User:Mliu92/sandbox/SFO expansion

In 1998, airport planners at San Francisco International Airport (SFO) advanced proposals which would relocate and extend the runways by adding up to 2 mi2 of fill to San Francisco Bay, ultimately increasing their separation to 4300 ft to accommodate arrivals and departures during periods of low visibility. An alternate proposal called for three floating runways, each approximately 12000 ft long and 1000 ft wide.

The proposed expansion was opposed by environmental groups, who had successfully prevented any new Bay fill since 1965.

Motivation
San Francisco International Airport (SFO) experiences delays (known as flow control) in overcast weather when visual flight rules no longer apply, and only two of the airport's four runways can be used at a time because the centerlines of the parallel runway sets (01R/01L and 28R/28L) are 750 ft apart, less than the 4300 ft required by the Federal Aviation Administration under instrumented flying rules.

The delays during poor weather (among other reasons) caused some airlines, especially low-cost carriers such as Southwest Airlines, to shift all of their service from the airport to Oakland and San Jose. However, Southwest eventually returned to SFO in 2007.

Environmental impact
The airport would be required by law to restore Bay land elsewhere in the Bay Area to offset the fill. One mitigation proposal would have the airport purchase and restore the 29000 acre of South Bay wetlands owned by Cargill Salt to compensate for the new fill. These expansion proposals met resistance from environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, fearing damage to the habitat of animals near the airport, recreational degradation (such as windsurfing) and bay water quality.

State Senator John L. Burton introduced SB 1562 on February 18, 2000 to bypass the environmental impact study which would normally be required for a large project like the proposed Bay fill and mitigation in order to expedite construction. SB 1562 was signed into law on September 29, 2000. A study commissioned by the airport and released in 2001 stated that alternatives to airport expansion, such as redirecting traffic to other regional airports (Oakland or San Jose), capping the number of flights, or charging higher landing fees at selected times of the day 2001 would result in higher fares and poorer service. However, the proposal to build new runways on Bay fill continued to attract opposition from environmental groups and local residents. The airport expansion cost was estimated at US$1400000000 1998 in 1998, rising to US$2200000000 1999 a year later, including an estimate of US$200000000 1999 for the Cargill wetlands purchase and restoration.