Airport Master Plan October 1985 (2)

Home

Page 2 April 17, 1985 While Alternative B does impact a greater number of homes to be acquired than does Alternative A, it does offer a better runway pro- file than Alternative A, lower initial construction costs (not including ultimate acquisition costs) than Alternative A and generally higher clearances over roadways and obstructions than Alternative A. Alternative B also offers greater utility of the primary runway than Alternative C due to higher wind coverage. The relocation of CSAH 116 also is more acceptable to the City and County than is the closure of County 56. Another consideration which is somewhat unique is that due to the proximity of the landfill, several residents view the acquisition of their homes for airport expansion as a positive not a negative impact. No weighing of individual factors was applied to the analysis since it became self-evident that Alternative B was the only alternative which would be acceptable. With respect to your comment and questions on Section 8 relative to noise impacts, a clarification will be made in the text that the runway is to serve predominantly aircraft under 12,500 pounds. The size of aircraft which could use the facility, for the most part, is limited by virtue of runway length and pavement strength. No noise analysis has been done nor are any contemplated by us under this study. The A. V.T. I. had expressed interest in doing some noise monitoring as an independent project, but none has been accomplished that we are aware of. Safety zones A and B have been considered throughout the evaluation of alternatives and proposed acquisition plan. Thank you for your comments on the Phase I draft. If you have addi- tional questions or comments, please contact us. Sincerely, HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INC. n ~~ Me lad Otto /mlc cc: Jack Ippel, Chairman, Ramsey Airport. Comm. Harry Nemec, Mn/DOT