RentonView From United States, joined May 2005, 80 posts, RR: 0 Posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1654 times:
Does anyone know what the current status is of SEA's third runway project? From what I can tell, the massive earthmoving/filling stage is still underway, but there's no indication as to how far along it is. I drove around the perimeter a couple of weeks ago to see the retaining walls, but there wasn't much else to see. Has any work begun on the actual runways or taxiways, or are those elements a long way off? The Port of Seattle's website doesn't have much up-to-date information.
Boeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1618 times:
Quoting RentonView (Thread starter): Does anyone know what the current status is of SEA's third runway project? From what I can tell, the massive earthmoving/filling stage is still underway, but there's no indication as to how far along it is. I drove around the perimeter a couple of weeks ago to see the retaining walls, but there wasn't much else to see. Has any work begun on the actual runways or taxiways, or are those elements a long way off? The Port of Seattle's website doesn't have much up-to-date information.
Last I heard the final environmental is due soon for the runway to proceed. Outside of that, it's been quiet around there for a while.
B6sea From United States, joined Aug 2005, 340 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1579 times:
Quoting We're Nuts (Reply 2): Why distribute the traffic load evenly between the area's underutilized airports when we can expand SEA at five times the cost?
Because SEA is the commercial airport for Seattle and it would be foolish to let a masterplan that has been almost fully realized after billions of dollars fall to the wayside in light of a new one. Plus, if they did that, knowing the state of WA it could be 2050 before anyone ever even decides which airport to develop let alone actually develop it.
PlanesNTrains From United States, joined Feb 2005, 2199 posts, RR: 11 Reply 4, posted (3 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1562 times:
Quoting We're Nuts (Reply 2): Why distribute the traffic load evenly between the area's underutilized airports when we can expand SEA at five times the cost?
There is still quite a lot of growability at SeaTac, so it would be a waste to not develop it to its full potential. There was a plan at one time (proposal really) to move most all-cargo ops to BFI and develop the northeast side of the airport into a new "North Satellite" for Alaska/Horizon, which in reality would not have replaced the existing N gates but rather be additional capacity. I believe 9-11 killed those plans.
Looking out further, though, several area airports, most notably BFI and Paine Field in Everett, could be considered future options, though BFI would likely need to be limited. Unfortunately, every year that goes by any clean-sheet airport becomes more and more improbable, at least at any real-world price.
For now, though, SeaTac has room to grow, and the new third runway will hopefully help in that endeavor. If it's ever finished, that is.
Thepilot From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1409 times:
I talked to a few air traffic controllers at SEA about this, and also cruised on the runway with the "OPS" guy, and this is what they had to say...
They said that 15 million out of 18 million pounds of dirt has been moved in (as of mid June 06). Also, from overflying the airport at 1500 feet through the VFR transition route, it appears as though the ground is very flat for the runway to commence. Also, they are working on a rollout area at the end of the runways incase of an overrun on the 34s. Another note of interest, runway 16R will be changed to runway 16C in around September. Should be fun to watch. Again, I got this from Air Traffic Controllers and ground men at SeaTac.
RoseFlyer From United States, joined Feb 2004, 5614 posts, RR: 27 Reply 6, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1394 times:
Quoting We're Nuts (Reply 2): Why distribute the traffic load evenly between the area's underutilized airports when we can expand SEA at five times the cost?
Well it would be very inefficient to try and drive flights away from SEA to most like PAE. PAE is the only airport that has a long enough runway and enough space to sustain a decent amount of operations. However Everett is a bit far from the city and the wealthy parts of Seattle. SEA would still be preferable since the airport is so close to downtown.
Anyways, Western Washington has enough NIMBYs and environmentalists to fight any airport expansion anywhere. So much money has gone to fight these activist groups. If it weren't for them, the third runway would already have been built.
Stitch From United States, joined Jul 2005, 15826 posts, RR: 63 Reply 7, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1391 times:
Quoting We're Nuts (Reply 2): Why distribute the traffic load evenly between the area's underutilized airports when we can expand SEA at five times the cost?
