At the same meeting, the Commissioners were presented with a financing plan that largely depends on uncommitted outside funding: $260 million
from the Federal government, proceeds from the Port's charge of $3 per ticket, and the balance from revenue bonds -- which depend on lease
agreements with major airlines, none of which has committed to the project. King County residents fear that the ever-increasing costs will show up on
their real-property tax bills.
Staff at King County International Airport (KCIA, or Boeing Field) working on a strategic master plan for the in-city,
two-airstrip facility, have produced five draft alternatives, all of which threaten more traffic and more noise over
neighborhoods in Tukwila and Seattle, according to Mike Rees, chairman of the airport's ad hoc noise advisory committee.
At present, KCIA traffic is at 350,000 operations yearly. Traffic would grow to 428,700 operations by 2015 under the
most restrictive alternative. Numbers as high as 621,000 operations are given for other alternatives.
- status quo 428,700;
- emphasize air cargo 494,100;
- emphasize corporate general aviation 621,100;
- balanced development 502,000;
- emphasize noise reduction 478,700.
The cargo alternative is recognized as the noisiest alternative for cargo aircraft are larger and notably noisier than other aircraft using Boeing Field.
In February, the Tukwila City Council passed its Resolution 1371, asking the County Executive and Council to take measures to reduce night-time noise at KCIA. On March 3, Council President Jim Haggerton wrote to the airport, stating Tukwila's strong preference for alternative 5, 'emphasize noise reduction'. The Council urged airport staff to consider fully
the noise impacts on the surrounding communities (which are predominantly residential) and to incorporate noise reduction requirements into each of the alternatives. The draft alternatives, which come early in the planning process, do not address noise-contour questions or specific noise reduction measures other than alteration of the fleet mix. The
alternatives other than 'do-nothing' would be implemented by changes in the permitted uses of airport-owned land and buildings.
Tukwila was incorporated in 1908.
Readers who want to send email to the King County Council can do so at our Automated E-mail Center on the Action Alert Page. For more on this subject, see the CFAN page.
Horizon Airlines, a leading commuter line, has announced plans to begin operations at Paine Field, in Snohomish County. Horizon says that 4 or 5 new flights per day from Paine will serve a large, and growing, market in North King County and South Snohomish County. When Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) voted to approve planning for the third runway at Sea-Tac in July 1996, Snohomish County delegates supported the action in the hope that commercial traffic would thus be kept out of Paine. Apparently in deference to Snohomish County, PSRC had earlier reneged on its commitment to a multi-airport system.
In a July 1996 letter Frederic M. Isaacs, FAA Regional Administrator, wrote that Paine Field is a “designated reliever airport,” allowing commercial aviation operations. A recent master plan update for Paine field confirms that commercial flights are allowed there.
Horizon’s new flights will connect with Portland International Airport, where the local Port has approved a $20 million bond issue to pay for a new flight operations center for Horizon. Horizon runs more than 5000 flights per month in and out of Portland.
At press time, the final report of the HOK team studying impacts from Sea-Tac expansion was still in preparation. Total
impact costs are expected to exceed $4 billion. Key members of the study team are scheduled to make a wrap-up visit to
the area for two weeks in March, according to Fred Stouder, Burien City Manager. Release of the $500,000, state-funded
study is now expected in April.
[Page 2]
SeaTac Citizens Hear Details Of Third Runway Impacts
At a meeting sponsored by RCAA at Tyee High School on Jan.22, concerned SeaTac residents, local elected officials,
and citizen experts discussed impacts of proposed Sea-Tac expansion in depth.
A panel of individuals involved in issues related to the third runway made initial presentations, followed by comments
and questions from the floor.
Residents were most disturbed by the probable impacts from additional road traffic to be caused by 67-foot-long truck-
trailer rigs that would use local roads to haul 23 million cubic yards of fill dirt to the construction site.
The meeting was attended by a host of elected officials including Sen. Julia Patterson and Reps. Karen Keiser, Rod
Blalock (all D-33) as well as SeaTac city council member Terry Anderson, and Normandy Park city council member
Stuart Creighton.
In a recent report to the SeaTac City Council, the Westside Ad Hoc Advisory Committee recommended that the City not permit zoning changes in the
Westside area of the city of SeaTac to accomodate airport or industrial use. The January 15 report, signed by residents Richard Roullard, Leilani Schuh,
Ben Stark, John Jovanovich, Tony Scoccolo, and David Scheer, concluded "We recommend our proposed no third runway plan be adopted and
implemented now to preclude more years of continued uncertainty for Westside citizens."
The committee noted "there is a great deal of uncertainty regarding construction of the runway" and recommended "the west side subarea plan should
provide all west side property owners with the opportunity to realize full potential value for their property through appropriate and compatible land use
changes.”
According to the committee, "appropriate development in the underdeveloped areas of the west side with senior housing, multi-family, various office
and commercial uses can provide a positive and stabilizing influence for the entire west side subarea as well as enhancing values of the existing single
area neighborhoods." The committee noted that the area’s current RS-7200 zoning inhibited growth in the area, and that the lack of appropriate
development options has been costly to the Westside owners and to the City's tax revenue.
The committee's report follows a decision by the SeaTac City council last October to permit multi-family zoning for an area of vacant land in
SeaTac's Westside area.
