inside...Tate Gets 3rd Runway Letter of Intent Language Removed from Transportation Appropriations ** How Big are Airports? ** RCAA , ACC Tell Expert Panel Port Noise Program Not Good Enough ** What Is the Expert Panel? ** Seattle Post Intelligencer Contracts with Port To Act as Media Consultant, Changes Position on 3rd Runway ** UPDATES ** King County Council votes Night-time Restrictions on Stage II Aircraft at KCIA ** Why the 3rd Runway Costs So Much And Does so Little ** Outgoing RCAA President Elected to Normandy Park City Council ** RCAA Needs You!
Calling it a victory for taxpayers, Ninth District Congressman Randy Tate announced that the final version of this year's Transportation Appropriations bill eliminates special treatment for the proposed third runway at Sea-Tac Airport. Under the Conference Report, the third runway will compete for limited federal funding just like every other airport construction project. No longer will Sea-Tac receive "expeditious consideration." Instead, the Port's request for almost $300 million in federal funds will get "fair consideration" by the Federal Aviation Administration and will require complying with certain provisions.
Tate said the new language, which was changed during the House-Senate conference Committee, means the proposed third runway at Sea-Tac airport is no longer on the fast track. RCAA Pres. Stu Creighton hailed the new language. "The third runway cannot win a fair competition based on cost efficiency & common sense," he said.
The new language also states "The FAA shall fairly consider any information brought out at Congressional field hearing on this matter, and shall not sign a Letter of Intent before March 31, 1996." Tate, a Member of the Aviation Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, said he has been working with chairman John Duncan (R-Tenn.) on scheduling a Congressional field hearing.
Tate said a field hearing in the Seattle-Tacoma area would be a tremendous opportunity for his constituents to share their concerns about the huge cost associated with the new runway with members of the Aviation Subcommittee.
In a letter to Duncan concerning the hearing, Tate said that "in addition to the enormous cost of construction, serious environmental concerns remain unanswered." The freshman Congressman has consistently called the third runway a potentially huge financial boondoggle. Although no date has yet been confirmed, it appears that the hearing will be held in early March.
Sources: National Flight Data center & FAA
Airport Acres
New Denver 53,000
Miami 24,960
New Chicago (Peotone) 20,000
Orlando 9,002
Houston 7,200
San Francisco 5,287
Kennedy 5,200
Spokane 4,745
Nashville 3,900
Sea-Tac 2,400
Has noise from Sea-Tac Airport been significantly reduced? On Nov. 20 & 21, the Expert Arbitration Panel held more hearings at Seattle on this issue. Unless the Panel finds that the Port of Seattle has achieved "objectively measurable, meaningful reduction in aircraft noise impacts in the affected communities surrounding the Airport", the regional planning body (Puget Sound Regional Council) must withhold approval for construction of the third Sea-Tac runway under PSRC Resolution 93-03. The Port cannot obtain federal funds for Sea-Tac Expansion without PSRC approval. On Nov. 20-21 the Panel discussed key concerns on how noise was measured and how much noise reduction would be appropriate with Port representatives (including noise consultant Paul Dunholter), community spokespersons (Dr. Alice Suter, noise consultant to Regional Commission on Airport Affairs; Peter Kirsch, attorney for Airport Communities Coalition; and Dr. Sanford Fidell, consultant to ACC), as well as members of the public.
The Port argued in testimony and submissions that an annual noise reduction of 1.5 dB (DNL) should result in "thousands" (defined as at least 1001, not more than 9999) of people dropping out of the "highly annoyed" category. The Port further argued that not only was this good enough, but also these conditions had already been met.
ACC's Dr. Fidell noted that the predicted annual 1.5 dB reduction was within the margin of error of the Port's methods of measurement and calculation, and the calculations might show a non-existent decrease. ACC submitted a competing standard: a (measured) reduction of at least 4.5 dB for at least half the population in the zone of 65 DNL and over. At the hearing, Dr. Alice Suter, RCAA noise consultant, added that a reduction of 8 to 12 dB would be more likely to be noticed by the affected citizens. Port spokesperson, Attorney Michael Schneiderman (of Hopkins & Sutter, Chicago, Ill.) responded that the Port would not be able to reach a reduction of 4.5 dB -- unless there was a reduction of many thousands of operations per year.
