Airport Master Plan October 1985 (2)

Home

i Figure E-1 illustrates the noise footprint for 1979 activity at Hartford. Figure E-2 illustrates the same footprint overlayed on the proposed runway at Gateway. Note that all significant noise levels are wholly contained within the proposed airport boundaries. Figure E-3 illustrates land use compatibility guidelines for the various Ldn levels. This overview points out that perceived noise is an issue. An environmental assessment would address noise impacts in more detail, however, an INM analysis is neither warranted nor contemplated at this point. Further, if the Master Plan forecasts are thought to be high, then the necessity for the quantitative noise analysis becomes even more remote. This is not to say, however, that a concerted effort towards alleviating noise as a public concern should not be initiated. Cost Effectiveness, Physical and S A point is raised about the cost effectiveness of improvements at the existing airport vs. possible development at other sites. The point is valid assuming that there is a viable alternate site in Ramsey and assuming that airside growth potential of the airport is desired. The City has previously evaluated sites and ultimately determined that development of the existing airport was preferred to development of a new site. At this point in time, no potential alternative sites are under con- sideration in Ramsey, or anywhere else that we are aware of in the - adjoining communities. Comment - Aviation Forecasts. Response - It is recognized that there are significant differences between the Master Plan Study forecasts and MC's updated system plan forecasts. It is believed, however, that MC's forecasts are ultra conservative. MC's growth rate of based aircraft is more indicative of a mature system than it is representative of growth at individual airports. To illustrate, its application to Gateway results in the following: Based Aircraft Historic Actual 1979 28 1980 33 1981 24 1982 23 1983 #N/A 1984 12 1985 22 Forecast 1989 0 (construction) 1990 25 1991 30* 0.78 growth rate applied 1995 31 2000 32 2005 33