Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport Long Term Comprehensive Plan Update

2.3.2 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS .......................................................................................30 2.4 GENERAL BASE FORECAST ASSUMPTIONS .................................................. 30 2.4.1 UNCONSTRAINED FORECASTS ............................................................................30 2.4.2 REGULATORY ASSUMPTIONS ..............................................................................30 2.4.3 ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS ...................................................................................30 2.4.4 INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT ......................................................32 2.4.5 SECURITY ENVIRONMENT ....................................................................................32 2.4.6 FUEL ASSUMPTIONS .............................................................................................32 2.4.7 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS.................................................................................32 2.4.8 NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM ............................................................................32 2.4.9 AIRLINE CONSOLIDATION.....................................................................................32 2.4.10 NEW ENTRANTS .................................................................................................32 2.4.11 AIRLINE ALLIANCES ...........................................................................................33 2.4.12 AIRLINE STRATEGY ............................................................................................33 2.5 DOMESTIC PASSENGER FORECASTS ............................................................. 33 2.5.1 METHODOLOGY, ASSUMPTIONS AND DATA SOURCES ....................................33 2.5.2 YIELD AND FARE PROJECTIONS .........................................................................34 2.5.3 PASSENGER ORIGINATION FORECAST ..............................................................35 2.5.4 DOMESTIC ENPLANEMENT FORECASTS ............................................................38 2.5.5 DOMESTIC PROJECTIONS BY MARKET ..............................................................39 2.5.6 AIR SERVICE PROJECTIONS.................................................................................42 2.5.7 DOMESTIC PASSENGET FORECAST SUMMARY ................................................44 2.6 INTERNATIONAL PASSENGER FORECASTS .................................................. 44 2.6.1 METHODDOLGY, ASSUMPTIONS, AND DATA SOURCES ...................................44 2.6.2 FORECASTS BY INTERNATIONAL REGION .........................................................47 MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Update Metropolitan Airports Commission iii 2.6.3 MSP FORECASTS BY REGION ..............................................................................47 2.6.4 MSP INTERNATIONAL ENPLANEMENT FORECASTS .........................................47 2.6.5 INTERNATIONAL PASSENGER PROJECTIONS BY MARKET .............................49 2.6.6 AIR SERVICE PROJECTIONS.................................................................................50 2.6.7 SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................51 2.7 CHARTER ENPLANEMENTS AND AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS ......................... 51 2.7.1 CHARTER PASSENGERS.......................................................................................51 2.7.2 CHARTER AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS .....................................................................53 2.8 SUMMARY OF PASSENGER FORECASTS ....................................................... 53 2.9 AIR CARGO TONNAGE AND AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS .................................. 55 2.9.1 AIR CARGO TONNAGE...........................................................................................55 2.9.2 ALL-CARGO AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS .................................................................56 2.10 GENERAL AVIATION AND MILITARY OPERATIONS ....................................... 56 2.10.1 GENERAL AVIATION .............................................................................................56 2.10.2 MILITARY ...............................................................................................................59 2.11 SUMMARY OF ANNUAL FORECASTS............................................................... 61 2.12 FORECAST SCENARIOS .................................................................................... 61 2.13 GATE REQUIREMENTS ...................................................................................... 65 CHAPTER 3: FACILITY REQUIREMENTS .................................................................. 69 3.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 69 3.1.1 GATE ALLOCATION AND THE TWO-TERMINAL SYSTEM ...................................70 3.2 AIRFIELD CAPACITY ANALYSES ...................................................................... 71 3.2.1 AIRFIELD CAPACITY AND DELAY ........................................................................71 3.3 AIRSIDE REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................. 72 3.3.1 RUNWAYS ...............................................................................................................72 3.3.2 TAXIWAYS AND CIRCULATION .............................................................................72 3.4 GATE REQUIREMENTS ...................................................................................... 72 3.5 TERMINAL REQUIREMENTS .............................................................................. 74 3.5.1 OVERVIEW ..............................................................................................................74 3.5.2 PASSENGER CHECK-IN AREA ..............................................................................76 3.5.3 SECURITY SCREENING CHECKPOINT .................................................................76 3.5.4 BAGGAGE CLAIM AREA ........................................................................................77 3.5.5 US CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION FACILITIES .....................................78 Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Programming ...............................................78 3.6 LANDSIDE REQUIREMENTS .............................................................................. 80 MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Update Metropolitan Airports Commission iv 3.6.1 OVERVIEW ..............................................................................................................80 3.6.2 ROADWAY ACCESS AND CURB REQUIREMENTS ..............................................80 Traffic Volumes on Glumack Drive ............................................................................80 Terminal Curb Roadways ..........................................................................................80 3.6.3 PARKING REQUIREMENTS ....................................................................................82 On-Airport Public Parking Facilities ...........................................................................82 Private Parking Facilities ...........................................................................................83 3.6.4 RENTAL CAR REQUIREMENTS .............................................................................84 3.6.5 GROUND TRANSPORTATION CENTER REQUIREMENTS ...................................85 3.7 LIGHTING AND NAVIGATION REQUIREMENTS ............................................... 86 3.8 SECURITY REQUIREMENTS .............................................................................. 86 3.9 UTILITY REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................... 86 3.10 OBSTRUCTION-RELATED REQUIREMENTS .................................................... 86 3.11 OTHER AIRPORT SERVICES REQUIREMENTS ................................................ 86 CHAPTER 4: ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................... 88 4.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 88 4.2 AIRFIELD.............................................................................................................. 90 4.3 TERMINAL............................................................................................................ 92 4.3.1 LINDBERGH TERMINAL .........................................................................................92 4.3.2 HUMPHREY TERMINAL ........................................................................................102 4.4 LANDSIDE AND GROUND TRANSPORTATION .............................................. 102 4.4.1 LINDBERGH TERMINAL .......................................................................................102 4.4.2 HUMPHREY TERMINAL ........................................................................................108 4.5 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY ...................................................... 108 4.5.1 LINDBERGH TERMINAL .......................................................................................108 4.5.2 HUMPHREY TERMINAL ........................................................................................109 CHAPTER 5: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATONS .............................................. 110 5.1 AIRPORT AND AIRCRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL CAPABILITY ......................... 110 5.2 AIRCRAFT NOISE .............................................................................................. 110 5.2.1 QUANTIFYING AIRCRAFT NOISE ........................................................................110 5.3 MSP BASE CASE 2008 NOISE CONTOURS ...................................................... 112 5.3.1 2008 BASE CASE AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AND FLEET MIX ...........................112 5.3.2 2008 BASE CASE RUNWAY USE .........................................................................116 5.3.3 2008 BASE CASE FLIGHT TRACKS .....................................................................118 5.3.4 2008 BASE CASE ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS ................................................118 5.3.5 2008 MODELED VERSUS MEASURED DNL LEVELS ..........................................118 MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Update Metropolitan Airports Commission v 5.3.6 2008 BASE CASE NOISE CONTOUR IMPACTS ...................................................128 5.4 2030 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FORECAST NOISE CONTOURS ............. 130 5.4.1 2030 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AND FLEET MIX.................................................130 5.4.2 2030 RUNWAY USE ...............................................................................................133 5.4.3 2030 FLIGHT TRACKS ..........................................................................................134 5.4.4 2030 ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS ......................................................................134 5.4.5 2030 NOISE CONTOUR IMPACTS ........................................................................134 5.5 AIR QUALITY ..................................................................................................... 