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.
Posts
The 1985 Master Plan of Sea-Tac Airport said that the FAA would not support a 3rd runway at Sea-Tac the State needed a State Airport. Temple Johnson was manager of Region 10 of the FAA at the time (since retired). Apparently the local general purpose govenrments.gov took the FAA at its word and permitted heavy residentail and schools, etc. surrounding Sea-Tac Airport assuming the FAA would not fund
ReplyDelete- that the State needed an airport - but the FAA changed its mind so it was too late for the general purpose governments.gov because developers had built heavy residentail and schools and all things not comatible with airport expansion - so "We the People are stuck living on land with noise levels above 65 ldn - land not fit for public safety under the FAR 150 Codes of the President and his men under the Aviation Safety & Noise Abatement Act of 1979/Congress. Under the Avition Safety & Noise Abatement Act of 1979/Federal Congress told the President and his men
to fund federal 80% / State pays 20% to noise remedy those communities surrounding airports but Sea-Tac Airpot is not under the State - it is under the District and if we understand D.C. Airports under States comes 1st what is left over goes to Airports under local control
- which is slim federal pickings.