Latest News on Airport Affairs

Local author's book on Sea-Tac 3rd runway issued

2011-02-15T14:52:00.000-08:00

Debi Wagner's book on the fight against the third runway at Sea-Tac Airport has just been released, with a book signing set at Burien Books, on 5 March 2011, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. The bookstore is located at 824 S.W. 152nd Street, Burien 98166

Ms Wagner has been active on third-runway issues from 'way back, having been active in Citizens Against Sea-Tac Expansion, the Regional Commission on Airport Affairs, & other groups as well.

According to an announcement from the author, the book is available at: Burien Books, Barnes & Noble, Amazon, and Trafford. For info, e-mail dwagner007@msn.com or call Burien Books at 206.244.1422.

Additions to RCAA Library

2010-09-30T12:08:00.000-07:00

Airports create health hazards & other environmental challenges. A recent addition to the RCAA library calls attention to the risks to health that are associated with aircraft noise. A second new publication, from the US GAO, reviews the actions of airport operators in dealing with health & other environmental issues that seem to arise almost every time an airport seeks to expand.

Skeptics who deny that aircraft noise has serious effects on human health should spend a thoughtful hour or so, perusing "A Review of the Literature Related to Potential Health Effects if Aircraft Noise", published in July by a joint effort of the FAA, NASA, & Transport Canada. We recommend this to anyone concerned about aircraft noise but unsure of how serious the problem is.

The GAO report was published (on the web) a few days ago. It's turgid reading, replete with abbreviations & acronyms (mostly unfamiliar), but it does confirm that environmental issues (noise high on the list) are contributing to delays in major expansion at airports all over the U.S. The report leaves a feeling that much was left unsaid, & at least one reader has told us that it seems aimed at placating those who feel that airports aren't doing anything about the environment. The GAO's conclusion is that most are doing something, & the inference is "Oh, goody!". But whether it's enough, or is actually relevant ... that really is what is important but isn't addressed candidly. The title is a guide to the mindset of the writers: "Systematically Addressing Environmental Impacts and Community Concerns Can Help Airports Reduce Project Delays", GAO-10-50. It is assumed that all airport projects are worthy & should not be delayed. If an airport is seen to be "addressing" environmental issues, projects should be able to move forward more briskly.

One finds at p. 37 of the GAO report some discussion of Federal legislation that had escaped RCAA's notice, "The Aviation Streamlining Approval Process Act of 2003". We know nothing about this legislation.

* * *

Although RCAA was consulted by the GAO team while they were doing their research, the report does not go into detail about either Sea-Tac or Boeing Field, & RCAA's views are not reflected in the report. Not that that is important.

* * * * * *

To borrow arrange to borrow a copy of either report, e-mail the RCAA office.

Flim-Flam Artists at Work

2010-09-16T08:37:00.000-07:00

A comment on the Part 150 noise study at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport

The work of the Part 150 noise-study team is almost over. The basic contents of the final report are already available in the study team’s presentation on 29 July to the so-called Technical Review Committee. (Available at the special website for the study.) Even a casual look at slide 32 in that presentation will show how very little is being proposed for noise relief or noise mitigation. This is not much result for a study that will cost more than a million dollars.

The really interesting part of this process is the "flim-flam" that has gone on. As any good magician knows, success comes by getting the audience looking one way while he is working in the other direction.

Almost all of the public meetings/process were directed at the way the Part 150 study was being conducted. While this was going on, the study consultants, Landrum & Brown, were working outside of the public view or review on the actual subjects of the study.

In July they published the "2009 noise contour maps", the "Aviation planning forecast", and the outline of the "Noise Compatibility Plan". These are the required basics of a Part 150 process.

A Part 150 study is supposed to look at NOISE REDUCTION, NOISE MITIGATION, and LAND USE PLANNING. The noise-study team have successfully completed a Part 150 study without touching any of these topics.

Next Noise Workshop Scheduled for 27 October

2010-09-09T13:35:00.001-07:00

The study team for the Sea-Tac noise study has announced that the next public workshop will be held on Wednesday, 27 October, at Mt Rainier High School, in Des Moines. See below for details.

Since the last workshop (9 June), the study team has prepared air-traffic forecasts for the Airport (with no public input or participation). The traffic forecasts have been used to prepare noise-exposure maps (with no public input or participation). The study team is also preparing maps to show noise-sensitive areas & facilities (again with no public input or participation). All these maps will presumably be available at the workshop.

The study team has, so far, rejected requests to extend the noise mapping out to the 55 YDNL contour. The work is restricted to the small area within the 65 YDNL contour. The study team calculates that there are 6.30 square miles within that contour. Almost half (2.96 square miles) is within the Airport itself. The study team has strongly indicated that it will not propose any mitigation or noise-relieving measures for non-Airport areas outside the 65 YDNL contour. In other words, mitigation & noise relief is under consideration for only 3.34 square miles very close to the Airport. Too bad about the noise in Federal Way, in the Shorewood neighborhood of Burien, in other parts of the greater Highline area, & in Beacon Hill & Rainier Valley in Seattle, & points north & south.