The Panel and the noise consultants (except the Port's) were all concerned about the Port's use of averaged noise. Dr. Fidell expressed concern about averaging averages of questionable initial data. Citizens also questioned the flight tracks because independent monitoring showed a large amount of over flight noise contrary to Port flight track maps.
The Panel, after posing a long series of questions to the Port asking for more information, is left with the task of deciding the "philosophical question" of how much less noise is sufficiently meaningful and significant to affected residents to satisfy the conditions of PSRC Res. A93-03. The Port position, in effect, is that what exists now is sufficient. The ACC's position is that the projected 1.5 dB reduction is not yet noticeable and that a noticeable change is required. The Port says it cannot meet the ACC goal of 4.5 dB reduction. The Panel has said that it will not require the Port to do the impossible but will require a meaningful, significant, measurable change. A decision from the Panel is required by April 1996.
The Expert Panel also continued its hearings on the question of whether rail improvements in the Portland-Seattle- Vancouver corridor could divert enough travellers to relieve the felt need for a third Sea-Tac runway They questioned RCAA rail consultant Dr. Hal Cooper in detail on his submissions to the Panel. A decision on this question is expected soon. While the State Department of Transportation claims to be in favor of much-improved passenger rail service, it actually supports Sea-Tac expansion. But DOT offered no expert testimony to disprove the position of RCAA, that inexpensive improvements could make major differences in demand at Sea-Tac. More on this in our next issue.
Under Puget Sound Regional Council Resolution A93-03, planning approval for a third runway at Sea-Tac is conditioned on three findings: (1) no suitable site can be found in the Central Puget Sound area for a major supplemental airport; (2) noise reduction performance objectives have been scheduled, pursued, and achieved based on independent evaluation, and based on real noise impacts; (3) demand-management and system- management programs have been pursued, and either achieved or shown to be infeasible, based on independent evaluation.
The PSRC decided that the noise and demand-management conditions should be reviewed by an independent, outside Expert Arbitration Panel. These experts are: Scott P. Lewis a Boston, Mass., attorney specializing in airport issues; Martha J. Langelan, an economist; and engineering Prof. William Bowlby of Vanderbilt University. The Panel has met & held hearings in the area in August 1994, December 1994 May 1995, and November 1995.
The Seattle Post Intelligencer, which has recently become a strong editorial advocate of expansion of Sea-Tac Airport, acted during 1992-94 as a paid media consultant to the Port of Seattle on airport issues, according to Port documents listing media and public-relations consultants for that period.
Exact duties of the P.-I. under the contracts and the dollar amounts have not yet been disclosed. A request for these details under the State freedom-of-information act is pending, according to Al Furney, Des Moines resident who uncovered the contract. Furney also noted that in 1990 the P.-I. editorially opposed the third runway.
Burien has chosen priorities for the $500,000 appropriated by the State Legislature reported in our last newsletter. They are: socio-economic implications; environmental implications; analysis of increased ground transportation.
Water Quality Fundraiser. 300 people turned up at the Cove in Normandy Park for a Gala sponsored by CASE to raise funds for the lawsuit brought by the Waste Action Project against the Port over water quality violations at Sea-Tac airport. A great time was had by all, and the legal action is hot.
Relations appear to have soured in Sea Tac/Port lawsuit after the Port hired a large downtown Seattle law firm, rather than its own in-house legal staff, to represent it in the lawsuit with the City of Sea Tac which was supposed to be a cordial settling of confusion over who has jurisdiction in the City of Sea Tac.
Westside Area Case Continues with the remaining 120 homeowner/plaintiffs. Ten homeowners have settled.their claims for loss of property value and loss of use of their properties. Settlement amounts ranged from $10,000 to $40,000. The Port has spent $2 million on the defense of this lawsuit to date.
Temporary restraining order on hold until Final EIS. Federal Judge William Dwyer ruled that the request for a temporary restraining order brought by Chris Clifford in August was not legally "ripe" until after the Port's Final EIS on the third runway is issued. Only then can citizens who contend that comment time was inadequate bring their claim.
Local Cities funded the Airport Communities Coalition (ACC), with $2 million dollars for 1996. If there is to be litigation, 1996 is the year it is most likely, and the cities need to be prepared for this possibility. The City of Federal Way recently joined ACC.
On Monday, Nov. 20, the King County Council unanimously passed motion 9709 imposing tough restrictions on night-time operation of Stage II jet aircraft at Boeing Field, the county-operated airport at the southern edge of Seattle. Responding to long and loud complaints from Seattle neighborhoods, ranging from Georgetown to Magnolia, the Council directed the County Executive, Gary Locke, to "work toward development and adoption of a night noise restriction from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. prohibiting all Stage II aircraft operations".
