ER757 wrote:

Shout-out to SEA, Skytrax named it top airport in North America

https://www.worldairportawards.com/best ... al-region/

A low standard then lol...this from a SEA fan. I think its a fine airport, albeit too crowded and AS (and now DL) are constantly out of gates. The new IAF is nice, tried it out this weekend.

jbs2886 wrote:

ER757 wrote:

Shout-out to SEA, Skytrax named it top airport in North America

https://www.worldairportawards.com/best ... al-region/

A low standard then lol...this from a SEA fan. I think its a fine airport, albeit too crowded and AS (and now DL) are constantly out of gates. The new IAF is nice, tried it out this weekend.

Interesting list- I wonder what the criteria was. Houston and Cincinnati?

ER757 wrote:

Shout-out to SEA, Skytrax named it top airport in North America

https://www.worldairportawards.com/best ... al-region/

That's great news!!

I do wonder about the list, though: CDG tops in the EU......???

Two things for us Washingtonians... 1} I didn't know that Kenmore Air Express (the land unit) started or is starting flights out of PAE. They apparently opened a new hangar/offices not too far from the tower and 2) Dash Air Shuttle will have a big announcement tomorrow.

Anyone know the status on that new carrier that was going to fly to the peninsula from seattle?

airlinepeanuts wrote:

Anyone know the status on that new carrier that was going to fly to the peninsula from seattle?

https://flydashair.com/

They were due to start in a few weeks (11 August?) but apparently, according to the link above, they've pushed back their start date by an unspecified amount due to a DOT complaint filed by Kenmore Air that they're engaged in "unfair and deceptive business practices" (the complaint is here: https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOT-OST-2022-0087-0001).

I'm not an aviation attorney (or an attorney of any sort) but Kenmore Air is claiming that Dash doesn't have the legal authority to sell the flights and that Back Country Aviation, the Oregon-based company that is actually supposed to fly the planes, doesn't hold the required Commuter Operations Specifications. Dash has asked the DOT to dismiss the claims, though they seem legitimate to me. I guess we'll see how it all shakes out. As one who has family near Port Angeles I'm rooting for them to get it worked out.

dfw88 wrote:

airlinepeanuts wrote:

Anyone know the status on that new carrier that was going to fly to the peninsula from seattle?

https://flydashair.com/

They were due to start in a few weeks (11 August?) but apparently, according to the link above, they've pushed back their start date by an unspecified amount due to a DOT complaint filed by Kenmore Air that they're engaged in "unfair and deceptive business practices" (the complaint is here: https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOT-OST-2022-0087-0001).

I'm not an aviation attorney (or an attorney of any sort) but Kenmore Air is claiming that Dash doesn't have the legal authority to sell the flights and that Back Country Aviation, the Oregon-based company that is actually supposed to fly the planes, doesn't hold the required Commuter Operations Specifications. Dash has asked the DOT to dismiss the claims, though they seem legitimate to me. I guess we'll see how it all shakes out. As one who has family near Port Angeles I'm rooting for them to get it worked out.

What a crummy thing of Kenmore Air to do. Kenmore hasn't even flown that route in almost a decade!

Good news out of the Palouse!

The Pullman-Moscow Regional Airport broke ground on a new terminal yesterday!

You should be able to read all about it here, first two articles are free:
https://dnews.com/local/airport-ready-t ... 2ac53.html

"Years of planning and $82 million in fundraising led to Wednesday’s event at the Pullman-Moscow Regional Airport, where the airport held a ceremonial groundbreaking for its new terminal.
The new 42,000-square-foot terminal is expected to be completed by the end of 2023. It will be nearly five times larger than the current 8,700-square-foot terminal and have a parking lot three times bigger than the existing one, said Pullman Mayor Glenn Johnson at Wednesday’s ceremony."

As a Pullman resident and frequent flyer, I am really excited to no longer be crammed into a holding room designed for 30 seat airplanes. This new terminal combined with the retirement of the Q400's should bring a welcome air service quality bump to our region!

See the renderings below:

Looks nice. Will be good to have baggage claim in same building now. That and the new, realigned runway makes for a much better facility. Hope it gets used to its potential.

Here's the latest on the study to find a new airport for the Seattle area. I know the area around Enumclaw was being considered but it sounds the the obstacles to doing so will be numerous:
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-ne ... ne-option/

Personally I think southeast King County makes the most sense, just because of how much trouble trying to build mass transit has already been for the region. Bremerton airport makes a lot of sense in terms of existing land/infrastructure (and probably less NIMBY opposition) but being able to get a lot of people across the Sound quickly is another matter.

I have been lobbying for the State to obtain options on forest land around the Bremerton Airport - there is easily a tract running upwards of 8 square miles available with minimal complications of houses and other uses. The Port already has extensive industrial land in use there and can add more. With a strange (non voting) gerrymandering it is also within the city limits of Bremerton.

