Water-pollution reports from Sea-Tac -- where are they?

No news is not always a sign of good news.

Are the streams coming down from Sea-Tac Airport in a healthy condition? Supposedly, you can check the Airport’s website for the most recent discharge monitoring reports (DMRs), to learn whether the Airport is in compliance with its water-pollution permit.

Unfortunately, you won’t find current information. The most recent report is for September, & here we are in the third week of December. Given the number of people on staff at the Port, & their considerable expertise in maintaining a website, this lengthy delay is hard to understand.

No news is not always a sign of good news.

C.A.S.E. meeting -- more about noise

Current usage of Sea-Tac Airport  will be the main topic of the regular monthly meeting of Citizens Against Sea-Tac Expansion (C.A.S.E.) on Wednesday, 2 December.  Stan Shepherd, Sea-Tac's Manager pf Airport Noise Programs, expects to set up a web link at the meeting to bring up & display current runway statistics & other flight information, including "WebTrak" in actual operation.

"WebTrak"is a computer program that shows flight paths in almost real time on any computer connect to the Internet.  The URL for this service is

http://www32.webtrak-lochard.com/WebTrak/sea

Not everyone finds this easy to use, so here is a potential opportunity for learning all about it from an expert.

Mr Shepherd will give also give a presentation on the present state of the Part 150 study for the Airport.  

C.A.S.E. President Brett Fish says, "One most intriguing question is how many aborted third runway landings have taken place since the opening and since they aren't completed 'operations', they seem to disappear from the webtracker. The noise is still there, often worse from low attitude high powered recoveries but doesn't seem to be recorded in DNL or other statistics needed to get at the truth of true impacts to the communities."

C.A.S.E. meetings are held at the Highline School District's administration office (also known as "ERAC"), located at 15675 Ambaum Blvd., S.W., in Burien, from  7 p.m. to 9. p.m.  All are welcome.  Light refreshments provided.



 

More details released on Sea-Tac Part 150 study

More details on the pending Part 150 study at Sea-Tac Airport were released by Port staff member Stan Shepherd at the meeting of the Highline Forum on Thursday, 19 November.  We will have an extended posting on this subject by Tuesday.  

A couple of points stood out from Mr Shepherd's presentation.  (1) The contract with the Port's chosen consultant for the study has not yet been signed, which means that the scope of the study is not yet frozen in stone.  (2) There is still no provision for meaningful public participation, unlike the previous study.  The closest to public participation will be an invitation to local cities to send their land-use planners to the Technical Review Committee.  Otherwise, the role of the public will be to attend presentations & to read hand-outs from the Port & consultant.  

Stuart Creighton Elected President of RCAA

At its regular monthly meeting on Thursday, 12 November, the Board of Directors of the Regional Commission on Airport Affairs elected Stuart C. Creighton as President, in succession to Lawrence J. Corvari, who remains on the Board.

Mr Creighton is a former Councilmember of the City of Normandy Park, & was RCAA's President in the mid-1990s.  Mr Creighton was very active as Normandy Park representative in the Airport Communities Coalition.  He is a retired Boeing executive.

Mr Corvari, before serving as President of RCAA, was co-president, with his wife Candice, of Citizens Against Sea-Tac Expansion.

Home sales leap -- with an exception

The Seattle Times reported this morning (pp. A12 & A13) that home sales in King & Snohomish Counties for October leapt to a new high for the year.   With an exception or two.  The area closest to Sea-Tac Airport showed a decline in sales.  

A Burien real-estate professional is quoted as thinking that maybe buyers were looking for neighborhoods that are "a little more upscale".  More upscale?  Is Skyway "more upscale" than Normandy Park?  May we suggest that perhaps it's the new noise from the third runway that is continuing to depress real-estate sales & values in the Highline area?

== < + >= =

If the link above doesn't work for you, try pasting the following URL into your browser.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/realestate/2010212918_homesales06.html

Burbank's Statement on Part 161 Denial

AIRPORT AUTHORITY ISSUES STATEMENT ON FAA REJECTION OF PART 161 STUDY APPLICATION FOR FULL CURFEW 

  BURBANK, Calif., November 2, 2009 – Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority President Joyce Streator issued the following statement today upon receipt of correspondence from the Federal Aviation Administration denying the Authority’s Part 161 Study application for a full curfew at Bob Hope Airport:

  “The Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority this morning, November 2nd, received from the Federal Aviation Administration a 42-page document that denied the Bob Hope Airport's Part 161 application for a full nighttime curfew.

  “The Airport Commission has not yet had the time to study the details of the FAA's document and will do so in the next two weeks. The Commission is deeply disappointed in the denial of its application, and renewed its commitment to seeking meaningful nighttime noise relief.

  “The Airport invested in excess of $7 million over the past nine years in research, analysis, and public comment, as well as innumerable staff hours, to create the application. We are disappointed, but we haven't given up the fight."

-30-

FAA Turns Down Burbank's Night-Time Curfew

On 30 October, the Federal Aviation Administration denied the application of Burbank Airport (Bob Hope Airport) for permission to impose a mandatory night-time curfew.  Bob Hope Airport, known as BUR in aviation lingo, is operated by the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority (Southern California).  A voluntary curfew has been in place for many years, but the Airport Authority sought to make it mandatory.

The Part 161 study goes back to 2000. The final application was submitted in February 2009, & was accepted as complete by the FAA in June. A 42-page decision was issued by an Acting Associate Administrator for Airports, Ms Catherine M. Lang, on 30 October.  Ms Lang determined that the application only met two of the six requirements laid down by Congress.

RCAA has the full decision in pdf format, & will forward it to any interested person.

No word of reaction from the Airport Authority.  More on this as more information becomes available.

Date for second-runway work uncertain

According to Elizabth Leavitt, Director, Aviation Planning and Environmental Programs, Sea-Tac Airport, "there is no date for a presentation to Commission on the rehabilitation of Runway 16C/34C   ... the project is still in its infancy and does not have a defined scope or project definition".  Our understanding is that no money has been appropriated by the Commission for this work, & therefore the project could not go forward without Commission approval.  

Whether Port staff plan to prepare an environmental impact statement for the project is equally unclear.

Given that a closure of the second, or center, runway would almost certainly result in the FAA once again using the third runway full tilt, with attendant increases in noise, it would seem mandatory to prepare an EIS, but who knows?

FAA regulations in hard copy

Some of us don't much care for reading complicated text on our computer screens. And some of us aren't too keen about using our personal computer-printers to print out big documents.  

If this describes you, & if you want to read the FAA's regulations about noise-reduction programs ("Part 150 studies") & about changing flight procedures for noise abatement ("Part 161"), boy, does RCAA have a deal for you !

We've downloaded & printed both of those regulations (both are parts of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations) --- & we will lend you copies of either or both, if you are looking for some turgid reading.  Be the first on your block .... !   (No decoder rings come with this, though.)

