Truth in Aviation

Port vs. SeaTac Negotiations Continue ** More Bits and Pieces from the HOK Study... ** Airport Communities Receive Most of the Drawbacks But Few of Benefits of Runway Project** UPDATES RCAA Board Tells Rep. Adam Smith of Sea-Tac Airport Impacts; E.I.S. What Next?; Clarification; Choppers for Boeing Field?** Construction Impacts ** RCAA Needs You **

On Thursday March 27th at Cederhurst Elementary School in Burien, State Senator Michael Heavey (D, 34) announced the results of the long-awaited study of potential mitigation costs for a third runway at Sea-Tac. The study was paid for by a grant from the Washington State Legislature. Also participating at the news conference were Senators Julia Patterson (D, 33) and Ray Scow (R, 31), Rep. Karen Kaiser (D, 33), and Burien City Council members Kevin James and Shirley Basarob.

The study focused on problems in the five cities of Burien, Des Moines, Federal Way, Normandy Park, and Tukwila, and on impacts on Highline School District and Highline Community Hospital, with the general purpose of assessing the projected impacts of the proposed third runway at Sea-Tac, and to develop mitigation strategies for the cities, school district, and hospital.

The study estimated that partial mitigation costs would be around $2.9 billion. Due to time and budget constraints, mitigation costs for all impacts were not estimated (see article p.4).

The Port/FAA had previously only estimated $50 million for mitigation of environmental impacts, most of that for acquisition.

(In December 1996, the Port announced that the total construction cost of the project had increased by 21%, primarily due to inflation estimates; however, the Port's mitigation cost estimate only increased by 4.8%--from $50 million to $52.1 million.)

The grant was administered at the State level by the Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development and at the local level by the City of Burien (Fred Stouder, City Manager).

The lead consultant for the study was the Helmuth, Obata + Kassabaum, Inc. of Dallas, Texas (HOK). Raytheon Infrastructure Services, Inc. (of Denver and Philadelphia) worked as subconsultant with HOK. Thomas/Lane & Associates, Inc. (Seattle) provided socio-economic analysis and mitigation measures, Michael J. McCormick (Olympia) consulted about intergovernmental affairs.

Although Port spokesman Mike Feldman questioned the "assumptions" used by HOK and its subconsultants, he did not explain why the Port's estimate was so small by comparison. The HOK study says it relies on the assumptions and noise contours used in the Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the Port and the FAA. Feldman also complained about a lack of public hearings, although the report says that the consultants conducted over 100 meetings, interviews, presentations, workshops, and question-and-answer sessions with local County and State elected officials; representatives from various City, County, State, regional and Federal agencies; the Port and its consultants, and the general public.

A complete copy of the Executive Summary can be found in the economics section of the RCAA website library at http://www.rcaanews.org/rcaa

By a unanimous vote on March 31, the Seattle City Council passed a resolution requesting King County to implement night-time flight restrictions at Boeing Field (King County International Airport). The resolution notes that 2,525 aircraft noise complaints generated by KCIA operations were received in 1996, up from only 403 complaints in 1995. Councilmembers Tina Podlodowski, Jane Noland, and Charlie Chong were instrumental in securing passage of the resolution.

Nine Schools Should Be Candidates for Closure, Study Team Says

Nine Highline District public schools are candidates for closure in order to mitigate excessive noise impacts, according to the state-funded study: three in Burien, three in Des Moines, two in the unincorporated area of King County between Burien and Seattle, and one in unincorporated King County just east of Normandy Park. The sites of these schools should be acquired by the Port, the buildings removed, and the land redeveloped for other uses more compatible with major noise encroachments.

Classified by type, the schools include five elementary schools, one middle school, two high schools, and the Marine Technical Laboratory. The individual schools are listed in a table below.

