TagSea-Tac Airport(2023)

Seattle-Tacoma International Airport operates one of the nation's most comprehensive airport noise management programs, divided into Noise Abatement measures — such as restricting the noisiest Stage 2 jets at night, controlling ground engine use, and routing flight paths over fewer homes — and Noise Remedy programs that help affected residents through home sound insulation, sales assistance, and a completed acquisition program that purchased 1,400 severely impacted homes. The Port of Seattle also monitors noise levels through an 11-station system and tracks flight paths using FAA radar data to ensure compliance. Residents can report concerns or request information 24 hours a day via the Noise Information/Complaint Line at 433-5393 or toll-free at 1-800-826-1147.

In July 1996, the Puget Sound Regional Council adopted Resolution A-96-02, amending the region's Metropolitan Transportation Plan to include plans for a third runway at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, paired with additional noise reduction measures. The decision followed years of study, including an Expert Panel finding that neither demand management strategies nor high-speed rail could eliminate the need for expanded capacity. Final approval of the runway remained contingent on environmental review by the Port of Seattle, Federal Aviation Administration permitting, and completion of required noise mitigation steps.

Resolution A-96-02 adopted by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) General Assembly on July 11, 1996, amending the 1995 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) and Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) to include plans for a third runway at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport with additional noise reduction measures. References Resolution A-93-03, Expert Arbitration Panel on Demand/System Management and Noise,

This 1996 Puget Sound Regional Council document summarizes the multi-year planning process that led to amending the regional transportation plan to include a third runway at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. It traces decisions from the 1988 Regional Airport System Plan through the Flight Plan Project and environmental studies, explaining how planners concluded that no feasible alternative airport site existed and that measures like high-speed rail or congestion pricing could not substitute for added runway capacity. The plan also required implementation of additional noise reduction measures as a condition of approving the new runway.

In a 1996 letter to the Federal Aviation Administration, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10 raised concerns about air quality impacts from the proposed Master Plan expansion at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, noting that the project was projected to worsen carbon monoxide levels at nearby intersections in violation of federal air quality standards. The EPA called for a comprehensive emissions inventory, a comparison of air quality with and without the project, and enforceable mitigation measures, while also highlighting inconsistencies in air quality modeling across multiple related development projects in the airport area. The agency urged the FAA and Port of Seattle to coordinate data sharing with regional authorities and establish a long-term air quality monitoring program to address cumulative impacts from surrounding projects.

In May 1996, the Puget Sound Regional Council issued this Environmental Impact Statement Addendum to evaluate a proposal to add a third runway at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (Sea-Tac) with specific noise reduction measures. The addendum was needed because a prior 1993 resolution authorizing the third runway had lapsed after the Port of Seattle failed to meet an independent noise-reduction review deadline by April 1, 1996. The Council considered new conditions and expert panel recommendations to reintroduce the third runway into the region's Metropolitan Transportation Plan while addressing community noise concerns.

In 1996 congressional testimony, Dr. Stephen Hockaday argued against building a costly third runway at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, contending that the Port of Seattle greatly overstated the frequency of poor weather conditions that would require it. He presented evidence that true instrument flight conditions occur less than 8% of the year—not the 44% the Port claimed—and that existing navigation technologies like Localizer Directional Aid approaches could address capacity needs at far lower cost. Hockaday warned that spending half a billion dollars on a runway used only 15% of the time would divert resources from better long-term regional aviation solutions.

In this 1996 testimony to the Aviation Subcommittee, economist Dr. Lynn O. Michaelis argues that the proposed third runway at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport is economically unjustified, citing flawed pricing schemes that fail to account for peak-hour demand and encourage inefficient small-plane operations. He contends that federal funding is being used to bypass local accountability, masking the project's poor return on investment — estimated at less than 1% on a $500 million expenditure. Michaelis also criticizes the airline industry's exemption from pollution-related cost corrections that apply to other industries, arguing that nearby residents bear a disproportionate share of the environmental costs.