And if you DO want to read these regulations on your computer, or run off a copy of your own, we like this website for Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=a6a107fe3d2d2cbe46fe93c2e9d0c769&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:3.0.1.3.18&idno=14

Phone or e-mail the RCAA office to set a day & time to sign out either or both of these documents:  rcaa@earthlink.net    206.824.3120

Salmon are coming in Miller Creek

Autumn work on Miller Creek

From Dennis Clark, the Miller/Walker Creek Basin Steward

The first salmon of the season on Miller Creek was sighted on Saturday at the Cove in Normandy Park! Let’s do our part to create a more healthy stream for this fish and its buddies!   

Join us this Saturday to help plant 37 trees and do a final bit of weeding on Miller Creek at S. 144th St. west of Des Moines Memorial Drive in Burien. You’ll work under the yellowing leaves of the cottonwoods and enjoy a classic fall day out-of-doors.  

Planting time is 9 a.m. Saturday, October 17. With enough volunteers, we can get the work done in two hours. 

Details are in the flyer you can download. 

RSVP so I have enough tools and doughnuts for all. If you are a student, please have your parent/guardian complete the attached form. 

Want to plant trees but can’t make this date? I have another planting project with a private group that would welcome other volunteers on Sunday, October 25, 9 a.m. Let me know if you’d like to join.

 

Dennis Clark

206-296-1909 additional contact information  

Miller/Walker Creek Basin Steward  

Tremendous victory for London-area residents !

It CAN be done.  Communities under the threat of airport expansion CAN stop ill-advised projects -- using political muscle.  The much-battered residents of the London area have apparently won their long struggle against a third runway at Heathrow, now that the Conservative Party (the Tories) have taken the communities' side.   A full account follows.  (And by the way, the Birmingham (U.K.) Airport helped, by unexpectedly announcing just a few days ago that it would be happy, happy to take Heathrow's "extra" traffic.)

Our thanks to Mark Middleton-Smith, a long-time campaigner against the Heathrow project, for the following article.   The "Times" is the Times of London.

* * *

David Dyson The Sunday Times October 11, 2009

THE airport operator BAA has bowed to opposition to a third runway at Heathrow airport. It will not submit a planning application before the general election and will not sign large contracts to "bounce" a future Conservative government into accepting it.

Senior BAA figures have also told the Tories the company will cease to fight for the third runway if they form the next government.

Theresa Villiers, the shadow transport secretary, said: "Last week BAA conveyed to us at our party conference that it will not be submitting a planning application before the election.

"It seems BAA has woken up to the fact that we mean what we say on Heathrow and that if we win the general election there will be no third runway."

Labour pushed through the runway plan despite the opposition of Hilary Benn, the environment secretary, and Ed Miliband, the energy and climate secretary. Residents and campaigners accused ministers of sacrificing their green credentials to the aviation lobby.

Geoff Hoon, then transport secretary, approved the £9 billion third runway and sixth terminal last January and ministers indicated the project would be rushed through, making it more difficult for the Tories to overturn the decision.

The announcement at last week's Conservative conference that a Tory government would block expansion of London's big airports has forced BAA to reappraise the scheme. Its new stance means the taxpayer will not be forced to pay a large sum in compensation for any wasted work.

Publicly, BAA executives are urging the Tories not to "close the door" on expansion plans and say they are still working on the project. But they admitted they were surrendering in a meeting with aides to Villiers last week.

BAA said: "We will always respect the right of the government to take the decision it thinks is the right one." Some suspect BAA's position is a tactical ploy and it will continue to work behind the scenes to convince the Tories of the need for expansion.

But the scheme's opponents are delighted.

"The game is up for BAA," said Edward Lister, leader of Wandsworth council and spokesman for the 2M Group, an alliance of local authorities opposing expansion. "The third runway will never happen and they know it. It's a spectacular result for the campaign."

John Stewart, chairman of Hacan (Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise) ClearSkies, said: "There are all sorts of reasons that businesses come to London and Heathrow is just one of them."

Expansion of Heathrow risked undermining Britain's commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050. It was also claimed expansion would breach European limits on nitrogen dioxide levels around the airport.

BAA and British Airways said the runway was needed to ensure Heathrow can compete with large European airports. The airport operator wanted annual flights to increase from 480,000 to more than 700,000.

A group of councils, backed by Boris Johnson, the London mayor, is seeking a judicial review of Hoon's decision, arguing the consultation process was flawed and the decision irrational. A High Court hearing is expected later this year.

Greenpeace has a plot of land on the site of the proposed runway, with the ownership split between thousands of its supporters. Those who said they would never sell their plots to BAA include Emma Thompson, the actress, and Alistair McGowan, the comedian.

Business groups argue Heathrow will fall into decline unless it is allowed to expand. Lord Soley, campaign director of Future Heathrow, said: "The Conservatives will have to find another international hub or reverse their decision."

The Tories also oppose second runways at Stansted and Gatwick. They are likely to consider building a new international hub. Boris Johnson supports the building of a new airport at the Thames Estuary and BAA said it was now prepared to consider the estuary option, previously dismissed as costly and "unrealistic" by critics.

Interested in night-time noise? A view from Europe

Here's a link to a lengthy guidance document from the European office of the World Health Organization on the subject of night-time noise.   We'd be glad to hear from any readers who are willing to peruse this whole thing & tell us how it may be of help in dealing with the noise problems that arise from operations at Sea-Tac and Boeing Field. 

Readers will recall that there is a night-time noise element in the INM computer model that draws the 65 DNL contour maps relied on by the Port of Seattle as the only way to measure bad impacts from noise.  (long sentence!  sorry!)  What are the implications if the European guidance were to be included in the INM?

If the link fails, here's the URL that you can paste into your brower in the usual way:

http://www.euro.who.int/document/e92845.pdf

Noise is where you hear it

Here's a link to a news story in a Seattle neighborhood blog about a recent Sea-Tac noise meeting in the central part of Seattle.  It's NOT just some folks who "moved down by the Airport" who are affected.

The comments on the blog's story are instructive.  The underlying thought beneath such comments appears to be, "The end always justifies the means, however destructive, however unnecessary, the means are."  

If the link fails, try pasting the URL into your browser in the good old-fashioned manner --

http://www.centraldistrictnews.com/2009/10/12/airplane-noise-no-changes-any-time-soon

No public participation in Part 150 study yet

Unofficial word just in that Sea-Tac Airport staff have selected the consultant for the pending Part 150 study -- Landrum & Brown, a well-known aviation consultancy. In an e-mail to a local citizen, Stan Shepherd, manager of airport noise programs, has mentioned that a consultant has been selected, but did not identify that firm.

So far as we know, this selection was made privately, by staff alone, & with no public participation of any sort.  A private selection implies that Airport staff have already determined the work that they want the consultants to do -- & the work that they do NOT want the consultants to do.  At the moment, we do not know if the Port Commissioners were involved in the selection process.

More on this as we learn more.