Port of Seattle officials vigorously lobbied Sea-Tac council members to oppose the move to permit multi-family land use zoning in SeaTac's west
side area. In a Sept. 18 letter concerning west side zoning the Port of Seattle wrote "we recommend that the preferred land use under the with runway
option be airport support with corresponding zoning to be either 'airport use' or 'industrial' " the Port's letter suggested specific land uses for the west
side area which included "warehouse/storage, flight kitchens, parking, light manufacturing, etc."
Aviation Director Gina Marie Lindsey who spoke before the SeaTac City Council at the October 8 meeting claimed that allowing multi-family zoning
in the west side would permit a few property owners to reap a financial windfall from the up-zoning of their property. Lindsey stated "Is the potential
windfall from this rezone fair to other west side residents?" Council members Frank Hansen and Kathy Gehring voted with the Port and opposed the
change in land use zoning.
|
updates
Sea Tac v. POS on Hold
At the request of the parties, Superior Court litigation between the city of SeaTac and the Port of Seattle was stayed (put on hold) by the court in late
1996, so that the city and Port could engage in ‘global negotiations’ on their many disputes. A hoped-for settlement by the end of 1996 did not
materialize. The stay has now been continued to April 10, according to SeaTac City Attorney Robert McAdams. The parties are not talking about the
state of the negotiation, but obviously they are going very slowly, if at all.
The cities in the Airport Communities Coalition have filed a brief as friend of the court. The ACC cities generally support SeaTac’s contention that
the Growth Management Act requires the Port’s development plans to comply with the comprehensive plans of neighboring cities. Late breaking news
on this suit will be posted in the Hot News section of the RCAA web site.
C.A.S.E. To Meet
Citizens Against Sea-Tac Expansion (C.A.S.E.) will will hold their regular monthly meetings on Wednesday April 2 and May 7 at ERAC, 15675
Anbaum S.W. in Burien, 7 p.m.
Third Time the Charm?
Administrative appeals of the final environmental impact statement for Sea-Tac expansion have been delayed because the Port waited until after
appeals were filed before hiring a hearing examiner. The Airport Communities Coalition successfully challenged the Port's first appointee (who had
unacceptably close ties with Port staffers). The second appointee also fell by the wayside. In December, the Port appointed Greg Smith, of Spokane,
who has no known ties to any party in these appeals. At press time, no hearing dates have been set.
Wetlands
To achieve its expansion plans at Sea-Tac, the Port needs to construct various facilities in areas now considered to be 'wetlands'. Special Federal
regulations apply to these areas.
The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, one of the federal agencies that regulates use of 'wetlands', has decided to make development more difficult by
requiring detailed review for projects affecting three acres or more, and by requiring notice of actions affecting one-third of an acre or more. The prior
practice of the Corps was to require only a cursory review of projects affecting under 10 acres, and to exempt projects affecting 1 acre or less from any
notice requirements.
This tightening of Federal regulations puts yet another complex permitting requirement on the Port before it can move ahead (after financing is in
place, & so on).
Court Allows Cities' Suit Against PSRC To Proceed
Seattle, Jan. 24 -- The Airport Communities Coalition lawsuit attacking the final environmental impact statement for the third runway and related
projects survived a court challenge, when Superior Court Judge Robert H. Alsdorf denied motions by the Port of Seattle and the Puget Sound Regional
Council to dismiss the case.
The Port and PSRC were able to persuade the judge that the "final and binding" decision of the expert arbitration panel was only advisory. This issue
may re-surface in the higher courts.
At the same time, ACC lawyers lost a motion to require the PSRC to re-assess its approval of the Port's Master Plan Update massive project on the
basis of new traffic forecasts for the airport. The judge held that the July 11, 1996 planning approval by PSRC did not need to be re-examined because
it was based on the best information available at the time. Actually, significantly higher traffic forecasts were in the possession of the FAA in May
1996, but the new numbers appear to have been withheld from PSRC .
The result of the proceedings is that ACC can proceed to prepare its case for a trial in King County Superior Court scheduled for January 1998.
Len Oebser, incoming President of RCAA, said, "The present planning process is absurd. Final local approval is given by an agency that has no
responsibility to pay for the project, does not oversee its implementation, and does nothing to provide for mitigation." Supporters of the Puget Sound
County movement said that the it is urgent to return planning control to the impacted localities, and announced opening of a Puget County webpage at
http://home1.gte.net.pscounty/ . Jorgen Bader, President of Seattle Community Council Federation, said "PSRC ought to have done the right thing:
admit that its approval of the third runway was based on misinformation and go back for another look".
10% Ticket Tax for Safety
In late February Congress reimposed the ten percent excise tax on airline tickets, to provide $2.7 billion annually for safety projects. How much of
the multi-billion dollar Sea-Tac expansion project will now suddenly become safety related?
|
[Page 3]
Many airports in the U.S. rank among the top 10 industrial polluters in their respective cities, according to a recently-released report by the
Natural Resources Defense Council, a non-governmental environmental group.
On the basis of survey responses from 46 of the 125 busiest airports in the U.S. and on research in official files on the 50 busiest airports, the
NRDC found that significant environmental impacts were common to most of the airports surveyed, and that the regulatory framework
currently in place is inadequate. Commercial flights are the heaviest polluters. Sea-Tac Airport did not respond to the NRDC survey.
