The Loma Prietan
February 2002
Regulators, Aviation Consultants Slam Runway Project
by Richard Zimmerman
Four of the regulatory agencies that must approve San Francisco International Airport's (SFIA's) proposed runway project questioned the purpose and need for the project and SFIA's commitment to studying non-build alternatives recently.
In addition, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) finally released a report from Williams Aviation Consultants that is extremely critical of SFIA's proposals.
In a December letter to SFIA Director John Martin, BCDC, the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Board, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection, said "We find the current expressions about the purpose and need for the runway reconfiguration project quite confusing."
At times, the regulators say, Mayor Willie Brown stated the primary purpose of the project is to address current safety problems at the airport. At other times, airport officials say delays are the reason for the moved runways while at still other times increased capacity "to meet future needs" is the reason. This last reason is a frequent post-September 11th reason simply because delays have virtually disappeared at SFIA.
The agencies question whether the proposed runways would be any safer than the current runways, pointing out that the FAA says runway incursions—planes interfering with one another on the ground—are a major problem. The agencies point out that the proposed changes in the runways at SFIA would increase runway crossings, not decrease them. The letter states, "It is our understanding that SFO is operated in a manner that meets the highest standards of safety."
The agencies ask that "safety objectives must be addressed with the same degree of rigorous analysis as all other project objectives."
Alternatives not considered
The regulatory agencies also stated that they "continue to be concerned that the lead agencies [The FAA and the City and County of San Francisco] may not be considering the no-build alternatives on an equal basis with the fill alternatives."
The agencies indicate that the proposed runways will not satisfy forecasted loads at SFIA. Forecasted demand will require a mix of technology and demand management "with or without additional runways at SFO" says the letter. Thus, a "carefully crafted combination of various systems management measures" will need to be studied.
Demand or system management reduces the number of flights at an airport. SFIA consultants have stated previously that "all airports will have some form of demand management in the future," yet SFIA continues to ignore reducing the number of flights in favor of building runways into the Bay.
BCDC Consultant report released
Williams Aviation, previously known as G&C Aviation, was retained by BCDC to conduct an independent review of SFIA studies. While an early report was released in February, 2001, the final report was only released in mid December even though it was completed in September, 2001.
The almost 100-page report reviews major documents from SFIA and the FAA. A recurring theme in the Williams report is that "all possible mitigation measures: technology, demand management, and airspace/air traffic control items were being considered separately by SFO. As a result of this compartmentalization of alternatives, no single alternative would meet the purpose and need as stated by SFO and all were individually dismissed."
Williams Aviation indicates that a combination of alternatives would remove or reduce the perceived need for new runways at SFIA.
However, even more importantly, Williams states that none of the build alternatives under consideration by SFIA will reduce delays at SFIA significantly. They state, "The average delay at the completion of the project would require that the next phase of construction be well underway before the current project was completed." Thus the project would destroy an irreplaceable resource and would solve no problems at SFIA.
Another theme in the Williams report is that SFIA and its consultants refuse to consider innovative solutions to SFIA's problems. For example, SFIA rejected demand management because, according to SFIA, those reductions would need to be in place 100% of the time. Williams differs and spells out methods to implement demand management based on historical weather patterns at SFIA.
One conclusion in the report, written before Sept. 11—that United Shuttle was not viable—was born out soon after Sept. 11 when United cancelled the Shuttle to reduce costs. The resulting reduction in the number of flight operations dramatically lowered delays at SFIA.
SFIA consultants consider United's hub operation at SFIA sacrosanct; nothing must interfere with United's operations. The BCDC consultants point out that restriction impedes creative solutions to the Bay Area's transportation problems. Moving some of the hub operations could improve the entire area air transportation without unduly restricting passengers.
Williams advocates extensive computer modeling of the Bay Area air traffic and beyond to address the effects of different options under consideration.Williams stated that no modeling undertaken thus far has been rigorous enough to predict what might happen with the different options.
One statement by Williams at a meeting with environmental organizations, repeated in the report, was that the national air traffic control system was not capable of delivering the number of airplanes being forecast by SFIA, an "if you build it, they can't come" scenario.
The report, a gold mine of information, questions the lack of investigation of alternatives by SFIA. Two other noteworthy items: SFIA often states that its bad weather arrival capacity is 30 planes per hour. Williams Aviation points out that other airports with one runway support higher arrival rates and questions why SFIA's arrival rate is so low. All airports suffer a reduced arrival rate during bad weather no matter what the runway configuration. Yet SFIA doesn't acknowledge such in their reports. The bottom line is that delays are here to stay. Williams Aviation stated 97% of delays are not due to air traffic control and, hence, will not be reduced by new runways.
You can read the regulatory agency letter at www:ProtectOurBay.com/fab4.pdf.
The Williams Aviation report is available at www.bcdc.ca.gov/ic/ic_sfo/sfo_wac_review_menu.htm.
Learn about SFIA’s plan to fill the Bay at www.ProtectOurBay.com. If you have questions, contact Richard Zimmerman at windrider@ProtectOurBay.com.