Airport Master Plan October 1985 (2)

Home

i Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc. 111 Monroe Slreet, Anoka, Minnesota 55303 612/427-5860 engineers and surveyors April 17, 1985 Mr. Mark Ryan Metro Council 300 Metro Square Building St. Paul, MN 55101 Re: Gateway North Industrial Airport Response to Comments - Phase I Report Eugene J. Hakanson, P.E: James M. Winter, R.L.S. Lawrence G. Koshak, P.E. Peter R. Raatikka, P,E. ' Dear Mr. Ryan: j4e have reviewed your comments dated December 28, 1984 on the Phase I report for the above referenced Master Plan. We will incorporate the revisions or clarifications as appropriate in the final draft. Our revised schedule is to have the final report completed in mid-July. Your comment on Section 7 raises a question related to the alterna- tives analysis of Alternatives A, B and C. Alternative A was rejected primarily on the basis of design and safety criteria. In order to provide adequate clearances over CSAH 116 and the railroad, the runway would have to be constructed on a man-made ridge. The resulting runway profile and safety area cross sections were rejected as undesireable based on design judgments. Alternative C provided for a primary runway oriented east-west with a crosswind Runway 16-34. This alternative necessitated the closing of Co. 56, a major arterial. The east-west orientation of the primary runway does offer the advantages of lessening the impact of aircraft traffic on residences to the north of the existing airport as well as offering the potential for a longer (up to 4000') runway. However, a primary runway oriented east-west also results in a signi- ficant reduction in wind coverage (81.8 at 10.5 knots) compared to a north/northeast - south/southwest orientation (90.3 at 10.5 knots oriented 16-34 ). A crosswind runway was planned for this alternative because of the low wind coverage. This combined configuration results in virtually all-wind coverage. The practical reality is that crosswind runways are not a priority item for either state or federal funds and it is unlikely that a crosswind would be developed. The result is a primary runway of much reduced utility. we reviewed this alternative with Mn/DOT and were advised that as a general policy, they support development of the primary runway oriented such that the greatest degree of useability (wind coverage) is provided. in essence, this alternative was rejected for lack of support despite several advantages offered over Alternatives A and B. c•ivi! • nuuricipal • planning • soils • land sun¢~~dng • lmrdsrupe arr•hiiecrure