Ozone (the principal component of smog), volatile organic compounds (especially hazardous to health), and nitrogen oxides (also a smog
component) are being produced by the hundreds of millions of pounds by commercial aviation. In 1993, aircraft at U.S. airports produced 350
million pounds of these by-products, more than twice the amount produced in 1970. Federal law does not regulate this pollution, and the
Federal government forbids States and their localities to regulate it.
NRDC recommends that airport-based pollution be regulated in the same manner as emissions from other large sources, and that such
pollution be covered in state air-pollution plans. Airports should also be required to report their toxic emission to the official Toxic Release
Inventory, like other polluters.
Noise Should Be Reduced
The report also notes excessive noise pollution, recommending a shift from the present 65 db DNL metric to 55 dB DNL, and including
single-event noise as a factor to be considered.
Use of hazardous materials at airports was criticized, especially the present weak system for controlling and report ground-water and
employee-health hazards from use of ethylene glycol as a de-icing compound. Locally, there have been repeated instances of ethylene glycol
entering Miller Creek from Sea-Tac.
Others Pick Up Costs of Airport Pollution
Federal air-pollution rules restrict the total amount of pollution that is allowed in an area, not the amount emitted by any particular source.
Thus, with airports and airlines essentially exempt from controls, their pollution is in effect charged to the account of the other industrial
sources, who must bear the costs of reducing their own emissions and the equivalent of excess emission from airport and airline activities.
Elections
At a recent meeting of the RCAA Board of Directors, DesMoines resident Len Oebser was elected President. Jeanne Moeller was re-elected Vice
President. Bud Jones, of the Angle Lake neighborhood in SeaTac, was chosen as Secretary-Treasurer.
Kathy Parker Hired
Burien resident Kathy Parker has contracted with RCAA to provide community outreach services on a part-time basis, effective immediately. Ms.
Parker will be arranging outreach events, legislative contacts, and communications with public officials.
Website and E-Mail
RCAA maintains a website on the Internet, at http://www.rcaanews.org/rcaa , updated regularly. Features include an electronic version of this
newsletter, a clickable noise map of King County showing noise readings from RCAA's digital noise monitor at various locations around King County,
and numerous documents, as well as connections to important government and airport-interest websites.
By e-mail to rcaa@accessone.com users can sign up to receive this newsletter, website announcements, and other news by our new "broadcast e-
mail program." The website was recently rated "best site in class" by the El Toro (California) Airport website. When we have more information than
will fit in this newsletter, we put an extended version on the website and mark it with this “W” symbol.
Library
Most of the 1989 through 1996 documents in the RCAA library have been recataloged and reshelved, and may be consulted during office hours (9:10
a.m. to 2:10 p.m.).
[Page4]
Port, FAA Plan Construction
Delay for Third Runway
Rapidly increasing traffic levels at Sea-Tac Airport have led the Port of Seattle and Federal Aviation Administration to recommend a change in the
proposed construction schedule for the third runway and associated projects at the Airport, according to a draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (DSEIS) released in early February.
According to the DSEIS, the existing runways would still be adequate until 2005 but the higher passenger volumes will swamp existing "landside"
facilities (terminals, gates, baggage-claim areas, parking, access roads). A prediction of even greater traffic is said to mandate a delay in runway
construction. The MORE traffic grows, the LESS the runway is needed? Comments on the DSEIS must be submitted to FAA by March 31.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has concluded that airborne particulate matter between 2 and 10 microns in diameter poses a
much more serious health hazard than previously thought. EPA proposes to issue rules declaring that low concentrations of these tiny particles violate
Federal air-quality standards.
Particles between 2 and 10 microns are essentially soot and other combustion by-products, including exhaust from jet aircraft. Neither the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for Sea-Tac's expansion nor the just-issued draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement considers the
proposed new regulations or the health impacts from particles in the 2-10 micron range.
Particles larger than 10 microns consist of wind-blown dust from fields and dry places, dust kicked up from unpaved roads, and similar sources. Both
the larger and smaller particles contribute to aggravation of asthma and other lung disorders. EPA has concluded that the smaller particles deposit more
deeply in the lungs, and are more likely than coarser particles to contribute to respiratory symptoms, hospital admissions, and even death.
Although the EPA will require monitoring and reporting of these pollutants, airlines and airports will not be required to reduce their emissions.
Final regulations must be issued by mid-July, to comply with a U.S. District Court order. As of March 5, the agency estimated that it had received
an unprecedented 15,000 to 17,000 comments on the proposed rule.
Your contributions are vital. Please send your contributions to RCAA 19900 4th Ave S.W., Normandy Park, WA 98166.
NAME (Please Print)_____________________________________________________________
ADDRESS:________________________________________________________
CITY:______________________________________________ZIP____________
Home Phone:____________________Work Phone:__________________FAX:_____________
E-mail:__________________________
Please send me_____ “No Third Runway” Bumper Strips. (No contribution required.)
