I'm sure that they're opposing points of view. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This article was sent to you by someone who found it on SF Gate. The original article can be found on SFGate.com here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=3D/chronicle/archive/2003/04= /30/ED283315.DTL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, April 30, 2003 (SF Chronicle) Why spend more on SFO runways? NO ONE favors pushing ahead with the $3.5 billion plan to extend San Francisco International Airport runways. Not its heretofore prime booster, Mayor Willie Brown, not an airline industry on life support, and especially not environmental and political foes who never liked the plan to fill in part of the bay. The battle is over, at least for now. The runway extensions aren't needed as flights are cut, airlines flounder in bankruptcy and the airport lays off 85 staffers with a hard-times city budget. So why continue the steady drip of spending on a giant public works project going nowhere? A committee of San Francisco supervisors next week should reject the request for more money for environmental studies. The full board should agree. So far, runway studies and consultants have cost the airport $70 million. Another $36 million may be needed on lobbying and further reports on traffic, pollution and the effects on up to 1,000 acres of bay mudflats targeted for fill and asphalt. On May 7, the finance committee of the board will consider releasing $3.7 million to continue this work. It's time to shelve the package. The arguments for spending the money are narrow and shortsighted. Spend this small amount to finish the scientific studies, data collection and work of review teams, airport planners argue. It would be a waste not to finish this stage of the project, the thinking goes. But critics have a better argument when they say the airport money should be saved, not frittered away on a distant dream. SFO's budget is shrinking from $630 million this year to an expected $595 million next year with 60 percent going to debt service. Other needs take precedence. Also, if the runway plan is revived years from now, it may be possible to dust off today's environmental studies. But much of the data such as air traffic and pollution may need updating anyway. No question there is ample political bad blood. Mayor Brown set up a walled- off planning effort within the airport and spent heavily on friendly consultants. He was partly thwarted when Supervisor Aaron Peskin persuaded voters in 2001 to approve a measure that would put the future expansion on the ballot, making the issue a tougher sell. Presently, it's hard to see a pro- Brown majority materializing to save the runways. If the supervisors block the latest runway bill, the decision may be treated as its final demise. That epitaph would be a mistake. If and when the travel industry rebounds, the subject will resurface. In bad weather, there are annoying flight delays caused by the narrowly spaced runways. A region that relies on tourism needs a modern and safe airport. When that day comes, it will be time to consider such arguments. But for now, it doesn't make sense to continue with a plan that is out of touch with economic reality.=20 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright 2003 SF Chronicle