That down side of getting across the Puget Sound is a big one. Access to Tacoma, though, is pretty straight forward, State Highway 16 could have an easy 'spur' to the airport, and again with minimal affect on existing uses. Seattle - expensive, likely involving a fairly short bridge from the Kitsap Peninsula to the north end of Vashon Island (the screams will easily be heard across the world), and then ferry over to Fauntleroy. Even then a much improved access from the ferry terminal to 509. This route is almost a straight east/west shot from south Seattle to the airport.

A second downside, is that the new airport really should be to the north of Seattle. This is why I think the state should simply get an option on the forest land. Bremerton is not a great option, but that option would make it possible if all the other ones are eliminated.

An odd note: Ultra conservative Lewis county is filled with people who consider themselves sovereign of their few acres, and also holding rights to stop their neighbors from using their land as they please. Democratic Kitsap County lives easily with the Navy Bases interfering with other land owners, and the county is as well is pro development. Want a major airport at Bremerton? Sure, meet us a the bargaining table, and be prepared to make sure it will generally be of benefit of our community.

What's your take of this, Re: 2.5 hour-long TSA lines that snaked into SEA's parking garage? https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/securi ... BBVZ73WPI/

WOW. And it wasn't a holiday weekend, either!

TheZ wrote:

Here's the latest on the study to find a new airport for the Seattle area. I know the area around Enumclaw was being considered but it sounds the the obstacles to doing so will be numerous:
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-ne ... ne-option/

I will take the liberty of editing the headline to be more complete:

Seattle Times wrote:

Where will WA’s new airport be? Enumclaw Plateau residents oppose one all the options

If a second major commercial passenger airport is built (including the options of greatly expanding service at Paine Field or starting service at Bremerton), it will happen over the objections of a large number of local residents, and to the cheers of a large number of those who live elsewhere.

Western727 wrote:

What's your take of this, Re: 2.5 hour-long TSA lines that snaked into SEA's parking garage? https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/securi ... BBVZ73WPI/

WOW. And it wasn't a holiday weekend, either!

This has me baffled - story says it had to do with cruise travelers but that's nonsense. Cruise season has been going on since May and the lines haven't ever been this bad. I was volunteering there Saturday and it was bad, but nowhere near this much of a fiasco. The passenger numbers were high (about 60,000 outbound) but not off the charts compared to the rest of the summer. Wondering if TSA was short-staffed, but the story indicates almost all lanes were open at all security checkpoints. I've got an email in to the customer service manager at SEA asking if they know what happened. If/when they reply I'll let you know.

ER757 wrote:

Western727 wrote:

What's your take of this, Re: 2.5 hour-long TSA lines that snaked into SEA's parking garage? https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/securi ... BBVZ73WPI/

WOW. And it wasn't a holiday weekend, either!

This has me baffled - story says it had to do with cruise travelers but that's nonsense. Cruise season has been going on since May and the lines haven't ever been this bad. I was volunteering there Saturday and it was bad, but nowhere near this much of a fiasco. The passenger numbers were high (about 60,000 outbound) but not off the charts compared to the rest of the summer. Wondering if TSA was short-staffed, but the story indicates almost all lanes were open at all security checkpoints. I've got an email in to the customer service manager at SEA asking if they know what happened. If/when they reply I'll let you know.

I flew out Friday morning and the airport was in complete chaos. The courtesy shuttles were being pushed to departues level becasue of construction. Secruity was packed, but not out to the garages, Pre-Check was about 15 minutes wait. It is just too many people and not enough staff. I flew in last night and it was busy but not as bad as it was the Sunday before.

TheZ wrote:

Here's the latest on the study to find a new airport for the Seattle area. I know the area around Enumclaw was being considered but it sounds the the obstacles to doing so will be numerous:
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-ne ... ne-option/

Personally I think southeast King County makes the most sense, just because of how much trouble trying to build mass transit has already been for the region. Bremerton airport makes a lot of sense in terms of existing land/infrastructure (and probably less NIMBY opposition) but being able to get a lot of people across the Sound quickly is another matter.

I'm adding more beyond my prior response after having looked for more information:

The report that led to the above article was released last month and does not appear to have been discussed here at the time:

https://wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/file ... -FINAL.pdf

Looking at geography, existing land use, proximity to existing roads, conflicts with infrastructure such as railroads or other nearby airports, and other factors, they identified 10 candidate sites for a new "greenfield" airport in the Puget Sound area. They also evaluated existing airports for the same factors.

A couple of these end up over 70 miles away from SeaTac. The options for a reasonably accessible greenfield airport seem better south of Seattle than north. In general, existing airports tended to be closer to more of the population than greenfield options.

For each of the candidate greenfield locations, they mapped a 6 mile diameter circle circumscribing the approximate proposed location. They evaluated the fit of three notional airport layouts that comply with FAA requirements, and include some buffer beyond the runway safety zones that would be limited to compatible uses. These layouts were intended to reflect short term, long term, or extended term growth potential and comprise 1 runway on 24 acres, 2 runways on 3100 acres, or 3 runways on 4670 acres. They would be capable of serving roughly 23, 37, or 60 million passengers annually.