Dates for work on center runway

No decision has been made by the Port Commission as to potential "rehabilitation" of the center runway at Sea-Tac Airport, according to Elizabeth Leavitt, the Airport's director of aviation planning & environmental programs.   Tentative plans by staff call for replacement of "specific runway panels", a project that would be completed by year 2012.  This work would be followed by a more complete rehabilitation in about the year 2016.  Ms Leavitt notes if "large scale failure of the concrete" is observed, the rehabilitation might be needed sooner.

Presumably, a "complete rehabilitation" would require a complete shut-down of the center runway, accompanied by full-time, all-weather use of the third runway, with attendant noise impacts.   It is not yet clear whether the Airport will consider that additional noise in its environmental review of the center-runway project.  Noise was not considered in the environmental assessment of the just-completed first-runway reconstruction.

If airplane manufacturing is so important ... ?

If airplane manufacturing is so important to the State of Washington, shouldn't our State's leaders, the movers-and-shakers, like the Governor & ex-Senator Gorton, be thinking about creative ways to keep that industry here?  

"Oh," you say, "they ARE, they ARE".  No, not so.  They are worried about keeping the Boeing Co.  Not the same thing.  

Couldn't some gutsy investor (the name of Paul Allen springs to one's lips) set up a NEW company, & begin bidding on manufacturing for the whole world-wide industry?  There are lots more airframe manufacturers out there, beside Boeing & Airbus.  It's been said that Boeing doesn't really want to be in the manufacturing business, anyway.  

Submitted by OBSERVER

What's a major airport worth?

Here's a breaking news item (on an e-mail news service) that caught our eye.  A major sophisticated investor is willing to pay $2.65 (B) billion for Gatwick Airport, one of the facilities that serves London.   What do you suppose an investor like this would pay for Sea-Tac Airport?  Would you buy stock in Sea-Tac Airport Holdings, Ltd?

------------------------------------------------------

GIP Group Nears Gatwick Airport Purchase Deal
------------------------------------------------------
October 7, 2009
A consortium led by Global Infrastructure Partners (GIP) is close to buying London's Gatwick Airport for up to EUR1.8 billion euros (USD$2.65 billion), sources familiar with the deal said on Wednesday.
Details: http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1254950516.html

Angry crowd at noise meeting

Wondering what happened at the big noise meeting on the 29th?  The B-Town Blog covered the event.  Here's a link to their article.  

RCAA will have comments at a later date.

= = = < * > = = =

If the link doesn't work -- here's the URL -- cut & paste into your browser.

http://www.b-townblog.com/2009/09/30/hundreds-of-angry-residents-confront-port-of-seattle-and-faa-officials-about-airport-noise-at-community-meeting/

A letter to Port Commission candidates

The following letter was sent to Max Vekich & Rob Holland, candidates for the Port of Seattle Commission, by Dan Caldwell.  We thought it would be of interest to the rest of you.

= = = < * > == =

The CEO of the Port of Seattle and the Director of the Airport Division screwed up badly by misusing the third runway for both takeoffs and landings during rebuilding of the first runway and anticipated rebuilding of the second runway. They failed to properly notify the concerned citizens and failed to provide alternative housing or sleeping arrangements during this construction.

 
The result is that the citizens and voters in the area are once again up in arms over the conduct of the Port of Seattle. 
 
The airlines have losses exceeding $10 Billion this year.  Because of this loss the FAA is asking that airports substantially cut their landings fees.  This might be the time to consider closing the third runway after the repairs on the second runway are completed.  The third runway is kind of a silly goose, as it is too short and airline traffic cannot use the first and second runway while on the ground aircraft are moving to and from the terminal.  Closure could save up to 1/3 of your field costs and give the FAA their requested cut.
 
The Times headlined that the CEO Tay Yoshitani was up for a 10% ($33,400) COLA raise to make his salary $367,400.  He indicated that he was not interested in the raise but did not explain why he had his paid staff present the offer to the Commission!  There is also some concern that he did not effectively respond to the wasted millions reported by the State Audit, did not demonstrate any savings by hiring a Chief Financial Officer, and that many of his new programs were carry over's from the previous CEO.
 
You are strongly urged to attend and possibly speak at two public meetings of concerned citizens.
 
The first is Tuesday night, September 29, from 7 to 9 p.m. at the State Criminal Justice Training Commission Auditorium (Police Academy), 19010 - First Ave. S., Burien.
 
 
The s'econd meeting is a Candidates' Night sponsored by C.A.S.E., which will be held in the Commissioners' Room, the Highline School District Administrative Office, 15675 Ambaum Blvd. SW, Burien, on Wednesday October 7, 2009, from 7 to 9 pm
 
These two meetings are important, as the Airport represents over two-thirds of the size and revenue of the Port of Seattle. 

Keep your eye on the FAA

The noise meeting on the 29th is not so far in the future.  As folks think about questions that should be asked, it would be good to keep in mind that this new unexpected noise from the third runway is now entirely the responsibility of the Federal Aviation Administration.  The Port of Seattle's noise program cannot re-direct the airplanes, cannot create a curfew, cannot mandate changes in flight procedures ... 

Here's more on this topic, the text of a letter to the Highline Times that was published last January but which is still right on point.

= = < > = =

The Regional Commission on Airport Affairs finds it unacceptable that the Federal Aviation Administration is operating the third runway at Sea-Tac Airport in disregard of the many assurances given to the public that the runway would almost exclusively for arrivals in poor weather, rather than for arrivals and departures during good weather.

The FAA needs to work with the Port of Seattle to bring use of the runway into line with the plans that were announced to the public in 1996 and 1997. The runway project went through several levels of administrative and court review, always with the understanding that noise from the runway would be quite limited because of its limited use. That was the FAA's position publicly. It's much too late for the FAA go back on its word.

The FAA, and only the FAA, controls how runways are used. So the FAA cannot sit back and expect the Port of Seattle to deal with the problem. This is an FAA-created problem.

The FAA needs to renew its commitments to the Port, the airlines, & the public that the runway would be operated for dealing with bad-weather arrival delay, & not as a full-time all weather airstrip. And the FAA needs to take the lead in keeping the public informed with solid, reliable statistics about third-runway use.

The FAA is a public agency. It needs to take public responsibility for its actions. It needs to keep faith with the public. 

/s/  Lawrence J. Corvari, President

Runway re-opening set for 27th

Sea-Tac's first (most-easterly) runway, newly-reconstructed, is now scheduled to open on Sunday, 27 September, for partial use, according to a news release from the Port of Seattle. Initial use will be restricted to day-time hours & good weather.  

The FAA will conduct flight checks beginning Sunday and is expected to open the runway in full use by the end of the week. 

The time of re-opening was stated as "12.01 a.m.".  We're not sure whether that is intended to mean one minute after 12 midnight or one minute after 12 noon.  Let's hope that they aren't planning a bunch of flights in the midnight hours.

First runway to re-open by end of month

We're approaching a moment of truth, as Sea-Tac Airport announces that the first runway, closed since January for reconstruction, will re-open by the end of this month.  Will the third runway continue to be used as an all-weather, full-time runway, or will the Federal Aviation Administration return to limited & part-time, poor-weather use, as the communities & regulatory agencies were told during the planning & permitting stages of the most recent round of Sea-Tac expansion?