I want to contribute $______________. Please phone me about volunteering______________
Truth in Aviation is published by the Regional Commission on Airport Affairs, a coalition of citizens groups concerned with airport expansion & air transportation issues. Closing Date this issue: March 6, 1997.
| RCAA | Officers: |
| 19900 4th Ave. S.W. | Len Oebser, President |
| Normandy Park, WA 98166 | Jeanne Moeller, Vice-President |
| (206)824-3120 FAX: 824-3451 | Bud Jones, Secretary-Treasurer |
| http://www.rcaanews.org/rcaa | |
| E-mail: rcaa@accessone.com | |
Interim Office Administrator: Debi L. DesMarais
Newsletter Editors: J. Beth Means & Chas Talbot
Permission to copy for non-commercial purposes granted.>
The articles below are Hot News articles posted
over the winter. (We start a fresh with each new newsletter.)
Item: 3rd Runway back to Square one?
Posted: Jan. 11, 1997
By the Truth in Aviation staff
The Federal Aviation Administration and the Port of Seattle issued public notices Jamuary 8 in the Highline News and Des Moines News announcing both agencies intend to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) for the proposed 3rd runway and other related facilities at Sea-Tac airport.
According to the public notice the reason for the reassessment is because "the forecasts of aircraft activity and enplaned passengers used in the above referenced draft and final EIS's did not adequately account for the actual growth which has taken place at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in the past year nor the potential for faster growth rates than expected in the EIS." The announcement states that new forecasts are being prepared to reassess environmental impacts.
Areas which the notice says need reassessment include "noise impacts, land use (including land use compatibility, DOT 4(f) lands, and historic/archaeological and cultural resources), social and socio-economic impacts, biotic communities (including wetlands, floodplains), construction, earth, transportation, and air quality"
The notice also says that the supplemental EIS would not limit the reevaluation to the above issues. Opponents of the proposed runway at Sea-Tac noted this statement was an acknowledgement not only that the previously issued EIS was incomplete and inadequate, but also that alternatives to the proposed Sea-Tac 3rd runway project were back on the table.
Regional debate and decision making by elected officials of the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) were based upon the assumption that a 3rd Sea-Tac runway would be able to accommodate the region's needs through the year 2020. The current EIS says the impacts of a 3rd Sea-Tac runway were evaluated on the basis of 425,000 operations per year in the year 2016 and 525,000 operations per year in the year 2020. Recently revised FAA estimates indicate that the total number of flight operations for the region could top as many as 650,000 by the year 2010, exceeding the capacity of Sea-Tac airport even with a third runway.
Washington D.C. attorney Peter Kirsch, of the law firm Cutler & Stanfield, who represents the Airport Communities Coalition (ACC), which consists of the cities of Burien, Des Moines, Normandy Park, Tukwila, and Federal Way said "It's clear the traffic numbers on which they relied for their decision were wrong." Officials in ACC cities noted that preliminary cost estimates from the Burien-South King County Impact Study were based upon the level of Sea-Tac operations identified in the Port's EIS. Current estimates show the costs which the 3rd runway would cause to local homes and surrounding cities already amounted to over $3 billion dollars in lost property values, environmental mitigation, and damage to local road systems. Increased operations at Sea-Tac would cause corresponding increases in mitigation costs.
"The genie is out of the bottle" said Clark Dodge, president of the Regional Commission on Airport Affairs, an organization opposed to the expansion of Sea-Tac airport. "The region needs to take a comprehensive look at all the options now that we know expanding Sea-Tac will not meet the region's medium term or long term air transportation needs." Dodge suggested that options including use of global positioning satellite technology, not considered in the current EIS, but which is now being implemented by airlines serving Sea-Tac, was solving the IFR weather problem cited in the Port's EIS as the justification for a 3rd Sea-Tac runway. He also said that options including use of other existing regional airports, and supplemental airports, ruled out by elected officials during recent debates, would now receive renewed scrutiny.
The now obsolete 3rd runway EIS, which was issued in draft form in April 1995 and final form in Feb. 1996 cost nearly $6 million dollars in public funds. The EIS was prepared by Chicago aviation consultant Landrum and Brown Inc, which was paid $4.2 million dollars and the California aviation consulting firm of Landrum & Brown which was paid $1.6 million dollars to complete the Sea-Tac Master Plan Update associated with the EIS.
The Jan. 10 edition of the Tacoma News Tribune reported that the only notifications of the supplementary EIS were published in the Federal Register last month (December) and in legal notices published in the Wednesday, January 8 editions of the Highline News and Des Moines News, community newspapers, which serve South King County Residents. As of the date of this posting no reports of the notice or related news articles have appeared in the Seattle Times or the Seattle PI concerning the notice.
Dennis Ossenkop, Environmental Specialist, with the FAA's Northwest Region Office, contacted by telephone on Thursday Jan 9, stated that the new supplemental EIS was not currently available and that he was not certain when the document would be issued and available for public review and comment.
Item: Court Order Forces Airport Operator to Reveal Expansion Strategies
(Similarities between "Master Plans" for O'Hare and Sea-Tac Revealed)
Posted: Dec. 22, 1996
By the Truth in Aviation staff
As a result of an order issued by Circuit Court Judge Bonnie Wheaton, the city of
Chicago is being compelled to turn over its previously secret plans, revealing Chicago's
"Master Plan" strategy for expanding O'Hare airport. Judge Wheaton's order was issued
last July as part of an ongoing lawsuit filed in November 1995 by the communities of
Wood Dale, Bensenville, and Elmhurst against the City of Chicago, which operates
O'Hare airport. The lawsuit charges Chicago with attempting to piecemeal O'Hare
expansion in order to conceal the impacts of the expansion project on surrounding
communities and neighborhoods.