To answer your question: FUBAR.
The correct answer is NIMBY, actually. They're the jokers who drove the cost up into the stratosphere.
And from a vehicle traffic perspective, Airport Way would be hammered if WN and AS/QX each sent two dozen flights a day there.
And PAE really isn't an option, as at peak traffic loads travel times are in excess of one hour each way to/from downtown so morning arrivals and evening depatures would spend around twice as much time in transit as they do now to SEA. Plus working around PAE, the side streets are in even worse shape then BFI's for lots of traffic, plus you then need to add tens of thousands of Boeing workers coming on and off shift. *shudder*
RwSEA From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 2515 posts, RR: 3 Reply 8, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1375 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 7): And PAE really isn't an option, as at peak traffic loads travel times are in excess of one hour each way to/from downtown so morning arrivals and evening depatures would spend around twice as much time in transit as they do now to SEA. Plus working around PAE, the side streets are in even worse shape then BFI's for lots of traffic, plus you then need to add tens of thousands of Boeing workers coming on and off shift. *shudder*
I think PAE makes much more sense than BFI for the reasons you describe. Everett to SEA is over an hour in traffic. Places like Marysville, Everett, Lynnwood, and Snohomish could all benefit from a few daily flights to places like PDX, LAX, SFO and DEN. Wouldn't have to be a major operation, but could certain a small number of daily flights to major hubs and O&D cities. If I lived in Everett I would be willing to avoid the 2 hours roundtrip associated with travelling from SEA.
BFI on the other hand makes no sense as a releiver airport - way too close to SEA and the infrastructure in the area would be too expensive to upgrade. PAE already has the infrastructure (other than a terminal) and is far enough from SEA (about 45 miles) to be able to carve out its own niche.
RentonView From United States, joined May 2005, 80 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1266 times:
Quoting Thepilot (Reply 5): They said that 15 million out of 18 million pounds of dirt has been moved in (as of mid June 06). Also, from overflying the airport at 1500 feet through the VFR transition route, it appears as though the ground is very flat for the runway to commence. Also, they are working on a rollout area at the end of the runways incase of an overrun on the 34s. Another note of interest, runway 16R will be changed to runway 16C in around September. Should be fun to watch. Again, I got this from Air Traffic Controllers and ground men at SeaTac.
Thanks... that's exactly the info I was looking for!
EVA777SEA From United States, joined Aug 2006, 454 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1252 times:
Quoting RwSEA (Reply 8): I think PAE makes much more sense than BFI for the reasons you describe. Everett to SEA is over an hour in traffic. Places like Marysville, Everett, Lynnwood, and Snohomish could all benefit from a few daily flights to places like PDX, LAX, SFO and DEN. Wouldn't have to be a major operation, but could certain a small number of daily flights to major hubs and O&D cities. If I lived in Everett I would be willing to avoid the 2 hours roundtrip associated with travelling from SEA.
BFI on the other hand makes no sense as a releiver airport - way too close to SEA and the infrastructure in the area would be too expensive to upgrade. PAE already has the infrastructure (other than a terminal) and is far enough from SEA (about 45 miles) to be able to carve out its own niche.
Wouldn't an airport in Bellevue or that area make sense because more people live there? It is closer to Seattle but I could still see more people willing fly from/to bellevue than Everett because it is also more centralized. While yes traffic can be bad on I-5 between Seattle and Everett, especially now that they are starting the work, people can always take the sounder. Sound Transit also is looking at extending the light rail up torwards Everett.
RwSEA From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 2515 posts, RR: 3 Reply 11, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1250 times:
Quoting EVA777SEA (Reply 10): Wouldn't an airport in Bellevue or that area make sense because more people live there? It is closer to Seattle but I could still see more people willing fly from/to bellevue than Everett because it is also more centralized. While yes traffic can be bad on I-5 between Seattle and Everett, especially now that they are starting the work, people can always take the sounder. Sound Transit also is looking at extending the light rail up torwards Everett.
