inside...
Panel Rejects Port's Noise Plan; Runway in Doubt **
Costs Estimates at $3.3 Billion **
Congressional Subcommittee Hears About Excessive Cost **
Burien to Study Expansion Impacts on Local Services **
WARR Trial Set ***
UPDDATES: Watt Roars to Life; RCAA Goes on the Web;
SW King County Homeowners Seek Lawyers ** Syndey Fiasco **
Flight Paths Realigned Over Minority Neighborhoods **
RCAA Needs You
Please note: Beginning in Late Spring, 1996, the Internet Edition of Truth in Aviation will have longer articles covering information more thoroughly than space permits in our printed newsletter. In addition, some articles may have links to underlying documents or related materials. [Back to Welcome]
The future of proposed major expansion at Sea-Tac Airport is in doubt as the result of a ruling by an Expert Arbitration Panel that a key condition for PSRC approval of the expansion has not been met. A majority of the panel, in a ruling released late on Wednesday, March 27, held that the Port of Seattle "has not shown a reduction in real on-the-ground noise impacts sufficient to satisfy the noise reduction condition imposed by Resolution A-93-03".
In its 1993 resolution, PSRC granted conditional approval to the Port's proposal for a third runway at Sea-Tac airport, effective April 1, 1996, provided that "noise reduction performance objectives [of the Port] are scheduled, pursued and achieved based on independent evaluation, and based on measurement of real noise impacts".
The panel found that there have been some reductions since 1989, but they are too small to be significant. The panel was not convinced that the Port's noise reduction program goals for the year 2001 will be achieved, because of the past and projected future growth in number of operations.
At the PSRC Executive Committee meeting March 28, Port Commissioner Gary Grant and Pat Davis said that the Port would go along with the PSRC’s decision, not the panel’s decision. Although the Seattle Times declared the runway project dead, knowledgeable observers fear that the Port will attempt to persuade the PSRC membership to pass a new resolution approving the runway ignoring the panel’s noise rulings. Runway opponents, accustomed to broken promises and backdoor maneuvers, were celebrating but, nevertheless, gearing up to counter the Port.
King County Executive Gary Locke took the position that it was time to stop debating a third runway and to get on with planning the new airport at a less problematic location.
The Panel was appointed by Transportation Secretary Sid Morrison, at the request of PSRC, to conduct an "independent evaluation" of the Port's noise-reduction programs.
Panel members were Scott P. Lewis, Boston attorney, who dissented from the majority findings; Martha J. Langelan, economist and Dr. William Bowlby, professor of engineering at Vanderbilt University.
In an earlier ruling, the panel unanimously held that, the Port's compliance with the Port's Noise Mediation Agreement of 1990 was "a necessary but not a sufficient condition" to satisfy the PSRC conditions. The panel's majority ruling pointed to several areas in which the Port has fulfilled the commitments of this agreement, particularly in reduction of Stage II night-time flights, but also noted other areas, where Port performance had not lived up to those commitments, such as effective follow-up on complaints received over the noise hot line, building insulation programs for sensitive-use public buildings, and compliance with the Duwamish/Elliott Bay noise-abatement corridor. In it's decision the panel was critical of the Port's inability, or unwillingness, to disclose levels of imprecision in its measurements and analysis of noise monitoring at its permanent noise-monitoring sites and the six additional sites where monitoring was conducted at the panel's request. The majority noted in its final order, as had been noted repeatedly in the December 1995 and February 1996 hearings, that noise metrics based on various assumptions, as a result of the mathematical maniulation of real data -- "averages of averages of averages", as one expert put it, are subject to "several layers of potential measurement and estimation error". Despite repeated requests during the course of the long series of hearings, the Port did not supply the information that the panel requested to permit it to assess the reliability of the Port's data.
Port of Seattle consultants have now estimated the direct, recognized cost of expansion of Sea-Tac Airport, including a third runway, at over $2.2 billion. In addition, according to a January 1996 report, the Port plans unspecified additional projects costing $1 billion, to be completed and financed together with the expansion. While these figures allow for inflation, they do not include financing costs or mitigation programs for home owners, businesses, institutions, and local governments.
These capital outlays will exceed all identifiable funding sources by $1 billion, according to Port consultants P & D Aviation and Berk & Associates. The consultants propose that the Port rely primarily on new bonded debt to meet this funding shortfall.
