MSP Airport

Roads - Rails - Sidewalks - Bikeways
beykite
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 199
Joined: July 21st, 2012, 6:36 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: MSP Airport

Postby beykite » February 19th, 2013, 7:22 pm

I know going north on 35W the sign by 494 says MSP. People are stupidI'm sure there were some who got confused. On 494 they had to remove the county road 5 shields from the Minnetonka Blvd exit sign because people thought it was MN 5. That was a much greater waste of money. While it'd be extremely off topic here id love to start a thread on control cities and just general road geek stuff.

User avatar
Nick
Capella Tower
Posts: 3004
Joined: May 30th, 2012, 9:33 pm
Location: Loring Park, Minneapolis

Re: MSP Airport

Postby Nick » March 24th, 2013, 11:29 am

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/comm ... ml?refer=y
Strib wrote:Minnesota needs a statewide airports solution

Article by: R.T. RYBAK
Updated: March 23, 2013 - 5:46 PM

Our long-term airport solution must use assets statewide.

Like a noisy jet rumbling over your house on an otherwise quiet summer night, Minnesota’s winter calm was disrupted by a fast-­breaking controversy over an obscure airplane landing strategy known as Area Navigation (or RNAV).

Most Minnesotans didn’t know why so many people suddenly were so upset about a new technology to land planes at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Those under the flight path understood all too well that this could have a huge impact on their quality of life. And the controversy for them is only beginning.

Get used to this battle, and others like it. We will be spending many days, over many years, in controversies just like this, and involving many more homeowners — unless we develop a new way to think about aviation in this state. The good news is that these challenges are avoidable. In the process, we can create an economic upside for Greater Minnesota.

[...]

User avatar
Le Sueur
Landmark Center
Posts: 272
Joined: June 5th, 2012, 3:30 pm

Re: MSP Airport

Postby Le Sueur » March 24th, 2013, 3:18 pm

D@mn!t. I read the article and thought RT made some good points, and then... I got sucked into reading the comments...
Someone want to explain to me how Hiawatha is a "boondoggle?"

Anyway. St. Cloud recently underwent a Major expansion and Rochester has a 10 year plan in the works that will eventually include rail to the airport and a new terminal, but even with new infrastructure how do you convince both passengers and airlines to fly regional? If we did transition to a Statewide commission instead of Metro only what's the plan? I vote for giant neon signs that say "737 Parking Here" with one of those big arrows like small hotels use to have. And if that doesn't work maybe look at everything RT suggested. :)

beykite
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 199
Joined: July 21st, 2012, 6:36 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: MSP Airport

Postby beykite » March 24th, 2013, 3:23 pm

I've always wondered why St Cloud isn't used more as a reliever airport. Side note not related to the article, Sun Country announced flights to Chicago. So now American, United, Spirit, Southwest, Sun Country and Delta serve the MSP-ORD/MDW market. That's the most airlines serving a single market from MSP with Denver and Phoenix in second with 4 each. Also a reminder, Air France flights start in May! :D

ECtransplant
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 751
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:56 am

Re: MSP Airport

Postby ECtransplant » March 24th, 2013, 3:27 pm

If we want to relieve some of the demand from the Chicago flights, instead of building HSR to an airport in Rochester, we could just build HSR to Chicago itself

User avatar
Le Sueur
Landmark Center
Posts: 272
Joined: June 5th, 2012, 3:30 pm

Re: MSP Airport

Postby Le Sueur » March 24th, 2013, 4:43 pm

^^Or do both?

UptownSport
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 607
Joined: July 23rd, 2012, 12:07 am

Re: MSP Airport

Postby UptownSport » March 24th, 2013, 11:22 pm

BS.

There's a physical limit to landing / takeoff intervals. There's charts for landing distance vs aircraft size, and it is matter of miles, and takeoff in in minutes. This isn't an operational limit, but due to turbulence.
So, no, you won't see ten large, commercial aircraft inline unless someone made a VERY big mistake.

The only relevant part is that the airport is there to stay, it is the main airport; it will get busier with MSP economic growth.
And no matter how you change the formula, that's the way it is. Rybak knows this-

Mayo would LOVE to have HSR to MSP paid for by the taxpayers. Wonder how much they paid Rybak to write that?

