Laserfiche WebLink
facilities. Development of Buffalo Municipal Airport should be enwuraged to provide a . <br />fallback for the reliever system for Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport in the event <br />that the recommendations described previously cannot be implemented or aze not <br />developed. <br />l:n a situation where recommendations for intrasystem diversion aze not implemented <br />and diversion does not occur, growth in general aviation traffic at Minneapolis-St. Paul <br />International is likely. If system diversion is not successfully implemented and delays <br />escalate to intolerable levels in the reliever system, locally generated demand will be forced <br />to rely on a ring of secondary airports that are 20 to 30 miles beyond the metropolitan <br />azea. This so-called secondary-ring of airports, which contains both public and private <br />airport facilities, is shown in Fstrrbit V-1. Reliance on the secondary-ring airports will be <br />necessary. if the parallel and/or new airport recommendations prove infeasible, even if <br />intrasystem demand diversion is accomplished. Because these airports aze beyond MAC's <br />control and the Metropolitan Council's jurisdiction, the metropolitan azea would have no <br />control over the development that takes place at these facilities. MnDOT has recently <br />developed a statewide aviation system plan that contains recommendations for most airports <br />in the secondary ring. These recommendations, along with individual airport master plans, <br />provide guidance on the specific development needs of these airports. In a contingenry <br />mode, development of the secondary ring should be encouraged. This secondary ring cannot <br />serve local or non-local general aviation traffic that would otherwise be served by <br />Minneapolis•St. Paul International; its geographic location makes this highly unlikely. This <br />secondary ring could to some degree, however, serve locally generated. traffic that might <br />otherwise be served by the e~dsting reliever system. This type of contingenry fallback <br />definitely puts the metropolitan area in a reactive rather than apro-active position related <br />to its reliever airport system. Relying on this type of sewndary-ring contingency does not <br />provide an adequate reliever system. In reality, however, this type of contingenry may be <br />necessary. Additional discussion of contingenry development is provided in the airport- <br />specific recommendations section of this chapter. <br /> <br />V-13 <br />