138 5.5.1 AIRCRAFT EMMISSIONS ......................................................................................138 5.5.2 ROADWAY AND PARKING EMISSIONS – MSP 2008 AND 2030 ........................144 5.6 SANITARY SEWER AND WATER ..................................................................... 151 5.6.1 SANITARY SEWER ...............................................................................................151 5.6.2 WATER SUPPLY ...................................................................................................152 5.6.3 SOLID WASTE .......................................................................................................153 5.7 WATER QUALITY .............................................................................................. 153 5.8 WETLANDS ........................................................................................................ 154 CHAPTER 6: LAND USE COMPATIBILITY............................................................... 155 6.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 155 6.2 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY ............................................................................. 155 6.2.1 FAA LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES...................................................155 6.2.2 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES.............156 6.3 RUNWAY SAFETY ZONING CONSIDERATIONS ............................................ 162 6.3.1 FEDERAL RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONES .........................................................162 6.3.2 FEDERAL AIRSPACE PROTECTION ....................................................................162 6.3.3 STATE MODEL ZONING ORDINANCE .................................................................163 State Runway Safety Zones....................................................................................164 State Model Zoning Ordinance Airspace Protection ................................................164 6.4 MSP ZONING ORDINANCE .............................................................................. 164 6.5 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS ......................................................... 166 6.5.1 EXISTING CONDITION LAND USE COMPATIBILITY ...........................................166 6.5.2 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE LAND USE COMPATIBILITY .................................171 MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Update Metropolitan Airports Commission vi CHAPTER 7: FACILITY IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND COST .................... 173 7.1 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY ....................................................................... 173 7.2 COST ESTIMATES ............................................................................................. 174 CHAPTER 8: PUBLIC INFORMATION PROCESS .................................................... 175 8.1 PUBLIC INFORMATION PROCESS .................................................................. 175 8.2 LTCP APPROVAL PROCESS ........................................................................... 176 FIGURES FIGURE E-1: MSP 2030 CONCEPTUAL PLAN ......................................................... E-7 FIGURE 1-1: MAC AIRPORTS IN THE SEVEN COUNTY METROPOLITAN AREA .... 2 FIGURE 1-2: EXISTING AIRPORT LAYOUT ................................................................. 6 FIGURE 1-3: LINDBERGH TERMINAL – LEVEL 1 ....................................................... 8 FIGURE 1-4: LINDBERGH TERMINAL – LEVEL 2 ....................................................... 9 FIGURE 1-5: LINDBERGH TERMINAL – LEVEL 3 ..................................................... 10 FIGURE 1-6: HUMPHREY TERMINAL – LEVEL 1 ...................................................... 11 FIGURE 1-7: HUMPHREY TERMINAL – LEVEL 2 ...................................................... 12 FIGURE 1-8: HUMPHREY TERMINAL – LEVEL 3 ...................................................... 13 FIGURE 1-9: NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY ................................................... 16 FIGURE 1-10: DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY MAP.................................................. 18 FIGURE 4-1: MSP 2030 CONCEPTUAL PLAN ........................................................... 89 FIGURE 4-2: CROSSOVER TAXIWAY CONCEPT...................................................... 91 FIGURE 4-3: LINDBERGH TERMINAL CONCEPT PHASE I (2015-2020) ................. 94 FIGURE 4-4: LINDBERGH TERMINAL CONCEPT PHASE II (2020-2025) ................ 95 FIGURE 4-5: LINDBERGH TERMINAL CONCEPT PHASE II (2025-2030) ................ 96 FIGURE 4-6: NEW INT’L TERMINAL – DEPARTURES LEVEL.................................. 98 FIGURE 4-7: NEW INT’L TERMINAL – MEZZANINE LEVEL ..................................... 99 FIGURE 4-8: NEW INT’L TERMINAL – GROUND LEVEL ........................................ 100 FIGURE 4-9: NEW INT’L TERMINAL – SECTIONS .................................................. 101 FIGURE 4-10: HUMPHREY TERMINAL CONCEPT PHASE I (2010-2015) .............. 103 FIGURE 4-11: HUMPHREY TERMINAL CONCEPT PHASE II (2020-2025) ............. 104 FIGURE 4-12: REALIGN GLUMACK DRIVE ............................................................. 106 FIGURE 4-13: LINDBERGH TERMINAL GROUND TRANSPORTATION CENTER . 107 FIGURE 5-1a: INM FLIGHT TRACKS RUNWAY 04 .................................................. 119 MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Update Metropolitan Airports Commission vii FIGURE 5-1b: INM FLIGHT TRACKS RUNWAY 12L................................................ 120 FIGURE 5-1c: INM FLIGHT TRACKS RUNWAY 12R ............................................... 121 FIGURE 5-1d: INM FLIGHT TRACKS RUNWAY 17 .................................................. 122 FIGURE 5-1e: INM FLIGHT TRACKS RUNWAY 22 .................................................. 123 FIGURE 5-1f: INM FLIGHT TRACKS RUNWAY 30L................................................. 124 FIGURE 5-1g: INM FLIGHT TRACKS RUNWAY 30R ............................................... 125 FIGURE 5-1h: INM FLIGHT TRACKS RUNWAY 35 .................................................. 126 FIGURE 5-2: 2008 BASECASE CONTOURS ............................................................ 129 FIGURE 5-3: 2030 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE CONTOURS ................................ 135 FIGURE 5-4: 2008 BASECASE AND 2030 PREFERRED ALT CONTOURS ........... 137 FIGURE 6-1: RPZs AND STATE ZONES .................................................................. 166 FIGURE 6-2: 2008 BASECASE CONTOURS/2005 LAND USE ................................ 168 FIGURE 6-3: RPZs AND STATE ZONES/2005 LAND USE ...................................... 169 FIGURE 6-4: 2030 PREFERRED ALT CONTOUR/2005 LAND USE ........................ 172 TABLES TABLE 1.1: EXISTING AIRPORT FACILITIES .............................................................. 5 TABLE 1.2: AIRFIELD WEATHER............................................................................... 21 TABLE 2.1: SUMMARY OF SOCIOECONOMIC DATA AND FORECASTS SEVEN- COUNTY METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AREA ............................................................. 25 TABLE 2.2: HISTORICAL ORIGINATING PASSENGERS.......................................... 28 TABLE 2.3: HISTORIC PASSENGER ORIGINATIONS AND REVENUE ENPLANEMENTS......................................................................................................... 29 TABLE 2.4: HISTORICAL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS ................................................ 31 TABLE 2.5: BASE FORECAST OF ANNUAL DOMESTIC ORIGINATIONS .............. 37 TABLE 2.6: BASE CASE FORECAST OF DOMESTIC ENPLANEMENTS ................ 40 TABLE 2.7: FORECAST OF DOMESTIC SCHEDULED PASSENGER AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AND SEAT DEPARTURES .................................................................. 45 TABLE 2.8: FORECAST OF INTERNATIONAL ENPLANEMENTS BASE CASE ...... 48 TABLE 2.9: FORECAST OF INTERNATIONAL SCHEDULED PASSENGER AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AND SEAT DEPARTURES .............................................. 52 TABLE 2.10: FORECAST OF ANNUAL DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL DEPARTURES ............................................................................................................. 54 TABLE 2.11: ENPLANED AND DEPLANED AIR CARGO (SHORT TONS) ............... 57 MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Update Metropolitan Airports Commission viii TABLE 2.12: SUMMARY OF BASED AIRCRAFT FORECAST .................................. 58 TABLE 2.13: FORECAST OF ANNUAL GENERAL AVIATION OPERATIONS ......... 60 TABLE 2.14: FORECAST OF ANNUAL MILITARY AIRCRAFT ................................. 62 TABLE 2.15: SUMMARY OF BASE CASE PASSENGER FORECAST ...................... 63 TABLE 2.16: SUMMARY OF FORECAST AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS ....................... 64 TABLE 2.17: SCENARIO SUMMARY .......................................................................... 66 TABLE 2.18: SUMMARY OF FORECAST GATE REQUIREMENTS - TOTAL ........... 67 TABLE 3.1: IATA SERVICE LEVELS .......................................................................... 75 TABLE 3.2: CBP DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR LARGE AIRPORTS............................ 79 TABLE 3.3: TRAFFIC VOLUMES ON GLUMACK DRIVE........................................... 80 TABLE 3.4: CURRENT CURB CONDITIONS AND FUTURE REQUIREMENTS ........ 82 TABLE 3.5: FUTURE PARKING REQUIREMENTS .................................................... 83 TABLE 3.6: OFF-AIRPORT PARKING ........................................................................ 84 TABLE 3.7: RENTAL CAR REQUIREMENTS ............................................................. 85 TABLE 3.8: GROUND TRANSPORTATION CENTER (GTC) REQUIREMENTS ....... 86 TABLE 5.1: 2008 TOTAL OPERATIONS NUMBERS................................................ 113 TABLE 5.2: 2008 AIRCRAFT FLEET MIX AVERAGE DAILY OPERATIONS .......... 115 TABLE 5.3: 2008 RUNWAY USE ............................................................................... 117 TABLE 5.4: 2008 ACTUAL FLIGHT TRACK USE ..................................... APPENDIX B TABLE 5.5: 2008 MEASURED VERSUS INM DNL VALUES AT ANOMS RMT LOCATIONS ............................................................................................................... 127 TABLE 5.6: SUMMARY OF 2008 ACTUAL DNL NOISE CONTOUR SINGLE-FAMILY AND MULTI-FAMILY UNIT COUNTS......................................................................... 128 TABLE 5.7: 2030 TOTAL OPERATIONS NUMBERS................................................ 130 TABLE 5.8: 2030 AIRCRAFT FLEET MIX AVERAGE DAILY OPERATIONS .......... 131 TABLE 5.9: 2030 RUNWAY USE ............................................................................... 133 TABLE 5.10: 2030 FORECAST FLIGHT TRACK USE .............................. APPENDIX B TABLE 5.11: SUMMARY OF 2030 FORECAST DNL NOISE CONTOUR SINGLE- FAMILY AND MULTI-FAMILY UNIT COUNTS .......................................................... 136 TABLE 5.12: FLEET MIX AND LTO ANNUAL OPERATIONS – 2008 ...................... 139 TABLE 5.13: FLEET MIX AND LTO ANNUAL OPERATIONS – 2030 ...................... 141 TABLE 5.14: TAXI TIMES (MINUTES)....................................................................... 