• Increase primary runway 9R/27L from 3,909 feet to 5,000 feet with a westward shift of the entire runway 600 feet, which will require additional new taxiways to be constructed, and widen it from 75 to 100 feet
  
• Increase parallel runway 9L/27R from 3,600 feet to 3,900 feet towards the west
  
  
• Construct a new service road
  

Construct a new south building area for additional hangers.

MAC claims that the expansion is necessary because of a 1992 Metropolitan Council Long-Term Comprehensive Plan that requires MAC to induce general aviation aircraft from operating at MSP to operating at Flying Cloud. MAC states that larger business jet aircraft cannot effectively use Flying Cloud given the current length of runway, and that an updated facility would induce more business jets to use Flying Cloud instead of MSP.

Specifically, MAC states that only 16 of the 43 types of business jet aircraft can currently use Flying Cloud whereas all of the 43 types will be able to "effectively" use it after expansion (Table ES-1 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)). However, MAC also states that the Gulfstream IV jet would be restricted from Flying Cloud because the weight of the aircraft exceeds 60,000 lbs (the current weight-bearing restriction of the pavement—which is significant as explained below). The Flying Cloud expansion is not required to meet any projected increase in operations at Flying Cloud. MAC admits it is only to accommodate larger business jets and thereby claims the expansion will relieve MSP of congestion. (FEIS at pg. II-5).

Before MAC’s proposed expansion at Flying Cloud, MAC Ordinance 51 (January 16, 1978) prohibited the operation of jet aircraft weighing more than 20,000 lbs at Flying Cloud. A few years after the proposed expansion process began, in October 2000, MAC received a letter from FAA stating that Ordinance 51 was illegal under FAA’s law concerning airport development grants because it unjustly discriminated against aircraft. FAA stated that such a weight limitation was not based on noise or safety grounds.


Where MAC Is in the Expansion Process

Both Minnesota (MEPA) and Federal law (NEPA) require MAC to perform an environmental review of the impacts the proposed project would have on the environment before it is undertaken. The purpose of environmental review is to identify and evaluate impacts in order to avoid and minimize damage to the State’s environmental resources.

For this project, an evaluation is performed through a document called an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS"). An EIS is a thorough study of a project’s environmental impacts, as well as the impacts of reasonable project alternatives and the "no build" alternative. Environmental Quality Board (EQB), Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules, p. 1 (1998). The environmental evaluation cannot be performed in a vacuum. It must also include an evaluation of the cumulative effects of the project with other past, present and future projects over a period of time. MN Rules 4410.0200, subpart 11. During the EIS process, MAC is required to receive public comment and input from other government agencies with expertise. MAC has already provided a Draft EIS, a Supplement EIS and just recently in June, a Final EIS (FEIS).

The Eden Prairie City Council, following the voice of its citizens, has always been against expansion at Flying Cloud. The City hired an expert attorney with the possibility of taking legal action. As a result of the demise of Ordinance 51 and extensive negotiations, the City entered into a settlement with MAC after the Supplement EIS.

This settlement included participation with FAA and provided in part for noise mitigation based upon voluntary restrictions. The Agreement also points out that the pavement of the runways allows only 60,000 lb or less aircraft and MAC promised not to increase the weight capacity of the runways. In return, the City has promised not to take legal action or speak out against the expansion, except for providing comments to the FEIS.

Now in the FEIS, MAC has reduced the predicted noise increases from expansion as a result of the 60,000 lb weight bearing capacity of the runways. It eliminated those larger aircraft from its fleet mix when using the Integrated Noise Model (INM) to generate noise data. The INM is a computer program that estimates noise from inputting a variety of parameters, including the type and number and flight paths of aircraft using Flying Cloud.

Comments to the Final EIS were due on August 17, 2004. After the FEIS comment period, MAC will submit the FEIS to the EQB for a determination of whether the environmental review is adequate. If the FEIS is adequate, MAC may proceed with the expansion. MAC intends to apply for federal grants from FAA in order to pay for the expansion.