The text of the announcement follows:

Third Part 150 Study Public Workshop Set for October 27th

Part 150 Study also an Agenda Item at September 22^nd Highline Forum

The community is invited to attend the third in a series of public workshops for Sea-Tac Airport's Part 150 Noise Study on October 27th at Mount Rainier High School (22450 19th Ave. S.) in Des Moines. The program is from 6:30 PM to 8:30 PM.

At the workshop, the new airport-area noise exposure "contour" maps showing neighborhoods currently affected by noise and those that will be affected by noise in the future will be unveiled and discussed. As with the last two workshops, small group working sessions will be utilized to foster conversation and actively develop solutions to reducing airport noise.
On September 22nd, the members of the Highline Forum will also discuss the Part 150 Noise Study at the City of Des Moines Activity Center - 2045 South 216th Street, Des Moines. The meeting begins at 2:30 and the public is invited to observe. The Highline Forum includes the southwest King County communities of Des Moines, Burien, Normandy Park, SeaTac, Tukwila and Federal Way and the Highline School District and Port of Seattle.

Please visit the dedicated Part 150 Study website for all documentation and reports connected to the study including the comprehensive summary from the June 9th public workshop.

Sea-Tac Airport Can't But Boeing Can

2010-09-09T13:07:00.000-07:00

Since the start of the noise study at Sea-Tac Airport, our organization has asked for air-traffic forecasts for the Airport for the next 20 years. We've been told by the study team (led by the consultancy Landrum & Brown) that such forecasts are next to impossible. Never mind that for purposes of justifying Sea-Tac expansion the same consultants (& the Airport) were able to make 20-year forecasts. For purposes of mitigation, it's just too hard to figure what air travel will do in 20 years.

Well, as it turns out, the Boeing Company has a different view. The news item below, found in a recent issue of the on-line aviation daily news service, "Airwise", tells us all that Boeing feels quite confident that they can predict the general direction for 20 years to the point that they are willing to go public with estimates of how many passenger aircraft will be needed to meet travel demand.

Here's something that might help Landrum & Brown to figure it all out -- the main phone number for Boeing's commercial-aircraft division: 206-655-1131.

Now the news item:

------------------------------------------------------ Boeing Sees USD$700 Bln Market In North America ------------------------------------------------------ September 3, 2010 Boeing has reiterated that it expects North American airlines
to take delivery of about 7,200 new planes over the next 20 years
at a value of about USD$700 billion. Details: http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1283497136.html

Who gets the credit, really?

2010-08-20T16:17:00.000-07:00

Those of you fortunate enough to receive news releases from the Port of Seattle will want to take a look at today's story about the Airport winning an award for its environmental program, oh boy!

It would be interesting to have an accurate accounting from the Port, detailing how many tens of millions the Port spent fighting against the environmental requirements that it now boasts about. Legal fees, consultants' fees, staff time ... all paid for with public money, too. The story is far too long to tell in a blog posting. But for sheer stubbornness in defying environmental law, THAT'S the award the Port should have received.

Will Port spend own money for noise relief?

2010-08-20T14:33:00.000-07:00

Does the Port of Seattle have $73 million in Airport money that could be used for noise relief?

When dealing with the Port of Seattle about Airport-related noise, the Port's consistent message has been that it will not, cannot, or is not allowed to spend its own money. We recall former Commissioner Paige Miller insisting (for years) that no Port money could be used to help with the noise in the buildings of the Highline School District. FAA money or nothing. In the end, the Port agreed to provide $50 million for school insulation & rebuilding from tax revenues.

There is, of course, no general legal barrier to the Port District spending its own money (tax revenue, net profits from its various lines of business) for such things as property buy-outs, insulation of noise-affected homes & schools, investment in real estate, buying abandoned railway right-of-way, helping to fund a new South Park bridge, &c. There are some restrictions on use of money from direct operation of the Airport. But it is our understanding that what are called "non-aero" profits are free of FAA-imposed constraints (as are general revenue from property taxes).

So the "Miller Doctrine" (FAA money or nothing) was not based on legalities. Maybe it was nothing but stinginess.

A staff briefing to the Port Commission on 17 August revealed that the Airport expects to make net operating income (profits) on "non-aero" business of $73 million this year (2010). The Port District needs to be very clear & straightforward with the community about how this money can be used. If it is legally not available for noise relief, let's see an understandable explanation (not the "Miller Doctrine" re-stated). Otherwise, the study team for the Part 150 noise study, & the interested public should feel free to make recommendations for noise relief actually paid for by the Port.