The lawsuit is derived, in part, from the disclosure of a memorandum dated August 10, 1990 from Chicago Commissioner of Aviation Jay K. Franks, to Chicago Mayor Daley's Chief of staff, Frank E. Krusci and Warren Silver, an attorney representing the city of Chicago. The memorandum discusses elements of an "O'Hare Master Plan Strategy" reached by resolution of a board of O'Hare officials at a meeting on July 9, 1990. The elements establish basic principles for development at O'Hare airport. The previously secret memorandum was accompanied with a facsimile transmittal sheet dated January 9, 1992 addressed to Kirk Brown, Secretary of the Department of Transportation for the State of Illinois. The memorandum summarizes Chicago's basic strategy as: "[P]ropose new runways and see what 'they' do." As a result of the Order attorney Anton Valukas, representing the City of Chicago, was recently provided with a contempt motion by an attorney representing the O'Hare communities for failing to produce additional documents related to the Chicago's expansion plans at O'Hare.
Key principals identified in Chicago's airport planning strategy identified in its memorandum describe the need to keep information concerning the proposed expansion away from the public in order to "minimize the period of public controversy" and ""[g]et into court on the EIS as quickly as possible, in order to get out of court as soon as possible" The Chicago memo observes that through this approach "[s]ome master plan elements are less likely to become part of the public discussion process." Sections of the Chicago Memorandum state:
1. O'Hare's ability to handle aircraft traffic in bad weather must be improved -
IFR delay must be reduced - even if that means new runways.
2. Minimize the period of public controversy and the number of public
proceedings.
3. Get into court on the EIS as quickly as possible, in order to get out of court
as soon as possible.
4. Proceed with O'Hare development independently of LAC [Lake Calumet Airport] site selection
5. To the seven axioms listed in the July 6 outline, add the Schneiderman
Axiom: No matter what, the City must retain effective control of airport
development.
The memorandum also contemplates a variant of a standard "Master Plan Program"
which does not follow a "traditional, federally-funded, and regulated "master plan" process
leading to development of an Airport Layout Plan (ALP) and an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS)." Instead the program contemplates a plan for airport development
based upon technical information derived from previous studies performed by Chicago's
"Daley Task Force" and "Terminal Support Working Group". The memorandum states
this approach is desirable "because it will save time and minimize public exposure."
Significant features of the suggested program include:
1. Some master plan elements are less likely to become part of the public
discussion process. (e.g. collateral land development programs.). This is a
distinct advantage.
2. Competitive bidding and public selection of technical consultants would not
be required. This would save at least six months and would increase flexibility.
Consultant selection must be given careful thought, and a balanced team must
be selected.
3. No federal funds would be used, and no federal strings would be attached.
The airlines will fund master planning from current Fees & Charges.
The memorandum also outlines a timetable for the planned expansion at O'Hare, beginning with release of a report by the airport's "Delay Task Force" in September 1990. The schedule calls for
issuance of an EIS for the project in 1991, negotiation with agencies and establishment of mitigation
measures in 1992, litigation commencing in late 1992 which will be settled in late 1994,
and beginning of construction in 1995.
The strategy document also calls for "Parallel Initiatives" to be developed which include
"environmental initiatives" to be taken by the City in order to "blunt the effects of the
'Task Force' report." The memo suggests that O'Hare undertake a phaseout of all Stage 2
aircraft, and that the airport construct additional "retention basins" and "flood control
devices on the airport", presumably to handle additional stormwater runoff from new
airport facilities. The memo also notes that the used of glycol, a carcinogenic chemical
used extensively at O'Hare to de-ice aircraft, "will become a national environmental issue
in a few years" and suggests that "Chicago should get out ahead of the issue by
announcing a pilot program", noting it is now economically feasible to collect and
recycle glycol.
In addition describing Chicago's "Master Plan Strategy" the memorandum also outlines an "Alternative Strategy" which includes the following program:
1. The City announces the Delay Task Force study. It confirms the obvious:
there must be IFR delay relief at O'Hare in the short run, and capacity relief for
O'Hare in the long run. These may be achieved in varying degrees by:
(a) New Runway
(b) ATC [Air Traffic Control] improvements to permit triple converging IFR
approaches, providing most of the IFR delay reduction benefit of new
runways; and
(c) A new airport.
2. New runways are the only responsible solution under current conditions. For
the welfare of the region, the City must develop them.
3. However, it certain conditions changed, airport need might be met without
new runways:
(a) If the FAA would credibly commit to develop triple converging IFR
approaches, the current IFR delay crisis would be ameliorated. Technology
and procedures to do this are available.
(b) If LAC could be developed quickly = say ten years = it could address
both delay and capacity issue at O'Hare in a realistic time frame. Only the
LAC site can attract sufficient traffic from O'Hare to do this.
The memo states: "the FAA could easily develop . . . converging IFR approaches in a
shorter time than runways could be developed. Getting the FAA to do so is the trick."
Several documents referenced in the previously secret memorandum, including an
attached "Exhibit A" and a "July 6 outline", have not been produced in response to Judge
Wheaton's order, according to Jack Saporito, a Chicago area resident and president of the
Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare (ARCO). Saporito indicated that attorneys
representing the communities surrounding O'Hare were presenting a contempt of court
order to compel Chicago's attorneys to release the additional documents.
