TagThird Runway(1092)

Appendix E contains public comments submitted in response to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport Master Plan Update. Commenters include the Highline Water District, the Washington State Department of Ecology, the U.S. Public Health Service, and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, raising concerns about groundwater contamination, the handling of aircraft de-icing glycols, storm water runoff, and surface mining permit requirements for borrow sites on Port of Seattle property. The agencies generally called for stronger mitigation measures and clearer answers to environmental questions before approving the proposed airport expansion.

In March 1996, an independent expert panel concluded by a 2-1 vote that the Port of Seattle had not done enough to reduce real-world noise impacts from Sea-Tac Airport to meet the conditions set by the Puget Sound Regional Council for approving a third runway. While the panel acknowledged the Port's extensive noise abatement programs, the majority found they fell short of the meaningful reductions required under Resolution A-93-03. The panel also determined that neither demand management improvements nor alternative transportation options, such as rail, would sufficiently reduce air travel demand to eliminate the need for the additional runway.

The Expert Arbitration Panel on Noise and Demand/System Management Issues issued its final decision on noise issues related to Resolution A-93-03, which set noise reduction conditions for PSRC authorization of a third runway at Sea-Tac International Airport. A majority of the Panel found that the Port of Seattle had not demonstrated a sufficient reduction in

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.

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.

This 1996 Final Environmental Impact Statement, prepared jointly by the FAA and the Port of Seattle, evaluates proposed expansion plans at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport through the year 2020, including the construction of a third parallel runway up to 8,500 feet long, a new north terminal, and various landside improvements. The document assesses environmental consequences across 24 categories—including noise, air quality, water quality, and human health—for a range of alternatives, from building a new regional airport to a no-build option. Ultimately, the Port of Seattle selected Alternative 3 as the preferred option, concluding that Sea-Tac was the only feasible site to address the region's growing air transportation needs.