In our last episode, Why Port Package Update programs keep failing, we talked about some of the not well-considered proposals various activists keep supporting. And also, with the blizzard of agencies that all seem to be involved in air quality, how is it that the FAA seems to be the only true 'deciderer' when it comes to Sea-Tac Airport?

This time we offer a 30,000 foot view of all those acronyms, and then provide a thumbnail sketch of how such a large administrative state could yield such poor outcomes over time for airport communities.

Environmental policy has two eras: before 1970 and after 1970. Before 1970, there were various state environmental policies and separate federal laws covering water and air. Then NEPA was passed--spearheaded by our own Senator Scoop Jackson, creating one of the largest expansions to the administrative state in American history. The core argument was to create one standard.

Meanwhile, Californians were able to a one of a kind carve-out in the Clean Air Act, to give them the ability to set their own standards for emissions. These become the better standards which have led to massive improvements in air quality in just a few years. Improvements we now take for granted.

If the most consequential environmental policy in American History was created by a Washingtonian, and Boeing was located in Washington, why didn't aviation environmental law turn better?

UW Meteorologist Cliff Mass has some black humor which explains this. "People who live in Puget Sound like to ride a bike to work every day, then reward themselves for their climate activism by flying to Europe twice a year." Noting that just those two transatlantic flights generate more GHGs than most people do in their entire home over the course of a year.

Since then, Boeing has become a monopoly. There haven't been market incentives to improve the product (or even build a new product) in over a decade.

The decision not to hold aviation to the same engineering standards as automotive was intentional, not an oversight. And today, every airport community continues to pay the price.

Topics

• Federal Register: Delegation of authority to regional clean air agencies (PSCAA)
• WA Ecology SIPS
• EPA: Air quality implementation plans
• HistoryLink: Senator Henry Jackson conducts U.S. Senate hearing on NEPA
• HistoryLink: NEPA
• Wikipedia: Council On Environmental Quality
• Clearing the Air: The War on Smog | American Experience | PBS
• United Airlines – 100% green Carbon neutral by 2050

The original title was "Maps Are Good, Too!" But that seemed too vague.

In the original Ep #21: Maps Are Good, we introduced several terms and concepts people need to have at their fingertips in order to dive in deeper.

This time, we focus on two big ones DNL and RCW53 in order to explain why we keep failing to obtain Port Package updates -- even though the Port says it wants to do something, money has been allocated by Congress, and several proposals have been put forward by the State.

The big confusion is that there is one land area known as the DNL specified by the FAA, which changes every time the Port does a 'voluntary' Part 150 Study. That boundary determined who gets sound insulation or property buyouts.

We also discuss why that DNL began shrinking and how the process of End of Block evolved to make sure that the noise contours yield as many eligible homes as possible.

Noise remediation can take two forms: abatement and mitigation. The 1970's and 80's were more about abatement: property buyouts, and industry efforts to make quieter aircraft. But with the Third Runway, mitigation: sound insulation, become the main approach. Thus, 90% of Port Packages were done in a very short period from 1998-2005.

For a variety of reasons, in the State of WA, a lot of airport law, including a whole other noise impact boundary, got buried inside the Port Districts law -- RCW53. A lot of that law is not in sync with the FAA. For example, the current RCW53 boundary combines both Sea-Tac and Boeing Field airspaces -- even though Sea-Tac is the only commercial airport in WA owned by a port district.

Could it get more complicated? Of course. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

But that does not mean that there aren't simple solutions. It's only that we're not taking them. That's the Casino.

Every year we try to tell advocates: get your stories straight. Make sure that your electeds and the City, State and Federal levels, are all in sync. And every year it doesn't happen. Every year both people and agencies pursue separate agenda. That is the reason we fail to fix failing Port Packages.

.We have dedicated electeds and non-electeds who want to solve many airport community issues -- including Port Package Updates. But it is that lack of shared understanding and shared strategy holds us back -- not the issues. In the case of sound insulation updates, there is money, and a working program model. The issue of fixing failed Port Packages is a solved problem. It is we who are failing.

How do you tell people of such good will that it's not the issue that is the problem? How do you message that it is the inability to pull together in the same direction that keeps airport communities all across America from succeeding.

Our apologies for the delays between episodes - and for not being timely in updating you on our legislative efforts.

We keep trying to tell a story — to provide a background on how airports work -- to benefit all airport communities. But this is the sixty-day legislative session in Olympia, the time of year where we have to try to turn those ideas into something real for you.

The bad news: to all of you who have been putting off much-needed repairs-- waiting patiently to see results, it's not looking good. There are still one or two efforts we're monitoring, but they are Hail Marys.

In a previous episode we talked about the problems with the original version of SB 5652 (2025). People recognized the challenges in that earlier version, but it was a moot point because it had no funding. Given the short session and the State's huge budget difficulties, frankly, we assumed it would be re-written as much simpler, straightforward bill to provide a direct path towards Port Package updates and help for cities when they most need it with the SAMP. Now.