To accomplish these expansions, MAC must purchase approximately 280 acres of Eden Prairie land at a cost MAC estimates at 18.5 million dollars. MAC has already purchased most of these properties years ago, even though it has not yet received a determination that its environmental review is adequate from the Minnesota EQB. In other words, MAC has already begun the project by purchasing expansion land without prior environmental approval.

In total, MAC estimates the bill for expansion at 54 million dollars as provided in its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget. MAC is predicting that construction will begin in 2005 and be completed in 2007.

Northwest Airline’s Opposition to Flying Cloud Expansion

In an interesting twist to the expansion process, before the FEIS was released, Northwest Airlines sued MAC over the expenditures at MAC’s six reliever airports, including the proposed expansion at Flying Cloud. The judge in that case required Northwest to exhaust its administrative avenues with MAC before continuing in court.

In simple terms, Northwest argues that MAC is unreasonably subsidizing the reliever airports in conflict with MAC’s statutory authority to charge reasonable rents and fees, and is doing so to Northwest’s detriment. Northwest and MAC both hired economic consultants that concluded in fact, MAC has not been charging operators at reliever airports as much as those at comparable airports around the country, and that MAC should increase its charges to operators at reliever airports.

In Northwest’s document entitled "Metropolitan Airports Commission Reliever Seminar April 29, 2004," Northwest specifically asks MAC to cancel the Flying Cloud expansion, divest itself of the 34 million dollar land acquisition (notice the higher cost of land acquisition compared to MAC’s 18 million dollar claim) and return all proceeds to the MSP construction fund. Northwest points out that MAC already has two 5000-foot runways at MSP and Holman Field (STP) and should invest in the construction of a dike to better utilize STP.

Northwest cites a 1994 US General Accounting Office (GAO) Report that said in part

"FAA does not consider general aviation to be a significant factor in congestion at commercial airports today."

"FAA’s analysis showed . . . [g]eneral aviation was not identified as a major cause of delay."

"Although congestion caused by general aviation at commercial airports was a consideration when the reliever program was established, it has largely ceased to be one now."

Northwest continued by demonstrating how MAC could use financial incentives, not expansion, to induce greater use of the reliever airports, even if MAC increased rates to make the relievers more economically self sufficient.

As many of you know, lots of us have been arguing exactly what Northwest has concluded: there is no need to expand Flying Cloud in order to "relieve congestion" at MSP. This is just one of numerous arguments against the proposed expansion that have been provided to MAC, some of which are included in this update.

Lobbying by the National Aviation Transportation Association

The latest information on the expansion process is lobbying. After Northwest’s aggressive opposition to Flying Cloud expansion, the National Aviation Transportation Association (NATA), an advocate for business jet aviation, began lobbying local leaders, including our political representatives, MAC, and Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce for increased funding for the Flying Cloud expansion. See Commentary "Incentives Beyond Economic Value: The Selling of an Airport Expansion" by Zero Expansion in the Eden Prairie News, August 12, 2004.

After years of fact-finding and analysis for the expansion, including the environmental review process; MAC survey and operations information; FAA, GAO, and economic consultants studies, NATA arrives at the 11th hour to lobby for expansion. It is time again for the residents of Eden Prairie to speak out and do our own "lobbying" to stop the expansion. If this politicking of the airport expansion process doesn’t make you mad enough to speak out about the expansion, FAA’s deception about its "change of policy" in the next section will.

Developments Regarding FAA Policy that Affect the Proposed Expansion

There are two developments regarding FAA policy that have a direct impact on expansion at Flying Cloud. From my experience with the Flying Cloud expansion, I would call the actions of FAA/MAC in regards to Flying Cloud to be, in the best possible light, recklessly ignorant, or in the worst light, downright deceptive.

(1) Weight-bearing Capacity of Runways

When the City entered into negotiations with MAC, both MAC and the City required FAA to be involved in the process to avoid any potential problems with their settlement agreement. The City did not want a repeat of what happened with Ordinance 51—after lots of hard work to have the deal unacceptable to FAA.