+ + +

The staff briefing (in 36 Powerpoint slides) can be downloaded from the Port's website. The "non-aero NOI" is discussed on Slide 8. Go to

http://www.portseattle.org/about/organization/commission/meetingagenda.shtml

Then click on the agenda for 17 August, & then find agenda item 7 b & click on PowerPoint. That will give you the slideshow.

II-010-008-D

Dioxin study at Lora Lake Apartments

2010-07-26T17:05:00.000-07:00

The Department of Ecology has just released its reply to public comments about the study of contamination at the site of the former Lora Lake Apartments in Burien. This document (known as a "Responsiveness Summary") may be borrowed by interested parties from the Regional Commission on Airport Affairs. The summary will give readers a lot of background on the environmental issues, & on the studies that are planned to resolve (one hopes) the complex problem of chemical contamination at the site.

The Port of Seattle acquired the property as part of the third-runway project. The apartments were felt to be unacceptably close to the third runway & its noise. So, the Port bought the facility & closed it. In acquiring the land, the Port also acquired legal responsibility for pre-existing contamination, which dates back to a time before the apartments were built. The site has been described as having the worst dioxin-contamination problem of any place in the State. There is fear that the contamination on site may have migrated toward or into Lora Lake itself. The lake is a source for Miller Creek.

E-mail RCAA at to arrange to borrow the report.

Job numbers revisited

2010-07-19T15:21:00.000-07:00

Earlier today, we posted a sarcastic comment about the number of jobs (3,000) that, according to the Port of Seattle, have been created by construction of the Rental Car Facility at Sea-Tac Airport. Readers should be aware that the Port now advises us that the 3,000 jobs are actually construction & construction-related "jobs".

When the facility is completed, in a few months, we have no doubt that those "jobs" will be gone.

The Port further advises that the new facility will have between 300 & 400 permanent employess -- not of the Port but of tenant companies. For further information, visit

http://www.portseattle.org/seatac/construction/rentalcar.shtml

Noise-measurement workshop, 29 July

2010-07-19T11:10:00.000-07:00

Landrum & Brown, lead consultants for the noise study at Sea-Tac Airport, have announced that a "Technical Noise Workshop", featuring Vince Mestre, PE, will be held on Thursday, 29 July at the Beijing Room in the main terminal at the Airport, from 12.30 to 1.30 pm..

After the formal session of the 9 June noise-study workshop, Mr Mestre met briefly with some of the attendees (including Normandy Park Mayor George Hadley & Burien Councilwoman Rose Clark), to discuss in more depth the noise-modelling & noise-measurement issues that are involved in the study. This unplanned seminar (if we may call it that) was so informative that Clark & Hadley immediately suggested that Mr Mestre come back to the area for an extended discussion of these issues for the benefit of people interested in the technical details. Although the request was for an evening meeting on a Wednesday (to accommodate city electeds & senior staff), the study team has chosen a shorter session in the middle of the work day.

Mayor Hadley has circulated a group of questions that he would like to see addressed -- too extensive for a 'blog' post. Contact RCAA or Mayor Hadley for a copy.

Inefficient new parking structure at Sea-Tac

2010-07-19T11:02:00.000-07:00

According to a recent news release from the Port of Seattle about the new parking structure at Sea-Tac Airport, some 3,000 people will be required to operate it ! Rather inefficient. Here's the lead sentence from the news release.

(Seattle - July 14, 2010) - Only one year after re-starting the project due to the bad economy, Seattle-Tacoma International Airport's new Rental Car Facility celebrated it's [sic] topping off today with the help of one of the four tower cranes on-site to signal the halfway point of a project creating an estimated 3,000 jobs.

The new garage will have about 3,200 spaces, according to the Port's news release. So this works out to almost one employee per space. Wow, what service ! Why don't we believe any of this?

Sea-Tac Part 150 study behind schedule

2010-06-23T17:17:00.000-07:00

The following statement on the Sea-Tac Part 150 noise study has been submitted to the Port Commission by RCAA.

The Part 150 noise study has fallen far behind the published schedule. Public-participation is suffering as a result. We fear that the consultants will make major decisions outside of public view, in order to catch up.

Let’s review: In order to do meaningful noises reduction, you have to understand where the noise comes from. That requires that you have good data on certain key elements --

* the fleet mix &

* flight operations, present & future

In order to predict future flight operations in detail, you need to know how the various runways will be used: you need a runway-usage plan. You also need aviation forecasts, estimates of future travel for the whole airport.

From all of this information, you can prepare noise exposure maps to tell you where noise is being experienced, & you can then propose methods to reduce the noise. And the point of this exercise is to reduce the noise. Reduction is cheaper than mitigation.

