TagThird Runway(1067)

In a November 1992 letter to the FAA's Northwest Mountain Region manager, the President of the Regional Commission on Airport Affairs urges the federal government to defer funding and detailed planning for a proposed third runway at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (Sea-Tac). The letter argues that the Puget Sound Regional Council's ongoing regional airport system planning process must be allowed to fully evaluate all alternatives before any single project receives federal financial commitment. The author warns that proceeding prematurely with site-specific plans and an Environmental Impact Statement risks wasting federal money if the regional plan ultimately selects an alternative other than a third runway at Sea-Tac.

Office of the Hearing Examiner, Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) Findings, Conclusions, and Decision on City of Federal Way appeal (filed November 6, 1992) challenging adequacy of the Flight Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) issued by PSRC as nominal lead agency and Port of Seattle as co-lead agency. Appeal challenges FEIS adequacy in

Resolution No. 3125, adopted by the Port of Seattle Commission in 1992, authorizes planning and environmental studies for the construction of a third runway at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (Sea-Tac) to address growing air traffic demand and capacity limitations, particularly during poor weather conditions. The resolution follows a two-year study by the Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee (PSATC), which recommended a phased multiple-airport system, including a new dependent runway at Sea-Tac by 2000. The Port also called for broader regional solutions, including a fast rail link between Portland and Vancouver airports and diversion of cargo-only carriers to alternative airport sites.

A 1992 pamphlet published by the Regional Commission on Airport Affairs (RCAA) warns that the Port of Seattle's expansion plan for Sea-Tac Airport — including the addition of a third runway — poses serious health risks to surrounding communities. Citing studies reviewed by physicians at Highline Community Hospital, the brochure links increased airport activity to higher rates of birth defects, cardiovascular disease, mental illness, and dangerous levels of air pollutants such as carbon monoxide, benzene, and lead. The document concludes that when health and community costs are fully considered, Sea-Tac expansion may be neither financially feasible nor ethically justifiable.

A 1992 report from the Health Subcommittee of the Regional Coalition on Airport Affairs argues that noise from Seattle-Tacoma International Airport poses serious health risks to nearby residents, including increased rates of psychiatric illness, sleep disruption, hypertension, and adverse birth outcomes. The report also cites 1992 measurements showing classroom noise levels exceeding 85 decibels in Highline School District schools, linking airport noise to declining standardized test scores. The authors conclude that expansion of Sea-Tac Airport would significantly worsen these documented public health impacts.

A 1992 brochure from the Regional Commission on Airport Affairs (RCAA) argues that the Port of Seattle broke its 1973 promises to soundproof homes affected by Sea-Tac Airport noise, noting that only 700 of 10,000 impacted homes had been insulated and no public buildings had been treated despite a recognized obligation since 1988. The brochure opposes the Port's plan to spend up to $1.2 billion on a third runway at Sea-Tac, questioning how residents can trust new commitments when past ones went unfulfilled. It calls on the Port to fulfill its existing mitigation obligations before pursuing further airport expansion.

A 1992 position statement argues that Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (Sea-Tac) has reached its operational, economic, and environmental capacity and should be capped at a maximum of 380,000 operations per year with no third runway authorized. The document contends that noise impacts on surrounding communities are severely underestimated, that a third runway would make no operational or economic sense, and that alternatives such as demand management, use of existing regional airports, and improved transportation systems should be pursued instead.

Washington State's Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2609, passed in March 1992 and effective April 2, 1992, placed a moratorium on the construction or extension of runways of 1,000 feet or more by cities, counties, or port districts in heavily populated western Washington counties. The bill was designed to allow the state's Air Transportation Commission time to complete a comprehensive statewide air transportation strategy, with an interim report due December 1, 1992, and a final report due December 1, 1994. The legislation aimed to balance regional aviation capacity needs with environmental and growth management policies before any major new runway infrastructure was approved.

The CASE Group (Citizens' Alternatives to Sea-Tac Expansion) was formed in 1987 to oppose the Port of Seattle's plans to add a third runway at Sea-Tac Airport, gathering over 4,600 protest signatures and prompting the King County Council to pass a resolution against the expansion. The coalition organized public hearings, lobbied Port Commissioners, and circulated petitions urging state officials to reject expansion recommendations in favor of building a new regional airport away from densely populated areas. Their core argument was that alternatives to Sea-Tac expansion represented sounder economic and environmental choices for the Central and South Puget Sound region.