Given the best MAC could do was a "voluntary" restriction on nighttime operations, it presented the 60,000 lbs weight-bearing capacity of the runway at Flying Cloud as a restriction on use. I was at a meeting with MAC and the City to present the Memorandum of Understanding (the precursor to the settlement agreement) to Zero Expansion and others in which MAC heralded the 60,000 lb as a restriction preventing larger aircraft from using Flying Cloud. In the MAC/City December 2002 Agreement, MAC promises not to increase the weight capacity of the runway. In short, the 60,000 lb restriction was a big part of the deal that FAA participated in.

One and a half years later, MAC in its FEIS describes this weight restriction in its "noise mitigation" plan, and reduces predicted noise from expansion from the INM given that larger aircraft cannot use the runways. And now, FAA is calling such weight restrictions into question. In a "Proposed Policy" published in the Federal Register in July 2003, FAA says that weight capacity of the runways cannot entirely prohibit aircraft above those weights and cannot be used to mitigate noise, because doing so would be unjustly discriminatory in violation of grant assurances. This policy would affect all runways in the country, not just Flying Cloud.

FAA printed this position in July 2003; however, FAA had already made a decision that the weight bearing capacity of a runway could not be used to prohibit larger aircraft from using an airport in February 2002 (just two months after the MAC/City Agreement). Given it takes FAA months to make a decision, surely FAA knew in December when the MAC/City Agreement was made, that FAA would not allow a restriction of aircraft based on weight capacity of the runway. FAA said nothing in December. Did MAC also know in December that such weight restrictions were suspect?

Given FAA’s policy printed in July 2003, I have no doubt that because (1) MAC describes the runway weight capacity as "noise mitigation," (2) MAC reduces its over-60,000 lb aircraft in its fleet mix for the INM, and (3) MAC promises not to increase the runway strength, that FAA will determine the weight capacity cannot be used as a restriction prohibiting larger aircraft at Flying Cloud and will find it unjustly discriminatory in violation of grant assurances.

There now seems to be no guarantee that larger business jets over 60,000 lbs won’t use Flying Cloud. To me, MAC’s actions seem very calculated in order to achieve this result. When the City and MAC entered into the Agreement, the weight bearing capacity of the runway was in no way described as "noise mitigation" nor did MAC state it would reduce the fleet mix in the INM as a result of the weight capacity of the runway. In the MAC/City Agreement it simply states that an engineering study found the capacity top be 60,000 lbs and that MAC wouldn’t increase it unless required by State law. Never in the previous Draft EIS or Supplement EIS did MAC discuss weight capacity as a restriction on use or noise mitigation until after FAA published its policy that calls it discriminatory.

Why in June 2004, after a printed FAA policy to the contrary, is MAC using the 60,000 lb weight restriction as "noise reduction? Is MAC just recklessly ignorant or deceptive?

If FAA does find the weight capacity restriction at Flying Cloud discriminatory, I think the City is no longer bound to the Agreement pursuant to Section 7.2.2 because MAC breeched its commitments and representations, and has breeched its duty to defend the Agreement by setting up the weight capacity of the runways as an illegal restriction.

(2) Toxic Emissions from Aircraft

The general public may not know it, but it is an undisputed fact known by EPA, MPCA, FAA, and MAC that aircraft burning fossil fuels emit toxic chemicals that cause cancerous and non-cancerous health problems. Therefore, I, the City, Zero Expansion, and other concerned residents have repeatedly commented that MAC needs to identify, quantify and address toxic emissions in its environmental review. MAC has repeatedly ignored our requests.

In the June 2004 FEIS, FAA very carefully and deceptively in one paragraph answers the issue on toxic emissions on page 42-43 of Volume II. If you are not familiar with chemistry and environmental laws, FAA’s answer seems to state that it has no obligation to report toxic emissions from aircraft under NEPA and MEPA and that the emissions do not exist.

