Transcripts

text | pdf |

---

PERRY FANELLI: As for the state of Minnesota, cloudy skies across Northern Minnesota, maybe a few sprinkles today. Elsewhere, partly to mostly sunny. We should see high temperatures reaching the lower 40s in parts of Duluth and the lower 60s in Rochester today. For the Twin Cities, partly sunny skies this afternoon, 55 for a high and southerly winds 10 to 20 miles per hour.

In Duluth now cloudy and 44, Rochester, cloudy and 46. In Thief River Falls, the temperature is 38. In the Twin Cities, mostly cloudy skies now and 48. And that's the news from Minnesota Public Radio, I'm Perry Fanelli.

GARY EICHTEN: Six minutes now past 12:00 and welcome back to Midday on the FM news station, I'm Gary Eichten. Programming on Minnesota Public Radio is supported by Schatz, Paquin, Lockridge, Grindal and Holstein, with offices in the Twin Cities and Washington, D.C.

This week, officials are expected to recommend that Twin Cities International Airport stay right where it is. The Metropolitan Airports Commission is expected to vote tomorrow to expand the existing airport, rather than build a new airport in Dakota County. The Metropolitan Council is expected to make a similar recommendation on Thursday, and then the Minnesota Legislature begins hearings on Friday to ratify the recommendation.

Seven years ago, the Legislature ordered the so-called Dual Track study to answer growing concerns over airport noise and airport capacity. Last winter, Governor Arne Carlson said enough was enough. He said, it had become clear there was no need for a new airport, and that it was time to wrap up the $10 million study and get on with expanding the existing airport.

That apparently is what will happen and joining us today to discuss that decision are two long-time members of the Metropolitan Airports Commission, John Himle from Bloomington and Steve Cramer from Minneapolis. We'd also like to invite you to join our conversation, good chance to get some of your questions answered about this process and where we go from here.

If you have a question or comment about moving or expanding the airport, give us a call. Twin City area number is 227-6000, 227-6000. Outside the Twin Cities, you can reach us toll free at 1-800-242-2828. 227-6000 or 1-800-242-2828. Gentlemen, thanks for coming by today.

JOHN HIMLE: Thank you, Gary.

GARY EICHTEN: We appreciate your being here. John Himle, let's start with you in a nutshell. I know this is asking a lot, but why have you chosen to expand the existing airport rather than move to the new one?

JOHN HIMLE: There are several reasons, but I believe there are three at least that stand out. One is that the current airport can be expanded to meet the future air capacity needs of this region, second, that expansion can be made at substantially less cost, and third, the new airport option carries far more risk. And so by phasing in the expansion at the current site, we can substantially reduce the risk to taxpayers and to the public.

GARY EICHTEN: Steve Cramer, you represent Minneapolis and the folks especially in South Minneapolis really pushed hard for construction of a new airport.

STEVE CRAMER: Yes.

GARY EICHTEN: Is the process being short-circuited? Is it being stopped too soon? Do you have enough information to make this decision?

STEVE CRAMER: Well, Gary, I think the information is in. I think that the process has been truncated at a time that would allow that information to be fully assimilated and debated for further questions to be asked of the analysis that has been done. So I do feel that we're coming to a rush to judgment as opposed to a more deliberative judgment, and I think that's unfortunate.

But I think it is true that the studies have been completed, that the information is in front of us. What we lack now, I think, is enough time to really debate and analyze and go back and forth and let this decision settle in so that people feel that it really is the right choice for the next 20 or 30 years.

GARY EICHTEN: I understand the study was supposed to go on for another seven months? Is that it?

STEVE CRAMER: Well, the state statute indicates that MAC is to come back with a recommendation by July of this year, so we're not acting in contravention to the state statute. But I think there was at least an expectation that the recommendation would be made after the session and there would be some time before it would then be forwarded to the 1997 Legislature.

GARY EICHTEN: Do you think the decision would be different if you spent several months listening to the public talk about this?

STEVE CRAMER: I'm not sure that the decision would be different, but I think that some additional questions would be asked, some further analysis maybe would be requested. There would be some refinements of some of the assumptions that we've based much of the analysis on.

And generally speaking, as I said, I think the decision would settle better and maybe have a longer term effect than the way it's coming to an end now, which will leave some people feeling that there has been a rush to judgment and we need to keep poking at this over the foreseeable future.

GARY EICHTEN: John Himle, the Legislature is already supposed to start hearings on your recommendation on Friday. Do you expect that the Legislature will vote yet this session to start expanding the airport?

JOHN HIMLE: There does seem to be some movement by the Legislature to consider this issue yet this session. And I think some people are looking at it and saying that really, the results of our study and the public debate that's occurred thus far seem to be very, very clear in favor of expanding at the present site.

And maybe it's best to try to get this decision finalized and over with, particularly before the election, and second, to allow MAC to proceed and get going with the expansion options and some of the other mitigation measures that would be pursued.

GARY EICHTEN: Are there any indications that the Legislature will reject the recommendations that you folks and the Met Council are going to make?

JOHN HIMLE: I think it's unlikely that the Legislature would reject the recommendations. I do think the Legislature will at least probably have some areas of comment that they will seek to address in the context of this bill and perhaps in the future.

