTIMATE
OBJECTIVE
MAG MA SAG
TD SEARCH FoR sTUOY 4 AnoPT THE HEST
POSSIBLE METhtop OF DISTRIBUTING A IRCnAFT
NWIsE AT MsP THAT BEST MEETS
- AIRPORT COMMUNITY ENV►RoNM i1At, CONCERNS
— 1987 my 't AFFC. VoO MES
PAA }4oVRLY CAPACITY DEMANDS
WEATIIEJZ /kV/NO RESTRICTIONS G/M /TAT /oNs
— OPERA'T1oNAL Co iC& /S FAA AiAC, q/Rl/NEs)
•
•
gRAINSTRM 6gou
7(0.
1 g rzaINSTo>zMlu& Group
- P. R.5 •
- NEW RunlwAY U7/L /zArloN
SYSTEM
1
orhAu I7.AT 1 PRESENTATIoIJ
OF Nose DIS7iZ18uT) M PDSS/BILITJE5
(Wfo R1=coMNENoArioN)
1
M ASAL
E:OcY
( MAsA&
Q PEiZATIONS
Co MM ITTEE
1 '\
MA C
Fut.', coM M 155) 0 0
J
/7
BRAINSTORMING PANEL
MAC Commissioner Virginia Johnson
MAC Commissioner Jan Del Calzo
Captain Robert Cavill ( MASAC)
Scott Bunin (MASAC)
Captain Niel Atkinson (ALFA)
Dave Kelso (MPCA)
Doug Powers (FAA)
Dick Petersen (FAA)
Bruce Wagoner (FAA)
Bob Collette (FAA)
Nigel Finney (MAC Staff)
Walt Hellman (MAC Staff)
Steve Vecchi (MAC Staff)
MINNEAPOLIS -ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Methods of Distributing Noise
1. Current PRS System
2. Reclarification of Current PRS System
3. Distributional Equity (All Communities Equal)
4. Distribution by Hourly Rotation
5. Distribution Based on Community Population
CONTROLLING FACTS:
- Parallels must be used for 13 of 17 daytime hours due to demand levels.
- Equal runway capacity is not available in all four directions.
.T_ /ST. PAUL INTERNATICNAL AIRPaR'T
Wind Coverage and Hourly Capacities
for
Various Runway Configurations
Approximate Hourly
Approximate Hourly Capacity Capacity With 4/22
with Existing Airfield Extension in Place
Wind With Without With Without
Configuration Coverage * "Hold Short ' "Hold Short" "Hold Hold Short , � "Hold Hold Short
CURRENT:
Straight 29 50.4% 120 120 120 120
Straight 11 45.6% 120 120 120 120
Straight 04 44.2% 66 66 66 66
Straight 22 51.6% 66 66 66 66
Land 29s/Depart 22 27.2% 80 60 100 75 -90
Land 4/Depart lls 21.1% 90 60
90 80
NEW: ,
Land 29s /Depart 4 26.0% 90 60 90 50
Land 22/Depart lls 28.1% 66 66 66 66
Land 11L, 4/
Depart 11R 21.1% 90 65 90 65
Land 29L, 22/ 80 65
Depart 29R 27.2% 80 65
Land lls/Depart 22 28.1% 60 60 90 90
* Assuming a maximum 20 knot crosswind, no tailwind, per FAA Tower Order.
Calm winds included in all configurations.
c: icy ; ,{_,L .';.-_ (- �-c.., ,,,- ( i k _ 1,_ ', _ � k L-
Source: HNTB and MSP ATCI' Analysis
Revised 8/5/87
ao
MINNEAPOLIS -ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Potential Groupings of Runway Operating Configurations
Configurations
Areas of Impact With Extension of Without Extension
Off Runway 4 -22 Runway 4 -22 in Place of Runway 4 -22
Richfield, Land 29L +R; Depart 22 Land 29L +R; Depart 22
Bloomington 04;
11L +04; Depart 11R Land 04;
11L +04; Depart + 1
Land 11R
Land 11L +R; Depart 22
St. Paul Land 22; Depart 11L +R Land 22; Depart 11L +R
Land 29L +R; Depart 04
\ \ l�l �. d Cc. �_ ` W...ti.L �. l- '-,t' �t �� � L C, .�) - ! /JP
Y V_. :.L L:-I.- 11
MSP ATCT
FIGURE 14. INTERSECTING RUNWAY DIAGRAMS AND TABLES,
A
h ' �_ _ _ _ _
2100 feet 4 \
'!
J r 1
`fi J J r / 1
/ r ����`����� 6000 feet
1 1 / / ��������
3200 feet I / / /� r ♦ 4300 feet hi . �������
• •.
J f / ■ � ��`
•• ••••••• /J
■
/ // / 1 "�������
6200 feet / / /; — ��������
/ / /� / / / 2 800 feet 6600 feet ��`"`\\\`\\ ,' .. • / , .......„...Q., %/
/
1 / Group 1. STOL aircraft.
