"Airport Land Use: Safety vs. development: How much should be built under a new flight path?"

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

Safety vs. development: How much should be built under a new flight path? 
By Dan Wascoe
The Minneapolis (MN) Star Tribune 


When planes begin using a new runway next fall at Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport, passengers will fly over a swath of land near the
Mall of America where the state normally would discourage extensive
development to protect people in the air and on the ground.

But new buildings are more likely to rise beneath those flight paths because
Lt. Gov. Carol Molnau has relaxed state restrictions meant to reduce hazards
if a plane crashes near the airport.

By changing the state's airport safety zones, she overruled strong concerns
by the aeronautics staff of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. 

The conflict highlights a growing struggle to balance aviation safety with
the drive for new development.

Molnau, who doubles as Minnesota's transportation commissioner, agreed with
a panel of local officials and residents that the benefits of new
development off the ends of the airport's runways -- potentially worth more
than $1 billion -- outweigh the risk of a plane crash. 

MnDOT's aeronautics staff cautioned in a memo that an "aircraft accident
will happen at MSP sometime, and history has established that the accident
will, in all likelihood, happen near the end of a runway during the most
critical phases of flight -- a takeoff or a landing."

That warning, written by the office's zoning administrator, Mike Louis, and
endorsed by office Director Raymond Rought, also argued: "People don't
become less important as land increases in value."

The conflict resurfaced last month in a suit in Ramsey County District
Court. Interstate Companies, which owns two buildings just south of the
airport, is challenging Molnau's decision.

Her decision was made April 22 but was not announced publicly.

Molnau declined requests for an interview, and her department's aeronautics
officials have been directed not to answer reporters' requests for further
information. 

Bob McFarlin, Molnau's spokesman at MnDOT, said staff members make lots of
suggestions that may not be followed. "That doesn't diminish the value of
those recommendations," he said. He also said it was "never a secret" that
the aeronautics staff "had a perspective" that favored holding firm to the
safety zones' original restrictions.

Dan Larson, DFL-Bloomington, said he wishes the staff memo had been more
widely distributed because "I think what one could conclude is that this at
the very least is a risky decision. ... This is the 'I-told-you-so' memo if
anything should happen," such as a crash in or near the smaller zones.

He said he is evaluating how to appeal Molnau's decision.

But Sen. Steve Murphy, DFL-Red Wing, said he believes Molnau's decision was
correct. 

"At first blush, you say, 'My God, what are they doing?'" by shrinking the
state's most restrictive airport safety zone, he said. But after reviewing
the reasoning by the Metropolitan Airports Commission staff and its
consultants, he said, "It seems like the MAC personnel actually had it
right."

The MAC staff assisted the special zoning panel, and two MAC members sat on
the board.

Coral Houle, one of those two MAC members, said she feels "very comfortable
with the outcome" because she trusts consultants' calculations that the risk
of a crash in the safety zones is extremely slight. She also said that
recent history suggests the airport is run safely.

"Look at how many years we have had residents in Minneapolis and
Bloomington" living near the airport without a fatal accident, she said.

Despite occasional close calls at the airport, the worst years for
fatalities were about 50 years ago. On March 7, 1950, a Northwest Airlines
plane crashed into three houses on Minnehaha Parkway, killing 15 people. In
1956, several military jets hit cars and houses near the airport, killing a
total of 15 people. That spurred an unsuccessful call by the MAC chairman to
ground F-80 jets at the airport.

Under construction

The new north-south runway that roughly parallels Cedar Avenue will be MSP's
fourth and probably its busiest. It usually will handle takeoffs only to the
south and landings from the south.

Hotels, office buildings and gas stations are being removed in the most
restrictive zone south of the runway as required by the Federal Aviation
Administration. The zone starts 200 feet from the southern end and extends
2,500 feet south.

Minnesota's most restrictive or "A" zone normally would stretch 2,100 feet
beyond the federal zone. It would allow buildings to stay unless they were
hazardous to aircraft. Molnau's order shrinks the A zone to match the
federal zone.