The Port has recently been using a figure of about $500 million for the expansion costs. The P & D report shows that expansion also involves huge expenses for terminal expansion, new on-site transit facilities, necessary new roadways, extension of taxiways, new runway aprons, new navigational aids, new air-cargo facilities, & many other elements. The cost of moving 27 million cubic yards of fill material for the third runway remains a big cost -- now estimated at over $118 million. The Port declines to take responsibility for the inevitable damage to city streets from dump-truck traffic (hundreds of thousands of trips through the surrounding cities for four years).
One way to make available money meet projected income, the consultants suggest, is to accept a substantial, five-year delay in the construction schedule, so that the proposed third runway would not become operational until 2005. This flies in the face of the claims by the Port that delay at Sea-Tac will absolutely require the third runway by 2000. Extension of existing runway 36R might be delayed till the last phase, instead of being done by the year 2000 as presently planned. Kenneth B. Reid, executive director of Airport Communities Coalition, says that such "changes in the Airport development schedule would affect both the purpose and the need for the proposed Airport expansion".
A second suggestion from the consultants is for an increase in the Port's annual levy, a real-property tax paid by all King County property owners. On a pay-as-you-go basis, if construction began in 1997 and ended in 2005, meeting the billion dollar shortfall by levies would require new taxes of $125,000,000 per year. That would result in a four-fold increase in Port realestate taxes. The consultants warn that if the Port were simply to borrow the needed billion dollars, "the debt required under the financially constrained scenario may result in a downgrade in the Port's bonding rating and increase the Port's cost of funds." It is important to note that the cost of borrowed money is NOT included in the $3.2 billion figure.
If the Port were to seek to recover the billion-dollar shortfall from the airlines that use the airport, "the net effect is a sharp near-term increase in the costs passed through to the airlines". The usual method of passing major construction costs on to the airlines is for the Port to issue bonds and to provide in airlines' leases for charges large enough to meet the costs of bond service and retirement.
Latest Official Estimates of Cost of Sea-Tac Expansion (Selected Items) (in millions)
The newest cost figures do not include any significant mitigation expenses.
Noise:
The Port has yet to accept that it will have a major cost for noise mitigation. But the true extent of the noise impacts of the existing airport are gradually being exposed, as noise monitoring becomes more realistic and market studies show the depression of property values caused by airport noise. The Port and FAA do not admit that the proposed expansion would greatly increase the communities' noise burden, ut inevitably there will be more noise if operations increase by 100,000 or more per year, as planned.
Water pollution:
Run-off from the airport into near-by streams must by law be mitigated. The Port has not yet provided a realistic cost.
Air pollution:
No one has yet suggested a dollar figure -- or a methodology -- for mitigation of air pollution from Sea-Tac operations. Very preliminary work done under the auspices of RCAA suggests that health problems from airport air pollution may be widespread and severe.
Local government:
Local governments are just starting to assemble data on the fiscal impacts to them
from Sea-Tac expansion. Including surface-transportation problems, the costs will
doubtless exceed $100 million (NOT included in the $3.2 billion
costs projection).
On Monday, March 18, an overflow crowd in and outside the Des Moines field house heard advocates of Sea-Tac expansion talk about everything but the $3.3 billion cost of the huge project at a hearing called by the Aviation Subcommittee of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the U.S. House of Representatives, for the exact purpose of considering those costs. Opponents of expansion warned of shaky financing, reminiscent of the WPPSS fiasco, with possible open-ended liabilities falling on King County tax payers. Critics also pointed to lack of mitigation, the third runway's inadequate reduction of anticipated delays, and failure of the proposed third runway to meet true regional air-transportation needs. P>In an opening statement, Rep. Randy Tate (R-9) challenged expansion supporters to demonstrate a favorable cost-benefit ratio for the third runway, pointing out to the panel that less than one-half of one percent of all flights in Sea-Tac trips are delayed as much as 15 minutes -- an outstanding record compared to delay at New York, Boston, Dallas, San Francisco, Atlanta, and many other cities.
No supporter of expansion chose to discuss the issue of cost- benefit ratio, or to justify in detail the anticipated $3.3 outlay. Instead, proponents spoke in generalities about the benefits of international trade, a need for more air-traffic capacity as population increases, and the inability of Sea-Tac to hndle increased traffic without large delays.