143 TABLE 5.15: 2008 EMISSIONS INVENTORY (TONS/YEAR) ................................... 143 TABLE 5.16: 2030 EMISSIONS INVENTORY (TONS/YEAR) ................................... 144 MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Update Metropolitan Airports Commission ix TABLE 5.17: ROADWAY CRITERIA POLLUTANTS EMISSIONS 2008 (SHORT TONS PER YEAR) ................................................................................................................. 146 TABLE 5.18: ROADWAY CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS 2030 (SHORT TONS PER YEAR) ................................................................................................................. 147 TABLE 5.19: MAJOR MSP PARKING FACILITIES ANALYZED .............................. 148 TABLE 5.20: PARKING FACILITY PARAMETERS ASSUMED FOR THE EMISSIONS ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................. 148 TABLE 5.21: ASSUMED ENTRY PLUS EXIT MOVEMENTS .................................... 149 TABLE 5.22: PARKING CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS (SHORT TONS/YEAR) .... .................................................................................................................................... 149 TABLE 5.23: COMBINED ROADWAY AND PARKING CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS (TONS) ................................................................................................... 150 TABLE 5.24: INFRASTRUCTURE EMISSIONS ........................................................ 151 TABLE 6.1: FAA AIRCRAFT NOISE AND LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES .................................................................................................................................... 157 TABLE 6.2: LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES .......................................... 161 TABLE 6.3: STRUCTURE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS¹ .................................... 162 TABLE 7.1: LTCP IMPLEMENTATION COSTS ........................................................ 174 TABLE 8.1: LTCP MEETING SCHEDULE ................................................................. 175 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: ADDITIONAL FORECAST TABLES APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL TABLES APPENDIX C: COSTS BACK-UP APPENDIX D: DRAFT MSP 2030 LTCP COMMENTS AND RESPONSES MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Update Metropolitan Airports Commission x Note Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) is the only major airport in the United States to have two terminals – the Lindbergh and the Humphrey – located on entirely separate roadway systems. Highway signs and other way-finding aids related to MSP will be updated in 2010 in order to assist travelers in locating the terminals. Numeric designations will be added to the existing terminal names: Terminal 1-Lindbergh and Terminal 2-Humphrey. For the purposes of this document, however, the terminals are referred to by their original names. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Update Metropolitan Airports Commission E-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY E.1 PURPOSE The Metropolitan Council adopted guidelines to integrate information pertinent to planning, developing, and operating the region’s airports in a manner compatible with their surrounding environs. The process to ensure this orderly development is documented in a Long Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) for each airport. In recognition of the dynamic nature of the aviation industry, the plans are to be updated regularly. The previous LTCP for the Minneapolis- St. Paul International Airport (MSP) was completed in 1996. The 2009 update will be the first revision to that LTCP and reflects substantial changes for MSP and the aviation industry over the past 13 years. E.2 NEED The aviation industry has changed since the previous LTCP for MSP was published in 1996. Airline consolidation, shifts in the aircraft fleet, new technologies, and evolving security protocols stemming from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks have resulted in many changes to operations that require new approaches to airport planning. These changes have affected airline service patterns, passenger processing and behavior, and have resulted in some development at MSP that was not part of the 1996 LTCP. Airports work best when the capacities of their various elements are balanced and work in harmony to provide a safe, efficient system of facilities with a high level of customer service. Over time, some of MSP’s facilities have become less efficient and some have not been improved to meet the dynamic needs of today’s travelers. While MSP’s airfield was dramatically improved with the addition of a fourth runway in 2005, portions of the terminal and landside facilities have become outdated and need improvement. MSP’s two-terminal system could be utilized more efficiently to provide better service to airlines and passengers alike. Terminal facilities, including the international arrivals hall, bag-claim hall, passenger security screening, and some concourses, need improvement. Access roads, parking, and terminal curb areas are also in need of enhancements to serve increasing passenger levels into the future. Finally, even with the new runway, MSP’s airfield may require additional taxiways to improve aircraft circulation, especially around the terminal areas. These issues are the primary focuses of this updated LTCP. The LTCP is a 20-year plan for MSP focused on developing facilities to accommodate forecast growth in a safe and efficient manner with a high level of customer service. Proposed improvements are phased to reflect the gradual growth of demand at MSP and to reflect lead time required for detailed planning, environmental analysis, design, and implementation. The LTCP will be updated every five years, consistent with Metropolitan Council guidelines, to ensure planning activities address changes in the aviation industry, demand and local and national economic conditions. E.3 PROCESS AND CONTENT The LTCP consists of five primary tasks: 1. Assessing the condition and capacity of existing facilities 2. Forecasting long-range aviation demand 3. Determining future facility requirements MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Update Metropolitan Airports Commission E-2 4. Identifying and evaluating various development options 5. Selecting a preferred comprehensive plan The LTCP Update identifies the type and location of facility improvements needed to safely and efficiently accommodate aviation demand through the year 2030. The LTCP Update also provides guidance for phasing airport improvements during the development period. Noise contours were also generated for 2030 and are included in the full report. The goals of this LTCP Update were established at the outset of the planning process and are listed here: 1. Provide sufficient, environmentally-friendly facilities to serve existing and future demand; 2. Provide improved energy efficiencies; 3. Encourage increased use of public transportation; 4. Minimize confusion associated with having two terminals and multiple access points; 5. Allow for flexibility in growth; 6. Utilize and maintain existing facilities to the fullest extent possible; and 7. Enhance aircraft operational safety and efficiency. E.4 INVENTORY Existing facilities at MSP were inventoried and their conditions and capacities assessed. The inventory shows that future plans for MSP will require consideration of balancing airfield capacity, terminal capacity, and landside capacity. In addition to properly balancing the capacities of these three functional elements of the airport, more efficient balance and utilization of the airport’s two terminal complexes required consideration. E.5 FORECAST Forecasts of annual passenger boardings and aircraft operations (takeoffs and landings) were completed in June 2009. They show that passenger boardings are expected to increase by more than 73% by 2030, growing from 16.4 million to 28.4 million. Total aircraft operations at MSP are expected to grow by about 40% from 450,000 to 630,000 by 2030. While the current economic recession has resulted in declines in both boardings and operations at MSP since 2005, passenger boardings are expected to return to previous levels in 2013, and operations are expected to return to previous levels in 2019. Additionally, the MAC will initiate a capacity study two years in advance of when MSP is expected to have 540,000 annual operations and will incorporate the results into a future LTCP Update. MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Update Metropolitan Airports Commission E-3 MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Update Metropolitan Airports Commission E-4 E.6 FACILITY REQUIREMENTS Growth in the number of passengers and aircraft operations will require airport facilities to be improved in order to continue operating in a safe and efficient manner. The inventory of airport facilities and existing capacity evaluation identified 15 key focus areas for the LTCP Update to evaluate. Each of these focus areas identified existing facilities that are operating inefficiently today or that are expected to operate inefficiently with moderate increases in passenger numbers. The 15 focus areas are: 1. Balancing passenger demand between the two terminals 2. Reallocation of airlines between the two terminals 3. Arrival curbside capacity (Lindbergh Terminal) 4. Public parking (Both Terminals) 5. Way-finding / Signage for the airport roadways 6. Baggage claim facilities (Lindbergh Terminal) 7. Security Screening Check Points (Lindbergh Terminal) 8. International arrivals (Customs and Border Protection) facilities (Lindbergh Terminal) 9. Regional carrier aircraft gates (Lindbergh Terminal) 10. Refurbishing Concourses E and F (Lindbergh Terminal) 11. Rental car facilities (Both Terminals) 12. Airfield capacity and taxiways 13. The United States Post Office facility (Lindbergh Terminal) 14. Potential development of an airport hotel 15. Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) improvements The analysis concluded that the existing passenger terminal complexes and their landside facilities are not able to accommodate planned forecast growth without expansion. Growth in passenger boardings will prompt additional aircraft gates, parking, roadway improvements and terminal space to allow passengers to enjoy a safe and comfortable airport environment. Balancing passenger demand between the Lindbergh and Humphrey Terminals will result in improved efficiency and customer service of both facilities. This balance can best be achieved by utilizing the Lindbergh Terminal to accommodate Delta Air Lines and its partner airlines while relocating all other airlines to the Humphrey Terminal. The aviation activity forecast suggests that this move should occur by 2015. Though aircraft operations will be growing as well, the existing four-runway airfield is expected to be able to continue operating in a safe and efficient manner without the need for additional runways. Some improvements to taxiways are recommended to help aircraft move around the airfield as they taxi between the runways and the terminal complexes. E.7 CONCEPTS Though it is typical for an airport LTCP effort to provide a series of broad organizational concepts for airport development, the nature of this study was to focus on key facilities and develop concepts that would resolve existing and forecast facility deficiencies. A more detailed description, by subject area, is included in the full report and a summary of the recommendations is provided below and shown on Figure E-1 located at the end of this Executive Summary. MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Update Metropolitan Airports Commission E-5 Lindbergh Terminal ADDITIONAL GATES - Extending Concourse G would provide new gates capable of accommodating domestic or international flights. EXPANDED INTERNATIONAL ARRIVALS (CBP) FACILITY - New, larger facilities will be provided as part of the Concourse G expansion to accommodate forecasted growth in demand for international flights to MSP. SECURITY SCREENING - Reconfiguration of security screening areas would improve efficiency and reduce wait times. BAGGAGE CLAIM - The existing baggage claim hall would be reconfigured with larger, modern baggage claim systems. PARKING - Additional parking garages would be constructed adjacent to the existing garages to accommodate existing and future parking demand. ARRIVALS CURB - Enhancements to the curb area would improve capacity and efficiency for arriving passengers to reach shuttles, taxis, and private vehicles. HOTEL - A site has been identified that would be appropriate for hotel development. Humphrey Terminal ADDITIONAL GATES - New gates would be added by extending the passenger concourses to the north and south accommodating up to 26 additional gates. PASSENGER PROCESSING - Ticketing and baggage claim facilities would be expanded to accommodate additional airlines and passengers. PARKING - Existing garages would be expanded to accommodate future parking demand. RENTAL CAR FACILITIES - Accommodations for rental cars would be provided by developing facilities in expanded existing parking garages. ACCESS ROADS - Post Road and 34th Avenue would be improved and signed to accommodate increasing traffic volumes and simplify circulation. E.8 FACILITY IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND COSTS Improvements must be phased and constructed in response to demand and with consideration for the Capital Improvement Program budget. A preliminary phasing plan prepared for the LTCP Update includes four 5-year phases along with very preliminary cost estimates. These costs are for new development only and do not include normal rehabilitation and maintenance efforts that will be required during this period. The costs are based upon planning concepts for the airport. Preliminary design has not been accomplished for any of these projects. The costs, therefore, represent the general order of magnitude of costs that could be expected for the proposed development. They are expressed in 2009 dollars, with no allowance for inflation. MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Update Metropolitan Airports Commission E-6 • Phase I (2010-2015): Expand Humphrey Terminal and relocate airlines. Cost Range - $380 Million - $445 Million • Phase II (2015-2020): Modernize and expand Lindbergh Terminal, including a new international arrivals facility. Cost Range - $810 Million - $960 Million • Phase III (2020-2025): Complete expansion of Humphrey Terminal, balancing passenger loads between the two terminals. Cost Range - $665 Million - $783 Million • Phase IV (2025-2030): Construct crossover taxiways and access road improvements at Lindbergh Terminal. Cost Range - $190 Million - $225 Million This phasing plan allows improvements to be implemented over a 20-year period in response to gradual increases in demand. It also allows implementation of improvements to occur with minimal disruption to the day-to-day operation of the airport. CHAPTER 1: INVENTORY MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Update Metropolitan Airports Commission 1 CHAPTER 1: INVENTORY 1.1 INTRODUCTION Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) is a commercial service airport located approximately seven miles south of downtown Minneapolis, Minnesota and seven miles southwest of downtown St. Paul. It is owned and operated by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) which was formed by the State Legislature in 1943 as a public corporation to provide and promote aviation services for the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area. In addition to MSP, the MAC operates six other airports in the Twin Cities region: Airlake, Anoka County-Blaine, Crystal, Flying Cloud, Lake Elmo, and St. Paul Downtown. Figure 1-1 shows the location of MSP and the other airports in the MAC system. In 2008, MSP ranked as the 16 th busiest airport in the U.S. in terms of passengers, with 17 million enplanements (passenger boardings). MSP also handled about 234,000 metric tons of air cargo. That same year, about 450,000 aircraft operations (takeoffs or landings) occurred at the airport. The airport covers approximately 3,400 acres. The Long Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) for MSP serves as a guide for the long-range facility development needed to meet the Twin Cities’ forecast growth in commercial aviation demand safely and efficiently, and with minimal environmental consequences. The MAC initiated an update to the LTCP in 2008. In the first phase, a general inventory of existing airport facilities was conducted and some initial concepts for expanding airport facilities were developed. In addition, activity forecasts were updated. This inventory chapter provides an overview of existing airport facilities. Chapter 2 documents the activity forecast update. Phase 2 of the study consisted of determining the capacity of the existing airport facilities, calculating long-range (Year 2030) facility requirements, identifying and evaluating alternative development concepts, selecting a preferred comprehensive plan, and providing a general approach for phasing the expansion. 1.2 NEED FOR LTCP UPDATE The Metropolitan Council adopted guidelines for the MAC to integrate information pertinent to planning, developing, and operating the region’s airports in a manner compatible with their surrounding environs. In recognition of the dynamic nature of the aviation industry, the plans are to be updated regularly. The aviation industry has changed significantly since the last LTCP was published in 1996. These changes include airline consolidation (including the recent merger of Delta Air Lines and Northwest Airlines), shifts in the aircraft fleet, new technologies, and evolving security protocols stemming from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and other threats since that time. Combined, these changes have affected airline service patterns and passenger processing and behavior, and have resulted in some development at MSP that is different from the current LTCP. The changes listed above, as well as variations in growth rates for different aviation activities, have resulted in some imbalances and deficiencies among various airport elements. In the terminal area, these near-term issues include bag claim facilities, public parking, the international arrivals hall, passenger security screening capacity, and a need for refurbishing MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Update Metropolitan Airports Commission 2 FIGURE 1-1: MAC AIRPORTS IN THE SEVEN COUNTY METROPOLITAN AREA MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Update Metropolitan Airports Commission 3 some concourses. On the airfield, consideration will be given to new taxiways to improve aircraft circulation. These near-term issues will be the primary focus of the LTCP Update. The LTCP must examine not just immediate needs, but the long-range vision for MSP must be considered as well, especially given the long lead time for planning, environmental review, design, and actual construction. Key long-range issues include balancing airline activity between the Lindbergh and Humphrey terminals and enhancing the airport’s ultimate capacity. To ensure the LTCP activities address changes in the aviation industry, demand and local and national economic conditions, the MAC will budget and update the LTCP every five years, consistent with Metropolitan Council guidelines. Based on this schedule, the next update will be completed in 2015. 1.3 AIRPORT HISTORY Wold-Chamberlain Field flying activities date back to the formation of the Aero Club of Minneapolis, which leased land at an old concrete race track on the present MSP site in 1920. Government mail service began in 1921 but lasted only three months. In 1923, the airfield was named after two pilots killed in World War I, Ernest Groves Wold and Cyrus Foss Chamberlain. Air mail service was reinitiated by Northwest Airways in 1926, with service under government contract between Chicago and the Twin Cities. In 1928, the airport was taken over by the Minneapolis Park Board and named Minneapolis Municipal Airport. Passenger service began in 1929 with Northwest Airways flying Ford Tri- motors to Chicago. Airport facilities and service continued to expand through the 1930s, and in 1943, the Minnesota Legislature created the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission. The airport was designated Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport—Wold-Chamberlain Field on August 23, 1948. The Charles Lindbergh Terminal was built in 1962, and the original Hubert Humphrey Terminal opened in 1977, initially to accommodate international fights. It is now used by charter flights and a few scheduled airlines. In 1989, the Minnesota Legislature adopted the Metropolitan Airport Planning Act. This legislation required the MAC and the Metropolitan Council (Met Council) to complete a comprehensive and coordinated program to plan for major airport development in the Twin Cities. The planning activities were designed to compare the option of future expansion of Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) with the option of building a new airport. The analysis was completed in 1996, and the MAC and the Met Council formally submitted their recommendations to the Legislature on March 18, 1996. On April 2, 1996, legislation was passed by both the House and Senate, and subsequently signed by Governor Arne Carlson, stopping further study of a new airport and directing the MAC to implement the MSP 2010 Long Term Comprehensive Plan. This plan led to an over $3 billion expansion program including gate and automobile parking expansion and rental car facility consolidation and expansion, culminating in 2005 with the opening of the new Runway 17-35. MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Update Metropolitan Airports Commission 4 1.4 INVENTORY OF EXISTING FACILITIES 1.4.1 OVERVIEW This section summarizes the major functional elements of the airport, including the airfield, passenger terminal, roadways and parking, cargo facilities, general aviation (GA) facilities, and support functions. Table 1.1 found on the following page summarizes the major airport components. 