Portspin: Blaming the Neighbors
For Your Own Bad Planning

In a front-page article in the Seattle Times for July 4, the Port of Seattle announced (or admitted) that the third runway is a money pit. Costs have doubled since 1997, the Port says, and airlines don't want to pay.

Port spokespersons blamed the cost increases on their battle with opponents, said they were applying for more money from the feds, and were going ahead anyway. But for those of us given to dissecting Port spin–doctoring, the real story was in the chart showing the Port's cost estimate for the project in 1997 and today.

When Did The Port Know? In 1997

The big ticket cost “increases” were for items that the Port knew about in 1997, but failed to include in their 1997 cost estimate and never bothered to estimate until now. And the new cost estimate has more bad news for whoever the Port sticks with the bill (it never pays these bills itself). This money pit is a lot deeper than the Port is letting on.

Only $26 million for all mitigation in 1997? On the largest fill dirt project in the State since the Grand Coulee Dam? For expanding a large airport into a densely built up area? The Port knew in 1997 that this was a ridiculously low estimate for mitigation and that the runway would do billions in damage to the communities around the airport.

The Port knew perfectly well when it estimated the costs in 1997 that environmental problems would be expensive, and the sheer quantity of fill would be a challenge, cost–wise.

Didn't Plan for Damages to Neighbors

In February 1997, the State paid for a study to estimate what the cost of mitigating damages from the third runway would be. This study, based on the Port's own environmental impact statement, identified over $2.95 billion in damages south and west of the airport and Tukwila alone, not counting wetlands issues and a long list of issues where the Port's EIS did not contain enough information to be able to make an estimate. The State study also did not cover the area north of the airport.

The Port has never admitted to having any responsibility to the neighbors. In effect, it told people in the Highline area—“We've decided you can eat these costs.” At the the same time, property values in Southwest King County are already lagging behind values in other parts of King County due to the runway proposal, reducing the resoures locals have to pick up the Port's unfunded costs. No wonder people rallied to oppose the project.

Wetlands Cost Estimate Never Revised

The State-funded study also did not include wetlands, although it was obvious that the runway, if built, would fill a large area of wetlands that form the headwaters of three large creeks flowing directly into Puget Sound. Port planners knew that their initial design would dam Miller Creek, and dealing with that would require heroic (translation=expensive) engineering. Indeed, within six months of the 1997 cost estimate, the Port “found” twice as many acres of wetlands, and tossed in the Great Wall of Sea-Tac as the solution to the Miller Creek problem. And for six years, until June 2003, the Port never revised its cost estimate to reflect these costs. Nor did it release estimates for the huge vaults in which it plans to store winter rain for release into local creeks in summer droughts.

New Estimate, New Bets

Back to Page 1 of Newsletter