Filling in a large portion of the San Francisco bay would not be the ideal solution to solving San Francisco International Airport's chronic delays. The environmental impacts of such a plan would devastate the local habitat in the bay while no real benefits would be gained by the construction of new runways at the airport. Over the history of the bay, one third of its area has already been filled in, and past bay fills have resulted in 90 percent of the tidal wetlands being destroyed.(1) It is imperative that bay area residents try and prevent any more destruction of the bay.
In order for the bay fill to proceed, 60 to 80 million cubic
yards of dirt would need to be added to the land around this airport.
(2) All of this dirt would need to be dug up from other sites,
and then transported to the airport. The environmental impacts
of this alone would have lasting effects on the bay area. Moving
80 million cubic yards of dirt from the bottom of the bay and
moving it nearer to the airport would result in large changes
to the hydrology of the bay. Changes in landforms affect current
flows, tides, these in turn will affect the habitats of the various
species of animals that live around the bay. There is also a risk
that during the construction of the new runways there will be
increased run off brought into the bay. As much as contractors
will try and limit pollution, any construction work will add to
the risk of pollution seeping into the bay. Along with construction,
an increase in flights due to the new runways will add to increased
levels of air pollution around the San Francisco area. (3)
Other then increasing the runways there are a number of other alternatives to alleviating the delays at the airport. There are new technologies available to air traffic controllers that would allow for simultaneous landings of two aircraft during bad weather. (4) This technology is currently available in Europe, yet the Federal Aviation administration has chosen not to install this technology at air traffic control centers. There are also a number of other airports around the San Francisco area that could take some of the air traffic from SFO during the busiest times. Oakland and San Jose both could be used, while there are also a number of other airports that could be developed to handle large amounts of traffic. As only 20 percent of the airport's delays are caused by poor weather, most delays are caused by over scheduling by the airlines during peak hours. Use of high-speed railways is also a promising possibility to preventing delays at the airport. (5) If some passengers can be diverted out of the airport, congestion can be avoided and there will be no need to expand the runways into the bay. High speed trains such as the TGV train in France or Amtrak's Acela train can travel well in excess of 100 miles per hour. With out the hassle of security and check in at the airports the railways offer a true alternative to airline travel. Because a majority of delays are caused by over scheduling, and not weather, moving passengers from the airways to the railways will allow for a reduction in airport delays. Railways also have been proven to be much more delay free than aviation. The Japanese bullet trains have an average delay of only 24 seconds. (6) Trains also the have benefit of not being delayed by weather the same way airplanes are.
If the city of San Francisco and the airport authority would
be willing to get creative and look at alternative solutions to
reducing the delays at SFO, a reduction in delays could be achieved
with out filling in the bay and causing irreversible harm to the
bay.
Work Cited:
1) Threats to the Bay. 2002. 14 May 2002 <http://www.savesfbay.org/sfoexpansion.html>.
2) Ibid
3) Ibid
4) Moore, Patrick. High Speed rail as a Solution to Airport Congestion. 14 May 2002
<http://lomaprieta.sierraclub.org/HighSpeedRail.html>.
5) Threats to the Bay
6) Moore, Patrick.
 |
 Sierra Club - The Lome Prieta chapter, and environmental groups serving San Mateo, Santa Clara, and San benito. Save The Bay - Seeks to preserve, restore and protect the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta Estuary as a healthy and biologically diverse ecosystem essential to the well-being of the human and naturalcommunities it sustains. BAY RESCUE COALITION -To promote the numerous non-invasive alternatives to the massive Bay fillproposed by the City of San Francisco and San Francisco InternationalAirport forrunway expansion into the San Francisco Bay. |
 S.F. airport paying runaway bills for runway lobbyists - Although the runway fill project isn't going anywhere, the city keeps paying massive fees to lobbyists. Voters want their say on any bay-fill plan Proposition D wins overwhelmingly - Voters pass prop D giving bay area residents the say whether the or not to fill in the bay. Regulators Say SFO's Reasons for New Runways Are Unclear - The city is still confused over why the runways really need to be expanded at the airport. |