Big Drop in Costs for Second Runway Work

A follow-up on our post of yesterday (28 April) on the subject of costs for the temporary work on the center runway at Sea-Tac Airport.

We are advised by Perry Cooper, Media Officer at the Airport, that bidding has closed on the project and "we are currently projecting to save nearly 40% on the budget for this project as the bid came in very low for the work".

Hurrah for the competitive-bidding process!

More details as they become available.

II-010-052.b

Passenger service at Paine?

There's a lot of interest in what happens at Paine Field, & RCAA tries to follow developments there. People affected by noise related to Sea-Tac Airport have often considered that there might be significant relief if some flights were shifted up to Paine Field. Some have argued that it would be wise, good planning, to have passenger facilities in place at Paine as a back-up against the time when some disaster or another will close Sea-Tac. Some want service out of Paine as a good-in-itself, without regard to Sea-Tac -- there being quite a number of air travellers living & working in places north of downtown Seattle, places closer in distance & travel time to Paine than to Sea-Tac. People close to Paine Field fear that once any commercial service is established the floodgates will open, & all sorts of undesireable (noisy) aircraft will be flying over them 24 hours a day.

So the reader will understand why RCAA has been trying to understand the current proposals for bringing commercial passenger service to Paine.

While a bulky environmental document has been issued, the authorities in Snohomish County have been unable to lay their hands on the actual proposals under consideration (we began asking back in very early January). So we asked the regional office of the FAA for what documentation they might have. This afternoon, they disgorged 848 pages of documentation.

We are just dipping into this four-inch pile of paper, but already we are seeing interesting undercurrents in the whole decision-making process at Paine. Who else would like to peruse 848 pages of documentation.

(We have also received various documents from Snohomish County, in dribs & drabs, as the result of asking & asking & asking. Perhaps that's a subject for another post at another time. Anyone else want to look through the Snohomish County paperwork? Give a call or e-mail.)

II-113-PAE

Another Sea-Tac runway closure

Local readers will have received the current (print) issue of the Highline Times, with its front-page story about the planned closure of the center runway at Sea-Tac Airport for two month (July & August) for some temporary repairs. Folks who do not see the Times can view this article on the paper's website. If the link doesn't work, here's the URL: http://www.highlinetimes.com/2010/04/22/news/third-runway-be-noisier-again-summer-second-runway-closed-repairs

The project bears an estimated cost of $5,650,000 -- we have more to say about that later in this post

This project caught the interested public by complete surprise. Neither the Times nor RCAA picked up this story when the Seattle Port Commission had the project on its agenda for 9 February. Oddly, the super-active PR office at the Port did not issue a press release on this interesting topic. (Critics will say that we shouldn't wait for the PR folks to serve up stories on silver salvers, & the critics will be right.)

The urgency of the project is not apparent, given that Airport staff have plans to rebuild the whole runway, stem to stern, in the relatively near future (2016). But safety concerns have been expressed, which tend to override all other considerations. A staff memo. describes the work as replacement of about 150 concrete panels. The runway has already been given a quick fix by way of re-sealing joints between panels (2008). As one has come to expect, no environmental assessment has been published for the current project.

Now about the cost:

First point -- The new budget of $5,650,00 is an increase of 146 percent over the 2008 estimate ($2,415,000). Sounds like a mini-micro version of the project creep (leap?) for the third runway. No engineering documents were submitted to the Commission to explain this increase, & we have no explanation to offer.

Second point: The actual construction costs are estimated at $4 million. Add some outside consultants' work & the sales tax ($485,000). What's left is $1,165,000 for administrative costs (Port staff, that is). One has to wonder, what's to administer? Folks with real-world business experience are invited to tell us whether this is a sensible cost, or whether it's gold-plated feather-bedding.

A final point: The construction staff state that having the runway closed for two months will not affect the pending Part 150 noise study, because "the noise contours will be based off of 2009 operations and fleet mix when all runways were operational". We wonder if the noise-study team agrees.

II-010-008D

II-010-052 (b)

Couldn't happen here ....