Aviation forecasts for the Airport were scheduled for completion in early May, but so far the consultants have released no information about that key element.

Nothing in the way of a runway usage plan has even been discussed with the public. It is true that in the end the actual runway usage plan will come from the FAA, but the consultants cannot wait for the FAA to make a proposal. In a Part 150 study, proposals come from the airport operator (that’s the Commission), & the airport operator hires a consultant to make proposals.

Noise-exposure maps as of the present are due out next month. The public does not know what will be mapped or how.

The schedule calls for the consultants to produce their analysis of future noise exposure in September. This work will apparently be completed before the next opportunity for public input, which is the workshop planned for October.

No runway-usage plan, no traffic forecasts, & no current noise data. All these key elements are to be dealt with in the Summer and Fall, with no public involvement, to be followed by publication of maps of future noise exposure, again with no public involvement till after the decisions are made.

If you have the key elements, you can know where the noise is. If you develop the data for these key elements with no significant public involvement, then you do not have meaningful public participation, no matter how many workshops are held, no matter how many slides there are in your Powerpoint presentations. And as you move to the stage of proposing noise remedies, you will NOT have consensus on the underlying data. And you will not have much public acceptance of the final results of the study.

Amazing news

2010-06-01T11:14:00.000-07:00

Amazing news about our largest local airport!

According to a news release just received from the Port of Seattle, "Sea-Tac generates more than 161,000 jobs (89,902 direct jobs)"

Does this mean what it seems to say? That the Port of Seattle employs 89,902 people at the Airport? Full-time? No wonder that it's sometimes hard to find parking.

What do all those Sea-Tac employees do, & where do they do it? The FAA runs the tower. The airlines fly the aircraft & handle all the ticketing. The Feds are in charge of most of the security. Concessionaires staff the shops, coffee bars, &c. Sub-subcontractors do the fueling & all of that work out by the gates.

Perhaps the Port needs to hire a systems engineer (efficiency expert) to find ways of running the Airport with fewer personnel -- about 89,000 fewer, if we may offer a suggestion.

No, It's not Boeing Field. Mystery solved.

2010-05-07T16:17:00.000-07:00

Data from Boeing Field (King County International Airport) received today show that there are no super-noisy night-time flights in or out of that facility.

In our posts on 13 & 14 April, we reported that at Sea-Tac Airport there is a consistent pattern of very noisy aircraft, operated by FedEx, arriving & departing in the time frame, midnight to 6 a.m. The data covered the period 15 March through 5 April, which we believe is reasonably representative. The "guilty" aircraft are DC-10s & MD-11s. At our request, Boeing Field supplied the data for night-time operations there for the same time frame. Not a single DC-10 or MD-11. No planes operating during that hours that would be considered particularly noisy.

Renton has told us that they have essentially NO night-time operations, & absolutely no heavy noisy aircraft.

The mystery of the noisy flights is solved. Case closed. FedEx is responsible.

II-010-050 c (3)

Heathrow's third runway unlikely

2010-05-07T13:40:00.000-07:00

Reprinted below is an article from The Telegraph (UK), published just before yesterday's general election in the United Kingdom. The election returns are in; the Conservatives (Tories) & Liberal Democrats between them have enough seats in the new Parliament (306 & 57 respectively) to form a coalition government (even without the likely support of the minor Democratic Unionist Party, with 8 seats). If the politicians stand by their campaign manifestos, Heathrow's proposed third runway is dead, & there is likely to be a strong push for very-high-speed rail in Great Britain.

* * * * *

General Election 2010: Heathrow's third runway unlikely after vote

Heathrow's third runway is likely to be a casualty of the election, with two of the three parties opposed to the project.

By David Millward, Transport Editor
Published: 7:30AM BST 07 May 2010
Both the Lib Dems and the Tories have said they would scrap the plans for a third runway at Heathrow Photo: EPA

Both the Lib Dems and the Conservatives have said they would scrap the plans and even some senior Labour figures have misgivings about the scheme.

Assuming poll predictions are accurate there is unlikely to be a majority in favour of the runway in the new House of Commons.

Related Articles
General Election 2010 latest: live
Unhappy landings on the marsh
Judge: Heathrow Airport expansion 'untenable'
Third runway 'has fewer benefits than thought'
Heathrow third runway vote passed
Heathrow third runway would deliver £30bn benefits, says British Chambers of Commerce

Should Labour cling to power with Lib Dem support, the party could find that dropping Heathrow’s expansion will be part of the price it will have to pay even though it was a manifesto commitment.

With the exception of Heathrow, the gulf between the parties on transport is not particularly dramatic.

All three support the building of a high-speed rail line to the West Midlands and beyond. ["Beyond" probably means Glasgow and Edinburgh]

The Tories believe there should be a hub at Heathrow itself, while Labour has dismissed the idea arguing that it would add about £2 billion to the cost of the scheme.

