[EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is a Letter to the Editor, written and submitted by verified resident. It does not necessarily reflect the opinions of South King Media, nor its staff.]
‘7 questions for Port of Seattle SAMP open houses‘
Issues to consider—and ask Port of Seattle staff about at their open house presentations for the Sustainable Airport Master Plan (SAMP), which will have long-lasting and far-reaching consequences for Burien and the other airport-adjacent communities:
1. Federal law requires the Port of Seattle to consider the cumulative impacts of the SAMP together with “other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions.” Yet, this airport expansion plan barely acknowledges the upcoming connection of SR-509 to I-5. The Port’s consultants, Landrum and Brown, listed Des Moines, SeaTac and Kent as communities to be affected by the 509 extension—and concluded that project “would not result in significant cumulative environmental impacts.”
The Washington Department of Transportation estimated that, at peak hours, the 509 extension would carry anywhere from 3,700 to nearly 4,700 vehicles per hour. Almost all of that traffic will pass through Burien. Can the Port explain that discrepancy, and the exclusion of Burien as a community affected by the SR-509 extension?
2. The Port estimates an increase from 423,000 takeoffs and landings per year to 540,000 over the next 10 years at Sea-Tac International. The Port’s SAMP consultants acknowledge that these projects will lead to an increase in air pollution but also say “those increases are not considered significant.” What is the basis for that conclusion?
3. In their assessment of the SAMP’s impact on air quality, the Port’s consultants did not include pollution from Ultra-Fine Particles. As part of a report prepared for the state legislature in 2020, researchers at the University of Washington warned that UFPs could be a significant threat to the health of people below the flight path. They recommended extensive additional study of this issue, as well as comprehensive monitoring, assessment and mitigation of airport-related pollution.
What steps has the Port of Seattle taken to implement those recommendations?
4. Going back about 30 years, the Port has outfitted more than 9,000 homes with noise mitigation packages that we know as “Port packages.” Many of those have failed and, at present, there is no money to repair those packages outside of a very small pilot program the Port is currently undertaking.
The projects under consideration in the SAMP would increase takeoffs and landings at Sea-Tac Airport by nearly 30 per cent. What is the Port’s plan to accommodate Burien residents under the flight path, whose Port packages have failed, so that they are protected from the additional noise and other pollution to which they will be exposed?
5. The Port’s timeline for “cumulative impacts” extends only to 2017. This ignores the 2008 opening of the third runway, which to date has led to 58,000 additional takeoffs and landings at Sea-Tac International. In 1997, the consulting firm HOK warned that increased air traffic from the third runway would contribute to a cycle of economic blight in neighborhoods adjacent to the airport. HOK recommended that five cities—Burien, Des Moines, Federal Way, Normandy Park and Tukwila—receive direct payments to help offset losses in property tax revenues resulting from a decline in property values.
In light of the additional noise and pollution these SAMP projects will generate, is it time for the Port to consider making these payments? Or for the Port to advocate for relief, perhaps through the King County Assessor or the Washington State legislature?
6. The areas under the flight path that are designated as high noise, according to the FAA’s so-called “65 DNL” standard, is actually shrinking because planes are quieter. We understand homeowners who previously had Port packages installed, but are now outside of the high-noise zone, may not be eligible under a new repair program. What would be the justification for that? Doesn’t the addition of more than 300 flights per day offset the reduction in noise from newer-generation aircraft?
(It is worth noting that the FAA, in a noise policy review issued last year, acknowledged that “communities are not experiencing the benefits from newer, quieter technology and operations from quieter aircraft because of the substantial increase in aircraft operations over U.S. airspace.”)
7. The FAA has continued to use the decibel-averaging measurement of 65 DNL as its threshold for high noise. The Environmental Protection Agency says 55 DNL is the limit for safe noise levels outdoors. Seattle-Tacoma International has grown into one of the busiest airports in the world. Given that we know so much more now about health hazards related to aircraft noise, would the Port of Seattle consider taking a leadership position in advocating to establish 55 DNL as the appropriate standard for excessive noise?
–Brian Davis
Vice Chair
Burien Airport Committee
EDITOR’S NOTE: Do you have an opinion you’d like to share with our highly engaged local Readers? If so, please email your Letter to the Editor to scott@southkingmedia.com and, pending review and verification that you’re a real human being, we may publish it. Letter writers must use their full name, as well as provide an address and phone number (NOT for publication but for verification purposes). Read our updated Letter to the Editor policy here
Those are great questions, do you think they will respond, as a Burien resident since 1986 I’m extremely interested in the answers to all the questions, especially the small particles in the air and the extra traffic as it’s pretty crowded on the roads now, thank you for your post