Technical Report - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

• After each of the alternatives was rated, the six evaluation criterion were weighted with an importance ranking factor. Again, a ranking of 1 indicates lowest importance, while a weighting factor of 5 indicates the most important. This ensures that more emphasis is placed on criterion that aze most important for a preferred alternative to possess. For example, ensuring the long-term flexibility of the system may be several times more important than estirnated development costs. In order to determine the criterion ratings and importance weighting factors, a subset of the study's Advisory Committee was asked to provide input on establishing importance weightings and rating the individual alternatives on their ability to satisfy the evaluation criterion. This subset included the Minnesota Department of Transportation,. the FAA, MAC, and the Metropolitan Council. Assessments made by this group were combined to develop the decision matrix presented in Table N-12 • (1) $valuation Criteria Each of the criterion used to evaluate the system alternatives is described in the following sections. A general discussion of how various alternatives rank on each criterion is also provided. 1. Annual Operational Capacity and Delay This criterion measured operational capacity by comparing annual operations to airport or system capacity. As an airport surpasses 80 percent of its operating capacity, average delay per aircraft begins to approach unacceptable delay. For the reliever system as a whole, operational capacity can be seriously affected when one or two facilities experience extreme capacity saturation (100 percent of capacity or greater). Delay is drrectly related to the level of demand placed on an individual airport or system's operational capaaty. As delay increases, the likelihood that aircraft owners and users may seek alternative facilities increases. Therefore, operational capacity and annual delay was given a very important weighting, a factor of 5. ~1 N-48