Air Washington member and Seattle Chamber of Commerce spokesman Robert Wallace stressed the importance of international trade to the State, and attributed all such trade to the Airport. He suggested that if a third Sea-Tac runway were not built, the State would lose Boeing, Microsoft and 1600 other software firms, and the entire bio-technical industry, and would be unable to land new firms like Intel, a theme echoed by Rep. Metcalf. Opponents rejected the notion that the State's economy would fall apart without a third runway, reminding the panel that the WPPSS expansion project was justified as necessary to prevent an economic disaster from lack of electricity. WPPSS collapsed from shaky financing, the electricity was not produced, and yet the State's economy continues to grow at a great pace. Witness after witness urged the panel not to fund the airport expansion, to avoid another WPPSS-like fiasco. Community spokespersons included Kathy Parker (Burien), RCAA Board stalwart; Jane Rees (Magnolia neighborhood, Seattle), WATT member; and "Skip" Priest, Mayor of Federal Way.
On the delay issue, Port spokeswoman Gina Marie Lindsey, Director of the Airport, responding to Rep. Tate, claimed that Sea-Tac was the twentieth worst of the 27 busiest U.S. airport for on-time arrivals. (In other words, Sea-Tac's record was better than 19 of 27 comparable airports.) Ms Lindsey furnished no departure data. She noted that Rep. Tate's data are based on the FAA's "ATOMS" system for tracking delays, and stated that the Port uses an entirely different definition of delay, "not related to flight schedule delay" --"additional ... aircraft operating time caused by inefficiencies". As the FEIS for the Port's Master Plan Update reveals, the delay figures used by the Port are specially concocted by FAA and the Port for the purposes of justifying airport expansion. (The statistics on actual, measured delay generated by the "ATOMS" system were disregarded.) The Port spokeswoman further claimed that the airport is unable to use both existing runways, resulting in delay, during 44 percent of the time, and necessarily operates under full instrument rules (IFR) 24 percent of the time.
Dr. Stephen Hockaday, professor of civil and environmental engineering at California State Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo, testified that the Port's bad-weather definition and data were wrong, that both existing runways can be used about 91 percent of the time, with use of the LDA system and other current techniques for maximizing use of the existing runways. Dr. Hockaday's analysis confirmed earlier studies by Gerald Bogen, submitted by RCAA to the Expert Arbitration Panel.
Other advocates of expansion spoke of regional need for good transportation, but were unable to show how the huge capital outlay for proposed Sea-Tac expansion would produce tangible economic benefits. Rep. Jack Metcalf suggested that local officials ave made final decisions to go ahead with the project (actually, approvals are still pending) and therefore the Federal government should provide all funding that the Port might request. Snohomish County Executive Bob Drewel stressed that projections of huge population growth require airport expansion at Sea-Tac (but NOT at Paine Field, in Snohomish County).
Mr. Wallace had chaired the blue-ribbon committee appointed by the Port and Puget Sound Council of Governments (as PSRC was then called) to prepare "FlightPlan", the first major report advocating a third runway. He and County Executive Drewel argued that all possible solutions to the 'capacity crisis' had been throughly studied. However, Mr Drewel, in an unexpected response to a question from Rep. Metcalf, inadvertently admitted that in fact PSRC had declined to examine any alternatives involving airport expansion or new construction outside the four-county metropolitan area. Thus, PSRC tilted the playing field to avoid looking at such alternatives supported by local authorities as Grant County International Airport (at Moses Lake), and potential sites for new facilities in South-West Washington, focusing instead on close-in sites where enormous local opposition exists.
In January 1996, Port consultant P & D Aviation estimated the necessary direct Federal contribution to the program at $228 million. At the Congressional field hearing, less than two months later, Ms Lindsey was asking for $267 million. (That's a rate of increase of roughly $40 million, or 14.5% per month.) No one supporting the expansion chose to mention the one-billion- dollar shortfall in financing that was pointed out by P & D Aviation.
Scheduled Airlines Still on the Fence
The organization of scheduled airlines, Air Transport Association, made a rare appearance at the hearing, through its senior vice president Edward Merlis. He spoke glowingly of the hundreds of thousands of jobs supposedly dependent on Sea-Tac, reminded the hearing that prior Sea-Tac capital funding resulted from a "closed-loop financing system" ultimately paid for by the users (airlines and their customers), and warned that airports are not a "panacea" for troubled local economies. According to Merlis, the scheduled airlines do not have a consensus on when to proceed with a third runway, and they will undertake their own cost-benefit process. Only if it is "fiscally prudent" will the airlines take on new financial obligations at Sea-Tac. This lack of support is particularly significant since the Port is looking to the airlines for more than $800 million in funding through direct agreements, and also seems to expect the airlines to make up a large part of the billion dollars in capital costs for which no existing source has been identified. Port spokeswomen Lindsey, under intense questioning from Rep. Tate, could not pledge that funding shortfalls would not result in new property taxes on King County property owners.