STEVE CRAMER: I think one of the most interesting areas and perhaps this will come up tomorrow at the MAC and Thursday at the Met Council as well, is whether there should be some more affirmative statement about continued site preservation activity for the future. While it's clear that folks want to make MSP work at its current site for as long as possible, I think there are still questions about how long that will turn out to be.

And should we simply abandon the work that's been done to date to find a future home for the airport, or should we somehow try to preserve that work. That may be an area that both the Metro agencies and the Legislature will spend some time on here in these next few weeks.

GARY EICHTEN: At this point, though, there's no provision, no plan really to buy up a bunch of land and set it aside, right?

STEVE CRAMER: That's correct.

GARY EICHTEN: We have a full bank of calls, phone calls, as you might expect, as we're talking about what to do about the airport situation, whether to expand or whether to move to a new location. So if you're listening right now and you'd like to join our conversation, we do want to hear from you, but don't call right now because you'll get a busy signal and you'll just get frustrated.

So give us about five minutes here, we'll get through some calls, and then you can join our conversation. Our Twin City area number is 227-6000, 227-6000. Outside the Twin Cities, the toll free number is 1-800-242-2828. Our guests today, Steve Cramer and John Himle, who are members of the Metropolitan Airports Commission. The MAC votes tomorrow on its recommendation to expand the existing airport. First caller is from Saint Paul. Bob, your question please?

BOB: Yes. There's been a lot of talk about the expansion needs of the airport, the capacity requirements of the airport. But I'd like the two guests to talk a little bit about the carrying capacity of the surrounding communities to handle increased levels of noise or present levels of noise.

I know in air quality areas, they have ambient air quality regulations that establish a maximum limit on an annual average or 24-hour average basis that the SO2 can't increase above. And I would like to see the same thing for noise and that the Legislature adopt a policy that no expansion could occur at any location if noise conditions would exceed certain ambient levels established by law.

GARY EICHTEN: What's going to happen with noise? So Steve Cramer, that's, of course, a big issue in Minneapolis.

STEVE CRAMER: Well, we know already that the airport or the noise that emanates from the airport is in violation of the state's noise standard. That's been adjudicated and that standard can't apply to the airport because of federal preemption and interstate commerce, et cetera, et cetera.

But from that measure, the airport already has exceeded its environmental capacity. And I think noise will continue to be a serious environmental consequence of having the airport, now an expanded airport in literally the backyard of some very heavily populated neighborhoods in Minneapolis, Saint Paul and the surrounding suburban communities.

GARY EICHTEN: Will it be worse with the expansion?

JOHN HIMLE: Well, based on forecasts, certainly, we will likely see more air traffic over the ensuing years. However, it's important to point out that the number of operations are not likely to increase in proportion to the number of passengers simply because we're going to be relying more and more on larger aircraft.

Second point I would make, though, is the fact that the stage 3 aircraft, which are now part of a federal mandate to convert to stage 3 aircraft, means that this airport will see significantly less noise generated here. Currently, just over a third of the aircraft are stage 3, which are the quieter aircraft. And by the year 2000, this airport will be fully stage 3, which certainly will help. It's not a "be all, end all," but it will certainly make a noticeable difference, and has already.

GARY EICHTEN: Can you give us some idea what kind of a difference that's going to make? I mean, if you had stage 3 aircraft, these new fancy models flying over your house on a regular basis, would you still go crazy, or are they sufficiently quiet that you could live with that pretty comfortably?

STEVE CRAMER: Well, I've always said that if we could snap our fingers and have an all stage 3 fleet overnight, that probably would, from a perception standpoint, make a difference.

But because the integration of stage 3 aircraft will occur over a number of years and because Northwest strategy to meet compliance with the federal law that John cited is to hush kit a number of the older aircraft, which are now stage 2 but can become stage 3-compliant by retrofitting their engines, they're stage 3, but just barely, because of all those factors, I think there will still be a substantial noise impact out there.

And when you add to that the increased number of flights overall at the airport, it continues to be an issue. But as measured by the noise metric that the FAA uses, we will, as John said, see a shrinkage of the noise contour. I just think it's important for people not to believe that that makes the noise problem go away. It's a little bit like defining a problem away. On paper, it looks that way, but the reality is something different.

GARY EICHTEN: What about noise insulation or buying out a large number of the homes or the properties that are affected by noise?

JOHN HIMLE: The Metropolitan Airports Commission has been very aggressive, in fact, on that point. In fact, we've been the most aggressive airport of any in the country of utilizing insulation, noise mitigation measures in surrounding neighborhoods. I think it's important to point out that we have done both pre and post-surveys of people that have been affected through these measures and have found that people have indicated that they are very, very much in favor of this insulation.

And in fact, for many people who previously indicated that they might leave the city of Minneapolis or other noise-impacted neighborhoods, have now indicated that it was enough of a difference that they would now stay. Again, it's not the only measure, but it's certainly one that this airport has been very committed to and will stay committed to in the future.

GARY EICHTEN: Do you think that the issue of airport noise will go away, then?