For greenfield area or existing airport, they adjusted each of these notional airport layouts to determine a best fit to identify how well each could accommodate a major airport.

For comparison, SeaTac covers 2500 acres and served roughly 52 million passengers in 2019 and has projects in work to accommodate around 55 million passengers by late this decade. The Sustainable Airport Master Plan is intended to extend capacity to about 66 million passengers by the mid-2030's. The Regional Aviation Baseline Study, completed last year, estimated that by 2050, if airline activity in the Puget Sound region is unconstrained, demand would be over 100 million passengers annually. Paine Field currently could serve somewhere in the ballpark of 2-3 million passengers annually if their existing flight slots were all shifted to 737/A320 size aircraft.

The report does not make any recommendations, but concludes with a giant matrix comparing all the options in terms of compatibility with all of the various goals with green, yellow, or red categories. These are not treated as absolute assessments of viability, but more as the level of challenge meeting goals. For example, a location that would impact less than 150 acres of wetlands was assessed as green, while if it affected more than 400 acres of wetlands, it would be red.

No perfect location was identified. The locations with the fewest development impacts, for example, tended to be the least accessible. King County Southeast (near Enumclaw), had the fewest categories in the red, but still had numerous categories in yellow, and counts have little meaning without an effective weighting system.

iamlucky13 wrote:

https://wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/file ... -FINAL.pdf

, and counts have little meaning without an effective weighting system.

I agree with that.
Two runways on a greenfield near Seattle will be almost impossible. The only area I see undeveloped is on the Tulalip Reservation. Perhaps they would sell or lease land combined with property in the Snohomish NW option.
In the Puget Sound, is it favorable to be on a hill or in the flood plain for fog?
The only other option for two runways I see is PAE.
If the Snohomish and PAE two runway big airport proposals are nonstarters, then they should focus on diversified traffic to start service east from BLI, PAE, OLY, to SLC, DEN, and ORD.

DenverTed wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

https://wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/file ... -FINAL.pdf

, and counts have little meaning without an effective weighting system.

I agree with that.
Two runways on a greenfield near Seattle will be almost impossible. The only area I see undeveloped is on the Tulalip Reservation. Perhaps they would sell or lease land combined with property in the Snohomish NW option.
In the Puget Sound, is it favorable to be on a hill or in the flood plain for fog?
The only other option for two runways I see is PAE.
If the Snohomish and PAE two runway big airport proposals are nonstarters, then they should focus on diversified traffic to start service east from BLI, PAE, OLY, to SLC, DEN, and ORD.

WSDOT and other relevant parties aren't looking for truly undeveloped land because there isn't any viable. They're looking for minimally developed land. If you take a look at the locations shown in the linked document, you will see the patchwork of fields they are typically located on. If you go find those locations via a mapping service, you can see houses and other buildings when you zoom in. The report authors are aware of these.

For example, the site near Enumclaw is currently mostly zoned agricultural, with one home per 10 acres, or one home per 35 acres, in different areas. Actual density is probably a little higher than that, due to some properties having been divided into 5 acre or smaller lots before the county implemented a long term master plan under the growth management act.

Regardless of whether we build a new airport or expand an existing one, there are going to be homes and businesses displaced, just like there have been when SeaTac has expanded.

From what I have seen, this usually involves initial offers made to property owners, followed by a period for negotiations where property owners can make the case for what the fair market value of their property actually is. If any affected property owners do not sign sales agreements through this process, then rather than abandon a project, the agency responsible for the project will usually seek to acquire it via eminent domain. At that point, the property owner is left with having to appeal in court if they believe the offered value is incorrect.

iamlucky13 wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

https://wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/file ... -FINAL.pdf

, and counts have little meaning without an effective weighting system.

I agree with that.
Two runways on a greenfield near Seattle will be almost impossible. The only area I see undeveloped is on the Tulalip Reservation. Perhaps they would sell or lease land combined with property in the Snohomish NW option.
In the Puget Sound, is it favorable to be on a hill or in the flood plain for fog?
The only other option for two runways I see is PAE.
If the Snohomish and PAE two runway big airport proposals are nonstarters, then they should focus on diversified traffic to start service east from BLI, PAE, OLY, to SLC, DEN, and ORD.

WSDOT and other relevant parties aren't looking for truly undeveloped land because there isn't any viable. They're looking for minimally developed land. If you take a look at the locations shown in the linked document, you will see the patchwork of fields they are typically located on. If you go find those locations via a mapping service, you can see houses and other buildings when you zoom in. The report authors are aware of these.

For example, the site near Enumclaw is currently mostly zoned agricultural, with one home per 10 acres, or one home per 35 acres, in different areas. Actual density is probably a little higher than that, due to some properties having been divided into 5 acre or smaller lots before the county implemented a long term master plan under the growth management act.