Members of the panel were concerned that the high cost of Sea-Tac expansion might drive airlines to other, less-expensive site, the 'Colorado Springs' effect (that Colorado town now competes successfully with the new Denver facility with its high landing fees). Such diversion would upset the financing arrangements. The general response was that the airlines would never accept the burdens of working out of several airports. Dr. Hockaday in rebuttal noted that there are multiple airport systems working effectively at such cities as New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco.
Opponents of expansion cautioned the Congressional panel that the Port's cost estimates are almost entirely devoid of mitigation -- only $50 million now planned and most of that for land acquisition. Yet, said Federal Way Mayor "Skip' Priest, there will be a "horrendous impact" on property values and quality of life in the five Airport Communuties cities, with over 200,000 residents.
Seattle Post-Intelligencer business columnist Bruce Ramsey noted the cost problems in a copyrighted column in the P-I on 21 March (p. B 5). Environmental issues have not carried much weight with the local news media, but the terrible projected return on the proposed investment focussed Ramsey's attention. Economist Lynn Michaelis told the committee that the rate of return would be less than one per cent., whereas corporations in the private structure look for rates in the 12 - 15 per cent. range. He testified that the capacity problem arose because the Port charges too little for a scarce commodity, encouraging (some would say, subsidizing) inefficient use. Underutilized commuter planes are the principal beneficiary. Their operations, with about seven per cent. of all Sea-Tac passengers, use between 38 and 42 per cent. of all landing/take-off potential. This factor is the principal burden on the airport's capacity. Nothing in the expansion proposals deals with this imbalance.
Columnist Ramsey followed up with Ms. Lindsey and Michael Feldman, POS director of professional and technical services. Ms. Lindsey confirmed to Ramsey that there is considerable reluctance on the part of the airlines to enter into huge new financial commitments, thanks in large part to the new, very competitive business environment. Lindsey and Feldman attempted to rebut Dr. Michaelis' argument. They told the columnist, in effect, that as a matter of policy the Port doesn't want to institute fair-return pricing and that there is a risk of litigation if it imposed peak-period price premiums.
'Truth in Aviation' believes, however, that the FAA could easily change the present regulations to grant the Port unmistakeable authority to charge fair prices, including peak-period surcharges. It seems that the additional runway (which Port Commissioner Pat Davis accurately calls a "second second runway") would be a giant subsidy to commuter airlines, and not much more.
South King County homeowners seek lawyers
Through CASE, South King County residents are organizing homeowners who feel their property values have been damaged by intrusive noise from airport operations at Sea-Tac. The Sea-Tac Litigation Coordinating Committee is interested in contacting south King County residents who have owned their homes prior to 1985, as well as those who owned their homes prior to construction of Sea-Tac’s second runway in 1972. The group plans to interview legal counsel on recovery of lost property values. For more information contact committee coordinator Debi Demarais at 878-5093.
Sydney Fiasco
A Senate Select Committee reviewing the newly opened 3rd runway in Sydney, Australia blasted the project saying, "In hindsight, the construction of the runway can be seen as an engineering triumph, and as an environmental and social tragedy."
The City of Burien has hired international consulting firm HOK to study the impacts that expanding Sea-Tac would have on local city services. There are several ways the expansion impacts local cities. If, for example, dump trucks running up and down local streets destroys those streets, local taxpayers must pay the cost of repairing them. An even greater impact comes from noise and other problems reducing property values, lowering the taxes localities receive for police, fire, schools, etc., at the same time as the project drives up costs by requiring additional police to control prostitution, for example. These cost must be made up by local taxpayers or other services reduced. Studies in Sydney, Australia and Dallas /Fort Worth airports, which recently opened new runways, show a higher than expected drop in property values.
At a news conference on Thursday January 18, irate residents of Columbia City (Seattle) demanded straight answers from the Port of Seattle and the Federal Aviation Administration about flight path changes over their South-East Seattle neighborhoods since May 1995. Attempting to be heard over the roar of Sea-Tac jets, residents assembled on the lawn of a home on 37th So. and told the news media that there has been a highly noticeable change in the route of aircraft flying near the racially diverse neighborhoods of South-East Seattle. Residents told of the refusal of the Port of Seattle and the Federal Aviation Administration to recognize such changes.