STEVE CRAMER: I can speak from my own experience, I don't think it will. I took great interest in the map that was published over the weekend showing property values in Minneapolis, and John perhaps saw that as well, and you, Gary, and some of the listeners. And it showed clearly the important effect of amenities in Minneapolis, the chain of lakes and the Minnehaha Parkway and the park system, and then moving up to the River Road.

Much of that area of strong property value growth will continue to be stressed by the airport, among other factors. And I think that as noise continues as an issue, it'll continue to be an important political one for the city as well as for the citizens. We have to deal with that environmental impact because the city has to hold on to that strong, vibrant, middle income, upper middle income neighborhood for the health of Minneapolis over the long run. So it will continue to be an issue.

GARY EICHTEN: Didn't the same map, though, show that property values were actually increasing-- well, really, right along the airport even.

STEVE CRAMER: Very definitely. Not along the airport. In the southeast corner, there were some declines in property value, and I think that reflects the immediate impact of the airport and the slightly lower housing stock. My point was that property value growth has remained strong despite this impact.

And it's incumbent upon the city to maintain that as one of the few areas that has shown that characteristic. And it can only be stressed so long and so much before that begins to change, and that's why it will remain an issue in my estimation.

GARY EICHTEN: You're going to build a new north-south runway, I understand. Now, is that going to increase noise in Bloomington?

JOHN HIMLE: The north-south runway will shift some element of noise away from the parallel runways. And that the north-south runway will be used as a takeoff runway to the south. And in fact, some people have said, well, aren't you going to take off to the north? Well, no, you can't because then you would be intersecting the parallel runways on those takeoffs, so it'll strictly be a takeoff runway to the south.

However, part of the beauty of it is that it does not impact heavy residential neighborhoods. The takeoff path, if you can visualize this, would be essentially between the Mall of America and what is now the Ceridian Health Partners building on the east. And so it's going over primarily a commercial area. There would be some homes impacted, but substantially less than what you see off the parallel runways right now.

GARY EICHTEN: Dick, your question, please.

DICK BEAMS: Yes. Hi, this is Dick from Minneapolis, Dick Beams. I was involved in the airport process for many years. I've recently read the contingency assessment report and the dual track report to the Legislature, and strikingly, and it's the first time I've seen them, the cost between the two, when adjusted for inflation, are not that far apart. They show that the cost of expanding the new airport is $4.9 billion, or of expanding the present one and the cost of building the new one is $6 billion.

Those same reports indicate that we're going to be at capacity. Essentially, we're at saturation right now. But we'll be there again, even with the new improvements in the present airport by the year 2020.

I would be interested in Mr. Himle and Mr. Cramer's views on what effect, if any, this would have on land banking in particular. It strikes me that the cost difference isn't that much, and we could end up spending $4.9 billion to be in the same place we are today and then have to build a new airport anyway in 25 years. And I'll hang up and listen.

GARY EICHTEN: Thanks for your call. First of all, let me clarify here or you fellas could clarify. I had heard that the cost difference was what, $6 million-- it was about $1.7 billion difference. What is it going to cost to expand, and what would it cost to move to the new airport?

JOHN HIMLE: The hard costs for expansion, if you assume all the features that have been built into it, including the west movement to the terminal to the west, that the high-end costs of that would be approximately $2.8 billion. The new airport, if you were to build, would cost approximately $4.5 billion. But both of those exclude highway costs that would be off the airport premises itself.

In addition, you have to factor in what would be financing costs of the two options. And to build a new airport, it's important to remember you've got to build the whole thing right away, as opposed to expanding MSP over a period of time. And so you have substantially higher financing costs that are in excess of $1 billion. It's difficult to get it fully to an apples-to-apples comparison, but it's safe to say that the costs of a new airport are probably in the neighborhood of at least $2 billion more.

GARY EICHTEN: Now if you added in some provision to set aside land so that once you get past the year 2020, if you needed to build a new airport, if you added that in, what would be the cost difference, roughly?

STEVE CRAMER: Well, the cost estimates for outright acquisition of, just as an example, the site in Dakota County, depending on when that land was disposed of, ranged from $120 to $150 million, if that was the site preservation strategy, outright acquisition, there are probably things that could be done short of that that would preserve a site, allow for continued agricultural use, and minimize disruption to the lifestyle in Dakota County, which certainly was an issue raised time and time again, legitimately, by residents of that area who participated in the public hearing process.

But from a cost standpoint, the estimate that we received was $120 to $150 million.

GARY EICHTEN: Is it conceivable that-- our caller mentioned that you're already operating full bore out there in capacity and so on. Is it conceivable that you've grossly underestimated the need for expansion, that you'll pour the better part of $1 billion into the existing airport and a few years from now say, oops, well, I guess we're going to have to build a new one after all? Is that possible?

STEVE CRAMER: I think that's the nub of the debate.

JOHN HIMLE: I would suppose it's possible, but it's not probable. Let me explain why. If you take a look at the addition of the north-south runway, it increases our takeoff capacity at this airport by 50%. We will now be able to have three functioning runways as opposed to two.

And I think it's also important to realize that while we have used as the planning forecast number, 520,000 operations a year and roughly 33 million passengers, that the expansion of MSP can accommodate upwards of 640,000 operations per year and 48 million passengers per year.

