April 14, 2020 public comment Regarding item 6f on the April 14, 2020, PoS

Commissioner’s meeting

Hello, I’m Bernedine Lune, resident of Federal Way and member of QSPS and 350

Seattle

The large downturn in aviation over the last two months has an unknown timeline for

recovery. It does not seem the time to advocate for a $4 million contract for capital

improvements, even when no money is committed. Any actions you take to change or

small aircraft and pollution caused by jet engines are already having a negative impact

on the population and on the climate change. Biofuels are also not sustainable as a fuel

substitute with continued growth.

To add to the issue of pollution and noise, some industries, such as Boom industries,

are looking to reintroduce supersonic flights as evidenced by the FAAs streamlining of

supersonic applications (see htt ps://nbaa.org/aircraft-operations/airspace/faa-heads-toward-

development-supersonic-flight-regulations/ and personal comments submitted Aug 2019 to

FAA in response to the proposed changes) and an FAA Press Release on 3-30-2020

titled “Supersonic Aircraft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” to add landing and takeoff

several alternatives to flights, including:

- Teleconferencing, examples include Skype and Zoom (Zoom not Boom has been

suggested as a catchy phrase support Zoom)

- Express Buses

- High Speed Rail, including Hyperlink, as is being developed in the mid-west,

India, and China

- Amtrak – if as much money had been spent on Amtrak as on airports, runways,

etc. for the aviation industry, Amtrak would be safer and better used.

- Slow Travel

Rather than spending millions of dollars on further enhancements to SeaTac, you could

be using the money to plan for alternative methods of travel. The airport facilities have

the space and technology to become a hub for these different types of connecting

Authorizations for Supersonic Aircraft

8-19-2019

Phillip and Bernedine Lund, Federal Way, WA 98003

We are opposed to the FAA’s proposed Special Flight Authorizations for Supersonic Aircraft.

By streamlining the application process for supersonic flight, the FAA is suggesting to that

developing supersonic flights is an acceptable endeavor. It is not. Excessive noise has already

been identified as one of the major health hazards in our modern world. Adding supersonic noise in

a testing phase is irresponsible. Instead, the FAA should be saying that supersonic flight should not

be undertaken. For this reason we are also opposed to removing the provision to “require public

protection from ‘measurable’ sonic boom.” (See pg 30964, 2

column.)

at the wealthy. It seems that the FAAs streamlining of supersonic transport is aimed at making it

easier for development of transport that the majority of people will not be able to afford, but these

same people on the ground will have to pay for with exposure to excessive noise, further emissions,

and changes in climate.

The FAA has to be aware that aircraft flights are the fastest growing source of emissions contributing

to global warning. Rather than looking for ways to increase flights, the FAA should be working with

the Dept of Transportation to look at other modes of transportation. For example, trains can

transport people at 10% of the cost of aircraft. If as much money had been directed towards trains,

including hyperloop trains, we would be much further along with reducing transportation emissions.

Finally, we and our local communities no longer trust the FAA given the disaster of the FAA’s

is primarily the non-flying public that is paying the costs.

cc: US Representative Adam Smith