1.4.2 AIRFIELD MSP’s airfield consists of four runways, a network of taxiways, and deicing pads. Runways Figure 1-2 shows the general airport layout for MSP. The airfield consists of two parallel runways, one north-south runway and one crosswind runway. Runway 4-22 is 11,006 feet long (with environmental approvals for an extension to 12,000 feet); Runway 12R-30L is 10,000 feet long; Runway 12L-30R is 8,200 feet long; and Runway 17-35 is 8,000 feet long. Taxiways Each runway is served by at least one full-length parallel taxiway. In addition, a network of taxiways connects each runway with the terminal areas (described in the next section) and other airport facilities. Deicing Pads The parallel runways have deicing pads at each end sized to maintain runway departure rates during deicing conditions. Runway 17-35 has a 7-position deicing pad at the north end only because current operating restrictions normally preclude departures to the north over Minneapolis. All the deicing pads have adjacent facilities to recharge the deicing trucks and rest the deicing crews. A combined deicing operations and maintenance facility adjacent to the 12L deicing pad provides the capability to coordinate deicing operations on all pads. MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Update Metropolitan Airports Commission 5 TABLE 1.1: EXISTING AIRPORT FACILITIES Airport Facility Quantity Runways East-West Parallel (12L-30R) 8,200 x 150 linear ft. East-West Parallel (12R-30L) 10,000 x 200 linear ft. North-South (17-35) 8,000 x 150 linear ft. Crosswind (4-22)¹ 11,006 x 150 linear ft. Terminals Lindbergh Terminal 2.8 sq. ft. (millions) Humphrey Terminal 0.4 sq. ft. (millions) Total 3.2 sq. ft. (millions) Gates Lindbergh Terminal 117 gates Humphrey Terminal 10 gates Total 127 gates Auto Parking Spaces (Public) Lindbergh Terminal 14,400 spaces Humphrey Terminal 9,200 spaces Total 23,600 spaces Cargo Warehouse/Office Space 480,000 sq. ft. Aircraft Apron 229,000 sq. yds. General Aviation Facility 18,500 sq. ft. Notes: (1) Runway 4-22 has environmental approval to be extended to 12,000 feet. Source: 2008 Legislative Report and MAC Analysis MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Update Metropolitan Airports Commission 7 1.4.3 TERMINAL FACILITIES Two terminals serve MSP: the Lindbergh Terminal and the Humphrey Terminal. Together, they provide a total of 2.4 million square feet of terminal facilities and 127 aircraft gate positions. Lindbergh Terminal The Lindbergh Terminal is located between the two parallel runways, east of the crosswind runway. As shown in Figures 1-3 through 1-5, the terminal is laid out with single-loaded and double-loaded concourses that provide 117 gate positions. The gates are distributed among seven concourses labeled A through G. Ten gates can support international arrivals into the International Arrival Facility. A concourse tram and moving sidewalks assist passenger travel along Concourse C. Moving sidewalks also facilitate passenger movement on Concourses A, B, G and through the connector bridge between Concourses C and G. Domestic bag claim functions are located on the lower level where there are 12 sloped-plate carousels, of which 10 are the older circular-shaped devices that have the capacity of 1.2 bags per linear foot. The size of each of these units is 90 linear feet, or a total capacity of 108 bags each. The remaining two sloped-plate units are similar to the carousels that are in the Humphrey Terminal, with a capacity of 1.5 bags per linear foot. The claim frontage of these units in the Lindbergh Terminal is 218 and 306 linear feet, or a total capacity of 327 and 459 bags respectively. Ticketing/check-in, passenger security screening, gate hold rooms, and a wide array of concessions are located on the second level. A ground transportation center, located directly across from the terminal and accessed by a tunnel and skyway, serves as a focal point for multi- modal access. The MAC also has office space and a conference center on the Mezzanine Level of the Lindbergh Terminal. At the time of this writing, the following airlines are currently located at the Lindbergh Terminal: Air Canada, Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, Continental Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Frontier Airlines, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, United Airlines, and US Airways. Humphrey Terminal The Humphrey Terminal, shown in Figures 1-6 through 1-8, provides 10 gates (with four of those serving the International Arrivals Facility) used by Air Tran Airways, Iceland Air, Midwest Airlines, Southwest Airlines, Sun Country Airlines, and several charter airlines. The lower level features the ticketing/check-in area, international arrivals processing, and the bag claim area which has four sloped-plate carousels that are oval-shaped, and have the capacity of 1.5 bags per linear foot. The overall size of each of these units is 145 linear feet, or a total capacity of 218 bags per device. The second floor of the terminal includes the security screening checkpoint and gate hold rooms. The Humphrey Terminal also features a ground transportation center for commercial vehicle service. The Humphrey Terminal is served by a single-level curb facility serving both departing and arriving passenger functions. MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Update Metropolitan Airports Commission 14 1.4.4 GROUND ACCESS AND PARKING Highway Access Minneapolis-St Paul International Airport (MSP) is surrounded by a comprehensive highway network. The Crosstown Highway (State Highway 62) is located directly north of MSP, while Interstate 494 lies directly south of the airport; both run in an east-west direction. State Trunk Highways 55 and 77 are located directly east and west of the airport, respectively, and run in a north-south direction. The Lindbergh Terminal is accessed directly off of Highway 5 via Glumack Drive. The Humphrey Terminal is accessed directly off of 34 th Avenue from I-494, Highway 5, or Post Road (East 70 th Street), via Humphrey Drive/East 72nd Street. The airport has a network of internal roads providing access to general aviation, cargo and other facilities. MSP is the only major airport in the United States to have two terminals – the Lindbergh and the Humphrey – located on entirely separate roadway systems. Highway signs and other way- finding aids related to MSP will be updated in 2010 in order to assist travelers in locating the terminals. Numeric designations will be added to the existing terminal names: Terminal 1- Lindbergh and Terminal 2-Humphrey. Transit MSP has direct access to downtown Minneapolis and the Mall of America via the region’s light rail transit (LRT). Currently, two stations serve the airport; the first is located directly east of the Humphrey Terminal and the second is below ground in the tunnel at the southeast end of the Lindbergh Terminal parking garage. Trains run every seven or eight minutes during peak hours and every 10 to 15 minutes off-peak. Metro Transit provides public bus service to the airport. The bus station is located in the Lindbergh Terminal’s Transit Center. Parking There are approximately 23,600 public parking spaces at MSP, split between the Lindbergh and Humphrey parking ramps. At the Lindbergh Terminal, four parking ramps designated Green, Gold, Red and Blue provide short-term and general parking for passengers and space for rental cars. Short-term parking is located on Level 1 and the Mezzanine Level of the Green Ramp and rental car parking is provided on Levels 2 and 3 of the Red and Blue Ramps. Valet parking is also available in the lower level of the Lindbergh Terminal. There are a total of 14,400 public parking spaces in the areas described above. A tram assists passenger movements to the Red and Blue parking ramps that are located furthest from the Lindbergh Terminal. There are two parking ramps – designated the Orange and Purple ramps – at the Humphrey Terminal that provide a total of 9,200 public parking spaces. The LRT provides access to the Lindbergh Terminal from the Humphrey parking ramps. There is also a cell phone lot located off of Post Road between the two terminals. 1.4.5 CARGO FACILITIES Cargo activity occurs at three locations at MSP. FedEx and UPS operate in a 100-acre “infield” area which provides 269,000 square feet of warehouse/office space and 154,000 square yards of apron space, including the center taxiway. Second, there is a 30-acre “west” cargo area, west of Runway 17-35, that provides a 26,000 square foot cargo building and a 75,000 square yard apron (including the center taxi lane). MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Update Metropolitan Airports Commission 15 Lastly, on the southwest side of the airfield, there are two 40,000 square-foot cargo buildings (for a total of about 80,000 square feet). This site, known as the “air cargo center” does not provide direct aircraft access. 1.4.6 GENERAL AVIATION FACILITIES General aviation (GA) facilities are located on a 37-acre site off East 70 th Street. Fixed Base Operator (FBO) services are provided by Signature Flight Support. In 2002, Signature built a new GA facility, which now provides 18,500 square feet of facilities featuring a lobby, office space, conference rooms, private phone suites, pilot lounge, showers, lockers, a game room and a quiet room. A 3,700 square-foot garage provides indoor storage for ground equipment. There are also about 185 public automobile parking spaces. The site includes about 267,000 square feet of hangar/storage/shop space and 88,000 square yards of apron. The FBO also provides aircraft maintenance. 1.4.7 SUPPORT FACILITIES Support facilities (which include airline maintenance, airport maintenance, Aircraft Rescue & Fire Fighting (ARFF) facilities), Federal Aviation Administration facilities, and miscellaneous facilities are in various locations of the airport. Delta Air Lines (which acquired Northwest Airlines) occupies two maintenance complexes and a cargo facility on the south side of the airport. Most of the old Northwest Building B maintenance facility (adjacent to the Lindbergh Terminal inbound/outbound roadway) has been demolished. Two hangars, an engine test cell and associated facilities that remain (approximately 751,000 sq. ft.), are used by Delta for aircraft maintenance, shops and repairs. Three additional airline maintenance hangars are sited on the western edge of the airfield and provide a total of approximately 247,000 square feet of floor space for hangars, shops, and offices. The main Aircraft Rescue & Fire Fighting (ARFF) facility is located near the center of the airfield on the south side of the runways; a satellite ARFF facility is located on the north side of the airfield between the parallel runways. 1.5 AIRPORT ENVIRONMENT 1.5.1 WETLANDS In the now completed MSP 2010 Airport Expansion Program, impacted wetlands were mitigated through various means in conjunction with the appropriate regulatory agencies. Only a couple of minor remnant wetlands, at the north end of Runway 17, adjacent to the Mother Lake area, are still in existence on the airfield. The wetlands were mitigated through permits granted by the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and in accordance with federal and state laws. The MAC serves as its own local government unit for any Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) jurisdictional wetlands. The Department of Natural Resources would have jurisdiction over any remnants that qualify under its authority. Figure 1-9 depicts the National Wetlands Inventory within the airport property. MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Update Metropolitan Airports Commission 17 1.5.2 WATER QUALITY AND DRAINAGE Water Quality Issues of concern at MSP that have the potential for environmental impact on water resources and that are associated with the airport facility and operations are biochemical oxygen demand (glycol products used for aircraft de/anti-icing operations); total suspended solids in storm water runoff; and oil and grease associated with aviation fueling facilities and operations. The MAC has a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) for storm water discharges from MSP. The MAC also maintains a construction NPDES permit from the MPCA and a Special Discharge permit from the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) for construction dewatering activities. Deicing activities at airports have the potential to effect receiving bodies of water. The MSP Glycol Management Program - a combination