The Airport Communities Podcast

A 'raw' episode to show progress on one of our main goals: establishing the first true aviation-specific air quality monitoring network in the United States. We took a big step forward last week with the opening of a new station in Des Moines. 

Sea-Tac is the only airport in America with coverage at both ends of the flight path! Learn how we got here and why this matters for the future of research and improving the health for everyone under the flight path.

Next up? A series of stories on the Sea-Tac Communities Plan, and our 2027 Legislative Agenda.

Topics

• No Data, No Problem
• 2014 Planes exhaust could be harming communities up to 10 miles from lax
• 2016 Orwall Proposes Air Quality Study
• 2018-2021 Mobile ObserVations of Ultrafine Particles: MOV-UP study
• 2024 PSCAA: Update ongoing Ultrafine Monitoring
• 2025 PSCAA Sunset Park Monitoring Site Tour
• 2026 UWDEOHS/Des Moines AQM Site

Part two of a 'raw' episode mangled during production.

We open with news of a campaign from our partners Stay-Grounded, to ban flights between 10pm and 7am.

In other news, we remind readers of just how valuable your airline customer data is--even when the airline is dead! Why it is on our Legislative Agenda for 2027.

And though many people seem sure that AI is 'the future', at the same time there is an increasing movement to ban Data Centers across America.

This reminds us of the backlash against airport expansion after the Second Runway here at Sea-Tac. The outcry led to the Sea-Tac Communities Plan of 1976 (STCP)--the subject of our next set of episodes.

Despite some very significant concessions from the airport and the FAA, people don't remember the STCP now because there was no follow-through.

The cautionary tale for airport communities across America? Never forget.

Next up? A series of stories on the Sea-Tac Communities Plan, and our 2027 Legislative Agenda.

Another 'raw' episode to give people with sound insulation issues an update. We've spent so much time this year working on the SAMP you may think you're forgotten. Never.

Sound insulation should be a basic right, not an after-thought.

The Port of Seattle conducted a new Part 150 Study as part of the SAMP. They use that noise study to further its expansion plans. A large portion of our advocacy on the SAMP has been towards get you the relief you deserve.

The Port proposed a Port Package update program in 2024 but has slow-walked the process since then. There is ongoing window-dressing and even opposition from some of the affected city councils which is beyond shameful. State Senator Tina Orwall will be putting forward new State legislation in January to help break the log jam. That is where you come in.

Last year's attempt was (sorry) not great. People threw their support behind bills that had no chance of passing.

In the meantime, we hear more and more from you orphans--people who bought a house that was eligible for sound insulation--before you bought it, but now is not. Many of you are in a dead zone--closer to Boeing Field, but part of the Port of Seattle's jurisdiction.

 This will take money from the Port, from the State, from the FAA. It can't be one or the other. Everyone must stop finger-pointing and contribute. Now.

To get that done, we will need everyone's help--including you orphans--to make sure that we get right legislation proposed and then get it passed.

Next up? A series of stories on the Sea-Tac Communities Plan, and our 2027 Legislative Agenda.

Topics

• Ep. #9: Part 150 For Dummies
• Ep. #36: Orphans
• Smith - Pilot Program for Sound Insulation Repair and Replacement
• 49 U.S.C. § 47110 Allowable Project Costs
• 2007: FAA report to Congress on the aging of sound insulation

The SAMP NTP DEIS Comment Period is closed. A quick Thank You note. And a quick comment on something we noticed in all your comments.

The only ongoing failure in airport activism is not learning from others' mistakes. Every frustration people feel today is a challenge and an opportunity. Don't give up. Learn what did not work, appreciate all the courageous people who did not know what they did not know at the time--and adjust course. They helped map the territory. That is how we find the path that gets us all where we want to go.

Next up? A series of stories on the Sea-Tac Communities Plan, and our 2027 Legislative Agenda.

Topics

• SAMP NTP SEPA DEIS
• Three Cities Comment Letter on SAMP NTP SEPA DEIS

We're in the midst of producing episodes on the Sea-Tac Communities Plan, and our comments on the SAMP and updates on the totally confusing state of Port Package updates and... But the Port Commission held a bonus 'listening session' at Pier 69. We cover all meetings, of course. But since JC was already there, he decided to step to the mic and mention the two things that have been absent from the discussion for too long: measurables--now.