Let me make it clear, the emissions do exist and FAA is obligated under NEPA and MEPA to disclose them. FAA is fully aware that aircraft emit toxic emissions and has known it for a long time. Various government agencies and universities have been researching this subject for years. Nowhere in NEPA or MEPA does it restrict FAA’s evaluation of air quality to those items identified in the Clean Air Act (CAA), as FAA implies in its answer. One year ago, FAA printed a document entitled "Select Resource Materials and Annotated Bibliography on the Topic of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPS) Associated with Aircraft, Airports, and Aviation" dated July 2003. In this document FAA admits that environmental assessments of toxic emissions have taken place at other airports. How can MAC and FAA continue to ignore requests for toxic emission information at our airports?

Specifically, the concentrations of toxic aircraft emissions for an airport can be calculated by taking the known amounts of hydrocarbon exhaust specific to each type of aircraft, multiplied by the number of operations of that type of aircraft, breaking the hydrocarbon exhaust down into the specific toxic chemicals, and using a sophisticated model to calculate concentrations of those individual toxic chemicals. The calculation of specific toxic chemicals from aircraft emissions is being done at other airports and should be done at Flying Cloud and MSP too.

In the FEIS, FAA tries to downplay toxic emissions by stating that actual air monitoring placed on the ground at runways at various airport has found toxic chemical levels to be the same as background levels for the urban areas. But FAA omits in its answer the logical and scientific explanation: the high heat of the exhaust coming out of the plane causes the toxic plume to rise above the ground where the monitors aren’t located. FAA itself came out with a "Final Report: The Use of LIDAR to Characterize Aircraft Initial Plume Characteristics" in February 2004 showing how aircraft exhaust plumes rise. This does not mean that the toxic chemicals disappear, only that they rise away from monitoring devices on the runways and then eventually drift back down.

Toxic emissions from aircraft are not some theory that only environmentalists and tree huggers have invented and are concerned about. In my research on the subject of toxic aircraft emissions I have spoken to various experts at EPA, MPCA, and California agencies. Believe me, it is a real issue that doesn’t go away just because MAC and FAA choose to ignore it in Minnesota. Air quality affects us all, especially children. The following information should scare you into wanting to stop this unnecessary airport expansion.

These are the toxic chemicals that come out of aircraft exhaust according to EPA:

• 1,3-Butadiene
• Acetaldehyde
• Acrolein
• Benzene
• Ethylbenzene
• Formaldehyde
• nHexane
• Xylene
• Propionaldehyde
• Styrene
• Toulene
• Lead Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM)

EPA’s National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment used computer models from emission information in each state and determined that in Minnesota, 1,3-butadiene, acrolein, benzene, formaldehyde, and POM were at levels in excess of health benchmarks (the levels above which are thought to cause adverse health effects in adults). Recent monitoring measurements taken by MPCA in Minnesota confirm that formaldehyde and benzene in our air are in excess of health benchmarks. MPCA did not monitor POMs and is unable to measure relevant amounts of 1,3-butadiene and acrolein in the air given limitations on the monitoring equipment. MPCA also has not yet calculated the measurements for airborne lead. See MPCA’s "Air Toxics Monitoring in the Twin Cities" dated January 2003.

What does this mean? It means that many of the toxic chemicals found in aircraft exhaust are already at high enough levels in our state to cause adverse health effects in adults. For children in our state, it is a much graver picture. Because children breathe more frequently and eat and drink more compared to their sizes than adults, and because a lot of children’s systems are still developing, EPA and California agencies are re-evaluating health benchmarks for children. They have identified adverse health effects from toxic chemicals at significantly lower levels than adult levels. These lower, child-health benchmarks include studies on benzene, lead, acrolein, POM, and formaldehyde-- the very chemicals that are found in aircraft emissions. See for yourself the alarming health impacts these toxic chemicals have on children at the following website, http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/toxic_contaminants/SB25finalreport.htm.

Toxic aircraft emissions do exist and it is clear that NEPA and MEPA require an evaluation of the air quality impact, especially given that the baseline in Minnesota, before any proposed expansion at Flying Cloud, is already at levels that impact health. Yes, it’s true that other combustion engines like motor vehicles emit toxic chemicals too, but that doesn’t mean you ignore the aviation source. The purpose of NEPA and MEPA is to gather information to enable us to make informed decisions about choices between transportation and air quality. We deserve to know the truth about air quality and the impacts from proposed transportation.