[balance of article, dealing with other UK transportation issues, not reprinted]

Forum on Port of Seattle

2010-05-05T09:36:00.000-07:00

Reprinted from the website of the League of Women Voters of Greater Seattle:

May Forum: Port of Seattle

Thursday, May 6 at 7:30 PM

Seattle First Baptist Church
1111 Harvard Avenue
Seattle, WA

The Port of Seattle will be examined by the League of Women Voters of Greater Seattle in a forum that is free and open to the public.

Seattle Times columnist Jerry Large in a recent column interviewing local author Paul Loeb ("Soul of a Citizen"), asked him "where citizen involvement was missing locally." Loeb replied, "hardly anyone knows much about the Port." How do we, the voters of King County, begin to understand the Port and its governing body, the Port Commission? How does the Commission balance the public interest with the competitive international business role of the Port? A distinguished panel of speakers will help us as citizens to do our part. For more information contact the League office at 206-329-4848 or at info@seattlelwv.org.

For background information, read past port studies made by the League of Women Voters of Washington:

Washington State Public Port Districts (1989)

Washington Public Port Districts: Governance Issues (1992)

* * *

See also the on-line version of the May 2010 issues of "Seattle Voter", the newsletter of the LWV, p.1, & pp. 21-50, for a current report by the League: http://www.seattlelwv.org/sites/default/files/webvotermay'10.pdf

Big Drop in Costs for Second Runway Work

2010-04-29T12:58:00.000-07:00

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?

2010-04-28T15:45:00.000-07:00

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

2010-04-28T12:53:00.000-07:00

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 ....

2010-04-15T09:18:00.000-07:00

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

2010-04-14T17:36:00.000-07:00

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

2010-04-14T10:06:00.000-07:00

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 ?

2010-04-13T14:59:00.000-07:00

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

2010-04-08T14:20:00.000-07:00

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

Port Commission DOES hear from public

2010-03-24T11:35:00.000-07:00

The meeting of the Port Commission on Tuesday, 23 March, indeed did hear from the public on the subject of the Part 150 noise study now underway for Sea-Tac Airport. Our post on the 19th reflected uncertainty on this point. As part of its regular business meeting the Commission had scheduled a staff briefing on the study, but no action was contemplated. Nonetheless, a small group of interested members of the public, as well as local elected officials, were on hand.

The staff presentation was held to a minimum. Commissioners had available print versions of the extensive report on the 24 February 2010 workshop. It was not clear whether they had found time to peruse it, & there was minimal discussion between the Commission & staff.

The bulk of the comments seemed to deal with issues that the study team had not come to grips with.

* For example, Pastor Jon Cortese, Burien Free Methodist Church, pointed out that many churches are subject to overflight noise, yet the study team was not suggesting anything that dealt with their problems.

* Clarke Brant, Normandy Park Councilmember, responding to a comment from the Airport's noise-program manager, Stan Shepherd, that a night-time curfew was outside the scope of the study, noted that most developed countries do not allow night-time operations at metropolitan airports. He called upon the Commission to advocate changes in Federal law to return control of night-time flights to local authorities.

* Shawn McEvoy, Councilmember from Normandy Park (& former mayor), urged the Commission to fund mitigation outside the 65 DNL contour. Mr McEvoy also spoke to the need for the study to have a longer planning horizon (at least 10 years), the need to define noise from the third runway with care, & the need to examine compliance with existing procedures.

We will carry on this discussion in later posts.

Next Part 150 workshop -- 9 June

2010-03-24T11:07:00.000-07:00

The next public workshop in Sea-Tac Airport's Part 150 noise study has been scheduled for 6.30 p.m., Wednesday, 9 June, at Cedarhurst Elementary School in Burien, according to an announcement made at the meeting of the Port Commission on 23 March. An agenda for the workshop has not been released at this time.

Cedarhurst Elementary School is located at 611 So. 132nd, Burien, 98168. It is one of the Highline schools that has been rebuilt to reduce overflight noise in the classrooms, under the terms of the 2002 agreement between the School District, the Port District, & the FAA. (More details about the work at Cedarhurst will be found on the School District's website at http://www.hsd401.org/ourdistrict/construction/cedarhurst.html )

Port Commission may hear from the public

2010-03-19T14:59:00.000-07:00

Public comment on the pending Part 150 study may be allowed -- or perhaps not -- at the meeting of the Seattle Port Commission on Tuesday, 23 March, at The Cove in Normandy Park. A staff briefing on the study is shown on the agenda as Item 7 a. Under the Commission's rules of procedure, "The Commission does not generally take public testimony for non-action agenda items such as "Staff Briefings," but may do so at the discretion of the Commission Chair". We have not seen anything that officially says that Commission President Bill Bryant will allow public comment -- if it is allowed, commenters must sign up before the presentation begins.

