 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
 |
MEMO BLOG | |
Memo Calendar | Memo Pad | Business Memos | Loaves & Fishes | Letters | Home |
LEE PERLMAN
THE MID-COUNTY MEMO
Moving toward its planned completion date in January, the Airport Futures Planning Advisory Group (PAG) is beginning to make substantive decisions.
At its Oct. 20 meeting the PAG - a broad-based citizen advisory group - adopted a long-range plan for Portland International Airport's (PDX) future growth and development. This included discussion of the possible installation of a controversial third parallel runway, and new regulations related to airport noise. Even the most outspoken airport critics in the PAG supported the proposals, although some complained that too many issues are being left to the indefinite future.
Airport Futures is a joint venture by the Port of Portland and the Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability to plan for the airport's future growth and development, and to mitigate its negative impacts on the surrounding community. PAG serves as a sounding board for this process and is the main vehicle for public review.
At the October meeting, consultant C. R. Booth - in response to prior briefings - presented five Activity Levels for PDX based on the number of passengers served, and the improvements the Port would have to make to accommodate this level. They ranged from Level One (15 million passengers per year by 2012), to Level Five (27 million by 2035). The level of service for 2008 was 14.3 million passengers; officials expect 2009 passenger numbers to be lower. Booth said additional parking facilities would be needed at each new level, as well as new traffic controls and improvements. At Level One, for instance, there would be a need for improvements at the intersections of Northeast Airport Way and the I-205 Freeway, and Northeast Cornfoot and Airtrans roads. Beyond the specifics of the five levels were a series of proposed future studies. These include a rental car strategy, a passenger terminal master plan, and a high-speed rail connection.
Erwin Bergman, longtime Cully neighborhood activist and one of the airport's most vocal critics, jumped on this. He reminded those present that he had proposed at the beginning that the Port investigate high-speed rail as a partial alternative to air travel growth “to the unhappiness of a lot of folks. It was put on the very back burner.”
ß“I don't think it was put on the back burner,” Booth said. “We know it's out there; we need to keep track of it when and if it's developed. We think it's very important to have connectivity to our airport.”
Chief Metro Transportation Planner Andy Cotugno said of high-speed rail, “There's federal money involved. That machine has started to move.”
Bob Sallinger of the Portland Audubon Society questioned whether adding the amount of additional passenger parking the plan calls for fits the goal of achieving sustainability. He questioned whether the plan as submitted had received sufficient analysis, as stated in a proposed resolution.
Moderator Sam Imperati urged those present to adopt the plan, asking with some exasperation, “Do you see anything so wrong with this that you need to say, 'Stop, you're wasting money?'”
In the face of this, PAG adopted the plan, with Sallinger abstaining and member John Weigant of the grassroots group Airport Issues Roundtable voting against.
PAG also adopted a resolution on a third runway at PDX. If built, this would put approach and departure routes in a southeasterly line across east Portland, creating a level of noise for communities to a degree they have not experienced before.
Before 2001, the Port predicted that the new runway would be needed by 2035. It no longer does, and says it is questionable as to whether it would ever be needed. However, it refuses to formally abandon any chance that it might build it.
A resolution last month stipulated that if built, the third runway would be only 8,500 feet long rather than 11,000 as originally envisioned, since current plans call for it to be used primarily for arrivals. Staff said the plan's language did not imply consent to the new runway, or release the Port from undergoing a public review process. PAG member Bruce Fowler said, “Having this as a conceptual reserve doesn't mean you have to do it.”
PAG adopted the resolution in two votes, with Sallinger casting the sole dissenting vote.
“My preference is that the third runway just go away, but I can't disagree with anything shown here,” Bergman said.
Before the vote, however, he did warn about promises regarding such facilities. A new runway at Seattle Airport was to be “just for emergencies, and now it's used all the time. If you want to believe the (Federal Aviation Administration), I can refer you to some used car dealers.”
To this the Port's Chris Corich said, “The FAA is our partner. We can disagree with positions, but personal attacks have no business here.”
Another persistent issue is the noise contour. This is an area where, due to air traffic nearby and overhead, the noise levels regularly exceed 65 decibels. Developers must disclose this to potential buyers and provide a level of insulation on any new homes to reduce the sound inside to no more than 45 decibels.
A draft prepared by city planner Jay Sugnet and a PAG subcommittee called for creation of a second noise contour for properties subjected to 55-decibel noise levels by Port activity. Owners of these properties would be subject to a lesser level of disclosure. Beyond this, Sugnet recommended convening a committee to continue looking at the issue after the completion of the Airport Master Plan process. “This is a big topic, and it doesn't make sense to cut it off,” he said.
At this Sallinger protested, “I have the feeling that important issues are being pushed aside. Development work is moving forward, but things that affect the community are being pushed to the future, and I'm not comfortable with that. This is supposed to be a holistic plan. If we just vote on platitudes, are we meeting our sustainability goal?”
PAG Chair Bill Blosser replied, “There isn't time to finish in January if we deal with noise. We have to declare an end to this sometime and declare a Phase II.”
Woodland Park Neighborhood Association Chair Alesia Reese recommended the matter be delegated to the Port's Citizen Noise Advisory Committee. Sugnet replied, “We spent several hours discussing that.”
Corich added, “This is a big tent; let's open it up for other people.” (In recent years, some activists have charged that CNAC's membership is too heavily weighted in favor of Port interests.)
PAG ultimately passed the noise overlay resolution, with Sallinger dissenting.
 |
 |
 |
 |
MEMO Advertising | MEMO Archives | MEMO Web Neighbors | MEMO Staff | Home