Why hasn’t FAA and MAC given us information on aircraft toxic emissions for the expansion at Flying Cloud and MSP? (MSP emissions should be included because of cumulative impacts.) This time I can’t justify the evasion of the answer with a claim that MAC and FAA are recklessly ignorant. Given FAA’s own documents and the fact that toxic emissions are evaluated at other airports, MAC and FAA are being deceptive.

Some Arguments Against Expansion

I don’t care what your political affiliation is, whether you care more about the environment and your health or whether you care more about your wallet. When you look at the proposed expansion at Flying Cloud, it is a waste of taxpayers’ money, it does not benefit Eden Prairie residents, and at best, only benefits the two fixed-base operators (FBO) at Flying Cloud, Elliot Aviation and Executive Aviation who claim to have stopovers at MSP or STP. It simply does not make sense to expand Flying Cloud at this time.

Expansion will not relieve congestion at MSP

As Northwest Airlines revealed above, studies since 1994 show that general aviation aircraft no longer cause congestion at commercial airports. The 1992 Metropolitan Council request that MAC expand reliever airports is outdated and should be reconsidered.

The numbers reveal the truth about MAC’s proposed expansion. The numbers MAC itself provides in the environmental review process show that expansion at Flying Cloud will not have an impact at MSP. First, MAC conducted a survey in 1997 of six FBOs, in which they were asked

"After taking off from Flying Cloud Airport, have you at any time in the past year had to take on additional fuel or pick up passengers at another metro airport such as St. Paul Downtown or Minneapolis-St. Paul International before continuing on to your final destination? Yes or No. If yes, how many times?"

See Appendix D of the Flying Cloud Airport Expansion Technical Report Activity Forecasts November 1999 (emphasis added). Only 2 of the 6 FBOs responded yes to stopovers. MAC’s own survey states: "The two firms combined for a total of 16-29 times." Obviously, 16-29 operations in a year compared to the 512,588 operations at MSP in a year in a year do not justify the expense of 54 million dollars. According to MAC’s surveys, stopovers from Flying Cloud to MSP are only 0.006% of operations at MSP!

MAC’s 1997 survey is very clear that the question asked was not round trip flights or how many times per week. The question asked was operations per year. Nevertheless from this survey information, MAC claimed in the Draft EIS and Supplement EIS that the stopover operations at MSP were 8,300 a year! In my SDEIS comments I questioned the accuracy of 8,300 stopovers because this number is so high that it equals the total number of ALL business operations at Flying Cloud a year for 1999!!! I am not splitting hairs. Remember, this is the very reason for MAC’s proposed expansion and for its cost/benefit analysis! Again I ask, was MAC recklessly ignorant or deceptive when it came up with 8,300 stopovers after its survey showed 16-29?

How did MAC answer my question? MAC contacted the survey respondents again seven years later on January 6, 2004. MAC states in the FEIS that respondents now claim that seven years ago, they actually meant flights per week, not operations per year, and that since that time they have had this same number of stopovers, and they continue to have this number today. So, in the FEIS, MAC has now changed the number of stopovers from 8,300 to 2,340 (a significant decrease!) and claims maybe a few more if Flying Cloud runways are icy requiring landing at MSP.

Even assuming MAC’s new number of 2,500 stopovers at MSP a year is correct, that is only 0.5% of total operations at MSP! Obviously stopovers from Flying Cloud are NOT causing congestion at MSP. Is it worth 54 million dollars to eliminate 0.5% of operations at MSP? Also, remember the two FBOs, Elliot Aviation and Executive Aviation, state that their stopovers have not increased in 7 years. Then why do they need a 54 million dollar expansion? MAC has never been able to demonstrate congestion at MSP from general aviation. Even its biggest tenant at MSP, Northwest Airlines, says there is no congestion from general aviation. Northwest Airlines would know! Northwest wants the Flying Cloud expansion stopped.