The Council action was touched off by, a side effect of the Port of Seattle's program to restrict night-time operations of Stage II aircraft at Sea-Tac: the Port's rules led Alaska Airlines to move a noisy Stage II cargo flight to the county airport in February 1995.
The Council requested the County Executive to impose a moratorium on signing lease agreements for terms longer than two years, until a Master Plan for the county airport, including a noise study, is completed & adopted. Recognizing that not all Stage III aircraft are equally quiet, the Council urged the Executive to start a nation-wide campaign for Federal legislation to phase out noisier ("hush-kitted') Stage III aircraft. A report is due from the Executive by Dec. 15 on progress towards meeting the Councils goals.
Ground work for this progressive action by the County Council was done by C-FAN (Citizens Fed up with Aviation Noise) and by citizens serving on an ad hoc noise committee set up in May 1995 to advise the County on noise and monitoring issues. The County Council was presented with a C-FAN petition bearing more that 1000 signatures. Mike Rees of Magnolia & Lorna Dove of Georgetown were particularly active. "It was really easy getting signatures," said Rees. "More & more people are becoming aware of and concerned about aviation noise." Other citizen groups included the Seattle Community Council Federation which passed a resolution in October. urging night-time restriction.
The resolution was sponsored by Larry Phillips (D-4), Larry Gossett (D-10), Greg Nickels (D-8), Christopher Vance (R-13) and Ron Sims (D-5). Phillips worked hard to develop the language. Sims accepted an invitation to spend a night at a Georgetown home, commenting afterwards on how bad the noise was.
Total landing fees received by the County from Alaska Airlines for the controversial flights amount to only $4,000 per year.
King County International Airport (KCIA) is the new name for Boeing Field.
Our last newsletter reported that the costs of the 3rd runway expansion had skyrocketed to $1.5 billion, not including noise "mitigation." Adding these costs, the project is likely to rival or exceed the $2 billion proposed brand new airport at Peotone, Illinois (which includes 5 multidirectional independent runways, a new state-of-the-art passenger terminal, and GPS technology.) Here are a few reasons why the third runway costs so much and delivers so little.
Sea-Tac was built on the side of a hill. In order to create a flat space long enough for a runway, millions of truckloads of dirt must be hauled in and compacted. This is the main reason the runway construction costs alone are estimated at $400 million¤one of the most expensive parts of the project and ten times the costs at other airports. Because of the configuration of the hill, an 8500 ft. runway is the about the maximum length possible, and many feel that is too short for safety.
The new runway is parallel to and only 2500 feet away from the existing runways, so two aircraft cannot land simultaneously (called "dependent operation".) This restricts the capacity of the third runway to only 100,000 operations per year at best (compared to roughly 200,000 for an independent runway.) Also, aircraft using the third runway must wait for the other two runways to clear before crossing them to reach the terminal which further reduces the new runway's efficiency and creates a danger from incursions. A supplemental airport with independent runways could handle 400,000 operations for less than $2 billion.
Sea-Tac is one of the smallest major airports in the country, with a site of only 2400 acres (see table on pg. 1.) This means that the Port must acquire a strip of land over a mile and a half long in the middle of densely built up neighborhoods outside the existing acreage -- very costly. Adding to the acquisitions costs is lost local tax revenues for schools and municipalities because the acquired properties will be stripped from the tax rolls. The Port hasn't included lost local tax revenues in estimates to date, leaving locals to pick up the tab.
RCAA President Stuart J. Creighton was elected to the Normandy Park City Council at the recent general election. Congratulations Stu!
The RCAA Board will elect a new President and fill other board vacancies at its annual election meeting on December 13.
During his term as president, Mr. Creighton was a key player in developing better relationships between the RCAA and the cities immediately surrounding the airport, oversaw RCAA's own expert presentations to the PSRC Expert Panel and led mass rallies and press conferences. A high point of his term was the massive RCAA comment (three thick volumes) submitted in response to the Port's and FAA's draft environmental impact statement on the third runway.
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 Office Administrator/ Volunteer Co-ordinator: Kristin Hanson
Stuart Creighton, President Jeanne Moeller, Vice-President Tanya Engeset, Treasurer
Permission to copy for non-commercial purposes granted.