A message for U.S. Senator Cantwell

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

= = = =

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

Loss of a good friend

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

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

community noise meeting on 29 September

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

Text of the announcement follows:

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

GPS -- right at the right time

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quieter skies? Or noisier?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1)  More planes in = More planes out

(2)  More planes = More noise

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

A new major airport?

A Predictable Failure

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

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

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

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

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

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

Main text of RCAA's analysis:

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

Attachments to the analysis:

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


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

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

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

URL for the Executive Summary of the Recommendations:

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


 


 

Highline Forum to hear about noise

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

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

Legislators & cities will hold second noise meeting

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

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

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

Overflow crowd at third-runway-noise meeting

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

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

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

Blog back in business

The RCAA blog is back in business.  

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

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