So in effect, there's a mid-range forecast, which we've used for planning purposes, but there's also a high-end. Now, the high-end, yes, would incur some delay during weather conditions that would impact this airport. But by and large, this airport, bottom line, can accommodate the future air travel needs of this region. And I think that's a forecast and that's a number that we can feel a high degree of confidence in.

STEVE CRAMER: I think the question that Dick Beams raises, though, is this, with the north-south runway, I think John is right. This airport can accommodate traffic for the foreseeable future, but we are moving towards the capacity that even that would create at a much more rapid rate than people had expected. In 1994 to '95, just as an example, passenger traffic increased by 10%. December to December '94-'95, it was 13%.

We know that the latest round of Met Council population updates for the region suggests that population growth is even higher than we had expected. So the hubbing ratio, the number of planes that come in and out and bring connecting passengers in for Northwest, which is a proxy for keeping the flight levels up, is 58%. Our baseline forecast assumed 45%.

So all of the indicators are that we are tracking on the high end of that forecast, not the medium range. So we may get to a point where we have to make much more difficult decisions about expanding the current site than adding the north-south runway. I think there will be some consensus on that.

But when we begin talking about moving the terminal, and certainly, when we would get to a discussion of a yet another runway, which would be a third parallel and expose areas of South Minneapolis and Eagan-Mendota Heights to overflight that have never been exposed before, those will be extraordinarily, extraordinarily difficult decisions to make, and I think probably will not be made.

So we may reach those more difficult decisions about this site much more rapidly than the year 2020, and I think that's the issue. Should we be prepared for that day and take some steps now, or should we just rest on our laurels, make this decision, and just hope that all of this goes away for the next 25 years?

JOHN HIMLE: Gary, if I could just jump in. I think it's important to realize that airports exist to move passengers and cargo, not to move aircraft. And that my point here is that you're seeing a shift in the type of aircraft that are now coming into the fleets of the major airlines around the country, primarily to larger aircraft.

And in fact, even on a commuter aircraft level, Northwest Airlink has indicated that they're phasing out their 19-passenger turboprops in favor of larger capacity aircraft as well as the major air carriers. And so the point being that the level of operations will actually grow much slower while they're able to accommodate far more passengers simply because you're moving through larger types of aircraft. And that is a trend that the aircraft industry has indicated will clearly be with us for a while.

GARY EICHTEN: Our guests today are John Himle and Steve Cramer, who are members of the Metropolitan Airports Commission. Tomorrow, the Commission will vote to expand Twin Cities International rather than build a new airport down in Dakota County. Then on Thursday, the Metropolitan Council will take a similar vote or at least it's expected to. And then the Legislature gets in the act again on Friday.

And today, we're talking with Mr. Cramer and Mr. Himle about the decision. And if you'd like to join our conversation, if you've got questions on the airport, give us a call. 227-6000 is the Twin City number, 227-6000. Outside the Twin Cities, you can reach us toll free at 1-800-242-2828. Next caller is from New London, Minnesota. Graydon, go ahead, please.

GRAYDON: Yes, sir. I have a few points to make, maybe. It seems like that most cities can't stop expanding. Now, what's going to happen in-- so we built a new airport, and then the city surrounds it, and you still have the noise problems. It seems like people will move into an area-- move into an area around the airport, and then they complain about the noise.

Maybe that should be zoned. If you have an airport, maybe you shouldn't have people living around it? So you're going to create the same problem in, I don't know how many, 10, 20 years. And then what happens to the old site if you do happen to move?

And then also, if you do move, how much space can people take up? In other words, we've got land here that's causing a lot of runoff. From the runways, parking ramps, it's just wasted land, except for an airport. Now, if you build another one, we're going to have an old one sitting here, and the new one is going to take up more land. People just seem to be taking up more land and more land. There's no space, say, for wildlife, and of course, the runoff into the rivers. That's about all I had to say, I guess.

GARY EICHTEN: Comments on his points?

STEVE CRAMER: I would just make one point about the impact of the airport on people who live nearby, at least in the case of the surrounding neighborhoods to MSP, as it currently exists. Many of those neighborhoods, certainly, the South Minneapolis neighborhoods, were there and existed prior to the airport becoming the major international hub that it is today.

So I think where zoning is really applicable, this region has done a pretty good job of trying to preserve flight corridors and make the international airport as compatible as possible with the surrounding residential character. But in the case of South Minneapolis and much of Richfield and part of Bloomington, that simply hasn't been possible.

And you really don't want to, I think, adopt a policy of abandoning those neighborhoods to make the neighborhoods compatible with the airport. It's got to be more of a mutual situation.

GARY EICHTEN: If we were to build a new airport, what would we do with the land there with the existing one?

JOHN HIMLE: Denver is currently dealing with that issue right now in terms of the old Stapleton Airport. And thus far, they really have been unsuccessful in trying to redevelop it. Now, understand that development of that scale does require a fair amount of time, but there are a lot of environmental mitigation issues that would occur with sites such as that.