User avatar
Andrew_F
Rice Park
Posts: 453
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 10:15 pm
Location: Stevens Square

Re: MSP Airport

Postby Andrew_F » March 24th, 2013, 11:36 pm

I'm going to call BS on this as well. I grew up in one ofthe MAC neighborhoods-- and the truth is that planes are getting much more quiet. The DC-9s and DC-10s of the early 90s are long gone, and they've been replaced with small, quiet regional jets. And it's not like we're seeing a big increase in jumbo jets on long flights. We're seeing more and more small planes. The noise is the issue, not the number of planes (I tried to use words like volume and frequency here, but it just didn't work out).

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7936
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: MSP Airport

Postby mattaudio » March 25th, 2013, 5:57 am

^ Not quite true. Yes, the planes are smaller and quieter. Sure, those who live right under the arrival headings benefit from modern engines. But there's another factor here that's been in play for a few years. The airlines and FAA have created departure procedures that result in slower ascents over Minneapolis neighborhoods, including neighborhoods that are not "MAC neighborhoods." This is all so the airlines can save fuel... a good reason, so long as the impacts are measured and quantified. This hasn't happened.

I think most people would prefer a 767 or 321 or 757 over their house every 10 minutes, rather than a MD-88, E175, or CR2 ascending at lower altitudes and blasting neighborhoods with noise every 30-60 seconds.

helsinki
Landmark Center
Posts: 298
Joined: October 9th, 2012, 2:01 am

Re: MSP Airport

Postby helsinki » March 25th, 2013, 7:25 am

I grew up in one of those Minneapolis neighborhoods too (Hale). On visits to relatives in the country, I remember finding the absence of airplanes eerie.

The forecast the mayor makes (20 % growth in air traffic to MSP) seems a bit high.

Even if the forecast is spot-on accurate, though, investing in the airports of St. Cloud, Duluth, and Rochester seems like a raw deal (especially when the market isn't demanding it). This article rather convincingly argues that much airport investment with an eye towards stimulating economic development or relieving regional hubs is a gigantic waste of money:

"Despite a bleak decade for air travel—the result of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the post-2008 economic downturn—local governments, aided by Washington, have been pouring billions of dollars into airport development and expansion. They claim that these expensive, debt-laden facilities will spur growth in economically precarious locales by attracting businesses that want more air connections. But from St. Louis to the Florida Panhandle, this Field of Dreams approach—build it, and they will come—hasn’t worked. And taxpayers have been stuck with the bill."

- http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_4_airports.html

A better idea might be to invest in alternative transport that is more economical for users (and comfortable - let's face it: flying stinks), environmentally cleaner, and - the focus of the grievance here - much, much quieter: High Speed Rail. The busiest route at MSP is to Chicago. HSR to Chicago would likely capture most of the market share now enjoyed by air, take a significant portion now belonging to automobiles, as well as also increasing passenger volume between the cities overall.

For example, this report analysing the Madrid - Barcelona route after the introduction of HSR notes how "... on average, HSR has reduced the number of air transport operations by 17 per cent. At the same time, travel demand has increased substantially, though the share of air transport in the total market has declined..." [emphasis added] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 0X1200087X). In short, traffic between the two cities has increased while the amount of flights has decreased.

This potential (increased traffic, decrease in flights) should not be discounted in the HSR discussion. Going from downtown Minneapolis (or St. Paul) to downtown Chicago in four hours beats the airport experience hands down. After actually getting to the airport (by car, taxi, LRT or bus), you have to go through aggravating/humiliating security checks accompanied by utterly inane rules ("Sir, that bottle of water is a prohibited item"). Then you get to your gate early, "board" (ie stand around for ages while hopelessly bureaucratic staff call out "now Zone C" or "rows 24 through 36"), and then "taxi" before takeoff (sit around for 15 minutes ingesting more rules and informational videos). Sure, you're in the air for less than an hour. But all in all, air travel times are probably not competitive with an MSP-Chicago HSR line if you account for all the silly time-wasting.

Many will object to the cost of HSR. It is certainly high. When comparing the two modes, however, note how billion dollar price tags are bandied about without much sweating when it comes to airport expansions.

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5813
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: MSP Airport

Postby MNdible » March 25th, 2013, 9:18 am

A couple of quick thoughts about RNAV.