Spokesperson Ray Akers noted that the South-East Seattle area is the most demographically mixed community in the State: one-third African-American, one-third Asian- American, and one-third Americans of European descent, which also includes the largest population of elderly, of youth, and of disabled persons. Akers noted that President Clinton's Executive Order 12898 requires federal agencies (including the FAA) to addressenvironmental justice in minority and low-income populations. The Order is intended to foster non-discrimination in federal programs that substantially affect health or the environment. Yet no action is being taken by the FAA to study the impact of the overflights in this diverse community. One observer characterized this situation as "environmental racism".
Residents stated that representatives of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Port of Seattle have repeatedly denied that flight paths had changed. When contacted, FAA official Jim Mast reportedly stated that a change in magnetic declination had caused the radial for incoming flights north of Sea-Tac to shift 3 degrees. Commercial airline pilot Sven Holm, who attended the press conference, noted that in May 1995 the FAA in fact ordered a 3 degree eastward shift of flights on final approaches north of the airport. Pilot Holm noted that no comparable change in the radial occurred for departures north of Sea-Tac and that the radial for arrivals and departures south of Sea-Tac had not changed as well.
Phil Watkins, district director for U.S Representative Randy Tate (R-9), announced that Rep. Tate will direct an official inquiry to the FAA about the perceived flight-path changes. Mr. Watkins suggested that the matter could be taken up in a Congressional hearing scheduled in Seattle on February 14 concerning the need for Sea-Tacexpansion. (See article "Tate Gets 3rd Runway Hearing" Fall 1995 issue of "Truth in Aviation".)
Ken Kadlec, staff aide to U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott (D-7), standing in at the news conference for Rep. McDermott, told"Truth in Aviation" that the Congressman (whose district includes South-East Seattle) will press the FAA for a more detailed answer to Rep. McDermott's earlier inquiry about the reported shift.
State Representatives Dawn Mason and Kip Fukuda (both D., 37) noted in separate statements released at the news conference that each had personally observed new overflights in South-East Seattle. The social-service agency, Neighborhood House, in aletter dated 12 January 1996, also called on the FAA to conductfurther investigation of the "suspectedflight pattern changes". Also released was a letter to the PortCommission (sent in summer 1995) co-signed by six Seattle City Councilmembers, calling on the Port to direct its staff to conduct necessary research to identify clearly the actual flight pathstaken by commercial airliners departing from Sea-Tac. A similar letter from Mayor Norm Rice was also sent to the FAA last summer.
Liz Thomas, aide to King County Councilmember Ron Sims, told the media that Councilmember Sims' office had received numerous complaints about recent increases in aircraft noise, that Sims himself had noticed the change in numbers of overflights east of the previous flight paths, and the increase in noise. Ms. Thomas pointed out that there was a discrepancy between what was actually observed by numerous citizens and the statements of the Port and FAA there had been no change.
Spokesperson Ray Akers released to the news media his letter to the PSRC Expert Arbitration Panel, calling on the panel to obtain accurate data on overflight noise in Columbia City and adjoining neighborhoods (including monitoring) before the Panel evaluates the effect of the Port's present noise-abatement efforts. Akers criticized Port flight-track maps as being consistently incorrect and noted that Columbia City residents' annoyance complaints were shifting from complaints that single aircraft were conducting non-standard arrivals to complaints that the overflights were becoming continuous.Akers catalogued the various excuses he had received from Port and FAA officials when he complained about the new overflights:
"The aircraft was destined for Boeing Field, not Sea-Tac airport; you need to call Boeing Field""It was a jumbo jet operated by a foreign carrier. ...
You should write a letter to the airline."
"There has been a temporary movement of air traffic due to high volume of aircraft."
"There has been a temporary change in flight paths due to repairs (or closure) of other airport facilities at (a) Boeing Field, or (b) McChord AFB, Tacoma."
"It was a military aircraft ... "
"It was a jet from Russia ... "
"Unusual weather conditions necessitated shifting air traffic over your home for safety reasons."
Flight-path changes were also blamed on Seafair (at dates when there were no relevant Seafair activities).
Neither the FAA nor the Port have yet admitted to the press that the FAA in fact quietly ordered a change in the radial for south-bound arriving flights in May 1995, at the time Columbia City residents observed a startling increase in overflight noise. According to a pilot's chart published by Jeppesen-Sanderson Inc., which provides navigational charts to pilots, the change was ordered effective in May 1995.