And I think, frankly, we also have to be realistic about the fact that movement of an airport to a new location will attract development going in that particular direction. Dulles Airport outside of Washington, D.C., has certainly been a case study in that. But the proposal to redevelop the current airport site, if a new airport were to be built, essentially calls for office space, some industrial space, and perhaps some residential property put into that as well.

GARY EICHTEN: One other question related to our caller there, we hear a lot about the need in the metropolitan area to essentially stop sprawl and to start rebuilding what's already existing, fill it out again from the-- did that play a role here? The goal to preserve green spaces out in Dakota County, was that a big factor?

STEVE CRAMER: Well, we certainly heard a great deal from folks representing Dakota County and residents there about the importance of maintaining the agricultural character of that area. And so that was an important part of the public testimony.

We also heard, though, that in looking at development patterns accompanying major airport investments over the last 30 years that it was important to take into account-- in terms of what would happen, it was important to take into account the natural pattern of growth that was occurring in a region anyway.

So as an example, when Atlanta Hartsfield Airport was expanded, that didn't shift growth in the direction of the airport because the natural direction of growth was to the North of the Atlanta downtown. When Kansas City built a new airport, contrary to the direction of growth, that didn't shift growth towards the new Kansas City airport.

So I think in this case, with the strong tradition of land use planning and to some degree, land use control that exists in this metro area, had we made the decision, or if in the future, the decision is to relocate the airport away from the CBDs of Minneapolis and Saint Paul, it won't be done in a way that aggravates sprawl, but we'll try to control it to the extent that it can, given a major infrastructure decision like that having some impact, surely.

GARY EICHTEN: Sean, your question, please.

SEAN: Hi, thanks for taking my call. First, I have a couple of comments and I have a question I'd like to thank you for making the point that these neighborhoods were here long before anyone ever dreamt of what this airport would become. And many of the residents that live here have lived here under these noise conditions longer than people ever dreamt that these jets would be taking off and coming in like they are.

And also, in terms of our property values, they may be holding steady now, but it's obvious there are plans to incrementally expand the existing airport. And what happens to the property values of these neighborhoods when the front door of the airport is that crosstown in Cedar? I just don't think we can continue to hold values that way.

And also, if you looked at the turnover, the values may be staying high, but if you look at the turnover within the neighborhoods, as people get worn down from the noise because basically, the sound insulation program is just a Band-Aid. When you're outside, I can be screaming at my two-and-a-half-year-old to stop and not run into the street, and she can't hear me. It may help when you're inside, but outside, you're still bombarded, so that doesn't help much.

My question is, don't we already have Minnesota noise pollution laws, and aren't they already in violation? And if so, how long can we-- what can we do to stop Northwest and the other airlines from violating these laws? And what does it say to the public that we seem to have no recourse and no control and nothing we can do--

GARY EICHTEN: Steve, you represent Minneapolis.

STEVE CRAMER: Well, as I said earlier, the airport or at least the activities generated by the airport generate noise that do violate the MPCA noise standard in the state of Minnesota, but because of federal preemption and interstate commerce considerations and other constitutional issues, there is no effective way for the state agency, even if they were of a mind to, to try to enforce that standard at MSP.

So it just is a reflection, I think, of the environmental impact that the airport does have, given its current location. And I would just say, in terms of shifting the front door of the airport towards South Minneapolis, that really is, I think, a much larger and more difficult question for a lot of people, for Minneapolis, for Northwest Airlines, for the Commission.

Then, as an example, the north-south runway, where I think ultimately there will be some consensus that there may be some benefit there from a noise standpoint to redistribute traffic. But when we begin talking about spending a lot of money for a new terminal that will influence land use, I think, literally, to the shores of Lake Nokomis in South Minneapolis, that becomes a very, very difficult thing for Minneapolis to accept, I believe.

GARY EICHTEN: How long do we have before you have to get to that part of the plan? I understand it's-- essentially, you're talking about a two-part expansion program. First, build an extra runway, essentially, and that's more or less it. But then there's the second phase where you make some pretty significant changes out there. How long before you get to that second segment?

JOHN HIMLE: It's assumed that the addition of the north-south runway and some of the other capital improvements that would be made would essentially be made in a timetable up and through the year 2010. At approximately 2010, that seems to be close to the trigger point, when perhaps a new terminal may be needed, and that has been a controversial issue.

But it is important to understand that the plan that was set out by MAC, which includes the new west terminal and some of the other enhancements, is merely a planning concept right now. It is not a commitment to construct. And I think that distinction is important because as we move along the way, there will be several of these discussions and debates about what you do and when and how it's going to be financed.

GARY EICHTEN: Don's on the line from Northfield with a question. Thank you for calling, sir.

DON: Hello?

GARY EICHTEN: Yes, go ahead.

DON: I'm fairly new to the area, but I've noticed in traveling out of Twin Cities International that compared to other metropolitan areas of a similar size, that they have very little international traffic or direct international flights, especially by foreign carriers. Why is that?

JOHN HIMLE: Minneapolis-Saint Paul has had the, I think, distinct disadvantage of operating our international travel out of the Humphrey Charter Terminal, which, as you know, is separated from the main terminal itself. The Metropolitan Airports Commission is currently now constructing a new-- what's called Federal Inspection Facility, integrated into the gold concourse of the main terminal.