JC Harris, for STNI. My first comment: it would be lovely if I could get parking validation.

My second comment. I heard the morning presentation, and of course you're going to hear about the 17,000 jobs — the socioeconomic impacts thing is total rubbish. People will want to conflate King County's benefits with those of the fence-line communities. There are needs everywhere, of course. But you will want to conflate the economic benefits of the walled garden of the Port — where you do provide a best-in-class land stewardship plan, a child care center, all of it — with what actually reaches the fence-line communities. And that's creating this Elysium effect, this polarization. The delta between the services and the ethics you apply internally and what radiates out to the fence-line communities is widening not closing.

I don't care how many temp jobs you provide for the Concourse and everything else — none of it moves the needle in the fence-line communities. I know that because you've been doing billions of dollars of construction over the last decade, and it's a very easy thing to measure. Look at the budget books over the last ten or fifteen years and you'll see conditions have not gotten better, despite the stratospheric growth of the airport.

Would you not think that if the airport's revenues increased — even from one-time construction spending — some of that would emanate out to our communities? That is not the case. Conditions have actually continued to decline. It's measurable and it's something I hope you'll give some consideration to.

Topics

• Ep #33 Socioeconomics - Appendix K
• City of SeaTac Budget Presentation (The Bridge) August 11, 2026
• Port of Seattle Special Meeting (SAMP Listening #2) August 11, 2026
• Port of Seattle Regular Commission Meeting August 11, 2026 (S. Concourse)
• 2018/2025 Port of Seattle CAI Economic Impact Study
• SAMP SEPA NEPA/DEIS Appendix K Children's Environmental Health and Safety Risks Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

To learn how you can make a difference:

• STNI.info/subscribe
•  

Ep #38 Aviation Forum Postgame (Raw!) - Sea-Tac Noise.Info

We’re in the midst of producing episodes on the Sea-Tac Communities Plan, and our comments on the SAMP and updates on the totally confusing state of Port Package updates and…

But whenever you have a public Q&A with Congressman Adam Smith, State Senator Tina Orwall, and Port of Seattle Commission President Ryan Calkins, it’s worth talking about. So we turned JC loose to fact check!

The wrong pollutants! The question of leaded fuel was raised–which always (understandably) scares people. There has been no leaded fuel in use at Sea-Tac Airport for decades because over 97% of traffic at Sea-Tac is commercial and commercial jets do not use leaded fuel. It is, has been, and will be a non-issue in the SAMP. What is a huge issue? Ultrafine Particulates–the main and unregulated and under-researched component of Jet-A exhaust–thousands of times more significant for us. The urgent need for immediate research and regulation got almost no attention!

Port Package misstatements. Several federal initiatives were discussed to help fund Port Package Updates. They are much appreciated, but we’re still at least two years from relief. What was not discussed? That the Port of Seattle could always fund its own sound insulation program outside of FAA. And yet, unfortunately, the Port Commission (again) said exactly the opposite.

Ongoing problems with landings? Residents will always have reasons to be upset about over-flights–especially arrivals. Apart from the frequency, almos none are problematic. What is problematic? Despite having a Community Ombudsman located in Des Moines, the public has not heard from the FAA in years.

These kinds of Q&A sessions highlight what is broken in our relationship with the airport. Everyone in the room is well-meaning. But everyone is, to one degree or another, talking past one another because the overall information level has sunk so low. It is important to get leaders talking. But apart from having clear goals, without a venue where everyone walks into the room, armed with the same set of facts, real progress is impossible.

Topics

• July 18, 2026 Aviation Q&A at Highline College (video and transcript)
• Where’s My Clair Patterson?
• Radiolab: Heavy Metals
• Sustainable Aviation Fuel Use at a Washington State International Airport
• The Sound Insulation Treatment Repair and Replacement Program Act 

To learn how you can make a difference:

• STNI.info/subscribe

The Airport Communities Podcast

This letter is to you and not to the politicians you report to. If there is a long-term solution to life under the flight path, it may be approved by electeds, but it will be developed and managed by you.

Unfortunately, solutions to seemingly intractable problems like airport impacts aren't usually easy to find. Except when they are already there, hiding in plain sight.

