History of MSP



In 1914 the Minneapolis Aero Club purchased the Snelling Speedway with the intent of building an airport. In 1920 the first hangar and runway were constructed to accommodate airmail service. In 1923 the name of the then 160 acre airport was changed from Speedway Field to Wold-Chamberlain Field in honor of Ernest Wold and Cyrus Chamberlain, two local aviators killed in combat in World War I.

The airport began serving passengers in 1929, and after commencing international service in 1948, changed its name to Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. In 1962 the Lindbergh terminal opened. It was designed to serve four million passengers per year by 1975, but the passenger growth exceeded predictions, with the airport serving over 4.1 million people by 1967.

The airport has continued to add terminal and runway capacity as the demand for air service has grown. The airport served over 33.2 million passengers in 2003, making it (according to some sources) the 9th busiest airport in North America and the 15th busiest in the world. MSP sources claim it to be the 6th busiest hub airport in North America and 7th busiest in the world. According to Altshuler, MSP now covers 3,100 acres and ranked 11th in 2000 with 17 million enplanements. Regardless of which ranking is more accurate, MSP was come a long way since opening as Speedway Field.

In 1943 the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) was created by the State Legislature to operate the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport. The MAC has 15 commissioners of which 13 are appointed by the governor. The remaining two commissioners are appointed by the mayors of St. Paul and Minneapolis. The MAC oversees all operations at MSP and the reliever airports. The State Legislature also requires that the MAC conduct long range comprehensive planning. In the late 1980s, studies completed by the MAC determined that additional airport capacity would be required to meet future demand. At the request of the Legislature, the MAC and Metropolitan Council conducted a seven year study to determine how best to meet this expected increase in demand. The two main options resulting from the study were to either expand MSP or construct a new airport. A dual track study examining these options was then initiated in 1989.

Dual Track Study

The option for construction of a new airport involved several possible sites in Dakota County. Seven potential sites were considered in the designated search area. Four of the sites were eliminated due to the severe impacts an airport would have on the nearby communities, wetlands, and other environmental elements. Of the remaining three sites the MAC selected a 14,100 acre site that was located south of the City of Hastings and was bounded by 170th Street to the north, US Highway 61 to the east, 220th Street to the south, and Goodwin Avenue to the west.

The MAC completed three different concepts for this site. Each concept involved an airport with four parallel runways and two cross wind runways (MSP has two parallel runways and one crosswind runway. Crosswind runways are used during inclement weather). A fourth concept was created that incorporated the best elements of the first three. This concept was selected in 1994 as the New Airport Alternative.

Simultaneous to the MAC?s planning efforts for a new airport, the MAC also analyzed possible MSP expansion scenarios. Using complex computer simulations to model airport demand and delay caused by exceeding capacity, the MAC arrived at twenty possible expansion scenarios. These scenarios were narrowed down to six possible expansion projects and further evaluated in terms of performance and feasibility. Ultimately the scenario that was selected consisted of a new north-south runway and terminal to the west of the cross-wind and two parallel runways. Of the five rejected scenarios, two had a new north-parallel runway, two had south parallel, and the remaining one had a new north-south runway with a new terminal east of the existing terminal.

The plans with north parallel runways were rejected because they would not have the capacity that a new north-south runway could provide and would not provide as much delay savings. They would also create more wake turbulence from heavy aircraft operation and would have limited use in poor weather. Construction of a new north-parallel runway would also necessitate the destruction of portions of the Fort Snelling Historic District and parts of Old Fort Snelling itself. The north parallel runway would also displace 601 more residents than the north-south runway.

The plans for a south parallel runway were rejected because they could not match the capacity of the north-south runway due to operation conditions caused by the nearby Fort Snelling Cemetery. These scenarios would also create significant noise impacts to 10,000 more residents.

The scenario with a north-south runway and new terminal east of the existing one was found to be unfavorable because it would create logistical issues with passenger gate access, parking, baggage coordination, passenger connections and transfer, and conflicts in aircraft circulation.

Other rejected expansion plans included a remote runway with a high-speed rail link to MSP. This scenario failed to indicate that it would relieve enough congestion from MSP and was not competitive with the proposed north-south runway. There would also be logistic problems with baggage transfer from the main MSP terminal to the remote location. It was also found that the high-speed rail link would have adverse environmental effects.