From Airwise:

Volcanic Ash Turns North Europe Into No-Fly Zone
------------------------------------------------------
April 15, 2010
A huge cloud of ash from a volcano in Iceland turned the skies of northern Europe into a no-fly zone on Thursday, leaving hundreds of thousands of passengers stranded.
Details: http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1271322385.html

RCAA comments:

RCAA has long advocated a second full-service regional airport in case Sea-Tac should be closed.  RCAA also advocates high-speed rail for the region.  A major volcanic eruption would likely close all airports (including a new regional facility), but would probably have no impact on a maglev rail system.  It's not just Iceland that has active volcanoes.  Remember 1980?  Can you say Shasta, Hood, St Helens, Adams, Rainier, Baker?  And bear in mind, the Kamchatka Peninsula, with a large number of active volcanoes, lies West of us -- upwind, & only half as far northwards as Glasgow is from Iceland.

For up-to-date coverage from the UK, visit http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/7592867/Volcanic-ash-cloud-latest-news-from-British-airports.html

FedEx flies a uniquely noisy fleet

Yesterday we noted that most of the really noisy night-time flights at Sea-Tac (DC-10s & MD-11s) were flown by one carrier -- FedEx.

Further investigation reveals that, nation-wide, this carrier flies far many more DC-10s & MD-11s than anyone else.  No scheduled passenger carrier in the U.S. uses those old obsolescent birds.  UPS has a fleet of mostly newer, mostly quieter Boeing planes.  But FedEx goes out of its way to buy these aircraft from airlines that are phasing them out, & it has 85 DC-10s and 58 MD-11s in its fleet.  It would seem that most airports served by FedEx must be getting lots of night-time noise.

Time for a change at FedEx?

Source:  Wikipedia entries for DC-10 and MD-11, as of 1600 this afternoon.

II-010-050

More about night-time noise at Sea-Tac

There are plenty of flights in & out of Sea-Tac during the hours midnight to 6 a.m., according to data furnished by the Airport’s noise office for the period 15 March – 5 April 2010.  Yesterday’s post pointed out that the worst offender is FedEx, flying very noisy, almost-obsolete aircraft.  Today, we report on the total number of midnight to 6 a.m. flights. 

SUMMARY

            On average, there are 24 NOISE-creating arrivals or departures every night from midnight to 6:00 a.m. at Sea-Tac Airport. 

PERIOD SURVEYED:  15 MARCH  TO 5 APRIL 2010 

Night flight events (Arrival or Departure) Midnight to 6:00 a.m. 

15 - 31 March                          415 flight events

1 – 5 April                                114 flight events

Total, 15  March -5 April         529 events

 

22 days, Average 24 events per night (midnight - 6 a.m.) 

Low 14 , High 33 , average 24 events

* * * 

The sample period seems to RCAA to be reasonably reflective of the whole year.  The data are not skewed by unusual demand (a major travel holiday or the Christmas rush), nor by events (such as unusual bad weather) that would cause big delays, missed / cancelled flights, or the like. 

It may also be noted that regularly-scheduled flights do not always arrive at just the scheduled minute.  Some are scheduled very close to midnight or 6 a.m.  Some of these occasionally arrive just within the midnight – 6 a.m. time frame, & sometimes just outside it.  This is largely responsible for the fluctuation between the nightly low of 14 operations & the nightly high of 33.  These flights at the very edges of the midnight - 6 a.m. period do not appear to generate as many complaints as are caused by the isolated flights at 3 & 4 in the morning.

Night-time noisy flight mystery solved ?

So many complaints about individual flights that wake people in the darkest hours !  All very mysterious & unfathomable (according to Sea-Tac Airport and the FAA).  Now, RCAA research provides a partial answer.

Working with flight-operations data for Sea-Tac for the period 15 March - 5 April 2010, provided by the Airport's Noise Office, we have learnt that there is a consistent pattern of one particular carrier flying very noisy planes in & out of Sea-Tac.  That carrier is FedEx, flying  MD11s and DC10s -- the noisiest planes still in common (civilian) use. 

Shouldn't the Airport take some effective action to get these noisy birds out of the skies during the wee hours?  If not, why not?

 

High-speed rail comes a little closer

Here in Washington the State government has vast plans to work toward passenger rail service that  might some day attain a top speed of 79 m.p.h.  (the Federal speed limit for trains in our State).  Now we learn that the State of California plans some real high-speed rail -- probably to be built by the Chinese.  But several other countries are also interested in selling equipment for real high- speed rail to California.   It's instructive to consider that high-speed rail cannot be built in the U.S., but there are experienced firms in the following countries eager to compete with the Chinese for the California project:  Japan, Germany, South Korea, Spain, France, and Italy.  Whatever happened to good old American know-how?

Read more in this article from the New York Times:

If the link doesn't work, paste this URL into your browser --

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/business/global/08rail.html?hp=&pagewanted=print