Regardless of whether we build a new airport or expand an existing one, there are going to be homes and businesses displaced, just like there have been when SeaTac has expanded.

From what I have seen, this usually involves initial offers made to property owners, followed by a period for negotiations where property owners can make the case for what the fair market value of their property actually is. If any affected property owners do not sign sales agreements through this process, then rather than abandon a project, the agency responsible for the project will usually seek to acquire it via eminent domain. At that point, the property owner is left with having to appeal in court if they believe the offered value is incorrect.

What would be the cost to expand SEA to the east, and build runways between 518 and Angle Lake? In some calculus between location and cost, I would think the central location of SEA would be worth that cost. Have to dive the light rail and roads under E-W taxiways.
I think putting in a 150' x 10K runway anywhere in western WA will be a battle royale in court. So from my perspective, expand existing airports, and attempt that new runway at SEA or PAE.

DenverTed wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

I agree with that.
Two runways on a greenfield near Seattle will be almost impossible. The only area I see undeveloped is on the Tulalip Reservation. Perhaps they would sell or lease land combined with property in the Snohomish NW option.
In the Puget Sound, is it favorable to be on a hill or in the flood plain for fog?
The only other option for two runways I see is PAE.
If the Snohomish and PAE two runway big airport proposals are nonstarters, then they should focus on diversified traffic to start service east from BLI, PAE, OLY, to SLC, DEN, and ORD.

WSDOT and other relevant parties aren't looking for truly undeveloped land because there isn't any viable. They're looking for minimally developed land. If you take a look at the locations shown in the linked document, you will see the patchwork of fields they are typically located on. If you go find those locations via a mapping service, you can see houses and other buildings when you zoom in. The report authors are aware of these.

For example, the site near Enumclaw is currently mostly zoned agricultural, with one home per 10 acres, or one home per 35 acres, in different areas. Actual density is probably a little higher than that, due to some properties having been divided into 5 acre or smaller lots before the county implemented a long term master plan under the growth management act.

Regardless of whether we build a new airport or expand an existing one, there are going to be homes and businesses displaced, just like there have been when SeaTac has expanded.

From what I have seen, this usually involves initial offers made to property owners, followed by a period for negotiations where property owners can make the case for what the fair market value of their property actually is. If any affected property owners do not sign sales agreements through this process, then rather than abandon a project, the agency responsible for the project will usually seek to acquire it via eminent domain. At that point, the property owner is left with having to appeal in court if they believe the offered value is incorrect.

What would be the cost to expand SEA to the east, and build runways between 518 and Angle Lake? In some calculus between location and cost, I would think the central location of SEA would be worth that cost. Have to dive the light rail and roads under E-W taxiways.
I think putting in a 150' x 10K runway anywhere in western WA will be a battle royale in court. So from my perspective, expand existing airports, and attempt that new runway at SEA or PAE.

You mean east…over a graveyard? Cost wouldn’t matter, it’s a non-starter. Or east over a large number of hotels and houses/apartments? Another non-starter.

DenverTed wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

I agree with that.
Two runways on a greenfield near Seattle will be almost impossible. The only area I see undeveloped is on the Tulalip Reservation. Perhaps they would sell or lease land combined with property in the Snohomish NW option.
In the Puget Sound, is it favorable to be on a hill or in the flood plain for fog?
The only other option for two runways I see is PAE.
If the Snohomish and PAE two runway big airport proposals are nonstarters, then they should focus on diversified traffic to start service east from BLI, PAE, OLY, to SLC, DEN, and ORD.

WSDOT and other relevant parties aren't looking for truly undeveloped land because there isn't any viable. They're looking for minimally developed land. If you take a look at the locations shown in the linked document, you will see the patchwork of fields they are typically located on. If you go find those locations via a mapping service, you can see houses and other buildings when you zoom in. The report authors are aware of these.

For example, the site near Enumclaw is currently mostly zoned agricultural, with one home per 10 acres, or one home per 35 acres, in different areas. Actual density is probably a little higher than that, due to some properties having been divided into 5 acre or smaller lots before the county implemented a long term master plan under the growth management act.

Regardless of whether we build a new airport or expand an existing one, there are going to be homes and businesses displaced, just like there have been when SeaTac has expanded.

From what I have seen, this usually involves initial offers made to property owners, followed by a period for negotiations where property owners can make the case for what the fair market value of their property actually is. If any affected property owners do not sign sales agreements through this process, then rather than abandon a project, the agency responsible for the project will usually seek to acquire it via eminent domain. At that point, the property owner is left with having to appeal in court if they believe the offered value is incorrect.

What would be the cost to expand SEA to the east, and build runways between 518 and Angle Lake? In some calculus between location and cost, I would think the central location of SEA would be worth that cost. Have to dive the light rail and roads under E-W taxiways.
I think putting in a 150' x 10K runway anywhere in western WA will be a battle royale in court. So from my perspective, expand existing airports, and attempt that new runway at SEA or PAE.