People who visit our website are often confused by our main image, which is not typical. Where are the unhappy people complaining about aircraft noise?

The image looks like a comp plan because that is what it is: the Sea-Tac Communities Plan of 1976, co-signed by the Port of Seattle and King County.

The STCP was supposed to be that long-term solution. The bargain, in fact the Port of Seattle's slogan, was simple, "As we do better, you'll do better."

Why is it now almost completely forgotten, except perhaps as a very expensive set of 'property buyouts'?

Over and over, it has turned out to be the case that while community members can play a crucial role in creating a plan as important as the STCP. Electeds are essential in funding it. But neither are the ones who can keep it from becoming a very expensive 'one and done'.

To fulfill that promise, we need today what should have gotten 50 years ago: a long-term commitment to airport community planning--something only you, the professionals, can provide.

Topics

• Historylink - Boeing Bust/Second Runway (1966-1973)
• The Sea-Tac Communities Plan (1976)
• The Highline Community Plan (1977)
• Ep #3: It's a Parking Lot
• Ep #17 The Airport Discount
• SAMP Four City ILA (2018)
• SAMP EA Chapter #3 - Affected Environment
• 2025 Port of Seattle response to City of Burien on SIRRPP
• 2026 Part 150 Technical Review Committee Meeting #6

To learn how you can make a difference:

• STNI.info/subscribe
• Find us on all the best podcasts, including Apple and Spotify, or subscribe via SSAppleSpotifyYoutube

After a series of Emergency Episodes on the SAMP DEIS, we're trying a mini-episode on one sliver of the other major study going on at the same time: Part 150.

Part 150 is a voluntary noise program airports can do. But any airport that is serious about noise has done at least one since its inception in 1985.

It has a ton of rules. But no matter how much airports (like the Port) try to imply that they are regulations (ie. orders they must obey) they are more like reimbursement rules. We cannot stress that enough. Part 150 is a pre-made template that airports can use to provide sound insulation and other noise mitigations--and receive funding. But the law does not prevent the Port from doing lots of things with its own money.

So, the DNL65 boundary, the area within which people got Port Packages from 1991-2013, was defined by FAA money.

But for various reasons, when it was offered, a number of homes never received Port Packages. And as the flight paths changed, and that reimbursement boundary shrank, it left any number of homes out in the cold.

As new owners move in, seeing that their neighbors have sound insulation and they are not eligible, it makes them feel like orphans.

As the current Part 150 process reaches its conclusion, and the Port discusses which homes are eligible for updated sound insulation, we think the Port should give these orphans--homes that never received sound insulation--top priority.  Both the questionable practices of the Port and some questionable choices of a few original homeowners should not be allowed to determine the public health of every subsequent occupant. 

We all know that DNL65 is a bad standard. This is a chance for the Port to take the $5,000,000 it allocated towards 'updates' and apply it to where it would actually do the most good.

Who is truly most worthy of relief: homes inside the DNL65 with sound insulation, or those just a few houses outside that boundary who never received any?

We shouldn't have to make such bad choices, but since the Port has used sound level testing as the marker of 'worthiness', it should do the right thing and try to redeem the most glaring of flaws in the original Port Package program,

Topics

• Part 150 For Dummies
• Ep #24 The 400,000lb tube going 200mph
• Ep #4: The Railroad In The Sky!
• Ep #9: Part 150 For Dummies
• Ep #14 A-Weighted
• Ep #17 The Airport Discount
• SAMP EA Chapter #3 - Affected Environment
• City of Burien v. FAA 18-71705
• 2025 Port of Seattle response to City of Burien on SIRRPP
• 2026 Part 150 Technical Review Committee Meeting #6

On May 22, 2026 the Sustainable Airport Master Plan DEIS was released and a sixty day public comment period began.

In Ep #34, we said that you don't need to reinvent the wheel. Since the current process is a do-over from 2018, you have lots of great resources. But one thing we hope you will not obsess over are all the comments on 'operations'. Many people argue over annual and daily forecasts.

We want you to try something different:  focus on the one aspect of FAA code that we can do something about: Flights between 10pm - 7am. Sleepy Time.

Although there are many gaps in the research concerning public health and noise, the one thing everyone agrees on -- including the FAA -- is that night time flights are the worst. That is the basis behind the 'DNL65'. Though a flawed and gamed system, it recognizes that not all flights are created equally.

Talking about daily or annual averages blurs that distinction. Regardless of how many flights there may be at 10am or 3pm your health deserves exactly zero flights between 10pm and 7am.

Although the airport does not control flights, it coordinates scheduling with the airlines. The airport chooses to build (or not) the projects airlines are willing to pay for in order to accommodate their long term scheduling goals.

At bottom, the SAMP is a set of construction permits. Isn't it interesting that we almost never about those specific projects? We only hear about 'gates' as if they were all general purpose. They are not. Each is designed to perform a specific job. Many of them are intended to help airlines schedule to Asia, as is the International Arrivals Facility. Billions of dollars of prime Sleepy Time construction projects.

Whether you comment on overall operations, your comments must focus on public health. Noise is public health. Night time flights are the worst. The Port of Seattle is spending billions of dollars to enable projects designed to make night time flights more frequent.

Today's "Dos" Why was the International Arrivals Facility excluded from the SAMP in 2015 given its role in additional nighttime flights? Why are you spending billions on other projects designed to increase flights during 10pm - 7am. What are you doing to prevent sleep disruption and why haven't you provided any mitigation opportunities to address it?

Topics

• 2015 Letter Of Understanding Port of Seattle, City of SeaTac IAF/SAMP
• DNL65 For Dummies
• 2023 - Dr. Kris Johnson presentation to Burien City Council
  • 2020 - Community Health and Airport Operations Related Noise and Air Pollution
• 2018 Federal Way Quiet and Healthy Skies Task Force
  • Presentation
• 2026 - SAMP/SEPA Draft EIS

In Ep #33, we said that, after public health, the best comment you can make concerns socioeconomics. Public health considers the impacts on individuals,  but socioeconomics considers the impacts on the place you live.

We take a beat to reinforce that. Researchers have known for decades that the impacts of pollution and rapid change to any community is generational. It is an awkward discussion because even if you perform a massive 'cleanup', even if people move in and out, the negative impacts for the community seem to persist. It is awkward because these harms create so many perverse incentives.  Residents like the artificial 'affordability'. Developers like to say that they have the solution. And no elected wants to admit that their city is stuck. We refer to this as the airport discount. But airport expansion has a lot to do with why airport communities get stuck.

The topic for today is 2018. People like to blame 'COVID' for everything, but every few years activists cycle in and out on airport issues and avoid all the great work done by their predecessors.

The 2026 SAMP is almost literally a do-over from 2018. But back then there was more preparation and larger budgets. So there are many good reasons to go back and look at that earlier process. Sadly, airport law is unchanged, research did not make the progress we'd hoped. People essentially took their eyes off the ball. But on the plus side:

• If you find the SAMP/SEPA DEIS intimidating, just use these more digestible pieces below.
• If you want to check to see if your ideas track? These will tell you.
• If you're concerned that some of the Port's current information also may not seem to track (and you should be), checking what they said before is a great idea.
• And you want a different POV -- not just STNI, but from others who do not work for the Port of Seattle or the FAA? Here they are.

Today's "Do" is simple: Rather than slog through thousands of pages of SAMP, put to work what hundreds of other concerned residents and professionals have done to help all of us!

2018 SAMP Comments/Research

• 2023 - Dr. Kris Johnson presentation to Burien City Council
  • 2020 - Community Health and Airport Operations Related Noise and Air Pollution
• 2018 Federal Way Quiet and Healthy Skies Task Force
  • Presentation
• 2018 - Leigh Fisher Facilities_Implementation and Financial Feasibility
• 2018 SAMP Comments
  • Alaska Airlines 2018 SAMP Scoping Comments 4g
  • Public Comments
  • Public Comment totals/categories

Other Topics

• 2026 - SAMP/SEPA Draft EIS
  • Appendix K Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, and Children's Health
    • 2025 - CAI Economic Impact Study
• 1997 - HOK Community Impacts/Mitigation Study
• 1976 - Sea-Tac Communities Plan

To learn how you can make a difference:

• STNI.info/subscribe