The meeting is scheduled to begin at 12 noon, with Item 7 a noted as beginning at 1 p.m. (suggesting that whoever writes these agendas is expecting unusual public interest in this item).

Acoustics at The Cove are lousy -- fine for dance bands but not for public meetings. Perhaps Port staff will provide extra microphones & a better sound system -- we'll ask.

Report on Part 150 workshop, 24 Feb.

2010-03-19T14:29:00.000-07:00

An extensive report on the Part 150 workshop held on 24 February has been posted on the special Part 150 website. For those who were unable to attend on the 24th, this report will provide some of the flavor. The over-all summary prepared by the consultants suffers from a certain amount of 'spin' (who's surprised?), but the summaries from the 15 break-out sessions are closer to the reality. The actual worksheets prepared by the 15 facilitators are even closer to the reality, while the hand-written comments submitted by a few participants deserve extra attention.

Readers who attended the workshop & are now thinking about attending the Port Commission's meeting on the 23rd in order to comment (see next posting) may want to refresh their memories as to what was said a month ago.

The report is a whopper -- over 6 megabytes, & all in one file. As RCAA suggested to the consultants a month ago, it's better to do these big "posts" in segments, so that the user can download (more quickly) just what he or she is interested in.

Sea-Tac Noise complaints continue

2010-03-19T11:05:00.000-07:00

For the six months from September 2009 through February 2010, the Sea-Tac noise hotline recorded noise complaints from more than 300 different households, according to a log of complaints released to RCAA by the Airport yesterday. Calls came in from more than 50 different ZIP codes, 25 different cities, & from all four Western Washington area codes.

With multiple calls from the same household NOT included, here is a month-by-month breakdown:

September 2009 99

October 2009 64

November 2009 29

December 2009 22

January 2010 51

February 2010 44

It is striking that noise impacts are felt & reported in places far, far removed from the very small area defined by the 65 DNL maps -- Shoreline, Lake Forest Park, Kirkland, & even Sumner, to mention a few.

The number of complaints is noteworthy, also, because nothing ever seems to happen at the Airport as the result of citizens complaining to the hotline's voice-mail system, so there seems to be little purpose to making the call. Yet the complaints continue.

RCAA has urged the Part 150 study team to take a hard look at the reports of commercial jets overhead in places where no jets should be heard, if established flight procedures are being followed. Such flights may be part of the reason for noise so far from the Airport. Clearly, however, the 300-plus complaints point to a severe noise problem from routine operations. Will the Part 150 study team pay attention to these data? Will the Port Commission require the study team to propose changes that will bring real relief to the thousands of people living under too-much-noise, but not within the 65 DNL line?

Spring clean-up In Miller/Walker Creek

2010-03-02T16:04:00.000-08:00

Miller/Walker Creek Stewardship Update: Spring Stewardship Sign Up

It’s time to get out and dig in for Miller and Walker Creeks in Burien, Normandy Park, and SeaTac. March kicks off the land and water stewardship season – sign up today! Plus, there’s a new volunteer opportunity you can do on your own schedule – storm drain marking!

For dates, times, places & other details of how you can participate in this unglamorous but rewarding work, check with the Miller/Walker Creeks Stewardship Page, maintained by Dennis Clark, the Basin Steward.

Investments 101

2010-03-02T09:27:00.000-08:00

Singapore's Changi Airport said on Monday (1 March) that it has acquired a 5 percent stake in Gemina, the operator of Rome's two major airports, for SGD$100 million (USD$71 million), its biggest acquisition ever.

Details: http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1267441780.html

Comment: Suppose Sea-Tac Airport were a separate for-profit corporation. How much would you, a prudent investor, pay for a 5 percent stake in that business? $71 million? The two airports at Rome handled slightly over 38 million passengers last year. Sea-Tac handled slightly over 32 million 2008 (2009 numbers not yet available). So, on a passengers-served basis, a 5 percent stake in Sea-Tac should be worth $60 million or so, & the whole Airport would be worth $1.2 billion. That's a minor fraction of what has been spent recently in capital building projects.

Suppose that the Airport had to reveal the sort of financial information about itself that a firm on the stock exchange has to publish -- what would be learned?

Good Work !

2010-02-25T14:41:00.000-08:00

Congratulations to those who attended last night's kick-off workshop for Sea-Tac Airport's Part 150 study! Despite a restrictive format, the public delivered a loud & clear message spelling out major issues that concern us all.