SEA already has three parallel runways...I don't think runway quantity is the capacity issue. There is limited terminal availability right now. There is a potential program to add another terminal northward where the China Cargo and Korean Air Cargo, as well as a parking area for RONs are located. I think the only directions the airport could grow is north and south.

PAE doesn't need another runway. The current runway is barely used today with a handful of scheduled flights, a few random flights and Boeing test flights.

jbs2886 wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

WSDOT and other relevant parties aren't looking for truly undeveloped land because there isn't any viable. They're looking for minimally developed land. If you take a look at the locations shown in the linked document, you will see the patchwork of fields they are typically located on. If you go find those locations via a mapping service, you can see houses and other buildings when you zoom in. The report authors are aware of these.

For example, the site near Enumclaw is currently mostly zoned agricultural, with one home per 10 acres, or one home per 35 acres, in different areas. Actual density is probably a little higher than that, due to some properties having been divided into 5 acre or smaller lots before the county implemented a long term master plan under the growth management act.

Regardless of whether we build a new airport or expand an existing one, there are going to be homes and businesses displaced, just like there have been when SeaTac has expanded.

From what I have seen, this usually involves initial offers made to property owners, followed by a period for negotiations where property owners can make the case for what the fair market value of their property actually is. If any affected property owners do not sign sales agreements through this process, then rather than abandon a project, the agency responsible for the project will usually seek to acquire it via eminent domain. At that point, the property owner is left with having to appeal in court if they believe the offered value is incorrect.

What would be the cost to expand SEA to the east, and build runways between 518 and Angle Lake? In some calculus between location and cost, I would think the central location of SEA would be worth that cost. Have to dive the light rail and roads under E-W taxiways.
I think putting in a 150' x 10K runway anywhere in western WA will be a battle royale in court. So from my perspective, expand existing airports, and attempt that new runway at SEA or PAE.

You mean east…over a graveyard? Cost wouldn’t matter, it’s a non-starter. Or east over a large number of hotels and houses/apartments? Another non-starter.

I think the graveyard could be left in place even if the airport complex went east or a runway was to the east. Hotels and houses? Probably low cost compared to getting the land for a new two or three runway airport.
I think a two runway airport at PAE with the terminal in the middle makes the most sense for a future 25 million pax per year airport. But, noise may be a deal breaker. Pragmatically, I think the decision is finding the closest site to Seattle that can deal with the noise. That may be an impossible order. Even going to Skagit, I guarantee the farmers and ag lawyers would never let an airport get built on that land.

I read the entire State report, and have a few criticisms with regard to Bremerton. There are at least four red marks that are misleading, and one factor ignored.

There are about no poor people living where that runway could be extended, that is. no minority community who could be disrupted.

Terrain and room to lengthen the existing runway would not be a major problem

While it is not close to the Interstate Highway, that is misleading, it is less than 30 miles to Tacoma, and Highway 16 is now fully up to freeway standards. A two mile extension of an existing surface street is needed as well as improving and existing surface street to connect directly to Highway 16. This would avoid the Gorst Mess (which is now being discussed)

It really is not 90 minutes from Seattle, that includes 30 minutes of congestion.

It is close to rail connections. Oddly the Navy owns a track from Elma to both the Bremerton Ship Yard and Bangor Submarine Base. It is available and used for civil freight now.

That said, it really is not a good option. Only if everything else is eliminated. It may be the only option that would find support and not ferocious political opposition.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

It may be the only option that would find support and not ferocious political opposition.

I think that's the kicker. We'll see what transpires over the next few years, but Mason/South Kitsap are the one area in Western Washington that might welcome this kind of development rather than tie it up in court for years. Given the long timeframes involved, there is a lot of opportunity for infrastructure to be put in place to make it a possible alternative to SEA, but the undertaking would be massive.

News says the Skagit Valley sites are now off the list. The top two sites will be chosen Oct 15, and the final selection June 15, 2023. Can't wait to see what the top two are.

Is JBLM not possible?

airlinepeanuts wrote:

Is JBLM not possible?

Personally I have no idea, but looking at a satellite image it seems like there's space to the south of McChord's runway to build a theoretical civilian airport.

Western727 wrote:

airlinepeanuts wrote:

Is JBLM not possible?

Personally I have no idea, but looking at a satellite image it seems like there's space to the south of McChord's runway to build a theoretical civilian airport.

I think there's room but I don't know that the USAF could be talked into commercial ops there. It's been done elsewhere (like HNL/Hickham off the top of my head) and it's got great freeway access too.

ER757 wrote:

Western727 wrote:

airlinepeanuts wrote:

Is JBLM not possible?

Personally I have no idea, but looking at a satellite image it seems like there's space to the south of McChord's runway to build a theoretical civilian airport.

I think there's room but I don't know that the USAF could be talked into commercial ops there. It's been done elsewhere (like HNL/Hickham off the top of my head) and it's got great freeway access too.

Some examples include CHS, BOI and PDX.

airlinepeanuts wrote:

Is JBLM not possible?

