Old Items

SFIA, in an earlier gambit, wanted to continue the project in the stealth mode. This letter(PDF-350K) from Airport Director John Martin to the Board of Supervisors details what they wanted to continue. It's barely readable due to the fact it has been through too many fax machines but you can make it out. At the Budget Committee meeting on May 16th, there were several references to a letter written by the Airline Liaison Office. You can read it here. Note the similarities to Martin's letter but there are two significant differences: The liaison office says the Skaggs Island contract should be terminated and they want to talk about when to restart the runway expansion project.

Some interesting numbers in a San Francisco Business Times article:
"SFO's debt already equals nearly $270 for every departing passenger, according to S&P. And declining passenger numbers -- 15.19 million passengers through the first half of this year, compared to 18.2 million in the first six months of 2001 -- have reduced cash flows.

SFO's expenses, figured for every passenger taking off from the airport, already are high, Wriedt said. That figure climbed from $7.83 in fiscal 2000 to a higher-than-projected $17.47 in fiscal 2001 as the airport opened its new international terminal and built new roadways, according to S&P.

The cost per passenger was expected to climb to $20.28 in the recently completed fiscal year, according to an S&P report." See: Unfriendly skies cast shadow on SFO: Turbulence in airline industry could cost airport millions 2002-08-26 Ron Leuty, San Francisco Business Times

Some of the damage that would result from dredging is described in an article by Jane Kay, of the Chronicle. It's a good article; however, there is an implication that the amount of dredging described to be used for fill is the total. That's not true. SFIA says that, for example, 20 million cubic yards of 'young bay mud" would have to be dredged up to get to the sand at Bay Farm Island. AND, another 29 million cubic yards of YBM would have to be dredged at the airport. So, if they use the Bay Farm Island site, and you can bet they want to since that's the cheapest, the total will be 20+29+45 or 94 million cubic yards. SFIA also says that there may be another 3 million cubic yards used for 'surcharge.' See the Status Summary 2 to see where I got the numbers

This article,What is Nature worth?, is a must read for when you need an answer to people who claim the economy is the reason for expanding anything. While not about runways in the Bay, it does spell out what the natural environment is worth. A quote: "As habitats shrink, species decline wholesale in range and abundance. They slip down the Red List ratchet, and the vast majority depart without special notice. Being distracted and self-absorbed, as is our nature, we have not yet fully understood what we are doing. But future generations, with endless time to reflect, will understand it all, and in painful detail."

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors held a meeting to review SFIA finances. " Supervisor Aaron Peskin was angry that runway planning was moving forward while airport officials said they did not have money to upgrade a waste water treatment plant that had violated state environmental code 81 times over the past seven years. The state recently ordered SFO to fix the plant," said the San Mateo County Times. One detail that surfaced during the meeting was the fact that SFIA will spend $83 million this year on airfield development and $179 million during the next fiscal year. This to build runways that won't solve any problems. The $263 million is only up to the time they would start shoveling dirt into the Bay. It does not include the shovels. Here's the totals and here's the details for ADB, the Airfield Development Bureau. These were part of a packet developed by Supervisor Peskin.

Jack Saporito, President of US -Citizens Aviation Watch, said, in a press release: The massive flight delays experienced by the flying public are at least, in part, manufactured by the aviation industry and the U.S. Department of Transportation, according to US-Citizens Aviation Watch Association (US-CAWA). The purpose of this industry-government ruse is to give the appearance that new runways and infrastructure are urgently needed, in order to sway Congress to pass legislation and allocate funds aimed at increasing overall flight volume at least twofold by the year 2010.
He added, In addition to overscheduling, flights are delayed for other reasons, including labor and maintenance problems, adverse weather, and equipment malfunction. None of these factors, which account for the vast majority of delays, would be addressed by new runway construction.
From Aviation Watch Digest Number 720 Wednesday, March 7, 2001

Trains in the news. Amtrak has proposed a $10 billion upgrade to service from San Francisco to San Diego. First would be the San Luis Obisbo to San Diego Corridor with the Bay Area coming by 2020. This not the High Speed Rail Commission's proposal. The trains would be 125 miles/hour, as on the Right Coast, and not the high tech stuff. Still, that would attract lots of riders. Even the Chronicle thinks it is a good idea.

Congestion pricing appears to be close to implementation. SFIA charges from $280 for a 737 up to $800 for a 747-400. Congestion pricing would factor in the time of the flight. This should force airlines to use larger aircraft and to spread out flights thereby reducing delays. Airlines tend to resist this.

And SFIA says they will look into alternatives to runways. Here's part of the response of the San Mateo County Times;

"San Francisco International Airport officials have decided to study alternatives to their proposed expansion of runways into San Francisco Bay. We would like to congratulate SFO on looking for ways, through technology or cooperation among the region's airports, to alleviate flight delays and handle growing flight demand without destroying the fragile ecosystem of the Bay.

We concluded a long time ago that SFO is only interested in new runways. Any alternative would mean a lessening of the airport's future political and economic position." See the whole article on the Times web site Published on Jan. 13, 2001

NBC did a program on delays, service and lost baggage. Guess what, the airlines are lying to us. They know the planes will be delayed hours before they tell us. Apparently this is to keep people from jumping to another airline. And service is a completely unknown idea to the airlines.
Consider this quote from the program: Take O'Hare, for example. Between 7:00 and 7:15 p.m., Burzych[an Air Traffice Controller]says, 62 flights are scheduled for departure. But he says even in perfect conditions controllers can only allow half that many to take off. No matter what they do 32 flights are going to be late taking off? "Very simple. It's simple math," says Burzych.
Page down the MSNBC page(Past the ads) to find the links to all three parts of the program.

And, strange to say, Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta said that he favored charging airlines more for flights at the most congested hours as a way to spread out the traffic and cut delays...even though the FAA continues to say they won't consider that option at SFIA. You can read the New York Times article but you have to sign up for their free service.

If anyone thought the Army Corps of Engineers would be a hurdle for SFIA, check out this article in the Washington Post. In particular, note the Corps "has a systemic bias in favor of huge projects that keep its employees busy and accommodate powerful industries."

Be sure to see the Wall Street Journal article covering a new Air Traffic Control technology(RNP) currently in use by Alaska Air. Airport Director John Martin rejected the technology "without study or analysis" in a Letter to the Examiner(See his letter under San Francisco Examiner Articles.) And they say they are looking at alternatives. "Alternative" means where to find fill material at SFIA.