According to Highline School District, new elementary schools serving 600 pupils cost $10 to 11 million to build. Middle schools run $15 to $18 million, and high schools, roughly $36 to 40 million. Land costs are extra. Thus, replacement buildings could cost between $137 million and $153 million, not considering the marine lab, land costs, or moving expenses -- or special insulation needs in noise-impact zones.

The report notes that the costs of closing and relocating these schools remain to be determined and that this financial burden should rest on the Port, not on the school district. Highline Superintendent Dr. Joe McGeehan commented, "The HOK study gives one cause to pause about the second and third runways' impacts. We must continue to refuse to let the Port of Seattle short-change our students."

Beyond the costs issue is the unaddressed question of where the Highline School District will be able to find non-impacted replacement sites.

Another 25 public schools need major insulation, and the school district should be granted compensation for loss of property value at those locations (in return for avigation easements), the report advises. These facilities include seven in Burien, four in Des Moines, one in Normandy Park, seven in SeaTac, and five in various pockets of unincorporated King County. The HOK study team estimates that the loss of property values in impacted areas averages $37,500 per acre. Detailed costs remain to be calculated. The report urges that there be further study to determine the full extent of the needed insulation and amount of easment compensation.

In fact, Airport expansion mandates either closure or insulation of almost every educational building in Highline School District: all 23 elementary schools, all four middle schools, all five high-school facilities, and two out of five specialized facilities.

Complicating all mitigation possibilities for Highline schools is the age of the buildings. Most were built before the second runway (opened, 1972), before the era of jet aircraft, and are approaching obsolesence. The Highline School District's Board and senior staff must wrestle with the question, How much money should be spent for insulation in buildings that will need replacement in the near future?

Airport impacts on church-related and other private schools were not included in the HOK study. Thus, mitigation of noise is not discussed for such facilities as St Bernadette School (1028 SW 126th), Burien Adventist School (14237 Des Moines Memorial Drive), and Kennedy Memorial High School (Burien).

Only public schools in Highline School District were covered by the study. Therefore, impacts on the five schools in Tukwila (South Central District) and the schools in Federal Way (Federal Way District) remain to be examined.

Noise exceeding 65 LDN is considered by the FAA to be incompatible with residential land use. The study recommends that where one-third or more of a neighborhood receives noise exceeding 65 LDN, mitigation should treat the entire neighborhood, not individual structures. Such a neighborhood should be considered a potential candidate for complete redevelopment to non-residential uses, that is, razing all structures, relocating present residents, and starting over. Costs of acquisition, clearing the land, improving the infrastructure for new uses, and marketing the land are estimated at $760,000 per acre. The five neighborhoods meeting this criterion are Northeast (Burien), West Central, North Central, East Central, and South Des Moines (all in Des Moines). Adopting this course would remove almost half the residential neighborhoods in the City of Des Moines. The study did not cover the City of SeaTac, which has similar neighborhoods.

This program, recognized as the most costly mitigation measure, is based on neighborhood boundaries identified by representatives of the cities of Des Moines and Burien. A detailed land use inventory would need to be completed in order to develop more focused cost estimates and projections, the report cautions. Further study is required to determine if the neighborhood boundaries are the most acceptable, or if sub-neighborhoods can be identified to minimize the need for complete redevelopment. Acquisition and redevelopment is not contemplated by existing municipal comprehensive plans, which would need amendment to accommodate such measures.

The proposal is based on mitigation measures developed by the consultant firm Landrum & Brown, Inc., and recently implemented at Dallas/Fort Worth Airport.