First off, there's no land available near Bellevue or anywhere on the eastside. Second, Bellevue is only about 10 miles from the airport as is. I think the Northend would be the best spot for a second airport because it would much better serve Snohomish County.
Ward86IND From United States, joined Apr 2006, 259 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1239 times:
I took a tour of the airport a few weeks ago with one of the POS guys, and spoke to a few officials. What I saw/was told:
At that point they were finishing up filling up the area with dirt. The third runway is on schedule to open in 2008.
The third runway is being built NOT to add more capacity, but primarily to reduce delays. When there are clouds below 5000 feet (which is 40% of the time) simultaneous approaches cannot be conducted, do to there not being the required 2500 feet separation between the two runways. A third runway would allow simultaneous approaches to be conduced from the two outer runways, thus reducing delays, thus saving the airlines money. I think I heard the project will pay for itself in saved costs in five years.
There is a LONG term expansion plan for Seatac that involves expanding the north satellite and I believe the B concourse.
RoseFlyer From United States, joined Feb 2004, 5614 posts, RR: 27 Reply 14, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1112 times:
Quoting EVA777SEA (Reply 10): Wouldn't an airport in Bellevue or that area make sense because more people live there? It is closer to Seattle but I could still see more people willing fly from/to bellevue than Everett because it is also more centralized.
That was strongly considered about 10-15 years ago. In what now is the shopping district of Issaquah at the tip of Lake Sammamish, there use to be a small airport. It was proposed that a larger airport could be created here and some of the wetlands surrounding Lake Sammamish could be filled in. However this wasn't a great alternative and then the dot com boom and Microsoft's massive expansion happened which caused property values to soar in this area.
Overall there are five airfields in the Greater Seattle area with adequate runways. SEA of course is the primary commercial airport. Boeing Field is the primary general aviation airport and benefits from being so incredibly close to downtown. McChord near Tacoma is large and adequate and used to be used for civilian operations but now is a large Air Force Base. Whidbey Island Naval Air Station is also a large airport, but of course is used by the navy. Paine Field in Everett is the only other alternative. It has the runway capacity and is woefully underutilized. It sees some traffic from Boeing and then some GA traffic, but there is space to expand and it is relatively easily accessed (thanks to Boeing) to I-5 and Everett.
The problem with airports in Seattle is that there is very little flat land. SEA took up a good amount of space. There are a ton of small airports, but there are few places with enough space for a full sized airport. BFI is on a river delta.
Quoting DNL65 (Reply 13): Could you explain please how reducing delay doesn't increase capacity?
SEA can operate perfectly fine with two functioning runways. There can be a decent line of departures at 8am, but nothing too bad. The airport is fine with two runway operations. The added capacity of a third runway is pretty meaningless.
The problem arises when there is bad weather. SEA will go IFR at some point roughly 160 out of 365 days in a year. When the weather is bad, SEA is limited to single runway operations since the parallel runways are close together. They cannot be used for simultaneous approaches. SEA is notorious for low clouds and fog. It is just part of the climate in the Pacific Northwest. A third runway that is well spaced from the two current runways would allow for simultaneous approaches in bad weather. This would reduce delays. Under normal conditions, there is basically no need for three runways since SEA is not overcapacity. The recent expansion projects have left underutilized gates and a bit of breathing room at the terminal. Now a third runway will cut delays. SEA is no where near as bad as ORD or ATL, but the field suffers from limited visibility a lot more, but not thunderstorms like ORD or ATL. SEA doesn't go into groundstop very often at all.
Tod From Denmark, joined Aug 2004, 1491 posts, RR: 3 Reply 15, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 1067 times:
Quoting EVA777SEA (Reply 10): Wouldn't an airport in Bellevue or that area make sense
So would adding lanes to I-405, but if the Greenies/NIMBYs can cause the state DOT to spend many times what the work would cost on studies instead, you can be sure that an airport would be an even more difficult proposal.
Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 14): SEA is notorious for low clouds and fog
When it was the Bow Lake airflield (pre-1950) it had far fewer fog problems than BFI, unfortunately flattening the McMicken Heights/Riverton Heights area to convert it into the SEA that we now know changed the weather patterns.
RoseFlyer From United States, joined Feb 2004, 5614 posts, RR: 27 Reply 16, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1012 times:
Quoting Tod (Reply 15): When it was the Bow Lake airflield (pre-1950) it had far fewer fog problems than BFI, unfortunately flattening the McMicken Heights/Riverton Heights area to convert it into the SEA that we now know changed the weather patterns.
Well BFI sits in a river valley. On two sides are 400 ft hills/ridges, so that helps concentrate the fog. However the whole of Western Washington gets tons of low clouds and fog, especially September-May. Seattle has a reputation for rain even though it gets less rain than many big cities in the US like Chicago, Houston or New York. The problem is low clouds and drizzle, which occur endlessly for months at a time in the cool dark winters.
Operating a hub in SEA (in addition to flying to Alaska of course) is why Alaska Airlines has been the leader in low visibility technology for its aircraft. I remember days in the 90s when Alaska had its brand new system and its jets were buzzing in and out of SEA while pretty much every other carrier was grounded due to the low visibility. IIRC it was 1988 when AS came out with a huge breakthrough.
Tod From Denmark, joined Aug 2004, 1491 posts, RR: 3 Reply 18, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 967 times:
Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 16): Seattle has a reputation for rain even though it gets less rain than many big cities in the US like Chicago, Houston or New York.
When I lived in Burien, I took a look at a rainfall map for the Seattle area and the annual rainfall varied from 27 inches to 55 inches. In someplaces, the two extremes were only two miles apart. My old house, less than a half a mile from the new runway, was right in the middle of the 55 circle.
Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 16): The problem is low clouds and drizzle, which occur endlessly for months at a time in the cool dark winters.
ER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 1225 posts, RR: 7 Reply 19, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 929 times:
I have a relative who's one of the project managers, just called her for status update - here's where things stand.
There are two months of fill left to go then the 3rd contact (the one for the safety area at the end of the existing runway and the paving of the 3rd runway) goes out to bid in October. It will be awarded in Dec-Jan and paving will begin as weather permits. Paving should be done spring of '08 and then awaits FFA certification which takes approx 6 months. Opening of 3rd runway is anticipated for November '08. Hope this answers your questions.
RentonView From United States, joined May 2005, 80 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 883 times:
Quoting ER757 (Reply 19): I have a relative who's one of the project managers, just called her for status update - here's where things stand.
There are two months of fill left to go then the 3rd contact (the one for the safety area at the end of the existing runway and the paving of the 3rd runway) goes out to bid in October. It will be awarded in Dec-Jan and paving will begin as weather permits. Paving should be done spring of '08 and then awaits FFA certification which takes approx 6 months. Opening of 3rd runway is anticipated for November '08. Hope this answers your questions.
Thanks! I knew you guys would have the answers.
I take it there will never be an observation area on the west side of the airport again, unless it involves a giant staircase up the massive retaining wall -- along with some sort of concrete bunker with peepholes to meet FAA security requirements. I'm thinking that's probably not going to happen.
Ward86IND From United States, joined Apr 2006, 259 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 842 times:
Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 14): Could you explain please how reducing delay doesn't increase capacity?
While I guess in theory it could, a little, that's not what I heard. The third runway is meant to make operations smoother in reducing delays, saving the airlines fuel, etc, at current capacity. I suppose WN might be able to add another flight or two with there quick turnarounds, but I heard nothing about increasing capacity, at least not until the long term expansion plan. I think the airlines would rather operate their current schedules more efficiently than trying to squeeze in more flights and start losing money on delays and such all over again.
And I forgot, they are expanding their cargo operation, so there will be some added capacity in that very soon.