And what that means is we will now have the ability to take arrivals from international aircraft directly through the main terminal, and we'll be able to integrate that then throughout the rest of the gates. That becomes important, and that I think we will have one of the best and most efficient facilities for international travel of any airport in the United States.

That's expected to come online later this summer. And we're expecting that that, as well as some of the forthcoming travel with Canadian Airlines and so forth, may open other opportunities.

STEVE CRAMER: I think that facility certainly will be helpful, but the other factor here is we really are subject to the business decision-making of Northwest Airlines as to what kind of international traffic we have here. We know that Northwest has made Detroit really their hub airport for destinations other than Canada, and they have MSP slated as their main airport for connections into Canada.

I don't know if that's what will really serve our economic interests over the long run, but that's the direction that Northwest Airlines is going. And I think that gets to another issue that underlies much of this and that is that the way the airline industry is organizing itself-- and we're no different than most other major hubs. Individual carriers are coming to dominate marketplaces, and in our case, obviously, it's Northwest Airlines, so that it becomes more and more difficult over time to separate the business interests from the public interest.

And Northwest has every right to be an important player in this discussion. They pay the bill. They're the major tenant. But there is a distinction there between what's good for them and what's good for the general public in the Twin Cities and the upper Midwest. And as I say, as the airline industry organizes itself to have dominant hubs as ours is by Northwest, it becomes harder and harder to pinpoint that line between private interest and public interest.

GARY EICHTEN: Two questions along that line. Number one, is there any reason to believe, if we built a new airport, there would be more competition here, airline competition, which conceivably, I suppose could actually reduce the cost of a plane ticket?

JOHN HIMLE: I think if you take a look at what's happened and Steve just mentioned that what's been happening around the country is that major airports are dominated by a single carrier. There's no evidence to suggest that if you add the additional capacity that somehow that becomes an inducement for a new airline to come in and take on a dominant hub carrier.

And certainly, the Denver example has borne that out with the loss of Continental Airlines as a hub once the new airport became reality. But I think that we also need to keep in mind that the economics of airlines are changing and will continue to probably change very fast. It's a very volatile industry.

STEVE CRAMER: I think it's clear that if we got more competition, pricing would change. I think John's right. It's not clear exactly what's the best way to get more competition is, even under the scenario that MAC and Met Council will recommend. I think there will be opportunities for the commissioners to try to create a more competitive environment at MSP. And I think it's incumbent upon us to do that.

I mean, frankly, Northwest is very aggressive about-- and they said so in the Star Tribune the other day, very aggressive about trying to protect their marketplace. And where it's in the public interest to maybe resist that, as commissioners, we need to pursue that course.

GARY EICHTEN: Given the business interest-public interest debate, if Northwest Airlines had said, yes, we want you folks to build a new airport, would that be a decision? Is that the decision you would have reached, then, if they have adamantly opposed construction of a new airport?

JOHN HIMLE: If Northwest had said that they want a new airport, even though the current airport could handle the future air capacity, I'm not certain that we would go along with that. It's important to remember that part of our public charge and looking out for the public interest is also to look in terms of those costs. And frankly, a new airport would mean higher costs to the traveling public.

And it would also mean greater risk to the public and taxpayers because you'd be building a new airport primarily on forecasts, as opposed to being able to expand the current airport based on actual demand.

STEVE CRAMER: It certainly would have created a different environment for the discussion, however. And in many ways, this whole process got started with Northwest blessing, albeit the old Northwest management, so it wasn't the current ownership. And so I think all the way along, people have been looking to Northwest for cues about what their position was on the process.

GARY EICHTEN: Tom is on the line from West Saint Paul. Go ahead.

TOM: Hello. I'd like to interject a note in terms of thinking about the customer here. And I think Northwest is probably thinking about the customer. But if the current airport serves the business community remarkably compared to most major areas, one of the things we have going for us in the upper Midwest is the fact that our cities are more or less at the center of the hub, and all the development is in a 360-degree radius, and we happen to have an airport that's centrally located as well.

A lot of cities that are bordered by seacoast, you don't have that advantage. Right now, I'd say that the average business traveler can get to the airport in probably 25 minutes. That speaks to the livability of the region. If you take and move that 20 miles to the southeast at the outside of the rim, instead of at the hub, you've probably added an hour's extra commute to the airport.

And when you figure that the airport serves the business traveler Monday through Friday, that's what it exists for. That's why we pay three times the airfares for the business traveler. And to take all the collective thousands and thousands of hours of commuting and add another hour to that, you've got a bigger cost there in a 25-year period than you have with your land and your facility and your infrastructure and all the rest.

GARY EICHTEN: How much did that factor play into this decision?

STEVE CRAMER: I believe that we looked most intently in terms of whether the expansion of the current site would so limit our air travel demand in the future, that it begged for a new airport. I believe that was central to the debate here. But certainly, matters of convenience also play into it.

And I think it's important to point out that with the current airport, about 67% of the metropolitan population is within a 30-minute drive at peak points. The new airport would have reduced that convenience factor down to only 14% of the metropolitan population. That would have been within a 30-mile drive of that airport.

