Who needs the Moffett runways? | September 20, 2013 | Mountain View Voice | Mountain View Online |

Mountain View Voice

Opinion - September 20, 2013

Who needs the Moffett runways?

by Lenny Siegel

To ensure that the planned lease of Moffett Field serves the interest of neighboring communities and to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, any proposed change in the operation of the runways or significant new activities on the former Navy base should be the subject of a new Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

In 1996, when NASA proposed to open up Moffett to air cargo operations, 67.5 percent of Mountain View voters opposed commercial or other civilian air operations there. Opposition to non-governmental use of the Moffett runways in Sunnyvale, directly under the Moffett flight-landing path, was also intense. In response, NASA consulted with residents of neighboring communities to create a development plan based upon partnerships with high-tech companies and educational institutions.

However, last year NASA headquarters sought to unload the now-underutilized airfield. The White House told NASA that it, not the Navy, would be responsible for restoring historic Hangar One after removal of its siding. And Congress cut the budget.

Our Congressional delegation fought to preserve Moffett Field in its present status as a limited-use federal airfield, and they appeared victorious this May when NASA and the General Services Administration announced they were seeking private bidders to restore Hangar One and operate the airfield. This seemed tailor-made for H211, the private-plane operator owned by Google's top management. Based in Hangar 211 since 2007, H211 had offered to restore Hangar One in exchange for the right to park its fleet there. But it's not clear whether H211 will make a bid under the NASA-GSA request for proposals (RFP).

As the Voice reported on May 30, the RFP could lead to the establishment of a base for business jets at Moffett Field. Unless the residents of Mountain View, Sunnyvale and other neighboring communities make themselves heard, we could be stuck with unwanted flight operations slipped under our noses as part of the laudable objective of restoring Hangar One.

While many of us can live with a continuation of the limited-use federal airfield, a private jetport would only be constrained by promises in the 11-year-old environmental impact statement that is not only subject to change, but also would necessarily be updated to cover major changes at Moffett Field. It is time to ask, once again, "Who needs the Moffett runways?"

Today the runways are used by the Air National Guard's 129th Rescue Wing, even though the costs are high and many of its staff live in the Central Valley. Lockheed-Martin Sunnyvale and Space Systems Loral have shipped large satellite payloads out of Moffett, but it's not clear how essential Moffett is to either. And while Moffett is sometimes a convenient place for Air Force One to land when presidents visit Silicon Valley seeking campaign donations, that's no reason to keep the runways open.

Perhaps the strongest argument for keeping the Moffett runways in ship-shape condition is to be prepared for an earthquake or other natural disaster. Moffett was a key staging area in the wake of the October 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. However, studies since have shown that Moffett's under-maintained runways are "moderately susceptible" to liquefaction. It would take a large investment to harden Moffett to resist the various earthquake scenarios likely in the future. It would take a steady flow of business jet operations to cover the cost.

We must act now and let our community leaders, NASA, and the GSA know of our desire to see that Moffett is used for the community's needs and higher purposes vs. subjecting our communities to unwanted noise, environmental pollution, and accident risks sanctioned under the current GSA lease proposal request. At the very minimum, the federal agencies should undertake a comprehensive environmental impact study comparing the consequences of the status quo with leasing proposals as well as with alternative uses such as transit-oriented housing badly needed by our communities and companies.

Lenny Siegel is executive director of the Mountain View-based Center for Public Environmental Oversight. A longer version of this column may be found at www.cpeo.org/Runways.pdf.


Posted by Bill Hough, a resident of another community
on Sep 23, 2013 at 10:50 am

The NUQ/Hangar One saga continues.

The article points out that "As the Voice reported on May 30, the RFP could lead to the establishment of a base for business jets at Moffett Field (NUQ). Unless the residents of Mountain View, Sunnyvale and other neighboring communities make themselves heard, we could be stuck with unwanted flight operations slipped under our noses as part of the laudable objective of restoring Hangar One."

Although we can argue about the number of flights allowed at NUQ, we don't want to lose the Federal airfield adjacent to Hangar One. The MV Voice reports that "Siegel has long advocated for Moffett's runways to be torn up and redeveloped with 'badly needed' transit-oriented housing." I respectfully disagree. Keeping NUQ open for NASA, Air National Guard and emergency flights as it is now is a fair compromise between "no growthers" and aviation advocates. It's virtually impossible to build new aviation capacity in this country so let's not destroy what we have.

This should have been settled years ago. NUQ has lots of restrictions on flight operations and it is doubtful more flights would come to NUQ. Air cargo is down in North America. On August 26, Aviation Week reported, "North America and the Asia-Pacific area proved to be the weakest regions in terms of international AFTKs (Available Freight Tonne Kilometers) and cargo demand in the first half of the year, contracting by 2.7% and 2.9%, respectively."

So, please, let's not try to scare people into believing that fleets of air freighters are about to descend on NUQ if only those pesky restrictions were lifted, it's NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Just drive down to SJC at 7:00 PM and watch what's left of the cargo "rush." I'll save you the time, it's down to two Fedex and one or two (depends on day) UPS flights. This region does not generate the same small amounts of air freight that it did in the 1990s and SFO, OAK and SJC can handle it for years to come.

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields