See open lettter to media below with topics including: air collisions ground collisions of aircraft landing beside cliff risks seismically unsafe walls reduced drinking water availability haul truck deaths The proposed Sea-Tac third runway is a mere 1700 feet from the closest runway, not 2,500 feet as many news articles imply. The Port of Seattle likes to tell people it's 2500 feet away, but that is the distance from the far runway. To be independent it needs to be 4,300 feet from the closest runway and 5,100 feet from the far runway. That's puts the independent location by First Ave in Burien near Highline Hospital. First Ave is the street the Russians have tried to land on in recent years. First Ave is twelve blocks to the west of the proposed 12 St location. The 3rd runway is in a direct line with the King County International Airport (Boeing Field) runway and they use the same airspace. Even some major US airlines have occasionally mistaken Boeing Field for Sea-Tac in recent years. Four dependent runways is inefficient (2500 feet from far runway, 1700 feet from short runway and in direct line with Boeing field runway). According to Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and the reports it references, it REDUCES the capacity of BOTH the existing Sea-Tac Airport two runways and King County International Airport at Boeing field. The proposed third runway costs too much and has questionable benefit. It's too short for take-offs for most 737s, 747s, 757s, 767s, 777s, A300s, A330s, A340s, L-1011s, etc. (Jan 15, 2001 Aviation Week tables easier to use than FAA regulations for this data). Smart pilots will refuse to use it since it's too dangerous (wind shear from the 170 foot cliff one hundred feet away on the west side of he runway is just one of the planned hazards) and requires the taxiing across live runways to get to the terminal. According to the EIS, the third runway INCREASES the risk of incursions by 21% (the real number is higher since now more operations are now planned). Aviation Week listed us as sixth in the nation for incursions last year {year 2000}. Are we trying for first? We could close down the existing second runway to reduce the incursion risks but there will still be the wind shear problem. Many of the media and politicians have been played for fools. We are sitting on a news story that could be front page in the nation. A perfect example of the fleecing of America. Even the EIS, is you read it all, had enough data in it that it should have killed the third runway. However, the EIS executive summaries are a true masterpiece of misleading semantics. They lump the advantages of a new terminal and longer existing runway with the deadly, extravagant, short, part time, landing only, third runway. If you read the whole EIS, you'd know the increased hot weather capacity was due to the extension of the existing runway that is planned, NOT the third runway. It's dangerous to take-off in heavvy cargo planes on short runways. It's a shame there isn't a limit on the tax payers dollars the Port can spend to push the deadly runway or to build it. No newspapers reported the airlines objections that were submitted in writing to the FAA in the 1998 Passenger Facility Fee Application. No one reported that, in that document, the Port wrote they could raise real estate taxes to help fund the bonds. Instead, most media reports Port of Seattle propaganda. Having worked as an engineer in aerospace for the last 23 years, and still having many years to go before retirement, I am not out to kill aerospace or airports. But multi-billion dollar, dependent, "landing only" runways beside cliffs are shear lunacy. ACC's billion dollar cost estimates are ultra-conservative. A Washiington state funded study identified $ 3 million was needed for just Burien mitigation. It will top 10 billion before we are through if you include all costs such as mitigation, solutions to pending engineering problems, and the property value losses. For instance: · It permanently reduces the recharge to the drinking water aquifer making less drinking water available even assuming it doesn't contaminate it. What will the cost of the replacement water be to the Highline and Seattle Water Districts? Both have announced rate hikes to search for more water. · Building a record breaking mechanically stabilized wall (footprint too small for its height) on an area of soft soils by the only Washington location with the dubious honor of being by epicenters for both large deep quakes and large shallow quakes poses unique engineering challenges. Refusing to use valid seismic models adds insult to injury. · Moving creeks and stacking fill over 100 feet of fill on peat bogs, wetlands and an aquifer can lead to springs popping out of nowhere wreaking havoc such as the one that resulted in the North Employee Parking Lot Miller creek sediment violations. · Where will they get the fill and how will it get here? What's the impact on traffic from a couple of million double haul trucks (includes return trip)? How many more traffic fatalities will there be? Will it put King County out-of-attainment for air pollution again? The list goes on and on. The proposed runway creates construction jobs and profits for the bond issuers but at an enormous cost in dollars and in life. Construction traffic deaths are likely to run 30 to 40 for the entire Master PLan Project with about 20 associated with third runway (see