...AND THAT'S NOT ALL

• A working group/oversight commission to interact with the Port of Seattle during Master Plan Update implementation
• A study of each neighborhood and school to consider if there are less disruptive alternatives
• A more detailed study of the proposed avigation and easement program of the Port (not given in the EIS)
• Additional information on vibration impacts from construction
• Eleven specific noise and vibration recommendations, including rewriting the EIS to use latest INM noise model and to show the LDN 55 and SEL contours for the preferred alternative, as well as providing information on the time threshold above (TA) noise metric. Also included are specific operating improvements, such as using permanent/portable "hush houses" for run-ups, restricting runway use between 9 P.M. and 7 A.M., and keeping departure tracks over water as much as possible
• Minimizing overflights of residential neighborhoods
• Considering implementation of new technologies such as Microwave Landing System and Global Positioning Satellite System to reduce noise impacts

By careful comparison of County Assessor's 1993 valuations of single-family homes in 10 census tracts in South-West King County and in 10 tracts in the Shoreline area, the mitigation study team learned that property values in the Shoreline area are, on average, more than 10 percent higher than values for closely comparable homes in the vicinity of Sea-Tac Airport. Thus, if a single-family residential house located in, say, Federal Way, could be physically transported to an exactly similar lot in another part of King County, its value would be increased -- by 10 percent. This difference in assessed value is attributable solely to the impact of low-flying aircraft in Sea-Tac's vicinity.

Average assessed valuations vary among the five cities studied. The greatest average loss in value was found in Normandy Park, where the actual average assessed value of single-family properties as of 1993 was $173,600, but would have been $191,000 in the absence of the airport. Average value depression per home was calculated as $12,400 in Tukwila, $13,100 in Burien, $13,700 in Des Moines, and $14,400 in Federal Way.

Increased operations at Sea-Tac will result in further loss of value, the study reports. Using Port of Seattle estimates of future levels of Sea-Tac operations found in the Final Enviromental Impact Statement (January 1996), the consultants calculated average loss in property values for the years 2000 and 2020. The losses between the years 2000 and 2020 will be due to the third runway.

The Port-sponsored FEIS proposed no measures to mitigate these losses.

Another part of the study examined the effect of proximity to flight tracks on property values. The conclusion: the closer to a flight track, the less value a home has, owing to noise, visual pollution, air-quality concerns, and a 'generally degraded environment for human habitat'. The same house one quarter-mile removed from a flight track is worth an additional 3.4 percent, and this rate holds true to about two miles away from an overflight route. For example, an average Federal Way house, worth $150,000 if situated two miles from a flight track, would be worth only $114,600 if located directly under a flight track.

Taking all the foregoing factors into account, the study team calculated an estimated total loss of single-family residential property values, city by city.

Burien

Burien is the most-impacted city in terms of loss of property values and number of homes. It will have 15,890 dwelling units impacted in the year 2000, rising to 19,890 in the year 2020. The total loss of property values is estimated at $209,411,749 in 2000, at $235,769,426 in 2010, and at $262,127,104 in 2020.

Des Moines

Des Moines will have 5,179 dwelling units impacted in the year 2000, rising to 7,179 in the year 2020. The total loss of property values is estimated at $71,492,950 in 2000, at $85,297,343 in 2010, and at $99,101,736 in 2020.

Federal Way

Federal Way will have 10,992 dwelling units impacted in the year 2000, rising to 12,392 in the year 2010, and 13,792 homes in 2020. The total loss of property values is estimated at $159,334,980 in 2000, at $179,628,737 in 2010, rising to $199,922,493 in 2020.

Normandy Park

Normandy Park, the smallest city studied, will have 2,417 of its dwelling units impacted in the year 2000, with an increase to 2,577 affected homes in 2021, and another increase to 2,737 in the year 2020. The total loss of property values is estimated at $42,564,077 in 2000, at $45,381,724 in 2010, and at $48,199,371 in 2020.

Tukwila

A total of 3,666 dwelling units in Tukwila will be impacted in the year 2000, rising to 6,066 by the year 2020 -- the greatest percentage increase in number of affected residences in the study area. The total loss of property values is estimated at $45,539,453 in 2000, at $60,455,984 in 2010, and at $75,352,516 in 2020.

After extensive review, the HOK study team reject the Port's statement in the FEIS that there will be the same number of operations at Sea-Tac whether or not the third runway is built. The consultants conclude that there will be significant additional overflights as the result of building a third runway, resulting in more noise, more impacts, and more need for mitigation—all understated in the FEIS.