Landings should have a significantly reduced impact for all but the closest in homes. This is because, under current landing procedures, planes land in an inefficient stair-step profile. In this scenario, the plane descends to an elevation and then must hold that elevation in an aerodynamically "dirty" profile until directed by the tower to descend to the next elevation level. In this scenario, they are holding at an elevation that is artificially low with their flaps down. In order to maintain elevation in this configuration, their engines are working hard.

With RNAV, the planes come in at a constant, controlled level of descent, acting like a big oversized glider. Planes should be at a higher elevation relative to the previous landing profiles, and their engines should be just at an idle.

Takeoffs will still likely be an issue.

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2702
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: MSP Airport

Postby RailBaronYarr » March 25th, 2013, 10:15 am

helsinki wrote:This potential (increased traffic, decrease in flights) should not be discounted in the HSR discussion. Going from downtown Minneapolis (or St. Paul) to downtown Chicago in four hours beats the airport experience hands down. After actually getting to the airport (by car, taxi, LRT or bus), you have to go through aggravating/humiliating security checks accompanied by utterly inane rules ("Sir, that bottle of water is a prohibited item"). Then you get to your gate early, "board" (ie stand around for ages while hopelessly bureaucratic staff call out "now Zone C" or "rows 24 through 36"), and then "taxi" before takeoff (sit around for 15 minutes ingesting more rules and informational videos). Sure, you're in the air for less than an hour. But all in all, air travel times are probably not competitive with an MSP-Chicago HSR line if you account for all the silly time-wasting.

Many will object to the cost of HSR. It is certainly high. When comparing the two modes, however, note how billion dollar price tags are bandied about without much sweating when it comes to airport expansions.
I've made this case against flying to and from Chicago many times, even compared to driving. Time for airport.. have to drive/taxi/LRT there, minimum 15 minutes, more likely 30. Have to check in at least an hour early, let's say you show up 60 minutes prior to flight (which is risky at certain times of the day for security and they close the doors 15 minutes prior to takeoff). Plane leaves gate at expected time, and the total flight is 1 hour 20 minutes to ORD. You then have to walk 10-15 minutes to the taxi/shuttle area, and depending on your end destination (downtown or suburb on the ORD side) you may be 30 minutes (or more with traffic) from getting "in."

My math adds up to 3.5 hours MINIMUM for flying, more likely 4-4.5. Round trip tickets are ~$150+ depending on time of flight, plus cabs in each direction at both cities (or parking at MSP), probably $100+ in total depending on distance and length of stay. Compare to to driving, 2 people driving from Mpls to Chicago is 6-7 hours, 3 tanks of gas in a sedan (round trip). I've done this many times. Let's ignore the effects of requiring a car and introducing one to the Chicago (or MSP) area, and focus only on time and money. Add in parking at the hotel (if not free), probably $200 total round trip - for one person it's cheaper, and for 2 MUCH cheaper.

"HSR" at 4 hours and the lack of airport frustration is definitely worth it, especially when taking in to account the larger social/environmental benefits of rail and the positive human-scaled location agglomeration effects rail has at the terminus vs airports and driving. It even adds flexibility in destinations while barely increasing trip time (MSP-Rochester-Madison-Milwaukee-Chicago would be a great line with a good set of 'nodes' along it, increasing access and ridership). And if we were serious about "high-speed," we could go big for the 220 mph ones France uses and make it a 2.5 hour travel time. But $28 billion is a lot of ca$he for one line...

helsinki
Landmark Center
Posts: 298
Joined: October 9th, 2012, 2:01 am

Re: MSP Airport

Postby helsinki » March 25th, 2013, 12:16 pm

I don't see how it could cost $28 billion to go from MSP to Chicago; the Chunnel cost £11 billion (about $ 17 billion) adjusted for inflation - and that went under the ocean! This line would just go over dairyland. True, due to lobbyist capture the various governments might let themselves get absolutely gouged by contractors (not an unreasonable assumption [google "Lockheed Martin" and "F-35"] ).

The entire discussion appears relatively pointless without Wisconsin on board. My guess is that WI will eventually get on board. MKE has fewer than 10 million passengers annually, MSN has fewer than 2 million. In other words, Wisconsin isn't exactly a major air destination (by contrast, MSP has over 33 million passengers annually). There is no 'domestic' interest to protect - just an ideological opposition to rail travel.