Nothing fundamentally rules it out, but the operating presumption seems to be that the USAF won't allow it or will want too many restrictions to accommodate the expected long term growth in traffic. I have not seen any reporting on actual discussions, although I vaguely remember an older report (maybe early 2010's?) saying something along the lines that the Air Force was not interested in discussing share use of the field.

The DoD does often reconsider basing decisions, but for the time being, there seems to be no effort being taken in exploring mixed use of JBLM.

Maybe if the current effort grinds to a halt once a preferred location is chosen and the lawsuits start, policy makers might get serious about making proposals to the DoD.

According to KIRO news today, the three sites under consideration are Pierce East and Central, and Thurston Central.
Both the Pierce sites look adjacent to JBLM. How does that look with flight traffic?

wedgetail737 wrote:

ER757 wrote:

I think there's room but I don't know that the USAF could be talked into commercial ops there. It's been done elsewhere (like HNL/Hickham off the top of my head) and it's got great freeway access too.

Some examples include CHS, BOI and PDX.

Austin-Bergstrom International Airport (AUS), which replaced Robert Mueller Municipal Airport in Austin, was formerly Bergstrom Air Force Base.

MidAmerica St. Louis Airport (BLV) on the Illinois side of the St. Louis metro area shares the airfield with Scott Air Force Base.

Yuma International Airport (YUM/KNYL) in Arizona shares the airfield with Marine Corps Air Station Yuma.

Albuquerque Sunport / Kirtland AFB

From the Tacoma NewsTribune article of 9-26, "While a dozen existing airports were included in the August site selection study performed by consultant Kimley-Horn, Fleckenstein noted that Bremerton National Airport and Snohomish County Airport (Paine Field) had risen to the top. Even so, four other existing airports still remain under consideration, according to Christina Crea, a spokesperson with the state Department of Transportation’s aviation division."
So four existing airports versus the three greenfield sites. I'll put my money on expansion of Paine and Bremerton as the most likely solution.

DenverTed wrote:

From the Tacoma NewsTribune article of 9-26, "While a dozen existing airports were included in the August site selection study performed by consultant Kimley-Horn, Fleckenstein noted that Bremerton National Airport and Snohomish County Airport (Paine Field) had risen to the top. Even so, four other existing airports still remain under consideration, according to Christina Crea, a spokesperson with the state Department of Transportation’s aviation division."
So four existing airports versus the three greenfield sites. I'll put my money on expansion of Paine and Bremerton as the most likely solution.

Of the two, my money's on Paine. Go where the people are; the west side of Puget Sound is sparsely populated, by far, in comparison.

Off the wall speculation, and a little zany and likely wrong: McCord could move some/much of its operations to already heavily military overloaded Kitsap and that Bremerton Airport, which is convenient to the current Joint Base Lewis/McCord. I don't know how much of the McCord Air Force operations are directly connected to Lewis, and how much supports other military operations.

The greenfield estimated cost for a new airport is 200M to 400M? I would think just buying ten square miles of land and rerouting roads and railroads would be 500M before construction. A new airport would run 2B, 5B, maybe 10B for an up and running two runway airport with a terminal.

DenverTed wrote:

The greenfield estimated cost for a new airport is 200M to 400M? I would think just buying ten square miles of land and rerouting roads and railroads would be 500M before construction. A new airport would run 2B, 5B, maybe 10B for an up and running two runway airport with a terminal.

That is correct. Those figures would be for land acquisition only. See this report I linked to above, page 34.

Current property values start at $20.5 for expanding Bremerton National to their reference 1-runway layout (longer, wider runway, overrun areas, taxiways, terminal ,etc), or $30.5 million for a similar 1 runway layout on a greenfield in Lewis County. This layout is baselined at 2400 acres.

They go up to $6.2 billion for enough property to expand Boeing Field to a 3-runway layout. This layout is baselined at 4670 acres.

There are other sections in the report summarizing magnitudes of challenges for matters like terrain variation and existing obstacles (arterial roads, highways, railroads, small rivers, etc).

Western727 wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

From the Tacoma NewsTribune article of 9-26, "While a dozen existing airports were included in the August site selection study performed by consultant Kimley-Horn, Fleckenstein noted that Bremerton National Airport and Snohomish County Airport (Paine Field) had risen to the top. Even so, four other existing airports still remain under consideration, according to Christina Crea, a spokesperson with the state Department of Transportation’s aviation division."
So four existing airports versus the three greenfield sites. I'll put my money on expansion of Paine and Bremerton as the most likely solution.

Of the two, my money's on Paine. Go where the people are; the west side of Puget Sound is sparsely populated, by far, in comparison.

I had heard that Arlington's airport was in the running for a while, but was shot down because the runway could not be lengthened.

I think the Puget Sound area needs something south of SEA.

iamlucky13 wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

The greenfield estimated cost for a new airport is 200M to 400M? I would think just buying ten square miles of land and rerouting roads and railroads would be 500M before construction. A new airport would run 2B, 5B, maybe 10B for an up and running two runway airport with a terminal.