The new Jeppesen navigational chart dated May 26, 1995 shows the alignment for approaches to Sea-Tac runway 16R in "south flow" (flying north to south to land at Sea-Tac), at 161 degrees while the previous alignment for arrivals to Sea-Tac in south flow was set at 158 degrees. A previously issued navigational chart dated June 17, 1994 shows instrumentlanding system (ILS) approaches to runway 16R in south flow conditions, as well as departures in north flow conditions, utilizing a 158 degree alignment. A "Final Approach Course"change is indicated in a footnote to the May 1995 chart. This footnote shows instrument landing system (ILS) arrivals travelling along the new 161 degree alignment.("Truth in Aviation" is seekingpermission to reprint the May 26, 1995 chart, as well as the June 17, 1994 chart, on the RCAA web page.
The revised navigational chart was issued 13 days before locations of six (6) new noise monitoring stations north and south of the airport were established, according to a June 9, 1995 letter from the Port of Seattle to the Expert Panel. These new noise monitoring locations were established because of concerns from communities located miles distant from Sea-Tac airport. The Expert Panel must estabish that the Port has provided "meaningful and significant "reductions of noise impacts in the communities affected by Sea-Tac airport before the Port of Seattle may proceed with construction of a third runway at Sea-Tac airport. Aircraft noise data collected from the noise monitoring stations will be used by the Panel when making its determination of whether the Port has met its required goals of noise reduction impacts.
A map prepared for the press conference by RCAA member Al Furney, shows that the change, in effect, directs arriving traffic East of the noise monitor located in Georgetown and toward Beacon Hill. A noise chart presented at the press conference showed recorded noise levels from Sea-Tac flights in December 1995 regularly ranged between 70 and 80 decibels in this community 6 miles north of Sea-Tac.
Officially, the Port and the FAA deny that there have been ANY changes, or that ANY aircraft fly over Columbia City, Mt. Baker, and other near-by Seattle neighborhoods. These agencies have told Mr. Akers that there had been no shifts in 30 years -- patently untrue, since at least four major changes have been instituted during that period: the Elliott Bay noise abatement corridor; the 'scatter' plan; the East Turn; and the Four-Post plan (and virtual abandonment of the noise-abatement route).
At the November 1995 hearings before the Expert Panel, Dianne Summerhays, Port Planning Program Manager, testified before the PSRC Expert Arbitration Panel that the Port of Seattle and the FAA had investigated Akers' observation that the flight paths of Sea-Tac traffic had moved to the east. In her testimony at the November 21 hearing Summerhays stated "we did not find any evidence of that".
During the November hearing, FAA spokesperson Carolyn Read told the Expert Panel the FAA had found "no evidence that there has been any tricky maneuvers around the [newly installed noise] monitors."
Other FAA officials also continue to deny or ignore complaints there have been recent changes to the flight of aircraft over South-East Seattle communities. During a 6.30 PM KOMO-TV news interview broadcast January 18, 1996, FAA spokesman Mitch Barker, responded to Columbia City residents' complaints about the new flight routes. Neglecting to observe the Columbia City residents lived 6 miles northeast of Sea-Tac airport, Barker stated "An airport is not a library, that airports are going to make noise, and there's no escaping that fact." Following Barker's statement, KOMO-TV reporter Rebecca Rodriguez commented "While the FAA maintains that approaches to and from the airport have not changed in recent months, they soon will be. Every ten to twenty years all a pproaches at all airports are re-examined. Later this year Sea-Tac will come under study and that is when the FAA says changes will be made."
The January 20, 1996 edition of the Des Moines News quoted long-time Columbia City resident Gloria Cauble who said, "It is a complete insult to peoples' intelligence to say there's been no change." Cauble described the glare from aircraft landing lights at night which recently began shining through her windows.
Port of Seattle program planning manager Diane Summerhays dismissed residents "conspiracy theory" concerning the alleged change in flight routes and stated "It's not how the FAA operates or the Port." In the same article, FAA spokesperson Diane Fuller reportedly stated that radials would be changed for the area south of the runway, but emphasized the actual route planes fly over will not be switched. FAA official Jim Mast with FAA's Seattle flight procedures office also reportedly claimed that Sea-Tac's flight paths remained the same and stated "the radial itself didn't change; only the value assigned to it." [ed. note: the "radial" and the "alignment" are the inverse of one another.]
RCAA member Al Furney, observed that prior to May 1995, the arrival and departure alignments north of Sea-Tac remained identical, routing Sea-Tac air traffic on a 158 degree heading. Furney noted that now, arriving and departing flights north of Sea-Tac travelled along a 161 degree heading north of the airport a nd a 158 degree headings south of it. With Sea-Tac's arrival and departure alignments now distinguished by a 3 degree differential. Furney questioned how arriving aircraft following the new 161 degree radial would avoid flying over newly impacted communities and residents.
