The Loma Prietan
March 2000
Airport Contest Attempts to Appease Enviros -- But it's the Bay that Pays
by Richard Zimmerman
In a move intended to woo the public and blunt environmentalist objections to the proposed massive Bay fill project, San Francisco International Airport started a contest seeking new ways to build runways into the Bay.
The ostensible purpose of the contest, announced on Jan. 18 by the Airport Commission, is to find new, "innovative methods to construct runways" into the Bay. "This shows the effort the airport is making to do whatever we can to satisfy the concerns of environmentalists," Airport spokesman Ron Wilson said.
The ground rules for the contest required that companies submit their ideas for consideration by a select panel-chosen by the Airport-by Feb. 9. The panel will then choose up to four finalists to work further on their ideas. Each of the finalists will receive $250,000 to fund further work. The proposed innovative ideas must use the alternatives currently under consideration by the Airport.
Enviros pointed out several problems with the contest. One, the time allowed for "innovation" was a short three weeks. It is difficult to understand how a "global competition" could achieve much in three weeks.
The rush to design is especially disheartening after Airport Environmental Manager Lyn Calerdine proclaimed the Airport would "take as long as it takes to get it right" at the recent Forum on the runways sponsored by NOAA in October.
The second problem is that the contest restricts designers to runway configurations already under consideration. True innovation would leave designers free to consider a wide range of options. A real contest would examine regional solutions to the transportation problems said David Lewis, executive director of Save the Bay.
"With all the brilliant minds in this country, there has got to be someone who can take a broader look at the Bay Area's transportation problems and come up with something better than what SFO is proposing" adds Jane Seleznow, Chair of the Bay Chapter's SFO Project.
Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, also pointed out other possible solutions to SFIA's problems. Pope said "the regional airport system should, at a minimum, operate with complete efficiency. That means dealing with the too frequent, too small flights scheduled by airlines."
As an example of what Pope was referring to, there are 22 flights to Sacramento out of SFIA each week day via United Express. In general, commuter flights (small aircraft) constitute close to 20% of the flights at SFIA but only four percent of the passengers according to John Martin, Airport Director.
Martin had maintained that the Airport cannot force the airlines to change their method of operations. But when Mayor Willie Brown was delayed at SFIA in Feb. 1999, Martin said he had the authority to force airlines to use larger planes on commuter flights and intended to do so.
Pope adds that "all private aviation should be operated out of some other airport than the three major ones." Currently, almost 10% of the flights at SFIA are private aviation, called general aviation in the airline industry jargon.
Moving general aviation and reducing commuter flights would reduce delays at SFIA without requiring new runways. Currently, the peak demand at SFIA is 45 to 55 planes per hour, according to Dan Bythe of the FAA Control Tower. Assuming 25% of the planes (80% of the smaller planes) could land elsewhere, the peak demands at SFIA only would be 34 to 43 planes be hour-just over the capacity of a single runway. This would reduce delays.
Smaller aircraft present a particular problem to air traffic controllers since a larger distance must be maintained between small and larger aircraft. For example, one 747 can follow another 747 by as little as three nautical miles but a small commuter aircraft must maintain six miles of separation from the larger aircraft. Turbulence from the larger aircraft is the problem.
Deep mud
One problem that the Airport may be seeking solutions for came to light recently. At a stakeholder meeting in November, Peg Devine, Deputy Airport Director of the Airfield Development Bureau, said that test drilling in the Bay had revealed the bay bottom was "far more complex" than previously believed.
While the Airport anticipated new bay mud depths up to 40 feet, the drilling indicated depths over 300 feet at some points. The bay bottom has several deep ancient canyons near the runway area. This would lead to construction problems and, probably, require more fill than had been anticipated.
You want salt with that?
One aspect of the on-going debate over the runways has been the Airport's suggestion that the Cargill Salt Ponds might serve as mitigation for the proposed runways. The Chapter's position has been that it is too early to discuss mitigation. There are no environmental documents available yet to evaluate the impact of the runways.
Mitigation is destruction and should be used only as a last resort. SFIA is simply attempting to buy a permit for Bay fill and to force a wedge between environmental groups.
The executive and conservation committees of the Chapter passed a resolution that "encourages and supports the purchase and restoration of the Cargill salt ponds. However, this purchase and restoration is not appropriate to be used as mitigation for proposed SFO bay fill."
Cargill had said the salt ponds were not available. A recent Wall Street Journal article reported that Cargill had been negotiating with state and federal environmental agencies for the past 18 months to sell the ponds. Cargill's asking price is said to be $300 million. Such a sale should take the salt ponds off the table in runway projects.
However, SFIA undoubtedly helped establish the price, thought by many to be too high. SFIA casually established the price of mitigation as "10% of the project costs" in its feasibility studies. When Martin stated the cost of the yet to be approved project had increased to $3.5 billion, the cost of the salt ponds obviously went up.
What you can do
The Chapter's SFIA Task Force meets on the second Tuesday of every month at the Peninsula Conservation Center, 3921 E. Bayshore, Palo Alto, from 7 to 9p.m. The next meeting will be on March 14. The Task Force needs people to get involved. This will be a long project. The Airport has unlimited funds and heavy political support while our side has only concerned people.
You can sign up for our list server to get news and alerts about the project. Just send an email to SFIATaskForce-subscribe@listbot.com with any subject. Or you can surf over to the SFIA Web Page at and sign up there.
A region-wide coalition of environmental and noise abatement activists has been formed to fight the expansion. You can attend the meetings that usually are held in San Francisco at National Headquarters. Send an email to windrider@hooked.net for more information.