of capital improvements and Best Management Practices (BMP) implemented by both the airport and airlines - has been and may continue to be the most effective means to minimize the five-day carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5) discharges to the Minnesota River. The basic objective of the Program is to control the runoff of Aircraft Deicing Fluid (ADF) so that glycol (and therefore CBOD5) discharges to the river are minimized. The source control program seeks to minimize ADF application consistent with safety mandates, and to maximize glycol capture at the location of ADF application. Contained glycol-impacted storm water (GISW) with significant enough glycol content is recycled. Contained GISW with glycol content insufficient for recycling is routed to MCES for treatment. The key components of the MSP Glycol Management Program are five dedicated deicing pads, a plug and pump network adjacent to both terminals, enhanced or new storm water ponds, snow melters, glycol recovery vehicles, runway/pavement BMPs and sophisticated equipment for ADF application. MSP tenant airlines support this program by using sophisticated equipment for ADF application, Glycol Recovery Vehicles (GRVs) to collect spent glycol and/or glycol-impacted storm water (GISW) for recycling and off-site treatment by local Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) through an industrial discharge permit. MAC implemented runway/pavement BMPs including prohibiting use of urea; use of mechanical runway snow removal procedures to reduce chemical pavement deicing and sand usage; advanced weather forecasting to facilitate preventative anti-icing practices; and extensive personnel training on efficient application techniques to minimize pavement deicer usage. Drainage The goal of the airport’s water management plan is to effectively protect and manage water resources while ensuring safe and efficient operation of the airport facility. There are two receiving waters for surface water runoff from MSP—Mother Lake and the Minnesota River. MSP has four drainage areas; one of the four MSP drainage areas discharges to Mother Lake and the remaining three discharge to the Minnesota River. The drainage areas are shown in Figure 1-10. Note: Mother Lake Drainage Area to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District MSP Pond #1, Pond #2 and Snelling Lake Drainage Areas To Lower Minnesota River Watershed District 1-10 MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Update Metropolitan Airports Commission 19 Mother Lake Drainage Area The Mother Lake drainage area from MSP is comprised of approximately 300 acres, of which an estimated 51 acres are hard-surfaced. A large percentage of the surface area is grassland and Mother Lake. Service roadways, and the outward half of taxiways associated with the end of Runways 12R and 17 are the only significant hard-surfaced areas in the Mother Lake drainage area from the airport. Other facilities also discharge to the Mother Lake Drainage Area such as the Richfield maintenance facility, Mn/DOT materials storage and maintenance facility, as well as adjacent portions of Cedar Avenue and Highway 62 roadways. Figure 1-10 identifies two areas as depressed that will not convey storm water flow during typical precipitation events. Storm water conveyed from these two locations flow into the Mother Lake Drainage Area or the MSP Pond #2 Drainage Area. The only significant airport operations within the Mother Lake drainage area are vehicular traffic and aircraft movement on the limited portions of the taxiway. Storm water drainage from the MAC General Office, Field Maintenance and Trades building area flows into the City of Minneapolis storm sewer system, with the exception of the drainage directed into two infiltration basins located east of the Field Maintenance and Trades buildings. There is no access for aircraft within the area directed to the Minneapolis system; therefore, there is no aircraft maintenance, deicing or fueling conducted in this storm water discharge area. Minnesota River North Drainage Area The Minnesota River North drainage area – also defined as the MSP Pond #2 Drainage Area – is the second largest and most intensely developed drainage area on MSP. It is comprised of approximately 797 acres, of which 307 acres are hard-surfaced. This watershed includes a majority of Terminal 1 (Lindbergh), parts of Runways 12L-30R, 12R-30L and 4-22 and associated taxiways, parking and the Fuel Farm. Included in this drainage area are the majority of all fueling activities, aircraft deicing/anti-icing activities, runway sanding and general snow/ice control activities, and other associated airport operations. Snelling Lake Drainage Area The Snelling Lake drainage area has an approximate area of 427 acres, of which an estimated 226 acres are hard-surfaced. This watershed includes the portion of the Lindbergh Terminal servicing regional aircraft, Runways 12L-30R and 4-22 and associated taxiways, inbound and outbound roadways, the US Post Office and Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard Airside Operations. Minnesota River South Drainage Area The Minnesota River South drainage area – also defined as the MSP Pond #1 Drainage Area - is comprised of approximately 1,191 acres, of which 596 acres are hard-surfaced. This watershed includes the Humphrey Terminal and associated parking facilities, Delta Building C, FedEx and UPS Cargo Operations, Metropolitan Transit Commission bus storage facility and the Glycol Recovery Facility. The MAC has an extensive monitoring program to measure the quality and quantity of the MSP discharge to the Minnesota River. In addition, the MAC constructed detention ponds to reduce the potential loading of pollutants into the Minnesota River. Construction of Pond 1 was completed in 2001 and Pond 2 was completed in 2004. The storm water ponds that receive MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Update Metropolitan Airports Commission 20 flow from the airport’s network of storm sewer piping are visually checked daily for signs of petroleum impacts. Pond 1 receives storm water discharges from the Minnesota River South Drainage area, which encompasses virtually all airport activity on the west side of MSP, including the Humphrey Terminal and Runway 17-35. Pond 2 receives storm water from the Minnesota River North Drainage area, which encompasses the majority of airport activity at MSP, including most of the Lindbergh Terminal. Ponds 3 and 4 receive storm water from the Snelling Lake Drainage area, which includes the inbound/outbound roadways, the US Post Office and a portion of the Lindbergh Terminal. MSP Ponds 1 and 2 were designed as an MSP storm sewer upgrade to control discharge of total suspended solids (TSS) to the Minnesota River. These ponds, along with the Mn/DOT pond, discharge through one spillway with three pipes under Highway 5 at the same location. MSP Ponds 1 and 2 each include a forebay area where influent is received. The forebays are the primary TSS separation areas and have an underflow design to protect against floating debris and provide sheen management. The forebays are followed by a large main body that storm water travels through prior to exiting through discharge structures. The discharge structures are equipped with an underflow baffle to prevent floating debris and sheens from discharging. Booms have been deployed across the forebay areas and around the discharge structures to enhance the capability of capturing floating debris and sheens. The ponds also have remotely-actuated valve controls on the discharge structures to supplement the manual controls. Ponds 3 and 4 have a storm water collection system that is comprised of a detention storm water basin followed by a retention storm water basin in series. 1.6 SANITARY SEWER, WATER AND SOLID WASTE 1.6.1 SANITARY SEWER Wastewater discharges from MSP are conveyed to the MCES Metro Plant on Childs Road. This plant has a design capacity of 250 million gallons per day. Wastewater is discharged to the Metro Plant through MCES’ sewer interceptor system. Discharges from MSP are conveyed to the interceptor system through the sewer systems of three different jurisdictions. The majority is discharged from the airport to a tunnel near the Mississippi River that discharges into the interceptor system. A small volume of wastewater is discharged into the City of Minneapolis sewer system prior to reaching the MCES interceptors. Wastewater from the southwest portion of MSP is discharged through the City of Richfield sewer system prior to reaching the MCES interceptors. 1.6.2 WATER SUPPLY All of the potable water used on the MSP campus is provided by the City of Minneapolis via three trunk main connections located along the northern boundary of the airport. Water usage is generated at the terminal buildings due to passenger amenities such as restrooms and concessions, cleaning requirements, and tenant facilities. Other airfield water uses include irrigation, rental car wash facilities, tenant hangar areas and cargo uses. The average daily water use reached 989,000 gallons per day in 2007, and declined slightly to 916,000 gallons per day in 2008. Peak flow requirements are largely dependent on fire flow demand. The peak fire flow demand is 4,500 gallons per minute for four hours at either the Lindbergh or the Humphrey Terminal, which is met by the existing system. MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Update Metropolitan Airports Commission 21 1.6.3 SOLID WASTE MSP is located in Hennepin County, whose solid waste management plan provides for an integrated waste management system of transfer stations, waste processing, combustion facilities, recycling programs and facilities, yard waste composting and land-filling. Using a centralized solid waste management system, the MAC contracts with a single vendor for all solid waste hauling at the Lindbergh and Humphrey Terminals. Trash is moved from the point of generation to six locations and from there is moved off-site by the airport’s vendor. Compactors are used in all terminal locations to reduce waste volume which reduces the number of loads that must be transported off-site. The airport provides the traveling public with a “dual stream” offering of receptacles in the terminal public areas. Newspapers/magazines and plastic/glass bottles/cans are collected separately. Recycling containers are located throughout the terminals but concentrated in gate areas where most recyclable materials are discarded. The MAC’s contracted vendor is required to deliver all municipal solid waste directly to the Hennepin Energy Recovery Center (HERC), a waste-to-energy facility. Part of an overall regional solid waste management plan, the HERC facility is owned by Hennepin County and burns trash for energy recovery. 