Operations at Flying Cloud have been diminishing since 1994 (232,130 total operations) and were at one of the lowest levels in 2003 (155,837 total operations). Why are large amounts of new hanger space needed when the data shows usage of the airport has declined significantly?

Finally, economic consultants for Northwest Airlines demonstrate that MAC can use financial incentives to induce operators to use Flying Cloud without a capital cost improvement of 54 million dollars for extended runways and hanger space. Is MAC just recklessly ignorant to the numbers and the facts that show expansion is not warranted and that MAC needs to charge operators at reliever airports a higher fees and rates?

Expansion is a waste of taxpayers’ money

MAC estimates the bill for expansion at 54 million dollars. The actual cost to taxpayers and commercial fliers for the expansion will be much larger than 54 million dollars given that every year MAC subsidizes Flying Cloud as discussed at the beginning of this article.

This +54-million dollars is going to be spent exclusively to increase the types of business jets at Flying Cloud, however, according to MAC’s data, currently only 3% of flights at Flying Cloud are business jets to begin with! That means that 97% of operations at Flying Cloud are recreational or flight training operations that don’t need the expansion.

Even with the proposed expansion, MAC estimates the total business jet operations to increase only to 8% of total operations at Flying Cloud in ten years. According to MAC data in the FEIS, Flying Cloud had the following estimated total operations and estimated business operations.
                  

	1999	2010 (with expansion)
Total Operations	234,475	302,982
Business Jet Operations	5,876 (3% of all operations)	24,440 (8% of all operations)


MAC has not even claimed that all of this 5% increase in business jets would result because of expansion. Even assuming all increases in business jet operations for 2010 resulted from the expansion, would you spend +54 million dollars for a runway that results in a 5% increase of business jet flights in 10 years! Can anyone prove to me that a 5% increase in business jets in ten years at Flying Cloud is worth over 54 million dollars? Remember the expansion is not necessary for increasing operations, it’s just to increase the types of larger jet business aircraft at the request of two FBOs.

Of all you residents in Eden Prairie who travel by air for business, how many of you have flown out of Flying Cloud? Do you know anyone who does? There is no doubt that most business travelers fly commercial flights. I always did. Who does fly on those very few, 3% business flights out of Flying Cloud? Perhaps a few high ranking executives, but can any of them step forward and say that they must have taxpayers pay for a +54 million dollar runway to get to their destination? Perhaps there are a few charter flights that carry several passengers for business, but can any company step forward and say that taxpayers must pay +54 million dollars for a runway in order to get their employees to a destination? For those 1% of operations at Flying Cloud that must have a stopover at MSP or STP, I say, too bad; it’s not worth +54 million dollars! Otherwise, it’s the biggest government handout to a select few that I have ever heard of!

Expansion will hurt property values in Eden Prairie

MAC has never admitted nor accounted for decreased property values in Eden Prairie that will result when operations at Flying Cloud significantly increase. There is countless research on this subject matter, and many folks have submitted such information to MAC in comment periods. The fact that MAC ignores known research on property devaluation is incredulous. Is MAC being recklessly ignorant or deceptive when it ignores property devaluation? The following is a sample of that research.

Several studies show that property values are negatively impacted by aircraft to an amount of at least 0.5% for every decibel above average noise. See Bragdon, Clifford R. (1989), "Control of airport- and aircraft-related noise in the United States," Transportation Research Record; Nelson, John P. (1980), "Airports and property values: a survey of recent evidence," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy; Tomkins, J., et al. (1998) "Noise versus access: the impact of an airport in an urban property market," Urban Studies; Knack, Ruth Eckdish and Jim Schwab (1996) "Learning to live with airports," Planning; Mieszkowski, Peter and Arthur M. Safer, (1978), "An estimate of the effects on airport noise on property values," Journal of Urban Economics; McDonald, John F. and Clifford I. Osuji (1995), "The effect of anticipated transportation improvement on residential land values," Regional Science and Urban Economics; O’Byrne, Patricia Habuda, et al. (1995), "Housing values, Census estimates, disequilibrium, and the environmental cost of airport noise: a case study of Atlanta," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management; Harvey, Milton E., et al. (1979), "Cognition of a hazardous environment: reactions to Buffalo airport noise," Economic Geography.