Instead, SB5652 came back in an even more expansive version, and coupled with a new bill SB6240 -- designed to provide money.

Clearly, we did not succeed in selling the benefits of a more measured, immediate approach. Part of the problem may be that we had not yet done our planned episode on allowable uses of aviation revenues and taxation. Like second airports or flight path fixes, STNI tends not to talk about concepts that are usually too good to be true. Maybe that's on us.  This episode reviews what went wrong with SB 6240 and introduces the concept of revenue diversion .

What happens at the airport stays at the airport

SB6240 would have relied on an aviation fuel tax. The principle is extremely intuitive, the revenue opportunities are massive, and as such, various stakeholders, throughout America try it all the time. Precisely because it is so irresistible, Congress went out of its way to make the regulations almost airtight and that is why we tell people: do not try this without a ton of research.

And yet, at the hearing, the WSDOT Director of Aviation was warning that S6240 may add to an ongoing conflict the state has been having with the FAA for over a decade. Advocates seemed oblivious, testifying in favor of it anyway, hoping to try again next session irrespective of her concerns.

As we describe in the episode, if bill sponsors insisted on looking at fuel taxes rather than other options, there were less fraught models.

Most people will say they can spot something when it is too good to be true. And yet we've watched so many people, year after year, rush to support bills like SB 6240 -- without doing the research. We often get accused of being scoldy. But STNI is a living archive. Part of our mission is to provide that expert research, free of charge, to enable advocates in all airport communities to make good choices - not place bets and hope for the best.

https://seatacnoise.info/ep-emergency-sb6240-port-packages/

In our last episode (SB5652 Emergency Episode Port Packages), we talked about changes we'd like to see in Senator Orwall's airport legislation. But we didn't talk about why we're so concerned.

Everything about airports is complicated. You need a map just to find your way through the terminal! Airport law is like that--multiplied by 1,000.

Fortunately, we're now getting much needed help with mapping (Rami shout out!) You've already seen his great work in our Port Packages, Noise Trees Mapping projects. That's just the beginning.

We now have to learn how to screen record his great work. The software is supposed to be "so simple a child can do it." Unfortunately, your host is JC, who only behaves childishly and did not follow the instructions carefully. Which means that this episode contains a few technical glitches--including clipped audio.

Still, we think this is an important episode for understanding SB5652, the SAMP and the DNL65--all defined by boundaries on a map and all being decided this year. Ironically, most of the airport law you care about concerns land, not what is going on up in the air. This episode shows you the basics of those boundaries.

Topics

• SB5652
• RCW 53.020 - Aviation Impacted Area
• Part 150 for dummies (DNL65 boundaries)
• SAMP Chapter 3 - Affected Environment (Area Of Potential Effects)
• Vision 2045 Goals & Objectives - KCIA (Boeing Field) Master Plan

To learn how you can make a difference, read our STNI: 2026 Legislative Agenda and:

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

The Airport Communities Pod

In Olympia, Senator Tina Orwall has introduced two ambitious bills: SB5652 and SB6240. Each has so many moving parts we're still trying to digest them all. In the broad strokes:

• SB5652 is about trying to address some very thorny problems that have not moved forward: Port Package updates, air quality, public health.
• SB6240 takes a slice of an existing aviation fuel tax to fund those programs.

Rather than comment on the current state of each bill--which will surely change, we decided to present our comments on what we've heard from you--especially on Port Packages. What these bills should be.

This video talks about the sound insulation piece--the issue we began with in 2017.

We do want to keep it simple. And we wish we could sound less 'whiny'. Ironically, in previous decades there was no shortage of--which never passed. In recent years, the problem has been the opposite--we've shown we can pass bills. Today, we struggle to pass the right bills--usually when they try to do too much. It's hard to tell people they're trying to do too much--and not sound whiny.

Last year's air quality monitor proviso was the right approach. Simple. Straightforward. Low friction. Immediate impact. Our hope is to help make SB5652/SB6240 more like that.

Learn how you can make a difference, read our STNI: 2026 Legislative Agenda

In our last episode (Mailbag #2), we took a variety of questions we tend to get on a regular basis. This gives us an opportunity to mention that although each episode stands on its own, we encourage people to listen/watch in order, because the concepts build on each one another. The material has many layers, people want to make an impact (no pun intended),  and there is a strong tendency to cherry-pick. There's no way to do that with airports.

Today's topic adds one more layer: banking--the industry practice of scheduling flights in daily clusters . The ones most people think of as organic demand--like grocery stores or traffic 'rush hours'.

Not. At. All.

The mechanics are beyond the scope of this episode, but what matters for today is that it is yet another item that is never discussed. But it should be because it concerns public health, which means it's something that can be negotiated. In fact, it should be a far easier discussion because unlike flight paths, it is not the province of the FAA.