1.7 METEOROLOGICAL DATA In general terms, MSP enjoys good weather to accommodate the high level of operations associated with a major hub airport. Table 1.2 below shows the historical percentages of different weather categories at MSP. VFR 1 is the best weather for flight operations. All aircraft can make what are called visual approaches to the airport in VFR 1 conditions. Departures can also use initial visual separation. The airport has the highest airfield capacity in VFR 1 conditions. TABLE 1.2: AIRFIELD WEATHER Ceiling/Visibility Occurrence (%) VFR 1 VFR 2 IFR 1 IFR 2 3,200 feet and above/8 statute mile (sm) and above 1,000 to 3,200 feet/3 to 8 sm 200 to 1,000 feet/0.5 to 3 sm Below 200 feet/below 0.5 sm 70.7 20.9 8.2 0.2 Total: 100.0 Source: Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport Capacity Enhancement Plan, December 1993, Figure 10. VFR 2 is almost as good as VFR 1 from an airfield capacity standpoint. In VFR 2 conditions, approaches typically need to be put on an instrument approach for the first part of the final approach phase. This increases aircraft separation slightly. Approaches to all three runways in the “north flow” condition (converging between Runway 35 and Runway 30L and 30R) can still be conducted in most VFR 2 conditions. Departures cannot use initial visual separation, so separations between departing aircraft also need to be increased slightly. In IFR 1 conditions, all aircraft need to be on an instrument approach for the entire phase of the approach. Aircraft separation needs to be increased slightly beyond the separation used in VFR MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Update Metropolitan Airports Commission 22 2 conditions. Approaches to Runway 35 cannot be conducted at the same time approaches are occurring on Runways 30L and 30R, which causes an additional decrease in arrival capacity. In IFR 2 conditions, operations can be significantly limited, depending on the direction of the wind. Aircraft need special equipment and pilots need special training to land during IFR 2 conditions. In addition, runways need to be specially-equipped for operations during IFR 2 conditions. Runways 12R and 12L are both equipped to accommodate operations in IFR 2 weather, and they can be used simultaneously, as long as aircraft maintain a staggered separation between adjacent runways. For north winds, Runway 30L is equipped for limited operation during IFR 2 conditions, and Runway 35 is fully equipped for IFR 2 conditions. However, the runways converge and cannot be used simultaneously for arrivals. Fortunately, the occurrence of IFR 2 conditions is very low, and the winds tend to be calm or are from a southerly direction a majority of the time in this condition. 1.8 LAND USE, AIRSPACE AND ZONING Chapter 6 provides an analysis of land use, airspace and zoning considerations in the context of existing and planned airport facilities. CHAPTER 2: FORECASTS MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Update Metropolitan Airports Commission 23 CHAPTER 2: FORECASTS 2.1 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) is updating the Long Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) for Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP). A critical element of this plan is to balance the long-term airfield, terminal, and landside facilities serving the airport. A re-appraisal of the forecasts is especially timely, given the acquisition of Northwest Airlines by Delta Air Lines and the impacts of recent fuel price increases and the current economic recession. This forecast analysis contains the annual and derivative activity forecasts for the airport. Except where noted, the forecasts contained herein are unconstrained; they assume landside and airfield capacity will be available to accommodate the anticipated demand. Forecasts are presented for 2010, 2015, 2020, 2025, and 2030. Separate annual forecasts were developed for scheduled domestic and international passenger, non-scheduled passenger, air cargo, general aviation, and military activity. This analysis first discusses historical and anticipated socioeconomic activity in the Twin Cities area, followed by a discussion of historical aviation activity and ongoing trends at MSP. Critical assumptions are then presented followed by the forecasts of domestic and international passengers, along with forecasts of non-scheduled passengers and peak activity. Forecasts of air cargo tonnage and operations, and general aviation and military activity are then discussed. The technical report concludes with a summary of forecast annual activity, estimated gate requirements, and a discussion of alternative forecast scenarios. The assumptions in the following forecasts are based on input from airline and airport officials, previous MSP studies, relevant literature, and professional experience. Forecasting, however, is not an exact science. Departures from forecast levels in the local and national economy and in the airline business environment may have a significant effect on the projections presented herein. These uncertainties increase toward the end of the forecast period, when new technologies and business strategies and changes in work and recreational practices may have an unpredictable impact on aviation activity. For these reasons, the forecasts should be periodically compared with actual airport activity levels, and airport plans and policies adjusted accordingly. Tables 2.1 through 2.18 are included in this chapter, the rest of the tables, denoted with letters, can be found in Appendix A of this report. 2.2 ECONOMIC TRENDS Passenger demand is determined by the strength of the economy and the cost of available services. Consequently, the development of an aviation activity forecast requires a clear understanding of local economic forecasts and trends. The service area definition corresponds to the seven counties that comprise the Metropolitan Council (Met Council). This core area includes Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington Counties. Larger service area definitions that encompass additional counties have been tested in previous MSP forecast efforts, but in those studies, passengers proved to be most sensitive to trends in the 7-county Met Council area. MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Update Metropolitan Airports Commission 24 Table 2.1 presents historical and projected population, employment, income and per capita income for each county of the Met Council area. The tables in the Appendix provide more detailed information by county and also show data for the United States for comparison purposes. Two sets of forecasts are presented in the Appendix, one from the Met Council and the other from Woods & Poole Economics. Both the Met Council and Woods & Poole socioeconomic forecasts have their strengths and weaknesses. The Met Council forecasts are prepared locally and reflect a detailed knowledge of the existing and projected growth trends within the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area. However, they do not include projections of income or projections of national activity. Income is important because an analysis of historical registered aircraft data by county indicated that registered aircraft were more closely correlated with income than with population or employment. Also, much of the analysis will be based on Federal Aviation Administration projections of national general aviation activity. For this analysis to be valid, the local and national socioeconomic projections need to be based on a consistent set of assumptions. The Woods & Poole forecasts are more recent than the Met Council forecasts. They also include personal income and prepare metropolitan and national forecasts using a common set of assumptions. However, the Woods & Poole forecasts do not incorporate a detailed knowledge of local growth trends and development constraints. A hybrid forecast that incorporates the strengths and minimizes the weaknesses of the two data sources was prepared for use in this study. For each county, Met Council forecast growth rates were applied to the latest base year data. These forecasts were then adjusted, on a prorated basis, to sum to the Woods & Poole forecasts for the 7-county Met Council metropolitan area. 2.2.1 POPULATION Table A.1 of Appendix A shows historical population in the Twin Cities, Minnesota, and the United States. The historical population information was obtained from the Bureau of Economic Analysis in the US Department of Commerce. The Twin Cities have grown at a more rapid pace than the United States. The suburban areas are also growing slightly more quickly than the urban core (Hennepin and Ramsey Counties). Table A.2 of Appendix A presents two alternative forecasts of population for Minneapolis-St. Paul. The first forecast was obtained from the Met Council’s revised Regional Development Framework 2030 Forecasts and is available only for the 7-county Met Council area. The second forecast was obtained from Woods & Poole Economics, which provides forecasts for all counties and metropolitan areas in the United States. As shown, the two sources provide very similar forecasts for the 7-county area, both projecting an average annual growth rate slightly above 1.0% through 2030. The forecasts project the metropolitan area to continue to grow faster than the state, and the outer suburbs to grow faster than the inner suburbs. Year Population Employment Income (thousands of 2007 $) Per Capita Income (2007 $) 1990 2,298,418 1,603,044 76,546,647 33,304 1991 2,332,897 1,605,181 76,567,544 32,821 1992 2,368,710 1,628,288 79,552,668 33,585 1993 2,406,000 1,662,568 80,492,172 33,455 1994 2,441,014 1,713,409 84,046,939 34,431 1995 2,474,926 1,766,851 88,005,525 35,559 1996 2,508,406 1,802,255 91,965,878 36,663 1997 2,540,725 1,834,525 96,874,609 38,129 1998 2,575,454 1,884,161 104,644,525 40,631 1999 2,613,594 1,927,990 109,008,820 41,708 2000 2,652,116 1,972,269 115,532,307 43,562 2001 2,684,454 1,982,015 116,168,728 43,275 2002 2,701,403 1,964,849 116,954,718 43,294 2003 2,714,033 1,971,415 118,465,846 43,649 2004 2,730,546 2,004,534 123,102,449 45,083 2005 2,745,769 2,045,068 124,827,612 45,462 2006 2,767,734 2,082,727 127,735,714 46,152 2010 2,924,557 2,233,505 129,480,127 47,023 2015 3,118,761 2,421,649 146,564,763 49,913 2020 3,318,224 2,609,428 165,854,464 53,087 2025 3,524,942 2,796,788 187,853,049 56,602 2030 3,744,009 2,983,675 212,841,334 60,379 1990-2006 1.2% 1.6% 3.3% 2.1% 2006-2030 1.3% 1.5% 2.2% 1.1% Sources: Tables A.1 through A.8 and HNTB analysis. Average Annual Growth Rate TABLE 2.1: SUMMARY OF SOCIOECONOMIC DATA AND FORECASTS SEVEN- COUNTY METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AREA MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Update Metropolitan Airports Commission 26 2.2.2 EMPLOYMENT Table A.3 in Appendix A presents historical employment for each of the seven Met Council counties, the service area, and the United States. The table shows the economic cycles that have occurred over the past two decades, including the boom times of the mid- to late-1980s and mid- to late-1990s, punctuated by the slowdowns and declines of the early 1980s, early 1990s, and 2001-2003. Overall, the metropolitan area has grown slightly more rapidly than the U.S. and again the outer suburbs have grown slightly faster than the inner suburbs. Employment forecasts from the Met Council and Woods & Poole are presented in Table A.4. in Appendix A The Met Council uses a stricter definition of employment than is used by the US Bureau of Economic Analysis (USBEA) or Woods & Poole and therefore its historical and projected employment numbers are lower.1 2.2.3 INCOME AND PER CAPITA INCOME Consequently, to facilitate comparison an adjusted set of Met Council projections was developed by applying Met Council growth rates to base year USBEA numbers. The Met Council projections (0.9% per year) are more conservative than the Woods & Poole projections (1.5% per year). Table A.5 in Appendix A shows historical income in the service area and the United States from 1980 through 2006. All numbers are provided in thousands of 2007 dollars. Total income in the metropolitan area grew at 3.3% annually through 2006, a higher rate than in the remainder of the State or the United States (2.9%). As was the case with employment, income has alternated between periods of rapid growth and periods of stagnation. No income data specific to the 7-county area are available for a more recent year than 2006. However, since the 2008- 2009 