conveyor proposal for runway estimate). Add health deaths due to pollution and wild life habitat destruction and the number climbs. Both the 1st Ave and 12 St locations were rejected during the second runway location discussions as being too expensive. They recognized then that you either need to pave over the hills & valleys of what is now Burien and portions of Normandy Park to significantly expand the airport, or just build a second short dependent runway 800 feet from the first long runway and expand elsewhere. That's why the second runway is where it is today!!!!! Let's stop fooling ourselves. If we really want to handle future long term Washington growth at Sea-Tac, we need to pave over Burien, Normandy Park, White Center, Georgetown, most of Des Moines and the City of SeaTac. Make Boeing Field and Sea-Tac part of the same airport. The new Mirabel airport in Canada is about 35 times larger than Sea-Tac, the new Denver airport is about 13 times larger. Adding another 1000 acres to SeaTac's 2,500 acres does little to expand Sea-Tac. It's too small even comparing it to old airports in other states. Check out the link to comparative sizes on the Port's website http://www.portseattle.org/seatac/projects/need.htm With today's technology, and the new procedural rules that will be in place before the third runway could be built, we can handle near term regional needs at Sea-Tac without the third runway. This will allow us to use the billions we would have squandered on Sea-Tac, to build a new regional airport that won't be classified as "severely congested" the day it opens. A comparison of second runway planning assumptions regarding air traffic with today's actual numbers tells us we shouldn't have built the second runway; We should have started on the new airport then, instead of building the second runway. Let's not repeat the same mistake. FAA funds, real estate taxes revenues that back construction bonds, high grade construction fill and land are limited. We need to use them wisely Please also see ACC Consultant Reports - for experts'concerns regarding validity for stormwater, seismic hazards and wild life impacts. See also the hazard map at www.thirdrunway.homestead.com/quake.html Click here for Mother nature fights third runway with droughts, slides, sinking roads, earthquakes and multiple hundred year flood rains. Thank you for taking the time to read this. I know it's longer than it should be but there is so much life at stake and so many issues, it's hard to be brief. Arlene Brown August 2001 Click here to return to home page, www.thirdrunway.homestead.com |
Proposed SeaTac 3rd Runway Deadly, Extravagent, And Dependent ( so it doesn't even solve the capacity problem) |
Health |
Wetlands & Water |
This page was last
updated on: August 18,
2001
Summary Poem |
Safety |
See open lettter to media below with topics including: air collisions ground collisions of aircraft landing beside cliff risks seismically unsafe walls reduced drinking water availability haul truck deaths The proposed Sea-Tac third runway is a mere 1700 feet from the closest runway, not 2,500 feet as many news articles imply. The Port of Seattle likes to tell people it's 2500 feet away, but that is the distance from the far runway. To be independent it needs to be 4,300 feet from the closest runway and 5,100 feet from the far runway. That's puts the independent location by First Ave in Burien near Highline Hospital. First Ave is the street the Russians have tried to land on in recent years. First Ave is twelve blocks to the west of the proposed 12 St location. The 3rd runway is in a direct line with the King County International Airport (Boeing Field) runway and they use the same airspace. Even some major US airlines have occasionally mistaken Boeing Field for Sea-Tac in recent years. Four dependent runways is inefficient (2500 feet from far runway, 1700 feet from short runway and in direct line with Boeing field runway). According to Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and the reports it references, it REDUCES the capacity of BOTH the existing Sea-Tac Airport two runways and King County International Airport at Boeing field. The proposed third runway costs too much and has questionable benefit. It's too short for take-offs for most 737s, 747s, 757s, 767s, 777s, A300s, A330s, A340s, L-1011s, etc. (Jan 15, 2001 Aviation Week tables easier to use than FAA regulations for this data). Smart pilots will refuse to use it since it's too dangerous (wind shear from the 170 foot cliff one hundred feet away on the west side of he runway is just one of the planned hazards) and requires the taxiing across live runways to get to the terminal. According to the EIS, the third runway INCREASES the risk of incursions by 21% (the real number is higher since now more operations are now planned). Aviation Week listed us as sixth in the nation for incursions last year {year 2000}. Are we trying for first? We could close down the existing second runway to reduce the incursion risks but there will still be the wind shear problem. Many of the media and politicians have been played for fools. We are sitting on a news story that could be front page in the nation. A perfect example of the fleecing of America. Even the EIS, is you read it all, had enough data in it that it should have killed the third runway. However, the EIS executive summaries are a true masterpiece of misleading semantics. They lump the