This gets to the core of The Casino.

Noise is just as much about when as where. How many events should you be subjected to in any situation, how should they be spread out over time, how much time should you have between events in order to have some sort of recovery.

For 50 years, we've undervalued aircraft noise using A-Weighting which only considers impacts on hearing intelligibility--never applicable to airport communities. Insincere from the beginning.

Then there is the constant obsession with flight paths--where the flights go.

But public health is about exposure. Individual events, the impact of each event, how much time it takes the body to recover.

Many people now object to any kind of fireworks now--even if they're only once a year. Banking effectively clusters many noise events within short periods of time four times a day.

Why is it that never discussed? Why is an expansion of quiet periods never discussed? Why does it always go back to flight paths? Why is sound insulation so constantly dismissed?

It is because we aren't taking noise seriously as public health. And the industry knows it.

Kids have always worn some form of padding to participate in many sports. But today, parents are increasingly aware that it's not about individual impacts—it's about cumulative effects. How many events should any player be subjected to? Within each game? Between games? Over a career? How much time is needed to recover within each time period?

The risks have not changed. Our willingness to tolerate them--and thus properly mitigate them has.

As with aviation pollution, we have a great deal of evidence now that the cumulative effects of noise are real. But we have not gotten anywhere near to understanding the mechanisms. Until we get that research, it's easy to be dismissive of sound insulation, even though the benefits are profound.

We should be promoting sound insulation aggressively—not only because the products are better now, but also because unless we make clear that every improvement is important, we're signaling to decision makers that our concerns about noise are still back in the age of the '70s.

You and your city have to understand that this is negotiation, where you retain ongoing expertise to make residents aware of all the options out there, not only the ones the industry finds convenient.

There will always be large numbers of people near the airport who cannot move and will never obtain benefits from changes in flight paths. By advocating for them first, we demonstrate our sincere interest in public health. And ironically, that is what will move the discussion on changing flight paths.

We've had it backwards.

In our last episode (This Airport Discount), we talked about how lower property values are the uncomfortable 'bargain' we all get by living under the flight path.

This time, we use the end of year as an excuse to take a break, give people some word on what we're doing in 2026, shamelessly ask for support to cover our costs. And also respond a variety of questions--and save Paula from re-typing the same answers over and over!

Topics

• Section 8810
  •  SeaTac Blog article
• The Airport Discount
• A-Weighted
  • ChatGPT
  • Noise monitor service gaps
• StART
  • Quiet Communities
  • NyCar Roundtable
  • Flight Analyst case study DCA
• Flight tracks on the west side
• Flight tracks on the east side--and the zipper merge

To learn how you can make a difference, read our STNI: 2026 Legislative Agenda and: STNI.info/subscribe

In our last episode (This Will Never End), we talked about a stat most people miss: 1.6%. Although passengers have more than doubled, over the past 25 years, flights have only increased 1.6%. The airport obsesses over passengers because passengers are money. They talk far less about operations because that is the noise and pollution.

This time, we talk about another cognitive disconnect: property values vs. affordability, aka 'the airport discount'.

Over the years, many people concerned about airport impacts have complained that their property values have been reduced by the airport. That's not a bug, it's a feature. The invisible hand of the free market has indeed priced your home lower than it would otherwise be if it were somewhere far away from the airport.

Unlike much of the world, Americans use the homes not only as places to live, but also as their primary store of wealth. So anything that seems to hurt our property values feels like a direct attack on us.

But as the King County Tax Assessor told us: So what? Doesn't that mean more affordable homes? Doesn't it mean lower taxes for homeowners?

Using 'lower property values' have been seen as proxies for trying to stop airport expansion--or getting a check so individuals can go somewhere else. Most of these efforts have been either unsuccessful or unsatisfying.

But by analyzing property data we have been able to begin researching something important: how to quantify what 'the airport discount' means not for individuals, but for cities.

The Sea-Tac Communities Plan (1973-1976) was the only time in our airport's history where the impact on communities was really taken seriously. In all other cases, the focus has been on individuals. The entire Part 150 program concerns individual parcels; not cities. The Port constantly talks about benefits for jobs. What hasn't happened since 1976 has been a frank acknowledgement of what the airport is doing to local governments.

Since day one, the City of SeaTac began negotiating ongoing compensation. But other cities became convinced that  (somehow) the airport would create economic development--organically. That does not happen. In fact, the airport discount drains the life blood of the communities nearest the airport. The benefits are really, but almost in inverse proportion to distance from the flight path.

The biggest challenge in obtaining a fair reckoning has been the cities (and residents) themselves. Neither group has understood why it's just as important to compensate their city as themselves to improve everyone's quality of life.

We also want to acknowledge the passing of a true heroine for airport communities: noise researcher and advocate Arline Bronzaft.