They go up to $6.2 billion for enough property to expand Boeing Field to a 3-runway layout. This layout is baselined at 4670 acres.

Really glad someone went ahead and looked at the math for that…

Boeing Field is built on unstable landfill, some of which was laid down by a great collapse on Mt Rainier long ago. IIRC, there were sand boils in more that one place in a 2001 earthquake. That earthquake was not from either of the two great quake sources the Puget Sound area is vulnerable to, rather a more active source which seems to occur a few times a century.

https://archive.seattletimes.com/archiv ... quakebiz02

iamlucky13 wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

The greenfield estimated cost for a new airport is 200M to 400M? I would think just buying ten square miles of land and rerouting roads and railroads would be 500M before construction. A new airport would run 2B, 5B, maybe 10B for an up and running two runway airport with a terminal.

That is correct. Those figures would be for land acquisition only. See this report I linked to above, page 34.

Current property values start at $20.5 for expanding Bremerton National to their reference 1-runway layout (longer, wider runway, overrun areas, taxiways, terminal ,etc), or $30.5 million for a similar 1 runway layout on a greenfield in Lewis County. This layout is baselined at 2400 acres.

They go up to $6.2 billion for enough property to expand Boeing Field to a 3-runway layout. This layout is baselined at 4670 acres.

There are other sections in the report summarizing magnitudes of challenges for matters like terrain variation and existing obstacles (arterial roads, highways, railroads, small rivers, etc).

What's the estimated cost to grade and build two runways and a terminal? Saving one billion in land costs may not be much in the overall cost of the project. A good location close to population should be worth a few billion bonus points in the calculus of choosing the best option.

Shouldn't the population that uses the airport deal with the noise, like in Chicago or NY? Paine field seems like a pretty good location to me.

gunsontheroof wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

The greenfield estimated cost for a new airport is 200M to 400M? I would think just buying ten square miles of land and rerouting roads and railroads would be 500M before construction. A new airport would run 2B, 5B, maybe 10B for an up and running two runway airport with a terminal.

They go up to $6.2 billion for enough property to expand Boeing Field to a 3-runway layout. This layout is baselined at 4670 acres.

Really glad someone went ahead and looked at the math for that…

A runway west of the Duwamish waterway with some taxiway draw bridges? Our takeoff is delayed while we wait for this barge to pass.

wedgetail737 wrote:

Western727 wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

From the Tacoma NewsTribune article of 9-26, "While a dozen existing airports were included in the August site selection study performed by consultant Kimley-Horn, Fleckenstein noted that Bremerton National Airport and Snohomish County Airport (Paine Field) had risen to the top. Even so, four other existing airports still remain under consideration, according to Christina Crea, a spokesperson with the state Department of Transportation’s aviation division."
So four existing airports versus the three greenfield sites. I'll put my money on expansion of Paine and Bremerton as the most likely solution.

Of the two, my money's on Paine. Go where the people are; the west side of Puget Sound is sparsely populated, by far, in comparison.

I had heard that Arlington's airport was in the running for a while, but was shot down because the runway could not be lengthened.

I think the Puget Sound area needs something south of SEA.

I don’t really have a dog in this fight, but couldn’t agree more. I am surprised there isn’t talk of developing OLM into a PAE-like gateway.

Getting Alaska and Southwest to do some E-W flying out out of BLI would be helpful. At least to Denver and Chicago. SW just goes North-South, and to go East on Alaska still involves changing planes in Seattle.

gunsontheroof wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

The greenfield estimated cost for a new airport is 200M to 400M? I would think just buying ten square miles of land and rerouting roads and railroads would be 500M before construction. A new airport would run 2B, 5B, maybe 10B for an up and running two runway airport with a terminal.

They go up to $6.2 billion for enough property to expand Boeing Field to a 3-runway layout. This layout is baselined at 4670 acres.

Really glad someone went ahead and looked at the math for that…

I guess including BFI in the list helps make clear why it ultimately will be eliminated from consideration. It has the second most obstacles of all the airports on the list, after Renton.

Chugach wrote:

I don’t really have a dog in this fight, but couldn’t agree more. I am surprised there isn’t talk of developing OLM into a PAE-like gateway.

Olympia Regional is one of the existing airports on the list to consider. The biggest obstacles identified in the report are proximity to mass transit, impact to low income households, and cargo access to Seattle. Long term, I think it's a good option for accommodating regional growth, it's separated from most of current population by that dreaded stretch of I-5 south of Tacoma that has been under construction non-stop for decades and never gets better, plus the congestion that JBLM generates.

Of all the options, the greenfield option near Enumclaw shows the fewest obstacles to developing an airport on the screening matrix.