And I think it's important to point out that airlines exist to move passengers from point A to point B very quickly. If you add on over a half hour of travel time on the ground to get to the airport, there are flights that on the margin will no longer become practical. And Northwest has indicated that it would reduce the number of flights in and out of the Twin Cities.

GARY EICHTEN: Go ahead.

JOHN HIMLE: I was going to say, I think the convenience issue certainly was one factor that was important, and it may be the best argument of all to do more than we're at least at now contemplating doing in the area of site preservation because if it turns out that we need to do this again in five or 10 or 15 years, the next iteration of sites will be potentially even further away. So we may want to preserve what we found to date to avoid that possible outcome.

GARY EICHTEN: What happened to the idea of just building some airstrips out in Dakota County and then zipping people via, I suppose, it was high-speed trains or something from the existing airport terminal? Run them out to the airport, get them on a plane, and off they go, and then they bring them back, what ever happened to that idea?

STEVE CRAMER: Well, that was looked at a couple of different times. That's an idea that some folks in Minneapolis have been promoting for some time. And I have to say, that's one that I personally have not supported, although to date, people would still argue that that's the best solution that could be found.

I think that the bottom line was it's just difficult to imagine being able to effectively move passengers and baggage from one point to another point so far away. And the analysis also found that inevitably, demand would grow for passenger facilities at the airstrip. So in effect, we would duplicate the airports.

I think one of the lessons of Denver is that you don't want to be on the cutting edge of technology here and with respect to their baggage system. And I know that we would want to have been on the cutting edge of technology in that kind of massive people-mover system.

GARY EICHTEN: Go ahead, John.

JOHN HIMLE: Well, if you believe that by doing the remote runways, you'd be able to keep the current site as the primary ticketing and boarding area, I think what you run into is a couple of problems. One is, as Steve mentioned, you'd duplicate a lot of costs. Second, I think it's ludicrous to believe that somehow, you would deny access to the area that has the runways and force them to have to drive to the old airport site, particularly for people that live south of the current area.

I mean, there would clearly be a move to try to provide access. And of course, once you've done that, people are not going to use the other site. And I think it would have been a de facto movement.

GARY EICHTEN: Ed's on the line from Richfield, one of the communities certainly affected by this whole discussion. Go ahead, sir.

ED: Right. I was just wondering, perhaps to piggyback a little bit on your recent comments, there was some talk about a high-speed rail system down to Rochester. And I don't think that was economically feasible or it was determined not to be, but perhaps in the year 2010 or 2020, it might be.

But just one other comment, I've been traveling over to Frankfurt, Germany, for about the last 30 years and I have noticed the [INAUDIBLE] over there. Basically, the only thing they have done to that place in that time is add one additional runway in the density of population, and so certainly, has grown a great deal.

But I think through good management and so on, they've been able to not build a new airport or not look for a site there because of course, land is probably a lot more at a premium than it is here. Thanks. I'll hang up and listen. Thanks.

GARY EICHTEN: All right, thanks for the call. Let's go on to another caller from Minnetonka. Paul?

PAUL: Hi, yes, thanks for taking my call. I bought my first house in South Minneapolis, just, in fact, about three blocks from the northwest corner of the runway. And I bought the house because I liked the area, plus I could afford it. And I could afford it because the prices were lower because of the airport.

And when I went to my closing, I had to sign, which was kind of a no-kidding document from the FHA that you live next to an airport and airport generates noise. And this goes to what a previous caller had said about the old neighborhoods. Yes, those neighborhoods are established, and they've been there a long time and have been there longer than the current airport has grown in status.

But I'm wondering how many of the people that live in that area are there, how many moved in within the last 20 years, and did they move for the reasons that I did, economically, that it was I could afford that house.

My question is, what right do they have to expect other taxpayers to pay for sound insulation and sound abatement in their current houses when I would venture to guess that the noise was there when they bought the house? It seems like, gee, I'm going to do this and force someone else to pay for my mistake. I'll hang up and listen.

GARY EICHTEN: All right. Thanks for the call.

STEVE CRAMER: Well, the part 150 insulation program and other noise mitigation measures have been well-established federally around the country for many, many years, at least to the extent that the FAA participates in these programs. The funding tends to be from the ticket tax revenues that are generated. They're not direct tax dollars. There are some more locally-controlled funds and some passenger facility charges in our mix of funding for this as well.

GARY EICHTEN: Are there any restrictions in terms of how long you would have had to live in the house to qualify for the program?

STEVE CRAMER: No, there aren't restrictions.

GARY EICHTEN: Should. There be?

STEVE CRAMER: I don't think so.

GARY EICHTEN: I mean, if I go out and buy a house under the flight path tomorrow and then start complaining about the noise, do I have a legitimate complaint?

STEVE CRAMER: Well, noise is noise and the environment is the environment. And if noise is an environmental pollutant and problem, then I think people have a right to expect some level of mitigation. I don't think we make the same argument about folks who move next to a factory and find that there are pollutants there that threaten their well-being.

So I think we have to look at the airport from this vantage point as a generator of an environmental problem, and we need to take reasonable measures to try to mitigate that environmental issue.

GARY EICHTEN: Georgette, your question, please.

