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.
16 September 2010
Flim-Flam Artists at Work
09 September 2010
Next Noise Workshop Scheduled for 27 October
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 22nd Highline Forum |
| The community is invited to attend the third in a series of public workshops for |
20 August 2010
Will Port spend own money for noise relief?
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
19 July 2010
Noise-measurement workshop, 29 July
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.
23 June 2010
Sea-Tac Part 150 study behind schedule
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.
19 March 2010
Sea-Tac Noise complaints continue
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?
25 February 2010
Good Work !
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.
20 November 2009
C.A.S.E. meeting -- more about noise
Current usage of Sea-Tac Airport will be the main topic of the regular monthly meeting of Citizens Against Sea-Tac Expansion (C.A.S.E.) on Wednesday, 2 December. Stan Shepherd, Sea-Tac's Manager pf Airport Noise Programs, expects to set up a web link at the meeting to bring up & display current runway statistics & other flight information, including "WebTrak" in actual operation.
"WebTrak"is a computer program that shows flight paths in almost real time on any computer connect to the Internet. The URL for this service is
http://www32.webtrak-lochard.com/WebTrak/sea
Not everyone finds this easy to use, so here is a potential opportunity for learning all about it from an expert.
Mr Shepherd will give also give a presentation on the present state of the Part 150 study for the Airport.
C.A.S.E. President Brett Fish says, "One most intriguing question is how many aborted third runway landings have taken place since the opening and since they aren't completed 'operations', they seem to disappear from the webtracker. The noise is still there, often worse from low attitude high powered recoveries but doesn't seem to be recorded in DNL or other statistics needed to get at the truth of true impacts to the communities."
C.A.S.E. meetings are held at the Highline School District's administration office (also known as "ERAC"), located at 15675 Ambaum Blvd., S.W., in Burien, from 7 p.m. to 9. p.m. All are welcome. Light refreshments provided.
14 October 2009
Tremendous victory for London-area residents !
It CAN be done. Communities under the threat of airport expansion CAN stop ill-advised projects -- using political muscle. The much-battered residents of the London area have apparently won their long struggle against a third runway at Heathrow, now that the Conservative Party (the Tories) have taken the communities' side. A full account follows. (And by the way, the Birmingham (U.K.) Airport helped, by unexpectedly announcing just a few days ago that it would be happy, happy to take Heathrow's "extra" traffic.)
Our thanks to Mark Middleton-Smith, a long-time campaigner against the Heathrow project, for the following article. The "Times" is the Times of London.
* * *
David Dyson The Sunday Times October 11, 2009
THE airport operator BAA has bowed to opposition to a third runway at Heathrow airport. It will not submit a planning application before the general election and will not sign large contracts to "bounce" a future Conservative government into accepting it.
Senior BAA figures have also told the Tories the company will cease to fight for the third runway if they form the next government.
Theresa Villiers, the shadow transport secretary, said: "Last week BAA conveyed to us at our party conference that it will not be submitting a planning application before the election.
"It seems BAA has woken up to the fact that we mean what we say on Heathrow and that if we win the general election there will be no third runway."
Labour pushed through the runway plan despite the opposition of Hilary Benn, the environment secretary, and Ed Miliband, the energy and climate secretary. Residents and campaigners accused ministers of sacrificing their green credentials to the aviation lobby.
Geoff Hoon, then transport secretary, approved the £9 billion third runway and sixth terminal last January and ministers indicated the project would be rushed through, making it more difficult for the Tories to overturn the decision.
The announcement at last week's Conservative conference that a Tory government would block expansion of London's big airports has forced BAA to reappraise the scheme. Its new stance means the taxpayer will not be forced to pay a large sum in compensation for any wasted work.
Publicly, BAA executives are urging the Tories not to "close the door" on expansion plans and say they are still working on the project. But they admitted they were surrendering in a meeting with aides to Villiers last week.
BAA said: "We will always respect the right of the government to take the decision it thinks is the right one." Some suspect BAA's position is a tactical ploy and it will continue to work behind the scenes to convince the Tories of the need for expansion.
But the scheme's opponents are delighted.
"The game is up for BAA," said Edward Lister, leader of Wandsworth council and spokesman for the 2M Group, an alliance of local authorities opposing expansion. "The third runway will never happen and they know it. It's a spectacular result for the campaign."
John Stewart, chairman of Hacan (Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise) ClearSkies, said: "There are all sorts of reasons that businesses come to London and Heathrow is just one of them."
Expansion of Heathrow risked undermining Britain's commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050. It was also claimed expansion would breach European limits on nitrogen dioxide levels around the airport.
BAA and British Airways said the runway was needed to ensure Heathrow can compete with large European airports. The airport operator wanted annual flights to increase from 480,000 to more than 700,000.
A group of councils, backed by Boris Johnson, the London mayor, is seeking a judicial review of Hoon's decision, arguing the consultation process was flawed and the decision irrational. A High Court hearing is expected later this year.
Greenpeace has a plot of land on the site of the proposed runway, with the ownership split between thousands of its supporters. Those who said they would never sell their plots to BAA include Emma Thompson, the actress, and Alistair McGowan, the comedian.
Business groups argue Heathrow will fall into decline unless it is allowed to expand. Lord Soley, campaign director of Future Heathrow, said: "The Conservatives will have to find another international hub or reverse their decision."
The Tories also oppose second runways at Stansted and Gatwick. They are likely to consider building a new international hub. Boris Johnson supports the building of a new airport at the Thames Estuary and BAA said it was now prepared to consider the estuary option, previously dismissed as costly and "unrealistic" by critics.
02 October 2009
Angry crowd at noise meeting
Wondering what happened at the big noise meeting on the 29th? The B-Town Blog covered the event. Here's a link to their article.
RCAA will have comments at a later date.
= = = < * > = = =
If the link doesn't work -- here's the URL -- cut & paste into your browser.
http://www.b-townblog.com/2009/09/30/hundreds-of-angry-residents-confront-port-of-seattle-and-faa-officials-about-airport-noise-at-community-meeting/
06 September 2009
Quieter skies? Or noisier?
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
Posts