advantages of a new terminal and longer existing runway with the deadly, extravagant, short, part time, landing only, third runway. If you read the whole EIS, you'd know the increased hot weather capacity was due to the extension of the existing runway that is planned, NOT the third runway. It's dangerous to take-off in heavvy cargo planes on short runways. It's a shame there isn't a limit on the tax payers dollars the Port can spend to push the deadly runway or to build it. No newspapers reported the airlines objections that were submitted in writing to the FAA in the 1998 Passenger Facility Fee Application. No one reported that, in that document, the Port wrote they could raise real estate taxes to help fund the bonds. Instead, most media reports Port of Seattle propaganda. Having worked as an engineer in aerospace for the last 23 years, and still having many years to go before retirement, I am not out to kill aerospace or airports. But multi-billion dollar, dependent, "landing only" runways beside cliffs are shear lunacy. ACC's billion dollar cost estimates are ultra-conservative. A Washiington state funded study identified $ 3 million was needed for just Burien mitigation. It will top 10 billion before we are through if you include all costs such as mitigation, solutions to pending engineering problems, and the property value losses. For instance: · It permanently reduces the recharge to the drinking water aquifer making less drinking water available even assuming it doesn't contaminate it. What will the cost of the replacement water be to the Highline and Seattle Water Districts? Both have announced rate hikes to search for more water. · Building a record breaking mechanically stabilized wall (footprint too small for its height) on an area of soft soils by the only Washington location with the dubious honor of being by epicenters for both large deep quakes and large shallow quakes poses unique engineering challenges. Refusing to use valid seismic models adds insult to injury. · Moving creeks and stacking fill over 100 feet of fill on peat bogs, wetlands and an aquifer can lead to springs popping out of nowhere wreaking havoc such as the one that resulted in the North Employee Parking Lot Miller creek sediment violations. · Where will they get the fill and how will it get here? What's the impact on traffic from a couple of million double haul trucks (includes return trip)? How many more traffic fatalities will there be? Will it put King County out-of-attainment for air pollution again? The list goes on and on. The proposed runway creates construction jobs and profits for the bond issuers but at an enormous cost in dollars and in life. Construction traffic deaths are likely to run 30 to 40 for the entire Master PLan Project with about 20 associated with third runway (see conveyor proposal for runway estimate). Add health deaths due to pollution and wild life habitat destruction and the number climbs. Both the 1st Ave and 12 St locations were rejected during the second runway location discussions as being too expensive. They recognized then that you either need to pave over the hills & valleys of what is now Burien and portions of Normandy Park to significantly expand the airport, or just build a second short dependent runway 800 feet from the first long runway and expand elsewhere. That's why the second runway is where it is today!!!!! Let's stop fooling ourselves. If we really want to handle future long term Washington growth at Sea-Tac, we need to pave over Burien, Normandy Park, White Center, Georgetown, most of Des Moines and the City of SeaTac. Make Boeing Field and Sea-Tac part of the same airport. The new Mirabel airport in Canada is about 35 times larger than Sea-Tac, the new Denver airport is about 13 times larger. Adding another 1000 acres to SeaTac's 2,500 acres does little to expand Sea-Tac. It's too small even comparing it to old airports in other states. Check out the link to comparative sizes on the Port's website http://www.portseattle.org/seatac/projects/need.htm With today's technology, and the new procedural rules that will be in place before the third runway could be built, we can handle near term regional needs at Sea-Tac without the third runway. This will allow us to use the billions we would have squandered on Sea-Tac, to build a new regional airport that won't be classified as "severely congested" the day it opens. A comparison of second runway planning assumptions regarding air traffic with today's actual numbers tells us we shouldn't have built the second runway; We should have started on the new airport then, instead of building the second runway. Let's not repeat the same mistake. FAA funds, real estate taxes revenues that back construction bonds, high grade construction fill and land are limited. We need to use them wisely Please also see ACC Consultant Reports - for experts'concerns regarding validity for stormwater, seismic hazards and wild life impacts. See also the hazard map at www.thirdrunway.homestead.com/quake.html Click here for Mother nature fights third runway with droughts, slides, sinking roads, earthquakes and multiple hundred year flood rains. Thank you for taking the time to read this. I know it's longer than it should be but there is so much life at stake and so many issues, it's hard to be brief. Arlene Brown August 2001 Click here to return to home page, www.thirdrunway.homestead.com |
Click colored links for access |