Seattle area residents following airport expansion issues note similarities between the
strategies identified in the Chicago memorandum and those employed by the Port of
Seattle in its current "Master Plan Update". A reliable source has suggested the term
"Schneiderman Axiom" alluded to in the Chicago memorandum may refer to recommendations of Michael Schneiderman, an attorney with the Chicago law firm Hopkins and
Sutter which represents the City of Chicago and other airports concerning aviation issues. In 1993 the Port of Seattle retained Schneiderman "based on an hourly fee of $280"
. . . "to provide legal advice as requested on issues arising out of the Port of Seattle's
Master Planning process for Sea-Tac International Airport . . ."
Item: DOE Criticized for Inadequate Review of Environmental Impacts and Alternatives to
Proposed Runway Project
Posted: Dec. 20, 1996
By the Truth in Aviation staff
The Regional Commission on Airport Affairs (RCAA) criticized the Director of Washington
State's Department of Ecology (DOE) for issuing a letter alleging that a third runway "can be built
and operated in compliance with air and water quality protection laws ...". The RCAA leads a
coalition of citizen's organizations dedicated to blocking a 3rd runway at Sea-Tac airport, located in
South King County.
The DOE letter was issued by outgoing Director of Ecology Mary Riveland on December 20 in
response to an August 12 request by the Port of Seattle for a "certificate of compliance" for the
proposed runway project. The DOE letter stated that the project "would be located, designed,
constructed and operated in compliance with applicable air and water quality standards" if it met
five described conditions which included (1) compliance with the Clean Air Act and Clean Water
Act; (2) implementation of stormwater control measures (3) monitoring construction activities (4)
addressing groundwater quality issues and (5) would not change the instream flows of Miller or Des
Moines Creeks.
Riveland failed to establish in her letter how DOE had been delegated authority to issue the
certification. Under Section 509 of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act a State's Governor
is required to approve runway construction projects:
"No project grant application for a project involving airport location, a major runway extension, or runway location may be approved unless the governor of the state in which
such project is to be located certifies in writing to the Secretary that there is reasonable
assurance that the project will be located, designed, constructed, and operated so as to
comply with applicable air and water quality standards."
RCAA president Clark Dodge noted that "DOE's decision to issue its "certification" was made
without publication in local newspapers or notification requesting public comment on its proposed
action." He also noted that DOE failed to provide any comments on the draft environmental
impact statement issued for the project.
Dodge noted the concerns about DOE's indifference to the environmental impacts of the
proposed Sea-Tac expansion project had not been lost on surrounding communities. "The
environmental issues of this project are already the subject matter of a lawsuit filed by the Airport
Communities Coalition (ACC) against the Port of Seattle and the Puget Sound Regional Council
(PSRC). Area cities have also filed an appeal under the State's Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
last August challenging the EIS for the project." said Dodge. The SEPA appeal allows legal
challenges to be brought against the EIS for the proposed project in the Superior Courts.
Dodge noted DOE's poor track record enforcing environmental regulations had been
underscored recently by a lawsuit filed to enforce the provisions in a water discharge permit DOE
had issued to the Port of Seattle, the operator of Sea-Tac airport. Citizens challenged the initial
permit issued by DOE to the Pollution Control Hearings Board. (PCHB), forcing DOE to revise the
original conditions of the permit. Subsequently, after DOE refused to enforce conditions in the
revised permit, citizens filed a lawsuit alleging violations of the Clean Water Act. The Department
of Ecology, represented by counsel from the State Attorney General's office, later signed a consent
decree to settle the lawsuit last year.
Dodge also observed that the DOE letter failed to consider alternatives to the project. He noted
that the need for a "bad weather" runway at Sea-Tac is now being eliminated through global
positioning satellite (GPS) technology now being installed on the fleets of several airlines serving
Sea-Tac airport. According to the Port of Seattle's EIS the sole purpose and need for a 3rd Sea-
Tac runway is based on the requirement for simultaneous landings on both Sea-Tac's runways under
reduced visibility (IFR) weather conditions. "GPS technology allows pilots to conduct simultaneous
approaches to runways during instrument flight rule (IFR) weather eliminating the need for a 3rd
runway" said Dodge. He noted that GPS technology is now being implemented voluntarily by
airlines serving Sea-Tac at no cost to the general public. The Port of Seattle's most current estimate of the
construction costs for a third Sea-Tac runway alone amount to at least $500 million dollars in public funds. Preliminary estimates indicate additional costs for mitigating the impacts of a 3rd runway on the cities surrounding Sea-Tac airport will exceed $3 billion dollars.
For Further Information contact RCAA: 824-3120
Item: Preliminary Figures Reveal Multi-Billion Costs To Mitigate Sea-Tac Expansion
Posted: Oct. 31, 1996
By the Truth in Aviation staff
Burien, Washington -- On 21 October, Burien City Manager Frederick
C. Stouder released preliminary findings of the Burien - South King
County Impact Assistance and Studies Team, showing that more then $3
billion will be required to mitigate just some of the adverse impacts
of Sea-Tac expansion.
On the basis of extensive studies, the team estimates that property
values in the cities of Burien, Des Moines, Federal Way,
Normandy Park, and Tukwila will be $500 million less in the year 2020
than they would be without Sea-Tac expansion. This will lead the five
cities to lose $22 million in revenues based on real-property taxes.