According to a Port news release, crews will be out today, Monday, 21 September, to paint the 60-foot designator markings on the ends of the longest & most-easterly runway.  The painting is part of the finishing touches on the reconstruction project.  The runway is scheduled to reopen by the end of the month.

This runway is officially known as 16L / 34R. Numbers are determined by the compass location of the runways and their alignment with the two other runways (right, center, and left). 

There has been talk that the second (center) runway will be closed for major repairs some time in the next two years or so.  Interestingly, no such project is listed in the Airport's update of its Comprehensive Plan.

Questions from the public welcome on the 29th

Rep. Dave Upthegrove has provided more information about the format for the noise meeting on 29 September at the Criminal Justice Training Center.  He says, "The hosts will make VERY brief welcoming remarks, and then take our seats in the audience, and Stan Shepherd will make his presentation and take questions from the audience."  Mr Shepherd is Noise Programs Manager at Sea-Tac Airport.

"We are working on getting the FAA there to be available to answer questions as well," Rep. Upthegrove told RCAA.  "There will be two microphones—one in each aisle—that folks can line up behind to ask questions.   My hope is that people will listen and learn from the presentation. There is a great deal of misinformation on the part of many community members.  I want people to understand the role that Congress has played in limiting our options—and the role of the FAA. I want people to understand what the Part 150 study is and how to participate in that process.  I want people to learn how to go online and look up runway usage data and real-time flight paths.  I hope people learn about how eligibility for noise mitigation programs is determined, etc.  I want people to ask tough questions, but this is designed to be an informational meeting."

Daily O disses the Aviation Planning Council

"Aviation council dodged work, responsibility".

That is the opinion of the Daily Olympian, neatly expressed in their editorial of 14 August.  We should have passed this along to our readers earlier ... but it's still good reading.  (Thanks to RCAA Board member Stuart Jenner, Web researcher par excellence, for picking this one out of the Websphere.)

TEXT

Q & A time

A reader (call him E T) writes:

"Why were there no future airport sites listed in the recent state gov commission report? " 

E T refers to the final recommendations of the Aviation Planning Council.  See blog item posted on 4 September, "A New Major Airport?"

Here's our response:  

= = =

Dear [ E T ],

The Aviation Planning Council simply shirked its responsibilities.

They offered two excuses -- feeble, unconvincing excuses -- (1) they in their wisdom had determined that there was no political will to proceed forward with a new facility (not a good reason for failing to consider what sites might be appropriate) & (2) there was no immediately obvious source of funding for construction of a new facility (factually inaccurate, & also irrelevant). 

That's how [we] read what they wrote. See p.6 of the RCAA analysis "A Predictable Failure", the paragraph with the heading, "Step 1 -- no new airports".

(The Council's notion about a "sponsor" for the project is pure baloney not deserving of further discussion.)

You will not find any helpful discussion in the Aviation Planning Council's final document on the subject of cost of a new aviation facility vs. costs of other alternatives. RCAA concluded nearly a decade ago that a whole new airport, on a big campus with ample buffering between airport and other activities, could be built for no more than the Port District would spend for its expansion of Sea-Tac. Nothing has happened to change our views on that. 

Runway-noise anger continues

Former Normandy Park Council member Stu Creighton has given us permission to post the following message that he sent to Sen Karen Keiser, Rep. Dave Upthegrove , Rep. Tina Orwall, & Des Moines City Councilmember Susan White on 13 August.  (Readers will note the [ ], indicating a modest editorial deletion.)

= = =

My anger over [an unrelated local issue] pales in comparison to my frustation over the Port's ability to escape responsibility for their incredible arrogance in their decision making.

After closing the main runway (12,500 ft in length) for rehab, they have moved the majority of flight operations, that is between 65 and 75 %, to the newest and shortest runway [8,500 ft in length]. What about the second runway (10,500 ft in length)?

They are not accountable to anyone for the decisions that affect the local communities. We, in the airport communities, are a disposable population that can be disregarded and the Port can continue to derive 70 to 80% of their income from the airport, but provide no benefit/relief/mitigation to the people that bear the brunt of their ruthless decisioon making. 

King County paid $75 million to mitigate construction impacts of Brightwater, Cedar Hills landfill neighbors received $20 million for noise and air pollution. The state has always tried to protect freeway sideline residents with cement walls. The link lightrail project has spent millions to lessen the impact on the residents along that route. 

The sum total of Sea-Tac mitigation has been to landscape their property to make it more visually acceptable for customers arriving at the airport!!

Depraved indifference is the kindest thing I can say about Port policies toward their airport neighbors. 

Stu Creighton 

A message for U.S. Senator Cantwell

A reader has sent us a copy of a letter recently sent to U.S. Senator Cantwell. Other readers may find it of interest.

= = = =

Dear Senator Cantwell,
 
Our communities need intervention with the Port of Seattle and the FAA. Since the third runway was opened they have expanded the "flight path" from east of highway 99 all across to Puget Sound. That is thousands upon thousands of residents being adversely affected . The constant roar the we live under is causing us all sleep deprivation and the air we breathe is full of jet fuel exhaust not to mention the loss in value to our homes.
 
They need to be regulated and should be responsive to the communities they are supposed to serve instead of victimize.  Many of us have contacted our local representatives and while they are tryiing to come to our aid, it has come to light that the state does NOT regulate the Port. We pay part of our real estate taxes to the Port and yet we have absolutely no say in their operation. Isn't that what the Boston Tea Party was all about? Taxation without representation.
 
They need to be reined in, they are acting like rogue agencies who don't have to answer to anyone. Most progressive large cities have very clear regulations as to where and when aircraft can land and takeoff. Please help us join the ranks of those cities with comprehensive airport regulation.
 
Thank you for your time and any assistance you may render, especially, in these turbulent times.
 
 
Respectfully.
 
 

Loss of a good friend

On 27 August, we in the Seattle metropolitan area lost one of our staunchest campaigners for quiet skies & quiet communities, with the death of JoAnn Storey, long-time resident in Seattle's Queen Anne neighborhood.

Ms Storey was one of the earliest to recognize the need for workable noise-abatement corridors for jet-plane traffic passing over the City.  Her voice on this issues was persistent & reasonable.  She carried the Queen Anne Community Council forward on this concern (& many others, as well).  We extend our condolences to the faimly.  Who in Queen Anne will step forward to take her place?

community noise meeting on 29 September

A second community meeting on Sea-Tac noise has been scheduled for Tuesday, 29 September, from 7 to 9 p.m., at the State Criminal Justice Training Commission Auditorium: 19010—1st Ave S, Burien, according to an announcement from Rep. Dave Upthegrove (D-33).

Text of the announcement follows:

Dear Neighbors,
 
As you know, our August 19th Community Meeting on Airport Noise was attended by more people than the venue could accommodate. I know that many of you took time away from your families and other duties to attend this meeting and I apologize to everyone who was turned away. Please know that simply by showing up, you helped to demonstrate just how deeply this issue affects our community.
 