Personally, I tend to favor expanding both OLM and PAE to support medium levels of service long term. One major airport and two smaller airport where geography is going to push much of the future growth in the region makes sense to me. A second major airport close to Seattle would force long drives for much of the future growth to access the airport.

iamlucky13 wrote:

gunsontheroof wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

They go up to $6.2 billion for enough property to expand Boeing Field to a 3-runway layout. This layout is baselined at 4670 acres.

Really glad someone went ahead and looked at the math for that…

I guess including BFI in the list helps make clear why it ultimately will be eliminated from consideration. It has the second most obstacles of all the airports on the list, after Renton.

Chugach wrote:

I don’t really have a dog in this fight, but couldn’t agree more. I am surprised there isn’t talk of developing OLM into a PAE-like gateway.

Olympia Regional is one of the existing airports on the list to consider. The biggest obstacles identified in the report are proximity to mass transit, impact to low income households, and cargo access to Seattle. Long term, I think it's a good option for accommodating regional growth, it's separated from most of current population by that dreaded stretch of I-5 south of Tacoma that has been under construction non-stop for decades and never gets better, plus the congestion that JBLM generates.

Of all the options, the greenfield option near Enumclaw shows the fewest obstacles to developing an airport on the screening matrix.

Personally, I tend to favor expanding both OLM and PAE to support medium levels of service long term. One major airport and two smaller airport where geography is going to push much of the future growth in the region makes sense to me. A second major airport close to Seattle would force long drives for much of the future growth to access the airport.

I’ve said before that OLM makes a ton of sense, especially with the growth south of Seattle/Tacoma in the last decade. The mass transit access could be quickly remedied by Intercity Transit in Thurston County, but I don’t think you need to worry about it beyond that—the whole point from the passenger side of things is to eliminate a meaningful number of trips to SEA and the further you get from Seattle, the more people are going to be driving to the airport anyway.

OLM has a ton of room for a terminal complex similar to what we have at PAE and should probably start with something larger from day one—say, five gates. The broader solution for the area really should be to get existing airports like PAE, BLI, OLM and others (say, PWT, maybe MVW) to support flights to popular west coast markets (LAX, SFO, PHX, LAS, SAN) and some mid-continent hubs to take some of the strain off of SEA, which is obviously going to remain the primary airport for the region. Spreading out the origin points for the routes most traveled will definitely bring out the NIMBY crowd, but that’s easier to deal with when most of what’s needed is already in said backyards.

iamlucky13 wrote:

gunsontheroof wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

They go up to $6.2 billion for enough property to expand Boeing Field to a 3-runway layout. This layout is baselined at 4670 acres.

Really glad someone went ahead and looked at the math for that…

I guess including BFI in the list helps make clear why it ultimately will be eliminated from consideration. It has the second most obstacles of all the airports on the list, after Renton.

Chugach wrote:

I don’t really have a dog in this fight, but couldn’t agree more. I am surprised there isn’t talk of developing OLM into a PAE-like gateway.

Olympia Regional is one of the existing airports on the list to consider. The biggest obstacles identified in the report are proximity to mass transit, impact to low income households, and cargo access to Seattle. Long term, I think it's a good option for accommodating regional growth, it's separated from most of current population by that dreaded stretch of I-5 south of Tacoma that has been under construction non-stop for decades and never gets better, plus the congestion that JBLM generates.

Of all the options, the greenfield option near Enumclaw shows the fewest obstacles to developing an airport on the screening matrix.

Personally, I tend to favor expanding both OLM and PAE to support medium levels of service long term. One major airport and two smaller airport where geography is going to push much of the future growth in the region makes sense to me. A second major airport close to Seattle would force long drives for much of the future growth to access the airport.

I believe the Tacoma I-5 project is basically done other than touch-up items, finally. The JBLM congestion is something else entirely, because people don't know how to drive and they panic when the right lane ends. The next decade-long mess is going to be the planned SR167-SR18 interchange.

I'm on board with OLM/PAE expansion. OLM would probably have a smoother go of it, simply because of proximity to the Capitol and, to be blunt, the NIMBYs around the OLM area don't have the kind of money that you have floating around Mukilteo.

Paine Field named favorite to expand as counterpart to Sea-Tac
Three rural sites south of Seattle are being considered for a new airport, too, officials said this week.
https://www.heraldnet.com/news/paine-field-named-favorite-to-expand-as-counterpart-to-sea-tac/

In a report to lawmakers released on Wednesday, the Commercial Aviation Coordinating Commission recommended “priority and funding” to grow the Everett terminal “through gradual increases in capacity according to its airport master plan,” a 20-year development blueprint that’s in the works.
...
Still, the state needs another airport — probably one with two runways, the commission concluded.

It narrowed a list of potential “greenfield” sites to study, from 10 options across the state to three near Joint Base Lewis-McChord. One of those sites is in Thurston County, east of Olympia, overlapping the western boundaries of the base. Two others are in Pierce County: one option about 2 miles south of the base, east of Roy and McKenna, and another roughly 5 miles east of the base, south of Puyallup and Graham.

The Graham option seems to make the most sense out of the 3 JBLM-adjacent sites.