EVA777SEA From United States, joined Aug 2006, 454 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 822 times:
Quoting Ward86IND (Reply 21): While I guess in theory it could, a little, that's not what I heard. The third runway is meant to make operations smoother in reducing delays, saving the airlines fuel, etc, at current capacity. I suppose WN might be able to add another flight or two with there quick turnarounds, but I heard nothing about increasing capacity, at least not until the long term expansion plan. I think the airlines would rather operate their current schedules more efficiently than trying to squeeze in more flights and start losing money on delays and such all over again.
From what I heard (I'm not sure if this is still the case) that there were actually some empty gates at SEA that the port said WN could use instead of moving to BFI.
ER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 1225 posts, RR: 7 Reply 24, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 782 times:
Quoting Jonno (Reply 23): Vis a vis PAE and SEA, I have always thought a high speed rail link like the Heathrow Express could connect both airports, kind of like LGW & LHR
The way projects like that get done around here, we'll all be 6 feet under before this happens...
EVA777SEA From United States, joined Aug 2006, 454 posts, RR: 0 Reply 25, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 777 times:
Quoting ER757 (Reply 24): Vis a vis PAE and SEA, I have always thought a high speed rail link like the Heathrow Express could connect both airports, kind of like LGW & LHR
The way projects like that get done around here, we'll all be 6 feet under before this happens...
Sound Transit is actually looking at extending the light rail into Everett and Tacoma from Seattle (Way in the future) which would provide as a link between the airports.
[Edited 2006-08-04 03:27:07]
26 Ward86IND: About that...the POS guy told me Southwest was just pissed off about the costs at Seatac and threatened a move to Boeing Field, but it was never real
28 EVA777SEA: Yes I believe that was the main reason but WN was also planning on having 120 flights a day out of BFI. With that in mind SEA officials told WN they
29 Gunsontheroof: I think the point of opening PAE to commercial traffic would be to serve the Snohomish/Skagit/Whatcom County and North King County markets rather tha
30 707lvr: A lot of people are under the impression that SEA will be conducting simultaneous operations on three runways. Others, including me, feel we are real
31 Tod: BLI is a better choice for Whatcom and Skagit Counties. I live in northwest Snohomish county, BLI is a hour away (50 miles) and with traffic being wh
32 Ward86IND: Sorry you feel that way. FYI the third runway is gonna be a smashing success, now that the damn environmentalists have been dealt with and it's final
33 Gunsontheroof: BLI would be a very good option, and considering the addition of service from Delta Connection and Allegiant during recent years, I can definetly see
34 SierraAir: That's actually been tried in the past. Big Sky offered service from OLM - GEG a couple years ago and the service was a total flop. It lasted about a
35 PlanesNTrains: I understand why BLI works better right now for a lot of people in your area, but I think that the numbers would be way higher if the airport was act
36 Tod: I think this quote actually belongs to 707lvr. Interesting, what's her name? AWO would work fine for me. IIRC - its got at least 6000 foot runway. Co
37 SkyTaxi: My thoughts exactly, the populations of these Counties are large enough to support small scale commercial service. It would take me ten minutes to ge
38 PlanesNTrains: I forgot about AWO. Hmmm..... I don't know who McCoy is - sorry to be a troublemaker. -Dave
39 SkyTaxi: LAX, SFO and Las Vegas from PAE would be solid bets also
41 AeroWeanie: I once flew back from Cancun to Vancouver and then crossed the border to drive home. My conversation was: Agent: Where are you coming from? Me: Mexic
42 707lvr: Thanks guys. With exception of a few of us who can't keep out of it, the periodic discussion on the Madness of SEA produced almost all fresh and hilar
43 Ward86IND: Actually, it's being built to reduce delays in being able to accommodate more arriving traffic in low cloud conditions...I'm positive. (Refer above).
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined May 2005, 80 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 2515 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Aug 2004, 1491 posts, 
From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 1225 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