Similar studies for the Highline School District are not yet complete,
but are expected to show tax losses in the millions. Other socio-economic
impacts are still being costed out.
Cost of environmental mitigation is estimated by the consultants
at $2.6 billion by the year 2020. Local transportation systems will
be adversely effected to the extent of $450 million over the same
period.
Final Figures Likely To Be Even Higher
In presenting their preliminary findings to local governments and
other interested groups in the last 10 days of October, the consultants
stressed that their findings are both incomplete and preliminary;
numerous agencies have been asked to review and evaluate the
preliminary work. Thus, the team says, dollar figures for any particular cost could
increase or decrease, as the final version of the
study is prepared for release (by mid-January 1996). However, the total for
mitigation costs will almost certainly well exceed the preliminary figure,
when studies of impacts on Highline School District, and neighborhood-by-
neighborhood socio-economic impacts, are completed.
Under the terms of the Legislature's $500,000 grant for the project,
impacts on the City of SeaTac (known to have most of the same
sorts of impacts as the five cities in the study area) are not
included. Likewise, impacted areas in unincorporated King County and
South-East Seattle are not covered by the present study.
Shoreline -- Sea-Tac Area, without the Noise
Depression of property values was studied by comparing in detail
the single-family housing in 10 census tracts in Northwest King County
and in the recognized neighborhoods of the study area. The consultants
chose Northwest King County (Shoreline) as a comparison area
because of the close similarities of the two areas, their housing
stock, their topography, land-use policies, and patterns of development.
The comparison area receives far less noise from Sea-Tac
flights. Both areas are bounded by Puget Sound on the West, Lake
Washington on the East. Both are bisected by I-5 and SR-99. The base
study area contains 11,526 single-family housing units, and the comparison
area, 12,683. Each area is about two-thirds single-family.
To ensure comparability, only units rated as being in "Very Good"
condition by the Assessor's office were included, while all units with
views were excluded. Only homes with above-ground structure of 1000
square feet or more were included. All lots have between 10,000 and
15,000 square feet, and all units have three or more bedrooms and two
or more baths. These criteria excluded the most and least expensive
housing units, to provide more representative comparisons.
After these and other standard statistical techniques were used to
develop two highly comparable, representative groups of houses, the
study showed that "a housing unit selling for $141,000 in the immediate
vicinity of the airport would sell for $155,700 -- or $14,300
(10.1 percent) more --if it were located elsewhere". The study forecasts
the expected average amount of depression of future single-
family property values after (if) the proposed third runway goes into
full operation. In the year 2020, the average value, for example, of
a home in Normandy Park would be $58,677 less (in constant, 1995
dollars) than a comparable home in the Shoreline area.
It should be noted that the property-value studies released this
month do not include anything but stand-alone single-family homes.
Depression of the values of (and tax revenues from) duplex/triplex
properties, apartment complexes, and residential institutions have not
been reported. Nor have any numbers been reported for value
depression for commercial properties.
The consultants note that substantial depression in property
values will likely mean that many owners will be unable to recover the
true fair-market value of their property by sale and will therefore
resort to renting out. There is a clear correlation between depressed
property values and a shift in the owner/renter occupancy ratio, as
well as other demographic changes (depressed literacy rates, increased
numbers of recent immigrants, increased proportions of elderly and
pre-school children). Increased numbers of renters usually reflects a
downward trend in per-capita income and a rising demand for public
services (police, fire, emergency medical, and many others). As tax
revenues for cities and the school district are depressed by depressed
property values, demand for public expenditures will increase.
Who Benefits?
While it is argued that there are socio-economic benefits from
airport expansion, including increased financial activity, and that
these benefits outweigh adverse impacts, the study shows that the
benefits are not distributed as the adverse impacts are. Detailed
analysis of the points of origin of departing Sea-Tac passengers show
that most passengers (57.2%) come from areas of King County outside
the five-city study area, while only 5.9% are residents of the five-
city area. Noise impacts, of course, are concentrated in the area within
a few miles of the Airport. On a straight numerical basis, Seattle
provided most of the passengers (35%) (and most of them from the North
End), while on a per-capita basis, Issasquah (with 41 passengers per
10,000 population) and Kirkland (35 per 10,000) were the leading
points of departure from home.
An analysis of direct Airport jobs was performed by the study
team. Only 21% of these jobs are held by residents of the five
impacted cities. Considering jobs created indirectly by Airport activity,
the consultants concluded that between 80 and 97 per cent. of
the job-related benefits go to persons residing outside the study
area. (RCAA news staff comment: It should be noted that the City of
SeaTac, which receives massive negative impacts from the Airport, is
not included in the study area. No doubt, numerous SeaTac residents
have Airport-related employment. Had the City of SeaTac chosen to be
included in the present study, the employment benefit would be surely
be somewhat less disproportionate.) Curiously, almost half the residents
of the five-city area holding airport-related jobs live in
Federal Way. Not yet studied is possible disparity between income
from Airport-related jobs received by residents
inside and outside the study area.
The study's authors conclude that, "[o]verall, residents of the
communities immediately surrounding the airport get disproportionately
small benefits (both in total and per capita terms) from their use of
the airport while suffering disproportionately large costs. Business
activity generated by the airport appears to generate significant
benefit for the City of SeaTac but little benefit [for the other five
cities]."
