| Six Arguments Against a New Runway By Jim Correale (Published in the East Boston Sun Transcript on April 27, 2001.) As I write this, those who oppose the creation of a new runway at Logan Airport are preparing for this week's public hearing on the issue, the lone opportunity that the people will have to speak. Hopefully, their arguments will be taken into account by Bob Durand, the state's secretary of environmental affairs, and Jane Garvey, the head of the Federal Aviation Administration, each of whom has the ability to block the project. There are a number of reasons that they should do so. I'd like to outline a few. First, let us address Massport's main argument. Their commercials and their literature assert that adding a runway would decrease airport delays and congestion, at the same time alleviating some of the problems that locals have with Logan: noise, pollution, and traffic. The fact is that the FAA's own web site indicates that most airport delays -- 75% of those in February, for example -- are due to poor weather conditions. An additional runway would mean additional flights delayed or canceled when the weather is bad. Therefore, building Runway 14/32 would have the opposite effect outlined in Massport's propaganda. Second is the issue of air pollution. To appease the people in the decades-long struggle over aircraft noise levels, Massport has touted the quieter modern jets that are being phased in. What our friends at the authority have left out is that making planes quieter has made them pollute more. How nice. It's a shell game. The quieter planes made people believe that the concerns of citizens were really being addressed. Meanwhile, Logan Airport is on its way to becoming the biggest polluter in the state. Of course, Massport will not cooperate on an air study of the region because they know how damaging to their cause such a report would be. The third problem is one of environmental justice. Once again, the working class neighborhoods in and around the city are forced to bear the brunt of the environmental burden, while those who benefit economically can drive their BMWs back home to the quiet streets and fresh air of the wealthy suburbs. Fourth on the list is the failure of those involved to look at a long-term regional transportation plan. Massport's recent token gestures involving Worcester Airport are laughable. As local activist Mary Ellen Welch has said, we need to seriously look at a New England-wide inter-modal plan for the future. The fifth point is this: five runways is plenty. Eleven airports in America are busier than Logan, yet eight of those have the same number or fewer runways than Boston's airfield. Sixth, most residents of the communities impacted by Logan -- as well as nearly all of their elected officials -- are against the proposed runway. The desires of a small group who stand to benefit financially from 14/32 should not be able to trump the will of the people. Each of these arguments makes a valid point. Taken together, they would seem to raise enough questions so that someone in a position of authority would stand up and do the right thing. Are you listening Mr. Durand and Ms. Garvey? |