After an initial presentation, the attendees (estimated at about 200) crowded around the whiteboards in 15 break-out groups. We heard over & over that the attendees do not believe that the FAA's 65 DNL noise assessment has anything to do with noise as it is actually experienced. We heard over & over that single-event noise --not averages -- is what intrudes on people's lives. Sharp questions were raised about the five-year planning horizon: the study needs to look long-term. And what will the Airport look like, what will it sound like, at its maximum? At the concluding, wrap-up session, there was widespread spontaneous applause for comments that the region needs two more airports, & for the suggestion that if the present noise cannot be fixed, the airport should be moved. Less-controversial comments included pleas for more noise insulation, more buy-outs, more sellers' assistance programs.

Part 150 workshop on 24 February

2010-02-19T16:18:00.000-08:00

The Sea-Tac Part 150 (noise) study will kick off on Wednesday, 24 February, with its first public workshop, at the Mt Rainier High School, 22450 19th Avenue South, Des Moines, 98198. The session is scheduled to run from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.

In consultation with other community members, RCAA has prepared a list of 16 key issues for the study, & an accompanying group of questions – 25 at last count. If you would like to see one or both of these documents, e-mail us. We hope that they will be helpful to people who want to participate on the 24th.

Unfortunately, the Airport has set up this study so that it will not address most of the issues that are important to the broader community. The meeting on the 24th is very early in the two-year process, & we do not expect the consultants or Airport staff to be offering any actionable proposals on how to cut noise significantly. However, the folks running this study will probably say that the community is in full agreement with their limited approach – unless there is a reasonable turn-out of folks to point out that the study needs a much broader focus. Thus, early comments & questions may turn out to have real importance.

You can see the agenda for the meeting, the Powerpoint presentation prepared by the consultants, & other relevant paperwork at the consultants’ new website for the study,

http://www.airportsites.net/SEA-Part150/meetings.htm

Sea-Tac plows ahead with Part 150 study

2010-01-08T16:02:00.001-08:00

The Port of Seattle announced today that a contract had been signed with the aviation consultancy Landrum & Brown, to manage the pending Part 150 (noise reduction) study at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. The Port's news release appears below.

The contract was negotiated privately with the consultant, without input from the communities and local governments who suffer harm from the Airport's noise. We have not yet seen the actual contract, but the proposed scope of work for that contract, as we have seen it in the last couple of weeks, fails to address about two-thirds of what can & should be done in a study like this. RCAA's request for disclosure of the actual contract is pending with the Port. More on this as soon as we have solid information.

Text of the news release

The Port of Seattle has finalized its contract with Landrum & Brown, an aviation and airport planning firm, hired to assist the Port with the management of Sea-Tac Airport's Part 150 Study. Learn more about the Part 150 Scope of Work (103 KB, PDF - http://www.portseattle.org/downloads/community/environment/Part150-scopeofwork.pdf) which includes the project schedule and a detailed description of the work items required for completion of the study.

The date and the location of the first public workshop, open to all, will be announced soon.

Oh, no, that's impossible !

2010-01-08T15:50:00.000-08:00

High-speed rail? Never, oh, never ! That's impossible !

That's what we hear when advocating high-speed rail as one measure to take the pressure for expansion off of over-crowded airports.

The Federal government helps, by setting a 79 m.p.h. absolute top speed limit on rail in our State.

But, amazingly -- unbelieavably -- trains CAN & DO go faster than 79 m.p.h. in foreign countries. Such as China. See the following article posted on the "Aviation Watch" list earlier this month, & originating as shown.

High speed rail

Posted by: "Charles R. Miller" atandsf@sbcglobal.net santaferr
Sat Jan 2, 2010 5:52 pm (PST)

Hello, Everyone,

A new HSR route with trains running at 217mph has opened, but not in the United States. Here's a short report from Trains News Wire.

Chuck Miller

China launches world's fastest train

Published: Monday, December 28, 2009
BEIJING — China launched what it says is the fastest train in the world Saturday, with trains running at an average speed of 217 mph on a route covering 664 miles in three hours, Agence France Press has reported. The route links Guangzhou and Wuhan, China, roughly the same distance apart as Chicago and Little Rock, Ark.

Work on the project began in 2005, with the idea of linking Guangzhou with Beijing. Guangzhou is a business hub in southern China, located near Hong Kong. Test runs began earlier this month, and the first revenue trips operated Saturday.

China launched its first high speed train in 2008, a service that connects Beijing and Tianjin. The Chinese government has plans to complete 42 high speed routes by 2012 in an effort to reinvent the country's transportation system. Siemens, Bombardier, and Alstom contributed technology for the new line.

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

2009-12-16T13:18:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-20T14:20:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-19T11:34:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-17T11:51:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-06T09:55:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-04T16:34:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-04T15:02:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-02T15:54:00.000-08:00

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

2009-10-28T15:48:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-14T15:59:00.000-07:00

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 !

