Loading...
09-11-89 agenda~,~ ~`/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 24 September 11, 1989 Issue Statement• Discussion of the Runway Use System for MSP Airport, and a Resolution in the alternative. Background• For the first time since 1970 when the Preferential Runway System (PRS) went into effect, the matter of a runway use system at MSP Airport is being considered. The PRS, which sought to direct as much traffic as possible to the S.E, and S.W., worked very well until the early 1980's, from the point of view of Minneapolis and St. Paul. For example, in July 1979, 85$ of takeoffs were to the S.E. or S.W., and 70$ of landings were to the S.E. or S.W. There are three runways to the S.E. and S.W. and three to the N.E. (St. Paul) and N.W. (Minneapolis). Because the PRS gave more protection to St. Paul than Minneapolis, it became clear in 1986 and 1987 that Minneapolis, who by that time was receiving a large amount of traffic, could get some relief if traffic were shifted to St. Paul. A test was conducted from July 1988 to January 1989 of a revised plan called the Runway Use System (RUS). The test tried to reduce traffic over South Minneapolis and North Richfield, and sent more traffic over St. Paul. The test showed that a small, but measurable, amount of traffic could be shifted to St. Paul. Another alternative would be to suggest a different plan which would provide for more equity in noise distribution. The attached Resolution does just that. The Resolution would not allow unlimited flights in certain areas, nor would it allow total exemptions for other similar areas. Flights would have to be first contained in designated corridors, then balanced on all remaining runways. MASAC will hold hearings on September 26, 1989 and October 3, 1989 on whether to recommend to MAC that the RUS or some other system, such as that described in the Resolution, be put into place. MAC will consider the MASAC recommendation later in the fall and presumably reach a decision by year end. Unless MAC takes the unlikely action of staying with the present PRS, there will be strong legal challenges from St. Paul. Any new system, whether the RUS or other type, will require considerable environmental evaluation. Recommended Motion: It is the recommendation of staff that the council discuss the proposed RUS system. ~~v~/ '/ Basis of Recommendation: Although the RUS has some desirable features, such as giving St. Paul more traffic, it has some undesirable aspects as well. 1. It calls for sending all possible traffic to the S.E. first, and secondly placing as much traffic as possible on the crosswind runway (4/22) in a balanced manner, with South Minneapolis receiving last priority for traffic. There is no limit to the amount of traffic the Eagan/Mendota Heights area could receive, and likewise the South Richfield/Bloomington and St. Paul areas. It is unlikely, but under lower traffic levels, flights over South Minneapolis could be almost totally eliminated under the RUS.. 2. if 4/22 is extended, it will be far easier to put traffic on the Richfield/Bloomington end, .and thus we would get an overwhelming share, despite the fact that the RUS would call for traffic in a balanced manner. The RUS, as the PRS before it, will be described as a system to promote equity in the distribution of overflights. However, without the traffic objective in the system calling for equal treatment of similar residential areas, it will simply be the means of giving one area almost total protection at the expense of other similar areas when operation levels allow. 3. The alternative runway use pattern, as described in the Resolution, provides more equity in aircraft noise distribution. The Resolution first limits the amount of traffic in the Eagan/Mendota Heights area to that which can be contained in the industrial corridor. Secondly, it seeks to balance traffic on all four other runways, since those flights all go over similar residential areas. Alternative Recommendation: The oouncil could choose to place the matter on the Council Meeting Agenda for action before the Tuesday, September 26, 1989 MASAC meeting. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be discussed at the September 11, 1989, 6:30 PM Study Session before the regularly scheduled Council Meeting. Respectfully submitted, Ja D. Prosser C ' ~ Manager JDP/mba _~ ~ ~' Resolution Regarding a Runway Use System at Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport WHEREAS: Any runway use system at Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP Airport) must recognize that all areas surrounding MSP Airport benefit from its proximity and all areas must share in the overflights, - and - WHEREAS: Any change from the present system will require extensive environmental review and thus must be clearly fair to all involved, - and - WHEREAS: The proposed Runway Use System (RUS) does not correct the fundamental problem of the present Preferential Runway System since it still provides for unlimited overflights over some nearby residential areas and total exemptions for other similar areas when traffic levels, wind conditions and runway conditions permit. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Richfield requests that MASAC recommend and the MAC approve a runway use system that within the limits of the safe, efficient operation of the airport would first direct as much air traffic Southeast of the airport (arrive on Runways 29 Left and Right; depart on Runways 11 Left and Right) as could be contained in the corridors the affected communities have zoned for overflights, and secondly place the remaining traffic as equally as possible on the other four runways, all of which overfly similar nearby residential areas. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA l Study Session Letter No. 224 September 25, 1989 Issue Statement• Discussion of the Runway Use System for MSP Airport, and a Resolution in the alternative. Background• For the first time since 1970 when the Preferential Runway System (PRS) went into effect, the matter of a runway use system at MSP Airport is being considered. The PRS, which sought to direct as much traffic as possible to the S.E. and S.W., worked very well until the early 1980's, from the point of view of Minneapolis and St. Paul. For example, in July 1979, 85~ of takeoffs were to the S.E. or S.W., and 70$ of landings were to the S.E. or S.W. There are three runways to the S.E. and S.W. and three to the N.E. (St. Paul) and N.W. (Minneapolis). Because the PRS gave more protection to St. Paul than Minneapolis, it became clear in 1986 and 1987 that Minneapolis, who by that time was receiving a large amount of traffic, could get some relief if traffic were shifted to St. Paul. _, A test was conducted from July 1988 to January 1989 of a revised plan called the Runway Use System (RUS). The test tried to ~ reduce traffic over South Minneapolis and North Richfield, and sent more traffic over St. Paul. The test showed that a small, but measurable, amount of traffic could be shifted to St. Paul. Another alternative would be to suggest a different plan which would provide for more equity in noise distribution. The attached Resolution does just that. The Resolution would not allow unlimited flights in certain areas, nor would it allow total exemptions for other similar areas. Flights would have to be first contained in designated corridors, then balanced on all remaining runways. MASAC will hold hearings on September 26, 1989 and October 3, 1989 on whether to recommend to MAC that the RUS or some other system, such as that described in the Resolution, be put into place. MAC will consider the MASAC recommendation later in the fall and presumably reach a decision by year end. Unless MAC takes the unlikely action of staying with the present PRS, there will be strong legal challenges from St. Paul. Any new system, whether the RUS or other type, will require considerable environmental evaluation. Recommended Motion: It is the recommendation of staff that the council adopt the proposed Resolution. ~~ ~ Basis of Recommendation: Although the RUS has some desirable features, such as giving St. Paul more traffic, it has some undesirable aspects as well. 1. It calls for sending all possible traffic to the S.E. first, and secondly placing as much traffic as possible on the crosswind runway (4/22) in a balanced manner, with .South Minneapolis receiving last priority for traffic. There is no limit to the amount of traffic the Eagan/Mendota Heights area could receive, and likewise the South Richfield/Bloomington and St. Paul areas. It is unlikely, but under lower traffic levels, flights over South Minneapolis could be almost totally eliminated under the RUS. 2. If 4/22 is extended, it will be far easier to put traffic on the Richfield/Bloomington end, .and thus we would get an overwhelming share, despite the fact that the RUS would call for traffic in a balanced manner. The RUS, as the PRS before it, will be described as a system to promote equity in the distribution of overflights. However, without the traffic objective in the system calling for equal treatment of similar residential areas, it will simply be the means of giving one area almost total protection at the expense of other similar areas when operation levels allow. 3. The alternative runway use pattern, as described in the Resolution, provides more equity in aircraft noise distribution. The Resolution first limits the amount of traffic in the Eagan/Mendota Heights area to that which can be contained in the industrial corridor. Secondly, it seeks to balance traffic on all four other runways, since those flights all go over similar residential areas. Alternative Recommendation: The Council can choose not to adopt the Resolution. An alternative to the Runway Use System would not then be offered to MASAC. Discussion/Decision Mode• This matter will be discussed at Meeting, and any action should be on September 26, 1989. the September 25, 1989 Council taken before the MASAC meeting Resp~tf~ully submitted, l / , James. D. Prosser City Manager JDP/mba ~~-~ Resolution Regarding a Runway Use System at Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport WHEREAS: Any runway use system at Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP Airport) must recognize that all areas surrounding MSP Airport benefit from its proximity and all areas must share in the overflights, - and - WHEREAS: Any change from the present system will require extensive environmental review and thus must be clearly fair to all involved, - and - WHEREAS: The proposed Runway Use System (RUS) does not correct the fundamental problem of the present Preferential Runway System since it still provides for unlimited overflights over some nearby residential areas and total exemptions for other similar areas when traffic levels, wind conditions and runway conditions permit. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Richfield requests that MASAC recommend and the MAC approve a runway use system that within the limits of the safe, efficient operation of the airport would first direct as much air traffic Southeast of the airport (arrive on Runways 29 Left and Right; depart on Runways 11 Left and Right) as could be contained in the corridors the affected communities have zoned for overflights, and secondly place the remaining traffic as equally as possible on the other four runways, all of which overfly similar nearby residential areas.