Other Links |
Part 150 Noise Study Make a Difference - For more info click here Port's subcontractor will post information and collect comments during 2010 at www.airportsites.net/sea-part150 Webtraks (actual flights) Click here Port's Noise Line (206)787-5393 Why did the FAA/Port of Seattle build a short dependent runway that costs about the same than if we built an entire large new airport? Was runway project originally also a place to hide hazardous fill ( Duwamish now listed as a Superfund site plus Maury Island was found to be contaminated by ASARCO etc.) ? The Pollution Control Board ruled against allowing the Port to use 20 million cubic yards of hazardous fill (Aug 2002). They gave them a permit with restrictions BUT WA Legislature overuled some. Every truck had potentially hazardous fill. Also over 33,000 gross weight violations were identified. |
10 Reasons the "Third" Runway Should Not Have Been Built 1) GAO reports prove its delays at other airports that is the real problem. Other options exist that are cheaper and safer, especially technology. 2) Costs skyrocketed. True total costs will probably never be known. The $217M that beacame over a billion but is NOT the total cost to the region. ( real cost greater than $10 Billion) 3) Slid so many years could have built a new airport for about the same cost - Originally planned to open in 1996 but opened in Nov. 2008. 4) Cost, source and transport of mindboggling amounts of fill were STILL unknown as of May 2005. On site creeks, wetlands and peat bogs were not suitable fill. Other on-site fill is contaminated by ASARCO. Even though plans to use Maury Island fill for runway were thwarted, there is still a battle to use Maury Island fill for other projects due to area fill shortage caused by "third" runway. 5) Construction traffic and additional airport ground traffic made our ground traffic and pollution even worse. Click here for the list of toxic chemicals that King County is among the worst in the US. As predicted by runway opponents, King County is once again in violation of the Clean Air Act (2006, 2007, 2008). 6) Unsafe - Makes FOUR runways share the SAME air space ! 7) Requires taxing UPHILL across 2 live runways to get to terminal increasing the risk of accident by more than 21% per the Environmental Impact Statement (really more - it underestimated the total number of aircraft). 8) Record breaking tall wall designed using seismic models so inadequate they don't even predict 2 of the 3 large quakes since 1949 (see page 11 of Aug 2001 GeoSyntec report) - It will fail in an earthquake causing massive slides into salmon bearing creek only 50 feet away (so close building codes would not allow you to build a deck on your house). 9) Reduces available drinking water for area and risks contaminating what is left. 10) May beat out WHOOPS to become our biggest FINANCIAL disaster. No wonder so many airlines went on record with the FAA objectioning to its costs ! What happens to WA state economy if an earthquake takes out all the runways. Remember how long it took to repair the King County runway and rebuild the SeaTac Control tower last time. For another reason why people fought the deadly third runway click here Added Aug 2001 Click here for Mother Nature's fight against the runway - droughts, multiple earthquakes and multiple hundred year floods etc. |
Please see pages with colored links. Check out the airspace that was filled with dirt on the Photos page. See the World's second highest MSE wall (wall was required by FAA building regulations). Check out where the soil feel more like water in a quake and slides will occur at www.nothirdrunway.homestead.com/quake.html |
Sea-Tac 3rd Runway Deadly, Extravagent, And Dependent ( so it doesn't even solve the capacity problem) |
Please see pages with colored links. Check out the airspace that was filled with dirt on the Photos page. See the World's second highest MSE wall (wall was required by FAA building regulations). Check out where the soil feel more like water in a quake and slides will occur at www.nothirdrunway.homestead.com/quake.html |
Health |
This page was last
updated on: February
27, 2010
10 Reasons the "Third" Runway Should Not Have Been Built 1) GAO reports prove its delays at other airports that is the real problem. Other options exist that are cheaper and safer, especially technology. 2) Costs skyrocketed. True total costs will probably never be known. The $217M that beacame over a billion but is NOT the total cost to the region. ( real cost greater than $10 Billion) 3) Slid so many years could have built a new airport for about the same cost - Originally planned to open in 1996 but opened in Nov. 2008. 4) Cost, source and transport of mindboggling amounts of fill were STILL unknown as of May 2005. On site creeks, wetlands and peat bogs were not suitable fill. Other on-site fill is contaminated by ASARCO. Even though plans to use Maury Island fill for runway were thwarted, there is still a battle to use Maury Island fill for other projects due to area fill shortage caused by "third" runway. 5) Construction traffic and additional airport ground traffic made our ground traffic and pollution even worse. Click here for the list of toxic chemicals that King County is among the worst in the US. As predicted by runway opponents, King County is once again in violation of the Clean Air Act (2006, 2007, 2008). 6) Unsafe - Makes FOUR runways share the SAME air space ! 7) Requires taxing UPHILL across 2 live runways to get to terminal increasing the risk of accident by more than 21% per the Environmental Impact Statement (really more - it underestimated the total number of aircraft). 8) Record breaking tall wall designed using seismic models so inadequate they don't even predict 2 of the 3 large quakes since 1949 (see page 11 of Aug 2001 GeoSyntec report) - It will fail in an earthquake causing massive slides into salmon bearing creek only 50 feet away (so close building codes would not allow you to build a deck on your house). 9) Reduces available drinking water for area and risks contaminating what is left. 10) May beat out WHOOPS to become our biggest FINANCIAL disaster. No wonder so many airlines went on record with the FAA objectioning to its costs ! What happens to WA state economy if an earthquake takes out all the runways. Remember how long it took to repair the King County runway and rebuild the SeaTac Control tower last time. For another reason why people fought the deadly third runway click here Added Aug 2001 Click here for Mother Nature's fight against the runway - droughts, multiple earthquakes and multiple hundred year floods etc. |
Part 150 Noise Study Make a Difference - For more info click here Port's subcontractor will post information and collect comments during 2010 at www.airportsites.net/sea-part150 Webtraks (actual flights) Click here Port's Noise Line (206)787-5393 Why did the FAA/Port of Seattle build a short dependent runway that costs about the same than if we built an entire large new airport? Was runway project originally also a place to hide hazardous fill ( Duwamish now listed as a Superfund site plus Maury Island was found to be contaminated by ASARCO etc.) ? The Pollution Control Board ruled against allowing the Port to use 20 million cubic yards of hazardous fill (Aug 2002). They gave them a permit with restrictions BUT WA Legislature overuled some. Every truck had potentially hazardous fill. Also over 33,000 gross weight violations were identified. |
Other Links |
Suggestions for web focal, Arlene ? |
">
">
">
">