2009-10-14T11:50:00.001-07:00

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

2009-10-14T11:18:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-13T15:15:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-08T13:20:00.000-07:00

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.

Dates for work on center runway

2009-10-08T11:20:00.000-07:00

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 ... ?

2009-10-07T15:49:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-10-07T15:41:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-02T10:46:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-25T10:01:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-24T15:13:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-22T09:47:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-21T12:44:00.001-07:00

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

2009-09-21T11:47:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-18T14:54:00.000-07:00

"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

2009-09-18T14:23:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-18T14:17:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-18T14:07:00.001-07:00

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

2009-09-18T13:58:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-10T09:18:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-08T15:42:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-09-06T13:20:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-09-04T15:52:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-04T15:46:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-04T15:40:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-04T15:32:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-04T15:04:00.000-07:00

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

2009-02-18T09:50:00.001-08:00

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

2009-02-18T09:46:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-06T23:17:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-06T22:29:00.000-08:00

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

2009-02-04T10:01:00.000-08:00

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

2009-01-31T17:22:00.000-08:00

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

2009-01-31T17:07:00.000-08:00

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

2009-01-31T16:42:00.000-08:00

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

2009-01-08T13:32:00.001-08:00

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

2009-01-07T12:23:00.001-08:00

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.

HIghline Times writes about 3rd RW noise

2008-12-18T19:06:00.000-08:00

Here's a link to an article in the Highline Times about community reaction to the unexpected new noise from Sea-Tac's third runway.

You can comment on this at the Times' website. We'd love to see your comments, as well.

http://www.highlinetimes.com/articles/2008/12/11/news/local_news/news02.txt

KUOW story re third runway noise

2008-12-18T18:01:00.000-08:00

Here's a news story broadcast on KUOW about the new noise from the third runway. This went on the air before this morning's deluge of snow.

Third Runway Noise Battle

12/18/2008
Leaders from South Seattle cities plan to meet with the Port of Seattle today (Thursday). The goal is to hash out what can be done about noise and air pollution from the new third runway, that's vexing nearby neighbors. KUOW's Jamala Henderson has more.

AFTER YEARS OF LAWSUITS AND COST OVERRUNS, SEA'TAC'S NEW THIRD RUNWAY FINALLY OPENDED LAST MONTH.

BUT NOW THAT'S UP AND RUNNING, DES MOINES MAYOR BOB SHECKLER SAYS:

SHECKLER: "People are being adversely affected by it, primarily by noise and air pollution, and they're complaining, in droves."

SHECKLER CALLED TOGETHER THE GROUP OF ELECTED OFFICIALS FROM AIRPORT NEIGHBORHOODS TO DISCUSS THEIR CONCERNS WITH FAA AND PORT OFFICIALS. HE SAYS THE ORIGINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SAID THE RUNWAY WOULD ONLY BE USED A SMALL FRACTION OF THE TIME.

SHECKLER: "and so the mitigation for the third runway had this in mind. And so a lot of the homes that would have normally been insulated or sound proofed, were never addressed."

PORT SPOKESMAN PERRY COOPER SAYS THE PORT DID ADDRESS RESIDENTIAL MITIGATION WITH INFORMATION FROM AN UPDATED NOISE STUDY DONE IN 2002. HE SAYS THE PORT INSULATED 87 HOMES, AND BOUGHT ANOTHER 52, BASED ON THAT DATA.

COOPER: "Those are questions we get to our noise program folks all the time. And we encourage folks to call up and say hey, are we within the noise barriers where we could get some more insulation. Those are very specific limitations that come from the FAA."

THAT AGENCY, COOPER SAYS, WON'T BE MAKING THE MEETING TODAY (THU). COOPER CALLS THAT DEVELOPMENT DISSAPOINTING. BECAUSE IT'S THE FAA THAT CONTROLS TRAFFICKING THE RUNWAY. HE SAYS THE PORT DOESN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO RESTRICT HOW THE FAA CONTROLS FLIGHT SCHEDULES.

MAYOR SHECKLER SAYS HE HOPES THE GROUPS CAN WORK SOMETHING OUT. BECAUSE IF THEY DON'T LIKE WHAT THEY HEAR, THERE COULD BE MORE LITITGATION IN THE FUTURE.

JAMALA HENDERSON, KUOW NEWS.

© Copyright 2008, KUOW

Website returns

2008-12-18T16:57:00.000-08:00

Unfortunate human errors led to our website being inactive recently. We're back now (with a different hosting firm). It may be several hours, or perhaps even another day, before all the library & archival materials are available.

If you have suggestions for documents that should be added to the site, please feel free to send your suggestions to rcaa@earthlink.net.

2008-12-18T16:43:00.001-08:00

This morning's planned meeting on noise from the newly-opened third runway was postponed due to the snowstorm.