A complete copy of the property value section of the report is posted at the RCAA website.

Potential costs to meet impacts of Sea-Tac expansion on the area roadway system are estimated by the HOK team at about $479 million. These potential expenditures would serve two different needs: first, minimal improvements designed to relieve congestion, and second, repairs of future damage to road surfaces and bridges. The report cautions that the $479 million estimate is a maximum figure and that some proposed improvements and possible repairs may prove unnecessary.

According to the study team, the Port-sponsored Final EIS did not study a large enough area in considering ground-transportation problems. Sea-Tac serves the entire Central Puget Sound area, yet the transportation impacts studied in the EIS "stopped at the Airport's 'driveways"'. In forming their recommendations, the HOK experts studied the full network of freeways and principal arterials that carry the bulk of area traffic during and after construction. No Reliable Traffic Forecasts

Despite decades of so-called regional transportation planning by Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) and its predecessors, the HOK study team discovered that there are no reliable, current traffic data or uniform traffic forecasts for the years 2000 and 2020 for the network of roadways serving Sea-Tac Airport, thus making assessment of future impacts on ground traffic very difficult. An area-wide traffic study is recommended for the entire south-west King County area, including destination-origin (or select-link or screen-line analysis), followed by development of an agreed-upon model for allocating impact costs between Airport-generated traffic and other sources. It is not possible without such studies to, say, how much of the future costs should be attributed to airport-related traffic. In the absence of good data, the team was obliged to construct its own program of minor, low-cost roadway improvements to address possible future congestion impacts off the freeway system. Such improvements include traffic-signal interconnects; re-timing of existing signals; minor lane-widening at intersections; lane re-striping; new signal equipment; exclusive turn lanes; sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals. Improvements of this sort were estimated to cost, all in all, about $2,100,000 per mile (not per lane). No road construction would be needed.

The team found that the principal physical impact on roadways will occur in the five-year construction period, from dirt-haul trucks on the State-supported freeway system. The impacts from such traffic is expected to require not only resurfacing but more expensive pavement reconstruction. Other freeway users will avoid dirt-haul congestion by switching to principal arterials. The potential roadway damage from this diverted traffic on city streets can be managed with normal annual resurfacing programs.

Much more costly are measures to repair damage: a new bridge deck costs $500,000, with individual bridge rehabilitation or replacement at $600,000 and $1,500,000 respectively. Seismic retrofits at $1,000,000 may be needed. Fortunately for the airport communities, impacted bridges occur only on the State freeway system. Roadway resurfacing, per lane, runs $400,000 per mile per lane, and reconstruction at $1,300,000 per mile per lane.

Potential physical damage to 91 miles of city-maintained streets over the 20-year period ending in 2020 was estimated at a total of $103.2 million.

Burien	$16.9 million
Des Moines	$13.8 million
Federal Way	$ 6.4 million
Normandy Park	$11.7 million
Tukwila	$27.2 million

These are maximum figures, subject to downward adjustment after dirt haul routes are selected and after future traffic patterns establish themselves.

The State-supported freeway system (31 potentially-affected miles) faces a somewhat smaller bill for damage, almost exclusively from construction-years traffic: $28.0 million for damage to roadways and another $54.4 in potential bridge work (estimated at $1.7 million per bridge). Freeways not chosen for dirt-haul routes will need much leas in the way of maintenance/repair than the haul routes.

The principal traffic-control recommendation is that all dump truck traffic for the third-runway fill operation be confined to freeways, and that if necessary a temporary connection from the freeway system directly on to the Airport be constructed, to keep dirt-haul trucks from passing through the SR509/SR518 interchange.

The total roadway network studied by the team includes 31 miles of freeways, 36 miles of principal arterials, 55 miles of minor arterials, 54 major intersections, and 32 bridges (including overpasses).