1/
Group 2. Small piston- powered single or twin - engine
airplanes and twin- engine turboprops of 12,500
I lbs. or less maximum landing weight.
Group 3. All large two- engine piston - powered airplanes
I
except CV34, CV44 and all large two
r turboprop- powered airplanes except CV58 and
1� G159.
Group 1 Group 4. All large four - engine pistown- powered airplanes
:41,•; ••. =.': . • exc DC7, 7B, 7C & L164. Large two- engine
•• •• turbojet- powered airplanes such as BA -11, DC9,
• = G ro up 2
• �� -Y 8727's. Large two and four - engine piston and
Group
3 turboprop- powered airplanes such as CV34, CV44,
G159, L188, V170 and VI80.
' Group 4 Group 5. Large four- engine piston - powered airplanes such
as DC7, DC7B, DC7C and L164. All large three -
Group 5 not permitted. engine (except 3727's) and four- engine turbojet-
Runway lengths are in- powered airplanes.
adequate. 6;.4?
a
i 0 6 g
■111P gC
■,J( i is I r-
co
crl
,1
/ /14\e•
ifs # \............N. 1
411 76.e
\
o -
A.)
o
m qr z
0 e% Cl;
ir =
• ee
Il k (-4 1
i
C;
r4
- aim zwPaz 1
. ,,3
•
O i r
C`
•
C+
co
Z
i J---- 1
li o
0 \.....
114
2.6.e.
0 1 �
y L'
c
O _ ir
O e+ v;
V O lib
1
* g
41 i'
•asy zap>>
a 4/
/
- O
)FFICE OF CITY COUNCIL
.- ....... 0.............-.C@EI
II 0 [IR
X07 CITY HALL
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55415
PHONE 348 -2211 11a O _ike2
STEVE CRAMER
COUNCIL MEMBER ELEVENTH WARD
August 7, 1987
To: Ad Hoc Committe on MSP Runway Use
From: Steve Cramer
I hope it wasn't presumptious of me to give our group a name:
At the last meeting it was suggested I attempt to summarize our discussions to
date. This was viewed as a step toward a proposed position regarding runway use to
be presented to our respective policy bodies and, ultimately,. to MAC.
The group came together with a shared understanding of three key points.
1. Overall noise reduction is the first and over - riding
priority for noise - affected communities. Support for
the proposed noise budget is strong in the event •
voluntary agreements provide insufficient relief. --
2. The current distribution of air traffic at MSP has
become inequitable. Increasing flight levels has
concentrated operations on the parallel runway and
decreased operations on the crosswind runway. While
a straight arithmetic division of traffic between
runway ends is infeasible, it is possible to more
fairly direct traffic around the airport.
3. Important questions remain unanswered about the 4/22
extension as proposed by MAC. The project is a
volatile issue and potentially divisive. A better
way to approach runway use is to reach agreement on
a desired outcome measured by % of operations off
various runway ends. Once an agreement is reached,
MAC and FAA officials can determine whether and how
the goals can be met. The 4/22 project may be
needed to make the agreement work, but at that
point it would-fa a means to an agreed -upon end.
- ,,..
�r r._ — ,;vc;C
♦Iii a .� --. � _
c;S
Air Traffic Distribution around MSP International
9/17/87
MASAC Community Representatives
Problem
- concentration of air traffic
- breakdown of PRS
- 4/22 Proposal
- process to develop runway use concept
Runway Use Plan Concept
Discussion
RECENT HISTORY OF AIR TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION
Average daily operations
Month /Year for that month
7/79 508
8/81 664
8/86 1145
5/87 998
1990/2000 (projections)
% of all
date operations
% of all 7/79 3.5
8/81 .75
date operations
8/86 .5
7/79 30.5 5/87 1
1990/2000 1
8/81 44
8/86 58
5/87 41
iy90 /2000 45.5
%ofall
date operations
7/79 31.5
8/81 39.75
% of all 8/86 35.25
date operations 5/87 52
1990/2000 52.5
7/79 34.5
8/81 15.5
8/86 6.25
5/87 6
1990/2000 1
;,2 /7
5 - 15 - 25 - 55 PLAN'
% of all operations
5
25
55
15
TARGET RANGE OPTIONS
of all operations
Option 1 5 -8
Option 2 11 -12
Option 1 25 -28
Option 2 23 -24
52 -55
Option 1 12 -15
Option 2 11 -12
CONSIDERATIONS IN DEVELOPING A RUNWAY USE PLAN
- Goals for Air Traffic Distribution
- Enforcement Program
- actual counts of aircraft
- accounting for impact of weather /wind
on runway use
- computer system to aid FAA in achieving
desired distribution
- sanctions for non - compliance
- Maintenance of Eagan /Mendota Heights corridor
- Flight tracks off runway ends
- Take - off /Landing distribution
- Defined Airport Capacity (upon which runway use plan is based)
- FAA Role