We have scheduled a follow-up meeting to accommodate those who were turned away last month. Please join me, along with Senator Karen Keiser, Representative Tina Orwall, Des Moines City Councilwoman Susan White, and King County Councilmember Julia Patterson, to discuss airport flight operations and noise mitigation programs. 
 
While the state legislature and county and city governments have no direct authority over SeaTac Airport flight operations (where and when planes fly), we have heard from many of you with questions and concerns about increased noise since the third runway has gone into use. This meeting will be an opportunity to hear directly from the Noise Programs Manager at SeaTac Airport and to ask questions and share information and concerns.
 
Some of the questions to be addressed:
Who decides who gets money for noise insulation?
Who is responsible for determining runway usage and flight patterns?
How does current use of the Third Runway compare with previous projections?
How has airplane noise changed in the last decade?
How can community members monitor and track runway usage and flight operations?
 
Noise from airport operations significantly impacts our quality of life. The more informed we are about how flight decisions are made and how noise mitigation funding decisions are made, then the more effective we all can be advocating for the interests of our community.
 
Sincerely,
 
Dave Upthegrove
State Representative
33rd District

GPS -- right at the right time

Someone commented as follows on our post about the "Quieter Skies" article in the Seattle Times:

Didn't you people advocate for GPS system during the planning period for the third runway? And now you seem to be against it. Come on!

That's a fair comment, & deserves an answer.  We & others advocated GPS technology for Sea-Tac Airport as a way of avoiding the need (supposed need) for a third runway.  With the use of that technology, the Airport would have been able to handle the traffic projected for many years into the future.  

At the very least, a third runway could have been built on the existing Airport campus, which would have made quite a difference in terms of noise impact, as well as saving a billion or so in costs..  This was pointed out to the Port Commission as long ago as 10 July 1996 by none other than Frank Hansen, member (& sometime mayor) of the City of SeaTac.

Now, we are looking at a different situation.  Instead of handling traffic at levels of 1996 - present, the planners are looking at a huge new volume of traffic.  The concern is that even with the third runway, the Airport won't be able to handle future traffic.  As compared to 1996, we are at overload now in terms of Sea-Tac noise, & no relief in sight.  Adding even MORE overflights by means of GPS technology or anything else would simply make a bad situation a lot worse.

For its intrinsic benefits, YES, to GPS technology.  As to more traffic at Sea-Tac, a resounding NO !  What is needed is a new airport, somewhere else.

Quieter skies? Or noisier?

Will new avigational equipment reduce noise from Sea-Tac?  We're skeptical.

The Seattle Times, in a front-page story in its issue for Sunday, 30 August, touted a new avigational system, under consideration for Sea-Tac Airport.  The Times said, "It promises to save airlines big money on fuel while cutting overflights, noise, and carbon emissions for people on the ground."  

The article reports on a recent test flight of an Alaska Airlines airplane equipped with what is called "NextGen" avigational gear.  According to the Times, Alaska Airlines projects reduced overflight noise for 750,000 Seattle-area residents, along with annual savings at the airport of 2.1 million gallons of fuel and 25,000 tons of carbon-dioxide emissions.

The paper quotes the text pilot, Mike Adams, as saying "There is nobody who loses here".

An interesting side note:  Alaska admits that overflight noise affects 750,000 Seattle-area residents.  This is a distinct deviation from the FAA's "party line", which insists that overflight noise only affects a handful of people very very close to Sea-Tac Airport.

On to the main point:  The Times does not explain why this system is projected to reduce arrival delays at Sea-Tac, or elsewhere.  We know, though, that this & other systems based on GPS technology provide much more accurate data as to where a plane is than the present radar-based system.  Knowing where everyone else is allows pilots to fly closer together, & thus more arriving aircraft can be landed in any particular time slot.  The pilots know where they are, they don't have to rely on the air traffic controllers' interpretations of radar -- often obscure.

That sounds good. More plans arriving without more runway construction.  Less reliance on air-traffic control.  Much greater assurance for flight crews as to where they & the other aircraft (& the ground) are.  And, we are told, at a cost of not much more than $1 million per plane.

In the case of the Seattle metropolitan area, it would be possible to design better noise-abatement corridors for arriving aircraft.  The Times ran a map (not shown on the website), with possible corridors for planes arriving from the north.  These planes might come into their landing patterns not up in Snohomish County (as at present) but essentially over downtown.  In other words, over fewer people.  The map suggests that noisy arrivals would not be heard north of, say, the Ship Canal.  Could be.

More importantly, the paper, & Alaska Airlines, are overlooking two vital equations:

(1)  More planes in = More planes out

(2)  More planes = More noise

This will be particularly true for folks under departure overflights (generally regarded as creating more noise for more folks than arrivals).

Areas now receiving more noise from the new third-runway flight patterns would experience even more noise when the NextGen system is deployed.  This is not the same as the Quieter Skies that the Times is promising.

* * * * *

URL for Times story (not a live link -- paste into your browser):

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2009772140_seatac30.html

A new major airport?

A Predictable Failure

News about state-wide aviation planning, & the failure of the official Aviation Planning Council to come to grips with reality, or to heed the mandate from the Legislature for the scope of the Council's work. The Council has wasted two years' work & a small fortune in tax money -- the predictable result of NOT doing what they were instructed to do. Read on.

Now that the third runway is built and in operation, we are faced with opinions from expert planners, saying that by 2023 or thereabouts, the Puget Sound region will need the equivalent of a fourth Sea-Tac runway. The Port of Seattle Commission and the Puget Sound Regional Council are on record as NOT favoring another Sea-Tac runway. RCAA & C.A.S.E. are not in favor of that either.  What are the alternatives? 

In 2005, the Legislature anticipated this problem.  Legislation was passed that directed the Aviation Division of the state Department of Transportation to study the needs of aviation around the State, & especially commercial aviation in the Central Puget Sound Region. The statute also created an Aviation Planning Council to consider the studies & to make recommendations on a range of aviation questions, with a primary focus on commercial aviation, & possible new airport in the region.

The Aviation Planning Council filed its recommendations with the Legislature and Governor on 1 July 2009, as directed, but the Council failed to deal with the main problems defined by the Legislature. RCAA has prepared & distributed to the Legislature and Governor an analysis of the Council’s work.  Our analysis is titled, "A Predictable Failure".

The APC failed to give any guidance about new airport facilities.  The APC has made unhelpful -- useless -- recommendations for dealing with the predicted capacity "crunch" at Sea-Tac.  The Council suggests that the Legislature pay for new avigational gear at Sea-Tac & more than 50 other airports across the state.  Of all those airports, only Sea-Tac is a significant airport for regularly scheduled air travel.  The Council says that if its recommendation were adopted, flights in & out of Sea-Tac can (& should) be increased by 85 percent. or so, by the year 2030.  RCAA says that this would not be acceptable, & calls for a new study, to be conducted more responsibly.  Imagine ! 85 percent MORE noise out of Sea-Tac !

Here are URLs for the two parts of the RCAA's independent analysis, & URLs for the executive summary of the APC's report & the full text.