The Dual Track Study then focused on expanding MSP with the addition of a new north-south runway with a new terminal to the west of the existing terminal, or the construction of a new airport south of Hastings with four parallel runways and two cross wind runways. The following are findings that were listed in the official Record of Decision for the Dual Track Planning Process:

? The New Airport Alternative would result in the physical destruction of more than 6,800 acres of wildlife habitat due to the placement of airport facilities, as compared to the loss of about 360 acres under the MSP Alternative.
? The New Airport would involve the acquisition of 17,000 acres of farmland while no farmland would be affected by the MSP Alternative.
? The New Airport would displace 1,132 residents whereas the MSP Alternative would displace 383 residents.
? The New Airport Alternative would result in major induced development impact within an area that is mostly rural and not served by urban infrastructure. The MSP Alternative can be served by existing infrastructure area and is more consistent with the region?s development plans.
? The average travel times for Twin Cities residents to the New Airport would be about 20 minutes longer than to the existing MSP Airport site.

Due to the above findings and that the new north-south runway could accommodate the projected increase in new aircraft operations, the new airport option was rejected.

Despite these outcomes, there is still some pressure still to relocate MSP. Many residents of south Minneapolis, Richfield and East Bloomington are in favor of moving the airport, (noise impacts) along with developers and some property owners in Dakota County. Many businesses that call Minnesota home are also in favor of a new airport, especially for the opportunities it could create for improved air cargo services.

Air Cargo and Economic Development

With the growth of internet commerce, global competition, and just-in-time manufacturing, the ability to ship a wide array of products to domestic and international markets in short periods of time (overnight to 24 hours) has become increasingly important to companies and each region?s competitive posture. Locally, companies like 3M and Medtronic need to be able to ship products in an extremely timely manner. MSP does not currently allow night flights. Thus, over 80 percent of the air cargo destined to or from the Twin Cities is trucked to or from Chicago. Allowing cargo aircraft to operate in extended hours at MSP would allow industries greater flexibility in shipping and receiving products, but such proposals would likely face significant opposition from local residents.

Memphis, Dallas/Fort Worth, and even Denver have successfully attracted domestic and international exporting manufacturers to locate in their areas by providing incentives for them in terms of constructing separate terminals and screening facilities, allowing 24 hour operations, and the establishment of Foreign Trade Zones.

Field of Dreams?

Obviously, attracting investment and expanding airport capacity in the Twin Cities area can be beneficial to the economy, but is it worth it? The relocation of Stapleton International Airport to the new Denver International Airport (DIA) was 180 percent over budget and its opening delayed by 18 months. Passenger volumes are well below forecasted levels (38 million versus 50 million forecasted for the year 2000) and expensive landing fees (much higher than the national average) have driven some airlines away. This decrease in competition has resulted in higher than average airfares, but delays are few. DIA has plenty of room to grow, however, giving it an advantage over other large hub airports such as O?Hare, San Francisco, New York, and Los Angeles that have or are running out of room.

When considering the idea of relocating MSP, it is important to realize the risks involved and that the set of circumstances that allowed DIA to happen may be unique. The failures of Chicago, St. Louis, Los Angeles, Atlanta, and several others cities in lobbying for new airports may serve as examples of the obstacles such an endeavor faces.


When reading the articles, think about the following questions:

Should MSP be expanded?
Should MSP be relocated? Why? Where?
Should air cargo facilities be expanded?
Should a new (separate) air cargo facility be built, or as part of a new airport?
Who benefits from an MSP expansion/relocation? Who loses?
What are the risks involved for each project?
What are some of the potential impacts at the local/regional level?


Readings for Discussion:

Dual Track Study (read section V only)

Minneapolis-Saint Paul Air Cargo Study Summary

MSP Air Cargo Study

Denver Airport a Tribute to Federico"Kingfish"Pena? - Op-Ed Article by Michael Fumento, Syndicated Columnist

"Denver's Folly is Looking Smart"- Chicago Tribune, December 27, 2000

New 'cities' springing up around many U.S. airports