She also approved expanding the state's less restrictive "B" zone, which now
extends 4,500 feet from the end of the tear-down zone. That property
contains vacant land and buildings no more than three stories high that
house a variety of offices, service businesses and nonprofit agencies. 

Redevelopment could change the mix substantially, including taller buildings
near the south end of the zone, a mile and a half from the runway.

Schools, churches, theaters, above-ground fuel tanks, gas stations, nursing
homes and other buildings used by concentrations of people are not allowed.
But hotels and motels would be. So would companies such as Interstate.

Lee Henderson, the company's lawyer, says its two buildings should be bought
by the Airports Commission because planes using the runway will put its 200
daily employees and visitors at risk. The commission has declined to
negotiate.

State law allows the transportation commissioner to change the safety zones
if social and economic factors outweigh the importance of sticking to the
zones' dimensions. But the state's aeronautics officials said such
calculations should include the impact of the zones on existing development,
not on future growth.

The Airports Commission has spent more than $192 million to buy and clear
property in the federal no-build zone. It has budgeted $28 million more to
buy and remove houses in nearby neighborhoods that would be severely
affected by new jet noise.

The aeronautics staff's memo suggests that the commission did not want to
spend more to buy more land in the original safety zones. But Nigel Finney,
an MAC deputy executive director, said that was not a factor in the
recommendation to shrink the A zone.

"I would not in any way say we were compromising safety to save money," he
said.

He also said the recommendation was not pushed by Northwest Airlines, which
often presses the commission to trim spending.

Instead, the impetus to ease restrictions appears to stem from the potential
value of redevelopment in the new zone Because it is near the airport, major
highways, the new light-rail line and the megamall, it is considered a prime
site.

The 19-member Joint Airport Zoning Board that recommended the zone changes
included elected and appointed officials, staff members and residents from
Minneapolis, St. Paul, Bloomington, Eagan, Richfield, Mendota, Mendota
Heights, Hennepin County and the airports commission. 

At the board's request, the commission agreed to protect all 19 against
damages from potential suits over their decisions if they followed the
commission staff's recommendations. Tom Anderson, the MAC's lawyer, said
such protection would include suits over property rights as well as damage
from air crashes.

Rought, the Aeronautics Office director, and Louis, the office's zoning
administrator, suggested changing the zones to allow "some additional
selected development" along the edges but maintain a clear area extending
from the new runway's projected center line. Their proposal was turned down
in favor of zones that allow more buildings.

Walter Rockenstein, a Minneapolis lawyer who drafted the zoning board's
recommendations, and Mary Hill Smith, a Metropolitan Council member who
headed the board, said the board members' primary concern was safety.

They relied heavily on HNTB, the MAC's longtime consulting firm, which said
Minnesota's safety zones are more restrictive than those of nearly all other
states. The consultants also said the chance of an accident is extremely
slim -- zero probability in the safety zones in 2010.

Louis agreed that flying is the safest mode of travel but said in his memo
that "the ever-increasing number of flights" at MSP means "there is an
increasing probability of accidents."

Rockenstein, who also is board chairman of the Minnesota Safety Council,
said odds can be calculated on the likelihood of any catastrophe. " An
airplane can crash on the top of Mount Everest," he said. But he said the
consultants figured the chance of an accident at MSP is far lower than
federal standards.

But Louis' memo took a dim view of such calculations:

"Minnesota statutes and safety rules are established to minimize injury,
death and property damage in case an accident occurs, at any time in the
future, and are not based on accident probabilities."

Attached Photo's:

Jets at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport will get a new runway in
2005. State officials have disagreed over how much can be built near the
runway's end.

This view to the south-southeast shows the new north-south runway under
construction at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. At left is the
Humphrey Terminal. Cedar Avenue (Hwy. 77) is at lower right, while part of
the Mall of America is visible in the far upper right.

DTI_906390.l.jpg

msp overhead.jpg