GEORGETTE: Yes, there was a mention earlier by Mr. Himle that the larger planes will, in the future, decrease the number of operations needed. I have a confusion in my mind because last fall, Jeff Hamill, who we figured had good information, said that he used to think that that would be possible in the future.

But that he said, I had to change my mind because he said, the largest planes will never be able to come in or go out of our airport because the present runways are just too close. Now, I would wonder if the gentleman had any further comment to make on that.

JOHN HIMLE: Sure. I believe what I said is that the larger aircraft will take the pressure off of the number of operations going or increasing at the same rate as the number of passengers. Again, because of the fact that you're using larger aircraft and you're accommodating greater numbers of passengers, that reduces the pressure on the increase over the number of operations.

GARY EICHTEN: So you may need more planes anyway, but you don't need as many as you otherwise would if you were flying with smaller planes.

JOHN HIMLE: Exactly. And so to the extent that even commuter airlines are increasing the size of their aircraft, that's making a difference. To her second point about whether we have enough runway length, it's true that under the current runway system lengths that we cannot accommodate fully-fueled, fully-loaded international traffic that is taking off in hot weather. And so they have to either back load passengers or cargo or what have you.

We are now in the process of moving ahead of extending what's called Runway 422, the crosswind runway to 11,000 feet. And the extension of that particular runway, we'll be able to accommodate those largest of aircraft.

GARY EICHTEN: Next caller is from Fargo. Bill?

BILL: Thank you for taking my call. Mr. Cramer and Himle, aircraft 20 years from now will be quite, I think, drastically different than present-day aircraft. They predict small, very small supersonic aircraft carrying very few people. And then, as you just stated, I hear a larger subsonic aircraft carrying much more people than they are now.

And I've even heard they're perfecting a passenger craft similar to the shuttle that will leave the surface of our Earth and leave the atmosphere and go into space and reach the other side of our planet in less than half an hour. Will a new airport or expanding the present airport depend on different types of aircraft?

STEVE CRAMER: Well, it's important to realize that the current forecasts are predicated on technology that we know about today. But it's also important to point out that in the last 20 years, that the capacity of the air traffic system in the United States has been increased by roughly 40%, largely due to changes in technology, new radar systems, new ways of being able to track weather and reducing delays, and so forth.

I think it's reasonable to believe that future technology will continue to enhance and expand the capacity of the air traffic system. And second, I think it's also reasonable to believe that new technology will further reduce the environmental and noise impacts of planes as we continue to move forward.

JOHN HIMLE: But the one thing we know is that we don't know. And as we've scanned the technological horizon, it's not clear that any of those breakthroughs are on the drawing boards anywhere in Seattle. So I think that's one of those things that we need to continue to monitor, as we also monitor the level of activity and the ability of the current site to serve our economic needs.

GARY EICHTEN: We're just about out of time. But one last question here, and a brief one, please.

CALLER: You talked about trying to short circuit the public discussion of the dual track study. And I'm wondering, if the study and its recommendations are truly sound, won't they stand up to public scrutiny?

STEVE CRAMER: I certainly believe that they will. And it's important here to point out that there have been public hearings throughout this process, and the public has certainly been very proactive about indicating their views on this.

And I should just conclude by saying that a lot of our final recommendations have been directly shaped by public testimony and by public input. There are things that we did not see that were pointed out to us through this hearing process, and I think it's been very valuable. And the Legislature, as they consider it, will also consider that input as well.

JOHN HIMLE: And I would just say again on that point that it's only now that we have the complete data set, so to speak, all the reports, all the information, and have it digested and packaged in a way that's relatively understandable.

And I would certainly have preferred that we now have an opportunity to digest all that information, get some further refinement, have the last criticisms and suggestions offered, and then be in a position to make a more deliberative judgment about this.

GARY EICHTEN: Thank you, gentlemen. Now, you officially vote tomorrow, right?

STEVE CRAMER: Yes, sir.

JOHN HIMLE: Yes, sir.

GARY EICHTEN: Then the Met Council will take the same vote on Thursday and then off to the Legislature.

JOHN HIMLE: That's correct.

GARY EICHTEN: Thanks a lot. Our guests today, John Himle from Bloomington, Steve Cramer from Minneapolis, both members of the Metropolitan Airports Commission. The MAC will be voting tomorrow to expand at the existing site of the airport rather than build a new airport. And that's where presumably it will stay, at least for a little while, and we'll see what the future brings.

I'd like to thank all of you for tuning in today, especially those of you who tried to call in with your questions and comments, appreciate it. We will be rebroadcasting this program at 9 o'clock tonight on the FM news station, so you get a second chance to hear the program.

Programming on Minnesota Public Radio is supported by Schatz, Paquin, Lockridge, Grindal and Holstein, with offices in the Twin Cities and Washington, D.C. I'm Gary Eichten. Again, thanks for tuning in today, and we hope you'll be able to join us tomorrow. Tomorrow, we're going to focus on the Middle East. Of course, tomorrow, the big summit on terrorism and we'll be talking about that tomorrow over the noon hour.

PERRY FANELLI: On the next All Things Considered, Senator Wellstone's claim that the GOP would make the biggest cuts in education in the nation's--