"Airport Land Use: Bill on longer MSP safety zone gains"

Friday, March 18, 2005

Risk Management: Economic valuation of human life
Bill on longer safety zone gains 
By Pat Doyle
The Minneapolis (MN) Star Tribune 
  
 
Siding with a state aviation official over the wishes of his boss, the
Senate Transportation Committee on Thursday approved a longer safety zone
restricting development off a new runway at Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport.

The committee voted 11 to 5 to back a buffer zone endorsed by Mike Louis,
director of planning in the office of aeronautics of the Minnesota
Department of Transportation. Transportation Commissioner Carol Molnau
overruled Lewis last year and relaxed that restriction in favor of a much
smaller safety zone.

Louis defended his support for the larger safety zone in testimony before
the committee shortly before its vote, and later acknowledged that it put
him in an awkward position. "I think the expression 'between a rock and a
hard place' has more meaning than it used to," he said.

The bill was sent to the full Senate. It would create a 4,667-foot buffer
zone instead of a 2,500-foot zone favored by Molnau, the standard under
federal law.

"Any zone that is significantly less than the one identified in the bill
will not provide adequate safety protection," Louis testified.

The 4,667-foot zone is consistent with requirements under existing state
law. But the law also allows the commissioner to change the zones if social
and economic factors are deemed to outweigh the importance of sticking to
the zones' dimensions.

Molnau essentially 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 -- outweighed the risk of a plane
crash. 

The Transportation Department defended Molnau's decision. Bob McFarlin, her
assistant, said that other buffer zones at the airport have also deviated
from state standards and that a patchwork of runway safety zones exists at
airports around the nation.

Tom Anderson, the general counsel for the Metropolitan Airports Commission,
said the shorter zone did not compromise safety. "There needs to be a
balance between safety and social and economic costs," he said. He predicted
that the legislation could spur "tens of millions of dollars" in lawsuits
from landowners who say that the restrictions on development in the longer
safety zone would diminish property values.

The bill is favored by one firm, Interstate Companies, which owns buildings
just south of the airport. Interstate says its buildings should be bought by
the Airports Commission because planes using the runway will put its 200
daily employees and visitors at risk.


 Do you have an opinion about this story?
Share it with other readers in our CAA Discussion Forums

http://www.californiaaviation.org/dcfp/dcboard.php


*****************************************