BY ED FELIEN
After a boisterous public hearing on Aug. 27, the Metropolitan Airports Commission decided to defer approval of its expansion plan. As Dean Amundson reported in earlier editions of Southside Pride, the MAC plan “will accommodate an estimated 54 million passengers by 2035 (their numbers). That number will be twice as many passengers as last year, 2014, and, of course, that means twice as many flights, and that means jet noise and pollution will be doubled.”
“Those attending at first just listened to the MAC prepared presentation, but then took over the meeting’s intended format. Angry residents demanded answers to questions about new noise before allowing the meeting to end. MAC conveners had to call up their environmental chief, Chad Leqve, and then CEO Jeff Hamiel to answer questions shouted out to the convener. MAC’s original format was to split people into smaller groups and shuffle them into focus rooms. The angry noise sufferers would have none of that, Michael Kehoe, Minneapolis resident and longtime airport noise critic, led the room with a loud statement of not leaving the room. With others following, shouting out, ‘We’re not moving. We’re staying here.’”
At its Sept. 27 board meeting, the MAC decided to study the noise contours further and report back in February.
Kevin Terrell, one of the two co-founders of Fair Skies, the group that organized the protests, said, “The pause is great. Now what we need is progress from politicians on creating a permanent framework of transparency and accountability from the FAA, along with positive steps to reduce aircraft noise for all Twin Cities residents.”
Steve Kittleson, the other co-founder of Fair Skies, said, “We need to take this opportunity for all parties to come together to create a true statewide long-term plan that balances the needs of the traveler without compromising the livability of the neighborhoods.”
SMAAC also urged people to attend the 27 August meeting and we stayed through the planned two sessions. The public’s insistense led to a welcome delay in drawing noise contours, but the delay may just kick the can down the road.
The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) is still considering its 2016 capital improvements plan (CIP) for MSP and the Assessment of Environmental Effects (including from 2015 operations). Using the August 2015 to May 2016 runway use changes is unlikely to change noise contours much for the forecasted maps unless
Three big questions are definitely not going to be answered this Fall:
A] Are the flight forecasts reasonable for MSP year by year?
B]How will the pending changes in runway use change noise exposure and air pollution?
C]What are the real costs of more MSP expansion. and how will the costs be financed?
I agree with Gary Farland: If [A] is YES, then [C] is MANY BILLIONS OF DOLLARS and BY O&D PASSENGERS. A second airport would be safer, more affordable and more environmentally sound.
In other words, the answer to [B] for next year is a step onto a slippery slope for neighborhoods.
I expect FAA will adjust runway use at busier hours to allow for about 75 arrivals/hour, down from the old plan (90) but a lot more than in 2005 (MSP’s busiest year). I also expect the procedures will not change 2016 routes and profiles very much.
Nor do I anticipate that the MAC will be drawing contours incorporating actual runway use, routes and profiles. SMAAC noted in 2010 that the noise increases followed from the (no air craossings) route and profile changes not flights/day; a safer and less noisy and polluting alternative is available for 620,000 operaions/year. The 54 million passengers in 2035 can be supported, according to Jeff Hamiel, with 453,000 operations/year “because passengers/flight is increasing to 119 as the airlines switch to larger aircraft.” Jeff, I strongly doubt it.
The FAA runway use procedures will anticipate deployment of NextGen and PBN/RNAV to MSP. The outlook for noise exposure is a steady increase unless operations per hour (capacity) is capped. SMAAC is petitioning FAA and Congress to revise the National Airspace Plan by using now-over-used hub airports less and under-used airports (surplus capacity) more as connecting hubs.
For the AOEE, air pollution is the unnoticed elephant in the room. The Federal changes in permited greenhouse gases emissions and carbon footprint treaties will hopefully ride the elephant and trample all over plans to expand the hub at MSP.
There is only one solution: an additional airport well outside the Metro area.