The land needed for the proposed third runway has a present assessed value of $65.4 million, of which $54.1 is residential property and $21.3 commercial property. Taking this land off the tax rolls would cause Burien to lose $45,900 in annual property-tax receipts, and SeaTac, $181,700. Business displacement would reduce sales-tax receipts in both cities by amounts not calculated. These tax revenue losses, while the only ones considered in the Port's environmental analysis, are barely the beginning of the story. The loss of property value from increased noise will drive down property tax receipts throughout the airport communities, in ever-increasing amounts, according to the mitigation study. Annual revenue losses from this source, as of year 2000, are calculated at --

Burien	$630,264
Des Moines	$267,765
Federal Way	$514,963
Normandy Park	$131,949
Tukwila	$141,172
TOTAL	$1,686,113

In 2020, the end of the study period, the annual tax losses will grow to $2,189,239. Homes closer to flight tracks will suffer additional property-value depression (see p. 2), with associated additional tax-revenue losses in Burien, Des Moines, Federal Way, and Normandy Park, of about $185,000 annually. (Tukwila residences are not close enough to new Sea-Tac flight tracks to be impacted, and the HOK study did not consider impacts on Tukwila of possible new flight tracks out of Boeing Field.)

Cumulatively, over the 20-year period 2000 through 2020, the five cities will suffer a reduction in property-tax revenues from single family residential units of $39.9 million, nearly $2 million per year, mostly due to higher volumes of air traffic after the third runway goes operational. (The fundamental assumption of the HOK study is that the runway & associated improvements will be built.) The tax losses from property acquisition, the only loss discussed in the EIS, is only 2.75 percent of the total tax-revenue loss.

The cities will be faced with declining revenues, at a time when a predictable shift from owner-occupied residences to rental will produce demographic changes (younger, poorer, and more mobile families, with more school-age children and with more social problems). The report predicts that the cities will face a need to increase expenditures per capita while the voters will evince greater resistance to raising local tax rates to meet the new needs. The entire topic of economic impacts of the third runway on the nearby communities, tax bases, facilities, and services needs additional, quantitative research. The topic was not even addressed in the FEIS.

The same phenomenon of declining tax revenues and increasing demand for services faces the Highline School District. In addition, the District must cope with ever-increasing noise interference with education, and psychological and health problems in the student population associated with noise and air pollution from increased Sea-Tac operations. To remedy loss of tax revenues, the consultants recommend that the Port of Seattle make partial payments to the five affected cities in order to mitigate the loss of local-government revenues over the project period (2000 through 2020). A similar program is needed for Highline School District, and probably for South Central (Tukwila) and Federal Way School Districts.

The potential for air-quality impacts exists in every neighborhood in the communities included in the study, and most of these areas cannot be protected from such impacts, according to the HOK report on mitigation. These impacts were 'not adequately addressed in the Airport's EIS', the study team states. Available resources did not permit HOK to examine these impacts fully or to do a cost analysis of air-quality degradation.

According to the HOK team, the closest air-monitoring sites of the Department of Ecology and the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency are five miles from the Airport. Monitoring sites are needed west, northwest, and southwest of the Airport, and closer to the facility, especially at sites where there have been complaints. Monitoring should measure carbon monoxide, airborne particulates, and such toxic pollutants as 1,3-butadiene, benzene, and formaldehyde.

Long-term studies are needed of the effect of airborne toxic matter associated with Airport operations, the study recommends. Health problems in the area, including assessment of risk of cancer, should be examined. The study should include schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and residences.

In a March 31 letter to the FAA, the Regional Office of the US Environmental Protection rejected the air quality analysis used by the FAA/Port in the Sea-Tac expansion EIS. The EPA report concluded, "A few errors may have been made which call into question the validity of the [sic] some of the conclusions in the document [the DSEIS]: that the Preferred Alternative case would produce air quality impacts that are the same as or less than under the Do-Nothing scenario." The letter pointed out several errors in the DSEIS, saying, if the errors were corrected, the project would exceed de minimis air quality standards for carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). Under federal air quality laws, projects exceeding de minimis levels must have a plan, called a Conformity Determination, to reduce emissions below the threshold before they can be approved and receive federal funding.

