Technical Report - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Of the eight alternatives, Alternative 1, with no development other than increasing aircraft storage as needed, did little to increase the system's capacity or alleviate projected delay. Therefore, Alternative 1 received a ranking of 1. Alternative 2, with limited airside development at Lake Elmo and some infra-system diversion, was slightly more efficient with regazd to overall system delay; however, with Alternative 2, Anoka County-Blaine is still projected to be operating in excess of 100 percent of available capacity. Therefore, Alternative 2 received a rating of 2. Alternatives 3, 4, anti 5 received ratings of 3 and Alternatives 6 and 7 received ratings of 4. Each of these alternatives provides operational relief to Anoka County-Blaine; however, they are not capable of reducing demand to 80 percent of Anoka County's operational capacity. Alternative 8 received a ranking of 5 because it produces the lowest average annual delay, the lowest total system demand to ASV ratio, and allows each airport to operate at 80 percent or less of its respective ASV. A summary of rankings for this criterion is as follows: Alternative $~tll]g 1 1 . 2 2 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 4 7 4 8 5 Table N 13 summarizes system capacity and average delay per operation for each of the alternatives. 2. Development Costs This category evaluated cost estimates for major airside improvements that are unique for a specific alternative. In each alternative, it was assumed that landside improvements will continue to keep up with projected increases in based aircraft. Therefore, no cost estimates for landside improvements (namely, aircraft storage) were included in this analysis. Each reliever airport appears to have enough undeveloped land to accommodate the number of .projected based aircraft as well as assigned diverted aircraft. When possible, development costs for airside improvements were taken from existing master plans or other relevant studies. To express these costs in 1989 dollars, estimates were inflated by 6 percent annually from the year they were developed. Development costs received a weighting factor of 3. rv-so