UptownSport
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 607
Joined: July 23rd, 2012, 12:07 am

Re: MSP Airport

Postby UptownSport » March 25th, 2013, 1:16 pm

or 'Liberty' aircraft engine. Lincoln got a plant built for free.
or any of a number of projects; I couldn't believe the Bradley fighting vehicle.

HSR to Chicago is a no-brainer for the twin cities.

Unfortunately, there's no 'payoff' to push it East as there is to Rochester. For instance, Rybak's power / influence, personal wealth won't increase.

People who would benefit don't have anything to give up front. It's a leveler for large organizations; Wells Fargo would gain the same as US Bank, Grainger as much as McMaster-Carr.

Obviously airlines and it's massive logistical train would lose, as would auto industry.

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2702
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: MSP Airport

Postby RailBaronYarr » March 25th, 2013, 3:19 pm

I was utterly shocked by the number as well, but I was just linking this study done: http://www.midwesthsr.org/2011-economic-study-costs

Keep in mind that 17b GBP is ~$25b at today's exchange rate, and that the train distance is 308 miles vs the MSP-Rochester-Madison-Milwaukee-Chicago distance is 442 miles. While the Chunnel portion consumed quite a bit of the capital, I wonder if some of the costs for a HSR network like this from MSP to Chicago has high costs at the stations along the way and at each end compared to London/Paris who had a plethora of suitable stations to plunk the Eurostar in to... It's also well-documented that construction costs for rail and other transit projects are higher in the US than other countries, perhaps that is a contributing factor as well.

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2702
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: MSP Airport

Postby RailBaronYarr » March 25th, 2013, 3:25 pm

...Sorry, back on topic as this is an MSP thread not a HSR thread... I'd like to see some more info on the RNAV stuff as well as projected flight info over the course of the time period.. how many jets of what size, how loud they are, how much air pollution they spew, etc to make a judgment on if 20% is a huge deal or not. I still think MSP's location being close to both downtowns is its major benefit to our people, the exact OPPOSITE of Rybak's praise of Denver's new airport. I would never suggest we put a train station 30+ miles from the center of town, why would we do the same with an airport?

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5813
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: MSP Airport

Postby MNdible » March 25th, 2013, 3:29 pm

RailBaronYarr wrote:...Sorry, back on topic as this is an MSP thread not a HSR thread... I'd like to see some more info on the RNAV stuff as well as projected flight info over the course of the time period.. how many jets of what size, how loud they are, how much air pollution they spew, etc to make a judgment on if 20% is a huge deal or not.
See my post above for a bit of information on RNAV.

Also, its worth noting that the industry trend is currently moving towards larger planes flying with less frequency. Small regional jets are dinosaurs that the airlines can't get rid of fast enough. Based on this, and with the trend towards newer, quieter planes, it's entirely possible that on the whole, an airport handling more people could have fewer and quieter landings and takeoffs.

User avatar
Andrew_F
Rice Park
Posts: 453
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 10:15 pm
Location: Stevens Square

Re: MSP Airport

Postby Andrew_F » March 25th, 2013, 3:39 pm

mattaudio wrote:^ Not quite true. Yes, the planes are smaller and quieter. Sure, those who live right under the arrival headings benefit from modern engines. But there's another factor here that's been in play for a few years. The airlines and FAA have created departure procedures that result in slower ascents over Minneapolis neighborhoods, including neighborhoods that are not "MAC neighborhoods." This is all so the airlines can save fuel... a good reason, so long as the impacts are measured and quantified. This hasn't happened.
I guess I left before that switch was made. From what I remember growing up, it was somewhat possible to continue a conversation over the small planes. I didn't really know life without the planes, and my parents seemed happy with the home improvements we got before the new runway opened, so I guess I didn't really care.

UptownSport
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 607
Joined: July 23rd, 2012, 12:07 am

Re: MSP Airport

Postby UptownSport » March 25th, 2013, 4:27 pm

RailBaronYarr wrote:...Sorry, back on topic as this is an MSP thread not a HSR thread...
Rybak made it about HSR- to Rochester. (St. Cloud is included just so Mayo advocacy wasn't absolute)

Instead of taking the bait, another solution was discussed.

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4602
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Re: MSP Airport

Postby FISHMANPET » March 25th, 2013, 4:54 pm

Didn't Rybak get his start before he was mayor as an organizer against the airport expansion? For better or worse airport noise is always going to be on his mind.


Return to “Transportation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests