Laserfiche WebLink
RESPONSE TO MN/DOT COMMENTS <br />OFFICE MEMO: 6/27/85 <br />1. Forecasts <br />The based aircraft and operations forecast were developed early <br />in Phase I of the Master Plan Study. As you're aware, historical <br />activity data at small general aviation airports is sketchy at <br />best and often times non-existent. This makes it impossible to <br />develop a refined forecast from a solid data base given a limited <br />amount of time and budget. <br />For Gateway, the accepted NASP planning method was used relying <br />on a correlation between operations and based aircraft. These <br />forecasts were then compared to MC's 1979 system plan forecasts <br />and other airports for reasonableness. (MC's current system plan <br />update forecasts were not as yet developed.) <br />We concur with Mn/DOT that an annual growth rate in the area of <br />3$ is a reasonable assumption for planning purposes. The Master <br />Plan study forecasts use an annual growth rate slightly above 3~ <br />applied to the 1991 operations. This was used based on the <br />premise that a significant growth "burp" in both based aircraft <br />and operations will occur in the year or so immediately following <br />the basic facility upgrading. Applying a 3$ growth to 1991 and <br />beyond yields 32,200 operations by 2005. The difference between <br />this and the Master Plan forecast would not result in significant <br />changes to fundamental development for this basic utility <br />airport. <br />We do believe that growth at Gateway, once improved, will exceed <br />the "average" growth rate due to the low base numbers we're <br />starting with and due to the proximity to the metro area. <br />2. Environmental Considerations <br />It is anticipated that the project will make maximum use of <br />federal AIP funds and thus will require an environmental <br />assessment. <br />