Main text of RCAA's analysis:

http://www.rcaanews.org/2009_PredicatableFailure.pdf

Attachments to the analysis:

http://www.rcaanews.org/2009_PredicatableFailure_Attach.pdf


Recommendations of the Washington State Aviation Planning Council full text (.pdf 58 pgs)  (downloads very slowly -- you may want to view only the Executive Summary)

URL for the full text of the APC's final report:

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/6CAF7B7B-37B8-44D3-B259-AB020B1AD995/0/Council_Report_PRINT_070109_lowres.pdf

URL for the Executive Summary of the Recommendations:

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/0D983642-6909-4708-A21A-0F8D8CA36506/0/CouncilReportExecutiveSummary.pdf
 


 


 

Highline Forum to hear about noise

The Highline Forum will take up the subject of third-runway noise at its meeting on Wednesday, 23 September, according to Bob Sheckler, Mayor of Des Moines.  Mayor Sheckler encourages members of the public to come & listen in.

The Forum will meet at 1430 (2.30 p.m.) in the Burien Council chambers (in the new Burien City Hall, 400 S.W. 152nd -- repeat, that's the NEW Burien City Hall in the NEW Burien Town Center).  The City offices are on the third floor.  Note:  there is free parking in the underground parking garage next door to the building.

Legislators & cities will hold second noise meeting

Des Moines' mayor Bob Sheckler says that a second public forum on the problem of third-runway noise will be held some time in late September.  

Speaking at the monthly meeting of C.A.S.E. (Citizens Against Sea-Tac Expansion) on 2 September,  Mayor Sheckler said that he could not announce an exact date for the forum -- a lot of calendar co-ordinating is going on.  Area legislators Sen. Karen Keiser, Rep. Dave Upthegrove, & Tina Orwall are co-sponsoring the event.

The organizers are looking for a venue with more seating capacity than the Des Moines Council chambers -- the Mayor mentioned the Criminal Justice Training Center as a possible site.

Overflow crowd at third-runway-noise meeting

More than nine months after the third runway opened for business (November 2008), its unexpected noise continues to create anger & distress in the Highline area.  

A public forum about the noise drew a huge crowd to the Des Moines Council's chambers on 19 August.  The URL below will take you to the coverage (with photo) in the Highline Times (print version published on 26 August, p. 8).  This is not a live link -- copy/paste it into your browser.

http://www.highlinetimes.com/2009/08/25/news/overflow-crowd-airport-noise-meeting

Blog back in business

The RCAA blog is back in business.  

Starting over the long week-end, we will be bringing you latest news about Sea-Tac Airport's noisy third runway, the ill-fated state-wide aviation studies -- & our independent analysis of those studies, & current environmental concerns -- among other things.

We apologize for the long break in service but won't bore you with the explanations.

Highline Amateur Radio Club

The second meeting of the Highline Amateur Radio Club (HARC) will take place at 10 a. m. on Saturday, February 28th at the Burien/Normandy Park Fire Station at 15100 - 6th Avenue South West. We are still waiting to hear from the invited speakers whether they will be able to attend. The topic which we would like to have discussed is how hams can help our local emergency managers.

Federal Fiscal Crisis

The best explanation that I have found for our current national crisis is in http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/02/18/upside_down_economics

Emergency Preparedness Fair

The City of Normandy Park and the Burien/Normandy Park Fire District are currently planning to hold the second annual Normandy Park Emergency Preparedness Fair at the Cove on Thursday, April 23rd from noon to 6 p. m.

Critical Areas Ordinance

The City Council just completed (on Thursday) the review of the final portion of the new proposed Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) and we (on the council) received tonight a cleaned up copy of it (except for revision to the penalties section which the City Attorney will supply on Monday.) I will review it and provide a GreenGram (my nit-picking comments) to my colleagues, hopefully tomorrow so they have a chance to review them (so they can agree to them without further discussion (haha!))

When we all agree (or at least four of us) and pass this ordinance, this will complete an almost three year activity to update our existing (and very old) ordinance and bring the city into compliance with the Growth Management Act (if the state approves it.)

Since I have not been as intimately involved in this process as some of my colleagues, I am concerned that there are some other "stakeholders" (the consultant we hired, a technical committee of local residents with subject knowledge that worked on it originally, and the Planning Commission members,) who have an interest in it but may not have seen the final result of their long and arduous efforts. I am not sure what to do about my concern other than the e-mail that I sent this morning to the City Manager suggesting that they also get copies.

Emergency Mangement

First let me try to express how I feel certain terms should be used. I will define an incident as a time when a response by government is required to save lives or protect property or the environment. There are three levels of incident: an emergency such as when the police respond to a traffic accident or the firemen to a house fire or the medics/emergency medical technicians (EMT) to a heart attack; a disaster when the local first responders (police, firemen, EMTs, Public Works) are overwhelmed by the magnitude (e. g. a 7.0 earthquake or a hurricane); and a catastrophe when an entire region is overwhelmed (e. g. Hurricane Katrina or an 8.5 earthquake.) Of course, these terms also are dependent on who is affected. If my house burns down, it might be an emergency for the city but is at least a disaster for me (and maybe a catastrophe.)

Normally, for an emergency, if the first responders need help they call on their neighbors (e. g. Normandy Park Police would call on their buddies in the Des Moines Police or the sheriff''s office in Burien or SeaTac.) Our firemen in the Burien/Normandy Park Fire Department would call on South King Fire in Des Moines, SeaTac Fire Department, or the North Highline Fire District. All of those entities have "Mutual Aid" agreements which say not only would they respond to help us, but we will respond to help them, as for example, we send Rocky, our tracking bloodhound (and his partner, Officer Morella) to help them if they need to track someone.

If the problem becomes larger than what first responders can handle, a disaster is proclaimed and we would ask the county (and state) for help. If the problem is larger than the state can handle, the Governor can also proclaim a disaster and request help from FEMA and the federal government. The President, in turn can declare a disaster and offer assistance. Note that the ultimate responsibility for the safety of our residents resides in the local officials (City Manager, Mayor, City Council.) The County Executive, county Office of Emergency Management, Governor, state Emergency Management Division, FEMA, National Guard, etc. do not come to help us unless we ask (and ask in the proper way and on the correct forms.) That was a major problem during Katrina. One rarely hears about the problems in Mississippi where the hurricane actually came ashore and completely devastated the coastal area, because the Governor of Mississippi actually used the correct procedures to request help from the federal government. He also told them what he needed so the feds could send the needed help to the correct places at the right time. On the other hand, the Mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of Louisiana somehow thought that going on TV and saying "we need help" would get a government bureaucracy to provide exactly what they needed, when and where they needed it. Going on TV and looking pathetic may be good public relations but filling out the proper forms and sending them to the right officials is what gets help for residents of a devastated area.

(Note: Notice that I stated above that the local official (more about that later), the Governor (and the County Executive) each proclaimed an emergency or disaster while the President declared one. That is my understanding of the correct terminology. Only the President "declares" a disaster; lower levels of government "proclaim." I am sure that there is a reason why that is so but I don't know it. It is just another of life's little mysteries.)