In a January 12, 1996 letter to the Expert Panel, Columbia City resident Ray Akers wrote concerning Executive Order 12898 titled "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations". This Order mandates that federal agencies make extra efforts to inform and to protect the health and environment of minority and low-income populations. Akers wrote "Clearly, the FAA and Port of Seattle are not complying with the spirit or the letter of this Executive Order." He described four issues covered in the Executive Order which pertained to the Columbia City community including adverse health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations; impacts to cultural or and/or historic properties and areas; degradation of the surrounding environment; and impacts to the community economic structure including housing values and impacts to businesses. Akers noted that when he asked an FAA official if the FAA was aware that high volumes of air traffic were flying over Columbia City, a Landmark district listed on the National Historic Register, the official responded the FAA was not obligated to recognize this special protected status because of the FAA's preeminent need to promote commerce and trade. Akers also wrote that southeast Seattle is the most ethnically diverse area in the State of Washington, with a population which is one-third Asian-American, one-third African- American, and one-third Americans of European ancestry.
RCAA members also pointed out that neither the Port nor the FAA had issued public notices indicating a determination of non-significant impact (DNS) r an environmental impact statement (EIS) related to the modification of the alignment for approaches to Sea-Tac. They noted a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision concerning flight routes to and from Sea-Tac adopted under the FAA's Four-Post plan. In 1992, the 9th Circuit Court confirmed an FAA determination that changes in flight routes of aircraft at elevations of 3000 feet and above would not require an EIS. Noting the revised navigational chart directed aircraft approaches at an elevation of 1900 feet as far as 11 nautical miles from Sea-Tac along the new 161 degree alignment, many question the FAA's failure to prepare an environmental statement (EIS) to review the impacts of the change in aircraft flight routing.
"Truth in Aviation" staff have computed the eastward shift resulting from the 3 degree change in the approach alignment. In Columbia City, approximately six statute miles from the runways' ends, the deviation is more than 1650 feet, nearly a third of a mile. Ten statute miles from the northern end of the Sea-Tac runways -- which is the distance to Garfield High School, or 23rd and Cherry -- the easterly deviation is over 2800 feet, well over a half mile.
The Regional Commission on Airport Affairs was formed by citizens to help citizens. Before RCAA, the only place to get expert information on noise, air pollution, water pollution, Port waste, delays & capacity issues, new technologies, and regional (not parochial, Port) air transportation alternatives was the Port of Seattle. Through RCAA, citizens from all over the region can now find and develop independent information, analyze the issues, and present their facts to regional decision makers and the public.
We are making progress. Our experts' studies show that the Port's plan costs too much, provides too little value for the taxpayer's dollar, and creates far too much damage. We are reaching out to other citizens with independent noise monitoring, presentations to community groups, public rallies and press conferences and booths local fairs and other events.
You can help RCAA's work through your contributions, your volunteer time, and your calls to public officials responsible for airport decisions. Please clip this form and send it in today. You will receive our thanks, a No Third Runway bumper strip and our regular newsletter in return. Contributions are not tax deductible. RCAA, 19900 4th Ave. S.W. Normandy Park, WA 98166 tel.824-3120
NAME (Please Print)____________________________________________________________ ADDRESS:________________________________________________________________ CITY:________________________________________________________ZIP________ Home Phone:_____________Work Phone:_____________FAX:__________ 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: 11/28/95. RCAA 19900 4th Ave. S.W. Normandy Park, WA 98166 (206) 824-3120 FAX: 824-3451
Administrative Director: Kristin Hanson
Clark Dodge, President ; Jeanne Moeller, Vice-President; Laura Anderson, Treasurer
Permission to copy for non-commercial purposes granted.
According to recently issued FAA statistics, the number of aircraft experiencing significant delays at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport have continued to decline over the past five years. Despite claims of an impending "air capacity crisis" due to increased flight operations at Sea-Tac from the airport's operator, the Port of Seattle, statistics recently issued by the FAA's Air Traffic Management System (ATM's) Division show less than five (5) out of each thousand flight operations at Sea-Tac currently experience signifigant delays.
Flight delay reports are filed by airlines each month with the U.S. Department of Transportation as required by 14 CFR Part 234. This regulation requires carriers to report on operations to and from the 27 largest U.S. airports (those with at least one percent of the nation's total domestic scheduled-service passenger enplanements.) The DOT system classifies a flight as "on time" , i.e. not delayed, if it operated less than 15 minutes after the scheduled time shown in the carrier's computerized reservation system.