recession has already had an impact on air travel demand, an effort was made to estimate income for more recent years based on State and national data. Those estimates are also presented in Table A.5. Table A.6 in Appendix A shows historical per capita income in 2007 dollars. Per capita income in the Twin Cities is higher than in the rest of the State or than in the United States. Over the past 20 years, Minnesota per capita income has grown at roughly the same pace inside and outside the metropolitan area but more quickly than in the United States. Projected per capita income is shown in Table A.7 in Appendix A. No Met Council forecasts are presented because the Met Council does not publish income or per capita income forecasts. Woods & Poole projects per capita income to continue to grow but at a more moderate rate than it has in the past. This, in part, reflects an expectation that the growth in the economy will slow down as more members of the Baby Boom generation enter retirement. Per capita income is projected to grow at roughly 1% per annum in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, and in the United States. Table A.8 in Appendix A presents two sets of income projections. The unadjusted Woods & Poole forecasts project real income to grow 2.4% per year in the metropolitan area. A second set of projections combines the Met Council population forecasts with the Woods & Poole per capita income forecasts to generate a hybrid income forecast for the 7-county service area. The resulting forecast was also adjusted downward to reflect lost economic growth in 2008 and 1 The Bureau of Economic Analysis employment statistics, upon which Woods & Poole projections are based, include the self-employed in addition to wage and salary workers. MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Update Metropolitan Airports Commission 27 anticipated in 2009. The adjusted forecast projects income to increase at 2.2% rate over the forecast period. 2.3 HISTORICAL AVIATION ACTIVITY AND CURRENT TRENDS This section provides a brief overview of historical passenger, cargo (freight and mail), general aviation and military activity at MSP. 2.3.1 PASSENGER ACTIVITY Table 2.2 shows historical domestic and international originations and Table 2.3 shows historical passenger enplanements at MSP from 1980 through 2008. In general, passenger growth has tracked economic growth. There were periods of slow growth in the early 1990s, and 2000-2003 and periods of more rapid growth in the mid- to late-1990s, as well as 2004 and 2005. Enplanements began to decline after 2005 and originations declined between 2007 and 2008. Key trends and factors at MSP over the past 24 years include: • the reduction in traffic growth after 1987 following the Northwest/Republic merger and the economic slowdown; • two rapid periods of regional carrier growth, first in the 1980s with the advent of code- sharing and then in the late-1990s with the widespread proliferation of regional jets; • significant international passenger growth through the period as Northwest introduced non-stop service to Europe and Asia and the Canadian markets became liberalized; • an extended period of passenger growth corresponding with the economic boom of the mid- and late-1990s; • a brief slow-down in the growth in 1998 as a result of the Northwest work stoppage; • another spurt in growth in 1999-2000 corresponding to Sun Country’s introduction of scheduled service and Northwest’s competitive reaction; • a major downturn beginning in 2001 as a result of the September 11 th terrorist attacks and associated security restrictions and passenger apprehensions coupled with an economic slowdown; • rapid growth in 2004 resulting from an improving economy and relentless fare competition; and • a decline after 2005 resulting from Northwest’s Chapter 11 filing, followed by a rapid increase in jet fuel costs, and followed in turn by the financial crisis of 2008 and subsequent economic recession. Total domestic originations have grown at a 3.0% average annual rate over the period. Total enplanements have grown at a 4.7% average annual rate over the same period indicating that international passengers and connecting enplanements have grown more rapidly than originating enplanements. International enplanements and regional carrier enplanements have grown most rapidly. Conversely, non-scheduled enplanements have grown the slowest and declined in recent years, although this is largely due to Sun Country’s change in emphasis from charter to scheduled operations. Year Domestic Originations (a) Combined International (b) Total Originations 1990 4,284,240 n/a n/a 1991 4,288,090 n/a n/a 1992 4,414,590 n/a n/a 1993 4,511,050 n/a n/a 1994 4,598,270 n/a n/a 1995 5,021,830 n/a n/a 1996 5,411,820 n/a n/a 1997 5,750,780 n/a n/a 1998 5,736,650 n/a n/a 1999 6,365,610 n/a n/a 2000 7,225,020 n/a n/a 2001 6,603,320 709,489 7,312,809 2002 6,207,930 680,392 6,888,322 2003 6,390,140 675,401 7,065,541 2004 7,074,980 780,332 7,855,312 2005 7,609,360 840,887 8,450,247 2006 7,643,820 888,697 8,532,517 2007 7,857,050 951,196 8,808,246 2008 7,291,815 (c) 963,631 (c) 8,255,446 1990-2008 3.0% n/a n/a 2001-2008 1.4% 4.5% 1.7% (a) USDOT, Origin-Destination Survey as compiled by DataBase Products, Inc. (c) Extrapolated from first three quarters. Sources: As noted and HNTB analysis. (b) USDOT, Origin-Destination Survey for U.S. Flag Carriers. Originations for Foreign-Flag Carriers estimated. TABLE 2.2: HISTORICAL ORIGINATING PASSENGERS Average Annual Growth Rate Domestic International Air Carrier Air Carrier Regional Non-Scheduled TOTAL Year Enplanements Enplanements (b) Enplanements Enplanements Enplanements (c) 1980 4,285,217 28,731 159,727 113,793 4,587,468 1981 4,391,802 57,871 129,497 85,869 4,665,039 1982 5,071,395 50,574 178,590 82,278 5,382,837 1983 5,702,094 49,638 256,615 149,486 6,157,833 1984 5,986,288 73,014 287,762 187,076 6,534,140 1985 7,114,367 83,533 349,281 312,186 7,859,367 1986 7,845,494 81,700 481,188 238,972 8,647,354 1987 8,171,206 85,023 509,246 205,700 8,971,175 1988 8,023,121 65,265 516,083 266,344 8,870,813 1989 8,349,920 78,910 415,910 343,418 9,188,158 1990 8,609,638 102,673 495,439 387,320 9,595,070 1991 8,683,232 124,125 492,075 353,590 9,653,022 1992 9,550,986 144,255 566,186 419,060 10,680,487 1993 9,851,910 170,544 649,104 350,918 11,022,476 1994 10,261,328 166,114 646,788 457,715 11,531,945 1995 11,288,317 256,669 617,477 501,792 12,664,255 1996 12,142,783 276,575 720,749 481,532 13,621,639 1997 12,578,587 419,048 872,377 465,628 14,335,640 1998 12,645,248 519,395 820,709 635,290 14,620,642 1999 14,020,304 575,079 1,211,306 650,350 16,457,039 2000 15 278 927 644 096 1 204 681 399 683 17 527 387 TABLE 2.3: HISTORIC PASSENGER ORIGINATIONS AND REVENUE ENPLANEMENTS 2000 15,278,927 644,096 1,204,681 399,683 17,527,387 2001 14,379,588 558,276 809,019 280,609 16,027,492 2002 13,794,354 551,203 1,054,192 365,023 15,764,772 2003 14,045,747 572,691 1,250,064 233,692 16,102,194 2004 14,901,675 677,318 1,778,396 240,250 17,597,639 2005 14,849,344 790,806 2,138,186 205,975 17,984,311 2006 14,143,459 692,757 2,190,679 151,412 17,178,307 2007 13,496,662 980,460 2,406,447 85,515 16,969,084 2008 11,750,665 1,264,507 3,336,724 32,376 16,384,272 1980-1990 7.2% 13.6% 12.0% 13.0% 7.7% 1990-2001 4.8% 16.6% 4.6% -2.9% 4.8% 2001-2008 -2.8% 12.4% 22.4% -26.5% 0.3% 1980-2008 3.7% 14.5% 11.5% -4.4% 4.7% Sources: MAC activity statistics and HNTB analysis. Average Annual Growth MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Update Metropolitan Airports Commission 30 2.3.2 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS Table 2.4 presents historical aircraft operations at MSP. Each aircraft takeoff and each aircraft landing counts as an operation. Total aircraft operations have grown at an average annual rate of 1.7% over the 28-year period. The fastest growing categories have been international and regional passenger carriers. Conversely, general aviation and military operations have been declining. 2.4 GENERAL BASE FORECAST ASSUMPTIONS This section describes the general forecast assumptions that were applied in this forecast. More detailed assumptions specific to a particular activity category are described in the sections pertaining to those categories. These general assumptions also apply to the forecast scenarios except where noted (see section 2.12). The major assumptions are as described below. 2.4.1 UNCONSTRAINED FORECASTS The revised unconstrained forecasts contained herein are physically unconstrained. For the purposes of this study, “physically unconstrained” means that there are sufficient airport airfield, terminal, and landside facilities at the airport to accommodate all commercial aviation activity dictated by demand. Although no airfield limits are assumed for general aviation (GA), it is anticipated that the development of on-airport GA facilities will follow current trends. Therefore, it is assumed that limited on-airport GA facilities will continue to divert GA to reliever airports. It is assumed that destination airports will be developed sufficiently to accommodate demand from the Twin Cities. However, it is recognized that airfield capacity constraints at some airports, such as London Heathrow and Tokyo Narita, will force an increase in aircraft size that would not occur in a truly unconstrained case. 2.4.2 REGULATORY ASSUMPTIONS No return to airline regulation, as occurred prior to 1979, is assumed. This means that airlines will increase service and change fares as market conditions dictate. Also, except for the demand management scenarios, the forecasts in this report assume no slot control systems for MSP or destination airports other than those already in place. 2.4.3 ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS The forecasts assume no major economic downturn, such as occurred during the depression of the 1930s. The local and national economies will periodically increase and decrease the pace of growth in accordance with business cycles. However, it is assumed that, over the forecast term, the high-growth and low-growth periods will offset each other so that the economic forecasts described in Section 2.2 will be realized. As noted in Section 2.2, the socioeconomic projections used for these forecasts have been adjusted for the current economic recession. Domestic International General Year Air Carrier Regional Air Carrier (b) Non-Scheduled All-Cargo Aviation Military Total 1980 146,524 12,128 350 1,976 1,214 114,260 6,604 283,056 1981 146,338 9,904 472 2,568 1,446 97,278 5,606 263,612 1982 150,450 22,838 390 2,478 2,556 82,303 5,359 266,374 1983 170,108 33,924 388 3,752 3,192 83,548 5,100 300,012 1984 189,830 35,938 506 2,234 5,966 93,367 7,721 335,562 1985 220,190 31,460 628 3,346 5,338 106,715 14,020 381,697 1986 231,760 50,520 680 2,426 12,360 71,406 6,869 376,021 1987 213,540 56,410 644 3,002 15,434 70,050 8,676 367,756 1988 211,562 58,896 544 2,836 17,958 68,634 6,698 367,128 1989 218,168 59,338 718 3,310 17,194 71,669 4,347 374,744 1990 223,884 74,446 860 4,538 18,526 58,864 2,804 383,922 1991 225,390 75,856 1,078 5,046 20,280 55,702 2,534 385,886 1992 242,670 85,926 1,222 5,824 18,900 60,929 3,003 418,474 1993 258,374 108,237 1,285 4,855 15,198 49,216 2,825 439,990 1994 264,519 115,164 1,478 6,103 14,110 50,898 2,451 454,723 1995 281,334 106,763 1,832 6,832 15,909 49,769 2,915 465,354 1996 295,776 105,926 2,256 8,750 20,362 49,786 2,624 485,480 1997 294,220 102,038 3,821 8,350 15,011 64,209 3,624 491,273 1998 278,828 90,421 5,109 11,531 15,323 79,757 2,044 483,013 1999 314,883 109,017 6,036 10,600 17,271 49,256 3,358 510,421 2000 341,980 89,105 7,224 5,959 18,395 58,076 2,473 523,2