My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Technical Report
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Dissolved Boards/Commissions/Committees
>
Airport Commission
>
Reports
>
Technical Report
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2010 10:49:20 AM
Creation date
5/12/2010 10:39:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Miscellaneous
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
345
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
reaches 80 percent of capacty. The-new airport would only reach 56 percent <br />of capacity by the end of the planning period. For Alternative 6, total system <br />demand will approach 66 percent of the available capacity. <br />Alternative 7 will lower total system demand to 65 percent of available <br />capacity. W1We three of the reliever airports (Anoka County-Blaine, St. Paul <br />Downtown, and Flying Cloud) will remain at 80 percent of their available <br />capacity, no airport will surpass this critical mark by a significant margin. <br />Alternative 8 provides the lowest utilization of capacity: 62 percent. No <br />system airports significantly surpass 80 percent of available capacity. The new <br />airport will be able to accommodate demand well beyond the planning period. <br />Alternative 1, with no system capacity enhancements, was rated lowest <br />with regard to long-term flexibility and received a rating of 1. Alternatives <br />2, 3, 4, and 5 are somewhat more flexible than Alternative 1; however, <br />expansion capabilities are very limited with these alternatives. Therefore, they <br />received ratings of 2. <br />Alternative 7, providing for improvements at Anoka County-Blaine, is <br />rnnsidered moderately flexible (a rating of 3), because it provides for <br />additional capacity in ahigh-growth area. Alternative 6 received a rating of <br />4 because it provides for a new general aviation airport in ahigh-growth area <br />of the system. Aktetztative 8 received a rating of 5, because it combines the <br />capacity enhancements of Alternatives 4 and 6. . <br />A summary of rankings for this criterion is as follows: <br />Alternative BSS1II1: <br />1 1 <br />2 2 <br />3 2 <br />4 2 <br />5 2 <br />6 4 <br />7 3 <br />g 5 <br />6. Implementation Feasibility <br />This criterion was used to assess the feasibility of implementing the <br />development alternatives. While this was one of the most subjective decision <br />criterion, it was also one of the most important, because it considered <br />potential political and community opinions and the likelihood of funding being <br />. available. As with all of the criterion, ratings provided by MAC, the <br />Minnesota Department of Transportation, the Metropolitan Council, and the <br />N-56 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.