According to the FAA's ATM's data, issued February 1, 1996, the number of flights delays at Sea-Tac have continued to decline every year since 1990. In 1990, delayed flights at Sea-Tac amounted to only 30.77 out of each 1,000 operations. In 1991, Sea-Tac flights experiencing delays dropped to 18.85 per thousand. Delays continued to decline in 1992, 1993, and 1994 from 13.19, 6.78, to 6.09 flights per thousand, respectively. Last year (1995) the delay figure again dropped to only 4.77 flights per thousand at Sea-Tac.
When questioned about the DOT figures showing less than one-half of one-percent of flights experiencing delays and asked to justify the Port's multi-billion dollar expansion plan at Sea-Tac based on contentions of Sea-Tac air traffic congestion, Port of Seattle officials declined comment
The General Conformity Determination for Air Quality of Seattle Tacoma expansion has apparently been slipped into the FINAL EIS. The Determination did not appear in the Draft EIS, nor was notice sent to commentors. The notice was found in the Federal Register. Comments are now due March 18. The FAA, through Mr. Ossenkop, states that this covered at Chapter 4, Section 9, Page 10 and Chap. 4, Section 15. However, a review of FEIS does not contain discussion of issues raised in the notice, including Action 3 "development or revision of air traffic control procedures for the proposed improvements." Chap.4, We reprint the notice in the Federal Register below:
[Federal Register: February 9, 1996 (Volume 61, Number 28)]
[Notices]
[Page 5055-5056]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Notice of Availability; Draft Clean Air Act, General Conformity Determination, Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, Seattle, Washington
Action: Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) proposed actions includes: (1) approval of the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) for the proposed improvements at Sea-Tac International Airport; (2) provide possible federal funding for eligible projects contemplated within the planning horizon as illustrated on the ALP; (3) development or revision of air traffic control procedures for the proposed improvements; and (4) establishment of navigational aids. The Port of Seattle, as operator of the airport, will design and build the proposed improvements. Because these actions are necessary for federal-funded public use airports, the FAA is required to meet the Clean Air Act general conformity requirements under 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 93, Subpart B for the federal action for this undertaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------Abstract: The Port of Seattle, operator of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, has prepared a Master Plan Update for the Airport. The Plan shows the need to address the poor weather operating capability of the Airport through the development of a third parallel runway (Runway 16X/ 34X) with a length of up to 8,500 feet, separated by 2,500 feet from existing Runway 16L/34R, with associated taxiways, utilities, and navigational aids. Other proposed development includes: extension of Runway 34R by 600 feet; establishment of standard Runway Safety Areas for Runways 16R/34L; development of a new air traffic control tower; Main Terminal improvements and terminal expansion; development of a new unit terminal located to the north of the existing main terminal; parking and access improvements and expansion; development of the South Aviation Support Area for cargo and/or maintenance facilities, and relocation, redevelopment, and expansion of support facilities. A Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) has been prepared which assesses the impact of alternative airport improvements. The proposed improvements would be completed during the 1996-2020 period, with initial 5-year development focused on the new parallel runway, and existing passenger terminal, parking and access improvements.
Based on the conformity applicability criteria and the attainment status of the affected area, the conformity determination focuses on potential air emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) and ozone. Based on the air quality analysis provided in the FEIS, the FAA has determined that the proposed improvements at Sea-Tac International Airport conform to the Washington State Implementation Plan (SIP) and Ambient Air Quality Standards. The analysis of the proposed improvements at Sea-Tac has demonstrated that, with mitigation, the proposed improvements will not cause or contribute to new violations of any ambient air quality standards, nor increase the frequency or severity of an existing violation; nor delay timely attainment of the ozone or CO standards in the Puget Sound Region, and that the action is in compliance or consistent with all relevant requirements and milestones contained in the SIP. This conclusion of a positive general conformity determination fulfills the FAA's obligation and responsibility under 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart B. This General Conformity Determination has been prepared as specified in Section 176(c) [42 U.S.C. 7506c] of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
Public Review: The public is invited to review and comment on the Draft Conformity Determination. Copies of the FEIS are available for review at the following locations:
Comments and requests for information may be directed to: Mr. Dennis Ossenkop, Northwest Mountain Region, Airports Division, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue, S.W., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments must be received by March 18, 1996.
[[Page 5056]]
Issued in Renton, Washington on February 1, 1996.
Lowell H. Johnson,
Manager, Airports Division, Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest
Mountain Region, Renton, Washington.
[FR Doc. 96-2850 Filed 2-8-96; 8:45 am]