|
The latest pr line from the Port is
"we all saw this Summer what it's like to have a clogged
airport"--so that's why a third runway is needed.
We saw this line in a guest opinion piece in the Seattle
Post Intelligencer by Mic Dinsmore
and Martha Choe and in recent letters to the editor.
Never mind that the delays in the early
part of this summer were caused by a shortage of security
screeners. Not
a problem
solved by a third runway. The runway is designed to
relieve peak traffic delays during bad weather (something
notably
absent in summer, especially August, the highest traffic
month).
Our advice: Hire more screeners. It's cheaper.
This
PR line is a classic bit of Port "foggy logic".
In Port foggy logic, every delay at Sea-Tac would be cured
by the
third
runway.
Delays caused by fog when the airport was closed (and
the
third
runway
would be closed, too) are counted as delays cureable by
a third runway. Delays caused by thunderstorms in Atlanta
are treated as delays that could be cured by the third
runway. Even closure of the airport for 9/11 and the Nisqually
Earthquake are treated as delays for which "we
just gotta have a third
runway
right now". The new spin: delays caused by a shortage
of low-level security screeners are proof
that we need a third runway! Watch out for claims that
that delays caused by the electricty blackout back East
would be cured by the third runway.
So, we ask the Port and other runway advocates,
how come you say that we have a delay problem so severe at
Sea-Tac
that
we
have
to build the most expensive runway ever built on land,
wreck tens of thousands of homes and businesses in the
neighboring communities, muck about in the headwaters of
three creeks that go right into the Sound, and use contaminated
fill
to try to save some money, when the FAA Benchmark study
shows no significant delays at Sea-Tac. (That was before
9/11, and traffic has dropped since
then.)
In
another masterpiece of fuzzy logic, Dinsmore and Choe breezily
dismiss the
FAA
benchmark
study. "Well, that's for planning tower
personnel," they say. That is supposed to explain away
the discrepancy between their overblown delay projections
and
the reality?
A study of delays for planning tower personnel is likely
to be
more
accurate than the the wishful projections of monument
builders and their contractors. But not if, by fuzzy logic,
they can convince people that
the third runway will cure all their travel woes.
Of
course, someday this region will need a new airport.
Our postage stamp-sized
Sea-Tac
with
its dangerous
flightlines over our heaviest population corridors won't
do. But tacking on third
runway won't solve that problem either. It may actually
prevent us from doing the planning and making the investments
our
economy really will need in the future.
And the last bit of foggy logic: Alaska
Airlines thinks it is a good idea. Well fine! If this
is a project that will benefit Alaska Airlines, then
include the costs of the whole project (including interest
on borrowed money), include ALL of the damages to the
neighboring communities, include full environmental mitigation,
and have Alaska pay for it. All of it. With real money,
cash on the barrelhead. Not with vague letters of support.
And perhaps a contract exonerating the
taxpayers if Alaska falls
short, secured by a sound performance bond.
The Port is supposed to be a business,
not a money-losing machine, as it now is. If it had to
make a profit, as other ports do; if it had to pay
dividends to local taxpayers, as other ports do, it
could not live on foggy logic. In the world of sound
economic logic, the third runway would be the first project
cut.
|
