The Loma Prietan
December 2001/January 2002
San Francisco Voters Want a Say on Runways in the Bay
by Richard Zimmerman
Proposition D, which gives San Francisco voters the right to vote on Bay Fill projects requiring 100 acres or more of fill, passed in a tsunami on November 6. The Charter Amendment won with over a three to one margin in the election, garnering more yes votes than any other proposition on the San Francisco Ballot.
While the proposition did not mention San Francisco International Airport’s proposed runway project, that’s probably the only project that would be affected. Indeed, since the Bay Conservation and Development Commission came into existence in 1965, the largest Bay fill project approved was 84 acres; SFIA’s proposed runways would be almost 1,000 acres.
San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown and airport personnel opposed the Charter amendment initially but ostensibly switched sides after the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted unanimously
to place the amendment on the ballot. However, Brown and his allies were reported to be attempting to put together
a bill in the State legislature that would negate the San Francisco vote by requiring a Bay Area referendum.
Davis signs Speier bill
Gov. Davis signed Senate Bill 244 (Jackie Speier D-San Francisco/San Mateo) making sure San Mateo County has the right to approve the proposed runways. Now the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors must hold a public hearing and vote to approve any land that would be transferred to San Francisco for the runways. The bill simply clarified the case when the land was submerged and extended the period for public comment to 120 days. The Loma Prieta Chapter worked to pass this legislation, and special thanks goes to Senator Speier for authoring this law.
What’s up at the Airport?
Mayor Brown and SFIA are pushing ahead with the needless runway expansion project, even while dropping other projects at the airport. Reports indicate SFIA will lose as much as $100 million this fiscal year.
The Sierra Club’s Bay Protection Campaign called for an end to the runway expansion project. “We call on Mayor Brown, the Airport Commission and
the Board of Supervisors to immediately suspend planning work on Bay fill runways. The city should stop wasting money on lobbyists, lawyers and consultants for an assault on San Francisco Bay,” said Jane Seleznow of the Bay Protection Campaign and Chair of the San Francisco Bay Chapter.
“It’s time to take a step back from this irresponsible boondoggle and instead craft truly regional transportation solutions that protect San Francisco Bay and our quality of life,” Seleznow added.
Since the terrible tragedy of September 11, the airlines have requested, and received, some $15 billion in aid from
the federal government. This money was needed, said the airlines, to offset the
losses incurred when the FAA grounded
all flights after Sept. 11.
In fact, the airlines were in trouble before September 11 and simply used the tragedy as an excuse—the “blame-it-on-Osama-bin-Laden” school of management.
The real problem, for the airlines, was the economy coupled with poor management practices such as overscheduling.
The airline business is driven by the economy, not the other way around as SFIA tries to claim.
SFIA’s data shows that the number
of flights at SFIA was only off by 3.5 percent for the year as of August 31 but
the number of passengers was off by 5.2 percent for the same period. SFIA has not published any data for the period after August 31.
The decrease in flight operations does signal how to solve problems at SFIA without building runways into the Bay. The relatively small decrease in flights led to a dramatic decrease in delays at SFIA. “There are no weather related delays at SFIA now,” said Kandace Bender, Director of Communications for the Airfield Development Bureau.
Department of Transportation data shows the number of commercial flights
in September 2001 dropped by six percent over September 2000 but the arrival delays at SFIA went to zero. That is, the number of flights barely changed but delays disap-peared. Clearly runway configuration at SFIA is not a major factor in delays.
Note the airport rejects alternatives to the runways that would reduce the number of flights by small amounts, always saying that amount is not significant. For example, high speed trains would reduce the number of flights by seven percent according to the Regional Airport Planning Committee, but SFIA said that was not enough. The current situation shows just how wrong the
airport is.