In 1994, FAA itself commissioned Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc. to study property devaluation as a result of aircraft noise. It created a report "The Effect of Airport Noise on Housing Values: A Summary Report." The study found that the effect of noise on prices was highest in moderately priced and expensive neighborhoods. For two moderately priced neighborhoods north of LAX, the study found "an average 18.6 percent higher property value in the quiet neighborhood, or 1.33 percent per dB of additional quiet."

A 1996 study found that the expansion of the Seattle-Tacoma Airport would cost nearby cities $500 million in property values. The study found that "all other things remaining equal, the value of a house and lot increases by about 3.4% for every quarter of a mile the house is farther away from being directly under a flight track."

In 1997, Randall Bell, MAI, Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, Licensed Real Estate Broker and instructor for the Appraisal Institute examined 190 sales near the LAX, John Wayne, and Ontario airports. He found a diminution in value due to airports averaging 27.4%.

What kind of community do you want to live in? I used to live in South Minneapolis where jet aircraft noise was so loud that you couldn’t talk on the phone or have a conversation if the windows were open. We moved to suburban Eden Prairie where we could live in a quiet, safe neighborhood. It was a trade off, living in Minneapolis where you could walk to restaurants and shopping and be minutes from downtown and MSP, but had loud aviation noise, or enjoying the quiet outdoors in Eden Prairie where you have to drive everywhere.

Did you know that in the FEIS, MAC is predicting an additional 510 cars on Pioneer Trail and Hwy 212 a day because of expansion. You thought traffic from Grace Church was bad; at least there was a stoplight at the turnoff intersection. Imagine 510 more cars a day on 212 and Pioneer Trial, turning into Flying Cloud where there is no stoplight.

If aviation noise becomes significant in Eden Prairie, I won’t want to live here any longer because there are no perks here that Minneapolis could offer in spite of the noise. I will find a different quiet suburb.

What Should Residents of Eden Prairie Do with All of This Information?

I am not anti-aviation. If the numbers showed expansion at Flying Cloud was greatly needed and efforts were maximized to keep environmental impacts to a minimum, I wouldn’t be writing this article. I am against wasting government money. I am against keeping citizens in the dark about air quality and the risks of toxic air emissions. I am against government agencies that are deceptive about the truth (I have more examples than those described in this article) and don’t know when to stop and say, "Hey, we were wrong. We don’t need to expand at this time. We’ll continue to evaluate it."

Once Flying Cloud is expanded, it can never have its runways decreased. We are at a critical time in the airport expansion. Now is the time for residents to act. Apathy is our greatest enemy. If you agreed with anything in this article opposing expansion, please take 20 minutes right now to act. I’m only asking for 20 minutes to make an impact in the quality of life in our community. Do it right now before you put down this article.

1. Call your favorite Eden Prairie City Council member and tell them you are against expansion and want them to do everything possible to prevent it. 952-949-8300.

In the upcoming election, I will vote only for a candidate who is against expansion.

2. Call your representatives: David Hann at 651- 296-1749 and Erik Paulsen at 952- 949-8869 and tell them you are against expansion.

I will not vote for a candidate who is for expansion because that tells me the candidate does not look at hard facts and data on an issue (because there is only one conclusion from the numbers) and is swayed only by lobbying. No matter what the party affiliation, I don’t want a candidate who doesn’t look at the facts representing me.

3. Call MAC Commissioners at 612-726-8100 and tell them you are against expansion and the waste of government money when data shows Flying Cloud expansion is unwarranted.

4. Call Governor Pawlenty’s Office at 651- 296-3391 and tell them MAC is out of line on the expansion of Flying Cloud, is wasting government money, ignoring hard facts on airport usage, and tell the Governor’s Office that the Met Council needs to re-evaluate its 1992 and 1996 decrees to expand Flying Cloud.

5. Tell your neighbors about what you learned, or give them a copy of this article.


This is once instance in which YOU can make a difference in twenty minutes. Thank you.