A letter to Port Commission candidates

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

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

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

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

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

"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

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

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

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?