Transcripts

text | pdf |

---

BILL CATLIN: Curbside at Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport. The number of passengers using this airport is likely to double in the next two to three decades, but the Met Council study group says the airport is already near the limit of its capacity, threatening a serious problem of congestion and delays.

According to Task Force Research, the airport pumps nearly $2 billion a year into the Twin Cities economy. By preventing a serious problem in capacity, that figure could almost double in 20 years. The study group said that a new North South runway should be built here to allow growth in the near future.

And that land should be set aside for a new, much bigger airport, in case, it becomes necessary. Otherwise, the panel said, by the time it's clear, a new airport is necessary. Land probably won't be available in a convenient location.

Economic trends would be monitored to assess the need for a new airport, which, ultimately, would be paid for, largely, by the airlines and passengers who use it. It sounds very simple and compelling. And many public officials have praised the vision of the dual track plan and the consensus it won among adversaries, but not everyone is happy.

This residential neighborhood in Richfield right next to the airport would have to be demolished for a new North South runway. And if the airport were replaced, the large Bloomington Hospitality industry would lose a vital source of business. Minneapolis City Council member Steve Cramer is concerned that adding a new runway to the current airport would generate more noise in nearby neighborhoods.

Cramer is a leading opponent of noise produced by the airport And a member of the Task Force that produced the dual track plan. He says right now, it's easy to support the plan because the new runway is still just an idea on paper.

STEVE CRAMER: I can say with comfort, yes, we ought to continue thinking about expanding MSP. But we haven't made any final decisions, yet. And there are going to be some tough times ahead.

BILL CATLIN: This dual track plan, fixing up the current airport, while planning for a new one, faces pressure from two sides. Airport noise groups, wanting the noise out of their own backyards, generally favor a new airport altogether. The sooner, the better.

The airlines prefer immediate improvements at the current airport. Generally, those involved say it's critical politically that both tracks get equal support to accomplish either. But friction is apparent on the unanswered question of when a new airport is needed. Northwest Airlines vice president Ben Griggs served on the study panel and supports the dual track plan.

But Grigg says people don't understand that replacing a major airport is such a massive and politically troublesome job. A move would not occur within 20 years. And Griggs believes Twin Cities international will have to be clogged with traffic before the public would support a new airport.

BEN GRIGGS: They would expect us, I think, to do our darndest to try to shoehorn our way into whatever we have until it's just absolutely impossible. So what's at stake is the worry that we've got-- we would have to get an effect the public mind completely convinced that there was no alternative. And I think only time will prove that.

BILL CATLIN: Minneapolis City Councilman Steve Cramer agrees that a key factor for a new airport is public frustration with the old one.

STEVE CRAMER: And that's an important breakthrough, I think, when people kind of just assume, eventually, that this airport is going to have to be replaced because it's just too small and too inadequate.

BILL CATLIN: Improving the existing airport, seems guaranteed to delay that breakthrough, as Cramer calls it. Though, he supports the dual track plan, Cramer says residents in neighborhoods near the current airport are likely to oppose any expansion there, unless there is serious planning for a new airport.

STEVE CRAMER: You'd have to have, in effect, a quid pro quo. We'd have to know that there is light at the end of the tunnel that one day, in the relatively near future, the entire environmental problem would be gone because we've decided to make an investment in our economic future by building a new modern airport.

Short of that, I think it's difficult to envision circumstances under which a capacity expansion at the current site would be easy to accomplish.

JEFF HAMMEL: I won't agree to that. And I don't think the commission will, nor do I think the legislature will.

BILL CATLIN: Jeff Hammel is Executive Director of the Metropolitan Airports Commission. With some reservations, Hammel has praised the dual track approach. He was not a part of the panel that developed it. Hammel says it's a bad idea to promise a firm date for a new airport.

JEFF HAMMEL: Because what you're basically saying is, no matter what happens with the national economy, no matter what happens with the air transportation industry, no matter what happens with the business demand of this community, in 2003, we're moving to a new airport, even if there's no need for it.

BILL CATLIN: But Hammel says the disagreement over promising a new airport doesn't mean the situation is stalemated.

JEFF HAMMEL: Sooner or later, I believe there is going to be a need for a new major airport. And I believe when that need is felt by all of the various interested parties, the environmental community, the political community, the financial community, the business community. When all of those communities come together and mutually say, yes, it is now time for us to aggressively move forward toward developing new facilities, it will happen.

BILL CATLIN: Nevertheless, Hammel says his staff is making arrangements to begin the job of siting a new airport. But he also says the job of the commission is to expand the current airport to the fullest extent possible being sensitive to noise problems. Noise opponents say they're doubtful that Hammel and the commission are committed to planning a new airport.

Metropolitan Council Chair Steve Kyiv says expansion of the current airport may, in fact, be in the interest of both those concerned about noise and those who don't want to build prematurely.

STEVE KYIN: The more you do in expansion at the existing airport, the sooner you're likely to need a new airport, oddly enough. Because if you don't expand it the existing airport, what happens is growth tends to go elsewhere.

A lot of people who think that if you're going to move, you shouldn't expand the existing airport. Actually, it's just the opposite. The more you expand the existing airport, the more you're likely to need to move sooner.

BILL CATLIN: Despite the sparring by public officials, the point behind the dual track approach is that now it's too early to know when or whether a new airport will be needed. But Steve Kyiv says it's clear that the worst choice is to do nothing, at all.

Kyiv says the dual track plan allows the Twin Cities to keep its options open, while the need for a new airport either emerges or recedes further into the future. The Metro Council is expected to approve the dual track plan later this month. Observers say the next key question is whether the legislature will endorse the plan to get it rolling. This is Bill Catlin reporting.