Laserfiche WebLink
ALTERNATIVES <br /> <br />The following basic alternatives have been identified: <br /> <br />1. "Do-Nothing" <br /> <br />Develop existing public airports only to the <br />extent to which improvements have been <br />already programmed. <br /> <br />2. Maximum Development <br /> <br />Develop and promote all existing publicly <br />owned airports inb the system are <br />developed to the fullest jDlanned levels. <br /> <br />Develop New Airport <br />in Search Area A <br />plus "Do-Nothing" <br /> <br />This alternative assumes a new airport is <br />implemented in Search Area, but that no <br />additional improvements are made in the <br />at" other airports in the system. <br /> <br />Develop New Airport <br />in Search Area A <br />plus Maximum Development <br /> <br />This alternative assumes a new airport is <br />implemented in Search Area, and that the <br />additional improvements assumed in <br />Alternative 2 are made at the other airports <br />in the system. <br /> <br />Airports Considered In the .Analysis <br /> <br />The following airports are to be included in the analysis: <br /> <br />o Anoka County-Blaine o Flying Cloudh <br />o Crystal o Gateway North <br />o Airlake o "Search Area A" <br />o MSP International o Buffalo <br />o Flying Cloud o Maple Plain <br /> <br />Figure 2 shows the location of each of these airports. Airports located in the <br />eastern portion of the metropolitan area were included for capacity analysis <br />since it may be possible to serve some of the demand from the western half <br />of the region at those airports. The analysis considers the tradeoffs caused <br />by the additional travel time required for east metro solutions and west metro <br />solutions. <br /> <br />One policy assumption has been made that private airfields in the Metropolitan <br />Area will be closed by the year 2010 because of the demand for other land uses, <br />lack of developed aviation facilities, and other economic and environmental <br />constraints will make them not viable. Publicly-supported airports, which have <br />access to airfield improvements funds and are more capable of protection from <br />development pressures, are assumed to remain in the system. This assumption <br />affects Gateway North under Alternatives 1 and 3. <br /> <br />Gateway North and Carver County are considered in subalternatives to <br />Alternatives 2 and 4. These subalternatives explore the feasibility of meeting <br />regional demand by ensuring that Gateway North is improved as planned, <br />including public ownership, and that the current feasibility study being <br />conducted in Carver County results in a small airport. <br /> <br /> <br />