Mpls-Issues tip: PLEASE trim the previous message when responding. The redundant
characters make tough reading for Digest subscribers and needlessly lengthens download
times.
-----------
Citizens,
The ongoing airport debate is a complex issue for the city of
Minneapolis, one in which unilateral action on the part of city
officials is largely symbolic. I strongly opposed expansion of MSP
International for the very reasons that now dominate the debate on sound
insulation--relentless and excessive noise pollution from low flying jet
aircraft. To make matters worse, the Metropolitan Airports Commission is
preparing to abandon its 1996 promise to insulate homes within the 60
DNL contour. Political expediency at its very worst. Furthermore, MAC's
forecasts of air traffic fell far short of reality, leaving Minneapolis
to fend for itself while its neighborhoods continue to be degraded on a
daily basis. Federal and state control of the airport leaves the city in
a position of a lobbyist, where political positions take on the
appearance of policy. But Minneapolis can do nothing about the airport
problem without help from the state and federal government. At the same
time, even symbolic votes can help sway opinion. I would urge the city
council of Minneapolis to work together to form a cohesive long-range
position on the MSP International Airport and use whatever political
power it does possess to end this nightmare.
A point of clarification regarding the new North-South runway. There is
a common misconception regarding the purpose of the new runway. I've
heard it over and over. This billion dollar runway does absolutely
nothing to relieve aircraft departures or landings over the city of
Minneapolis. In fact, the opposite is true. As designed, the North-South
runway is by agreement with the city of Minneapolis, intended only for
departures to the south over Eagan and the Minnesota River Valley and
under certain circumstances, landings from the south. These restrictions
are also weather and traffic dependent, as jets normally take off only
into the wind. Thus, when the wind is "wrong" (Northerly or
Northwesterly for example), the North-South runway will be largely
idled. Even without such an agreement, this runway would be difficult to
use simultaneously with the parallel runways. Though the North-South
runway does not physically cross the parallel runways, its flight paths
would interfere with the coordination of landings or takeoffs on the
parallel runways. Thus, the new runway is designed only to relieve jet
congestion on the ground by getting airplanes into the sky more quickly,
thus allowing for more aircraft to land and depart from the parallel
runways. There are of course capacity limits to the parallel runways,
which we are now nearing. Unfortunately for those under the glide paths
and departure vectors, new air traffic control measures will allow even
more simultaneous landings and takeoffs over Minneapolis in the future
by decreasing the needed physical separation between aircraft. If you
think one landing every two minutes on each of the parallel runways is
bad, wait until you try one per minute.
Dennis Jon
Ward 11 - Park District 6
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