In a catastrophe, the whole country and maybe even the world comes to help but it will take time. While we can fervently hope that we never experience a catastrophe on the order of Katrina here, Emergency Managers must plan what they would do when (not if) a disaster occurs and how to help people in a catastrophe. The first thing that each and every person in Normandy Park must realize is that each of our first responders has family and those are the first people he or she is coing to think of in a disaster (or catastrophe.) In fact, this is as it should be. What kind of a person would a police officer or fireman be if he (or she) didn't think of his/her spouse, children, and parents first. This has two implications: first, they may not be able to get to help you as quickly in a disaster as they would normally so you need to be able to take care of yourself and your family; and second, the city needs to have a plan to ensure the well being of their families so they can get back to their jobs without worrying about their families.

You may have heard of the Three Days/Three Ways program, which basically would show you how to help you to take care of yourself (with food, water, medications, etc. for the first three days after a disaster.) Unfortunately, as we saw during Katrina, three days is insufficient in a catastrophe or even in a major disaster. The City of Normandy Park is asking that you consider how you might take care of yourself for up to ten days before you could expect help in terms of getting to an open grocery store or gas station, etc. (Remember during the Hanakkah Eve windstorm in 2006 when not only were homes without power but also the grocery stores and gas stations could not provide service because they also did not have power. That was a relatively minor disaster but was still very disruptive to all of our lives.) If a major disaster interrupted our infrastructure, we might need to have potable (drinking) water trucked or barged in from outside the area. Our grocery stores have about a day's worth of food readily available to them. They depend on resupply from outside the area. (The recent snowstorms that closed the passes and floods that closed I-5 caused a fear that we could have run out of food here in the Puget Sound region.) Again that was a small disaster (to most of us if not to those affected) but the lessons are that a larger incident could have serious consequences if you are unprepared. Please make sure you have an emergency supply of everything you need to last for a minimum of ten days.

After you take care of yourself and your family, consider checking on your neighbors (as you would like them to check on you.) The City has a program called Map Your Neighborhood which is sort of a Block Watch for disasters. (Block Watch or Neighborhood Watch as it is also called, if you don't know, is a program to get to know your neighbors and call the police to check if you see something strange going on at your neighbor's house while they do the same for you.) If you are interested in either of these programs (in Normandy Park,) call Officer Dave Bond during normal business hours at 206-248-7600. Outside of Normandy Park, call your local Police Department.)

Now, finally, I am going to get on my soapbox for the reason that I started this particular posting in the first place. In a time of disaster, a local official must start the ball rolling to get outside help. The mechanism to start that (under state law,) is the Proclamation of Emergency. Besides being an official call for help, it authorizes certain actions by the city government. It authorizes the government to suspend normal bid procedures that would be required to purchase supplies and services for the response to the disaster.

State law says that the Chief Executive Officer of the city (or his designee) is the one authorized to proclaim an emergency. The City of Normandy Park runs under the "council/manager" form of local government (i. e. the City Council is a legislative branch and hires a City Manager to actually run the executive portion of the city (as opposed to a strong mayor form, in which the Mayor is elected directly and is the chief executive with a city administrator to help.) Mayor McEvoy was elected from among the seven city council members by the council to serve as or but his duties are limited to running city council meetings and being the ceremonial head of the city. (I was elected as Mayor Pro Tem to perform his duties if he is unavailable. Sometimes we do allow him to go on vacation.)

State law does permit one exception to the concept that the City Manager is the Chief Executive and that occurs during a disaster. The Mayor may be tasked with proclaiming the disaster, if the council so chooses (and enacts an ordinance to that effect.) I would like to see the council do precisely that primarily for two reasons. First, as I learned in junior high social studies, we Americans like to have a separation of powers. Since it is the City Manager who would acquire the power to operate without the bid laws, etc., I would like to see someone else authorize him that authority rather than having him both authorize and exercise that power. (I must state that this is a philosphical reason because I have no doubts that our current city manager would not abuse this authority; perhaps a subsequent one could.) My second reason is that if the City Manager were not available (we also allow him to go on vacation, although infrequently), the next people whom he has designated to act in his stead, do not live in (or even particularly near) the city and thus might be difficult to reach in a major disaster when transportation and communications are disrupted. The Mayor (and his successors) all live in the city (by law) and are, therefore, much more accessible.

Several of the counter arguments that I have heard are that it might be possible that a future mayor might have some conflict with the City Manager (who would be advising the Mayor that a Proclamation of Emergency is needed) and that conflict might delay (or even prevent) a necessary proclamation. Another argument is that, since the City Manager's advice to the Mayor is highly desirable before a Proclamation is signed, two people are necessary to agree when time is of the essence. Also, if the disaster occurs during working hours (think Nisqually Quake,) the City Manager is likely right at hand in City Hall, while a Mayor might be at work outside the city.

Urban subsidies

While the legislature is making sure that King County does its job in House Bill 1823 for prosecuting felons, maybe it should think about making sure that the county does its jobs with the right amount of money. The state property tax has two specific portions (one for county or regional government, and one for local government services.) In cities, these two portions of you property taxes are separated out and sent either to the county or to the city. In unincorporated county areas, both go to the county. In those unincorporated areas (of King County,) Rons Sims is in reality both the County Executive and the Mayor. The county provides local roads and police protection (which in the cities are provided by the local city government.) Since most of the urban unincorporated areas (e. g. North Highline/White Center/Boulevard Park) are that way because the local taxes revenues are insufficient to pay for all of the required services so the cities don't want to annex them, King County makes up the shortfall out of the portions of revenues from the county as a whole. This is generally called the urban subsidy and means that residents of the cities are paying for local services for the unincorporated areas.

This is one of the reasons that some Burien residents are not eager to annex portions (especially residential portions that have no sales tax base) of North Highline. The residents of North Highline that are annexed will lower the per capita revenue of Burien. In additon the infrastructure of North Highline is not as well maintained as that in the city of Burien so will take an intra-Burien subsidy to raise its standards for years.

A reason that North Highline residents might like to keep things as they are is that cities have ceratin other taxes that they are allowed to add to their residents' tax bills (e. g. utility taxes) that the county is not allowed to charge the residents of unincorporated county areas. As long as they stay unincorporated, they keep their tax bills lower and keep receiving the urban subsidy (but of course, they have little say in a county government gerrymandered to give Seattle a disproportionate vote.)

What is the answer? There probably isn't one that is desirable for all, but if the state would mandate that the county keep separate budgets for its local government rsponsibilities and its regional responsibilities, at least we might be able to figure out what they are up to.

As an example, I was disheartened to learn that King County has (only) two sets of Emergency Management Plans, one for the residents of unincorporated county and one for county government agencies. They have no plan for what services they plan to offer on a regional basis for all residents of the county, both in and outside of cities.