Negotiations for a settlement of the City of SeaTac's lawsuit against the Port of Seattle continue, with court action delayed again. A source reports that the Port's principal goal in the bargaining is to have the city relinquish control over land-use decisions in the Westside Area (proposed site of the third runway).

There is an inequity regarding the benefit of Sea-Tac to its immediate neighbors. While the study acknowledges the benefit of the Airport to the Central Puget Sound area, the State, and the wider region, these benefits are not experienced locally in the five cities considered in the study. Approximately five percent of the persons utilizing the Airport as travelers or employees live in the area most impacted, and the remaining 95 percent of passengers and employees come from elsewhere in the region, 57 percent in King County, 10 percent in Snohomish County, and 10 percent in Pierce County. The benefits tend to be individual and corporate. The detrimental impacts, on the other hand, extend from individual homes and businesses through whole neighborhoods and blur across neighborhood lines to impact entire communities. The expected relative depression of property values will have a cascading effect on the population mix in these areas. Single-family residences that cannot be sold will become rental properties, with predictable decrease in average family income and increases in usage of social services. As property values decline, real-estate tax revenues decline, while at the same time the cost of providing social services will increase. The benefits derived locally from Airport activity will by no means offset the detriments. The people and areas well removed from the Airport, experiencing almost all of the benefits, will (if nothing is done) contribute very little to mitigation of adverse impacts. The study recommends that the Port make partial, offsetting payments to the five impacted cities in order to mitigate the loss of governmental revenues over the project period.

Impacts from construction work at the Airport fall into three major categories: impacts (noise and traffic congestion) of dirt-haul trucks carrying fill to the site; noise & ground vibration from construction activities; dust. The EIS did not address the ground-vibration problem.

The HOK team proposes that dirt-hauling trucks be restricted to the State freeway system; that the cities plan to deal with increased traffic on their road systems resulting from project-employees' vehicles, from construction trucks other than fill-haulers, and from 'spill-over' or diversion of freeway traffic seeking to avoid congestion caused by fill-haul trucks; that construction work (including fill hauling) be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. on weekdays, and 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Saturdays, with no Sunday or holiday work; that a dust-control plan be included in the contractor's permit; that before construction begins, further information about potential impacts from ground vibration be developed.

A tracking group, or oversight commission, should be assembled to interact with the Port during construction of the various phases of the Master Plan Update. The group should have independent, permanent staff with technical expertise in airport construction and operation, and supported by representatives of the various cities around the Airport and citizen groups. Funding should be guaranteed as part of the mitigation agreement that should be entered into between the Port, the cities, school districts, other local interests, and various County, State, and Federal regulatory agencies. The mitigation report recommends that "work on the proposed activities cannot proceed without the group's approval of the mitigation measures and related information". The oversight commission would presumably monitor compliance with construction mitigation, and receive and act on complaints from interested agencies and the public.

Although all subjects could not be covered due to limited funding, the HOK study is careful to identify work that needs to done to mitigate a third runway; for example, the need to examine the cumulative impacts of noise, air pollution, and traffic on communities—a topic not considered in the Port/FAA Environmental Impact Statements. It also did not cover mitigation measures and costs for air and water quality, both potentially serious environmental impacts of the project. Air quality is a significant problem and the Highline aquifer is at serious risk from construction. Neither the City of SeaTac, where traffic and noise impacts are similar to Des Moines and Burien, nor neighborhoods in Seattle on the northeast side of the airport with potential impacts similar to Federal Way were covered. Items such as traffic control during construction and fill toxicity and placement problems need to be addressed, and many of the items covered need more detailed work.