New Runway Means More Noise in New Areas
Another significant element of the study is its analysis of the
impacts on home-property values in neighborhoods exposed to new flight
tracks. The third runway at Sea-Tac, lying half a mile West of the
existing western runway, will inevitably cause new flight tracks -- at
least 19, by one estimate -- to occur over neighborhoods not previously
receiving such high noise levels. The study examined the
depressions in property value caused by closeness to a flight track,
and found that "the value of a house and lot increases by about 3.4
percent ($4,450 on the average value of $129,900) for every quarter of
a mile the house is farther away from being directly under the flight
track of departing/approaching [commercial passenger] jet aircraft".
Not taking into account properties that will be acquired by the Port,
the affected cities will lose just under $300,000 a year in real-
property tax revenues just as the result of the new flight tracks.
It should be noted that the Environmental Impact Statement for the
expansion project does not indicate how lost property values will be
restored to the owners or how the cities and special-purpose districts
will be compensated for lost tax revenues.
Roads, Bridges, To Receive Heavy Hit
Sea-Tac expansion, including construction-related traffic, will
create various problems for local transportation systems, including
increased congestion and accelerated deterioration of road surfaces and bridges.
Final figures for mitigation will depend on which methods and routes
the Port chooses for bringing fill to the site, and on origin-
destination studies on selected routes. But preliminary work
shows that the bulk of the damage to road surfaces and bridges
(including overpasses) will occur on the 31 miles of State highways in
the study area. Work to improve signal systems and to re-configure
intersections will be needed primarily on streets maintained by local
jurisdictions. As rising traffic volumes, and construction dump
trucks, clog the Interstate and State-numbered highways, traffic will
spill over to other arterials, and eventually into neighborhood
streets, causing impacts throughout the surface-transportation network.
The transportation subconsultants summarize their preliminary findings
of impacts on both State and local systems by city, to the
nearest million, as follows:
Tukwila 148 million
Federal Way 107 million
Burien 91 million
Des Moines 61 million
Normandy Park 42 million
The total exceeds $450 million. The Tukwila portion is very large
because the largest portion of the impacted stretches of the State
system are within that city. Federal Way's figures are disproportionately
high because that city has a very large number of arterials
and intersections that may need major upgrading. The transportation
subconsultant advises that the Federal Way number may diminish if
detailed traffic studies street by street show less actual traffic
than what has been projected on the basis of over-all volumes.
Neighborhood-Impact Matrix
Expansion impacts are being evaluated with the aid of an
innovative analytical tool, a neighborhood-by-neighborhood matrix,
showing for each neighborhood the projected impacts in each of several
sub-categories within the major categories of environment, transportation,
and socio-economic. The consultants believe that neighborhood
impact is a more realistic way of evaluating mitigation needs than a
lot-by-lot or block-by-block method. Recommended mitigation measures
will be based on mitigation work done or planned at other major airports
in the U.S., including Colorado Springs, Colo.; Dallas/Fort
Worth, Texas; Lambert Field (St. Louis) Missouri; Minneapolis/St. Paul,
Minnesota; San Francisco International; San Diego. Three mitigation
programs in the State of Washington were also studied: expansion of
the Boeing facility at Everett; Satsop power plant; I-90 expansion
from Factoria into Seattle (third floating bridge).
The consultants are recommending that a mitigation agreement be
negotiated with the affected cities and districts, citizen groups, the
Port, and other concerned governmental bodies, and that a working
group or oversight committee of representatives from those groups be
assembled to oversee implementation of the agreement both during and
after construction. The oversight group would have permanent staff
with technical expertise in airport construction, airport operation,
and environmental matters, with funding to be provided by the mitigation
agreement. Significant mitigation measures will depend in part
on: review of construction activities; additional environmental and
transportation studies; expanded on-going monitoring of noise, air
quality, water quality, and traffic; buy-outs of heavily-impacted
areas; preparation of new land-use policies and plans in some
impacted areas. All these activities would be carried out under the
committee's supervision.
The international firm Hellmuth, Obata + Kassbaum,
Inc. (H-O-K) of Dallas, Texas, is the lead consultant on the study.
Raytheon Infrastructure Services, Inc., is subconsultant, concentrating
on transportation issues. Thomas/Lane Associates, Inc., of
Seattle, provides socio-economic analysis and mitigation measures.
Michael J. McCormick, AICP, of Olympia, provides inter-governmental
affairs consulting. The City of Burien provides local co-ordination
and management services. The other cities involved in the study are
Burien, Des Moines, Federal Way, Normandy Park, and Tukwila. The Highline School
District is also included in the study.
![[BACK TO WELCOME/HOME]](buthome.gif")
Back when the project was first "a gleam in anyone's eye", the cost was pegged at an eye-popping $160 million, four times the cost of runways of
similar length elsewhere. Then the number crept up and up. By September 1994, a major Port consultant, P&D; Aviation, set the construction price tag
at $364.3 (no extras). When the Port Commission gave its formal OK to the long-planned work on 1 August 1996, proponents were using the $455.5
million price tag. Mitigation measures, design contingency fund, and a host of other projects all were extras, bringing the total expansion project over
$3000 million.