Make the county do its job(s) - swim pools

Besides the pending new King County requirement for cities to prosecute some felonies (if the people are going to get them prosecuted at all,) King County has in the past foisted other of its responsibilities onto the cities (without, of course, passing on any of the revenues allowed by the state for fulfilling those responsibilities.) I am thinking of the decision several years ago to defund the Forward Thrust Swimming Pools that the county built (with our money) many years ago and then neglected the maintenance of. Now those pools are in sad state of repair which would necessitate huge expenditures to refurbish. Mt. Rainier Pool in Des Moines has for the past several years been funded by several of the local cities and the Highline School District. With the tight budgets we have, we can not really afford this but certainly can not afford the refurbishment of the pool to keep it running safely. Thus the home pool of our local several time state championship swim team will probably close its doors, not only to the swim team but also to the public. The only benefit was to the county executive and the council which balanced their budget on the budgets of the local cities.

Legislature: House Bill 1823

House Bill 1823 One critical problem for all of the cities in King County is Ron Sims's budgetary plan to no longer prosecute some felony cases and leave it to the cities to decide if they want to spend their money prosecuting, providing courts, and providing a public defender for some felony cases. Further if convicted, the cities would have to pay for the housing of convicted felons. Several of the members of the legislature (possibly with help of some smart local officials) have come up with a plan to negate this tactic by requiring the county to reimburse the cities for such prosecution. It might also be the idea of the King County Prosecutor (who would have to cut his empire and staff.) In any case it is a great idea to actually require King County to fulfill its mandate to prosecute felony cases.

It is a sad state of affairs when the legislature has to spend its precious time forcing a recalcitrant county executive to do his job.

RCAA Issues Fact Sheet on 3rd Runway Use

How did the FAA and the Port of Seattle say that the third runway would be used:  The following RCAA Fact SHeet (no. 19) quotes from the official documents.

REGIONAL COMMISSION ON AIRPORT AFFAIRS
19900 4th S.W.
Normandy Park, Washington
98166-4043
Telephone: 206.824.3120
cell phone: 206.3104873
E-mail: rcaa@earthlink.net
www.rcaanews.org


RCAA fact sheet no. 19

SOME RELEVANT MATERIALS ABOUT THE PLANNED USE
 OF THE THIRD RUNWAY AT SEATTLE-TACOMA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

All materials mentioned below are found in the Final EIS for the third runway (& other Sea-Tac Airport expansion projects). All quotations are from a library copy of the FEIS in the library of the Regional Commission on Airport Affairs. Formal title: “Final Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Master Plan Update Development Actions at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (February 1996)”; cited in the form, [volume] FEIS [page number]


1. The [stated] purpose of the third runway was to alleviate arrival delays during certain poor-weather conditions (instrument flight rules) at the Airport.

Here are some representative quotes from the main text of the FEIS:

 “ … primary purpose would be to enable two separate arrival streams to Sea-Tac during poor and good weather” I FEIS I-17

 “ the proposed new parallel runway is needed to address existing poor weather 
 delays.” Response R-3-15, IV FEIS (Appendix R) R-35

 “The fundamental problem addressed by in this FEIS is the aircraft operational delays [sic] caused by the lack of dual approach procedures under certain weather conditions.” Response R-3-21B, IV FEIS (Appendix R) 

2. The use of third runway would be primarily for arrivals; departures would be a very small part of the use.

 “Because the proposed new dependant parallel runway is proposed to reduce poor weather delay, which is primarily arrival related, the runway would be expected to 
 be used primarily for arrivals. About 12.1 percent of arrivals in a south flow would occur on the new runway, with about 2.6 percent of departures.” I FEIS IV.1-1

From IV FEIS (Appendix R) R-44 ---

 Comment R-3-25 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency suggested that the 
proposed new runway be evaluated as a departure runway instead of as an arrival runway.

 Response: Inefficient airfield operations occur during poor weather conditions … 
  Although a third runway at Sea-Tac would primarily be used for arrivals, it would accommodate a limited number of departures during peak departure periods and other circumstances … usage of this runway for departure is expected to be less than 5 percent 
 of the year … .

From IV FEIS (Appendix R) R-71-2 ---

 Comment R-6-13: A number of commentors are concerned about the usage of the proposed third runway. … 

 Response: … the runway is expected to be used by 3.9% of all departures. … The use of the runway by a large number of departures would, however, defeat the purpose of its proposed construction by reducing its availability for arrivals. … .

 The average annualized daily number of operations projected to use the proposed new parallel runway with a length up to 8,500 feet are [sic] as follows:

  Year   Landings Takeoffs
  2000    80          20
  2010    86          22
  2020    93          24

[The authors of the FEIS assumed that the third runway would be completed & in operation by the year 2000.]

See also IV FEIS, R-10-15
See also II FEIS, App’x C, sec 3 (3) 1 (pp C-18-19) & Table C-20, p.C-48.

* * * * *

NOTE: This Fact Sheet does not include materials from other official sources, which consistently confirm that the third runway’s use would primarily be for arrivals from the north, in poor weather. We are not sure that this fact sheet includes all discussions of this topic in the FEIS. The structure of the FEIS resulted in particular issues being discussed in several different places, without cross-references. The FEIS does not contain a topical index.



© RCAA 2008, 2009
Most recent update: 8 i 09 -- discard earlier versions
I-08-3-03
Fact sheet no. 19 (rev.2)

Meeting Thursday on Runway Noise

The meeting on third-runway noise that was scheduled for 18 December but was cancelled because of heavy snowfall has been re-scheduled for Thursday, 8 January 2009. The official agenda follows, with directions to the meeting place following the agenda.

FINAL HIGHLINE FORUM & PORT PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AGENDA
January 8, 2009 – Thursday
Highline Forum: 2:00 pm to 3:00 pm
Port of Seattle Public Comment Period: 3:00 pm to 4:00 pm
 
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport
Airport Conference Center, Mezzanine Level
 
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
2:00 pm Welcome & Introduction of Topic Co-chairs
 
Meeting Topic: The Highline Forum will discuss the use of the third runway since its opening. In particular, the Highline Forum will address public complaints that the runway is not being used as promised. 
 
· Data depicting how the runway has operated to date Mark Reis, POS
 
· EIS assumptions for predicting use and impacts Mark Reis, POS
 
· Current usage of runway Mark Reis, POS
 
2:30 pm Questions & Answers Highline Forum

3:00 pm Forum Adjourns & Opening of Port Public Comment Period  

4:00 pm Port Public Comment Period Ends

---------------------------------------

Parking & directions to meeting place (Airport Conference Center)

Park in the Airport Garage, in the daily-parking section (floors 5-8) at the south end of the garage near the yellow or green elevators (rows N-U). Take the elevator to the fourth floor and walk across the skybridge #1, between the yellow elevator bank and the green elevator bank, to the Main Terminal. Take the escalator or elevator up to the ticketing level. Then take the stairs or elevator to the Mezzanine Level (these are directly behind the international and Hawaiian Airlines ticket counters). Enter the reception area though the double glass doors for the Aviation Division Offices. The receptionist will direct you to the right conference room. It is expected that the Airport will follow its usual practice of validating your parking.