LAX Runway Plan Lands With a Thud

Airport officials have failed to adequately address increased noise and cancer risks during construction to move the southernmost runway at Los Angeles International Airport, residents of nearby communities charge.

The project’s lengthy environmental study also does not include measures to lessen the effects of the additional air pollution caused when airplanes taxi farther and idle longer while the runway is shut down, according to comments that residents and their attorneys submitted to Los Angeles World Airports, the city’s airport department.

Arguing that the health risks diminish the residents’ quality of life and could shorten their lives, attorney Berne C. Hart wrote that the airport department “must commit to mitigating these impacts to the maximum extent feasible.” Hart represents Los Angeles County, Inglewood and Culver City.

The comment period on the 1,370-page environmental study ended Thursday, with the agency receiving 22 letters totaling about 275 pages. State law requires the city to study and mitigate the project’s effects on surrounding areas.

The comments ranged from highly technical legal opinions to handwritten notes.

The agency is required to address the comments in a final document, to be released later this year.

The Airport Commission and City Council must approve the environmental study before work can start on the runway.

The project will move the runway 55 feet closer to El Segundo and install a parallel taxiway between the two runways in an effort to reduce the possibility of aircraft collisions.

More than 80% of close calls at LAX occur on the south side when a pilot who has landed on the outer runway fails to stop on taxiways that cross the inner runway and comes too close to airplanes that are taking off.

Officials hope to begin construction early next year and expect the project to take 26 months. The runway will be closed for eight months; airport officials say it will not cause any disruption to travelers.

The effort is the first in a series of major updates planned for the airport in the next decade.

Several themes ran through the comments, including the contention that the environmental study significantly understates noise, air pollution, health and traffic problems that the construction will cause.

Consultants also failed to analyze the long-term effects of reconfiguring the south runway and how operations of the massive 555-seat Airbus A380 -- expected to begin flying into LAX in 2007-- would affect surrounding neighborhoods, according to the letters.

Moving the runway “seems to be an enlargement of LAX primarily to serve the Airbus A380,” wrote Linda Peterson, chairwoman of the Los Angeles International Airport Advisory Committee. If Los Angeles World Airports “is truly seeking a regional approach, we would expect more of an effort to route these new large aircraft to Ontario or Palmdale.”

The city of Los Angeles also operates Ontario International Airport and Palmdale Airport.

The document has “persistent flaws” and buries readers “under mountains of paper,” wrote Robert S. Perlmutter and Gabriel M.B. Ross, attorneys for the city of El Segundo.

El Segundo, Inglewood, Culver City, the county and airport-area residents have sued the city of Los Angeles charging that environmental studies for the entire $11-billion LAX modernization plan also understate the effects of noise, air pollution and traffic.

On Friday, airport officials sent a letter to attorneys for El Segundo denying a request to extend the comment period for the south runway environmental study. El Segundo’s attorneys had asked for a 30-day extension, saying that airport officials failed to provide information they wanted on the project’s effects on air quality in a timely manner.

Comments received by the agency this week argue that the runway study is poorly written and violates state law because it fails to discuss alternatives to moving the runway.

“The document is difficult to read,” wrote Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles) in a seven-page letter. “It relies excessively on acronyms. It is replete with technical jargon that goes unexplained.”

Residents and attorneys also questioned whether the city’s airport agency had enough evidence to show that moving the runway 55 feet would markedly improve safety at LAX, because pilots would still cross the inner runway from the center taxiway.

“Clearly, a massive project that will cost over a quarter-billion dollars and not remove the underlying problem that initiated it should bear close examination,” wrote A. Dwight Abbott, mayor of Palos Verdes Estates.

County officials also demanded in a letter that the City Council take another vote on the LAX modernization plan.

The county Airport Land Use Commission ruled in August 2004 that the proposal would create more noise and safety risks in nearby communities, making it inconsistent with a 1991 county land-use plan. Under state law, the 15-member City Council had to muster a 10-vote supermajority to override the finding -- which it did in December.

Now, the county argues its Airport Land Use Commission had the authority under state law to accept an appeal from El Segundo. In its appeal, El Segundo argued that the city’s plan will allow LAX to grow to serve 89 million annual passengers and fails to spread air traffic growth to other airports in the region. The county commission ruled in favor of El Segundo’s appeal and contends that the City Council is required to secure a 12-vote majority to override that decision.

The city disagrees.

“It is our position, and has been for some time, that the commission doesn’t have the authority to take the action they have taken,” said Jonathan Diamond, a spokesman for the city attorney’s office. “The council doesn’t have to take another vote.”